Sitting of 9 May 1963

Preamble
The house met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEEDS)
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the City of Leeds, presented by Sir Keith Joseph; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 107.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Smoke Control Areas
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many local authorities in Greater London and elsewhere, respectively, have taken powers under the Clean Air Act 1956 to make smoke control areas; and how long he anticipates it will be before the whole country is so controlled.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): Seventy-six local authorities in Greater London and 218 in the remainder of England and Wales have made smoke control orders. It is not likely ever to be necessary to apply smoke control over the whole country; the local authorities' estimates of the time needed in the black areas are to be found in "Smoke Control (England and Wales): 1962–66", a copy of which I am sending my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Longden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Es there anything that he can do to speed this up in London,
    642
    which is still one of the dirtiest cities in the world? They do these things much quicker in St. Louis and Pittsburg.
    Mr. Corfield: It is programmed that 85 per cent. of Greater London will be covered by orders by 1970 and only six of the Greater London authorities expect to be still making orders after 1975. Those authorities are being individually visited and encouraged to make more rapid progress.

    Rating Inquiry
    Mr. F. M. Bennettasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will now give the terms of reference and the composition of the committee which he and the Secretary of State for Scotland are setting up to examine the impact of rates on different sections of the community; and when he expects the committee to report.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): My right hon. Friend and I are glad to be able to say that Professor R. G. D. Allen, Professor of Statistics at the London School of Economics, has agreed to be chairman of the Committee. We hope to announce the complete membership shortly.
    The terms of reference will be:
    To assess Idle impact of rates on households in different income groups and in different parts of Great Britain, with special regard to any circumstances likely to give rise to hardship.
    We shall ask the Committee to report as soon as possible, but despite the information already available a wide-ranging survey will be needed and it is too soon to estimate when a report can be made.
    Mr. Bennett: While welcoming that announcement, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in the conduct of its affairs, the Committee will be available to receive direct evidence and testimony from affected individuals and groups? If so, will this be done by the Committee touring, by written communications, or by personal appearance?
    Does my right hon, Friend realise that, although we welcome this announcement, the impact before the Committee reports and before remedial action can be taken

    643
    is extremely severe and that there are many thousands of people in my constituency alone, and in other similar constituencies, who are being asked to pay up to three times their previous rates, but simply are not in a position to do so?
    If nothing is done, people who have been living in the same house in retirement for a long time will have to be evicted in the next few months.
    Sir K. Joseph:I very much hope that my hon. Friend's fears will not be realised. We shall ask the Committee to report as soon as possible. As to evidence, I think that the right thing to do is to get the chairman, as soon as the Committee is complete, to decide on its plan of action and then make known to the public the answers to my hon. Friend's questions.
    Mr. MacColl: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very welcome but too long delayed beginning of the consideration of this problem? How ever, it is only a beginning. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, after these investigations have taken place, there will have to be much constructive thinking? In the meantime, would be introduce some proposals for a transitional reduction of the burden falling on individual ratepayers, who are feeling this very severely?
    The Committee should be able to deliberate in an atmosphere of calm and scientific detachment but that is not exactly the feeling that ratepayers have at the moment, when they are facing frightful increases. A transitional reduction is an important point.
    Sir K. Joseph: The Government are constantly studying the balance between local revenue and taxpayers' revenue in paying for local services. That study will continue.
    Mr. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend say quite plainly whether, if he becomes convinced that there are cases of genuine hardship, he will be prepared to consider some form of standstill arrangement so as to prevent the hardship which he knows perfectly well is being caused to many people?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I have made it plain several times before that the
    644
    Government cannot, have no power to, and do not intend to, make any standstill arrangement, but will await the receipt of the Committee's report to decide whether anything needs to be done for the future.
    Mr. Bennett: In view of the nature of that reply, I feel bound to say that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

    Civil Defence (Evacuation)
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as stated in a reply to the hon. Member for Gorton on 12th March, 1960, to carry out its plan for evacuation and related civil defence measures during the general period of alert in a time of tension, before the final warning of four minutes.
    Sir K. Joseph: It remains the Government's policy that advantage should be taken of any suitable opportunity in a time of tension for carrying out civil defence measures, including dispersal, if that were thought appropriate in the circumstances.
    Mr. Zilliacus: How do the Government propose to get round the dilemma that it will be too late to evacuate people after the four-minute warning and that, if they began to do so before, they would create a state of panic throughout the world which would greatly increase the chances of the crisis ending in war, besides provoking a major revolt among the people of this country?
    Sir K. Joseph: We cannot possibly predict the exact circumstances of any such dilemma. The point is that, unless plans are made, we shall have no option of dispersal whatsoever.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the dispersal of the population of this country to Ireland, which is regarded as very much safer because it has not got an armaments programme?
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the approximate length of time necessary to

    645
    carry out the plan for evacuation in a general period of alert.
    Sir K. Joseph: If dispersal were decided on, it would take several days to complete, the period depending on plans for transport which are still under consideration, and on the number of people who, in the event, decided to take part.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Flow acute would the crisis have to be before any of this starts happening? For instance, in the Cuban crisis no measures were taken, although V-bombers and rockets were alerted in this country. How much more acute would a crisis have to be before it was regarded as necessary to proceed with this policy?
    Sir K. Joseph: That is quite another question.
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many evacuees Cornwall has been asked to prepare to receive under the Civil Defence scheme should war in Europe seem imminent.
    Mr. Corfield: If the dispersal scheme as at present proposed were carried out, a maximum of about 365,000 people would be sent to Cornwall.
    Mr. Hayman: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that figure considerably exceeds the present total population of the county? Was that figure arrived at before the Beeching plan for reducing a large part of the railway system was announced? What revision of the figure does the hon. Gentleman propose to make in view of the Beeching proposals?
    Mr. Corfield: The figure was, of course, arrived at before the Beeching proposals were known, but, as my right hon. Friend made clear in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus), the Government are considering what effect these proposals will have on the detailed planning of the evacuation scheme; and this will be made known as soon as possible.

    Air Pollution, Mansfield Colliery
    Mr. B. Taylorasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will
    646
    investigate the pollution of the atmosphere by the Midland Rexco Works, situated at Mansfield Colliery, in Nottinghamshire; and if he will take the necessary action towards removing offensive odours, as these are causing distress and inconvenience to the residents in the area.
    Mr. Corfield: Unfortunately, some smell from coal carbonisation is unavoidable. But the Alkali Inspectorate is in correspondence with the company about the application at these works of methods which experiments elsewhere suggest will bring about a substantial improvement.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that I raised this matter with his predecessor as far back as 1959, when I was told that technical experiments were to take place at one of the company's adjoining undertakings? Is he further aware that I am told that these experiments have met with some success at Edwinstone? If this is so, will he use his influence to ensure that they are applied with all possible speed at the colliery?
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The experiments at Edwin-stone have met with a considerable measure of success and the district alkali inspector wrote formally on 19th April asking the company to implement its undertaking to adopt similar measures. The company has promised to let us have detailed proposals at, an early date.

  HOUSING

    Council Houses (Cost)
    Mr. Snowasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what was the cost, based pro rata on equal floor area of three-bedroom council houses in the years 1951, 1955, 1959, and 1962, respectively.
    Mr. Corfield: The average cost based on a standard area of 900 square feet was for each year respectively £1,194, £1,403, £1,520 and £1,957.
    Mr. Snow: Apart from labour costs, what is the reason for this greatly increased cost of building houses?
    Mr. Corfield: The only constructive conclusion which can be drawn from the

    647
    figures is the pressure on the resources of the building industry and the necessity of increasing productivity.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Housing arid Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what was the average tender price for local authority houses for the last three convenient months; and how these prices compare with the same months in 1961 and 1959 respectively.
    Mr. Corfield: The average tender price of a three-bedroom house, based on a standard area of 900 square feet was £2,026 in the 3 months ended 28th February, 1963; £1,693 for the corresponding period in 1960–61; and £1,483 for the corresponding period in 1958–59.
    Mr. Boyden: Is not this very alarming rise in costs due to the fact that the profit margins in speculative building and commercial building are so much higher that in many cases there are not, in effect, effective competitive tenders for local authority houses?
    Mr. Corfield: My information is that the vast majority of these tenders were competitive tenders. I think that it therefore leads to the conclusion which I mentioned in reply to an earlier Question, that the local resources of the building industry are being overstrained.

    Local Authority Improvement Grants
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many local authorities have commenced improvement schemes for whole streets or larger areas since the issue of Circular 42/62 on 2nd August, 1962.
    Mr. Corfield: About 400 local authorities have indicated that they intend to encourage improvement of houses by groups or areas. My right hon. Friend has not asked them to give him progress reports. He thinks it better to leave them to get on with the job.
    Mr. Boyden: Is not that a small number of all the authorities which could do this? Has there not been a loss of impetus because of the economy cuts in 1961 which suspended the drive to get people to take an interest in improvement grants?
    Mr. Corfield: There was a slight falling off in the period the hon. Gentleman mentions. Ninety-six per cont. of all local authorities have replied to my right hon. Friend's inquiries and 400 of them intend to make a start on area improvements straight away.

    Slough
    Mr. Brockwaysasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reply he has sent to the resolution of the housing committee of the Slough Borough Council asking him to investigate and take action against those landlords in the borough who are exploiting the housing shortage by demanding high rents.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of my reply.
    Mr. Brockway: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is of rather wider public interest than merely sending me a copy of his reply? Has not the Minister told local authorities that, when exorbitant rents are charged, he will support the compulsory purchase of the property? Is it not a fact that in Slough, when application has been made, the compulsory purchase has been denied and that landlords in Slough are now charging from five to seven times the gross value of the property? When will the right hon. Gentleman do something about it?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. Slough has submitted two applications for compulsory purchase and in both cases has withdrawn the applications before inquiry. Rents have risen because earnings have risen by about five times since before the war.

    Clearance Areas (Owner Occupiers)
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will take steps to give local authorities the discretionary power to make ex gratia payments in cases of genuine hardship caused to owner-occupiers in clearance areas where it can be proved that they could not have been aware at the time the property was purchased of the intention to seek a clearance order.
    Sir K, Joseph: Where any sanction from me is needed for an ex gratia payment, I am prepared to consider applications from local authorities on their

    649
    merits. I cannot lay down a general rule, but if the local authority feels that it is itself in some degree responsible for any hardship caused I will certainly look sympathetically at the application. am not persuaded that new legislation is necessary.
    Mr. Thomas: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there are very serious cases where the Cardiff City Corporation feels morally concerned and that his reply will be received with great satisfaction in the City?

    Standard Amenities (Grant)
    Mr. Bullardasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will introduce legislation to amend Section 13(5) of the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959, so as to permit the payment of grant towards the provision of standard amenities in a house provided by conversion, without regard to the date of the conversion, in cases where the original properties would not each of them have provided a suitable home for a family.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am aware of the kind of problem my hon. Friend has in mind and, though it is not free from difficulty, I am considering whether it would be possible to propose some limited relaxation of the present statutory provisions.
    Mr. Bullard: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for that reply. Will he bear in mind that people who want to put in standard amenities in a house provided by conversion are very often of modest means and are assisting by this process to make use of dwellings which of themselves would not be sufficient to provide a home for a family? They are doing a lot of good to the community.

    Property Improvements (Rates)
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that owner-occupiers or landlords who improve their property, either by installing necessary improvements such as bathrooms, hot water, etc., or carry out essential repairs to walls, etc., are liable
    650
    to pay higher rates, and that this discourages house owners from making improvements; and what action he proposes to take to reverse this trend and give more encouragement for such improvements.
    Sir K. Joseph: Anything which increases rental value, increases rateable value, and improvements may, therefore, have that effect. But I have no evidence that owners are discouraged as a result and I am informed that essential repairs to the structure do not result in increased assessments.
    Sir B. Janner: Would the Minister inquire into the position further and ascertain whether it is the fact, as apparently appears to be the case, that many people are dissuaded from making necessary or advisable improvements because the rates rise as soon as the improvements are carried out? Perhaps he could devise a system whereby people could be encouraged to make these improvements without having this hanging over their heads.
    Sir K. Joseph: This is the same sort of discouragement, if that is the proper word, that might be expected to stop a man from wanting to earn more since he would have to pay more tax if he earned more. I do not believe that, in general, this can be a disincentive.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: Could the Minister say what is the amount of extra rates that become payable if, for instance, a bathroom is installed in a house which was previously without one, taking whatever standard of housing he wishes to illustrate the matter?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. That would be a question for my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

    Decontrolled Houses
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will now seek to amend the Rent Acts so as to cover dwelling-houses which are becoming decontrolled on being vacated by the tenants, in view of the large number of tenants who have to seek employment away from their present dwellings as the result of Her Majesty's Government's stated policy on British transport.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir.
    Sir B. Janner: I am amazed. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as soon as a house is vacated—and this applies to hundreds, if not thousands, of cases throughout the country—that house becomes decontrolled? Is he further aware that if the person who has left the house needs a house elsewhere which, in turn, has also been vacated by someone else—and that, in rum, has become decontrolled—that person can be charged any rent the landlord wishes to impose?
    Will not the right hon. Gentleman do something, in view of the serious position that exists, to ensure that hundreds of thousands of houses are not so decontrolled at a time like this?
    Sir K. Joseph: If control is kept on when a vacancy occurs it is almost certain that the house will be sold with vacant possession, so the action which the hon. Member wants the Government to take would reduce the stock of houses available for rent for those people who have to move to get another job.
    Mr. C. Hughes: What consultations has the right hon. Gentleman had with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport about the size of this and the overall problems which may arise from the transference of labour from one part of the country to another as a result of railway closures?
    Sir K. Joseph: I know that my right hon. Friend is carefully considering the implications here, but it is not the same as, for example, the Coal Board, where concentrations of men are expected to be drawn into another project, perhaps a coal mine. It is not as simple a problem that it can be solved by, for example, a new housing association. I was merely saying that the sort of action the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) wants the Government to take would harm, and not help.
    Sir B. Janner: Does the Minister not realise that because a house is decontrolled it commands a higher price? If it were controlled it would not command such a price and, consequently, what the right hon. Gentleman is actually doing is decontrolling houses which can be sold at very much higher prices than would be the case if they were controlled. In view of this, why does he not do something about it?
    Sir K. Joseph: The main interest of the lower wage earner is that there will be some houses available to rent; as many as possible, in fact. The process that the hon. Member wants to adopt would reduce the stock of houses to rent.

    Slum Clearance
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will publish details of the five-year building programmes agreed for the 38 local authorities included in the special slum clearance drive.
    Sir K. Joseph: I will, with permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    In total, the agreed programmes which the local authorities concerned hope to achieve represent, over the next five years, a doubling of the rate at which these authorities have built over the past three years. In some instances authorities are planning to treble their recent average annual completion of houses.
    These programmes are, I believe, realistic both individually and in total, and I intend to keep them under review, in the light of progress, with the aim of increasing the pace if that proves practicable.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend accept my appreciation for the initiative that he has taken? At the same time, does he not agree that it would be a good idea to let hon. Members have a list of the local authorities which have made good progress with their slum clearance drives, in view of the fact that quite a number have done so without any stimulation, but simply because they are good administrative local authorities?
    Sir K. Joseph: These figures are published in a regular form and I hope that the local people will draw their own conclusions about the performances of their local authorities.
    Mr. P. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend say how much these figures take into account the possible introduction of new methods of industrialised house building?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that these figures give much hostage to fortune in that way. Some benefit can already be drawn from the grouping of authorities and the large ordering which

    653
    is now being made possible by individual ones on account of the five-year authority I am giving.
    Dame Irene Ward: Would it not be a good idea to let Parliament and the world know when we have good local authorities, as opposed to bad ones?

    LOCAL AUTHORITY BUILDING PROGRAMMES

    —

    *Average annual completions (for Average annual three years ending 31st December, 1962)

    Proposed building rate next five years Programme over next five Years

    REGION 1:

    Gateshead C.B.C.

    …

    …

    219

    1,000

    Middlesbrough C.B.C.

    …

    …

    453

    600

    Newcastle-upon-Tyne C.B.C.

    …

    …

    1,046

    1,500

    Stockton-on-Tees B.C.

    …

    …

    352

    400

    Bishop Auckland U.D.C.

    …

    …

    68

    300

    Chester-le-Street

    …

    …

    132

    275

    Ennerdale R.D.C.

    …

    …

    46

    250

    Total

    …

    …

    2,316

    4,325

    REGION 2:

    Halifax C.B.C.

    …

    …

    107

    560

    Kingston-upon-Hull C.B.C.

    …

    …

    730

    920

    Leeds C.B.C.

    …

    …

    2,015

    2,745

    Sheffield C.B.C.

    …

    …

    1,316

    2,010 (4 years)

    Wakefield C.B.C.

    …

    …

    178

    400

    York C.B.C.

    …

    …

    269

    300 (6 years)

    Balley B.C.

    …

    …

    157

    400 (6 years)

    Brighouse B.C.

    …

    …

    55

    100

    Todmorden B.C

    …

    …

    Nil

    100

    Colne Valley U.D.C.

    …

    …

    7

    50

    Wombwell U.D.C.

    …

    …

    18

    100

    Total

    …

    …

    4,852

    7,685

    REGION 9:

    Birmingham C.B.C.

    …

    …

    2,109

    3,180

    Smethwick C.B.C.

    …

    …

    239

    543 (6 years)

    Stoke-on-Trent C.B.C.

    …

    …

    162

    1,000

    Total

    …

    …

    2,510

    4,723

    REGION 10:

    Birkenhead C.B.C.

    …

    …

    643

    750

    Blackburn C.B.C.

    …

    …

    147

    500

    Bolton C.B.C.

    …

    …

    111

    260

    Bootle C.B.C.

    …

    …

    208

    600

    Chester C.B.C.

    …

    …

    276

    400

    Liverpool C.B.C.

    …

    …

    1,803

    5,000

    Manchester C.B.C.

    …

    …

    1,712

    4,000

    Oldham C.B.C.

    …

    …

    341

    1,000

    Preston C.B.C.

    …

    …

    343

    600

    Rochdale C.B.C.

    …

    …

    111

    400

    St. Helens C.B.C.

    …

    …

    268

    450

    Salford C.B.C.

    …

    …

    362

    1,500

    Stockport C.B.C.

    …

    …

    292

    500

    Bacup B.C.

    …

    …

    34

    100

    Macclesfield B.C.

    …

    …

    125

    600

    Rawtenstall B.C.

    …

    …

    54

    200

    Stalybridge B.C.

    …

    …

    107

    175

    Total

    …

    …

    6,937

    17,035

    GRAND TOTAL

    …

    …

    16,615

    33,768

    * Excluding building by housing associations.

    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but it is not as easy as that, because many local authorities have difficulties that others do not have. Thus, this cannot be easily presented in simple one-word answers.
    Following are the details:

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Leicester Manufacturer (Italian Order)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a Leicester manufacturer secured an order from Italy on 4th April, applied the same day to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, received no acknowledgment, wrote again on the 12th, and on the 17th was advised by a circular letter that it would require another month before the guarantee could be granted; if he will look into the working of this Department with a view to hastening decisions so that export orders may not be lost; and, in view of the correspondence sent to him, if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): The manufacturer did not supply the address of the buyer, who was unknown to E.C.G.D., until 10th April. Owing to the large number of applications received each week E.C.G.D. can make cable inquiries only in urgent cases. The exporter's letter of 12th April, which was received on 16th April because of the Easter break, was the first indication to the Department that the matter was urgent. Cable inquiries were then made and the Department was able to agree the limit required on 23rd April.
    Sir C. Osborne: That answer is not good enough. Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that getting exports is not fun and that men have to sweat their guts out to get orders? Is he aware that this manufacturer in Leicester, which is only 30 miles away from the Department's office in Nottingham, had to wait for seven days before receiving a reply and that, when it came, it consisted of a circular letter saying that the manufacturer would have to wait another month while the Department thought about the matter. This is not good enough. If British business were run by civil servants we would be broke. Will not my hon. Friend do something to increase the efficiency of his Department?
    Mr. Price: I think that my hon. Friend is being a little intemperate in his observations. He may be interested to know that about 70 per cent. of the 3,000 applications for credit limits which are
    656
    received each week by this Department are answered and dealt with within 72 hours.
    As I explained in my original Answer, the manufacturer concerned did not supply all the necessary information, including—and surely this is not an unreasonable piece of information to require—the address of the buyer. These facts must be remembered when complaints are made about something not being dealt with quickly. However, to make the matter absolutely clear to my hon. Friend, I will send him a detailed time-table of the events.
    Sir C. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend smugly satisfied with the way this section of his Department is working? Is it reasonable, even though this manufacturer omitted some information, That he had to write a second time to the Department to get a reply which, even then, was a circular letter saying that it would take another month to decide? Is my hon. Friend really satisfied with that? If he is, I can assure him that I am not.
    Mr. Price: I do not think that my hon. Friend has been properly informed. The circular letter did not say that it would take another month, but pointed out that the buyer concerned was not previously known to E.C.G.D. and that, therefore, the Department would, quite properly, have to make the necessary inquiries. Getting information from Italy, and so on, can take up to four weeks.
    Sir C. Osborne: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will at some time raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Film Production, Western Europe
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the Brussels High Commission is considering proposals to establish a statutory film levy in Western Europe, if he will submit evidence of the development of the British system of statutory levy to the Governments of the Six with the object of achieving the greatest possible harmony in Government policies in Western Europe to expand the production of films.
    Mr. D. Price: These Governments have already been given details of the British system of statutory films levy through the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
    Mr. Swingler: Are the observers who were in Brussels when the working party was set up to consider policy still there? Are discussions going on with a view to trying to harmonise policy in view of the importance of encouraging co-production treaties?
    Mr. Price: Discussions about the matter raised in the hon. Member's original Question have taken place between the officials of our delegation in Brussels and the European Commission, the channel through which we work.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    National Buildings Record (Photographs)
    Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will authorise the National Buildings Record to acquire from the British Travel and Holidays Association the architectural photographs at present in their possession.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward du Cann): This is a matter for the Council of the National Buildings Record, but I understand that it will see the latest photographs of the British Travel and Holidays Association so that the Record can secure whatever copies it wishes.
    Mr. Cooke: Is the Economic Secretary aware that it will be a surprise to many people that the British Travel and Holidays Association actually knows what photographs it has? Even if some of them are of a purely picturesque nature, they are better than none for the purposes of the National Buildings Record, which has no photographs at all of some buildings.
    Mr. du Cann: The point is certainly being attended to.

    N.E.D.C. Report
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government accept the conclusions and
    658
    recommendations in the report of the National Economic Development Council entitled Conditions Favourable to Faster Growth;and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. du Cann: This was a report by the National Economic Development Office. It has been published on the authority of the Council collectively. Individual members are not committed in detail and the report as a whole is still being studied by the Council.
    Mr. Jay: But as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is chairman of this Council, may not some people think that he agrees with the views it expresses? Could we not at least have this matter cleared up? Do I now understand the Economic Secretary to be saying that the Chancellor and, indeed, other members of the Council, do not necessarily agree with the conclusions and recommendations of its Report?
    Mr. du Cann: The position is that neither the Council collectively nor individual members necessarily endorse everything in this Report, but all are certainly agreed that these matters call for discussion.
    Mr. Jay: As it is obvious to everyone, even without the Report, that these matters call for discussion, is the position regarding the recommendations and conclusions such that these are just expressions of opinion with which the members of the Council do not necessarily agree?
    Mr. du Cann: They are certainly expressions of opinion designed to call attention to these problems. Many of the suggestions made in the latest Report have been fully implemented by the Chancellor in his Budget. The Government are playing a large part in the work of N.E.D.C. It is up to management and trade unions to play an equal part in the future.
    Mr. Grimond: Does the Economic Secretary agree that there is an important point here about the relationship of N.E.D.C. both to the Government and this House? When he says that these matters are to be discussed, does he mean that the House will have an opportunity to discuss them and, if so, will this occur after the Government have adopted or rejected them?
    Mr. du Cann: I think that the House will be continually discussing the economic situation. We have just concluded an economic debate lasting four days, with another day's debate on the Finance Bill, during which many references were made to the work being done by N.E.D.C. The Government very much welcome these discussions of all aspects of the present economic situation, and of what can be done to improve the position.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that, some day, a report will be presented to the House and facilities made available to debate it? Or does it mean that the matter, or a variety of matters, can be raised on the Finance Bill, although not actually related to the subjects contained in the Report? My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) pointed out that the Government have a primary responsibility because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is chairman of N.E.D.C.
    Mr. du Cann: I am sure that it is true that the country as a whole welcomes the constructive work being done by the N.E.D.C. The publication of its reports is a useful contribution to thinking and a prelude to action. I am sure that that is right. I am equally sure that the House has welcomed the opportunity of discussing the work of N.E.D.C. in the past.
    Mr. Mitchison: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer chairs the N.E.D.C., has he his Treasury hat on or another one?
    Mr. du Cann: N.E.D.C. meets indoors, and everything which flows from that is understood.

    Education Service (Cost to the Rates)
    Sir T. Beamishasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the increased cost to taxpayers of carrying the whole of the cost of education at present borne by rates in the United Kingdom in terms of a graduated increase in income tax, the increased cost of a pint of beer, and the increased cost of a packet of 20 cigarettes, respectively.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): On the assumption that the present cost to the rates of the
    660
    education service is in the region of £350 million a year, this is equivalent to 11d. on the standard rate of Income Tax, with proportionate increase on the reduced rates.
    It is theoretically equivalent to 10d. a pint on beer, or Is. 4d. on a packet of 20 cigarettes. This is, however, unrealistic for increases of this order would not raise this amount as consumption would be substantially reduced by increases of this order in the rate of duty.
    Sir T. Beamish: My right hon. Friend will realise, of course, that I am not proposing in this Question that the whole cost of education should be borne by the taxpayer. Is he aware that there is a growing feeling that the present balance of 60–40 between taxpayer and ratepayer may not necessarily be the right one and that this has been highlighted by the recent revaluation and the very steep increases in some county rate poundages? If the balance were 70–30 or 75–25, that would not necessarily detract from the great responsibility of local authorities, but it would, at the same time, relieve ratepayers of some of the burden that they are at present having to carry.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I know my hon. and gallant Friend well enough not to have suspected what he feared I might have suspected. This is a complicated matter to discuss at Question Time. I thought, however, that what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said the other day indicated that he had this very much in mind.
    Mr. D. Smith: Nevertheless, does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a very good case for transferring some of the cost of the education service to the National Exchequer?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not certain that I can accept that when it is remembered that the rates take a smaller proportion of the gross national product than they did before the war.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he threatens to put 10d. a pint on beer the brewers will withdraw their subscriptions from Tory Party funds, and that this would be catastrophic for hon. Members behind him?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I did not so threaten, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the dire consequences he contemplates do not, therefore, arise.

    Universities (Quinquennial Grant)
    Mr. Johnson Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will now make a statement about the review of the universities quinquennial settlement.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I told the House on 9th April that the Government had decided to bring forward the review of the quinquennial grants to universities promised by my predecessor, and that I had already sought the advice on this of the University Grants Committee. I had particularly in mind the increase in university costs which has occurred since the universities prepared their estimates for this quinquennium in June, 1961.
    I have now received and considered the Committee's advice. I am glad to be able to announce that the grants for the four remaining academic financial years of the quinquennium, beginning in August next, will be increased by an amount of ₣16,100,000, spread over the four years. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT more detailed figures of provision for the universities over the quinquennium.
    The University Grants Committee advise me that in their view, provided there is no further significant increase in university costs during the remainder of the quinquennium, the grants which I have just announced should enable the universities to reach the student target of 150,000 by 1966–67.
    Mr. Johnson Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that generous reply, which I am sure will be warmly received in many quarters. Will he reassure us that, if there is a significant increase in university costs outside the control of the universities, he will consider this with the same sympathetic approach to their problems as we have come to expect of him?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can certainly give that assurance. The fact that we have, in the circumstances, brought forward by a year the review promised by my predecessor is an indication of our general attitude to this matter.
    Mr. Mitchison: Will this increase in grant be adequate to cover the increase
    662
    in buildings and equipment which will be required for the increased number of students?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My statement actually related to recurrent grants, which do not cover buildings. I did, however, make a statement about capital grants, which relate to buildings, not very long ago.
    Mr. Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Answer will give great satisfaction all round? Are the University Grants Committee and the Government still of opinion that the target figure of students for 1966 is large enough?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the target figure is probably the best that can be achieved for this quinquennium if standards are to be maintained. But this is certainly a matter we shall have to look at afresh when we receive the report of the Robbins Committee, later this year.
    Following are the details:

    The £16·1 million will be allotted as below:

    £m.

    —

    As an-nounced Addition New in April, figure 1962

    Addition.

    New figure

    1963–64

    …

    60·5

    3·5

    64

    1964–65

    …

    65·5

    3·9

    69·4

    1965–66

    …

    70·5

    4·2

    74·7

    1966–67

    …

    76·5

    4·5

    81·0

    These figures are in addition to the extra provision to cover increases in academic salaries which have been already announced. During the quinquennium that extra provision will cost about £19 million. Total public expenditure on university education, including the recurrent grants, salaries, capital expenditure, and student awards is now estimated at over £760 million in this quinquennium.

    Properties (Revaluation Appeals)
    Mr. F. M. Bennettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals against the new valuations for rating on private dwellings have so far been lodged.
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals were lodged up to 30th April against the recent revaluation; how many have been heard; and how many have been allowed.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am afraid that as appeals against the new assessments could not be submitted until April information as to the number of such appeals is not yet available. It will shortly be ready, but will relate to all properties as figures are not collected separately for private dwellings. When I have these figures I will send them to my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, if the example of Torbay is a guide—the appeals already filed there number many thousands—there will be many hundreds of thousands throughout the country? As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has stated that the Government are not prepared to consider a standstill in rates until a modification of the system has been introduced following the report of the Committee appointed for the purpose, will my right hon. Friend at least publicise the fact that an appellant can legally withhold up to one-half of the increased demand pending the result of his appeal?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The figures for the first month will shortly be available and it would be better not to speculate on them. If anyone is to give a ruling of such complicated matters of law, it is not I.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend see that the domestic rates appeals are published separately? Will he also kindly explain to an uninitiated person like myself why it is that when good additions are made to property the rates are put up, in view of the fact that the Conservative Party believes in a property-owning democracy? The two do not seem to go together, do they?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The position is that the figures are being collected for all properties together. I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion to see whether, without undue difficulty and expense, they can be separated, although that would, of course, involve further delay.
    As the essence of the assessment of rates is what a tenant would be prepared to pay, if the premises were, in fact, improved it seems likely to make a tenant likely to be willing to pay more.
    Mr. Bellenger: When the right hon. Gentleman is looking into this matter,
    664
    whatever he may say about local rates, will he also examine the question of the water rate, especially in the Metropolitan area? That seems out of all proportion when compared with local rates which meet many obligations the Metropolitan Water Board has not got.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That does not arise on this Question, and I am extremely doubtful whether, in any event, it is one for me.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Barotseland
    Mr. Wallasked the First Secretary of State when Northern Rhodesia is to receive a further constitutional advance; and what arrangements he is making to safeguard the terms of the Barotse Treaty.
    The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler): No decisions have yet been taken about constitutional changes for Northern Rhodesia. I am currently examining the problem of Barotseland's future in relation to further constitutional advance in Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Wall: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for a constitutional advance in Northern Rhodesia towards internal self-government and then independence, and that the Litunga and his Council will want Barotseland to become a separate State?
    Mr. Butler: The future will have to be discussed with the Litunga and his Council before a final decision can be reached. I am examining the situation in the light of the inquiries I have made there.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA

    Prime Minister's Letter
    Mr. Wallasked the First Secretary of State what reply he has made to the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia's letter sent subsequent to the publication of Command Paper No. 2000.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Exchanges are still proceeding with the Southern Rhodesia

    665
    Government and. I have no further statement to make at present.
    Mr. Wall: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is becoming clear that Mr. Winston Field will not accept a conference on the independence of Southern Rhodesia being held after the Federal conference? Will my right hon. Friend therefore take a new initiative by proposing that these conferences should he held together so that the conference on the break-up of federation can be held at the same time as the conference on the constitution of the three territories?
    Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend has made a constructive suggestion to ease the present deadlock, but I am awaiting further views from Mr. Field and, pending the receipt of those views, I can only note the suggestion of my hon. Friend
    Mr. Brockway: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the situation in Southern Rhodesia is deteriorating very seriously—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] Yes, very seriously—not only economically, bat in the relations of the races to each other? Is it not, therefore, desirable that Her Majesty's Government should take steps to see that Southern Rhodesia has independence only when it introduces a constitution on the basis of a wider franchise?
    Mr. Butler: As I have said, I cannot add to the exchanges which are at present taking place between myself and the Southern Rhodesia Government, but I certainly cannot accept the description of the situation there given by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since Southern Rhodesia sacrificed virtual independence and speed of progress towards complete independence for the sake of the Federation—which the Government have abandoned—would it not be proper for the Government now, with good grace, to concede to Southern Rhodesia the right of independence which they have no power to resist?
    May we have an assurance that Southern Rhodesian independence, or the right to it, will not be delayed beyond the decision to grant secession or independence to either of the two Northern territories?
    Mr. Butler: In Command Paper 2000 we indicated that we had accepted in
    666
    principle that each of the territories shall proceed to independence. The details raised by my hon. Friend are at present the subject of discussion.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Disabled Police Officers (Awards)
    Mr. Wadeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to enable police officers who are permanently injured in the course of duty to receive benefits not less favourable than would be received if the injury came within the provisions of the Industrial Injuries Act.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): Police officers are already covered by the Industrial Injuries Acts in the same way as other employed persons. If the circumstances in which they are injured on duty do not come within the provisions of these Acts, they are eligible for an award under the police pensions scheme.
    Mr. Wade: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are circumstances where a police officer may be injured in arresting a criminal or in carrying out other police duties, and that the disablement award may be less favourable than if he suffered accident or disease covered by the Industrial Injuries Act? Would it not be just to treat police officers in all circumstances at least as fairly and generously as if they were covered by the Industrial Injuries Act?
    Mr. Woodhouse: That is the intention. I am aware that there are special circumstances, and I thought it possible that the hon. Gentleman had in mind a particular case, although my researches did not reveal to me what they could be. The Police Pensions Regulations are inevitably complex and I do not think that they can usefully he discussed by question and answer. If the hon. Gentleman will communicate with me about any case he has in mind, I can assure him of sympathetic attention.

    Public Meetings (Incitement to Racial Hatred)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposals

    667
    of Her Majesty's Government to limit the incitement of racial hatred, to preserve order at public meetings, and to prohibit the practice of racial discrimination in public places and in legal contracts.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I hope to make a statement at an early date.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with his usual modesty, he has already made a statement in reply to a Written Question? Did he not, in reply to that question, say that the Government intended to make more severe the penalties under the Public Order Act? Has he anything to add to that? When he does make a statement, will it make reference to racial discrimination in public places as well as to incitement?
    Mr. Brooke: I made a statement as long ago as November that it was our intention to increase the penalties. Then we had to await the outcome of certain appeals. Now we have the results and I hope to make a general statement before Whitsun.

    Civil Defence Headquarters, Reading (Expenditure)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what expenditure he has incurred in connection with the building of the civil defence underground centre near Reading.
    Mr. Brooke: £12,500 has been spent on adapting the premises for use as a civil defence headquarters.
    Mr. Hughes: Why has no expenditure been incurred to provide underground shelters for the religious leaders of the country? Does not the right hon. Gentleman want them to survive? What is to happen to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops in the event of an air raid catastrophe?
    Mr. Brooke: That question seems to go a very long way beyond the cost of adapting R.S.G.6.
    Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Queen Frederika of Greece
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now received the report of the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police with regard to the incident affecting Queen Frederika of Greece on 20th April; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the circumstances which led to the issue of his official statement that no physical attempt was made at any time to interfere with the free progress of the Queen of Greece during her recent visit to Great Britain.
    Mr. Brooke: I have no later information beyond that which was available to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 2nd May, when he made a statement to the House. I have nothing to add to that statement.
    Mr. Fletcher: Cannot the Home Secretary clear up the glaring discrepancy between the statement issued by the Home Office and that issued by the Foreign Office? Why did the Home Office put out a statement that no physical attempt had been made to interfere with the progress of Queen Frederika at a time when the Foreign Office was apologising for it? As a result of this incident, has the right hon. Gentleman reviewed the precautions which are taken for the protection of foreign monarchs and other distinguished visitors in circumstances which are likely to lead to provocative incidents?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means by "provocative incidents". but I can certainly say that no official statement was put out by the Home Office, as alleged in Question No. 50. We said that, to the best of our knowledge, Queen Frederika was not touched. She was certainly inconvenienced and molested. There is no inconsistency between those things. I can do no more than again express the apology which has been offered by the Foreign Secretary and by the Prime Minister for what happened.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all of us accept the need for an apology to a foreigner,

    669
    whether a member of a royal family or the most humble person, who is molested, but can he explain the contradiction between the statements of the Home Office and of the Foreign Office? On one day the Foreign Office says that an apology has been made because there has been this unseemly violent action to the Queen, and the next day the Home Office says that she has not been touched. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with it by the kind of explanation which he has made this afternoon.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member is wrong. According to our information, Queen Frederika was not touched at all, but, as I say, she was undoubtedly inconvenienced and molested.

    Door-to-Door Salesmen
    Mr. Masonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the present state of the law allows nuisance to householders by door-to-door salesmen; if he will introduce legislation to impose stricter restrictions on their activities, especially soap detergent canvassers, educational magazine salesmen and salesmen posing as students to sell books; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Woodhouse: No, Sir. The Committee on Consumer Protection considered and rejected the suggestion that there should be statutory control over the commercial practices of door-to-door salesmen.
    Mr. Mason: This practice is growing a great deal faster than the Molony Committee realised. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a growing nuisance and that deplorable practices are developing? People have told lies at the door to enable them to enter households. Many of these canvassers are giving the impression that they are being supported by their local education authorities. Now we are witnessing another deplorable practice. Soap detergent canvassers are invading residential districts and pestering householders at the door. Surely something should be done about this. The Home Office should consider rectifying the law on this matter.
    Mr. Woodhouse: We have, of course, given consideration to this, but, in the circumstances, I do not think that I can
    670
    usefully go beyond the paragraphs in the Molony Committee's final Report, with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar.
    Miss Bacon: In view of the worsening of the position over the last year or two, will the hon. Gentleman look into this matter again? Does he not agree that there has been a great increase in this practice since the Molony Committee reported? Is it not essential that this matter should be looked at afresh?
    Mr. Woodhouse: I am certainly always willing to look at any such matter afresh. It might be appropriate to make representations to the Consumer Council on this subject.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman consider with the President of the Board of Trade whether one method of dealing with this nuisance might be to overhaul and improve the laws relating to hire purchase?
    Mr. Woodhouse: I am grateful for that suggestion. I will convey it to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who has responsibility for administering that law.

    FOOTBALL PLAYERS (BRIBES)
    Mr. Masonasked the Attorney-General, in view of the bribing of football players that has taken place by a syndicate, if he will instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to have inquiries made of the Football Association and the Football League with a view to instituting criminal proceedings against those responsible.
    The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): No, Sir, I understand that if the Football Association and the Football League obtain any evidence that a criminal offence has been committed they will make it available to the police. It is not therefore necessary for me to ask for inquiries to be made.
    Mr. Mason: Does not the Attorney-General agree that we cannot leave this to the private committee meetings of the Football League and Football Association? There is no telling to what extent this bribery has gone on previously, or to what extent punters on fixed odds betting in the provinces have

    671
    been misled and have wasted their bets in previous years. Therefore, the Attorney-General himself should take an interest in this matter. It is a national matter and concerns a national sport. It is affecting many millions of people and, therefore, the Attorney-General cannot just leave it with the Football League and Football Association.
    The Attorney-General: I recognise that this is a matter of considerable public importance and of great importance to those who have betted in the past and will bet in future on the results of football matches. However, I have taken the interest and trouble to find out what the situation is, and, as I told the hon. Member, the Football League and Football Association not only are carrying on the inquiry, but have undertaken that if any evidence of a criminal offence emerges as a result of their inquiries they will make it available to the police. At this stage we can only wait to see whether such evidence emerges. Perhaps it is better to leave it at that for the moment and see what eventuates.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) is right in saying that this is not only a matter of interest to those who bet on the pools, but is a matter of vital importance to the good name of British sport. Therefore, should not the Attorney-General himself do what my hon. Friend suggests, and take some action?
    The Attorney-General: As I say, it is known that an inquiry is going on. The only question is whether it is necessary at this stage for me to take any steps additional to that, or wait for the implementation of the promise from the Football League and Football Association that they will make the results of their inquiries available. The second course seems to me satisfactory, but I will consider at a later stage whether anything further requires to be done.
    Mr. Shinweil: Since there seems to be a little time left for a supplementary question, may I ask the Attorney-General whether, if he finds it necessary to consult the Football Association, he will take the opportunity to ask why it
    672
    is sin difficult for Members of Parliament to get a ticket for the Cup Final?
    Mr. Mitchison: If a breach of the law is suspected, and if there are grounds for suspecting it, is it not the duty of the police to make inquiries?
    The Attorney-General: They have. They have been in touch with the Football League and are awaiting the results of the inquiries to see whether they feel that further inquiries by themselves are necessary.

    COMMON MARKET COUNTRIES (FILMS POLICY)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps he is taking to obtain full information about the course of negotiations between Common Market member-States on films policy, in view of the effects which proposals submitted to the Brussels High Commission would have on the prospects of co-production between British and other European producers.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): The United Kingdom Delegation to the European Communities is in regular contact with the Commission of the European Economic Community and is able to obtain extensive information on problems and developments affecting the film industry as on other matters of interest to this country.
    Mr. Swingler: I thank the hon. Gentleman for coming along to answer a Question put down, I think correctly, to the Board of Trade. Is he aware that the recent proposals made to the Brussels High Commission show good prospects of harmonising Government policies on films between this country and other countries in Western Europe and, therefore, of ending the terribly long delay in the negotiation of co-production treaties? Will the hon. Gentleman's Department give a helping hand to the Board of Trade to try to overcome this terrible procrastination and get on with the job of negotiating co-production film treaties?
    Mr. Thomas: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department will give the Board of Trade every assistance in this matter as it does in every other matter of mutual concern.
    Mr. Swingler: But does not the Board of Trade need gingering up?
    Mr. Bellenger: It seems that we have now come to the end of the Questions on the Order Paper. I do not know whether we should congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on having achieved that, but may I remind you, Sir, that in days gone by, but not so very long ago, when Questions finished before 3.30, your predecessors in the Chair then called on hon. Members to ask the Questions which they had not asked earlier.
    Mr. Speaker: What happened in days before the war, I think, was that we started to go round again, but I am not sure whether we have not abandoned the right hon. Gentleman's point on practice.
    Sir C. Osborne: Is it possible to know why so many hon. Members opposite were not in their places to ask their Questions today?
    Mr. Speaker: If we are not to debate the Beeching proposals again, may we try having a second go round? Mr. Charles Mapp. Question No. 5.
    Mr. P. Williams: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: I have called the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp). He had the misfortune not to be here in the first place.
    Mr. P. Williams: Is it possible for the Board of Trade to give a satisfactory answer to the earlier Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne)?
    Mr. Speaker: What will happen now is that I will call Mr. Harold Wilson to ask the business question.
    Later—
    Mr. Speaker: Might I be allowed to say something. I am afraid that in the course of some frivolous exchanges I said something to the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) that might be dangerous. I have made some inquiries since. It is fully twenty years since we tried any kind of second round business, and Members and Ministers are entitled to rely now by custom on it not happening. I apologise to the House for starting a dangerous hare in a moment of frivolity.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. H. Wilson: As I am in my place, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. lain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 13TH MAY—Supply [17th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on Civil Aviation, which will arise on the appropriate Votes.
Motions on the National Insurance (Mariners) Amendment Regulations, and the (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment and Consolidation Order.
TUESDAY, 14TH MAY—Finance Bill: Committee stage, which will be continued on WEDNESDAY, 15TH MAY, and THURSDAY, 16TH MAY.
FRIDAY, 17TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 20TH MAY—The proposed business will be: Supply [18th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on Consumer Protection.
Mr. Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman clear up a point arising from an answer which he gave last week to business questions, an answer which has caused a little confusion and some quite unnecessary and, in my view, illegitimate speculation about what the right hon. Gentleman meant? Will he make it clear that it is the Government's intention that House of Lords reform legislation should be introduced and carried through before the General Election, whenever that may be, in order that those concerned, the constituency parties of all parties, and others, can make their necessary arrangements?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, certainly. I am bound to say that if the right hon. Gentleman studies my words carefully—
Mr. Wilson: I did,
Mr. Macleod: Perhaps others did not—he will find that this is exactly what I did say. Of course, it is understood. I said that the only question which was

675
in any doubt was whether the Parliamentary timetable would allow us to pass it in this Session, but it is unquestioned that it will be passed, assuming, of course, that Parliament supports us, in time for it to be operating at the General Election.
Mr. Walker: Has my right hon. Friend received any intimation from the Opposition about whether they intend to devote any of the time available to them to a debate on the Annual Price Review?
Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I have dealt with this question in one or two previous discussions. It may be right or wrong, but it has not been the custom of the House to debate the Annual Price Review—it has happened only twice in the last 11 years and on those occasions it took place on Supply days.
Mr. Grimond: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the debate on the Vassall Tribunal the Prime Minister suggested that there should be a standing tribunal on security leaks and also possibly a committee of Privy Councillors. Is it intended to make a further statement on this matter, and is it planned to have a further debate on security in general and, if not, how is the matter now left?
Mr. Macleod: A further statement will be made to the House when appropriate. I should have thought that the next stage would be for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to have discussions with the Leader of the Opposition and with the Leader of the Liberal Party on the suggestion that he put forward.
Mr. Eden: In view of the importance to British exports of military orders from South Africa, and in view of the extreme bias shown by last Monday's B.B.C. "Panorama" programme against my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), will my right hon. Friend give time for an early debate on the conflicting and damaging statements of the Opposition on this subject?
Mr. Macleod: I have followed these matters with some care, including the transcript of the programme to which my hon. Friend refers. He has made his point, and I obviously could not undertake to find Government time to discuss it.
Mr. H. Wilson: Since there have not been conflicting statements on the part of the Opposition—[Interruption.]—this has been absolutely clearly stated and I stand by every word I have said on this question—will the right hon. Gentleman explain to his hon. Friend that if full employment in the aircraft industry depends on shipping the arms of oppression to South Africa, after twelve years of Conservative Government, it is time for a change of Government.
Mr. Speaker: I follow the argument, but there are difficulties on business questions about asking the Leader of the House to give information to his hon. Friends.
Mr. Bowles: Has the Leader of the House seen a Motion on the Order Paper signed by more than 50 Members of all parlies and asking for an early debate? The article complained of contained serious allegations against the Cabinet and, if they were true, against you, Mr. Speaker, and I do not believe them for a moment. I ask for an early debate, because this matter brooks no delay.
[That this House strongly condemns the action of the Daily Express newspaper in publishing on 1st May an article gravely derogatory to the position of Mr. Speaker.]
Mr. Macleod: Of course, I have studied that Motion and I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice that he would raise this matter with me. Mr. Speaker has ruled that there is no prima facie case of breach of Privilege. The: Motion which the hon. Member has tabled, with a good deal of support from the House, is critical not of the Chair but of a newspaper. In those circumstances my first inclination is to say that it would probably not be right, as it does not come into the category of a Motion reflecting on the Chair, to find special time for it.
Mr. H. Wilson: Would it not remove a certain amount of anxiety and save some Parliamentary time if, in view of this report, the Government made it quite plan that they accept the traditional position which you, Mr. Speaker, have always accepted—that Mr. Speaker is the servant of the House and that if he goes abroad at any time, he goes with the agreement of the House and that he

677
cannot be used in any sense by the Government to improve relations with any country? Will not the right hon. Gentleman clear up this whole matter once and for all by saying that the Government accept that position and that whatever you might do with the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, has nothing to do with the Government and that the Government certainly do not intend to ask Mr. Speaker to travel abroad as part of the machinery of good will which the Government no doubt want to estabish with other countries?
Mr. Macleod: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition and, of course, I accept that fully, as do we all. The position of Mr. Speaker is entirely different in these matters and he is the servant of the House. I think that it was the article's suggestion that he might not be that some hon. Members found offensive. The doctrine has been clearly stated by the Leader of the Opposition and I fully subscribe to it.
Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend clear up one point raised by the Leader of the Opposition about legislation for the reform of the House of Lords? My right hon. Friend said that legislation would go through in this Parliament, if not in this Session. Does that mean that the General Election will not take place until the next Parliament?
Mr. Macleod: No. It means that if the legislative programme allows and if Parliament supports us, we will take this Bill in this Session. In any event, whether it is taken in this Session or in the next, there is a firm pledge that it will be operating by the General Election. It follows from that, of course—and perhaps this is the point which I can make absolutely clear if there is any doubt about it—that if there were an election this autumn, the Bill would have to be passed by Parliament, if it supported us, before then.
Mr. Short: Has the Leader of the House noted that for some time in this and previous Sessions I have been trying to secure the Second Reading of the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act 1955 (Amendment) Bill? Has he noticed that for week after week this Bill has been blocked by one of his own colleagues, thereby depriving more than two million old and blind and disabled
678
people of retaining travel concessions which they have enjoyed for many years? In view of the urgency and humanity of this Bill, could not the Government now find time for a Second Reading so that people who genuinely object to it may have the opportunity to stand up and be counted?
Mr. Macleod: I understand the hon. Member's feelings. He will realise that hon. Members on both sides of the House have often found themselves—and find themselves in this Session—in the same position. It is only on the rarest occasions, although it sometimes happens, that it is right for a Government to promote over the heads of the Bills of other hon. Members one particular Bill and give it Government time. I am afraid that I could not give that undertaking to the hon. Member.
Mr. H. Wilson: I am sorry to get up again, but this is a very important Bill. Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government created a precedent in respect of this Bill? This Bill was a Private Member's Bill in the 1954–55 Session, and it looked like dying because of the date of the election. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government then provided Government time for the original Bill to go through, provided it related only to those bus routes on which these buses were in operation in November, 1954? As we are nine years after that date, and in view of the increased number of bus routes and the new housing estates which have been built since then, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the precedent created on that occasion and find Government time for this most important Bill?
Mr. Macleod: I shall study the precedent, but the Leader of the Opposition will recognise that there are other Bills, for example, two on law and order by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), to which great interest attaches on both side of the House, and it is difficult to select one Bill out of so many, but I shall look at the point to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention.
Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Arising out of the question asked by my hon.

679
Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden), and pending a debate on this matter, in view of the political bias of the programme referred to, can my right hon. Friend inform me whether this programme will now be regarded as a party political broadcast?
Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform his hon. and gallant Friend that political bias may often appear inherent in a programme when the Government's case is so bad as to be totally untenable, as in this case?
Mr. Speaker: Even at business question time there really is a difficulty about trying to induce the Leader of the House to give information to hon. Members behind him.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE POLICE (REPORT)
3.41 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move,
That this Hause takes note of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Police, 1962 (Command Paper No. 1728).
I wish that we could have had this debate on the Royal Commission's Report earlier, but work in preparation for a Bill has been going on all this time. While no one can say what the legislative programme for next Session will comprise, I mean to do everything possible to make sure that we are ready to introduce the Bill whenever the opportunity may arise. It will not be before next Session at the earliest, and, therefore, I want to use this opportunity to tell the House the lines on which the Government are thinking.
I think that we can all make use of today's debate to gain the reactions of the House on several of these difficult and debatable questions, and that will all help towards the shaping of the Measure which the Government will in due time introduce. If time allows I hope that the Measure will be a comprehensive one.
I look on the Royal Commission's Report as opening a new chapter in the long and famous history of the police. My intention is to shape our whole police service to meet the needs of the future and in keeping with that idea and that purpose I suggest that we might repeal a good deal of out-of-date police legislation which hangs over from Victorian times.
I want to express the high appreciation and warm thanks of the Government to the Chairman and members of the Royal Commission for their report. In saying that I believe that I am speaking for the whole House, the House of which Sir Henry Willink was at one time a distinguished and ever-courteous Member.
The Commission had a great task to discharge. In a little over two years it held 95 meetings and visited no fewer than 50 police forces and establishments throughout Great Britain. Parliament and the country owe a great debt to the men and women who so freely give of their time, abilities, and energies to public service on bodies of inquiry such as this.

681
The police have grown up from small beginnings early in the last century to a force now nearly 90,000 strong, a force from which every citizen in the land has had help at one time or another, and to which everybody looks for safety and protection. The cost runs at £150 million a year. The modern policeman is carefully recruited, and he is properly paid. He goes through elaborate and expensive training. I was at one of the eight district training centres only last week. Many police officers specialise, in detection, in driving, in fingerprint work, and so on. The police forces of this country are well provided with fleets of modern vehicles. They are equipped with modern scientific aids for the prevention and detection of crime.
The fact that the majority of the Royal Commission did not recommend any fundamental changes in the system shows that they were impressed with the basic soundness of its structure and with the operational efficiency of the police generally, but they thought—and I must say I agree—that the time had come to effect some substantial changes to bring this structure up-to-date and in line with new needs.
The police service, as we all know, is constantly in the news, often glamourised, sometimes vilified, but it is a rather curious feature that it is very seldom the subject of debate in the House, and that is why I think that this debate matters a great deal to the public, to the police, and to the Government.
The Willink Commission has undertaken the first thorough and authoritative survey for a great many years of the principles which underline our police system. It is worth remembering that these principles were laid down at the time of Dickens. It really was high time that they were re-examined in the light of the very changed social and economic conditions of today.
Whatever view we take of any particular one of the 111 recommendations made by the Commission, there is no doubt about the historical importance and far-reaching nature of the Report that we are debating. This is, in fact, the second of two Reports presented by the Royal Commission. Its interim Report was presented in 1960 and dealt with the subject of police pay. The Government, with the agreement of the
682
police authorities, who met half the cost. lost no time in giving effect to the very substantial increases in pay proposed by the Commission. The direct result of the increases can be seen at once in the expansion of the police service since the Commission presented its first report. In the year just before the interim Report the service as a whole suffered a net loss of 500 men. In the two and a half years since there has been a net gain of over 7,000.
The Commission's final Report deals with the rest of its terms of reference, that is to say, with the status of the police, their organisation and control, the part played by the central Government and by local government and by chief constables in administering the service, relations between the police and the public, and arrangements for dealing with complaints against the police. This is a wide and impressive range of topics, and I shall try to say something about each of them.
First, I want to explain to the House what action I have taken on the Report. The Royal Commission recommended the strengthening of the inspectorate, the appointment of a Chief Inspector of Constabulary, and the creation in the Home Office of a police research and planning unit. I have acted on all those recommendations. The number of inspectors has been increased to seven, including the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, who has actually been in his post since December. As experience of the new arrangements is gained I shall consider the need for further expansion of the inspectorate.
The central feature of the inspectors' operations has been, and I think will remain, the formal annual inspection which may last from two days up to a week. This is the occasion for a full survey of the progress made by the force during the year. The work of the inspectors has never been limited to formal inspections. The inspectors are in constant contact with chief constables in the course of the year. Informal visits are paid as occasion arises, sometimes at the request of the chief constables and in order to look into specific problems. Officers of the rank of superintendent have now been appointed to each of the inspectors as staff officers. I am quite sure this is important to enable the inspectors to get through more work with

683
efficiency. All these arrangements, which I intend to keep under review, will provide a much stronger, more effective, more searching system of inspection than we have had hitherto.
A police research and planning branch is being set up in the Home Office, as I told the House the other day, on the lines recommended by the Royal Commission, and Scotland will be associated with its work. I intend to ask this new branch to give top priority to the grave problems of serious and unsolved crime. I think that the establishment of this new unit is a development of very great significance.
For the first time every police force in the country will have the full benefits of the most up-to-date research techniques. I am bringing together in the Home Office a team of first-rate senior police officers and scientists. They will be able to collect and evaluate the experience gained in the field by all police forces. They will have available to them the help of my expert Home Office advisers and others. I feel quite sure that they will take account of the techniques of operational research developed in connection with the armed Services and elsewhere. I feel sure that they themselves will open up fresh fields of research and study. Let me add that it would be unrealistic to expect early dramatic results from the appointment of this new unit, but I am certain that we have undertaken a far-reaching development and that it will bring increasing benefits in the war against crime as the years go on.
There are other recommendations of the Report which can be implemented by administrative action without legislation. Some of these I am discussing with the local authority associations and other interests concerned, but on a number of them I have already acted. We have just issued to police authorities and to chief officers of police a circular which commends to them 19 of the recommendations of the Commission, recommendations more of practical administrative detail than of broad principle, connected with such matters as the arrangements for dealing with complaints against the police, development of more contacts between the police and the public, the disclosure of the names of men on duty, the importance of allocating a sufficient number of men to beat duty, the housing
684
of policemen and the need for police officers to gain a thorough knowledge of the community they serve, the reporting of criticism of police evidence in court, uniformity in the enforcement of traffic laws, and relations between the police and the Press.
I very much hope that the actions that I have taken so far will be welcomed by all concerned with the efficiency of the police, and, as I say, they are in line with the recommendations made to me by the Commission.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this circular to which he has just referred will be published?
Mr. Brooke: Yes, the circular has been published and copies are in the Vote Office. But, as I think I have made clear, it is dealing rather with detailed practical matters than with the broad issues which I thought should be the subject of this debate.
Other important changes are recommended by the Commission which cannot be implemented without legislation. As the House knows, our present police system outside London is based on a partnership between central and local government. The majority of the Commission proposed no fundamental disturbance of this system, but they took the view that the powers of the Secretary of State should be strengthened to enable him to see that local forces are fully efficient. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have taken some time since the Report was issued to consult representatives of the local authorities before reaching conclusions on these matters which so closely affect them.
We have taken full advantage of the interval since the Report was published to carry our consultations a considerable way, and we shall be ready to continue our talks with the local authority associations in the light of comments that may be expressed in the course of the debate today. The views that I shall express on the more important of the Royal Commission's recommendations are at this stage provisional ones. We have been anxious not to reach any final decisions until we have had this debate in Parliament. We want to hear the views of the House.

685
The biggest issue raised by the Royal Commission is that of the setting up of a national police force. The majority of the Commission grant that there is a case for nationalising the police. I quote from paragraph 128 of the Report:
"…there remains in the minds of a number of us a clear impression that a single centrally directed force would prove to be a mare effective instrument for fighting crime and for handling road traffic than the present large number of local forces, each possessing a greater degree of autonomy than we think should be preserved ".
Taking all that into account, in the end all the Commissioners except one recognised as even more cogent the advantages of local administration, and they came down firmly against a national police service. I agree with them, and I reaffirm what my predecessor told the House on the 26th June last summer, that outside the Metropolitan Police District it is the Government's intention to maintain the local basis of police organisation.
I believe that the Commission is right in thinking that any advantages of a national police force, especially as regards operational co-ordination and planning, can be secured without losing the welt-tried advantages of existing local links. I also agree with the Commission that it is highly important to maintain morale in the police service, more especially in the present stage of the fight against crime, and that it would be of no service to the police or, indeed, to the public to make any radical changes in the existing organisation and loyalties unless the case for it was absolutely overwhelming, which it is not.
Therefore, my view is that the proper, healthy functioning of the police service should continue to depend upon the threefold partnership of the Secretary of State, the police authorities and the service itself. If this partnership failed to operate harmoniously, the efficiency of the service would be bound to suffer. The Commission proposed a readjustment of the balance of responsibility within the partnership so as to adapt it to modern requirements.
I am sure that it is right in saying that in future there should be a stronger initiative from the Home Office backed, as necessary, by new statutory powers. The strengthening of the inspectorate
686
and the creation of the research and planning branch are important and valuable steps in this direction, but any redefinition, any fresh demarcation of the functions of the Home Secretary and the police authorities must await legislation. In the meantime, I should like to tell the House of the kind of proposals I have in mind, and I hope that during the course of the debate these proposals will receive support, or, at any rate, constructive criticism.
I start from the fact that much of the legislation dealing with the administration of the police in England and Wales is vague and out of date. I regard it as essential, therefore, to make a fresh start, and to define as precisely as possible in modern legislation the powers and duties of the police authorities and of the Secretary of State. and the relations between them. Scottish police legislation was consolidated and clarified as recently as 1956—the Scots got ahead for once. Because of that, and also because of the differences in the legal and judicial systems north and south of the Border, much of what I shall have to say on this relates only to England and Wales.
Taking, first, the police authority, I see no need for any radical change in its present functions. Its functions are, first, to maintain and equip an adequate police force for its area; secondly, to determine the establishment of the force, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State; and, thirdly, to appoint a chief constable. To these functions, the Commission recommends adding two more, and I am inclined to agree with it. It recommends that police authorities should have a power to require a chief constable, or deputy chief constable or assistant chief constable to retire in the interests of efficiency, subject to the Secretary of State's agreement. That is recommendation No. 22. Recommendation No. 15 proposes bringing the position in England and Wales into line with that in Scotland by empowering police authorities to call for reports from chief constables and, if a chief constable refuses to provide a report, making provision for the matter to be settled by the Secretary of State.
I am also attracted by the Commission's recommendation that there should be recognised opportunities for members of councils to ask questions about matters of local policing. It seems right that people should be encouraged to interest

687
themselves in the maintenance of law and order in their areas; and that police activities, no doubt within certain limits, should be open to informed public discussion.
The Commission recommends that there should be withdrawn from police authorities their present statutory power of summary suspension and dismissal of police officers. This power is contained in nineteenth century statutes which, frankly, have been superseded by modern disciplinary regulations. I am disposed to agree with that recommendation, and with the Commission's further proposal that the functions of watch committees in county boroughs should be brought into line with the functions of county standing joint committees by transferring to borough chief constables powers relating to the appointment, promotion and discipline of subordinate ranks—powers that now rest with the watch committees. As a matter of fact, this change was recommended by the Desborough Committee as long ago as 1919, and again by the Oaksey Committee in 1948.
I am also disposed to agree with the Commission's recommendation that the composition of police authorities in England and Wales should be made uniform, and counties and county boroughs alike should consist as to two-thirds members of the council and one-third justices. I can find no ground for continuing into the latter part of the twentieth century an historical anomaly rooted in the nineteenth century. I propose, in addition, to accept the Commission's recommendation that county police authorities should be police committees of the county council, and should submit estimates of police expenditure for the approval of the council.
There is one other change affecting the responsibility of police authorities that I want to mention, and that is the proposal in Recommendation No. 28 that they should be made vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of police officers. I sympathise with the object of this recommendation, but as far as I can see it raises a number of very difficult questions. I am discussing those questions with the Law Officers.
I come now to the position of the Secretary of State. In general legislation of the kind I have in mind, I am sure that
688
it is important to define as precisely as possible the functions not only of the police authorities, but of the Secretary of State. That will establish clearly the relations between those who share the responsibility for administering the police service. On the basis of the Commission's recommendations, the principal functions of the Secretary of State would be to pay 50 per cent. grant towards the cost of the police force, provided it is efficient, and to make regulations as to the pay and conditions of service of members of police forces.
Those are the existing functions, but I think that the Secretary of State should have four more functions, which break new ground. He should have, first, the power to require a police authority to effect the, retirement of its chief constable; secondly, the power to approve the appointment of deputy and assistant chief constables as well as chief constables; thirdly, the power to call for reports from chief constables—which, incidentally, will then bring the position in England and Wales into line with that in Scotland; fourthly, the power to ensure that adequate arrangements are made for securing co-ordination of the work of police forces. I agree with the Commission that the specific new powers that it proposes for Ministers would enable my right hon. Friend and me, with the aid of the strengthened inspectorate and the new research and planning branch, to take a vigorous initiative in the promotion of high standards of police efficiency throughout Britain.
The additional powers that I have so far indicated would clearly extend my accountability to Parliament—[Hors. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that this was a consequence of which the House might approve. I think that it is right.
The right to call for reports would also enable me to give Parliament information about police matters outside the Metropolis, though not to answer for matters which do not engage my statutory responsibility. It seems to me that we have to try to strike a balance between the natural desire of the House for reasonable information and reasonable opportunities for debate and the need to avoid a situation in which the police are constantly looking over their shoulder to

689
the Home Secretary and Parliament. I am sure that we will be able to work this out satisfactorily.
It follows from this approach that I am not disposed to accept the Commission's recommendation that I should assume a general statutory responsibility for the efficiency of the police. A Minister ought not to have responsibility without power. My responsibility would be determined, defined and limited by any specific powers that Parliament might confer. I think that that would accord with the constitutional position and with the practices of the House.
Up to now, I have described the framework of legislation that would be needed to give effect to this very important group of recommendations of the Commission by redefining the powers and duties of police authorities and of the Home Secretary. The House may well ask what effect these proposals will have on chief constables? Will they, as the Royal Commission contends, bring chief constables under more effective supervision? I do not accept the underlying assumption that chief constables are at present irresponsible However, effectiveness is relative, and I am in no doubt that under the arrangements that I am commending to the House the work of chief constables will come under closer scrutiny in Parliament and elsewhere than it does now
Besides that, it will be operating in a more closely co-ordinated structure. There will be a stronger and more effective team of inspectors of constabulary. Police authorities and the Home Secretary will both have power to get a chief constable retired on the ground of efficiency—
Mr. Charles Pannell: Inefficiency.
Mr. Brooke: Efficiency or inefficiency. One would want a chief constable to retire not because he was efficient but because he was inefficient. If there is a difference between the hon. Member and myself about the English language, I am sure that there is no difference between what we have in mind.
There will be a tighter co-ordination between separate forces, with a reserve power of the Home Secretary to make compulsory schemes, to compel co-operation if need be. Police authorities will be entitled to call for reports from chief
690
constables, and there will be more opportunities for questions and debates on police matters in Parliament than has hitherto been possible.
Mr. C. Pannell: A few sentences ago the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not think that chief constables were irresponsible. None of us does. Nevertheless, will the right hon. Gentleman draw the regulations sufficiently tightly to bring home to chief constables—in the sense that many of them do not now realise it—the fact that they are publicly accountable?
Mr. Brooke: I hope that the hon. Member will broadly approve of what I am going to say. These are my provisional conclusions. They cannot be implemented without legislation. There will be full opportunity for these matters to be debated when the Bill goes through the House, and it will be of great value to me if I can have the initial reactions of hon. Members and right hon. Members to what I am saying today.
Mr. W. T. Williams: At the moment, the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the manner in which chief constables should be brought to responsibility where—as may sometimes be the case—they are irresponsible. But he raises a dilemma, in that chief constables are now in some sense responsible to their local watch committees. If these recommendations are carried out, they may then say, "We owe responsibility to nobody but the Home Secretary". The Home Secretary said earlier that he was not prepared to accept statutory responsibility without power. How will he resolve this dilemma, if this is the way in which he intends to proceed?
Mr. Brooke: I do not think that we shall find chief constables saying that they are responsible to nobody but the Home Secretary. I am not proposing to accept that kind of responsibility. We have to strike the right balance, and the most helpful thing will be for me to set out what I frankly describe as my provisional ideas, and then to have the views of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House. There are still some months between now and the earliest date on which legislation could be presented to the House.

691
I hope that the House will approve of my speaking in this fashion, and not announcing a series of cut-and-dried decisions—because I want public opinion to play on these matters, and I want the benefit of public as well as parliamentary reaction before the time comes to put legislation into final form.
I now turn to the question of the size of police forces. So far, I have been dealing with the organisation of the police, with their constitutional position, and with the complex relationships between the Home Secretary, police authorities and chief constables. I come now to the Royal Commission's far-reaching proposals for reducing the number of separate police forces. The Commission suggests that forces numbering less than 200 are handicapped; that the retention of forces less than 350 strong is not normally justifiable, and that the best size of a force is upwards of 500.
The Commission proposes the appointment of an expert working party to review police areas and to determine what groupings of forces should be made in the interests of efficiency. It further recommends that to facilitate amalgamations the statutory limit of 100,000 population, above which I have no power to make compulsory amalgamation schemes, should be removed; that no new police force should be formed without my consent, and that at any inquiry into a proposed amalgamation scheme the sole issue should be the objections lodged against it.
I agree with the Commission that in this small, densely populated island, we have too many separate forces. It seems clear that the changing ways of life and patterns of criminal behaviour, along with the speed of communications and the technical advances in the means of fighting crime, make it increasingly necessary to review the arrangements for policing larger areas than those areas which can adequately support other major local government services.
I am not suggesting that small police forces are inefficient; a small force can attain a very high standard of esprit de corps, but I agree with the Royal Commission that small forces tend to be handicapped. They lack the flexibility of larger forces; they cannot always
692
make the best use of available manpower, and the efficient policing of wider areas is sometimes impaired by the preservation of what are often arbitrary and irksome police boundaries, from the point of view of crime and road traffic. Some areas are better policed by a large force than by a number of small forces, however efficient each of the small forces is.
My provisional view is that the time has come to take a further major step forward in the process which has gone on for the past eighty years, of reducing the number of separate police forces. But I would not set about this by appointing the expert review body which the Royal Commission had in mind. We are now in process of receiving the reports of the local government commissions for England and Wales; indeed, I imagine that the first of the orders to be made under the Local Government Act, 1958, for which I was responsible, will come before Parliament before long.
As the new pattern of local government becomes settled I propose to ask the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and his colleagues to advise me what police organisation is most likely to produce the greatest efficiency in each area. It would then be for me to decide, after consultation with the police authorities concerned, whether or not to propose amalgamations of forces or changes in the boundaries of police areas. In reaching my conclusions on that matter it is not my intention to apply any strict arithmetical criteria such as the Royal Commission suggests. There are other important factors to be taken into account besides the numerical strength of a force, and I attach importance to maintaining the link with a single unit of local government wherever I am satisfied that that link works in the interests of police efficiency.
I am inclined to agree with the Royal Commission that the present restriction on my powers to compel the amalgamation of forces is too severe and, subject to any views expressed in this debate, when the opportunity arises, I propose to seek to strengthen my powers on the lines proposed by the Royal Commission. This is another matter on which I should particularly like to hear the views of the House. In any event,

693
I intend to have further discussions with the representatives of local authorities.
I now come to the question of relations between the police and the public. The final chapters of the Commission's Report deal with this critical question, and with the arrangements for dealing with complaints against the police. The Commission had a good deal of evidence available to it, including a thorough survey of police and public opinion conducted by the Government Social Survey. It came to the conclusion that these relations are, on the whole, very good. I think it was right in that. The Commission went on to make a number of useful recommendations designed to foster and develop these relations. I am disposed to accept all those recommendations, some of which I have already commended to the attention of police authorities and chief constables by the circular which I mentioned.
The last chapter of the Commission's Report deals with the arrangements for handling complaints against the police. The Commission found—it is in paragraph 424—that, relatively, the volume of complaints is small and that most of the complaints relate to trivial incidents. The Commission expressed confidence in what it described as the
"… scrupulously fair and thorough way"
in which chief constables investigate complaints. This is a very satisfactory picture so far as it goes. But whatever the measure of satisfaction with the present method of dealing with complaints the Commission recognised that the system itself is open to a serious objection of principle, that is, that arrangements under which the police are, in effect, judges in their own cause offend against the elementary principle of justice.
Accordingly, a minority of three Commissioners recommended the appointment of a Commissioner of Rights with the duty to review complaints in certain circumstances. In his dissenting Report Dr. Goodhart proposed that the duty of handling complaints should be assigned to the legal department of each of the four regional police forces which he advocated. With great respect to their authors, I do not think that either of these minority recommendations is right.
The majority of the Commission concluded that any theoretical advantage which might be gained from some form of
694
independent review of complaints would be more than offset by the damage that might be done to the morale of the police themselves. Leadership in a disciplined service such as the police can be fully effective only if the functions of command and discipline are firmly in the hands of the chief constable. If the chain of responsibility and command is weakened by the intervention of some outside body which may not fully understand police problems, morale is bound to be lowered and in the end it is the public who will pay the price by having a less efficient police service.
I think that these arguments must be given great weight, particularly at a time when the problems of crime and road traffic are constantly throwing heavier burdens on the police. However, the majority of the Commission did not leave it there. It made a series of recommendations with the general effect of tilting the balance rather more in favour of the complainant as against the police officer whose conduct is in question. The effect of other recommendations would be to make justice be seen more clearly to be done.
The Commission recommended that wherever the complaint was of conduct amounting to crime, the question of prosecution should be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and not be left to the decision of the chief constable. It recommended that inspectors of constabulary and police authorities should have an express duty laid on them to examine records of complaints. It recommended that an explanatory leaflet should be available to all complainants describing the arrangements for dealing with complaints so that a complainant would know how to proceed. It recommended that a complainant should be present at the hearing of any disciplinary charge before the chief constable, and so on. I think that these recommendations are important. T am prepared to accept them in principle. I have already commended some of them to police authorities and chief officers, although I should like to discuss some of the details of the proposed changes in disciplinary procedures with the representative associations concerned.
The point which, frankly, I am bound to put to the House is that all these changes, useful and acceptable though they are, do not meet the difficulty of

695
principle. They would still leave the police in the position of being judges in their own cause. The majority of the Royal Commission, for reasons which are set out fully and which I hope that I have fairly summarised to the House, accepted that the balance of public advantage required this situation to continue. I must say that my present inclination is to agree. But I am particularly anxious, before I reach any final decision on this very difficult question, to hear the views of the House, bearing in mind the need to avoid introducing any innovation which may undermine police efficiency.
Another recommendation of the Commission—
Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about matters of serious crime and not non-indictable offences, most of which refer to traffic matters where there is considerable discontent among the public at the attitude of the police and the non-standardisation, as it were, of penalties from area to area. Had the right hon. Gentleman that point in mind?
Mr. Brooke: Penalties are matters for the courts and not for me.
As for lack of uniformity in the treatment of the motorist, such as the rules for the keeping on of car lights at night in one place and not elsewhere, I am recommending that these matters should be investigated, so that, if possible, we may achieve greater uniformity. This, I am sure, will be desirable.
I am speaking not about crime, but about complaints by members of the public against the police which may arise from a triviality or from a very much more serious matter. There has been considerable concern about this and I think that it is a part of the Commission's Report to which the House should give considerable attention. I have been indicating broadly my present approach to it, but I have, very candidly, said that I shall be most interested to have the help of hon. Members from both sides of the House in framing future procedure.
That brings me to another recommendation of the Commission, which is that the Home Secretary should be more ready in the future to set up inquiries into matters concerning police disci-
696
pline and administration. The Commission thought that it would be sufficient for such inquiries to be set up by administrative action. I must say that I doubt whether inquiries into police activities are likely to be effective unless they are backed by the powers already available to inquiries in other fields of local government, powers to compel the attendance of witnesses and to hear evidence on oath.
I do not disagree with this recommendation of the Commission, but it is important not to overlook the very proper concern of a police authority for the conduct of its force. It is important not to derogate in any way from a sense of public responsibility. It is one thing to consider an occasional inquiry into allegations of maladministration or misconduct, but to do so as a matter of course, as though inquiries were part of the ordinary machinery of police administration would, in my view, be quite wrong. The setting up of an inquiry must remain an exceptional step.
Now I come to the last matter which I wish to put before the House. It is that of recruitment and training of police officers, which was singled out in the leading article in The Times today as the most important subject of all. I suppose that it is a truism that the best means of avoiding complaints against the police is to recruit into the service only men of the right type and quality and train them, and, above all, to select the right leaders. The Royal Commission expressed concern about the quality of recruits. It suggested that the police service was failing to secure its fair share of the better educated section of the community.
As the House will remember, in August, 1961, I think it was, my predecessor presented a White Paper setting out proposals for new training arrangements. These have been, or axe being, put into effect. The problem is to select officers for higher training at the right stage of their careers and to give them the type of training which is likely to bring out their full potential. Granted proper opportunities for advancement, I think that we shall go a long way towards meeting the problem of recruiting young men of ability who will become future leaders of the service. But it means that we must offer

697
them and show them proper opportunities for promotion and advancement.
These are the reasons why I have embarked on an ambitious programme designed to select outstanding police officers for higher training. It is in two parts. First, there is a special course for constables. Once selected for that course they will be given a year's course at the Police College in Hampshire, with accelerated promotion if they complete it successfully. I visited the Police College not long after the first course had assembled and I was impressed with what I saw, but it is too early to reach final judgments. These men, I hope, will not only he better professional policemen as a result of this course, but they will also have a much wider outlook on their work generally.
Secondly, later this year, we are starting an entirely new type of senior staff course at the Police College. Here again, we are breaking new ground. These are the students who have already proved themselves to be outstanding policemen, but those who are to hold top posts in the police service have to be much more than outstanding policemen. They must be administrators in the widest sense. We have, therefore, set our sights on ambitious targets in selecting and training the men who will lead our police service in future years.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of recruitment and training, may I ask what is his attitude to the recruitment of coloured officers'?
Mr. Brooke: I think that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will be dealing with a number of points which will be raised by hon. Members during the debate. I should prefer to leave these specific points for him to deal with. I am making a long speech and I am just bringing it to a conclusion.
I have touched on a great number of matters, some of them of far-reaching constitutional importance and all of concern to every man and woman in the country. I am quite sure that it is on the effectiveness and the conduct of our police service that many of our basic liberties depend. The present pattern of our police service, derived as it is from nineteenth century legislation, has evolved during the last one hundred years with little parliamentary intervention, strange
698
to say. The Report of the Royal Commission now gives us an opportunity, unique in our generation, to refashion the police service to meet the new and constantly more challenging conditions of today.
I believe that the substantial pay award, the development of new training arrangements, the strengthening of the inspectorate, the fresh thinking and new ideas and techniques which will follow from the development of central research and planning, will give the service a new status and fresh impetus. I believe that they will enhance the public regard for a service which is second to none in the world and that they will go a long way to give the police the right organisation and equipment to enable them to battle successfully against crime.
I believe that they will promote uniformity of standards and operational flexibility and a sense of common purpose, securing the gains which might be expected from a national force without sacrificing the proved advantages of local ties. We talk of organisation and of legislation. We must get these right, but in the end everything depends on the men and women on the job. Some of them, of course, are not as good as others, but the great mass of them are very very good. Every country in the world, envies us our police. When I landed in Bermuda from New York the other day, and saw the Bermuda police wearing British policemen's helmets, I knew that we were in good hands and that law and order was safe. I commend to the House the Royal Commission's Report. The Commissioners will not be angry with me if I commend British policemen and policewomen more highly still.
4.35 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: I think that the House will appreciate the spirit in which the Home Secretary has approached this subject. He has given us a great deal of information over a wide field and on a great many topics, some, as he said, of major and far-reaching importance and others being matters of detail. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that on a good many subjects he still has an open mind, that he has put forward only his provisional views, and that he is anxious to hear the views of hon. Members on both sides both as to the Royal Commission's Report and as to his own reactions to it.

699
This is a subject of great national importance which hardly, if at all, affects party politics. Therefore, I am sure that it will be most useful if everybody who takes part in the debate expresses his own provisional views on a subject in which a great deal must still be left for further examination. I should like to endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said by way of tribute to Sir Henry Willink and his colleagues for preparing such an admirable and lucid Report and for giving us so much detail and the history of the subject and so many comprehensive recommendations. Obviously, the House will not expect me or anybody else to deal with anything like all the 111 recommendations in the Report, still less to comment on those which, I gather, the Home Secretary has already implemented in a document which is in the Vote Office.
I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman emphasised enough the circumstances in which this Royal Commission was set up. It was set up by his predecessor as a result of a number of rather unrelated incidents which had occurred throughout the country, some in the Metropolis and some outside, some connected with the conduct of chief constables and others connected with the conduct of police constables, but all of which cumulatively produced a sense of public concern about the relations between the public and the police. It is perfectly true, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, that the Commission, under its terms of reference, has devoted, as I think was proper, far more of its time to the present-day organisation of the police than to the question of the relations between the public and the police, but these are the two major subjects which are dealt with in the Report and I should like to speak about both of them.
I also wonder whether the Home Secretary emphasised sufficiently the background against which we are considering what steps should now be taken to improve the efficiency of the police. After all, the startling facts are, as the criminal statistics show, that from 1938 to 1960 serious offences, including larceny, breaking and entering, receiving, frauds and false pretences, serious sexual offences and violence against the person, increased from 283.000 to 743,000, an increase of
700
about 225 per cent. What is more significant is that, whereas in 1938 only 50 per cent. of reported crime was detected, in 1960 the proportion of reported crime detected had fallen to 44·4 per cent.
Obviously, the most effective way of reducing crime is to increase the certainty of detection and the best way of increasing the certainty of detection is to improve the efficiency of our police forces. If one wanted evidence to show how the present arrangements fall short of being adequate to modern conditions, one could do no better than turn to paragraph 41 of the Royal Commission's Report:
"The basic idea of local forces locally supervised, each composed of independent constables subordinate only to the judiciary, cannot at any time have been capable of easy adjustment. Today it results in a degree of vagueness in the relation between the central government, local government, the police and the judiciary which would probably be intolerable elsewhere and is tolerated, and even applauded, in this country only because it seems to work".
But does it work? Having regard to the statistics of crime which I have just given, can anyone say that it really works? We are all agreed, I think, that some far-reaching reforms are required. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he had already taken some steps—I shall have occasion in a few moments to doubt whether they go far enough—to carry out some of the Royal Commission's proposals. We welcome the fact that he has appointed a Chief Inspector of Constabulary. We welcome the fact that there are more inspectors. We welcome that he has set up a research unit which, we hope, will help in dealing with some of the unsolved crimes.
However, as the Report emphasises in more than one passage, notwithstanding such improvements as have taken place in the last few years, the present organisation of our police forces has not kept pace with the improved techniques of the modern criminal classes with their highly mobile apparatus and equipment. Even with all the co-ordination which takes place at present, it still must be a handicap to the police that, whereas so much crime is nationally organised, the police are locally organised.
Only the other day, there was reported in the Guardian a case in which a criminal in the Manchester district was

701
able to cross, within one hour, six different police areas each with a separate wireless frequency. I heard of a case in which a gang of criminals, within a few hours, committed a crime in London, another in Oxford and yet another in Lancashire, all on the same day. Obviously, with this kind of thing happening, it must militate against the best efforts of the police in dealing with criminals if there is a strict, or, even if less than strict, territorial limit to the respective jurisdictions of each police force.
Only the other day, my motor car was stolen from my garage in London for the purposes of enabling the criminal to use it to commit an even more serious crime in Cornwall, and we had two different police forces trying to deal with that problem. It is notorious that many of those responsible for the burglaries and house breakings which take place in the London area find it convenient to live just outside the Metropolitan Police District and are, thereby, not subject to the same supervision as they would be if they were in the same area.
There is a serious problem for the House to tackle. The Royal Commission posed three questions to itself and to the House. How should the police force of this country be organised in future to deal with modern criminal techniques? Should it be organised on a national basis, on a regional basis, or should the existing local organisation be largely retained?
Listening to the Home Secretary, I was not quite sure how far he was prepared to adopt the major recommendations of the Royal Commission with regard to organisation. It is true that the Royal Commission, wisely, I think, refrained from adumbrating any precise ideas of its own as to the optimum number to which our police forces should be reduced. I do not know whether it should be 60, 50, 40 or 20. I gather that the Home Secretary has no fixed idea on the subject yet. In my view, he was right to say that the way in which the country' is eventually divided up should permit some flexibility and that there should not be any rigid arithmetical basis.
It may well be that, as the Royal Commission recognised, in the vast urban
702
areas, now generally called conurbations, there is a strong case for one unified police force. A conurbation of that kind, as in the metropolitan area, will require a larger police force than is required in rural areas, although, obviously, there is a case for much more amalgamation to take place than has occurred so far.
I gather that the Home Secretary rejected the suggestion that a working party should be set up. When I read the Re-port, I was in favour of the setting up of a working party as a matter of urgency, as the Royal Commission recommended. I hope that nothing said by the Home Secretary will be taken to indicate complacency rather than a sense of urgency in his mind. do not myself greatly care whether there is a working party or not provided that some action is taken quickly to produce the kind of solution which, sooner or later—and I hope sooner—will have to be embodied in legislation.
Clearly, there will have to be consultations with the local authorities. Anyone associated, as I am, with the Association of Municipal Corporations, or the County Councils Association, appreciates the natural susceptibilities of local authorities in this matter, but, as the Home Secretary implied, this factor must not allow him or any Home Secretary to delay the necessary task of carrying out amalgamations.
After amalgamations have been imposed and legislation reducing the number of police forces has been introduced, one will inevitably have largely destroyed or considerably impaired the principle of local responsibility on which the system is now based. Even with joint boards or amalgamations such as already exist, for example, in Westmorland and Cumberland, or as there will have to be in conurbations in Lancashire, with one police force, although one may still preserve the facade—it is really rather more than that—of local responsibility, one cannot help disturbing any real democratic responsibility of the locality for its police force.
Reading in the Report the arguments for or against a national police force, my first reaction was that the whole logic of the case led to the conclusion set out in the powerful memorandum of dissent by Dr. Goodhart in favour of a unified or national force. I recognise the feeling

703
against the conclusions of Dr. Goodhart, which is apparent if one reads not only between the lines but on the lines of the majority recommendations, but the arguments against them are really based more on sentiment and on prejudice than on logic.
The Home Secretary, after asking the question whether there should be a national police force, went on, to say, rightly, that one of the most important things to do is to improve the morale of the police. It is important in this context to bear in mind the views of the police themselves on this question. There is a fairly large volume of evidence to show that the police themselves feel that their status in the country would be raised if they were members not necessarily of a national force, but of larger units, if there were greater opportunity of moving from one area to another, greater opportunities for promotion, and so forth.
In this connection, will the Home Secretary be prepared to pay special attention to the observations of the Police Federation itself in its recently published Annual Report for 1962, in which, in a very balanced statement, it said:
"We have studied with interest the Memorandum of Dissent which advocates the formation of a single police force for England and Wales, administered on a regional basis. Although this may be the ultimate pattern of the Service at some point of time in the future, we believe it would be highly inadvisable at this juncture to make such an abrupt and radical break with tradition, and we accordingly reject the proposals. However, our evidence to the Commission indicated that the present system of local police forces was not conducive to efficiency and that larger units of administration should he formed. The proposals of the Royal Corn mission do not go as far as we suggested. although they will accelerate the pace at which the police service moves towards greater unity and we are happy to agree with them"
Thus, in some respects, the morale, status and aspirations of the police themselves favour a much greater degree of unity, leading, eventually, though the Federation does not think the time is now ripe, to a police force organised on a national basis.
The next point on which it is necessary to comment is what I regard as the unfortunate rejection by the Home Secretary of what seemed to me to be the central recommendation of the Royal Commission on the subject of the control
704
of the police. I refer to the recommendation in paragraphs 159 and 230 that legal responsibility for the efficient policing of an area should be transferred from police authorities to the Secretaries of State. This is fundamental and central to all the other recommendations which are made, whether they affect the appointment of the chief constable, the dismissal of the chief constable, the size of the watch committee, whether the police authority should have a certain number of members, and, if so, how many, drawn from the local authority, and so forth.
It has long been a matter of complaint in the House by Members from outside the Metropolis that, whereas Members inside the Metropolis can, within certain limits, interrogate the Home Secretary about matters of police administration in London, if they go seriously wrong, if similar incidents, perhaps scandals, arise outside London, there is no parliamentary machinery whereby the Home Secretary can be brought to account and it is very doubtful whether there is any comparable machinery in local government whereby accountability can be exercised.
The position of chief constables is most unsatisfactory. The Home Secretary said something about this. He did the Report less than justice when he said that the position of chief constables did not call for much alteration. The Report stresses the fact that the present position of the chief constable in the law of the land is most unsatisfactory and confusing. Paragraph 89 says that the chief constable
"is accountable to no one".
I have often heard it said that some chief constables act as if this were the case.
Therefore, I hope that, before the Home Secretary introduces the Bill which we are promised, he will reconsider the question of the Home Secretary's responsibility. I doubt whether these important recommendations can be fully implemented, unless we have a system in which the Home Secretary is answerable for what goes on in police forces throughout the country to at least the same degree as he is answerable for what goes on in the Metropolitan Police District. There is a substantial case for saying that his responsibility to Parliament for police

705
matters in London should be greater than it is. I do not suggest that he should be answerable for the day-to-day conduct of every policeman. I agree with Professor Goodhart that the recommendations of the Royal Commission with regard to the responsibilities of the Home Secretary are far from satisfactory.
The Home Secretary also referred to recommendation (28) with regard to vicarious liability. I was rather surprised that the Home Secretary rejected this. This seemed to me to be one of the most sensible, important and harmless of the recommendations.
Mr. Brooke: There may be a misunderstanding. I did not reject it. I said that it needed further consideration. I said that there were matters connected with this which I was discussing with the Law Officers.
Mr. Fletcher: I apologise. The Home Secretary is right. He said that he had not decided to accept it and was discussing it with the Law Officers.
To assist the right hon. Gentleman in those discussions, may I say that I feel very strongly that the present position should be corrected. I have no doubt about this. The Royal Commission pointed out that, if the police authority were made civilly responsible for the conduct of a police officer, it could not in any way affect his present status and independence as a constable, with all the historical connection behind it. It would not be open to any more objection than the present position under which, if a doctor or a surgeon in the Health Service is negligent, the local authority accepts public responsibility. In other words, the Commission reports that this proposal would merely put policemen in the same position as other public servants. It should be observed, in this connection, that the Police Authority does often in practice accept responsibility, sometimes with important or unfortunate Censequencies as in the Jarratt-Eastmond case and in the case of Meek v. Fleming.
Before leaving the question whether there should be a national police force, either now or at some future date, it is worth emphasising that the Royal Corn-mission reported with unanimity that there is no constitutional objection to a national police force and that it would
706
not be politically dangerous. In other words, it would merely be an extension from the Metropolis to the whole country of the Home Secretary's present sphere of responsibility.
I am anxious now to turn for a few moments to the other aspect of the Report, namely, the relationship between the public and the police. Speaking for myself, I found the recommendations disappointing and disturbing. I was sorry that the Home Secretary seemed rather complacent about it. However much we may regret it, we must face the fact that there has been some deterioration in the relations between the public and the police. It was precisely because of that widespread fear that the Royal Commission was appointed.
It is true that in paragraph 12 the Royal Commission comes to the conclusion, as a result of a social survey, which may or may not have been the best way of obtaining evidence
"that relations between the police and the public are, in general, very good".
The House must remember that there is much in the Report itself which is inconsistent with this conclusion. I am sorry to have to deal with this, but in fairness to the police and to the public, and in view of the reforms which I think are necessary, we must deal with this aspect of the Report rather more fully than the Home Secretary did.
I suppose the most startling passage in this part of the Report is paragraph 341, which says this:
"Any suggestions that the police ever took bribes, used unnecessary violence, employed unfair means of geo ting evidence, or gave false evidence in court were repudiated by almost half of those interviewed…"
If that means anything, it means that over half of those interviewed thought that the police do sometimes take bribes, do use unnecessary violence, do employ unfair means of getting evidence, and do give false evidence in court. That is what these words must mean.
Mr. R. M. BinghamIs that quite fair? If the suggestions are repudiated by half of those interviewed, the other half might adopt them or might say, as I think was. probably the case, "I do not know, because I have no knowledge".
Mr. Fletcher: That is a perfectly fair comment. I do not want to stress this unduly, but I think the paragraph is an unfortunate way of expressing a conclusion.
Mr. W. T. Williams: There is more positive evidence than this. The Central Office of Information, for the purposes of this Royal Commission, carried out a public inquiry, a form of Gallup poll. The result of the poll showed this, which my hon. Friend may find of use to him: 42·4 per cent. of those interviewed thought that the police did take bribes; 34·7 per cent. thought that they did use unfair methods; 32 per cent. thought they might distort evidence; and 18 per cent. thought that they sometimes used too much force.
Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged. I do not want to argue about the figures. Whatever the figures are, however one analyses the passage, and however one estimates the reliability of some witnesses or other, the fact remains—
Mr. David Renton Mr. David Renton (Huntingdonshire) rose—
Mr. Fletcher: May I finish the sentence?
Mr. Renton: These are not witnesses.
Mr. Fletcher: I am not talking about witnesses. I am talking about public opinion.
Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman used the word "witnesses".
Mr. Fletcher: No I did not. I used the words
"were repudiated by almost half of those interviewed"—
that is, interviewed by the Royal Coin-mission. Whether a person interviewed by a Royal Commision is a witness I do not know.
There is the statement that
"almost half of those interviewed"—
by the Royal Commission.
Mr. W. T. Williams: By the social survey.
Mr. Renton: Yes, by social survey. These were members of the public selected at random, in rather the same way as a Gallup poll is taken. They were not people who themselves necessarily had
708
had any dealings with the police at any time in their lives. They were asked questions and asked to guess the answers.
Mr. Fletcher: That disturbs me even more. I am not saying that these were people who had precise knowledge of these allegations. This was an inquiry to find out what people thought, because what we are concerned with is the impact of public opinion on the police. We are not concerned merely with what the facts are; we are concerned with the relations between the public and the police, which are based on what people think.
There is no doubt, unfortunate though the fact is—I regret it as much as anybody in the House—that relations between the public and the police have deteriorated. They have deteriorated in part because a large number of people, rightly or wrongly, have formed the impression indicated in paragraph 341. I am as much concerned as anybody, and probably more concerned than most, to do all I can and to urge the House to do all it can to try to allay this suspicion, because I am convinced that, if we are to get a reduction in the amount of crime and the best out of the public co-operation with the police, then, important as are improvements in recruitment, promotion prospects, national organisation, and so on still more important is it to allay the suspicion in the minds of some of the public that the police are not everything they ought to be. This is one of the things to which the Royal Commission referred.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) will accept that in nothing I say on this part of the Report do I wish to take away from my admiration for our police force as a whole. I have the greatest respect for the police and I endorse everything that the Home Secretary said at the conclusion of his speech. I have a great many reasons for having this admiration, among them the fact that my grandfather and two of his brothers served with distinction in the Metropolitan Police Force. Although none of them ever rose to an exalted rank, they retired from the force after many years of honourable and useful service. Anything we can do to support the morale, competence and self confidence of the police is worth doing.

709
But the disturbing fact is that something must be done about public opinion. I am not satisfied with the recommendations that have been made and accepted by the Home Secretary. Unfortunately, incidents do occur. I suppose that they are bound to occur in any large body, for there must be some black sheep in every fold. In police stations there may be undue violence, intimidation, or pressure to plead guilty in which innocent members of the public sometimes have a legitimate complaint.
The criticism I make of the Report and the speech of the Home Secretary is that the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing to suggest that he intends to introduce what would be the quite simple reforms necessary to remove that injustice or feeling of injustice. Hitherto, complaints by a member of the public against the police have been dealt with—I suppose, up to a point, quite properly—as matters of discipline, and I agree that they should continue to be dealt with in that way.
To discipline a police officer who has committed a misdemeanour or who has exerted his authority unnecessarily is not enough because that fails to do justice to the individual member of the public who is affronted and has a complaint. Experience shows that there is a tendency—I regret to say that it may be a natural one—on the part of superior police officers when in doubt to cover up the mistakes of their subordinates. The police have an arduous duty to perform and it is not pleasant for the senior self-respecting members of the force when incidents of this kind come to light. They can sometimes be dealt with as matters of discipline, and that may be said to be good for the morale of the police forces, but it is not good for the relations between the public and the police.
I do not think that justice will ever be done, certainly it will never be seen to be done, unless where a member of the public has a complaint against the police there is an opportunity, in addition to any discipline procedure inside the police force, for some inquiry by an independent tribunal outside the police force. I beg the Home Secretary to recognise therefore, that there is a strong case for the proposal put forward by three members of the Royal Commission, including my hon. Friend the Member for Old-
710
ham, West (Mr. Hale), that there should be a commissioner of rights set up, an experienced Q.C., entirely free to decide whether or not a case submitted to him is worth investigating.
There would be no question of investigating frivolous and trivial cases, because I have no doubt that unless some protection was given there would be a large number of frivolous complaints. I have had to examine some matters and I know that from time to time serious cases arise which cannot be adequately dealt with by the discipline procedure. When I have raised these matters in the House I have been told by the Home Secretary, or his predecessor, "If any one has been beaten up in a police station all he has to do is to take civil proceedings against the policeman who beat him up." The trouble is that the poor fellow cannot identify the policeman responsible. The chances of being able to prove his case are loaded against him.
I do not say that these cases occur often; but they do from time to time. Nevertheless, since they do occur, some steps along the lines I have suggested should be taken. This was why the Royal Commission was set up. One of the most important things to consider on this aspect is the necessity to do something to allay public opinion. I am convinced that if a Commissioner of Rights were constituted, as proposed, it would establish an independent tribunal distinct from the police so that it could no longer be said that the police are judges in their own cause. There would be every protection to ensure that no officer would be placed in jeopardy twice. The Commissioner would not be obliged to mention the name of any individual officer, but there would be machinery whereby a certain amount of public fear would be allayed.
I have already spoken for too long. I have endeavoured to concentrate on those matters which seem to me to be important and I have made remarks by way of criticism of the Report and the Home Secretary because, like him, I am most anxious that we should all do everything we can to perfect the organisation of police forces in this country and to remove factors that disturb the best possible relations between the police and the general public.
Mr. David Renton: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has dealt studiously with police matters for many years, and I am sure that the whole House listened with great interest to his speech. He disagreed with some of the major proposals which my right hon. Friend put forward tentatively and with an open mind, and I hope that in this debate no hon. Members and no party will build themselves into entrenched positions from which they refuse to move in future. If that is done the value of today's debate will be entirely lost.
There are two major matters which we will all have to consider later in detail; first, the degree of the Secretary of State's responsibility for provincial forces; and, secondly, the form of the local police authorities. But the differences of opinion that we may have on those two matters are insignificant compared with the over-riding need to ensure that we will have efficient police forces in future. That depends on our getting enough men of the right quality.
At present, we have good chief constables and other senior officers. Many of the chief constables were trained at Hendon, and they will see us into the 1970s and perhaps the 1980s, but we have nearly reached the bottom of the Hendon barrel for promotion to the higher ranks. After Hendon was closed, we had six years of war, when no young men entered the police force. Since then we have had thousands of young men joining and they are of excellent quality for filling at any rate the ranks of constable, sergeant and inspector. Some of them—but, as I shall show, not enough of them—will be suitable for promotion to the higher ranks.
To be a policeman these days a man must be fairly tall, physically fit, mentally alert, of good character, and trained in police duties—which year by year become more elaborate and which involve an ever-widening, if superficial, knowledge of the law. He must also be tactful, patient and discreet.
To be a chief constable, however, or to fill any senior rank—chief inspector and above—it is not enough for a man to have been a good policeman in the lower ranks, for in the higher ranks
712
he must be a leader of men, a good administrator and organiser and, I think, an unerring judge of character. He must have a somewhat deeper knowledge of criminal law to enable him to prepare difficult cases for trial, and he will be expected to co-operate with Government Departments, local authorities and the Armed Forces. In these tasks he must expect to deal on equal terms with people of high-standing in other walks of life.
For all these things high standards of education are necessary. But what is the position? Our police forces at present have an establishment of about 2,000 officers of the rank of chief inspector and above. They do not have that strength, but that is the establishment, and they are working up to it, I am glad to say. One would hope that eventually nearly all of those 2,000 officers would have at least A-levels and some of them university degrees and that, in the ranks below chief inspector, there should be enough men with A-levels and degrees to fill vacancies in the higher ranks as they arise, provided that they have passed through the courses at the Police College.
This would mean that, ideally, at least 250 men a year, or 10 per cent. of each annual intake, should have the G.C.E. with A-levels, some of them having university degrees. As the Royal Commission revealed in paragraph 308, we are not getting anything remotely like that. No university graduate had joined recently when they reported a year ago and only about 1 per cent.—nothing like the 10 per cent. I spoke of—had the G.C.E. at A-level.
When my right hon. Friend the previous Home Secretary approved of the big increases in pay following the interim Report of the Commission, we hoped that it would attract men of better education besides stopping the wastage, and that it would encourage recruitment generally. It stopped the wastage very fast. It led to an improvement in recruiting, but unfortunately it did not attract men with the higher education. The Police College, including the new courses which I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend mention, will undoubtedly do good work in making the best use of the men available, but on present form not enough men of good enough education will be available to take full advantage of the courses at the Police College.

713
The Royal Commission, although it was not within its terms of reference, gave a good deal of thought to this matter. It made two minor recommendations: first, that the period of promotion to sergeant should be reduced to three years; and, secondly, that the term "sub-inspector" would be better than sergeant". I do not find it a very inspiring designation.
The Commission said in paragraph 316—to my mind the most important paragraph in the Report, although I suppose that each hon. Member has his favourite paragraph—
"It is in our opinion vital that the concept of the police service as a career in which men of the highest ability can find their proper place should be maintained. We do not doubt that Your Majesty's Ministers are aware of the urgency of this requirement, and they ought not to shrink from bold and even controversial measures in order to secure it.
In other words, the Commission "passed the buck" to the Government to do something drastic about this.
In considering what the Government should do, one must not ignore the well-reasoned views in the reservations of Lord Geddes of Epsom, Sir George Turner. and Mr. Hetherington. Incidentally, in my opinion all the reservations, and the minority Report of Dr. Goodhart, are outstanding contributions, whether or not we agree with them. They added greatly to the value of the Report. In their reservation, Lord Geddes and his two colleagues drew attention to the special qualities of mind and education required in the detective branch, on which so much depends in the fight against crime. On page 154 they said that up to one-half of the total detective establishment should be recruited from men with G.C.E. passes at A-level, and they made various suggestions for getting such men in as "special entrants".
I agree with that reservation, as far as it goes. I wish that it had gone a bit further. I think that it applies with equal force to the need to obtain men for the administrative work, of which there is now such an awful lot to be done at Scotland Yard and in the larger police headquarters throughout the country. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the possibility of following this reservation and seeing whether it, or something like it, could be applied not only to the detective branch, but to
714
people who will be of value in administration. Whether or not my right hon. Friend does follow that proposal, there are further possibilities that I suggest he should consider.
One of them was mentioned in The Times today. It is that there should be an officer cadet training unit for the police. I do not think that that would be the right expression to use. After all, all policemen are officers and there should not be such a conception as an O.C.T.U. for the police. I hope that there will be no confusing this with the idea of the police cadets, which is something quite separate. I do not think that The Times did have them in mind, but rather something in addition to Bramshill, where one would train something like an officer class. We do not want that or need it in the police.
But I have two suggestions to make. The first is that substantial cash bonuses should be given to recruits with higher educational qualifications. I do not think that these should be paid to them at the time they join but some two or three years later, when they have shown that they are worth keeping and when they have passed their preliminary training and it looks as if they will stay on. I have a scale worked out, but I should hate to put it forward publicly. I am willing to discuss this with my right hon. Friend.
If the Treasury is reluctant to agree to this, I suggest that it should be pointed out to the Treasury that £20 million worth of property is stolen in this country each year and that only 25 per cent. of it is recovered. If the Treasury remains adamant, then I suggest that my right hon. Friend should go to the insurance companies and point out to them that it may be good business to help by providing cash bonuses in this way.
My second suggestion is that a place should always be found in the new early courses which my right hon. Friend announced today for every constable who has a university degree or an A level. But he should be put on these courses at a pretty early stage. I understand that at present an officer does not get on the new early course until he has been a policeman for four years. I suggest that the possibility of reducing that to two years in the case of those with university degrees or A-level should be considered. I know that my right hon. Friend is

715
anxious to do something to provide senior officers for the future. I wish him well in his efforts, and I hope that he will consider these suggestions.
In deciding on the future responsibility for our police forces and the composition and powers of police authorities, I think that both Ministers and Parliament could be greatly helped if the Press would be so kind as to dispel the popular misconception that authority is indivisible. There is a tendency to lump together Parliament, the Government, the police, the courts, the Civil Service, and even the nationalised industries, and to refer to them as "they". We do need to carry the public with us.
The hon. Member for Islington, East has talked about the relations between the police and the public. I think that one of the reasons for bad relations is the complete misunderstanding of the constitutional position of the police, and if the Press could help in this way I am sure that it would be to the good. I realise that this is difficult. The present misconception that authority is indivisible leads people to regard the police as "agents of the Government" instead of "officers of the law"—and in come countries that is what they are.
Some years ago I tried to explain our police system to a Minister from a foreign country. I gave as an example that if the Home Secretary left his car obstructing a London street the most junior constable in the metropolitan force could bring him before the courts. The reply was, "In my country the police do what we in the Government tell them—and anyway, Ministers can leave their cars where they like."
The confusion is, I think, also increased by references in the Press to "police" courts, especially when the police themselves act as court ushers. I was glad that the Royal Commission recommended that this practice should cease.
I think that there is also a tendency to assume that every police force, like the activities of central and local government, should be subject somehow to control by democratically-elected bodies. I thought that I detected that in the speech by the hon. Member for Islington, East. But I ask hon. Members to question that assumption. Would there not be a danger
716
of bringing politics into the affairs of the police? Nothing could be more harmful to democracy than that in the long run. We do not control our courts in that way, and I do not see that the police need to be controlled in that way, either—so long as there are other checks on possible abuses of power by the police.
My right hon. Friend said today that he does not want to be responsible for the efficiency of the provincial forces because he does not like the idea of responsibility without power. I should say at this point that he has apologised to me because he has to be out of the Chamber when I am speaking. I am, therefore, a little reluctant to say this, but he will understand.
I was a little surprised to hear him say it, because even with the Metropolitan Police, for which he is the police authority, he has responsibility without power. He is answerable in Parliament for the Metropolitan Police, but he has no power to direct them on how to do their policeman's job. He cannot tell the Commissioner how to run the police, yet he must answer Questions and debates in this House about what they do or fail to do.
I do not think that there has been much complaint about how this part of the system works. Under our constitution we are accustomed to Ministers having responsibility without power. The nationalised industries are one example, and the Postmaster-General's responsibility for the B.B.C. in another. Perhaps if we think in terms of answerability, which is what we are getting at, rather than of responsibility, we may understand the position better.
In mentioning the ways in which the Home Secretary will become answerable in Parliament for the provincial forces without accepting the Commission's main recommendation that he should become responsible for their operational efficiency, it may well be that he will overcome the difficulties with regard to the accountability of the provincial forces that the Commission was considering. But I hope that my right hon. Friend will keep an open mind on this because, in the light of the debate, we need to think about this a good deal more.
Dr. Goodhart, in dissenting, was worried because the Home Secretary

717
would have no power to give directions. That is the effect of what he said. But I do not share his concern about this, far the reasons I have given. It is significant that, although those Ministers who are answerable for the nationalised industries were given stautory power by the party opposite to issue general directions on matters affecting the national interest, no such general directions have ever been issued, so I understand.
Fortunately, in our public service, we find ways in which Ministers are made answerable to Parliament for various public activities carried on outside the central Government but without interfering with or controlling the people who are carrying on those activities. It does not stop a Minister and his Department using their influence where necessary or doing some useful co-ordination. It does, however—and this is the good thing about it—ensure that the country is not run from Whitehall and that local people have their say and share in responsibility.
That brings me to the controversial question of what should be the nature of the local police authorities. Speaking from the back benches, I say with some temerity that I do not think that the present standing joint committee scheme has worked too badly, but that I think that the constitution of watch committees is unsound in principle, because now that local government has become party political to such a great extent it is wrong for a police authority to be composed entirely of a political majority—as it could be—or even to have a political majority on it.
That is why I am a little doubtful about the recommendation that a police authority should have a two-thirds majority of the local council. But I do like the recommendation, which was rather tucked away, made a little tentatively and which would involve a little inquiry before it could be implemented, that justices of the Peace should be brought more into police affairs. Traditionally, justices were the people relied upon to ensure that the police did their job properly. They are very Road people and I would have thought that we could trust them to sharing—equally with local councillors, as on -the standing joint committees which have worked so well—the job of acting as a police authority.
718
Some amalgamations are obviously needed, but I think that the Commission made a mistake in suggesting 350 as a normal minimum size. I know of two small forces which might well be amalgamated. Each has a strength of 132 and the combined strength would probably be about 250. This would cover a very wide area, and I do not think that the combined force could conveniently be amalgamated yet further with another neighbouring rural force in order to bring it up to 350. We have to be flexible about this and accept that 350 may be too large in some cases.
Now I turn to the position of the chief constables. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, this is not an easy matter; but some of the recommendations, including those accepted by the Government and those about making reports on chief constables and the power of compulsory retirement, will, I think, give a sufficient check. It is very important that the chief constable should remain what he is, in effect—an independent officer of the law who has risen up through the ranks of the police force and backed by all the experience which he has gained over the years. It is better that he should remain a person trusted in that way and be subject to the checks which I have mentioned than have his independent authority taken away. Above all, I am sure that it would be quite wrong if a chief constable became either an officer of a local authority or the handmaiden of a political majority on a police authority. Whatever proposals we manage to put into legislation, I hope that we avoid those two errors.
5.41 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton), with whom I have sometimes crossed swords on police matters, was always a most courteous and efficient Minister of State at the Home Office Whose departure from that Ministry we on this side regretted. He has made a characteristically thoughtful and constructive speech today. He warned us, I think rightly, against taking up too entrenched positions on some of the problems which are being discussed. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in mind problems like the size of police forces, the training of officers and the method

719
of deciding the new police areas, I entirely agree that these are matters which will need a great deal of further consideration before we adopt too firm positions.
I have asked on a number of occasions for a debate on the Royal Commission's Report, and I ventured to raise it in the debate on the Queen's Speech at the beginning of the Session. On that occasion, I raised a number of issues of principle, and I wish today to confine myself to a number of specific points. I am not, therefore, specially concerned with the administrative aspects of the question beyond wishing to ensure that, as far as possible, control of the police forces remains in local hands, that practice is standard throughout the country, and that the police forces are equipped to fight crime effectively.
I am much more concerned with the reforms which can be introduced to improve relations between the public and the police. I thought that it was a pity that the leading article in The Times today and the leading article in the Guardian a week ago tended to concentrate much more on the administrative aspects of the problem than on the need to improve relations between the police and the public. I very much welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has told us that he is inclined to accept many of the Royal Commission's recommendations on this subject.
I should like to say how much I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said about the police force in general. Like him, I have a great regard for the force and I have often seen, when sitting as a magistrate, with what fairness and compassion policemen state their case against an accused person. There are, of course, bad policemen, but I believe that they form a very small minority in the force as a whole. I therefore hope that the House will not misunderstand me if I begin by talking about the method of dealing with complaints aginst police behaviour.
The Royal Commission was under considerable pressure from bodies like the Magistrates' Association and the National Council for Civil Liberties, which argued that there had been a decline in relations between the police
720
and the public. Those organisations made three proposals, among others, relating to the consideration of complaints.
The first was that the Director of Public Prosecutions and not a superior officer should decide whether action against a police officer is necessary. The extremely regrettable incident concerning Sheffield recently reported in the newspapers indicates how right it is that decisions of this kind should not be left in the hands of the police, but should be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Action should not be left to private prosecution, as it was in this case.
The second suggestion was that police authorities should be liable for the tortious acts of police officers. I am glad that the Home Secretary is discussing that proposition with the Law Officers of the Crown.
Thirdly, it was recommended that there should be a uniform method of recording complaints.
But much more important, I think, is the suggested reform of the practice by which complaints are heard by the police themselves, because I believe that the present method carries a little conviction with the public and is unfair to members of the police. I thought that the Magistrates' Association stated the case well in the memorandum it submitted to the Royal Commission. I should like to read paragraph 25 of that memorandum:
"At present, an aggrieved person may make a complaint to the local police authority or to the chief constable, as the case may be, and he will normally be informed that his complaint will be investigated. We have no doubt that most of these complaints are investigated, but the person who complains has no means of knowing whether there is in fact an adequate investigation, and in any event he can hardly be expected to feel that the chief constable or police authority is completely impartial in matters of police conduct or administration. It does happen that some persons who complain are satisfied with the reply that they receive, but a person who is not satisfied cannot appeal or secure an investigation by an independent person or body".
The Association went on to suggest that the Home Secretary should be answerable in Parliament for all police forces—a point on which the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire and I agree—and that there should be an appropriate body to which a member of the public could complain with a lawyer

721
as chairman. The Association suggested that there should be resort to this only if there is a complaint to the chief constable or police authority, and that it should make its report to the Home Secretary.
Unlike the Home Secretary, if I read his mind correctly, I think that the suggestion of the Magistrates' Association strikes the right balance between safeguarding the morale of the police, on the one hand, and giving the public confidence that justice is done, on the other. I was sorry that the Royal Commission rejected the proposal. It made three very modest recommendations, all of which, I gather, the Home Secretary has now accepted and commended to police authorities.
The first was that the police should help in identifying an officer against whom a complaint was made. It seems to me remarkable that we should have had to wait until 1963 before that point of view had official endorsement by a Home Secretary. The second suggestion was that there should be a complaints book. I am glad that the Home Secretary has recommended police authorities to have such a book. The third suggestion was that police officers should be charged with recording complaints made in court against the police.
Again, I welcome the Home Secretary's decision, but I am a little surprised that if was not thought possible to publish his support for these recommendations until yesterday. I regret that there should be complaints against the police, because the record of the police is good, and those who perpetuate grounds for being cynical about police behaviour do the police a very poor service indeed.
I turn to the question of the Judges' Rules. One of the matters which, I believe, is causing anxiety is the method which many members of the public believe the police adopt in obtaining statements. There is a suspicion on the part of many people that occasionally inducements are held out to a suspected person to plead guilty in the hope, perhaps, that he will receive lighter punishment than would otherwise be the case. I understand that the Lord Chief Justice has appointed a committee on the Judges' Rules and that it is considering at least two of the grounds on which anxiety is felt. The first is the belief that the police
722
often persuade a person to sign a statement after prolonged questioning and at a time when the suspected person may be exhausted. Secondly, it is felt that suspects are sometimes discouraged from seeing solicitors. There is a strong case for saying that a suspect should always be told as standard form, at the moment that a caution is administered, that it would be proper for him to see a legal adviser. If the committee on the Judges' Rules is considering these points, as I understand to be the case, I am very happy, but I should like to suggest two other matters for its consideration.
First, I should like it to consider the propriety of allowing a suspect to take alcohol during the period of investigation. I know that this is a difficult problem to decide, but it is one to which further consideration should be given. The other point which I should like it to consider is illustrated by a comment made by a judge on 9th November, 1958. This is quoted in the National Council for Civil Liberties publication, "Civil Liberty and the Police". The judge said:
"Again and again one finds in these courts statements like this written in a fair hand, stage by stage, in strict chronological order, and the Jury is told that it was written down without any prompting."
I commend to the House the recommendation of the National Council for Civil Liberties on that point. It said:
"We recommend that no statement "—
I deduce that it means no statement to the police—
"whether oral or in writing, should be admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings against the person making it unless it has been made in the presence of his or her solicitor or of a magistrate."
I hope that the Lord Chief Justice's committee will consider the desirability of a suspect always being allowed to make his statement in his own way and not in the sort of police language which all too often is found in statements of that kind.
I was disappointed at the answer which the Home Secretary gave to my question on the recruiting of coloured constables into the police force, and I hope that we shall not get a completely disappointing answer from the Under-Secretary when he replies to the debate. This is a problem of growing importance. The, social survey. which was commissioned by the

723
Royal Commission, elicited from police officers the view that coloured people were more resentful of the police than they had been ten years ago. The Royal Commission did not comment upon that observation, but it is a regrettable fact that there is still not one coloured policeman in this country, although we now have a substantial coloured population.
I think that the men in the police themselves would be glad to welcome coloured recruits to work alongside them in areas with a coloured population in order to emphasise that the practice of racial prejudice is deplored by everybody in this country.
I should now like to turn to a matter upon which the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire touched—the question of the presence of police in magistrates' courts. The Departmental Committee of Justices' Clerks, in 1944, said, in paragraph 205 of its Report:
"…the greatest effort must be made to see that police officers do not enjoy, or appear to enjoy, any special privileges in courts of summary jurisdiction."
In "The Police and the Public," an inquiry by Mr. C. H. Rolph, there was a contribution from Mr. Colin MacInnes from which I should like to read a short extract because it is a very apt description of what one finds in a magistrates' court:
"…if the trial be at a magistrates' court, the prisoner's belief that this is really a 'police court' will soon be confirmed. The prosecutor, guardians and the ushers will all be coppers (including a sort of toastmaster with a roll-call who behaves like a sheep-drover), and the walls will be flanked by officers, male and female, waiting to appear in other cases, and by uniformed cadets clueing themselves up on how things go."
Two years ago, the National Council for Civil Liberties and the Magistrates' Association suggested that civilian ushers should take the place of police officers in magistrates' courts. The Royal Commission accepted that and I am sure that it was right to do so. I have sometimes noticed large congregations of policemen in magistrates' courts and I think that police officers who are there as witnesses should take their place with other witnesses inside or outside the court. If they are there for purposes of training, they should be in mufti and not in uniform. I believe, too, that it is wrong that the usher in a court should be a police officer, because it is he who calls
724
the defendants and witnesses and may well give the impression to ignorant people that it is the police who run the court.
The last point with which I wish to deal is that of police behaviour in demonstrations. I want again to emphasise that I am not making a general complaint on this score. I think that in any demonstration there must be some anxiety, and there is always a danger of tempers rising. But, whatever the strain, in my experience it is only a small minority of the police who are guilty of misconduct.
I have criticised their attitude on some occasions, as on the occasion of 17th September, 1961, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman replied to me in the House, and I was critical of their handling of a disturbance outside the House in March. On the other hand, I wrote to congratulate the Commissioner of Police on the behaviour of the police when the railwaymen and miners visited Westminster in a demonstration earlier this year, and also on the way in which they handled the situation outside Claridges, only a few days ago, when there was a political demonstration on the occasion of Queen Frederika's visit.
I should like to make three suggestions to the Home Secretary. The first is that he should seek to establish that the police and the organisers of demonstrations should always discuss the methods of control and dispersal to be used by the police. The second is that the police should always be equipped with loudspeakers so that they can ensure that the public are fully informed of the intentions of the police and why certain action is being taken. If this advice had been followed, the trouble in St. Pancras two or three years ago, and outside the House of Commons only a few weeks ago, would have been avoided.
My third suggestion is that the use of animals on these occasions should be avoided. Dogs should never be used to control crowds and I hope that we can get an assurance from the Home Office today that that is far from being the policy of the Department to use them; and mounted police should be used only in the last resort. Nothing is more calculated to rouse passions and produce violence than the presence of police on horseback on the occasion of a demonstration.

725
I hope that the Home Secretary will give very careful consideration to the suggestions which I have made, because I believe that their acceptance would help to achieve a most desirable end, which is the improvement of relations between Her Majesty's subjects and the police.
5.58 p.m.
Sir James Duncan: During the course of my remarks, I shall be referring to at least one aspect of the speech of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood)—relations between the public and the police.
I begin by saying a few words about what is going on in Scotland, for the Royal Commission covered Scotland as well as England. The hon. Member for Islington. East (Mr. Fletcher) said that relations between the public and the police had deteriorated. That was true in England and Scotland in 1960 and 1961, but it is not so today. My impression is that in Scotland, at any rate, relations have greatly improved over the last two years.
It may be that the police themselves are happier than they were. The award arising out of the interim Report has done a lot to satisfy the police that they are engaged in a worth-while career. When a constable receives £1,000 a year, one can say that the pay is satisfactory, and the numbers coming forward are also satisfactory.
There are about 9,000 policemen in Scotland, and in 1961 there were 566 vacancies. I do not know the present establishment, but during the last two years the numbers have increased by 940, so although there has probably been some small increase in the establishment, it looks—and I should like my hon. Friend to confirm this—that the Scottish police are very nearly up to strength. If this is so, the position is indeed satisfactory and provides a good basis on which to begin to improve the set-up generally.
On the other hand, crime is also increasing. In 1961, the last year for which I have figures because the 1962 statistics have not yet been published by the Scottish Home Department, 297,217 crimes and offences were committed in Scotland, an increase of 14,562, or 5·1 per cent., on the previous year. It seems to me that the increase is continuing, so it may well be that although the numbers
726
of police are increasing, and the pay is satisfactory, there is still a case for an increased establishment to deal with the present crime wave. According to the police statistics 74…4 per cent. of the crimes and offences known to the police are cleared up by the end of the year, and as regards offences alone the figure is over 90 per cent.
I think that we can say that in Scotland the clearing up of crime is good, but I think that we have always to look forward to a higher quality of force. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has appointed more inspectors of constabulary in Scotland, because I believe that this is necessary to ensure that we have a greater oversight of what police forces are doing. I think I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has power, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wants, to call for reports. He is thus able to keep in close touch not only with pay and conditions, but with the quality of the force.
In Scotland, we have a police college, and as far as I can gather things there are going very well, but I should like my hon. Friend to tell us something about the quality of the cadets and the officers who go there. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) made a point about quality. He knows more about this than l do. The figures he gave were rather alarming. I was astonished to learn of the low educational level of those who are entering the police in England today, and I hope that the educational level of those going to the Scottish police college is higher than that of recruits in England.
Both on the criminal, and on the organisational, side life for the police, as for the rest of us, is getting more and more complicated as we get more and more civilised. The criminal is using scientific methods to carry out crimes, and we must have first-class brains, aided by first-class scientific equipment, to deal with the modern criminal. We have not got on top of the modern criminal in the way that we should have done.
I refer next to discipline. The police are an independent force, and each constable is an independent officer of law and order and must look primarily to his chief constable for discipline. I support the view put forward by my

727
right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that chief constables should be the main disciplinary body for the forces under their control. The need for this is brought out most clearly in complaints by the public against the police, and it seems to me that we have not quite resolved this problem, nor did my right hon. Friend in his speech today.
I have one or two suggestions to make arising out of the Commission's Report. First, I suggest that chief constables should go out of their way to see that complaints are investigated, and I think, too—and this was the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, East—that in as many cases as possible the complainant should be told the result of the inquiry and what disciplinary action, if any, has been taken.
In addition—and again this is a recommendation of the Royal Commission—whenever possible the complainant should be present and allowed to give evidence and cross-examine the constable when the complaint is being made. We have to do a little more than is being done at the moment, not to see that justice is done—because I believe that on the whole it is done—but to make the complainant realise that justice is done.
Secondly, I do not believe that the tribunals procedure, under the 1921 Act, is the right answer. In Scotland, we had the Thurso boy case. In my view, the inquiry did no good. It did not really clear up the situation. It exacerbated the feelings of people not only in Thurso, but throughout Scotland, and aroused suspicions that the police were doing things that ought not to be done. I believe that the inquiry not only did no good, but, rather, did a lot of harm. If we are to retain this Act, I believe that it should be used on a very few occasions indeed because I do not believe that a tribunal set up under this Act does any good in the kind of case to which I have just referred.
The Report also recommends that there should be administrative inquiries. I believe that my right hon. Friend is right in refusing this too, because if we say that the chief constable must be the man in charge of discipline, and then have somebody else from Whitehall or Edinburgh conducting an administrative
728
inquiry into the attitude of the chief constable to complaints that come before him, this will deal a blow to the discipline of the force.
I, too, am against the ombudsman idea that was put forward by three members of the Commission. It depends on what powers one gives the ombudsman. It is no good having such a person unless he has all the powers of the 1921 Act to take evidence on oath and call witnesses. If he has to conduct an inquiry merely on a sort of old boy basis, he will not be able to get the truth from people. He must have the powers provided by the Act, and once he is given those we come up against the same difficulty that we experience with the Act itself.
I am not sure what the answer is, and I echo the views which have been expressed on both sides of the House that we should not come down firmly, decisively one way or the other today, but I urge my right hon. Friend and the Scottish Office to think again about this. We have yet not found the solution to the problem, but I think that it should be based on the chief constable as the head of the force, and that any outside inquiry is to be deprecated because it will interfere with the morale, the discipline, and the esprit de corps of the force.
There is another aspect of the relationship between the public and the police that I should like to encourage. I should like the public to go to the aid of the police more often. I should also like there to be a much more friendly basis between the civilians and the police, and in this connection I have two suggestions to make. If a policeman gets injured in the course of his duty, he receives compensation—I am not saying whether the amount of compensation is right or wrong—but if a civilian goes to the aid of the police, and is injured, what happens? I should like to see some legislative form of aid for civilians who go to the aid of the police and are injured in doing so.
I saw in the Press the other day that the Binney Medal had been awarded to someone. I do not know whether any money goes with, but it is a very high honour for a civilian who goes to the aid of the police in the Metropolitan district. The Binney Medal is awarded to civilians for gallantry in aiding the police. Why should not we have a similar sort of medal in Scotland, or, indeed, in

729
other parts of England? Why should not we have something in the nature of the George Cross, to be awarded to civilians who help the police in the execution of their duty?
If we could build up this sort of good will between civilians and the police, and by good conduct by the police to the public, we should eventually get a first-class relationship in a democratic State between the police and ordinary citizens, than whom there are no better people in the world.
6.13 p.m.
Mr. W. T. Williams: The Home Secretary, in introducing the debate, invited us to think aloud with him on the problems and some of the suggestions for their solution that have been offered in the Royal Commission's Report. The debate so far—I think that the House is to be congratulated on it—has been completely on non-party lines. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) will be encouraged when I say at the outset of my speech that I am now at the age when I tend to become increasingly conservative.
When I began to read the Report, I was entirely and absolutely on the side of the status quo. It seemed to me then, and, indeed, in some respects it seems to me now, that by and large our police forces have much to commend them and much for which they ought to be commended. I have, by some quirk of fortune, prosecuted a good deal in my native Wales, and have been invited to stand on the other side, whenever I practice here in London, so I have done both work with the police and, as it were, against them.
I am bound to say that whether one is dealing with a provincial force in Cheshire, or in Wales, or with the Metropolitan Police the general picture, from my years experience, is one of fairness and the attempt to do justice. The number of police officers who deliberately perjure themselves, or behave unkindly or unfairly, or try to prevent justice, is remarkably small—except perhaps when driven by emotion stronger than themselves. They are human beings, not the saints that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has pictured them to be ideally.
730
On the other hand, it is quite clear that in regard to the significant duties that the police have to perform, the time has come when the police system needs seriously to be considered. The ordinary policeman does his job fairly, kindly and with great ability and skill. That is my experience. When, however, we come to deal with the problems with which we are faced as a community, the increased crime, the increased lack of respect for order, then, clearly, we need a root and branch attack to be made upon the system.
I would not give the learned commissioners who made this inquiry very high marks for history. With the exception of Dr. Goodhart, whose history seemed to me to be impeccable, the commissioners who made the majority Report seem to me to be sadly faulty when it came to giving the historical picture into which to fit the framework of the present police system. If it were not that I fear that by the end of the speech my own logic might be held to be at fault, I do not think that I would give them very high marks for logic, either. They face the problems and they make recommendations but they approach—to use the phrase happily framed and used by James M. Hart, in his book "The British Police"—the present position of the police with a certain amount of sentimental historicity.
I cannot—and there was nothing in the majority Report which led me to any other conclusion—really understand what merit the commissioners eventually found in the maintenance of local police forces and local police authorities as they are now constituted. Indeed, the commissioners appear eventually themselves to give that case away because, at the end, they also abandon the present structure and go in for something that very remarkably approaches a regional system of police control.
Faced with the resolutions, or the irresolutions of the demands and conclusions found within the compass of the majority Report, the commissioners seem to me to make the worst of all possible worlds. They have set their faces against the small police forces that are really local, on the ground that they cannot be efficient. They say that the relationships between local authorities, police authorities and the police themselves can only

731
be efficient and effective and, at the same time, retain some local connection to justify the sentimental approach, if the forces are at least 500 strong, and are preferably very much stronger.
The challenge to bigness is unanswerable. If we are to tackle the problem of major crime—and major crime conducted, we must remember, by criminals who may live in one place and work in another—if "work" the right word—we cannot have the police unnecessarily bound, as I think they are, by the restrictions now put on their own movements by the differences that exist between police authorities.
I can give an example. A little time ago, I prosecuted in North Wales a gang of criminals who had come into North Wales and robbed a storehouse of about 3 million cigarettes. They came from Liverpool and got back there without being detected. They were eventually found, but to bring them to book in North Wales, where the crime had been committed, the Liverpool police had first to be consulted, they had to work on information given them by the Gwynedd constabulary and it took them a week or so to find some of the gang. By this time the others had taken flight.
It was a fortnight, or even more, before a third member of the gang was found. To get him into custody in Caernarvon, a Gwynedd police officer had to go all the way to Liverpool, and then go with a Liverpool officer, who alone had the power to arrest, because he had the necessary authority of a local J.P. Then the third member of the gang, having had three weeks' extra liberty over and above that of his accomplices, had to be brought all the way back to Caernarvon to be charged. That really is reductio ad absurdum, and it is the price that has to be paid for strict adherence to the local autonomy and authority of the police unless some way out can be found administratively.
In the light of that kind of experience, the time has surely been reached when a super-authority, over and above the local police authorities, should exercise control, and thereby increase the efficiency of the police force. The majority Report has run away from that problem. Dr. Goodhart, on the other
732
hand, comes down far more heavily than he need in favour of an absolute centralised authority. I like the phrase used by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire—I hope that he will not mind my modelling my speech around his phrases—that it really is time that we recognised the divisibility of authority. Even if it be held offensive to tradition to set up a completely centralised police authority straight away, there can be nothing intrinsically unwelcome in setting up an authority on lines similar to those followed by the Ministry of Education in its work.
It cannot be beyond the wit of the Home Secretary—whom we know to be a man of great wit—to devise a scheme whereby, from the seat of authority in the Home Office, he could exercise the same kind of right as exists under the Education Act in relation to education authorities. That authority can be delegated to county or regional authorities, and again delegated down the scale to local police authorities, so that they may act in the same way as local education authorities exercise their rights.
It would then be possible at town, county and rural level to have police authorities exercising their authority under the Home Secretary, but with the Home Secretary having the power to direct and control them if they behaved unreasonably. They might then be able to exercise over their chief constable and their police force the same kind of authority as a director of education has in the education service. In the last resort, the Home Secretary should have a central reserve of power, enabling him to exercise ultimate control and authority. I do not think that the relationship between the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police is a good example of the general exercise of authority that should be applied by the Home Secretary in relation to provincial forces. The Home Secretary's position is the reverse of that enjoyed by the harlot throughout history—he now has responsibility without power.
When I was Member for a London constituency, I sometimes sought assistance from the Home Secretary in relation to an abuse to which I drew his attention. It seemed then to be more difficult to get any kind of action out of him, or any kind of approach to the Commissioner of Police through him, than

733
it has been, since I have been the Member for Warrington, to go to the chief constable himself. If the Home Secretary is to improve the position of our police forces. he must take to himself, not only general guiding authority but real authority, real control, although I think it important that he should exercise that control only in the last instance.
My major criticism of the present police structure, apart from the inefficiency to which it gives rise, is the tremendous overlapping that exists between certain police forces. One has only to think of two police forces within Lancashire—the forces in Liverpool and Manchester. Both have enormous resources, but overlapping resources. The two forces lie within 12 or 15 miles of each other.
There is this overlapping, this duplication, this waste and inefficiency but, in addition, it appears to me that another real lacuna in the set-up of the police system is the irresponsible power of the chief constables. T have personal knowledge of only four chief constables—people with whom I have worked and with whom I have personal acquaintance. One of them is the chief constable of Warrington, who has just resigned, and who has for many years in that county borough done a splendid job, and has revealed himself, as have the others I know, as a man of great courage and wisdom.
It is nevertheless true that if, for any reason, a chief constable regards himself as responsible to no one but God and history, and does not give a damn about either, he can do more harm in his own person than can a hundred policemen on the beat. If we are to have a kind of loose tangent—someone who is out on a limb, who does not accept responsibility, and is accountable to no one—and break the chain of authority we shall he introducing a weak link which we could well do without in our police system. If we have a chain of authority from the Home Secretary, devolved and decentralised as much as may be necessary, but in the last resort having real authority exercised and real power carried out by the Home Secretary, it would be unnecessary to have instances where withdrawals of grants were threatened or resignations were demanded.
If a man behaves irresponsibly occasionally, or only once, it seems a grave
734
step to demand his resignation. If we decentralised the system, but nevertheless ensured that the Home Secretary has ultimate authority, and is responsible to Parliament, we would do a tremendous amount to increase the accountability of the chief officers to him and of the police to the public. Such accountability by itself would tremendously improve relationships between the man in the street and the man on the beat.
These are the things that seem to me to be matters of principle and importance worth bringing to the attention of the House. Although I offer them in the most tentative fashion, I hope that they will be of some assistance to the Home Secretary.
6.31 p.m.
Mr. William Shepherd: I do not dissent from much of what the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Wililams) has said. It represents a considered and balanced view of a problem which we shall ultimately, if not at the moment, have to resolve. But I was not completely at one with the speech of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood). I think that the criticisms he made of the police in respect of their actions during demonstrations were a little unfortunate. I never admire the police more than when they are dealing with people who have lost their tempers. I find it very difficult to deal with such people, and I never cease to admire the great quality of our police in maintaining calm in the face of somebody who is blowing his top, to put it colloquially.
Mr. Dan Jones: It would be fair to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) also made that point. He said that only in a minority of instances was it otherwise.
Mr. Shepherd: Yes, but I have never witnessed an occasion where the police, even in a minority, were to blame. I praise them without reservation for their conduct during times of disturbance.
I want to, start by dealing with the fundamental problem of the relationship between the police and the public. If we can get this right, the question of the forms of organisation is not so important, although I would not reduce it to a negative value.
It is exceedingly difficult to get into the minds of the police. The majority

735
of us know nothing about policemen. We may know a little more if we have seen "Dock Green" and Z Cars on television, although in my opinion neither provides a particularly good guide—certainly not "Z Cars". This is a basic problem. Members of the public have no real knowledge of the police. The gap between the two is bridged effectively only at the level of the village constable. He makes a large contribution in rural life, but this does not carry us very far in large conurbations.
To a large extent this is the fault of the police. I say that not as a harsh critic but as a friend of the police. It may be that something that my right hon. and learned Friend said about the nature of recruitment is the cause of this. I feel very strongly that the police have too closed a mind, and lead too monastic an existence, to get the right sort of relationship with the public. Policemen of great quality sometimes behave—because of the particular nature of their association with each other—in a way which I find it almost impossible to understand.
Let us remember that the real reason for this Royal Commission was the action of Police Constable Eastmond, who pushed through a hedge a man who sought to remonstrate with him. It was later discovered that, prior to this incident, the constable had a very bad record. On the advice of their counsel the police paid out the sum of £300 to the aggrieved individual before the case came to court. Any ordinary individual who has responsibility for other men would, when faced with that sort of situation, assume that this man ought to be sent before a disciplinary board because of the action that he had taken. Yet a man as distinguished and fine a policeman as the present Commissioner refused to do that. That put my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in an extremely embarrassing position. I understand that the reason why the Commissioner did not send this man before a board—and he was clearly a very suitable candidate—was that he felt that public opinion was already anti-police, and that this action would make it worse.
This feeling that under no circumstances must there be any attempt to
736
put a policeman on trial, and that the incident must be covered up if possible, demonstrates more than anything else of which I know the real difficulty of creating better relations between the police and the public. The police feel that this is the best way to preserve good relations with the public. In fact, it is the worst way.
On many occasions I have told policemen that in the House of Commons we have 600 Members, and that in the eighteen years that I have been here quite a few of them have gone to gaol—and quite a few more ought to have gone. I do not imagine that if we have 600 men we are going to have 600 angels. Certainly with 90,000 policemen we will not get 90,000 angels. The police must recognise that there will be people in their midst who are black sheep, and they should not be afraid of facing that fact. We must get the police to agree that some form of democratic control is not irksome or damaging to their prestige.
I was not sorry to hear my right hon. Friend talking in this vein, because this is the key to the problem. If one is doing a good job, with integrity and energy, one should not be afraid of any criticism. The police have no right to be afraid of any criticism launched in this House. As my right hon. Friend says, he has responsibility without power in respect of the Metropolitan Police, but no one can say that any Member of this House, either by way of a Question or a speech, has done or said anything that could seriously have impaired the efficiency or morale of the Metropolitan Police. I wish that the police would accept that they have an obligation to acknowledge some form of democratic control, in the same way as every other organisation has.
I realise the difficulty of democratic control as it affects the police. At the moment I believe that we have it in almost the worst possible forms. Even if we do not go as far as some hon. Members would like, we must certainly see that these bad forms of democratic control are eliminated as quickly as possible and replaced by forms that are helpful. In my view, it would not be a mistake if we had an entirely national police force. I will deal with that in a moment, but I wish to emphasise that if

737
the police would accept some degree of democratic control they could work within that framework without any difficulty or loss of morale, if they would only face the fact that it is 1963 and that we cannot act as we did fifty or sixty years ago.
May I turn to the question of what form of change ought there to be? I have no doubt that we ought to have a national police force. I have not met an intelligent policeman yet who does not believe that himself.
Mr. D. Jones: I have.
Mr. Shepherd: It may be that the hon. Gentleman has. But I have not met an intelligent policeman who does not believe that there should be a national force. have met a lot of unintelligent policemen who believe that we should not have a national force. The real difficulty of the police force is the level of recruitment. If we had men of integrity, a lot of the troubles we suffer from would never exist. If we could get men of integrity to fill every post of chief constable, men who would watch their policemen like hawks and set a standard beyond reproach, a lot of the troubles—even such as we have experienced in the last ten years—would never arise. And so I say that most of the policemen I have met, highly intelligent men, believe that we ought to have a national force.
I realise that my right hon. Friend is not prepared to accept the idea of a national police force. I know that a sloppy mixture of local amenities, of convenience, expediency and sentiment, even of history, makes it difficult at this moment to obtain a national police force. But what I want to see, most emphatically, is an effective control of the police. As I see it, my right hon. Friend is heading for precisely the thing which he said that he did not want—responsibility without power. The proposals which he has made today are, I think, dangerously near to having responsibility without power; and before he finally makes up his mind, I urge my right hon. Friend to try to take as much direct authority as he can. Frankly, the more one looks at the details of the difficulties—even as posed by the hon. Member for Warrington, about the devolving of responsibility down the line, or any of the many problems—the clean-cut solution is
738
seen time after time to be the creation of a national police force.
I wish to say something about complaints against the police and here I think that the position is unsatisfactory. A lot of the complaints against the police are frivolous and a lot are made by malicious persons. Therefore, some sifting process is essential. If we had chief constables dealing with complaints, and if the individual concerned, if he is not satisfied, had the right to go elsewhere, we should perhaps safeguard the position of the public as much as could be reasonably expected. In those cases concerning policemen where it is decided that no criminal action lies—those are the cases where it would probably be difficult to do so—things would be much happier if they could be heard in public. I know that if they could, there would be but a quarter of the cases that arise now. I realise the administrative problems; they are very real. But if, after the requisite sifting, some system could be devised whereby complaints against policemen could be heard in public, it would achieve two things. The public would feel that they had had a square deal and it would reduce to a small fraction the number of complaints which we now have.
I wish to turn for a moment to another matter—that of inspectors of constabulary. I feel a little doubtful about inspectors of constabulary because for many years I pressed my friend Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, to increase the number of inspectors. He gave the usual Home Office answer, that there was no need to increase the number of inspectors from the present total of three. They are, of course, an essential link, almost the only link, between the Home Office and the local police forces. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take vigorous action and that he will see that these men have the right staff for their job. I am told that these wretched individuals even have had to send their reports to Black pool in order that they may be typed in the typing pool, because they have not even a secretary to look after their work.
These gentlemen are not necessarily young men and they have to travel considerable distances. They have very arduous duties and if they do not have what

739
is the normal commercial clerical assistance they are in a poor position to perform their duties. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that these men do have adequate clerical assistance so that they may do their job properly, because it is a vital function.
I should like to see them paid more. I understand that the candidates for appointment are pretty regular, even though it may often mean a reduction of salary. I am not happy at the thought of an inspector of constabulary going up in prestige but down in terms of salary. I know that we in the House of Commons do this, but I do not see why other people should. I feel strongly that a man who is a chief constable and is made inspector of constabulary ought not to be called upon to take a reduction in his salary. Could not we apply the "Beeching Plan" to it? I mean in terms of pay. Could not we have a simple principle that if a chief constable is earning £5,000 a year and is made an inspector he gets the salary that he got as chief constable I do not think it is desirable that a man who takes on a job involving the work and responsibility of an inspector should be called on to make a financial sacrifice.
There are two other matters to which I wish to refer. One is establishment and the other quality. I hope that I may be told what has been done to try to measure scientifically the real establishment needs of the police. The present basis of "think of a number" is not really very good. I served on the Select Committee on Estimates some years ago and we investigated the police. We could not discover any rational basis on which these establishments were decided. As I understand it, a chief constable would put in for an establishment of, say, 1,500 men, and the Home Office would say that he could have 1,450 or 1,400. The Home Office did not give any reason why the figure should be 1,400 or 1,500, because it did not know. It is about time that we got some critical assessment of the needs. because we may well find that we are wasting a lot of policemen.
I should like to see some outside body brought in to make an assessment of the efficiency of the police and the real labour demand. From my limited knowledge of recent activities I am not at all certain that all policemen are being used in the
740
most efficient manner possible, but I doubt it very much. I should like, therefore, to know whether an attempt is to be made internally to assess the real needs of the police in terms of establishment, and whether consideration will be given to employing some outside body to investigate the establishment. What the police need more than anything else is a breath of fresh air from outside. They are far too much "in-bred".
I said that the last point that I wished to make was about quality. I am convinced that from the existing basis of recruitment we are unlikely to get enough chief constables of the necessary quality and integrity, and I stress "integrity" because this is the most important quality in a chief constable. It does not matter how efficient he is and how much he knows of the law, as the Home Secretary has said, if he is not a man of the highest integrity he is a very bad chief constable. We are therefore facing a real difficulty in the existing circumstances of recruitment in finding enough men of this standard to give us the sort of police force we want.
I should be obliged, therefore, if my right hon. Friend would consider the possibility of some preferential recruitment. I know that this is a difficult problem, because the Police Federation thrives on mediocrity. It will thrust mediocrity down our throats with its last breath, but we have an obligation not to the Federation but to the police force as an institution and to the nation as a whole. I believe that getting a high standard of recruitment is absolutely essential to the future welfare of the force.
If my right hon. Friend cannot go all the way with that in the police force, I hope that he will be ruthless in cutting out the small police forces. I know that this arouses intense feeling, because people say that the local policemen knows the individuals. He does. He knows them too well, too often. The small police force is a great danger to the police force as a whole. if one has a small police force, where does one put the man one is not quite sure about? He is not a man that one can take before a board and get rid of, and therefore one is stuck with him. In the same way, if one has a man who is exceptionally good one

741
cannot promote him, because of the difficulty of promotions in a small force.
I support my right hon. Friend in the idea of changing the composition of watch committees. I hope that we shall do away with them altogether in a relatively short time. They are, to my mind, dangerous in many respects. In too many cases the chief constable is completely subservient to the watch committee. He may well find that he is on drinking terms with the chairman or, on the other hand, he may find himself at loggerheads with him. Neither of these circumstances is good for the well-being of the police and of the citizens in the districts concerned. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be ruthless in eliminating the small police force. I hope that he will accept that 350 is a minimum optimum number and that he will see that the worst effects of political domination and friction in the police force are eliminated.
I have the greatest admiration for the police. I know a great many police officers. In the main they do an excellent job. They are not receiving enough support from the people. They deserve a better reputation than they have among a great number of our citizens. They have some part to play themselves in altering this reputation. If we make a sensible alteration in the organisation of the police we shall have done something to make the police of the future as good as they have been in the past.
6.53 p.m.
Mr. Dan Jones: I do not think that I can follow in the debate the remarks of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), for several good reasons. First, there is the point which I considered to have been properly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) about demonstrations. I believe that I am correct in saying that in his view it was only in a minority of instances that the police are to be faulted. This should be emphasised and the point should be made to the House and certainly to the hon. Member for Cheadle.
The power and the ability to demonstrate publicly is a very sacred right in this country, and should be cherished by us all. It is not surprising that in these public demonstrations there are many young people who are actuated by a sense of idealism—which, goodness
742
knows, is very necessary—and for that reason will often act with greater exuberance than discretion. My hon. Friend, therefore, was perfectly correct in asking the police to use discretion on such occasions, which, I am happy to say, they generally do.
I do not claim to possess any encyclopaedic knowledge of the subject of this debate, nor do I possess any knowledge of the workings of watch committees, but I have read the Report of the Royal Commission and I have been briefed by a local watch committee whose members have a great deal of experience. It is on this point that I hope to make a brief and, I trust, beneficial contribution to the debate.
It is my honest opinion that God and the police are appealed to only when someone is in trouble. The House should try to bring out very prominently that the police are frequently held under suspicion when they should be held in regard, and we should make plain how when people are in trouble it is to the police that they first turn. Indeed, if people turned to them more frequently it is possible that there would be a great deal more crime prevention.
I cannot agree with the criticism made by the hon. Member for Cheadle of the present set-up and his apparent desire to see a national police force. I think that the Royal Commission has not taken enough heed as it is of the effect of developments on local authorities and local police forces. I hope that the House will forgive me if I offer figures to prove that contention, but first I should like to recount some of my experiences with the police and with chief constables.
Constituents have complained to me about the police. On such occasions I have quickly realised that what they were complaining about was not so much the police as the administration of justice, which is a different matter. I took it upon myself to ask a chief constable if he would see my constituents and a meeting was arranged. I ask the House to believe that after a fairly large group had met him the chief constable, who is rather adept at public relations, left the people in no doubt that the police were their friends.
These people left the police headquarters with a vastly different impression of the police, and this has hap-

743
pened on repeated occasions. It is my hope that chief constables will practise this kind of public relations more and more, but I am certain that it may not be done so well if local responsibility and control of the police force is not in the hands of a chief constable who fully accepts his obligations in that way.
There is one passage in the Report of the Commission which, in my view, can properly be contested. The Commission concludes that legal responsibility for the efficient policing of an area should be transferred from the police authorities to the Secretaries of State. Although the Commission does not say so, this seems to be its answer to the question it posed at the beginning of its report: how can a police force be an impartial force in the body politic yet be subject to a degree of control by persons who are not required to be impartial?
I take that to be an oblique reference to watch committees. In my view, it is not a matter for criticism that watch committees are composed of politicians. It is wrong to introduce undue political influence in these matters, and I think that there is no such undue political influence because watch committees are composed of persons from all political parties. Although political, the watch committee is non-partisan.
What is the alternative? Is there any evidence which can lead to the view that political influence affects the conduct and administration of our police forces? Those who wish to change the present system must recognise the obligation upon them to answer this question.
I am putting to the House the points which have been put to me by people with far greater experience of these matters than I have. I speak of the watch committee of Burnley, which, I am sure the House will agree, should be congratulated for being sufficiently vigilant with regard to the happenings in this House to be prepared to advise its Member and play its part in advancing the considered opinions of people whose experience lends great weight to their views.
The Burnley watch committee says that the association of a police force with a particular area is of fundamental importance in the creation of a good relationship between police and public.
744
From my own limited experience, I know this to be true. In many aspects of police work, says my watch committee, local knowledge among the lower ranks is frequently a substantial advantage. This, I suggest, answers in part the point made by the hon. Member for Cheadle.
If I understood him correctly, the hon. Gentleman argued that local control and responsibility could be a disadvantage. I do not know whether he quite realised the implication of his words, but I felt that in them was an oblique reference to the honesty and integrity of the local police.
A few Saturdays ago, a young citizen of Burnley, a college student of about 21 years of age, apprehended two lads who were indulging in vandalism, pulling a public notice out of the ground. This young student asked them not to behave in that way, and he was very badly beaten up. I see that one hon. Member is finding this a source of merriment. I know not why. To be beaten up is a very salutary experience, and to be beaten up by thugs is even more so. But—and this is the point—within three hours those two thugs had been apprehended, and it was in substantial measure due to the local knowledge of our policemen, quickly put into effect, that their arrest was accomplished.
Mr. Shepherd: Even with a completely national police force, we should still have local policemen.
Mr. Jones: I agree, but I believe that the sense of local responsibility tends to diminish within the system advocated by the hon. Gentleman. However, this is a matter of opinion. I do not wish to ram my opinions down the hon. Gentleman's throat any more than he would wish to do the same to me.
Further, my watch committee says that
"Although tyranny is unlikely to result from the creation of a national police force, the possibility of some abuse of power cannot easily be ignored."
This, again, is an opinion put forward by a body of very responsible citizens who have considerable experience in this work, as, I am sure, the House will readily appreciate. They go on to say that
"Apart from isolated instances, the partnership system between central and local government has worked satisfactorily and should continue so to do."

745
In my opinion, the main purpose of a police force is to apprehend criminals. If possible, its purpose is to prevent crime, but, failing that, its principal purpose is to do the first efficiently. Here are figures sent to me by my watch committee. They are figures which command my respect because, as I say, the end product of a policeman's work is the apprehension of criminals. In 1961, the percentage of crime detection in Burnley was 66.5, which is to be compared with the national average of 44·8 per cent. Such figures reveal a situation which should be changed only after the most careful thought.
I do not know whether it is a situation peculiar to Burnley. As I have said, I have not by any means encyclopedic knowledge of this subject. All I can do is put to the House the fruits of the experience of those who have close and constant contact with it, in the hope that the Home Secretary will be assisted thereby in making up his mind.
From what I know and have read, I believe the present system to be less costly and more efficient, and I am fortified in that view by the state of affairs in my own constituency. We should, therefore, hesitate long before changing the system.
The hon. Member for Cheadle was very critical of watch committees and seemed to be completed "sold" on the idea of a national police force. This is a serious subject. We should not take up too entrenched positions, but, on the evidence which I have, it seems to me that two possibilities emerge. First, the present system might be developed still further. Secondly, chief constables throughout the country should study to a greater extent the value of personal relationships with the public in order to bring the public really to believe that the police are what, in fact, they are, the only safeguard between them and a form of social anarchy. With these ideas widely, forthrightly and courageously applied, the extent of the criminal element in our country would, I believe, be reduced and the proportion of detections would be increased.
7.10 p.m.
Mr. R. M. Bingham: As I proceed, I shall try to introduce some of the ideas of the hon.
746
Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones) at their proper point.
Most hon. Members who have spoken so far have emphasised the proper requirements called for in a police force. The principal requirements are, I believe, two, and both should be kept in view at the same time. First, we must have an efficient police force. Secondly, the police should have a good relationship with the public.
I do not believe that an efficient police force which is on bad terms with the public is any more a national advantage than one where those qualities are the other way round. The two must go together. Any proposals for change must be tested against both sides of the coin.
There are, I suppose, two other requirements for which we look in a police force, but these more closely affect the police in their own internal affairs. It is right that police officers should enjoy, and continue to enjoy, good conditions of service not only by way of pay, but also by way of reasonable off-duty time. They should have reasonable freedom from undue overtime. In addition, a good state of morale is essential, and this in its turn, of course, is based on an efficient police force having good relations with the public.
The general opinion expressed in the debate so far, in which I concur, is that, judged by those standards, our police forces are good. It is right that this should be said firmly. At his best, the British policeman is not only a source of affectionate pride to every citizen, but he is, and always has been, a model for the world to respect and imitate. At his best, he is the product of the system which has endured until now and for which changes are now in the air. Although the standard is undoubtedly good, and is something in which we can take legitimate pride, there must be weak links. The first weak link, I suggest, is a product of our changing times and of the mobility of modern planned crime.
We read in the Report of the Royal Commission of the many arrests made on the M.1 of people who were moving probably to or from the site of a crime in cars. But the police forces patrolling the M.1 are at an enormous disadvantage, since the boundaries of their areas of responsibility along the motorway or any main road are drawn, from

747
their point of view, arbitrarily, while the criminal, or suspect, is able to move in and out of police areas which have no relationship to real police needs.
The second weak link is the product of an apparently intractable problem, the rising tide of youthful crime. We have not yet coped with this, and it brings in its train a consequence to which the Royal Commission referred, that, when there are bad relationships, or there is talk of bad relationships, between police and public, it is often found that relationships between the police and youthful members of the community are all too often responsible for some of the criticism.
The next weak link or vulnerable point is the often canvassed one of friction between the police and motorists. This, again, is referred to in the Report. The last of the weak links is the equally canvassed question of complaints by the public about the conduct of the police. These matters obviously involve far too many factors for me to attempt to refer to them all in the course of one contribution. I will single out one or two factors which run like a golden thread through most of the points.
The first is clearly the size of police forces. With respect to my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), I view with horror the idea of a national police force. I just do not believe that the constitutional dangers are nonexistent. I think that they are very real. Be that as it may, and accepting that there are no constitutional dangers involved, I do not believe that the gains in efficiency, if any, would more than offset the many disadvantages which would flow from a national force.
One disadvantage would most certainly be an abrupt worsening of relations with the public. This would inevitably follow if for a local police force there were substituted an enormous national apparatus which would immediately be considered to be impersonal, although I agree that it would have branches in, say,. Oxford and indeed every town. It would still be considered to be impersonal because it would be run by "them" in a distant place rather than by "us" in the local community.
The Report rejected this conception. I am very glad that it did so. Equally, the
748
Royal Commission came down in favour of units larger than the majority of forces at the moment. The figures have already been given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If the Royal Commission's figures are accepted, we appear to be working towards a figure of about 600 or 700 as the optimum for a police force. I am not sure that this is not too large.
It is said that a large police force will produce greater efficiency. By what test is efficiency judged? The first test is the crime detection rate, mentioned by the hon. Member for Burnley. The hon. Gentleman told the House that in Burnley the crime detection rate is about 50 per cent. higher than the national average. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that this is true in the case of every small police force. The crime detection rate is higher in such a force, partly because the problems are easier to solve in a small area but also because the local police know the local criminals.
With the best will in the world, the police in the Metropolitan Police District, or in Liverpool, or any very large police area, cannot be expected to have the same intimate knowledge of local matters and local criminals as the police in Burnley. To say that it would be more efficient to have a large police force. from the point of view of the crime detection rate, flies in the face of facts.
It is also said that greater efficiency might result because of the more economical use of manpower. I am by no means convinced of this argument. It rather runs in line with another argument I have heard in favour of larger police forces, namely, that there is more opportunity of promotion. It may be true that in large police forces there is more opportunity of promotion. However, if there is more opportunity of promotion it simply means that the larger police force is carrying proportionately more higher ranks and more overheads, in the shape of policemen who are office bound, more senior men, and probably a great deal more paper work. It seems to he a common complaint among police forces that the larger the force the greater the burden of paper work. It is not correct on these facts to say that such a situation improves the efficiency of the force.

749
It may be argued that there can be more specialised services. This is true to an extent. There can be tracker dogs. There can be radar and all the apparatus of science if the force is large enough. However, I am not particularly convinced by this argument. The Home Office's forensic laboratories are scattered throughout the country. They provide specialised services of a type for any police force which wants them. If it is desired to set up specialised services to be available to a larger area, I cannot see why the framework of those forensic laboratories—they would not necessarily be forensic laboratories—could not be used. It would be bad logic to argue that merely because there could be more specialised services if the force were bigger all the disadvantages flowing from larger forces should be accepted.
The last argument I have heard in favour of larger forces needs some consideration. It is said that, if there is a larger force, the members of the force, in particular the senior officers, will be more aloof from local pressures. Local pressures can operate in a number of different ways. It is highly desirable that police officers should be in touch with local opinion and be known to local people. But pressures can be applied in wrong ways. To that extent, the ability to remain aloof from local pressures would be an advantage, but it carries disadvantages with it.
If police areas are expanded simply to achieve that object, because we want the police to be more aloof from local pressures, we shall also make them more aloof from the public. The desirable object of removing policemen from undesirable local pressures can be achieved by the powers which the Home Secretary either has or proposes to take to control the appointment of chief constables, deputy chief constables and also perhaps, where a force has them, assistant chief constables. It is there that the pressures can be exercised most.
The one thing which those who argue the case for larger police never do is to claim that public relations will be improved thereby. I have never heard this suggested. It is not in the arguments of the Royal Commission. The trouble is that, if police forces are made larger. public relations will not be improved. The largest police force in
750
the country outside the Metropolis is the Lancashire Constabulary. It has excellent public relations and by common consent it is an excellent police force. I believe that it achieves its good relations with the public despite its size and not because of it. There are other forces whose very size—I do not include my own City of Liverpool in this—serves to promote relations with the public which are probably not as good as they might be.
I suggest to the House that we do not want to go for increased size as an end in itself. I suggest that the patterns of local government must be observed, if possible, unless there is an under-sized police force such as that in Chester was which could not stand on its own feet. Where the local government area coincides with an existing police force area and the police force is 200 or more strong, it would be a mistake to make a change. If change there be because of size, it may be that some of the larger police forces should be sub-divided for the sake of better relations.
I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle said about mediocrity. I appreciate, also, the point about the mobility of modern planned crime. How do we deal with this, because by keeping the present structure we shall not face up to that problem at all? Do we want to see some larger type of regional organisation which could possibly provide specialised services and which could compete with the mobility of modern planned crime?
The Royal Commission considered one suggestion which came from an organisation of which I might be suspected to be a member but am not—the Inns of Court Conservative Society. The Society suggested that there should be a national traffic police force or a corps of traffic police. The Commission rejected the proposal. I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary not to close his mind entirely to this point. I do not say that there should be a national traffic police force, but I think that in that idea may lie the germ of something which will bridge the gap between local police forces and a wider organisation which can deal with changing modern conditions.
The point which has been overlooked is this. It is said that we cannot have traffic police working side by side with

751
ordinary police. On Merseyside, there is the only traffic police force in the country. The Mersey Tunnel Police Force is purely a traffic police force. The remarkable thing about that force, which has been a very successful undertaking, is that it has an extraordinarily good record of relations with motorists.
This is because motorists know not only that the police force is out to see that motorists keep in order in the tunnel, but that it is there also to promote a safe flow of traffic and will, indeed, go to tremendous lengths to help motorists. It is wrong to suggest that the Mersey Tunnel Police Force is solely concerned with traffic in the tunnel. It co-operates very usefully with local police forces when mobile criminals are known to be on the move and heading for the tunnel.
If a traffic police force would remove the irritation that motorists sometimes feel with purely local police forces, could we not superimpose on the local police forces some form of regional traffic police, not based on geographical regions, but based on each of our six main roads—A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4 and A.5 and A.6 together? These forces, which need not be very large, would be responsible mainly for the safe flow of traffic in their area. In addition, they would have the duty of co-operating with other police forces to detect mobile crime and to watch for suspicious circumstances such as lorries which might have been stolen.
These forces could very easily use in their cars all the modem resources of science. Their cars could be so equipped because they would not be used for anything except the promotion of a safe flow of traffic, detecting motoring offences, and other matters which, to be carried out efficiently, need a certain amount of scientific apparatus. This, of course, is very much an embryo idea.
I want now to say a few words about the vexed question of complaints by the public about the police. This to me has been heightened by a recent case which occurred in my constituency. The facts are immaterial for the purposes of this debate, because the Home Secretary, after carefully considering the matter, has decided that there is no evidence which would justify an inquiry by him, with which decision after much consideration I agree. That is not
752
quite the point I am raising. There is to be a demand, I notice, by an organisation known as "Justice" for a similar inquiry into the recent incident involving some Sheffield police.
One has the feeling that when, for some reason or other, a complaint is made against a local policeman whose conduct has gone beyond that of the disciplinary or local police authority, the procedure available to a member of the public is vague, obscure and unsatisfactory. The only thing a member of the public can do now is to request an informal inquiry. One rules out the 1921 Act tribunal procedure for this purpose, because that would be like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. As I say, one can only make that sort of request and, having done so, one cannot be even then completely satisfied because such an inquiry then has no power to compel witnesses and produce documents.
It is known from experience that inquiries of this nature are apt to be entirely unsatisfactory. They have all the disadvantages of the Spanish Inquisition and none of the safeguards of a trial. Even witnesses who appear before them are apt to find themselves suddenly in the dock having to answer charges which have been formulated during the course of the inquiry. This shows that this method is capable of producing great unfairness but, despite this, it is the only course available at present to a member of the public.
The principles and procedures by which the Home Secretary may act are obscure and certainly not defined and I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has acknowledged that police legislation on this subject is out of date and needs modernising. I am not convinced—and I mention this by way of throwing out an idea—that the Home Secretary is necessarily the right authority for this purpose. He is responsible in a sense for the efficiency of the police forces because dependence on grant enters into this. However, no one can say that he is responsible for the day-to-day administration of all that goes on in the police forces of Burnley, Liverpool and even London.
Practically all the complaints that come from members of the public involve incidents which are not even relevant to the day-to-day administration of the

753
police forces. They are often isolated incidents which have no relationship to system, organisation or methods. They are isolated and, if true, regrettable, but they represent no general reflection on the whole body of the police in the area concerned.
If the Home Secretary is the proper authority one thing emerges from what has been said in the debate today and as a result of the case in my constituency. If it is said that the right hon. Gentleman is the proper authority then some general code must be drawn up setting out clearly, so that members of the public may know, what procedures are open to them and what principles exist on which the Home Secretary might be prepared to act. The prerogative of mercy is exercised in accordance with precedent. If there are no precedents one must set out a code lest one be accused of arbitrary action according to fancy rather than according to some judicial yardstick.
As I have said, I am not convinced that the Home Secretary is the proper authority, particularly when purely isolated incidents are concerned. According to present law, when one wishes to appeal on a matter of licensing from the licensing justices one uses the appeal machinery under the present licensing law to appeal to one of the courts of quarter sessions, usually in the administrative county in which the place or borough is situated. I am not absolutely certain, but it would be interesting to consider whether that sort of place might be the tribunal to which members of the public might seek to take complaints about the police.
It would avoid the sort of inquiry I have spoken of and it would also avoid the danger of making a political issue out of an isolated case. It would make it clear that the Home Secretary is not responsible for everything that every policeman does throughout the country and it would link up with the traditional link that J.P.s have always had in connection with the maintenance of law and order, and so on.
If a form of appeal on these lines could be provided that might be one way over the difficulty. If the Home Secretary is to remain responsible then a code such as I have described should be established. If it is not to be the Home Secretary—and I am inclined to think that it should not be—the tribunal I ave suggested
754
might be the solution, though I am sure and certainly hope that it would be rarely used.
7.41 p.m.
Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West): I am pleased to follow the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham). He made an interesting speech and I was particularly interested in his remarks about local pressures, for this is something that has puzzled me.
In my time I have sat on county council standing joint committees in Kent, which, I thought, had an excellent police force, and now I represent one of the major cities in Britain. I wish to make some remarks on the question of larger police forces and also to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), particularly his remarks about a national police force.
Although people speak quite a lot about local pressures, I would like to know just what they are. They should be more clearly defined. Local pressures fall on watch committees, through the elected element, and there is a tendency to deride the elected element. It has also been suggested that one third of the members of watch committees should be local justices and it is said that this might lower the value of watch committees.
When I see the partiality with which some local justices are selected I think that I would rather have the committee's members selected from the local council. I could quote whole areas where people have been selected as justices for all the wrong reasons. I do not intend to say that they are the creatures of the clerks of the court, but some of them are so inept that they would never have got beyond a selection conference of the Labour Party or the Conservative Party for local government service.
Mr. Bingham: I did not want to create the impression that I have got any point to ventilate about local pressures. A common fear is sometimes expressed that in some area the chief constable might be persuaded to stretch a point by not prosecuting in favour of someone locally whom he knows.
Mr. Pannell: I hope that this will not sound too much like heresy but I think that, on occasions, that happens now. We should, therefore, spend a few moments trying to define what local

755
pressures can exist and what they are. Local pressures can be the pressures of a watch committee; people meeting in the public interest perhaps casting a kindly eye upon the mayor's guests when questions of car parking are involved.
If one had a national police force the policemen concerned—the chief officers and so on—would have to live somewhere and, presumably, they would have a social circle. When one does not get a political party one gets a social clique, Presumably the chief constable would belong to the Freemasons or something like that. He would, therefore, be far more a suspect in view of his social clique than would be the watch committee.
In Leeds there is enough of the establishment of both Labour and Conservative to make them fairly responsible pressures. Consider a great city like Leeds and I am fairly certain—and I say this with respect to the Leeds justices—that one will not want to fill the watch committee by removing one-third of the council representatives and replacing them by representatives from the justices. Because we have got ourselves into a muddle over this question of local pressures we need to define what we mean more specifically. The last thing we want is something like some sort of Praetorian Guard of the ruling classes formed of people who have never known what an election is all about.
I remember one chief constable whom I telephoned on one occasion because one of his constables suggested to one of my canvassers that ten o'clock at night was too late for him to be out canvassing. "You had better go home," the canvasser was told. I phoned the chief constable who asked, "I should like to know the name of your informant." One of the great difficulties about chief constables is their lack of public accountability. They seem to be purist, hybrid sort of people upon whom there is no check.
A case recently in court went to the House of Lords. It is no longer sub judice so I can refer to it. It concerned the Chief Constable of Brighton and I considered it one of the great scandals of all time. The judge in summing up said that he was a worthless
756
tool and had corrupted his force. We had all the investigations in the court and the judge in the High Court said that because the Brighton Watch Committee rested on the opinion of the judges of the High Court, presumably, after all these years, it is somehow suggested that he was hard done by. I do not know how thoughts of that sort are arrived at.
Mr. Bingham: As I understand it, the House of Lords decision was on the basis that the Brighton Watch Committee condemned the chief constable on a charge which was not communicated to him and he was given no opportunity to explain his side. When he later had an opportunity to explain three members of the watch committee changed their mind in view of his explanation and said, "We will not dismiss you. We will require you to resign."
Mr. Pannell: To quote the words of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), "There are certain things up with which the public are not prepared to put." All that emanated as a result of the Brighton case, with men going to prison, indicated the wrongness of the police force over which be had control. He was fortunate to get away without a gaol sentence. Nothing less than public accountability must be demanded. We should not forget that the case went to the House of Lords only after the Brighton Corporation had been supported up to the top by every legal judgment. The fact that that judgment is likely to be wrong makes the whole thing look absolutely ridiculous. As I say, it is all concerned with a lack of public accountability.
There is a lack of public accountability in Nottingham over Captain Popkess. The way that man could have got going on the previous year's mayor and brought about a heresy hunt and a campaign of victimisation and jumped into the electoral arena on election day to blacken one political party is something quite beyond me. It was the nearest thing in this country I have seen to fascism in public life. This has happened and we have this position in Sheffield. Unfortunately, the Home Secretary is not in his place and I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept from me that what happened in Sheffield demands a thorough investigation. In fact, unless the Home

757
Secretary grants such an investigation he will appear to be conniving at what has taken place there.
These things are very difficult and it brings me to the question of complaints about the police. On the one or two occasions when people have come to me I have advised them, as a layman, that from my experience they should always as soon as possible get into court because that is the only place where they can hold a policeman really responsible. If one goes through the normal channels, of writing to the Home Secretary and so on, one gets a very dusty deal indeed. There is a sort of general cover-up all along the line, and justice is certainly not seen to be done. I have never seen an hon. Member satisfied with what has taken place as a result of going through the normal channels. Even a man as eminent as my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who took a case which he documented to the hilt, ran into a complete cover-up right through the lower levels.
When the Home Secretary suggests that the complainant should be present when the complaint is made, then I reply that it would be far more effective if the complainant could have with him a man of legal standing. I have seen this sort of thing before. The people concerned are not, like us, used to public life. They are brave enough in bringing a complaint apart from having to repeat it before an authority which takes the view, "What? One of my men? If a man has enough spirit and enough courage to say that authority has been usurped, then he should be protected.
I have had some experience of this sort of thing, particularly in the 1930s over the right of public assembly. The thing is so old that I do not want to go into it today. But it took Sir Stafford Cripps on one occasion to get simple justice out of a local police inspector who usurped his authority.
Let us make no mistake about it. There is a great deal of feeling in the country about the public accountability of the police. I have as good an opinion of the police as any hon. Member. But, after all, we see them in our day-to-day affairs and under the best conditions. Let us not deceive ourselves. One's
758
opinion of the police is largely conditioned by the sort of person one is. If one goes to Armley jail in my constituency one finds there a very different view from ours.
The difficulty is that the police have been brought up against the middle-class, who are the motoring class. Before, when they were dealing with crooks and thugs on Saturday night, they were the best body of men in the world. Now they have been brought up against the motoring public and we all know what has been happening. What happened quite recently until the Minister of Transport announced changes? Juries would not convict even on culpable offences of driving under the influence of drink. The fact is that the police are facing the middle-class, who do not take such a good view of the police. This is a bad thing altogether. But having equated the arguments as fairly as I can, I tend to come down in favour of a wider measure of local autonomy.
I have with me a book issued by the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which I am a vice-president. It is well worth reacting, for it has all sorts of points of detail which the Press does not hear. I do not want to go through it but they are points of substance.
One of the criticisms of the Royal Commission was its attempt to degrade the elected element, although in this context we must bear in mind its personnel. But this attitude runs right throughout the Report. More and more, we are tending to take things away from local authorities in order to give them to appointed bodies, as if by appointing a man one secures a person of higher calibre and as if the process of election somehow contaminates people. I wonder sometimes why we are here at all.
I was arrested by one thing which the Home Secretary said. I do not think he meant it this way but he seemed to imply that if we allowed too much latitude in complaints against the police we would be in danger of upsetting their morale. Tomorrow he should read in HANSARD what the hon. Member for Cheadle said.
I have been in this House for fourteen years now. Mercifully, few of our people here have been in deep trouble, and we

759
were very sad about them. I do not suppose that the percentage of defaulters in the police has been higher than the percentage of Members of this House who turned out to be less than they should be. But this is not something which one should cover up. It is something one should frankly admit. I think that the police forces are better for it.
A more open form of tribunal has been suggested to hear complaints. I do not know whether the quarter sessions would be the best machinery, but certainly I think that the matter should be taken away from the Home Secretary. Some court should be given the job. The hon. Member for Cheadle thought that the proceedings should always be in public, but I am not so sure. We should remember that the police are very much at the mercy of the most reprehensible characters in society and that they are entitled to the sort of protection by which a man, especially in a small force, could go back to his beat with his record untarnished, and without the odium of people saying, "There's no smoke without fire".
Mr. Bingham: I suggest that anyone who wanted to have a matter heard at quarter sessions would have to apply to the chairman for a certificate. This would protect against frivolity. At the same time, the chairman would give directions as to whether the matter was to be heard in private or in public.
Mr. Pannell: I do not much object to that, but what worries me is that I would not want policemen subjected to forms of victimisation which might make it imperative for them to resign from the force even though completely innocent.
This is a difficult subject. One can read the whole of the Report and realise that the whole system is very patchy. I can think of some rather small forces which can be quoted with approval against some of the big forces. But I suppose that the pattern of local government also happens to go that way. There are good town clerks and bad ones, good councillors and bad ones. I do not know whether the final argument is that of size, but I am sure that, at the end of the day, we could not stand a national force. We would run into all sorts of difficulties in trying to make it publicly accountable, Therefore, I come down in favour of local forces.
760
We must remember, when considering control, that in the main people enter public life not for the worst of reasons but for the best. I do not deride the public spirit which takes people to serve on local councils. In the main, they tend to be people with more sense of public responsibility than some of those the chief constables might get in other circumstances.
I am not entirely sold on the idea that the chief constable should have the last word on promotion. I think that he should have the controlling word but that there should be a veto in order to stop any unnecessary favouritism. I do not think that we shall ever be completely satisfied with our police forces. We shall always get local complaints. I am glad that I have reached the time of life, and have seen so much over many years in all sorts of vicissitudes, such as strikes, that I can take a rather more benign view than I did in my younger days.
7.55 p.m.
Mr. William Roots): One of the most striking facts which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was the very remarkable increase in recruitment to the police which has occurred in recent years. I join with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham) in saying that the size of a police force is no criterion of efficiency. But surely our aim must be to get as near as we can, at any rate, to a state where there is a policeman on the spot immediately before a crime is to be committed. Alternatively, let us have him there either at the same time or as soon as possible afterwards. It is only with an adequate force that we can hope to achieve that. It is a fact which very often escapes the public in this respect.
A few months ago I had a letter from a constituent who had suffered a very unpleasant burglary. He suggested that the penalties for burglars should be increased, in effect to dipping in boiling oil or something of that sort, which was an attitude one could appreciate at the time. But it only transpired at the end of the letter that no one had so far been caught. Dipping in boiling oil would have been quite ineffective.

761
There seems to be an extraordinary confusion of thought among the public—and it may have escaped my right hon. Friend-—about the severity of sentences, the apprehension of the criminal and, better still, the prevention of crime at all. For my part, I welcome the present increase in recruitment and, provided that the forces can be kept efficient, I think that there is much to be said for a considerable further increase.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the cost as being about £150 million. He did not mention—and I do not blame him for it but it is something that we must bear in mind—that the cost in terms of cash value of articles stolen must be in excess of that in a year, added to which are the immense sums spent on traffic control and motor accidents. Therefore, when one sets the total cost of the police against the losses in various forms which might be prevented, one realises that even compared with other forms of social services we are spending a comparatively small amount on the police.
The troubles which they seek to prevent are certainly ones which cause many people a great deal of distress and trouble. It is also fair to say that it is perhaps a measure of the degree of security in which we find ourselves that it is astonishing the extent to which members of the public entirely fail to look after themselves: and really place themselves and their belongings in circumstances which positively invite crime.
I want to draw attention to one other aspect not mentioned so far in the debate. Anyone who has spent time at quarter sessions must have heard prisoners' records produced. Time and again one hears of sentences of six months, nine months, two years and then of a succession of sentences of two years or three years, going on almost indefinitely. One knows perfectly well that, whatever sentence is imposed, however severe it is, it will not stop that man, I am sorry to say, from committing another crime.
If such a man sees something he can steal, be will steal it. If he wants cigarettes he will break into a shop to get them. The apprehension of these criminals and the attempts to prevent these crimes take the police from other, more important jobs. These crimes are serious to those who suffer them, of course, but each is not individually so bad in itself.
762
It has made me feel very strongly that we need some system of segregation for habitual criminals who commit not really severe crimes in themselves. Merely to make prison severe will not put them off, but it is most unfortunate that we have not evolved a system by which they can be segregated and prevented from injuring other members of the public for comparatively lengthy periods.
I know that my right hon. Friend has abolished, or is considering abolishing, the system of preventive detention and that there are quite separate reasons for that, but I am thinking of a different system from the preventive detention system, perhaps something halfway between prison and a mental institution, because many of these men have reached the stage when their trouble is a form of mental weakness.

The second matter to which reference has been made, and which undoubtedly is very important, is the relationship between the police and the public. I often wonder whether the police realise how high a regard the public has for the police force as a whole. Obviously, this must be a matter of concern to chief constables. One cannot help feeling that they could not do better than to impress on young constables how much is to be lost and how little gained by rudeness. All hon. Members must have had cases brought to their attention in which members of the public have become irritated out of all measure simply by quite unnecessary rudeness by a police officer who has harmed the whole force and confidence in the force by his action.
I suppose that most of us have had some personal complaint about the attitude of the police. It is striking how many people in this House have suffered. Some years ago, I was absolutely convinced that a member of the police force was seeking to provoke me. I mentioned the matter casually to various people in the House afterwards and was surprised to find how many of them had had a rather similar experience. Plainly, it harms the confidence which people have in the police when this sort of thing happens.
As I have said, this matter must, in my view, rest largely on the example and regulation of the force by the chief constable. Many hon. Members have referred

763
to the importance which his post should hold. I agree with that. It must follow that, if we give him strong and wide powers, there must be, to put it shortly, a method of getting rid of him if he fails to carry out his duties—to require his retirement, or to take whatever similar course is appropriate.
The third aspect on which I wish to comment is organisation. I entirely agree that it would be inappropriate to have a central police force. I believe that the link with local government is important. When people, either members of local authorities, or, to use a broad term, local personages, cease to be sufficiently responsible to run the police force and to maintain a proper standard of law and order, we shall have reached a very serious position. I do not believe for a moment that we have reached or will reach that position. The fact that local people have to take the responsibility of ensuring that law and order is kept is of prime importance and is even more important than having a theoretically more efficient police force.
I welcome the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston that there should be some form of appeal to a limited committee of quarter sessions in connection with complaints by the public. Provided it were limited to serious cases, as it could be, that would be most helpful to the police as well as to the public because a number of complaints would be publicly declared to be without foundation. That would create a great deal of confidence in the police force. It is much more effective if a complaint is shown to be groundless by an independent person than if it is merely dismissed by someone who the public, rightly or wrongly, thinks has an interest.
I was interested to hear the Home Secretary, who has an almost unrivalled knowledge of local government, refer to the fact that our local government system, if one views it over the ages, is at the half-way stage. We have left the old historic pattern and are now working on a late nineteenth century pattern. In my view, that pattern should and will change. I think that it is strikingly out of date in one particular, namely, the completely autonomous county borough. I do not believe that it is necessary, wise
764
or good that a county borough should be very nearly all-purpose. The idea that it should be autonomous is outdated and, in many respects, is working to the ill of the country and of its organisation.
When my right hon. Friend is considering reorganisation of the police, I hope that he will bear in mind that the present local government structure is by no means a final structure. May I put forward my own view? Leaving aside the big conurbations and certain special cases, I cannot help feeling that the present geographical county, which is an existing structure and quite small enough to be called thoroughly local, is, in fact, the right basis on which to organise what I might call the lowest police unit.
There might be inspectorate conferences and consultations above that. If we make the main unit the county force running into the boroughs, there is no reason why the boroughs should not retain their special features. Many are very proud of special bits of uniform and badges which are, rightly, worn. I do not believe that any of the pride in a local force would be lost if it became wholly a county force and operated in the boroughs as well as in the counties.
There has taken place under the last Criminal Justice Act a very important reorganisation or rearrangement of petty sessions and, particularly, quarter sessions which has largely eliminated the barriers which existed between borough sessions and county sessions and which had created unnecessary complications. Many of the barriers have been broken down. I have not heard any complaints that boroughs have lost face by the fact that prisoners from outside their areas can now be tried in the boroughs, or that offences committed in their areas can be tried at the county quarter sessions.
When my right hon. Friend is considering the organisation, I hope that he will consider whether some of these barriers which prevent an improvement in the structure could not perfectly well be removed without creating any hardship or cutting down worthwhile local pride and historical connections.
One is left with the best piece of information which has come to us this afternoon from the Home Secretary's figures—the remarkable improvement in recruitment which has resulted in recent years.
Mr. Ede: We have had a very useful day's discussion, all the more useful because it has proceeded on the basis which the Home Secretary suggested in opening—that we should not dig ourselves into entrenched positions, but should have a broad and general discussion in which hon. Members from their diverse experiences would be able frankly to state their views about the problems which the right hon. Gentleman submitted to us.
Much has been said about the inspectors. I would welcome an extension of the inspectorate, but I hope that the basis upon which a person can qualify for an inspectorship can be altered from what it was when I was actively associated with making the appointments. The amount which the Treasury allowed for the salary of an inspector was such that the only way in which to get a suitable man was to spot him and then go to his local police authority and ask it to retire him on pension. He could then join the inspectorate, drawing his pension as a retired chief constable and receiving the salary thought suitable for an inspector.
That is the wrong way to deal with so important a position, and if it has not yet been altered, I hope that the Home Secretary will take steps to see that the scale of salaries for inspectors will be such that a man can regard it as being a worthy termination of his career in the police force without having to rely on his pension as an ex-chief constable to have sufficient to keep up his more exalted position.
It is one of the anomalies in these matters that one comes across all kinds of snags when one tries to improve conditions in the service. I have been interested in what has been said today about recruitment, about recruiting into the service people with sufficient broad and general education to give one some confidence about trying to train them for some of the higher positions in the Force. I am sure that we have to avoid creating the difficulty which severely distressed police forces for many years—that of getting a new sort of Hendon arrangement which would produce the utmost dissatisfaction among police forces.
We should hope to get from the grammar and public schools and from the universities people with a sufficiently wide
766
range of mind to be able to envisage the problems which would confront them as chief constables, and to get them to enter the Force so that we would have many people who could be expected to train to become worthy candidates when chief constableships were vacant. Let us be quite sure that they have to be policemen rather than scholars for a start. They would have to prove their ability as policemen, but they would have also to show the size of their educational qualifications needed to fit them for their heavy responsibilities as chief constables.
I am in the unfortunate position that I like neither watch committees not standing joint committees. I served on a standing joint committee for more than twenty years and I have some knowledge of the difficulties. I object to a standing joint committee, because I do not think that justices of the peace should in any way appear to be connected with the police system. Until comparatively recent times, the last one hundred years or so, justices were responsible for the whole police system. Anyone who attends quarter sessions on the day when the learned clerk rises in his place and reads the commission will know that. It used to happen in my own county at one time at every opening day of quarter sessions—it has now been reduced to once a year. When one heard the great commission read and the duties assigned to the justices assembled in quarter sessions, it became clear that down to Victorian times justices were the governing body of the police system.
In these days we try to avoid talking about police courts. In the circles where justices meet, it is very impolite to allude to their courts as police courts. It is impressed upon everyone that they must always be called magistrates' courts. Several comments have been made today to show that on occasion there is still a great display of minor members of police forces in court, making those who attend feel that after all it is still a police show. I hope that the matters which have been raised today will receive the Home Secretary's attention when he lays down the new arrangements.
It is quite wrong that the disciplinary authority in a county borough should be the watch committee and not a chief constable. I have had experiences—the right hon. Gentleman will find them if

767
he goes through the files of my time—of grave difficulties because of the way in which a police officer was sufficiently on drinking terms with members of the watch committee to make it very difficult to feel that in appropriate circumstances discipline would be applied to him if necessary.
I know of another case. A sergeant in a city police force was brought before the watch committee. Nearly 100 accusations were made against him of the way in which he had dealt with certain aliens who, towards the end of the war, had been very much under his care. The watch committee found that 92 of the accusations were proved. They then turned to the town clerk who was in attendance and asked what punishments could be inflicted on the sergeant. The town clerk started with dismissal from the force and wound up with a reprimand. The sergeant was reprimanded.
I went to the city and saw the lord mayor, the chairman of the watch committee, and the town clerk. I asked the chairman of the watch committee, "Were you not very surprised at this?". "No", he said, "I was not surprised". I asked, "Did you think it necessary to give a lead?". "No", he said, I cannot give a lead. I am the chairman, and when I am chairman I must observe strict impartiality ". I asked the lord mayor whether he had been present, and whether he thought that he ought to have given a lead. "No", he said, "because it might be said at the city council that as I had given a lead to the watch committee I could not be impartial in the chair of the city council."
I then said to the lord mayor and the chairman of the committee, "If a man commits 92 breaches of discipline and he is reprimanded, how many breaches have to be proved before he is promoted?" The town clerk was the only man who laughed. As a result of further inquiries, I discovered that the serjeant in question was the son of a former serjeant. The case had not been judged on its merits at all.
I could recount three or four other cases, not quite as bad as that one, but along the same lines, and I am certain that the proper person to exercise disciplinary powers in any police force is
768
the chief constable. The lower ranks of the force have the protection, of which they are not slow to avail themselves, of being able to appeal to the Secretary of State if they think there has been a miscarriage of justice in the way the chief constable has handled the case.
We are all perturbed by the fact that a number of good citizens view the police with considerable suspicion, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), as usual, applied his acute mind to the problem and produced the reason for this. There is no doubt that the internal combustion engine, and the laws and rules that are being made to protect us from the greater slaughter that would occur from this lethal weapon unless severe police regulations and enforcements were made, are responsible for this state of affairs.
After all, we have even had to adapt the law to the middle class circumstances that are being created. In the old days, when one occasionally came across a carter who had been charged with being in charge of a horse and vehicle while under the influence of drink, one found that no doctor had any hesitation in saying, if he was convinced it was the truth, that the man was drunk.
I recollect the first time that a doctor created trouble about this at a meeting of the Surrey sessions. A man was charged with being drunk in charge of a motor car. When the doctor was asked whether the man was drunk, he said, "I do not know what you mean by 'drunk'. That is a colloquial term. If you were to tell me what his symptoms were I could tell you whether he ought to drive a car or not, but I could not say whether he was drunk".
Those of us who served in the First World War know that the Army definition of being drunk was that if a man could take his boots off before he got into bed, he was not drunk, but that, if he could not manage that, he was drunk, and the appropriate penalties were meted out to him. We have had so to amend the law as to get what the doctor to whom I alluded in the case I heard, asked for.
Police officers and other witnesses detail the symptoms that they see, and if the defendant has a good barrister, when he comes to address the jury, he warns them to be very careful. He says, "If

769
you put your hand on your car when you get out of it after a slight accident because you are feeling a sense of responsibility and shock, P.C. Jones will say, 'You are drunk: you are unsteady'. If, in the glare of the lights, the pupils of your eyes are dilated, Constable Jones will say, 'You are drunk'"—and so he goes through the six or seven symptoms.
It is a very strong jury, even after it has received the appropriate warning from the chairman, which, in those circumstances, will find the man guilty. When it was just a case of the carter going home from market, who had imbibed a little too much, there was no difficulty in getting a conviction, but once it came to be middle-class patients very different circumstances occurred.
We all know from conversations with friends who are motorists that there is this feeling that the police are unduly harsh on this very large section of the community. I once took part in a discussion in which it was suggested that only motorists should serve on juries, and I could not help thinking that was getting on to very dangerous ground, because why should there not be, at petty sessions, only drunkards to try the ordinary charge of being drunk? No one would suggest that that should happen.
The Home Secretary has explained the lines on which he intends to apply the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I gave evidence before the Commission. On the whole, I think that its Report and recommendations are sound. I hope that an early occasion will be taken to promote legislation so that we can get the advantages which have been mentioned.
I want to say a word on the question of the size of police authorities in the areas they maintain. I am against a national police force. What we have seen in Europe in the first half of the twentieth century should warn us all against concentrating police power too much in the hands of one Department and one Minister. We have had some wonderful examples recently of the way in which Ministers will elevate things into matters of principle. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government actually said that the size of a local council was a matter of principle. I do not believe that at all.
770
The size should be determined by the requirements of the area and the population to be served.
Some smaller authorities might well disappear. In 1946, I abolished the non-county borough police authority and the non-county borough police force. The most terrible things were prophesied by members of the Tory Party, who then adorned the Opposition Front Bench, of what the results would be. I hear no complaints now that forces are those for counties and county boroughs. I do not go quite as far as did the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots), when he suggested that geographical counties should form the basis of the police forces of the future. One has to have regard to local government areas.
Chester was combined with Cheshire for a joint committee when I was Home Secretary, and there are one or two other cathedral cities that ought to be dealt with similarly in regard to the police force of the county in which the cathedral city is situated, and I commend them to the right hon. Gentleman far attention. Not that I have any animosity towards cathedral cities; I generally visit the cathedral when I visit its city—taking great care not to interfere with the ordinary business of the cathedral. There are two or three cases where there is a small county borough police force right in the middle of a county with a considerable force, and they could generally be amalgamated with advantage. The Home Secretary is wise also to get away from the 100,000 population figure of safety for an existing force and so be able to bring the 100,000 population into any suitable area that may be going.
I am (mite certain that even at the present rate of recruitment of suitable candidates there will be great difficulty as the years go by in getting chief constables for all the forces. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to get from grammar schools, public schools and universities recruits who are willing to become policemen, to train as policemen, and then hope that their general education will justify the employing authorities promoting them to the higher ranks of the force. At the same time, I hope that he will be very careful not to make it appear that

771
if a man has had a grammar school, public school or university education he is wasting his time in the police force unless he gets high promotion. There should be room for men of that capacity to serve in the junior ranks and, where they show the requisite police abilities, to graduate to become deputy chief constables or chief constables.
One of the things that gave me the greatest trouble in my first years at the Home Office was the continued resentment of the ordinary policeman at the preference which had been shown, in days prior to my arrival, to the Hendon entrant, who had believed that he had somehow or other been given a favoured position inside the police force, simply because he had been to Hendon.
A police force must be a unity. I am a little perturbed at the continued use of the word "co-ordination", when reference is made to neighbouring police forces. Just before the war we had considerable trouble over a Department formed for the co-ordination of defence. It never appeared to make any great contribution towards the improvement of relationships between the Departments concerned with defence. I would far sooner talk about co-operation than co-ordination between neighbouring forces.
There may be a case for some form of regional organisation eventually. I do not dispute that. But we have not yet reached that stage. We could move towards it now with greater cooperation between adjoining forces, and I hope that in bringing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into force the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to ensure that police forces axe unified rather than made uniform, and that we shall get co-operation between forces so as to enable the very skilful and scientific direction of criminal forces by master criminals to be countered by a similar arrangement for the detection and prevention of crime.
I join with what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said earlier: the failure to detect crime is the worst of all the features that confront the Home Secretary and law-abiding citizens. The percentage of cases that go unsolved is a serious
772
menace to the country, and the chief test of the efficiency of a police force founded on British tradition is its ability to prevent and detect the crimes that unworthy members of society inflict upon the rest of us.
8.38 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: I have a prejudice to declare. The minority Report of the Royal Commission was written by Professor Goodhart, and Professor Goodhart is my father. I have known him for about thirty-seven years, and although he has been wrong on occasions he has not often been wrong, and I do not think that he has been wrong on this occasion.
I have been rather more impressed by some of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite—notably the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher)—than by the speech of the Home Secretary. I was cheered by the recruitment figures that he gave at the beginning of his speech, but I found the rest of it very depressing indeed. Naturally enough, I regard the main recommendations of the Royal Commission as being a springboard for advance to the recommendations contained in the minority Report.
In this instance it seems that the Home Secretary did not accept some of the most important recommendations. I find it a little hard to understand his feeling—if I understood him correctly—that the morale in a police force is dependent to a large extent on a statutory connection with a local authority. After all, in the Army. which is a national service, there are strong connections between local regiments, although there is no statutory connection with the local authority. Here there is a local pride and a high state of morale. Similarly, perhaps the most famous police force in the Commonwealth, if one excepts the Metropolitan Police, is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which is a national institution.
I was disturbed by the remarks of my right hon. Friend about the responsibility of the Home Secretary which has been gone into at length during the debate. If we are interested in the democratic control of the police, I do not think that we can look on the present rule about putting down Questions to the Home Secretary regarding the conduct

773
of the police as being at all satisfactory. To me it seems illogical that, as a Member of Parliament, I should be able to put down a Question about any member of the Armed Forces but, although I represent a constituency within the Metropolitan Police area, if I wish to put down a Question about the activities of the police in my constituency, I have to show a sort of procedural ingenuity which would strain the greatest Parliamentary contortionist.
I was also disturbed by the remarks of the Home Secretary about amalgamation because it seems to me that the proposals advanced by the Royal Commission are minimum rather than maximum proposals as the Home Secretary seemed to view them. At this hour I do not propose to explore all the arguments in favour of amalgamation, but clearly there are strong grounds from the point of view of efficiency. Mention has been made of the Mi. Five police forces are responsible for the maintenance of good order and traffic control on the M.1 at the present time, and before extensions to this highway have been made. In the evidence presented to the Royal Commission it was stated that a criminal driving a car in the Manchester area could, in one hour., enter six different police districts and each district would be operating a different wireless wavelength. Clearly this cannot be right from the point of view of efficiency.
The motor car and the internal combustion engine has made necessary sweeping reforms in our police system, just as the industrial revolution at the beginning of the nineteenth century required a reformation in the old parish constable system. It is the motor car that is spreading police problems, first from the capital to the conurbations and then from the conurbations through the countryside as a whole. It seems to me that at the very least the Home Secretary should look favourably on the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission that he should consider carefully the question of making the conurbations into single police districts.
Like many other hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I have been much impressed by paragraph 308 of the Report which deals with the educational
774
attainments of the recent recruits to the police force. It says:
"We have come across no recent instance of a university graduate entering the service; only about 1 per cent. of recruits have two or more G.C.E. passes at advanced level; a further 10 per cent. have five or more G.C.E. subjects at ordinary level…
Therefore, we are faced with the position at the moment that far more university graduates are becoming criminals each year than are becoming policemen. In our society that seems to me to be shocking and deplorable.
I do not think that tinkering about with the requirements for promotion from constable to sergeant, and changing the qualification period from five years to three years, will affect the position in the least. The recommendations put forward by Mr. Hetherington, Lord Geddes and their colleague about special recruitment for detectives may be of some assistance. However, one wants men of fairly high educational attainments not only concentrated in the C.I.D. but throughout the whole administration of our police force.
The inhibiting factor is the lack of a decent career structure in a great many of our police forces. I have a young son who, like many boys, hopes at one time or another to become a policeman. If he wished to become a member of the Metropolitan Police Force I should welcome it, because it seems to me that here is a unit which offers a good career prospect to a sensible and intelligent young man. but if he proposed to enter one of the smaller police forces I would do almost everything I could to dissuade him. One of the advantages of regionalisation and of pressing amalgamations far further than the Home Secretary seems willing to go, is that it offers the prospect of a decent career structure which I think is the only way in which we shall recruit people of sufficient educational attainment.
There is another factor, which has not been mentioned in the debate, which will also push us towards the regionalisation in the future. I refer to the financing of the police. In 1951–52, the cost of the police service was about £56 million. In 1961–62 it is over £120 million. Clearly, this figure should increase and will increase in the years to come.

775
We all know of the growing pressure of protest against increases in the rates. Already, in my constituency I have found a considerable body of opinion which takes the view that the financial responsibility far the police should be pushed on to the national Exchequer. If this sentiment grows, as I think it will, expressing the wish of local inhabitants to loosen the local financial ties of the police, there will, I believe, be a considerable danger that pressure on the rates will lead to unwise economies.
I have been reading the most recent annual report issued by the chief constable of the City of Oxford, a city with which my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State is well acquainted. In this report, the chief constable draws attention to the fact that all policemen in his force have to work more overtime than is desirable, and he says that it is important to recruit more men to the force. Recently, he went on record as saying that another 100 men were needed.
What has happened during the last two years? The minimum height requirement for the City Police has been raised from 5 ft. 8 ins. to 5 ft. 10 ins. In 1961–62, about 70 potential recruits were rejected because they did not come up to the physical standard, the main cause for their rejection being, as is said in the report, the raising of the height requirement.
It seems to me that the only possible ground for changing the minimum height requirement from 5 ft. 8 ins. to 5 ft. 10 ins. is a desire on the part of the local authority to restrict recruiting. Apart from the wish not to have a further charge on the rates, there seems to be no other ground. I am certain that there is a danger here that, so long as so much of the burden of police finance remains on the rates, there will be pressure leading to unwise economies. Pressure of this kind and the influence of the way our society is developing will, I believe, push perhaps not the present Home Secretary but future Home Secretaries of any political party in the direction of more regionalisation.
It seems to me that, in his approach to the Royal Commission's Report, my right hon. Friend was rather looking
776
back to the 1940s. The Report itself presents what would, perhaps, have been quite good answers to the problems of the 1950s. In my view, the answer to the problems of the 1960s and the 1970s is contained in the Memorandum of Dissent.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I cannot follow my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) by saying that Dr. Goodhart is my father—that would be a gross exaggeration—but I can follow him in saying that I agree with his views, and I do so without any taint, if that be the right word, of filial piety.
I represent 67,000 electors in the Borough of Ilford who have fairly clear and crude views about the police. They are interested in police efficiency because they are deeply concerned at the rising tide of crime. They are deeply concerned at the unsatisfactory relationship between public and police. The House has already been reminded that the Royal Commission was set up because of the Garratt and Eastmond case. They are concerned also about the rates which they have to pay, a considerable portion of which is required by the police precept.
When I consider the Royal Commission's Report from these electors' point of view, I find that the majority Report strikes a less responsive chord that does Dr. Goodhart's lucid and powerful Memorandum of Dissent. Dr. Goodhart recommended a nationally administered police force under the direction of the Home Secretary who would be answerable to Parliament for general policy and for day-to-day administration. In my view, this must come sooner or later, and I regret the Government's view that it is right to hasten so very slowly that progress in that direction should be almost imperceptible.
Mr. Neil McBride rose—
Mr. Iremonger: I ask the hon. Gentleman to be good enough to allow me to continue. I want to sit down before five past nine.
I am sorry that the Government take the view they do. It is very interesting to see, in paragraph 128 of the Royal

777
Commission's Report, how near a thing it was that the Royal Commission came down on the side it did. Paragraph 128 contains a remarkable sentence. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) said that he had his favourite paragraph. This is mine. It says:
"there remains in the minds of a number of us a clear impression that a single centrally directed force would prove to be a more effective instrument for fighting crime and for handling road traffic than the present large number of local forces".
It is interesting that that should be in the majority Report. Dr. Goodhart made a very penetrating observation when he remarked in paragraphs 66 and 67 of his Memorandum that the evidence the Royal Commission received came largely from those who would naturally have a bias in favour of the status quo, but that there was very strong evidence from the Inns of Court Conservative and Unionist Society, the Law Society and the Police Federation in the opposite sense.
What does the Memorandum of Dissent say about the majority Report recommendations? It says, I think rightly, on the subject of efficiency, that the Home Secretary has responsibility without power. And that is, indeed, what he would have under its recommendations. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) made the penetrating comment that the Home Secretary would be a kind of harlot in reverse. I cannot see that my right hon. Friend's proposals are any better than the Commission's recommendations.
With reference to police relations with the public, there will be no Parliamentary accountability. My right hon. Friend would not be responsible for day-to-day administration and, as far as I can see, there would be no possibility of Questions being asked in the House. I was puzzled to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire say that one can now raise matters in the House arising out of the administration of the police in the metropolitan area. I have found the very reverse. I believe that the situation would be the same under my right hon. Friend's proposal as under the recommendations.
In the matter of dealing with complaints against the police, the majority recommendations would still make the police authority judge in its own case. I
778
believe that the Government's view does not go far enough in the direction of changing the principle. On several occasions I have had complaints made to me by constituents about the police. I have been totally unable to help them. At the end of the day, after courteous correspondence between myself and the police authorities and my right hon. Friend, my constituents were left with the impression that this was all being covered up. They were utterly unconvinced that the complaint had been properly investigated. I could not feel that I was able to answer to them for the health of the institution. This causes me great misgivings and I do not see any prospect, in the Government's proposals, of the situation being improved.
What are the objections to a nationally administered police force? They are, first, a fear of central control, and, secondly, an enthusiasm for local control. I do not think that the fear of central control can any longer be maintained. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) make this point about the danger of a strong central police force, although the House always listens to the right hon. Gentleman with profound respect, as he is a distinguished former Home Secretary.
I was surprised because I thought that the Commission itself in its majority Report absolutely demolished the argument that it was dangerous to have a centrally controlled police force. In brief, it said that if ever there were in this country the kind of Government which would abuse its power over a centrally directed police force it would have come in on a tide of popular support which would enable it to take such powers, even if they were not already there. Therefore, one is not avoiding a situation which would arise if there were a Fascist or Communist Government. Professor Goodhart, in his Memorandum of Dissent, makes an extra powerful point by saying that there is historically seen to be a far greater danger from weak local police than from a strong central police force. I want to examine the enthusiasm for local control. One must distinguish between enthusiasm for what one might call local-ness and enthusiasm for local control. It is the local "bobby" that people like, not the local chief constable. I am certain that we could keep

779
the local "bobby", who is a local man, in the local police and yet still have the force as a whole centrally directed.
I think that the present idea that we have local control of the police is a constitutional sham. All that can be said for the present system is that it is not centrally controlled. It is certainly not locally controlled. It is by way of being a partnership between local government, central government and the "police service", as my right hon. Friend said, although I do not think that the "police service" comes into it at all. I do not think that the central Government comes into it at all, either. And I am sure that local government does not. If one tries to get at the police force through either of them, one soon finds that they do not come into it. The reality is that the control is in the hands of the chief constable.
I say nothing against the chief constable, but one must observe that he is a man who is virtually a law unto himself, virtually unremovable and "uncontrolled", as Professor Goodhart says. To imagine that, just because there is a rather complicated set-up of a relationship with a local authority, there is local control, is an illusion which does not fool anybody but those who have a sentimental interest in retaining it. Do not let us imagine, either, that the Royal Commission's recommendations will retain the sacrosanct principle of local control, because they will not. The amalgamation into the larger-sized force will break just as many bones as the change to a completely centralised system would.
I want, finally, to revert to the third of the things about which my constituents are worried, the question of rates. It is absurd that one should put on to this regressive form of taxation by way of local rates a service which is not local, when there is here the perfect source from which about £65 million could be got to put on to the progressive form of taxation, Income Tax, and relieve the ratepayers accordingly. I am sure, therefore, that constitutionally, financially and logically it would have been much better had the Government seized this opportunity to make a radical change—"a notable constitutional change", as the Royal Commission called it.
780
I am sorry to say that there has been a fumbling failure to grasp this momentous opportunity and I regret that my right hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest possible respect, has not seen fit to follow the example of his notable Conservative predecessor, Sir Robert Peel, but has, instead, followed the Duke of Wellington.
9.6 p.m.
Sir Frank Soskice: Although not before a thronging audience, this has been a useful debate on one of the most admirably drafted Reports it has been our good fortune to consider for some time. It raises a wide variety of issues. There are Ill recommendations and it would be quite impossible, within the scope of the 25 minutes allotted to me, to deal with many of them. I will, therefore, pick out what seem to me to be the principal points of principle.
I suppose that a lot of us when we consider our experiences in our own constituenciec are sometimes apt to be rather like Voltaire when writing Candide, thinking that everything is best in this best possible of all worlds. I have sat for four constituencies and in each one there were chief constables who seemed to be grand personalities in whom I had every confidence. I am sure that my present chief constable, Mr. Smeed, is among the very excellent ones who work up and down the country. When one listens to a speech such as that made from his rich experience by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) one receives a jolt and must seriously consider whether the time has not come for a radical change.
If one approaches this problem from the point of view of principle, this conclusion from the outset is surely inescapable. Crime is now organised on a national scale. We are no longer in the era when the most formidable criminal was a middle-aged gentleman who, if he stole into a house, would pinch some lead piping or something like that. We are told that there are shadowy figures lingering in the background and we do not know the full scope of their operations. We are told that vast rings of crime, led by mythical figures, have tremendous powers of organisation at their disposal. We are told that when someone goes "inside" his family is at once provided

781
for and that when he comes out his "cut" is waiting for him. We are told stories of escape over the walls of prisons which previously seemed to defy any attempt at escape by a prisoner. We are told that if such a prisoner escapes a motor car is waiting for him, along with a change of clothing and papers to establish a new identity.
One must be generally uneasy about the task with which the police have now to compete. It is vastly different in its dimensions, complications and dangers than those with which police forces have had to contend in our previous history. It seems, therefore, that change is inevitable. It is not a question of whether we can still retain a system dating back to the middle ages, amended and remodelled by Victorian legislation. That is no longer the question. That system cannot any longer cope with the growing volume of crime which, unfortunately, besets our native land in modern times. The real question, therefore, is what should be the nature of the change. There cannot be any doubt that there must be a change from local and independent administration towards more centralised control.
Mr. McBride: Would my hon. Friend consider paragraph 24 of the booklet published by the Association of Municipal Corporations regarding the higher efficiency in certain areas? Would he also consider page 46 of the Commission's Report, in which it is stated:
"Nevertheless, we were much impressed by the wide concurrence of view among witnesses representing the Central Government, the local authority associations and the police themselves that a system "—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave way, but the hon. Member's intervention is becoming a speech within a speech and that is an abuse of the procedure of the House.
Sir F. SoskiceI take my hon. Friend's point. I had given consideration to the material to which he referred. One gets different views. One gets a somewhat differing view from the Report of the Police Federation for 1962, particularly that portion of it which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) in his full analysis earlier this afternoon.
782
It is all a question of balance. There are the most admirable local police forces which perform their tasks most efficiently. But as the years progress the police are faced with an ever heavier burden. It is for this reason that I have said that, accepting the premise on which the reasoning of the Royal Commission is based and accepting the kind of view formulated in the Annual Report of the Police Federation, I find it difficult to resist the conclusion that, little by little, control must be more centralised. It is a question of tempo and it would be a great pity if, by sweeping changes from local administration to central control, we did, by one stroke of the pen, annihilate or liquidate the whole massive system of local administration which has functioned so well. It is, as I say, a question of tempo.
Starting from that primary assumption, is the Home Secretary in his conclusions on the Report, advancing, as he must, at the right pace? He has accepted some change as being necessary and I do not believe that any hon. Member has said that no change at all is necessary. I have some reservations about his point of view and I put my thoughts this way: what, after all, is essential now? It is essential that some Minister with the status of a Secretary of State should be responsible to the community for seeing to it that we have an efficient police force. If that is a right conclusion, and if, as a corollary, we should be able to take him to task if he does not discharge that responsibility in our view adequately, it seems to me that one must, at the outset, accept the general conclusion at any rate of the majority of the Royal Commission that the right hon. Gentleman and his successors should be put under a constitutional duty to see that an adequate police force is provided.
That immediately brings one face to face with the very brilliant reasoning of the father of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). As I read the stirring passages in which the history of this institution of the police was analysed, I felt, as I am sure every hon. Member felt, a warm feeling and thought in what a perfect form this evolution over a thousand years had presented these institutions to us. I continued in that mood until I read the blistering analysis by Professor Goodhart. I was particularly jolted by a passage on page 162 in

783
which he said of what by then had become a cherished illusion of mine,
"To say that a constable is a citizen in uniform is no more accurate than it would be to say that all citizens are constables in plain clothes."
That is the limit of reductio ad absurdum
Nevertheless, I think that Professor Goodhart will concede that there is some element of truth in the concept on which we have based our appreciation of the institution of the constable which nevertheless remains and should be preserved. That concept is that the constable is one of us, that he is just a citizen—and should remain so, as far as we can so bring it about—who has certain extra powers and that in the provincial communities one probably actually knows him as an individual.
It is, perhaps, unrealistic to say that in a conurbation the local police officer is known to us as well as he is when we are living in a charming old village, say, in Devonshire. But nevertheless there is value in the concept that he is an ordinary citizen who has special responsibilities and a person to whom we owe a personal duty to help in the discharge by him of his extremely difficult and often dangerous duties. That is worth preserving.
Equally, the principle is worth preserving that men of good will locally should have the opportunity, and be required by our social system, to take part in the administration of a whole variety of services, including this particularly important service, the organisation of the police.
It seems to me then that these two things can be preserved—the former more easily perhaps than the latter. These are the independent status of the constable and local participation in local watch committees and standing joint committees. They can be preserved even although we are accomplishing change which the tide of events seems to prescribe as inevitable at the present time.
If I am right in that, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not making a serious mistake when he rejects the majority recommendation that he should be personally responsible as Secretary of State for seeing that there is an efficient police force. Professor Goodhart, with very admirable reasoning, would have had one go much further. I confess that when
784
I read the powers which the Royal Commission wishes to reside in the Secretary of State and I read the much clearer formulation of the position of the Secretary of State in the dissenting view of Professor Goodhart, and when I compare them with the attitude of the Home Secretary, I feel a slight confusion.
I understand clearly what Professor Goodhart proposes. I am not so clear as to what the Royal Commission's majority Report means by saying that the Secretary of State should have overall responsibility, because I am not sure that the powers that it would attribute to him would enable him to meet that responsibility.
Mr. Brooke indicated assent.
Sir F. Soskice: I see that the right hon Gentleman nods his head. No doubt that is the difficulty that he himself has considered and why he has adopted the point of view he indicated today. But I feel still more uncertain about that when I consider the terms used by the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he does not accept responsibility.
The right hon. Gentleman goes back to the position as it is now. He has a responsibility, which I have never been able to define very clearly, with regard to the Metropolitan Police. But we in this House would surely still be very limited in requiring him to answer questions and to assume responsibility for police forces outside the metropolitan district. He has said that he will be able to call for reports. No doubt if he does that we will be able to ask him at Question Time what is in those reports. If there is something in them which does not commend itself to us, there our influence and authority must end. We cannot then say to him that, as Secretary of State, he should take the necessary steps to correct what is shown to be wrong. Surely I am right in putting to him that his responsibility at Question Time will be extremely narrowly circumscribed. He will not be assuming as a senior Minister that degree of responsibility to the State which he ought to assume and which the changed situation of the times should impose on him.
I would say that that is the first major point which I would put when considering the terms of the proposal. It is absolutely essential to what we are considering to know what the Secretary of State is to

785
undertake. We must as a minimum be able 10 require him to be responsible either in the form which Professor Good-hart recommends or in the somewhat more nebulous form which the majority proposals of the Royal Commission recommend and to call on his responsibility as Secretary of State to ensure that the police force throughout the country is properly maintained in an efficient state. If he does not do that—and here I do not criticise him personally—he will not be constitutionally measuring up to the changes necessary for the proper conduct of our affairs in 1963 and onwards.
We are not considering this matter only in terms of 1963 or 1964. We must look forward to a vista of possibly deteriorating criminal situations as the years come and go. It is essential, as hon. Members have said, that crime should be certain of detection. This will be a more baffling problem and not a less baffling one. I should have thought that as the years go by, the need for some central responsibility for a proper police force must supplant the present situation in which, broadly speaking, we in this House are left without any control over the police forces of this country except in relation to the Metropolitan Police District.
I turn to what seems to me the second major point of principle which relates to the position of the police vis-è-vis the public. I was a little puzzled by what seemed to me to be two rather inconsistent passages in the Report about the present condition of relationships between the police and the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East quoted paragraph 341, which seemed to him to connote something less than one would hope for. In contrast to that, I should like to draw attention to paragraph 340, which begins by saying:
"No less than 83 per cent. of those interviewed professed great respect for the police …"
Comparing that with what is said in paragraph 341, I should simply like to put this question: how can one profess great respect for people who
"took bribes, used unnecessary violence, employed unfair means of getting evidence, or gave false evidence …"?
I prefer to look at paragraph 340.
My own general opinion, garnered from the experience which one has in
786
everyday conversation, is that relations with the police are good, as paragraph 340 would seem to say. However. I am somewhat distressed to read in paragraph 345 that it is the police themselves who feel that relationships with the public have deteriorated. I feel that they are too pessimistic. It is the nature of the people of this country to grumble. As the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) said, it would be quite ridiculous and unrealistic to suppose that in a force of 90,000 people, any more than in a membership of Parliament of 600, there were not some individuals who let down the general body of their colleagues. I should have thought that it was obviously the case that there are abuses from time to time. However, I feel very regretful when I hear those cases projected into general allegations that there is widespread corruption in the police. I do not believe it
I have had some experience of the police in my professional life and as a Member of Parliament and as a citizen. Naturally, I like to talk to members of the police. I have found no more severe critics of the black sheep in the police than the police themselves. I think that no one resents more being let down by some members of their force than members of the police. I think that it does no useful service to picture the police as declining in morale and standards. I do not think that that is true.
Nevertheless, I think, and I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman, that there is a case for a Commissioner of Rights as recommended by three members of the Commission. I would say that there was a case for that not merely because it would afford reassurance to members of the public who from time to time come into contact with something which has gone wrong, perhaps badly wrong, but it would be a protection for the police themselves.
Looking to see how the proposals in the minority Report would work, if understand them correctly they would work in the following way. The Commissioner is not some sort of second tribunal. It is not as if a police officer who had been exonerated by his chief constable would then again have to run the risk. The need is to assure the public and also to assure the police that

787
there is someone who will see to it that justice is not only done, but, as it is sometimes said, patently seen to be done.
Sir J. Duncan: What about his powers?
Sir F. Soskice: I was coming to that.
I conceive of him as being a highly placed official with a staff, as he is described, whose function it would be to consider complaints, not to re-try. It is clearly said in the minority Report that he is not to re-try police officers. When a case has been dealt with by the chief constable, in case of need in the event of complaints being made to him, the Commissioner could then call for the papers to see whether it had been properly dealt with. The name of the police officer if he had been acquitted is not to be mentioned. The Commissioner is to be the watchdog for the public who might feel aggrieved. This is a very effective way of providing for the public interest, and it seems to be a very good idea and I ask the Home Secretary to consider it.
I do not reflect upon the administration of disciplinary powers by chief eon-stables. In my conversations with chief constables and particularly with one of them, I have thought, "My goodness! You really are a bit hot on your force. If I had been in your place, I would have pretended to forget some of the things you were told. Some of them seemed to be of only a very slight seriousness ". I gather that this is the view of the Police Federation, and so I do not reflect on the administration of discipline which is sometimes rather severe.
Supplemented by the presence of this Commission, especially if possible crimes had to go to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration, and especially as the right hon. Gentleman might agree after consultation with the Law Officers should be the case, if police authorities are to be liable for damages in respect of civil torts by the police, and given the requirement that the responsible officer shall disclose the name of a policeman involved in an incident, anything that had gone wrong, if so found by the Commissioner would be embodied in his report, and this report would be placed before the House
788
and I hope that we would be able to question the right hon. Gentleman if it were thought necessary to do so.
The public would be greatly reassured and it would be in the interests of the police. They have a very hard task and they might well sometimes say to themselves, "The public expect us to do dangerous things and to be at their beck and call always, and at the same time they tell us that they do not trust us." No police officer can maintain his morale if that is what he thinks. I think that many of these complaints would be winnowed out and put to sleep and the officer's reputation and his own personal feelings of self-confidence would be considerably improved.
I have spoken for my allotted half-hour. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to deal with the first issue of principle which I have raised—the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman for the presence of an efficient police force throughout the country. Secondly, I ask him to deal with the question of complaints against the police and at least to say that he will give careful consideration to the arguments in the minority Report which suggest that a Commissioner of Rights should be appointed as the watchdog of the police to winnow out complaints and to assure the public that they will be further gone into if they should be, and at the same time to put an end to complaints which should not be brought against police officers if their lot is to be made more comfortable and if their feelings are to be made easier.
I am told that often when a police officer effects an arrest in some parts of London it is almost automatic that the arrested person issues a summons against the police officer for assault. This is an intolerable position for the police. They cannot carry on their work if they are constantly subjected to the threat of criminal proceedings which anybody has the right to bring against them. I think that a Commissioner of Rights could look into this kind of thing, and besides protecting the public could afford considerable protection to police officers who stand in need of it.
9.30 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): My right hon. Friend the Home

789
Secretary said at the beginning of this very constructive and valuable debate that on the more important recommendations of the Royal Commission the views that he would express were provisional and that it was his intention to take note of everything that hon. Members had to say before considering proposals for legislation.
I am sure that the House will not expect me, in winding-up, to be more dogmatic than my right hon. Friend was in opening the debate, and that hon. Members will recognise that in replying to the debate I am not seeking to rebut arguments. I am seeking only to register again our intention to give them all careful consideration, and in some cases perhaps indicating that there are other considerations to give attention to as well.
I emphasise again the provisional nature of the views expressed by us as well as by other hon. Members. The House would rightly resent it if we came to the debate with hard and fast conclusions embodied, or nearly embodied, in a Bill, and would resent it still more if it were thought that we had reached hard and fast conclusions which we were keeping under cover. On the other hand, we should be equally open to criticism if it could be said that we had done nothing in the time of preparation, and my right hon. Friend has shown that we have done a great deal on matters not calling for legislation.
My right hon. Friend referred to the administrative decisions which have been announced, and to the circular addressed to the police authorities and to chief constables, which I hope hon. Members have received during the course of the afternoon. These, I think, everyone will agree are broadly non-contentious matters, and they have been the subject of the fullest consukation with other parties interested.
For the sake of completeness, I should recapitulate the extremely small number of recommendations on which my right hon. Friend has either taken a decision to reject them, or is so inclined. There was first and foremost Recommendation No. 40, with which is linked No. 12, which would make my right hon. Friend statutorily responsible for the efficiency of the police and I shall, if I may, decline the invitation of the right
790
hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) to elaborate on that point. We shall, of course, give very careful consideration to the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman before coming forward with further views.
With Recommendation No. 40 falls No. 42, which would modify the terms on which Exchequer grants would be paid, because they were to be adjusted to the proposed Recommendation No. 40. There are also the arithmetical criteria for the size of forces and the proposal that the question of amalgamation should be examined by a working party. This is not to say that it will not be examined, but it will be examined by my right hon. Friend in consultation with the inspectors and perhaps the research unit.
Finally, a small, curious, but quite significant item, the only other one which at present we are inclined to reject, is that the title of sergeant should be changed, for the reasons given by the Commission. We have taken a number of soundings among both police sources and the public, and have found very little support far fits change.
What I have found during the course of making soundings among the police—and I have spoken to many policemen about this, including, Mr. Speaker, the very dependable source located at the back of your Chair—is that there is a reluctance to accept, or seek promotion to, the rank of sergeant. This is regrettable, but it is not something that would be cured by the suggestion to change the title.
Between the extremes of acceptance and rejection, there remains this very wide and important range of recommendations on which we have listened to the views of the House. I would hesitate to single out any particular speakers, because I cannot put my finger on anyone who was not constructive, but we owe special respect to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for his very wise contribution, and I should like to say the same of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton), who was so nearly my colleague in the Home Office, and whom I missed by 24 hours.
Those who criticise the delay in bringing on this debate might very well reflect

791
on the range of consultations that we have had to undertake, which have occupied the past year and which are still, continuing, since the effect of the Report is not simply to present us with solutions for our consideration, but, in many cases, to present us with quite new problems to take into account as well as the solutions.
We have, of course, consulted the local authority associations and the police representative bodies on every item, I assure the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that we shall certainly pay close attention to the annual report of the Police Federation to which he referred. On particular matters, we have also been in consultation with the Metropolitan local authorities and the Scottish Office. As only one Scottish speaker spoke in the debate, I would like to answer his question about recruiting in Scotland. I am glad to say that we find that it is keeping fully up with the increases of the establishment. It is, indeed, doing very well.
Mr. William Ross: But not in the counties.
Mr. Woodhouse: My figures cover the whole of Scotland.
Mr. Ross: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that it is good in the cities and large burghs, but not in the county areas.
Mr. Woodhouse: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's correction, but, by and large, recruiting is very good indeed.
We have also consulted other Ministries on particular problems—education, transport and housing—the Law Officers, the Lord Chief Justice, and others. This is a formidable list. I shall try to deal with as many of the topics as possible. though, on points raised in the debate, I hope that the House will excuse me from dealing in detail again with the matters which my right hon. Friend dealt with in his opening speech.
I might well take as the starting point the comprehensive representations we had, as many hon. Members will have seen, from the local authority associations. As the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones) and for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) pointed out, those representations contained points of real substance, though I was interested to find
792
that the speakers tonight who referred to those points did not, in the main, express support for them, especially on the balance in the partnership between the local and the central power; either on whether the balance now is what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) called a constitutional shambles—
Mr. Iremonger: Sham.
Mr. Woodhouse: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon—sham—or on what it should be.
There was constant reference, by the A.M.C. in particular, to the police as part of the machinery of local government. It is true that the police have a local basis, but that is only part of the truth. The legal authorities, and we agree with them, stressed the national functions of the police, and we certainly would not accept the view that the status of the constable as an officer of the Crown is what the A.M.C. called a hallowed piece of mumbo-jumbo. Like the Royal Commission and many hon. Members, we agree that the legal situation is indefinite and unsatisfactory, and we share the view that legislation is necessary to clarify it.
On the question of accountability to Parliament, the argument of the local authority representatives, and particularly of the A.M.C., was that local control ought to be strengthened rather than weakened. This would inevitably be at the expense of the powers of the Secretary of State, for which he is answerable to Parliament, but I think that the trend of opinion in Parliament—with which my right hon. Friend has today shown himself to be not unsympathetic—is to argue that hon. Members should have more opportunity to seek information about provincial forces, and that would be hard to reconcile with the view of the A.M.C. in particular on the recommendation that the Secretary of State should be formally empowered to call for reports from chief constables.
I next refer to the A.M.C.'s rebuttal of the Royal Commission's argument that small forces tend to be severely handicapped; it did not say that they tended to be inefficient but that they tended to be handicapped. A number of points were raised on that aspect in the debate and, on the whole, I am inclined to the

793
view of those hon. Members who thought that the A.M.Cs. case against the Commission was not fully made out.
That brings me to the question of amalgamations and the size of forces, about which my right hon. Friend has indicated the lines of his thinking for the future. In the interim, it should be remembered that there are still powers available under the 1946 Act, and the Home Office takes any suitable opportunity to bring about amalgamations or closer co-operation by persuasion.
For instance, when a chief constable retires, in certain cases—such as, at present, Cumberland, Westmorland and Carlisle—we initiate discussions with a view to the possibility of appointing a joint chief constable for two or more small forces; or when the Local Government Boundary Commission redraws the boundaries, as it is likely to do in certain cases in advance of fresh legislation about the police, as will happen next year in the case of what is known as the West Midlands conurbation.
In that context, it would be right to refer especially to the position of these police officers affected by amalgamation. Amalgamation is primarily a matter for the Secretary of State and the police authorities, but I can give an assurance—indeed, we have given an assurance—that the police officers themselves and their representatives will be kept informed as soon as information can be given, and that the safeguards already contained in the 1946 Act will apply to changes in the police areas arising either from local government reorganisation or a strengthening of the Secretary of State's powers.
The same applies to the provision in the police regulations that, when a borough force is amalgamated, a member of it cannot, without his consent, be employed on duties that would require him to move his home outside the borough. There are other relevant points that the Police Federation wish to discuss with us, and we are very ready to do this, and to continue those discussions.
That brings me to the question of the police themselves as distinct from policing and organisation. I listened with the greatest interest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire and other hon. Members on questions of recruitment, training and promotion. We have, of course, most
794
carefully studied the Commission's proposals. As my right hon. Friend showed, many of those proposals have now been adopted some, indeed, were already anticipated at our own training establishments, especially the Police College at Bramshill. We would welcome visits from Members of Parliament to that college, where they may be surprised, and I am quite certain that they will be impressed, as I was, by the intellectual level of the courses and of the officers on the courses. We recognise, as does the Report, that it is difficult to be dogmatic about improvements in this field, when it takes some years before any significant results can be shown.
There are very few of the proposals that we have been disposed to question. I have mentioned the change of title of sergeant, and another proposal that needs careful examination in the light of this debate is the recommendation on the reduction of the qualifying period for promotion to sergeant. Another arises from the minority Report of three commissioners which was supported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire, who even wanted to go further, suggesting that there should be direct entry into the C.I.D. for recruits with G.E.C. passes at A level or university degrees.
There is no doubt that this is in many ways an attractive proposition, which we shall consider carefully in the light of the remarks made, although it is only fair to indicate—I have not the time to go into the matter in detail—that there may be some objections to it, or, at any rate, some disadvantages of a personal kind.
The question that will certainly play the biggest part in attracting good recruits to the police service is that of establishing and maintaining its reputation as an absolutely first-class service, in which first-class men and women want to serve. With this aim in mind we shall lay particular stress on the new or refurbished instruments available to us—the strengthened inspectorate and the research unit. I shall carefully note the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) about the inspectorate, and also those made by the right hon. Member for South Shields. I can say categorically that the clerical arrangements to which the right hon.

795
Gentleman referred have been vastly improved since he had occasion to look at them.
I now turn particularly to the question of the research unit, on which I have a word to say which will probably answer a number of points that have been raised.
Mr. Greenwood: Is the hon. Member going to refer to the question of recruiting coloured policemen?
Mr. Woodhouse: I had intended to do that. I can assure the bon. Member that there is no bar on the recruitment of coloured policemen provided that they are in other ways qualified.
I will not attempt any further general description of the research unit. It will be under the general direction of a chief inspector, and will probably have an establishment of approximately an assistant chief constable, four chief superintendents, two scientists, and other specialist advisers and executive and clerical staff, and officers on secondment from other police forces. It will be a formidable unit, administered by the Home Office and financed by the Exchequer, and in the current year its budget is a little over £43,000.
It will concentrate initially, as my right hon. Friend said, on the problems of crime, and especially on the efficacy of particular techniques, such as regional crime squads. It will also have important jobs high up on its agenda, such as the question of uniformity in the enforcement of traffic laws and the study of special methods and techniques evolved by particular forces, such as that referred to in Liverpool by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham) and also on the question of the size and establishment of forces, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle referred.
As time is passing rapidly I must turn to the topic of relations with the public, and the problem of dealing with complaints, although on the way I want to refer briefly to two legal points that have been raised. First, there is the question of the Judges' Rules, to which the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) referred. These are being re-examined by the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues, and I am informed that they have made substantial pro-
796
gress. I have no doubt that all the points raised by the hon. Member will come within their purview, but he will appreciate that it is not for me to interrogate the Lord Chief Justice on exactly what he is doing.
Mr. Fletcher: It was as long ago as March, 1961, that the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues undertook to review the operation of the Judges' Rules. May we press the hope that the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues will shortly be able to complete their report and have it laid before the House?
Mr. Woodhouse: Certainly the hon. Member may, and I will do my best to transmit that pressure.
On the question of tortious acts of police officers, hon. Members who have referred to this will be aware that it involves quite delicate considerations. It is not a matter of being obstructive on the part of the Home Office. We will reconsider this with the Law Officers. I would point out that we have tried to meet the Royal Commission's point, that the failure to identify a certain police constable may at present preclude action, by accepting in principle Recommendation No. 29, which is embodied in the circular to which reference has been made.
I should have been extremely sorry if the debate had appeared to concentrate on misdemeanours of the police and on ways of dealing with them, and I am glad that it has not. I do not propose to refer in detail to any particular cases which have been raised. After all, it was not the business of the Royal Commission to examine particular cases, but general principles.
Turning to the general aspect, and particularly to the speech of the hon. Member for Rossendale, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman needs no assurance from me that the views of the National Council for Civil Liberties and its pamphlet, "Civil Liberties and the Police", have been carefully studied. I am sorry that, so far, the hon. Gentleman has not taken advantage of the invitation extended to him and his friends to come to discuss some of these points with me. I can assure him that the invitation still stands. I have also studied the evidence given by the Council to the Royal Commission. But I must remind the House that the Royal

797
Commission received much other evidence. It also examined the results of the Social Survey, to which some reference has been made.
Merely to set the record straight, and without attempting any statistical analysis, I should like to place on record that the figures show that 46·9 per cent. of those questioned in the Social Survey said that they did not think bribery occurred; 10·7 per cent. said they did not know; 32·7 per cent. said hardly ever; 5 per cent. said fairly often; 1·2 per cent. said very often. The number claiming personal knowldege of bribery was 2·1 per cent. and only half of the people in that figure had been involved themselves. About half the incidents in that 2·1 per cent. happened over ten years ago. I do not want to elaborate on that, but those are the figures.
I would remind the House that the Royal Commission, despite the strong expression of the National Council's views, concluded that relations between the police and the public are, on the whole, very good and it had no reason to think that they had ever in recent times been otherwise.
Mr. Fletcher: Has the hon. Member any comparable figures about other allegations, such as violence in police stations?
Mr. Woodhouse: I have not with me, but I will try to get them for the hon. Gentleman.
I have no reason to dissent from any of this. I should like to make one remark from my own experience. It is easy for Members of Parliament, and especially for Home Office Ministers, to get a false impression of the extent of dissatisfaction. Few people write to Members of Parliament to say that they are pleased. By far the most frequent reply they get is that a case has been investigated and that no grounds have been found. But here I must emphasise that those cases in which there are grounds for complaint are likely to have been dealt with at an earlier stage and do not get to a Member of Parliament at all.
I have a table of figures which I am sorry I cannot read out because of the shortage of time. It shows in a quite remarkable way that in the Metropolitan Police about 10 per cent. of complaints in the last three years have been found to be substantiated and a rather smaller
798
number have resulted in action; but this is either because, in most cases, a word of advice was sufficient, or because the complainant did not wish to pursue the matter any further.
We shall, of course, give the most careful attention to the suggestions made about more far-reaching changes in procedure regarding complaints than those recommended by the Royal Commission. My right hon. Friend has referred to his readiness to establish inquiries by administrative action, though he has emphasised—and I repeat it—that this must be an exceptional step. It cannot be part of the regular machinery.
I do not think that I can say much on the question of a Commissioner of Rights, without repeating what has already been said by the Royal Commission, or by my right hon. Friend, or by the statement of general principles made on behalf of the Government on 8th November last year which covered the general attitude of the Government to all occasions of alleged maladministration. But in the particular context of the police I think it true to say that there is a danger that intervention in police discipline by an external body would tend to undermine morale and to work against the public interest.
My right hon. Friend was taken to task for saying that by the hon. Member for Leeds, West, but I should like to emphasise that this is virtually a quotation of the conclusions of the Royal Commission itself on this subject, in its very careful study of the problem in paragraphs 430 to 432. I hope that I can appease the indignation of hon. Members opposite by assuring them that this is one of the matters which we are very willing to re-examine in the light of the debate.
I should like to give one reason, in particular, why the Government have welcomed the debate. Governments are often criticised for appointing Royal Commissions and then doing nothing about their reports. We have already done a good deal about this Report and we have set about consultation on the rest of it. But in the case of this Report we could not simply accept it in toto and write its recommendations into the Statute Book because we have, in addition to the Report, three minority reservations and one directly contrary minority Report.

799
I have had the opportunity to discuss the minority Report with the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who happens to be my constituent. When I asked him how it came about that he reached diametrically opposite conclusions on the same evidence he replied by telling me the story of a Lord of Appeal who was in disagreement with his two colleagues and who, when asked to give judgment, did so by saying, "I dissent from my learned colleagues for the reasons they have given".
I quote these striking and cogent remarks because exactly the same reasoning could be turned against Dr. Goodhart. Here is a case, where the same facts, evidence and considerations led people of equal good sense and sincerity to widely differing and indeed diametrically opposite conclusions. It was because of the dilemma that this presented to us that we wanted to hear the views of the House before we took final decisions on matters which will affect the public and the police and their relations for probably generations to come.
The Royal Commission itself said:
"It is not to be expected that a body composed of fourteen members would achieve an absolute identity of view on each of these matters, or that each of us would subscribe in equal measure to every opinion expressed."
If that is true of a body of 14 which had 95 meetings over two years, it is even more true of a body of 630 Members debating this for six hours on one afternoon. One thing which has struck me about the debate is that I seemed to find more supporters of nationalisation sitting behind me than in front of me.
I assure the House that nothing said today will pass unscrutinised and unweighed so that we can fulfil the unanimously agreed object of ensuring that we have a police force which will not only satisfy the criteria laid down by the Royal Commission, but will also be a service in which men and women will continue to enrol, as they now do, to serve their fellow members of the community.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Police, 1962 (Command Paper No. 1728).

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PUBLIC LAVATORIES (TURNSTILES) [MONEY)
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to make it the duty of local authorities to abolish turnstiles in public lavatories and sanitary conveniences, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.
  Resolution agreed to.

  PRISONER, WANDSWORTH (LETTER TO MEMBER)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]
  9.59 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am raising tonight the matter of a letter sent to me by a prisoner in Wandsworth Prison on 16th March, inviting me to go along to talk to the prisoners in G, H and K wings, which letter was prevented from reaching me by the Governor of the prison.
  I should explain how the letter came to be written. Some time ago, my friend, Mr. Peter Lyden Cowan, met one of the prison officers who works in the wings I have mentioned. This officer told my friend something about the rehabilitation scheme which is operated in this prison and with which the officer—
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed. without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]
  Mr. Lubbock: —had been concerned since its inception.
  The rehabilitation scheme in Wands worth Prison is, I believe, unique in the whole of Britain. Its purpose is to try to fit prisoners for return to the outside world, to encourage them to think rationally about their relationships with society, and to prevent them from relapsing into crime when they come out of prison. The credit for these imaginative ideas goes not to the Home Office

  801
  or to the Prison Commissioners, but to Mr. Richard Hauser of the Institute for Group Studies. There seems to have been no official encouragement given to Mr. Hauser in his work, and in the case I am raising there has been blatent obstruction, as I shall show.
  As an integral part of the rehabilitation therapy, outsiders are invited to come to talk to the prisoners so as to help in the process of activating their minds. Knowing of my interest in this subject Mr. Lyden Cowan suggested to the officer that the prisoners might like to invite me to come to talk to them. The secretary of the prisoners' group wrote accordingly on 16th March, and, I believe, he wrote at the same time a similar letter to Mr. Lyden Cowan.
  About three weeks elapsed and I still had not received the letter. I tabled a Question to the Home Secretary, asking why it had been prevented from reaching me. This Question was the subject of an article in the Guardian on the following Monday, 8th April, and on the Tuesday I heard that the officer concerned had been transferred away from the rehabilitation part of the prison to the maximum security wing.
  The association between these two events was clear to me, and I tabled a further Question, asking for the reason for the transfer. The reply I received was that it was a purely temporary move dictated by staff needs, but I have very good reasons for believing this to be untrue, including the fact that, at the time of the transfer, the officer was reprimanded by the Governor. However, since this officer has now been returned to G block, probably, I think, as a result of the attention which was given by the newspapers to my original Question, I do not propose to pursue that aspect of the matter.
  Returning to the matter of the letter itself, I elicited various interesting statements from the Home Secretary by successive questions. First, it was said that the Governor's excuse for stopping the letter was that he was under the impression that it invited me to give a political talk. Secondly, it was asserted that the letter was really not a letter at all but a draft. Thirdly, the letter was destroyed shortly after 16th March, the date on which it was written, but a copy subsequently came to light which the Home
  802
  Secretary was good enough to give to me before this debate. Finally, the decisions to disallow the letter and destroy it were made without consulting the Home Secretary.
  The Home Secretary now concedes that it was an error of judgment on the part of the Governor to disallow the sending of the letter since there was nothing in it which could possibly have justified the Governor's assumption that the subject of the talk would be political. In fact, the penultimate paragraph of the letter reads:
  "Naturally, the subject of your talk would be left to you or perhaps you would prefer to hear more from us''.
  There is nothing in that which would suggest that the subject of the talk would be political. However, I maintain that, even if this unwarranted assumption had been correct, the Governor's action in stopping the letter would still have been wrong.
  It is declared Government policy that the treatment of prisoners should be designed to strengthen a sense of responsibility in them not only in relation to their life in the prison itself, but to the life outside to which they must return. I should have thought, therefore, that, provided a proper balance between the political parties was observed, talks on current political questions might be an important element in any rehabilitation scheme. However, I shall not pursue this, either.
  It was important for the Home Secretary to pretend that we were not talking about a letter, but only about a draft because, if we speak of an actual letter and not a draft, just about every rule in the book has been broken. I have studied the standing orders for the government of prisons very carefully. These standing orders makes no reference to drafts. I maintain, therefore, that every written communication between a prisoner and a person outside the prison must be governed by the rules which apply to letters. In any case, the dictionary definition of a draft is a preliminary sketch, and the phraseology of this letter shows clearly that it was carefully considered and finalised. The rules list the subjects which may not be referred to in prisoners' letters, and none of these apply in this case.

  803
  Even if it is necessary to withhold an outgoing letter on account of objectionable matter contained in it, Rule 374 (6, a) provides that the prisoner must be given an opportunity of rewriting it. I want the Home Secretary to see that this rule is observed in this case by instructing the Governor of Wandsworth Prison to allow the prisoner to write me another letter to replace the one which has been destroyed.
  I maintain, also, that there has been a breach of rule 374 (1, e), which says that letters which are withheld must be entered in book 1004 and must be recorded on the form 67 or penal record. I should like to have an admission this evening that contraventions in these respects have taken place, and I want no more of the silly playing with words by which the Home Secretary has sought to excuse them.
  As a result of this case, I have received a good many letters from ex-prisoners alleging widespread interference with prisoners' correspondence. In fairness, it should be said that, in some instances, this may have been caused by the prisoners concerned not understanding properly the rules to which I have referred. I mention, in passing, that the standing orders and rules governing prisoners' correspondence are in such a mess that it is a wonder that the Home Secretary himself can understand them. I hope that some assurance can be given that they will be reprinted immediately so that they can be better understood.
  The pamphlet "Inside Story", recently published by the Prison Reform Council, says this:
  "Every prisoner reports that his or her first few weeks in prison are spent in a state of bewilderment because of the lack of clear information about routine regulations …"
  The Council goes on to suggest that every new intake of prisoners should be given a briefing meeting soon after admission so that these matters can be clearly explained to them. This is extremely important in the case of letters which are one of their main contacts with the outside world. I do not think that at present they can possibly understand these regulations.
  I think, also, that quite a few letters are being stopped for irregular reasons. I want to mention some of these in pass-
  804
  ing, because the whole point of this case is that I hope to draw attention to something which is of much more widespread importance than just one letter. A lady who served for eighteen months in Strangeways Prison writes to tell me that on several occasions her weekly letter to her parents was stopped because she made comments about the disgusting conditions in the prison.
  In another case, Mr. Michael Randle writes to me that in a communication to his wife he referred to a television broadcast in which he had seen the Prime Minister he included the statement that (the man sounded more than slightly drunk. The Governor of the Prison held the letter up on the ground that it was a contravention of Rule 75(b), which I think is a misprint for Rule 75(3), in Statutory Instrument No. 1073 of 1949, which says:
  ,…it shall be within the discretion of the Governor to stop any letter on the grounds that its contents are objectionable …"
  Rule 374 says:
  "Objectionable matter falls within narrow limits, viz."—
  I think that this is the rule under which the letters were stopped—
  "…complaints about the courts, the police …if…deliberate and calculated attempts to hold these authorities up to contempt."
  It was said that in that letter Mr. Randle was holding the Prime Minister up to contempt and that the Prime Minister came under the definition of "authorities". I contend that as immediately before that phrase it refers to the courts and the police one could not possibly accept that explanation of the rule and that the Governor acted incorrectly in this case as well.
  Two instances of letters to Members of Parliament which have been wrongfully withheld have been drawn to my attention. Hon. Members will probably recollect one case because it happened to a former Member of this House, Mr. Peter Baker, who wrote offering his resignation after he had been convicted. That letter was destroyed. When he made inquiries about this the officer concerned said, "Well, you see, this is what we usually do with first letters from a prisoner to an M.P. We enter them through the records as posted and then tear them up".
  The second case I want to mention, which is a more recent one, is a letter

  805
  from Mr. Trevor Hatton to the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway). This letter was about misuse of the Official Secrets Act, under which he was convicted. He was told that this letter had been destroyed, but it was subsequently returned to him after he was released from the prison. I contend that this letter should not have been stopped, because Rule 374(5) says that
  "Comment by a prisoner on his own conviction and sentence"—
  is not objectionable if expressed in proper terms.
  1 have mentioned these cases to show that the letter which is the subject of the debate this evening is not by any means an isolated case. I believe that unwarranted interference with prisoners' mail is taking place in many prisons other than Wandsworth and that we are not just dealing with one instance of an error of judgment.
  I want to conclude by asking for a reply to several important questions which arise out of this case and the associated ones which I have mentioned in connection with it. When will these regulations be recodiflecl in an intelligible form so that they can be understood not only by the governors of the prisons, but by the prisoners themselves? What steps are to be taken meanwhile to ensure that both the governors and the prisoners understand the regulations in their present form and that they are being applied correctly?
  I sincerely hope that it will not be left to individual Members of Parliament to discover for themselves when contraventions of this kind are taking place. Are any secret glosses on the rules being issued to governors? If that is the case, I think that they should be incorporated in the standing orders and the rules to which I have referred. Finally, if satisfactory assurances are given tonight on these matters to which I have referred, some good will have come out of this shabby little episode.
  10.13 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): I am very glad to have the opportunity of describing the facts of this case. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for making it possible for this incident—this unhappy
  806
  misunderstanding—to get perhaps a fuller airing than we could give it in Question and Answer.
  The hon. Gentleman began by saying that this demonstrated an obstruction on the part of the prison authorities towards a scheme of rehabilitation which I think we all admire and welcome. I wish to assure the hon. Gentleman that that is quite a wrong interpretation to put upon this misunderstanding, because misunderstanding it is. I think that we all welcome these types of discussion groups which are growing up in our prisons and we wish to see more of them. I do not think that we tonight or at any time in the House should in any way seek to impede this type of progress.
  It would be useful if I could quite briefly but equally quite clearly indicate the organisation and the running of this discussion group in Wandsworth Prison. In H and K wings at Wandsworth Prison there are organised discussion groups of prisoners which to some extent conduct their own affairs through their own appointed prisoner-organiser. What business a group transacts and the methods by which it conducts it are subject always to the general control of the prison staff. Part of the object of having these groups of prisoners engaged in activities of this kind is to encourage self-reliance and a sense of responsibility in them, and the control exercised by the staff is as unobtrusive as is consistent with the duty to maintain good order and discipline and further the welfare of individuals.
  Generally speaking, and in particular in any group activity which involves communication with persons outside the prison, the prisoner-organiser has to act with the approval of the Assistant Governor in charge of his wing and if he is in any doubt he consults the Governor of the prison. A part of the activities of the group in Wandsworth is to invite visiting speakers to address the group. When the Assistant Governor has approved a proposal to issue such an invitation, the invitation is signed by the prisoner-organiser and the Assistant Governor then sends a covering note, the obvious purpose of which is to assure the person invited that the invitation from the prisoner is authentic and has the approval of the authorities. That is the machinery, as it were, for running a group in Wandsworth Prison.

  807
  I will indicate the events leading up to this misunderstanding which has arisen. Early in March, I am informed, a serving officer at Wandsworth Prison was visited at his home by a Mr. Lyden Cowan, the local Liberal Parliamentary candidate, for the purpose, I am told, of canvassing his support. During the conversation Mr. Lyden Cowan told the officer of the interest of the hon. Member for Orpington in penal matters. As a result of this the officer—and I might add that he is an extremely keen and alert man—subsequently saw the Assistant Governor in charge of H and K wings and suggested to him that an invitation might be sent through the prisoner-organiser of the group to the hon. Member for Orpington to visit H and K wings and address the prisoner discussion groups there.
  From the manner in which the suggested invitation was put forward the impression arose that the proposed talk was to be on a political subject, and since it is not the present policy to permit such talks, it was decided that it would be inappropriate for the invitation to be sent. In the meantime, I understand that the prisoner-organiser had prepared the letter of invitation in anticipation of its approval, but in the light of the decision the letter was not sent and the original was destroyed. It was at first thought that no copy of the proposed invitation had been kept, but it was subsequently discovered that the prisoner-organiser had kept a carbon copy.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Lady has said that it is the present policy not to have political talks, but surely the prisoners listen and watch television, so what objection can there be to such talks?
  Miss Pike: As to political arguments on television, it is laid down by this House in the Television Act that political comment should be evenly balanced. It is, therefore, considered that when prisoners, like the general public, view television they should hear an evenly balanced argument. The difficulty in the matter we are discussing is that of getting an even balance in political talks from one side and the other. When I say that it is the present policy I would, of course, not wish to commit future Home Secretaries. However, as things stand, these
  808
  discussion groups are in their infancy and it is the present policy not to have talks of a political nature.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I have with me a copy of the letter supplied by the Home Secretary. In view of its contents, which refer to visits by an hon. Member of the Conservative Party and an hon. Member of the Labour Party, how can it be thought that the invitation to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) was irregular when the other two invitations were to hon. Members of other political parties?
  Miss Pike: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is twisting my words. I did not say that there was anything irregular about the invitation, and had he been listening to my description of the events which led up to the decision he would have heard me stress the point that the invitation arose out of a political context. On this point, a copy of the letter was not shown to the Governor. It was put to him as a proposal from the discussion group that the hon. Member concerned should address the prisoners. The Governor turned it down in the belief at that time that this was to be a political speech.
  It has not been possible to establish all these facts by direct inquiry because, as I explained earlier, the Assistant Governor unfortunately had an accident in which he sustained injuries to his head necessitating hospital treatment and sick leave. It was thought that it would be in his best interests—and the hon. Member for Orpington has agreed with this—that he should not be questioned over this.
  This request was turned down at the time because it was believed by the Prison Governor that it would be outside the terms of the discussion group. In this connection, the hon. Member for Orpington raised another point concerning the treatment of the letter. He asked if it was a draft letter. Here was a proposal put forward by a group. The letter to which he refers and of which we now have a copy was, in effect, a proposal or draft to go out under the Governor's approval. It is in that sense that I regard it as a draft letter. It was, at the time, a proposal from the group that it should invite a particular person to speak. This was a proposal to the Governor and, in

  809
  that sense, it was, in my submission, a draft of what the letter should have been had it gone out.
  Mr. Lubbock: Would not the hon. Lady agree that nowhere in these rules OT standing orders is the word "draft" used? Surely, in the absence of any such reference, a communication by a prisoner to a person outside must be treated as being under the rules of letters.
  Miss Pike: I am coming to that. Having explained where this letter stands in the system, I would point out that this was not under the rules for prisoners' letters. This was not coming from an individual prisoner making an individual request. It was coming from a group. The prisoner-organiser is, as it were, secretary of the group. In these circumstances, I do not believe that it is right and proper that it should be regarded as his personal letter. It came from a group. I hope that in future we shall have many such discussion groups in our prisons. These things should be regarded things as part of group activity.
  I want to make a clear distinction between this type of letter from a discussion group and letters which come under the particular heading of "prisoners' letters". The hon. Gentleman raised this, but he will forgive me if I cannot, at this late hour, give him all the particulars about the cases he mentioned. But the case of the letter from Mr. Randle has been very well aired. It has been thoroughly investigated, but I have not the details as I was not in the Home Office at the time. It is, however, very well known to hon. Members.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Is the hon. Lady now admitting that this letter, whether it was a letter or a draft, really ought to have been sent and not destroyed?
  Miss Pike: No. I was explaining the events which led to this misunderstanding. I think that in the light of all the facts we now know, permission would have been given, because it is clear, in retrospect, that the invitation had no political colour or implication. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has written to the hon. Member for Orpington asking him to accept an invitation to the prison to speak to this discussion group. I
  810
  hope and believe that the hon. Member will do so. I must admit I am anxious not to try to apportion blame in this case. It was a genuine misunderstanding and I am sure that that is what the hon. Member accepts it to have been.
  The hon. Member raised an interesting point which I do not wish to dodge. He talked about the complication of standing orders. When he and I look at these orders they do seem extremely complicated, but I remind him that they are for the use of prison authorities who are well versed in them and can go through them with far greater ease than those seeing them for the first time. I am reminded that when I was a sergeant in the W.A.A.F. I could not understand King's Regulations the first time I went through them. But, having to revise them later, I got used to them and the various cross-references.
  Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Lady deal with the point about the standard rules and regulations not having been reprinted since 1938 and which are now a mass of amendments upon amendments?
  Miss Pike: As I have said, we find this complicated, but I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that point. It is probably as equally important that people like us should be able to see them as it is for administrators.
  The other point the hon. Member mentioned is that the prisoners themselves should understand the rules, and, of course, this is important. I am a novice in these matters, having been in the Home Office only a few weeks. But I am informed that the rules are clearly stated in written form for prisoners.
  We all understand, however, that it is one thing for us to look at the rules and think that they are clear, and another thing for people who have not had the same opportunities of education and experience. I am informed that the Governors try to make certain that prisoners understand the very complicated rules and routines of prison life. But, again, I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to these matters, because it is extremely important that people understand these things as clearly as possible and that we make them as simple as possible.

  811
  I hope that I have covered, even though briefly, the main points raised by the hon. Member. He talked about interpretation, particularly on one aspect. I have no time now to go through the new standing order that was issued as recently as 18th April, but I will send it to him. It gives a new and, I think, better interpretation of the rules which would probably obviate some of the serious difficulties the hon. Gentleman has pointed out.
  I am sure we all welcome these discussion groups and wish them well, and that we want to say nothing to make it more difficult for those in authority who are running this very important and difficult scheme. I repeat how welcome the hon. Member will be when he comes to this discussion, and I am sure that on that occasion his talk will be extremely interesting and will contain nothing of a political nature.
  Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Lady deal with the point of giving the prisoner concerned an opportunity to rewrite the invitation, since it came from him in the first place?
  Miss Pike: I must admit that I have forgotten exactly what the hon. Gentleman said on this point. But the fact about this letter was that the Governor was not approving or disapproving a request in a letter but was merely looking at a proposal. It was not a question of whether or not the letter was properly drafted.
  Mr. Lubbock: I appreciate that and also the Home Secretary's kind invitation to me to visit the prison.
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

HOUSING
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
  Oldham (Finance)
  Oldham (Finance)
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Completed Houses
  Completed Houses
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Detergents (Foam)
  Detergents (Foam)
  Pennine Way Route
  Pennine Way Route
  Leaseholds (Sale)
  Leaseholds (Sale)
  Rating
  Rating
  Water Supply, Leeds
  Water Supply, Leeds
WELSH AFFAIRS
  Local Government Commission
  Local Government Commission
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  New York World's Fair, 1964–65
  New York World's Fair, 1964–65
  Soviet Union (Large Diameter Steel Pipes)
  Soviet Union (Large Diameter Steel Pipes)
  Burning Clothing (Deaths)
  Burning Clothing (Deaths)
  Accrington
  Accrington
  North-East (Development Districts)
  North-East (Development Districts)
  Tees-side (Industrial Development)
  Tees-side (Industrial Development)
  New Zealand and Australian Butter
  New Zealand and Australian Butter
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Customs and Excise (Seized Watches)
  Customs and Excise (Seized Watches)
  University Buildings (Estimates)
  University Buildings (Estimates)
  Universities (Staff)
  Universities (Staff)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Animals (Prohibited Poisons)
  Animals (Prohibited Poisons)
  Queen Frederika of Greece
  Queen Frederika of Greece
  Child-Care Officers (Training)
  Child-Care Officers (Training)
  PRESS CONFERENCES
  PRESS CONFERENCES
ROYAL NAVY
  Refit, and Repair Work and New Construction
  Refit, and Repair Work and New Construction
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Small Farmers
  Small Farmers
  Agricultural Support
  Agricultural Support
  Swine Fever (Restrictions)
  Swine Fever (Restrictions)
  Fertilisers (Subsidy Rates)
  Fertilisers (Subsidy Rates)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Polish Ex-Service Men
  Polish Ex-Service Men
CENTRAL AFRICA
  Constitutional Change
  Constitutional Change
  Nyasaland
  Nyasaland
EMPLOYMENT
  Statistics (Wales)
  Statistics (Wales)
  Llanelly, Ammanford, Garnant, and Tumble
  Llanelly, Ammanford, Garnant, and Tumble
HOSPITALS
  Nurses
  Nurses
  EMBASSY OFFICIALS (TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS)
  EMBASSY OFFICIALS (TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS)
  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
SCOTLAND
  Motorway Proposals
  Motorway Proposals
  Caithness and Sutherland (National Health Service Patients)
  Caithness and Sutherland (National Health Service Patients)
ROADS
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Accidents, Worsbrough
  Accidents, Worsbrough
SHIPPING
  Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation
  Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol
The Lord Hankey—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF AMERICAN TRUCKS
3.5 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: 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 reason for their purchase of American fork-lift trucks, rather than British, when the latter were available, as announced in the Daily Mail of April 24.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, operational experience showed that the Army had an urgent need for an air-transportable fork-lift truck of a cross-country type with four-wheel drive to operate over soft ground. No suitable British machine was available, and it was therefore necessary to buy from American sources a truck which met the Army's requirements. The American machines were partly manufactured and assembled in this country.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Could he just confirm that the statement in the Daily Mail, that the British firm had stated that they could have supplied suitable trucks within a fortnight or so, was without foundation?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the British firm bad two machines available. One of them weighed 16,000 lb., which meant it was not air-transportable—the maximum weight for an air-transportable machine was 9,000 lb.—
850
and the other machine was not a cross-country type.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend why this purchase was not put out to tender? I understand this was not so.
LORD CARRINGTON: Because there was an urgent operational requirement; there was a hurry to get these machines, and it would have taken time to manufacture them.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: May I further ask my noble friend whether the firms which make this sort of equipment in this country were circularised first so that they were given a chance to say "Yes" or "No" as to whether it was available?
LORD CARRINGTON: No, my Lords. I think my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War was satisfied in these circumstances that there was no point in inviting tenders, because the products of British manufacturers of forklift trucks are, of course, very familiar to the War Office.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us when this operational requirement was raised? Could he not answer the obvious anxiety that this seems to be a very sudden thought, and are we going to have other sudden thoughts of this kind?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should have thought that if operational experience showed we needed certain equipment which we did not have, it was to the credit of the War Office that they went ahead and got it.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, are all vehicles of this kind fitted with rear hydraulic lifts?
LORD CARRINGTON: I am afraid I must have notice of that question. I could not answer that "off the cuff".
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Any farmer could answer this.
LORD CARRINGTON: He could not answer whether or not the Army had it.

EPILEPTIC PRISONERS
3.9 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: 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 to state at the latest date for which figures are available, the number of inmates of Her Majesty's prisons, who were epileptics, and what plans they have for the segregation of such persons either in special prisons or in sections of ordinary prisons.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the number of epileptics in prison at any one time is not centrally recorded. As stated in the Annual Report for 1961, in that year 293 undoubted cases of epilepsy were diagnosed, and 254 doubtful cases. It is not proposed to set aside a special prison for epileptics. Whether a prisoner suffering from epilepsy is located in the prison hospital or in the main prison is a matter for the medical officer's discretion. In either case, specially equipped rooms are provided. Epileptics sleep in rooms or wards for three or more, where practicable, in order that assistance may more readily be obtained if necessary. Epileptics would not, however, be located three in a cell of the ordinary size, since this would require a double-tier bunk.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the figures he has quoted indicate that the proportion of epileptics in prison is very much higher than the proportion in the community, and there is therefore a presumption that many men are in prison because they are epileptics and not because they are criminals? With regard to the second part of his Answer, is he aware that epileptics need fresh air and movement and that they are likely to become dangerous and violent when kept in close confinement, and will he therefore look into the regulation which forbids transfer of these sufferers to open prisons.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think I could necessarily accept the assumption on which the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question was based, and I would remind him that, of the cases which I mentioned in my
852
original reply, only approximately half were undoubted epileptic cases. So far as open prisons are concerned, I should like to point out to the noble Lord that the difficulty here is to see that there is sufficiently close medical supervision in open prisons for epileptic prisoners.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he has studied the cases which I sent to him, and whether he would look into the allegations that epileptics were immediately deprived of drugs on entering prison; that one of them, an innocent man, spent ten weeks in solitary confinement before he was released and lost three and a half stone in weight, and that he had no treatment until he was removed from Stafford to Wormwood Scrubs prison? It does not appear that these sufferers are being treated in accordance with their medical needs, which is a very serious matter indeed. Can the noble Earl look into that?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have, of course, studied the information which the noble Lord was good enough to communicate to me, and I have called for reports from the three prisons mentioned in his letter to me. Meanwhile, pending the receipt of reports from those prisons, I must of course not be taken as accepting any of the allegations in the letter which the noble Lord was good enough to communicate to me.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while agreeing that the noble Earl does not accept any of the allegations, what I am concerned with is not merely the three prisons but the general medical treatment accorded to epileptics. Will he look into that generally and make sure that they are not deprived of drugs, and that all prisoners are given the treatment that their medical condition requires?
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, my Lords.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, while going into the subject, would the noble Earl note that one of the most dangerous aspects of epileptics in prison is the fact that during the night warders do not have keys to individual cells, and when epileptics have fits there is no way of getting at them until the morning?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I quite realise that there is this need to be able

853
to summon help, bat of course there are bells provided in the particular cells concerned.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Yes, but the warders do not have keys to cell doors at nights. The only thing they can do is to rouse the assistant governor, which sometimes takes many hours and sometimes the doors are not opened until the morning.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, my information on this point does not quite square with the noble Lord's, but I should like to look into the detailed point that he has brought to my consideration.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while the noble Earl is looking into it, will he look into a fact, which is equally relevant, that the bells which will enable a sufferer, if lie can, to summon help are seven or eight feet high above the ground, and that this often makes the summoning impracticable?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I believe this was a point in the letter which the noble Lord was good enough to hand to me, and I have already said that I will look into that matter.

COMMUNAL CELLS IN PRISONS
3.10 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state, at the latest convenient date, the number of prisoners who are sleeping more than three to a communal cell; the approximate size of such cells, and any other way in which they differ from the ordinary prison cell.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the expression "cell" is commonly used to mean a room in which not more than three can sleep, and is so used in the statement of accommodation in Appendix 4 of the Commissioners' Annual Report. The statement on page 110 of the Report for 1961 shows that there was accommodation for 2,358 prisoners in rooms or dormitories in men's prisons, by which is meant rooms
854
or dormitories larger than cells and capable of sleeping four or more. This includes accommodation for 1,110 in closed prisons for men. There are also over 3,000 prisoners in open prisons, most of whom sleep three or more in dormitories. The size and characteristics of such rooms or dormitories vary so widely that no general answer can be given to the second part of the Question; the noble Lord has, however, sent me a statement alleging that a certain prisoner was located in a room with four others at Wormwood Scrubs, and if the room can be identified I will send him particulars of it.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the particular room referred to has now been identified by me in respect of two different prisoners, including the one to which he has now referred. But the generality of prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs refer to this as the "snake-pit", including epileptics, with everybody throwing fits—perhaps six in a week—in truly frightful conditions in the strip-cells, which are short of water so that they drink water from their chamber pots. Will he investigate these truly horrible conditions under which these men, who are sufferers—they may or may not be criminals but they are sufferers—are herded without, apparently, proper medical care, or hope of succour.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must say that I am a little surprised by the noble Lord's supplementary, because the allegations which he has repeated are all included in the letter which I have just said I should be glad to examine.

EDUCATION ON RACIAL MATTERS
3.15 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the racial disturbances in Bristol, they will reconsider their decision and support financially the proposals for education on racial matters recently submitted to them under the auspices of the Royal Commonwealth Society.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, so far as I am aware, there have been no racial disturbances in Bristol. But the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education is about to tell the Institute of Racial Relations that, subject to certain conditions, the Minister will consider an application for financial assistance in a future financial year. But I cannot prejudge the Minister's decision.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the latter part of his Answer. While there may not have been actual physical disturbances in Bristol, I think he will agree that the occurrences in Bristol are such as would indicate that there is some further need for education in this matter. I hope, therefore, that he will use his own best endeavours to make sure that the application to which he has referred is in fact favourably received.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think we all need further education in immense matters.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is it not true—I think the noble Viscount will recognise it—that there is now an active campaign carried on, a great deal by the West Indians in Bristol and also by certain citizens who are interested in the West Indies and the Commonwealth, against what is a refusal, at least up to date, by the Bristol Motor Bus Company to employ coloured people upon the platforms? If so, cannot representations be made from the Government themselves? There is no difficulty over this matter in London. Why should there be in Bristol?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the Question really referred to the matter of a proposal from the Royal Commonwealth Society for education, and I have not come equipped to deal with the situation in Bristol apart from the part of my Answer which indicated that I was not prepared to accept the word "disturbances" in relation to what had happened.

INCIDENT INVOLVING QUEEN OF THE HELLENES
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Government the following Question of which I have given Private Notice:
In view of the publicity concerning the recent incident involving the Queen of the Hellenes will Her Majesty's Government make it clear that in their opinion this should not be allowed to disturb the existing good relations between Britain and Greece?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): Yes, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government attach the greatest value to our ancient and traditional friendship with Greece and continuing good relations. In addition we value Greece as an ally in NATO and as a co-signatory of the Cyprus Agreement and we trust that this incident for which I have expressed my regrets will not be allowed to damage relations between our two countries.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, in view of that very satisfactory Answer to me, I take it that the Government would wish to dissociate themselves from the attacks which have been made in this country on the Greek Crown and the Greek Government.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. He has put his question in such a way that I answer it like this: any formal dissociation is quite unnecessary because, as he will realise, we have not associated ourselves, and do not associate ourselves, with such attacks.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, will the Foreign Secretary indicate to the Greek Government that if they could adopt a rather more liberal policy towards their political prisoners incidents of this sort would not happen?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, Greece is a democracy, with a properly elected Government and a constitutional Monarchy. They are perfectly able to look after themselves, and this would not be a proper matter for me to make representations upon.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that Britain also is a democracy, with a properly elected Government and a constitutional Monarchy, and the citizens of Britain are quite free to express their views about this country, or any other country, in a constitutional manner on whatever subject they wish?
THE EARL OF HOME: That is perfectly proper, and both noble Lords have just expressed their views and used Parliament for the purpose, but what the noble Lord was asking me to do was to express views to the Greek Government on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that this incident and other similar incidents are part of a planned campaign on the part of the Communists in this country for which a great many people, including some of the popular Press, have been foolish enough to fall?
THE EARL OF HOME: I hope that no one will fall a victim to this Communist campaign. I was thinking back and remember that in 1949 the Under-Secretary in the Foreign Office at the time described the propaganda that was being made then as "a shocking example of mendacity and hypocrisy ". I would not want to alter that.
LORD STONHAM: Is the noble Lord aware that one does not have to be a Communist to deplore the incarceration of political prisoners for sixteen years?
THE EARL OF HOME: That is quite true. I hope we shall always be on the side of liberal and humane policies.
LORD CHORLEY: Is the Foreign Secretary not aware that Mrs. Ambatielos is an English woman whose husband has been in prison for a very long time and is a perfectly reputable trade union leader?
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, will the noble Earl not agree that these attacks on the Queen of Greece were most improper? How could she be held responsible for the acts of her own Government? Surely, that such a thing should have occurred is the grossest discourtesy. We all ought to be ashamed of it.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, we are not suggesting any responsibility at all.
858
My suggestion was that if they did not keep these people locked up like this these incidents would not occur.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I think we are asking questions at this stage of the proceedings.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think we ought to try to forget the incident and leave it behind us. It was, of course, because I thought that this incident had gone beyond the bounds of a peaceful demonstration that I expressed my regret.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.25 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I would inform your Lordships that dinners will be available to-night, as on every night when we are considering the Committee stage of the London Government Bill.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must regret that the arrangements last night were not very successful when the House sat late. I think that is the sort of thing upon which the Government ought to keep their mind.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: The blame falls fairly and squarely upon my shoulders. I had endeavoured, with the co-operation of noble Lords opposite, to make an estimate of how long the debate would go on and how long would be required to complete the Committee stage on the Weights and Measures Bill. I am afraid that my calculation was in error, for which I must apologise to the House, but I did my best to make what appeared to be a reasonable forecast. I am afraid it went wrong.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, if the Government are determined to cause the House to have very late sittings, which will not be our fault—we must do our Parliamentary duty, especially as there was a guillotine in another place; we have our Parliamentary work to do—if the Government are determined to side-step the guillotine and get it another way round by enforcing

859
late sittings, will the Chief Whip inform us whether they are going to provide facilities for breakfast, either the next morning or in the middle of the night; and will he see that sleeping accommodation is provided for those of us who cannot get home at a late hour? This is a perfectly serious request and ought to be given consideration, not only for the convenience of noble Lords on this side of the House, but for noble Lords on the other side too.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I am not aware that it has been definitely agreed, either by the Government or by the House, that we should sit until breakfast time on any particular occasion. It is possible, of course, that that may be necessary, but when it looks like happening I will endeavour to see that there is at least some refreshment for noble Lords opposite. As regards sleeping accommodation, I regret to say I cannot provide him with that, but no doubt if he makes application in the proper quarters every endeavour will be made to meet his requirements.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would it not be advisable for the Government to consider this matter again and to make quite sure that if this Bill, or any other Bill, is to be properly considered regard is had for the time which is allotted? Obviously it is going to be a very big task, especially for the Opposition which has quite inadequate representation here in this House. If you are going to drive the remaining few of us here who can stay late at night, then I think something ought to be done about it in regard to the time given to Business. I think it ought to be reconsidered. Perhaps we might open the question again through the usual channels.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I wonder whether the noble Earl would consider this—
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Will he please answer my question first?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: As the noble Earl knows well, there have been various discussions about the programme of this Bill and, as always, it is my endeavour to meet the wishes of the House as a
860
whole and of noble Lords; and that I shall continue to do. But the noble Earl knows that every Government have a programme of Bills which they wish to get through. While having great sympathy with the noble Earl and his not very strong team, I would point out that the Prime Minister has done his best to strengthen the noble Earl's team opposite. They are, shall we say, a great deal stronger than they were. But we must stick to our programme. At the same time, we will, obviously, give every possible consideration to noble Lords opposite.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that when the Labour Party were in office and had very contentious Bills in this House—the Steel Bill, the Transport Bill, the Railway Bill, and so on—by reasonable action on the part of the Opposition and co-operation with the Government it was possible to dispose of many, many hundreds of Amendments to those Bills without asking the House to sit unduly late; and that the Government got their Bills and were good enough to say they were greatly improved by what had been done?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should never forget quite a number of occasions when courtesies were shown in the House on the part of an exceedingly powerful unelected Opposition. But that was not a case of dealing with an unmandated proposal. That was something which was in a programme submitted in 1945 to the electorate. This is an entirely unmandated Bill. You have no authority for it, and twice London electors in both the county and the borough elections have voted against it. Surely we have the right to see that their views are properly represented, weak as we are in numbers as an Opposition.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, might I suggest that, if we ceased to talk about the theoretical provision of breakfast and got on with the Business, we might get home to have breakfast in our homes, which your Lordships would probably agree would be much better than getting it here.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: This happens to be a part of the Business.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the Parliamentary day in your Lordships' House has been defined? We know the time it starts—2.30 or 3 p.m.—but what is the time when a normal Parliamentary day ends in your Lordships' House?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Answer, answer!
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I am not seeking overtime pay, but at least we are entitled to know what noble Lords representing the Government regard as a Parliamentary day in your Lordships' House.

WATFORD CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
NURSING HOMES BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CORN RENTS BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Corn Rents Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, as far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the disposal of the Bill.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
3.33 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
London boroughs
1.—(1) There shall be established new administrative areas, to be known as London boroughs, which shall comprise the areas respectively described (by reference to existing administrative areas) in column 2 of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act; and in this and any other Act—

(a) any reference to an inner London borough shall be construed as a reference to one of the London boroughs numbered from 1 to 12 in the said Part I;

(b) any reference to an outer London borough shall be construed as a reference to one of the London boroughs numbered from 13 to 32 in the said Part I.

(2) The Minister shall in the case of each London borough by order (hereafter in this Act referred to as an "incorporation order") make provision for the incorporation of the inhabitants of the borough and with respect to the name thereof; and, subject to the provisions of this Act, any such order—

(a) may make any provision such as may be made by a charter granted under Part VI of the Local Government Act 1933; and

(b) in the case of an outer London borough, shall make provision for a charter for the borough, which may include with any necessary modifications all or any of the provisions of the charter or any letters patent granted to any existing borough the whole or part of which falls within the London borough's area;

and the provisions of Part III of Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of the revocation or alteration of the provisions of any such order with respect to the matters mentioned in paragraph 1 of the said Part III; but nothing in any such order or in any order under the said Part III shall authorise the number of councillors of any London borough to exceed sixty.
(3) Before a London borough's incorporation order is made, the Minister or, as may be appropriate, the Secretary of State shall cause such notices to be given and such, if any, inquiries to be held with respect to the matters to be dealt with by the order as may appear to the Minister or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State to be expedient.
(5) The first election of councillors of each London borough shall be held, under arrangements to be made by its incorporation order, on the day in May 1964 fixed by the Secretary of State as the day of election of borough councillors in England and Wales; and the persons declared to be elected councillors at that election shall come into office on the fourth day after the day of election.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS) moved, in subsection (2), to omit all words from the beginning down to "the provisions", and to substitute:
"(2) If in the case of any London borough, on representations in that behalf made to the Privy Council by the Minister, Her Majesty by the advice of Her Privy Council thinks fit to grant a charter of incorporation of the inhabitants of that borough, Her Majesty may by that charter—

(a) make provision with respect to the name of the borough; and

(b) subject to the provisions of this Act, make any provision such as may be made by virtue of section 131 of the Local Government Act 1933 by a charter granted under Part VI of that Act;

and any charter which purports to be granted in pursuance of the Royal prerogative and this subsection shall be deemed to be valid and within the powers of this Act and Her Majesty's prerogative and the validity thereof shall not be questioned in any legal proceeding whatever.
(2A) In the case of any London borough whose inhabitants are not incorporated by such a charter as is referred to in the last foregoing subsection, provision for their incorporation shall be made by the Minister by order (hereafter in this Act referred to as an "incorporation order") which may include any such provision as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection.
(2B)".
The noble Lord said: During the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, an Amendment on the same lines as Amendment No. 3 now standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Silkin, Lord Champion, Lord Lindgren and Lord Kennet, was proposed. My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government was pressed very hard on that occasion to amend the provision in subsection (2) which deals with the incorporation of the new London boroughs, and he promised to give the matter further consideration. I am now able to move on the Government's behalf this Amendment, which I am sure will commend itself to your Lordships and to the local authorities concerned.
It provides a way by which all the London boroughs may be incorporated by Royal Charter just as are boroughs in general. The normal procedure laid down in Part VI of the Local Government Act, 1933, requires that an application for a Charter must come from an existing authority, and this application is invariably followed by a public inquiry. This procedure would be inappropriate here, because it presupposes an existing authority which will petition for a Charter, and in the normal course of events the existing state of affairs would continue if a Charter was not granted. But in this instance the Bill is deliberately establishing a pattern of new boroughs within a timetable, and the new councils cannot be elected until after the Charters have laid down the wards and made arrangements for the first elections. Hence the Amendment provides that my right honourable friend may take the initiative by making representations to the Privy Council. On the advice of the Privy Council, Her Majesty may incorporate any London borough by Charter.
I know that my right honourable friend expects to make such representations in the case of all the London boroughs. But it would not be proper for us to assume that Royal Charters which are granted under the Prerogative would automatically be given, and hence the Amendment includes a new subsection (2A), which provides for incorporation by Ministerial order as an alternative to a Royal Charter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 15 and insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out subsection (2A). The noble Lord said: I should like to thank the noble Lord for the explanation he has given of this Amendment. As he says, the Government were under very considerable pressure in another place on an Amendment to ensure that the new London boroughs all started off with equal status, with none of them having greater privileges than any other; none of them being regarded as second-class boroughs as against others; none of them having greater prerogatives or priorities. I think it is very important indeed that the 32 boroughs should be

865
on an equal footing right from the beginning. We therefore attach very great importance to this Amendment. I am very glad that the Minister eventually agreed to do what he could to meet the wishes of the Committee—and I think they were the wishes of practically the whole Committee—and I agree that this clause is an attempt to do what is required.
I am a little doubtful about the new subsection (2A), because it contemplates the possibility that some of the boroughs will not be receiving a charter as intended. I appreciate that this is a safeguarding provision to safeguard the Royal Prerogative, but I should like to have it quite certain that it is the definite intention of the Minister to take the necessary steps at the earliest possible moment in respect of all the new London boroughs that have not a charter. I should also like to ask him what is to be the position about the new boroughs that are being formed out of existing boroughs, some of which have a charter and some of which have not—for instance, in the case of Woolwich, which is being split up. Woolwich has not a charter, and those to whom it is joined presumably have. There is also the problem of what is to happen when two boroughs which have a charter are amalgamated. Will they need a new charter, or can the two existing charters somehow be combined?
I would suggest that we might consider at the same time this Amendment and a number of others on the same point. We can then take the necessary action when the later Amendments are called. It would be convenient if, for instance, we discussed together Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10, which are all on the same subject. If we have a general discussion on them all, and the noble Lord is able to give completely satisfactory assurances on the points that I have raised, we will, act accordingly. However, I should like the assurances first before we decide upon our course of action.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Leave out subsection (2A).—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD SHEPHERD: May I support my noble friend on this Amendment? I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and I think he has gone some way to meet the wishes of those of us on this side of the House. But the
866
noble Lord will also appreciate that what he says in this House may not always be the way in which the Bill is administered when it becomes an Act. The Act is administered entirely on the words that are in it. I understand that the difficulty put forward by the Minister in the other place was that a charter was granted by Her Majesty when a number of authorities came together and there was a new creation; that Her Majesty could use her prerogative and grant a charter then, but that it has never been the case (in fact, I believe it would be impracticable) for a charter to be given to a body already in existence. Now, as we see it, this would preclude the inner boroughs of London which have been created by Statute from ever receiving a charter, whereas the outer boroughs, being created and coming together under this Bill, would receive a charter.
If one looks at the Government Amendment, it could well be argued that the position has not in any way changed: that subsections (2)(a) and (b) would deal merely with those authorities which are already charter boroughs but which, as my noble friend Lord Silkin drew to our attention, are changing their shape and changing their size. I was looking up in the Library the other day on what basis a charter was delivered. It was delivered by Her Majesty to the burgesses of the area for the area in which they lived. I wonder, like my noble friend Lord Silkin, whether, where two authorities that have been created by charter come together, they would then have a unified charter, or whether they would exist under two charters. In that case, where there are perhaps two or three authorities with two or three charters, do the Government contemplate an approach being made to Her Majesty through the Privy Council for the existing charters to be abolished and a new one created? That, of course, would meet the wishes of those on this side of the House in regard to the outer boroughs.
Undoubtedly, these areas are covered by the first part of the Government's Amendment; but have we really got over the problem of the authorities that are created by Statute? Is it the case, as it was put forward by the Minister in another place, that it is not possible for an authority created by Statute to

867
obtain a charter, or would the passing of this Amendment merely mean that these areas would automatically come within subsection (2A)? We on this side of the House put considerable stress upon the fact that, having created this new area of 8½ million people, we should have a form of equality clearly recognised, not only by the heads of the authorities but also by the inhabitants of the authority; that they all stand on an equal basis and in an equal position as regards precedence on, perhaps, certain Royal occasions. We feel, therefore, that we should insist that we have it in this Bill, if it is at all possible—and I think it is—that all these various authorities which are being newly created shall have the same standing.
I hope that the noble Lord can give us a very clear statement. In fact, I would not speak ill of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, but I should like to hear it from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with all the force in law that he commands. We should like to hear him come and say that the Government Amendment in fact means that any authority newly created by this Bill, if it so wishes, can apply for a Royal Charter—obviously, they have no right to get it automatically, but that they will be in a clear position to apply, through the usual channels—and that their case will be considered and, I hope, accepted. I hope that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack can help us in this matter.
LORD LATHAM: While I associate myself almost completely with what my noble friend Lord Shepherd has said, it is perhaps appropriate to mention that it is not the position that the grant of a charter is made only when districts are being amalgamated. What I am concerned about, however, is how long we are to have two kinds of charter, one a Royal Charter and the other an incorporation charter. How long will the local authorities be required to wait before they can get a Royal Charter, or are they, the incorporated bodies, to be second-class local authorities in comparison with chartered local authorities? Perhaps the Minister would indicate whether an incorporated local authority or borough will be able, as soon as it may please, and subject to its complying with the normal requirements which exist at
868
the present time, to apply for a charter in the same way as an authority can at the present time apply for a charter.
LORD HASTINGS: I think I can give all the assurances that have been asked for. My right honourable friend will definitely undertake to apply to the Privy Council, to make representations that all these boroughs shall be on an equal footing and that there shall be no second-class boroughs. They will get new charters, all 32 of them. Provisions in existing charters may be retained but, in general, they will be superseded, although the new charters may in some cases actually be in the same forms as the old ones. There is no question, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, of the metropolitan boroughs automatically coming under subsection (2A), which was what the noble Lord feared. The purpose is that they should all be dealt with under subsection (2) in the main.
LORD LATHAM: It is all very well for the noble Lord to say or imply that there is no distinction, and that all of them will have a Charter. That may be the case ultimately, but it is not the case at the start, because some of them are to be the subject of incorporation orders. There will be a difference. They will be second-class local authorities.
LORD HASTINGS: I will just explain that that is only the reserve power. They have all got to be incorporated to come into existence before April of next year, and my right honourable friend will present the case to the Privy Council that they should all be incorporated on the same footing. The reserve power is simply there because, as I know noble Lords opposite realise full well, we cannot presume on Her Majesty's prerogative.
LORD SHEPHERD: Can the noble Lord say from experience, not his experience, but previous experience, regarding consideration by the Privy Council, and no doubt by Her Majesty, as to whether a Charter would be given, what is the time for consideration? I was looking at the story of this matter. It seems to me it could be quite a lengthy proceedings. Can the noble Lord say, within the time of the passing of this Bill and the coming into being of these authorities, that the inquiries can be conducted in such a way that the time limit will not

869
be a bar to these authorities receiving a Charter?
LORD HASTINGS: Of course, the normal procedure is that there is an inquiry and the burgesses and citizens apply. But that will not be gone through in this case because of the time factor, and my right honourable friend is given the power to apply on their behalf. There will not be a public inquiry.
LORD SHEPHERD: It is equally true that the burgesses or electors can in fact object. The noble Lord said that there is not to be an inquiry. I can see that is right; but if one of the boroughs has a reasonable feeling that it would prefer to remain as it was—it may well be—then the electors would have a right at least to approach the Minister to see that their point of view is put.
LORD HASTINGS: I think it is unlikely that they would object to having a Charter. They might object and act under another clause of the Bill regarding the boundaries to which no doubt the noble Lord was referring.
LORD SILKIN: I think the noble Lord has gone as far as he can to-day.
What I would suggest is that our noble friends allow this Amendment to go through. I would be prepared to withdraw such relevant Amendments as I have down and have another look at it at the next stage of the Bill. It looks all right, but if we have any representations to make on the next stage then we will do so, and possibly move an Amendment. It is a very complicated question and we may need legal advice. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be prepared to give us such legal advice. But, subject lo that, I think it might be convenient for the Committee to let this go through. We shall not move our Amendments and reserve our right to come back again at the next stage.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("of any such order").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("but nothing in any such") and insert ("of any charter or incorporation order under subsection (2) or (2A) of this section; but nothing in any such charter or").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "exceed sixty" and insert:
"be less than one councillor to each three thousand electors".
The noble Lord said: The speed of dealing with the first few Amendments has rather caught my noble friends unawares, because a colleague was to move this Amendment. This is a subject to which I drew the attention of your Lordships' House on Second Reading. The Government in subsection (2) of Clause 1 have laid down an arbitrary figure of the number of councillors for the boroughs. The number was 60. As I drew to the attention of your Lordships' House on that occasion, we were having created a number of boroughs of different sizes and different numbers of electors and population. I also drew the House's attention to the fact that the responsibilities of the new boroughs will be considerably greater. In fact, this is the desire of Her Majesty's Government and I will not speak about this now. But it will be clearly recognised by all that the duties falling upon a council will be very much greater; and in some cases the area over which the councillors have to travel will also provide a formidable obstacle to them in the performance of their duty.
Let us take the case of Croydon. Croydon has at present a population of 250,000 with 48 councillors and 16 aldermen. Into that area is going to be brought a further 73,000 people from Purley and Coulsdon. These people are to be represented by 33 councillors. Under the Government proposals, this very much increased number of persons, 320,000, are going to be represented by merely 60 councillors with a number of aldermen. Therefore, I think it would be clear from that particular authority that the electors are going to be represented by a fewer number of councillors. I would say, incidentally, that the councillors to-day provide a very important link in connection with the electors and, I think, even with this House. They are able to deal with the everyday

871
problems that beset a household in many cases: finding a house, perhaps finding employment, finding hospital accommodation, and the like. They provide this very intimate service that we in Westminster, either as Members of the House of Commons or as Members of your Lordships' House, are quite unable to do.
I drew the Committee's attention to Croydon only. If we take this Greater London area as a whole, I think I am right in saying that at present, if you average it out, one councillor would represent approximately 2,600-odd electors. In some areas perhaps it could be said there are too many councillors to the electorate; but in others there are not sufficient councillors to cover fully the needs of their particular electorate. But we do have this average figure of one councillor to 2,600-odd electors. Under the Government proposals—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will correct me if I am wrong—we shall have the position that, on average, there is one councillor to every 4,000 electors.
LORD HASTINGS: I think there is no case where that will be so. The average is well below.
LORD SHEPHERD: Can the noble Lord give me an average figure.
LORD HASTINGS: No.
LORD SHEPHERD: I would hope the noble Lord will make efforts to obtain this figure between now and when we have to make a decision. He has disputed my calculation. The calculation I have given was one provided in the other place during Committee stage. It was not challenged, to the best of my knowledge. Unless the noble Lord can give another figure I would ask the Committee to accept my figure of approximately one councillor to 4,000. This is considerably different from the ratio prevailing today.
Our suggestion is to delete this fixed figure of 60 councillors to a borough, irrespective of its size and the number of electors, and to provide that the number shall be such as the Minister may decide, provided that in no case there shall be less than one councillor for each 3,000 electors. If the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, can produce the figure, it may be that he could accept my Amendment
872
and if it were less than 4,000 I should be happy to see it written into the Bill.
The Government are wrong to stand on this arbitrary figure of 60. We should have some degree of flexibility. We have to take into account the number of electors, the type of the area, the transport, the ease of getting from one side of the area to another. I do not advocate that we should have a number of councillors out of all proportion to the number of electors, but there should be some flexibility, so that the Minister is able to take these things into account. The Bill as it is now limits the Minister and gives him no discretion whatsoever. He can operate only within the figure of 60. While I do not necessarily stand by the figure of 3,000, I think it should be a smaller one to ensure that the present representation should not he greatly lessened. Many of your Lordships have an intimate experience of local government work and know what local councillors can do for people in their areas, but the local councillor cannot provide the same personal service if he has to look after a large number of people over a wide area. We should like to see a greater degree of flexibility in the Bill, so long as the present position is not in any way restricted or curtailed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out from ("to") to end of line 21 and insert ("be less than one councillor to each three thousand electors.").—(Lord Shepherd.)
4.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: In supporting my noble friend in this Amendment, I should like to say that on the Second Reading of this Bill some of my friends were rather shocked at the tone of the Government speeches. The noble and learned Lord who moved the Second Reading called the Bill a "constructive and progressive measure" and talked about the efficiency he expected from the new organisation. The Government thought that boroughs of this size could be established without endangering the efficient administration of the services. He went on to say [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 248 (No. 71), col. 1138];
"We must recognise that local government will be healthy and vigorous only if local authorities are given a worthwhile job to do and are entrusted with the fullest responsibility. This means giving as many powers as possible

873
to the boroughs, especially in the personal services which bring the individual most frequently into direct touch with his local authority."
A great deal about efficiency and vigorous government, but not a word about the human side of local government; and that, surely, is what local government is about. It is the essence of good local government that the elected councillors shall be in close touch with their electors.
The existing system in the metropolitan boroughs of inner London shows wide variations between the different boroughs, from Wandsworth, where it is about 4,000, down to Holborn, where there are fewer than 1,000 electors per councillor. I was surprised to hear my noble friend say that the average was 2,600. I had worked it out—on the basis of councillors not including aldermen—at about 1,700 electors per councillor. In the built-up areas of London, a councillor can get to know pretty well a ward of from 4,000 to 6,000 even 7,000 electors, and that is what rules in many of the inner London metropolitan boroughs now. If the boroughs are going to be increased in size, roughly tripled, that would mean that around 3,000 electors would be the average over the whole. I think that the Government proposals go much over that. According to my calculations, Nos. 9 and 10 boroughs (Lambeth arid Battersea) would have 4,000 electors per councillor; 8, 7 and I would have over 3,000, and only four boroughs—5, 6, 11 and 12—would appear to be going to have under 3,000.
When we think of the greater responsibilities which the Government are going to put upon the new London boroughs, it seems to us more than ever essential that the number of elected councillors should be adjusted to the number of electors. There are the other factors mentioned by my noble friend—communications, density and so on—which have to be taken into account. This is even more the case with outer London boroughs, because densities are much less than in inner London and they are going to lose a great number of councillors. Many of them, the components of new boroughs, have 70, 80 or 90 councillors at the moment and they are going to be reduced to 60 with the same population. It seems to me the utter negation of good local
874
government that there should be this rigid adherence to the figure of 60. What was the magic about the figure 60 we do not know. A number of metropolitan boroughs have 60 councillors now, and perhaps that fact was in the Minister's mind when he drafted the Bill. We cannot agree that the proposal, as it is, is going to lead to good government. We suggest a number of 3,000, which we think is a reasonable figure, but we do not wish to be absolutely rigid about it. There must be flexibility in order that the number can be adjusted so that we may get the best possible relations between the elected councillors and those wham they represent. Therefore, I support the Amendment.
LORD WOLVERTON: I should like to know what the Government think is the right proportion. I cannot speak for London, but I am a councillor of West Suffolk and represent a ward of Newmarket. We have a town of 11,500 people there, and we have five councillors, which works out at about 1 per 2,300. The urban council have 11 or 12, and that comes down to about 1,000. I should have thought that round about 2,500 to 3,000 is the right number. We can manage quite well with the number we have to look after now, but I do not think we should want more than that.
LORD LINDGREN: The point raised by my two noble friends and by the noble Lord opposite in regard to the actual relationship of the elected representatives to the electorate is most important, but, if I may, I will leave that, because I think it has been effectively covered by my two noble friends. To me, what is equally important, and perhaps from the administrative point of view even more important, is the fact that these authorities will, to all intents and purposes, be all-purpose authorities. That means that they will have a wide range of committees. There will, to cover the general acceptance of an all-purpose authority, be at least 22 committees. This means that even with 60 councillors there has to be a doubling-up of membership on various committees, which is quite normal in local government work. But on a number of committees there are subcommittees which have to deal with

875
specialised subjects within the range of the committee. This means that you place a tremendous responsibility for attendance at committees on a comparatively few people.
I want to draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that local government in this country is at the present time—and some people hope it will remain so—and under this Bill for these authorities it will continue to be, a voluntary piece of work, a service on behalf of the community by the individual; and most of this work, because they are an all-purpose authority and because of the size of the authority, will be day-time work. That means to say that the ordinary person, whether he be a manual, clerical, professional or technical worker, must have time off from his job in order to carry out his civic duties within the borough. I can say from personal experience that it is not always easy to get time off from one's employer to undertake local government work. As your Lordships know, I worked for a railway company, and that is not as bad, from this point of view, as working for a normal employer. But, as I had to, very often one has to go up and tell the chief clerk, "Next Tuesday I shall be off in the afternoon; on Wednesday, I shall be off in the morning and on Thursday in the afternoon". He said to me: "You had better leave your photograph here and we shall know what you look like when you come back."
It is not unreasonable for an employer to turn to an employee in that position and say: "Look here; what you do in a civic way is your responsibility, but, after all, I am paying your wages, and even if you lose your wages for the time you are off, I still have to carry on the job; and if I have to carry on the job, I want somebody here to do it. I cannot tell the customer, or somebody who is waiting for something, that one of my fellows is over at a local government committee and they will have to wait until to-morrow for what they want." So the greater degree of time off during normal working hours that an elected councillor has to apply for from his employer militates against the employer's giving a concession for the employee to have time off.
Equally, most of us, if we go to work, do so for the pay packet at the end of
876
the week, and that has a relationship to getting promotion within the general sphere of activity in which we are employed. It is true, also, that the type of individual who has sufficient social conscience to undertake local government work is the type for whom an employer is looking to give added responsibility within his own organisation. It is not uncommon for a fellow of that type to be called in by his employer and to be told: "What you do outside the firm is nothing to do with us, but you are a good type of fellow and here is a charge-hand's or foreman's job"—or if he is a clerical worker, higher grading—"and the job is yours if you are prepared to take it. But if you are going to take on added responsibility and supervision of staff, then you must be here a bit more than you are and give up some of your local government work."
We have to look at the fact that we are working a voluntary system of local government which requires a considerable amount of time to be given to it; and that amount of time means not only attendance at committees. The type of councillor who goes to a committee and opens the agenda at the committee is no use to the local authority. In local government, as in both Houses of Parliament, to make an effective member it is necessary to specialise, and the amount of homework to be done in relation to specialised duties is fairly considerable. So it is not only a question of attending at meetings and travelling to and from meetings, but also a question of the time required to prepare oneself for carrying out the function—unless councillors are to be completely in the hands of the permanent officials of the council.
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that on the basis of the size of the boroughs he has now, and suggested within the framework of this Bill, not only can they not be really close to the people, because of the wide area they will have to represent, but there will not be sufficient of them to run the committees effectively, unless the individual is going to be completely overloaded. I have been in local government for a long time, and one of the worst features of present-day local government—the noble Lord opposite who preceded me mentioned the

877
Sussex Council, of which he is a member—
LORD WOLVERTON: Suffolk.
LORD LATHAM: You must be careful!
LORD LINDGREN: Well, Suffolk and Sussex are both lovely counties. But we are dealing with London, which my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth thinks is equally beautiful—though some people may have their doubts about some parts of it. But the tendency in local government at the present time is for the councils to be manned by married women (and I have nothing against married women: some of them may have something against me—one at least) or by people retired from business. It is one thing to be in local government for a period of time and to carry it on. But local government is much more important than having somebody at the age of 66, after retiring at 65, coming on to the county council or the borough council just to keep out of the wife's way on washday. Unless one has some background knowledge of local government, to come in at the age of 65 or 66 (it is true that business experience may be useful), the attention one has to give to detail, keeping abreast with the legislation coming on the Statute Book and with the various local government journals issued from time to time by various associations, is bound to be quite a job. The older one gets, the less inclined one is to carve out a new career. So that type of person means an added member of the council, but not an effective member.
If we are to have a body which is really virile, it must cover the ranges of the community, arid not just the married woman who can get away from home because her children are off hand; not the retired person because he has now given up active business; not the trade union official because the trade union is prepared to give him time off from his trade union, but the ordinary fellow who is working at his job on the shop floor, in the office or as an executive within business, trade, industry and the rest. They are the people who should be coming in and playing an active part in community life within the new local government bodies.
878
We have that situation often in the urban districts, and with the small local authorities, but only because the meetings tend to be in the evenings, or because they are smaller authorities and persons can arrange their lives accordingly. But we are now dealing with bodies that will demand a tremendous amount of time. The vast majority of their meetings will be held during the day time, and therefore it is necessary to have some regard to the ability of the ordinary individual to carry out effectively the duties which he undertakes when he stands for election. He cannot do that on the basis of 60 councillors. So I hope that, from the point of view of the effective manning of the authority, and to give the opportunity to a wider range of people to come within the authority, this number of 60 will not be a rigid number as it seems to be within the Bill at the present time.
LORD AUCKLAND: I have some sympathy with this Amendment, because one of the accusations against councillors to-day is that they do not get around sufficiently, and that as a result there is apathy among the electorate. The reason for this, as the noble Lord has just said, is that many councillors are overworked, particularly on matters of town planning, of which there is more and more to-day. Therefore this arbitrary figure needs looking at again. I should like to ask my noble friend how this figure was arrived at—whether the Town Clerks' Association, for example, was questioned on it. We are all hoping to receive from the noble Lord a detailed explanation. If this arbitrary figure is allowed to stand, covering all local authorities concerned in the Bill, I can see that the apathy towards local government will increase rather than decrease.
LORD PEDDIE: I think my noble friend Lord Lindgren has drawn attention to probably the most important aspect of this Amendment. The Amendment is logical, and also gives the possibility of greater encouragement to people who wish to take their part in local government. I do not think there is any doubt at all that one of the most important things in the development of local government is to maintain interest and provide greater opportunities for participation. My noble friend Lord Lindgren has given an indication that an arbitrary

879
figure of 60 would impose considerable strain on the maintenance of the necessary committees in any local authority. Therefore, on the grounds of sheer logic, I fail to see how there can be any argument against this Amendment.
4.26 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: It seems to me that this is an enormously important Amendment, because it strikes at a basic principle of local government. After all, what is the object of local government? It must be, surely, to enable the inhabitants of this particular area to be represented. Therefore, the number of people who are on the local council must depend upon the number of voters in that local authority's area. If you look at it from what one can almost call an entirely bureaucratic point of view, you look at it the other way. You say: "We do not agree about the electors. We do not mind how many there are. All we are interested in is the actual council itself. Now what is the ideal size of a council?" You then come to the figure—how it comes about I do not know, and I hope the noble Lord will tell us how it was arrived at—of 60. And you then say, "The council will be of a size of 60, or no more, at any rate, regardless of the number of electors." It seems to me that that indicates that this Bill has been framed not from the point of view of the democratic representation of the local electors, but for the administrative convenience of those who have to run the local authority. That surely is an extremely important difference of outlook on the whole system of local government, and I believe that it should be attacked right at the beginning, here and now.
If we continue with this type of attitude we shall deteriorate (and I am afraid that we have been deteriorating over the past few years) into decentralised bureacracy, instead of a democracy. We shall be more on the lines of the prefectorial system which, as your Lordships know, was initiated by Napoleon so that he could go away on his campaigns and ensure that the country would be well run by his officials in his absence, if that is what the Government want to do (not that I am suggesting the Prime Minister wants to go away on any great campaign of victory, even in Europe, having failed
880
to achieve that), if they want an administrative system which will be the efficient servant of Whitehall, carrying out these functions, then by all means let them say so and set up councils of a circumscribed size. Let them say, "We will allow the electors to elect their members, but the prime consideration must be the efficiency of the council." I am sure that they will not say that, and I am also sure that they do not want to do so. I am sure Her Majesty's Government are just as keen on democracy as we are. If that is so, it is absolutely essential that the size of a council depends upon the number of electors.
Our great danger at the present time is professionalism in politics, whether national or local. My noble friend Lord Lindgren has made it clear to your Lordships, if it needed making clear, that the strain on members of local authorities is very great, and increasing the whole time. If you limit their number in the way this clause, as it stands, sets out to do, you can do no more than accentuate and accelerate that present trend towards professionalism, so that local authorities will be composed solely of people who either have already retired or who, for one reason or another, have no fixed job to do, instead of, which surely is the correct concept of democracy, enabling all ranges of society and all walks of life to offer themselves as representatives of the people.
As my noble friend Lord Lindgren said, it is not simply a question of attending council meetings; it is not even a question of studying the agenda or the minutes beforehand or of enabling oneself to know what the true facts are, whether it has to do with the fire service or the roads, or anything else. It is also a question of being available to your constituents, being known to them and by them; and that is not the sort of thing which a working man or woman can do after six o'clock in the evening. He can do it perhaps if his constituents are fairly limited in number, but if they are unlimited, as they will be according to this clause, it is quite impossible for him to do so. So if we really wish, as I am certain we do, to see that our local governments are truly democratic and that the people I who represent the constituents on them

881
come from all walks of life and have the time to do their own jobs and at the same time get round and see their constituents and see the things which are being carried on in their name, I do not think we can do anything other than pass this Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I rise only to say that I understand that this is the London Government Bill and that the Amendment relates to London, but the arguments, nevertheless, have not related only to London; they are arguments that might be applied to the whole of the country. If it should be assumed that this is a principle that ought to be applied to the whole of the country, I very much hope that the associations of local authorities will be consulted before anything further is done, because there are, certainly in rural areas, a number of considerations other than that purely of numbers of electors.
4.33 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: I listened with great care to the words of the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, and I have also followed with close attention all the arguments put forward by noble Lords who supported him. I readily agree that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has raised a most difficult subject at the very outset of our proceedings of this Committee, and it is one which confronts, and has confronted, Her Majesty's Government with a difficult and, indeed, delicate problem to resolve. It is a subject which allows for considerable difference of opinion and for perfectly legitimate disagreement. I wish to assure noble Lords opposite that I accept absolutely the sincerity and general concern with which they have put their views. I hope, therefore, that they, in their turn, will accept the sincerity of the opposing views of Her Majesty's Government and will be ready to acknowledge after I sit down the care with which Her Majesty's Government have considered this problem.
There is just one thing I should like to say before proceeding. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, who took to task my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for, in his own words, "not saying a word about the human side of London Government" in his opening speech on
882
Second Reading, did, I think, imply that he extended that to the Government spokesmen as a whole during that debate. I must point out that during a very long speech, which I am well aware wearied a number of noble Lords, I went into great detail on the human side, and I do not think I can allow the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, to get away with that remark without some remonstrance from this side.
The noble Lord's Amendment illustrates very well the opposing influences which have to be taken into account when we consider the size of the new borough councils. Her Majesty's Government feel very strongly that we must look at the new councils in their context as part of a completely reorganised system, and that within this context we must aim to strike a balance between two opposing requirements when considering the size of the councils. We should like to see councils which are large enough to give the most favourable ratio of councillors to electors but which, at the same time, will not be so large as to obstruct the efficiency and policy-making ability of the councils as a result of unwieldiness.
First of all, however, I should like to deal with one argument which is often used and has been used again to-day by two noble Lords who spoke, and which at first hearing, I must admit, has considerable effect upon the listeners. It is the argument that when the total of all the members of the new borough council are added together they will be fewer—more than 1,000 fewer, in fact, for Greater London—than the total of all the members of the present authorities. For instance, as a result of amalgamating two or three existing authorities the number of councillors representing a given area may be, and in fact will be, reduced from something over 100 in some cases to a number which will be a maximum of 70, including aldermen; and the noble Lord Lord Shepherd cited a particular case.
It is perfectly true that Her Majesty's Government believe that this has not the relevance to the problem that is claimed for it and that, in any case, it is by no means the whole of the argument. As I said a moment ago, we have to consider a completely reorganised system. Left to themselves there is not any danger that

883
councils will become too small; rather the contrary. It is most unlikely that they would voluntarily propose to reduce their numbers, especially as the total of sitting members is, as I have just admitted, larger than would be allowed under the Bill; and even the noble Lord's Amendment introduces a form of limitation, even though he would claim that it is a more flexible form. As it is, even with this limitation laid down in the Bill, we do not think that councils will vary very much in size according to their population. Indeed, we expect all the councils will be somewhere near the maximum in numbers. This is not only, or even mainly, for the reason I have just given about the extra number of sitting members at present, but because each council will require adequate numbers in order to man the necessary committees, which will after all, be the same in each new borough.
LORD SHEPHERD: They will have more powers and more duties.
LORD HASTINGS: It is true they will have more powers. The noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Lindgren, in particular enlarged upon, and very rightly so, the responsibilities of the councillors, and certainly nobody would wish to deny the admirable work they do and the importance of contact between the councillors and the electors. On the other hand, although they made out a case that the responsibility to be given to them would be too big for them to handle in relation to the numbers of the councillors, the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, also made the very important point that there must be enough work to maintain the interest of the councillors; and these two requirements, of course, have to be married; and that is what Her Majesty's Government are trying to. For this it is necessary to come to a few comparisons and a few figures and I hope that I shall be able to show to the Committee, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that things are not as black as they have been painted.
When we come to consider the number fixed upon by the Government—60 councillors and 10 aldermen—I think it is legitimate to compare this total of 70 members with that pertaining in other big towns. My noble friend Lord Wolverton brought in a matter of figures in respect of the county council and
884
urban district councils of Suffolk, but I would say to him that we must compare like with like.
LORD SHEPHERD: Equally, is it not true that we should compare what you propose and what is now in existence in the areas with which you are dealing?
LORD HASTINGS: I am going to do that, too, in all good time.
LORD LATHAM: The noble Lord will have in mind that there are two County Councils in Suffolk.
LORD HASTINGS: I happen to know that, because I motor through them both quite frequently. I was saying that we should compare like with like, and therefore this cannot be taken as a scheme to be extended indiscriminately throughout the country; of course not. If we take the two largest of the proposed London boroughs—Nos. 9 and 10, part of Wandsworth and Lambeth, on the one hand, and the other part of Wandsworth and Battersea, on the other—we find that they will have populations of about 340,000 and 335,000 respectively. The nearest equivalent outside Greater London would be Nottingham, with 313,000, and Coventry, with 305,000 people. The total membership of the Nottingham council is 68 and that of Coventry is 64, of which the directly elected members number only 51 and 48 respectively.
LORD WALSTON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Without putting him in an awkward position, would he say that Nottingham has been a model of local government in the past few years?
LORD HASTINGS: I am not prepared to comment on that and annoy the burgesses of Nottingham for the sake of pleasing the noble Lord opposite.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I interrupt the noble Lord? He said that he would compare not only like with like, but what is in existence now. Can he say the number of councillors that the areas he has mentioned have now and what they will have under the Bill?
LORD HASTINGS: I am coming to something very like that presently, if the noble Lord will have patience.
Mention has been made of the extra functions and responsibilities of councillors. As county boroughs, Nottingham

885
and Coventry already have wider functions than will belong to the new London boroughs—I hope the noble Lord was listening. I said that as county boroughs, Nottingham and Coventry, whose figures I have just given, have wider functions than will belong to the new London boroughs. I make that point in reply to the noble Lord's comment that the councillors will have added responsibilities in the new London boroughs.
LORD SHEPHERD: It does not necessarily mean that we accept what is in existence there as what we should like to see.
LORD HASTINGS: I should like to turn for a moment to consideration of the ratio laid down in the noble Lord's Amendment, in order to make a comparison with the position as it will be under the Bill. If we retain the maximum of 60 councillors, a London borough would comply with the noble Lord's criterion, provided that it had not more than 180,000 electors. That is straightforward arithmetic. Thirteen out of the 32 new boroughs proposed have more than this figure. The others have the same or less. The largest number would be in one of the boroughs I have already mentioned, No. 9, which is Lambeth and part of Wandsworth. There they have 231,000 electors and, still retaining the maximum laid down in the Bill of 60 councillors, this would work out at 3,800 electors per councillor. That is the largest ratio in a new London borough, below the 4,000 mentioned by the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Is the noble Lord counting aldermen in with councillors?—because for the purpose of ratio they should not be included, only the elected councillors.
LORD HASTINGS: I am not including aldermen; I am referring to councillors. If the noble Lord divides 231,000 by 60, it will work out correctly. Is this really so much more than the noble Lord's figure of 3,000 electors per councillor as to render the job of the councillors and aldermen, who share the work, impossible or very much more difficult? In fact, that ratio of 3,800 electors per councillor tallies very closely with the present ratio existing in Croydon, which is the one county borough the noble Lord himself mentioned. The overall
886
average, in fact, which I have obtained while other noble Lords have been speaking, will work out, if we have the maximum number of councillors in each borough, at one to 2,800; ranging from 3,800 at the top level, which I have just quoted, to one councillor for every 1,900 electors in Kingston. I hope that these figures will allay some of the worries noble Lords have had.
Finally, I would stress that in response to pressure in another place—and I think this is important because it answers several noble Lords' questions—my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has made special inquiries of the local authority associations which represent urban authorities of about the same size as the London boroughs. It will interest your Lordships to know that the Association of Municipal Corporations supported the figures in the Bill without any qualification. The Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, on the other hand, had a reservation that the matter might need to be reviewed in the light of experience; but in the meanwhile they were firm in supporting the figures relating to a maximum number of members of the council inserted in the Bill by Her Majesty's Government. That should answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and other noble Lords who have wondered about this. As I said at the beginning. I feel that it was necessary to set a limitation in the way we have, and after the most careful consideration we believe that we have struck the right balance between efficiency, on the one hand, and representation of the people, on the other. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I ask the noble Lord one question? Does the Bill give power to vary its number of 60 at any time?
LORD HASTINGS: It does not.
4.47 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: In moving the Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 248 (No. 71) col 1137]:
"The system we are now seeking to establish will, I trust, serve Londoners for the rest of the century, and it is our responsibility

887
to ensure that in so doing we look to the future and not just to the past."
In those circumstances, the answer which the noble Lord, the Parliamentary Secretary has given, replying to the point just raised by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, is surprising. Not only is the Bill, we think, unsatisfactory as it is; but certainly in the light of experience there ought to be power to vary the number of councillors upwards, or indeed downwards, if that should be shown to be requisite. I think that under the London Government Act 1899, it can be done in the case of metropolitan boroughs; variations can be made by the Secretary of State or the Minister—I forget which. I remember that when I first became a member of Hackney Borough Council, as Mayor co-opted from the outside, in truly democratic fashion, it was a council of 70, and there was a Labour majority of two. That was the principal reason I was co-opted from outside: they could not afford to appoint a member of the council; otherwise their majority would have gone. Anyway, it was a very valuable experience for me.
But since that time the number of members of that council has fallen to somewhere between 45 and 50, and in view of the passion in this Bill for ministerial orders, statutory instruments, floating all over the Bill, to which we have drawn attention before, it is amazing that there is no ministerial power to vary the memberships of councils by order if experience shows that to be desirable. The maximum number provided under the Bill is 60 elected councillors, plus 10 aldermen, which makes 70 altogether. I presume that the committees will have power to co-opt, as existing committees of local authorities have—I will repeat that in case the noble Lord did not hear it. I quite appreciate that noble Lords on the other side must talk to each other now and again; and so must we. And you will need to over there very much before we have done with you. I presume that local authorities will have powers to co-opt members to committees to the extent that they can do under exiting local government law. That, of course, is helpful.
There is some argument as to how many electors, an the average, the new councillors will represent in the London
888
borough councils. Some of my noble friends on this side of the House are not disposed to agree, on the face of it, with the figures that the Parliamentary Secretary has given. He, on the other hand, thinks that his figures are right. I submit to him that it would be useful if the Government were to circulate, as a White Paper or otherwise, a return showing the number of electors in each proposed borough, the number of proposed councillors, and the average number of electors represented by each councillor in the borough. We shall then know what we are talking about, and if we are wrong on the figures, then we will think about it again between now and the Report stage.
This is a difficult matter. I agree that you can have a town council that is too big for its job. That is a nuisance because there will be too much talking done. I admit that some local authorities have a passion for appointing committees that are too large for their job. There can be some others who have a passion far appointing committees that are too small in numbers for the job. Somehow, you have to find a happy medium. So if we get the official figures between now and the Report stage we can have a look at it again.
But the thing that worries me about local government, in all political Parties and not merely one, is that it is difficult to keep the quality of councils as high as they ought to be—difficult for everybody. It is not merely a matter of difficulty for the Labour Party. I assure you that there has been a deterioration in the quality of Conservative Parties in quite a number of municipalities, including the London County Council, which of course I know well—that is the only reason I mention it. I think that if you go far enough back it will be found that it was the custom—I do not say it was a good one—of the old aristocracy in provincial England to regard it as necessary, almost automatic, and certainly a desirable form of voluntary public service, to serve on the county council or some other local authority. They gave up a fair amount of time to this work, as they did previously on the bench of quarter sessions and so on.
Now that has largely gone. As a matter of fact many of the aristocracy served a fair amount of time in the House

889
of Commons. They have largely gone. I do not say that it is a bad thing. However, we have still got a few left here to make up for it. But that element has largely gone out from local government. It is partly because the aristocracy now has positively to work for its living a little more than it used to because of financial considerations; partly because they are paying stiffer taxation than they used to pay and they want to conserve their resources, and partly, I am afraid, because of a deterioration in public spirit on the part of the aristocracy.
It was also true that the local well-to-do manufacturer, the local tycoon—I am arguing against myself to some extent here, because I have often urged Labour electors to clear these chaps off the local authority—used to serve in local government. There were also the top men in business. The same thing has happened in the House of Commons. They used to have top men in business there; and there are a few now; but there are more second-tier and third-tier men from business in the other House of Parliament now, and in local government they are hardly there at all. What do they argue? They say that they have not got the time. That is not altogether true. In their case also there has beer a deterioration in public spirit. That is a great pity, because it is a loss to the democratic quality of the nation. They have not got time, they say, or there is too much scrapping going on, which means that they cannot take it. They should scrap back. Some of them do not like that. The consequence is that the quality of local government is falling.
We have now got higher and much better education, but it is not too easy to get people to stand for county councils, or indeed for any other authorities. It is not that we in the Labour Party have not got the quality; we have. So up to a point have the Conservative Party; and so have the Liberal Party, up to a point, though it varies a great deal from one Liberal to another. The quality is there in the Party that I know best-namely, the Labour Party; but, somehow or other, it is a job to get those concerned to stand for local government. It is partly a time factor. Consequently, if there are riot enough councillors plus alderman to do the jab, then the burden on the individual councillor and alderman must be increased.
890
The noble Lord opposite talked of the average number of committees in metropolitan boroughs. That has nothing to do with the case. Under this Bill you are deliberately conferring materially greater powers upon the boroughs. In fact, the Government do not want to give anything to the Greater London Council to do if they can possibly give it to the boroughs. They have gone borough mad. Consequently, the boroughs have many additional functions to discharge. They are on the way to being county boroughs or, as my noble friend Lord Lindgren called them, all-purpose authorities. That being so, they must have a greater number of committees unless the committees are going to be overloaded. I am in favour of rationalising committees and not having too many of them; but there comes a point at which you have to set up other committees because you are putting too much on the existing committees. That has to be considered. There will have to be more committees or there will have to be longer sittings. That is a factor, too. These long sittings make a difference in the people who turn up. There is a tendency here for long sittings, for which the Government seem to have a passion, which we have not—we shall not have long sittings for fun; I would rather go home to my Lancashire wife. But these long sittings in the councils tend to make people leave the council and go off because they think it is too big a strain on them.
Then there is no distinction in the Bill between the inner London boroughs and the outer London boroughs. But there are two distinctions: one, is that in area the outer London boroughs will have, on the average, a rather more sparse population than the inner London boroughs. This can argue two ways—namely, that you have not got the population and therefore you can reduce the number of councillors; but, on the other hand, in so far as the councillors' wards have to cover a bigger area there is a case prima facie for more councillors. The inner London boroughs have a greater and more dense population than the outer London boroughs, but the outer London boroughs are going to be education authorities. The inner London boroughs are not going to be. This is an enormous difference. I think that what is going to happen about education is a mistake,

891
anyway. I think the Ministers concerned with education ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. They will go down in history as not being good friends of education, but rather as Party politicians.
However, the outer London boroughs are going to be education authorities. This is not merely a matter of another committee; it is not only a matter of an education committee—probably also a higher education sub-committee, a secondary education sub-committee, a primary education sub-committee, a special schools sub-committee, a staff committee, and possibly one or two I have forgotten. These sub-committees of the education committee, in our experience on the London County Council, are as important as many other full committees of the Council. This has not been taken into account.
The truth is that the Minister of Housing and Local Government does not understand local government. The only experience he has had was as a member of the Common Council of the City—and that is pantomime local government. That does not give him knowledge of local government, and he is not competent to discharge his duties. His predecessor, Mr. Brooke, did understand local government, but he knew what he was doing—he was gerrymandering. But that is another matter. This Minister just does not understand it. Therefore, you want something elastic in this Bill, with some sort of maximum or minimum figure which the council must represent of the local government electorate.
The Government are so utterly illogical. They argue that the great purpose of this Bill is to bring local government nearer to the individual citizen. What is it doing? It is establishing a vast Greater London authority and vast boroughs which will make the citizen less close to the borough. It is going to give the councillor more electors, which makes him farther away from the people who want to approach him on various things. But when they get to the City of London, this curious survival of the Middle Ages, then they leave the position as it is with one councillor to perhaps one hundred electors or less. The Government do nothing about it because the Minister of Housing and Local Government was
892
a member of the Common Council and his father was Lord Mayor. And the City is Tory. Do not disturb these ancient Tory institutions!
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord is imputing entirely unworthy motives to my right honourable friend.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am.
LORD HASTINGS: And I cannot allow him to go on in that way without some remonstrance. It is quite untrue.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The noble Lord cannot stop me. I am imputing motives.
LORD HASTINGS: I said that I cannot allow the noble Lord to do so without some remonstrance.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Certainly, it is a free country. You are entitled to make some remonstrance; so am I. And I say that the Government are actuated in this whole business by improper motives. But they preserve these curious little tin pot wards of the City—I believe one of the wards is actually outside the City itself, and has no representation at all (I am not sure but I think this is so), but the ones inside have very few electors, and they leave it. Why did the Government not bring this reform into the City? On the figures and on the general principle of this Bill they ought to reduce the number of Common Councillors in the City of London to about three, if they apply the same principle as they do to the new London boroughs.
I do not want to quarrel with the noble Lord—I think he is a very pleasant noble Lord—nor do I want to quarrel with the noble Lord from the Home Office. But it is my business not to remonstrate with them, but to correct them when they are wrong and to show them the error of their ways. I therefore hope that the Government will be good enough to look at this matter again with a real wish to make alterations. If not, we will have to see what we can do about it as the minutes go on.
LORD LINDGREN: The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred to the Cities of Nottingham and Coventry, both of which are county boroughs, and mentioned their relationship to members

893
and the duties they perform, and said that we should compare like with like. I agree, but one cannot compare anything with London because of the difficulties of London. I know Nottingham and Coventry and the councils of both of them extremely well. The council house in both cities tends to be towards the city centre, and this means that members of the local authorities have reasonable access to the centre, the council house and committees. Transport focuses on the centre.
It is not only a question of attending meetings that really matters; it is the question of the time taken getting to and from meetings which is the added responsibility. Take any of the outer London boroughs which have as many functions as the Cities of Nottingham or Coventry. They are all-purpose authorities. Hardly a person who is a member of the Harrow or Barnet councils, for example, will not be coming into the City of London to their work. There will be problems—apart from the man-led women and the retired people who will be living on the job. What it means in local government is that a man starts off from his home at 8 o'clock in the morning, gets to his office or workshop, and then has to leave at 9 o'clock to get to a committee at 10 o'clock at the town hall, and then he has to return to his work. It is this travelling between the place of work and the home, and then from the place of work to the council meeting, which makes meetings of these sort of the outer London boroughs an added function. Unless local government is going to bring in those people who are actively engaged in trade, industry and commerce, local government is going to suffer. Unless the work can be spread one is not going to get that type of person to come in. They just cannot afford to be off for part of every day in order to attend to local functions.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I should like to make a further plea, which always has an effect in your Lordships' House, for the younger man. Time and again in this House we have had speeches from all quarters saying how important it is for the younger man to take part in our debates. Here we are, just like a local authority, completely unpaid. If you look around this Committee now you can see that there is a large proportion of Members with white hair, or, indeed, no hair
894
at all. It would be greatly to the benefit of these local authorities if there could be more young men serving on them. By limiting the number of council members, it means that the young men may well not be able to take the time off to serve, and it is preventing local authorities from enjoying the services of these young men. The young man has only a certain amount of time and a certain amount of energy in the course of the day, and if he has to go to do his job, and go from the scattered places where he works to where all these committees take place, he just cannot do it. There is a limit even on what a young man can do. Let us have this business so arranged that we can get more young men on these councils.
5.9 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: I agree that the problem of getting young men on to councils is a country-wide problem; and it is not only related to London and not solely related to this Amendment. It is a problem which has to be faced.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: It must start somewhere.
LORD HASTINGS: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, who referred to my comparing like with like, we have had consultations not only with the A.M.C. outside London, but with the Standing Joint Committee on Metropolitan Boroughs, who have agreed to these figures but who would like to see the possibility of a review at some stage. That brings me to the first criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who thought that in the old Act of 1899 there was provision for variation upwards—an extension of the numbers of councillors. I am informed that that is not so. There is no provision for extension upwards; nor is there in the 1939 Act, or in this Bill.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I thought there was power to reduce the number of councillors, which in fact has happened in the Metropolitian Borough of Hackney, though I do not think there was any legislation about it. Perhaps the term "upwards" has misled the noble Lord. I do not want to be dogmatic about it, but I thought that was so.
LORD HASTINGS: There is power of variation, but not upwards. I daresay that there is downwards. And, of course,

895
there is power in this Bill for variation of wards. If the population changes within a borough, the council itself can apply for variations, and that is dealt with in Schedule 1. There is also the power of co-option to committees in boroughs under the Local Government Act, 1933, and that will not be altered so far as the new London boroughs are concerned. As for circulating a paper showing details of the boroughs and their electorates, the number of councillors, averages and so on, I will refer that matter to my right honourable friend and see whether we can agree to produce something which would be helpful at the Report stage.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I hope the noble Lord will be good enough to include the City in that return, because it would be interesting.
LORD HASTINGS: As I say, I do not know that we shall be able to do it. But I will certainly take up that point. I do not really think, much as we enjoyed the noble Lord's very wide-ranging talk on local government, of which he is an outstanding master, of course, that I need reply to anything he has said on that. I have replied to the particular questions he put, and therefore I would ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I just wish to exercise my right of replying to the Minister. First of all, I would say to him that we are grateful for his general approach. It was not exactly constructive, but it was not unconstructive. I think there is a certain agreement between both sides here that we do not wish Ito see enormous local authorities quite out of keeping with the electorate or the size. What we wish to see is that, irrespective of the size and the electorate, the area should be properly represented; and that—forgetting Nottingham, as we are not concerned at the moment with Nottingham; we are concerned with the position now in London—the representation shall not in any way be detrimental.
The noble Lord said that the Government had had consultation with local authority associations; that they had not exactly had hard and fast objections to the figure of 60, but that one of the authorities said that they would like to have a review. I should have thought
896
that that attitude would have been generally accepted throughout the House: that from time to time facts change, positions change, and maybe the duties change. Therefore there should be some degree of flexibility in deciding what is fair and right for a locality, as regards the number who should represent the people within it. In a few years' time you may have to give a new duty to a borough, but if you recognise that there should be some flexibility, that there should be a review, can you have a review? Would there be any purpose in a review? You are fixed to the figure of 60. You cannot alter it, you cannot increase it, as the noble Lord said to the Committee a short while ago. It is no good the noble Lords saying: "Here is a local authority association prepared to accept a figure of 60, but they would like a review." There is no point in having a review unless you can give effect to a review. As I see it, in the Bill that cannot be done. You are tied to this fixed figure of 60. I think that figure should be taken out. I should be quite happy to accept a figure of one councillor for every 3,500, or maybe a figure that the Government would like to give us. But let us at least get rid of this rigidity in the Bill.
May I remind the Committee again of the words of my noble friend when quoting the Lord Chancellor? This is a Bill to deal with local government in London through the century. We still have 40 years to go. Many changes may take place. We may need to alter many things within the boroughs, particularly representation. Let us, at least, be able to do it without having to go through the whole process of bringing forward an Act of Parliament. I feel that I cannot possibly withdraw this Amendment.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Before any vote is taken, may I say that I came in rather too late to hear the whole of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, but I thought he was speaking to the Committee very fairly. But I want to say a word if I can on behalf of the Liberals. The Liberals do not seem to have had very much argument about this, and they have something very great to defend in this matter. I am bound to say that, having listened to the broadcast this week on behalf of the Liberal Party in relation

897
to the local authority elections. At a North Country studio they called evidence from all over the country as to what the Liberal members of the councils were actually doing for their constituents. Their objective was one of individual service to all the particular constituents whom they represented on the council. Evidence was brought that nobody else did anything for them but the Liberals, and that this was done because they were able to do it. They were able to do it how? Because in many of the places mentioned they probably have nothing like as large a number of constituents to represent as the noble Lord's Government are now going to make necessary by the change.
Perhaps the great thing that has taken place in local government, and maybe it is something which has led to a reduction in the number of people who go to the polls, is the fact that there is a great individual service by councillors to their constituents, and you surely do not want to damp that down. I do not want to see in Parliamentary reform anything which will revert the situation to what it was when I was a lad. Then an M.P. was on a pinnacle on which you could never reach him. He had no organisation for service to his constituents—none at all. Labour introduced, for the first time, regular service by the individual Member in his constituency, regular attendances to give individual consultations which were open to any constituent. That altered the whole basis of public service from elected representatives. There has been the same sort of development in municipal government.
It surely ought not to be the objective of the Government to change the position so severely, as has been pointed out by my noble friend. What is the motive? I still have not heard what is the real motive of the Government in this matter. I take it that, in the alterations between the different sections of the present London County Council, or in some of the districts which are not in that area but which will be under the local government of Greater London, you will find some very peculiar things happening. I daresay that in some places, where you are making changes which you expect are going to help the Conservative candidates, you may be disappointed. On the other hand, there may be very great
898
confidence in the mind of the Government about how some of these manipulations of the number of constituents to a councillor are going to work out in the elections.
We are very suspicious of the whole Bill in its policy of gerrymandering, and we have to see in a clause of this kind exactly what the Government have in mind. What is their real motive in so reducing the number of councillors in relation to the electorates of those places? I can see no real answer yet from the Government. If they would give us an answer which was effective, we might reconsider the position. But at present I am not convinced.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Before we take leave of this discussion, I should like to put a question to the noble Lord. He has said that under the London Government Act, 1899, it is not possible to increase the number of councillors in a metropolitan borough. It is a great many years since I read the Act, but I venture to think that the noble Lord is completely wrong about that. But, in any case, he ought to be familiar with what is contained in the Bill which we are discussing at the present moment, and I want to direct his attention to Part III of Schedule 1. That provides:
"If at any time the Secretary of Skate is satisfied…whether on representations made to him by the council of the borough or otherwise,"
that there are grounds for altering the number of the wards, the boundaries of the wards, the numbers of councillors of the borough, the apportionment of councillors or the name of the ward, he can cause an inquiry to be made by a commissioner and can give effect to the report which the commissioner makes. I am absolutely astounded that the noble Lord should tell this Committee that there is no power under this Bill as it is drafted to increase the number of councillors beyond the figure of 60.
LORD HASTINGS: The total number in the borough would not be affected by Part III of Schedule 1. I think this is governed by the Local Government Act, 1933. I think that is the right answer.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents. 62.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Amulree, L.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Attlee, E.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Silkin, L.

Champion, L.

Milne, L

Sinha, L.

Crook, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strang, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Walston, L.

Faringdon, L.

Peddie, L.

Williams, L.

Henderson, L.

Rea, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lansdowne, M.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Long, V.

Atholl, D.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Lothian, M.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Margesson, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Barnby, L.

Freyberg, L.

Milverton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gage, V.

Molson, L.

Bethell, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Blackford, L.

Grenfell, L.

Newton, L.

Carrington, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Onslow, E.

Chelmer, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Rockley, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hanworth, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Clitheroe, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Colyton, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Sinclair, L.

Conesford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Somers, L.

Crathorne, L.

Howe, E.

Swinton, E.

Croft, L.

Ilford, L.

Teynham, L.

Devonshire, D.

Jellicoe, E.

Twining, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Jessel, L.

Wolverton, L.

Eccles, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD HASTINGS: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, leave out from ("Before") to end of line and insert ("the Minister makes as respects a London borough either representations under subsection (2) of this section for the grant of a charter or an incorporation order under subsection (2A) thereof").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.31 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (3) to leave out all words after "made" and insert:
"a group of one hundred or more persons, local government electors, living in the area of the proposed London Borough shall have the right to make representations to the Secretary of State about the provisions of the incorporation order and the Secretary of State, may cause a local inquiry to be made and such notice be given and if satisfied chart such alteration is desirable may amend the order accordingly."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which we were discussing just now
900
dealt with the relations between the elector and his council. What we are now about to discuss is an Amendment which is concerned with the rights of the ordinary citizen towards the distribution of the wards, the boundaries of the wards, and the matters which will have to be the subject of incorporation under this Bill, and under the Amendments that have been moved this afternoon. Incidentally, I was glad to see that the Amendments that have been moved have not invalidated the Amendment which I now propose to move and which went down on the Order Paper before I saw the Amendment previously moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings.
As I understand it, when a Local Government Boundary Commission is dealing with boundaries outside London it must first of all serve a public notice of intention to review. Secondly, it must allow a reasonable interval for consultation by the local authority with other local authorities and with other interested bodies—and I would stress particularly, in this connection, "other interested bodies". The Commission, after a

901
suitable interval of time has elapsed to allow these consultations to take place, will prepare draft proposals. These draft proposals are put to the local authority, and again they are made available for public inspection. And at this stage it is still possible for interested bodies to make representations to the Commission. Finally, the Commission must confer with all local authorities and other bodies before the Commission's report is finally submitted to the Minister, for ratification or otherwise.
So there are at least these three opportunities for consultation to the local authorities and ordinary citizens through their political Parties, civic associations and all the rest. After all this has been done the Minister examines the report of the Commission. If he alters it then it has to go back to the area concerned, when, once again, all the interested bodies have to be consulted—at least, they have the opportunity to examine the Minister's alterations in relation to the Commission's original boundary proposals and to make representations upon the Minister's proposals.
As I understand this Bill, Part III of Schedule 1 gives citizens some rights in Landon; but, we are attempting by this Amendment to emphasise the rights of the citizen and to improve them in the main Part of the Bill. We do not want them to be merely tucked away in the Schedule. But what we are doing, in addition, is, as I see it, seeking to extend the rights of the ordinary citizens, the people who eventually will be affected by the chanter of incorporation and by the boundaries which are set up by that charter of incorporation. The Amendment provides that a body of 100 citizens should have this right of direct representation to the Secretary of State. This, we say, gives people a local status and standing; the ordinary citizen is given an interest in what is going on; and this should stimulate his interest in this great task which now has to be performed of securing charters of incorporation, deciding upon boundaries, and eventually setting up the form of local government for London which clearly the Government seek to produce.
We want to ensure that upon such representations as we visualise in our Amendment to the Secretary of State—and of course the Home Office must
902
come into this matter; and there will not be representations, in the case of the Boundary Commission for areas outside London, to the Minister of Local Government et cetera—the Home Office, as the responsible Ministry, will be brought into this matter. It appears to us from the Schedule that the Minister is to have absolute discretion as to the ordering of an inquiry. That is something we should like to see altered. We want to ensure that the Minister will order an inquiry not only upon the representations of local authorities and such bodies as may be concerned, but certainly on the representations of a body of local citizens of the number of 100. We have inserted the figure of 100 as being a sufficient number to ensure that this is not a frivolous representation but one which has some backing within the area concerned.
We want to make it quite clear that the ordinary citizen has rights in this matter. We want to bring him into this picture. We want, too, to encourage citizens to show an interest in what is taking place and in those matters which, as I have said before, are bound to affect their lives in the future—because in these local government bodies we have bodies which touch very closely the lives of the people. The Bill, by creating such large units as it does, seems to us on this side of the House to be taking local government farther and farther away from the ordinary citizen. This is a mistake. So that here we do want to encourage the ordinary citizen, first of all, to take an interest in what is taking place in London and then to consider whether the proposed charter of incorporation and boundaries which it will define are those which they would regard as being reasonable in all the circumstances. We do want them to have a right to make such representation as will cause a public inquiry to be held.
In my opinion, the practice of holding public inquiries has become a useful part of our democratic system. It enables the ordinary man to secure representation. It ensures that local authoriteis and any bodies who are interested in civic matters shall be able to make representations. I do not regard them as something held merely in order that the discontented or the disgruntled can come along and let off steam, but as a system which enables people to expose administrative decisions which may result in public inconvenience.

903
For all these reasons, I beg to move the Amendment which appears on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out from beginning of line 23 to end of line 27 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Champion.)
LORD LINDGREN: In supporting my noble friend in this Amendment, I have to admit that a large section of the electors who will be affected by this Bill could not care less whether they have a mayor or a chairman, whether their locality is called a borough or an urban district. What they are concerned about is having a high standard of social service in the area in which they live and paying as little for it as it is possible to pay. Therefore, it would not be unfair for the noble Lord who is going to reply to say that, because of that, this Amendment is not necessary. But even within London, which is considered to be not quite so parochial as other parts of the country, ther are distinct local loyalties. I can think of Bethnal Green and Southwark, and of parts of Islington and St. Pancras, where a considerable section of residents have associations with their localities which are very dear to them. Under any redistribution which will take place under this Bill, it is inevitable that many of these loyalties are going to be disturbed. And I think it is all to the good that those who have objections should be given an opportunity of voicing them and making representations against what they feel to be an unreasonable allocation to another area.
It may be argued that in relation to the total electorate the figure of 100 is small. Vested interests like political parties and chambers of commerce have wide-ranging activities, in which they can get in touch with people, and because of their standing, they can make representations effectively. There is no danger that they will not be considered. It is the groups of people who are not effectively organised, politically, industrially or commercially, which ought to be given an opportunity of making representation, if they feel strongly enough about it. I think, therefore, that 100 is about right for unorganised people. It is the right size to enable them to get around among those concerned in the locality in order to secure
904
that representation is made. I think that the need to secure the support of 100 people and justify their representations publicly will stop any frivolous groups of people from taking action just for the fun of the thing.
LORD AUCKLAND: The motive behind this Amendment is wholly warranted, but I wonder whether the mechanics of it are quite so satisfactory. A public inquiry, particularly on matters of this kind, often takes a long time. In my own locality we have had two or three lately. This seems to be the kind of thing that a local residents' association or ratepayers' associaton or some organised local body should take up, rather than the "100 or more people" mentioned in the Amendment. I wonder whether it would be possible to put in the words "recognised organisation" or something of that kind. I think there is substance in the motive behind the Amendment, but, though I am not a lawyer, it seems to me that there will be difficulties and possibly delays sufficient to make the mechanics of this Amendment somewhat unworkable.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I want to support strongly the well-argued speech of my noble friend Lord Champion. He put the real democratic basis of election procedure in this country, in which all the people should have the chance of expressing their views on anything which comes suddenly upon them and on which they have not had a chance of voting. My noble friend Lord Lindgren made a good speech, and although his facts were right I was a little anxious, on this particular Amendment, about the amount of disinterestedness in some municipal areas. On the other hand, take a great and important borough like Croydon, which is to be amalgamated with a considerable and powerful urban district in an oddly shaped contour. The representatives of Croydon are against the Government on this matter. They have a large extension of area and population offered to them, but the borough does not want it. What is happening to the charter so far as the people of Croydon are concerned? They have no chance to pronounce upon it. You force it on them. That is not right. I thoroughly support my noble friend Lord Champion in that.

905
But let us look at the other party concerned in this particular area. I recognise what my noble friend Lord Lindgren said about certain parts of London, and especially many parts towards the centre, which have been well assisted by the general organisation of the London County Council. They also have a great interest in their own locality, for reasons that go back many decades. But take Coulsdon and Purley, that powerful, large and growing urban district which is now to be forced into Croydon. There may be disinterestedness in municipal politics in many places, but here is a case which has been submitted, I expect, to all Members of your Lordships' House, in which in this matter, in support of the strong objection of the elected urban district council, but without any organised petition by the urban district council, 22,000 ratepayers in a total population of 75,000 have petitioned against this being done.
Before their boundaries are changed in this manner, should not the people of that urban district be entitled to call for a public inquiry? They will have no chance at a General Election to express their views on this Bill of the national Government; the Government will be acting without reference to the Electorate. I think my noble friend Lord Champion has made the case 100 per cent. for making provision that there should be a public inquiry before the actual boundaries are juggled about with like this, without any desire on the part of the inhabitants for it to happen. I hope my noble friend's Amendment will be accepted.
5.52 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lords who have put down this Amendment. I am grateful for two reasons. In the first place, it gives me a chance of entering the lists in support of this Bill. I realise that our tournament may be a rather lengthy one, and I have no doubt that I, for one, shall have a tumble or two, but I hope, at least, to win this preliminary joust. I hope—and this is the second reason why I am glad to speak in answer to the Amendment—that I shall be able to show your Lordships that this subsection of the clause., as drafted, is perfectly right and proper and democratic, as indeed is the rest of the Bill.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is it democratic without a mandate from the country?
EARL JELLICOE: I think the point which the noble Earl makes was fully answered on Second Reading.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
EARL JELLICOE: This subsection provides, as your Lordships can see, for my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Minister of Housing and Local Government to arrange for notices to be published and for such inquiries to be held as may appear to them to be expedient. Your Lordships will note that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is responsible for some provisions to be included in the instrument of incorporation, and it would, I think, for this reason be wrong to cut that Minister out from this part of the clause, as I think he would be under the noble Lord's Amendment. I say this, as it were, in passing; I am not making a substantive point here.
It is my right honourable friend the Home Secretary who will be responsible for those provisions which are necessary to enable the first elections to the new borough councils to be held. I think it is this aspect of the matter (I may be wrong about this) which mainly concerns noble Lords opposite. If it is matters which fall to the Minister of Housing and Local Government to decide, like the safeguarding of ancient rights, possibly touching on matters which the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, then it would be for the Minister of Housing and Local Government. But he is excluded as a result of the Amendment. Therefore I have taken it that the Amendment bites mainly on the province of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I should like, therefore, in answer, to refer particularly to our plans for the initial division of the areas of the proposed borough groups into wards for the election of borough councils, because it is that which concerns my right honourable friend's sphere here. I should like to stress that. So far as he is concerned, it is a rather limited field with which we are dealing here, and not the wide field to which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, referred, namely, the wide field covered by the Local Government Commission.

907
Noble Lords, speaking in support of the Amendment, have claimed that it will ensure that full regard is had to local views in determining these matters like warding arrangements. Let me say straight away that the Government entirely share their view that ordinary citizens should be given full opportunity to put forward their views in this respect. The procedure which will be followed in this respect will, I think, enable this to happen; and it may be helpful if on this point—because I think there is a bit of misconception about this subsection—I explain what has been done so far, and what will happen when the Bill becomes law.
Some four months ago, in January last, my Department invited the local authorities within each of the 32 proposed borough groups to consult together and submit co-ordinated draft proposals for the division of boroughs into wards and for the number of councillors, and for their apportionment as between wards. Those individual existing authorities who were unable to reach agreement on joint proposals were asked to submit ward proposals for their area based only on the number of councillors agreed with the other authorities in the group. We have so far received proposals covering 26 out of the 32 proposed London boroughs. In the other 6 borough groups local authorities have so far been unable to reach agreement on the number of councillors to be apportioned. They have sought guidance from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on this point, so that they can work out proposals for their own areas.
The next stop in the procedure will not be taken—and local authorities are about to be informed that this is so—until the Bill becomes law. Arrangements will then be made for the warding proposals to be published in local newspapers. The necessary notices—and this is the point to which I had assumed the Amendment was mainly directed—will go on to invite any person (and I would stress that) to submit representations to the Home Office.
LORD LATHAM: Whether he is a resident or ratepayer or not?
EARL JELLICOE: It is "any person". I should like to stress that. I
908
speak subject to correction on this point, but I think I am right in saying that any person will be allowed to make representations.
LORD LATHAM: Without saying that he has an interest?
EARL JELLICOE: One can make the representation, but if it is frivolous, then, of course, it will not be entertained. What I should like to stress there is that anyone can make the representations, irrespective of whether it is frivolous or not: not 10, as was proposed in the original Amendment in the other place on this matter, and not 100, as is now proposed in the noble Lord's Amendment. May I say, in passing, that we were twitted on our mystique of 60; I should like to twit back noble Lords opposite on the mystique of the particular figure of 100 as opposed to the earlier figure of 10.
LORD LATHAM: Or more.
EARL JELLICOE: Or more.
If I may go on with procedure, I hope to be able to convince noble Lords opposite that this is a perfectly straightforward, democratic and normal procedure which is being adopted. After the notices have been posted, a period of at least one month—and we have it in mind to make it rather more, since this may fall in the silly season of August—will be allowed for the submission of representations. The latest date for the submission of representations will be specified in the notices. If representations which show a clear prima facie case for examination are received, the Home Secretary will appoint a Commissioner to hold a local inquiry.
Again, if a Commissioner is appointed, a second notice will be published in the same way as the first. This notice will state the date, the place and the time at which the Commissioner will hold the inquiry; that any person interested can inspect particulars of the proposals at the offices of the existing local authorities, and that any person interested may attend the inquiry. When the inquiry has been held, the Commissioner will draw up a scheme in the light of all the points of view put forward at that inquiry. The Commissioner will submit the scheme to the Home Secretary, who will consider it and decide on the provisions to be included in the instrument of incorporation.

909
I hope that the procedure which I have outlined will remove any doubts in the minds of noble Lords about the opportunities which will be given to ordinary citizens—and this is the point I thought noble Lords opposite were mainly seized on—to state and represent their views on these matters. It is quite true that in our clause the Ministers will not be required to hold an inquiry. But by the same token, I must say that I read the noble Lord's Amendment in the same way, because it says
"… may cause a local inquiry to be made…and if satisfied that such alteration is desirable may amend the order accordingly."
It seems to me that their Amendment is not more and no less permissive than is the original subsection. In any event, I should like again to emphasise that the procedure which we have in mind is similar and parallel to that found in Section 25 of the London Government Act, 1939. That section contains no provision giving a right to any specific number of local government electors to make representations, and still less does it debar fewer than any specified number of electors from doing so. In fact, it is already the practice to take into account all the representations received, and we are not departing one iota from that practice.
Therefore, I should like to say, in conclusion, that I feel I am fully entitled to assure your Lordships that the Government have every intention, both in the initial division and again in the subsequent alteration of wards to London boroughs which is provided in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Bill, of seeking and considering the views of the ordinary citizen. In the Government's view this Amendment is a little off the rails. We feel that it would not help at all in encouraging individuals to make representations. Indeed, I have sought to argue that the reverse would be the effect, and I hope that in the light of the full, perhaps too full, explanation which I have given of this part of the clause, the noble Lord may consider withdrawing his Amendment.
6.5 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: The main point between my noble friend who proposed this Amendment and the noble Earl who has replied is that the Amendment would provide facilities for
910
100 or more—it may be 1,000—persons to secure an inquiry if they deemed it wise to attempt to secure such an inquiry for any complication there may be. The only difference between my noble friend and the noble Earl is that the noble Earl leaves the decision entirely in the hands of the Home Secretary, or the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as to whether or not an inquiry shall take place. It is true, as the noble Earl stated, that the Bill provides for advertisement, allowing representations to be made by individuals, bodies, and all the rest. But in the last analysis it is the Minister who decides whether or not inquiry shall take place. That is, of course, the vital difference between my noble friend and the noble Earl.
I concede at once that there is some element of democracy in allowing representations to be made to the appropriate Minister; but I am not sure that it is the best form of democracy to leave entirely in the hands of the Minister, the absolute decision as whether or not an inquiry shall be held. It could well be that individuals representing themselves, or individuals representing certain bodies—chambers of trade, chambers of commerce and so on—might make representations to the Minister. But the Minister could ignore them all, and there would be no inquiry, no matter how vital the question might be in the eyes of those who made the representations to the Minister. Where fairly large numbers of electors feel that an inquiry ought to take place on some vital issue affecting the changes that are bound to come, and if they feel they have a strong enough case to submit to a Commissioner, then I think it is not unreasonable to ask that they be permitted to have that inquiry. I recognise, with the noble Earl, that to have a whole range of inquiries could become a frustrating influence on the whole thing. It would not be pleasant to feel that large numbers of people were going to seek an inquiry for miserable reasons instead of the substantial reasons which my noble friend had in mind when he proposed this Amendment.
I agree that there is something in the noble Earl's Bill: there is some approach to democracy. But it falls flat, because the final decision is always left with the Minister. I hope that the noble Earl

911
will feel that my noble friend has made out a good case. With all these changes which are bound to take place, here, there and everywhere, it will be far better if in suitable cases public inquiries are held and entangled things are straightened out before the new régime commences to operate. I think it is far better in the initial stages to get the entangled things straightened out, and to start properly. There is always the charge or challenge that representations have been made over a wide area by individuals and bodies which have been turned down by the Ministry so that no inquiry takes place. That is not the sort of atmosphere which one wants to create at the commencement of a new régime of this description. I hope the noble Earl will still feel that if a body of persons sign a petition—it may be 100 or it may be 1,000: it cannot be 61, and therefore the parallel is not a good one—the noble Earl will give a little thought to the possibility of allowing an inquiry as a right, and not merely because the Minister, when he feels like doing so, smiles upon those who make representations. I think the Amendment is a good one and I hope that the noble Earl will give it further thought.
EARL JELLICOE: I wonder if I could briefly reply to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh. I am glad that our difference on this part of the Bill at least is narrowed. When I was listening to the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, speaking about this Amendment I thought there was a great gulf fixed even in this subsection between an autocratic and bureaucratic Government and democracy incarnate on the Benches opposite, but I am glad to hear that the division and the gulf is at least narrowed so far as this subsection is concerned.
I think that there is a misunderstanding here and I should like, if I might, just to labour two points. My first is a very simple one, which I tried to put across and I think failed; that is, when I was seeking to argue that this Amendment is, in fact, more limiting in one respect at least than our original proposals because the Amendment means you have to have one hundred good citizens and true to get the machinery operating and the procedure which we are already operating is triggered off by
912
one good citizen and true, or can and will be. That is my first point.
The second (and here I would, address my reply to the remarks, to which I have listened very carefully, from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh) is that I really do feel that no more discretion is entrusted under this subsection of the Bill to the Minister and the Secretary of State than is given in the Amendment proposed. In the last analysis, in both cases the Minister and the Secretary of State have discretion; and I think it is only right that this should be so, in order that frivolous representations can be thrown out and in order that the whole elaborate procedure of inquiry should not be gone into or triggered off by frivolous applications or representations. Both the Amendment and the subsection as it stands as I understand them make it permissive on the Minister or Secretary of State whether or not to cause a local inquiry to be held. Certainly, the Amendment does, and certainly my reading of the Bill as it stands does; and I think that is right. But if it is wrong, then I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, that the Amendment is just as wrong as the provision in the Bill. I hope, since I really feel there may be a misunderstanding and misconception, and having listened very carefully to what has been said about this point, that noble Lords opposite will see fit to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that he was delighted to enter the lists this afternoon. All I can say is that I think it is right that he should enter the lists against a "champion". I was not quite pleased, I must say, about his reference to our Amendment being a little off the rails. That hurt, too, because I am a rail-man. However, I have not risen just to make a slight number of debating points, as one could well do. I recognise many of the difficulties about the drafting of our Amendment, to which the noble Earl has drawn attention. I recognise, too, the force of his contention that the Bill does, in fact, meet many of the points which I put and which we had in mind when this Amendment was framed—and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, has added to the points we made from this side. I must admit that I should

913
like an opportunity to study very carefully what the noble Earl has said to us, and also what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, has said, and perhaps consider returning to this point in Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, after the first ("the") insert ("charter or").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, after ("its") insert ("charter or").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "1964" and insert "1965". The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friends I beg to move Amendment No. 11. I do not think its form of drafting car be criticised in any way. It is very simple. It merely alters the year 1964 to 1965. I would say to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack that this is not in any way a wrecking Amendment. If it were we could well have put down 2,000 or 3,000 Amendments. But all we have provided for is a postponement for a mere twelve months of the Bill's coming into effect; and, as I hope to show in my speech, we have very good reasons for asking for this delay. Moreover, there is a precedent for it. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is to reply and therefore I will look towards him.
I think the Committee will first of all realise that this is a very complex Bill. It is of considerable size, and there is considerable concern not only by Peers on this side of the House. In fact, we have had to place on the Order Paper over 300 Amendments, and it may well be that before the end of this Committee stage it will be in the region of 400. I would not disclose where these Amendments come from, but they are obviously not Party Amendments. We are moving
914
them on behalf of interested authorities; and if the noble Lord thinks they come only from one authority I can tell him that he is quite wrong: to my knowledge, they come from three different authorities. I will submit to the Committee that one of the problems that is in the back of the mind of local authorities is a constructive one; the manlier in which they will be required to perform all the transfers called for in this Bill.
I think it is right to say that this is a Bill produced by Her Majesty's Government. It follows the Royal Commission Report. It cannot be said that this has been at any stage an agreed Bill; that local authorities have at any time agreed to its general terms. The Government must recognise that, whatever they may write into this Bill, whether it is effective or not depends on how the local authorities are able to enforce it. I should have thought the Government would well recognise that, if they wished to see the maximum effect on local authority in London, there is a great deal to be said not only for getting the good will and understanding of the local authorities now in existence, and those that will be outside, but will be affected, but for ensuring that we should be able to get further consideration of the general provisions of the Bill.
My suggestion to the Committee would be that if this Amendment could be accepted it would be possible for us to proceed with the Bill in your Lordships' House without any Party, bitter feeling whatsoever. We could approach it as a normal piece of legislation and pass it with the knowledge that, in the next twelve months before the Bill came into force and all the actions that consequently flow from it are taken, there could be consultation to see whether the Bill in itself should be amended, outside Party interests, for the good of the 8½ million citizens with whom it is dealing. I am sorry the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is not at the moment in the Chamber, because he referred to this Bill as a democratic Bill. I suggest that it is far from that.
I would first of all draw the Committee's attention to the manner in which Her Majesty's Government are treating the emerging Colonial territories and how they are treating the citizens of London. In recent years Her Majesty's

915
Government have granted independence to many countries, and before deciding what shall be the Parliamentary procedure, what shall be the constitution of a country, there have been very close consultations, not only with the majority Party in the country concerned, but even with the minority interests. There has been an attempt to obtain an agreed basis for legislation. We are in fact at this very moment in Malaysia trying through our own good offices to see that the peoples of Borneo, Singapore, Brunei and Sarawak and Malaya should come together and make the decision. We are not trying to impose government upon them. I do not wish it to be said that this Government are imposing a constitution on the people of London which they do not want, but I would try to show that this is in fact what they are doing. I hope the Government will see that the people of London have the same rights and treatment which they are giving to their Colonial peoples.
I would even go further. Last week we had a very interesting debate on transport. There was a good deal of agreement. Perhaps there were divisions on what words meant, whether coordination meant integration. But there was an understanding that we had to use our transport to the maximum advantage, to use each type of transport for its very best use. We had this unity. The Government accepted our Motion. The Government opposite have, however, said that there should be the freedom of choice, that individuals should be free to choose the transport they wish. I would suggest that if the Government fervently believe in that principle they should see that the people of London have the freedom of choice as to the type of local Government under which they live. The Government cannot possibly say that they have given that freedom to the people of London.
I will try in the course of my remarks to develop the evidence, which is clearly indicated-by responsible people, that the people of London, their representatives in local authorities, are fundamentally opposed to the principles and purposes of this Bill. Therefore, if the Government really believe in the policy of freedom of choice, freedom of expression, that people should be able to decide, within reason, what they wish, then I
916
would say to the Government, proceed with this Bill but give a period of twelve months so that the views of the people of London can be heard. They will have that opportunity by 1965. The people of London, through the ballot box, will be able to express their views on the Government's proposals. I dare the Government to deny to the people of London the right to that decision. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will say tonight one way or the other whether London people should be treated any differently from our Colonial people.
May I say this, following a discussion I had outside with one of the Ministers? If there is to be change in London government, and I, for one, believe there needs to be change in it, we should look at it to see whether the changes that are proposed will warrant all the upheaval and the possible weaknesses that can arise. I believe that from the strategic point of view of long-term planning there must be some organisation in London, within the Greater London area, to effect that planning. I would hope that by the amendment of Clauses 10 and 19 we shall be able to achieve that. But we are not considering in this Amendment the long-term planning. We are considering in the main, or entirely, the position of the boroughs, those intimate services that have to be provided to the people of London. The overwhelming evidence that has been provided by speeches and by reports is that the Government's proposals will, in fact, be detrimental to the people of London.
May I read a resolution which was passed by the Middlesex County Council on January 2, 1963? I hope this Committee will not take these people as people opposed to change. These are the elected representatives of one of our biggest, and perhaps one of the best, county councils. This is what they say:
"That the Government Bill now before Parliament could result in severe disruption of the services now administered by the County Council, with considerable loss to the people of Middlesex particularly in the vital human services of Education, Children and Welfare. This County Council therefore requests the Government to reconsider its proposals and to amend the Bill so as to provide at least for Education in Middlesex being controlled by a Committee of the Greater London Council."
Here is the Middlesex County Council extremely nervous of the position of

917
education within its county if absorbed in the Greater London Council and requiring that the Bill be altered. There may be a case for it—there is a case for it. There may be an easy way of finding the tool to see that these fears are overcome. We may need time in which to be able to do it, arid that is another reason why I suggest the provisions of this Bill be put off for a further twelve months.
There is the case of Surrey. It is true this county does not disappear. It loses some of its most valuable area. Therefore, it is interested. These are the views again of dedicated local county councillors, men who have given years of service in the community. This is what they say:
"That this Council
"(a) reaffirm their view that the main objectives of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London are sound, namely, on the one hand to devise some machinery to deal with the overall planning of Greater London and, on the other, to promote the health of District Council government by concentrating as many Services as possible in the local town hall…
"(b) consider that the Government's proposed solutions are unsound…and open to grave objection…
"(d) observe that far from producing such advantages the Government's proposal would, in many important respects, provide less effective and convenient local government than exists at present: would result in more rather than less Government intervention in local government: and in the case of Education would be seriously retrograde…
"(f) are therefore resolutely opposed to the Government's revolutionary proposals for the reorganisation of Local Government."
One could quote many other local authorities; I have quoted two. The evidence is clearly there.
But if there is a mandate, it lies with those who are now opposing this Bill; there is no doubt about it at all. As my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth said, the London County Council election was fought on this particular issue. What was the result? A bigger majority. There was no question of other matters dominating the scene. This was the major point in the election. It has happened also in Surrey, where the Conservative council has been fundamentally opposed to this. This has been the main plank, and they have never hidden it. They, too, had an increased majority.
But on the Surrey County Council, unlike on the London County Council, all the councillors were opposed to these proposals, every one.
I appreciate, and I am sure everyone appreciates, that a Government must govern. There are times when it is unpopular. In fact, perhaps the Government's unpopularity to-day is due to the fact that in their early days in office they courted popularity. But if the Government gave this pause they would not be giving it as a sign of weakness, but as a sign of strength. It would indicate perhaps more clearly, at least to the Londoners, that the Government are extremely confident of a return to power, and that they can carry forward this Bill and enforce it. We shall certainly have an Election this year or next. If the Government were to accept our Amendment, obviously this Bill would not come into force until after the General Election. Noble Lords opposite have the opportunity now to indicate their confidence. It would be a sign of strength and not of weakness.
Now I wish to say something to noble Lords opposite, because they have to make up their minds just how they themselves stand on this issue. It is no good their laughing off the challenge as to whether the Government have a mandate for this Bill. Clearly, the Government have not got a mandate and, equally clearly, those who are opposed to it can at least speak with the knowledge that their voices are reinforced by those who sit as elected authorities in the local county councils and local boroughs of London. It is we who have the mandate; the Government are without it. Let us get that quite clear. They cannot challenge it.
What is the position of noble Lords opposite? As I said on Second Reading, many noble Lords opposite when we have debated reform have said that one of the great purposes of this House is to see that the Government shall not proceed with legislation which is in any way contentious, where the people of the country have not had an opportunity to express their opinion, to agree and to give the Government a mandate. I do not think there is anybody who will doubt it. But if there is a need for any evidence to support it, perhaps I may read the words of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury,

919
in 1952, when leading the Conservative Government. Speaking on the position of the reform of your Lordships' House, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 179, col. 552]:
"Ultimately, it is far more important than any of these other functions of revising or of discussing great topics, to which reference has been made this afternoon; for it should ensure"—
I would ask noble Lords opposite to listen to this—
"not necessarily by an Election, but by declaring their views in no uncertain manner, that the people will finally decide the destiny of their country. Therefore, as I see it, the function of this House is not to controvert, to thwart or to flout the will of the people—certainly not that—nor even to interpret it, but to allow time for the people to form and to express their own view."
I am asking noble Lords opposite now to stand up in honour, to say that this House will see that the people of London shall have a right to decide what local constitution they shall live under; that there shall be consultation; that it shall not be imposed upon them. It is a question of honour for noble Lords opposite. They did not take it on Second Reading. I quite see that there is reluctance to go against the Government which they support. They would also be throwing out a Bill that has been passed by another place. We on this side are always careful about our action in this House on Bills that have been passed by another place. It was with a heavy heart, and after great thought, that we opposed the Second Reading in your Lordships' House. We did it only because we were satisfied that the Government had no mandate for this legislation.
If the Government had had a mandate, if the Bill had been of importance and urgency, we should not have taken that action. But there is no urgency for this Bill; the Government have no mandate, and therefore we thought it right, not in the interests of Party but in the interests of London, to take the action that we did. But it is open to noble Lords opposite to decide whether they feel they can stand in honour after tonight if they fail to support this Amendment. If they fail to support this Amendment, they will indicate that what they really mean to do is to stand
920
as a bulwark against any Party other than the Conservative Party.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: No.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord says "No". Let him prove it to-night. Obviously, there is no mandate for this Bill. The Government have no mandate. Therefore, I would ask the Committee to-night to say that we should have this period of pause which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, indicated, so that the people of London can say what they wish and what type of government they should have. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, leave out ("1964") and insert ("1965").—(Lord Shepherd.)
6.47 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said in the course of his speech that he would agree that something had to be done for the reorganisation of London government. I believe that a number of us agree with that view. It became a pressing problem with the great growth of London. What happened? The Government set up a Royal Commission. After a long study of this problem the Royal Commission produced this solution. We are carrying out the main recommendations of the Royal Commission.
I feel that many of the boroughs, especially those in the outer areas, welcome this Bill, because it gives them much more power, especially in the all-important matter of education, which we were discussing on an earlier Amendment. They are going to run their own education department. Education accounts for about 60 per cent. of the total cost of running local government, and I think they will welcome the change here. The new boroughs will be made big enough so that they can run their education service. The centre of London has many more problems, and the metropolitan boroughs are to have a joint committee. I feel that it is unfair of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to say that something ought not to be done, because he himself agrees that something ought to be done. A Royal Commission was set up, consisting of members of great competence drawn from all political Parties, and its members

921
were unanimous that this recommendation which we are trying to carry out to-night should be implemented.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I was a member of the London County Council some 40 years ago, and I do not quite like the suggestion that any of us who now desire to see change taking place in this great authority, and the other authorities which are affected, are necessarily men without honour. That was surely the implication of what the noble Lord was suggesting—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: —that we must now stand in honour to support him, or, presumably, we shall be dishonourable. I do not think that is quite a fair gambit. The London County Council is a great authority, but it is surely not immutable.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has told us he sees a requirement for some supra-authority to deal with planning, and so on. He does not tell us what it is to be, but presumably it will be much less democratic than that which the Government propose. Is it to be elected by the people or set up mainly by the London County Council, with representation of some of the other authorities on it? Is it to be a kind of small caucus that will plan for the whole of London, or is it to be this much bigger elected body elected by the people? He has not told us. I must say that I prefer that the new authority, with the wider area and wider powers, should be elected by the people, it seems to me that that is the more democratic of the two solutions.
The noble Lord says that the proposals of the Government have no mandate. I have heard this doctrine about the mandate brought forward by Oppositions in both Houses of Parliament for many years—some decades. It is always trotted out when found convenient: "There is no mandate". But the mandate is not an essential part of the British Constitution. The legend that the people govern, or that government can be by the people, is only a legend, going back to the famous saying of an American citizen. But all of us who in either House have had anything to do with government know that the people cannot govern, and that only elected persons can govern on broad general principles.
922
The noble Lord brought into his argument the remarks of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, about the delaying powers of this House. But there has been tremendous delay here. This reorganisation has been talked about for years, and, as the noble Lord who has just sat down reminded us, it was the subject of an exhaustive inquiry by Royal Commission. One could not have a higher, more impartial, or more able inquiry than that; and these recommendations are broadly in line with the Royal Commission's Report. At any rate the main recommendation was that there should be a wider authority. And that is what the Government are doing. There may be details in which variations have taken place from the Royal Commission's Report, but the main desire of the Royal Commission is being carried out by Her Majesty's Government, and by this Bill. It is not to have some kind of caucus or committee set up to plan London, but rather to have a wider elected authority. That is the main issue.
I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made an eloquent and powerful speech, but it was really a Second Reading speech. I cannot remember whether he was not called on or did not rise on that occasion, but he seemed to be going to the root of this matter and saying that this has not been put before the people and that the people have not heard about this. The truth is that 80 per cent. of the people do not know about, or take very much interest in, the matter one way or the other. Those who do have had plenty of time to consider it.
It is then said that the objection is that the Middlesex County Council, the Surrey County Council and other local authorities have passed resolutions saying that they are opposed. Surely that is to be expected. People are always opposed to having something altered in their parish or their county. That does not necessarily mean that the proposals are wrong, or indeed that the proposals will not be acceptable and will not be worked by these county councils and the authorities when the time comes. It seems to me that we are making very heavy weather and having long debates on the Committee stage of the Bill which, as to a very large part, are really addressed

923
to the principle which was agreed in this House on Second Reading. I have no objection if noble Lords opposite, including the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth (who was a colleague of mine forty years ago on the London County Council), speak frequently and at great length; but for the noble Lord to complain that the Government are keeping him out seems to me a little odd. We should get past this question of principle and mandate and get down to the business of the Committee stage.
LORD SILKIN: If my noble friend Lord Shepherd made a Second Reading speech—and I am not saying he did not get pretty near to it; but it was a very good speech all the same—the noble Lord who has just spoken has followed him, because not one word he said was addressed to the Amendment. I want to say a word about the Amendment. I do not think I am able to add anything to what my noble friend has said about the mandate. I would correct the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, in one respect. When we talk of democracy, we mean government with the consent of the people. We do not mean government by elected representatives, except on behalf of the people. And nobody can suggest that this Bill has the consent of the people. The people have had two opportunities of judging for themselves and have rejected this Bill so far as they have been able.
Coming now to the Amendment itself, what we are asking is that the first elections in respect of the London boroughs should take place in 1965 instead of in 1964. I ask the Committee to consider the mechanics of this. This Bill will not come into law until, at the earliest, the end of July. I assume that the Government have sufficient resources to force this Bill through by that time, but quite certainly it will not come into operation before then. Then we have the Summer Recess, and elections for the first London boroughs are under the Bill to take place in May, 1964. In addition to that, there are certain boundaries to be settled and you have got to set up wards; it is open to people to object to the boundaries of wards, and there may be an inquiry. How on earth is it possible for the Government in those
924
circumstances to enable elections to take place by May?
During the Second Reading debate there were certain accusations made that this Bill is a political Bill, that it is designed for political purposes in order to defeat and put an end to the Labour administration of the London County Council. I myself did not make that suggestion at all. I thought that it might conceivably have been in the minds of the Government and they would have been less than human if it were not. Of course it was. But I am not suggesting, and have not suggested, that this was their main purpose or their only purpose in introducing the Bill. But the haste with which this Bill is being implemented—the indecent haste! Because it is really quite impossible so to organise things as to have a proper election by May, 1964, and to carry out all the processes with new organs of government and entirely new boundaries. It is impossible for those who are in charge of the political organisation; it is impossible even to get through the mechanics of the thing in good time. It does make one a little suspicious that this date has been chosen for political reasons.
The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, is quite right. We have had our Second Reading and as good constitutionalists we must accept that this House and the other place have approved the principle of the Bill, much as we dislike it. But at least the Government ought to do everything they possibly can to remove any suspicion that they are acting in such a way because they want to take advantage of the situation and rush this through. I would have thought that even 1965 would be fairly soon, in view of the need to go through all the stages that are necessary before you can have a fair election with the wards set up, and with the Boyle organisations, which as noble Lords know are political organisations created with people accustomed to working in the wards. I would have thought that even 1965 was a little early, but at least it is better than 1964. I suggest that, if you stick to this date, the whole machinery of election will break down and you will not get a fair election. You will get an unrealistic election in 1964, and as good democrats none of us wishes that. I do hope the Government will give serious consideration to this

925
date, and remove any suspicion there might be that they are deliberately rushing this for their own purpose.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: Before the Government reply, may I reply to one point that the noble Lord has just made about the actual mechanics? I think he is making rather heavy weather on that point. I can speak at any rate in respect of my own authority, where of course wards are having to be changed. I can assure the noble Lord that, so far as we and the two other boroughs with which we are going to be joined up are concerned, we are not waiting for the Bill to be implemented by the end of July, which as the noble Lord said is the earliest possible date. We are already making our arrangements, and we have in point of fact in our case pretty well completed the arrangements. It can be done, if you want to.
LORD SILKIN: It is for the Minister to create the wards, and the public have the right to object and to have an inquiry. For the life of me, I cannot see how all that can be carried out in good time to enable a fair election to take place.
6.54 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: A number of points have been put forward by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, and by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who supported him. I will try to reply to the main objections which have been made in this Committee. I should like also to take this opportunity of explaining to your Lordships the considerations which have particularly weighed with the Government, as this Amendment raises the whole question of the timetable laid down in the Bill. The noble Lord did not say so, but this Amendment goes with Amendment No. 14 which follows, and possibly also with Nos. 16 and 19; and, certainly, so far as No. 14 is concerned, it is impossible to disentangle the two. So with the noble Lord's permission, I should like to include an argument on Amendment No. 14 at the same time.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not wish to be difficult, but these Amendments are being looked after by others of my noble friends. I do not know their wish—they have not as yet spoken—but in regard to the Greater London Council there are one or two specific points to
926
make. I apologise to the Committee if the noble Lord thinks I have made a Second Reading speech. I thought I was really making the case for a postponement, and was saying why noble Lords opposite should agree to a postponement of the Bill. But I should not like the noble Lord to think that my noble friends would automatically wish the noble Lord to reply to the specific points in their Amendments by grouping them with mine.
LORD HASTINGS: I will do my best, but it may be that I shall have to include some argument on this other subject and repeat it later on. First of all, I should like to get out of the way the objection which I found to be the least tenable of all; and that is this question of the so-called mandate which the Government are accused of not having from the country as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, started off by saying that this was not a wrecking Amendment, and by making an eloquent appeal, if I may say so, for postponing the Bill on the ground that it was not an agreed Bill, and that we should try to get together for a year and work out some agreed reorganisation of London government, even on a non-political basis. If he had not devoted a large part of his speech to this question of a mandate, and finally ended up by making a tremendously effective political speech, I perhaps should have been able to take him at his word. But now that he has brought up this subject of the mandate, I must deal with it.
This Bill should not have come as a surprise either to noble Lords opposite or to the people of London. The preliminary stages leading up to it go back a long way. It is well known that soon after the war the question of local government reorganisation was being thought about, and the Boundary Commission was appointed. That Commission included consideration of all the areas of Greater London outside the actual London County Council area. After the Boundary Commission had dissolved three Bills were brought before Parliament by Ilford and Ealing, claiming county borough status—that was in 1949, 1951 and 1952—and those Bills were turned down on each occasion on the grounds that the changes desired must await a general reform of the

927
Greater London area. As a result of discussions with the local authority associations, the Local Government Act, 1958, was passed, bringing about a comprehensive review of local government areas and also, in many cases, of functions. The review of local government in Greater London itself was begun when the Royal Commission was set up for the purpose in 1957. So nobody can possibly say that this is a new subject—not nearly such a new subject, I would venture to suggest, as the matter of reducing the powers of the House of Lords in, I think, 1949—
LORD SHEPHERD: That is no new subject.
LORD HASTINGS: —in the Parliament Act.
LORD LINDGREN: The noble Lord may not be very old, but surely he remembers 1911.
LORD HASTINGS: I am afraid there are not quite so many white hairs—in the words of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids—as the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, appears to think. My noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale referred to this question of the mandate and the use made of this sort of political attack. The Government's intentions have not been hidden from public view at all, and least of all have they been hidden for the sinister motives of political advantage which have been imputed to the Government by noble Lords opposite. I hope we shall not hear any more of this during the Committee stage.
The second point raised somewhat in this connection, too, by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was that the citizens of London have not had an adequate chance to object or to make their views known before the implementation of this Bill. He said that therefore the whole Bill was not democratic, it was not based on a democratic system, and he tried to compare the people of London to those of the Colonies. We cannot make such comparisons. It may be that 8½ million people in London exceed the number of people in some of the Colonies. That is quite an easy point to make: but when we are dealing with the Colonies we are talking about the national freedom and liberty of the people and the
928
right to govern themselves in their own country. In London, we are talking about our own people, and we are talking not about national Government but local government. We are not taking local government and local freedom away from them: they have it already. We suggest (and this has been repeated, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale) that we are going to give them a more democratic government in the London boroughs than they possess at the moment.
LORD SHEPHERD: If the noble Lord is right, why will the Government not let the people of London decide whether they will accept-the Government's proposals in regard to Greater London?
LORD HASTINGS: I am coming to that in a moment. The noble Lord gets very impatient. I have to make an argument, and I am unfolding it gradually. The noble Lord, of course, referred to the General Election, and said that this matter ought to be postponed and put to the electors; but as the noble Lords know perfectly well, at a General Election you cannot confine opinions about a Government to one particular subject; and it is not only London which is affected by a General Election; it is the whole country. The noble Lord referred to the results of the 1961 L.C.C. elections, and made a great thing about this: that they had the mandate because they got an increased majority. The noble Lord is no doubt aware of a book published recently by a member of the academic staff of the London School of Economics—that body for which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has such great admiration.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Utter contempt!
7.4 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: It was entitled A Metropolis Votes and was based on a close study of a particular L.C.C. constituency and its behaviour in this election. It came out of that study that it was doubtful whether the Royal Commission Report was regarded as a major issue by the public. In any case, only 40 per cent. of the registered voters voted—and, of course, a great many of them voted for the Conservative Party.
LORD SHEPHERD: Which constituency was this?
LORD HASTINGS: I do not know. I do not think the noble Lord really made a very strong case there. If I may go on—and I am going to answer the noble Lord now, and tell him what he wants to know—the Government set up the Royal Commission precisely because they thought it impossible to deal with such a gigantic reform, covering an area containing over 8 million people, in the same way as when dealing with the reform of a provincial area containing only 100,000, or at most 1½ million people. Nevertheless, there have been opportunities for people to present their views to the Royal Commission, and also, subsequent to its Report, through their local councils. In fact, the many steps gone through in the way of expression of views, consultation, debate and Parliamentary procedure were admirably set out in the speech of my noble friend Lord Windlesham during our Second Reading debate, a speech on which he was complimented by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren. Noble Lords opposite have been reminded again of these steps by my noble friends Lord Fraser of Lonsdale and Lord Wolverton.
I should now like to turn to what I, and certainly Her Majesty's Government, believe to be the really important matters involved in this Amendment, and I am very grateful indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, got up and drew attention to them because I think that is what the Committee is concerned with—the possibilities of holding elections when we say they should be held. The noble Lord contends that the first election of councillors for the new London boroughs is to be held much too soon, and that, as a result, the transfer of functions (which is the subject of another Amendment, but which is inextricably linked with this one) cannot be carried out in an orderly and efficient manner. Her Majesty's Government believe that it is in the best interests of everyone that the changes should be brought into effect as soon as possible. They have had very much in mind the remark of the Royal Commission, who said in paragraph 675 of their Report:
"The first, and perhaps the most outstanding, fact is the bad effect which the long period of uncertainty has had on the morale of local government".
I agree with noble Lords that we must make sure that the Bill provides sufficient
930
time for us to arrange elections in the spring of next year. This is a matter which has, in fact, been discussed with the local authority associations in great detail because of the technicalities of defining wards in the new boroughs and making electoral arrangements. It was at the express wish of the local authorities that the date of these elections was advanced. The White Paper, I would remind noble Lords opposite, suggested they would be in the autumn of 1964, but the local authority associations were convinced that it would be possible and advantageous to fix the elections for next spring.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Would the noble Lord say which associations they are?
LORD HASTINGS: Certainly.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I imagine it might be the Association of Municipal Corporations, who really are not particularly competent to speak for Greater London. Does he mean the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee were simple enough to advocate this?
LORD HASTINGS: They did.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Amazing!
LORD HASTINGS: As well as the Association of Municipal Corporations. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already received draft ward proposals covering nearly all the new London boroughs. We must also be sure that enough time is allowed for the preparations needed before the new authorities take over responsibility for the local government services. This preparatory period will not be limited to the overlapping months when the present and the new authorities exist side by side, which is rather less than a year. This I think, is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was making, amongst others. It will, of course, run from now until 1965—in other words, some two years—and that is surely a very different proposition. If this period is properly used—and there is no reason to doubt that it will be—we are satisfied it will be sufficient for the preparations that have to be made. My noble friend Lord Mersey has confirmed this.
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Lord departs from the question of wards, has he allowed for the possibility of having to hold a very large number of inquiries into objections? The Bill itself provides for objections to the wards from the 32 local authorities in respect of which wards will have to be settled. There may be some hundreds of wards proposed, and it will be possible to object to their boundaries. The Bill provides that inquiries should be held; and, unless the Minister deliberately refuses to hold proper inquiries in cases where there are genuine arguments, has he really considered the time which will be taken in holding these inquiries and in coming to a decision?
LORD HASTINGS: Yes, we do think there is time, and so do the local authorities. The programme is that inquiries into borough ward schemes should be held from September until November, and in 1964 the borough wards will be settled.
LORD LINDGREN: I do not want to be obstreperous, but if we are going to have this sort of thing we shall have to be a little more difficult in regard to handling this Bill. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has now said, I will not say it was deliberate but we were misled on a previous Amendment, because the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that any elector can object—
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Any person.
LORD LINDGREN: Any person; but, I take it, any elector within the area. If it is any person, that makes it worse. If that is so, you just cannot get through the inquiries, if they are going to be inquiries, and not just a façade, on the basis of a couple of months.
LORD HASTINGS: We have consulted with the local authority associations on this matter. We are expecting objections in some cases to be lodged and we are allowing for it. If I may go on with what I was saying: my noble friend Lord Mersey has confirmed that it is possible to carry out the transfer of functions in the time given and that his own authorities and those he is constrained to co-operate with in this matter are satisfied on that score. The Bill
932
provides in Clause 83 for joint committees to be set up by the present local authorities to consider the transitional problems. Many of these are already operating and others are on the point of being established. I would suggest that it is not necessary to—and we should not—underestimate the skill and capacity of local authority members and officers to surmount the formidable problems which reorganisation involves. We believe that most of these problems, when tackled dispassionately and with determination, are likely to prove more tractable than some have feared. This belief is being borne out by dealings that the Home Office have already had with local authorities concerning the future allocation of children's homes.
To sum up, the Government are satisfied, after consultations with the associations representing existing authorities, that the timetable in the Bill is both realistic and practicable. We believe it is in the best interests of local government generally, of the employees of local authorities and of the public which they serve, that uncertainty concerning the future of London government should be brought to an end. Therefore, we cannot accept this Amendment.
7.12 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I may recall to the Committee that if we take the instance of the Local Government Act, 1929—a great Act of Parliament, for which the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain was responsible; and it was a very good Act—it did not involve the setting-up of new authorities; it involved the death of the Metropolitan Asylums Board and of 25 Metropolitan Boards of Guardians and the transfer of the functions of the Metropolitan Asylums Board and of the Guardians to the L.C.C. with the exception of a certain amount of power which went to the metropolitan boroughs. That was a simple operation as compared with this one, which is to set up 32 new boroughs. There is one place left sacredly alone—the City of London. There is nothing to do there. They can even go on with their democratic annual election, which beats anything in municipal democracy, if and when elections take place. But 32 boroughs have to be created. The Greater London Authority has to be created and elections have to be held.

933
In the case of the Local Government Act of 1929 no elections needed to be held for the purpose, and no new authorities had to be created. It was a relatively simple job—I say "relatively" simple: that is all. That Act was passed in 1929; it did rot come into operation until April, 1931. Yet this one, with 32 new borough authorities and a Greater London Council is timed to start in 1964. That is next year: in fact, it is really less than a year, because one body of elections are to be in April next year. That is about eleven months. As I said earlier this is a "Tory plot". I say this despite my noble friend Lord Silkin, whom I regard very highly. I regard this as a political plot against the Labour majority on the London County Council. I give the Government no credit whatever for good motives. In fact I am in danger any minute of calling them "corrupt"; but I am not sure that that would pass in the other place, and so I will not take liberties with this place. But they are a bad lot and may the Lord forgive them!
But the 1929 Act, as I was saying, did not come into operation until April 1, 1931, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, remembers; and it was a relatively simple job. Even then, the Act was not fully functioning for about five years after that. It was a very big task; yet this Government think that they can pass this Bill some time between now and the Summer Recess, or shortly after the Summer Recess, and start the elections in April and May. Everything will be got ready: the wards, all the numerous complicated arguments that political Parties, individuals and independents are going to raise about the division of wards which can be the subject of much jiggery-pokery. Or it may be argued that it should be the subject of jiggery-pokery. But I am not sure.
A NOBLE LORD: That is apparently what is going on.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: All this has to be argued out; people must be heard and objections straightened out; returning officers or registration officers have to lay the thing out for the purposes of administration. You must get people on the register, sort them out in the wards—and all this is to be done by April, 1964.
A NOBLE LORD: That makes it only nine months.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Let us be fair! Oh, but my noble friend is right. If this Act is not on the Statute Book till then it is a much more limited period, except in so far as the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, has got on. But I have forgotten which borough he comes from.
A NOBLE LORD: Paddington.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Ah, Paddington, well! The noble Viscount says that Tory Paddington has it all fixed up already. He may be right. I would not put anything past the Tory borough of Paddington. But this cannot be done properly in the time.
We are told that the local authorities associations are in agreement. I have the noble Lord's assurance, and so I must accept it. If they are, I must say that they are a lot of simple souls. The Association of Municipal Corporations are capable of anything; they have no respect for London whatever. The School of Economics—I would sink them at dawn! They are academic and long-haired. That is why they were given two whole days for examination by the Royal Commission, because they were giving evidence that the Tories wanted. There was a dissentient Labour Party member of the London County Council named, I think, Jenkins, the Assistant Secretary of Equity. He was a Labour member of the L.C.C., and therefore I must give him my respect; but he gave evidence that was different from the line of the Labour Party on the L.C.C. He was not a very important member (he had been on the Council only about two years) but he got lifted into the front rank of the Royal Commission oral evidence. They were not content with merely the written memorandum: they invited this distinguished, learned and expert gentleman to come along and give his evidence orally. This is the Royal Commission which is supposed to be impartial! They did not ask me to give evidence. I do not blame them; and I do not think it would have made any difference if they had asked me. I may inform the Lord Chancellor I merely signed a memorandum from the London Labour Party and that was supposed to be enough. It is curious

935
they did not invite me, because I do know something about London government. Judging by the result, the less I saw of that Royal Commission, the better it was. But I am not grieved.
You are going to have two elections. This is another bright idea—not only two elections in the one year (which we ought to take great pains to avoid in local government) but two elections, one a month after the other. That is going to be troublesome. I do not see how the London Municipal Society is going to conduct itself properly, because it is pretty incompetent anyway. I cannot see it handling two elections one month after the other very well, and it may be that they will spatchcock into the middle of these two series of local government elections a Parliamentary General Election as well. My experience of Parliamentarians is that they have no respect whatever for the convenience of local government elections, and that goes for both Parties to some extent. I should not be surprised if they did not land it. Though I must say that the signs are now, according to what it is said Mr. Macleod has said, that they are going to have it this autumn. I think that is probably right. The longer they put it off, the less manoeuvrability the Prime Minister has got. But we could have a General Election on the merit of these things.
As I said in an earlier stage, the Government are mad. If I had a more extreme word at this point, I would use it, because they must be properly insane; they must have lost all sense of administration and capacity—and democracy as well. So that the purpose of this Amendment, as my noble friend Lord Silkin said, is to enable proper preparations for organised, tidy, upright elections to be held, if they have to be held. There could be another argument—and my noble friend Lord Shepherd made it—that before this operates, there ought to be a Parliamentary Election, so that London in the Parliamentary sense can speak its mind, which it has not been able to do so far. There is a precedent for that, but it is going to be rejected. The Government will not have it. But do they remember the Steel Bill, for which we had a mandate, as we had for the Parliament Bill of 1948? That
936
Bill was partly in preparation for the Steel Bill, when we thought we should have trouble with your Lordships' House. We had mandates for both of them.
What happened? The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who was a good and responsible leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House at that time and did this job with public spirit and very well, said that the Government had not an adequate mandate. He could not say that we had none, because it was in Let Us Face the Future. So they put in a provision that the Iron and Steel Board should not be appointed until a date which had to be after the following General Election, and the Labour Government accepted it—I do not say with enthusiasm; it was a case of force majeure. It was that or lose the Bill, for which we had a mandate. They put it in for the specific purpose, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, himself said, with his customary honesty, that the Government had to go to the country and get a second mandate for the Bill. We got the second Mandate. It was not much of a thing—a majority of six—but it was a mandate. We had a majority. There is a precedent, if noble Lords opposite like Tory precedents. But they like them when it suits them and do not like them when it does not.
It is all very well to talk about the Boundary Commission. They had nothing to do with the case. In fact, they were not allowed to touch the County of London. It is all very well to talk about county borough claims. They are not too relevant. The Local Government Act of 1858 had nothing to do with it whatever. And nobody knew what the Royal Commission set up in 1957 was going to recommend. If we had been a bit brighter, we ought to have suspected it from the beginning in view of its composition. We did not. We are simple—simple-minded Socialists—and that is the trouble with us, to some extent.
It is no good saying that these were mandates. When was it that the Government went to the country and told the country before the Election, "We are going to destroy the Socialist London County Council because we do not like it "? Never. When did they say they were going to abolish the metropolitan boroughs? Never. When did they say they were going to reduce the status of the county boroughs of Croydon, East

937
Ham and West Ham? Never. When did they say they were going to cut up into pieces the counties of Surrey, Essex and Kent and abolish the County of Middlesex? They never did it. And I tell the Government now that when the Parliamentary Election comes, they are going to lose some position in Greater London about this Bill, either by abstentions, diminution of workers or even hostile votes. I am sure they will.
My noble friend Lord Shepherd referred to Colonies and the Parliamentary Secretary pulled him up about that. But there is nothing new about this. I have complained for years that London has been treated by the Government and Parliament as if it were a Crown Colony. We have been treated worse from a democratic point of view than any other part of the country. Yes, we had the question of Waterloo Bridge, on which they held us up, but we overcame that, with great support from the people of London. So I think these are irrelevant. So are the opinions of the London School of Economics. They may be well-meaning, but they are long-haired philosophers and not too much worth listening to on this issue. The Government have no mandate for this. We have two mandates against it and two by-elections in two counties against it. The Government ought not to pass it, but if they do, they certainly ought not to go in for this indecent haste by putting the first date of operation in April, 1964, and the second in May, 1964. It is not decent. It is not respectable. It is really a disgraceful act on the part of what used to be known as "the gentlemanly Party".
LORD LINDGREN: I want to make only one or two points arising from this debate. I am concerned only with the actual mechanics of putting this into force. Earlier we withdrew an Amendment on an assurance from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, which we took, on the extent to which local inquiries were going to be held into the redistribution of wards. He told us that there could be an objection by any elector within the ward affected. But we found from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, supported from his own Back Benches, that the allocation of wards is already going on, and that only two months, September and October, are to be allowed for the arguments likely to arise on the variation of wards
938
within 32 boroughs. What is happening? The whole thing is fixed. Talk about democracy—about local government in which the people have a voice in the type of government they are going to have! But, on the basis of what has been happening, it is obvious that the whole thing is fixed before it starts. What is the good of our going through this Bill and taking assurances from the noble Earl if the whole thing is fixed? If we had only one inquiry in each of the 32 boroughs, it would not be possible to get it through in the two months.
My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth referred to the 1929 Act, which applied not only to London but to the rest of the country. We had the redistribution of boundaries at the same time in the 1929 Act and we were given two years in which to do that. Again it did not come into effect until the County Council election in May, 1931. If, in fact, the ordinary normal redistribution, the abolition of the Board of Guardians and the setting up of the Public Assistance Committee required two years, and you are going Ito try to do this in two months with the setting up of 32 London boroughs, I say it is just impossible to do it.
We have not been told this yet. When is the register of electors going to be determined? The register of electors is taken on a date in November and it is published in February, and between February and April you are going to have the whole redistribution of ward boundaries. Or is that already arranged behind the scenes, in anticipation of the Act going on the Statute Book: that the registers are already being created for the London boroughs and their elections in 1964? If the Government have already issued instructions for the preparation of the basis of the new boroughs, what is the use of having the facade of local inquiries? I challenge noble Lords now. Is the inference correct that we took from the noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe, that the Government were falling over themselves to give just one individual an opportunity to object; or is it correct, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, that everything is fixed?
LORD HASTINGS: I never said anything of the sort.
LORD LINDGREN: If it is going to happen in two months—and the noble

939
Lord, Lord Hastings, said the period allowed for the inquiries was September and October—
LORD HASTINGS: And November.
LORD LINDGREN: And November.
LORD HASTINGS: That is a rough programme to aim at.
LORD LINDGREN: It is going to be pretty rough handling of the people who are going to do the work. The further we go with this the worse seems to be the tangle in which the Government have got themselves. Indecent haste has already been referred to, and it is a programme which cannot be given effect to unless there is dictatorial operation. The programme cannot be given effect to in the spirit of democracy; and the opportunity to object which the noble Earl referred to will not be possible.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I was present and spoke on the Amendment No. 8. I listened carefully to the speech of one who is always very reasonable in the House and whom we might almost call now our noble friend for his courtesy and general handling of matters, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe; and I must say he gave us a most detailed case of what was going to be carried out in order to meet what he claimed were the needs of democracy in these matters. My noble friend Lord Champion and I spoke about two main points: what should be the procedure and the applications or settlements of the charter—whether it should be Royal or by some other process—and what should be the procedure in regard to boundaries. If the real basis was, as I understood the noble Earl's basis to be, the kind of public inquiries that could be arranged and ordered for those two purposes alone, I would say that they would take a very considerable time indeed. I think that was backed up by the facts that I quoted in regard to Coulsdon and Purley and the boundaries on the one hand, and with regard to the charter of the Borough of Croydon which objects, great borough as it is, to being brought into the local government of Greater London scheme.
Now we come on to these vastly important points which have been dealt with by two of our London experts on
940
this Front Bench—and I would challenge anybody on the other side to say that they have more knowledge of the government of London than either my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth or my noble friend Lord Silkin. They know the working of it from almost 34 years of holding office, and they know what the handling of London's problems must mean. Yet to-day you take no notice of them. You have not consulted the electorate and in the last two years there have been two mandates against you from the electors of London who chose to go to the polls. I think that is an extraordinary position to be in. You have had put before you to-night what are the actual processes to be gone through between, not this date to-night, but the final placing of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, on the Statute Book, and next April. It is fundamentally absurd to think that you can put that through without committing grave injury to the electorate.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how Toryism can go on like this and remain in power by all sorts of smokescreens which are brought across the eyes of the electorate. We had it in 1951, when the whole Tory basis of 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1922 which created uncontrollable unemployment was suddenly changed round, because of the great success of the Labour Government, for six years; and then there was an Election cry, "Set the people free". Free from what? Free from the controls, the abolition of which has put up our national Budget, as I said the other night, from £4,200 million to £6,200 million. That is Toryism. People do not really count; you just drive them like herds in front of a smokescreen. Here we have this going on now in the same way with regard to London. I think it is really scandalous and I hope that the Government will yet think again.
There will be two alternative elections, I suppose. We have nothing firm yet about the General Election. What I do know is—where it came from I do not know, but I listened on the wireless the other night, and it was reported by a political correspondent—that Mr. Macleod was now telling his friends that it was likely that they would have to prepare for an Autumn Election. Then there is the possibility of Elections in

941
May, the beginning of June or something of the kind. You are taking a political process in connection with the passing of this Bill which I think will result in something which is absolutely out of this world. It will never properly be done in either respect. This is going to be one more smokescreen before the eyes of the electors, but some of us are determined that we are going to have something to do with blowing away smokescreens this time.
LORD SHEPHERD: I believe it was arranged through the usual channels that we should adjourn during pleasure from 7.30. Would the Government accept that Motion?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: It appeared to me that we had reached a stage when we might take a vote.
LORD SHEPHERD: No. At least one of my colleagues wishes to speak on this subject, and we should like a reply, even if a brief one, from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, to the detailed points made by my noble friend Lord Lindgren. May I beg to move that the Committee do now adjourn during pleasure?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think there is any need for a detailed reply to the speech by the noble Lord,
Lord Lindgren. It seemed to me that he was under a misapprehension, adding two to two and making five. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe said that any person could make representations. Those were his exact words. But he did not say, nor did my noble friend Lord Hastings, that any single objection would automatically be followed by an inquiry. There was nothing said of that kind. We have had a long debate upon this matter. We have had from the noble Earl a speech which is obviously preparatory for the next Election. We have had an amusing speech from the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, which reminded us of past history and filled in the gaps of his Second Reading speech. I would suggest that we have debated this proposal for a long time, and that this would be a right and fitting time to reach a decision upon it.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move that this Committee do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved, That the Committee do adjourn during pleasure.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Whether the Committee do now adjourn during pleasure?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Latham, L.

Onslow, E.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Silkin, L.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Stonham, L.

Crook, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Henderson, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abergavenny, M.

Ferrers, E.

Margesson, V.

Ampthill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mersey, V.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Milverton, L.

Barnby, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carrington, L

Hastings, L.

Newton, L.

Colyton, L.

Hawke, L.

Rockley, L.

Conesford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Croft, L.

Ilford, L.

St. Oswald, L.

De La Warr, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Sandford, L.

Devonshire, D.

Jessel, L.

Sandwich, E.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Kilmuir, E.

Somers, L.

Dudley, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Swansea, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Long, V.

Wolverton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lothian, M.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

7.58 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: Before the noble Lord puts the Question, may I thank noble Lords opposite? They have been very patient. I will not try their patience much further, but I should just like to make my final remarks on this Amendment. It was, broadly, a Second Reading speech certainly; it is a Second Reading principle. The principle is still at stake: whether the Government have a mandate; whether a mere delay of one year would give time for the Government to obtain a mandate. I will not deploy that point any further, but it is still there. That is what we shall be voting on in a moment.
One last point to noble Lords opposite. I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. When I spoke of honour, I would not impute any dishonour to a Peer who voted in support
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I think this might be an appropriate moment to adjourn until 9 o'clock. I beg to move.
[The Sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at nine o'clock.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I have been thinking over this matter with my noble friends during the dinner
of the Bill merely on the question of support for a reform in London. What I meant—and I do not retract it in the slightest—was that there have been many noble Lords in this House who have said that this House was to stand between the Government and the people when a Government was acting without a mandate, in haste, and where there was a clear appreciation and understanding that the people did not agree with what the Government were doing. That is clear. There is a mandate, and it is on our side. Therefore I ask my noble friends to support me in the Lobby on this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Latham, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Silkin, L.

Crook, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stonham, L.

Henderson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Auckland, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Barnby, L.

Hastings, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

Newton, L.

Colyton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Onslow, E.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Rockley, L.

Croft, L.

Jessel, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

De La Warr, E.

Kilmuir, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lansdowne, M.

Sandford, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor)

Long, V.

Somers, L.

Dudley, E.

Lothian, M.

Swansea, L.

Ferrers, E.

Margesson, V.

Wolverton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

adjournment, and we have come to the conclusion that, in the main, we have covered the various points dealt with by Clause 1. There are other things that could have been said and which could take some little time; but we have had a fairly extensive discourse on the various aspects of Clause 1, and therefore we are content that the Question should be now put, that Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. We will divide, but we do not propose to have any further debate on that Question.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I just say one word to the noble Lord, to thank him for his attitude with regard to this matter? I think in fact

945
that Clause 1 has been fully debated and that there is really nothing that could have been said about Clause 1, that relates to Clause 1, or that is far from related to Clause 1, that has not been said. But I hope that now we shall
Resolved Clause 1, in the affirmative, and as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Clause 2:
Greater London and the Greater London Council
2.—(1) The area comprising the areas of the London boroughs, the City and the Temples shall constitute an administrative area to be known as Greater London.
(2) There shall be established for Greater London a council consisting of a chairman, aldermen and councillors which shall be a body corporate under the name of the Greater London Council with perpetual succession and a common seal and shall have all such functions as are vested in that Council by this Act or otherwise.
(3) The provisions of Schedule 2 to this Act shall have effect with respect to the constitution and general functions of the Greater London Council; and the first election of councillors of that Council shall be held on 9th April 1964, and the persons declared elected at that election shall come into office on the fourth day after the day of election.
VISCOUNT MERSEY VISCOUNT MERSEY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "aldermen". The noble Viscount said: I put down this Amendment because I think that if the Government can see their way to accept it it will save them and everybody else a great many problems and difficulties in the future. I have long thought that the conception of aldermen in local government is out of date, but I feel that the reply to that will be: "Well, that may
be able to make a little more progress on this massive Bill.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Barnby, L.

Hastings, L.

Newton, L.

Bradford, E.

Hawke, L.

Perth, E.

Conesford, L.

Ilford, L.

Polwarth, L.

Derwent, L.

Ingleby, V.

Rochdale, V.

Devonshire, D.

Jellicoe, E.

Sandford, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Kilmuir, E.

Somers, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Swansea, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Lothian, M. [Teller.]

Waleran, L.

Gage, V.

Mersey, V.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E

Latham, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Attlee, E.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Stonham, L.

Crook, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Henderson, L.

be the case, but if you are going to do it in one place you have to do it all over the country, and that is too difficult a thing to entertain at this stage." But in this case one is setting up a completely new authority, and I should have thought that there was no possible case for having aldermen on the Greater London Council. Let me say straight away that if you did decide to remove those sixteen aldermen proposed in the Bill, I would of course substitute for them sixteen councillors, because we clearly need the full complement, if they are going to take part in a large number of committees as they are going to be called upon to do.
In the Second Reading debate the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke at some length, and I think very much to the point, on the question of pay. I do not know what is proposed by the Government, but it seems to me that it is almost certain that, at any rate committee chairmen, and possibly all members of the Greater London Council, will have to be paid. The present system by which local government members can claim for loss of earnings is not satisfactory. If they are going to be paid—and I do not know whether they are going to be paid or not; but I am sure they will be, at any rate in a matter of a few years—you are immediately going to find yourself in some difficulty, because I take it that there will be a considerable dispute as to whether you will pay

947
aldermen who will not be elected the same as you will pay councillors. I can quote to your Lordships only the fact that Back Benchers in this House do not seem to draw the same remuneration as Back Benchers in another place. It is for reasons of that sort that I think you will be saving yourself trouble in the future if you do not have aldermen at all on this new body.
There is another point that I should like to put to your Lordships, and it is this. Ever since the introduction of this Bill the Opposition have made great play with the word "gerrymandering". If there was ever an opportunity for gerrymandering in local government, it is with aldermen. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, with his great knowledge, will agree with me. I do not wish to detain your Lordships to-night, although I could do so, by quoting cases of things that have happened: where one Party has won the local council but, nevertheless, has not been allowed to control it owing to the use of aldermanic vacancies. I will say straight away that I think that probably both Parties have in their time taken advantage of that; so I do not want to make a political point here. But I cannot see any point in allowing opportunities of this sort to arise in the future. That is all I want to say. I hope that, if the noble Lord who will reply does not feel he can give me a definite assurance this evening, he will undertake to look at this matter again and possibly consider it—because I think it is a good point—when we come to discuss this Bill on the Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, leave out ("aldermen").—(Viscount Mersey.)
LORD LINDGREN: Perhaps I ought to declare an interest right at the start. On and off for the last thirty years I have been an alderman of a county authority. I would support this Amendment; but, with the greatest respect, I would suggest that this House is hardly the House to give a lead to another place in regard to it, because if there ever was an undemocratic Assembly it is this. And, of course, the aldermanic bench is undemocratic. But the original intentions of the various Local Government Acts throughout the ages as to the office of an alderman
948
were very good. They enabled a local authority to bring on to that authority persons of knowledge and experience who could handle specialised subjects within the authority without those persons having to go through the hurly-burly of elections. And let us be quite honest: there are a large number of very good people who would be prepared, and who are prepared, to give service but who do not like the rough and tumble of the hustings at elections. They would come in and they would give good service to the local authority but for the elections.
Let me say that I find it strange that we here should be talking about London government when perhaps the authority which has used its aldermanic functions to the greatest effect and according to their real intentions has been the London County Council. Both sides of the council have brought into that body people who would otherwise have been outside the service and whose vast experience would have been lost. This system also gives the opportunity, within an authority where (as is the case in most of these authorities) you have three-yearly elections, for there to be some degree of continuity should there come about a violent change in the composition of the council. That is the function of the aldermanic bench; and were it worked throughout the whole of the local government system in the manner in which it has been worked by the London County Council, then I would think the aldermanic bench performed a function which should be retained.
I agree with the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment that, more often than not, the system has been abused by local authorities. It has become an honour for long service within the authority. Many authorities were not as good as the London County Council, which in fact, when it had persons to make up the number of aldermen, required them to go to election after six years. I know no end of county councils—it is less true among county boroughs, but very often in county boroughs, too—where, in fact, once an alderman always an alderman, and they never go to the electorate for election at all. On many of them, too, because they work on the basis of service, there is not the correct representation on the basis of the political Parties on the council.

949
If I may be entirely parochial, I had a fight for well over thirty years on the Hertfordshire County Council before I, as leader of the Labour group on the Hertfordshire County Council, managed this year to persuade them to accept the principle of proportional representation of aldermen according to the elected representatives. There are a large number of authorities who do not accept that principle, who abuse the office of alderman; and I think that, on the basis of its not having been used correctly by the vast majority of authorities, it is far better that we do not institute it for a newly-created authority such as is to be set up under this Bill. If the Amendment went to a Division, I would support it.
9.19 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: As my noble friend knows, I am afraid I followed your Lordships' Second Reading debate on this Bill from a sick-bed, and I was not, therefore, able to listen to my noble friend's informed intervention on Second Reading; but I read it with great pleasure. In view of this, I hope my noble friend will not feel that I am being churlish if I am not able to respond with total enthusiasm to the Amendment which he has just moved.
There is, of course, a very long history to this matter. I think the argument for and against aldermen has been going on since municipalities were reformed in the early part of the last century. It was quite a hot issue in Peel's time, and there was another Parliamentary struggle about it in 1888. This is a controversy, too, in which London has been involved in one way or another from a very early stage. Some of your Lordships, not all, may be familiar with the written evidence which the City of London placed before the Royal Commission in 1893, which was considering the possible amalgamation of the City and the County of London. I hope that I may just quote the words:
"From earliest times the government of the City has borne a strong analogy to that of a county or shire. Just as the latter were ruled by Eorldermen or Aldermen, so did the City receive from Alfred the Great an Alderman as its first municipal governor in the person of Ethelred. This was in A.D. 886, and to Alfred may be, not unreasonably, attributed the foundation of the Municipality of London."
Perhaps with all this back history it was therefore not surprising that when the
950
L.C.C. was set up there was again a sharp struggle as to whether there should be aldermen on the L.C.C. The compromise which was eventually reached—which is familiar to many Members of your Lordships' House—was to have half the normal proportion; namely, 1 to 6, and this proportion of 1 to 6 has been followed in the Bill both for the Greater London Council and the London boroughs.
So much for Alfred and Ethelred and less remote history. What about the merits and demerits of contemporary aldermen? Your Lordships will have heard the arguments advanced and will doubtless be familiar with the advantages commonly claimed for the aldermanic system. It is claimed that it provides an element of stability and continuity in case of sweeping changes among the directly-elected members; that it permits men and women of experience and wisdom to be made members of the council who might not wish to submit themselves to the hurly-burly and bustle of the hustings, as the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren has mentioned. In practice, as some of us are fully aware, aldermen are sometimes elected as a kind of reward for long service. Your Lordships' House includes many noble Lords who have been, or are, aldermen of counties or county boroughs; and I am perfectly sure that in their case election has been on the grounds of sagacity and wisdom and never merely for long service. I know that this is true in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, who is, I think, an alderman across the water; and it must be true in the case of two distinguished ex-aldermen, again from across the water, one of whom is sitting opposite me at this moment.
However, despite all these proofs of aldermanic virtue and wisdom, criticisms are made from time to time of this ancient system. It has proved a hardy institution but, like other hardy institutions—indeed like another institution closer to hand, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, also alluded—some claim that the aldermanic bench is an anachronism. I do not think the view that the system should be abolished is generally supported in local government circles, at least by that progressive body with which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was formerly associated—the Association of Municipal

951
Corporations. So much for the general point.
I should like now to turn to the particular points which my noble friend has mentioned. He suggested that although aldermen might be all right for lesser municipalities without London law, we should not impose this venerable system upon this brand-new progressive organisation, the Greater London Council, which we are setting up. I confess that I find it difficult to go along fully with that argument. It is true that, in functions, the Greater London Council will be a very special sort of animal. However, constitutionally, it will be a local authority of the same nature as any other local authority. I feel, therefore, that unless we are to abolish the aldermanic system throughout the local government world we should not strip this new council of its aldermen. As the Royal Commission said, in paragraph 855 of their Report:
"This…seems to be a matter of national import, and not special to the Review Area."
The same thing applies to the question of pay for councillors, which my noble friend also mentioned. It is with these considerations in mind (and I hope your Lordships will not feel that I have dealt with this matter too lightly, because we are, in fact, dealing here with a serious matter) that the Government came to the conclusion that it was right to retain aldermen in the constitution of the Greater London Council. I hope that, despite the two speeches which we have heard, your Lordships in all parts of the House would agree with this point of view. I am not trying to press it too hard, but I am trying to put it seriously to the House, and I hope, in view of this, that I can prevail on my noble friend not to press his Amendment.
EARL ATTLEE: Having been an alderman myself about 40 years ago, I take a rather detached view of this subject. The fact is that the general idea of aldermen, giving the possibility of bringing in people of experience, was very good, but it has been abused. It is rather like the university seats in another place, which were used for people who were rejected by public vote. That is an objection which holds to-day against the aldermanic bench, and I am inclined to support the noble Lord opposite.
9.28 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: This is a matter upon which there appears to be varying opinions in both the great political Parties. The noble Lord opposite, who moved the Amendment, is a Conservative—there is no doubt about that—and I am a Labour man and a Socialist and I take another view. My noble friend Lord Attlee is disposed to support the Amendment, as is my noble friend Lord Lindgren. This is not a matter on which there is any question in the Labour Party of trying to hold a firm Party line, because there are differences of opinion about it; and—though rather by luck than otherwise—I do not think that the Labour Conference nationally has pronounced upon it, though the London Labour Party have and they are on the side of the Commission.
An Amendment was moved in another place to make the membership of the Greater London Council 200 and to abolish the aldermen. That was because they could not very well increase the number by less than twice, otherwise their arithmetic would have gone wrong; and having gone to 200, they did not wish to add the aldermen and make it still bigger. That was not the only reason, but it was a contributory factor to the Amendment.
For myself, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Attlee: the institution has been politically, on both sides, badly misused from time to time. It was better practised in the L.C.C. by the Labour Party before I was a member, much less Leader of the Party. When the first Labour Party of substance met at County Hall, about sixteen of them, they looked around their members and asked what they were deficient in. One subject was finance, and they brought in the late Mr. Emil Davies, who knew something about finance. My noble friend Lord Latham was made an alderman for the same reason, because he was understandable about finance. The late Mr. C. J. Mathew, K.C., who was a distinguished lawyer, was brought in because we did not have a legal expert. That is the way aldermen ought to be used. That is what the system is for; but it is not always used that way. But that does not diminish its value, because potentially it can be used in a proper manner in that way.

953
In the Provinces (it is no good my quarrelling with them, and I certainly should not want to they are too powerful) both sides of politics, and I think the Liberals as well, go in for the principle of promoting the senior councillor of the ward to be an alderman. Then they have an election at the subsequent by-election. This makes a complete farce of the aldermanic institution, and it means, in effect, that it is destroyed. And they have destroyed it in the name of democracy; that everybody has to be elected. So, from that point of view, it might as well not exist. And as the tendency is that they stay there for life, the aldermen may survive when the political Party has gone, which is not democratic. But that is not the proper use of it.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Attlee that it ought not to be used primarily for the purpose of making a member of the council of a defeated candidate. On the other hand, many defeated candidates may be people who have been most valuable councillors and whose loss may be a loss not only to the Party, but to the council. Therefore I would not personally bebar the defeated candidates from consideration.
The other matter is the point raised by the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment—namely, the question of gerrymandering. It is true that something of that character has taken place by both Parties. Sometimes one side, when they did not need to, have stolen all the aldermen—I will not say who started it, but I have a shrewd idea—and then, when the other Party had the chance, they got their revenge by doing the same thing and evening things up. Well, I do not like that. I think the right thing is, if you can do it, to share the aldermen between the Parties on the basis of the proportions of elected councillors, and that each Party should choose whom they like in whatever way they like. But there are exceptions.
In 1910, I think it was, the Progressive Liberals and the Conservatives were returned to the London County Council in absolutely equal numbers. The Conservatives offered the Progressives a coalition, and the Progressives, I think quite rightly, declined to form a coalition with the Conservatives. So the Conservatives then said: "We are sorry, but we
954
have to make this organisation work somehow, and we cannot work it if there is to be an absolute equality of members on the council, including the aldermen", which would have been the case. "Therefore", they said, "we must take the aldermen, otherwise the council cannot properly function; and, still more important, its committees cannot function." So they took the aldermen; and in that case I would not say that they were wrong. I think the municipality must function.
We got into a nearly similar situation in about 1949, when an equality of councillors of both sides was returned, and Sir Percy Harris, who was the only survivor of the Liberal Party, was the balancing factor. Fortunately, he voted for a Labour nominee as chairman of the council—that was a bit of luck for us—and that settled it. The Labour people did not take all the aldermen. At the beginning there was an indication that they would but they did not do so. However, they took enough to give them a majority, not only on the Council, but saw to it that they got working majorities on the committees. In the case both of the Conservative seizure of the aldermen in 1910, which I would defend, and of my people taking this majority in which they destroyed the proportional rule in 1949, which I would again defend, it was right, because the municipality must operate. What I do not like is when, out of sheer hatred of the other side, the majority Party seizes all the aldermen, which they do not need to do to make the machine work. That has happened on both sides.
Therefore, I admit that, so far as the Provinces are concerned, they so operated it that they have almost destroyed the utility of the aldermanic institution, whereas I think the aldermanic institution, its proper defence and its proper use, is preferably to take them from outside the council and to find people better than the elected people, or who have more time, or some special knowldege about something or the other. On balance, I would sooner preserve the institution, because in many places it is well and properly used or, alternatively, in the hope that it will be properly used. Therefore, if it comes to a Division—which I hope it will not, because the result will not be a very pleasant sight on either side of the House, in view of the degree

955
of confusion that we are bound to be in—I personally would vote for the preservation of the aldermen. But it may be that the noble Viscount opposite will see his way not to press the Amendment to a Division, which will leave us all with our customary Party solidarity on both sides.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I think we have had a fascinating discussion from an acknowledged expert on how local government works when it comes to vote. May I say how gratified I was to receive support from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which was very encouraging to an obscure Back Bencher. I said when I introduced this Amendment that if the Government would see their way to accept it, I thought they would save themselves a great deal of trouble in the future. I still think that is true. We are going to elect a new body, and in spite of the fact that noble Lords opposite are convinced that this is a cheap plot to keep them from governing London, I am by no means convinced that when the election for the Greater London Council takes place it will necessarily show that there is a Conservative majority. There may well not be. In any case, I think it will probably be a close thing.
It is proposed there should be 16 aldermen. Here is an opportunity straight away for some gerrymandering, if one Party or the other has a very narrow majority. How are those aldermen to be elected, and in what proportion? Are we to have cases such as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has just told us about? I think the noble Lord gave us the answer, which is that we should put something into the Bill—and it is not too late to do it—by which the number of aldermen are stated to be in proportion (and it will have to be carefully worked out) to the number of councillors. Although that may occasionally work to the advantage of one Party or the other, there can at least be no accusation in the future of gerrymandering. I think this is a valuable suggestion from the other side, and I would ask my noble friend, if he cannot accept the Amendment at this stage, whether he will undertake to look at it again before the Report stage, when we could raise it again if necessary. If he feels he could do that I shall be happy to withdraw the
956
Amendment I have put down this evening.
LORD SHEPHERD: In fairness to my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth—and I listened to him very carefully—I did not think he advocated proportional representation for aldermen by law. I think he accepted it as a general principle, but it would be quite wrong to write it into the Bill. Just as in Parliament, the authority has to govern. It may have to, shall we say, rig the position of the aldermen in order to govern and enforce the necessary measures. But I think it is quite wrong of the noble Viscount to suggest—I am sure he did not mean it—that my noble friend suggested that we on this side of the House would support proportional representation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have listened with the greatest interest to what my noble friend said on this subject and to the speeches made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and other noble Lords opposite. I do not think my noble friend's suggestion that there should be a proportionate number of aldermen according to the representation of the Parties as a result of the election would meet The particular problem that arose and to which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, referred, when the result of the election was that there was a tie and unless something was done about the aldermen the local authority could not function. I do not think this is really a complete solution. What I should like to do is to reflect upon what my noble friend has said and the views expressed in this debate. I must say that I cannot see at the moment any solution that could be put down as an Amendment to this Bill which would meet my noble friend's point. One can only hope that this gerrymandering to which he referred will become completely out of date and be regarded by both Parties as something which is really rather disreputable. If that attitude comes about, then a need for a solution of this problem would cease to exist. But I can tell my noble friend that I will certainly give consideration to what he has said, but I should not like him to be under any misapprehension, for I feel very doubtful indeed whether one can find an Amendment which would meet his point of view.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply, which, naturally, I accept. I still feel, as I said originally, that if we had no aldermen we should save ourselves a loft of trouble. Nevertheless, in view of what has been said this evening, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.42 p.m.
LORD MORRISON of LAMBETH LORD MORRISON of LAMBETH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "Greater London Council" and insert "Corporation of Greater London". The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment standing in my name and the names of my noble friends Lord Silkin, Lord Longford and Lord Kennet. The purpose here is to give a more dignified title to the Greater London Council. We are, in this age of utilitarianism, getting rather bad at designations and titles; we are rather dull and monotonous. For example, before the First World War there was not one Minister known as a Minister "of" something. Since the end of the First World War there has never been any new Minister who has not been described as the Minister "of" something except for Ministers of State and even they are Ministers "of". I think that this designation of public authorities or of Ministers is a matter of some importance. It leads to greater imagination in the public mind and greater respect for the authority.
With regard to this Greater London authority, I do not think its powers are adequate under the Bill, but it is going to be a great authority covering a very large area, and merely to give it the designation of the "Greater London Council" is not sufficiently colourful and dignified. I have been thinking about what else it could be called. It cannot be called the "Corporation of London" if the City is to survive as it is; because this is the name of the City Corporation. But it could be called the "Corporation of Greater London", which is a much more dignified designation than the "Greater London Council". This is not a matter of party politics; it is a matter of trying to find a suitable name; and if anybody has a better idea, with more colour and dignity about it, I shall be most happy to give it consideration and I hope the Government
958
will, too, in order to find something better than "Greater London Council". I admit it is a little better than the "Metropolitan Board of Works", but it is somewhere in the same category, and, as a matter of fact, its powers are going to be somewhat in the same category.
Therefore, let us have a picture of a municipal corporation, which in the Provinces are great things like the Corporations of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Leeds, and so on. I hope that the Government will give their sympathetic consideration, either now or on the Report stage, which might give them a chance to try to think of something else better, though I consider this is a nice designation. So I should like very much the Government and this Committee to agree that, instead of designating this the "Greater London Council", which is rather a poor thing, we call it the "Corporation of Greater London".
Another thing I should like would be for the chairman to have a better title than Chairman of the Council; that is a poor title. It is perfectly true the Chairman of the London County Council is "Right Honourable", by the very kindly action of King George VI; but as compared with Lord Mayor, or Mayor, it is a poor affair. We are really getting short of imagination and we ought to think of a better designation. However, I am a little out of order in dealing with that. But I earnestly trust the Government will be sympathetic about the idea of giving this new authority for a very big area and big population, if it comes off, a title rather more dignified and colourful than "Greater London Council", and the best I can think of is "Corporation of Greater London", which I commend to your Lordships' consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, leave out ("Greater London Council") and insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
LORD SHEPHERD: May I support my noble friend in this matter? Obviously we want to give this new authority the dignity that it deserves, because it will be in itself a very important body. I did go into the Library after dinner to find out what in fact a Corporation meant. The word "corporation" can be used in many ways—a corporation of a physique and a corporation

959
as an American business. But I noticed in the definition of "Corporation" that a corporation could be set up by charter. I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, would forgive me for asking for his attention for one minute, because he has been very helpful in regard to the charters of boroughs. I was saying that a corporation could be created by charter. I have not discussed this with my noble friends; there has not been time. We are creating the boroughs by charter. It has been agreed there should be a like dignity with them all. In the setting up of this Greater London Council I think there is a lot to be said for setting it up with a new name, but under charter. It would then rank in standard of dignity, though perhaps not in age, with the City of London, and also with many other cities in this country that exist because of the charter.
I would not wish to argue the case too fully to-night, but I would ask the noble Earl to consider as favourably as he can that this new body, which is going to represent one of the finest cities in the world—the finest city in the world—should be given this dignity so that it can stand in precedence and rank with the other cities of this country. I think if we could bring it up in its standing and dignity to that of the City of London perhaps some of the controversy and slight jealousies that creep in with Londoners towards the City might disappear. I do not expect the noble Lord to reply this evening on this point, but I hope I shall have the sympathy of the noble Lord and the Committee in this matter. We are settting up this new authority. We have a new opportunity. We have none of the old problems of a body already in existence; we are creating a completely new body. As the Government have found the way that the inner boroughs should be able to rank with outer boroughs, I should have thought they could have found a way for this new Corporation of London to rank as a chartered authority. I hope the Government will look at that matter with sympathy.
LORD HASTINGS: I appreciate entirely the motives behind this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, wishes to find a more dignified title; and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has made an interesting suggestion,
960
to which I cannot reply to-night, as he realises, but we will think about it. Certainly the Government do not have a closed mind on this matter. They are perfectly willing to entertain a more dignified, better title if one can be found. At the moment we think that the "Greater London Council" is the best in the circumstances. Certainly, we must avoid any possibility of confusion—the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, himself at least admitted the possibility that the City of London will continue, and that therefore there might be confusion with the Corporation of the City of London.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: If the noble Lord will forgive me, what I said was that if we call it the "Corporation of London" there could be confusion. I do not think there should be any reasonable confusion if it is called the "Corporation of Greater London".
LORD HASTINGS: At the moment we feel that the word "London" would cause confusion. "Corporation of the City" or "Corporation of Greater London", it seems to us, would be a possible matter for confusion. Coming briefly to the question of the word "Corporation" itself, I would say that as noble Lords know well, it is not a term which is used in the everyday names of local authorities, and, whatever its strict legal meaning, it is, in practice, used in the local government world only in connection with boroughs. In municipal boroughs all the inhabitants are incorporated; in other types of local authority, including the metropolitan boroughs, the council is incorporated but the inhabitants are not. It seems to us that it would create some degree of confusion to apply the word "Corporation" to a council such as that of Greater London, when the normal use of the word in local government circles is reserved for the inhabitants of a borough.
But, as I say, if noble Lords opposite can find a better title—possibly one which does not include the word "Corporation"—certainly we should be willing to consider it. At the moment, however, we feel that the suggestion of the noble Lord does not quite meet the case. Therefore I hope he will have better thoughts about this. In the meantime we are willing to consider any representations in this matter.
LORD STONHAM: It seems to me that the noble Lord's principal difficulty was not over the word "Corporation" but over the inclusion of the word "London" in the title. I have to declare an interest in this matter, because, for some 30 years or so, I have been a Freeman and a Liveryman of the City of Landon. But I am bound to say that I find the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, quite astonishing. The "Greater London Corporation" makes it quite clear that it is the larger area, and he boggles at the word "Corporation" because so far it has applied only to boroughs—in some cases, quite small areas in the Metropolis; and I cannot help feeling that the main objection is because he feels that the City Corporation has a sort of pre-emptive right to the use of the word "London". It is quite true that many years ago the "square mile", as we call it, was London; but for almost centuries now, so far as the people of this country are concerned, the more important part is the part of London which we are now considering. For that reason the "Greater London Corporation" or the "Corporation of Greater London" would seem to be an apt and proper description of this area.
I should have thought, even assuming—which Heaven and Lord Morrison of Lambeth forbidding—the City of London Corporation should continue, nevertheless the right to the title of "London" included in those words which are in the Amendment must surely apply to the greater area. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has suggested that it falls to us to find some word other than "Corporation" to meet this particular point and give a greater dignity and presence to the new authority. I really cannot imagine any greater dignity than included in the title of "the Corporation"—what I should regard, and I hope the noble Lord regards, as still the greatest city in the world. I think he ought to develop his objections a little further and make it quite clear whether they apply to the word "Corporation" as a description, or in fact to the word "London". If to the latter, as I strongly suspect, then, even speaking as a Liveryman and a Member of a Worshipful Company, I would say that, in common justice, there is no pre-emptive right in the square mile, but that the
962
new body the Government wants to form should be called "the Corporation of Greater London".
9.56 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I find myself in a good deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has said. I think we all desire that what should be one of the greatest local authorities—some of us think the greatest local authority—in the world should have a worthy title. Nevertheless, in spite of my complete sympathy with his object, I do not think he has quite met the requirement by the words which he has put forward, for the simple reason given by my noble friend, the Minister, in his answer, the danger of confusion. I think that all of us know the possibility of confusion if there are two bodies, one called "the Corporation of London" and the other called "the Corporation of Greater London". There really will be serious dangers of confusion.
I am very glad that further consideration will be given to this matter, and I offer a humble suggestion that we can turn over in our minds in that further consideration. I see the force of the observations of my noble friend Lord Hastings, in possible criticism of the use of the word "Corporation". I see also the danger of confusion if we adopted the title of "Corporation of Greater London". But, of course, the tremendous word that thunders through the ages is "London". What is superfluous in this title is the word "Greater". My suggestion that we might think over is that we should call it "The London Council". The more we drop out adjectives, the mare we make it clear that this is the authority of London, the better. I should have thought that the word which was superfluous was the word "Greater".
LORD HASTINGS: We will give this great thought; that is all I can say. I have listened to all that has been said—the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has really put my points better than I did myself, and we will give the whole matter thought. We wish to find the best title.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for undertaking to give it further thought. Of course, you could modify

963
the name of the City Corporation by calling it "the City of London Corporation" which would be true, whereas the "Corporation of London" is simply not true. You cannot very well call the Greater London Council "the Greater London Parliament"—that would cause trouble at Westmister with a vengeance—and I do not suggest it. You could, of course, call it the London County Council and keep the "old firm" going. It could be done, but I must say that "Greater London Council" does not sound good to me.
However, the noble Lord has undertaken to give it further consideration—without, I agree, committing himself or the Government on the matter—and I hope that they will give it earnest consideration. They may think of something more suitable than any of us have thought of in the course of this debate. Therefore, while we must leave ourselves free on Report stage, I hope the Government will come up again with a possibility on that question. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved in subsection (3) to leave out "1964" and to insert "1965". The noble Lord said: On Amendment No. 11 we had a very lengthy discussion about the principles which are involved in this Amendment, in so far as the new constituted boroughs are concerned; and, of course, in general terms what applied to that discussion applies also to this to a very large degree. Of course, so far as the Greater London Council is concerned the emphasis is greater, because it is true that in the vast majority of boroughs it is purely a matter of amalgamation and extension of function. The boroughs will be assuming duties of which they have a semblance of experience and knowledge in regard to the administration, but they are going to have considerable difficulties in staffing, and things of that sort, within the period of time.
When we come to the Greater London Council, here it will be a new body taking over functions in a very wide area, with a changeover from the old order to the new. From the administrative point of view that is a very difficult job for the persons who are to be elected and who will
964
assume the responsibility. It is equally true that, when it comes to staffing, the change is not going to be easy to arrange; and I should have thought that, if we had doubts about the wisdom of the London boroughs going in on April 1, 1964, equally we ought to have greater doubts about the Greater London Council. In view of all the arguments we had before, the main principles of which apply to this Amendment, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("1964") and insert ("1965").—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD HASTINGS: I do not think the noble Lord opposite will expect me to say very much about this, as we had a very full argument on the two Amendments, this one and No. 11, which hang together. Of course, the Greater London Council is a new organisation, but before it starts to function it has to be elected, and we have accepted as a result of the rejection of Amendment No. 11 that the new borough councils shall be elected in May, 1964. Obviously, the Greater London Council must come into being and cannot be delayed for a year after the new borough councils are elected. On those grounds, if for no other reasons, I really think I must ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment. I do not think I need say any more on this particular point.
LORD LINDGREN: Perhaps I can shorten the discussion by asking this. Why is it necessary that the Greater London Council or the boroughs have to function as from May? You still have in existence both the Middlesex County Council and the London County Council, the functions of which can still be carried on, which would ease the transfer of functions both to the boroughs and to the new Council. It is going to be a period of time with many of these functions, which are now in a state of flux, particularly because of the transfer, which is going to be difficult for administration and new areas to be set up. There is no functional difficulty about the carrying on of the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council. In fact, I think that would facilitate the transfer.
LORD HASTINGS: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord. There will be new and important functions for the Greater London Council. It needs

965
to set up its staff and make all its preparations in regard to the general strategic planning of transport, and, in particular, I think, so far as the London boroughs are concerned, housing. The whole plan would come unstuck if the noble Lord's Amendment were
10.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHEPHERD: Before the Question is put, I have one question that I should like to put to the Government in regard to this clause. It is a fact that if this Bill does go through the position of Lords Lieutenants of the County of London and the County of Middlesex will disappear. I do not know whether the word "disappear" is quite the right word; but obviously they will have no duties. I wish to know from the Government what their intention is in regard to the Greater London area. It is true that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill mentions the possibility of a Bill being produced to make arrangements in regard to judicial matters and Lieutenants, and so on. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can tell me what comes within the phrase "et cetera" following the word "Lieutenant". And can we take it that this Bill to be introduced to appoint a Lord Lieutenant for the Greater London area will go through this Parliament before the elections are held? In
accepted and the Greater London councillors were elected a year later.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Henderson, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Onslow, E.

Archibald, L.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Stonham, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Fortescue, E.

Long, V.

Ampthill, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Lothian, M.

Auckland, L.

Furness, V.

Margesson, V.

Barnby, L.

Gage, V.

Mersey, V.

Carrington, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Conesford, L.

Hastings, L.

Newton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Perth, E.

Derwent, L.

Ilford, L.

Rochdale, V.

Devonshire, D.

Ingleby, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Jellicoe, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Dudley, E.

Jessel, L.

Sandford, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Waleran, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

other words, when the elections are held, the body corporate will be set up in full majesty.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was begining to wonder what the noble Lord was getting at when he asked me whether the Bill would get through before the election was held. I think that he meant elections to the councils constituted by this Bill. I am also a little puzzled to know how the question of Lord Lieutenancies is relevant to the contents of Clause 2, and what we are discussing at the moment is whether Clause 2 should form part of the Bill. At the same time, I would deal with the perfectly relevant inquiry of the noble Lord; whether it is appropriate to this clause or not is another matter.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already announced that there will be a Bill—it is contemplated in the next Session—for providing for the necessary changes in the administration of justice in relation to the Greater London area. In that Bill we shall deal with the position of the Lord Lieutenant of Greater London, for the reason that a great many of the Lord Lieutenant's duties are connected with the administration of justice. He is usually the

967
custos rotulorum and deals with the commissions of peace, and matters of that sort. Therefore, it is right and appropriate that when we rearrange the administration of justice in the Greater London area, we should at the same time deal with the position of the Lord Lieutenant. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that, with the disappearance of the Middlesex County Council, the Lord Lieutenancy of that county will go. I can go only as far as this at the moment. We are contemplating one Lord Lieutenant for the Greater London area, with a number of Deputy Lieutenants to assist him. I think that this is as far as I can go in answer to the noble Lord at the moment, but it is definitely intended to introduce a Bill to deal with that matter in the course of the next Session.
10.18 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am a little confused about this. It was said at some time, either by the Government or by the Royal Commission, that although this Greater London area was to be established, the identity of the counties within that area would be maintained. I am sure that was said by somebody with authority. I am bound to say that I did not realise how it could happen very well, because Surrey is cut in two, so are Kent and Essex. But the counties that remain will be counties, and presumably able to have their own Lords Lieutenants, whereas Greater London will consist of the present County of London, the County of Middlesex and parts of the other counties. If there is to be a Lord Lieutenant of Greater London, then it must become a county in the geographical sense of the term, not only an administrative county. I wonder whether the Chairman of the Greater London Council should not also be the Lord Lieutenant. That would give him a title of dignity. But that is a side issue and not really germane to this.
My noble friend Lord Latham reminds me that that is the case with the Provosts and Lord Provosts in Scotland. But the main point I am on—and I hope that the Lord Chancellor can help us—is that there was some indication that the counties would remain. Possibly they have the Territorial Army in mind. But if there is a Lord Lieutenant for Greater London—and I am not against this: I think there ought to be, as part of the establishment of London—I should have
968
thought I was right that in that case the Greater London area must become a county.
10.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I certainly should not like to answer "off the cuff" at this hour of night the second part of what the noble Lord said. So far as the other counties, parts of which will form part of the Greater London area, are concerned, they will retain their Lords Lieutenants over, it may be, a diminished area. So that the county which will lose its Lord Lieutenancy will be Middlesex. I am glad to know the noble Lord agrees that it is appropriate that there should be one Lord Lieutenant over the Greater London area. There are problems if this Bill passes, as no doubt it will, because it is an improving Bill—problems concerned with the administration of justice which will want careful working out; and they are being worked on now. I do not think it would advance matters if I gave any indication at the present moment of the way our thoughts are proceeding. I take note of what the noble Lord has said about his desire that the Chairman of the Greater London Council should, if possible, have a more imposing title. It is an interesting suggestion, which again one would like to think about. I do not know whether my inventive capacity (I had better not talk about the difference between inference and invention tonight) will enable me to think of such a title.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The noble and learned Lord mentioned the administration of justice. He might consider whether the Central Criminal Court should not function in the way of Greater London. The Central Criminal Court is now run by the Corporation of the City, but it covers, I think, a radius of 7 miles; and the London County Council contributes seven-tenths of the cost of the Old Bailey without having any control over the Old Bailey at all. The noble and learned Lord might consider extending the area of democracy to letting Greater London take over the Central Criminal Court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not sure whether letting the London County Council or any other local authority have more control over the administration of justice at the Old Bailey would

969
be a good or a bad thing. But so far as the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord is concerned, that the Central Criminal Court should be the Assize Court of Greater London, I can tell him straight away that that is in line with our thoughts upon that problem.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 2 agreed to accordingly.
10.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it might be a convenient moment for me to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, may I say that I think we have made a fair amount of progress to-day with this Bill, but not so much as might reasonably have been expected; and we really shall have to make more progress the next day we take the Bill. And I can tell your Lordships that we should want—and I do not think it is unreasonable to expect it—to be able to get to the end of Schedule 1 on the next day we take this Bill in Committee. The noble Lord opposite shakes his head, but, of course, one is accustomed to that. But I am merely giving him warning at the present moment that we intend, if need be—although I do not think it would really be necessary, unless speeches are perhaps a little longer than might be—to sit late that evening to get to that position.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The noble Lord is not going the right
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am obliged.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 11.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Ampthill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Lothian, M.

Barnby, L.

Furness, V.

Margesson, V.

Bessborough, E.

Gage, V.

Mersey, V.

Bossom, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Newton, L.

Carrington, L.

Hastings, L.

Onslow, E.

Conesford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Perth, E.

De La Warr, E.

Ilford, L.

Rochdale, V.

Derwent, L.

Ingleby, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Devonshire, D.

Jellicoe, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Jessel, L.

Sandford, L.

Dudley, E.

Kilmuir, E.

Waleran, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Kinnoull, E.

Wolverton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Latham, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Crook, L.

Longford, E.

Stonham, L.

Henderson, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

way about things to get the Bill through or the good will of the Opposition. He is really talking to us as if he has the right to give orders. He should not do it. He has not been here long and is strange to the place. I have not been here very long either, but it is longer than the noble Lord and I know more about this place than he knows yet. It is no good his standing up and giving us orders, lecturing us and telling us that some progress is not being made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was certainly not giving orders and seeking to lecture the noble Lord. That is the last thing I would do, because I know that it would be absolutely pointless. I was merely intimating to him what our hopes and intentions were for the next time the Committee dealt with this Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: In order to regularise the proceedings, I should put the question that the House be now resumed.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. The noble and learned Lord has now put himself right. But do not let the Chief Whip join him and make matters worse,

971
because one of the great things about Chief Whips is that they do not quarrel with anybody, and that is why, when other people are not talking to each other, the Whips are able to talk to both sides, so let the Chief Whip learn that. And if he wants to learn a bit more let him consult the noble Viscount, Lord Margesson, who, no doubt will give him suitable advice. It is one thing to ask us and to appeal to us to co-operate, which I think we have done. Two clauses in one day on a Bill is quite considerable. My general Parliamentary experience is that in another place not often do they get Clause 1 in one day; and to get two clauses is better. I understand that somebody suggested we should get through the whole of Part I, which is eight clauses. That is rather foolish and out of proportion. You cannot do it in one day. As I used to say in another place as Leader of the House of Commons. "Let us see how we go". That is all you can do.
On Question, Motion agreed to and House resumed accordingly.

  BRITISH MUSEUM RESTAURANT
  BRITISH MUSEUM RESTAURANT