Sitting of 23 July 1963

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

NEW WRIT (STRATFORD-ON-AVON)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county constituency of Stratford in the room of John Dennis Profumo, esquire, O.B.E., who, since his election for the said county constituency, hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham.—[Mr, Redmayne.]
Mr. Shinwell: I want to oppose the Motion, Mr. Speaker, and I understand that I am within the Standing Orders in doing so.
Mr. Speaker: To be moved again at half-past three.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
SALVATION ARMY BILL
Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
CLYWEDOG RESERVOIR JOINT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]
Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
BATH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL [Lords]
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
LOCH TURRET WATER BOARD (HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION
Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Loch Turret Water Board (Hydro-Electric Development), presented by Mr. Noble (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Telegraph Poles, Longbenton
    Mr. McKayasked the Postmaster- General if he is aware of the concern in the Longbenton Urban District Council area about the erecting of telegraph poles; and if he will consider the laying of underground cables for this purpose on new estates.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby): Yes, Sir. Underground cables are used on new estates when it is economic to do so, but, when the number of subscribers is small, it would be too expensive to provide underground cables all the way to the houses.

    London Exchanges (Off-Peak Periods)
    Mr. W. T. Rodgersasked the Post master-General what is the maximum delay that a subscriber on a London exchange should expect to experience in dialling 100 at an off-peak period; and what instructions are given to operators in dealing with calls in cases when this delay has occurred.
    Mr. Mawby: In normal conditions most calls are answered within 10 seconds, but I am sorry that at off-peak periods when fewer operators are on duty the risk of delays from sudden rushes of traffic is greater than at the busier times of the day. Operators are instructed to be helpful and courteous, and to apologise where delays are known to have occurred.
    Mr. Rodgers: Does the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that it is very disturbing news that at off-peak periods when we are being encouraged to make

    1239
    telephone calls we are likely to experience long delays? Is he aware that although he promised me earlier this year that there would be a noticeable improvement in my own home telephone service on the Gulliver Exchange, I am regularly still subject to delays of up to five minutes? If this experience is shared by others, does not he think that it causes grave inconvenience and makes nonsense of his slogan which he is now advertising that "An evening call brings you together"?
    Mr. Mawby: I have no information to the effect that there are regularly lapses of up to five minutes. As I said, during peaks there are these difficulties, and, in fact, on the evening showing as against the day showing we find that during the day the particular exchange is a little quicker than the regional average and that in the evening it is a little slower. It is only a matter of seconds. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must have struck some very bad periods of the day in order to have had this continuing problem. Nevertheless, we are looking at this problem and are doing everything possible to make certain that at whatever time of the day or night there is a call it will be attended to at the earliest possible moment.

    Overhead Lines, Gateshead
    Mr. Randallasked the Postmaster-General in what circumstances applications for the placing of overhead telegraphic lines were forwarded recently by him to the borough of Gateshead.
    Mr. Mawby: The applications were made under the Telegraph Acts for consent to place five poles and wires in the streets of Gateshead in order to provide telephone service.
    Mr. Randall: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that Gateshead Borough and I myself are very appreciative that 300 and more telegraph poles have been removed during the last five years, but why does he not co-operate with the local authority in preserving the amenities of new estates, instead of putting in these ugly, wretched poles, only to remove them at a later date?
    Mr. Mawby: This is a problem which we are faced with every day. Where there is likely to be a large number of
    1240
    subscribers in the area it is obviously best to bury the whole of the cables, but it is important to remember that burying cables can cost as much as 10 times more than putting up poles. In this particular case there seems little likelihood of more than about seven subscribers in the next 20 years. This is a matter which we have to take into account, and much as we should like to help in this matter we feel at the moment that we shall have to carry these lines overhead.

    Blyth
    Mr. Milneasked the Postmaster- General what was the number of new telephones installed in the Blyth constituency during 1960, 1961, 1962, and at the nearest available date in 1963; how many remain on the waiting list; and what is the approximate waiting time for those on the list.
    Mr. Mawby: In 1960, 305; in 1961, 318; in 1962, 319; in the first half of 1963, 173.
    Sixteen orders for telephones are on the waiting list and a further 80 are under inquiry or being met. The composition of the waiting list is constantly changing, and I am sorry that I cannot give a reliable average waiting tune.
    Mr. Milne: I am grateful to the Assistant Postmaster-General for that reply and for the improvement which has been shown in the installation period over the past two or three years. Will he now make it known to my constituents that it is easier to have an installation now than it was two or three years ago, in order that many who were prevented then from making application can now be encouraged to do so?
    Mr. Mawby: I hope that this Question and Answer will be fully ventilated in the proper place in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It will show his constituents that we are making a great deal of progress, and that the waiting list in the area at the moment represents a lower percentage than the national average.
    Mr. Milne: I thank the hon. Gentleman.

    Reading
    Mr. Peter Emeryasked the Postmaster-General what further action

    1241
    he has taken to meet the increasing demand for telephones in the Reading area.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I have increased the money available for the provision of local lines and subscriber circuits in the Reading area by 16 per cent. this year. I should have liked to do still more but competition for labour is so keen in the area that larger sums could not be absorbed. I am doing all I can to recruit more engineering staff, and I hope that next year I shall be able to spend substantially increased amounts on the provision of service in the area.
    Mr. Emery: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very helpful reply. May I ask whether he would translate the percentage of 16 per cent. into money terms? Can he assure me that the plans for these extensions are already approved and that work is starting or is immediately about to start? Can he assure me that there should be some extra telephone receivers in the hands of subscribers during these next six months due to this work?
    Mr. Bevins: At the moment I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance he asked for towards the end of his supplementary question, but the capital expenditure on local lines and subscribers' circuits will be over £1 million in the current financial year and that represents an increase of 16 per cent. The key to the difficulty in the Reading area is the shortage of trained manpower. I should like to make it clear to my hon. Friend that I have asked my Department to consider as a matter of urgency measures for recruiting more.
    Mr. Emery: I thank my right hon. Friend.

    Engaged Signal
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that when a number is dialled the engaged signal comes through if all the junctions are busy between the two exchanges, and that this gives a false impression to the dialler who thinks that the telephone of the person being called is engaged; and what steps he will take in order to rectify the position.
    Mr. Bevins: I am sorry if the present practice sometimes leads to misunder-
    1242
    standing. But I do not think that the circumstances would justify the cost of providing an additional type of engaged signal to indicate that the intermediate plant was engaged, rather than the called person's line. I try, by the provision of additional plant, to keep to a minimum the number of instances where intermediate plant is engaged.
    Sir B. Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a very serious matter from the point of view of an individual who rings up his home, gets the engaged signal, thinks there is no one at home and is very worried as a result of it? Is it because the right hon. Gentleman has not sufficient cable available for new junctions, or what is the trouble? Why does he not supply sufficient junctions? Is he aware that on one occasion it took nearly two hours before anyone could get a reply?
    Mr. Bevins: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me details of his complaint in a letter. Frankly, at the moment I do not understand it, because at the Malden exchange, to which I think he was referring, there are 800 junctions, and that means that there would have to be about 800 simultaneous telephone calls for this situation to arise. However, I have instructed my staff to carry out an investigation of the situation at Maiden, and I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman as soon as I can.

    Kiosks (Siting)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Postmaster-General, in view of the increasing noise caused by heavy traffic on main roads, if he will reconsider his policy of erecting telephone kiosks at the side of main roads, and wherever possible move them to quiet sites; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bevins: I try to site telephone kiosks where they can most conveniently be seen and used. Noisy situations are avoided where possible, but a compromise has sometimes got to be made between noise and accessibility. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind I will be glad to look into it.
    Sir C. Osborne: Since I am asked for it, would my right hon. Friend send his experts to look at a kiosk which he has on the Louth-Grimsby main road, a road

    1243
    which is carrying heavier and heavier traffic? It makes it very difficult for elderly people who are hard of hearing. Will my right hon. Friend look into this? This is happening not only in my constituency but in other parts of the country.
    Mr. Bevins: The overriding consideration is the convenience of the public, but I will gladly send one of my people along to look into this case.
    Mr. Manuel: Does the Postmaster-General recognise that, quite apart from the problem of noise from a heavy volume of traffic proceeding along main roads, there is also the danger of parked vehicles on roads which are extensively used? Surely he ought to try to avoid congestion by siting telephone kiosks adjacent to main roads?
    Mr. Bevins: There is something in that point. There are, of course, all sorts of considerations to be taken into account. There is, for example, the consideration of wilful damage to kiosks, which is more prevalent where they are sited off main roads.

    Kiosk, Sidbury
    Mr. Mathewasked the Postmaster-General if he will now reconsider his decision to remove the public telephone kiosk at Harcombe, Sidbury, Devon; and what the distance is from there to the nearest public telephone which it is not his intention to remove in the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. I am sorry that I cannot justify the retention of this kiosk which is now used for only three or four calls a week. The nearest kiosk, which I am not proposing to remove, is just over a mile away.
    Mr. Mathew: Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider the whole of the Post Office's policy of withdrawing uneconomic telephones from the more isolated rural communities? Will he bear in mind that the telephone is the only link in an emergency with such a community, and that other Departments and authorities are making great efforts to bring services to the countryside—including electricity and water—even where it is uneconomic, in order to stop the drift from the land?
    Mr. Bevins: It is quite untrue that the Post Office is withdrawing large numbers of telephone kiosks from rural areas. In
    1244
    fact, the movement is in the opposite direction. In the case referred to by my my hon. Friend, the kiosk produces a revenue of about £4 a year and costs about £60 to maintain. I think that it is right to remove it in these circumstances, especially as more than 60 per cent. of the houses in the village are on the telephone.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it that it is the general view of the House that there is a very urgent necessity for the Post Office to consider the social needs of rural communities? To say that another telephone is only a mile away from the kiosk does not seem to meet the situation his hon. Friend has mentioned. Will he, therefore, review his policy because this service is urgently necessary in rural areas?
    Mr. Bevins: There is no need for a review of policy. Without fear of contradiction, I say that the Post Office pays far more regard to the social needs of people in scattered areas than any other department in public life.

    Oldham
    Mr. Mappasked the Postmaster-General how many telephone installation applications at the Oldham main exchange were outstanding for more than three months at the latest convenient date; and when he proposes to supply the necessary installations.
    Mr. Mawby: One hundred and fifty-five as at 30th June, 1963. All these applications are for residential telephones, and nearly all will be met by the end of this year.
    Mr. Mapp: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in one case a lady waited for three years for a telephone? Is he further aware that I have put to him a case where, despite strong professional reasons, a residential application must wait, apparently, until November? Will he see that these time-lags are cut down as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman must remember that one gets to a point where there is a shortage of cables and exchange equipment. Until these major changes have taken place there is virtually a standstill. But a main underground scheme will be completed this month and the

    1245
    cable position will then be good, except for small sections. The exchange will also be extended in October. All this will put us in a much better position to satisfy the requirements of people who have been waiting for longer than we would have wished.

    Advertising
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Postmaster-General what additional income from the telephone services he estimates will arise from the expenditure of £250,000 in the current year on advertising specifically intended to encourage traffic; and what increase in profit this income will show.
    Mr. Bevins: As I said to the hon. Member on 17th July, this publicity campaign is a calculated commercial risk but if, as I hope, it produces extra revenue of about £1½ million, the profit will be £600,000.
    Mr. Lubbock: When the right hon. Gentleman says that it is a calculated commercial risk, does not he think that he should also give us a little more of the background to his reasoning? Is he further aware that these figures are not justified in any way in "Post Office Prospects", which was published quite recently? Will he also say why the marginal rate of profit he has assumed on the extra telephone calls which will result from this expenditure is so very much different from the average rate, which would require another 6¼ million calls? How does he justify this expenditure?
    Mr. Bevins: I will answer the last point first. Quite clearly, if there were to be a large increase in telephoning during off-peak hours the cost of carrying the traffic would be relatively very small. Therefore, the profit would be very large. As to the rest of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, this is a matter of commercial judgment and I am sure my judgment will prove to be correct.

    Wembley
    Wing Commander Bullusasked the Postmaster-General how many applicants in Wembley are still waiting for the telephone service; and what is the longest time for which any have waited.
    Mr. Bevins: I am glad to say that in Wembley no applications for telephones are held up by shortage of lines or equipment; there are 502 orders under enquiry or being me. The oldest application is dated December last year and that is held up awaiting the customer's instructions.
    Wing Commander Bullus: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that encouraging information, may I ask him how long it will take to clear the backlog?
    Mr. Bevins: Only a matter of weeks.

    Waiting List
    Mr. Awdryasked the Postmaster-General what has been the change in the waiting list for telephones since 1951.
    Mr. Bevins: Since 1951 the waiting list for telephones has been reduced from 418,000 to 44,000.
    Mr. Awdry: I thank my right hon. Friend, but is he aware that the Bristol area still has some 16,000 subscribers on party lines? Will he take steps to see that more people are offered exclusive lines?
    Mr. Bevins: It is true that there has been an increase of about 750,000 throughout the country of people who have shared services, but our objective is to let everyone have either shared or separate service. But until we have sufficient lines it is not practical to do away with shared service altogether.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: How near is the right hon. Gentleman this year to the target of connections?
    Mr. Bevins: There is a further question on that point. Broadly speaking, we are on target.

    Subscribers
    Mr. Cleaverasked the Postmaster-General what has been the increase in the number of telephones since 1951; and how many new telephone subscribers have been connected in 1963.
    Mr. Bevins: On 31st March, 1951, there were about 5½ million telephones in this country. There are now 9 million. Nearly 225,000 lines have been connected in the first six months of this year.
    Mr. Cleaver: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that it shows an increase of some 70 per cent, and is very creditable? Can he say how the figures compare with those for other European countries?
    Mr. Bevins: The percentage increase in comparison with some European countries is low, but the 1951 base for European countries was very different from that for this country. We have more telephones than any other country with the single exception of the United States of America.
    Mr. Mason: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even though he says that only 44,000 are on the waiting list, 3,600 have been waiting for a telephone connection for more than two years and that nearly 1 million people have shared line services, which conceals the waiting list of those who want single services? Is he further aware that he is evading this problem by agreeing to more shared lines and that in 1962 22 per cent. of all new residential connections were on shared lines? This is not much progress.
    Mr. Bevins: I am not evading anything. The telephone service has developed more in the last few years than at any time in our history. The capital moneys sunk into the service in the last four years have risen by as much as 50 per cent.

    South Yorkshire
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the total number on the waiting list for telephones in South Yorkshire in 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962, respectively.
    Mr. Mawby: At 31st March, 1958, the figure was 2,375. The corresponding figures in the subsequent years have been 1,482; 1,574; 1,690; and 1,039.
    Mr. Wainwright: I admit that there has been an improvement in the last year. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the numbers rose in the previous three years? What hope have people in South Yorkshire who are sharing lines? What hope is there of speeding up connections for trunk calls between South Yorkshire and London, which now take a long time?
    Mr. Mawby: Every day of the week we are installing new circuits all over the country. We obviously concentrate on areas where the need is greatest. At 31st March this year, the figures for which the hon. Member has asked were down to 977, so we are not making bad progress.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Pay Television
    Mr. Masonasked the Postmaster-General if he has now completed his review of applications for pay television experiments; which companies have been successful; what areas are to be recognised; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bevins: The preliminary round of discussions with applicants who wish to be operators is now almost completed, and the detailed requirements are under discussion. Until, however, I have firm offers in regard to the location of areas of trials and of the conditions to be laid down I cannot determine finally what companies can be licensed, and the hon. Member will appreciate that mention of some areas and not others may be misleading and cause disappointment later on. I do not think that more than four or five companies at most, and some of these are consortia, can make the necessary facilities and resources available to mount the necessary operation.
    I will, however, make a further statement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Mason: Could the right hon. Gentleman, then, reveal to the House how many companies have so far applied? Is it not possible for him to give us an idea of what areas are under consideration and which are the likeliest areas to be provided with these pay television experiments? Secondly, may I ask him whether it will be possible to make a statement on this matter before the House rises for the Summer Recess? We do not want to go through the usual Summer Recess ritual of a Ministerial statement about a new television experiment without our being able to question him.
    Mr. Bevins: Altogether about 17 companies have evinced an interest in this experiment, but, as I said, probably not

    1249
    more than half a dozen at the most will actually participate. The areas have not been finally selected, but it is quite clear that London will be one of the areas, but we are anxious to get a cross-section of different localities throughout the country, I doubt whether it will be possible to make a further statement before the House gets up, but I will do so as soon as possible.
    Mr. Masonasked the Postmaster-General if he will stipulate that pay television licensees will only be allowed one channel for the purposes of experiments.
    Mr. Bevins: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 7th May.
    Mr. Mason: Could the right hon. Gentleman extend that reply and give the House some assurance regarding the new development and restricting it to one channel? If the experiments are successful, is it his intention to keep pay television solely on one channel? Also, what length of time has he in mind for the experiment to take place?
    Mr. Bevins: The people who operate the pay television service will be obliged to put out both B.B.C. and I.T.A. programmes, and for the time being we have decided that they should use one additional channel for their own service. I think that is right for the present, but if experience indicates that more than one channel might be desirable at a later stage, we would propose to review the situation after perhaps a year or two of its operation. No period has been fixed for the length of the experiment, but the whole thing will be reviewed almost year to year to see how it develops.
    Mr. Lubbock: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering increasing the number of channels available to television, will he take full account of any representations made by radio astronomers in this country and abroad about the limitation on frequencies available to them?
    Mr. Bevins: Certainly, Sir, but I do not think I have received any such representations during my tenure of office.

    Independent Television Authority (Chairman)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Postmaster-General to what extent the terms of appointment of the Chairman of the
    1250
    Independent Television Authority require the holder of that post to retire from active politics.
    Mr. Bevins: The Chairman was given the normal memorandum of advice on political activities for the guidance of members of public boards, but in any case the question of political activity will not arise because he has told me that he has retired from politics altogether.
    Mr. Chapman: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the precedent set and the problems created in putting a very active party politician in charge of a public medium of expression of opinion? That is the crucial problem. [Interruption.] It is different from the Coal Board. For instance, in times of national crisis there might be demands for a Government statement and Opposition counter-statement on matters of the moment. What real assurance can we have that a very active party politician will be utterly impartial in providing the right to the use of the air?
    Mr. Bevins: I think I did say that Lord Hill has told me that he has retired from politics altogether.
    Mr. Manuel: Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe it?
    Mr. Bevins: Naturally I accept his word. At the same time I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). Of course, the supposition which, I think, he has at the back of his mind is that the Chairman of the Authority could influence either I.T.N. news or a programme contractor at a period of high political activity. Well, I really believe that it is quite inconceivable that any Chairman of the Authority would ever attempt to interfere in that sort of way.
    Mr. Webster: Would my right hon. Friend consider putting the same curtailment of activities on the President of the Board of Film Censors?
    Mr. Bevins: I do not think that that quite arises on this Question.
    Mr. Milne: Is the Postmaster-General aware that we have had previous experience of the Chairman of the Authority in a non-political post—when he was acting as secretary to the British Medical Association?

  POST OFFICE

    New Office, Airdrie
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Postmaster- General when he proposes to replace the unsatisfactory post office premises in Airdrie with new offices; where he pro poses to site them; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mawby: I hope we shall start building a new post office in 1965 on a site in Buchanan Street. This is a smaller site than we should like, but there seems to be no prospect of our getting any other.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am very grateful to him for the letter which I received today? While I recognise the apparent difficulties, which are considerable, in view of the highly unsatisfactory condition of the present post office arrangements in the town of Airdrie will he do his utmost to bring forward the starting date?
    Mr. Mawby: Now that we have decided on the site we shall lose no time in getting the job under way.

    Sub-Office, Wareham
    Mr. Barnettasked the Postmaster- General whether he will grant a licence for a sub-post office to serve the Carey Estate, Wareham.
    Mr. Mawby: I am sorry that we should not be justified in opening a sub-post office on this estate at present; but the matter will be kept under review in the light of the building development which I understand is to take place in the area.
    Mr. Barnett: Has the Assistant Postmaster-General really examined the problem? Does he realise that the estate lies a mile from Wareham, that the General Post Office has very serious parking problems, that a level crossing lies between the estate and the town of Ware ham and that there are more than 300 households on the estate, as well as two factories, and that there seems to me to be a very strong case indeed for the granting of a licence for a sub-post office on the estate?
    Mr. Mawby: As I said, there are all sorts of considerations to be taken into
    1252
    account in opening another office. As I have stated, this matter will be constantly under review in the light of the building development which we understand will take place there. But at the present moment we feel that opening a new office there would not necessarily mean any new business but would mean extra costs for doing the same amount of business.
    Mr. Manuel: What about service to the public?
    Mr. Mawby: This is a great problem that we have to face every day of the week in trying to balance the social need and duty of the G.P.O. with the need to run an efficient service.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: In view of the considerations which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Barnett) has brought to the notice of the House today, does not the Assistant Postmaster-General think that he ought to have some further inquiry made, because not only should he anticipate more business but surely the sense of service to the people who are now living there should also be paramount?
    Mr. Mawby: I am prepared to discuss with the hon. Gentleman the points that he has raised, but on the information that I have at the moment, it is a borderline case. As I have said, it will remain under constant review, but I shall be happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman the points he has raised and have another look at the matter.

    Walton St. Mary Sub-office, Clevedon
    Mr. Websterasked the Postmaster-General whether he will reconsider his decision on the resiting of the Walton St. Mary sub-post office, Clevedon.
    Mr. Mawby: We have reconsidered this matter carefully but I regret that we should not be justified in reversing the decision.
    Mr. Webster: Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation of the sub-post office, which necessitates a walk up a very steep hill during winter weather and at other times, is causing hardship for old people collecting their pensions but will also cause danger if we have another winter like the last one? Will he reconsider the matter?
    Mr. Mawby: As I told my hon. Friend, we have reconsidered this matter. It is important to remember that a sub-postmaster runs his business on an agency basis. When the previous sub-postmaster gave notice of termination of his office, we naturally invited applicants, and we believe that the present sub-postmaster and the present facilities will give better service than hitherto. That is the reason why we took this decision.

    Transmission of Money
    Mr. Websterasked the Postmaster-General what proposals he has to improve the transmission of money through post offices.
    Mr. Mawby: We have no particular proposals in view at present.
    Mr. Webster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although the Dutch giro system has run at a loss for the first time this year, a system of transmitting money by having savings bank deposits increased would be both safer and cheaper than the existing method?
    Mr. Mawby: I can only refer my hon. Friend to my reply to an Adjournment debate on 4th March in which all the points were put forward. I said at the time that the door was not closed but that there were certain things which had to happen and that we had to be certain that this was going to be a real proposition before we were prepared to bring the scheme into operation.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: As I am very interested in the question of the giro system, may I ask the hon. Member how much wider the door is open now than when I raised the matter on the Adjournment?
    Mr. Mawby: I think it is just about the same.

    Mail Deliveries, Sale
    Mr. Boardmanasked the Postmaster-General what action he is taking to eliminate delay in delivery of mail from the Sale, Cheshire, area.
    Mr. Mawby: I am sorry that vacancies for a few postmen in Sale are causing delay in the delivery of mail there. There is full employment in this area and we are not finding it easy to get the recruits we need.
    Mr. Boardman: I am equally sure that that is not an adequate answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am concerned with mail going from the Sale area? Is he satisfied with the transit arrangements of mail from Sale? Is he satisfied that there is proper co-ordination between British Railways and the Post Office in this connection?
    Mr. Mawby: We are in touch with British Railways to try to solve some of the difficulties in parcels traffic. This is part of a general discussion we are holding. But until now I had no evidence that outgoing mail services are unsatisfactory. However, I should like to discuss this with the hon. Gentleman to find out whether we can get to the bottom of this problem.
    Mr. Boardman: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been many complaints, over a long period, from this part of Cheshire? On a number of occasions the hon. Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) has raised this matter. How long are these inquiries to take?
    Mr. Grant-Ferris: Does my hon. Friend realise that the place in question is not really in the constituency of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) but in that of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade? I should like to ask the hon. Member for Leigh if he has consulted my right hon. Friend as a matter of common courtesy?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. As I understand the process, this appears to be an attempt by the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) to ask another hon. Member a question. It is not in order.

    Saturday Deliveries
    Wing Commander Bullusasked the Postmaster-General if he will restore the second postal delivery on Saturdays.
    Mr. Mawby: No, Sir.
    Wing Commander Bullus: Will my hon. Friend say why not? Is he aware that it is increasingly difficult to ensure that a letter posted in the north of England or in Sale or Leigh at any time on Friday arrives in the Greater London area before Monday? What is he doing about this? Will he review this deteriorating part of the service?
    Mr. Mawby: I do not think that to make another delivery on Saturday would solve this problem. We are seeking to put right delays that occur and we are discussing the matter with British Railways. We believe that the cost involved in a second delivery on Saturday would not be justified. We must also take fully into account the interests of our staff who, after all, are just as important as any other staff anywhere else. We believe that we have reached about the right compromise of giving a good service while meeting the interests of our staff at weekends.
    Wing Commander Bullus: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Parcel Post Service, East Anglia
    Mr. Bullardasked the Postmaster-General how the experimental reorganisation of the parcel post service in East Anglia is working.
    Mr. Mawby: The reorganised services have so far worked very well indeed; and we have every reason to expect that they will continue to do so. Our customers, too, seem to be satisfied; for example, one large firm has told us that it intends to send considerable numbers of parcels by post which until now it has sent by other means.
    Mr. Bullard: I am very glad to hear that this experiment is working well. Will my hon. Friend see to it that as much of this traffic as possible continues to go on the railways, provided that the railways can make suitable adjustments to meet Post Office needs? Alternatively, if a great deal of this traffic has to be carried on the roads of East Anglia, will my hon. Friend weigh in with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to see that our East Anglian roads are improved a little so as to be able to carry it?
    Mr. Mawby: The whole point of the experiment is to try to make certain that we can use the railways to the best advantage, but also to make certain that customers sending parcels have them delivered in the fastest possible time. With this co-ordination of rail and road we can learn by this experiment and put it
    1256
    into operation over a wider area at some future time.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my hon. Friend appreciate that there is some suspicion that the result of the Beeching Plan combined with this scheme by the Post Office is designed to enable the Post Office to hog the lot of the parcel traffic, which formerly went by rail or other public transport? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will see that where branch lines are closed down there is a proper co-ordination between the Post Office and the Ministry of Transport to ensure proper vehicles to carry parcels by road?
    Mr. Mawby: Yes, We have no intention of taking traffic away from anyone else. We are interested in giving as good a service in the transport of parcels and other mail as we can. We will naturally leave it to the customer to decide which service he prefers. We have no intention of running anybody else off the road.
    Sir J. Maitland: How will the services be affected in East Lincolnshire when there are not any railways at all?
    Mr. Mawby: We should have to adapt ourselves to those conditions.
    Mr. Mapp: Apart from the service aspect of this matter, is the hon. Gentleman able to tell the House the costings of the road service per package or parcel as against the costings for the railway service? Will not this be a vital factor in his ultimate consideration?
    Mr. Mawby: I could not tell the hon. Member off the cuff what the differences are, but this will obviously always be a vital factor to the person posting the parcel.

  NORTH-EAST
  Mr. Milneasked the Prime Minister what arrangements are now being made to inform Members of Parliament of the decisions taken arising from the report on the North-East by the Lord President of the Council, in the event of such decisions not being announced before the Summer Recess.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would ask the hon. Member to wait for the proposals which will be announced next week.
  Mr. Milne: Is the Prime Minister aware that we are extremely grateful that the report from the Lord President of the Council is about to appear and that we shall scrutinise its contents with interest?

  MOSCOW (DISCUSSIONS)
  Mr. Stone houseasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of the test ban talks in Moscow.
  The Prime Minister: I still think it is better for me not to add to the communiqués issued from Moscow.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that if success is achieved in Moscow it will be greeted with a profound sense of relief in all parts of the world? But is he further aware that this will be but a Pyrrhic victory if the non-nuclear Powers who aspire to be nuclear Powers prefer to ignore the agreement? What new diplomatic initiative does he intend to take with France and China to ensure their future co-operation?
  The Prime Minister: The first thing is to get the agreement.
  Lord Balniel: Will my right hon. Friend realise that if his initiative in seeking a nuclear test ban treaty reaches fruition, there will be world-wide recognition that it is his lead which has been consistent in this matter and worldwide recognition that his achievement will be all the greater because his hands have been so hindered by the nuclear disarmament policies of hon. Members opposite?
  The Prime Minister: If, as I hope—I am hoping anxiously and waiting anxiously—we soon find that these negotiations reach a satisfactory conclusion, it will be a great step forward and one for which we have striven for a long time.

  UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to lead the British delegation to the September meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.
  The Prime Minister: I think it is too soon to take a decision on this point. I would naturally go to the General Assembly meeting if at the time it seemed likely to be useful.
  Mr. Henderson: Would the Prime Minister bear in mind that the September meeting of the General Assembly would provide him with an opportunity for meeting President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev and other national leaders without the publicity and formality of a summit conference? Would he therefore indicate that he would be willing to go to that meeting if Mr. Khrushchev indicated his readiness to go?
  The Prime Minister: Of course I would be wiling to do anything which would be helpful. I still think that much depends on the events of the next few days. If those go well, we can see the best way to develop the next steps.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will be the Prime Minister when this meeting takes place?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has spent seven years trying to stop me and he has not succeeded yet.

  CIVIL AVIATION (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Sir A. V. Harveyasked the Prime Minister which Minister will now be responsible for civil aviation.
  Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister if he now proposes to appoint a Minister of Civil Aviation.
  The Prime Minister: It has been announced in the White Paper on Defence Reorganisation that the Ministry of Aviation is to remain an independent Department, although with closer links with the Ministry of Defence. The Government have also carefully considered in the light of the study of the matter which Sir Frank Lee made at my request whether responsibility for the civil aspects of aviation should remain with that Department. One possibility would be to transfer responsibility to the Ministry of Transport; but it is undesirable to increase the existing very heavy load on that Department. Some

  1259
  advantages might be derived from the creation of a separate Department to deal with transport overseas, whether by sea or by air; but these are outweighed by those of retaining the existing single responsibility for transport by land and sea while the reorganisation of the British ports system and the problems of the shipbuilding industries need special attention. The Government have therefore concluded that responsibility for civil aviation should for the present remain with the Ministry of Aviation.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the aircraft industry today is looked on generally as a leader industry achieving great results in exports, as we have heard recently, and will continue to do so in the immediate years ahead? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of us feel that if the Minister of Aviation moves into the Ministry of Defence building these aspects of the economics of exports could, to some extent, come under the Ministry of Defence, which could be dangerous? Will my right hon. Friend look at this, and, if anything, upgrade the Minister of Aviation to Cabinet rank, equal in rank to the Minister of Defence?
  The Prime Minister: It is these considerations which have led us to decide not to divide the Ministry or to transfer it to the new Ministry of Defence. As my hon. Friend knows so well, it is undesirable to divorce military and civil business, whether in production, or, still more, in research and development, and this applies not only to aircraft but to the very complex electronic equipment now needed for the control of air traffic.
  Mr. P. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the latter passage of his last answer means that the Minister of Aviation is now completely, totally, and wholly responsible for overseeing the interests of the automative industry which is of paramount and growing importance to the survival of this nation? If this is so, does not this reinforce the need for this Minister to be in the Cabinet?
  The Prime Minister: These are two separate things. The position of a Minister in the Cabinet at any given time is a matter for consideration. What we are trying to do—and it will be debated next week I think—is to decide how to operate the new defence system and what
  1260
  exactly should be the position of the Minister of Aviation in it. I think that at any rate for the next period it is going to be a big job to bring the whole of our defence into a single system, and what we have decided is the right solution.

  SECURITY
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEWIS: To ask the Prime Minister, whether he will give an assurance that subject to the maintenance of State security, he will continue to answer questions which deal with alleged neglect upon the part of Ministers and/or their civil servants, or those in the employ of the State, so far as these questions affect his department.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lewis. Dame Irene Ward.
  Mr. P. Williams: On a point of order. What is the position of the House when a Question of this nature and importance is put down, and then, the hon. Member having put it down, he creeps away with attendant publicity to a foreign country. The Question then may be given a Written Answer and hon. Members may not put supplementary questions.
  Mr. Speaker: The position of the House is that I called the hon. Member who put his name to the Question, received no reply, and called the next Question. Dame Irene Ward.

  WIDOWED MOTHERS (EARNINGS RULE)
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Prime Minister if he will agree to meet the hon. Member for Tynemouth to discuss the problems of widowed mothers and the earnings rule, and the extension of the widowed mothers' allowance to children awaiting entry to universities.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Dame Irene Ward: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that very gracious reply, may I ask him to assure me that the meeting will take place quite shortly? Having regard to our old relationship when my right hon. Friend was a back bencher, will he bear in mind that I

  1261
  shall want action, as he used to want action in the days when he used to pummel his own Front Bench?
  The Prime Minister: I am looking forward to the meeting with the hon. Lady, but she must not frighten me too much before it takes place.
  Mr. Wade: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that this case of the widowed mothers and the earnings rule is one of a number of anomalies in the welfare services which should be looked into? There is a great time-lag between these anomalies arising and anything being done about them. Would not it be possible to have regular machinery whereby these matters are reported to the House, say annually, so that attention can be given to them?
  Dame Irene Ward: Stand on my side, Harold.
  The Prime Minister: I think that the machinery which the hon. Lady suggests is a very good one.
  Mr. Longden: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the meanest of the anomalies is the differentiation between Service widows who were bereaved before and after 3rd November, 1958?
  The Prime Minister: I am ready to consider these matters as a result of these questions and I hope that we may be able to find some solution.
  Dame Irene Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend.

  FUEL AND POWER TARGETS
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to co ordinate the action of Ministers concerned in order to ensure the publication, without delay, of official fuel and power targets, allocated between the appropriate industries, for each of the next 10 years and for the decade as a whole.
  The Prime Minister: The co-ordination of the action of Ministers is secured through the normal process of administration. As regards the latter part of the Question, it would not be in the
  1262
  national interest for the Government to predetermine the precise level of production for each fuel industry.
  Mr. Warbey: First, may I thank the Prime Minister for confirming that he does not carry these figures in his head, because they do not exist even on paper. Secondly, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would tell us how it is possible for the two main variable elements in this equation—namely, the nuclear power programme for which no target is fixed beyond 1968 and the oil industry which is under the control of private enterprise, which is not precisely concerned with the public good—can be co-ordinated with the national plan unless a national plan is worked out?
  The Prime Minister: I think that our object must be to secure supplies of energy which are sufficient to sustain economic growth, on terms that will assist that growth, A degree of competition between various fuels can be very healthy, and indeed has had very good results both in design and production.
  Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend remember that when a fuel committee of this kind was arranged by a Socialist Government in 1951 every forecast that it made was proved wrong, and that these highfalutin forecasting Government bodies nearly always are wrong and product; bad results?
  The Prime Minister: I shall bear all these things in mind, but I do not think that this was the only forecast made between 1945 and 1951 that was wrong.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the approved programme for electricity generation made by the present Ministry of Power only two years ago has had to be thrown out by the N.I.C. on the ground that the Ministry's official target for electricity production bears no relation to the Government's newly accepted 4 per cent. target of expansion?
  The Prime Minister: Our purpose must be to produce sufficient supplies. To lay down, as I am asked to do, a precise figure for each without regard to changing conditions, techniques and competition between them would be a mistake.

  UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL FUND
  Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about the recent conversations between members of Her Majesty's Government and Mr. Paul Hoffman, head of the United Nations Special Fund; and what increased contributions Her Majesty's Government intend to make to the Special Fund for the forthcoming financial year.
  The Prime Minister: Mr. Hoffman was in London last week for a one-day visit, but he did not see members of Her Majesty's Government on that occasion. He discussed some technical questions with officials.
  A decision about the United Kingdom contribution to the Special Fund for next year will not be taken until October, when it will be announced, subject to Parliamentary approval, at the United Nations Pledging Conference.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister recall that Her Majesty's Government's delegate voted for this most important plan, the success of which is of major interest to the Commonwealth, and that our contribution hitherto has borne no relation to the requirements of the plan for which we voted?
  The Prime Minister: We made a good contribution which was up to the standard of other countries. I saw Mr. Hoffman, not on this occasion, but when he came here some weeks ago, and discussed the whole matter with him. We shall take all this into account when we make our decision in October.
  Mr. Prentice: But does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when we voted for this expansion in the autumn of 1960, it was for an expansion of 50 per cent. in 1961 and further expansion in the following years? In fact the expansion has
  1264
  fallen far short of that. There was hardly any expansion in 1961, and only 25 per cent. last year. At the coming Pledging Conference will the Government pledge a much larger contribution and urge all the other countries to do the same?
  The Prime Minister: I think that our record of contributions to all these various agencies and efforts compares very favourably with that of many of the great countries of the world.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister recognise that we have a much greater interest in the success of this plan than most other nations? Will he remember what my hon. Friend has just said, that there has not been the expansion in our contribution to which we pledged ourselves three years ago?
  The Prime Minister: I think that we have carried out fully what we have been asked to do. They might like still more, but I understand that the nature of the work is to provide assistance for pre-investment projects, and it is really to devise methods before the question of aid and development arises. I think that this work is on the whole going on satisfactorily.
  Mr. Pavitt: Will the Prime Minister use his influence to alter the system of annual pledging in October and ratification the following year, which stultifies the whole working not only of the Special Fund but of technical assistance through the United Nations and the special agencies, to one with a much longer term whereby assistance might be given more effectively?
  The Prune Minister: I think that it is asking me to do a great deal if I am to alter the procedure of the United Nations. We shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says to see whether we can make some useful suggestions for a different procedure.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION
  3.30 p.m.
  Mrs. Judith Hart: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that any person of the age of eighteen years or under who is sentenced by a court of summary jurisdiction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds shall be entitled to seven days within which to pay such fine.
  My proposed Bill is a modest one and carries out what I believe to be an essential reform. It would be supported by hon. Members of all three parties who are, individually, members of the National Council for Civil Liberties. It relates to the treatment by a court of summary jurisdiction of persons found guilty of minor offences and sentenced to the payment of a fine, and, in default of that payment, to a short period of imprisonment.
  I firmly believe that it would be very wrong to separate in any way the treatment of those who have come in recent years to be called political prisoners from those of other categories, and I would not wish to do so. Nevertheless, a number of cases have been brought to my attention and to the attention of other hon. Members as a result of recent political demonstrations, both at the time of the Cuba crisis, last autumn, and two weeks ago, in London.
  I want to quote one example of the kind of thing that has been brought to my attention. Two weeks ago. at Marlborough Street Court, 10 persons, two of whom were under the age of 19—and this is the age group to which the Bill refers—were fined, for offences carried out during the demonstrations in London, amounts of £2 plus costs amounting to between 40s. and three guineas, plus various sureties, on binding over, in the sum of £20, and so on. None of them was given time to pay his fine. Therefore, unless he had the money in his pocket at the time, he was committed to prison in default of payment of his fine. These people were committed to prison for periods ranging from one month to two months in default of the payment of the fine.
  If it were the case that, when this kind of sentence is imposed by a court upon a young offender, he has permission and is given the
  1266
  opportunity to make contact, from the court, with friends or with his family, who may then be asked to pay the fine, and if that had been the case here the situation would have been different, but not one of these young persons was given permission to make a telephone call from the court. None of them could inform his family or friends that he was being taken to prison because he did not have £5 or £6 on him at the time. Since most of these were young people it was not surprising that they were not carrying £5 or £6 at the; time of their arrest.
  One example was that of a 17-year-old grammar school girl. She is in the sixth form of a grammar school in the London area. Her parents were on holiday, and she had no friends in court when her case came before the magistrate. As a result, although she asked for permission to make a telephone call from the court, it was refused, and she was taken to Holloway because she did not have the money to pay her fine. Again, when she reached Holloway, she asked for permission to make a telephone call, but was told, quite correctly, that the regulations did not allow for any other than one letter to be sent on the day after admission. This means that two days must elapse between being taken through the admission procedure at Holloway to the point at which a prisoner's family may receive a letter informing them of what has occurred.
  This girl went through the whole admission procedure. Hon. Members may know, from some reports that have recently been written about prison procedures, that the general conclusion of those who are sent to prison for the first time is that it is those first 24 hours—the admission procedure period—which provide the shock and degradation to those who have never expected to find themselves in such a place.
  The girl in question, and others who were above the age of 19—to whom the Bill does not refer—were subjected to the usual medical examination. Their clothes were taken from them and they had four or five hours sitting around in the prison, in dressing gowns, waiting for the further formalities to be gone through. They had an issue of prison clothing. They had all to go through the rather degrading procedure which is quite normal for those admitted to any

  1267
  prison. One young girl who happened to be an Anglo-Catholic was not allowed to retain her rosary, being told, "You are only an Anglo-Catholic. There is no need for you to have a rosary". This sort of humiliation is an inevitable result of the admission procedure.
  This girl got out of Holloway by half past nine that evening, but she was able to do so only because the W.V.S., whose representatives are frequently in attendance at Holloway, were informed of her predicament and were able to get in touch with friends, who came along and paid her fine.
  Some difficulties of this kind where young people are committed to prison in default of a payment of a fine arise because the court does not accept cheques in payment of fines. I have an example of this quoted in a letter from somebody who was arrested in the Cuba crisis demonstrations last autumn. She says:
  "We were fined £2 each and we each had to pay five guineas costs. My sister had one cheque with her which she was going to sign for the total cost of £14 10s. The police sergeant refused to accept one cheque for both of us, saying that I had to pay my fine separately. Fortunately, a very kind and sympathetic policeman offered to help us by donning a civilian coat and calling at the bank to change my sister's cheque. He returned with the money and we were able to pay separately in cash. Neither my sister nor I have been fined previously. There was no question of us being given time to pay."
  This was a ludicrous situation, where these two young girls had to rely on a particularly kind policeman.
  I took up with the Home Secretary the whole question of the acceptance of the payment of a fine by cheque. I had some correspondence with one of the Joint Under-Secretarys and, oddly enough, on the very day on which I gave notice that I would seek leave to bring in this Bill—in fact, one hour after I had done so—I had a letter from the Joint Undersecretary telling me that under Section 69 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, a court is required to allow an offender who cannot pay a fine forthwith at least seven days to pay unless some special circumstance justifies immediate committal.
  Looking at that Section of that Act one sees what those special circumstances are supposed to be. It says:
  1268
  "A magistrates court on adjudging a person to pay a sum by conviction shall, subject to the provisions of the next following subsection, allow him at least seven days to pay the sum or the first instalment of the sum"
  and the qualifying conditions are, if he does not seem to have sufficient means to pay the sum forthwith, or if he does not ask for time to pay, or if he fails to satisfy the court that he has a fixed abode, or
  "there is some other special circumstance appearing to the court to justify immediate committal."
  I imagine that the intention of the law here is quite clearly that people should be given time to pay, unless there are particular circumstances, and that those clearly are intended to apply only to the minority of offenders convicted and asked to pay fines. But what seems to be the position of offenders of the kind to whom I am referring? The 1961 Report of the Prison Commission shows that receptions under sentence of imprisonment in default of the payment of a fine, where no time to pay was granted by the courts—including all ages—totalled 3,408, compared with the figure of those who were given time to pay of 4,403.
  So, in fact, 56 per cent. were given time to pay and 44 per cent. were not, presumably because they did not have a fixed abode, or did not look as if they could pay, or because there were special circumstances which made it necessary for the court to commit them to prison without giving time to pay a fine. That figure of 44 per cent. does not seem to me to be a correct interpretation of the intention of the law under the Magistrates' Courts Act.
  If we look a little further and take the figures for those under the age of 21, we find that in 1961 those given no time to pay were 158 males and 69 females. Those given time to pay were 269 males and 27 females. It is difficult to correlate this information with the figures in the Report for those who were actually received into prison for various types of offences.
  One cannot correlate these according to people under 21 from the statistics given in 1961. But of those committed for various offences who were there in default of payment of a fine, taking the whole adult population of the prison, one finds that

  1269
  only a small minority were there because they had committed offences under the heading of "other offences". In other words, we are here dealing primarily not with people guilty of violence or theft or serious crimes, but with a general category of other offences. Of 201 women committed to prison because they were not allowed time to pay a fine, 79 were under 25, and of126 sentenced to not more than one month 131 had had no previous institutional sentence.
  I am certain that it is correct to allow the courts the maximum amount of flexibility in the way in which they deal with offences. But one wonders whether there is developing in the courts a tendency to use the no-time-to-pay system as a means of giving offenders a taste of prison which the magistrates feel might be a good thing for them. If that is the case, the law needs to be amended in order that it cannot happen. There are many other ways in which the courts of summary jurisdiction can give offenders a brief taste of prison without using a mechanism which is not in accord with the intention of the 1952 Act.
  A court has the power to collect a fine and if seven days are allowed in which to pay, and payment is not made, the court has adequate procedures at its disposal to make sure that the money is collected.
  If the House gives me permission to bring in my short and simple Bill my proposition will refer to those of 18 and under. I have made it that age, because I wish to gain the support of the whole House. There is a strong case for relating it to a far wider age group. But let us begin with these youngsters for whom it cannot be a good tiling that, having committed a minor offence for which the imposition of a fine would be appropriate, they should be put into contact with more serious offenders in prison even though only for a few nights.
  I propose, therefore, that they shall always be given seven days in which to pay a fine and that there should be a modification of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952.
  Question put and agreed to,
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Hart, Miss Vickers, Mr. Lubbock, and Mr. Greenwood.
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION
  Bill to provide that any person of the age of eighteen years or under who is sentenced by a court of summary jurisdiction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds shall be entitled to seven days within which to pay such fine, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 26th July and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

  NEW WRIT (STRATFORD)
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county constituency of Stratford in the room of John Dennis. Profumo, esquire, O.B.E., who, since his election for the said county constituency, hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
  3.47 p.m.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: In the absence of satisfactory and sound reasons for this Motion, I shall oppose it; and unless substantial reasons are advanced before the end of the debate the Patronage Secretary may be under the necessity of recalling a large body of Conservative Members of Parliament from Buckingham Palace, where they are now attending a garden party.
  If we are to be accorded a satisfactory reason, or reasons, for the Government decision to indulge in what can only be regarded as unseemly haste, then the one man to reply to this debate should be the Prime Minister. I regret the absence of the right hon. Gentleman. But no doubt perhaps the Patronage Secretary or the Leader of the House—just the man for the job—will be the representative, wearing the appropriate hat, of the Conservative Central Office—
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): A hard hat.
  Mr. Shinwell: As the occasion is Stratford-ort-Avon, perhaps I may be

  1271
  permitted to indulge in a Shakespearean quotation:
  "A good plot, good friends, and full of expectation: an excellent plot, very good friends".
  If that quotation is not precisely relevant, may I venture another quotation which is relevant at the present time to the situation at the Conservative Central Office:
  "O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts. And men have lost their reason"
  Is not that a perfectly adequate description? For after all, what is the reason for this remarkable and unseemly haste?
  The gentleman who is to be the Conservative candidate at Stratford-on-Avon was once an hon. Member of this Assembly, a man of integrity, I have no doubt, a man of intellectual quality, that I concede. But he decided to resign and went to Australia to undertake the task of editing an important newspaper. Then he returned. Immediately he returned he was snapped up by the Conservative Central Office and pitch-forked into the South Dorset by-election. There appears to be no hope, not even the remotest hope, of the Conservative Party regaining the seat of Dorset, South. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Barnett) has proved his worth already. It is necessary to find a seat for Mr. Angus Maude; I can mention his name without transgressing Standing Orders. He may not have fully recovered from his escapade in Dorset, South. Why rush him into this venture? Let us ascertain the reasons for this decision. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House is fully armed with precedents—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] Let us assume that he has; if so, I dismiss them at once.
  This is a unique occasion. The Conservative Central Office is in a panic; there is no doubt about that. Many seats have been lost, many more are to be lost. There is a spot of trouble on the Conservative back benches and in spite of every effort to conceal it, or smother it, it reappears now and again not merely in the form of a shadow, but endowed with substance.
  So hon. Members opposite have to rush this by-election and get it over quickly. What for? To raise the
  1272
  deteriorating morale of the Conservative Party. That is all it is. Why indulge in this particular task? In order to prevent the Labour Party from organising its resources in time for the election? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I expected that. I do not know whether to describe the interruption as jeers or cat-calls.
  Never mind about the Labour Party; it can look after itself, but what about the Liberal Party? This is a democracy. Even in recent by-elections we had a vast number of ex-Service men, or those who hoped to be ex-Service men, who sought to be nominated to various constituencies. No one ventured to frown upon their decision, although at the end of the day they found that there were physical and perhaps financial and other difficulties in their path. Everyone has a right to come into this House and must be accorded an opportunity in time and not rushed into an election in this panic-stricken fashion.
  Mr. Arthur Holt: May I clear up any misunderstanding? Mr. Profumo did not resign until June, but the Liberal Party has had a candidate in this constituency since May.
  Mr. Shinwell: There is nothing like eager expectancy, whether the by-election is to take place in August, next year or whenever the General Election comes. Perhaps the Leader of the House might furnish a little information on that subject. We are all very anxious to know, myself in particular. I have a majority of only 28,000. [Laughter.] If some hon. Members are hard up for votes, I can sell them a few.
  I venture to give a reason for this decision. I have had very little time, I admit, to consider it. I learned only this morning that the Patronage Secretary was to present the decision of the Government about the Stratford-on-Avon vacancy to the House today. Nevertheless, I have had a little time to cogitate. I have come to the conclusion that the reason the Government have decided to rush this by-election is that Lord Denning is to submit his report during the Recess, and heaven knows what will be in that report. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If any hon. Member imagines that I am casting aspersions

  1273
  on any hon. Member, or anyone outside he is mistaken, not even on Mr. Profumo. I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Profumo. I have some compassion. If there had been a little more Christian charity—I can say that with feeling and understanding—perhaps there would not have been so much harshness indulged in about that gentleman. I leave it there.
  No, I am not casting aspersions at anyone. I am pointing out that Lord Denning's report, having regard to the vast number of witnesses who have to be examined and statements which are current—whether they are true or not I am unable to say—and references to security, which is a matter which concerns every hon. Member on either side of the House, are matters which might come before the country at a time when Parliament is unable to debate them.
  So this by-election has to be rushed because there may be something in the Denning report which may make some impact on the electors at that election. It has been suggested since I came here this afternoon that there is a substantial reason why this election should be rushed—because the electors in Stratford-on-Avon have no representative in Parliament. The answer to that is that if there is an election in August, and a Conservative is returned, or a Labour man, or a Liberal is returned, as the case may be—all in the lap of the gods and of the electors of Stratford—the electors will not be represented until the person returned has taken the oath. He cannot act on behalf of his constituents until then. So that argument can disappear.
  I have no desire to hold up the proceedings. My Scottish hon. Friends are anxious to discuss legal matters concerning Scotland. I have no desire to prevent any hon. Member, particularly on this side of the House, in view of the possibility of a Division, disappearing to Buckingham Palace, to the garden party. They have our consent, but I submit that we are entitled, on this occasion, having regard to all the circumtances, to demand from the Leader of the House, in the absence of the Prime Minister, satisfactory, sound and substantial reasons and arguments why, at this time, the Government should indulge in unseemly haste in rushing this by-election.
  3.59 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: Whether or not judgment may have "fled to brutish beasts", it is clear from his speech that "Manny" has not lost his reason. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) tested our patience by quoting. I thought that he was going to refer to Tennyson's "Come Into The Garden Maud", the garden, of course, being virtually the garden of Eden, or rather now, Avon.
  In my humble suggestion, this Motion is unprecedented, certainly since the Representation of the People Act of 1949, and it is open to the gravest possible exception. It originated rather in sin, because although Parliament does not ask for the notice to be given on the Order Paper upon the moving of a Writ, it is equally clear that notice arrived in Fleet Street of this intention at least two days before any hon. Member heard about it—and, presumably, via Newfoundland, where a keener interest has been taken in the fortunes of the Conservative Party and its leader than in Oldham.
  The objection to this procedure is grave and serious. In the circumstances in which the Writ is moved it is an indefensible procedure. I appreciate and apprehend that there is a perfectly fair point in saying that Mr. Speaker's power to move the Writ in Recess does not apply in the case of a Steward of the Manor of Northstead, as in this case, and that, therefore, the Writ must be moved in the House. But the House is due to sit until 2nd August. Were it moved even then it would avoid the most manifest and serious objections which are apparent.
  The 1949 Act imposes on the returning officer and the Clerk in Chancery certain time limitations, which are imperative. It is a misdemeanour on the part of a returning officer or Clerk in Chancery not to comply with the rather rigid timetable laid down. I apprehend, though I cannot offhand recall, its precise details. However, the Government have overlooked so many things recently that one might be forgiven wondering about the present procedure, remembering that August Bank Holiday Monday is on 5th August; at any rate, it is well into August.
  The result is that if this Writ is issued today—and, presumably, to the Clerk in

  1275
  Chancery tomorrow; and he has power to inform the returning officer by telegraphic process if he thinks fit—we shall be faced with a situation in which a by-election of some significance and importance will be held by a returning officer who must take on all the extra work involved in the preparation for the election, arranging officers, and so on, all in Bank Holiday week.
  I realise that hon. Members may tell me that August Bank Holiday is dies non and will not count and that if a day of public mourning is proclaimed during that time that, too, will not count. Nevertheless, we still have a serious proposition: that even if one takes the most liberal interpretation of the timetable, this by-election is likely to take place in the week after August Bank Holiday week. This time seems to have been shrewdly calculated—or, at least, that has been hinted in the Press—for a large number of workers may be taking their annual holiday a long way from Stratford and will not be able to get in their cars and drive back to vote during their holiday.
  If this has not occurred to the Leader of the House or the Patronage Secretary I suggest that they could easily deal with it by saying, "We will postpone the issue for a few days". But if it has occurred to them it seems that this is a negation of every desire which is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House in general; that there shall be a fair determination of the result and that there shall be offered a fair opportunity for all the candidates to make themselves heard and to hold meetings—and I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that not the best day for doing this is August Bank Holiday Monday—and to allow the great majority of the electors to exercise that right which is accorded to them only once every five years.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington made references which would please the cynicism of Shaw. I can think of a succession of quotations from Shaw and it is worth recalling that his three first unpleasant plays, as he called them, have been playing at the Palace of Westminster for the last few weeks. We have had "Mrs. Warren's Profession", "The Philanderer" and yesterday we had "Widowers' Houses". For the record,
  1276
  it seems that we are to move on to "The Devil's Disciple"
  I hope that the electors—those who are there and able to vote and who are not away on holiday—will, if this Writ is carried, hesitate a little about that. Meantime, I ask the Government Chief Whip to hesitate a little and to wonder whether he will win any more sympathy for the Government and for the party which used to support them, if he insists upon holding a by-election of this kind in these circumstances and at this time of the year when, clearly, it could conveniently be postponed, at any rate for a short time, and so give a fair opportunity for the electors to return home and record their votes.
  4.5 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: I would like to begin by making it clear that the Liberal Party is ready to challenge the Government in Stratford-on-Avon any time they choose. At the same time, there is a good deal of substance in what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said about workers being away for their holidays at the time the by-election may be held.
  Everyone knows—including the Leader of the House—that the motor car firms always take their annual holidays at that time. For this reason there seems to be something fishy about the choice of this date. I say that without prejudice to what I said at the start of my remarks; that we are ready to challenge the Tories whenever they are ready.
  I recall that at the time of the by-election which brought me to this place the Writ had been so long delayed that my constituents had to get up a petition asking for it to be issued. My predecessor, Judge Sumner, resigned in September and although ample opportunity existed for a Motion for a Writ to be issued to be placed on the Order Paper, that was not done until late in February the following year. The by-election did not take place until 14th March, so that six months elapsed between the resignation of my predecessor and the date of the by-election.
  I draw the attention of hon. Members to two important points. First, the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said that he was not concerned with precedents. I have had them looked up

  1277
  and I find that only one case has occurred since the war of a by-election being held in August. That was for one of the Ulster constituencies, where the hon. Member concerned kept going to prison. That continued to happen until it was impossible to delay the holding of a by-election any longer and it was in fact, held during the inconvenient month of August. In that case there was no difficulty of so many of the constituents taking their holidays in that one month, the situation which faces Stratford-on-Avon.
  The second important point is that Mr. Profumo resigned on 5th June, but Lord Hill of Luton was made a peer on 8th June, only three days later. We are entitled to know why this Writ is so urgent that it must be issued today when nothing has been said about the issuing of a Writ for Luton. The Writ for the Luton by-election should, logically, be issued three days after this one; but I have no reason to believe that the Government have any intention of bringing the Luton Writ forward between now and the Summer Recess.
  These matters must be cleared up before we assent to the Motion before the House. However. I repeat that the Liberal Party is ready to challenge the Government in Stratford-on-Avon at any time they may choose.
  4.9 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: I wish to support the protests made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I do so on what I regard as even more elevated constitutional grounds than those which he cited. There are extremely important constitutional problems involved in the case which has arisen and, indeed, in the whole manner in which Governments and Oppositions propose the date on which Writs should be issued. There is no more delicate matter for the House to consider than its relations with the elections that may take place in the country.
  At the end of the seventeenth century and at the beginning of the eighteenth century the House of Commons used to spend perhaps six months or twelve months after a General Election discussing whether the people who got here had any right to be here. The House used to receive a whole series of petitions. Indeed, it was the main business for a
  1278
  year or more after a General Election to discuss the process of election itself.
  As a result of these persistent disputes, the House came to realise that it was most undignified and most injurious to the reputation of Parliament that Parliament itself should be discussing who were the people who had a right to sit in the House of Commons. This same issue was raised more famously in the Wilkes case, when eventually the House of Commons resigned or abandoned its powers to interfere with the processes of election itself. Therefore, it is an anomaly in one sense that the only real power which the House now has to interfere with the dates of elections is that which is left to the Chief Patronage Secretary and the Opposition Chief Whip to propose the date when writs should be issued for elections.
  I suggest to the House seriously that this is bound to give rise to invidious disputes at various times when proposals are made for elections. Always there will be the suspicion, even if it is not justified, that one side or the other is using this remaining power to have an election at a time which is most beneficial to itself. It is no good the Leader of the House looking shocked, as if this idea had never occurred to him. I see that the Chief Patronage Secretary is smiling for the first time for the past three months. He has seen something funny at last. The idea that the Chief Patronage Secretary should not consider primarily the interests of his own party has brought a laugh even to his stony face.
  It is the fact that each party uses these occasions to pick the date to suit it best. I seriously suggest that this is not in the best interests of the House. It would be much better if both sides would agree that, following the application of a Member for the Chiltern Hundreds, or the death of a Member, there should be a fixed period within which such a Motion should be moved. Then no suspicion could arise against either side as to the date on which it moved for a Writ. This would be a much better way of doing it. Then the Chief Patronage Secretary would not be open to the charges which all of us are making against him today and which he knows to be so peculiarly apposite.
  This is illustrated by this case, because, as has been said already, it is the most

  1279
  shocking example which we have had for many years of the use by a Government of the remaining power which they have to interfere with the process of election in their own interests. It is obvious that the reason why the Government—this is obvious to everybody; it is what has been printed in the Press before we were ever informed about the matter—are making this selection of a date is that they want to have the lowest possible poll in this election. This is a scandalous way for the Government to use their power. It will cast suspicion on the way in which this power is used in the future.
  It is a very rare thing for a protest to be made against the issue of a Writ I suggest to the Government that, in view of this protest, the best thing for them to do is not to ram it through with their majority, but to take account of what has been said and say that they will reconsider the matter and will bring forward another date. If they accompany that with a general proposal that they are willing to discuss with the Opposition the general procedure under which this whole process could be carried out in a more seemly fashion, we shall have gained something from the piece of trickery which the Government are attempting to put across us.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington began his speech with a series of Shakespearean quotations. When I look along the Treasury Bench, all other Shakespearean quotations are driven from my mind except for the simple one:
  "There's small choice in rotten apples."
  I can understand the Government's desire to try to alter this image, but at least they should not do it in such a shameful and devious way as they are attempting to employ today.
  4.16 p.m.
  Sir Jocelyn Lucas: I should like to give a precedent.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Shakespeare.
  Sir J. Lucas: Not Shakespeare.
  In July, 1939, towards the end of a Parliament, a by-election arose in Portsmouth. Directly I was adopted it was rushed forward—nobody protested—so that we could get it over before Goodwood, and we did.
  4.17 p.m.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas) has quoted one precedent. I am entitled to quote another, which occurred last year. The seat which I now hold fell vacant at roughly the same time of the year as Stratford-on-Avon fell vacant, yet it was decided that the electors of Dorset, South should remain unrepresented until 22nd October of that year.
  I wish to ask the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House why the electors of Dorset, South were kept waiting for so long in 1962 when, at the same time of the year, the electors of Stratford-on-Avon are being treated so specially well.
  The House is entitled to consider seriously the interests of the electors of Luton who remain disfranchised for all this period. The Government should give a satisfactory answer to the questions why the by-elections last year were allowed to wait for five months and why the electors of Luton are being kept waiting, whereas the electors of Stratford-on-Avon are receiving this very special treatment.
  4.18 p.m.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: I want to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). We owe him a debt of gratitude for raising this matter today. I agree very much with the proposal advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). A definite procedure should be agreed between the two sides. The practice of selecting the most advantageous date for the interests of party should be abolished as soon as possible. I hope that the Chief Patronage Secretary will seriously consider making representations to the Opposition Front Bench on this matter.
  I want to devote the major portion of my argument to the case of workers who may be on holiday. Undoubtedly, a fair number of workpeople will be on holiday in the relevant week. This is monstrous. Those of us who have been deeply embroiled in political struggle through the years know that the active people in any party are the workers. They are the people who make up the rank and file of the Labour Party or the Liberal Party or the Tory Party. I put the Tory Party

  1281
  last. It is not necessarily in order of merit that I place the parties in this order.
  We have here a real chance to show the country that on both sides of the House we believe in democracy and in the ordinary workpeople. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know that there are mutterings by hon. Members opposite. Many hon. Members opposite do not believe in democracy. This was illustrated clearly by the remarks made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas) when he told a funny story to make his contribution to the debate.
  But some of us do not regard this as a time when we should tell funny stories. We think that this is serious and that great regard ought to be paid to the fact that many workpeople will be on holiday during that period and that many of them will be unable to get back for the election. They do not all have cars, and they cannot afford to pay a double fare to return home the day of the election. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite talk as if workers had plenty of money and they were all in the £20a-week class. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Stop muttering, you, and if you have anything to say, get up and say it.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I was not muttering. But this habit is growing, and it interferes with our debate; it is essential that observations should be addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. Manuel: I apologise for using the word "you", Mr. Speaker. I certainly did not mean you. You know that I did not mean you, and you know who I did mean. I humbly apologise, but I ask you, when the House is dealing with a subject which some of us consider to be serious, to control the ignoramuses on the other side of the House who have been making those remarks.
  I want to propose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. and gallant Member for Davenport is a bladder of ignorance.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order, coupled with a point of behaviour. Should the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) refer to me as the hon. Member for Davenport when I
  1282
  am the proud and happy representative of the division of Knutsford?
  Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) would not have misnamed the constituency save in error, but if we are all to correct our errors all the time we shall not get on.
  Mr. Manuel: I am sorry, but if the cap fits….
  I want to finish by pointing out that there may be a few Service men who want to be ex-Service men and who want to play some part in politics. They may want to be candidates. They ought to be given the opportunity to qualify to stand as candidate it they so wish. I hope that the Leader of the House will take some note of these points and give this matter the serious consideration which I, at any rate, think that it deserves.
  4.23 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): May I reply, starting with the general and moving to the particular? The general point raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) and other hon. Members is as to how the House should discharge its duty in these matters. The position as I understand it is that any hon. Member can, if he so desires, at any time after a seat becomes vacant move a Writ. But for a long time it has been the convention of the House that that Writ should be moved by the representative of the party which was successful at the previous election in that seat.
  I do not know exactly how long this has been going on, but I know that in 1905 there was an exchange of letters between the two parties of the day, the Liberal and Conservative parties, confirming this, and saying—this is still carried out—that they would give 24 hours' notice to the parties in the House of their intention to move the Writ. It has been going on for a very long time.
  The House will see at once that if this were altered—that is to say, if it were put to a vote of the House—the people who would lose would be the minority party, because inevitably the Government could then pick the date for every by-election. For example, if an hon. Member of the opposition party died suddenly, and if, in that seat, the Government had a candidate, perhaps adopted only a few

  1283
  days before, and if the Government could move the Writ at once, that would put the opposition party concerned, or the minority parties, as the House will agree, in a very difficult position.
  This tradition, therefore, which like most of our traditions and conventions has grown up in this way, has a great deal of sense behind it. It may be that somebody can think of a better way—and I do not rule out the suggestion that there should be talks about it—but, on the whole, I think that it has worked satisfactorily over the years, and that we should be very chary of changing it, because, as Leader of the House, I am sure that this rule, with the Government having the majority in the House, is a protection to the party which forms the Opposition. We should, therefore, think very carefully indeed before we adopted any other method.
  The second question asked is whether there is any distinction between this seat and the other seats which are vacant, or, if hon. Members like to take the point, the seat of South Dorset a year or two ago. The answer is, "Yes, there is". The seats which are vacant at the moment, three of which were Conservative-held at the last election and one of which was Labour-held, are Belfast, South, Luton, Stratford-on-Avon and West Dundee. Two of those have become vacant because of death, one because of being appointed to a peerage and the other, that which we are considering at the moment, because of the technical arrangements for taking an office of profit under the Crown.
  I think that I am right in saying that the Writ in respect of a peerage, which applies to Luton, and which also applied to Dorset, South a year ago, and the Writs which have arisen as a result of the sad death of two of our former colleagues, one on each side of the House, can be moved when the House is not sitting, but that which we are considering cannot be so moved. There is, therefore, the strongest reason why this is different. One could move it next week if particular importance were attached to that. I will come to the point about holidays in a moment.
  To move it next week would still take in the period of August Bank holiday, and I cannot see any particular relevance
  1284
  in that point. The point which I make, and which the House will acknowledge, is that there is a distinction between Stratford-on-Avon and the other Writs which could be moved if either the Patronage Secretary or the Opposition Chief Whip chose to do so.
  The next point is that of precedents, which the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) dismissed so abruptly. There are precedents for a number of matters in these cases. Of the last two occasions when there had been objections moved to the Writ, one was Orpington in 1962, and the other was a by-election in 1957, The objection made in 1957 was that the Conservative Party was moving the Writ too swiftly. In 1962, the objection was that it was moving the Writ too slowly. In 1963, the objection is that we are moving the Writ too swiftly. Therefore, the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) is, with respect, perfectly valid; the action in this case is not as swift as all that, because this seat has now been vacant for seven weeks.
  I think that I carry the House on the general point of the convention we have had for many years which is, on the whole a protection, not for Governments, but for any minority party in the House.
  A number of hon. Members have said that to have an election in August, is for some reason, almost ex hypothesi unfair. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said that he had found a precedent since the war, and he is quite right, in Mid-Ulster, but in 1946 the Writ for Glasgow, Bridgeton was moved in August and the poll took place in August—and that was a seat that had been held by the Labour Government—[An Hon. Member: "July."] I shall come to that, because there I think that the argument is with me.
  Stratford-on-Avon has no connection here with holidays, but Luton is an industrial town and has an annual holiday. I can understand the holiday argument, but that is not what we are considering here. Stratford-on-Avon is a tourist centre. As hon. Members very well must know, in July and August people do not go on holiday from Stratford-on-Avon; on the contrary, they take their holidays at other times of the year—
  Mr. Manuel: Not all of them.
  Mr. Macleod: Yes, I suggest they do, just as is done in many seaside resorts as well.
  I therefore make two points. First, someone might devise a timed method, but I do not believe that that would work, as there might well be complications in the selection of a candidate—for either side of the House. It might well be that the unions concerned or the local parties concerned might want rather longer, or be ready to go ahead rather earlier. I am content, subject to any better method being devised, to leave this to the Chief Whip of the party, however small that party may be, that held the seat at the previous election. I cannot believe that the House would be wise to go back on that arrangement.
  Secondly, there are precedents for this action as, indeed, there are precedents for most dates for the moving of Writs. Thirdly, I am sure that if one studies the special case of Stratford-on-Avon, the argument put forward in relation to holidays tells rather for the issue of the Writ at this time than against it.
  I believe, therefore, that the House would be wise to support the Motion.
  Mr. James Griffiths: Before the Leader of the House sits down, may I ask him a question? I shall not argue with him, although I a man old politician. I served on one of the Speaker's conferences in 1945. We used to have the register made up twice a year, but that was stopped for reasons of sheer economy. Is it not time to consider, in order to ensure that if we have a by-election or a General Election during the half-way period the register is up to date, restoring the earlier procedure by which the register was made up twice a year?
  Mr. Macleod: We can certainly look at that point. That was part of the objection, I remember it well, taken to the moving of the Writ in 1957. That, however, is rather a matter for discussion, if discussion be necessary. I do not think that it affects the principle, to which I advise the House to adhere, that the moving of the Writ should remain with the party that held the seat.
  4.35 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has been fair with us on one point We understand that all the hotel proprietors and boarding-
  1286
  house keepers in Stratford-on-Avon, from whom the Conservative Party in that constituency draws most of its support, will be able to vote in August, and will probably be taking their holidays, as most of those in that category of business do, in October or November, on the Continent. That is very often done.
  What the right hon. Gentleman has not told the House is that there are hundreds of commuters between Coventry and Birmingham and Stratford-on-Avon—engineers, electricians—who work in the Midlands and who will probably be on holiday in this very week. It is they who will be denied the right to vote, because a postal vote cannot be obtained if the ground is merely one of holidays.
  I put this point to the Leader of the House. Outside this House there is already a deep cynicism about Parliament, and that cynicism will grow if practices like this continue. The tree of democracy is not so deeply rooted that we can afford to have it poisoned with more cynicism, which is bound to happen if the man in the street and the factory feel that those who hold power are using it to prevent them from taking an active part in the decision that the country will make as a result of this by-election.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. Macleod: With the leave of the House, if it is needed, may I say that I am, of course, aware of that point but, with the holiday system as it is at the moment, that argument applies with very considerable force to by-elections in June and July—for which there are dozens of precedents on both sides—and to elections in many other months as well. I will say this to the hon. Gentleman and, across the Floor, to the Opposition Front Bench: I would dearly like to see legislation enabling people to vote when they are away on holiday, and if I could be assured of the Opposition's support I would be ready to bring in a Bill to that end.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county constituency of Stratford in the room of John Dennis Profumo, esquire, O.B.E., who, since his election for the said county constituency. hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke. Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of the House to a printing error on page 24 of the Bill. Clause 50 is there described as Clause 49. As this is a comparatively minor mistake and the Clauses are correctly numbered in the table of Clauses at the front of the Bill, I have not thought it necessary to have the Bill reprinted.
  Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Schedule 4, page 34, line 30, and page 35, line 19, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. William Ross, and in respect of the Amendment to Schedule 4, page 34, line 44, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Bruce Millan.—[Mr. Ross.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  Schedule 4.—(AMENDMENT OF LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) ACT 1949.)
  Mr. Bruce Millan: I beg to move, in page 34, line 30, at the end to insert:
  Provided that where the offence with which the accused is charged is an offence for which imprisonment without the option of a fine is a competent penalty, a legal aid certificate will be granted by the court unless in the opinion of the court there are special circumstances which make it inappropriate to grant such a certificate and in such a case the court shall state the reason for its opinion and the reason shall be entered in the record of the proceedings.
  The Chairman: I think that it would also be convenient to discuss the second Amendment, in line 30, and the third Amendment in page 35, line 19, with the Committee voting if required on the first and the third Amendments. These further Amendments are: In page 34, line 30, at end insert:
  Provided that where the offence with which the accused is charged is an offence for which imprisonment without the option of a fine is a competent penalty and a legal aid certificate is not granted by the court, the court shall
  1288
  state the reason for its opinion that it is not in the interests of justice that a legal aid certificate should be granted and the reason shall be entered in the record of the proceedings.
  and, in page 35, line 19, at end insert:
  (b) in any case the court mentioned in paragraphs (a) or (b) of the last foregoing subsection has not made legal aid available to an accused person in pursuance of this section, and the offence with which that person is charged is an offence for which imprisonment without the option of a fine is a competent penalty, it shall be competent for him to make application to the High Court of Justiciary for the granting of a legal aid certificate.
  Mr. Millan: It would be convenient, as you say, Sir William, to discuss these Amendments together. They are connected with the granting of legal aid in criminal cases in circumstances where the accused person is charged with an offence for which imprisonment without option of a fine is a competent penalty. Perhaps before I explain the terms of the Amendment I might be permitted to say something about the background to them.
  In a way, it was a pity that when we were discussing this question on similar Amendments in Committee upstairs we did not have the time to say something more about the legal aid background in Scotland. We have had in Scotland a system of legal aid in criminal cases which is long-established and which has provided a comprehensive system of aid at sheriff's courts and courts above those. This system has been carried out on a voluntary basis by solicitors and advocates in Scotland. The question whether or not the Government should take responsibility for this system of legal aid or afford an alternative system of aid was discussed in the Report by the Guthrie Committee on Legal Aid in Criminal Proceedings, published in May, 1960, as Command 1015.
  The Report produces the reasons why it was thought not desirable in the Committee's view, if the Government were to introduce a statutory system of legal aid, that there should be repeated the provisions of a system which has worked voluntarily under the Poor Rolls system. The appropriate paragraphs in tie Guthrie Report include, firstly, paragraph 113 where it was suggested that it was unduly comprehensive to institute a system of legal

  1289
  aid to all accused persons at all stages in all courts of first instance. This was for the reason given in paragraph 91.
  4.45 p.m.
  The reasons given in that paragraph for not introducing the most comprehensive system of legal aid are not reasons which strictly speaking have anything to do with justice as such. They have to do with the practical difficulty of the expense that would be involved in a completely comprehensive system and all the strains which would be placed on the legal profession, the resources of the court, and so on. But even the Guthrie Committee, taking account of these circumstances and accepting that a completely comprehensive system of legal aid in criminal cases would not be desirable—and I certainly accept that for the burgh or J.P. courts though not necessarily for the sheriff's courts—yet made the recommendation in paragraph 120 that where a person appeared before a sheriff's court in summary proceedings, legal aid should be granted in all circumstances where that person was charged with an offence for which imprisonment without the option of a fine would be a competent penalty.
  It seems to me that this is the kind of distinction which ought to be drawn in any statutory system of legal aid. There are, of course, arguments as to where exactly one should draw the line between giving legal aid as it were as a right and giving it in certain conditions, perhaps as appears in Schedule 4 at present, at the discretion of the court. Certainly, a line must be drawn at some point, but it seemed to me, and it seems to me now, and to my hon. Friends, on reconsidering the matter, that the line ought to have been drawn at the point where the Guthrie Committee drew it.
  The Guthrie Committee said that where imprisonment without the option of a fine was a competent penalty then, provided that the conditions about financial eligibility were met, the accused person should have legal aid as of right. But the Government have whittled down this provision even further, and I repeat that the Guthrie Committee recommendation was something less than is actually being applied in many sheriff's courts in Scotland at present under the voluntary Poor Rolls system. What the Government have
  1290
  done is to say that except in certain circumstances, which are laid out in the substitutes section (2) on page 35 of the Bill, in the case of summary proceedings it shall be at the discretion of the court whether or not legal aid should be granted in any particular case.
  The discretion of the court is set in the broadest terms, because all that the court has to do is to decide whether it considers that
  "…in all the circumstances of the case it is in the interests of justice that legal aid should be available to the accused".
  That is a quotation from paragraph (b) as it now stands. I cannot imagine anything more widely drawn than these two phrases, "in all the circumstances" and "in the interests of justice". This gives an unlimited discretion to a court to decide whether an accused person appearing before it should be given legal aid.
  In my view, there is something inherently objectionable in this provision. There will grow up, in practice, a series of local anomalies as between one sheriff court and another because one sheriff-substitute will have ideas entirely different from those of another about the kind of cases in which it is in the interests of justice that legal aid should be available. If we are to provide statutory legal aid, and if we are to put certain responsibilities on the court for deciding in which cases that legal aid shall be given, we ought to lay down guiding lines for the sheriffs-substitute who will be involved as to the kind of considerations and circumstances which we wish them to take into account. Otherwise, the matter will be left completely open and there will be the danger that different standards will be applied in different parts of the country.
  In Standing Committee, I moved an Amendment which would have provided that, in any case where an accused was charged with an offence for which imprisonment without the option of a fine was a competent penalty, it should be mandatory, again provided that the financial circumstances of the accused were right, to give legal aid. The noble Lady the Under-Secretary of State rejected that Amendment. The series of Amendments with which we are now dealing do not go as far as that. I shall now explain their effect.
  The first Amendment would make it mandatory for the court to grant legal aid where the offence was of the kind I have described unless, in the opinion of the court, there were special circumstances which made it inappropriate for a certificate to be granted, and in such a case the court would be obliged to state its reasons for the opinion that there were such special circumstances. In other words, in a case of this kind there would be a presumption that legal aid would be granted unless there were special circumstances making it unreasonable so to do.
  The Amendment provides further that, if there were these special circumstances, the court would be obliged to state what they were, and also it would be obliged to have them entered in the record of proceedings. This latter provision is inserted for a very simple reason. Similar provisions in entirely different connections have been inserted at other points in the Bill. In this instance, it is inserted because, if a court has to make a decision which must be stated on the record, the decision will be arrived at in an extremely careful manner and the court will have to satisfy itself that it has not just vague reasons for turning down an application but quite precise reasons.
  It is, therefore, a safeguard for an accused person. I do not for a moment suggest that the courts, in their consideration of applications for legal aid, will not give serious thought to them, but there is a sanction in having to state one's reasons for turning down an application, and, having regard to the importance of the kind of cases with which we are here dealing, it is, I suggest, a most valuable sanction to apply.
  The second Amendment in page 34, line 30 does not go quite as far as the first. It does not say that it will normally be mandatory to grant legal aid unless there are special circumstances, but again it says that, when a court does not grant legal aid in cases in which imprisonment without the option of a fine is a competent penalty, the court shall be required to state its reasons and have them entered on the record of proceedings. Again, this is a safeguard. It is not quite so useful a safeguard as the one provided by the first Amendment, but it is still a safeguard for the accused person.
  The third Amendment which we are discussing, in page 35, line 19, to insert a new paragraph (b), attacks the problem from a rather different standpoint. Whereas the first two Amendments are alternatives, the third could either stand by itself or be coupled with one or other of the first two. It gives to an accused person the right to appeal to the High Court of Justiciary from a decision of the summary court that legal aid shall not be granted. This is important for two reasons. First, it will give the accused person a right to appeal in circumstances in which it can be proved or averred that it is in the interests of justice that legal aid should be granted. In a sense, this is the main right of appeal.
  It is important, also, because, so one hopes, it will introduce, perhaps not at the summary court level itself but at a higher level, the element of uniformity which will be completely lacking if the Schedule is allowed to remain unamended. It will place the summary courts under an obligation to remember that, since there will be the possibility of appeal to a higher court, there is need for them to establish some sort of uniformity of procedure and approach to the kind of circumstances and considerations which should be taken into account in dealing with applications for legal aid.
  Even though the noble Lady was not able to accept the rather stronger Amendment moved in the Standing Committee, I hope very much that, for all the reasons I have given, she will be able to accept at least one of the Amendments which we now put to the Committee.
  5.0 p.m.
  The noble Lady rejected the Amendment in Committee upstairs principally on the ground of practicality. Reading the Committee proceedings again, I find it extremely difficult to understand what she meant by that. Presumably she meant that if the circumstances in which legal aid became mandatory from the statutory point of view were widened beyond what is laid down in the Fourth Schedule the courts would be swamped with legal applications, there would be many more pleas of not guilty, the courts' time would be taken up by having to deal at length with more cases than they deal with now and there would be far more appeals, and so on.
  These are, of course, all important administrative considerations, but if our courts are not able to cope with the demands of justice as they should the remedy lies in improving the facilities in the courts, in ensuring that they are adequately staffed and that there is an adequate number of sheriffs-substitute, and so on. The remedy does not lie in whittling down the system of voluntary legal aid which has operated in Scotland for a considerable time. I find it offensive that we should introduce into our statutory system legal aid provisions which are considerably less favourable to accused persons than those which at present operate on a voluntary basis.
  It is true that without legal aid of any kind in criminal cases there would be one law for the rich and one law for the poor. People who were able to afford legal representation obviously would have it, whereas people who were not able to afford it would not. We have accepted that that would be completely intolerable. Once we accept that, we accept the principle of legal aid in criminal cases and, having accepted it, it is absolutely essential that we put the principle into practice in the most liberal way consonant with the administrative and other circumstances and with reasonable provision for ensuring that every accused person has a fair trial and that his defence is properly put forward. My view is that that will not happen under the Schedule as it is drafted.
  I hope very much that, for the reasons which I have given, the noble Lady will accept one or other of the Amendments.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I support the Amendments, which are very similar to those moved in Committee upstairs and which were rejected by the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has covered the case for the Amendments very well and I merely wish to emphasise some of the points which he has made.
  The Government are departing from the recommendations of the Guthrie Committee, but that does not weigh a great deal with me. Committees make reports, not necessarily for us to accept their recommendations, but in order that we may have the necessary information and their opinions on which we can base
  1294
  our own judgment. It is, nevertheless, important to notice that in this respect the Government are departing from the recommendations of the Guthrie Committee which devoted much of its Report to putting the various arguments.
  I now come to the matters which seem to me important. The first undoubtedly is that the Government's attitude means that we are taking a retrograde step in Scotland. We are denying legal aid to people who formerly obtained it under the old poor law system.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir)The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but this is what it means. The Bill restricts the legal aid provisions and that is something about which the Government should think very carefully. The intention of the Labour Government in the 1949 Act was not that the existing provisions should be restricted but that they should be extended and should cover a wider range of people in Scotland.
  The second bad thing about the Bill—and it has caused a great deal of comment in Scotland—is that we shall be operating a system of legal aid in criminal cases which will be determined not by Parliament but by the sheriffs. We shall not decide the cases in which legal aid shall be granted. This decision will be made by the sheriffs, who do not want this responsibility—at least, the sheriffs to whom I have spoken do not want it. Surely the noble Lady recognises that it will be most unsatisfactory if the practice in Fife differs from that in Renfrew, if the practice in Dumbarton differs from that in Edinburgh or if the practice in Ayrshire differs from that in Glasgow. This is what will happen under the Bill, and it seems to me a most undesirable state of affairs. The proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton would remedy that situaton.
  What are the circumstances that a sheriff has to take into consideration when he decides whether people appearing before him under the summary procedure should be given legal aid? I have a rough idea of some of them from the words in the Bill, which are very general. A person will not have legal aid unless
  "the court considers that in all the circumstances of the case it is in the interests of justice that legal aid should be available to the accused…"

  1295
  Is the sheriff the right person to make this decision? After all, a sheriff is a trained lawyer. He is not a trained National Assistance official. The officials of the National Assistance Board have expert knowledge and a very wide experience of dealing with these matters, and, while I do not suggest that we should introduce the National Assistance procedure here, I say that the type of experience required to make this sort of decision is different from the experience which a sheriff may possess.
  Sheriffs have said to me, "We are not the people to make these decisions. This is not our job. It is something new to us". I do not know whether the decision will be made by the clerks of the court, but this is what sheriffs have said to me. In these circumstances, it seems to me that it would be better if the hon. Lady accepted these Amendments.
  When we discussed this matter in Committee upstairs, the reasons put forward by the hon. Lady as to why she could not accept the Amendment were rather unsatisfactory. I am treating her in my usual generous and courteous manner. The main reason boiled down to the question of practicality. I remind the hon. Lady of what she said in Committee. First, she simply said that it was on grounds of practicality and left it at that. We prodded her and obtained a further explanation of what she meant by saying that it was difficult in practice. The hon. Lady then said:
  "The practical point is that in a busy sheriff court where, in Glasgow, for instance, numbers of accused may be in custody, there would be delay in the disposal of cases if the court had to consider both the accused's means and the desirability of his receiving legal aid."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 25th June, 1963; c. 663.]
  The hon. Lady does not have much faith in her own Government, because she assumes that these conditions in Glasgow will continue. Surely, the hon. Lady is not such a pessimist as to think that the wonderful Government of which she is a member is unable to produce better conditions in the sheriff courts in Glasgow. I understand that the Government have set up a Committee to go into the whole business of sheriff courts and sheriff court procedure—the whole set-up, which, incidentally, is a "racket".
  1296
  It would be out of order to discuss this "racket", but it is one which calls for a lot of criticism.
  If the Government are inquiring into the whole practice of the sheriff courts, surely, as a result, we can hope to see an improvement of the provisions in Glasgow. Everyone will agree that it is extremely undesirable that people should be kept in custody waiting for their cases to be dealt with. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of the Government to devise a procedure to appoint additional people, sheriffs substitute or whatever they may be, if necessary, to prevent this situation. Is not that the way to deal with it? It is not a difficult matter.
  If, as appeared from the hon. Lady's speech in Committee, the only practical difficulty—it was the only one she mentioned—is that people might be kept in custody rather longer than they otherwise would be awaiting disposal of their cases, I suggest that in most of the sheriff courts this does not apply, because they are not busy enough, and that it is only in one or two sheriff courts that it applies, Glasgow being the notable case. In the case of Glasgow, everyone knows what the answer should be and everyone could solve this question. If we had another Government, we could solve the problem within a couple of weeks.
  The hon. Lady's excuse is pathetic, because it shows such little confidence in her colleagues and in the ability of the Scottish Office to solve an elementary problem that a high-school child could solve. We have five or six Ministers at the Scottish Office—I have lost count of them—with a great array of talent, both masculine and feminine, yet we are unable to produce a solution to this little problem. This is not worthy of any Government who are anxious to maintain the continued support of the people of Scotland. In view of all this, I ask the hon. Lady to consider our proposals.
  5.15 p.m.
  My feeling is that the fault is not that of the Scottish Office but rather of the Treasury, which is not prepared to accept this financial responsibility. It might cost a few thousand £s more. That was why, in Committee, the hon. Lady gave the argument of practical reasons and not of principle. I always thought that the principles were rather more important

  1297
  than the practical difficulties if those difficulties were capable of solution. Now, we have the strange doctrine that principles, apparently, do not matter provided that some squalid little practical difficulty can be produced.
  If we are to treat the people of Scotland as they ought to be treated in this respect, if we are to make the Bill effective and give equality of treatment to those appearing before the courts, which is a sound principle, we should accept the Amendment. I hope the hon. Lady will be forthcoming and will say that because of the brilliant expositions to which she has listened, both in Committee and today, she has been persuaded of the correct-ness of the course that we propose and will gracefully tell us that she is accepting our Amendments. Then, the Committee can proceed amicably.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) moved the Amendment with his usual persuasiveness. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that it was a brilliant exposition, which he himself ably supported. The hon. Member for Craigton will be disappointed but, perhaps, not entirely unaware that I am unable to accept any of the three Amendments.
  The hon. Member for Craigton did right to give us the background of the whole legal aid system in Scotland and I was glad that he accepted that one must draw the line somewhere. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East did less than justice to the system which we are proposing by saying that it was a retrograde step. Although it is true that at the moment we are talking of that part of the Schedule which concerns summary cases, nevertheless the hon. Member will, in justice, agree that under the present system there is no legal aid in summary appeals and that although representation is available, in theory, in cited cases in the sheriff summary court, that seldom happens in practice. In addition, apart from that, there is no representation in the J.P. juvenile court.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Craigton about the able way in which he has drafted the Amendments. Although he said that they did not go nearly as far as the more vigorous Amendment which he moved in Committee, nevertheless they
  1298
  have the same intention, and he was honest enough to say so.
  The first of the three Amendments would alter the whole emphasis of the relevant paragraph of the Schedule, at least as far as it concerns offences punishable by imprisonment. The court would need to consider, not whether a legal aid certificate should be granted in the interests of justice, but whether there were special circumstances in which a certificate should not be granted. In the nature of things, the granting of a certificate would become the rule and not the exception, and that is what the hon. Member wished to achieve. For the reasons which I gave in Committee upstairs, however, the decision should be left to the discretion of the court, and I must advise hon. Members not to accept the Amendment.
  The second Amendment has the same object as the first, namely, to ensure that in a certain category of summary proceedings, the grant of a legal aid certificate by the court would be the rule and the refusal of a certificate would be the exception. The hon. Gentleman has selected a category of proceedings and has used in respect of them words which clearly imply that in those proceedings a legal aid certificate is normally to be given and is to be withheld only as a very exceptional measure.
  If we turn to the third Amendment, the one to line 19, page 35, this Amendment would provide an appeal against a finding by a summary court or by a sheriff before whom an accused has appeared on indictment, that the accused, who must be an accused person charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment, is able, without undue hardship to himself or to his dependants, to meet the expenses of his case without calling on the Legal Aid Fund. Even the Guthrie Committee, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, did not mention the possibility of an appeal from a decision by the court that an accused person is able to pay for his own defence. I cannot, therefore, refer to a recommendation on this subject. I feel sure, however, that if the Guthrie Committee had considered the possibility of an appeal of this kind it would have dismissed it for this reason, because if hon. Members will reread the chapter of the Report that deals with financial eligibility for legal aid they will find that Lord

  1299
  Guthrie and his colleagues kept very prominently in mind the need to devise a system which would get the whole question of financial eligibility decided as quickly as possible. In paragraph 154 they said:
  "The great advantage of determination of financial eligibility by the court is speed"
  and they claim that the procedure which they devised, namely, a
  "(declaration by the accused person, hearing and determination by the court) could all be carried out without delay."
  The hon. Gentleman will remember, of course, that I quoted this in Committee.
  In the following paragraph there is again the suggestion of speed and urgency in the Committee's final recommendation that financial eligibility for legal aid in criminal proceedings should be determined by the court on the basis of a written declaration of resources by the accused person and a summary hearing, and I must emphasise the term "summary", at which the prosecutor is present and entitled to be heard. Therefore, if the Amendment were accepted the advantages of speed and finality would be lost without, I think, any significant improvement in the merits of the scheme at present put forward to the House.
  Both hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon rather questioned what I said in putting forward our own system, and I may say that it is the one and only point on which we dissent from the Guthrie Report. Both hon. Members questioned the words I used when I said it was for "practical reasons". The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East seemed to think that I had not given enough thought as to why it was practical. I suggest that if he turns to page 47 of the Report and reads paragraph 162 he will read the following:
  "Arrested persons must be brought before the court as soon as possible and the stage at which they plead guilty or not guilty to the charge may be reached only a few hours after their arrest. (They have a right to ask for an adjournment but they may not do so.) It would clearly not be practicable to have financial eligibility determined before that stage is reached."
  Therefore, it is for that reason that we have said that where a man is in custody and is being prosecuted summarily he shall have legal aid as of right, and although this is the one major recom-
  1300
  mendation of Guthrie to which the hon. Gentleman attaches much importance I am afraid I cannot accept his Amendment.
  Mr. William Ross: We started off with a very disappointing decision by the Government. I had hoped for a better decision, because we see the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland appended to some of our Amendments and we hear rumours that the Government may even be prepared to accept some others, of which, so far, no written indication has been given. I hope that the importance of what we are doing is not going to be lost on the Committee because here we are making a last ditch stand. We can only do this on Recommittal. I say that because there is a Motion on the Order Paper relating to this tonight.
  The part of the Bill that we are dealing with now was the part dealt with last in Committee, and I think the hon. Lady will be the first to admit that it probably did not get all the time that it merited because of the pressure of other work that has to be dealt with by the Scottish Committee. So a Recommittal stage is absolutely essential. I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not use her time between Committee, Report and Recommittal to have another look at the matter.
  I admit that the hon. Lady's arguments, in so far as they were arguments at all, were not quite so controversial as the ones she used on the last occasion, but I do not think that they are satisfying. What are we doing? Whether we like it or not or whether the hon. Lady likes it or not, we have on the Statute Book at the moment legislation which could give to Scotland full comprehensive cover in relation to legal aid in criminal cases. It came before the House in 1949 and was accepted by the House in 1949. The only thing that has never been done in relation to it is the application of a date as to when it would start.
  With the continued pressure on the Government to do something about it and with the breakdown of the existing system of legal aid that we have had in Scotland in respect of poor persons for nearly 400 years, the Government were forced to act, and so we had established a Committee to look into the question of the extension

  1301
  of legal aid to criminal cases. The outcome of that was a reduction of the comprehensive nature of the cover in respect of that legal aid, and what we have in the Bill, and which the hon. Lady has again been defending, is a still further reduction. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend was right to use the words "retrograde step". Let us remember that once this system is put into operation we lose the benefits which there may be in particular areas under the present system. There is no doubt at all about that.
  When I refer to the arguments which the hon. Lady would have been far better not to have used in Committee, I would remind her of the despairing argument which she used in order to convince us, that we are doing more in Scotland than they are in England. But the Guthrie Committee pointed out that if we take the existing system of help in criminal cases given freely and voluntarily by the legal profession in Scotland, and which it has been given for centuries, 10 per cent of the cases coming before the courts are covered.
  In this benighted land where they have had the advantage of legal aid in criminal cases through a more recent Act of Parliament, the number of cases for which cover is given is 1 per cent. So for goodness sake do not let us suggest that we should base anything that we do in this respect on what England does today. Rather let us base it on what Scotland did 400 years ago. If we did that we should get a far better cover than the Government here propose.
  We are not asking for all that we would like to ask for. As I said, this is a last-ditch stand. In Committee we suggested that in all cases coming before the summary courts—sheriff courts sitting in summary proceedings, the police court, the borough court and the magistrates'court—anyone charged with an offence for which the punishment would be imprisonment without the option of a fine should have the right of a defence.
  5.30 p.m.
  If we deny that right it does not mean no one will have a defence, but it does mean that those who have the defence are those who are able to pay for it. So we get the distinction we have always
  1302
  objected to, and which was met in Scotland so many years ago, on chance for the rich and another for the poor.
  Why do we suggest this should be done in summary courts and in magistrates' courts? We suggest that because of the simple fact that half the criminal cases in Scotland are dealt with in the smaller courts, or the less important courts, the sheriffs' courts and the J.P. courts. There is evidence given by a stipendiary magistrate from Glasgow and quoted in the Guthrie Report that in these courts many people, not having legal advice, plead guilty to offences of which they are not guilty. Thus people achieve a criminal record which may stand them in pretty poor stead—in relation to this Bill later on, but perhaps in their lives also, and simply because of ignorance, simply because of convenience. They certainly would not do that if they had legal aid available at the proper time. So from that point of view I think it desirable that cover should be provided there in these cases.
  We have limited our Amendments to the important thing, and we have given a way out for the courts by saying we will give a certain discretion to the courts to refuse legal aid in "special circumstances". As soon as we say that, the hon. Lady asks, "How is the court to interpret the special circumstances? It means the court will automatically grant legal aid in these cases." If she is going to ask that question I am going to ask her a question.
  She is leaving decisions in relation to this whole body of cases with which we have been dealing, including those of this particular type carrying very serious consequences, to the discretion of the court as it is, but there is no definition or guidance given the court as to the basis of its decision within its discretion. And nothing is to be written about it. It is just to be handed down. The person who has applied for legal aid and is refused it has just got to accept the refusal. It is a complete and absolute discretion which is given to the courts, that is, the magistrates' courts and the sheriffs' courts.
  I think both my hon. Friends have said that the magistrates' courts do not want it. Certainly the sheriff courts do not. But most of our magistrates in

  1303
  Scotland are politicians. The hon. Lady, coming from Aberdeen, knows that. Aberdeen is a city which has got burghal rights. It still has, in spite of the intentions of the Secretary of State in his miserable White Paper about modernising local government in Scotland. Magistrates are chosen from the town council, who are party politicians. We are placing those people in a position to state who shall and who shall not get legal aid.
  Can one wonder that they do not want to wield this power—especially when we give them no guidance as to the basis on which they will adjudicate such decisions?
  Equally, the sheriffs, I am perfectly sure, do not want it. They are under sufficient pressure and criticism in relation to varying standards of justice meted out under their own present discretion. Here they have to begin these cases by deciding whether or not persons will have the benefit of a defence. What does it mean? It means that in Aberdeen, in Ayr, in Edinburgh, in Glasgow, in Lanarkshire, in the different sheriffdoms in Scotland, different attitudes will betaken in relation to the same type of person and the same type of case.
  If the hon. Lady thinks this is going to lead to confidence in the administration of justice, well, I certainly do not. Indeed, if the case is started with the person who is charged already having a feeling of grouse about the court's decision as to whether or not he is to be defended, he will hardly be entirely satisfied that he has had justice if eventually he is found guilty by the court and sentenced by the court. He will hardly feel he has had justice when we start on the basis of injustice.
  All these conflicts, these pressures, are built into this giving of discretion to individuals. I am perfectly sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson), who has been a Glasgow magistrate, will appreciate the difficulties into which we are putting individuals. I do not think it is right. I do not think it is fair. We have to remember that of all the cases which come before the lower courts in Scotland only about 3 per cent. are defended cases, but I wonder how many
  1304
  of them would be defended but for the absence of cover under the existing system and if people had the money to pay for it.
  It is for this reason that I feel very strongly about this matter. I do not think the reply we have had from the hon. Lady has in any way met the case put by my hon. Friends. From the point of view of justice and fairness as between individuals, and from the point of view of magistrates and sheriffs themselves having to wield an unwanted discretion, and from the point of view of the person who is being dealt with, I think it would have been far, far better—if not accepting the whole of Guthrie—if the Government had seen their way to accept one or another of these Amendments—one or other of the first two, and certainly the third. I do not think the hon. Lady replied to that one at all. She replied to one which has not been moved yet, about financial eligibility, which, so far as I know, we are not discussing at the moment.
  But that is not the only mistake the Government have made about this. Their real mistake, of course, is that they based their findings about this not on the type of people concerned, and not on justice, but only on convenience, the convenience of the courts, and on the lack of resources, and have gone no way at all to meet part of the case.
  We certainly have not taken the opportunity we had to burnish our reputation in legal aid in Scotland. Do not let us slip down even a slight way towards the miserable English record in this matter. I am sorry indeed that the noble Lady has given us such a disappointing reply. She said she rather thought we would expect that disappointing reply. I am going to surprise her. We did not except a disappointing reply. We thought she was the one Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who could assert herself. There is still time. Before we pass from these Amendments, I sincerely hope she rises to the occasion.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Lady has rejected the Amendments again, this time with a slight change in emphasis on the reasons for rejection. She quoted at great length from the Guthrie Report to show the need for speed. The argument

  1305
  used against our proposal is that it is wholly a question of speed.
  What would be the effect of our Amendments? As I understand the hon. Lady's argument, it is that a number of persons appearing before the courts would automatically become eligible for legal aid, and that would mean more work. Her argument would be valid if the Government proposed to take no action to cope with that additional work. The only case for accepting her argument is that the Government propose to do nothing about the additional work which would be created in the courts and, therefore, it would take longer to deal with the cases. Surely this cannot be so?
  The Guthrie Committee also drew attention to the fact that additional persons would be required in a number of cases to deal with additional work. I hope the hon. Lady will tell us that the Government accept this. If the Government accept it, what is the position in the sheriff courts and other courts? The position is that those courts which today are not very busy—there is a number of them—will be busier. Some of us think that will not be too bad a thing for some of the courts, for they will be justifying themselves rather more than they are doing today. That aside, in other courts the work will be of a character which will necessitate the appointment of additional persons. Glasgow is the outstanding example.
  The hon. Lady and the Government must face the position that when the Bill comes into operation they will have to appoint additional persons. Even if it means the appointment of yet another person to give effect to our Amendments, surely that is desirable if in the process we shall be doing something which is more just than what is now being done and gives greater equality of treatment to people appearing before the courts? That is our case.
  All I wanted to do was to point out the pathetic weakness of the case presented by the hon. Lady. I am surprised that she accepted it from those who handed it to her. I am surprised that her keen mind did not perceive that it could not carry much weight. One has only to examine it cursorily to see how very weak it is. There is no case for rejecting the Amendments other than the desire of the Government not to have to
  1306
  appoint one or two additional people in one or two of the courts to do the extra work involved. I should have thought it worth while doing this if we wanted to get a good scheme while we were tackling the problem.
  The Chairman: The Question is—
  Mr. Willis: Before we proceed, Sir William, perhaps the hon. Lady could tell us what the Government's intentions are about providing additional staff to cope with the work.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: As the hon. Gentleman said, an inquiry is being conducted into the whole working of the sheriff courts, and it may well be that when that is completed the reallocation of work may have an effect also on higher courts as well as on the sheriff courts. Therefore, until the inquiry is completed I could not possibly tell him what is being done about the extra people who will be required.
  However, I should like to take this opportunity—if we are to move to a decision on these Amendments it is important that I should take the opportunity—to make clear to the House exactly what is the extent of the legal aid which will be provided when the Bill is passed. It is governed by the First Schedule of the 1949 Act. This covers all courts. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) particularly devoted his speech to the problems of the magistrates' and burgh courts.
  Mr. Ross: And the sheriff courts.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Yes, but I am now talking about —
  Mr. Ross: There are rules of order, and when we are discussing Amendments we try, generally speaking, to stick to the subject of those Amendments.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: It is only to meet what the hon. Gentleman said—he was, clearly, not in order, but he was not observed—that I sought to answer his query. Therefore, as we are both, happily, apparently not observed, I will quickly say that it is intended to bring this system of legal aid in in stages. The Guthrie Committee itself recognised that it could not extend immediately to the burgh and magistrates' courts.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 172, Noes 182.

  Division No. 170.]

  AYES

  [5.46 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Ainsley, William

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Albu, Austen

  Hannan, William

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Harper, Joseph

  Pentland, Norman

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Barnett, Guy

  Hayman, F. H.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Price, J T. (Westhoughton)

  Bence, Cyril

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Probert, Arthur

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Benson, Sir George

  Holman, Percy

  Randall, Harry

  Blackburn, F.

  Holt, Arthur

  Redhead, E. C.

  Blyton, William

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Boardman, H.

  Hoy, James H.

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Rhodes, H.

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

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Bowles, Frank

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Boyden, James

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Rodger, W. T. (Stockton)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Ross, William

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jeger, George

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Short, Edward

  Chapman, Donald

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Silkin, John

  Cliffe, Michael

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Small, William

  Cronin, John

  Kelley, Richard

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Ledger, Ron

  Steele, Thomas

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Davies, c. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Stonehouse, John

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Stones, William

  Davies, Ifor (Cower)

  McBride, N.

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

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  MacColl, James

  Swingler, Stephen

  Deer, George

  McInnes, James

  Symonds, J. B.

  Dempsey, James

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Taverne, D.

  Donnelly, Desmond

  McLeavy, Frank

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Driberg, Tom

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mahon, Simon

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

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

  Thornton, Ernest

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Manuel, Archie

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mapp, Charles

  Wade, Donald

  Evans, Albert

  Mason, Roy

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Fernyhougrt, E,

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Warbey, William

  Finch, Harold

  Mendelson J. J.

  Weitzman, David

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Millan, Bruce

  Whitlock, William

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Milne, Edward

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Forman, J. C.

  Monslow, Walter

  Willey, Frederick

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Moody, A. S.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Morris, John

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Moyle, Arthur

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mulley, Frederick

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

  Grey, Charles

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Woof, Robert

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Oram, A. E.

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Owen, Will

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Lawson and Dr. Broughton.

  NOES

  Aitken, Sir William

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

  Allason, James

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Arbuthnot, John

  Box, Donald

  Cole, Norman

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Braine, Bernard

  Cooke, Robert

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Brewis, John

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Barber, Anthony

  Brooman-White, R.

  Cordle, John

  Barlow, Sir John

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Barter, John

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Costain, A. P.

  Batsford, Brian

  Butlard, Denys

  Coulson, Michael

  Bell, Ronald

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Crawley, Aidan

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

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

  Critchley, Julian

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Biffen, John

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

  Curran, Charles

  Bishop, F. P.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Doughty, Charles

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Pym, Francis

  Duncan, Sir James

  Kirk, Peter

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Duthie, Sir William

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Ramsden, James

  Eden, Sir John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rawlinson, Sir Peter

  Emery, Peter

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Farr, John

  Longden, Gilbert

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Fell, Anthony

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Fisher, Nigel

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McLaren, Martin

  Russell, Ronald

  Forrest, George

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Speir, Rupert

  Freeth, Denzil

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Gammans, Lady

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

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Maginnis, John E.

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Maitland, Sir John

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

  Goodhart, Philip

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Teeling, Sir William

  Gower, Raymond

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Temple, John M.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Gurden, Harold

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Mawby, Ray

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

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

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Turner, Colin

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morgan, William

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R, H.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Hendry, Forbes

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Walder, David

  Hiley, Joseph

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Walt, Patrick

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Webster, David

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

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Holland, Philip

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Hopkins, Alan

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Hornby, R. P.

  Partridge, E.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

  Peel, John

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Percival, Ian

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Mr. Frank Pearson and Mr. MacArthur.

  Jennings, J. C.

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 34, line 44, to leave out from "satisfied" to end of line 47 and to insert:
  "that his financial circumstances make him eligible for such aid in accordance with criteria to be laid down in regulations prescribed by the Secretary of State.
  Regulations made for the purpose of this subsection shall not come into force unless or until approved by resolution of the House of Commons".
  This Amendment returns to a subject which we raised in Committee and which is closely allied to the matter we have just been discussing. Our purpose is to ensure that legal aid in criminal cases shall be granted on a uniform financial basis. That was the intent of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, 1949, but the Bill departs from that principle and it is to be left entirely to the sheriffs, judges and magistrates to decide the financial eligibility of any applicant for legal aid.
  The first objection to that is one we made in connection with the previous Amendment—that this is likely to create different criteria of financial eligibility
  1310
  in different districts. Sheriffs, judges and magistrates are not always the best persons to decide financial eligibility. As I pointed out in Committee, some judges have peculiar ideas of what individuals can or cannot afford and how heavy a burden may be to individuals of certain income.
  Secondly, the Bill would create difference of treatment in different areas and different courts. That must surely be wrong. The Minority Report to the Guthrie Report, paragraph 18, said:
  "The basis of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, 1949, was that of a uniform standard of eligibility (section 2(1)) and, while this may, as I have suggested above, have to be modified to deal with exceptionally costly defences, I disagree with the drastic step of recommending a variation so as to abolish entirely such a standard and to substitute carte blanche for individual sheriffs-substitute, burgh magistrates or justices of the peace to apply whatever criteria they may think fit."
  6.0 p.m.
  For the first time in our discussion of the Bill, I now understand that legal aid in criminal cases is not to be applied in

  1311
  burgh magistrate's courts and courts of justices of the peace, but that the Government intend to extend it to those courts later Even so, carte blanche will be given to sheriffs-substitute to decide financial eligibility. Most sheriffs substitute do not want that job.
  We are not here creating our own legal aid system in criminal cases, but permitting sheriffs substitute to create theirs in their own sheriffdoms. Why should someone in Edinburgh get treatment different from that given to someone in Glasgow, and someone in Glasgow treatment different from that given somewhere else? Apart from being a principle with an excellent parentage, the Labour Government, the principle laid down in the 1949 Act was sound and it is one to which we ought to pay attention when we extend legal aid to criminal cases.
  In the Minority Report of the Guthrie Report, Mr. Ewan Stewart said:
  "Parliament should not, in effect, delegate its powers to members of the judiciary, thus giving each of them, as it were, a free hand to write his own legal aid scheme in respect of financial eligibility."
  We in Parliament should accept the responsibility and lay down the financial criteria which we think should be applied and not leave it to the 59 sheriffs-substitute in Scotland and so have 59 different schemes. We might even have different schemes applying in Glasgow according to which sheriff-substitute happens to be sitting in the court. That is absurd, and I hope that the hon. Lady will accept the Amendment.
  I have not had time to refresh my memory about what was said in Standing Committee—I shall read it as our debates today proceed to see whether there is anything worth returning to—but I have no doubt that the hon. Lady will again argue that we do not want National Assistance officers dealing with these matters. This has nothing to do with National Assistance. The courts can interpret the rules, although I am still not quite sure how that can be done. It has been suggested to me that an officer of the court should be detailed to examine applications for legal aid and to deal with them irrespective of the sheriff substitute. I do not believe that that is what is now intended. I understand that it is intended that the applicant should fill in
  1312
  a form which would go before the court and that the applicant might be questioned about it, that the prosecutor might put in objections and that there would be almost another judicial process to decide whether the applicant was entitled to receive legal aid. It would be much simpler and would help the hon. Lady in her desire for speed, which we all agree to be necessary, if the Government laid down financial criteria and each case was then determined by an official of the court and taken out of the hands of the sheriff-substitute.
  For all those reasons, I hope that the hon. Lady will give us a much more kindly answer than on the last Amendment. She must agree that her arguments on that Amendment could not have been very powerful, for the Government obtained a majority of only ten. Hon. Members opposite appear to think it much more important to be at Buckingham Palace than supporting the hon. Lady's arguments. It is obvious that they were not convinced by her arguments in Standing Committee or they would have been here to attend.
  I would have thought that hon. Members opposite would have been more courteous to the weaker sex—I do not know about weaker—and would have shown rather more chivalry. For hon. Members opposite, the age of chivalry is passed and they do not even come to the support of the hon. Lady. This is a shocking exhibition. I am glad to say that we are here to show our interest and I hope that she will treat us rather more kindly in view of our support and the courteous attention which we give to her speeches. If she accepted the Amendment, she would be able to go to bed tonight a satisfied woman, conscious of the fact that she had done a worthwhile job and had improved the Bill.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has been very kind to the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Willis: I always am.
  Mr. Steele: He seems to have left his powerful adjectives in the Standing Committee Room. Perhaps he felt that they were not getting him anywhere and so tonight we find him in a very kindly and persuasive mood.
  Mr. Willis: I always am.
  Mr. Steele: I hope and trust that he will have more success with this Amendment.
  I am concerned with the Amendment for another reason which my hon. Friend mentioned during our earlier discussion. When the Bill is passed, how legal aid is administered will no longer He with us, but will depend on the attitude of the sheriff and particularly on the kind of mood he happens to be in that day. How will the Sheriff approach this? The words here will be given their literal meaning and not be interpreted as we think they ought to be. The Schedule says that legal aid shall be available if the accused
  "is unable without undue hardship…to meet the expenses of the case."
  It does not refer merely to "hardship" Had the Bill said
  "where the court is satisfied after consideration of his financial circumstances that he is unable without hardship to himself…to meet the expenses of the case"
  that would have met the point that is worrying me.
  The Amendment lays down certain criteria which will be decided by the Secretary of State and brought before Parliament for our agreement. The Amendment is fair and reasonable because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) pointed out, every sheriff will be his own adviser in this matter, and a variety of situations will arise in different parts of the country. We all know that there are sheriffs and sheriffs. I defend rather than attack some sheriffs, because I know that they will look at these provisions and be as generous as possible, but there are others who I have no doubt will take the opposite view, and we must realise that a sheriff's decision will affect not only an accused person but his dependents.
  The hon. Lady ought to tell us why this arrangement has been made. Who has been consulted? Who made these suggestions? Why is it impossible to find some other way of dealing with this problem? Unless we receive satisfactory answers to these questions, we shall have to divide the Committee again, and I hope that when we do the ten hon. Members who supported the hon. Lady on the last occasion and gave her victory, as it were, will this time decide either to have a cup of tea or to depart for
  1314
  Buckingham Palace and thus ensure that we achieve at least one victory in the course of our proceedings.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I was not a member of the Committee which considered this Bill, but I hope that the hon. Lady will be convinced by the eloquent and sound arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
  I am shocked at the prospect of someone who is accused of a criminal offence having to appear before a sheriff or a sheriff's substitute who will decide whether or not to grant his application for legal aid. Whoever conducts the investigation will inquire into the accused person's background. The applicant may well have a good job, and a reasonable income, but if he has a young family to maintain, the sheriff's decision might mean considerable hardship to him.
  A further point to remember is that an accused person may have his application considered by the sheriff who will eventually try him. I consider it bad practice that a man charged with a criminal offence should first be subjected to an investigation into his means to decide whether he should be granted legal aid and then be tried by the sheriff who conducted the investigation.
  6.15 p.m.
  I hope that the hon. Lady will accept the Amendment. It will not make any great change in the principle of the Schedule, but it will ensure that some procedure is established for giving a person legal aid without him having to appear before someone who will eventually try him. It is far better that somebody not connected with the court in which he is to be tried should consider his application for legal aid, and I therefore repeat my hope that the hon. Lady will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I support the Amendment because it will undoubtedly improve the Bill. The Schedule as it stands is defective because it deals with the fundamental phrase "financial circumstances". The Bill provides for a multiplicity of definitions of this phrase. There is nothing certain about it for the unfortunate accused person. This phrase will be heard, determined, and denned, according

  1315
  to the whim, or, to be more respectful, the judgment of a particular court.
  It used to be said of certain phases of English law, perhaps jocularly, but certainly truly, that equity was as variable as the length of the Lord Chancellor's foot. The "financial circumstances" referred to in this Schedule will be as variable as the length of the particular judge's foot, and I submit that this will be am injustice to an accused person. The law should not only be just, but should be certain, and under this Bill it will not be so.
  The Schedule as it stands is an unpardonable reactionary reversion to the law which, as I have just said, was described as being as variable as the length of the Lord Chancellor's foot. The Amendment will ensure that the phrase in question is defined definitely once and for all in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland and approved by Parliament.
  So far, no logical defence of this reactionary provision has been put up, but adequate reasons have been put forward for the Amendment which we are discussing, which I hope will commend themselves to the Government. There is nothing to be said for this unpardonable variability of definition of financial circumstances. What are the circumstances? What is the court to take into account? There is not a word in Section 2 of the 1949 Act which indicates what considerations are relevant for the courts to take into account. Not only will the courts be in a difficulty; each court will have its own standards and its own way of approaching this rather inscrutable phrase "financial circumstances".
  The Amendment, on the other hand, will give a certainty of meaning to the phrase, and will import justice where there is at present injustice. I hope that the arguments of my colleagues and I will so commend themselves to the Government that they will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. James McInnes: This part of Schedule 4 will obviously create many difficulties throughout Scottish courts. Its provisions constitute a serious departure from the 1949 Act. Hon. Members on this side of the
  1316
  Committee take the view that the sheriff should not have the power to determine the financial eligibility of anyone appearing before him. In Committee we indicated that Mr. Stewart, in his reservations, made it quite clear that Parliament should not, in effect, delegate power to members of the judiciary, thus giving each of them a free hand to create his own legal scheme in respect of the definition of financial eligibility.
  The Amendment to Section 2 of the 1949 Act, contained in Schedule 4, includes the words "without undue hardship". How are they to be defined? What constitutes undue hardship? The hon. Lady must appreciate that this provision is grossly unfair. In effect, it will mean that in some areas of Scotland people will qualify while in others people in precisely similar circumstances will not. The hon. Lady ought to keep in mind the provisions of the 1949 Act and, rather than depart from them, eliminate this provision altogether.
  Mr. James Dempsey: Anyone who is not a member of this Committee would not require to know the background of the discussion to realise that this provision is a very unsatisfactory one. It is composed in the most negative fashion. Let us consider the phrase which it contains:
  "Where the court is satisfied after consideration of his financial circumstances…"
  No information is provided as to how those financial circumstances shall be calculated. What is permissible income, and what is disregarded income? There is no clue as to the way in which this passage in this part of the Schedule will operate. It is wrong to ask the Committee to adopt a provision which is so vaguely worded that none of us can have a fair assessment of the implications of its operation.
  I would have thought that if we are to have regard to financial circumstances we are entitled to know what elements of income will be taken into account, what allowances will be set against those elements of income, and what aspect of income and remuneration will be disregarded. There is no indication of how comprehensively such a scheme of administration may operate. This is a quite apparent weakness, and the noble Lady ought to consider the matter again. Whether we like it or not, we are handing more power to the Executive. By

  1317
  delegating our Parliamentary rights we are handing more and more power and authority to the justiciary, which is not responsible to the electors, citizens or taxpayers.
  This is a departure from the democratic processes which govern this House and the country generally, and in those circumstances I cannot understand why even hon. Members opposite can approve of the wording of this part of the Schedule. I would have thought that if they acted according to their consciences they would have been in duty bound to oppose it. Most of them have business interests, or are interested in commercial enterprise. They would be averse to running their affairs, or engaging in transactions while operating under such a vague formula as is contained in this provision.
  I cannot see why the noble Lady cannot accept the Amendment. It provides that the Secretary of State shall prescribe certain scales for the purpose of adjudication. This is nothing new to the Secretary of State. He is never done with providing scales. He has a staff which indulges in this work from week to week, having the mental gymnastics necessary for prescribing such scales. At the moment they are trying to prescribe scales providing that council tenants shall pay a certain rental, because the result of their mental gymnastics leads them to believe that certain wage levels apply in certain localities throughout Scotland.
  We are saying that some scale should be laid down to ensure universality of operation in Scotland for Legal Aid purposes. That is not unreasonable. In Edinburgh today, the Department will hand an applicant a scale relating to educational students personal awards. It seems to be no trouble. It seems to be easy for them. It is almost entertaining. In those circumstances I cannot see why the Amendment should not be accepted so that scales can be provided to ensure equity of treatment in different parts of the country conserving free legal aid.
  We abolished the old welfare committees of local authorities in order to avoid the very diversification that the Bill is creating. We did that because they were working out unfavourably in some areas and favourably in others. That was the reason given for the introduction of the 1948 Act, which abolished those
  1318
  committees and concentrated on prescribing uniform scales for the Ministry of National Insurance. It was with a view to achieving universality in application that this legislation was introduced. This evening we have a Bill which applies the very opposite of what we have been hearing week after week and month after month for the past few years.
  How can the noble Lady justify this vacillation and contradiction of the administration of the Government she represents? It is clear and valid that if we leave it to the sheriffs we shall have a variety of legal aid schemes operating. And look at some of the judgments of our sherffs. Some of the most unexpected decisions are arrived at. They almost threaten our confidence in the law-making system of the country. Some of these decisions are almost incredible and result from the operation of the mind on a set of given facts. If that be the sort of panacea we are to have, we shall get a diversified scheme operating from court house to court house and no one will be able to explain to his constituents what are their entitlements. That is a grave danger. If the hon. Lady wishes to be efficient in the conduct of this Bill and to go down in history as a law-maker, she will accept the Amendment which is full of jolly good sense.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: I support the Amendment. Surely the hon. Lady would agree that it indicates the right intention. Surely she does not wish to treat people in difficulty who come before the court—some being more innocent than others—in a way which will place them in a position where, because of what I consider a very bad mistake in Schedule 4, they will be affected by the open manner in which legal aid is to be decided upon by the court. A definite injustice could react on innocent, people. We have no assurance that a sheriff in one court will not take a different line regarding the standard to be operated from that existing in another court. We consider that people are innocent until they are proved guilty. But, in a desire to get legal assistance and present their case in the best way, people may find that there exists a dividing line in this matter. They may find themselves above that line in one court and below it in another, and

  1319
  this will interfere with the process of justice.
  The noble Lady must tell us what is meant by:
  "…Subject to this Part of this Act, legal aid in connection with criminal proceedings shall be available to an accused person where the court is satisfied…"
  That is a very loose statement. What is meant by
  "…where the court is satisfied"?
  Is a court to sit to decide this? How do the Government, for whom today the noble Lady is responsible, justify what I consider an iniquitous provision? The noble Lady must explain that phrase
  "…where the court is satisfied after consideration of his financial circumstances…"
  Does that mean the court? Does it mean the sheriff? Or does it mean the sheriff's clerk? What on earth is preventing the noble Lady from saying that there should be a scale laid down which could be operated fairly and generously in all the sheriff courts?
  I want the noble Lady to be true to herself. I want her to allow her own generous impulses to dictate the answer. We know the noble Lady. With my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) I had the pleasure and privilege of serving on a Standing Committee in which the hon. Lady skilfully piloted through its Committee stage a Bill which eventually became an Act designed to protect birds. The noble Lady went to great lengths to protect the little ducks and all sorts of birds. I had never heard of some of them, although a compliment was paid to me because I did know of some of the lesser known Scottish birds. But I distinguish them not so much by how they speak—for all birds have a language—but by their plumage, the garments with which they adorn themselves.
  The point here is that the noble Lady showed concern—we agreed with her—about the protection of birds. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East went out of his way to provide an argument in favour of the protection of some little-known duck that hitherto had not been protected and for that the noble Lady thanked him profusely—as she did me on a similar occasion. That showed her generosity of nature and her impulse
  1320
  for protection. It revealed an urge to preserve what was good and beautiful in ornithology.
  The noble Lady's ornithological outlook was very good. I want her human outlook to be just as good. Here we are dealing with human beings. I am all for the protection of birds, but I wish to make certain that the hon. Lady will be herself in regard to this provision and that the instinct which decided her speeches during the Committee stage of the Bill to which I have referred will prompt her to throw aside her briefs—her gay plumage, if the noble Lady likes. If she does that, and if she tells us that she agrees with the sentiments expressed in the Amendment, she will be coming down on our side and agreeing that the Amendment is a good one which should be supported. She will be agreeing that there should be a standard laid down which will be generous in its operation and allow justice to be carried to innocent people who find themselves arguing their affairs in our sheriffs courts.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I quite agree with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that the Committee on the Protection of Birds Bill was a most intriguing and hilarious one. I well remember his services on that Committee.
  To return to this Bill, I think he and all hon. Members have sought very hard to persuade me to accept this Amendment. Although it was moved very clearly, as is usual, by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) I am afraid I cannot accept it. Because I cannot accept it, I hope to be able to persuade all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate that perhaps there is some merit in the scheme which we have put forward in the Bill and which is a recommendation of the Guthrie Committee.
  Several hon. Members have said they are afraid that to leave the arrangements to a decision by sheriffs in different parts of the country would mean that there would not be a uniform decision, and people would be treated differently in different courts. I remind hon. Members of paragraph 153 of the Guthrie Committee's Report, which said:
  "Since in each determination the individual case concerned would be a relevant factor, it is impossible to prescribe a uniform standard of eligibility."

  1321
  It is true that the Report goes on to say that the Committee thought that there would be an absence of a uniform standard, but it did not think that was an important objection, and added:
  "It will fall to a court of law in each case to decide what is reasonable."
  Mr. Willis: If the noble Lady reads further, she will see that the Guthrie Committee also said:
  "While the absence of such a standard could result in accused persons in different areas receiving different treatment."
  It doubted whether this was an important objection, but we think it is an important objection.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: That is exactly why I quoted that paragraph. I was going on to argue the case for our suggested scheme rather than that of the Amendment, which seeks to have regulations by the Secretary of State subject to approval by the House of Commons.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), in particular, asked why we departed from the 1949 Act. The Guthrie Committee examined the 1949 Act and how it had worked out in the assessment of financial eligibility so far as it concerns civil legal aid. That Committee decided that for criminal legal aid it could not agree that this was a good method. As hon. Members know, the Committee noted that while, for civil legal aid, resources are assessed by the National Assistance Board, the Board needed at least a fortnight to make up its assessment accurately. In certain cases where people did not give the right information, the Board needed as much as a month. If it gave a very rough-and-ready assessment, it could sometimes do so within a week, but the Guthrie Committee thought that even that was not right for criminal proceedings.
  Therefore that Committee went on to examine a recommendation made by the Law Society of Scotland, that the determination of financial eligibility for legal aid in criminal proceedings should, as in England, be made summarily by the criminal court. It pointed out that on the basis of a summary hearing it would not be possible to establish with a fair degree of accuracy how much the applicant could afford to contribute towards his legal expenses and therefore
  1322
  recommended that no contribution should be payable by the accused. The final part of the Committee's argument was that if contributions were to be ruled out, the court in effect would be deciding whether an accused should have free legal aid or no legal aid at all. It therefore seemed to the Committee that in taking this decision the court must have regard not only to the accused's resources, but also to the likely expenses of the case, something which it thought quite unsuitable for a body such as the National Assistance Board to decide.
  6.45 p.m.
  The Guthrie Committee thought there could be no fixed level of income or capital above which legal aid would not be available and below which it would be available. For example, if legal aid were free it surely would be ridiculous to have a uniform income limit of, say, £500 which would be applied whatever the likely cost of the defence. A man with £450 disposable income might be able to pay for a defence in a minor case, whereas a man with a disposable income of £1,000 might be crippled by the cost of defending himself on a serious charge. Therefore, the court is required to consider the financial circumstances of the accused and also the seriousness of the case.
  Mr. Millan: The argument is whether there should be legal aid with a contribution or no legal aid at all, but my hon. Friends and I argued in Standing Committee that there should be differences in the contributions provided. That was turned down by the Government.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Exactly, but hon. Members in this debate have asked what was the origin of the scheme we are proposing. That is why I am going into some detail about it now. The Amendment follows the Guthrie Committee's Report in dispensing with a detailed assessment of resources by the National Assistance Board, but substitutes an assessment by the court, which necessarily would be fairly detailed. In not proposing a detailed assessment, I dare say the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, and his supporters had in mind that the court should be given fairly simple guidance for its consideration of the financial circumstances of the accused, but in practice

  1323
  it simply would not be possible to give the court guidance which would be at all easy or simple, as I think the Amendment seeks to do.
  Once the Secretary of State had embarked on the task of laying down the criteria required by the Amendment it would be necessary, to make clear that justice was being done as between one applicant and another, to go into considerable detail in describing what items of income and capital were to be considered, what were to be disregarded, what allowances were to be made for the applicant's inescapable commitments.
  The hon. Member suggested that this would be nothing to a Department which has to devise various bursary scales and so on. While I am sure the Department will be glad to have his confidence, I suggest that it would be a great deal more difficult to do so in this instance. If one looks at the assessment of resources regulations in force in connection with civil legal aid, I should have thought that would be quite enough to dispel any idea that such regulations could be made at all simply or without going into great detail.
  The Amendment would require the court to undertake in the course of criminal proceedings a detailed assessment of resources which on the civil side is undertaken by skilled officers of the National Assistance Board, but which I suggest would be a task quite unsuitable for the courts. Therefore, I am afraid that I will have to ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Ross: We had hoped that by this time and after the vote which has been taken, the hon. Lady would have hesitated before she tried to persuade the Committee that it was impossible to accept this Amendment. If she reads the Amendment and the existing Schedule she will see these words as it stands at the moment, with all the restrictions there are in relation to categories and courts as to who shall get legal aid. There is this over-riding restriction:
  "Subject to this Part of this Act, legal aid in connection with criminal proceedings shall be available to an accused person where the court is satisfied after consideration of his financial circumstances that he is unable without undue hardship to himself or his dependants to meet the expenses of the case."
  1324
  We object to that, because it is leaving absolutely free discretion, without any guidance from Parliament, to the sheriffs or the magistrates to determine the financial eligibility of a person, not for legal aid but for free legal aid. Let us appreciate that there is either free legal aid or no legal aid. The hon. Lady built up a case by preceding her argument with the words, "If legal aid is free". She was quite wrong in suggesting that we are prepared to accept that as the proper standard. But because of the way in which the legislation seeks to amend the previous Act, I am sure that hon. Members who have not been in the Standing Committee have no idea what it means.
  In relation to legal aid in civil cases, contributions and sharing of costs arise, but here we must remember that we have a principle built in for the sake of simplicity; it is either free legal aid or no legal aid. In those circumstances, because the Government are terrified of the cost, we have restriction and limitation which will lead to hardship. But hardship in itself does not matter; the Bill states that it is "undue hardship", whatever that may mean. Who will determine it? Not Parliament. The sheriff will do it. Who will question the sheriff? Nobody. Discretion is given to the sheriff in relation to financial eligibility as related not to hardship but to undue hardship. It is unfair to suggest that this is an advance on the present circumstances.
  We suggest that the Clause should read:
  "Subject to this Part of the Act, legal aid in connection with criminal proceedings shall be available to an accused person where the court is satisfied that his financial circumstances make him eligible for such aid in accordance with criteria to be laid down in regulations prescribed by the Secretary of State. Regulations made for the purpose of this subsection shall not come into force unless or until approved by resolution of the House of Commons".
  The Secretary of State will have drawn them up and we shall have approved them.
  Does the hon. Lady appreciate that there would still have to be a judgment in relation to financial eligibility? But as it stands, the standard against which these financial resources are to be measured is a standard depending on the mood and circumstances of individual sheriffs and magistrates up and down Scotland. Does she think that it would

  1325
  be less speedy if we laid down criteria against which judgment should be made? The difficulty about timing is not in relation to the standard against which we judge but against the estimate of what the resources are. These remain the same both with the Government's proposals and with our proposals. The Government have no scheme. Whatever else it may be, it is not a scheme, as the hon. Lady knows. The only guidance is in the words which I read. That is not a scheme. It is handing the decision over to someone else and saying, "You carry on. We give you no guidance or judgment. It is up to you."
  There is no reason why we should not be able to do what is suggested in the Amendment and give this guidance to sheriffs and magistrates. Where both the hon. Lady and the Guthrie Committee went wrong is that they sought simplicity where there cannot be simplicity, and in going after simplicity they are not giving justice and fairness.
  I said in Committee that this was the most unsatisfactory part of the Guthrie Committee's discussions. That Committee tried to have it every way. We pointed out to the Guthrie Committee that we could get an assessment of a person's resources, that it could be done in a rough and ready way within a week and in a far better way within a fortnight, and that in most cases to which it will be applied the person will be held for trial much longer than a fortnight. There is time. When this was drawn to the Committee's attention, it said, "Time does not matter". The basis of the hon. Lady's argument is that time does matter.
  When we pointed out to the Committee that this will lead to a varying discretion being exercised and different standards of judgment in different parts of Scotland, we were told, "It does not matter". This astounded me, and I gave vent to my feelings about it in Committee. The simple fact that a decision is made by a court of law on something which is not a matter of law does not necessarily satisfy me as a politician that it is reasonable or right. It might satisfy the lawyers who sat on the Guthrie Committee but I do not think that the House is prepared to accept paragraph 153, which reads:
  "While the absence of such a standard could result in accused persons in different areas
  1326
  receiving different treatment, we doubt whether this is an important objection."
  We are dealing with justice and fair play between one individual and another. There is enough injustice in what the Government are doing without swallowing this, too. It will fall to a court of law in each case to decide what is reasonable, and the implication is that whatever the court decides is bound to be right.
  That may be true in relation to matters of law, although we believe that it is not always true, but they are not deciding a matter of law here. They are deciding a person's financial eligibility in relation to legal aid. It is a social decision. I am sure that sheriffs do not want to have to take it.
  I wish that the Government would think again. I do not know whether the Garden Party is over and whether the presence of the Patronage Secretary means that the forces have arrived, but I remind hon. Members that in the last Division the Government had the second lowest majority in this Parliament—10. The lowest majority was also on Scottish affairs. But if those hon. Members who came into the Lobby and just managed to save the Government had heard the argument, then the Government would not have had a majority of 10; they would have been beaten. They can still be beaten this time, and if the hon. Lady has no more to say, I hope that my hon. Friends will support us in the Lobby.
  Mr. Willis: We have discussed the hon. Lady's arguments previously, and I say once again that I am exceedingly disappointed that she will not accept our Amendment. Had she really applied her mind to this: matter as she could have done, she would have been on our side. I can only repeat what an eminent Scottish lawyer said to me yesterday, referring to our Amendments: "That the Government have failed to listen to your representations on legal aid in criminal cases seems to be really lamentable". I agree, and I shall, of course, vote for the Amendment.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule: —
  The Committee divided: Ayes 195, Noes 159.

  Division No. 171.]

  AYES

  [7.0 p.m.

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Gammans, Lady

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Atkins, Humphrey

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Morgan, William

  Barlow, Sir John

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Barter, John

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Batsford, Brian

  Goodhart, Philip

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Bell, Ronald

  Gower, Raymond

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Gurden, Harold

  Partridge, E.

  Bidgood, John C.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Biffen, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Peel, John

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Percival, Ian

  Bishop, F. P.

  Harvey, John (Watthamstow, E.)

  Peyton, John

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hay, John

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Box, Donald

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Braine, Bernard

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Brooman-White, R.

  Hendry, Forbes

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Bryan, Paul

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Pym, Francis

  Bullard, Denys

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

  Quenneil, Miss J. M.

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Ramsden, James

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Holland, Philip

  Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hopkins, Alan

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Chataway, Christopher

  Hornby, R. P.

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

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Roots, William

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Russell, Ronald

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Cole, Norman

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Cooke, Robert

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Jennings, J. C.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Cordle, John

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Corfield, F. V.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Costain, A. P.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Coulson, Michael

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

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

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Teeling, Sir William

  Crawley, Aldan

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Temple, John M.

  Critchley, Julian

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Kirk, Peter

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Curran, Charles

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Turner, Colin

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Doughty, Charles

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Dray son, G. B.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Duncan, Sir James

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Walder, David

  Duthie, Sir William

  MacArthur, Ian

  Walker, Peter

  Eden, John

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Wall, Patrick

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Emery, Peter

  Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs)

  Webster, David

  Errington, Sir Erie

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

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Farr, John

  Macpherson.Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Maddan, Martin

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Maginnis, John E.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Marten, Neil

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Forrest, George

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Button)

  Mawby, Ray

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Freeth, Denzil

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

  Mr. McLaren and Mr. Hugh Rees.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

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

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Ainsley, William

  Bowles, Frank

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Barnett, Guy

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George- (Belper)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Bence, Cyril

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Davies, S. D. (Merthyr)

  Benson, Sir George

  Chapman, Donald

  Deer, George

  Blackburn, F.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Delargy, Hugh

  Blyton, William

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Dempsey, James

  Boardman, H.

  Cronin, John

  Diamond, John

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Crosland, Anthony

  Donnelly, Desmond

  1328

  1329

  Driberg, Tom

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

  Jones, T. W, (Merioneth)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Kelley, Richard

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Evans, Albert

  Ledger, Bon

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lee, Miss Jennis (Cannock)

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Finch, Harold

  Lubbock, Eric

  Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

  Forman, J. C.

  McBride, N.

  Ross, William

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  McCann, John

  Short, Edward

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McInnes, James

  Silkin, John

  George, Lady MeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  McLeavy, Frank

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Small, William

  Grey, Charles

  Mahon, Simon

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Manuel, Archie

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Mapp, Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Mason, Roy

  Steele, Thomas

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Stones, William

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Millan, Bruce

  Swingler, Stephen

  Hannan, William

  Monslow, Walter

  Symonds, J, B.

  Harper, Joseph

  Moody, A. S.

  Taverne, D.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Morris, John

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Moyle, Arthur

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Heafey, Denis

  Mulley, Frederick

  Wade, Donald

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Oliver, G. K.

  Warbey, William

  Hilton, A. V.

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Weitzman, David

  Holman, Percy

  Oram, A. E.

  Whitlock, William

  Holt, Arthur

  Owen, Will

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Hoy, James H.

  Parker, John

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

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

  Hunter, A. E.

  Pentland, Norman

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Woof, Robert

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Probert, Arthur

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Randall, Harry

  Mr. Lawson and

  Mr. Sydney Irving.

  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; as amended (in Standing Committee) considered.

  New Clause.—(DEFERRED SENTENCE.)
  For the removal of doubt if is hereby declared that it is competent for any Scottish court to defer sentence after conviction for a period and on such conditions as the court may determine.—[Mr. Ross.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  It was during the discussions of the Scottish Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders on the use of short sentences of imprisonment by the courts that this matter cropped up. The purpose and concern of the Council was that far too many people were being sent to prison in Scotland where it was felt that there were more adequate and effective ways of dealing with them from the point of view of the protection of the public and the reformation of the people themselves.
  1330
  It was felt that if we could keep people out of prison the chances were that their development into hardened prisoners and persons of criminal tendencies would decline. It was discovered that there was resort in Scotland to a way of dealing with people who had been charged and found guilty which was quite unique to Scotland. Certain Scottish courts have regarded persons as suitable for deferred sentence without making an order. The period may be as much as a year and at the end of that period the court decides in the light of the offender's conduct during that time whether to admonish the offender, whether to discharge him, and even to discharge him absolutely.
  This has been found to be invaluable. It was in Standing Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) drew attention to the desirability of using this procedure as much as possible. It was discovered that although this practice has gone on in Scottish courts there is doubt whether or not it is a competent way of dealing with a convicted person. A recommendation made in paragraph 49 of the Council's Report on the

  1331
  Use of Short Sentences of Imprisonment by the Courts says:
  "We recommend that, if there are no compelling considerations to the contrary, a provision should be enacted removing any doubt about the power of the court to defer sentence for a discretionary period."
  The Government took no notice of that.
  There may be good reasons why, but obviously the Council's attention has been drawn to it and there is a question of doubt. We should have that cleared up and it is desirable that we should draw the attention of the courts to the existence of this practice, to which no exception has been taken and to which I hope the Government will say no exception could be taken. I hope they will also say that there should be greater resort to it
  It was for this reason that we tabled the new Clause. I hope that the Government will see their way to accept it or, failing acceptance, will give us very cogent reasons why it is not necessary to accept it. The last thing we want is for the Government to say something which will inhibit Scottish courts doing something they have hitherto done to the advantage of people coming before them, and a practice which has been recognised by the Scottish Council for the Treatment of Offenders and one which it is desirable should be copied by others.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has rightly said this practice of a deferred sentence is in use fairly generally throughout Scotland. I understand that in the main it is applied to juvenile and adolescent offenders. There is some dispute, as the hon. Member rightly said, about the legality of the deferred sentence because it has never been tested on appeal in Scotland. Therefore, when the hon. Member tabled the new Clause I read it with considerable care. It seemed to me that the new Clause was intended for the removal of doubt, and, that being so, the hon. Member perhaps will be glad to hear that I shall be very glad to accept it.
  I think that I ought to add a few words about S.A.C.T.O. because it was that Council which considered this matter and
  1332
  the hon. Member referred to paragraph 49 of its Report in which it said:
  "…we are disposed to think that the deferred sentence may occasionally be a suitable alternative to an immediate short sentence of imprisonment…We recommend that, if there are no compelling considerations to the contrary, a provision should be enacted removing any doubt…"
  I should like to describe the practice to those hon. Members who do not know of it. An offender may be convicted of a comparatively minor offence, such as theft, and may appear to the court to have repented of the theft. The court may feel that his prosecution and conviction has resulted in his having learned a lesson by the mere fact of his appearing before the court and that no punishment is necessary in the interest of justice. The court may defer sentence to six months or nine months hence. It then takes into account, as well as it can be aware of it, the offender's behavior during the intervening period and may decide that no punishment is necessary in the end. As the Clause removes doubt on the practice existing in Scotland, I repeat that I am glad to accept it.
  Mrs. Alice Cullen: I am very pleased that the noble Lady has accepted the new Clause. If she had not done so I would have had a great deal to say about it. As a magistrate I have used the deferred sentence procedure on many occasions and thus saved a child from going to prison or an approved school and kept him at home where he ought to be, thereby providing a lesson for the parents as well as the child.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(CATEGORIES OF CHILDREN NOT TO BE SENT TO AN APPROVED SCHOOL.)
  Sentence to an approved school shall not be considered as suitable treatment for—

  (a) children who are certified as mental defectives,

  (b) children who are found to be in need of care and protection,

  (c) children whose only offence is truancy.

  —[Mr. J. Bennett.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. James Bennett: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

  1333
  I hope that I may be as fortunate as my hon. Friends the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) in at least having the first part of the new Clause accepted. The first part contains the very fundamentals of elementary justice. It should be entirely unnecessary to move that mental defectives should not be sent to an approved school.
  I know that I shall be told that not many such children are sent to an approved school and that these schools were never designed to take any such children. But so long as the law remains as it is at present, mentally defective children can still be sent to an approved school.
  I have in mind an instance which came to my attention of a child certified as a mental defective who should have been placed in an appropriate institution but who, because there was no accommodation available within the institution, was returned to the approved school from which it had come. The function of an approved school is to provide education and training. It is obvious to everyone that approved schools as such have their own built-in problems. They deal with very difficult children, children who have been sent there for various crimes, and to add to their difficulties by sending mentally defective children for education and training which the schools simply cannot provide is not only unfair to the child but extremely unfair to the schools. This is a practice which we should be well advised to stop, and acceptance of the first paragraph of my new Clause will be the first step towards doing so.
  All of us who have dealings with approved schools appreciate the strains under which they have to operate. The very fact that I am pressing this new Clause upon the Government is an indication of how strongly I feel that approved schools are being asked to undertake too much. I am sure that the House will accept the premise I am advancing. In no circumstances should children certified as mentally defective be sent to approved schools.
  It may be said that there is a lack of suitable accommodation. Although this may be a reason, it is certainly not a justification. We are concerned with justice. What I ask for here is a first
  1334
  step towards putting right a wrong which still exists, and, if the noble Lady says that she cannot accept my proposal, I shall be very interested to hear what possible arguments she can put against it.
  Next, children in need of care and protection. This is a very specious expression, "children in need of care and protection". For the life of me, I cannot visualise such children receiving at approved school the care and protection which the court orders. I am fortified in this view by what I read in the S.A.C.T.O. Report on Custodial Sentences for Young Offenders, 1960, to which so much attention was paid in Standing Committee. Many are the recommendations contained in it dealing with custodial sentences for young offenders, and these have been accepted in principle by the House. Is it too much to ask that we should accept and act upon what is said on page 13 of that Report? Although the Committee had no remit to discuss the care and protection of young persons, it had this to say:
  "Nor do we deal with young persons in need of cart: or protection ordered to be sent to an approved school (which incidentally, we deplore)…".
  Although it was going outside its terms of reference, this very responsible body, charged with a special task, saw fit to say that, in its opinion, children in need of care and protection should not be sent to approved schools.
  The youngsters sent to approved school because they have committed crimes of one sort and another are not angels by any means. Many of them are there because they have kicked over the traces quite a bit. Is it not absurd, with that type of child in the school, to send there also children and young persons who are—I ask the House to mark the words well—in need of care and protection? I simply cannot understand the logic of such a sentence being ordered for youngsters in this category.
  The third category are children whose only offence is truancy. It should be remembered in this connection that many children who are sent to approved schools because of truancy are sent there also because they are in need of care and protection. Although I may not have such a strong objection to truants as such being sent to approved school, I am appalled to find that those sent

  1335
  to approved school for truancy have an average length of stay of 17 months. This is a staggering slice out of a young life for an offence such as truancy.
  Can we possibly be satisfied that a young person guilty of truancy and sent to approved school will receive there only the education and training which it is supposed to receive? Children guilty of truancy will mix with children whose offences are far more serious. Are we naïve enough to think that a long period in an approved school will not leave a scar of some kind on a young person's mind? Are we naïve enough to imagine that bad habits which young people may take into an approved school will not become worse the longer they stay there?
  I became quite incensed fairly recently when, within my own area, I discovered that there was a girl of 14½ who had been sent to an approved school because of truancy. I gather that, as the law now stands, that is quite in order. But I discovered, also, that her record of truancy went back for three years before that. It makes me wonder whether we are concerned more with retribution than with rehabilitation. If any action were needed in such a case, it should have been taken at an early stage of the youngster's development, not when it is on the verge of leaving school. I was told in this particular case that the girl was also keeping bad company. Let there be no mistake that a girl of just under 15 going to an approved school will meet much worse company there than the company she keeps outside.
  What I am now saying could be construed as criticism of approved schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have a real appreciation of all the difficulties under which the managers and staff of approved schools have to work. I am urging the new Clause on the Government with a view to reducing the burden which they are continually being asked to undertake in the provision of proper education and care for the recalcitrant children in their charge. It is quite unfair that we should burden them more with cases which, in the first instance, should never be sent to an approved school.
  Has the Under-Secretary of State considered the experiment going on in Eng-
  1336
  land, the introduction of classifying schools? Many young persons, before they are sent anywhere, spend some time at a classifying school in order that it may be decided how best to treat them. We must adopt an entirely new attitude towards the children and young persons we send to approved school if we are really concerned with rehabilitation. I recently read, strangely enough, in the Report of the Education Department, Education in Scotland in 1962, something which quite appalled me. On page 92 it is said that
  "two per cent, of the girls and 33 per cent of the boys"—
  that is, of those attending approved school—
  "had been recommitted to approved schools or sentenced to detention centres, Borstal or prison".
  This is far too high a proportion to find their way back to approved school or other institutions. So long as such a percentage as 33 per cent. of the boys remains, it is high time that we had a re-examination of our methods of treatment and, particularly, our methods of after-care.
  I could say a lot more on this subject, but I think that I have made my main case. The noble Lady knows that I have a very great interest in approved schools as such. I realise that my comments could be construed as criticism of approved schools, but again I say that that is not the case. The approved schools have a tremendously important job to do within our society. Let us make it easier for them to do the job which they were set up to do and let them stop meddling with other ancillary work which they are not able to carry out.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I am very sorry to have to tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. J. Bennett) that I cannot accept his new Clause for a reason which I hope will commend itself to him.
  It is exactly the kind of problem with which the new Clause deals that is being considered by Lord Kilbrandon's Committee, which we hope will report by the end of this year. I therefore suggest that it would not be wise to put a Clause of this nature in the Bill since the terms of

  1337
  reference of the Kilbrandon Committee are
  "to consider the provisions of the law of Scotland relating to the treatment of juvenile delinquents and juveniles in need of care or protection or beyond parental control and, in particular, the constitution, powers and procedure of the courts dealing with such juveniles…"
  It might be helpful if I said what happened to the three categories of children mentioned in the new Clause who, the hon. Member hopes, will not be considered suitable to go to approved schools. The hon. Member, who is very experienced in the workings of approved schools, will recognise that the approved schools think of themselves, not as places of penal treatment, but as centres where proper training and instruction can be given which is lacking in the homes of the children concerned. The records in regard to children committed as being in need of care or protection or as being truants show that, in general, those committed under these procedures are just as much in need of the kind of training which they get in approved schools, which is both social and educational, as are children sent there on other grounds.
  The hon. Member mentioned a particular case in his constituency. I suspect that he probably knows that the child in question has been considered fit to be released on licence. She had a very bad record of truancy indeed, but we hope that things will now improve.
  With regard to children suffering from mental handicaps, the approved schools have considerable experience in training pupils who have to overcome handicaps of low intelligence and educational backwardness, and in a number of these schools there are staff specially qualified in the teaching of mentally handicapped children and in all the schools any child in that category, receives particular attention.
  Mr. J. Bennett: There is a difference in the proposal that I have put forward. It mentions not handicapped children but children certified as mental defectives within the meaning of the Act, children sent to approved schools purely because there was no suitable accommodation in the proper institutions.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I was proposing to mention that the reference in the new Clause to children who are certified as mental defectives is not quite correct
  1338
  because such certification was abolished by the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960. Under that Act, however, it is already open to a court, if it is satisfied that a child brought before it is suffering from serious mental disorder, to make a hospital or guardianship order and there is a duty on the prosecutor, or, in a care or protection case, the person bringing the child before the court, to lay before the court such evidence as may be available on the mental condition of the child. Apart from that provision, and particularly in view of the forthcoming report of the Kilbrandon Committee, I do not think that it would be wise to accept the new Clause.
  Mr. Willis: I did not intend to take part in this debate, but the excuse or at least the reason, given by the Undersecretary of State for rejecting the new Clause seems to me unacceptable. Apart from telling us the present position, she said that we could not do anything because the Kilbrandon Committee is inquiring into this matter. If it is desirable to do what is suggested in the new Clause, surely we should not wait for the Kilbrandon Committee to report. If this new Clause were put in the Bill, we think that we should have done a good thing. The hon. Lady has not said that it would not be a good thing to put it in the Bill. When we get the Kilbrandon report, and after the Government has considered what action should be taken on it, we can take the steps which we think are necessary in the light of that report.
  Why should we not do something good because the Kilbrandon Committee is to report about it next year on which we might act the year after? I do not follow the logic of this. I cannot see that it would interfere with the work of the Kilbrandon Committee. It will carry on and make its report. The noble lady's reason for rejecting the new Clause is quite unacceptable to me. If she had given some other reason why it was not thought desirable to do what my hon. Friend suggests, we might have been able to accept it, but as it is I do not think we can accept the reason given by her.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: I wish, first, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. J. Bennett) on the

  1339
  admirable way in which he proposed the new Clause. One realised throughout his speech not only that he has great knowledge of approved schools and of the need of care and protection for some of our children but also how deeply he felt about these matters. I hoped that not only his experience and knowledge but the very depths of his feeling would have got over to the Under-Secretary of State and that she would have been willing to accept at least part if not the whole of the new Clause.
  I know that we are in a difficulty at this late stage in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said that the hon. Lady had not given good reason for not accepting the new Clause and that she did not say it was a bad thing. I am not sure of that. I rose to speak because Lord Kilbrandon's Committee is sitting and it seemed to me that some of the statements made by the hon. Lady might prejudice the findings of that Committee. Let me take one in particular. She said that those who worked in approved schools did not regard them as places of penal treatment. One must take that statement as meaning that since they were not regarded by the staff as places of penal treatment there was not very much wrong in mental defectives and children who are only truants and who have done nothing else wrong mixing with children who are in approved schools because a court has found them guilty of some misdemeanour.
  I accept that those who work in approved schools do their very best to rehabilitate, socially and educationally, the young people in their care. In spite of that, because of my knowledge of approved schools, it seems to me that they are no place for the three categories of children which are causing my hon. Friend so much worry. To take paragraph (c) of the new Clause first, I think of children whose only offence is truancy. Children may be truants for a number of reasons. I give these examples from my experience as a teacher.
  There is the child who, far from being wicked, finds school terribly uninteresting. I had one boy who always told me that he would be a biologist and he
  1340
  simply loved to get away from school, not to do anything wicked but to go on to the marshes and watch the wild life there. When I took my children out on a Saturday morning, it was a delight to have that boy with us because he could give so much to the other children. That type of child is a truant because he finds so much of greater interest outside school than he will ever find inside school. It would be very wrong to send that kind of dreamer—it happens occasionally—to an approved school.
  If we consider the other truants, very often it is because of the home influences that a child continually plays truant from school. To send to an approved school that kind of child, whose only fault is truancy, is completely wrong in the civilised country in which we live.
  There are all kinds of children who are, rightly, in an approved school, and in an approved school segregation is impossible. Indeed, segregation might have many repercussions. If a child who is a continual truant or who needs care and protection—again, perhaps because the home is at fault—goes to an approved school among children who are there, possibly, for criminal offences, I have the gravest fear that such a child will become contaminated at an early age. Therefore, instead of taking sensible steps to give care and protection outside an approved school or to try to stop the truancy, as things are we are running the grave danger of turning those whose only fault is truancy into the potential criminals of the future. That is a very serious matter.
  I hoped that before we discussed the new Clause the noble Lady would have given these matters great consideration. In her position as Under-Secretary of State for Scotland she must be learning a great deal about our educational system and about our approved schools in Scotland. She must realise, as we on this side realise, that there is much good in my hon. Friend's new Clause.
  Once again I ask the noble Lady whether she will not give further consideration to this matter and speak again to show that she and the Government deprecate the sending to an approved school of any child in these three categories, so that Lord Kilbrandon's Committee will realise that on the part not

  1341
  only of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton and of those who have put down the new Clause but on both sides of the House there is an earnest desire to find a solution other than an approved school for these three categories of young people.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: I was hoping that we would get a response from the hon. Lady to the eloquent pleas of my hon. Friends. The hon. Lady did not answer merely by saying that a Committee was sitting and that the Government did not want to do this or that. I do not think that Lord Kilbrandon's feelings would be hurt if the Government for once made up their mind about something. I do not know whether we are to have the benefit of a speech from the point triple Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I refer to the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White).
  Mr. Willis: Where is he?
  Mr. Ross: He is here; my hon. Friend need not worry. I was going to refer to something of which the hon. Gentleman had charge and which, I hope, he treated with a little less levity than he seems to treat this matter.
  One of our difficulties during discussion of the Bill, and particularly the question of approved schools, was that we had in another part of the building another Committee dealing with children and young persons, in which, belatedly, the Government applied an important Clause to Scotland, with the result that we did not entirely know within either Committee the Government's intentions about the treatment of families or the children of families who required the attention of the local authority. We are in the wonderful position that the situation is dealt with partly in the present Bill and partly in the Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords] and now we are told that we cannot add anything to either of them because Lord Kilbrandon and his Committee are discussing the question of juvenile delinquents and the treatment of this, that and the next thing. If the House of Commons is convinced that a matter has been proved and that it is right that we should do something, we do it. The sovereignty of Parliament
  1342
  is something that we should entirely and constantly bear in mind.
  The three propositions which we are discussing are fairly simple. The first is whether we should send children who are mental defectives to an approved school. It is I, and not my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. J. Bennett), who must apologise for the weakness in the drafting of my hon. Friend's new Clause. He left it to me and it has turned out to be a weak vessel. I completely forgot about the technical change which we made in the Mental Health Act and, of course, no such definition is applied. It is a question of mental disorder to a particular extent and degree. The Scottish Office, however, was in no doubt of our intention.
  If a child is suffering from mental disorder, the place for him is not an approved school. It is not good for the child and it is not fair to him. Irrespective of all the help that, we are told, is available at an approved school, it does not have the specialised help that can be given at a place which is specially fitted for the treatment of mental disorder.
  Secondly, there is the need of care and protection, not because of anything inherently wrong with the child but because he has failed to get the care and protection from those who should give it—the parents. It may be that the child has no parents and that he has been looked after by an elderly relative who simply cannot cope with the problems of bringing up growing children. It is not fair to these children or their families that they should be sent to an approved school.
  These are the questions which the hon. Lady should have answered, and there was the third, the question about truancy. I know how my hon. Friend feels about this. The hon. Lady should appreciate that the three parts of this Clause were once three separate Clauses. I prevailed upon my hon. Friend to have one and to have a single debate. Probably he was unwise in accepting my advice about this, though I have a feeling that thehon. Lady would have said "No" three times instead of once. However, I felt that the one Clause would make for a tolerably good debate about this matter. I do not think the hon. Lady has answered it at all.

  1343
  If truancy is the only offence of the child he should not be sent to an approved school. Just remember how long one can remain in an approved school. All the approved schools are not the models which the hon. Lady would have us believe them to be. One thing I wish is that we could spend as much money on our approved schools as in England they spend on theirs, and I wish that our Scottish approved schools were as good as English approved schools. There is still in some of them too much of the taint of the old institution, and we have got to get away from that.
  My hon. Friend quoted figures of the number of people in approved schools who had gone back again or had been sentenced to detention centres and so on. They are shocking figures. They do not give us any satisfaction, but to what extent are the approved schools themselves hampered by the presence there of people who just should not be there? Their presence is bound to limit the ability of those in charge to deal with those who were originally intended to be dealt with there. It is because of the shortcomings of the Government in the provision of places for those with mental disorder that they have to be sent to approved schools; and as for those who need care and protection, because the local authorities are not prepared to do what I think is probably their job here in the provision of the second home, those children who need care and protection also go to approved schools. I do not think it is fair to the children and I do not think it is fair to the approved schools.
  Some of these approved schools and some of the very dedicated people running them are doing a wonderful job, and while we may hold up our hands in horror at the rate of 30 per cent. of failures there is still a 70 per cent. success rate—although I do not think the figure is quite as good as that taking it all round. But even at that, I think we have got to give our approved schools a chance of succeeding with the type of children for which they were intended, and they will have the better chance if they are used for them and not used for others because of the failures to make for them proper provision in other ways.
  I thought that the hon. Lady could have given us a much more sympathetic
  1344
  answer than she did, and might have expressed the hopes of the Government, with all the various Bills before them at the present time, and might have said that the Government were actively concerned with these problems and were concerned to ensure that proper provision is made and proper treatment given for the various types of children who are here in this new Clause listed and categorised. I do not know whether she wishes to say something more. It is one of the troubles of Report stage that one can have only one real go at a matter. I hoped that before she did have her say she would have thought much more sympathetically about it, and I hoped she would have given us a much more satisfactory answer than she has done.
  Mr. Ede: I apologise to my Scottish colleagues for intruding—
  Mr. Willis: We are delighted.
  Mr. Ede: —in a debate initiated by them about the affairs of Scotland, but I am pleased to find at least two other Members of my own calling who do not think that truancy is a crime—and certainly not a crime on the part of the truant.
  Mr. Ross: I thought my right hon. Friend would say on the part of Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Ede: I always feel far better with an audience of about this size because I realise the truth of Milton's description of the audience Satan had when he said
  "fit audience find, though few".
  As a teacher I would have regarded a truant as a reflection on me rather than as a reflection on himself. In these days there is ample opportunity, although there is still much to be desired, to make a school a place in which the interest of the individual child can have full opportunity for recognition by the teacher. I think the boy to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) referred, who was guilty of his own nature study at a time which the school thought ought to be devoted to arithmetic, is a child to be commended. Certainly the child who can show others, out on a school ramble, things he has discovered for himself, a child to whom nature reveals itself as he goes along, is

  1345
  not one who is likely to profit from the strict residential atmosphere of an approved school. That kind of education is intended for the upper classes. I do not myself think that it is suitable to give that type of education to a boy with some appreciation of what free wandering really means.
  I hope that, as time goes on, we shall get a greater recognition of the duty of the school to the child who sometimes finds a formal lesson not merely uninteresting but irritating. If a child does truant, as a rule in these days I think the fault is more likely to be found in the school than in the child. I should feel much happier if I knew that truancy ended because schools had become more interesting.
  I never truanted, but I had a great admiration for the truants. They knew what was coming to them when they turned up and they never made any complaint. They needed no instruction about getting ready for the reward which was to come to them. They accepted it in a good spirit, and made up their minds that next time they would have more fun, even if they did have to pay more for it.
  Mr. William Small: I, too, wish the hon. Lady would re-examine in her own mind the content of this new Clause and understand that children arrive at this situation in which they have to be dealt with in this manner, have to be dealt with by being sentenced to an approved school, because they have come before the courts, and they go before the courts for very many and different offences.
  My hon. Friend gave an illustration about truancy. A headmaster reports the case of an absent child to the attendance officer of a committee, a subcommittee of the education committee. The case comes before the committee, who see the parents—and sometimes fail to convince the parents that the child has not been to school as regularly as he ought. But the headmaster himself, and his influence, ought to be enough to ensure that such a case does not arise and does not require to be sent to court.
  8.0 p.m.
  One of the problems is that the juvenile court has no intimate knowledge of the offender and has to deal with the crime purely as truancy. Just how criminal is
  1346
  truancy in the mind of the court? The court has no other means of dealing with the child than sending it to an approved school unless—this is where I think the probation service is so important—it is not satisfied that it should make a decision in terms of sentencing the child when it is of school age. I have never heard of a sentence of three or four months. It is usually for one to three years. That is a very cruel situation.
  If I might be honest and domestic about it, this generally comes at the age of puberty. There are very many psychological aspects apart from the matter of dealing with the minor crime of truancy and taking the children out of the area of influence of people they have known all their lives and putting them into the hands of functionaries who have the duty to carry out what the court has decided—that they be removed from the community to an institution as retribution for something they have done. When one takes into account all the psychological argument that goes on in the child's mind as to whether or not it is being fairly dealt with, I think it is regrettable that the hon. Lady should not support an element of what is contained in the new Clause.
  Question put and negatived.

  New Clause.—(CLASSIFICATION FOR APPROVED SCHOOL.)
  On committing a child or young person to an approved school, the mental age as well as the chronological age shall be taken into consideration in determining the category of approved school.—[Mr. J. Bennett.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. J. Bennett: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  I confess that I rise to my feet bitterly disappointed. I am not the least bit hopeful in moving the Clause that I shall have any better reception than I had previously. This Clause bristles with difficulties.
  Before I develop the reasons why I think the Clause should be included in the Bill, I think we ought to understand a little of the set-up of approved schools. There are twenty-two in Scotland, subdivided into eight junior, seven senior and seven intermediate. The children who go to them, whether they be junior, senior, or intermediate, go strictly according to their chronological age.

  1347
  I am interested to hear that the Kilbrandon report will be out at the end of the year, but I am disturbed to think that we should be discussing such important matters as these without the advice of that Report. However, I understand that the British Medical Association has made certain recommendations to the Kilbrandon Committee, one being that there should be a panel of doctors who would examine the mental and physical background of young persons at present termed delinquents. While I appreciate that committal of young people according to their age group is very convenient, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the mental age of the child should be taken into consideration.
  On the last Clause the hon. Lady stated that the approved schools were geared to deal with mentally retarded children and children who are emotionally upset. Of course they are, up to a point. But I have in my hand reports of mentally retarded and emotionally upset pupils in approved schools who have been completely disruptive elements within the schools to which they have been committed. One report is of a boy who has been in five approved schools. The headmaster of each approved school appealed for the boy to be taken away because he was a disruptive dement. Although these are dedicated people, they come across problem children who completely upset the balance of the school, and they are forced to plead with officialdom to take them elsewhere, but when that happens we may resolve the problem in one school only to recreate it in another.
  I hope—I do not expect the Clause to be accepted—that the hon. Lady will appreciate that a tremendous amount of study is necessary before children are committed to any approved school. There are reports to show that one may have a child young in years but old in experience and big in build, but because of his age he is sent to a junior approved school, and there because of his outlook he becomes a bully. We have the reverse in the case of a boy who is fifteen years of age but has the mental age of a child of eight and becomes the butt of his fellow inmates in the approved school. This means that approved schools are prevented from doing the work they ought to do.
  1348
  I do not think the hon. Lady will disagree with me when I say that the mental age of a child should be considered along with its chronological age. It is generally recognised that that must be the case. I said at the beginning that the Clause bristles with difficulties. I am being perfectly honest. I know that that is so. I also know that the hon. Lady will point out many of the difficulties to me. But that does not mean that there is no merit in the Clause.
  I do not for a moment think it is right and proper that a child or young person should be sent to a particular approved school just because he falls within the particular age category. I could read out reports which I have here from psychiatrists. I do not intend to do so, first, because they make very grim reading, and secondly, because I might be accused of trying to score points. If I quoted them, it would be not for the purpose of scoring points but to illustrate the tremendous difficulties existing within approved schools now. However, it would serve no useful purpose to quote them. I refer to them merely to show the hon. Lady that it is not a case of talking for talking's sake.
  The fact is that, having an interest in the approved schools set-up and having a tremendous interest in the results which they seek to achieve, I am appalled to find that in far too many instances they are being asked to cope with difficulties with which they would never set up to cope. That is why I move the Clause. I know it will be rejected, but I hope that something may come out of it so that when we discuss the Kilbrandon Report we may find ourselves in a position to make provision for young people who are emotionally upset and mentally retarded.
  It is remarkable that many of the young people referred to in these documents are classified as being mentally deficient and not suitable subjects for approved school training. The position is that because there is a lack of alternative treatment, these young persons are forced to remain in approved schools. The result is that we are not being just, reasonable or sensible. Surely the time has come to recognise that this is a very serious problem which cannot simply be brushed aside saying, "We know there

  1349
  is a problem, but it is incapable of solution." We have gone to the length of providing detention centres and remand homes. The provision of suitable accommodation for the young people I have mentioned is only a further step towards the situation where we can treat youngsters as they ought to be treated.
  The hon. Lady is right in saying that approved schools are not really penal institutions. Of course they are not. But they are punishments. Young people are sent to them because they have infringed the law. But in them we have young people who are mentally retarded. Yet, if they were adults, the courts would recognise their diminished responsibility and treat them accordingly. It may be that we should consider applying the criterion of diminished responsibility to young people. It will always be a reproach on us that mentally retarded children are sent to approved schools.
  I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate what I am trying to say. There are times when I wish for the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and for the lucidity of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). But I have to depend on sincerity of purpose in putting my case, although I have met with little success so far. I hope that we shall have not a complete rejection of this Clause but some assurance that, contained within it, there is an element of justice and a great deal of good common sense and that possibly, when we discuss the Kilbrandon report, we may be in a position to do something that we should have done many years ago.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that because I do not accept the Clause there is no great merit in the thought that lies behind it. I hope also that he will not think that he has not put forward his case with great skill, for he has indeed done so. I know that he feels very deeply about this—I know also that he recognises that the Clause bristles with difficulties. Indeed, it seems that perhaps he brought the subject before us for discussion so that, at any rate, we should have an opportunity for thought on these matters which we can return to when the Kilbrandon Committee reports.
  1350
  The Kilbrandon Committee is examining this question. The educational, psychological and, indeed, mental difficulties of these children are something which cause a very great deal of concern throughout the country and on which there are very conflicting views. I do not want to accept this Clause not only because the Kilbrandon Committee is considering the matter but because, as I hope to show, in some respects it may be unnecessary, since mental and chronological ages are taken into account. Perhaps I might be allowed to say something about the allocation procedure.
  Under the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, the responsibility for specifying the approved school to which a child is to be sent rests with the court which makes the committal order, after consideration of any representations made by the education authority concerned.
  Any such representations are normally made through the officer who prepares and lays before the court the statutory social background report. In practice, the court usually commits to the school proposed by the reporting officer and, by agreement, the Scottish Education Department acts us a central agent for the education authorities in this matter.
  Where it seems likely that a child may be committed, the authority or the reporting officer seeks the tentative reservation of a place and, so far as possible, the Department makes a provisional allocation. In this way the court has at its disposal the combined advice of the education authority and of the Department, given after the child's background and the facilities provided at particular approved schools have been taken into account.
  Apart from religion, there are, of course, under the present law no statutory requirements laying down the considerations at which the court must look in deciding to which school the youngster should go. Clearly, however, the schools must be sub-divided into categories by the three main divisions—sex, religion and chronological age, the latter corresponding generally with physical maturity. The courts must obviously have regard to these things, as must the Department in suggesting an allocation.

  1351
  On merits, I would accept that mental age is a factor which must be taken into consideration. But it is only one such factor and this Clause would single it out for special mention. If, as a result of a statutory requirement of the sort proposed by this Clause, very special emphasis on mental age were laid in determining which school a child should be sent to, there would be certain educational and social difficulties.
  8.15 p.m.
  It would mean, for example, that older, duller and physically more mature boys might have to be sent to schools where they would associate with much younger, smaller and less mature boys, to the detriment of both. In the same way, brighter, younger boys would be sent to schools with older pupils and might similarly be at risk.
  I assure hon. Members, however, that, where exceptional circumstances do exist, every effort is made to take account of them in making an allocation. For example, cases have occurred where a boy of 13 or 14 who is mentally, emotionally and physically mature has been placed in a senior school rather than a junior or intermediate one. There is also the safeguard that the Secretary of State has the power to order pupils to be transferred from one approved school to another if it is found that a mistake was made in the first place in the choice of school. I hope that this gives some assurance to the hon. Member, and I too hope that we shall return to what is a very big discussion when we get the Kilbrandon Report.
  Question put and negatived.

  Clause 1.—(RESTRICTIONS ON DETENTION.)
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The next Amendment is that in page 2, line 9.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I was hoping that this Amendment would be moved by another hon. Member, but I am quite willing to move it myself. Therefore, I beg to move, in page 2, line 9. to leave out from "jurisdiction" to "imposes" in line 10.
  I do not think there is any point in speaking at length on this Amendment.
  1352
  In Committee, I explained the reasons for the Government's doubts as to whether it was necessary to apply the requirements of Clause 1(3) to summary courts with legally qualified judges since, with their legal training, they would be aware of and would apply the requirements of Clause 1(1). We took the view that it was unnecessary, but not harmful.
  I took account of the strength of feeling undoubtedly shown in Committee that this additional safeguard against unnecessary use of sentences of detention should apply to all summary courts, and I undertook to convey this feeling to my right hon. Friend. As a result, this Amendment appears on the Notice Paper.
  Mr. Ross: If the Secretary of State will meddle with legislation and put his name to an Amendment then he must pay the penalty of his name being at the top of the list of right hon. and hon. Members sponsoring the Amendment, as is the case here. It would have been far better if the hon. Lady could have served us an element of surprise by being generous enough to accept an Amendment in these terms moved from this side of the House.
  I want merely on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), who has asked me to apologise for the fact that he cannot be here at this moment—he has been here until the last few minutes—to thank the Government for their acceptance of the essence of the Amendment which he put forward in Committee. It did not originate there. I mentioned earlier that when he was sitting on this side of the House, Walter Elliot put forward this idea to the Labour Government in 1949, and the Labour Government turned it down.
  I have always felt that if we are to lay an obligation upon persons to state their reasons for ignoring Parliament's advice about the treatment of offenders and, despite all the alternatives put before them, to insist on sending such offenders to detention, in other words, to prison, all of them should have to state their reasons. But there is no reason why we should single out magistrates and tell them that if they send a person to detention, they must give a reason, while at the same time we say to a stipendiary

  1353
  magistrate or a sheriff that if he does so, he need not give his reasons. The fallibility and reliability, on balance, is about equal in both cases.
  We think that the obligation is worth while for it makes sure that such people will hesitate before passing over the alternative sentences, and we should lay it upon them all. I do not believe that sheriffs will be terribly worried about what we are asking them to do. It has been suggested that they might write a sort of offhand note. I sincerely hope that that will not be the case. I sincerely hope that the Scottish Office and the Lord Advocate—we have stopped deploring his absence or congratulating ourselves upon it—will take note of the reasons given by sheriffs as well as others for insisting on sending a young person to detention despite the alternatives which we have offered. "Detention" is the wrong word, and it is really a custodial sentence, because "detention" now has a specialised connotation. I hope that this will not be done merely as a matter of form and that attention will be paid to Parliament's desires and the conviction of public opinion that young people should be treated in such a way as to prevent their intimacy with prison life as far as possible, because of the effect that that will have and the likelihood, as has been proved in many cases, that such familiarity will breed contempt for the law and that the element of deterrence will disappear with familiarity.
  I am very glad that the hon. Lady has seen fit to accept the Amendment. I hope that it will prove beneficial and will have the effect originally desired in 1949.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2.—(YOUNG OFFENDERS INSTITUTIONS.)
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, after "provide", to insert:
  "outwith and apart from adult prisons".
  The Clause lays it down that the Secretary of State shall provide such young offenders' institutions as appear to him to be necessary. This is the new alternative form of custodial sentence for young people of the required age.
  I was shocked, as were many others, when we discovered the Government's
  1354
  intentions about meeting their obligation in this respect. The first new young offenders institution was to be the old prison at Dumfries. The second was to be at Edinburgh in a hall which was part of the prison, but which was somehow to be segregated from the rest of the prison. Then we learned that girls were to go to Greenock, again to part of Greenock Prison.
  The S.A.C.T.O. Report on Custodial Sentences for Young Offenders—other than sentences of detention in a centre or borstal—was very firm on this issue and that makes the Amendment all the more necessary. Paragraph 65 of that Report says:
  "Fundamental to our recommendations is an institution to which all young persons on whom a custodial sentence is imposed, other than detention in a centre or a borstal sentence"—
  that is what we are calling young offenders institutions—
  "could be sent direct from the courts. In existing Scottish prisons as we have seen them it is simply not possible to keep a group of young offenders apart from adult prisoners and at the same time provide the conditions, for work, education and recreation, in which youths should be detained. It may indeed be possible to provide conditions in which there is no physical contact between the group of young offenders and adult prisoners, but if the latter are within sight or hearing of the youths there is not effective segregation. We regard it as very important that no young offender, including a young offender who has defaulted on the payment of a fine, should ever be detained inside a prison for adults."
  That was the view of S.A.C.T.O. and also of the Standing Committee, which welcomed the young offenders institutions but which was horrified when it learned what was to happen. I remember the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) appealing to the noble Lady and saying that Greenock was an adult prison with a borstal which was now to be a young offenders institution and suggesting that the authorities should go outside the prison gates and use the governor's house as a young offenders institution.
  If anything has been brought out in our consideration of the Bill it has been the Government's failure to implement what were regarded as advances in penal treatment as long ago as the legislation of1949. It is no good saying that we must have remand homes if we do not get remand homes. It is no good saying let

  1355
  us have detention centres if we have none. Now we are to get makeshift young offenders institutions. How long will it be before we get rid of these makeshift arrangements and have institutions which are related to the job to be done and which S.A.C.T.O. says are essential?
  It is important to start off on the right foot, and the Amendment is therefore of particular importance. When S.A.C.T.O. said that it did not want young offenders to mix with adult prisoners, it meant it. When, after a careful examination of the problem, it said that there could not be effective segregation within one building, it meant it, and it said this not only in respect of young men but in respect of girls too. The Council said that the borstal should not be situated in Greenock, but here we are to have an adult prison, a borstal, and a young offenders institution in one place. What an achievement. This is centralisation made perfect!
  I suppose we shall be asked to accept this provision in the Bill on the basis that it is administratively convenient and will save staff. I hope that we shall not be told that only a few people are concerned, because, if only a few people are concerned it should be possible to make alternative arrangements such as were suggested by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East. I hope that the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State has looked at this Amendment and appreciates what prompted it. It was tabled because of her disclosures, and if she wants to ease our concern she should accept the Amendment.
  8.30 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I appreciated the reason behind the Amendment very clearly, because I had sought to give the Committee as much information as I could about the arrangements that we are trying to make for young offenders institutions. From the debates that we have had on buildings in other contexts the hon. Gentleman knows that it is impossible suddenly to switch from one building arrangement to another, and if we want to get these young offenders institutions under way we shall have to make use of Dumfries in particular.
  I wish to speak about both Dumfries and Saughton. I agree with the hon.
  1356
  Gentleman that the accommodation we are providing for young offenders should be kept separate from the ordinary establishments for adult offenders and we hope to achieve this in our plan for the young offenders institution at Dumfries and also at Saughton. To provide the new accommodation as quickly as possible we are going to convert some of the existing buildings rather than build new ones. The main young offenders institution is to be in what is now Dumfries Borstal Institution, and we are also proposing to provide accommodation in a separate hall at Edinburgh Prison.
  At both places young offenders will be separate from any older ones. At Dumfries there will be a few cells that are close to, but completely separate from, the young offenders institution for adult untried offenders to be dealt with by local courts. They will not have any contact at all with the young offenders in the main part of the building. Similarly, at Saughton the hall for young offenders will be administered separately from the main prison and young offenders will have no contact with ordinary prisoners. There will be separate workshops and recreation facilities for young offenders, and they will have their meals in their own quarters.
  All the office and administrative work of the institution will be carried out in premises that are attached to it. I therefore think that in practice the object of the Amendment will be achieved, but I am afraid that I cannot advise the House to accept it, because, although the accommodation for young offenders at Saughton will be "apart from" the adult prison, I do not think that one could say that it is "out with" the prison, and for this reason I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.
  As regards the arrangements for women young offenders—a point which I think was brought to my attention in earlier debates by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson)—it is true that there will be only a few of them. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that because there were a few of them it might be possible to deal with them in some other way, but for the moment they will be at Greenock, where they will be separated from the prisoners. Therefore, although part of the Amendment is

  1357
  acceptable, I am afraid that "out with" is not.
  Mr. Ross: Does that mean that the hon. Lady does not accept all that was said by S.A.C.T.O. in respect of the provision of separate accommodation, and does she not accept what the Council referred to as the danger in the inability to get segregation within one building?
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I accept the desirability of what S.A.C.T.O. recommended. I sought to show just now that there will be segregation from adult prisons. A much greater and more difficult question is segregation, within these institutions, of different types of offender.
  Mr. Willis: That is a shocking answer. I appreciate that the hon. Lady has made the best of a bad job, but this is a bad job. Here we are starting something new on entirely the wrong foot. We are putting these young offenders into institutions, which we are told should be separate from prisons—and all our discussions have indicated that everyone wants this—and the Government say "We are incapable of providing this separate accommodation".
  Is it not a shocking confession of ineptitude and incompetence on the part of a Government to tell us that they cannot put up a building for girls and two buildings for boys, but that we have to use part of Saughton Prison? I fear that having once got them there they will stay there, and that we shall be fobbed off for years to come with the answer, "We have not yet found time," or, "It has not been convenient," or, "We have not the necessary labour," or something of that sort. With about 90,000 unemployed men and, goodness knows, plenty of material—we can easily make all the bricks we want in Scotland—everybody in Scotland will wonder why this cannot be done. We have all this unused labour and material, but we cannot supply the things we need.
  Is not there something wrong with a Government who have to admit this? I am deeply shocked that the hon. Lady should have to make the deplorable and rather pathetic confession that we must put the girls in part of Greenock Prison and the boys in Saughton and Dumfries. That is not a new start. That is not applying something new to our treatment of young offenders. We are getting off on the wrong foot altogether. I
  1358
  would rather see this provision delayed for a year in order that we could have established separate institutions.
  We shall spend as much time, energy and money on making alterations to this accommodation as, in the long run, would be required to provide new quarters. I hope that my hon. Friends will press the Amendment to a Division to show how strongly we feel about it.
  Mr. Dempsey: I cannot allow the noble Lady's statement to go unchallenged. She has shown the most callous attitude that I have ever seen adopted towards the problem of dealing with youthful offenders. If she had had any practical experience of dealing with this problem she might have adopted a more generous and understanding attitude.
  It is almost impossible to have complete segregation within our prisons. I have seen young offenders marching in prison yards, doing their drill, going off to work and coming back side by side with habitual criminals and even the worst type of murderer. The reason has been the shortage of accommodation. This is no new problem. It has always been the problem in Scotland. There has been a consistent refusal by the Government to build when they were asked to build, and a bungling in their handling of the financial arrangements for prisons, time after time. Appeal after appeal was made to get on with the erection of new buildings so as to get these young people out of the adult prisons and to provide them with complete segregation, taking them away from the horrible atmosphere of adult prisons and giving them a chance to reform. We have appealed time after time, and we have received the same cold and callous answer as that which we have just heard from the Undersecretary at the Dispatch Box.
  One can realise what will happen when young offenders are in such a prison. I say to the Under-Secretary that it is impossible to maintain that there will be no contact between these youthful offenders and adult prisoners. The youthful offenders will learn the tricks of the trade from the habitual criminals and the art of obtaining illicit goods through the windows of their cells, just as is done by the adult prisoners. This cannot be avoided if young people are in the same building, and it can be achieved through the strangest of ways.

  1359
  As a visiting magistrate I have had the unpleasant task of interviewing such prisoners and disciplining them. I am shocked that young girls and youthful offenders should be going to Greenock Prison. Has the noble Lady made a random visit to Greenock and interviewed the type of women who are prisoners there? I have done so on more than one occasion. I used to believe that the immortal bard Robert Burns was right when he upbraided the gentle sex—until I discovered that in Greenock Prison we have some of the hardest-faced individuals and some of the most truculent ladies whom I have ever come across.
  I say it is a scandal that young offenders, young girls, should be taken to that prison, because these people are so unresponsive to authority and discipline that when they are interviewed the complaint which they used to make to me was that they demanded bacon and eggs every morning—
  Miss Harvie Anderson: I do not think it is quite a fair picture which the hon. Member is drawing of the work which is being done at Greenock Prison. I should be the first to agree that there are hardened offenders within the prison. But under the control of one whom I have previously described as a most enlightened governor, extremely good work is being done in reforming the prisoners. It would be a great pity if the wrong impression were conveyed from this House about the work being done by the staff at Greenock Prison.
  Mr. Dempsey: I do not think that anything I have said reflects on the staff. I have been talking about the kind of prisoner with whom young offenders will become associated. Has the hon. Lady ever been a member of a prison visiting committee?
  Miss Harvie Anderson: I was a member of a visiting committee for a number of years.
  Mr. Dempsey: I wonder how often the hon. Lady has visited this prison and interviewed the ladies who are prisoners there. I happen to know the lady in charge, and she is a very charming person. Were I asked to comment, I should say that she is doing an excellent job. But she will be given an impossible task
  1360
  if she is required to accept responsibility for young girl offenders in such an adult prison. So different are her ordinary customers that I doubt whether she will be able to find the time and energy to deal with the most important problem of reforming juvenile offenders.
  There is not the slighest doubt about the fact that in Greenock I met some of the most cunning, adroit and diabolical types that I have ever seen. Their existence would disillusion one and destroy one's faith in human nature if one's opinions were formed only by contact with this small and insignificant minority, whose misbehaviour costs the State and the taxpayer so much money. It is far too risky to talk about bringing young offenders into such an atmosphere.
  8.45 p.m.
  The purpose of a prison sentence is to try to reform these individuals, to try to show them the light and to help them on to the true road to becoming efficient, effective and responsible citizens in our democratic society. That is the purpose of bringing juvenile offenders together, but in doing so we must make sure that they are brought together in a proper atmosphere and that the sentence is not so much punishing as reformative. That point must never be forgotten. We cannot show these young people the proper road they should travel, the highway to a decent type of society, by incorporating them in an adult prison and pretending that it is possible to achieve complete segregation by those means.
  I know from experience that it is not easy. I know the ways and means whereby contact can be established and exchanges can take place. The only antidote to that offensive conduct, to bad example and undesirable leadership, is segregation of these people in their own buildings. We have the labour to do that. If there is any doubt about that hon. Members should consider Lanarkshire. Building operatives there are registering at the employment exchanges. There are men and materials in the west of Scotland. In the City of Glasgow a huge skyscraper is being built for the Inland Revenue Department for the collecting of taxes. Surely sufficient money could be found by the Scottish Home Department to provide buildings to reform and give these young offenders a decent start in society.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —
  The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 191.

  Division No. 172.]

  AYES

  [8.47 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Harper, Joseph

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Ainsley, William

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Pentland, Norman

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)J

  Probert, Arthur

  Baird, John

  Hilton, A. V.

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Barnett, Guy

  Holman, Percy

  Randall, Harry

  Bence, Cyril

  Holt, Arthur

  Redhead, E. c.

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hooson, H. E,

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Benson, Sir George

  Hoy, James H.

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Blackburn, F.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Rhodes, H.

  Blyton, William

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Boardman, H.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Ross, William

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Short, Edward

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Jeger, George

  Silkin, John

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Johnson, Carot (Lewisham, S.)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Chapman, Donald

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Small, William

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Kelley, Richard

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lawson, George

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Ledger, Ron

  Steele, Thomas

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Stones, William

  Deer, George

  McBride, N.

  Swingler, Stephen

  Dempsey, James

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Donnelly, Desmond

  McLeavy, Frank

  Taverne, D.

  Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Mahon, Simon

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

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

  Fernyhough, E.

  Manuel, Archie

  Wade, Donald

  Finch, Harold

  Mapp, Charles

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mason, Roy

  Warbey, William

  Foley, Maurice

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Weitzman, David

  Forman, J. C.

  Millan, Bruce

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Monslow, Walter

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Moody, A. S.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

  Morris, John

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mulley, Frederick

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

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

  Grey, Charles

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

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Woof, Robert

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Oram, A. E.

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Parker, John

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Mr. Whitlock.

  NOES

  Altken, Sir William

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Eden, Sir John

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Eillot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Emery, Peter

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Farr, John

  Barlow, Sir John

  Cole, Norman

  Fell, Anthony

  Barter, John

  Cooke, Robert

  Finlay, Graeme

  Batsford, Brian

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Cordle, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Corfield, F. V.

  Gammans, Lady

  Bidgood, John C.

  Coulson, Michael

  Gardner, Edward

  Biffen, John

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Crawley, Aldan

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Critchley, Julian

  Gower, Raymond

  Box, Donald

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Curran, Charles

  Green, Alan

  Bralne, Bernard

  Currle, G. B. H.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Brooman-White, R.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gurden, Harold

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Bryan, Paul

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Buck, Antony

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Bullard, Donys

  Doughty, Charles

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Duncan, Sir James

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Chataway, Christopher

  Duthie, Sir William

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Hendry, Forbes

  Maddan, Martin

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

  Hiley, Joseph

  Maginnis, John E.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Russell, Ronald

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

  Marten, Neil

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)

  Shaw, M.

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Mawby, Ray

  Shepherd, William

  Holland, Philip

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

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Hopkins, Alan

  Mills, Stratton

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Morgan, William

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Morrison, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

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

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Teeling, Sir William

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Temple, John M.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Turner, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Partridge, E.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Kirk, Peter

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Peel, John

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Lambton, Viscount

  Peyton, John

  Walder, David

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Walker, Peter

  Leavey, J. A.

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Wall, Patrick

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Pitman, Sir James

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Pitt, Game Edith

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

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

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Ramsden, James

  Wise, A. R.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  McLaren, Martin

  Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Ridsdale, Julian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Mr. Pym and Mr. Ian Fraser.

  Macpherson.Rt.Hn.Niall (Dumfries)

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

  Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert:
  (2) In any enactment—

  (a) any reference to a sentence of imprisonment as including a reference to a sentence of any other form of detention shall be construed as including a reference to a sentence of detention in a young offenders institution; and

  (b) any reference to imprisonment as including any other form of detention shall be construed as including a reference to detention in a young offenders institution.

  This is purely a drafting Amendment. This subsection, which was originally one unpunctuated sentence of 54 words, attracted a certain amount of criticism in Committee. I have sought to amend it, but at some cost to brevity. The subsection now contains 66 words, but I hope that hon. Members will feel that it is better.
  Mr. Willis: There was a certain occasion in this House when an hon. Member opposite was holding forth with great vigour. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) could not see the hon. Gentleman because the sun was streaming through the west windows. My hon. Friend thereupon asked Mr.
  1364
  Speaker, on a point of order, whether the blinds could be raised. The blinds were duly raised, whereupon my hon. Friend, seeing who was speaking, on another point of order asked whether they could be lowered again.
  I feel somewhat in that position to night when I compare the original subsection with that proposed. I certainly criticised the original subsection in Committee, but when I first read the proposed wording I wondered whether I had been wise in raising the question of length and lack of punctuation, and might not have been wiser to have said nothing. However, having considered the proposed new subsection in rather more detail, and having weighed the pros and cons, I think that it is an improvement on the original subsection, and we are grateful to the hon. Lady for having accepted our suggestion that the subsection should be put in more simple language.
  Mr. Ross: I am very grateful that we have agreement at last because, on this point, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and I had a very wordy battle. After all, someone has to provide the opposition in these

  1365
  things—or should I say that someone has to support the hon. Lady at times? We have not heard a single Scottish Tory voice today. However, this is a very reasonable Amendment.
  I must correct my hon. Friend. On the occasion to which he refers it was the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) who was speaking, the person who could not see him was my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), and it was only one intervention—as usual, a short one—from myself.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 7.—(DETENTION IN A DETENTION CENTRE.)
  9.0 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, at the end to insert:
  (3) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a person detained in a detention centre is unfit for such detention by reason of his health, without prejudice to any other powers he may have in the matter, he may, after consultation where practicable with the judge by whom or the presiding chairman of the court by which the sentence was passed, release that person; and he shall then be required to be under supervision in accordance with section 11(1) of this Act.
  This is the first of a series of four Amendments, all with the same purpose. In Committee there was discussion of the detention centre training and of the admitted difficulties which result from having in the centre persons who were not subject to the full training of the centre, whether because of unfitness or because they were in the centre on recall from supervision for a breach of requirement.
  We think that this difficulty cannot be entirely removed. In some cases there is no alternative to the detention of persons of this kind, but this series of Amendments is intended to reduce the difficulty to the minimum. The S.A.C.T.O. Report on the Treatment of Offenders recommended in paragraph 43 that the Secretary of State should have the power, for use in exceptional cases, to release from a detention centre a young person who was not mentally or physically suitable for continued detention.
  The Royal prerogative of mercy is a power which enables Her Majesty to order such a release and the Bill as introduced made no statutory previsions on the lines
  1366
  of the S.A.C.T.O. recommendation. However, in Committee it was argued that the exercise of this power was important to minimise this difficulty to which I have referred. The Royal prerogative is of course an extraordinary instrument, and if it is the intention that the power of release should be used as an instrument of policy to minimise the difficulty, it is appropriate that statutory provision should be made for it. This is a fairly narrow point but on consideration the Government accept the case for having a stautory power and, as recommended by S.A.C.T.O., the Amendment provides that the power can be used only after consultation, where practicable, with the sentencing court.
  Mr. Steele: We are now reaching a very interesting stage where the noble Lady is saying that some of the things which we said in Committee are after all desirable. On this occasion we ought to thank her for doing something at least along these lines.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 9.—(TRANSFER BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS.)
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 5, line 49, at the end to insert:
  (4) The powers conferred upon the Secretary of State by the last foregoing subsection may be exercised in the case of a person who has not attained the age of seventeen years if the Secretary of State is satisfied, having regard to the character and development of the person, that it is appropriate that he should be detained in a young offenders institution."
  This is the second of the Amendments the general purpose of which I have already explained. It is to reduce as far as possible the number of persons detained in detention centres who are not undergoing the full detention course.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 11.—(SUPERVISION OF PERSONS RELEASED FROM DETENTION CENTRES.)
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, after "State", to insert:
  "shall review each case at the end of six months and".
  The Amendment refers to the supervision of persons released from detention centres. We now lay down that a person going to a detention centre shall go for the fixed period of three months but

  1367
  that part of the original sentence shall be supervision, after release from the three months, for one year. In Committee I thought that one year was far too long, I thought that it would be quite punitive and would lead to resistence on the part of the person concerned, bearing in mind the nature of the sentence and probably the nature of the offence and the implication that a short sharp sentence would bring the young person to his senses and that specialised treatment at a detention centre was designed to do that. I felt that to add to that supervision for 12 months thereafter was really punitive and might well not have the desired effect.
  We on this side do not treat these as party matters. There is room for differences of opinion, and I think that differences of opinion were expressed on this subject in Standing Committee. Nevertheless, I still hold to my original view, although I do not urge it on this occasion. What I do suggest, however, is that there should be a formal review of each case at the end of six months to see whether or not one could dspense with the other six months or, indeed, with any further supervision. I regard this as reasonable.
  No doubt, the noble Lady will say that the matter is constantly under review. I do not need to wait to hear her read her typescript message to know that that will be the reply. Nevertheless, I feel that there should be a formal. consideration of each case. We do something very similar after a certain period in mental health cases. It was another Undersecretary of State who dealt with that legislation so, perhaps, the noble Lady does not remember it. It is essential in these cases, too. We should give a person something to work towards so that he may feel that there is a chance of being freed from supervision as a result of his behaviour and response to treatment and supervision. This can, I am sure, be beneficial. In any event, it will relieve my mind of the feeling that the consequence of maintaining the inflexible period of 12 months will be the building up of resistance among persons being supervised so that there will not be that co-operation with the supervising officer which is essential for the success of supervision itself.
  1368
  In Standing Committee, the noble Lady gave us some statistics. She was able to tell us that at present supervision is voluntary and that here had been voluntary co-operation in all the cases she could cite. I fear that what we now have under a voluntary system may be marred if we make it an obligation and that young people sentenced to detention will regard it as an unjustified punishment. Any such feeling will be mitigated if we make possible a formal break at six months.
  Even so, I hope that if the Amendment is accepted it will not have the result that there will not be consideration in particular cases of the possibility of ending supervision at a stage even earlier than six months.
  Mr. Steele: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that there could be a difference of opinion. I take the view, as he did in the first instance, that six months might have been better. Indeed, this is what was recommended. Nevertheless, the fear I have is that if the Amendment is accepted six months might be regarded as the minimum period before a review can take place. I agree with my hon. Friend that six months' compulsory supervision might well be sufficient, but I feel that to stipulate in the Bill that a review should take place at the end of six months may mean that the first review does not take place until then.
  I am convinced that it is much better, in all the circumstances, to keep open the possibility of a review at some earlier stage. An offender sentenced to three months in a detention centre serves two months, in fact, and, on his release, the person supervising him may find that even after only six weeks' or two months'supervision—this is probably the most difficult period—it would be an advantage to say that supervision was no longer necessary. This might be helpful in appropriate cases. I suggest, therefore, that it might be dangerous to put the period of six months in the Bill as the time for a review.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: The speeches of the hon. Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) show that in Committee upstairs

  1369
  we certainly expressed individual views. I am afraid that on this occasion I must take the view of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West and not accept the Amendment put forward with his usual eloquence by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock.
  I appreciate and understand the reason behind the Amendment—that no offender released from a detention centre should be kept under supervision longer than is absolutely necessary. I think that in Committee upstairs we were all agreed on that. However, I do not accept that a review of each individual's case at a stated time will be any more effective than a frequent review of his case carried out as a matter of administrative practice. That point was put very well by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West. A review at a fixed period might tend to make reviews before or after that period not so frequent or so thorough.
  As I explained on the previous Amendment, regular reports, probably monthly, as at present for borstal boys, will be made on released detention centre inmates and they will deal specifically with the point as to whether the person has progressed well enough to have his supervision lifted or the conditions of supervision modified.
  A consideration highly relevant to this proposal is contained in the Report of the Committee on Children and Young Persons, the Ingleby Committee. The Committee found that the statutory six-monthly review of the cases of persons on probation required to reside in a hostel or institution for twelve months from the date of the order led the probationer to expect that he would be allowed home at the end of that time. The period after six months was regarded as a further sentence. Therefore, the Committee recommended against a statutory review at six months.
  I should have thought that a detention centre inmate whose supervision was not cancelled after six months would feel just the same way, and therefore I suggest that the less formal but more continuous review is, perhaps, the best way to treat this problem.
  Mr. Ross: On the, understanding that there will be this administrative review
  1370
  over the whole period, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 7, line 12, at the beginning to insert:
  "Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection."
  Perhaps we may take with this Amendment the following Amendment, in page 7, line 32.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: These two Amendments are the last in a series of Amendments intended to reduce to a minimum the number of persons detained in a detention centre who are not undergoing the full detention centre training course. As the underlying reasons for these Amendments are very much the same as those for Amendments which have been already moved, I shall not trouble hon. Members with a long explanation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 32, at end insert:
  (3) The power conferred upon the Secretary of Stale by the last foregoing subsection to recall an offender to a young offenders institution may be exercised in the case of a person who has not attained the age of seventeen years if the Secretary of State is satisfied, having regard to the character and development of the person, that it is appropriate that he should be detained in a young offenders institution.—[Lady Tweedsmuir.]

  Clause 14.—(SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PRISONERS AFTER RELEASE.)
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 9, line 1, to leave out lines 1 to 8 and insert:
  (2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) thereof, this section applies—

  (a) to any person serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years or more;

  (b) to any person serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of not less than six months, but less than three years, who is under the age of twenty-six years at the commencement of the sentence.

  Would it be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we considered with this Amendment that in page 9, line 14?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: These Amendments are purely drafting Amendments. They

  1371
  make no change of substance. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made a number of criticisms of the drafts of the Clause in Committee upstairs. As I said at the time, I thought that the Clause read reasonably clearly. I have had it examined, however, to see whether the drafting could be improved and I hope that the hon. Member will agree that these Amendments are an improvement.
  Mr. Ross: For clarity, lucidity and simplicity, these words could not be bettered and I am glad that the hon. Lady has at least listened to some of our criticism from this side of the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 14, leave out from beginning to first "in" in line 17 and insert:
  "(4) This section shall not apply to persons serving a sentence of imprisonment commencing before such date as may be prescribed by order of the Secretary of State under this subsection; and any such order may prescribe different dates in respect of sentences described in paragraphs (a) and (b) respectively of subsection (2) of this section, and,"—[Lady Tweedsmuir.]

  Clause 17.—(AMENDMENT OF FIRST OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1960.)
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 10, line 2, after "made", to insert:
  "after the passing of this Act".
  We now come to what I regard as one of the continuing blemishes of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) is one of the few Members of the House who, within about a year of arriving in this place, got a favourable place in the Ballot and had a Private Member's Bill accepted by the House. That Bill extended to first offenders in Scotland a considerable degree of protection in respect of prison sentences.
  The Clause withdraws the benefit of that Act that absolute discharge and probation were not to be treated as convictions. In Committee upstairs, we tried to persuade the Government to change their minds about this, but we failed. We recognise the failure and the limitation that on Report we cannot go over exactly the same ground. The purpose of the Amendment is that the change which the Government now propose should start with the passing of the Bill
  1372
  and that the benefit which the House openly and knowingly conferred upon people who were dealt with by the courts, and whose offence was such that they were given an absolute discharge or put on probation, whereby they would be treated as first offenders, should be continued for those people who have been so treated up to the present and that the disadvantage which the Government propose should fall upon first offenders should start from the passing of the Bill and should not apply to orders made by the courts from the passing of the 1960 Act until the present time.
  I regret this Clause probably more than any other in the Bill. It indicates a rather mean cleansing of the 1960Act and the wiping out of an anomaly by removing a benefit, whereas we could have been generous and worked it the other way, which would have had our support. To do it in the way that the Government propose is bad and we can only hope that the House will mitigate the evil that will be done by limiting it to orders which are made after the passing of the Bill, when courts will know exactly the implications of what they are doing.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: The effect of this Amendment would be to limit the effect of the change in the law which we made in Committee about orders for absolute discharge or probation made by Scottish summary courts.
  As I understand it, the suggestion is that in respect of past orders for absolute discharge or probation we are amending the law and affecting those orders retrospectively.
  If this effect were part of the sentence I would agree with this suggestion. For instance, Clause 14 applies compulsory after-care to prisoners undergoing sentence and qualifying the sentence, but it limits the liability to persons sentenced following the commencement of the provisions. I think it would be wrong, if the court did pass a sentence of imprisonment, radically to alter the nature of that sentence.
  The case here is different, because while it is true in one sense that the persons who in the past were placed on probation or given an absolute discharge by Scottish summary courts would be affected by an amendment of the law, it would not be a

  1373
  change in the nature of the sentence itself. Could it be suggested that it was a consideration in the mind of the court in making such an order that the next time the offender committed an offence he would be treated as a first offender? In fact, the First Offenders Act does not concern itself with the nature of past sentences but contains a definition of a type of person who is to be treated as a first offender for the purposes of that Act, and naturally enough, bearing in mind the Title of the Act, it is governed by previous offences.
  The trouble was that there was a drafting error in the 1960 Act, and for present purposes—the question whether or not the offender now standing convicted before the court is a first offender—an unjustified distinction is drawn, not by the nature of the sentence but by the type of court concerned. The defect could be remedied only by saying that the Act applies to all persons dealt with by absolute discharge by Scottish summary courts as it applies to such persons dealt with by other courts, and this can be achieved only if Clause 17 applies to both past and future orders. Therefore, I must advise the House not to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Willis: This is most unsatisfactory. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said, it is this Clause which, apart from the original Clause 32 of the Bill, attracted more attention, probably, than any other Clause. It called for more adverse comment on the part of interested bodies than any other Clause, with the exception of the original Clause 32, which the Government dropped.
  We tried in Standing Committee to get the Government to accept our ideas about this, and this Amendment simply seeks to undo some of the damage the Government are doing. According to the hon. Lady, this is a merely technical matter. There had been an error made in the First Offenders (Scotland) Act, 1960, and it was sought to rectify that technical error.
  But that affects quite a number of people who have been before the courts and been discharged or put on probation, and it applies no matter what their ages are, or anything else. It means that for the purposes of the Act of 1960 these things are to be treated as convictions.
  1374
  I think that is a bad thing. All we seek to do by this Amendment is to limit the effects of that to the cases following after the passing of this Bill.
  Why should we affect cases which have come before the courts during the past 14 years? There must be quite a large number of cases. This applies to people who have been given an absolute discharge or probation under Section 1 or Section 2 of the 1949 Act—in other words, people who for 14 years have been subject to the provisions of those Sections. If they now come before the courts they will, instead of being treated as not having been convicted, now be treated as having been convicted for the purposes of the 1960 Act. Therefore, this affects a large number of people. I should have thought that the hon. Lady could at least have accepted our Amendment and left the position relating to these individuals alone.
  I do not know that any great damage was being done. What great harm was being done by the provisions? This is, in effect, retrospective legislation. It is applying to these people something it was never intended to apply. The hon. Lady should have left the position as it was and accepted our Amendment. That would have been a much happier solution and would have given a great deal of satisfaction to many people who have expressed very deep concern about the effect of the Clause.
  Mr. Millan: As I see it, if the Amendment is not accepted, Clause 17 will be retrospective legislation. I am not absolutely clear whether it will be retrospective to the First Offenders (Scotland) Act, 1960, or as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) thinks, to 1949. My view would be that it would be retrospective only to 1960, but I may be wrong.
  I found what the noble Lady said completely unintelligible. She read her brief on the Amendment with great rapidity and not in a very convincing manner. This was the only Clause where we got the same treatment from her in Standing Committee. I know that it is an extremely complicated Clause although it consists of only five lines and that it is very difficult to explain it in non-technical laguage, but in Committee the noble Lady definitely tried to baffle

  1375
  us by reading a long unintelligible brief relating to the 1949 Act and all sorts of other Acts, and has done the same tonight.
  If I understand the Clause correctly, a person who has had an absolute discharge will be treated as a first offender. I should have thought that prima facie that was an absurd situation, because an absolute discharge ought to mean what it says; it ought to be a clearance of the record so far as the offence is concerned. Important safeguards are involved for persons over the age of 21 who are first offenders. There is, for example, the necessity for the sheriff, before he can pass sentence, to call for a probation officer's report. If an absolute discharge is treated as a conviction, a person coming before a sheriff who has had only one offence proved against him before that occasion and has had an absolute discharge in respect of that offence will not be treated as a first offender and will not have the protection afforded to first offenders that the sheriff must call for a probation officer's report before sentencing them. This is absolutely wrong in principle, as we argued in Committee.
  9.30 p.m.
  But, even if the hon. Lady does not accept that, it seems equally absolutely wrong in principle to try to remedy in this retrospective way what the Government consider to be a defect. The Government have set their faces in many other instances against retrospective legislation. For example, in the Finance Act each year, where there is discovered to be a defect by which people can avoid taxation, the House nevertheless considers it reprehensible if the Government introduce retrospective legislation, and the Government do so only where some individuals have done something which is almost criminal in their use of the loop hole.
  That kind of consideration does not apply here. Even if there were a defect in the 1960 Act—and some of us do not accept that there was—all that has happened is that certain individuals have had a certain individual protection given to them. It is reprehensible that the Government should attempt to introduce this retrospective Clause. It is a very serious matter that she has not given a
  1376
  much more convincing reply to the Amendment.
  I agree that this is an extremely technical matter, but I do not get the impression that the hon. Lady really comprehended our point of view or was really convinced of her argument. I hope that even now she will reconsider the Government's attitude and say that this reasonable and minor Amendment should be accepted.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: I hope that the hon. Lady will have another look at this Clause, which seems a monstrous proposal. There has been a little confusion in the House as to whether the orders covered by this Clause are those made in the last three years, since the passage of the First Offenders (Scotland) Act, 1960, or those made since the 1949 Act. I believe it to be the latter, so that a person who was granted an absolute discharge even as far back as 1950 will now have that counted as a conviction.
  The hon. Lady says that this is in the interests of justice. Is it just to amend the law so that a person granted an absolute discharge in 1950 can have that treated as a conviction when he comes before a court in 1964? That, however, is what the hon. Lady is suggesting.
  It is a great pity that the Clause is in the Bill at all. I would have liked the opportunity to vote against its inclusion, but as it seems that we are not able to take it out, at least the House can do one decent thing and accept the Amendment to ensure that a person who has had an order made against him granting him an absolute discharge in respect of an offence for which he was prosecuted in the past—
  Mr. Willis: And of which he might have been innocent.
  Mr. Fraser: I do not want to go into this too deeply, but I understand that there are plenty of occasions on which a person charged has been advised that if he pleads guilty, he will be granted an absolute discharge. If a person has been prevailed upon to plead guilty, notwithstanding that he might have been able to defend himself and get a "not guilty" verdict, preferring not to go to any trouble and not to incur expense—and I understand that there are many

  1377
  such people—it would be an absolute disgrace if we were now to provide that such an order made between 1949 and 1963 would be counted as a conviction against him, so that he could not have the benefit of what we all regard as the beneficial legislation of 1960.
  Any hon. Member who has taken the trouble to listen to our brief discussion would agree that to accept the Amendment would be the humane thing to do. We shall not let off any thugs or hardened criminals by making this little Amendment. We are saying merely that those people who have never had a conviction, except an order granting an absolute discharge, or who have been put on probation, should be treated as first offenders if they come before a court again. Surely that is not asking the House to go too far.
  I hope that the noble Lady will think
  again and will accept, the Amendment as reasonable and sensible and as one which those who try to make the administration of justice a little more humane would welcome and applaud. They would not wish the House at this time to legislate retrospectively as the Clause proposes. Anyone hearing our discussion would find it difficult to go into the Lobby against the Amendment. I plead with the noble Lady not to require any of us to go into either Division Lobby to vote for or against the Amendment. Let her do the decent thing and let the House of Commons unanimously decide not to make: this legislation retrospective. The only way to do that is to accept the Amendment.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —
  The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 181.

  Division No. 173.]

  AYES

  [9.40 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Pentland, Norman

  Ainsley, William

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Probert, Arthur

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Harper, Joseph

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Baird, John

  Hayman, F. H.

  Randall, Harry

  Barnett, Guy

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Redhead, E. C.

  Bence, Cyril

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Reynolds, G W.

  Benson, Sir George

  Holman, Percy

  Rhodes, H.

  Blackburn, F.

  Holt, Arthur

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Blyton, William

  Hoy, James H.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Boardman, H.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

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

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Ross, William

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hunter, A. E.

  Short, Edward

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Silkin, John

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jeger, George

  Small, William

  Chapman, Donald

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Kelley, Richard

  Steele, Thomas

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ledger, Ron

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Stones, William

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Symonds, J. B.

  Davies, s.o. (Merthyr)

  McBride, N.

  Taverne, D.

  Deer, George

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Dempsey, James

  McLeavy, Frank

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Diamond, John

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

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

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Wade, Donald

  Duffy, A. E. p. (Colne Valley)

  Manuel, Archie

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Mapp, Charles

  Weitzman, David

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mason, Roy

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Whitlock, William

  Fernyhough, E.

  Millan, Bruce

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Finch, Harold

  Morris, John

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mulley, Frederick

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Forman, J, C.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

  Willis, E. G (Edinburgh, E.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Oliver, G. H.

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Woof, Robert

  Gourlay, Harry

  Oram, A. E.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Grey, Charles

  Parker, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Mr. Lawson and

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Mr. Charles A. Howell.

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Morrison, John

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Cower, Raymond

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Barter, John

  Green, Alan

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Batsford, Brian

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Bennett, F. M, (Torquay)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bidgood, John C.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Biffen, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Partridge, E.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Harvie, Anderson, Miss

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Peyton, John

  Bossom, Clive

  Hendry, Forbes

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Box, Donald

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Pitman, Sir James

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Braine, Bernard

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Holland, Philip

  Pym, Francis

  Bryan, Paul

  Hopkins, Alan

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Buck, Antony

  Hornby, R. P.

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Bullard, Denys

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Gary, Sir Robert

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

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

  Chataway, Christopher

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Chicheater-Clark, R.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Russell, Ronald

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Iremongsr, T. L.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Shaw, M.

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Shepherd, William

  Cole, Norman

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Cooke, Robert

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Kanerry, Sir Donald

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Cordle, John

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Coulson, Michael

  Kimball, Marcus

  Tapsell, Peter

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Kirk, Peter

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Lambton, Viscount

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Crawley, Aldan

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Leavey, J. A.

  Teeling, Sir William

  Curran, Charles

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Temple, John M.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Turner, Colin

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Turton, Rt, Hon. R. H.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Mac Arthur, Ian

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Doughty, Charles

  McLaren, Martin

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Drayson, G. B.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Duncan, Sir James

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Walder, David

  Eden, Sir John

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Walker, Peter

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  MacPherson,Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)

  Wall, Patrick

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maddan, Martin

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Farr, John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Fell, Anthony

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Marten, Neil

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mawby, Ray

  Wise, A. R.

  Fraser-Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Gammans, Lady

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

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Gardner, Edward

  Mills, Stratton

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Mr. Feel and Mr. Hugh Rees.

  Morgan, William

  9.45 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 10, line 5, at the end to insert:
  (2) For the purpose of determining whether a person is a first offender within the meaning of that Act, a previous conviction shall be disregarded after the expiration of a period of ten years from the date of that conviction, being a period exclusive of any period spent by him in custody under sentence in respect of the conviction.
  The purpose of the Amendment and the consequential Amendment to Schedule 5 is to amend the First
  1380
  Offenders (Scotland) Act, 1960. The Amendment, although somewhat different in form, carries out a proposal made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) in Committee. The First Offenders (Scotland) Act, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) fulfilled a recommendation of S.A.C.T.O. to provide certain safeguards against the undue use of imprisonment by summary courts. I need not go into the Act again, because we have discussed it at some length in Committee.

  1381
  The proposal was made in Committee that even if the offender had committed an offence punishable with imprisonment after the age of 17, if more than 10 years had elapsed since that conviction or since his release from custody following the sentence imposed upon him, the first offender's safeguards should also be applied to him. Although the Government were, for a number of reasons, unable to accept the Amendment at the time, I did undertake that I would consider what could be done and see whether there were any snags and if not I would put down another Amendment. This Amendment is the result and I hope that it will meet the point put forward by the hon. Member for Craigton.
  Mr. Millan: May I once again thank the noble Lady for introducing this Amendment. During the Committee stage she promised that the Government would consider putting down an Amendment which would have the same effect as an Amendment which I moved at that time. I think that this represents a real step forward and on an occasion when we have little for which to be thankful to the Government it gives me particular pleasure to thank the noble Lady for introducing the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to

  Clause 23.—(MAXIMUM FINES AND CAUTION.)
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 13, line 32, to leave out "two hundred and fifty" and to insert "one hundred and fifty".
  Mr. Speaker: On the face of it, there are good reasons to ask the House to discuss with this Amendment the next Amendment on the Notice Paper, which is in identical terms, in page 13, line 32, leave out "two hundred and fifty" and insert "one hundred".
  Lady Tweedsmuir: There is also a consequential Amendment to Schedule 5, in page 39, line 30, leave out "two hundred and fifty" and insert "one hundred and fifty".
  I am glad that we may discuss with this Amendment the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), and I hope that
  1382
  we may also discuss the consequential Amendment to Schedule 5.
  Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House wishes
  Lady Tweedsmuir: During the Committee stage there was general acceptance that there was a case for a general increase of the fines to be imposed in the summary courts in common law cases on the lines proposed in Clause 23. But considerable anxiety was expressed about the new level of fines, which follow the recommendations of S.A.C.T.O. in its report on short sentences. Particularly, there was concern expressed in the case of the sheriff summary court where the power of fine was proposed to be increased from £25 to £250. I do not think I need repeat the arguments for a general increase in these powers of fine because, apart from the fall in the value of money since they were first enacted in 1908, there is evidence that substantial fines have been underrated and there is a risk that if the powers of fine are too low the court may feel obliged to use imprisonment because the maximum fine is an insufficient deterrent to the offender of means. But, of course, it is also true that the amount of the increase cannot be determined by any exact mathematical calculation. It is a matter of judgment.
  I felt that the anxiety expressed in Committee on this point arose from the fear that the new powers might be used unwisely and result in hardship, or even imprisonment, in default of payment, for persons who genuinely had not the means to meet the fine. The Government have no fear that this would in any way be a common result of a maximum power of fine of £250, and I think we all have regard for the very careful way in which sheriffs examine these cases. But one cannot guarantee that this would not happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen shire, West (Mr. Hendry) referred to cases in which a high monetary fine was in his view appropriate.
  In the light of what was a general anxiety expressed in the Committee, the Government felt it right to consider to what extent it was possible to reduce the new powers of fine in the sheriff summary court while still achieving the purpose to which I have referred.
  As I have said, this is not a matter of exact mathematical calculation. But we think that a maximum of £150 instead

  1383
  of £250 meets the case. I hope therefore that the House will accept this Amendment and feel that it is more appropriate than the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock.
  Mr. Ross: You said, inadvertently, Mr. Speaker, that this Amendment could be discussed with the next one which, if I recollect your words, you said was in "identical terms".
  Mr. Speaker: I apologise. My error is obvious on the face of the Paper.
  Mr. Ross: Your error is, of course, obvious to anyone who reads the Notice Paper, because my suggestion, which is a repetition of the suggestion I made in Committee, is that the £250 should be £100, but I am not going to argue about £50.
  Mr. Bence: I would.
  Mr. Ross: We are grateful that, belatedly, the Government have seen the force of our arguments and are prepared to reduce the maximum in relation to subsection (2) of this Clause from £250 to £150. Although I think they have more or less met our argument, I am not entirely happy about some of the things the hon. Lady said. Her fears were once again about the sheriffs' discretion. It is no good putting in £250 if we do not want the sheriffs to use it. A fine of that magnitude might determine whether or not a case would be dealt with by the sheriff under summary proceedings or dealt with in a different way. Considerable anxiety was expressed by the Glasgow Bar Association that it might mean that the sheriff would deal with much more serious cases with all the implications that would have on the individual, particularly in view of the discussion we had about legal aid.
  When we are arguing about and discussing S.A.C.T.O. Reports, and concerned about the number of people going into prison because they cannot pay fines, it seems rather inconsistent to raise the maximum in this Section from £25 to £250. We felt that was rather high. We did not press the Amendment in Committee but withdrew it in order to allow the Government to give further consideration to the matter. It is easy for the hon. Lady to take refuge in the fact that there is no mathematical certainty in relation
  1384
  to this matter. How could there be? The penalty of £10 is raised to £50, a fivefold increase. In the same subsection the amount of caution is raised twenty-five times and in subsection (3) penalties are raised four times. In view of this, we could not agree to an increase of tenfold. I am prepared to accept this Amendment, however, and not to move the one which I originally preferred.
  Amendment agreed to.
  It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Proceedings on Government Business exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

  Clause 25.—(RESTRICTION ON POWER TO IMPOSE IMPRISONMENT FOR FAILURE TO PAY FINE, ETC.)
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 14, line 20, to leave out paragraph (c).
  In order to meet the possibility of people going to prison because of not being able to pay fines, the Clause enables the difficulty to be overcome by their being given time to pay, but it makes certain stipulations as to how and when the court may refuse time to pay. There are circumstances in which the court may refuse an offender time to pay the fine
  "and if the offender fails to pay, may exercise its power to impose imprisonment…"
  One case to which this applies is where the person
  "fails to satisfy the court that he has a fixed abode".
  More than one hon. Member in Committee expressed the view that we were not entirely happy about this. The provision is not mandatory; the court "may" refuse time to pay. But we feel that this provision could have been left out of the Bill without any loss of discretion to the court. Even without it, we have subsection (d),
  "the court is satisfied for any other special reason that no time should be allowed for payment".
  We feel that to particularise the reference to a fixed abode may well mean that the provision will apply to anyone who

  1385
  does not satisfy the court that he has a fixed abode. We can think of cases in which it would not be easy so to satisfy the court and yet there would be no disrepute on the person concerned. The provision does not strengthen the Clause and detracts from its original beneficial intention in providing for time in which to pay a fine.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: When I first saw the Amendment I thought that it seemed very reasonable, because the words in paragraph (d) might to some extent cover paragraph (c). But I find that this is a re-enactment of existing provisions in Section 42(1) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954.
  It is necessary that the court should have power, where it considers its exercise necessary, to order the detention forthwith of a person with no fixed abode for non-payment of a fine instead of allowing him time to pay, because the orders of the criminal court must be carried out. Where an offender has a fixed abode, the authorities have a link with him which ensures that in most circumstances they can trace him and bring him before the court if he fails to pay by the due date. To avoid this he would have to take the much more serious step of bolting from his own home.
  But with an offender of no fixed abode the position is different, because he can move on if he wishes to avoid payment of a fine, and it might well be impossible for the authorities to trace him again. The result could be that he successfully escaped the consequences of non-payment.
  It is not the case that the court must order detention forthwith. If it thinks that the offender will make a sincere attempt to pay the fine, it can allow time to pay. It is the Government's view that it is necessary for the court to have this power in order to deal with cases in which an offender with no fixed abode is before them and they have reason to suspect that if they give him time to pay he will attempt to avoid the ends of justice. It is for that reason that I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Millan: I beg to move, in page 16, line 30, to leave out "undesirable or".
  1386
  This Amendment refers to the new provisions that are being introduced for supervision pending payment of fine. Subsection (4) provides that
  "Where an offender under twenty-one years of age has been allowed time for payment of a fine…"
  the court shall not send him to prison or order any other form of detention for him if he is default of the payment of that fine, unless he has been placed under supervision pending payment of it. There is a qualification to this provision that the supervision does not need to take place where
  "…the court is satisfied that it is undesirable or impracticable…"
  to place even a young person under supervision.
  It must be difficult to find cases where it would be undesirable to place a person under twenty-one under supervision pending payment of a fine. Indeed, I cannot imagine the circumstances in which it might be undesirable. Acceptance of the Amendment would mean that where it was impracticable to place a young offender under supervision the court would not have to place him under supervision but, except in those circumstances, supervision pending payment of the fine would be compulsory for offenders under twenty-one years of age or, at least, compulsory in the sense that where the young person was in default of the payment of the fine it would not be possible to send him to prison or give him another appropriate sentence of detention until the supervision order had operated.
  To some extent, this is a probing Amendment, as the noble Lady may produce very cogent arguments that there are circumstances in which it would be undesirable to place such a young person under supervision, but unless there are very strong reasons for the present wording I hope that she will accept the Amendment.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) will, perhaps, be glad to hear that I am delighted to accept his Amendment. I agree that there is a difference between "undesirable" and "impracticable". The hon. Member may recall that in Committee I gave: various examples of where it would be impracticable, but I think that that is quite sufficient to give us the power we need here.
  Mr. Millan: May I thank the Undersecretary for being so sensible as to accept this very sensible Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to

  Clause 28.—(INCREASE IN FINE WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED INSTEAD OF IMPRISONMENT ON CONVICTION ON INDICTMENT FOR STATUTORY OFFENCE.)
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 18, line 15, to leave out "less than" and to insert "not exceeding".
  Mr. Speaker: It might be convenient to discuss with this Amendment, the Amendment in page 18, line 16—leave out "£400" and insert "£300"—and the starred Amendment in line 17—leave out "One year or over" and insert "Over one year".
  Mr. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that it would be convenient to take the three Amendments together.
  We are here dealing with increase in fine which imposed instead of imprisonment on conviction on indictment for statutory offence. Once again, we revert to 1908. Once again, we have £25 and now relate it to terms of imprisonment. We increase to £100 the fine alternative to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. The three months to six months may be substituted by a fine of £200, but then there is a change of wording. We have the words:
  "Exceeding six months but less than one year"
  and the fine is doubled and becomes not exceeding £400. In logic, to take the sum of money first, as the noble Lady has seen fit to reduce the original maximum in respect of the previous Clause I think that she could reduce this maximum from £400 to £300. If she wishes to stick to these words she must do something about it because "exceeding six months but less than one year" takes us into the realms of the sentencing policy of Scottish courts.
  What is the kind of sentence we have between six months and one year? I have heard of people being sentenced to nine months but never to eleven months and ten more days, despite the song. Therefore it means that there is an element of considerable doubt as to what the new maximum of £400 will apply. There is no doubt about the first
  1388
  item because the period is not to exceed three months, and in the second item it is not to exceed six months. There has been some slipshod thinking on the part of the draftsmen here. In order to keep their "one year or over" in the last line they have slipped into a considerable realm of unjustifiable terms, which makes it much more difficult to determine what is included, and makes it much more difficult for the noble Lady to justify an increase to £400 in the discretionary maximum.
  I sincerely hope that the noble Lady has appreciated the points, which were fairly obvious from the Amendments, after the nature of my argument, and I hope that she will be prepared to accept them. It is unfair to say that it was unusual to hear the noble Lady accept one of our Amendments. She has done very nobly today. I have almost forgotten what the Secretary of State looks like, although we saw him this moping. I do not know whether he is coming here at all tonight. This is the most important Scottish Measure we have had this Session. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to come along and spoil it now, though it would be only fair to the noble Lady if someone came in and allowed her to have a cup of tea. The Amendments are all reasonable and are put forward for a constructive purpose. I am sure that this will be a better Clause if the noble Lady accepts them.
  Mr. Speaker: In suggesting that we should discuss these three Amendments together, I should have said that I would, of course, call the Amendment in page 18, line 16, for a Division, if required.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I am not happy about the Amendment to reduce the figure from £400 to £300. I am always amazed to find that, in spite of the very detailed consideration which we give to Bills in the Scottish Standing Committee, there are very important matters which we never discuss at all. Clause 28 is a Clause which we did not discuss in Committee, yet it does something very important. It changes the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1908, which laid down that a fine not exceeding £25 could be substituted for imprisonment on conviction on indictment for a contravention of any enactment which provided no penalty other than imprisonment.

  1389
  The change made here, extending the alternative of being able to pay a fine in place of imprisonment, should have been examined closely in Standing Committee, and I am sorry that it was not. The effect of it is that a man with money convicted of this type of offence can escape imprisonment every time, whereas the man without money will have to go to prison. There might have been a case for substituting a fine of £25 in place of a short sentence of imprisonment and for offences which were not so serious, but when we come to substituting £200 for six months' imprisonment and, going even further, substituting monetary fines for a year's imprisonment, we make it possible for a person to buy himself out of going to prison if he happens to possess £400. I very much doubt the wisdom of the Amendment to alter the figure to £300, and on this I disagree with my colleagues.
  I have never regarded this as a political Bill, although the Government have treated it as such. In fact, it is non-political; it deals mainly with the treatment of criminals. Nevertheless, these provisions undoubtedly favour the person with money. This is not a political point. It is the plain truth. I am sorry, therefore, that we did not consider it closely in Committee. I should certainly oppose any reduction of the amount to be paid as a fine in lieu of one year's imprisonment. I am all for the £400. If a person is to get off prison because he is well-to-do, then let him pay through the nose for it.
  Sir James Duncan: Make it £1,000?
  Mr. Willis: I do not mind making it £1,000. I am definitely against reducing it. Indeed, I am inclined to be against the principle of the Clause as a whole, namely, the extension of the payment of fines in lieu of imprisonment.
  Mr. Manuel: I think that my hon. Friend is being too lenient in his criticism. It could be £400 for seven months' imprisonment, and it could be £1,000, £2,000 or £3,000 for a year.
  Mr. Willis: No, it is "not exceeding" a year.
  Mr. Manuel: It is "one year or over".
  Mr. Willis: I had in mind the other Amendment which we tabled to delete lines 17 to 19 which probably influenced my argument. It is true that the fine could be £400 in substitution of imprisonment for seven months, but I assumed that it would be graded up from £200 to £400 in respect of sentences of imprisonment between six months and one year.
  We discussed earlier the facility with which St. Andrew's House appears to be able to draw up scales of payment for almost anything, but we did not notice that it was busily engaged in drawing up a scale of payments to enable people to escape imprisonment. I certainly do not agree with that. It is wrong in principle and is something which we should watch very carefully.
  For the reasons which I have given, I must oppose my hon. Friends on these Amendments.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I support these Amendments on principle. It is entirely wrong that a malefactor should be able to buy himself out of prison by paying a sum of money. I only regret that my colleagues have not proposed to increase the amount which the malefactor should have to pay. Instead of the amount of fine not exceeding £100, it should be £1,000. If a malefactor is to be entitled to buy himself out of prison, then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said, let him pay through the nose for it.
  It is entirely wrong to emphasise the class system in this way by enabling people who have money to buy themselves out of prison. If the principle is accepted, the amount which the malefactor should have to pay should be extremely large.
  Mr. Millan: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said. If the Amendment to leave out lines 17 to 19 had been selected, it would perhaps have been in order for us to discuss this question in greater detail. After all, we are in this Clause making a quite radical change in the law, because, if I understand it correctly, the offences with which we are dealing under it can be quite serious. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will give us some idea of the kind of offences which may be dealt with under the Clause.

  1391
  If we have a situation in which the maximum fine does not exceed £25, what it means, in effect, is that if the offence for which a man is convicted is serious and justifies a substantial sentence of imprisonment, then imprisonment will be imposed because the maximum fine of £25 related to the sentence of imprisonment would be so low that it would not be reasonable to substitute a fine.
  However, once one raises the level of the fines, one also raises the kind of offences for which it will be possible for an accused person with money to buy his way out of a sentence of imprisonment. Although in other parts of the Bill we have been trying to reduce the number of short sentences of imprisonment by the substitution of fines and other means, there is a difference between the substitution of a fine for a short sentence of imprisonment for a minor offence and the substitution of a substantial fine for what is an extremely serious crime.
  For an offence for which it is possible to impose a sentence of a year or more, there is something inherently wrong in principle in allowing a fine in substitution for that sentence of imprisonment. Either the offence is so heinous that imprisonment for a year or more should be imposed, or it is a comparatively minor
  1392
  offence for which a fine should be appropriate. I cannot think that the making of this kind of choice for more serious offences is reasonable and it obviously does not give justice as between one offender and another.
  If we have to accept the principle of the Clause—and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, I regret very much that we did not discuss it at length in Committee, we have to make the penalties, perhaps, high. Although the number of people who escape by paying fines would thereby be reduced, it would also mean that only the very wealthy would be able to buy their way out of a sentence of imprisonment. The whole thing is objectionable in principle and all we can do now is to try to make the best of a bad job, either to accept the Clause as it is or to accept my hon. Friend's Amendments.
  I consider neither the Clause nor the Amendments to be particularly satisfactory. On balance, the Clause as it stands is probably slightly better than if the Amendments were accepted. Therefore, I would rather accept the Clause. I regret it very much, however, and I regret that at an earlier stage we did not take the opportunity of discussing the whole principle at far greater length.
  Mr. Steele: I am in doubt where we are going on this argument. When my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) disagrees so violently with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan) then raises his voice in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, I feel that I must defend my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock.
  There is a point of substance on which I should like the Under-Secretary to speak. In effect, the Clause increases the fines from £25 to the amounts specified in the Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock takes exception. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East suggests that the sums are not high enough, because he thinks tht people should not pay the fines but should go to prison.
  Nowadays, I understand, what we are trying to do is to prevent people from going to prison and to try to find another method by which they can be penalised, thus avoiding the State having the responsibility of handling them in those establishments. We are trying to ensure that when people go to prison, it is for the purpose of rehabilitation.
  If my hon. Friend the Member for Edinbrugh, East, who says that the figures are not sufficiently high, would look at some of the White Papers and reports of some of the committees, he would see that too many people are in prison for failure to pay fines, low as they are.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: My argument was that it is no punishment for a Rachman to pay a fine, even if it is £1,000.
  Mr. Steele: I hope that a court, when dealing with a man of that kind, would not give him the option.
  Mr. Millan: If my hon. Friend considers offences of tax evasion—either Income Tax or Purchase Tax—he will find that it is quite common for serious offences to be dealt with in this way—which some of us think is very undesirable—whereas comparatively trivial offences are often, relatively speaking, dealt with extremely harshly.
  Mr. Steele: My hon. Friend is now confusing the judgments made in the
  1394
  courts with the legislation which we pass in this Home. What we are attempting to do is to lower the penalties and hope for the best. As my hon. Friends and I have already said, there are sheriffs and sheriffs. My hon. Friend is now saying that we ought to pay some attention to the sheriffs, and I agree. I say to the noble Lady that if we are going to get the benefit of all the provisions, including this one, we have got to have some method whereby the sheriffs, magistrates, justices of the peace and others can be brought together and enabled to understand the implications of what we are trying to do.
  On this issue I am with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock. At least, he shows some indication of good sense in this respect. My fear is that by accepting the increases in fines in this Clause, we may be going against the Report of the other Committee. There are too many people in prison today because of failure to pay fines, and there are other provisions in the Bill whereby this situation might be eased. I must confess, however, that I support my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock.
  Mr. Peter Walker: In view of the fierce and savage attacks which have been made upon the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I should like to say a few words in support of his case.
  Mr. Willis: That has torn it!
  Mr. Walker: I was shocked to hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) say that he wishes to raise the fine so that only those who can afford £1,000 or £2,000 can avoid going to prison, whereas those with more modest incomes should have to go to prison. There is a contradiction in his argument when, in one breath, he says that the option between a fine and imprisonment is one which benefits the rich—with which I agree—
  Mr. Willis: What I said was that it was a pity that we had not discussed the whole principle of the Clause.
  Mr. Walker: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the principle. Where I suggest he is completely wrong is in stating that the principle is benefited by raising the limits of the fine. In fact,

  1395
  this is to the disadvantage of those in the lower income groups.
  Mr. Manuel: I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) has participated in the debate. At least, it is one speech from the back benches opposite. I wish to pay this tribute to the hon. Gentleman, that it is noticeable how he attends Scottish debates and listens to them. I am sure that his stature will grow as a result of that exercise. I am pleased that tonight he has been impelled to his feet.
  I must say I was intrigued by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). He wants to support something because somebody else supports it. I hope I am not approaching this Clause because of anything which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) or my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) or my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said. I want to approach the Clause to have a look at what it does.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order—
  Mr. Manuel: As proposed to be amended, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, but I hope that the hon. Member will not go too far in his approach to the Clause because it is only the three Amendments with which we are concerned.
  Mr. Manuel: I was coming to that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because all we can deal with is the substitution of the amounts specified in the Amendments for the amounts laid down in the Clause. That was what my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West was dealing with, but what in effect he was saying was that it was all right for a man to pay the sums mentioned in the Amendments, say £300 instead of £400, but he forgot the ordinary working-class fellow whose income is not such that he could pay any of these sums.
  While my hon. Friends have been trying to improve the inequity of the Clause they have overlooked the difficulty of applying the law equitably because the man with plenty of money undoubtedly
  1396
  will be able to buy himself out of a pretty serious sentence while another fellow, earning a wage of £12 or £15 a week, will automatically go to prison. It is a serious business indeed where the sentence would be a year or more in prison, and the sum can be any amount which the court in its discretion may decide. It could be £2,000, if the offence were a serious one, but the court could decide he could escape imprisonment by paying a heavy fine.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: To follow out his argument, does not my hon. Friend think that this table should be combined with a provision for an investigation into the fortune, the income, of the malefactor, so that the amount he would have to pay would be graded according to his assets?
  Mr. Manuel: While I appreciate what my hon. and learned Friend has said, I think that if I were to enter into that Mr. Deputy-Speaker would quickly pull me up, because that is not in the Amendments.
  Although the Amendments lessen the severity of the Clause they do not give to the lower wage earners, in whom I am interested, any opportunity to escape imprisonment which those in the higher income groups can escape.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I have been interested in this debate. It was like fielding a football team. I was not sure which side anyone would be on. As I listened to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) I still could not decide which side he was going to be on, so I put him in the middle. I think that on balance he supports the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. Manuel: No.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Oh, he does not. I apologise to him. It must be the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I think the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) were against the Amendments and the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) and, I am glad to say, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who, alas, has left us, all supported the hon. Member for Kilmarnock.

  1397
  After listening to the debate and having considered these tables with some care beforehand, I have taken into account what has been said and also what I really think would make the best result of the table. I feel that the best solution would be to accept the first and third Amendments but not to accept the centre Amendment because it would distort the progress of the table. Perhaps I should explain this a little further.
  The hon. Member for Craigton in particular asked me whether I would say a little more about the table as a whole. I realise that I cannot discuss the whole Clause, but it has been established law since 1908 that the court can substitute a fine for imprisonment, as it has subsequently been empowered to impose other sentences, such us probation. The rich man cannot buy himself out of a difficulty, because the court has to decide between the sentence and the fine. So the court can send the rich man to prison rather than let him buy himself out of his trouble, as one hon. Member seemed to think was possible.
  Mr. Willis: Surely the hon. Lady is missing the point. Of course the court can decide. In fact, the court does decide whether it is to be a fine or prison sentence. What we are arguing is that the person who has not got the wherewithal cannot pay a fine of £500 and in that case it has to be prison. We do not believe in extending this principle.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: The third Amendment seeks to amend the last part of the table. If one accepted that—it says "Over one year", which normally, I am told, would in practice mean two years—then the court also would have the power to fine in its discretion.
  Surprisingly, the maximum fine that can be imposed at the moment is the same as the existing limit on the power of the sheriff summary court in any common law offence—that is, £25. This is, clearly, inadequate if the higher courts are to have a real alternative in appropriate cases to impose imprisonment rather than a fine. Therefore, the table sets out the maximum powers of fine in relation to the relevant maximum periods of imprisonment.
  The three Amendments propose two different adjustments to the table. The first and third propose that the last stage,
  1398
  the stage at which there is no limitation on the powers of the court, should apply to sentences of over one year instead of to sentences of one year or over. In practice, since it is almost unknown for Parliament to prescribe a maximum sentence intermediate between one and two years, this really means in effect that the last stage would start at two years. The second Amendment proposes to reduce the maximum fine for the second last stage from £400 to £300.
  I am well aware that many arguments can be produced for or against the details of any scale, including the £300 or the £400, but if it is felt that the £400 maximum should apply to one year's imprisonment, then I think we should leave that as it is. But we could accept both the first and the last Amendments. We could not accept all three because they would rather distort the table. In view of the way in which the debate has gone and the different views expressed, I think that this would be a compromise between the varying views.
  Mr. Ross: I want to express our gratitude to the hon. Lady. The Amendment she is not accepting was not intended to go along with the other two, but if she had turned down the one moved, I would have insisted on its application. This is a reasonable compromise, despite the confusion which arises from the fact that we did not get time properly to discuss this in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 17 leave out "One year or over" and insert "Over one year".—[Mr. Ross.]

  Clause 30.—(PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS.)
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 18, line 35 after "person" to insert:
  "other than a first offender within the meaning of the First Offenders (Scotland) Act 1960".
  Clause 30 makes a very radical alteration in the law in relation to the libelling of previous convictions. At the moment the limitation is on laying convictions for cognate offences in aggravation of an offence. That is being wiped out and it will be open to the court, in considering sentence, to be given by the procurator fiscal a list of what he thinks are relevant previous convictions.

  1399
  I suggest that this should not apply in relation to a person who is a first offender. The Clause dealing with first offenders has been amended, so that a person who has been convicted but whose conviction has taken place 10 years ago is to be treated as a first offender. I wonder whether we could not give such a benefit in this case as well. If we are to say that a man can have the slate wiped clean after 10 years, so long as he has not meantime been before the courts, surely we can make the appropriate change here as well.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I must advise the House not to accept the Amendment because it would prevent, as the hon. Member said, previous convictions being laid where the offender was a first offender under the terms of the 1960 Act. But cognate previous convictions can at present be laid against first offenders. I have heard no criticism of this procedure, but the Amendment would prevent it and limit the information which could be given to the court merely as a result of the fact that the convicted person was, under the terms of the Act, a first offender.
  I do not really see any particular merit in that limitation in such a case. The purpose of the First Offenders Act is not to be soft to first offenders or to treat them lightly but to ensure that the court does not make undue use of imprisonment and that, before imposing imprisonment, it is fully informed of the offender's background and circumstances.
  Under the Amendment, if the court is considering imprisonment, it will have full information about the offender's previous convictions because it will have the probation officer's report, but in the great majority of cases it will not be considering imprisonment and it will be deprived of information which may well be of value to it in deciding what is the best treatment. Therefore, I hope that on consideration the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Ross: After that explanation, I am very happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 18, line 39, at the end to insert:
  (3) Where there is laid before the court any previous conviction which but for the passing of this section would have been precluded, there shall accompany the laying of any such conviction a report from the probation officer on the person concerned and regard shall be had to it.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) is not in his place—he has not been here all day—because he raised this matter in Committee. He was concerned that if we were to get all the information about the person convicted to help the court to select the appropriate sentence, the court should have a report from the probation officer as well as all the previous convictions, the idea being that the court should know about possible good things as well as bad. To fulfil the purpose of the Clause, it is essential to have that information. Having been convinced by the hon. Member that this provision was desirable, I drafted an Amendment, and as he has not put one forward himself, I now advance mine.
  I hope that the hon. Lady has been seized of the concern expressed on both sides of the Committee and will appreciate that the Amendment more or less meets the case. No harm will be done to the Clause—in fact, it will be strengthened—by the availability to the court of additional information which may fill some of the gaps and prevent action which would not be in the interests of the individual, justice or the community. If the Government really mean what they say about this radical change, that they want not further to penalise the convicted person but to get the appropriate treatment for him, the court wants all the information it can get, not just previous convictions, but how the man has behaved and lived and reacted since his last conviction.
  Sir J. Duncan: If the offence occurred eight or nine years ago, would it not be rather difficult to get this information from the probation officer?
  Mr. Ross: The probation officer would know that it was eight or nine years ago. What is the purpose of libelling the previous conviction if the fact that it occurred nine years ago is meaning less? That is the essence of the hon. Member's intervention. That is what related to the previous Amendment, and

  1401
  I accepted the argument put forward on that. But the probation officer could that it occurred nine years ago is meaning look into a man's antecedents. That is the very argument that was put forward in Committee. I was convinced that the hon. Member for Fife, East had a point. I am sorry that he has not persistence as well as persuasion. It is no good arguing about these things in Committee; one has to be prepared to use the Parliamentary processes to get one's way. In spite of the defection of the hon. Member, I hope that the hon. Lady has more sense of duty and responsibility. Here she sees something that would strengthen the purpose of the original Clause 30 and would probably make many of us feel much happier about the change being made in Scottish law.
  Many Scottish people are concerned about this change. Some feel that we are merely following the English procedure and they are not entirely convinced that it is to our advantage, after all these years, to make this change. It would be evidence of the bona fides of the Government—evidence that they are doing this for the best purposes—if they were prepared to accept the Amendment, thereby being prepared to take into account not only previous convictions but a full report from the probation officer in relation to the person convicted.
  Sir J. Duncan: I am not sure what the hon. Member's argument is. I was not a Member of the Committee. The probation officer's report is on the person concerned, in respect of a conviction which may have taken place eight or nine years ago. That is what I do not understand.
  Mr. Ross: What has happened is that up to the present there could not be libelled against any person convicted, prior to his sentence, any previous convictions other than those which are in aggravation of that offence—in other words, cognate offences.
  That is now being wiped out, and all previous convictions may be libelled. There is no mandatory provision that all shall be libelled; they may be. That is what we were told in Committee by the hon. Lady. She said that the procurator fiscal will decide which ones are relevant. The argument was that when a person
  1402
  has been convicted but not yet sentenced, in order to get a proper treatment account should be taken of the whole criminal history of the individual. What I am saying is that to that should be added the social history and background, and all that has taken place; since his last conviction to balance the whole thing and get a proper picture. There may be matters which could be made available to the court by the investigations of the probation officer, and put in the report he would now be required to lay, that would assist the court in deciding what was the appropriate sentence.
  That is what the Amendment provides. The probation officer's report is not related to the man's last conviction but to the man himself and to his life. It may include his last conviction, but it will be much more likely to state why the man has behaved as he has since his last conviction. In other words, we say that if we want to get a picture which will enable us to create the right sentencing policy it must be a complete picture, and not a picture of all that is bad. There may be some good. There may be something in a man's recent life that could affect the court in its determination what sentence should be awarded—and if there is, the court should know about it.
  I am very glad that the hon. Member for Fife, East has come into the Chamber. I have been battling for him and his ideas, trying hard to persuade the hon. Member for South Angus exactly what he meant and what I have tried to put into words in the Amendment. I hope that when the Under-Secretary is explaining why she thinks it is good, the hon. Member will also look at the Bill and at this Amendment. If she turns it down, I hope that he will come to our support and rescue.
  11.0 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I am glad that when the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) moved this Amendment he made reference to the point made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). My hon. Friend was concerned that under Clause 30 only adverse facts about the accused would come before the court, but I said to him at the time that it is always open to an offender to have included in his plea in mitigation anything he thinks is favourable to himself.

  1403
  I do not think this Amendment is practicable, and I shall try to explain why. The effect would be that before a non-cognate conviction could be laid before the court it would be necessary for the probation service to be informed of the intention, for the probation officer to prepare a social inquiry report and for that report to be laid before the court. At present the probation service provides reports to the courts in 20,000 to 30,000 cases a year. The number is steadily rising. The Government are glad to see that, apart from cases where a probation report is obligatory, the courts are making steadily increasing use of the probation service to get information to help them to decide how to dispose of cases.
  None the less, the number of cases in which a probation officer's report is called for is still a comparatively small proportion of the 180,000 or so cases prosecuted each year in Scotland. There are a large number of cases, such as the all too frequent ones of illegal parking or minor road traffic offences, where calling for a probation officer's report would seldom, if ever, be justified. Among these cases—the great majority—in which no probation officer's report is obtained, there would be many in which the offender has previous convictions of a non-cognate nature. The Criminal Statistics do not show how many, since the figures do not distinguish between cognate and non-cognate convictions. Among those cases there will be a substantial number in which the existence of non-cognate convictions would be information of which the court should not be deprived.
  Even if this arose in only 15 per cent. of the 150,000 odd cases in which no report is at present obtained, the effect would be more or less to double the work of the probation service in providing reports. There is no reason to suppose that when and if the necessary expansion of the service can be made the provision of reports of this kind, perhaps in comparatively straightforward road traffic cases, would be the best use of the service's manpower. For this reason, I suggest that the hon. Member might consider withdrawing the Amendment.
  Mr. Willis: This is a very interesting situation. Once again the chairman of the Tory Party in Scotland is turning down the vice-chairman. We have a
  1404
  widening of the breach in the Tory Party. I am sure that hon. Members opposite must be seriously concerned about the situation of the party in Scotland.
  Sir J. Duncan: On the last Amendment the party opposite was completely split.
  Mr. Willis: We have all treated the Bill as a non-political, non-party Bill, and hon. Members opposite have insisted on treating it as a party Measure. That is why I am rather surprised at this open display of disunity. We were trying to assist the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). We thought that as a result of his lack of experience in the House he might not know how to put down an Amendment to the Bill, and judging by the activities of hon. Members opposite apparently many of them do not know how to do so. This is an elementary lesson in Parliamentary practice. Hon. Members opposite should be expressing some appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for so generously placing at their disposal his valuable services in that respect.
  The hon. Lady has placed some practical difficulties before the House, but I suggest that the Amendment nevertheless has some value. What is disappointing is that she has not tried to devise a means whereby what the hon. Member for Fife, East wanted and what my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock is supporting could be incorporated in the Bill without leading to the complications which she suggested.
  An interesting feature of the figures with which the hon. Lady provides us is the extent to which crime continues to grow under the Tories. This, too, should make members of the Tory Party think. I am only offering a few remarks and a few thoughts—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but I hope that he will keep his remarks and his thoughts as close as may be to the Amendment under discussion.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I appreciate that I was tending to get rather wide of the Amendment but these thoughts arise out of it and out of the hon. Lady's reply. One of the reasons offered for the rejection of the Amendment was the work

  1405
  involved, and I simply point out that this increasing work in the criminal courts is arising under the Tory Government. I shall certainly draw the attention of many of my friends to this aspect of the Government.
  We appreciate the difficulties but we are concerned that the hon. Lady and her advisers have not tried to devise a method by which the justifiable aim of the subsection could have been achieved, and to that extent once again, I am sorry to say, the hon. Lady has let me down. I thought rather better of her than this. I thought that she would have applied her mind to the problem and would have produced a solution and have made it possible for the person concerned to obtain such a report, not in the larceny type of case but in the type of case in which it would have been of value to the person appearing before the court.
  Mr. A. R. Wise: I really cannot allow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) to get away with those remarks. He read us a long lecture on being able to put down Amendments but, since then, he has been complaining bitterly that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has not produced an Amendment which would make one of his Amendments make a little sense. Surely to goodness, the hon. Member, with that Parliamentary skill to which he has been referring, could have devised an Amendment that did what he wanted it to do. It is only too bad that he has not—perhaps even worse that he could not. It is only fair to point out that all political wisdom does not exist slightly north of the Border and south of the Highland line.
  Mr. Ross: Does not the hon. Member recall that, earlier, two out of three of our Amendments were accepted?
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I am afraid that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) has misunderstood not only the Amendment but the Clause. If he understood the Amendment, he would realise that it is designed to give, and does give, balance to the Clause. The general principle applying to offenders, as I am sure the hon. Member will agree, in testing whether an earlier conviction should be used against the offender is whether or not he has purged his former
  1406
  offence; whether the penalty then inflicted has had a good effect.
  The Clause as it stands does not deal with that. The Amendment does. It says:
  "(3) Where there is laid before the court any previous conviction which but for the passing of this section would have been precluded, then shall accompany the laying of any such conviction a report from the probation officer on the person concerned and regard shall be had to it."
  Who would be in a better position than the probation officer to indicate whether the previous penalty had had its effect—whether it had improved the offender, whether the offender had purged his offence? That is the design, the purpose, the object, and that is what would be the effect, of this Amendment. I am sure that if the hon. Member realised that, he would support the Amendment. I ask the hon. Lady to bear my observations in mind, and accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Millan: We are now in an extraordinary position because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said, the Amendment was put down to cover a point raised originally by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), yet the hon. Member—who came into the Chamber after the Amendment was moved—does not seem to be taking any initiative in supporting it. Indeed, I have been here during most of our proceedings but have yet to hear one back-bench Conservative contribution on any Amendment. This is meant to be a non-party Bill, and it is extra ordinary that there should be such a complete lack of interest among Scottish Conservative Members. We have had one or two interlopers, including the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise)—I am not sure that his contribution took us very much further—but we have heard nothing from a Scottish Conservative Member.
  The hon. Lady's argument for the laying of non-cognate offences—which, incidentally, some of us object to in principle—was that the court should have the maximum amount of information about an offender. I should have thought that this Amendment was absolutely consonant with that principle. It would increase the amount of evidence that a court would have about an

  1407
  offender by providing that where a non-cognate offence was libelled there should also be a report from the probation officer.
  11.15 p.m.
  I agree that there may be a practical difficulty in having the report from the probation officer made simultaneously with the libelling of the non-cognate offence, but it seems to me that where the laying of a non-cognate offence will make a difference to the kind of sentence that the court will impose there ought to be a probation report. If this cannot be done at the time of the laying of the previous non-cognate offence it presumably would be open to the court to have the probation report brought forward following that procedure.
  There is an important principle here and the Government ought to try, if not to accept the Amendment, at least to meet us half way by doing what is open to them in further proceedings on the Bill and making some Amendment which will go some way to meet the point originally made by the hon. Member for Fife, East and now made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock.
  Sir John Gilmour: I apologise to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for not being here when he was kindly referring to me. I have come in as an afterthought as a result of someone mentioning that this matter had come up. In Committee I raised this point and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State allayed any suspicion that I had at the time as to what it was necessary to do to safeguard the situation. I was worried then as to whether it was possible that only the ill would be recorded before the court and that there would be no opportunity for the person presiding over the court to hear the good as well. If hon. Members will read the debate I think that they will find that my noble Friend allayed my fears and suspicions and that it is not necessary to add to the words of the Clause because there is sufficient safeguard to ensure that the good is heard as well as the bad.
  Mr. Ross: What is the safeguard?
  Sir J. Gilmour: It was said at that time that it is always open to the defence,
  1408
  and indeed it does so all the time, to bring in what is good in mitigation of the offence in making its case.
  Amendment negatived.

  Clause 45.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 4 OF THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1954.)
  Mr. Millan: I beg to move, in page 23, line 27, to leave out "fifty" and to insert "twenty-five".
  When we came to this Clause and this part of the Bill in Committee we were on the last day allocated to us for the Committee stage. We rushed through the Clause without any discussion. This was unfortunate because the Clause is quite important. It provides for certain changes in the powers of the summary courts other than sheriff courts, and that means the burgh police courts and J.P. courts. Under paragraph (a), it will be possible for the courts to deal with rather more serious offences than they can now.
  The three categories of offence are set out in Section 4(1), paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954. They are, so far as the increase in limits is concerned, theft or reset of theft, falsehood, fraud and wilful imposition, breach of trust and embezzlement. For these offences at present, summary courts other than sheriff courts have been able to deal with offences only if they were in respect of amounts not exceeding £10. It is now provided that the same categories of offences will be dealt with by the lower summary courts but the new limit set is not exceeding £50.
  This is a considerable extension of the powers of the burgh police courts. We are entitled to have an explanation from the Government of why this increase in powers is being granted. If for this category of offences a limit of up to £10 was reasonable in 1954, one wonders why, only nine years later, it is necessary to raise it five-fold. The Amendment to reduce the limit from £50 to £25 represents something much more reasonably in line with the fall in the value of money under this Government.
  The interesting feature of the whole Clause is that, whereas paragraph (a) increases the powers of the lower summary courts, paragraph (b) restricts them. There is a contradiction in the Clause as

  1409
  a whole, and one has difficulty in understanding whether the Government wish to give an improved or a reduced status to the lower summary courts.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: This is one of a number of provisions in the Bill designed to bring up to date the financial limits of one kind and another which are contained in earlier legislation and which have fallen out of line with changes in the value of money since they were originally fixed. Section 4 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954, imposes certain restrictions on the powers of courts of summary jurisdiction other than the sheriff court. The provisions with which we are here concerned are to be found in subsection (2) paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) which provide that, where the value of stolen goods or goods obtained by fraud or false pretences exceeds £10, summary prosecution may take place only in the sheriff court.
  This financial limit goes back to 1908, since the 1954 Act was a consolidation Measure, and the increase to £50 proposed in the Bill is designed to take account of the change in the value of money since the present limit was fixed 55 years ago. The hon. Gentleman argued that the increase to £50 is unjustified and has suggested instead an increase to £25 as being more reasonable. I think the House will agree that from debates we have had earlier on monetary changes this cannot be, in fact, an exact mathematical calculation. What we are trying to do is to maintain broadly the distinction between the burgh and J.P. courts, on the one hand, and the sheriff courts on the other as provided in the older legislation. If the level is too low the burgh and the J.P. courts are prevented from dealing with cases which they might otherwise be able to dispose of, and an additional burden is imposed on the sheriff court.
  We had thought, in drafting the Bill, that an increase from £10 to £50 was a reasonable recognition of the change in values since the figure of £10 was originally fixed. But, as I say, this is not an exact science and, therefore, I am quite prepared that we should recommend the House to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
  Mr. Millan: May I once again—this is the third time today that I have been
  1410
  able to do this—thank the hon. Lady very much for accepting the Amendment?
  Amendment agreed to

  Clause 48.—(PROVISION FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES.)
  Mr. Speaker: I think it would be to the convenience of the House to discuss with the Amendment in page 23, line 45, the next three Amendments: In page 23, line 46, leave out "eighteen" and insert "seventeen".
  In line 46, after "eighteen" insert:
  "after approval of an order to that effect by the Commons House of Parliament".
  In page 24, line 3, leave out "eighteen" and insert "seventeen".
  If that be acceptable to the House I will save the second, third and fourth and call, ii; necessary, for Divisions the second and third.
  Mr. Willis: I understand that we are to discuss all the Amendments on Clause 48. The only point of clarification that I should like to ask for is that if I move to leave out Clause 48, and if that is agreed to, does that mean that none of the three following Amendments can be made?
  Mr. Speaker: What I propose would be to leave out the words to "eighteen" in line 46. That saves the others. Anyhow, we will look after the mechanics of the matter if the hon. Member will move the first Amendment and we discuss the group.
  Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 23, line 45, to leave out Clause 48.
  In doing so, I am bound to object to the very subtle form of intimidation to which the Opposition are being subjected by the Government. I refer, of course, to the intimidation in that we are being compelled to deal with the hon. Lady who has not been allowed to get a cup of tea for 7½ hours. Naturally, we are rather upset about this, and we do not like to discuss these matters too long. It is really intolerable on the part of the Government that they cannot manage to provide the hon. Lady with a relief in order that she may get a cup of tea.
  I had intended to make a longish speech on this matter, but I feel that I am being restricted and intimidated by

  1411
  virtue of the fact that I do not like to see the hon. Lady sitting there so long. However, I made two or three very long speeches on this matter in Committee and I will therefore confine my remarks to a very limited compass.
  In the first place, I do not think that the Government have made out any case for the appointing of additional judges at all. The second point I wish to make is that the present judges do not seem to me to be properly occupied. In other words, we have increased the number of judges in Scotland in the higher courts from 13 to 16 and now we propose to increase the number to 18, and that within a very short time indeed, I cannot believe that the work of the courts has increased to that extent.
  11.30 p.m.
  I also made the point during the Committee stage, which I will repeat, that I believe Scotland has far too many judges in its various courts. I pointed out, giving the figures, that Scotland, with one-tenth the population of England, has one-quarter the number of judges, and that seemed to me to be far too many. I suggested during the Second Reading and in Committee that the whole of the procedures of the Court of Session ought to be examined. What is the position in the Court of Session at present? The court does not sit on Mondays. It sits on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, but Fridays and Saturdays are devoted to undefended divorce cases—business which, incidentally, some of us think ought to be dealt with in rather a different fashion, but it would be out of order to discuss that point now. Nobody can suggest that this is a very weighty programme.
  I also pointed out to the hon. Lady that during the summer term last year the Inner House did not sit at all. We had no Lord Justice Clerk at that time. He unfortunately died, and the Government had not plucked up the courage to appoint the then Lord Advocate to that position. They took three months to do that because they were afraid they might be defeated in Glasgow in a by-election.
  Mr. T. Fraser: As they were.
  Mr. Willis: Yes, they were. I suggest to the hon. Lady that in the light of the evidence that has been placed before her in debate and at the Scottish Office, there ought to be some consideration of the practices and procedures in the Court of Session—that is a perfectly reasonable demand—before any additional judges are appointed.
  The only argument adduced during the Committee stage of the Bill which seemed to me to be a valid reason for seeking powers for appointing additional judges was the argument that, arising out of applications for legal aid in criminal cases, there might be a considerable increase in the number of appeals. That would appear to have been borne out by a Clause—Clause 32, I believe—which was later dropped by the Government. I would accept that as being a reason why it might be necessary to appoint an additional judge, if it were not for the fact that that particular section of the Court of Session appeared to have less to do than the Outer House. The Inner House, I understand, has less to do than the Outer House. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept that argument. If the hon. Lady examines the situation as it has been placed before her, I think she will hesitate before wishing to appoint two additional judges.
  I have tried to compress the main points of my argument into a very small compass indeed. I could speak at length on this subject, but I have compressed my arguments in order to save the time of the House. I think the Government have justified the necessity for having the powers asked for in this Clause, but before proceeding further they should examine the whole procedures and practices of the Court of Session.
  Thanks, I think, to a great deal of criticism from these benches during the past year or two the Government are in process of examining the sheriff courts and their practices. It may be inappropriate to examine the Court of Session position till that review has been carried through, but what is being done in the case of the sheriff courts ought to be done in the case of the Court of Session, and the Government should not seek powers to appoint additional judges till that has been done. I hope that the hon. Lady will tell us tonight that the

  1413
  Government are considering this, and that after the inquiry into the sheriff courts there will be one into the Court of Session, and I hope she will have some better news for us now than she had in Standing Committee.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I understand that we are discussing with the Amendment to leave out Clause 48 the Amendment to alter the number of judges from 18 to 17, and if that is so I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) will be glad to know that I am prepared to advise the House to accept that latter Amendment, and, of course, the consequential one in page 24, line 3. I must confess that I do so advise the House not only because of the eloquence of the hon. Gentleman, to whom I always listen with great attention.
  We argued this in Standing Committee, when I suggested that I felt that we should keep the power to appoint two additional judges. Since the debate in Standing Committee, as the House will recall, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced, on Wednesday, 19t.h June, the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry under the Chairmanship of the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Grant, to review the functions of the sheriff courts in the administration of the civil and criminal law of Scotland. The Committee's terms of reference do not refer in terms to the jurisdiction of the Court of Session and the High Court, but it is at least possible—I put it no higher than that—that the Committee's recommendations as regards the proper functions of the sheriff court may lead to changes in the volume of business in the High Court and the Court of Session.
  In these circumstances, it does seem sensible to take power now to appoint the additional judge who is likely to be required within the next year or so as a result of the introduction of criminal legal aid, but to leave over the appointment of the second judge till we see the outcome of the sheriff courts inquiry, because I have little doubt that inquiry will lead to legislation, and therefore the question of further judicial appointments could, if necessary, be dealt with at that time. Therefore I am prepared to accept the second Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 23, line 46, to leave out "eighteen" and to insert "seventeen".
  I thank the hon. Lady for going some distance to meet us. I hope that the committee set up to inquire into the sheriff courts will consider the possibility of the sheriff courts doing certain work at present done by the Court of Session which would affect the work to be done by the Court of Session and make it possible for us not to have to increase the number beyond 17.
  As I said, I accept the argument that the introduction of legal aid for criminal cases might involve greater work. Because of that, I am probably happier to accept the compromise offered by the hon. Lady than I might otherwise have been. I thank her for having met us partly.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 24, line 3, leave out "eighteen" and insert "seventeen".—[Mr. Willis.]

  Clause 52.—(EXTENSION TO ENGLAND, NORTHERN IRELAND, THE ISLE OF MAN AND THE CHANNEL ISLANDS.)
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 25, line 22, to leave out "40 and 41" and to insert "39 and 40".
  The purpose of the Amendment is to correct an error made in the editing of the Report stage print of the Bill following its amendment in Committee. The Clauses which should be extended in their effect to England and Wales are Clause 39, dealing with cross-Border enforcement of warrants, and Clause 40, dealing with the service of certain English prosecution documents in Scotland.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 5.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 37, line 4, to leave out "sections 53 and 69" and to insert "section 53".
  If I might, Mr. Speaker, deal at the same time with the next Amendment, these two Amendments are designed purely to tidy up the drafting of the Bill consequential on a change in the English law which is being effected by the Children and Young Persons Bill.

  1415
  The first Amendment relates to Section 69 of the English Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, to which reference is made in Section 11 of the Family Allowances Act, 1945. This is being repealed and replaced by a Clause in the Children and Young Persons Bill. Therefore, the reference to Section 69 of the 1933 Act here is unnecessary, and the Amendment deletes it.
  The second Amendment relates to Section 73 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, the Scottish counterpart to Section 69. An amendment to the Family Allowances Act, 1945, in Schedule 3 of the Children and Young Persons Bill includes references in Section 11 of that Act both to the English new Clause and to the Scottish Section 73. The reference to Section 73 here therefore becomes unnecessary, and the second Amendment deletes it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 37, line 6, leave out "sections 57 and 73 "and insert" section 57".—[Lady Tweedsmuir.]
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the need for a consequential Amendment. I understand that a manuscript Amendment is to be moved.
  11.45 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Thank you for consent, Mr. Speaker. This manuscript Amendment is necessary and consequential upon the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) to Clause 45, page 23, line 27.
  I beg to move, in page 39, line 24, to leave out "50" and to insert "25".
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 39, line 30, leave out "two hundred and fifty" and insert "one hundred and fifty".
  In page 41, line 37, at end insert:
  (3B) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, a previous conviction shall be disregarded after the expiration of a period of ten years from the date of that conviction, being a period exclusive of any period during which the offender was in custody under sentence in respect of the conviction.—[Lady Tweedsmuir.]
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 42, line 5, to leave out "12, 13 and 15" and to insert "11, 12 and 14".
  The purpose of the Amendment is to correct an error made in the editing of the Report stage print of the Bill following its amendment in Committee, and, in particular, the disappearance of the original Clause 9. The references should be to the three Clauses dealing with the extension of compulsory after care to new classes of offenders—Clause 11, 12, and 14.
  Mr. Ross: We are very grateful to the hon. Lady for correcting this error. She has been meticulous to the last. If we had had the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General here we should have taken very much longer and have had far more errors to correct.
  But I was hoping, on the last lap of this very important Bill, that we might have seen the Secretary of State, whose name has appeared at the head of all the Government Amendments and whose voice we have not heard at all on this Measure since his speech on Second Reading. So we have only her word that this is an essential Amendment.
  Having heard the hon. Lady in Committee dealing with these matters so ably and well, and noting the absence of the Secretary of State and the two other Under-Secretaries, who were not even here to relieve her to give her a cup of tea during the whole day, and having heard only one speech from a Tory back bencher—it was dragged out of him—I think we are entitled to say "thanks" to her and give her her last Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  PROCEDURE
  Third Report from the Select Committee to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. lain Macleod.]
  Considered accordingly.
  Resolved,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

  PROCEDURE (DEBATE ON MATTERS AWAITING JUDICIAL DECISION)
  Resolved,
  That, subject always to the discretion of the Chair and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter.

  (1) matters awaiting or under adjudication in all courts exercising a criminal jurisdiction and in courts martial should not be referred to—

  (a) in any motion (including a motion for leave to bring in a bill), or

  (b) in debate, or

  (c) in any question to a Minister including a supplementary question;

  (2) matters awaiting or under adjudication in a civil court should not be referred to—

  (a) in any motion (including a motion for leave to bring in a bill), or

  (b) in debate, or

  (c) in any question to a Minister including a supplementary question from the time that the case has been set down for trial or otherwise brought before the court, as for example by notice of motion for an injunction; such matters may be referred to before such date unless it appears to the Chair that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.

  (3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Resolution should have effect—

  (a) in the case of a criminal case in courts of law, including courts martial, from the moment the law is set in motion by a charge being made;

  (b) in the wise of a civil case in courts of law, from the time that the case has been set down for trial or othewise brought before the court, as for example by notice of motion for am injunction;

  (c) in the case of any judicial body to which the House has expressly referred a specific matter for decision and report, from the time when the resolution of the House is passed.

  (4) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Resolution should cease to have effect—

  (a) in the case of courts of law, when the verdict and sentence have been announced or judgment given, but resumed when notice of appeal is given until the appeal has been decided;

  (b) in the case of courts martial, when the sentence of the court has been confirmed and promulgated, but resumed when the convicted man petitions the Army Council, the Air Council or the Board of Admiralty;

  (c) in the case of any judicial body to which the House has expressly referred a specific matter for decision and report, as soon as the report is laid before the House.—[Mr. Iain Mncleod.]

  MALAYA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
  Resolution reported,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the Malayan House of Representatives, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good The expenses attending the same.
  Resolution agreed to.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  OUTER RING ROAD, CHESTER
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
  11.50 p.m.
  Mr. John M. Temple: There are very few people in the whole of the Western world who have not heard of the ancient and historic City of Chester. For some 2,000 years it has been a garrison town and administrative centre and the focus of roads coming from the towns of North-West of England and moving into Wales. Originally, Chester was the site of the ford across the River Dee and now that river is crossed by the old Dee Bridge, which is an historic monument, and by the Grosvenor Bridge completed in 1830. Perhaps one might say that the answer to the traffic problem in Chester would be another bridge across the River Dee at Chester, but I submit that the very charm of Chester is that it should be available to the tourists and inhabitants of the city and that the object of any new traffic arrangements in the area should be to diminish the amount of traffic going through the city and to move that traffic round the outside.
  The City of Chester has quite rightly embarked upon the construction of an inner ring road which will facilitate the traffic moving within the city, but it will not lessen the traffic in our city. Quite clearly, the objective must be another crossing of the River Dee combined with a by-pass road which will take a great deal of the traffic outside the city.
  This problem was recognised quite clearly some 40 years ago. Plans were made for an outer ring road and the

  1419
  northern section was completed in the 1930s. The southern section, of which I am speaking tonight, was commenced. My desire tonight is to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary the urgency for the completion of this outer ring road plus the bridge, and I submit that the responsibility lies clearly with the Minister of Transport, because it is the Minister of Transport who provides funds for the construction of trunk roads.
  The southern section of this road would be some seven miles long and it has recently been estimated by the Minister that the cost of building this road would be about £3,500,000.
  Since 1957, I have been pressing successive Ministers of Transport, in Parliamentary Questions and in correspondence, to bring this matter forward. My file on this matter is almost six inches thick!
  The position today is that the line of this road was statutorily laid down some two years ago and, recognising the very big local feeling on this matter, I was instrumental in organising a conference of local authorities and other interested parties which took place on 4th October, last year, under the chairmanship of the Chairman of the Roads and Bridges Committee of the Cheshire County Council in Chester. Subsequent to that meeting, the Clerk of the Cheshire County Council wrote to the secretary of the Minister of Transport on 13th December, 1962, saying:
  "Whilst fully conscious of certain high priority road schemes to be carried out in Cheshire and Flint shire and Chester, the Authorities are of the opinion that the need for the completion of the Southern Section of the Chester outer ring road is such as to warrant consideration of the allocation of additional funds."
  The need was clearly recognised by the authorities in the area.
  Additionally, the Chester and District Chamber of Trade, in a very powerful memorandum, stressed the importance to Chester of the completion of this ring road. The Chamber of Trade mentioned that Chester was an important administrative centre. It is the headquarters of Western Command, the seat of the county government and the seat of the government of the city and of two rural district councils.
  1420
  Chester has the area offices for the electricity and gas undertakings, the Post Office, National Insurance, and the Inland Revenue, covering a wide area. It is also a cathedral city and the seat of the diocesan offices for the diocese of Chester. Chester is a shopping centre with a shopping population of 250,000, almost five times the population of the city itself. It is a professional centre, with its own law courts, and many professional bodies are based upon it. It is a tourist centre almost without equal in the country and possibly only second in importance, to tourists coming from abroad, to Stratford-on-Avon.
  Representations in this matter have been made to me by industrial companies such as the de Havilland Aircraft Company and the Shell Oil Company, with big factories and installations close to Chester, and public service companies, one of which is the Crosville Motor Services. I should like to quote an extract from a letter, dated 27th November of last year, in which the secretary of this company, which operates a wide network of motor services in the area, says:
  "We now look upon Chester as the blackest spot in the whole of our operating area which, as you know, extends over seven counties…the result of this traffic congestion is catastrophic."
  This speaks volumes for the case that I am putting forward tonight. The case on general grounds is strong and extraordinarily well supported by all the local interests.
  Now I turn to the purely technical position. The present northern section is, I understand, carrying 14,000 vehicles per day, and the Ministry estimates, on the basis of a 1962 traffic survey, that the southern section would carry about 8,000 vehicles a day. No one will claim that 8,000 vehicles a day is a high figure for a by-pass road, but it is a high figure to pass through the centre of an historic city.
  A large proportion of that traffic comprises vehicles which are carrying sand and gravel from North Wales and passing through to the industrial centres to the cast of the city. Oil tankers, chemical tankers, and the like use the streets of Chester, which are quite unsuited today for heavy traffic, and residents have told me that at a week-end the fire

  1421
  brigade is frequently unable to cross from one side of the city to the other because the bridges are so congested by the traffic. Only last Saturday I was in conversation with a local doctor who told me that only in cases of extreme urgency could he go outside the city, or contemplate doing so, on a Saturday morning, the traffic congestion in the city being so great.
  I have had a lot of correspondence and help from our county surveyor, and he has sent me a message of encouragement for tonight. He tells me that on the technical side the centre line order has been made; that surveys and cross-sections have been done; that no properties need to be demolished, and that work could be commenced within 12 months. He states further that there is public works capacity in the Chester area which would readily get on with the work on this by-pass.
  I now turn to the question when the work is likely to start. On 23rd August, 1958, the Liverpool Post—and here I pay tribute to the great interest that that newspaper has always shown in the traffic problems of the North-West of England—contained a very informative article, entitled "Faster Routes for North-West in Sight. Chester By-Pass the Link." I communicated with the then Parliamentary Secretary—now my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent)—who, replying on 10th September, 1958, said:
  "The article forecasts the possibility of the scheme starting in two years' time but this of course is pure speculation and in present circumstances may be optimistic."
  It certainly was extremely optimistic. Nothing has happened since that time. I was in touch with the Parliamentary Secretary again on 4th December, 1961, when he wrote to me:
  "I still cannot say precisely when it will be possible to make funds available for the construction of this road."
  The Parliamentary Secretary could not be precise about the matter, but at least we were extraordinarily hopeful.
  On 11th February this year my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport himself wrote to me. After saying that he could see no possibility of a meeting achieving anything—I had asked him to receive a deputation from all the interests concerned—he said that a meeting such as I proposed would be of no avail and went on:
  1422
  "I cannot offer any hope of my being able to carry out the construction within the next few years."
  I regarded this as a very great set-back and this is one of the reasons why I have asked you, Mr. Speaker, if it would be possible for me to raise the matter tonight.
  This then is the present position. All the interested parties are agreed on the need for this road. Cheshire County Council is ready and willing to carry out the work. Traffic congestion is throttling the economic life of our city. Chester streets and river crossings are quite unfitted for the heavy traffic at present using them.
  In the autumn of last year I had the privilege of visiting Canada, a country with a small population, but a very large land area. I travelled across many of the stretches of the Trans-Canada Highway. That country has completed this highway of 5,000 miles in the last few years. I was privileged to visit the Rogers Pass Section of the highway, an immensely impressive feat of traffic engineering through the Rocky Mountains. I am not asking my right hon. Friend tonight to constructed a Rogers Pass Section in the County of Cheshire. I am not asking for anything difficult to be constructed through difficult terrain. All I am asking for is seven miles of by-pass road, a simple engineering operation. All the details of construction are ready and to hand. The job could easily be carried out.
  I believe we want an imaginative approach to this matter. I call upon my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary tonight to announce the starting date for the completion of this ring read which is so vitally needed in the interests of the population of the North-West and of the City of Chester in particular.
  12.3 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport(Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) has quite rightly drawn attention tonight to the state of traffic congestion which exists in that city. No one would dispute that the traffic situation there is bad and must be remedied. My hon. Friend has suggested that the remedy we should adopt is to build the

  1423
  southern section of the ring road, the eastern part of which was begun before the war. He has said, in effect, that a whole generation has gone by since the building of this road was first considered and that it is about time we got on with it.
  I do not think I need explain to any hon. Member that there are many worthwhile schemes all over the country which have had to wait their turn for inclusion in the road programme. There is an inevitable and sometimes long delay between recognition that a new road is necessary and its inclusion in the road programme. We also have to watch carefully whether changing conditions and traffic patterns affect or alter the priority of a scheme in this intervening period. It does not follow that a scheme which was the best solution to a problem when it was first suggested will necessarily continue to be the best solution for the future.
  When one studies the problem of traffic congestion in a city like Chester, one must first consider whether the congestion is caused mainly by through traffic or mainly by local traffic to and from the city. In the case of Chester we know from recent traffic surveys that the major part of the traffic using the city centre has business there. The first point I make, therefore, is that to divert the through traffic would not of itself solve the problem, although it would of course afford some measure of relief.
  It is, therefore, clear that the first necessity is to cater for the traffic in the centre of the city itself. To this end, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the city council proposes to construct an internal relief road encircling the city centre, partly within the ancient city walls. This is a bold scheme and one which we support. The southern link from Grosvenor Street to Bought on has already been much improved by the widening of Pepper Street. The council is now preparing a £1 million scheme for the dual carriageway section linking Grosvenor Street with Upper Northgate and hopes to start work on it next January. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, it is the view of the city council that these schemes should have higher priority than the proposed southern section of the ring road. We agree with this.
  1424
  This still leaves the problem of the river crossings, to which my hon. Friend referred. The main crossing at Grosvenor Bridge carries only one line of traffic in each direction. The Dee Bridge is narrower still. I agree with my hon. Friend that these are inadequate to cope with the peak demand. But I should point out that very often in these cases it is not so much the narrowness of the bridge which causes difficulty as congestion on the approaches. The city council has therefore put in hand a scheme for improving the southern approach to the Grosvenor Bridge, which has nearly been completed. It involves the reconstruction of the roundabout at Overleigh and the widening of the Grosvenor Road to provide four traffic lanes between the new roundabout and Grosvenor Bridge. I will not pretend that this will solve the problem completely. Nevertheless, by clearing traffic to and from the bridge more quickly, it should increase its capacity by 10 to 15 per cent. Although work has not been finally completed, the improved approach is already open to traffic. First reports on the operation of the scheme are most encouraging.
  In saying so much about what is being done for traffic in Chester, I do not, of course, want to belittle the problem which is created by through traffic. That, too, must be dealt with. The southern section of the ring road would run in an arc about 1½ miles from the city. It would undoubtedly provide a good route from the North Wales—Manchester traffic. Nevertheless, its value would be limited and local. We estimate that about 8,000 vehicles per day would use it. This is not a large number, especially in relation to the cost of the scheme, which would be about £4 million. There are many schemes all over the country for which there is a more urgent need. We have already this year, and last, earmarked £1 million of our limited funds for grants for roads within the city. I must therefore tell my hon. Friend quite frankly that we cannot agree with him that the southern section of the ring road warrants a high priority in the national programme.
  Fortunately, the southern ring road is not the only way of relieving Chester of some of its through traffic. It is not always necessary to build a road physically round a city to provide an effective

  1425
  by-pass. It is often possible that a road at some distance from the point of congestion will provide a more convenient and quicker route for through traffic. Such a road may well be of benefit over a wide area and give relief to a number of congested points.
  When the southern section of the ring road was first planned, it seemed to be the right answer for Chester's east-west traffic. Since then, traffic studies have shown that it is only one possible answer. There are others which may be as good or even better.
  One possibility is the replacement of the A.56 trunk road by a new high-capacity dual-carriageway road linking Manchester with the M.6, which will be opened later this year, carrying on to A.5117 across the southern part of the Wirral and on into North Wales across the new Queensferry Bridge. This would benefit the whole of North Cheshire and, not least, Chester itself. It would free the A.56, which is an industrial route, of traffic congestion and provide a good link with the Runcorn—Widnes bridge. It would by-pass places like Helsby and Frodsham which, while not having the same historic interest as Chester, suffer as much traffic congestion and are accident blackspots. We estimate that some 17,500 vehicles per day would use this route, by-passing Helsby and Frodsham—just over twice as many as would use the southern section of the Chester ring road.
  My right hon. Friend has decided that this proposed new road should be given a high priority in the programme. The first two major stages will together cost some £10 million, and will provide eight miles of new road from Hapsford to Preston-on-the-Hill, and six miles from Manchester to the junction of the A.56 with the A.556. Preparatory work on the scheme has already begun, and construction is due to start in about five years' time—
  Mr. Temple: Before my hon. and gallant Friend leaves that point, can he say whether that will give another crossing over the River Dee?
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No. I think that if my hon. Friend looks at the map he will see that that would not arise in this case.
  1426
  This new route across North Cheshire is of regional rather than local significance. In national terms it is a good investment. But I do not wish my hon. Friend to be left with the impression that we under-estimate the value of the southern ring road, or that we intend to abandon it. On the contrary, it has a definite place in our ultimate road pattern. But there is a question of priorities. We simply do not have the funds to build it and the regional route at the same time, and since the ring road will be of less value to traffic it will have to take second place.
  The crux of this problem, like so many of our highway problems, is that the funds available for road development are limited. We simply cannot undertake at once all the schemes that both we and others would like to see carried out. There are many desirable schemes which have to wait their turn, and the Chester southern ring road is one of these.
  I hope that I have said enough, however, to show that we are far from being indifferent to the traffic problem in Chester. We have worked, and are working, in close co-operation with the city and county councils. But we must be clear what it is they are asking of us. They are not asking that the southern ring road should have preference over the other schemes I have mentioned; what they ask is that additional funds should be made available, and that the ring road should be added to the existing programme. The hard fact is that all our available funds are committed for four or five years ahead. To grant this request would be to exclude from the programme other schemes which are more urgent for reasons alike of safety, economy and traffic.
  We are confident that the city council is right in expecting that the schemes now in hand for improving roads in the city will go far towards relieving the traffic problem in Chester. We are satisfied that the new road to be built across North Cheshire will go further in improving conditions there. The question is whether, on top of all this, we should build the southern section of the ring road as well. I am sure that hon. Members representing other cities and

  1427
  other parts of the country would be rightly upset if we were to do so at the expense of attending to their urgent needs. I must, therefore, ask my hon. Friend to be patient and wait a little longer. The road will be built, but it must await its proper turn in the future programme.
  1428
  Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has put forward a powerful and persuasive case, and I can at least assure him that we shall study most carefully what he has said.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

POST OFFICE
  Advertisements
  Advertisements
  New Post Offices
  New Post Offices
  London Radio Tower
  London Radio Tower
  Inland Parcels
  Inland Parcels
  Commemorative Postage Stamps
  Commemorative Postage Stamps
  Post Office Savings Bank
  Post Office Savings Bank
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Brentwood Exchange
  Brentwood Exchange
  Long-distance Trains
  Long-distance Trains
  Trunk Calls
  Trunk Calls
  Brentford and Chiswick
  Brentford and Chiswick
  Caravans
  Caravans
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Colour Television
  Colour Television
  South Coast
  South Coast
  Dumbarton and Helensburgh
  Dumbarton and Helensburgh
  Aerials
  Aerials
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Overseas Service
  Overseas Service
  Commonwealth Teachers Act, 1960
  Commonwealth Teachers Act, 1960
  Advisory Council on Education Overseas
  Advisory Council on Education Overseas
SCIENCE
  Advisory Council on Scientific Policy
  Advisory Council on Scientific Policy
  Research, Wales
  Research, Wales
  Trend Committee
  Trend Committee
  Economic Planning (Computers)
  Economic Planning (Computers)
  Radioactive Materials (Transit Packaging)
  Radioactive Materials (Transit Packaging)
  Federation of British Industries (Memorandum)
  Federation of British Industries (Memorandum)
  D.S.I.R. Studentships
  D.S.I.R. Studentships
  Chemical Laboratories (Safety)
  Chemical Laboratories (Safety)
  Lipstick
  Lipstick
  Diesel Exhaust
  Diesel Exhaust
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Rating Valuations
  Rating Valuations
HOUSING
  Rent Act
  Rent Act
  Amenities
  Amenities
  Housing Associations, Northumberland
  Housing Associations, Northumberland
  Morpeth
  Morpeth
  Redevelopment Schemes (Displaced Householders)
  Redevelopment Schemes (Displaced Householders)
SEYCHELLES
  Technical Training
  Technical Training
KENYA
  Northern Frontier District
  Northern Frontier District
  Ex-Service Men
  Ex-Service Men
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Hampton Court Palace
  Hampton Court Palace
  Palace of Westminster (Swimming Pool)
  Palace of Westminster (Swimming Pool)
  Parliamentary Accommodation (Report)
  Parliamentary Accommodation (Report)
EMPLOYMENT
  Factory, Raynes Park
  Factory, Raynes Park
  Ashington and Morpeth
  Ashington and Morpeth
  Stornoway
  Stornoway
  Redundant Railway Workers (Highlands)
  Redundant Railway Workers (Highlands)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Miss Rice-Davies
  Miss Rice-Davies
  SECURITY
  SECURITY
  LORD DENNING (INQUIRY)
  LORD DENNING (INQUIRY)
  CIVIL DEFENCE (LONG SERVICE MEDAL)
  CIVIL DEFENCE (LONG SERVICE MEDAL)
ROYAL NAVY
  "Green Ranger"
  "Green Ranger"
  Mining Area, Ryde Sands (Explosions)
  Mining Area, Ryde Sands (Explosions)
EDUCATION
  Morpeth, Ashington and Newbiggin
  Morpeth, Ashington and Newbiggin
  Ashington Grammar School
  Ashington Grammar School
  Morpeth
  Morpeth
BAROTSELAND
  Paramount Chief (Talks)
  Paramount Chief (Talks)
HOSPITALS
  Land
  Land
  Single-Storey Buildings
  Single-Storey Buildings
  TREATIES (ENGLISH TEXTS)
  TREATIES (ENGLISH TEXTS)
SCOTLAND
  Transport Services (Report)
  Transport Services (Report)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Higher Education (Report)
  Higher Education (Report)
TRANSPORT
  Diesel Exhaust
  Diesel Exhaust
  Safety Belts
  Safety Belts
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Nuclear Power Station, Wylfa
  Nuclear Power Station, Wylfa

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester
The Lord Mottistone—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

IMPORTED FIREWORKS
2.35 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: 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 the total value of fireworks imported from overseas into this country during 1960–62.]
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I regret that this information is not available.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he can ascertain two things: first, how the figures, when they become available, compare with those of previous years; and, secondly, whether it is possible to impress that imported fireworks of any kind are not desirable?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and I will certainly do my best to find out the information that he wants. Perhaps I could explain to him that the Board of Trade's statistical category of "pyrotechnical articles, fuses, primers, detonators and blasting accessories", comprises much more than just those things to which I think he refers. I can assure him, though, that the imports of the fireworks that he is thinking about have during the past few years been very small indeed.

PURCHASE OF FIREARMS WITHOUT CERTIFICATE
EARL COWLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that firearms, still capable of being fired, for instance Colt revolvers manufactured before 1863, can be purchased without a firearms certificate.]
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the purchaser of an antique firearm is exempt from the provisions of the Firearms Act, 1937, including the requirement to hold a firearms certificate, only if it is purchased as a curiosity or ornament.
EARL COWLEY: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for his Answer. In view of the fact that Sir Joseph Simpson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has stated in a Report to Parliament that, in 1962, in 62 cases of robbery firearms were used, as compared with 53 in 1961, and 39 in 1960, would Her Majesty's Government consider introducing or adapting legislation to cover these weapons?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, and I will certainly take note of what he has said. If the noble Earl has any particular information, my right honourable friend would be glad to look into the case. But so far the Home Office has not been aware of any danger being caused to the public by the use of weapons of these types.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that violence is glamorised every night on television, with or without firearms, is the noble Marquess surprised that there is this increase?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that question is slightly wide of the original Question.

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMME
2.39 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can say what are the terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry on the problems of nuclear energy, to which the First Lord of the Admiralty referred in his reply to the debate on July 10, 1963.
The noble Lord had also given notice of his intention to ask the following Question:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can say what is the membership of the Committee of Inquiry to which the First Lord of the Admiralty referred in his reply to the debate on July 10, 1963.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, with your Lordships' leave I should like to answer the first Question and the next Question by my noble friend together. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place on July 11, in reply to Questions about the terms of reference of this Committee:
"I think it would be right for me to maintain the position of successive Governments that details of the work of Cabinet Committees are not normally disclosed."
In view of the references to this Committee and its work in the report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, I felt justified in informing your Lordships that it would be going into almost all the problems raised in the debate initiated by my noble friend on July 10. I also assured your Lordships that the Government would give the most careful consideration to what had been said in the debate and to what the Select Committee had reported. The exact method adopted by the Government for this purpose should, however, continue to be regarded as part of the confidential machinery of Government.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I think that my thanks to my noble friend for his reply must be strictly qualified;
600
nevertheless, I do thank him. If he cannot tell me what the terms of reference include, I wonder whether he could tell me what they exclude? Is the question which was largely and widely developed in the debate—namely, the question of the powers which are used by the Generating Board and the pressures which it is able to bring upon a wide section of industry in the private sector—a point which will be among the deliberations of the Committee?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think it would be a little difficult to go into what is and what is not in the Committee's terms of reference, because by a process of elimination you would soon find out what the terms of reference were. But during the debate I did make it clear to my noble friend that the Committee would not be investigating the questions of tendering, pricing and contracting, and this could be the subject of a special representation from the company to which the noble Lord referred during the debate. I hope that is the point he has in mind.
LORD COLERAINE: Not entirely, my Lords. That is certainly one of the points, but the real point on which I should like enlightenment is this. Is it really within the functions of a nationalised Board, of which the only statutory responsibility is to produce cheap electricity, to embark on quite considerable schemes for the rationalisation of private industry? Will that point be looked into?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the terms of reference of the Committee were more confined to the problems of nuclear energy and the proportion of nuclear power stations as opposed to conventional ones, but the other point would certainly be taken into consideration by my right honourable friend the Minister of Power.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I must thank my noble friend very much, but may I ask him this further question on the point of membership of the Committee, in regard to which his answer was, I think, even more non-committal than on the other point? Can he say whether the membership of this Committee will include any persons, apart from representatives of the Generating Board, on the one hand, and of the Atomic Energy Authority, on the other, who have real

601
technical knowledge of these problems? If the membership does not include such persons, would it not be a good plan to have some technical assessors on the Committee who could advise the lay members on the relative merits of the technical argument? What I think is perfectly plain is that the Generating Board and the Atomic Energy Authority respectively will each be fighting its own corner, and I think it is important that there should be some scientific advice available apart from them.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point. I do not think that I ought to go into the composition of the Committee. It is a high-powered Committee. But I take his point and I will pass it on to my right honourable friend the Minister of Power.
LORD REA: My Lords, are we to understand from the First Lord that he cannot answer the second Question on the grounds of security?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is not security; it is propriety.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hail-sham, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER HARBOUR) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT)) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BEMBRIDGE HARBOUR) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FINANCE BILL
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, your Lordships are always obliged to discuss the Finance Bill under a number of disadvantages. We always have to take it at this time of the year when our business is apt to be congested, particularly, I think, in the present year.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: By the time we discuss the Finance Bill not only is it very much out of date and every body has lost interest in it, but it is too soon to tell how the measures contained in the Bill are working. So, on the one hand, we are doing something which has no news value because everybody has discussed it in the Press and in another place till they are tired of it; and, on the other hand, we are not yet able to say whether its proposals have justified themselves or not. So in moving the Second Reading I shall try to be both short and factual about it.
The background of this Bill is the disappointing economic history of the second half of 1962, in which demand for our exports abroad and private investment at home both failed to expand as we had calculated that they would do and as they had seemed likely to do in the first half of the year. The reflationary measures, of which this Bill is the centrepiece, began last autumn. On the banking side the £233 million of special deposits which the banks had been required to furnish in order to restrict their credit activities was all paid back to them in three instalments ending in January. All Treasury restrictions on bank advances were removed, and at the beginning of this year the bank rate came down to 4 per cent., which is fairly low in comparison with what it had been for some

603
time, although still high compared with what many of us used to be accustomed to long ago.
Another monetary measure was the special repayment of an extra £42 million of post-war credits; and on the fiscal side there was the reduction of purchase tax, first on cars and then on other durable articles of the 45 per cent. class, which cost the Exchequer £85 million. Then, in the field of investment, first there were the investment allowances of 30 per cent. for buildings and 15 per cent. for plant, which this Bill confirms retrospectively, with the purpose of encouraging a revival in private investment. In the field of public investment the present Chancellor of the Exchequer announced at that time an increase of £70 million in public expenditure, which has since been supplemented by a further extra amount of £135 million. That will bring the probable public investment expenditure in the current year up to a total of more than £2,200 million. Of the increase which has been authorised on account of the present economic situation within the last seven or eight months most has been allocated to electricity, to education (which we shall be discussing to-morrow), and to roads.
Then in the field of social security—that, of course, is not a subject which is directly related to the economic situation, but any kind of economic planning must take account of changes in the level of purchasing power caused by changes in social security in the spring of this year—pensions and other benefits were raised from the former figure of 57s. 6d. for a single person by 10s. to 67s. 6d. The total amount being distributed in the new benefits is an increase of £227 million, of which about 30 per cent. is represented by Exchequer contribution, the remainder being the employer-worker contribution. So that represents an increase in the purchasing power of £70 million. These measures—some extraneous to the Finance Bill and some retrospectively confirmed by it—must be all considered together with it.
As for the Budget itself, it is often said that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very lucky in being called upon to introduce his first Budget at a time when it is plainly desirable to pursue a policy of
604
tax reduction rather than of tax increase, of stimulating rather than restricting the economy: in other words, a policy of doing what is popular rather than what is unpopular. But my right honourable friend, both before and after the introduction of the Finance Bill, has always declared that the principle which he is trying to follow is the cautious one of not doing so much one year that he may have to undo some of it next year.
Some of his critics have attacked him for not doing enough, but I think that most Parties and most organs of public opinion agree that, having regard to the present stage of the economy, the changes which he made in the Budget in this Finance Bill were about right in quantity and also rightly distributed. The principal remission, of course, was in income tax; not in the standard rate, but in adjusting the incidence of income tax, to the benefit of age relief, of small income relief, of marriage allowances and children's allowances. The remissions which were made under these headings amount to £186 million in the current year and £240 million in a full year, and they have the effect of exempting 3¾ million persons from income tax altogether.
My Lords, other measures to assist economic growth, besides those to increase purchasing power, and to guide it in the right direction were announced by my right honourable friend in his Budget. The unemployment problem, as I think most of us now agree, is not a problem which applies to the whole country. It is, to put it in a sentence, a problem of trying to redistribute industry to the relative advantage of Scotland, North-East England, Northern Ireland and, of course, the other development areas. The special measures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took at the time of the Budget, in order to accelerate the movement of industry to these development areas were of two kinds—the new standard grants, which supplemented what had been done already under the Local Employment Act, and the free depreciation allowance.
The previous arrangement had been that the amount of grant or loan which a new industry could get depended on what the Board of Trade Committee thought of their special case. The Chancellor thought it would be more satisfactory that firms should know what

605
they were entitled to get if they came to a development area. His proposal was that the grants should be 25 per cent. in respect of building and 10 per cent. in respect of plant and equipment. I think your Lordships will agree that by far the greater of the two proposals, and the one likely to have the greatest effect, was the free depreciation allowance, under which an industrialist coming to the special areas is allowed to choose the period over which he will write off the whole of his capital expenses. The effect of that is that he receives a 100 per cent. depreciation allowance plus a 30 per cent. investment allowance, so he need not pay one penny in taxation until he has written off the whole of his investment costs in setting up his factory, together with the ordinary 30 per cent. investment allowance.
It is too soon to say yet what effect this change is going to have, or to measure it in terms of factory space or numbers of people employed. But I can give your Lordships one figure: that since the Finance Bill was introduced there have been 270 firm applications to the Board of Trade for assistance under the Local Employment Act, which is just about five times the number of applications made in the corresponding period of last year. I think that that, so far as it goes, is encouraging.
am not going to say anything now about the other change of major importance in the Finance Bill—the abolition of Schedule A and the relief from payment of Schedule A tax of the owner-occupier's house—because that is a measure which I think many of your Lordships have always believed to be a good thing, whatever the economic conditions of the moment may be. It has no special relevance to our present economic problems. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that it will be fairly universally welcomed by your Lordships.
The total net amount of tax which my right honourable friend remitted in his Budget was £269 million. He would otherwise have had an estimated surplus next year of £179 million, which his tax remissions converted into an estimated deficit of £90 million above the line. As the amount to be borrowed below the line amounted to £597 million, that means that the estimated amount of public borrowing next year, below and above the line together, will be £687 million.
606
That is not quite so much as the deficit which was deliberately estimated and provided for in 1959. But I will leave it to your Lordships to debate whether it is too much or too little to suit the particular problems of the moment.
The main theme of my right honourable friend in this Bill and in the measures associated with it, was his desire to assist the recommendation of the National Economic Development Council, of which he himself of course is Chairman, that we should aim at an economic growth of about 4 per cent. per year, which would have to be accompanied by increases in incomes of not more than 3½ per cent. That is the objective which my right honourable friend is trying to follow. He thinks it is capable of attainment. We all know what the difficulties are. He believes that the measures which he is proposing in this Bill are those which, so far as the Government are concerned, are best calculated to achieve fulfilment.
I think, my Lords, that the economic climate in Great Britain is almost as difficult to estimate as the weather. There are some countries where you can make your plans for a long time in advance, knowing pretty well what the weather is going to be like. You cannot do that here. I think there is some analogy between our economic climate and the weather, too, because there are so many uncertainties which affect our planning. Planning of course we must have. It has often been a word which has been used controversially. Of course every Government has an economic plan of some kind and, whether it is a Labour Government or a Conservative Government, it very often finds that the economic assumptions on which its plans for the next three years, five years, or even one year, are made, are completely upset by changes in conditions which were not foreseen at the time when the plan was made. But, my Lords, I will only try to give a very modest weather forecast, without suggesting that other factors may not come in to upset it, as they often do in any weather forecast.
So far as domestic consumption is concerned, that is going up. It will go up more, no doubt, when the full effect of the remissions of taxation in the Finance Bill accompanied by the increased social National Insurance benefits begin to take

607
their full effect. Purchasing power is increasing. Wages have now reached the record average of £16 a week, which, even allowing for the inflationary processes from which we have suffered, represents a very large rise in the real standard of living.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Not for women.
LORD SILKIN: Is that wages or earnings? It the noble Earl quoting average wages or average earnings?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Earnings.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Including overtime?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes. They were higher than they were before; that is all that I am saying.
LORD CROOK: More overtime.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am trying to point out only that they have gone up.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I think the noble Earl should also mention that women get only £8.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I dare say they got only £7 10s. last year. The point is that all workers are getting a little more, on average, than they were getting before. As for investments, the information that the Board of Trade get front employers' associations and other industrial bodies indicates that the downward trend of private investment is beginning to flatten out, and there are indications that it will in time begin to rise. That is of course always a long-term matter, because people have to plan their investments a long time in advance.
As for our trade, exports have gone up to a marked extent. In the first quarter of 1960 they amounted to £949 million; in 1961 to £967 million; last year to £963 million; and, in the first quarter of this year, to £1,027 million—and, as your Lordships will have seen, the figure for June is a record figure of £335 million for the month, or £348 if you include re-exports. That figure is a good one, but do not let us be complacent about it. We may expect, I think, some increase in demand in North America, where measures are being taken
608
to increase purchasing power; but, if you take our markets as a whole, they are not getting all that easier, and, in order to maintain and increase our exports, which is vital if we are to achieve our target of a 4 per cent. rise in annual production, we shall have to work very hard to eliminate waste, to increase efficiency, to reduce restrictive practices and, if we can, to bring down our costs.
As to the balance of payments, the position is better than it has been at any time since 1959. In the first quarter of this year, we had a favourable balance of £59 million. As for employment, that again is at a record figure. The recent reduction in unemployment since the hard winter is very much more than seasonal, and I am glad to see that it applies to the development areas as well as to the rest of the country. As for production itself, the present basic year is usually taken as 1958. If we take 1958 as 100, industrial production a year ago was 116. That is an increase of 4 per cent. in those four years; but, of course, it was not even. Most of it was in the first two years, 1959 and 1960, and very little in 1961 and 1962. In the winter of last year it went down until it got to 113 in January, the worst period of the snowstorm. Now it has gone up. In May of this year, the last month for which the figure is available, it was 118, which is two points higher than for the similar month a year ago. If we want to achieve our 4 per cent. target, we shall have to double that between now and this time next year; and, my Lords, the indications are that industrial production is continuing, and will continue, to rise. But we all know only too well on how many conditions that continued rise will depend.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Surely, we shall have to do much more than double it if we want to get a 4 per cent. rise over the five-year period which "Neddy" has in mind, because we are already so far behind.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: We shall have to double it at least, in any event. The "Neddy" period, I think, began last year, did it not? We shall at any rate have to increase it. I am trying to give your Lordships the facts at the moment. It is 118 now.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I was trying to elaborate them.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am sure the noble Earl will elaborate it when he speaks. We shall have at least to double it if we want to achieve the target, and the indications are that industrial production is going up and will probably continue to go up. But, as I was saying when the noble Earl interrupted, we know only too well on how many factors that may depend, both abroad and at home. Abroad there are the conditions under which our export trade has to be carried on. We cannot say yet how much success we and President Kennedy are going to have in our endeavours to get tariffs reduced in order that world trade may be increased. Neither can we know yet how successful we may be in persuading the international monetary authorities to pursue a policy of greater liquidity, which I think most Parties in this country are agreed is a desirable thing for the economic benefit of the world as a whole.
As for conditions at home, I need not tell your Lordships how uncertain we have always been since 1945 about wage-cost inflation. Everybody is agreed that we must try to have an incomes policy. Everybody is agreed that we cannot impose an incomes policy by Act of Parliament, by the force of law; that it must depend on the common sense and responsibility of everybody who is engaged in industry, All I can say about that is that the need for an incomes policy is being appreciated at least a little more widely now than it has been in the last ten or fifteen years.
With regard to this Bill, I would submit to your Lordships that, so far as the Government's part is concerned, this Bill and the measures accompanying it, with which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has associated it, do represent—I will put it no higher than this, and the Chancellor himself always likes to put his policy in a cautious and modest way—a sound and well-conceived advance towards our common objective of more steady industrial growth, uninterrupted by inflation and by consequent restrictive measures. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee)
3.10 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Earl has introduced his Motion for the Second Reading of this Finance Bill with his usual charm and courtesy, and we have listened with great interest to the points he has been making in defence of the measure itself. I myself take cover under his lucid explanation of the main principles of the Bill for thinking that it is not necessary for me in this speech to examine the Bill as a Bill, but rather that I should follow the example of my noble and lamented late friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence and devote myself on this particular occasion of the Second Reading of the Finance Bill to looking into the general economic situation of our country instead of making detailed criticisms of the clauses in the Finance Bill. Nevertheless, I should like to refer to one or two points which were made by the noble Earl, especially in the latter half of his speech.
We are all concerned about the figures of unemployment; and I am sure that every part of the House rejoiced when we learned of the latest reduction in one month of about 100,000 unemployed people. Certainly the figures for June, 1963, were 100,000 fewer than they were; but they are still 100,000 more than for the same month in the previous year. That, I think, must be one of the reasons why the noble Earl still expressed a little anxiety about that position. We are all glad on this side of the House that the Government recently in trying to deal with unemployment have devoted themselves, so far as I can see, to following out the ideas introduced by the Labour Party many years ago; these ideas envisaged a distribution of industry over a wider part of the country and the creation of special areas for which plans could be made and followed through for the purpose of relieving unemployment.
It is a matter of significance that the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of this House was chosen to be given his fifth concurrent Ministerial task: to bring plans to a conclusion for relieving unemployment in the North-East section of the country which is still very harassed by that problem. I cannot help commenting on this particular point that it seems a very long time now since a start was

611
made to resolve a matter of such urgency as the relieving of special localised unemployment; and we have not yet had any real plans laid before us. There was a good deal of concern expressed the other day in another place about the long delay. I hope that the noble Earl may be able to bring this point to the notice of his colleagues and to see if he cannot get some earlier effort made in that direction.
My Lords, I must say that there are some features in the Bill that the noble Earl explained which give us pleasure. I think that on the whole, although it was criticised in some quarters, the decision to abolish Schedule "A" income tax on owner-occupied premises is a good thing. It will not provide all that saving to the owner. Of course, it is a tax relief, but some of the houseowners had better understand that they will not get special income tax relief when they carry out repairs to their houses. That is reasonable and just because it is a claim against tax, but I do not think that all houseowners realise that they will have to meet in full the bills for house repairs. On the whole, however, practically all will make a net gain and that is satisfactory.
Also welcome is the other lower income relief. But let us look at the general planning. We were highly delighted to hear the noble Earl say that, of course, any Government must have some plans and that they have to plan for the future. But in the past fifteen years we were regarded as quite idiotic because of our ideas of the necessity of having plans at all. And yet here we are, at the end of twelve years of Conservative Government, and they are saying, "Of course, we must have plans". The record of the Government proves that to be absolutely necessary. It is a pity they had not thought of some planning a little earlier.
With regard to the Budget which arises out of the Government's policies and the monetary matters to which the noble Earl has referred, I think it would be just as well to take a quick view of the budgetary position now as compared with the budgetary position when the Government took office in October, 1951. That is almost twelve years ago. The Government have been unchallenged in
612
their majorities ever since, and yet we see this net result. The Budget this year, so far as I can make it out, if you add the additional expenditure likely to be incurred, may well turn out to be about £6,500 million or £6,600 million. The last financial year ended with about £6,300 million expenditure above and below the line. In 1951, the total of the Budget was £4,190 million. I think we are entitled, as ordinary Members of Parliament in either House or as electors in the constituencies, to ask what we have got or what we have gained from the Budget, which has risen from £4,190 million in 1951 to between £6,500 million and £6,600 million in 1963–64.
I am bound to say that if in the years before the war a Liberal Government showed a record such as this, the Conservatives would have shouted, "Turn out the wastrels!" And if it had been a Conservative Government in office with the same kind of Budget, the Liberals would also have been shouting, "Turn out the wastrels!" What has become of the great theories I used to learn from the political meetings I attended before the First World War? Here I used to learn my ideas of citizenship and of how it was absolutely necessary that a national Budget should be a good household budget. It should be balanced; the expenditure should be creative of power; it should lead us to security and safety. And there should be no waste anywhere. I think this present picture is a remarkable one. Everybody will say, "Of course this is one of the features of inflation." But who is responsible for the major part of the inflation? It cannot be the Opposition. The Government have to take the responsibility of inflation in their own Budget of housekeeping—and this Budget of between £6,500 million and £6,600 million wants some explanation.
The inflation comes from the demands from many quarters, but a lot of the demands have been created by the Government. There are demands for dealing with, say, the frightful crime of doping of race-horses which come from all over the country now; this is because the Government have made such a wide field in gambling investments and on the racecourses. So much greater is the number of people who now take gambling risks that there is a strong demand to deal with this awful crime of doping of

613
race-horses. It is not the poor horses they are concerned about; it is whether or not they will have been robbed of what they hoped would be their winnings in gambling.
When we consider that one of the trends in our economic progress is the falling off in private investment, I wonder whether the Government recognise that that is partly due to the unprecedented growth in gambling. Yet they have put three aids to gambling on the Statute Book. The leaflet issued by the Council of Christian Churches shows that thousands of betting shops have been opened right throughout this country. The estimated cost of gambling investments (shall I call them?) is £870 million for this year, and it is envisaged that they will reach £1,000 million next year. Where does the money go? It certainly goes out of the pockets of the punters, because the punters nearly always lose. Where does it go? Does it go into private investment? I think that the noble Earl might give us a little enlightenment about that.
When we come to the actual contents of the Budget every year, there is always this emphasis on inflation. Away back in the years from 1945 to 1951 we had to deal with extraordinary circumstances. We were nearly bankrupt in 1945, I assure your Lordships. We were working on a six weeks' margin. Yet when we handed over to the Conservative Government, this country was in a stable position, with adequate Forces and a defence budget hundreds of millions of pounds less than the present budget for defence. Is there anybody who, comparing the two sets of circumstances, then and now, in international affairs and our commitments for our share in international defence, can say that we are now as well fitted to meet the situation as we were in 1951? We have now one-third of the Forces that we had then, but with a £350 million higher expenditure. That wants a lot of examination. Perhaps we can deal with this question in more detail when we debate the economy of the Forces. There will not be any time for it in this Parliamentary Session, because the only time allocated to us in this connection is for discussing the central reorganisation of defence. But there is a great deal at fault here.
Look at another way in which this gospel that the Tories have to remain
614
year after year works out. They said, "Set the people free!" Free from what? From these wicked Socialist controls! But our controls worked for the benefit of the country. Where is the Tory expansion in production such as we produced under controls before 1951? Thanks to the work of the Labour Government, we were easily the first of the battered countries, who had suffered heavy bombing and enemy damage, to recover. We did it by controls, by repairing 3 million houses before we could build, by controlling materials and sites, by building first the factories which were most needed and re-tooling where it was needed first. We did it by controlled priorities. So that in 1951 this country, battered and bearing all the signs of the work of the enemy in 1945, had reached exports of 25 per cent. of the total trade of the country.
What can the Government show? All they can show now is a little improvement in the last three months. Of course we are pleased; we must all be pleased with blessings, however small. But at the end of last year we were down to an export trade of 15 per cent. of the trade of the country. In the last few months the figure has risen to vary between 15·2 and 15·6 per cent. But all these figures need the necessary adjustments that have to be made to Board of Trade figures. But this, of course, is a very serious and very difficult situation. It will be of great interest to us if we get some answers to these questions when the Government speaker comes to reply. I shall be particularly interested to hear the reply on gambling. About ten days ago, I noticed in the Daily Express a report of an interview with the Prime Minister, who did not seem to think that there was anything very wrong in the Government's being charged with having created a "Bingo State". I think that there is a great deal wrong with it. The Prime Minister said that if people did not play Bingo, they would play bridge, as they used to do—or Housey-Housey. But when you come to the figures, which now can be proved, and assert so much more readily they are an astonishing setback to the other campaign that we wage all the time to get people to try to save. We owe a great deal to the National Savings Movement. It has meant a good deal to the stability of our country after

615
what we have passed through, and it is a great shame that it should be torn asunder by such an expansion of gambling as I have referred to just now.
I should like to say a few words about particular industries. In the course of his speech the noble Earl said that it was generally recognised that unemployment, bad as it has been in the last nine months, was mainly confined to certain districts. But that is not by any means always the case. One of the things that ought to be essential in the mind of the Government is looking after the changes that come, month after month, by actions taken within industry itself, without any control from the working side. It is true that nowadays they get better notice than they used to do, and sometimes better treatment if they are discharged. Let us take the modern platinum industry, now largely controlled, I believe, by American Tubes. What is happening there? The only one which was making a handsome profit in this country was the one employing 1,000 workers in the Potteries district. That is being closed down, and 1,000 workers being dismissed, to be handed over to new places they have got working in Wales. What are you doing for Stoke? What is happening here will go on happening, with the craze to-day for the big financier or the powerful company coming in with take-over bids, and the subsequent rearrangement of staff and the like being made. I hope that the Government will be able to tell us that they are keeping in mind all that side of planning in relation to growing unemployment in certain cases just as much as those particular, wider districts which have now been scheduled as if they were especially necessitous areas.
Then, may I have a look for a moment or two at some of the specific industries in the country? What would one take first? If we take them by size, first is agriculture. Agriculture has done a magnificent job in this country, during the war and since. If it were not for the actual constant rise in production, from a diminishing number of people employed on the land, and the fact that production of the farming industry has taken the place of £440 million to £450 million worth of imported food, we should have been in a very serious situation
616
with our balance of payments. I should like to know a little more clearly than has yet been indicated by the Government what are their plans. Here we are now, at the beginning of a harvest, and the Government, according to the statement I listened to in another place yesterday by Mr. Soames the Minister, still have no guide price plan for either wheat or barley. Why not? That was not done last year, and in consequence there were some disastrous results. For if you allow undue competition at the start, it continues right through the year; instead of those who are holding their products, so that there should not be uneven marketing, getting the advantage in subsidy, they do not get it, because the prices are not there; and if they do get the prices the result is increased charges to the State by reason of the subsidy. That is a great pity.
Then let us look at the place that used to interest me so much as a boy and as a teenager. Although I lived in the South, I was always studying our propaganda and reports. To-day the textile industry, in Lancashire especially, is going through a dreadful time. When you look at the figures of the industry, you can see that in the days when I first used to understand statistics, back in 1913, we employed 650,000 people in the textile industry in Lancashire. This year we are employing 150,000, many of them on altogether different textures from the main cotton production that used to be theirs.
This situation has been pointed out to me as being inevitable, because of the large increase in commodities like terylene, which is an improved and better material to use for a good many of the things for which cotton was formerly used. But that is the situation. In 1913, Lancashire produced 8,000 million yards of cotton cloth; and of that total 7,000 million yards was exported, only one-eighth of the product being taken into the home market. The position now is that you produce 1,000 million yards, and you export 250 million yards. What a tremendous change that is! While some people say that that is inevitable, surely something much more effective could be done, especially if real attention were paid to the situation of the home market. Above all things, this industry, which was once the very battlefield of the cry

617
for free trade, is now one of those industries that badly needs protection in its home market. That fact has not yet apparently come home with any great force to the Government. Some small changes have been made here and there, but, so far as I can see, action under the anti-dumping procedure seems to be exceedingly slight, and often quite ineffective. And still in this country, where we have such a magnificent market to go to, especially among our women folk, 30 per cent. of the whole requirements of our home market are imported from abroad, in an industry in which we are, I suppose, in quality, the master producers of the world. Cannot something be done about this textile industry?
I daresay that the same plea could be largely made with regard to woollen textile, as well as to cotton. I would add one other comment. I believe that, with commodities like cotton, there ought to be some measure of controlling imports by quota if it cannot be done by any other means; and there might be a differentiation in the quota allocated to a foreign country or to one in the Commonwealth—with, I hope, some tie-up of an exchange of trade in return.
I pass from textiles to engineering. That, of course, is largely dependent, for the main raw material, upon steel. What is the situation with regard to steel? This is the industry about which there was such a row in this House, when they insisted that we should have to leave our Bill over to the next Election before it became law, and which they immediately de-nationalised afterwards. Not only did they de-nationalise, but they made special choice, it seems to me, as to how the work should be distributed in steel among the private users. We remember the discussions that we had in this House over the £50 million loan to a steelworks on special preferential interest rates. What its the situation now? The situation now is that the industry is working to very little more than 70 per cent. capacity of the productive works which have been provided, not only through, first, private and then national owned industry, but also by the additional capitalisation since the present Government have been in office.
Our shipbuilding industry is in a very serious position indeed. It never had anything like the chance it had this
618
time, after a great war. It was full of orders, and doing great work. Our output of shipping in our British building yards from 1945 to 1951 was truly remarkable. Yet during a similar period after the 1914–18 war came to a close there was disaster within a year or two, and the Government had to set up the National Shipping Securities Company to close down, finally and for ever, yard after yard. Now where are we? There was the plea yesterday from the great firm of Swan Hunter on the Tyne, through Mr. Hunter himself, that surely they ought to be able to get some help from the steel industry in this country in competing with the shipbuilding yards abroad. They ask that they should have a 25 per cent. reduction in the price of steel, saying that otherwise they must go abroad and buy foreign steel, or go out of business. What sort of planning have the Government in regard to a situation like that? That is the sort of thing upon which we require information, and we really want to know what is going on.
I come now to the question which has been debated (I need only just refer to it) in other circumstances and in special debates with regard to the building industry. The building industry suffered a severe setback by the winter, and the noble Earl is entitled to refer to the weather affecting economic conditions. But the building industry to-day is beginning to work up again. There are new demands for different payments and the like, but the situation in the country is surely almost farcical in some circumstances. I do not know whether your Lordships have had my experience in this, but as I go round the outer circles and the edge of the inner circles of London to-day I see great newly-built series of offices, completely empty, and they have been empty for some twelve months or more. These have got through the planning powers apparently, instead of flats being erected in those situations. They are, as I say, completely empty and wasted. I see houses going up and prices being asked which are simply fantastic. I looked at a little set of three houses built in a very nice residential road. They had two small bedrooms, a staircase going straight up, a bathroom, one good living room and the tiniest kitchen, and the price was £4,500. When one complained about the price, one was told: "That is much less than you would have to pay for, say, a 99 years'

619
lease of a flat of the same accommodation."
You find that has a tremendous effect upon the price of land. Land prices to-day are simply fantastic. I hope on another occasion to reproduce what some of my colleagues—I think my noble friend Lord Silkin among them—produced twelve months or more ago, of some of the oustanding and remarkable increases which have taken place in land values. It is allowed to go on: there is no control: there is no legislation to deal with it. You let the big man go in, pay his money and then make his profit from the dissection of the land, which he has bought at a huge price, for an even far greater inflated price to those who have to make use of the land. That is bad for the economy, and bad all the way round.
I am looking at the clock, and I feel that perhaps I have been speaking too long. I want the other Members of the House to have a chance. There are many other things I wanted to say, but I say this to the Government. You had better clean up the gambling position; you had better get your planning down to brass tacks instead of talking about it and accomplishing nothing. You had better see that it is not possible to go on for ever in the circumstances of the Budget as I have referred to it having a "Stop-go, Stop-go" policy with prices and interest charges varying as they do. You are now handling your floating debt at a cost of over 6 per cent. for short-term borrowing. Even at this moment you have, according to my figures, in the middle of July, over £5,000 million of floating debt at 3·78 per cent. We were borrowing our floating debt at 10s. 6d. per cent. What has this eternal worship of the god of gold got to do with this maintenance of Conservatism in office? You really ought to have a look at these things and get your planning done, for at the moment my view of the Government is that, so far as they have any planning at all, it has been a miserable failure.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him this? He wanted to congratulate the Government on introducing planning for industry. May I ask the noble Earl whether he realises that there are various types of planning? Does he still hold to the view that industry should be sent to areas of high unemployment?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Do I still hold the view, my Lords? Yes, I should think I do! We have never departed from the principle. I was complaining also that we were taking a long time and being long-winded about the plans for dealing with unemployment now in the special areas. As the noble Lord comes from Scotland, he must know that there are plans going on there. I am strongly in favour of them.
3.44 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, moved this Motion with great restraint and characteristic modesty, and we must all hope that the expectations he expressed will be realised. The noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has made a number of points with which we on these Benches agree, and, if I may without immodesty, I should like to congratulate him on the orthodoxy of his remarks on national housekeeping, if not on the excessive belief he appears to have in the good a Government can do in intervention and the direction of industrial development.
Following the noble Earl's example, I should like to refer chiefly to a few general considerations rather than to the detailed clauses of this rather long Bill. The theme of the Budget, as we all know, was "expansion without inflation," a theme to which no one could take exception. This Finance Bill gives effect to the ideas of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how the aim he proclaimed can be achieved. As noble Lords waded through these 70 clauses, I wonder what their feelings were? I am bound to say that the impression made on me was not very great. There are some useful and salutary changes, but I have found nothing very revolutionary, and except possibly for the encouragement of industry into certain designated areas I could not find that it contained much in the way of new ideas. I would not comment on this had not the theme of the Budget been proclaimed with the Parliamentary equivalent of a blast of trumpets. I gladly concede that it makes some reductions in taxation which it would be churlish not to welcome, as well as some complicated changes, as the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said, which on balance do not amount to very much.

621
But we must judge this Bill on whether we feel it is likely to achieve its declared purpose, not just in the short term of a few months, but in the long term. I can understand that it is not unwelcome to the T.U.C. and to the Labour Party as a modest step forward along the road they have advocated, because the Chancellor appears to have accepted the expansion of production as a primary objective of Government policy. But I am afraid this does not convince me of his wisdom. True, not wishing to be thought to have thrown all sound principles to the wind, the Chancellor qualities his newly adopted primary aim with the words, "without inflation", and that is what I fear they may be—just words. I ask how much need those fear or worry about inflation who, in the conditions envisaged, can successfully demand an increase of wages proportionate to any increase in the cost of living? In the Long run, of course, they too will suffer from inflation, but the evil results are not immediate enough to be an effective deterrent if immediate loss can be avoided.
Of course, the real reason behind this emphasis on expansion is to lend colour to the idea that the Government can engineer an automatic increase of at least 3½ per cent, in earnings each year. Anyway, whatever may be intended, this is the impression that has been created. In my opinion, it is a dangerous impression to create. The impression may do great harm and obscure the need for adaptability and change if living standards are to be improved.
The creative forces in individual initiative on which standards really depend are very unpredictable. My Lords, I do not believe the proposition as it stands is true, and, even if it were, I think it is the wrong picture of life to present, at any rate at the moment, to the British public. Their thoughts are groping today after satisfaction and enjoyment, to learn for the sake of the new interest learning can give. I should like to see the Government sponsoring a television programme like the Italian programme "Never too Late to Learn". The public are feeling their way to derive pride even in a monotonous job accurately done and to enjoy more what is free in life; not always to be pushed around for greater effort, or even always to be enticed to greater effort; in fact, to be able to
622
behave more as a normal free person. These are the aims to-day of the great mass of people in this country after attaining a reasonable standard of life.
Surely as we look at a basic industry, such as steel production, we must wonder where ever-increasing production, including not only economic production but prestige production in excess of present demand, may lead. It seems to have been forgotten during the days when there were shortages that demand for any product depends upon the willingness of consumers to use the product when other choices are open to them.
There is one section of this Bill to which I should like to draw attention, a section of which we, on these Benches, can approve without reserve. These are the clauses which make effective reductions mutually agreed to tariffs between this country and our EFTA partners. I believe the greatest and best contribution Government can make to expansion is by the removal of hampering restrictions upon trade and competition. Those who were inclined to disbelieve this old-fashioned Liberal thesis are showing a remarkable change of view these days as they witness an expansion of trade with every reduction of barriers upon the Continent. What is especially noticeable is that the expansion has gone ahead of the actual removal of the barriers, once the policy was assured.
May I, for a moment, return to the dangers of inflation? I believe inflation inevitably results when any Government spends more than it collects in taxes plus what it borrows in the open market. I believe also that a progressive scale of high taxation creates a dangerous inflationary atmosphere. So, if inflation is to be avoided, the limits within which Government can operate are fairly rigidly determined. If they go outside these limits, Nemesis will overtake them. In the past ten years the present Government have inflated the note issue by more than £1,000 million. True, this is not the only factor involved, but it is the easiest road for a Government to take when they depart from the strict rules I have mentioned as necessary to avoid inflation. Because of this, in spite of the technological advances and the increased efficiency in industry which should have brought down prices, the purchasing power of the pound over the past ten

623
years has fallen by one-third. If, in pointing out these facts, I am accused of over-simplification, I would remind my accusers of the fact that the Germans, having had experience of the disaster which inflation brings, took care in their present Constitution to keep their Government within these strict rules, hence the very small increase in Germany of the consumer price index compared with the Very large increases in other European countries as well as in the United States.
I wonder whether there is a single noble Lord in this House who has not received, since the Budget, notice of some increase in charges. The letter usually reads: "We are reluctantly compelled to increase our charges …" for something or the other, and over a very short space of time this happens over almost everything. I will draw your Lordships' attention to one instance only, and I have chosen one in which private enterprise cannot be blamed and about which no letter of excuse was written. I have here two similar airline tickets (return tickets from London to Paris, in fact) one issued at the end of March last at £22 and the other issued in May at £24 9s.; an increase between March and May of 10 per cent. If that sort of increase is general, as, my Lords, I fear unfortunately it is, most of the shine of the Budget seems to be in process of wearing off already.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, is not that a seasonal increase by the airlines?
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I have no letter of excuse with it, so I do not know, but I have not known these fares to come down once they have gone up, and I think the noble Lord would be optimistic if he were to think they will come down in the autumn.
I do not know whether the Government pay any great attention to the reports of the Bank for International Settlements. The report issued last month calls in question the policy of expansionism as it is being practised in Europe, and advises that greater attention should be paid to the problems of cost inflation. I hope this advice from the Bank for International Settlements has not gone unnoticed by Her Majesty's Government.
My Lords, in these days "deficit" financing seems to be regarded as almost
624
a virtue. If it can ever be justified it can only be, surely, in a period when reserves are high and can stand the strain. How nice it would be if we could really live for ever on a continually increasing overdraft! When it is put plainly like that in relation to the nation's accounts, it is passed off as being over-simplification. Inflation, as we know, imperils both individual freedom and democracy itself. This is the reason why some of us feel we must harp upon this danger when the Government almost surreptitiously—for the Orders laid on the Table are rarely, if ever, challenged in either House—puts into its Bank extra notes or issues bills to pay for what the nation is apparently not willing to pay or which it is led to believe it can get on "never, never" terms.
I will not weary your Lordships much longer. I feel I am speaking, at any rate in your Lordships' House to the converted. I wish that were true of many more outside this House. But I must ask one or two simple questions, if I may. We heard from a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, some fifteen months ago I think, that he had ordered an inquiry to discover what possible economies in expenditure could be made. He also, I believe, instituted an inquiry into the question of the reform of the whole structure of taxation. I would ask the Minister if these committees are still pursuing their studies or have they lost their way in the maze or been abandoned? The present Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned a study bearing upon the possible harmonisation of methods of raising taxes in different countries in Europe, which I think is very desirable. When may we expect to hear more of this particular study?
Finally I should like to ask the Government to add another matter to be considered as a matter of urgency. It is the question of replacing the existing gold exchange standard by a generally acceptable standard independent of any currency and to which currencies, at least in countries seeking financial stability, could be related. A welcome return to a more traditional orthodoxy in this matter is very evident at the moment in most Continental countries, and agreement on this vital matter might make European unity

625
a reality very much more quickly than any other action which could be taken. It is one subject in which I understand the French President and the French Government would welcome British co-operation. I therefore suggest that this is a matter of urgency and importance for this and other reasons and would like to ask the Minister to give the question careful consideration.
4.5 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I somehow felt that by some trick of the time machine we had slipped back into the last century. It seems to me that the remarks he made had more relevance to an age that is past, an age in which this country dominated world trade and was largely responsible for what went on in the world in that connection. But to-day we have to face conditions as we find them and try to mould them to the advantage of the British nation. I agree with Lord Grantchester that difficulties are brought about by some of our actions which bring about conditions of inflation. This can be disastrous to people with fixed incomes, and I should like very much to think that before long we shall find a way of securing full employment within our economy and at the same time avoid the evils of inflation. So far I do not think any country in the world has managed to achieve this; nevertheless it is our job to go on trying.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was short and factual in his statement. I think it was none the worse for that. I contrast it with the speech of introduction that we heard from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, last year, which was a philosophical dissertation. The two speeches were widely contrasting in style, but both, I am sure, welcome to the House. The noble Earl told us the facts of the last half of the year 1962 were rather disturbing; but he held out, it seemed to me, a much more promising picture for the future. He seemed to suggest that things were getting better, and he told us that the present Chancellor was extremely lucky to be able to budget for less taxation and increasing prosperity. In this connection, I sincerely hope this is not a continuation of the "Stop-Go" policy which we have had continually throughout the period of the
626
Tory Government since 1951, the policy of "Go" always leading up very shortly to the General Election, and the policy of "Stop" following that Election. This is not good for the country—it may be good for the Tory Party's Government but certainly it is not good for the country. I sincerely hope that that phase in the Conservative Government's management of its budgetary financial policies has passed, and that they will think for the country rather than for their particular political advantage.
I am not going into the economic history of the past twelve years; my noble Leader has done that out of his particular knowledge of events in the peirod 1945–50 and the subsequent years, and he has done it with a vigour that I could not possibly hope to match. In the corresponding debate of last year I ventured to suggest that there were three essentials for prosperity and for increasing the rate of our economic growth: one, a steady expansion of production, and a steady expansion of production of course really means in this connection an increase in productivity, for it is no good just increasing your production if that production flows only from the increasing number of men that are employed to secure it. Secondly, a fair distribution of the product of our industry, which I said must not only be fair but also he seen to be fair by all income receivers. Thirdly, there must be an incomes policy which will not price us out of the world's markets; and the noble Earl referred to this aspect of the task that we are facing in the future.
Of course, I do not claim the slightest originality for these three, what I call, essentials, for prosperity. Everyone, almost every speaker, I am sure, who has intervened in economic debates in your Lordships' House over the past very many years, has referred to them in one way or another. But that does not mean, unfortunately, that everyone—Government, management and trade unions—so completely accepts them and acts upon them that there is no need to refer to them again. I think we have to keep on hammering home these facts, these essentials, until they pass into our national consciousness and all responsible people act upon them. That means that Government must plan for their acceptance, management must act up to the

627
great responsibilities which are theirs, and the trade unions must come to terms with the changed and ever changing environment within which they have to function.
If one tries to deal with these groups under their separate heads, it is not because they are separate always: they are intertwined, and each is dependent upon the others for the complete fulfilment of the contribution it may make to our national economic prosperity. If I start with the trade unions it certainly is not because there is any order of priority in these matters, but rather because it just happens to fit into the pattern of the speech I am trying to make. Mr. George Woodcock is quoted in an excellent broadsheet Trade Unions in a Changing Society, recently issued by P.E.P., as having said at the 1962 Trades Union Congress—and I quote:
"Structure, particularly in the Trade Union Movement is a function of purpose. We expect that we shall first of all in our inquiries inquire into trade union purpose and policy and ask ourselves: 'What are we here for?' When we know what we are here for, then we can talk about the kind of structure that will enable us to do what we are here for. We shall have also to keep in mind not simply the history of the British Trade Union Movement, but the fact that the British Trade Union Movement has reflected, and will always continue to reflect, in its structure and practices the circumstances of the time. We shall have to inquire into the circumstances of the times and see how far they have brought about conditions which require adaptations on the part of our unions."
Those were wise words about the structure of the trade union movement. My only doubt about them is to be found in the sentence which ends with the words:
"the British Trade Union Movement has reflected, and will continue to reflect, in its structure and practices the circumstances of the times."
I am a trade unionist of over fifty years' standing, initiated into a trade union in the days when we were struggling hard for recognition. We have all too often lagged behind the circumstances of the times and have been much too slow in the acceptance of a new idea of our purpose. All too often our answers to the problems have been to the problems of the past and not to the problems of the present and o fthe future. Somehow, we have just got to catch up. Inside
628
the trade unions we have to realise this and struggle hard to catch up with the conditions and the circumstances of the times. We really must accept our share of the responsibility for increasing the size of the national cake. But, of course, we have at the same time to try to ensure that the portion of that cake that the workers get increases with an increase in its size.
When I say this, I must admit that I do not accept any suggestion that the existing pattern of the relative distribution of the cake among the various interests—dividends, rent, salary and wages—are fixed for all time. I certainly would not accept that. I feel, as I have always felt, that much too much in our society goes to those who do much too little for it. We, as the trade unions, must struggle to effect that distribution, but all the time remembering that just to distribute an existing cake is not enough: we have to do our level best to increase its size.
The trade unions remain—understandably so—most suspicious of the Government's policy on incomes. In connection with this debate I re-read the Government's White Paper Incomes Policy. The Next Step, practically the whole of which is devoted to wages policy, and only one paragraph, almost a fleeting reference, to profits and dividends. It seemed as though the whole emphasis of this was on: "How are we going to distribute that portion which is wages?", and little said about how the other portion of incomes, equally important in this regard, of profits and dividends shall be adjusted and how they shall be measured. I notice that in his speech the noble Earl talked about incomes policy, but never one word about any part of it other than that portion of it which deals with wages policy.
That is not good enough. Such an approach makes understandable the trade unions' refusal to participate in the work of the National Incomes Commission. But, having said that, I am bound to say that the time will come when the Trade Union Movement must accept its share of the responsibility for a wages policy within the wider aspect of an incomes policy as a whole. If it does not do it under this Government, it would have to do it under the next. I rather

629
think we may have a little share in persuading the trade unions when the next Government comes along; but I can see in this Chamber that there are some people who doubt whether we shall form a Government after the next Election. I happen to be looking at one at the moment.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: He must be the only one.
LORD CHAMPION: It is not quite true to say that he must be the only one; there are just a few others. But increasingly the trade unions must face up to reconciling the old protective functions with national economic objectives. It is not only a matter of wages, but also a matter of direct co-operation with managements in increasing productivity.
The next point that I want to try to make is that we must have managements in our industrial concerns which will face up to their vast responsibilities. I am sure that many of your Lordships will have done as I have over the week-end: read the Fielden Report on Engineering Design. As so many other investigations in a wider field have done, this Report highlights the fact that whilst management in some sections of engineering manufacture is exceptionally good, much too much of it is exceptionally bad. If, as I suggest, the trade unions have to catch up with the circumstances of the times, so, too, must the whole of British managements. The worst must catch up with the average and then go on to catch up with the best, and set a new world standard in this connection.
The impression left on me by that Report on existing management can be summed up in the simple sentence quoted from one of those who gave evidence. He said:
"Companies with traditional products tended to rest upon their laurels, and that it was more difficult to improve the design of a successful article than to develop a new one."
Britain dares not rest upon her laurels. We have to struggle to live, and dependence on what served us well in the past will not necessarily get us through the years which lie ahead.
I daresay that most of your Lordships get monthly a publication called Italy Presents. I do, and I must admit that from time to time I am struck by the strides made by the Italians in eye-catching
630
design. I know that eye-catching design is not the be-all and end-all of a product, but eye-catching design ought to be married to competence to do the job for which it is manufactured. The most esthetically pleasing teapot in the world is of no use if it dribbles, instead of pouring cleanly. Good design must be embodied in a machine which will do the work for which it is intended. If there is backwardness in design and in the application of research to our manufacturers, we must somehow persuade management to catch up. I believe, too, that we still have a long way to go in men-management techniques. In this field its share in the task of helping the trade unions in their adjustment to their new purpose is an important task, and, indeed, may well be a decisive one.
One of the severest criticisms of management is that the capital which is invested in industry is too little used. I was a shift-worker in my job, and I must admit that I hated it. I hated being out of circulation in the afternoon and evening when all the young fellows and girls I knew were out in the town, or in the park, or elsewhere; but it was my job. We dare not, I think, go on using our expensive machines, as we now do, on one shift a day for five days a week. A recent article on this subject said that many people these days have come to talk about much of our new equipment and new machines as being "one day a week" machines, a telling phrase—an exaggeration, of course, but often telling phrases are exaggerations. But despite our hatred of shift work (and we in this House ought to know something about it, as we do a little of it here; at least, we occasionally have a little splash at night work), and even if men do not like shift work, they will do it, provided that the incentives are right. And it is the job of management to co-operate with the trade unions in examining the effects and the economic use of capital which is invested in machinery.
The last of my headings is the function of Government in all this. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said on July 30, 1962, in our debate on the Finance Bill last year [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 243, col. 6]:
"although luck, good or bad … enters vastly into almost every human enterprise, the more chancy the field of activity may be … the more important it is to reduce the element of

631
chance in them by conscious and methodical forethought, consistent action, and realistic appraisal of the facts of the case. If that is planning, then I am, and have always beeen, a planner."
I do not know whether the whole of the Government have been converted to a "conscious and methodical fore-thought" leading to planning and actions based upon it. I must admit that I am not, like Lord Grantchester, afraid of planning. I believe that the age has come when we cannot hope to achieve a reasonable degree of economic prosperity unless we do, consciously and deliberately, plan for an increase in production, while all the time struggling to avoid inflation.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I never said that I was against planning; because one always plans one's own business. The point is: whether one should plan someone else's business.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this business of planning one's own business was a nineteenth century concept, and it had little relationship to the national economy as a whole. This just will not do to-day. We have to plan as a national concept; we have to plan for productivity; and, what is more, we must take such steps as lie in our power to ensure that this is carried out.
Our charge is that, if the Government have been so converted by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, it is something like a deathbed repentance. In 1951 the Tories won Government on a policy of "setting the people free". Their policy has got us to the bottom of the Western countries' table in regard to average rate of investment and increase in exports, and next to the bottom of the table in regard to increase in industrial production and increase in prices. They have managed to do this in twelve years of government. France, whose position is in almost every respect better than ours (except in the matter of price increases), has achieved her position as a result of conscious, deliberate planning. She has been able, despite difficulties of changes in the economical climate, to which the noble Earl referred, really to plan for progress. The plan was started by its main architect, Jean Monnet, in 1946. France is now in the period of the fourth plan. Reading of the methods adopted
632
in France's planning, one is struck by the fact that our N.E.D.C. is heavily indebted for its structure to the High Planning Council of France, and although we ought to have been working on similar lines to the French over the past twelve years all we can say of N.E.D.C. is that this first tentative approach to planning is better late than never.
What is the Government's policy task in all this? It seems to me that it must ensure, by its education policy, a supply of scientists, technologists, engineers and designers. That is not an easy task, for, clearly, pressures build up spasmodically with each succeeding report of our deficiencies. One day the whole stress is on scientists and technologists, and now I would imagine that, following the Fielden Report, pressures will be exerted on the Government in regard to engineers and designers. But it is the job of the Government to strike a balance in these conflicting claims. Education is required not only at the higher and more formal levels: it is badly needed also at the workers' level in regard to industrial training for required skills and re-training of redundant workers—and, unfortunately, redundancy is always an inevitable concomitant of a developing economy. We must try to do something about re-training redundant workers into new skilled and semi-skilled jobs, so that they can again take their place in building our prosperity. This means helping and co-operating with industry; it means providing the finance and the facilities. In this field the co-operation of the trade unions is, of course, vital. The Government's financial policies must be so adjusted as to make funds available for the essential projects. I am not sure that some of our taxation ought not to be deliberately penal upon those who will persist in using outworn and out-of-date equipment.
My Lords, the last point I would make in this connection (the noble Earl referred to this and said what we were doing) is that we must give every possible assistance for exports. Because, as "Neddy" points out, the one possible serious obstacle to a 4 per cent. annual growth is the danger of not getting a 5 per cent. annual increase in our exports. I was glad that the noble Earl placed emphasis on this point. That is all a hard task: it is a hard task for everyone concerned—trade unions, management, Government.

633
It is a planning task, but I believe that it is the only way by which we can ensure prosperity and a continuing economic growth.
4.31 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, your Lordships' House must indeed be grateful to the noble Earl the Minister, who moved the Second Reading of this Finance Bill, for the modest and factual way in which he presented it to your Lordships, and for his review of the present economic position of the country as Her Majesty's Government see it. I was sorry that he brought in the current Treasury jargon—although I should perhaps have been disappointed if he had not done so—when he said that, of course, the Chancellor's policy is one of cautious and steady growth, with nothing spectacular to lead to inflation. I am a little more apprehensive than he is. I do not find the immediate future so encouraging as he does. The noble Earl is quite right: productivity is going up and less labour is required to obtain the same output. So we must increase still more the productivity of the country, to absorb the same amount of labour as we did before. That in itself represents, in my view, the challenge that is facing this Government.
The yardstick of the past will be useless for the future. We have to create more jobs; we have to create new jobs. And although the noble Earl quite rightly says that we have now brought the unemployment figure in this country down to under 500,000, there are still 167,000 fewer men employed in manufacturing industry than were employed in the same industry twelve months ago; and we have the winter to face. I would beg the Government, especially the noble Earl—although I do not think that in his reply he will be guilty of it—not to laugh off the danger, as the Government did two years ago, when we pointed out from all sides of the House that unemployment would reach terrific heights within six months' time. We then had one of the most sorry speeches from the Government spokesman, the Minister of State for the Board of Trade, that I have ever heard in your Lordships' House. I would beg of the Government not to think that this unemployment problem will not grow more difficult during the winter. And remember, my Lords, that
634
in Scotland and the North of England unemployment is still 4 per cent.—and a stubborn 4 per cent., too.
That brings me to the point that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made about the Government's assistance to industry, and about these investment allowances. I remember that twelve months ago I pointed out in clear terms—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench adopted the same attitude—that, while I was not prepared to look a gift horse in the mouth, that gift horse was not a starter for a very long time ahead; and that is still true. I will come back to that point in a minute. I want to touch on a point made by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition; and, if he will permit me to say so, I thought he made one of the best speeches I have heard him make on economics for a long time. It was forceful; it was factual, and it contained a lot with which all sides of the House would have to agree.
I will come back to this point of what the Government have done with this special assistance for special areas. When I was in the Government I had experience in South Wales, and I have always viewed these panaceas for different areas with the greatest distrust. I would far sooner rely upon curing distress in special areas by the general uplift of the country's economy, than I would bring out things that look nice, like glossy pamphlets but from which the gloss soon wears off. If I take Scotland as an example, that has a stubborn 4 per cent. unemployment. It is useless to take some industries to Scotland. The labour in Scotland is a different type of labour; and, if your Lordships have been in the productive industries, as I have, you soon find that out. After all, the Clydeside shipyard worker is a splendid fellow at his job, but it is no good taking some very light industry there and thinking that the Clydeside worker is going to adapt himself to it.
I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, how much of this £30 million subsidy, or 5 per cent. loan, to the ship-using industry is going to find its way to the Clyde. I should like the noble Earl to tell the House—since I understand that the £30 million has all been applied for—to whom it is going, and what are the types of ships that are to be

635
built. Is this £30 million going to help our real shipbuilding industries on the Clyde, the Tyne, and the Tees, or is it going into a lot of small ships, which may be very good but which will not help the basic problem of one of our principal shipbuilding areas—that is, the Clyde?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would permit me to interrupt for a moment. I am quite sure that he did not make the statement, in regard to a lack of adaptability on the part of the Clyde shipbuilders, without experience. Could he give us an idea of his experience which leads him lo that conclusion, because it is a new one to me?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, I can. There are factories in an industry in which I served for quite a number of years, which have moved to Scotland and cannot get right into production, because in some of the productive processes they cannot get the proper labour, which is female labour. Because they cannot get the proper labour to do one thing in the productive chain, the whole production of the factory has been held up; and it is still not in full production. That is what I had in my mind when I said that.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: The noble Lord would surely agree with me that that is not a matter of adaptability. What the noble Lord has now said is that the proper type of labour, female labour, that is needed for these processes, is not available in the parts of the country to which he has applied.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is what I said. I went on to say—and it is a truth—that the female labour, or any other labour that is available, is not suitable, and cannot be adapted to that process. One naturally follows the other.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to ask him whether he would be a little more specific about the nature of this industry.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is the motor industry. I am not going to mention names of firms, and things like that.
LORD GREENHILL: Not names of firms, but the type of industry.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I said an industry with which I have been connected for a number of years; and I thought that, after twenty years in your Lordships' House, I had been well and truly branded with the motor industry. I should not have thought that I would have to explain to which industry I was referring.
LORD GREENHILL: Not as a manufacturer.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: As a manufacturer as well, yes.
Now I want to get back to this question of public investment. I believe that although public investment is growing, we are not getting the benefit as quickly as we should—and that was the point made by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition. I am going to cite the road programme as an example. Motor vehicles are coming on to the roads of this country faster than we are building roads. We are not even holding our own: we are slipping back. It has been said, I think, by the Minister, and it is a truth, that we cannot spend all the money that there is available for a road programme. The reason for that is because Government is ill-fitted to get that speed in the process of building roads which is necessary if industry is going in the future to have those conveyor lines that she so badly needs.
It is no good developing various areas of the country if you cannot get your roads built quickly enough. Here I can speak from personal experience. The circumlocutions, the procrastinations and the delay that there is from the time a road project is agreed to the time the road is opened for vehicular traffic are of staggering proportions. I think the Road Council said there are 39 steps or 39 hurdles which have to be overcome. There are two and a half miles of bypass not very far from my home that were put into a road programme fifteen years ago and which have not been completed yet. The complete circle, of which this is only a part, was put into the programme 35 years ago, and this is the last two and a half miles. The reason, my Lords, is that when you come to these big projects you have the Ministry of Transport, which is tied up with professional people, and you have a highway authority, again tied up with professional

637
people, and they are all jiggling about with modifications and alterations to specifications right up to the time the last yard of tarmacadam has been rolled into place. All this costs a lot of money and takes years.
We just are not getting on with our roads quickly enough. I am not going to develop this theory this afternoon, although I shall at some future date, but I am myself convinced that the construction of our motor roads and our trunk roads must be taken right out of the hands of the Ministry of Transport and out of the hands of the highway authorities, and put under the control of a Roads Board. That is the only way we shall ever get roads built at a right price and within a reasonable space of time.
It is the same with all these other projects. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House, with all his dynamic enthusiasm, was sent to the North-East, and I should think he came back bubbling with ideas. As soon as he gets back, he is run off to Moscow. Now if your Lordships think any dynamic energy is going to be put into anything like that by the Board of Trade in his absence, you are greatly mistaken. And what happens in the meantime? While all this is going on, men are going hungry, and there is no one behind any of these projects who has got—I like to use the phrase—a hobnailed boot which he can plant in a proper place to see that the job is got on with. Our greatest growth industry to-day is the Civil Service—they multiplied themselves this last year by, I think, 34,000—all not attuned, as industrialists are, to get on with the job and see that it is brought to an end.
I come now to another point that I should like to mention—demand. Demand has not risen sufficiently. Again, I think the Government were wise to make these concessions in P.A.Y.E. tax; but there is not sufficient demand. If the Government have learned any lesson over this last twelve months, let them learn this: that the easiest thing in the world is to slow down an economy; the hardest thing in the world is to get it going again. And it is not going. I have canvassed opinion in the retail trade. The retail trade is not getting ahead as it should. Shops are not busy, in spite of what is said. The motor car industry did not have such a good month during
638
June as it had in May. Do not think we are going to see this increase in demand until the economy is still more stimulated: we are living in a fool's paradise if we think so. We shall not get private investment into industry until the demand increases. People are not going to invest in equipment unless there is a demand for the goods they are going to make.
I should have thought all this was elementary, but it does not appear to strike Her Majesty's Government. So we get these phrases—"A cautious growth", and "One step enough for me". Time is not on the Government's side. I am not going to plead an Election cause for them. I do not know what the bookmakers in your Lordships' House or the gamblers referred to by the noble Earl would offer, what the betting would be, on the Government's winning the next Election; but if this unemployment is not cured or had substantial inroads made into it, and if the demand does not go up and the economy does not hum more than it does now, I should not give them more than a 100 to 1 chance—and I think, perhaps, that would be a pity. However, there it is.
My Lords, I want to talk also about exports. Twelve months ago, when we were debating the Finance Bill last time, we were all, or most of us were, agog at the prospect of joining the Common Market. We knew our task was going to be hard if we got into it. We also appreciated that it would be still harder if we did not get into it. We are not in it; but we do not seem to have the idea that our task is any harder to-day in the export markets of the world than it was five years ago. It is in fact very much harder. And as our exports increase our imports must increase; we cannot increase exports of finished manufactures unless we import the raw materials. It means that our exports have to go up far more than they are going up to-day. I beg the Government not to lose sight of the fact that one of the reasons why our exports are having a better showing in the markets of the world is that some of our competitors are now having their costs creeping up on them. In other words, we are increasing our exports by the difficulties of our competitors and not by our own virtues. Our main difficulty is that our prices are too high. One noble Lord—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Champion—spoke

639
about pricing ourselves out of markets. We have to produce more, and we shall not produce more exports until we have stimulated our home demand to make a substantial contribution to the covering of our manufacturing overhead costs. This is elementary to anybody who has been in business for a short space of time, and I hope that the noble Earl will take these facts into consideration.
My Lords, I should like to see one of the greatest deterrents to expansion in the Home Market removed, and that is purchase tax. Purchase tax is a bad tax. It influences manufacturing costs; the manufacturer does not have that proper control over his retail prices that he should have. I would far prefer a sales tax to a purchase tax. Purchase tax is an iniquitous tax.
One of the reasons why the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not take off purchase tax before Christmas was that it would have meant that the retail shops would lose something in the region of £20 million to £30 million because tax had been paid on the goods in stock. Purchase tax is paid at the wholesale level. That is a most silly thing; it is so artificial. If we had had a sales tax the only people who would have been affected would be the purchaser of the particular article on the particular day. The one reason why the Government will not make this change is that favourite thing, administrative convenience. If the Government want to stimulate the economy of this country then they must do away with purchase tax and give manufacturers a free hand.
I would now return to the question of the curtailment of the shipments of Argentine beef, and the blow that that action of the Government was to those British shipowners who had built refrigerated ships to the tune of something in the region of £40 million specifically for this trade. It will be remembered that I said that the shipments of Argentine chilled beef would be reduced for the last six months of this year to about 60,000 tons; whereas from 1957 to 1962 they had run at about 235,000 tons. This has involved the shippers of Argentine meat in a loss for this next six months of over £1 million in their earnings. At the same time as the Government
640
do this they offer £30 million in loans for building more ships—when they have taken away the trade of the ships that were already built. If that is not crazy, I do not know what is. At the same time as this was being done they imported into this country 40,000 tons of Yugoslav beef. The result within two weeks of this being done was that the price of Argentine chilled beef went up to the housewife. Subsidies and deficiency payments of £40 million will be paid to the producer of home-produced beef. I have no complaint about that; but there will still be a meat shortage. My information is that the butchery trade say that, through this curtailment of the shipments of Argentine beef, prices will go up still more in the next six months. They have already gone up to 5s. 6d. a lb. for sirloin, and they are between 8s. and 8s. 6d. for a cut of steak. There will be a shortage of meat during this coming six months.
Here we have a Government increasing the inflationary spiral by creating shortages so that prices go higher. I ask the noble Earl what is the sense of that? At the same time a crippling blow is struck at one industry in this country which wants all the help it can get, the British shipping industry. I myself would have thought that British shipowners who have to ply their trade, especially in South American waters, have enough competition to put up with from the subsidies given by foreign owners, flag discrimination, et cetera, without their own Government entering the lists against them. This is an ill-thought-out policy. On this question of imported meat I have for years been advocating that there should be long-term contracts and bulk buying, so that everybody knows where they stand—the raiser, the British farmer, the British meat trade, the British shipper—
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. I agree with the last point only in what the noble Lord has said. That is, I believe that there should be long-term contracts, but we should insist that there are deliveries from the Argentine within those contracts; because the British industry has been let down over and over again by the Argentine's falling down on their contracts. I do not quarrel with the

641
Government for taking action, or in paying quite high subsidies for getting first-class British beef. They should not be interefered with in this way.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Earl and I see eye to eye on this. I would say that a contract is a thing that must be honoured; although, if one looks into it, one finds that the decline in shipments of Argentine beef was due mainly to strikes and floods out there. But the main point is that there are willing sellers of Argentine beef for shipment to this country, and there are willing buyers. There is a shortage of meat and the British producer cannot fill the gap; so the housewife has to pay higher prices. That is the main point I wish to make.
I have a suspicion that the noble Lord who is to follow me is going to talk about another aspect of retail trade, so I will not venture into that field now. But I am certain that there is one thing that must be repealed in this country before very long, and that is the Restrictive Trade Practices Act as regards resale price maintenance. Prices are too high to-day. All this stamp trading and all this coupon trading is just a protest by the ordinary man and woman in the street against the high prices they are asked to pay for many branded articles which have a resale price maintenance label attached to them.
I wish the Government well. I hope that their policy will succeed. I do not think that it will succeed quickly enough. Time is not on the Government's side. I would ask the Government seriously to stimulate demand before it is too late, because, whatever they do, it will take some time to filter through to the productive factories of the country. I certainly hope that we can look forward to a radical reduction in the rate of unemployment before the end of the year.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I point out that if one has long-term bulk buying contracts, one cannot take any advantage of a fall in world prices. Therefore the housewife would probably have to pay far more.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, of course one can. If the noble Lord had any experience of bulk buying on long-term he would appreciate that unless you are a complete idiot you take
642
advantage of all that kind of thing. That is in your agreement. You do not bind yourself to buy goods at a settled price; you bind yourself to buy at market prices.
5.2 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, I am not an economist, a financial expert or an industrialist, and I speak in this debate with a certain diffidence. But of one thing I can assure your Lordships: I shall not range over such a wide field as the noble Lord who last spoke. I shall not detain your Lordships long. I should like to confine my remarks to investment policy—perhaps not altogether an inappropriate subject as this is National Productivity Year and the right investment policy is decisive in raising productivity.
In certain quarters it seems almost taken for granted that all capital investment is good, but I think this is a view which does not stand up to close criticism. One should consider not only the volume of capital invested but also the effect of the investment on the progress of the economy—in other words, consider not only its volume, but also its quality and pattern. It is obvious that wrong investment decisions can be made for various reasons. For example, there may be a misjudgment of the market which leads to excess capacity. There may be wrong investment decisions because of technical misjudgment. There may be wrong investment decisions because the size of a manufacturing unit is too small in relation to economic production or its location is uneconomic in relation either on the one hand, to raw materials, and, on the other, to the marketing of the finished product.
Apart from wrong decisions by individual firms, whole industries can suffer the consequences of faulty investment decisions. Mr. Duncan Burn, a former industrial correspondent of The Times and now director of a new economic planning body set up by various firms in the electrical industry, has in lectures and articles enumerated several industries in which he suggests that there have been faulty investment decisions. Steel, coal, the motor car industry, British Railways and the nuclear energy programme are some of them. These examples, whether one accepts them or not, illustrate, I think, the vital importance from the national point of view of the right

643
decisions in this field of capital investment.
It is an obvious truism that the industrial health of this country depends to a large extent on the speed at which technical advance becomes effective. If our competitive position is not to decline, change and the acceptance of new ideas is continuously necessary. We have to face the challenge of what some people describe as our Second Industrial Revolution—to get rid of obsolescent practices and to foster innovation. I am thinking not only of the application of automation, electronic controls and the use of computers. My noble friend Lord Champion has already referred to the Fielden Report on Engineering Design published last week. He has said how highly critical it is of British engineering and has quoted from the Report. I, too, would quote from that Report. They draw attention to
"the failure of particular sections of the British engineering industry to keep abreast of foreign competitors in redesigning their products to take advantage of advances in technology."
Surely we cannot do this without the right sort of investment policy.
Government in the modern world plays a large part in economic decisions. As I am not an accountant, I should be loath to get involved in the subject of capital allowances, but I feel that there is an important difference between the replacement of a particular piece of worn-out equipment that has come to the end of its life-span with an identical article and, on the other hand, the replanning of production with new and technically more advanced plant or apparatus. Could not the tax system be used in some way to encourage this particular type of capital investment?
May I point out that the Tucker Committee and the Royal Commission upon the Taxation of Profits and Income suggested something similar—a greater discretion in the use of capital allowances? It would seem that all this points to a greater degree of planning and co-ordination of capital investment. Could not the task be entrusted to (to give it its full and dignified title) the National Economic Development Council. Obviously in this connection the part of N.E.D.C. would have to be considered and whether or not, in addition to producing
644
reports on economic development, it should not be given some planning authority.
Opinions differ as to how much we can learn from France. The general planning authority in France, I understand, has special modernisation commissions to improve productivity and they have a very large influence on the pattern of capital investment. They have certainly served to concentrate public opinion on industries that ought to be growing as well as on industries that are declining. Few people, I think, would suggest that we should transplant the French planning system in its entirety to this country, but no doubt their methods are worthy of study.
What is important, obviously, is the pattern of relationship in future between the N.E.D.C. and the Government as a whole or individual Government Departments. The Economist in a recent issue, stated that the British Prime Minister does not at present have any central planning staff to help him. There is a case, they suggest, for making N.E.D.C. in some way responsible to the Prime Minister's office. Dr. Thomas Balogh, on the other hand, in his recent Fabian pamphlet, has called for a Ministry of Planning and Production, and suggests that the Treasury should concentrate on being a good Finance Ministry and not pretend to be anything else. Whatever the future holds concerning this relationship, in my view, unless the work of the National Economic Development Council leads to a more efficient and less wasteful use of our capital resources, and to greater technical advance, it will have failed in one of its major objectives.
5.11 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am sure we have all enjoyed the address which the noble Lord has just made; it was thought-provoking and eloquent, and it confirms that the talents he has brought to this House have enriched our debating powers. The noble Earl, in presenting this Bill for our consideration, is certainly entitled to our admiration. He did it with his usual thoroughness; he was precise and clear and, in so far as these Bills in the main have been presented over the past twenty years or so, relatively brief. He certainly gave us a marshalled list of what has been done

645
by the Government. But I, too, should like to say at this stage that I think we all ought to feel, as this is not a controversial Bill, in that our powers of amendment do not exist but our ability to criticise does, that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition was to-day in particularly good form. He presented his reasoning in such an engaging way that I must say I found myself falling in line with a great deal of what he said. There were two particular angles to which I attach that thinking. The first was that of the necessity for the Government to deal with the lower-Asiatic-wage imports, to which I shall refer later, and the other the increase of facilities for betting. It staggers one to think, when one sees it repeated in the Press, that at present £1,000 million a year is being turned over in betting. If your Lordships drive for ten miles outside Manchester you will see a betting shop about every half a mile. It is an astonishing thing. However, that is a small point.
This Bill, as I say, was presented by the noble Earl in a manner that caused him to give us a catalogue of what the Government have done. I suppose our main thought would be: what an astonishing thing that the move in the economy had not been greater! My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth emphasised—in fact, his candour was most disturbing—that unless a great deal more was done the economy would not get going. But, as the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, we now have a Budget of £4,600 million; and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, told us that as a result of this Budget it would be necessary to find another £680 million. If we go much faster, where are we going to land?
The fact remains that the effect of all these measures up to date seems to have been very small. One would have hoped that this year the Finance Bill would be regarded as an instrument of policy. Since it succeeds our retraction from our flirtations for intimate associations with Europe, one might have thought that it would before now have resulted in an outline by the Government of some alternative policy. It might be multi-pronged but there are those, like myself, who feel that one prong might have been a more intimate association with the Commonwealth, and that there would
646
have appeared a greater emphasis on Commonwealth trade. If I may say a word about Australia, one hears it said so often: "What is the good of trying to trade with the Dominions? They constantly raise their tariffs, or put on restrictions." But experience over the past forty years proves that as soon as our exports in one thing fall off, they are always replaced by exports of another character. So we ought not to take that argument seriously.
We now have "Neddy" to guide our steps. We must welcome its activities. But the Council's candour indicates that we have to do more than increase exports by 5 per cent. over the next few years to achieve the targets. The Economic Survey of Europe, published in 1962, states:
"It seems that in 1963 investment in manufacturing industry will slacken further in Western Europe as a whole."
The turn in the balance-of-payments tide for the Common Market seems a warning. From 1955 to 1962 each year the external reserves of the Common Market rose by 2,000 million dollars per annum, or a total of 13,500 million dollars. Now the tide appears to be turning in a decisive fashion. This basic change in the fortunes of the Common Market has implications of considerable importance to the rest of the world. It may well be that accommodation between Russia and the United States will result from a recognition by Russia that she has an 8,000-mile frontier to defend between herself and China. We could be sitting in a fortunate position, uncommitted, with clear power of manœuvre, on the flank of this European Community whose fortunes from now on may deteriorate.
The next point to which I wish to draw attention (and the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition explained this with great clarity) is the impact of imports from low-wage countries. This will compel statesmen at some point to recognise that more conscious discrimination by all Western standard countries will be necessary for some years to come. Inescapably it will be found that tariffs which were considered possible are inadequate. As the noble Earl said, quotas may be substituted if employment in the Western type receiving countries is to be conserved; and he added that we can count on the vigilance of the Opposition, in or

647
out of office, to press it. Let us remember that the United States and Canada are glaring examples of the damage done by these imports from low-wage countries, and of the extent to which unemployment results and factories are progressively closed.
So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I cannot do better than give one Illustration: and I quote an extract from the speech of the Chairman of Courtauld's. I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Eccles, who is a member of their board defending these interests, sitting in his place. The Chairman said:
"Britain's textile industry is suffering from imports of cotton piece goods and"—
I emphasise the word "and"—
"made-up apparel from low-cost countries, which account for no less than 35 per cent. of our home consumption. This massive volume was serious enough, but even more serious are the low prices at which these goods are sold. Our interest compels us to recognise our dependence on the volume of activity of the United Kingdom textile industry as a whole."
Obviously, he was emphasising the damage that can be done from a small quantity of extremely low-cost merchandise which puts the whole country into disarray and imperils the employment in those industries.
I turn to my next point, that of overseas loans. With the forward progress of emergent Colonies towards independence, there is a growing volume of loan commitments. The aggregate is becoming burdensome. Independence is the election of those countries; it is not proved that it is the desire of the British taxpayer. Yet it is the British taxpayer who will have to pay for and provide these loans. These, in the aggregate, with the loans to the underdeveloped countries, are massive. I will give one example. We have committed ourselves, I think, to some £30 million to Cyprus, which conies in under the Technical Co-operation Department, one part of the Civil Estimates. These things slip by in a remarkable manner: £20 million here, £5 million there, and £8 million somewhere else. They go on one after the other, and the taxpayer has to foot the Bill.
Questions in this House have brought out that, of £150 million of aid and subventions to overseas countries in 1962, only £40 million was tied. I urge that a much large proportion of these loans
648
which we are being forced to give should be tied. We know how other countries tie their loans, and I cannot give a better example than that of the United States, who made a 40-year loan to Brazil free of interest. If that is not tying it, and an export incentive, I do not know what is. The American Bankers' Association at its last meeting urged that the United States should do much more of this. I would ask the noble Earl whether he can give some indication with regard to a commitment recently announced of a massive loan to India. Is that tied? Because in the Press at the same time we see notice of India seeking arms in Russia. Are our sterling loans to be used for the purchase of arms from Russia by India? I do not believe that that is what the taxpayer wants.
My next point refers to trade boycotts. We have read of the naïve childishness and petulant impracticability of the suggestions by some members of the Opposition that there should be a boycott with regard to South Africa. Surely, if dislike of the internal policies of overseas countries is to govern our foreign trade policies, then we can say farewell to the freedom of multilateral trade. In the case of South Africa, it will do little harm to them, but it could do a great deal of harm to us, with our £135 million-a-year exports to South Africa; with the privilege of an agreement which gives us Simonstown base in times of trouble. I wish that the noble Earl could have given more information than was obtained in this House quite recently. Supposing that, out of irritation, the Union Government decided to direct their consignments of gold to a destination other than London, surely that would have a disquieting effect on the position of sterling.
My next point is East-West trade—and I remember that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition touched on this quite strongly. If I might interject a personal reminiscence, it is some 34 years ago, I remember, that I first found myself, with him, in Moscow, beating up trade. We have urged trade with the Eastern-controlled economy countries ever since. We may all have noticed a powerful appeal by an impressive body of businessmen for an expansion of trade with the planned economy countries. This, anyhow, would appeal to the Opposition. It is topical now to talk of large numbers of people as a market. I suppose

649
that the Eastern bloc would be upwards of 1,000 million people—quite different from the figures quoted for the E.E.C. Trade in this direction could undoubtedly be increased a good deal. I will quote from Mr. Chambers, the Chairman of I.C.I. He said:
"With regard to trading with the Soviet Union and, for that matter, with the other planned economy countries of Eastern Europe, my own view is the more we can trade normally with those countries, the greater the prospect of an easing of international tension."
My Lords, why can we not deploy with vigour the vast purchasing power of Britain and buy less from non-Commonwealth countries with whom we have an adverse balance of trade? In connection with this I would appeal for still easier terms and longer periods for the E.C.G.D. credit facilities, to match what other countries do. After all, let us be candid: the casualty risk with the Communist countries has been very low. I urge that we trade more with Eastern countries, and that is the direction in which, surely, there should be additional opportunity of bringing about this urgently needed expansion of trade which "Neddy"' tells us must be not less than 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. per annum in the near future if we are to catch up. I conclude by quoting my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, who said:
"The policy of expanding exports and restricting imports do not go together."
My Lords, I support the Bill.
5.31 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I would very briefly agree with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, who covered a wide and interesting field, but I will not be drawn into the question of South Africa. However, I should like to say that I listen with grave anxiety whenever there is a suggestion of restricting imports from low wage-cost countries. We all appreciate the danger that an excess of imports can have in the short run on a particular industry, but, at the same time, in the battle for rising living standards in the world any restrictions of a kind which I admit we have to have—for example, those with regard to imports of textiles from Hong Kong—must be used to the least possible extent rather than the greatest. We are not only handicapping those countries but may be handicapping even our own economic position.
650
If, in fact, we are to achieve lower production costs we clearly cannot afford to throw away the advantages that certain cheaper imports may give us as opposed to more costly home-made manufactures.
I do not propose to develop this point further, beyond saying that clearly there is a moral aspect to this, which, I am sure the noble Lord would concede, we must bear in mind in the whole of our economic planning. It is an obligation on us to raise production not only for the sake of our own people but also for the two-thirds of the peoples of the world—a figure about which we hear so much that we are almost tired of it—who are living under conditions of poverty. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that I am wishing in any way to lecture him on the subject, but I do wish to make those particular points.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will not disagree that our thoughts must give more priority for our own workers than for the misfortunes of people in other countries.
LORD SHACKLETON: That is just the point on which I did not entirely agree with the noble Lord. I would say that that particular brand of self-interest which he is preaching is not an enlightened self-interest. That is what I am trying to convey. But there are clearly limits to what one can do. I should have thought that this is one of the issues which is becoming clear in the world to-day: we have responsibilities to people outside our own country. In the same way, morality within our country has changed in that no longer do some of the rich regard themselves as merely concerned with the welfare of their own families but to a greater extent they have accepted responsibilities to the community, and they pay their taxes more willingly than they used to.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting again, but if our purse is limited, surely priority must be to our own people.
LORD SHACKLETON: I will not pursue this further. It may be that some other noble Lord will wish to pursue what is an interesting topic. I am only saying that the noble Lord is putting forward a view which I think is not only too narrow but may be positively harmful

651
to our own people. I tried to deploy a number of arguments in economic terms as well as a wider international argument in favour of the welfare of the world, but I think we can leave the point, although it is one which would certainly be of interest to pursue further.
I should like to congratulate the noble Earl who introduced this Bill. We on this side of the House are apt to think that on occasion we are rather hard worked, but he was on the job all yesterday with the Television Bill till about half-past eleven, and he has had to open the debate to-day and will wind it up. He delivered his speech with clarity, though perhaps not with as much force as we might have expected. In any case, it would be too much to expect any other noble Lord, including most of us on this side of the House, to equal the vigour of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition who, in my opinion, delivered one of the most vigorous of his many speeches and, if I may say so, one of the most effective condemnations of the Government's policy over the past few years.
I shall not follow the particular arguments he used, because I think they were very largely unanswerable and I think we are to-day in the presence of a repentant if rather exhausted sinner in the shape of the Government—but not the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. He admitted that the Government made a mistake last year, and said that the decline in demand and in trade was unexpected. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, it was not for want of numbers of us telling the Government what was going to happen. At least they admit their error, but they do not seem to be very sorry about it, and the outcome has been a good deal of suffering and hardship for people who, if the Government had not made this mistake, might have avoided these hardships. I do not think, therefore, that the somewhat easy complacency which the Government invariably show in economic debates is going to be very satisfactory to those of us who are observing their performance rather critically.
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and other noble Lords, I fear that the Government are
652
still making the same mistakes. Although they have now learned certain important economic lessons—and it is quite clear that the advent of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer has ushered in a new era, however much the Government may deny this—the fact is that they are still failing to expand demand in the way that their own National Economic Development Council would appear to suggest they should. It is quite evident (and I am sorry to have to refer again to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who mentioned this) from present trading—and I do not mean the long-term statistics of the Government but the actual monthly trading figures in the retail trade; the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned the motor trade—that demand is still not expanding fast enough.
While it is too low we shall not solve the problems of the developing areas. It is not going to be enough to attempt to solve them purely by regional solutions, especially using such blunt instruments as the Government have been using. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury in his very interesting speech also gave some evidence of the bluntness of these special allowances. The fact that the Government are now beginning to make a first tentative essay in regional planning, which they had always rather thought impossible, is something we should welcome; but it is not enough by itself. It is disappointing in a year when the National Economic Development Council has been beginning to get into its stride, when it has been setting out pretty clearly the sort of steps that should be taken, that the Government are so slow to act. I would say straight away that their lift to demand has been too slow, and the argument that if the Government are to avoid a "Stop-Go" policy they must be slow to put too much pressure on the accelerator in the early stages, plausible though it may be, does not alter the fact that they are not accelerating enough to get the economy going.
They have failed, furthermore, in this Finance Bill and Budget to make some of the changes in the tax system which would appear to be necessary. It has been argued that if they are to inject certain extra money into the economy they cannot afford to use that up purely

653
in fiscal changes; but the urgency of relating our tax structure to the industrial needs and the general economic needs of the country is very urgent. I will not to-day go into the arguments on added value tax and other issues of a kind that have been referred to, but clearly they are ones which we shall have to face in relation to the needs of our export trade. The trouble is that we have an export system which is still too much geared to the administrative potentialities of collection and the Treasury approach (I am not attacking the Treasury) and not enough directly geared to our present national needs; and in this matter, as in others, we are not studying enough the experience of other countries, though there are signs that we are beginning to do so.
The Government are still—and I say this with goodwill to them, because, as I say, they are tired, and we cannot expect their repentance to take too visible forms too quickly—failing lamentably to put any vitality into the drive for "modernising Britain with the Conservatives". At this rate their "modernisation" will be almost a dirty word, because it shows no signs of real vitality or, indeed, of real meaning. We have had, for instance, their proposals for industrial training, and they were welcomed in this House, not with great enthusiasm but with a slight relief that the Government were aware of the need. But look again at what is being done in other countries with whom we are competing—and I do not wish to suggest that when we look abroad we find everything is better than in this country; I am merely looking at those things in which we are being passed by other people.
This is reported in the N.E.D.C. Report. Looking at what is being done in Sweden or even in the United States, we find that we are only tinkering with this problem. We have facilities for training 5,000 adults in this country. The number is 20,000 in Sweden, a country of about one-tenth of our population, or perhaps a little more. It is not without significance that in the N.E.D.C. book Conditions Favourable to Faster Growth, the first sections are concerned with education as well as with training. My noble friend Lord Longford will be introducing a debate to-morrow on education,
654
and education is very much more closely related—and we must increasingly recognise this—not only to the provision of a happy life but to the economic progress of the country. I do not doubt there will be an opportunity to probe further the deficiencies in our educational system to-morrow.
Several of my noble friends have referred to the Fielden Report. I will not quote it, although it is something that ought to be quoted, and quoted again on every possible occasion. What is so disturbing is that this is not the first of such reports. We have had a whole series of sorry tales. We have had the story of the shipbuilding industry; we have had the story of machine tools—a whole series of reports which suggest that even in those sections of British industry which we hoped were technologically advanced and we hoped had good management there are large areas of really serious failure. It is unfortunate that in this matter the profit and loss account is not a sufficient sanction or sufficient guide to the ultimate efficiency of the particular industry.
It is against this background that we see the rather depressing figures that we have of exports. There are the comparative figures of productivity and earnings in manufacturing industries between 1953 and 1961. We see that on average the percentage increase in output per hour of the other main exporters has gone up by 4·5 per cent. per annum, as against 2·7 per cent. in this country. I realise that there are certain reasons for this; it is perfectly fair to admit they were coming up from a lower level. Earnings have gone up 6·4 per cent. against 5 per cent. in the other main exporters, and the wage costs per unit of output in this country have gone up 3·6 per cent. per annum against ·5 per cent. in the other main exporting countries. Whatever the reasons for this are, it cannot go on.
My noble friend Lord Champion, in his very interesting speech, has made clear that we look forward to the day when there will be an effective incomes policy in this country. It is one of our criticisms of the Government that they have mishandled the introduction of a national incomes policy. But this is not the only aspect; it is the fact that there has been a failure in management, in development of technology. And here again these are

655
from the Government's own reports. Among the reasons that we have a falling share in exports they give design, quality, delivery and salesmanship. This is the responsibility of management. We have talked often enough in this House in some interesting debates, when there has been a good measure of agreement between industry and our trade union colleagues in this House as to the need for better management. But when management in industry fails to put its own house in order, then I fear the Government must find a way to move in. This may mean much more pressure, much more direct influence of the kind that the Government have already been showing, using some pretty rough means in relation to certain industries, such as the aircraft manufacturing industry.
I will not develop this theme any further. I want to return once more to this problem of the level of demand and its relation to exports. I commented in our previous debate on the economic situation that one of the aspects of the new Chancellor's policy which I found most acceptable was his willingness to recognise that we could absorb, and indeed must run the risk of, a short-term deficit position; that with the improved international liquidity—and it is nothing like enough—with improved resources from the International Monetary Fund and by arrangements such as the ones we made with the United States, we must be prepared to face the risk. I would urge very strongly that the Government should press on faster with this idea.
Here again N.E.D.C. says—and I apologise for quoting, but I think that these are golden words for this country:
"While in the short run a rise in demand has tended to worsen the balance of payments, it need not put it into deficit. The important question is the level about which the balance of payments fluctuates, as the economy moves between higher and lower pressure of demand. In the long run if the economy has to run permanently at a higher, rather than a lower, level, the balance of payments will not necessarily suffer and may benefit if growth of productivity is thereby speeded up."
They even go on to say:
"Studies made by the office lend little support to the opposite view that a higher pressure of demand discourages exports by attracting potential exports into the home market or driving away potential foreign customers."
656
This has been the alibi the Government have used year after year as a reason for depressing demand. It has been urged that it is a wrong policy by the Trades Union Congress and by the Opposition. We hope now that the Government will accept this. It is only if we are prepared to press on with a higher level of demand that we can hope to get vitality into the economy. It is only in this way that we shall get industry to be bolder. We appreciate that there may be dangers if trade is too easy, but we do not want to see a situation in which we must have import controls, and so on. But if we accept, as the Government do, the target set by the N.E.D.C., then, as many noble Lords have already said, we must get a move on a great deal harder than we have done so far. Whereas the Government may no longer be committing blunders of the same order as in the past—a matter to which my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough referred so forcefully—they are still capable of failing to do the right things.
We are asking for a multiple attack. We want, furthermore, a different and more flexible tax policy. I would again draw attention to the fact that the N.E.D.C. have themselves suggested that a wealth tax may have a place in a growth policy. We want intelligent and not blind regional planning. We may have to face direct intervention in industry. This is a difficult thing to achieve, and I hope that no noble Lord will seek to interpret this as a threat by the Opposition to start nationalising industry. That is not what we are seeking to do. But we have to face up to the lessons of the Fielden Report and other Reports; we have to get more dynamism in industry. And we shall have got that dynamism when we have a dynamic Government.
5.53 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am tempted to intervene in this debate only as the result of some figures I came across this morning as I was glancing through some Government statistics. But before talking about those I should like briefly to refer to some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and of my noble friend Lord Shackleton. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, rightly mentioned the importance of expanding world

657
trade, and spoke of the need or the desirability of extending trade to Communist countries. But shortly before that, to my surprise and dismay, he spoke of the need for curtailing world trade—or so I thought—by keeping out the products of countries with a low-wage structure. He also made certain strictures about the aid that we in this country give to the underdeveloped countries.
All I would do on that point (I do not wish to develop it at any length, because it would take far too long) is to underline, or recall to your Lordships' attention, some pertinent and wise remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on a previous occasion when we had such a debate, concerning the drop in commodity prices throughout the world. I have not his actual words in front of me, but my recollection is that he pointed out to your Lordships that the drop in commodity prices over the past five years, I think, far more than outweighed all the aid which we and other countries had given to the developing countries during that period. That brings us, I believe, to the inescapable conclusion that if we genuinely wish to expand world trade—as I believe we all do—we must increase the purchasing power of the poorest sections of the world. That is quite apart from any political reason; any reasons of social justice; any question of the fight against Communism, and the rest of it. And it goes without saying that if the gap between the rich countries, which comprise mainly the Western countries, and the poor countries, which are the underdeveloped countries, continues to increase, naturally there is a happy breeding ground for Communism.
But setting aside that argument and the argument of social justice, and dealing purely with the question of finding increased markets for our own products, it is inescapable that we must be sure that those countries which so desperately want what we produce—I am not talking of this country alone, but of the West as a whole, including the United States—whether it is surplus food or whether it is our manufactured products, must have the means with which to buy it, in addition to the means for capital investment; and that can come, in the first instance, only if we pay there more for what they
658
produce. I believe that in this view I have an ally certainly in the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and I believe also in many of your Lordships in all parts of the House.
The other point that I should like briefly to make is one which, so far as I know, has not yet been touched upon in this debate. As I, and other noble Lords, have said before, we wish to increase our output; we wish to sell that increased output. But it is not sufficient simply to give the potential buyers more money; we must also reduce our own costs, or at least hold our own costs steady. Other noble Lords who have spoken, including in particular my noble friend Lord Champion, have suggested means by which that can be done. But one of the main factors in our production costs is wages; and wages are, to a large extent, determined by the cost of living.
Looking through some of the figures this morning in the Government statistics, I came across a fact which I am sure is well known to your Lordships, but which had escaped my attention. It is contained in the Economic Survey for 1962. It shows, in assessing the cost of living, that the cost of food accounts for 31½9 per cent. of the total of the items taken into account in the statistics of the cost of living. The cost of rent and house maintenance accounts for 10½2 per cent. In other words, slightly over 42 per cent. of the esential ingredients of the cost of living are taken up by food, rent and house maintenance in general. That is a pretty large proportion. Surely, if we could find some way, if not of reducing these costs, at least of holding them steady, we should have gone a long way to holding our wages steady, improving our export position, and holding the whole cost of living steady.
I then looked at some other figures from the White Paper on National Income and Expenditure in 1962. At page 23, table 20 is a most interesting table. It shows the relative rises in costs between the various items of consumer expenditure between the years 1951 and 1961. I think it is of considerable significance that those two items I have already mentioned—food, and rent and house maintenance—are the two which have shown the greatest percentage rise during

659
that period. Food has shown a percentage rise of 40 per cent.; and housing, rents, rates, water charges, maintenance repairs and improvements by occupiers has shown a rise of 65 per cent. On the other hand, other items, taken as they are listed here, show smaller rises. Alcoholic drinks have gone up only by 5·4 per cent., clothing 8·4 per cent., furniture and floor coverings, 19 per cent., and other household goods, 14 per cent. So we have a situation where the relatively unimportant things in the cost of living, and therefore in wages, and therefore in cost of production, have risen, one can say within bounds, whereas the two items which now account for very nearly half the total cost of living have risen by 40 and 65 per cent. respectively.
I turn now (and I do so hesitantly, in view of the fact that I am sitting next to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, who has different views on this subject) to the vexed question of what is loosely called retail margins, though it embraces a much wider sphere than simply the retail margins in dealing with the gap between the price the producer receives and what the consumer pays. As I have said, the cost of all food has gone up 40 per cent. in that period. Unfortunately I have not been able to obtain figures of primary producer prices from 1951, but the rise in regard to the cost of food has been relatively steady during that ten-year period, so I do not think that it matters greatly that the figures I have been able to get run only from 1955.
In the case of New Zealand butter, between 1955 and 1961 there has, in fact, been a drop of 30 per cent. in producer price; in the case of Canadian wheat, a drop of 7½ per cent.; in the case of home-produced wheat, a drop of 15 per cent. In other words, at the time when the retail cost of food to the housewife has been increasing steadily at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum, there has been a drop in the price received by the producer. I want to make it quite clear that I am not throwing about accusations of profiteering by middle-men. I do not know whether they have been profiteerine, any more than I know (apart from the spectacular headline news we have been reading lately) whether on the housing front, where there has been an
660
enormous rise in costs, there has been profiteering. Throughout the general property market I do not know whether there has been undue profiteering. But what undoubtedly has happened during this period is that there has been an ever-growing margin between the cost of the raw material and the cost of the finished product. And I believe that this calls for a serious study on the part of the Government.
At the moment we are completely blind about this subject. All we know is that there seems to be some form of Parkinson's Law that applies to food no less than to employment in business and in Government offices. This law seems to be: the greater the affluence of a society the greater is the amount that they are prepared to spend on the processing (in its widest sense) of the food they consume. Whether it is that they wish to do so; whether it is that for some reason or another it is forced upon them; whether it is because there is greater affluence on the buyers' side and, to take the case of bread, a lower price for wheat on the producers' side, so that the millers feel they can enrich their bread with some more expensive ingredients and can process it in a more refined way which costs more and which can be passed on to the consumer, I do not know. If that is so, whether they are in fact giving the consumer something he wants and is willingly going to pay for, or whether they are foisting on to the consumer, because of their own forms of competition, something he would well be without, I do not know either. But it is significant that if in this country one wishes to save some money and say, "I will not have a milkman deliver my milk at home, but will go and buy the bottle in the dairy myself" one will still have to pay the same amount as if the milkman had brought it to one's doorstep. In other words, there is no incentive at all to the consumer to reduce the margin. That must have a considerable effect on the whole of our national economy.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for a moment? The point he has raised is of very great interest. It ought to be referred to the Council over which the noble Baroness. Lady Elliot of Harwood, presides, and I hope that it will be gone into. But I feel in the case of bread that you must stick

661
to your attack based on the millers. In the case of milk there is a public examination of the whole of the costs of milk, both in production and in distribution, and the margin is fixed at a level. In the case of bread the habits of women have so changed that some of them like to go to the corner shop to pick up their bread, and some—not all—get it more cheaply. It does net matter how much the cost has decreased to the miller, it costs the man who has to serve women, who tell him "I must have my bread delivered at the door: I have young children; I have a job to go to, and cannot find time to collect it," over 2½d per loaf to deliver it; and there is nothing like the reasonable profit there ought to be to the distributor. There is great interest in this matter, and I think it ought to be examined in detail by the Consumer Council.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is going to look into the case of bread, would it not be appropriate at the same time for efforts to be made to educate people into the wider use of brown bread, with the offal in it, instead of their using white bread with its deleterious effects?
LORD WALSTON: I am extremely interested in both the intervention of my noble friend and that of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. I will not follow Lord Barnby into nutritional values; I think that is ranging a little wide of a Finance Bill debate. But I would support my noble Leader in what he has said, particularly speaking as somebody who, many years ago, was, in fact, a retailer of milk, in the most literal sense of taking milk round to the doorsteps at 6 o'clock in the morning. I well know not only the unpleasantness of the job, but the considerable cost involved in doing it. I emphasise once more that I am not casting aspersions on any one aspect of the processing or distributing food trade. All I am trying to do is to put across to the Government that we have certain facts before us.
The first fact is that wages depend to a large extent on the cost of living. The second fact is that food and rent between them, account for nearly 50 per cent. of the cost of living. The third fact is that in the last ten years food and rent have both risen, "percentagewise", more than
662
any other of the ingredients of the cost of living. The fourth fact is that in general, world food prices and home food prices to the producer have been coming down. Those are the facts with which we are faced.
I suggest to the Government very strongly, as my noble Leader has done in his intervention, that in view of all these things it is absolutely essential that we should devote at least as much attention to discovering the reasons for these facts, and what underlies them, as to all the techniques of production, salesmanship, research in industry, education, and all the rest of it. All those are essential factors, and we do not find out enough about them. I believe that a relatively small amount of investigation, mainly of a statistical kind, with an inquiry into what has happened in the last ten years to account for these undisputed figures, would give very valuable information—information which might eventually lead to a reduction, a slowing down, of this ever-widening margin which plays such a large part in the rising costs of living and in the pressure of wages. I believe, my Lords, that with that basic information we could at last begin to make an attack upon this spiral which is having such a disastrous effect on our own economy and export prospects. I hope that we shall have a sympathetic response from the noble Earl to that suggestion.
6.10 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, my first duty is to apologise to the two noble Earls who opened this debate for my inability, owing to inescapable outside commitments, to be here to listen. At this late hour I do not propose to enter the wider fields of the economic and political scene, which have been so very thoroughly explored by the other noble Lords who have spoken. I certainly do not intend to follow up the discussion on comparative nutritional values or the shopping habits of our housewives. This is, after all, the Second Reading of the Finance Bill and it is to certain provisions of this Bill, with one or two minor digressions, that I propose to confine my remarks.
The provisions regarding direct taxation must, I am sure, be welcome to practically all of us. We must welcome the reliefs given at the lower end of the

663
income tax scale, and in particular the complete removal from the taxation net of a large number of individuals of comparatively small incomes to whom this relief is of the greatest importance. Few of us, I think, will lament the passing of those anachronisms, Schedule "B" and the land tax—certainly few of us in the accountancy profession—or of Schedule "A". It is an indication of the appalling complexity of our tax code that to abolish these taxes and replace them with something more logical requires no fewer than nineteen clauses and, I believe, seven Schedules. I only hope that the Revenue will produce a plain man's guide to the new provisions. There will, of course, be a very great saving of work, not only for those who have been bedevilled by the preparation of maintenance claims to prove that they are not in fact liable to this tax at all. The removal of the many taxpayers from Pay As You Earn should mean a substantially less administrative burden, not only for the Government but for employers who carry gratuitously such a large amount of this work.
The reduction on stamp duties on the transfer of investments is particularly welcome in the City of London and in many other places, and, whatever one's political beliefs may be, will surely lead to the greater prestige of that institution and its greater use as one of the greatest centres of finance in the world. I think it is a pity that the Government did not go the whole way and remove the tax entirely. After all, the cost of collecting 1 per cent. stamp duty is just as great as in collecting 2 per cent. I only hope that they will go further in the next Bill. Desirable as all these amendments are, it is above all for Chapter III of Part II regarding capital allowances that I welcome the Bill. In Clause 38 history has been made. For the first time we have had acceptance by the Treasury of the principle of the variation of tax rates on a regional basis, with the object of encouraging the better distribution of industry throughout the country. That, my Lords, is something historic.
This problem of high local unemployment has been debated in your Lordships' House several times in the past year, particularly during last winter when the
664
figures were so high. For the time being, that problem is not so much in the limelight. It has been obscured by the seasonal improvement in employment figures, and by some undoubted improvement in the underlying state of the economy. But it is a long-term problem, none the less, and I think it is now widely recognised that it can be solved only by much more active and sustained measures than those of the past to stimulate industrial growth.
Here, although he is not present, I am afraid that I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, because if his remarks go reported and unopposed I think they could do very grievous harm. First, he took the view that the solution for helping these areas of persistent unemployment lay not in local measures but in the general improvement of the state of the country's economy. Of course, we all want to see a general improvement in the country's economy, but past experience has always shown that when this takes place the areas of high unemployment are like the sands at the head of a tidal estuary: when the tide comes in they are covered and concealed, but when the tide goes out they are the first to be revealed again. And time and again this has happened.
What we must do is to change the structure of industry in those parts of the country, and already some of us have had quite a lot of success. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, talked of the stubborn figure of 4 per cent. unemployment in some of these areas. True enough; but figures can be not only stubborn but misleading. These figures mask a very big change in the basic employment situation. There has been a big run-down in the older industries of which those parts of the country still have such a large share. But there has been a very big addition of new and developing industries, even if not sufficient to catch up. I must take issue with the noble Lord, too, on the inability of labour in those parts of the country to adapt itself to the techniques of these new industries. Since he has mentioned the name of Clydeside, which has been much maligned in the past, I must make it clear that this is very far from being the case, and that in making these statements he is doing a grave disservice to those parts of the country.

665
I apologise to the noble Lord in his absence for not appreciating his connection with the motor industry. I was certainly not aware that he was connected with any of the three motor manufacturing companies established in Scotland. One of these companies has been there for some half a century and, so far as I know, has no problems over suitability of labour. The other two have gone there and started operations within only the last eighteen months. They do, of course, have their problems, as one can only expect. Production line workers cannot be trained overnight. But the Scottish managers of both those companies have told me themselves that they have no doubt that in time the labour will be suitable and produce as efficiently there as anywhere else.
On Clydeside former shipbuilders are now working on the construction of aircraft engines, to take one example, and on a wide variety of other light industry. In Fife the wives and daughters of coal-miners are working, to take one example, on electronic equipment of high precision for an American company, who have said that within three weeks of starting work these girls were producing as high a standard of productivity as those back in their native California. So, my Lords, I must emphatically refute suggestions that the workers in these older industries cannot adapt themselves to the conditions of the new. What we must do is to show that the new industries can flourish, and indeed they will, given the initial stimulus to plant themselves in these parts of the country. I believe that this policy which the Government are pursuing is the right one, in meeting and helping these companies to overcome the initial difficulties of setting up.
For a long time past some of us have urged the need for some differential tax arrangements as part of this process, and now we have acceptance of the principle so far as the depreciation allowances are concerned. I would emphasise that these are not just a give-away to industry. They are merely an advancement in time of benefits which they would ultimately enjoy. To that extent they are not a gift, but an undoubted easing of the problem of financing these new developments at a minimum cost to the country. This new departure is only one part of a major
666
revolution in Government thinking on this whole problem of spreading industry.
In the past, those of us who have been concerned with it have maintained that the grants and loans available to industry have been inadequate and not sufficiently defined. I said in a debate earlier this year that if we want to get industry to go to these areas we must offer a carrot, not merely a stick. It must be a juicy carrot. And, what is more, we must show the donkey the carrot and not hide it under our coat. Along with the Finance Bill, we have had an Amendment of the Local Employment Act. Now we can have grants of 10 per cent. of the cost of new plant and equipment, and of 25 per cent. of the cost of new factory building. This, I think, is a very great improvement; and, despite the time we have waited for these changes, I should like to congratulate and thank the Government for having had this change of heart.
We now have the tools for the job of attracting new industry to these areas. We know precisely, or much more precisely, what they consist of, and we have all got to make the best possible use of them. All in all, I believe they add up to a most attractive deal for the industrialist who is prepared to consider these parts of the country, and it is up to the Government to give the widest possible publicity to them, both here and abroad. For our part, in the voluntary organisations connected with the development of industry, we too will do our best within the limits of our own resources. From the Scottish Council, we have already had a preliminary reconnaissance of the United States, where I believe there is still a large untapped source of new industry. There is interest there in the possibilities of coming to this country, but I regret to say a great deal of misunderstanding about our economic future resulting from the breakdown of the Brussels talks. That is another matter to which I think the Government must give great consideration in order to correct these misunderstandings abroad. If the atmosphere continues favourable, and if the Administration in the United States do not place too many obstacles in the way of investment abroad, I shall certainly go there myself later this year to pursue the search.

667
My Lords, the other thing that is vital is that we should ensure that these measures continue and are not revoked as soon as employment conditions pick up, as has so often happened in the past. The Government must also avoid hasty action which could aggravate problems of particular places and industry. I am thinking at the moment of the recent announcement for altering the mark-up in the jute prices, which, however necessary it may have been at some time and in some way, was, I consider, most ineptly handled by the Government Department concerned.
There are still major deficiencies in policy, particularly in the definition of the districts where these advantages can be applied. They are still too closely related to bare unemployment figures in a particular area; they ignore the natural geographical grouping; and they ignore the problem of travelling to work. People travel to work over much longer distances than they did. There is one particular instance that stands out in Scotland. Grangemouth is a large complex of chemical and petro-chemical industry. Grangemouth itself is not a development district. Many extensions and additions to the chemical industry in Scotland could logically be made only in conjunction with that which is already there because of the supply of resources. Yet no grants or aid are available, merely because the town itself is not a development district, although much of the surrounding "travel to work" area is eligible. That is something which I think must be looked at, and I sincerely ask the Government to do so.
My Lords, in this Bill and in these other measures that I have mentioned the Government have taken a bold new step in tackling the problem of local unemployment and the distribution of industry. No steps of whatever kind will solve these problems overnight. I ask the Government not to go back on them, and the Opposition not to damn them until they have had time to show their worth.
6.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, we have listened with much interest to the expert observations of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. All accountants are eminent, and some, particularly Scottish accountants, are more eminent than others. I think that we on this side
668
would be bound to dissent from his view that the Government are doing something quite novel in overcoming local unemployment. I remember staying in Durham before the war and visiting some of the worst areas there, where you saw men with faces like paper and legs like sticks. All that was cured; and I should have thought, perhaps, that the noble Lord would have in recollection the initiative taken by the late Lord Dalton and his colleagues in curing heavy unemployment in those areas. I was rather surprised at his treating this attempt by the Government, to which we wish all success, as something novel in our history. However, I must leave the noble Earl to answer him.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in paying tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee—a most faithful and acceptable servant of the Government and also, if I may say so, of the House. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned this, but an additional burden has fallen on the shoulders of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in the form of the reply to-morrow night to the debate I am opening on Education. The fact that I am opening that debate—and, I am afraid, not with any marked brevity—gives me a reason, which the House will rapidly appreciate, for not standing too long between your Lordships and the noble Earl.
I think that everybody was stirred—certainly that is true of everybody whose demeanour I could observe and to whom I have spoken—by the speech of my noble Leader, the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and I am anxious at the end to say a word or two in support of one of his main themes. The speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, were all extremely knowledgeable in their different ways, but I would say they were united in one respect particularly. Whether dealing with income policies here or with our responsibilities to the impoverished peoples of the earth, they showed that same moral approach. Indeed, they were applying the same moral ideas in their own ways as were enunciated by the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. But I am sure that those noble Lords that

669
I have mentioned will allow me to single out for special, if respectful, praise the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. It is one of the extraordinary things about this House that it contains some of the most eminent business leaders in the country. I thought of reading out their names, and then realised that to read out the names of Peers whom one has not warned might be contrary to good behaviour, so I will not mention them. But if one took the twenty best known leaders of industry, I think you would find that more than half of them were Members of this House.
But where are they now? It is not quite true to imply that they do not come here: to be fair, they do come here quite a lot. They come to listen, I suppose, in a spirit of humility and anxious to learn: and they are in fact popular and esteemed members of our society. But one thing they do not do is to speak, or if they do speak it is not on economics. This is a curious fact, and perhaps the sociologists can explain it, but it is undoubtedly true. At one time I thought it was because they regarded the House of Lords as a big platform for small men and a small platform for big men, but that is perhaps unfair to them. It may be that they go everywhere with their public relations officers, and that as they cannot bring a public relations officer in here they would feel lost. But, as I say, there is the fact that we have as Members some of the greatest economic leaders of this country, but they do not come to give us the benefit of their views. This is a subject, in a slightly different context, which I know has interested the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in the past. But here we have the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, one of the most successful businessmen in this country, speaking in this way, and a great treat it was.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made so charming and so modest a speech that it certainly does not fall to me to become involved with him in violent controversy. We are at any rate nominally discussing the Finance Bill. But I think we shall probably all share the view laid down with authority by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place on June 28, on the Third Reading of the Finance
670
Bill. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 679 (No. 136), col. 1846]:
"It is, of course, too soon to see any of the effects of this Finance Bill because, broadly speaking, none of the release of purchasing power involved has begun to take effect."
I do not think that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, claimed that this Finance Bill has begun to bring about any changes; but it is worth recalling that at this stage, while it is useful to have a debate, it must be regarded as too early to see what effect the Bill has said. Therefore, I will not become involved in discussion of the particular measures.
Nor, in view of the very thorough and concise treatment of the progress of the economy in the last few months by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the account given us by the noble Earl, need I say much about that aspect. We are, of course glad—as was my noble Leader—to see that progress has been made. Some people have thought that during the last few months we had no Government at all; everybody was wondering whether there would be a different Prime Minister. But I do not think the Government have done much worse under those conditions than before, when it was obvious who was running it. But perhaps there is a lesson in that. On the whole, in the last few months progress has been better than at other moments, but it has not been anything very sensational. We are reminded that the index of production is hardly higher than it was in 1961. So we are not going to get very excited; though, to be fair to the noble Earl, he did not ask us to be all that enthusiastic. All I need remark at this point is to repeat a point that I tried to make in an intervention: that we have a lot of leeway to make up if the N.E.D.C. target to be achieved between 1962 and 1966 is to be caught sight of. We must not think in terms of a 4 per cent. increase in production; we need something much faster.
To turn to the wider themes of the Budget, I would recall something said in the debate in April, when, in the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, I spoke at great length. Something was said on that occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, in a speech which interested me still more when I read it than when I

671
heard it—probably because I had not taken it all in. The noble Lord—who is, after all, one of the leading authorities in the Conservative Party on finance—said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 248 (No. 70) col. 1041] that Mr. Maudling told the House of Commons that
"… the choice is between having neither expansion nor an incomes policy, and having them both together; and he said he had decided that the best way to get both was to put expansion first. That is a novel and bold decision …"
That is the view of the noble Lord, Lord Eccles. He said he had decided to go along with expansion, and hoped and believed that an income policy would be achieved along with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, pointed out that an incomes policy requires sacrifices all round, and we are not within sight of one at the present time. But I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, that a new note was struck by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in the spring, and the question is whether he and his colleagues will stick to expansion or planning when he runs into difficulties. I do not suppose that they will be given very long to face this problem; but we must ask ourselves (and the country is entitled to ask itself the question in the near future): Will they stick to planning and will they stick to its expansion? I am bound to say that I do not think they will stick to planning and expansion unless they realise, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, that this was a "novel and bold decision". If they do the same as they always do, then we can be sure that when they run into difficulties they will seek cover.
I should like in this connection to make one reference to the City. I know that same noble Lords read the Financial Times, and the House may have read the article by "Lombard" in the issue of Wednesday, June 17. I cannot read it all, although it is instructive and amusing; but it suggests (and the writer is not some crack-brained Left-Wing revolutionary; the article is written in a rather satirical way) that the interests of the City might find themselves in conflict with the interests of the nation. This view has been expressed by some leaders on my side and has been at once denounced as dangerous. This is a satirical report and is called "The Bank
672
of England Report as it might have been." One passage reads:
"The Bank can now see that it may have been misguided to attach so much importance to promoting the U.K.'s international banker functions as against other priorities in the past. It regrets in particular that the dear money excesses it has indulged in to this end have left the balance of payments painfully vulnerable to changes in international interest rates.…"
Any one who reads this article will see there are many, apart from the Left-Wing politicians, who consider this to be one of the great questions that affect the other issue I raised earlier—whether, when difficulties arise, we shall stick to planning and expansion or run away as on previous occasions.
Now, my Lords, I will say just a few words on the City and then I shall sit down. As I have said before in this House, the City is composed of perfectly ordinary British citizens, as patriotic and unselfish as others, neither more so nor less so. They are in financial matters, compared with others, experts. But they are biased; and the trouble is they know they are experts, but they do not know they are biased. That is a psychological difficulty. I do not want to single out the City in this way as the only experts who are also biased. I can take the universities: they are expert about university problems and they are also biased. Some years ago in this House I suggested that the Minister of Education should be made responsible for the universities, but I was promptly howled down and told never to show my face again in any reputable university. However, opinion is moving in that direction now; but you do get these reactions, these vested outlooks, even in high-minded quarters. I am not attacking the City; but they are biased and one must not necessarily accept their views as total wisdom where finance is concerned. I am sure that when the Labour Party come into power they will seek and will attain good relations with the City. They will adopt an unprovocative approach. But I am also quite sure that the Labour Party would make a great mistake if they did not realise that the City know a lot about finance but only a part of the truth. Once that is recognised on both sides, everything will be able to go forward in harmony.
Finally, I will say one word on the moral issue. It is very difficult, speaking

673
from any Party posture, to strike the right moral note. It is so easy to imply that either oneself or one's colleagues are, in a personal sense, more moral than others. That is certainly not the intention here. I am certainly not implying that in private life or political life, in one's personal conduct, one claims some higher standard; but I say that in the Labour Party we believe that the basic principles of Christian morals can be applied to political policies. And I do not believe that that proposition means anything at all to the great majority of Conservatives.
That is why I so strongly support my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. With all our imperfections—and, Heaven knows!, they are not only manifest but multitudinous—we are trying to apply morality; and on the other side there is the view that we must not interfere. Take, for example, the debate yesterday in another place. In the last resort, noble Lords opposite say that we cannot aim directly at moral good in many of the matters where we believe that we can aim directly at moral good. For that reason, I believe that the strong lead that my noble friend has given to-day will go out to the country as the attitude of our Party. I can say all the more unashamedly to the noble Earl opposite, because I know that his personal standards are high, that it would be dishonest and cowardly of me not to make it plain.
6.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that probably the fact that under our Constitution since 1911 we are not allowed to reject the Finance Bill has the effect of making our debates on it much more interesting and perhaps much more intelligent, because we are not trying to decide whether the Bill shall pass or not. We are using the Second Reading of the Bill merely as an opportunity to put forward a number of propositions and theories, some of them critical of the Government, some of them not so critical, some interesting, some less interesting, but to all of which I have been delighted to listen this afternoon. I hope that I shall not take too long in making a few comments on some of the things that have been said.
The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition spoke a good deal about gambling. It so happens that I am not
674
fond of gambling; it is not one of the sins to which I am inclined. Therefore, I naturally do not feel indignant when I hear somebody else condemn it. But I think the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will agree with me that gambling is morally wrong only if one spends more than one can afford to lose, thereby preventing oneself from fulfilling one's obligations to other people, such as to one's wife and family; but gambling within one's means is something which is not wrong.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I should think that that was so, up to a point. It is wrong to gamble where you encourage other people to gamble beyond their means. That is the case with a lot of well-to-do people, who encourage this dreadful way of life among young men who cannot afford it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I was going to refer to the Chancellor's speech about this. He spoke a good deal about the desirability of making a review of the whole field of gambling. He has asked the Customs and Excise to study it and give him a report on the practical problems involved.
He concluded by saying that when the Customs and Excise have compiled a register of all gaming institutions, including in this the often very profitable machines known as "one-armed bandits"—whatever that may mean—he will be in a better position to discharge the practical proposition of dealing with gambling, as part of a comprehensive approach to taxation of the whole field of gambling. Your Lordships will find this important speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Commons for April 3, and it fills about two columns. I think it is clear that my right honourable friend, if he finds it practicable and useful to do so, is in favour of taking this step.
The noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, went on to give a most interesting account—and I enjoyed it not less because I have heard him speak in the same vein before—of the Government of which he was so distinguished a member from 1945 to 1951. He argued from that that controls and measures to ensure right priorities are better than the economic policy which has been pursued by successive Governments in the late 'fifties and early 'sixties. I should like to say that I am not—and I do not think

675
anyone in the Party to which I belong or in the Government is—against physical controls in principle. There are many of them which we support. We introduced a great many controls in agricultural marketing before the war, under which, for the general benefit of agriculture, people were prevented from doing what they wanted. One control which we firmly adhere to, in spite of some criticism, is the control of industrial development certificates, under which no factory is allowed to expand without the consent of the Board of Trade. We use this control in order to induce factory-owners to go to or expand in development areas, in order to bring about a better distribution of industry.
The reason why we do not go in at present for a system of control of building, as the noble Earl and his Government did, by licence and allocation of the supplies of materials to manufacturers in order that the people who need them most may get first priority, is because that kind of control is necessary in conditions of extreme scarcity. It was undoubtedly necessary in the conditions of great scarcity which continued for a few years after the war, but I think that the Government of which the noble Earl was a member was always anxious to reduce some of them as soon as possible. The reason against being anxious to control the supply and allocation of materials is that it uses up a great deal of manpower, causes a great deal of delay and does not result in the most economic and efficient production of goods, which is essential to our export trade in a highly competitive world, from which the sellers' market has disappeared and in which the buyers' market has been with us for a long time.
Perhaps this is going a little away from the subject of the debate but I should like to make it clear to the noble Earl that I am against the kind of controls which he advocates now, purely on practical grounds, and not upon any ground of political principle, and that we will always consider the desirability of any control which it may be represented to us is likely to improve our economy.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I just take this point up before I forget it? I find it difficult to accept the general argument because of what happened yesterday in another place. The reply of the Government
676
on their taking off of rent control was that that was going to make more houses available to be occupied, whereas the whole difficulty now is due to that. I do not follow the noble Earl's argument to the ultimate conclusion.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Earl about the Rent Act, but I think it would not be in accordance with your Lordships' wishes, not to mention my own, that I should pursue the subject in the middle of a debate on the Finance Bill, interesting and important though it is. I was going to say that one kind of control, not perhaps direct, is control of investment. In that connection, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, for his interesting speech, in which he largely devoted himself to that subject. Investment, he said, had sometimes been misplaced and badly planned. He may be right. It was interesting that the cases he gave were those of nationalised industries, rail and electricity, which are entirely controlled, and steel, which, although not nationalised, does have its investment largely guided through the medium of the Steel Board, which is a planning instrument.
I connected this with what the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said about the present under-capacity of the steel industry. He said that it was producing 25 or 30 per cent. under capacity. The reason for that is that the investment in the steel industry has been very much larger than its present requirements. That does not necessarily mean bad planning, because steel investment takes a long time, and I think it is probably a good thing that steel investment should be planned in such a way as to give surplus capacity at certain times, in order that, if there is a sudden rapid increase in the demand, you may not find yourself in the position that you cannot catch up with it because you have not time to put the extra investment into the steel industry in a year or two. You must have it ready years in advance. It is impossible to foresee exactly what the demand will be five or six years ahead. Therefore, I would not say it is an example of bad planning that the steel industry is now producing under capacity.
It may be that within the next year or two the stimulation of demand (let us

677
hope that it will be so) will cause the steel industry to come up nearer to full capacity, and in that case we should be able to supply the additional demand without having to import more steel from abroad. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, mentioned any private enterprise industries.
LORD SAINSBURY: I mentioned the motor industry.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes; the noble Lord mentioned the motor industry as well as steel, coal and railways. I think all I need say to him now is that I agree that, either through nationalised industries or through such bodies as the Steel Board, the guidance of investment is clearly one of the things on which planning, and possibly some control, is, or may be, desirable in our modern industrial society.
The next noble Lord to address your Lordships was the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Briefly, I agree with what he said about the undesirability of inflation. I did not quite agree with his remedy, which was to cut down Government expenditure whenever you thought inflation was taking place, in order to make sure that prices did not rise unduly. That is what used to happen in the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century under the gold standard, not as an act of Government policy, but automatically. But look at the terrible effects which it had in the frustration of productive power, the unnecessary unemployment and proverty! If it were not for that, there would be no problem. The whole problem we are all struggling to try to solve is this: if you pursue this strict deflationary policy you will create unemployment and prevent wealth from being produced which ought to be produced. On the other hand, if you pursue an expansionist policy, very often you run into a wage-cost spiral, with the result that you have to stop it.
LORD GRANITCHESTER: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Earl, I think this matter needs further study. I do not admit what he has suggested. I did not even say that expenditure should be cut down. I said that expenditure must be covered either by taxation or by raising the money in the open market. If it becomes impossible to do so because the Government spend so far beyond their
678
means, you may have a breakdown in Government.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Perhaps I misunderstood the noble Lord. I gathered from his speech that he was against deliberately spending more than is being raised in taxation, which is what we are doing this year in this Budget. We are spending £687 million more than we are raising in taxation, and according to our modern theory, which we all support, at least since the White Paper in 1944, we do this deliberately. If we think the economy is in such a state that it ought not to have too much money pumped into it, we may reduce spending and increase taxes. If we think the economy needs more stimulation, we do it, as we are doing it this year, by providing that nearly £700 million shall be borrowed by the Government to make up the difference between taxation and expenditure. Of course, that figure must be subject to the qualification that a great part of the £700 million, though not all of it, is capital expenditure. We are not borrowing simply for consumption, but for capital expenditure, too.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for a speech which I think was enlightened and progressive. He took the same view as I do about the argument of the noble Lord who preceded him, and he went on to talk about incomes policy. I was grateful to hear him say that he thought an incomes policy was necessary and right; and I am particularly grateful to feel that he may use such influence as he has with his colleagues in the trade union movement to support those elements in the trade union movement who are favourably inclined towards an incomes policy. The noble Lord argued that an incomes policy was more difficult than it need be because in Government statements about it we had not made it sufficiently clear that other incomes besides wages ought to be restricted. I will not do more than remind the noble Lord of the two White Papers we have had in the last year or two on incomes policy. The one which he quoted, Incomes Policy, The Next Step, says in paragraph 14:
"Although this Paper is primarily concerned with wages and salaries, the same principles apply to all forms of income. Continued restraint in profit and dividends is a necessary corollary of the incomes policy outlined above.

679
The Government reaffirm the request for the co-operation of those responsible made by the Chancellor in the statement on the 25th July, 1961."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"As a part of the incomes policy, appropriate corrective action would have to be taken if aggregate profit showed signs of increasing excessively as compared with wages and salaries."
Then, as the noble Lord will remember, there was another White Paper in November last year on the National Incomes Commission, which says in paragraph 8:
"The Commission is required to have regard to the Government's pledge that if any undue growth in the aggregate of profits should result in restraint on earned incomes, that growth will itself be restrained by fiscal or other appropriate means. The Commission is instructed to report from time to time on the need, if any, for such action to be taken."
I hope the noble Lord will believe that the Government are in earnest in desiring that an incomes policy should not be applied solely to wages and earned incomes but should include in its scope incomes of every kind.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked me two questions, one about the shipping loan of £30 million; the loan to British shipowners for the purpose of ordering ships from British yards. The shipowners can choose which British yard they like but, as I think the noble Lord is probably aware, most shipyards are in development areas, and the heaviest concentration of yards is on Clydeside and the North-East coast. Therefore, it is very likely that Clydeside will receive a large share of orders.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, can the noble Earl be more specific?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, I do not think I can.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Can he tell me whether the whole of the £30 million has now been allocated?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, it has not.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Thank you.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That is why I cannot be more specific.
There was a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester which I
680
had noted but which I omitted to mention a moment ago. He asked about some Committees on taxation (I was not quite clear which Committees he had in mind), and wondered how they were getting on. He probably had in mind the Committee appointed, under the chairmanship of Mr. Gordon Richardson, to conduct an investigation into the practical effects of instituting in this country a turnover tax. The noble Lord seemed to think that it was for the purpose of co-ordinating our tax with the Common Market. But it is also a Committee which is intended to consider and recommend whether or not the tax is possible on its own merits, quite apart from any question of the Common Market. Perhaps the phrase, "on the pattern generally known in Western Europe" may have caused the noble Lord particularly to think that the Committee was connected with the Common Market.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: It will be useful if there are any more discussions.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The Committee was appointed for its own sake, and it has not yet reported.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: There were two appointed by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, particularly asked a question about our aid to underdeveloped countries; to what extent it was tied; and, particularly, about our loans to India. In the present circumstances it is an ideal belief that it would be much better for world trade that aid should not be tied at all; that everybody would benefit if it were not. But, since everybody else does it, we also must. Of course, a good deal of our aid is given multilaterally through the various United Nations or other international institutions; and such aid, of course, cannot be tied. There is a large proportion of our aid which consists simply in making up Budget deficits of Colonies or ex-Colonies which we are under an obligation to help. That sort of aid, of course, would not be tied. But, normally, our loans for industrial development to underdeveloped countries are tied, either formally or informally, by administrative procedures.

681
With regard to India, British pledges in respect of loans to India since the beginning of their third Five-Year Plan amount to £125 million. This includes a contribution of £30 million towards the capital needs of the third year of the Plan which was offered at the Consortium meeting this year. The biggest single project financed out of this aid is the Durgapur Steelworks. That contract amounted to about £100 million, half of which was to buy machinery from this country. Our aid contributions made to India consisted of a specific loan of £15 million for the first phase of the work and some of our general purpose aid was devoted by the Indian Government to this project.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the noble Earl made quite an important statement, if I correctly understood him, that Her Majesty's Government viewed with disfavour the tying of loans. Has the noble Earl had drawn to his attention that the American Bankers' Association appear to have gone on record quite recently—indeed, last week—as saying that in their opinion
"reductions were urgently needed in the foreign exchange costs of the foreign aid programme."
That statement surely can have no other interpretation than that in their view the cost of this foreign aid on the balance of payments in the United States put upon them a greater obligation.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I should have thought their reason, probably, was that America has a very serious balance-of-payments problem, and could not afford to give so much in aid. But I would not put it quite as the noble Lord has put it. Our view is that ideally it would be better for everybody if nobody tied any aid. But as other people do it, we cannot afford to give large sums of our meagre balance-of-payments surplus in the form of aid to other countries in order to enable them to buy goods from our competitors in competition with British industry. We cannot afford to do that unless everybody agrees that no aid should be tied at all.
I am grateful for the poetic phrase in which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, described the Government as a repentant but exhausted sinner. He evidently took the view in his speech that the Chancellor
682
of the Exchequer had not gone far enough in his Budgetary methods to stimulate the economy. That is a matter on which I am sure the Chancellor himself would never wish to be dogmatic. I am certainly not going to enter into a close argument about it now. It is always very difficult to decide whether you are giving enough or whether you are not. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that by not doing enough in 1962, we had created a great deal of hardship. Of course, any economic policy which is based on expectations which prove not to be well founded may create hardship. But then if you do the opposite thing and your expectations the other way prove to be wrong, the hardships due to inflation and being priced out of foreign markets could be even greater.
The fact is that you have to take a risk, and I think—at least, I hope—that statesmen and economists, of all Parties and of no Party, are gradually learning a little more economic wisdom. After all, it is not so long since we had no economic planning in the world to speak of at all. It is not so long since everybody's economy was governed by the blind standard of gold. In view of the fact that it is only twenty or thirty years since we started to have maintained currencies among the large trading countries in the world, progress, on the whole, might have been worse than at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, made a kind remark about me, which I assure him is the kind of thing I always love hearing, because I am very vain about these things. He said that I made a wise and pertinent remark about a drop in commodity prices, and he went on to urge the Government to try to put right the disequilibrium between economic prices and prices of manufactured goods which has had such a disturbing effect on the economy of the Free World and the fortunes of the less developed countries since 1954. That certainly is an object of our policy. One method which we support together with the United States is the formation of these various international commodity organisations, most of which, I think, have their headquarters in London, with the purpose of stabilising at least the price, even if they cannot put it back to what it was in 1954. Perhaps at that time it may have

683
been a little too inflated due to the Korean war. We do want to stabilise the price; and one great difficulty, as the noble Lord will understand, is that the stabilisation of price often involves a certain amount of sacrifice and restraint upon production on the part of producing countries.
If it is not too much of a digression, may I say that one of the reasons why the Government wished to join the European Common Market was that we believed that as member of the Common Market we should be far better able to arrange world commodity price agreements, which was agreed to by all the other countries of the Six to be a desirable object of policy, and we thought that an enlarged European Common Market with us in it would be able to do that far more effectively than a Common Market without Britain.
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Polwarth for saying something actually about the Finance Bill, and I am grateful for the general support of the Bill which he gave. I also agree with his definition of unemployment in Scotland. As I think he rightly said, Scotland has a great many old industries and inevitably some of them are out of date. That does not mean that they all have to be closed down. Some can be re-equipped and modernised and made to play a very forward part in twentieth century industrial life, possibly with a slightly different and more specialised range of goods and a smaller labour force. But it is inevitable that there should be a considerable loss of employment, and the great problem is not only to build new industries in Scotland but to catch up the loss of employment elsewhere—as I think my noble friend himself used the metaphor, like someone trying to run up a moving staircase which is going down. That is the problem we are up against in Scotland. We must stick to it and I think we are, as he said, making some progress.
I remember that a year ago when my noble friend Lord Polwarth spoke in a debate about this he urged us to accept certain recommendations of the Toothill Report, and I was very glad when we had our debate on Scottish economy on January 23 to be able to tell him that
684
we had done this. He, however, was not satisfied and said that he wanted a juicier carrot in the shape of fixed grants and better taxation discrimination. Immediately afterwards we did that, and I was therefore anxious to hear what my noble friend would ask for to-day. I am sure that with him it seems to be a question of,
"Ask, and it shall be given unto you; seek and ye shall find".
I expected that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, would quickly deviate from the paths of righteousness in which my noble friend Lord Polwarth walked, but he did not do so to any great extent and to the extent he did, he did so in a very delightful way. I am grateful to him for everything he said, and also for his brevity, which I am sorry not to have been able to imitate. I would conclude by picking out the two remarks he made with which I agree very much. One is that our financial policy, as all our policy should be, is subject in many respects to Christian morals. The other is that the City of London, even when it makes a pronouncement ex cathedra on faith and morals, is never infallible.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution):
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

DEER BILL
7.16 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of the Deer Bill, it only remains for me to thank all those noble Lords who took part in the debates, and particularly to thank your Lordships opposite for not obstructing my two Amendment on the Report stage. I think your Lordships quite rightly realised that it would be a great pity to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar. It would, indeed,

685
have been a tragedy if this Bill had been killed, because I am told, from a very reliable source, that there are about 20,000 deer at the present time wandering about in England and Wales suffering some form of maiming caused by inadequate weapons, traps and snares. Therefore, I am sure that all who are interested in animal welfare will really welcome this Bill, and it should go a long way to curing this scandalous state of affairs. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I am, of course, going to oppose this Third Reading, despite all that the noble Viscount has said about his ha'porth of tar and the like. I know that whatever I say will not make any difference, and that your Lordships will pass the Bill for return to the other place, in order that it may go through. I was unable to be here on Report stage last Friday, or I should have said some of the things I am going to say now. I was unable to be here for the same reason that others of your Lordships were unable to lake part in debates on Fridays; that your Lordships, having been led to believe you would not be required to be here on Fridays, made your proper business arrangements for Friday only then to find that the Government later had required you to be here.
The reason I oppose the Bill, of course, is that it was a bad Bill at the beginning—and I said so on Second Reading—and we are now about to take leave of a Bill which is just as bad as when it came in. Despite all the gloss put on it that it does some little tiny things to help—and I admit all that—it does not do any of the things that I said were missing in the Bill when it was before the House on Second Reading. It still fails to stop the hunting of deer by hounds anywhere. It does not stop the worrying or hunting of pregnant hinds. It does not stop the dreadful practice of slitting the throats of deer without pre-stunning. It does not stop the disgusting cruelty of the hunting of carted deer in Norfolk. Nor does it stop the use of a shot-gun using what is called "sporting-size" shot; nor the indiscriminate shooting of deer. It does not stop indiscriminate drives, to which I referred on Second Reading; nor does it stop the leaving of wounded deer.
686
I might not have intervened to-night and kept noble Lords were it not for some of the inaccurate things that have been said entirely by accident by noble Lords who sit on the other side of the House. At the Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, contradicted what I had said by saying this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 251 (No. 113), col. 1603]:
"I cannot help pointing out that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, has been considerably misinformed over this. I was not present at the incident at Timberscombe, which was undoubtedly regrettable, but I have made inquiries about it and I think the situation was dealt with as expeditiously and as humanely as possible. The stag in question jumped a bank, not seeing the stationary vehicle in the road, swerved in mid-air, slipped up on the tarmac and got underneath the vehicle. In doing so he broke his leg and was dispatched by the handiest means available."
Well, my Lords, why the noble Earl had what I can only regard as the impudence to question the accuracy of what I said, which was from the proceedings in court, I do not know; but I am now in a position to quote from the solicitors who dealt with the prosecution and who are dealing with the appeal that is now about to be taken, who say that they were surprised to learn that Earl Fortescue had said this animal had broken its leg. It was the first indication they had had that there was any question of the stag's leg being broken, although they had been engaged in inquiries and prosecuting the case for the considerable time occupied since last September. They further confirmed to me that at no stage whatever during the defence of Colonel Murphy, who killed the stag, was there a suggestion by defending counsel that the animal had been injured in any way at all. Furthermore, they say with regard to Lord Fortescue's remarks:
"There is no question of you having been misinformed as he has alleged. There was nothing whatever in your speech not substantiated by evidence at the trial."
That is why I have particularly bothered to rise to-night in order to get that first piece of the record clear, before I go on to get the next piece of the record clear, a statement in my absence by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, last Friday. The noble Earl said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 252 (No. 118), col. 432]:
"In regard to the Amendment immediately before us, no one who has seen Lord Crook's transparent honesty would imagine for a moment that he would make inaccurate statements intentionally, but there is no doubt

687
that some of the statements he made during Committee stage were inaccurate. I strongly suspect that this is because he had been provided with information by the League Against Cruel Sports".
It is very regrettable that that statement was made in my absence when this Bill was put down for Report stage, when I could not be present, and that is why I am forced in a Third Reading speech to deal with it now. What the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said on that occasion is completely inaccurate. I moved two Amendments, the first to deal with the scandal of the cutting of the throat at Timberscombe, and as I have told your Lordships I quoted from the proceedings in court. I am not going on discussing that with your Lordships now, having been told by the lawyers that the notice of appeal has now been made and the Divisional Court will be considering the matter shortly after the vacation. My second Amendment to stop the scandal of carted deer was based, as any of your Lordships who read the Second Reading report of my speech will see, entirely verbatim on statements from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and it is a complete travesty of anything in the way of sense to suggest that the League Against Cruel Sports is friendlily regarded by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It is not.
I am prepared to stand by what I said. I am prepared to do battle on this matter a good deal in this country, on the public platform and in your Lordships' House, as a little more time goes by. I shall not know, until I know what has happened in the appeal at Timberscombe, the line I shall be discussing with some of my noble friends associated with me in this matter, whether by way of Question, by way of Motion or by way of Private Member's Bill. I shall be asking, anyway, for the assistance of noble Lords of reasonable minds on this subject; and I shall be consulting, not a picked set of people, like those who were consulted by the sponsors of this Bill, for which the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, takes responsibilty to-night. As he told you, they were the British Field Sports Society, the Forestry Commission, the Nature Conservancy, the Council for
688
Nature, the Fauna Preservation Society, the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare, the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association, the Devon and Somerset Stag Hounds and the New Forest Buck Hounds. There is no mention of the three organisations I propose to consult: the Association for the Abolition of Deer Hunting, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It was not worth the while of those who sponsored this Bill to bother to consult what the animals felt. They asked only what the "sportsmen" felt, and it is for that reason I will vote against the Third Reading.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I cannot answer for my noble friends, Lord Fortescue and Lord Mansfield, because they are not here, but I should have thought if there is an appeal pending on this Timberscombe case, it is sub judice (perhaps I shall be corrected), and I should have thought it ought not to have been mentioned at all. I do not want to go over all the ground that we have been over during the last three weeks ad nauseam. We have talked and talked about this subject. It is all down in Hansard for anybody to see both sides of the question.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

CLYWEDOG RESERVOIR JOINT AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past seven o'clock.