Sitting of 13 February 1964

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

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:—
  I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Shipping and Air Transport Profits) (Lebanon) Order 1964 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COAL

    Mining Industry (Vested Assets)
    Mr. Woofasked the Minister of Power if he will state the original amount of liability for vested assets belonging to the coal mining industry; what amount has been reduced by annual repayment since vesting day what total has been borrowed by the National Coal Board since vesting day up to the latest date; and what is the total interest payment made over the same period.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. F. Erroll): The National Coal Board's original liability for vested assets was £388 million, of which £49 million was repaid by 31st December, 1963. Between 1st January, 1947, and 31st December, 1963, £833 million was advanced to the Board under Section 26 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, and £221 million was repaid. In the same period the Board paid £161 million interest on vesting liabilities and £204 million
    524
    interest on Exchequer advances. The Board also reimbursed the Exchequer £63 million in respect of interim income paid to former colliery owners.
    Mr. Woof: Do not those staggering figures show that the National Coal Board is carrying a very heavy financial burden, and does not the Minister agree that there is an overwhelming case for reducing the rates of interest payments and the capital liabilities?
    Mr. Erroll: I think the figures reveal that when capital is used the interest charges should be met. There has been heavy capital investment, and so the interest charges appear large in the aggregate. I think that the coal industry has been fortunate in being able to raise its money at such comparatively advantageous rates.

    Colliery Closures
    Mr. Woofasked the Minister of Power if he will give the number of coal mines closed, the number closed through exhaustion, and the number closed through uneconomic reasons, since vesting day up to the latest date.
    Mr. Erroll: The total number of collieries closed by the National Coal Board between 1947 and the end of 1963 was 450. I understand that of these 223 had exhausted their reserves, 170 were uneconomic and the remaining 57 were closed for other reasons such as manpower redeployment, flooding and fire.
    Mr. Woof: Is the Minister aware that recently 11 collieries have been closed in my constituency and that further closures are contemplated? Will he consult the Durham Division of the National Coal Board with a view to mitigating the social and economic consequences of further closures until alternative employment is provided?
    Mr. Erroll: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, individual colliery closures are a matter for the National Coal Board. I am assured that the Board, by careful phasing of closures, does its best to avoid heavy local unemployment and makes every effort to offer alternative jobs to men displaced. With a high level of economic activity

    525
    in the country generally, and now fortunately in the North-East, I think that the Board should be able to pursue that policy without the hardship to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Is not the Minister aware that the National Coal Board has had to run down the total manpower employed by about 200,000 in the last five years? It is, therefore, not possible for the Board to offer alternative employment. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend and see whether he as Minister of Power can delay closures in some of these cases until his successor at the Board of Trade has been more successful than he has been in attracting alternative employment to these areas?
    Mr. Erroll: I think that the figures speak for themselves, because from 1959 to 1963 only about 5,000 men were redundant out of a total of more than 60,000 affected by closures. The policy which I pursued was, I think, successful, and I am sure that my successor will be equally successful.

    Coal-face Cutters
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Power (1) if he will make a statement on the potentialities of the research project which has resulted in the development of the Collins Miner, a remote-controlled automatic coal-face cutter; and to what extent the research and development were financed by Her Majesty's Government;
    (2) if he will give a general direction in the public interest to the National Coal Board to stimulate the production of automatic coal-face cutters, in view of their export potentialities.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): These projects for remote control of mining processes are an important part of the National Coal Board's efforts to raise productivity and improve safety. They are being developed by the Board on its own responsibility in collaboration with manufacturers. I have no doubt that all aspects of future exploitation, including exports, are being considered.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Minister agree that these machines are among the finest in the world? If he does,
    526
    does he also agree that this is a great tribute to the enterprise of the men engaged in the mining industry—both management and workpeople? If it is true that they are such a success, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of asking the Coal Board to consider manufacturing them on a large scale, so that they can be exported for tunnelling and mining purposes throughout the world?
    Mr. Peyton: The answer to the last part of the supplementary question is that that is very much a matter for the Board and the manufacturers. I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the imaginativeness of these new methods of extracting coal.

    Smokeless Fuels
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Power what steps he is now taking to increase the supply of smokeless fuels in the Glasgow area at prices within the reach of pensioners and people living on low incomes.
    Mr. Peyton: I have nothing to add to the replies I gave to the hon. Member on 28th November and to the hon. Members for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) on 19th December and 6th February, respectively.
    Mr. Bence: Those Answers were not very helpful. They got us no further. Elderly people, pensioners and those with low incomes who are living in smokeless zones in Glasgow are finding it very difficult to maintain adequate heating in winter owing to present prices. Will he help these people by bringing down the prices of fuels, or consulting his right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Peyton: Prices are dominated by the cost of production and also by competition. As I told the hon. Member before, it is not our intention to take powers to control prices as we do not think that it will help.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: But will my right hon. Friend look into the question of the quality of Rexco fuel, which has been put on the market in Scotland recently and which does not come up to the required standards of the housewife?
    Mr. Peyton: That is not a question for my Department. Rexco is a proprietary fuel, manufactured by a private company. I have no doubt that what my hon. Friend has just said will be duly noted by the manufacturers.
    Mr. T. Fraser: But is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the solid smokeless fuel which has been available hitherto in Glasgow and in the west of Scotland generally is the solid smokeless fuel provided by the Scottish Gas Board? It is one of the products of their coal-carbonising plant. Inasmuch as these plants are being replaced by plants which are fuelled by light oil distillates, is it not his responsibility, or that of his Ministry, to ensure that new solid smokeless fuel is available to people in that area?
    Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member has just referred to the main factor that gave rise to the publication of the Government's White Paper on solid smokeless fuels. It would be wholly wrong for the Government or for my Department to seek to oblige the gas industry to produce a solid fuel when it is becoming increasingly uneconomic for it to do so.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Power if he is aware that the Scottish Gas Board plans to replace coal carbonising plants in the west of Scotland by plants consuming light oil distillates; and what steps he is taking to ensure an adequate supply of solid smokeless fuel as the production of household coke diminishes.
    Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member will find the Answers to the second part of his Question in the recent White Paper, Command 2231.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no answer there which deals with this point; otherwise this Question would not have been put? Is he aware that many people who live compulsorily in these smokeless zones have fires burning this type of fuel and only this type of fuel, and is he telling us that it is nobody's responsibility when the supply of these fuels disappears and people are left to pay very high prices for a steadily contracting supply of, to them, an essential fuel and the only fuel that can be consumed in their
    528
    grates? Is he saying that there is no one with any responsibility at all in this matter?
    Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. I am saying, and I dealt with this in Answer to an earlier question, that it would be wrong for the Government to seek to use their powers to stop the gas industry from developing those processes which seem most economic and profitable.
    Mr. Lawson: I am asking whether there is anyone with any responsibility at all for the supply of essential fuels for people who are compulsorily put in the position which they are at present?
    Mr. Peyton: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the White Paper that deals with the whole of this very complicated problem. There is a wide range of choice of various smokeless fuels, solid and non-solid.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that he was wrong in telling my hon. Friend that the answer to the latter part of his question was contained in the White Paper? Is it not a fact that the White Paper poses the problem but declines to give any answer at all but leaves it to the consumers in those areas to choose, in the main, between the non-solid smokeless fuels—oil, gas and electricity—in place of the solid smokeless fuel for which they have purchased rather expensive appliances? Have not the Government some responsibility in this matter?
    Mr. Peyton: I do not think that I can usefully add to the Answer that I have already given.

    Prices
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Power if he will consult the National Coal Board regarding the desirability of a reduction in coal prices in Scotland.
    Mr. T. Fraserasked the Minister of Power if he has had consultations recently with the Chairman of the National Coal Board about the desirability of reducing certain coal prices in selected areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. J. Hillasked the Minister of Power if he is aware that traditional markets for coal are being lost to fuel oil in the east of Scotland adjacent to

    529
    and within the Midlothian coalfield in consequence of the selective coal price increases imposed in Scotland two years ago; and if he will discuss with the Chairman of the National Coal Board the need for selective price reductions at an early date.
    Miss Herbisonasked the Minister of Power if, in view of the greatly improved financial position of the coal industry in Scotland and in order to maintain the market for Great Britain's only indigenous fuel, what proposals have been put to him by the National Coal Board for a review of coal prices in Scotland.
    Mr. Erroll: I would refer hon. Members to my reply of 28th November to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). I know that the Board is alive to the importance of securing a proper relationship between its costs and its prices and of maintaining its competitive power and markets in Scotland and elsewhere.
    Mr. Bence: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his Parliamentary Secretary, because the high cost of smokeless fuel is due to the cost of coal, and the cost of coal in Scotland is greater than it is in England? Will he see that the cost of the raw product—coal—in the production of smokeless fuels is reduced in Scotland so that people there can buy smokeless solid fuel for the same price as in England?
    Mr. Erroll: I think that it would help the hon. Member if I reminded him that price changes are a matter for the National Coal Board to initiate.
    Mr. T. Fraser: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these selective coal price increases were announced in this House a little over two years ago by his predecessor? They were not announced by the Coal Board but by the Minister in order to placate some of his hon. Friends immediately prior to the discussion of the Coal Industry (Borrowing Powers) Bill on that day. Is he not further aware that there have been occasions when the coal industry in Scotland has failed to get contracts for heating or for certain appliances required by public authorities? Subject to the control of Ministers, about which
    530
    there was a discussion in this House only last week, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise there is now a strong case for removing some of these selective price increases? Will not the right hon. Gentleman consult the Chairman of the National Coal Board to this end?
    Mr. Erroll: There has been a great improvement in the fortunes of the Scottish coal industry in the last two years since selective prices came into operation, but the fact is that the Scottish coalfields are still not covering their full cost and it is still a question whether there should be a reduction in prices. This is a matter for the Coal Board to determine.
    Mr. J. Hill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these selective price increases IA ere made two years ago and that our Scottish industries have been affected, especially the paper trade? Will he not again consider consulting the Chairman of the National Coal Board? The coal industry in Scotland is losing contracts to England because it is possible to import coal from England more cheaply than it can be bought in Scotland, owing to these selective price increases. Surely there is something wrong with that situation?
    Mr. Erroll: We should remember that the coal industry receives a certain amount of protection from the oil industry and that there is a ban on coal imports. These two forms of protection help the industry, and within those protective limits it should find its own competitive level.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that everyone in Scotland is convinced that the Government played a very big part in the imposition of higher prices for coal in Scotland? Since that is so, will the Government now step in and consult the Chairman of the National Coal Board with a view to reducing the prices? Is the Minister also aware that coal is our only indigenous fuel and because of the increased prices the National Cal Board, which is doing an excellent job with the help of the miners who are at present employed in the industry, lost the contracts for providing central heating in two Scottish hospitals? Does not that worry the Government, in view of the fact that the unemployment figure is so high?
    Mr. Erroll: The question of the hospitals is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. On the more general issue, the House must remember that before the price increases in Scotland the English pits were subsidising the production of Scottish coal. I do not think that hon. Members on either side of the House who represent English constituencies would relish a return to that state of affairs.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the most profitable pits in British coalfields are situated within a stone's throw of Edinburgh and that the hospitals are not now to be fuelled by means of our indigenous fuel but by oil imported from the Middle East?
    Mr. Erroll: Certainly. This is part of the problem. The very profitable pits to which the hon. Gentleman referred have to subsidise those in Scotland which are still operating at a loss.

    Coal Distribution (Depots)
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Power, (1) in giving his approval to the National Coal Board's plans, involving major capital expenditure, for concentrating coal depots, what information he received on how distribution costs will be increased or reduced as a result of the change being made;
    (2) if he is aware of plans made by the National Coal Board to construct large centralised depots for coal distribution; and if he will issue a general direction to the National Coal Board forbidding the closure of local depots where this will result in increased coal prices to domestic consumers.
    Mr. Peyton: Discussions are proceeding locally between the National Coal Board, the coal trade and the railways with a view to securing maximum economy in the new distribution arrangements; but I understand that, in many cases, the National Coal Board will look to private enterprise to construct central depots. The extent to which the Board will itself be called upon to undertake major capital expenditure is not yet known.
    Mr. Manuel: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what radius these new
    532
    depôts are intended to cover? Is he aware that retailers on the perimeter of any of these new areas will have very much increased transport costs compared with the retailers at the centre or near the new coal depôts? Would he examine the position with a view to protecting domestic consumers of coal where prices would be put up because of added transport costs on the retailer taking coal from the new depôts as against the local depôts? Can he give an assurance that if this means an increase in the cost to the domestic consumer the local coal depôts will be retained until some other method is arrived at which will give parity of price in these areas?
    Mr. Peyton: I would not like to give that assurance. The question of the closure of depôts is a matter for the railways, to whom they normally belong. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the whole purpose of this operation is to cut down the costs of coal distribution, and that this is plainly in the interests of the coal industry and of the railways.

    Approved Coal Merchants' Scheme
    Mr. Hannanasked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied with the progress made by the Approved Coal Merchants' Scheme towards improving their standard of service to domestic consumers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peyton: The progress of this scheme is a matter for the trade and the National Coal Board, but I have noted with satisfaction that members of the scheme are now responsible for the distribution of some 86 per cent. of the house coal supplies in the country.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the price of coal to the consumer increases in ratio to the lower income groups? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this was first spoken about by his predecessor as far back as 1960 and the scheme was introduced in 1962? Can we be told how many retail coal merchants there are in the country and how many of them are in this scheme?
    Mr. Peyton: I understand that 86 per cent. of the house coal delivered in this country is handled by members of the scheme. I should add that the

    533
    National Coal Board is considering with the trade what can be done with the other 14 per cent.

    Prices and Grades
    Mr. Hannanasked the Minister of Power what references he has made to the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council concerning prices being charged in excess of that appropriate to the coal group; and what reports the Council has made to him on the steps being taken to establish a complaints procedure through which the domestic consumer can seek redress.
    Mr. Peyton: Merchants are free to fix their own retail prices, but I have no evidence that the prices being charged are excessive. The Domestic Coal Consumers' Council referred to the procedure for complaints about defective deliveries in its Annual Report for the year ended 30th June, 1963.
    Mr. Hannan: Surely the Minister cannot deny that the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council referred to him malpractices taking place in the sale of coal and the variation of prices compared with grades? What steps has the Minister taken, or does he intend to take, to make public what the ordinary consumer can do to ventilate grievances and seek redress against these malpractices?
    Mr. Peyton: A leaflet describing the complaints procedure was given very wide circulation to merchants, local authorities, women's organisations and all Members of both Houses of Parliament. I have no reason to believe that the procedures are not well enough known to members of the public, who always have a choice of complaining to their own merchant, the original supplier of the fuel, or the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Nuclear Power Programme
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Power if, in relation to his responsibilities for taking decisions on the nuclear power programme, he will seek information from the Government of the United States of America about the capital costs
    534
    of nuclear power plant now being built in the United States of America.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Power what evaluation has been made of the United States General Electric boiling water reactor for future atomic power stations in this country; and whether he intends to sanction its use by the Central Electricity Generating Board as a substitute for advanced gas-cooled reactors.
    Mr. Erroll: The Committee examining the future of the nuclear power programme will have taken into account any type of nuclear reactor which might prove economic in this country, and the Government will reach their decisions in the light of the Committee's advice on this and other relevant matters.
    Mr. Albu: In view of the very considerable delay in the Committee making its report, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be advisable for as much public information as possible to be provided about the claims being made by the General Electric Co. of America for its boiling water reactor, which it claims to be able to build for a capital cost of under £40 per kilowatt? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that Parliament and the whole country should have as much information as possible about the relative advantages of different types of reactor?
    Mr. Erroll: I agree with the hon. Member. I thought that his Question was possibly tabled in the light of the publicity given to the offer of the General Electric Co. of America. I can assure him that the Atomic Energy Authority and the Government have in their possession all the information which they need regarding this and other developments in the United States.
    Mr. Albu: Can we have the information as well, at some time?
    Mr. Erroll: I will consider that.

    Power Station (Swansea Area)
    Mr. McBrideasked the Minister of Power what proposals he has now received from the Central Electricity Generating Board for the siting of a major power station in the Swansea area, in view of the fact that plans for such a station were prepared in March 1963.
    Mr. Erroll: None, Sir.
    Mr. McBride: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present Tir John Power Station is no longer fully operational for 24 hours a day and that a new base load station would be an asset in this area? Is he also aware that this matter was discussed by the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board in March 1963? What was the outcome of that discussion? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware of the fact that on the proposed site the natural rock foundation has been ascertained? Lastly, would not a decision on this matter be a great help to industrial development in the next two years, since that is the time normally taken between the inception and construction of a major power station and the time when it becomes fully operational? Would this not be an excellent part of the regional development plans of his right hon. Friends?
    Mr. Erroll: The most important thing is that the Central Electricity Generating Board should be free to decide on the programme of its future stations and on the time of construction of each station. It is therefore proper for me to wait until the Board applies to me for consent to build a station. As for the power needs of South Wales, the Board has already announced plans for a speeding up of the completion of the Aberthaw "B" Station near Cardiff, and when it is fully operational, by 1968, it will use no fewer than three of the new 500 megawatt sets.
    Mr. McBride: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

    Electricity and Gas Meters (Stolen Cash)
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Minister of Power if he will give general directions in the public interest to the Electricity Council and the Gas Council not to demand repayment by householders of cash stolen from their electricity and gas meters unless satisfied that the money was stolen by the householders themselves.
    Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. This is a matter which is best left to the discretion of the area boards.
    Lieut-Colonel Cordeaux: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the householder concerned has no say at all about the theft-resisting qualities of the meter and has no control over the frequency of the clearances of the money which is in the meter? Under those circumstances, would he not agree that it is monstrous that any householder, rich or poor, should be required to make good this loss?
    Mr. Peyton: My hon. and gallant Friend will bear in mind that the boards are entitled to do what they can to ensure the security of money belonging to them. I ought also to remind my hon. and gallant Friend that, if the boards are to carry the losses, those losses must ultimately be passed on to the consumer.
    Sir B. Stross: Is not it a strange doctrine which the Parliamentary Secretary is offering to us? Surely if the householder has put his money in the meter he has given it to the Board, and once the money is in the meter, legally it does not belong to the householder but to the board? If the money is stolen, is not it the board's loss and not the householder's, who is now supposed to pay twice? That is a monstrous suggestion.
    Mr. Peyton: It depends on the terms of the contract. Most boards expressly stipulate in their conditions of supply that, although money belongs to the board after being put into a meter, nevertheless the householder is to be responsible for its custody.
    Mr. Carmichael: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that both the Question and Answer are misleading? Is he aware that there have been such cases before the courts in Scotland, for instance at Paisley sheriff court, and it has been established that if the householder can prove that he is in no way responsible for the meter having been broken into, the board is responsible for the cash? Is he aware that that is on record?
    Mr. Peyton: I am not responsible for the decisions of the courts, and I cannot answer for them in this House. The clear point I am making is that this is a matter which is better left to the discretion of the area boards, who make

    537
    every attempt to deal with the question sympathetically, particularly in cases of hardship.
    Mr. Holt: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what freedom a householder has in deciding what are the terms of the contract to which the hon. Gentleman referred?
    Mr. Peyton: That is not a matter for me. The terms of contracts are matters between the supplier and the consumer.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Iron and Steel Industry
    Mr. O'Malleyasked the Minister of Power what information he has regarding the relative rate of increase in productivity of the iron and steel industry in the United Kingdom compared with the European Coal and Steel Community.
    Mr. Erroll: I am advised that the output of crude steel per man-hour increased at an average rate of 2·8 per cent. a year in the United Kingdom and of 4·2 per cent. a year in the European Coal and Steel Community between 1957 and the second quarter of 1963. Productivity in the United Kingdom in the fourth quarter of 1963 was much higher than the average for the year as a whole and output per man-hour in that quarter was 28·5 per cent. higher than in 1957, equivalent to a rate of growth of about 4·3 per cent. a year; the corresponding figure for the Community is not available.
    Mr. O'Malley: Is not it a fact that the progress of the United Kingdom steel industry over the last decade in terms of production and productivity has lagged badly behind all the members of E.C.S.C.? Would not the Minister agree that the reason is the restrictive general and economic policies of the Government, the inadequacy of the steel firms in respect of research and technical innovations, and the low number of qualified scientists and engineers employed?
    Mr. Erroll: I rather expected that the hon. Gentleman would draw the wrong
    538
    deduction from the figures which I have given. The fact is that productivity expressed as a percentage is very much dependent on the degree of utilisation of capacity in the industry at any given time. A decline in demand appears to lower the rate of productivity, because men are not discharged as they might be in other industries. When there is an increase in demand, a considerably higher output is achieved by the same number of men, and so it is thoroughly misleading to make the sort of comparison which the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. O'Malley: But is not it a fact that other steel industries in E.C.S.C. have been working to a greater degree and capacity in recent years than the United Kingdom steel industry, and that one of the reasons for the low growth of productivity in this country is because we have been working at under capacity as a result of Government policies?
    Mr. Erroll: I have often heard it put by hon. Members opposite that there should always be a good reserve margin of capacity in the iron and steel industry of this country and, because of its existence, we have been able to improve output when more steel is required.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the industry were free from the threat of nationalisation it would be a good thing?
    Mr. Erroll: I am glad to endorse what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. J. Robertsonasked the Minister of Power (1) what is the estimated capacity of strip steel production in Scotland; and what is the extent of the current demand for this commodity in Scotland;
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Power what plans he has for the future of the strip and sheet steel industry in Scotland, as a contribution to development and growth in the areas to which special reference is made in the White Paper on Central Scotland.
    Mr. Erroll: Capacity for strip mill products is about 675,000 tons a year. Current demand for sheet in Scotland is between 175,000 and 200,000 tons. There is also some demand for light plate. Existing facilities are capable of

    539
    considerable expansion, but no new capacity is planned at the moment.
    Mr. Robertson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a most unsatisfactory position, and would he have a word with his right hon. Friend to see if it is possible to have another car factory transferred to Scotland, or some other industry which would use strip steel?
    Mr. Erroll: There is no satisfying some hon. Members opposite. They complained bitterly when there was no strip mill in Scotland, and now that one of an economically efficient size has been installed they are complaining that it is there but it is not fully utilised. If it were fully utilised we could not attract to Scotland more industrial capacity to use the products of this mill. We have always said that it would take time for the consumption of this strip mill to be built up in Scotland. In the meantime, it is open to Colvilles to send their strip to England or to compete in overseas markets.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so long as he continues to rely, as he and his right hon. Friend have relied, upon private enterprise dealing with this difficulty, we shall continue to have this problem? Is he not aware that the strip mill was put there through Government intervention and that it has become necessary to take much more radical steps than are dreamed of at present in order that this strip mill can be fully utilised? This strip mill can be the making of Scotland industrially in the modern age, and will he not see that it is utilised?
    Mr. Erroll: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the establishment of this strip mill in Scotland, and that we have taken the right decision. As to the establishing of firms in Scotland to use this strip, this is a matter of industrial location, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. J. Robertsonasked the Minister of Power at what level of its estimated productive capacity the steel industry of Scotland has been operating in the past year.
    Mr. Erroll: About 65 per cent. of capacity. In the final quarter the rate was about 76 per cent.
    Mr. Robertson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is quite the worst performance in the whole of the United Kingdom? Would he see whether this situation arises through lack of shipbuilding orders on the Clyde, and, if so, will he again approach his rgiht hon. Friend to see if something can be done to steer shipping orders to the Clyde so that the steel works can come nearer to using its capacity?
    Mr. Erroll: A number of important steps have been taken during the last year to assist in the growth of Scottish industry, particularly that part using steel. I am very glad to see that these measures have been so effective that in the past quarter the rate of use was up to 76 per cent. capacity.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that two English motor car companies have established factories in Scotland and that there is a considerable demand from these companies for ancillaries, which now have to be brought all the way from the Midlands, and that if Scotsmen would show more enterprise in setting up more factories, they could use their own steel production?

    North Sea (Oil Prospecting Rights)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Power under what system he proposes to allocate rights of exploitation to oil companies prospecting in the North Sea.
    Mr. Erroll: I have this important matter in hand, but am not yet ready to make a statement.
    Mr. Dalyell: Shall we know before the end of the Committee stage of the Bill?
    Mr. Erroll: That might depend on how long the Committee stage takes. In more practical terms, whatever system is decided on will be put into regulations under the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934. These will be laid before Parliament. I think that it would be wrong to table regulations while the Continental Shelf Bill is still going through its Committee stage.

    Gas and Electricity Meters
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Power whether he will, in the public interest, give general directions to gas and electricity boards that, when making connections to new houses and flats, gas and electricity meters should be put outside each dwelling to make for easier reading by officials from the boards.
    Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. This is a matter for the gas and electricity boards and the owners of the property.
    Sir B. Janner: Has the Minister read the Report of the London Electricity Consultative Council? Is he aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction in respect of the accounts as submitted now and that this would be a way of dealing with the position so that the consumer would know what he owed as well as the board making the charge? Does not he think that this should be considered?
    Mr. Peyton: I understand that the London proposals are being considered by the Electricity Council. I understand that both the Electricity Council and the Gas Council would welcome such arrangements if they were possible, always subject to the needs of security and economy in cost.

    Privately Operated Meters (Electricity Prices)
    Mr. Barnettasked the Minister of Power when he expects to complete his inquiries on the question of the control of the price at which electricity supplied by area electricity boards is resold through privately operated meters.
    Mr. Peyton: My right hon. Friend has received a letter from the Electricity Council explaining why area boards have not so far used their powers under Section 29 of the Electricity Act, 1957. I am arranging for it to be included in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Barnett: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is a very strong case for this provision in the Electricity Act, 1957, to be implemented? Is he not aware that I brought this matter to his attention a year ago, with considerable support from other hon. Members, because there are occasions when the
    542
    much as 100 per cent. or even 200 per cent. on the original price? Does he not believe that there is a very strong case for resale price maintenance in electricity?
    Mr. Peyton: I am very well aware of the interest that the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members have taken in this matter. I accept that it is a very serious and difficult problem and that there are abuses. I hope that he will read the letter to which I referred from the Chairman of the Electricity Council. The Council would be most willing to produce a system which would cope with these abuses, but it would be equally anxious in curing present ills not to produce even greater anomalies.
    Following is the letter:
    THE ELECTRICITY COUNCIL
    30, Millbank, London, S.W.1
    5th February, 1964.
    CHAIRMAN'S OFFICE
    The Rt. Hon. Frederick Erroll, M.P.,
    Minister of Power,
    Thames House South,
    Millbank,
    London, S.W.1.
    Dear Minister,
    Maximum Charges for reselling Electricity Supplied by Electricity Boards
    In response to your request, I set out below the main reasons why the Area Boards have not so far used their powers under Section 29 of the Electricity Act, 1957, to fix maximum charges at which consumers of electricity may resell the electricity to their tenants.
    The main difficulties in fixing maximum resale prices in the Electricity Supply Industry are:

    (a) Most landlords will be purchasing electricity on tariffs which have either a fixed quarterly charge or a primary block of units at a relatively high price followed in each case by a low unit or running charge: this means that they may be paying widely differing average prices per unit depending on whether their consumption is small or large. To quote typical figures the average price which a landlord is paying may well vary from about 6d. per unit to a figure as low as 2d. per unit or even less. It is therefore extremely difficult to fix general maximum resale prices which will adequately safeguard the tenants and at the same time avoid injustice to many landlords.

    (b) Any attempt to relate the maximum resale price to the average price which the landlord himself pays, runs into difficulties because a high proportion of electricity resold to tenants is controlled by prepayment meters owned by the landlords, and these meters have to be calibrated at a predetermined price per unit. If maximum resale prices were based on the average price paid by the landlords (which would be variable this would inevitably involve

    543
    landlords in giving rebates or collecting supplementary charges to correct for the price collected by the meter. Such an arrangement would be difficult to work bearing in mind the many thousands of short tenancies where the occupants would have left the premises before the landlord was able to take the appropriate action. Frequent recalibration of prepayment meters is also impracticable.

    (c) If Boards were to fix maximum resale prices the Courts would doubtless require evidence of the accuracy of meters on which complaints were based. Meters owned by the Electricity Boards have, by law, to be certified but there is no such provision governing meters belonging to landlords—many of these meters are of older patterns which would not be capable of certification. The provision of modern meters in all cases would be a considerable task, the cost of which would presumably fall on the landlords in the first place.

    The Council and Area Boards recognise that there are opportunities for abuse and they have examined a number of possible solutions, none of which seems wholly satisfactory. They are willing in principle to take action if a satisfactory solution can be found, and it would help them to gauge the size of the problem if cases of apparent abuse could be brought to their attention or that of the Consultative Councils.
    The Area Boards and Consultative Councils will continue the practice of giving advice to tenants and landlords who refer the matter to them.
    Yours sincerely,
    (Sgd.) RONALD EDWARDS.

    Public Institutions (Indigenous Fuels)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power if it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage public authorities to use indigenous fuel in preference to imported fuel unless there are substantial economies to be gained by using the latter.
    Mr. J. Hillasked the Minister of Power if he will introduce legislation to ensure that he will be consulted in future when Government institutions, with a view to installing new heating systems, are considering competitive offers for the supply of fuel from oil companies and the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Erroll: It remains Government policy that the coal industry, which at present receives some protection, should have full opportunities of competing for such business. I do not contemplate legislation for consultation with me on individual cases.
    Mr. Hamilton: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report of the Adjourn
    544
    ment debate on the question of the heating of two hospitals in Edinburgh, in which it was stated that the Coal Board gave guarantees of price stability over a number of years dating from now? The contract was nevertheless giver to the oil companies. There was substantial evidence of price rigging and none of the oil companies made a point of stating that it would guarantee a price when the oil was delivered in 1966–67, nor in any subsequent year. In view of these figures and the fact that this means loss of employment for 135 Scottish miners, will he not consult the Secretary of State for Scotland to get a little sense into allocating these contracts?
    Mr. Erroll: The matter, as the hon. Member suggested, was fully ventilated in the Adjournment debate. I do not think it would be useful to go through the whole of that debate now. This is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland with whom, naturally, I am always in touch.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is it not true that the Secretary of State would not consult the right hon. Gentleman and he made no attempt to consult the Secretary of State? He admitted that.
    Mr. Erroll: There are a lot of things the hon. Member does not know about.

    Coal and Oil Industries, Scotland
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power what was the revenue from coal produced and oil refined, respectively, in Scotland in the latest complete year; what was the average number of workers employed in each of these industries; and what was the cost of importing crude oil.
    Mr. Erroll: In 1962 N.C.B. colliery proceeds in Scotland were £88 million; the number of workers on colliery books averaged 64,000. The value of the output of Scottish refineries in 1962 is estimated at about £37 million and the value of the crude oil imports at about £28 million. The number of employees at the oil refineries was about 2,000.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman understand—or has he attempted to understand—why the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland went out of his way in the Adjournment

    545
    debate last Wednesday to compliment the oil industry on its contribution to the Scottish economy but made no reference whatever to the coal industry's contribution? Is there not evidence that the coal industry has made and will make a much greater contribution to the Scottish economy than the oil industry is likely to make?
    Mr. Erroll: I think both industries are making important contributions. As I said earlier, I am pleased to see the improvement in the finances of the Scottish coal industry over the past two years. I should have thought the hon. Member would have welcomed the presence of oil refineries in Scotland, not only because of their direct output, but because their existence contributes to other industries in the neighbourhood. If he does not want more refineries there, I am sure that the north-east of England would be glad to have them.

  SCIENTIFIC MANPOWER
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister, in view of the impending departure of Professor Bush and his colleagues for the United States of America, if he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the whole problem of training, recruitment, and retention of scientific manpower for service in this country.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I have been asked to reply.
  No, Sir.
  Mr. Dalyell: That reply was inaudible.
  Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir.
  Mr. Dalyell: If a Royal Commission is unacceptable, what proposals do the Government have to alleviate the short-term, more simple—I repeat more simple—problems of secretarial assistance, laboratory assistance and the more prompt purchase of equipment?
  Mr. Lloyd: I would not like the hon. Member to think that because my Answer was rather short I do not think this a real problem but I think it is one which should be kept in proper perspective. It does not affect only this country. In 1961, of those who went to the United States about 15 per cent. came from this country, 25 per cent. resale of electricity is being charged at as
  546
  from Canada, and 25 per cent. from countries of Western Europe; so it is not a problem which concerns this country alone. The plain fact is that, so long as the United States has a gross national product eight times as great as ours, it will be natural for people to want to go there. That is one of the facts of the situation. The reason I said no to the suggestion of a Royal Commission was that the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, a body under the chairmanship of Lord Todd, which is a very distinguished body, made certain recommendations about this matter last May. The important thing is to get on with the task of implementing those recommendations.
  Mr. Grimond: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that there will be considerable agreement with his Answer, because this matter has been examined by innumerable committees—going back to the Barlow Commission of 1946—but that makes it all the more necessary that the Government, whatever the difficulty of speed, should give some lead over scientific manpower, its use and prospects? Will he bear in mind that, apart from the lack of funds for major projects during the period of stringency in universities, many eminent men have been forced to waste hours and days arguing about small administrative details and that it is partly these pinpricks which have driven them to go to America?
  Mr. Lloyd: Of course, these are matters for debate, and in answer to another Question I may have something to say about that, but I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important for action to be taken. In fact, in the last 12 years Government expenditure on scientific research and development has gone up from £30 million to £172 million and for research councils in the period 1952–3 to this next year it will have risen from about £10 million to £50 million. The recent increase of £20 million announced by my right hon. Friend was designed as to a substantial part to meet the recommendations of the Robbins Committee's Report and the Advisory Council. To give a direct answer to part of the right hon. Member's Question, although it may seem a small point to him, last July a

  547
  decision was announced to give more than £200 per annum in respect of each research award. That would mean £800,000 additional revenue accruing this year to meet the point he has mentioned.
  Mr. Longden: Is it not just as well—or is it?—that hon. Members of this House are not so fastidious about their facilities for research and conditions of work generally as these professors, or we should have to close down in London, England, and reopen in London, Arkansas?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think that perhaps my hon. Friend has suggested an appropriate sense of balance. I am not certain, however, that geographically it was an appropriate sense of balance.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that one of the big factors affecting university research workers and others was his own dismal record at the Treasury and the cuts in the University Grants Committee? Even in the euphoria of a pre-election period, will he cast a thought back occasionally to his own record on this? Is he not aware of figures which have been published only this morning, showing by categories the numbers of eminent scientists and, much more important in terms of numbers, engineers and technologists who are leaving the country? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we simply cannot afford a brain drain of one-eighth of our current output of Ph.D.s every year to another country?
  Mr. Lloyd: I have certainly said that I think that this is a real problem. I suspect that, even if this country were ever to suffer the almost calamitous misfortune of the right hon. Gentleman being Prime Minister, he would find the problem a very real one for him also. He referred to what he described as my dismal record. I have looked up the figures. In the two years the money spent on the universities' current and capital account rose from £88 million to £122 million.
  Mr. Wilson: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that on 5th April, 1962, when I think he was still Chancellor, his Government
  548
  voted down the proposals of the U.G.C. for the very cautious and limited programme the Committee was then embarking on, which we now know from the Robbins Report is totally inadequate for the higher education needs of the country?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that the test is some debating point. The question is how much money has actually been spent.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would my right hon. and learned friend agree that Professor Bush has had two activities—one under the Medical Research Council and the other as head of a faculty in Birmingham University? Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Professor Bush himself has said that he has no complaints over what the Medical Research Council has done? Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what will now happen to the department in Birmingham University for which Professor Bush was responsible, or has he left it in the lurch?
  Mr. Lloyd: As to the figures, it is quite true that Professor Bush's research work was supported by the Medical Research Council. All his requests to the Council were met. In 1958 the sum of £3,000 was provided for him. In 1963–64 the figure was £38,000. There has never been any refusal to him, as I think he has frankly stated, of funds for his research work. With regard to his work as professor of physiology, all I can say is that the recurrent grant for Birmingham University rose from £2·2 million in 1960 to £3·3 million in 1963–64. That is designed in part to cover the kind of point which my hon. Friend put forward. I think had better not comment on the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

  ROYAL COMMISSIONS
  Mr. R. Gresham Cookeasked the Prime Minister, in view of the needs of many sections of the community whose problems may merit examination by a Royal Commission, by what criteria he decides whether to advise the appointment of a Royal Commission.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have been asked to reply.

  549
  My right hon. Friend decides these questions on their merits.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: If conditions for setting up a Royal Commission to inquire into one section of the community must be conditions in America, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that for many years salaries and wages in America have been double those in this country? We in this overcrowded island have never been averse to fertilising America with brains of all kinds which have emigrated there. If we are to judge by American conditions, there might be a case for the whole country emigrating, including Members of Parliament. Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is nothing new in what is going on at the moment?
  Mr. Lloyd: In view of all this talk about the emoluments which may be available in another country. I think that their purchasing power should also be considered.

  EDUCATION

    Engineering
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Education if he is satisfied that present and projected arrangements are adequate to meet the steadily increasing demand for professional engineers; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): Between 1959 and 1962, the number of full-time and sandwich students taking advanced courses in the further education institutions for which my right hon. Friend is responsible rose from 24,000 to 38,000, and he has announced an increase in the building programme for further education from £16 million in 1964–65 to £24 million in 1965–66. He is doing all he can to make known these enlarged opportunities to suitably qualified candidates. The supply of professional engineers will also of course benefit from the Government's plan for expanding the universities.
    Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he not agree that in the years ahead there is likely to be a considerable shortage of professional engineers? Would he consider as a
    550
    possible solution the establishment of an official register of such engineers on lines similar to those for the legal profession and the medical profession?
    Mr. Chataway: That is a question for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council.
    Mr. Albu: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that any such register would be a disaster for the profession?

    Teachers
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Education how many teachers over 65 years of age are still teaching.
    Mr. Chataway: In March 1962, the latest date for which firm figures are at present available, there were 1,108 teachers over the age of 65 in maintained primary and secondary schools, 67 in grant-aided further education establishments, and 21 in teacher training colleges.
    Mr. Boyden: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a pitifully small figure and reflects the failure of the Minister's campaign to retain the older teachers? Would he ask his right hon. Friend to have another look at the Knox Report on the supply of teachers in Scotland, which contained a very strong recommendation that there should be a much greater financial inducement for superannuated teachers?
    Mr. Chataway: I am aware of that Report and of the recommendations that are made from time to time on the question of superannuation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend is aware of these problems and is considering how best to increase this number.
    Dr. King: Is it not a simple fact that a number of older teachers who have retired now come back part-time because they have no financial inducement to do anything else but part-time teaching? If they had their pension as of right and could earn, they could do the country a very good service at this time.
    Mr. Chataway: I do not contest that this may be the case in some instances, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that there are difficulties about making a concession to teachers in this

    551
    matter of the retirement pension in isolation.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Education what plans he has for increasing the number of men teachers in junior schools.
    Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend's plans for the expansion of the training colleges during the present decade, with their continued emphasis on meeting the staffing needs of the primary schools, will produce a steadily increasing output of men teachers for the junior schools. His National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers is at present studying whether it would be desirable and practicable to train proportionately more men than at present.
    Mr. Boyden: Does not the Robbins Report and its acceptance by the Government alter the hesitation of the Advisory Council about recruiting and maintaining more places in training colleges for men? Is not this one of the best ways to secure a higher teacher force in view of the wastage of young women?
    Mr. Chataway: The problem is much more complex than that. The fact of the matter is that the teaching profession is at the moment undergoing something of a change of sex and the proportion of male teachers is rising very rapidly. The Council is therefore bound to consider what is the maximum proportion of male teachers that is desirable in the profession.

    Partially Deaf Children
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Education if, in view of the growing trend for children with hearing defects to be educated in ordinary schools, he will take steps to ensure that the curricula of teachers' training colleges include a short course of lectures on the special problems involved in teaching partially deaf children.
    Mr. Chataway: It is the general practice in training colleges for students to be made aware of the needs of handicapped pupils and to visit a variety of schools, including special schools, during their initial training. My right hon. Friend agrees that it is important for teachers to know of these needs, but he
    552
    does not think that lectures on a particular handicap should be made a compulsory part of training.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people think that this trend is a desirable one, but only on the condition that there are sufficient teachers who are aware of the particular difficulties of teaching children who are partially deaf? Will he look very carefully into this and perhaps consider at a later stage whether a short course of lectures might not be desirable?
    Mr. Chataway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the suggestion. Already some local education authorities employ peripatetic teachers of the deaf, whose duties include advice to teachers in service. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that those teachers who have partially deaf children in their schools should be aware of the problems, particularly of the need to seek specialist advice when that is necessary.

CYPRUS
Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether, in view of the widespread disturbances which occurred in Cyprus this morning, he will make a statement on the present position of British nationals on the island.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): For some time the Commander-in-Chief in Cyprus has had authority to arrange for the evacuation of Service dependants and other British nationals who are living outside the sovereign base areas.
Plans have been made for this purpose and the necessary air transport is held in readiness.
In view of the renewed outbreak of inter-communal violence the Commander-in-Chief was reminded this morning that he has full discretion to proceed with the evacuation of British civilians should he consider that their safety requires it.
Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that about 5,000 or 6,000 British women and children are living in Limassol and

553
neighbouring Greek and Turkish villages? Would it not be wise, in these circumstances, to arrange forthwith to concentrate them as far as possible in the Royal Air Force base and to evacuate without further delay those who cannot be so taken into the base?
Mr. Sandys: As I said in my reply, the Commander-in-Chief has full authority to do that and I think that, in the circumstances, it is better to leave this matter to his discretion. When I was out there, not long ago, I discussed the whole matter with him and I can assure the House that he is every bit as mindful as all of us for the safety of the Service families and other British nationals in Cyprus. I am sure that he will not delay beyond the time that he considers necessary.
On the other hand, it must be realised that to take these families away—to separate wives from husbands, and so on—and either to crowd them up in the base areas or to send them home, possibly with no particular arrangements for receiving them, is not something that should be done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] They do not have homes to go to. I do not mean that they would be out in the street; just that great inconvenience would be caused to the families. One wants to leave it to the Commander-in-Chief to exercise his judgment in this matter.
Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House will not want, at this very critical moment in the negotiations, to have anything said that might make it more difficult to get the peace-keeping force and everything else required to settle the Cyprus problem? Equally, all of us will want to join in expressing our deep concern not only for our forces there, but also for the civilians to whom he has referred.
Having said that, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would explain the rather extraordinary character of his original statement, when he said that this morning the Commander-in-Chief had been reminded of something or other? Did the right hon. Gentleman not think before this morning that the Commander-in-Chief was aware—was mindful, to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase—of
554
his powers in this matter and of the discretion that he should exercise? Was this reminder designed to press him into doing it, or was it based on the assumption that he did not know what his powers were? Why did the right hon. Gentleman use that odd phrase?
Mr. Sandys: I thought that, in view of the change in the situation which has taken place in the last 24 hours, it would not be a bad thing—perhaps unnecessary; but I did not think that I could be reproached for it—to get in touch again with the Commander-in-Chief, not only to remind him that he had the authority but also—it is no good the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) scowling at me. I am trying to explain this to the House.
Naturally, there are other considerations which the Commander-in-Chief has no doubt taken into account in recent weeks—the effect upon morale in Cyprus, the possibility of creating panic if we started prematurely to evacuate civilians.
Since Americans have already been evacuated recently, and in view of the deterioration in the situation, I thought it right to remind the Commander-in-Chief once again that he had the fullest discretion to do what he thought best in the interests of the safety of our Service families and civilians. I do not think that I should be reproached for doing that.
Mr. Grimond: As the Secretary of State has spoken of the deterioration in the situation, has he any late information to give to the House about the situation in Cyprus? Can he tell us how far, if at all, British troops have been involved in the latest troubles?
Mr. Sandys: They are involved all the time in all these troubles and that is why we are so anxious—although I do not wart to go into this today—to secure as quickly as possible the establishment of a larger and more broadly based peace keeping force.
Mr. Driberg: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement on the broader aspects which we have twice been promised he would make later this week? Do not these latest deplorable incidents underline the

555
urgent need of getting a solution which is acceptable to the Government of Cyprus and which will ease the task of the British troops?
Mr. Sandys: I will make a statement as soon as I can. I know that the House wants information, but these negotiations are still in a very fluid and difficult state. Of course, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the most awkward problems is to find a solution, a formula, for the international force which is acceptable to all the parties concerned, including the two communities in Cyprus.
Mr. G. Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that his statement, in which he thought it important not only to remind the Commander-in-Chief but to announce to the whole world that he had had to remind a Commander-in-Chief of his powers, cannot make the Commander-in-Chief's position very much more easy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If Ministers make statements they must be prepared to be questioned about them. We are bound, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had formed the opinion that the Commander-in-Chief had forgotten. If he had not, why did the right hon. Gentleman do it? And what is it we are now expecting the Commander-in-Chief to do? Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that his remark was a most odd one to make about a Commander-in-Chief who is faced with a very difficult situation? Are we not entitled to ask why that extraordinary remark was made?
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We must move on to other things. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) wanted to rise on a point of order. This may be a convenient moment for him to do so.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tried to put a Question on the Order Paper. I am not certain whether it would be proper for me to read the terms of my proposed Question.
Mr. Speaker: No. That would be out of order.
Mr. Shinwell: In your discretion, Mr. Speaker, you refused to allow it to appear on the Order Paper. I shall not give the terms of the Question, although it related to a reference by the Prime Minister, when he was in Ottawa, to the General Election and a possible date. You, in your discretion, refused to allow the Question to be asked. I understand that the reasons are that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that some communication must have gone astray. The Officers of the House, in their discretion, which they have, did not think that the Question was in order and wrote to the right hon. Gentleman asking if he wished the matter to be referred to me. To that, no reply has been received. If the right hon. Gentleman so desires, I will treat this as his notification to me and I will consider the matter.
Mr. Shinwell: There has obviously been some misunderstanding, as no one has written to me on the subject, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I take it that the communication that I understand was written to the right hon. Gentleman has not reached him, but may I treat this as though the communication were deemed to have reached him, that he were deemed to have received it, and to have expressed a wish that the matter should be referred to me, and I will consider it?
Mr. Shinwell: May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? When shall I be permitted to raise the matter with you on a point of order?
Mr. Speaker: I have not considered it yet, but suppose I were to think that the question were permissible no doubt the need would disappear. If I took the opposite view, any time the right hon. Gentleman finds convenient, and is convenient to the House.
Mr. Wigg: But, surely, the date of the General Election, and the question whether it should be announced in this House or in Canada, is not a private matter between you, Mr. Speaker, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)?
Mr. Speaker: On no conceivable basis could it arise as a point of order now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 17TH FEBRUARY—Supply [6th Allotted Day]: Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates which, if the House agrees, will be taken formally to allow debate on an Opposition Motion on Government Expenditure in the Field of Aviation.
TUESDAY, 18TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Hire Purchase (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY, 19TH FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Succession (Scotland) Bill, and of the Rating (Interim Relief) Bill.
THURSDAY, 20TH FEBRUARY—SecondReading of the Emergency Powers Bill.
Remaining stages of the War Damage Bill.
FRIDAY, 21ST FEBRUARY—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 24TH FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be: Supply [7th Allotted Day]: Committee stage of the Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments Vote on Account, 1964–65, when, at the request of the Opposition, there will be a debate on the Provision for the Ministry for Science.
It may be convenient for the House to know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget on Tuesday, 14th April.
Mr. Brockway: As the Leader of the House is not able to give facilities for my Bill against racial discrimination and incitement, will he, as a little compensation, allow time for discussion of a Motion on the Order Paper, signed by 56 hon. Members, on the subject of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland?
558
[That this House asks Her Majesty's Government to advise the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the allegations of religious discrimination in the composition of public authorities and corporations and their practices, and in housing, employment and other spheres in Northern Ireland and to recommend appropriate action.]
Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will be very surprised if I say that I cannot hold out very much hope for that.
Mr. Stratton Mills: Following on the request made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), if my right hon. and learned Friend thought fit to have a debate on that subject, would he particularly bear in mind that Ulster Members of the House would welcome the opportunity of refuting these wild and inaccurate statements?
Mr. Lloyd: However that may be, I can give no promise of Government time.
Mr. Jay: As it is now three weeks since the right hon. and learned Gentleman promised us a Bill dealing with resale price maintenance within four weeks, can he say whether that Bill will be published next week?
Mr. Lloyd: I see no reason to alter my original suggestion to the House.
Mr. Wade: Will the Leader of the House say whether the promised White Paper on monopolies will be published before the Bill, at the same time, or after it?
Mr. Lloyd: I have nothing to add to what I have said on the matter.
Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had his attention drawn to the strong dissatisfaction felt on this side of the House with the remarks of the Economic Secretary in the debate on the International Development Association Bill last Tuesday? Will he note that a number of hon. Members on this side are very anxious for a wider debate on technical assistance and development aid to the underdeveloped countries?
Mr. Lloyd: There have been considerable opportunities, but I have also taken note of what the hon. Member has said.
Sir B. Janner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his decision about facilities for the introduction of the racial discrimination and incitement Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), particularly as there has been a difference of opinion in two courts as to whether the words "Hitler was right", with their horrible implications, used by street vendors selling a publication similar to Die Stürmer were actionable? Will he do something to enable the House to consider the question of altering the law so that that type of thing cannot be countenanced by any court?
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is really trying to involve me in a discussion of policy matters and matters of construction. I am dealing with the business of the House. In that respect, I am in the hands of the House, but we are facing a period now when, until Easter, certainly, Parliamentary time will be dominated by the needs of the business of Supply.
Mr. C. Pannell: Will the Leader of the House consider a full day's debate on the activities of the Ministry of Public Building and Works? Will he bear in mind that some hon. Members are interested in the threat, or promise—whichever way one looks at it—to pull down the Foreign Office and build something else in its place? We want to debate the proposed Parliamentary precincts. Also, in view of the imminent publication by the N.E.D.C. of the document on the building industry, and its capacity to meet the priorities of any Government—this or the next—does he not think that this is a useful subject for a debate, and one concerning the whole House?
Mr. Lloyd: It may very well be a useful subject of debate, but in view of what I have just said I really cannot hold out any promise of wider debate before the Easter Adjournment. I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, may have it in mind soon to appoint your Advisory Committee to consider the question of accommodation for the House of Commons, which may cover at least part of the hon. Member's question.
Mr. H. Wilson: Since the Government, to play out time, have just resurrected some 40-year-old proposals for legisla
560
tion—however welcome—cannot they also find time in accordance with the same desire, to give full discussion, with a view to early legislation on the lines of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway)?
Mr. Lloyd: I have already given my answer to that. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been careful before referring to resuscitated problems and doctrines 40 years old.
Mr. Wilson: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that he is being funny, of course, there is nothing we can do about it, but is he aware that the continual evading and ducking the question of legislation to deal with racial incitement that he and his predecessors have now been doing for the last three years is not satisfactory to the House? It really is not good enough for him to say that we are now caught up by Supply time. The Government have failed to deal with this matter for three years. Will the Leader of the House now say that he accepts the principle of the Bill, and the principle of giving it Government time when Government time permits?
Mr. Speaker: Not on business. We cannot discuss principle now, or we get out of the scope of business questions.
Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not think it inappropriate to business to refer to the introduction of the Budget on 14th April, so it is presumably permissible to ask: does that really mean that we are not to have a General Election before that date?
Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman must draw his own conclusions.
Mr. Wigg: Will the Leader of the House tell the House whether a defence debate is to take place on 26th and 27th February? If that is so, and assuming that he has read the White Paper, does he not think it an absolute outrage that statements involving the expenditure of large sums of public money are not included in the White Paper, but are to be announced shortly—presumably by the Minister of Defence in the defence debate—so that

561
the country can be persuaded that defence costs have not risen above the £2,000 million mark? Have not practices of the kind implicit in the whole concept of the White Paper, and the form of its presentation, landed a considerable number of people in Dartmoor?
Mr. Lloyd: My statement dealt with the business for next week. The defence White Paper will not be debated next week, but I think that the hon. Gentleman could draw a possible inference that it may be debated not many days later.
Mr. Wigg: I am asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, before the debate takes place, the House will be told what these projects are, for, as we all know, they cost astronomical sums, or is this information to be reserved until the country and the House have been lulled into believing that the Government have not increased the defence bill, when, of course, they have done so?
Mr. Lloyd: That is not a question on business for next week.
Mr. H Wilson: On business for next week, and so that the defence debate, when it comes, need not be too frustrated by Government obscurantism on the lines mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), would it not be possible, for example, during Monday's debate on Government expenditure on aviation, for the Minister to announce what financial commitment the House is being asked to support, instead of leaving it until the debate? If there is a deficiency, as I understand, in the White Paper, could we not have a promise that during next week's business there will be a statement to make this good?
Referring to a point which I have raised before, and again on next week's business, since we are to have the Succession (Scotland) Bill taking all of Wednesday, would the Leader of the House give priority next Wednesday to the Bill dealing with racial incitement?
Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct. Wednesday's business includes not only the remaining stages of the Succession (Scotland) Bill, but also the Rating (Interim Relief) Bill, which is of considerable importance.
562
As for the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I will, of course, convey the point to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Frank Allaun: The defence statement issued this afternoon proposes an increase of £161 million a year, which many hon. Members will think excessive even for this Government. May I ask the Leader of the House when the debate will take place? Since this is, I believe, the largest increase in this expenditure ever to take place in a single year in peace time may I ask whether special facilities will be given to the debate on this occasion, for instance, an extension of time?
Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider that suggestion, but I must stick to my position that I am announcing business for next week and that this time next week I will announce business for the following week.
Mr. H. Wilson: It is about time that we got some of this matter straight with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Is it not a fact that in the statement on business he announces exactly what he regards as convenient to the Government? If he was allowed to announce three weeks ago the date of the Bill on resale price maintenance, four weeks ahead, why are hon. Members strictly confined to the five days under review?
Mr. Lloyd: That is remarkably ungrateful of the right hon. Gentleman. I gave an indication of the time of that Bill only in answer to questions by him and his right hon. Friends, for their convenience and to help them.
Mr. Wigg: Is not the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) strictly a matter for you, Mr. Speaker? What is announced must be in accordance with the rules of the House, and those rules must be interpreted by you.
Mr. Speaker: The rule of the House is that a supplementary question must arise out of the answer, and the answer relates to the business for next week. If an hon. Member can get beyond next week by ingenuity, his success in keeping in order must depend on the degree of ingenuity he attains.
Sir B. Stross: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell, the Leader of the House

563
announced that it would not be possible to discuss the redevelopment of the Whitehall area before the Easter Recess. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider this, as this is a great ceremonial centre of the whole of the Commonwealth? There is great interest in it and some good might come out of it if we were to discuss the matter in the House.
Mr. Lloyd: I do not disagree with what the hon. Member has said. It is a question of timing. I have already said, Mr. Speaker, that you will be announcing your decision about your advisory committee. That is an important element and when that is announced some progress may be made and there may well be an opportunity for a wider debate.
Mr. Ross: On business next week, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Law Officers of the Crown to look at the statement made last night by the Postmaster-General, which, to my mind, affects the freedom of the House to adjudicate on a Statutory Instrument? If what the right hon. Gentleman said is true, it will be possible for a Government Department to introduce a Statutory Instrument in such a way as to evade the freedom of the House to vote on a particular aspect of it. Will the Leader of the House ask the Law Officers to examine that statement and make a statement to the House next week?
Mr. Lloyd: That appears to be a question on the business of this week, but I will certainly look into the point.
Mr. Woodburn: Will the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary be available for Questions next week?
Mr. Lloyd: I sincerely hope so.
Mr. Warbey: On the business for 14th April, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will then explain the reasons for the enormous increase in defence expenditure to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred? Will hon. Members have an opportunity before that date of proposing to reduce the Estimates?
Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will say what he considers appropriate to the occasion.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Titles (Abolition) Bill is to come up for consideration but that before it can be considered it appears from the Notice Paper that the Queen's consent is to be signified? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have tried my best to obtain the Queen's consent through the Home Secretary, but that the Home Secretary has not yet replied and said what advice he has given to Her Majesty? Is it possible that this can be speeded up so that I can obtain consent by four o'clock tomorrow afternoon?
Mr. Lloyd: I heard of the possibility of the hon. Member asking this question. I understand that he is in correspondence with my right hon. Friend and I have nothing to add to that.
Mr. Mendelson: Does the Leader of the House not recall that, when we were under the guidance of his predecessor, several hon. Members demanded, before a previous defence debate, that the fullest documentation be published on the ground that if certain documentation was provided only when the debate took place they would be unable to look at the documents beforehand? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that he will convey to the Minister of Defence the need to publish all the documents well in time before the debate?
Mr. Lloyd: Certainly, if any reasonable request is put to me I will convey it to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Mackie: Could the Leader of the House spare the Patronage Secretary five minutes to apply for some by-election writs?
Mr. Lipton: In accordance with well-established precedent, may I ask, although it is not connected with next week's business, whether the attention of the Leader of the House has been drawn to a Motion on the Order Paper relating to religious discrimination in Northern Ireland signed by about 60 hon. Members, including myself, and whether he will find time, if not next week then very soon afterwards, for a discussion of the Motion?
Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that the hon. Member could have been listening. That point has already been dealt with.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  UGANDA BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.59 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Tilney): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  On 9th October last year Uganda ceased to be part of the Queen's Dominions though remaining in the Commonwealth. Her Majesty then ceased to be Queen of Uganda. By Uganda law the office of Governor-General was abolished and provision was made for a President to be elected by members of the Uganda National Assembly from among the rulers of the kingdoms and districts in Uganda. The Kabaka of Buganda was sworn in as the first President of Uganda. Sir Wilberforce Nadiope, Kyabazinga of Busoga, became the first Vice-President.
  The Bill before the House is consequential upon the Uganda legislation which made these changes in the Constitution which Uganda had for a year enjoyed since her independence.
  The House will wish to note that the Government of Uganda have been at pains to avoid using the word "republic" to describe their new constitutional status. Because of Uganda's belief in its well-established monarchies and the traditional respect for hereditary chieftainship, it was considered inappropriate to declare the country formally a republic.
  Before adopting the new Constitution, Dr. Obote, the Prime Minister, informed the British Government and other Commonwealth Governments of the proposed changes and expressed the wish of the Government and people of Uganda to remain within the Commonwealth. All the Commonwealth Governments agreed to continue to recognise Uganda as a member of the Commonwealth.
  The changes therefore amount to this: Uganda is no more, or less, independent than she was before 9th October last. She is still a member of the Commonwealth. But she no longer has Dominion status. As a consequence, certain of our laws which applied to Uganda as a
  566
  Dominion have ceased to apply. The Bill before the House is a technical Measure which is necessary to preserve the operation of our law in respect of Uganda as a Commonwealth country and to make sure that any reference to Her Majesty's Dominions in our law shall be read as if, in effect, the Dominions did still include Uganda.
  The House will ask: why so much delay in bringing forward this Bill and why should it be retrospective? We were informed last September of the intention of the Uganda Government to change the constitution. The House was at that time in recess, and there was no opportunity to introduce consequential legislation here We had, moreover, to clarify certain legal points in consultation with the Uganda Government, and the heavy pressure of parliamentary business, as a result of the granting of independence to Kenya and Zanzibar, made delay inevitable. Since then the preoccupations of the Uganda Government and of ourselves with the recent disturbing events in East Africa have imposed a further delay.
  Perhaps I might say, before passing from this Point, how much we in Britain have admired the staunch conduct of Dr. Obote and his Government in recent and most trying circumstances. We were glad that we were able to respond effectively to requests for British troops to be made available to help the Uganda Government in the preservation of law and order They will, of course, be withdrawn as soon as their services are no longer necessary. One company of Scots Guards has, in fact, already left. We sincerely hope that the tense situation in East Africa will rapidly subside and allow the Governments concerned to press on with their tremendous task of raising living standards and generally improving the lot of their peoples.
  The Bill is drafted to have retrospective effect to the date when Uganda modified her Constitution because there would otherwise be an awkward hiatus in the operation of certain enactments in our own law as they might affect Uganda—for example, the law governing Maintenance Orders. There is nothing sinister about the retrospection. Indeed, this procedure was followed in the very recent Nigeria Republic Act and before that in the Ireland Act, 1949.

  567
  I should perhaps once more refer to the nature of the main changes brought about in the Constitution of Uganda by the legislation passed last October by the Parliament in that country. At that time, Uganda ceased to be a part of the Queen's Dominions. The office of Governor-General was abolished and a President elected. The first President is the Kabaka of Buganda, the largest of the monarchical territories within the complex constitutional structure of Uganda. This peculiarity is invoked by the Government of Uganda as the justification for not categorising the new Constitution as a republic. Indeed, Dr. Obote, the Prime Minister, has emphatically repudiated the title of republic, insisting that his country should be known as "the Sovereign State of Uganda".
  May I turn to the Bill itself, which follows broadly the provisions of similar enactments passed when India, Pakistan, Cyprus, Ghana, Tanganyika and, more recently Nigeria, became Republics.
  Clause 1(1) provides that, as regards the places named in Clause 1(2), all existing laws and, as regards other places to which any Act of Parliament or Order in Council extends, the operation of any such Act or Order shall not be affected as a result of Uganda's change of status. Clause 1(3) gives the whole of Clause 1 retrospective effect to 9th October last year. This is the date on which Uganda's constitutional changes took effect.
  Clause 2 gives power to make adaptations to any Act of Parliament, by Order in Council, as appear necessary as a consequence of Uganda's change of status and provides that such Orders or any other Orders varying or revoking previous Orders may be made retrospective to 9th October, 1963.
  Clause 3 generally relates to appeals to the Privy Council that are pending. This Clause does not follow the recent Nigeria Republic Act, but returns to the form of similar Sections in the Ghana and Tanganyika Republic Acts. This is because Uganda chose to deal with appeals to the Privy Council in a way similar to Ghana and Tanganyika. The Clause provides for pending appeals to continue to be heard by the Judicial Committee as the result of arrangements made with Uganda.
  568
  Clause 3(5) is, however, a departure from the two precedents mentioned. In those cases, the relevant section provides expressly for the termination of all appeals to the Judicial Committee save those dealt with in the section, namely, pending appeals. But Clause 3(5) prevents this Bill from affecting any right of appeal which may continue to subsist under Uganda law.
  This provision is necessary as we understand that the legislation in Uganda providing for the recent constitutional changes did not have the effect of expressly abolishing the right of appeal in all cases. We understand that it has been abolished in civil and criminal cases, but it is possible that appeals in constitutional cases under Section 96 of the Uganda Constitution may continue to lie to the Privy Council. This can be clarified only if and when such an appeal comes before the Privy Council or further legislation is enacted in Uganda. Our object is simply to leave the matter open.
  Clause 4 is self-explanatory. This is a slight departure from the Tanganyika and Nigeria precedents in order to avoid the use of the term "Republic" which, for the reasons which I have mentioned, would not in this case be appropriate.
  Finally, the provisions in the Bill are in themselves proof, if proof were needed, that the constitutional changes adopted in Uganda have in no way diminished the closeness of our relations with Uganda as fellow members of the Commonwealth. Nor have they diminished the affection and respect which the people of Uganda have for Her Majesty the Queen.
  I cannot express this more eloquently than by quoting from the speech made by Prime Minister Obote in Kampala on 9th October, 1963. He then said:
  "I wish to say that our new constitutional form shall not diminish our affection and respect for Her Majesty the Queen and that it is our free decision to acknowledge, accept and cherish Her Majesty as the head and symbol of unity of the free and independent Commonwealth nations."
  4.10 p.m.
  Mr. A. G. Bottomley: We are becoming accustomed in the House to receiving this kind of

  569
  Measure. The Bill provides for the normal privileges of Commonwealth membership; as the Under-Secretary has said, that is to continue the special treatment accorded in British legislation to members of the Commonwealth. The Bill ensures that our law will continue to operate precisely as it did before Uganda became a republic.
  The Under-Secretary has explained that Uganda prefers to be called a sovereign State and not a republic, and we shall, of course, meet its wishes. But the last time we had a similar Bill before us was on 20th November last, when we did the same for Nigeria as we are now doing for Uganda. In spite of what the Under-Secretary has said, it seems rather odd that the Nigeria Act should have been put through the House three months before the Bill we are now putting through for Uganda. Perhaps the Under-Secretary could give a further explanation for this, because there seems to us to be no reason why the two Measures could not have been put before the House together.
  Mr. Tilney: I thought that I had explained to the right hon. Gentleman that we did not hear from Uganda that it wished to change its constitution until September last year.
  Mr. Bottomley: It was in November that we put the Nigeria Bill through, and this is very much a similar operation, and I should have thought that it would have been for the convenience of the House and certainly would have saved Government time. Perhaps the Government do not worry about that, so why should I? I am concerned about the convenience of the House. I think it would have been sensible to have tried to do the two things together.
  There are, as the Under-Secretary has said, some changes in the Bill compared with the Measure dealing with Nigeria. The one exception in the case of the Uganda Bill shows that there is more concern about the provisions terminating appeals to the Privy Council. On a number of occasions some of us from this side of the House and some speaking from the other side have asked the Government to consider what should be done to make the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council a more attractive Supreme Court than it is at the
  570
  moment for those Commonwealth countries which care to use it. It is, of course, no good approaching the question starry eyed. We have to accept that most Commonwealth countries, and particularly the new ones, do not want to seem to have the apex of their judicial system either in London or composed mainly of British judges.
  I think that it is time the Government gave some further thought to reforms. After all, it is not as if the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had any function other than as a Commonwealth Court. It does not form a part of the normal judicial processes in this country. The other day the Prime Minister mentioned that steps had been taken to appoint one or two judges to the Court from Australia and New Zealand. The Prime Minister said that the question of a Commonwealth Court was one which should be taken up at the next meeting of the Commonwealth Law Society.
  I suggest that this is not the way to get things done. What is needed is some initiative from the Government. We all know that a few years ago it was the Ceylon Government who were pressing the hardest for a Commonwealth Court. So it does not make sense for the Government to try to shunt the matter off to a private body like a Commonwealth law conference. I hope that the Government will do something to push this matter along and take a more active interest in it than they are taking at the moment.
  A substantial part of the Bill is due to the provisions in Clause 3 about the mechanics of decisions on the appeals taken to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council before last October. I think that it would be appropriate for the Minister to tell us the background to the complaint by a Ceylon judge a few months ago about the manner in which the Judicial Committee handed down one of its decisions in respect of Ceylon. Was there anything in that complaint and if so, will the Bill avoid those offensive features in the future? Also, we need to be told why Clause 3 goes into so much more detail when that was not done in the Nigeria Act.
  I want to take up again a point which I mentioned in the debate on the Nigeria Bill, the fact that monarchic

  571
  countries in the Commonwealth do not like to have to get the approval of the Queen for the appointment and receipt of diplomatic representatives. I am, of course, aware that the nature of the relations between the Palace and the independent countries of the Commonwealth is properly a matter for the Governments of those countries. Nevertheless, those Governments, naturally and inevitably, turn to Her Majesty's Government for advice on this kind of protocol. There can be no doubt that in the past our advice has been accepted.
  What I want to know is whether Her Majesty's Government have made it clear to these other independent Governments that they can, if they wish, make the appointment and receipt of diplomatic representatives even without the personal approval of Her Majesty. This can simply be done by Her Majesty's local representative—that is, the GovernorGeneral—taking the decision.
  I hope that the Minister will not tell us that this is a matter in which we have no locus standi I think that this can be done, and I repeat that it ought to be considered. I hope that we shall receive an assurance that it will be so, because, as I said, I raised the matter earlier in the debate on the Nigeria Bill and I now present it again to the Minister. The Minister knows as well as I do that advice on this kind of protocol is often asked for and certainly given after independence, and what I am suggesting now is that advice should be given before independence so that the countries know exactly where they stand on these matters.
  The occasion of this Bill is an appropriate time, I think, to raise a point which has become a practical one since the coup-d'état in Zanzibar. The Bill is necessary because Uganda has ceased to be part of Her Majesty's Dominions, which she was, although independent, until October last year. When a country makes that change, it is common form for it to be accepted again as a member of the Commonwealth by all the other members. I am hoping that the Minister can tell us that that has been done. But if a country becomes independent outside Her Majesty's Dominions, as in the case of Malaya, Cyprus and Zanzibar, then does a
  572
  change in the Constitution of that country require fresh recognition as a member of the Commonwealth by the other members?
  I do not want to embarrass the Minister. I realise as well as he does that this is a case where the old-established practice of the Commonwealth has to be adapted as we go along. But I think that it is time we had a look at the Commonwealth protocol and considered whether the Bills that keep cropping up and the question of recognition can to some extent be avoided.
  This is not the occasion, as the Under-Secretary has said, to discuss the recent sad events in East Africa. We sympathise with the Governments of Uganda, Tanganyika, and Kenya in the difficulties in which they have found themselves. At their request, although it was not easy for our own Government to do so, we sent British troops to assist them in keeping law and order. The Governments concerned have expressed their gratitude for this action. I am sure that you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to conclude this part of what I have to say by adding that it was most pleasing to us all to know that our troops lived up to their traditionally high standards in helping to establish peace and good will in Uganda and those other countries.
  I refer now to another rather unpleasant incident which occurred in Uganda a little while ago. The Uganda Government deported several people, including some loyal civil servants, for being involved in a social party of questionable taste. What happened at that party certainly stands condemned, but there was no question of disloyalty to the Government. I myself would not wish to condone disloyalty, or misconduct, or seek to defend any person who, it could be shown, had proved disloyal or misbehaved. Nevertheless, I feel that the Uganda Government should be aware of the effect which their action has had upon expatriates and on possible further recruitment. I recognise that it is a matter entirely for the Government of Uganda, but I do not think that it does any of us any good to act as though we expect less high standards of other Governments of the Commonwealth than we do of our own.
  The people of Uganda and the people of Britain feel a tremendous amount of

  573
  gratitude and good will towards each other for our past close and continuing association. In expressing the hope of us all that it will remain so, I conclude by wishing the people of Uganda, the new President and the Government a peaceful and prosperous future for their country.
  4.22 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: The whole House joins in welcoming the Bill, which shows Uganda consolidated as a full and independent member of the Commonwealth. It shows something else, that Uganda seems to have solved one of the most difficult problems existing in Africa today, since it is combining a traditional monarchy with the modern concept of political parties. The kings of the various ancient kingdoms of Uganda are taking their place within the traditions of the new independent Uganda at the same time as the more modern political parties also play their full part in the affairs of the State.
  If this system can, over the next few years, be proved to work, Uganda will, I believe, have done a service to the rest of Africa and will set an example which other countries of the continent may well follow. Often, in discussing Africa in the House, we tend, I think, to underrate the importance of tribal loyalties. These loyalties manifest themselves not only in the high regard paid to the leader, but in political groupings. Unfortunately, so many political parties in Africa are based on tribal groupings. If Uganda can marry the concept of tribal loyalty to the machinery of the modern State, if Uganda can solve this problem, it will have done a great service to the whole Continent. I hope that its example will be fruitfully followed elsewhere in Africa.
  In moving the Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said how much he and, I am sure, all of us admire Dr. Obote's firmness in handling the recent sad events in his country. What he did was particularly noteworthy when one remembers that he is the leader or Prime Minister of a coalition Government. It is never quite so easy to handle a coalition Government as it is to handle one composed of one party.
  574
  Speeches have been made in Uganda advocating the creation of a one-party State. I think that, when the full facts became clear and the original speech was followed by other Ministerial speeches, one was able to see that it was merely the advocacy of a one-party State and there was no intention of introducing legislation to that end, but I put this question to my hon. Friend. Am I right in thinking that no legislation to alter the Constitution could be effective unless it secured a two-thirds majority in the Chamber, and there are safeguards within the Constitution of independent Uganda which would not allow a political party which had a narrow majority to introduce major changes in the Constitution?
  While I am on this constitutional aspect, may I put one other question to my hon. Friend? The official Leader of the Opposition in Uganda is Mr. Benedicto Kiwanuko who, as the House knows, was the first Chief Minister of Uganda. He was arrested a short time ago. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether he has been released, and, if not, whether charges have been preferred against him?
  The Bill is a technical Measure and a very complicated one for those of us who have not a legal training. Obviously, it affects law and justice in Uganda, and to some extent it affects Anglo-Ugandan relations, as we are both partners in the Commonwealth. I wish now to spend a few minutes discussing a matter which has already been raised by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley), the incident which has become known as the "Tank Hill party" and the 14 deportations resulting therefrom. I shall briefly outline the events, and then make certain comments and ask one or two questions, bearing in mind that this is a matter of seeing that justice is done as well as trying to do what one can to improve rather than hinder good Anglo-Ugandan relations. I feel that the more the matter is brought into the open and the more rumours both in Uganda and in this country can be squashed, the better will it be for our relations within the Commonwealth.
  As I understand it, the events began on 11th December last year, when a party of 200 guests was held in Kampala at the house of Mr. Kelly. It was a

  575
  fancy dress party, as had been traditional. The theme was "The White Man's Burden". The previous year, it had been "Hannibal Crossing the Alps". In answering the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, the Secretary of State said that he thought that the party was in deplorable taste. I think that that is strong condemnation. It is, perhaps, easy to condemn these things after they have happened. However, I take it that we should all regard it as lack of forethought and want of taste to hold such a party in the circumstances of the recently independent Uganda, and the independence of Kenya last December. However, it was clear that nothing was intended to be derogatory of Uganda or its people or the people of Africa, and, indeed, nothing derogatory was, in fact, done, though there were misunderstandings.
  On 16th December, the police searched the houses of the organisers of the party, looking for tape recordings of seditious songs. They took away certain tape recordings, but I understand that they found no seditious songs. The following day, it was realised that opinion against people at the party and, possibly, against the European community was beginning to run high, and suggestions were made to our High Commissioner that statements should be taken on oath from the organisers of the party so as to get their side of the story. On the 18th the organisers were interviewed by the Prime Minister of Uganda.
  The following day, the organisers wrote to Dr. Obote apologising for what they now saw were the unfortunate results of the party, and I understand that the High Commissioner called on the Prime Minister and, presumably, conveyed his own regrets. One really thought that that would be the end of the matter.
  Unfortunately, on the same day, 19th December, members of the U.P.C. Youth Wing called for the deportation of the people involved in the party and, on the following day, in a debate in the Uganda Parliament, some very strong and very unfair speeches were made, and it became clear that some of the people attending the party were going to become political scapegoats.
  576
  On 21st December, the editor of the Uganda Argus was kidnapped, in spite of the fact that he had not even been to the party. We recognise and applaud the strong action of the Uganda Government in arresting the youngsters responsible for this outrage, who have now been punished according to the ordinary processes of the law. On the following day, Mr. Kelly's house, where the party had been held, was burned down. I understand that Mr. Kelly had been warned that something might happen and that he and his family had left the house. However, the servants in the house only just escaped, and Mr. Kelly's two pet dogs were burned with the house.
  On the same day, the 22nd, deportation orders were issued against six people, the organisers and Miss Christine Dove, who was organiser of the Save the Children Fund in Uganda and whose work in Uganda has been praised at many public meetings and in many organs of the Press over past months. I understand that the High Commissioner refused to see the parents of one of the people involved who had gone to ask him what he could do to help. On the same day, the six people were deported and the High Commissioner made a public apology to the Prime Minister of Uganda. On 26th December, eight expatriate civil servants who were in this party were also deported. It is interesting to note that over 30 expatriate civil servants were present at the party, but that only eight were deported. One wonders where the distinction was drawn.
  There are some very fundamental questions which should be asked. We all agree, I think, that the party was unwise, even in bad taste. It was meant to lampoon imperialism and was in no way directed against the Africans. No insult was offered and, I suggest, none was proved.
  This is the important thing which must concern hon. Members on both sides. I understand that the 14 people who were deported were, in essence, found guilty without any inquiry. I understand that they were never interviewed by the High Commissioner or by a member of his staff while in Kampala between 10th December, when the party took place, and 26th December, when the last of the

  577
  deportees left the country. They were not seen off at the airport by the High Commissioner or by any of his staff.
  I understand that, since they have been in this country, they have never been asked by the Commonwealth Relations Office to explain their side of the story. They went to the Commonwealth Relations Office, at their own request, to lodge complaints, but they have had no official call or inquiry and no official interest has been taken in their side of the story.
  I suggest that it is a serious matter when an apology is rendered in the name of the Government of this country which seems to confirm the wildest allegations made against these young people. It seems to me that the effect on these deportees is almost to confirm their guilt without a full inquiry having been made into the matter.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: We on this side are puzzled to know how the hon. Member relates all this to the Bill. Is it not a abuse of the proceedings on the Bill to make a speech which was supposed to have been made on the Adjournment tomorrow?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not criticising the Chair in failing to do its duty to keep the debate in order.
  Mr. Wall: I will not detain the House long. However, I think that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) will agree that these matters concern Members of Parliament if it appears that an injustice has been done and that if, as a result, relations between ourselves and one of our partners in the Commonwealth have been damaged. I agree that this party should not have taken place, but I suggest that the handling of the matter by Her Majesty's Government has made the worse rather than better.
  These are the questions that I want to ask my hon. Friend. First, what of the future of the eight civil servants involved? They have been sent back to this country. They are on half-pay. Not only are they receiving half-nay from the Uganda Government, but they are on half-pay in respect of the salary paid by Her Majesty's Government, namely, the inducement pay. One of
  578
  the gentlemen, who has a wife and three children, had a pay cheque in January for 47s. 6d. How long is this situation to continue?
  What about the future of the six people who are not civil servants—that is, Miss Dove and the five organisers? They are being treated rather like my noble Friend Lord Mancroft in reverse. Are they to have any restitution or compensation? Will Her Majesty's Government use their influence to obtain revocation of the deportation orders? Surely the fact that a severe punishment has been inflicted is bad enough. Will the Government use their good offices to suggest to the Uganda Government that these orders might be rescinded, and that the Uganda Government having shown how strongly they feel about this incident, might now be so merciful as to allow these people to return to Uganda to pursue a useful life in serving the people of Uganda.
  Will any compensation be offered by Her Majesty's Government to the 14 or to Mr. Kelly, whose house was burnt down? The Government are rightly concerned about the future of the Sultan of Zanzibar. What about the future of these people?
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: On a point of order. I apologise for my previous intervention, which I realise should have been directed to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and not to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). However, may I ask you whether what the hon. Member is saying comes within the terms of the Bill? Should not all this be raised in the Adjournment debate which is set down on the Order Paper for tomorrow, and which would seem to be a more appropriate occasion for it?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am happy to accept the hon. Member's apology. The question whether what the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) is saying is in order may well be addressed to me.
  As I understand, if the Bill is passed by the House the people whom the hon. Member is discussing could be open to arrest in this country. It would, therefore, seem to me that discussion of their position is very relevant.
  Mr. Wall: As I say, I do not want to detain the House long. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee, East

  579
  does not believe that these matters are important. They are important to 14 of our fellow citizens who have acted foolishly, but who, I suggest, have been treated very severely. I want to know what is to happen to them.
  My fourth question is this: who authorised the public apology given on behalf of Her Majesty's Government? Does by hon. Friend realise the effect of this not only on the deportees, but on the British community in Uganda and the widespread effect which it will have in Africa?
  In this case, justice does not appear to have been done. I place no direct blame for this on the Uganda Government. They are in a difficult position. They are a new Government and they form a coalition. All kinds of rumours were started which proved to be false. They took action, rightly or wrongly, as they had every right to do. However, I believe that Her Majesty's Government have acted in a way which can only be described as that of appeasement. I hope that the views which have been expressed so forcibly to me by Europeans, not only in Uganda but in other parts of Africa, will be shown by the Minister to be wrong.
  I was not in Uganda at the time of this incident and I cannot speak from first-hand knowledge of it, but I hope that my hon. Friend will say that the allegations which I have described are wrong and that he will show that the job of the Commonwealth Relations Office is not only to maintain good relations between Britain and other members of the Commonwealth, but to protect British citizens when it is asked for protection. If my hon. Friend can show this, he will have done a good service to his Department and calmed the fears of many of our kith and kin who are living in the Continent of Africa.
  4.36 p.m.
  Mr. Tilney: By leave of the House, may I endeavour to answer some of the questions which have been raised.
  The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) said, quite rightly, that it is becoming almost a custom every few months to discuss Bills dealing with different Common-
  580
  wealth countries when they cease to be members of Her Majesty's Dominions. He asked me to give the reason for the delay and why we had not put this Bill before the House in November last year. I endeavoured to explain that in my opening speech. There was this somewhat complicated legal point which is left open in Clause 3(5) on which there was quite an amount of discussion between the Government of Uganda and ourselves.
  The right hon. Gentleman rightly returned to the question of the future of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He referred to the Commonwealth Court of Appeal, about which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day:
  "There is to be a third Commonwealth and Empire Law Convention in 1965 and the Lord Chancellor is to lead and field…a very strong team. That might be the occasion on which the conference could well reconsider the proposal for a Commonwealth Court, which has been considered before and which would be immensely valuable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1964; Vol. 688, c. 1366.]
  However, I think that the right hon. Member will agree that there are a number of difficult problems here. This is not a matter which can be decided quickly. There is a division of opinion on whether, if we get a Commonwealth Court established, it should deal with appeals from the appeal court of the individual Commonwealth country or should merely deal with disputes between Commonwealth countries. We have heard arguments in favour of both.
  This is a matter which cannot possibly be decided in the near future, and I should have thought that my right hon. Friend was right in thinking that the Commonwealth and Empire Law Convention was a good body to discuss this matter.
  Mr. Bottomley: With respect, I remain unconvinced. I think that this is essentially a task for the Government.
  Mr. Tilney: We do not always agree on what is the right thing to do.
  The right hon. Member also raised the question of the Privy Council case brought from Ceylon. I assure the House that the implications of the recent case from Ceylon and the subsequent difficulties have been noted by Her Majesty's Government and will not, as far as I can

  581
  see, occur in any case coming from Uganda to the Judicial Committee. Only one pending appeal is outstanding.
  The right hon. Member also referred to Nigeria. The reason for the detailed provisions in Clause 3, which were not found in the Nigeria Republic Act, is that in the Uganda legislation the question of pending appeals will be dealt with differently from the case of Nigeria. As I said in opening the debate, they follow broadly the pattern set by Ghana and Tanganyika. Hence, we returned to the form our consequential legislation provisions had taken before.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked about the safeguards in the Uganda Constitution and the question of a two-thirds majority. This is a complicated matter and I promise to look into it. I am no lawyer and I would rather not go into details now, but I promise to communicate with my hon. Friend.
  I know that my hon. Friend has felt strongly for some time concerning the problems that have arisen over the Tank Hill party, which he has discussed with me. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a long statement which was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The party took place on 11th December and on 18th December news of police investigations broke in the Press. The High Commissioner had reason to think that strong action was in contemplation. He at once saw Dr. Obote and, while expressing his personal regret at the offence which the party had caused to the feelings of Ugandans, asked the Prime Minister to take a lenient view, having regard to the youth of the persons concerned.
  On 20th December, there was a debate in the Uganda Parliament, which showed how deep was the offence which had been taken by opinion in Uganda. There was a severe risk of violence against those concerned in the party and, indeed, against the British community in general. We have seen only in recent weeks how dangerous the situation is East Africa can become.
  It is as well also to remember that the organisers of the party apologised both by letter and by statement. As my
  582
  right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 16th January:
  "in view of the high state of feeling, the British High Commissioner was authorised to express to the Prime Minister of Uganda our regret at the damage caused by his thoughtless episode to the happy relations between the British community and the people of Uganda."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1964; Vol. 657. c. 398.]
  There are, naturally, conflicting reports of what took place at the party, but whatever may have happened in detail, the party itself was a serious error of judgment. This particularly applies to the invitation card, about which there can be little dispute. Although, undoubtedly, it was meant to be funny, it can be very difficult, even in this country, always to be sure that one's joke gets over property.
  I am a Sasenach and had the honour for five years to be Honorary Colonel of the Liverpool Irish. Quite often, what I thought was a joke, or what the others thought we re jokes, were not synonymous. We all know how difficult it is to have the same sense of humour in different countries cross the seas. Therefore, references to the League of ex-Empire Loyalists, ending the white man's burden, a naked bearer with a cleft stick and a tom-tom with a shrunken head gave great offence.
  We are, however, bound to regard deportation as a step of great severity. The High Commissioner conveyed this to Dr. Obote personally as soon as he was able to see him again. At the same time, it must be remembered that feelings were running high in Kampala and there was real danger that those deported might have suffered personal harm had they remained. There was also a risk to the European community generally. The High Commissioner was in constant touch with the Uganda authorities as to the safety of British lives and property.
  The announcement of the deportations had the effect of reducing the temperature at once. It must be remembered that deportation is a sovereign act to which any independent Government can resort and which cannot be challenged. I remind try hon. Friend that a number of points which he has raised lie within the sovereignty of Uganda and that it is not in the power of the High Commissioner in Uganda to take action. The safety of British subjects is the job of

  583
  the Uganda Government, who are responsible for those subjects who live in Uganda.
  I also assure my hon. Friend that the officers of the Commonwealth Relations Office took action as soon as possible to do what they could to help the deportees when they arived, but I have no doubt that the words of my hon. Friend have been noted not only in this country, but also in Uganda.
  Mr. Wall: My hon. Friend has explained why, in his view, appeasement was necessary. He has not dealt with the future. Are these people to have any compensation? We are assisting, and rightly, the Sultan of Zanzibar. What about assisting our own people?
  Mr. Tilney: I thought I had explained that most of these deportees were servants of the Uganda Government. It is up to that Government. I refer my hon. Friend to what my right hon. Friend said on 16th January in answer to a supplementary question from the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East. At the risk of being accused of facing the wrong way, or being lost in a fog, I repeat what my right hon. Friend said in answer to that supplementary question:
  "The sooner this is forgotten the better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 397.]
  What we want to do is to go ahead with the friendship which has always existed between the people of Uganda and this country.
  The Prime Minister of Uganda himself summed up the position in a statement on 13th December as follows:
  "There is, however, one important point which all the people in Uganda must know and accept. This is that the people deported were not deported because they happened to be British subjects. Our action has not been against the British people either in Uganda or Britain or anywhere else. We have no quarrel with either the British Government or the British High Commission in Uganda over this matter. Our relations with the British Government, the British community in Uganda and the British High Commission remain cordial. We deported individuals for the undesirable part each of them had in the Tank Hill party."
  I hope very much that in the coming months that party can get into the obscurity that history may accord it, because what is important is that the future of Uganda and of this country
  584
  should run smoothly, to the benefit of both countries, which have been friends for so long.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Peel.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.50 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In this short Bill we ask Parliament to make a significant and valuable change in the arrangements for the administration of justice. It will enable a new trial of a convicted person to be ordered by the appropriate authority on the ground that there is fresh evidence in his case. A new trial on this ground will be possible under the Bill where the case has been dealt with by the ordinary criminal courts or by courts-martial. In the one case it will have to be ordered by the Court of Criminal Appeal, in the other authorised by the Courts-Martial Appeal Court or appropriate reviewing authority—the Admiralty, the Army Council or the Air Council.
  I will concentrate upon the effects of the Bill on cases in ordinary criminal courts. Schedule I makes provision for new trials by courts-martial and it follows, as closely as Service law and circumstances permit, the provisions in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill for cases in the criminal courts. It is right that we should keep civilian and Service law broadly in step in this way, as we did in the Administration of Justice Act, 1960.
  The idea that there should be some power to order a new trial in criminal cases is not at all new. For more than 100 years there have been proposals of one kind or another for the introduction of some such power, but for just as long a time there has been dispute about the wisdom of doing so. The argument started long before the Court of Criminal Appeal was set up.

  585
  Many of those enlightened people who first argued the need for some machinery of appeal in criminal cases wanted it simply to provide a power to order a new trial in appropriate cases, and in the 60 years or so before the creation of the Court of Criminal Appeal no fewer than 25 Bills with that object were introduced, unsuccessfully. But, equally, there were many other people who did not consider this a suitable procedure and, when the Criminal Appeal Act which eventually established the Court of Criminal Appeal was introduced in 1907, it made no provision for new trials.
  An amendment to that Act proposing the inclusion of a power to order a new trial was rejected. The powers which Parliament then thought it right to confer upon the Court of Criminal Appeal have remained virtually unchanged ever since. They are contained in Section 4 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907.
  On considering an appeal against conviction, the court is required to allow the appeal if it thinks that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, or that the judgment of the trial court should be set aside on the ground of a wrong decision on any question of law, or that on any other ground there was a miscarriage of justice. If the appeal is allowed, the court must quash the conviction and direct the entry of a judgment and verdict or acquittal.
  The duty laid upon the court is subject to a proviso that it may however dismiss the appeal if it considers that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred. As a matter of practice, the court has applied that proviso and dismissed the appeal only where it has been satisfied that, on the whole of the facts and with the correct direction, the only proper verdict would have been one of guilty. Inevitably, therefore, there are cases where the court feels obliged to allow the appeal and to acquit the appellant, despite the fact that it may have little doubt of his guilt.
  There is one other power in the Act of 1907 to which I should invite the attention of the House because it is specially relevant to the present Bill. That is the power to call evidence. The proceedings before the Court of Criminal
  586
  Appeal are not, in any sense, a rehearing of the whole case, but, under Section 9 of the Act, the court has power to hear the evidence of any witness, whether or not he gave evidence at the trial,
  "… if they think that it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice".
  These then were the powers which Parliament gave to the court in 1907.
  The decision taken 57 years ago to establish a procedure of appeal without provision for retrial in no way abated the argument about the need of provision for retrial. In the first year that the Court of Criminal Appeal sat, it found occasion to express regret at the lack of such a power. These regrets have been repeated at one time or another by successive Lords Chief Justices ever since—most recently by the present Lord Chief Justice in the "Lucky Gordon" case. Lord Goddard, when he was the holder of that office, was a particular champion of this cause. When the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, was before Parliament he strongly advocated the inclusion of a Clause on new trials.
  A new Clause to that effect was moved by an hon Member, now my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council, when the Bill was before this House on Report. The then Government did not feel able to accept the Clause he proposed, but they did accept the principle which it embodied. A Government amendment to provide for new trials was introduced and accepted in another place.
  It then became evident that there was still a deep division of opinion on this matter, and in the face of this conflict the Government decided, when the Lords Amendment came to be considered by this House, to move its rejection. So the Clause fell.
  The matter was raised again in another place in 1952, on a Motion by Lord Goddard, and later that year my noble and learned Friend Lord Kilmuir, who was then Home Secretary, together with the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Simonds, decided to appoint a Departmental Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Tucker, to make a thorough examination of the arguments. The Report of that Committee, which was presented to Parliament in 1954, showed,

  587
  once again, a continuing divergence opinion.
  The Committee was informed that the judges were in favour of a power to order a new trial, but only by a small majority: the Bar Council was in favour of a power restricted to cases of fresh evidence, but made it clear to the Committee that its views did not necessarily represent those of the Bar as a whole: the Law Society was opposed in principle to a second trial.
  In the light of this evidence it is not altogether astonishing that the Committee itself was unable to reach wholly unanimous conclusions. On the issue of giving the Court of Criminal Appeal an unrestricted power to order a new trial, the Committee was as divided as its witnesses. Three members, including the Chairman, Lord Tucker, thought the court should have a discretion to order a new trial in any case in which the court thought it necessary, including cases of misdirection or other irregularity on the part of the judge or the prosecution. But the other five members opposed such a wide power on grounds of both principle and practice. So it was five to three against the wide power.
  In the Report there was all the same, a new and welcome note of unanimity. All the members, without exception or reservation, were agreed upon the desirability of a power of retrial in cases of fresh evidence. This narrowing of the old area of disagreement was significant. The argument about a wider power continues, but it has now come to be very generally accepted that, in cases where an appeal is based on grounds of fresh evidence, there ought to be a power of retrial.
  As current evidence of this I need only quote the views of the Committee appointed by "Justice", whose Report was published last month. This committee, like the Tucker Committee 10 years before, was divided on the wider issue, but was in no doubt of the need for the limited power linked to fresh evidence.
  It is on the basis of what I believe to be the solid support of legal and public opinion, and on the grounds cogently argued by the Tucker Committee, that I present the Bill. With the leave of
  588
  the House, I would like to quote what of the Tucker Committee said in making its unanimous recommendation:
  "In cases where new evidence is accepted by the prosecution and the court are satisfied that it is conclusive in favour of the appellant their task is, and would be, simple—to allow the appeal, to quash the conviction and to enter a verdict of acquittal. But in many cases it is impossible to assess the value of new evidence without weighing it against evidence given at the trial.
  This can properly be done only by a jury who hear and see all the witnesses, including both those who gave evidence at the trial and those whose evidence has become available.
  Moreover, we think it preferable that the appellant on whose behalf further evidence has been tendered, should in appropriate cases have the advantage of having the whole of the evidence heard and weighed by a jury rather than that he should be left to seek redress for alleged wrongful conviction by other means."
  In such cases as the Committee had in mind, the Bill will provide, with the necessary safeguards, the means by which the whole of the evidence can be reheard by a jury.
  Clause 1 defines the circumstances in which a new trial may be ordered. It does not in any way impair the Court of Criminal Appeal's present power to acquit the appellant forthwith if in the light of the fresh evidence it thinks it appropriate to do so. Nor does it affect the duty of the court to acquit if an appeal is allowed on grounds other than fresh evidence.
  It is only where the new evidence is the sole reason for quashing the conviction, and where the court is satisfied that the interests of justice so require, that a new trial may be ordered. The offences for which the appellant may be indicted at the new trial are very carefully restricted. They are limited to the offence in respect of which the appeal was allowed, or any alternative count at the original trial on which the jury was discharged from giving a verdict.
  That last provision, which is in Clause 1(2), covers the case in which the appellant was charged originally with alternative counts of, say, larceny and receiving. If he was convicted of larceny, the jury may have been discharged from giving a verdict on the receiving charge; under the Bill it will be possible, at a fresh trial on the larceny charge, for the Court of Criminal Appeal to direct that the receiving charge be revived and disposed of. In no circumstances will

  589
  there be power to retry an appellant for an offence of which he was acquitted. Nor can he be retried for an offence charged in the original indictment if the jury, in fact, convicted him of a lesser offence; if, for example, he was originally charged with murder but the jury convicted of manslaughter, the court may order him to be retried for the offence of manslaughter, but not for the offence of murder.
  As recommended by the Tucker Committee, the power to order a new trial will also be available in cases which have been referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal by the Home Secretary under Section 19(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. This is automatically secured by the terms of Clause 1, because a case referred by the Home Secretary falls, under Section 19 of the 1907 Act, to be treated as an appeal by the person convicted.
  The Tucker Committee also recommended that the House of Lords, when hearing an appeal, should have the same power to order a new trial as the Court of Criminal Appeal. Here again, no express provision is necessary in the drafting of the Bill, because Section 1(4) of the Administration of Justice Act, 1960, provides already that for the purpose of disposing of an appeal the House of Lords may exercise any powers of the court below.
  Before leaving Clause I, I should like to refer briefly to the nature of the fresh evidence on which the court may exercise the new power, and to make it quite clear that this will be a matter for the court to decide. The purpose of the Bill is merely to enlarge the powers of the Court when it has decided to allow an appeal on the ground of fresh evidence; it does not, and is not intended to, affect the court's control of its own practice and procedure on the hearing of the appeal.
  It will, as at present, be for the court, in exercising its power under Section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, to receive evidence for the purposes of the appeal, to decide whether it is "necessary or expedient in the interests of justice" that particular evidence should be considered. Over the years the Court of Criminal Appeal has evolved principles by which it is guided in deciding whether
  590
  to admit fresh evidence on the hearing of an appeal.
  The court will not, for example, consider evidence which could have been given at the trial, and it has been reluctant to admin evidence of events occurring after the trial—for instance, a subsequent admission of perjury by a witness—preferring that such evidence should be brought to the notice of the Home Secretary, for him to consider whether there are grounds for recommending interference with the conviction under the Prerogative of Mercy.
  It may be that the availability of a power to order a new trial will lead the court to revise the principles which it has hitherto found it necessary to apply. But the court must, I am sure, be left to evolve its practice in the light of experience.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I think that I have understood what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I should like to make it quite clear. Is he saying that the question whether the Court of Appeal is to hear new evidence is to remain in the Court of Criminal Appeal, and that there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that that court will apply wider standards than have been applied in the past?
  Mr. Brooke: That is right. The Bill does not interfere with the court's discretion in that matter. If the court wishes to re-examine its principles, that is entirely a matter for the court.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: Where does this new principle come from? What the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting is that the judges should usurp our position and become legislators. Judges have never had the power to change the law. The law can be altered not by the judges, but by the legislature. What the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing is judge-made law. Where does that principle come from?
  Mr. Brooke: It comes from Section 9 of the 1907 Act, All I am doing is pointing out that the Bill makes no difference to the law in this respect. It may be that hon. Members will wish to consider whether it should, but I am here to expound what is in the Bill and, I repeat, the Bill makes no difference to the existing power of the court.
  Mr. Paget: The important thing is that if the existing powers are to be altered, that must be done by us and not by the judges. To say that the judges will proceed at their own discretion to alter their powers and to alter what evidence they will choose to take is entirely wrong.
  Mr. Brooke: What the Court of Criminal Appeal does at present is to apply Section 9 of the 1907 Act, and the Bill does not in any way alter Section 9. However, I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member will wish to speak on this issue later. My duty now is simply to explain that the Bill does not alter the existing law in that respect.
  Mr. S. Silverman: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for pressing him further, but I think that there is an error of fact. He says that the existing practice of the Court of Criminal Appeal is the practice laid down in Section 9 of the 1907 Act. This is not so. Section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act has in it none of the limitations which the Court of Criminal Appeal has applied to it over many years. Section 9 says only that the court shall have power to hear additional evidence. It does not say anything about it being new evidence, or fresh evidence, or about it being material, or any of the principles on which the Court of Criminal Appeal has habitually excluded fresh evidence over the years.
  It is, therefore, important to say, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said, that the question whether there is to be a change or no change in the present practice after the enactment of this Bill is a question properly for this House and not one for the Court of Criminal Appeal.
  Mr. Brooke: All I am saying is that Section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, gives the court a certain power which it has been exercising in a certain way. I am pointing out that there is nothing in this Bill which alters the state of the law in that respect. I feel sure that many hon. and hon. and learned Members will wish to speak on this and maybe pursue it further, but I thought that my task was to put before the House what was in the Bill.
  592
  Clause 2 deals with various questions of procedure that are consequent on an order for a new trial, matters such as the venue of the new trial, the custody of the appellant or his admission to bail, and the grant of legal aid.
  In Clause 3 there are important safeguards. This Clause deals with the sentencing powers of the new court of trial, in the case of the appellant who is retried and reconvicted. It would not be right automatically to revive the original sentence, as if the retrial had never taken place.
  Though the new evidence has not resulted in acquittal, it might afford grounds for the sentencing court to take a more lenient view of the case or the court might want to change the form of sentence for other reasons.
  I am certain that a defendant ought not, by reason of his appeal and of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a retrial, to be at risk of finding himself in peril of a longer term in custody than was originally imposed. Clause 3 therefore provides that the second court may not impose a sentence of greater severity than was imposed on the original conviction. The Bill does not attempt to define the concept of "greater severity". It would require complicated provisions to do so and I do not think that it is necessary.
  There is a similar provision in Section 5(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, which enables the Court of Criminal Appeal in certain circumstances to substitute for a trial court's verdict a verdict of guilty on another offence, and to impose a sentence which is not of greater severity than the original sentence. I believe that the court has not, in practice, found any difficulty in interpreting this restriction.
  Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 3 contain further safeguards to ensure that a reconvicted appellant shall not be put in a worse position because of his appeal. Subsection (3) enables him to count towards his new sentence any time which he has already served under the first sentence, and any time which he has spent in custody awaiting a retrial. Time served under the first sentence will count even though the sentence is changed from one form of custodial sentence to another. Subsection (4) pre-

  593
  serves his entitlement, if he has any, to count time spent in custody awaiting the first trial.
  I have no doubt that in the course of debate on the Bill we shall traverse again the arguments for giving the Court of Criminal Appeal a wider power. My answer to criticisms that the Bill is unduly cautious is that this is a field in which, I submit, caution is very necessary.
  I think that it must be remembered that the proposal for the enlargement of the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal is equally a proposal for the curtailment of the present rights of the appellant; it is a proposal for giving the prosecution an opportunity to start again in circumstances where, as the law now stands, the appellant would get an acquittal. I submit to the House that no change in procedure that may operate against an accused person ought to be made unless it can be shown, and shown beyond doubt, that the interests of justice and the public require it; and here it is only too clear that there is still much doubt and division of opinion.
  I outlined the long history of the deep division on this subject among those best qualified to judge of it. Quite frankly, that division is still with us today. It may be that in counting voices we should now, after 10 years, find some shift of opinion towards the view of the minority of the Tucker Committee, but we are still a long way from unanimity.
  That is manifest from the Report just published by the committee of "Justice". Though the minority view of the Tucker Committee was now favoured by the majority of the "Justice" committee, there remained four members of the "Justice" committee, lawyers of experience including the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), who stood by the opposite view.
  This clash of opinion exists because basically it is a conflict of fundamental principles. On the one hand, it is argued—and the Home Secretary of all people recognises the force of the argument—that justice requires not only that the innocent should go free but also that the guilty should be condemned, and that our administration of justice is defective if guilty men escape on technicalities.
  594
  On the other, it is said that respect for the rights and liberty of the people who come before our courts is fundamental to cur system of justice and that it is contrary to this principle that a man should be put in peril a second time for reasons for which he was in no way responsible.
  I know it is said that this principle is already breached under the present law in every case where a defendant is retried after a jury has failed to agree. I do not think that this settles the matter. It is no argument for throwing a principle overboard that some exceptions to it are inescapable. But, in any case, there is surely a fundamental difference between the retrial of an accused person in a case where a jury has not reached a verdict, and the retrial of a defendant upon whom a verdict has already been found.
  It has also been said that to provide a power of new trial in a case of fresh evidence is to concede the case for a wider power. That I cannot accept. The arguments for the alternative courses spring from quite opposite motives. Essentially, the case for the wider power is that the prosecution should have a second chance to prove the guilt of the appellant. The case for the narrower power is that the appellant should have a second chance to establish his innocence.
  I cannot tell, nor can anyone, in how large or small a number of cases the new power granted by the Bill will be used. But its usefulness is not to be measured in numbers. It is in the type of case which now presents the Court of Criminal Appeal with the greatest difficulty that the value of the Bill will, I believe, be proved.
  I understand and respect the views of those who would like to go farther. I trust that they for their part will understand and respect the views of those who, like myself, believe that on this unmapped ground we should proceed so far as there is unanimity, but not at present beyond that. The Bill will extend the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal in a way which I think has the clear and broad support of legal and public opinion.
  I readily recognise that there are other aspects of the arrangements for hearing

  595
  criminal appeals which call for review and maybe improvement. It is more than half a century since the Court of Criminal Appeal came into existence, and with the growth in the volume of crime the Court has been working under increasing pressure. I was, therefore, glad to be able to announce to the House on 14th January that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I had decided that the time had come to review the whole position of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and I think that we have been fortunate in securing the services of Lord Donovan, a former Member of this House, as chairman of the committee which we propose to appoint.
  I was also glad to find that in setting up this committee we had the warm support of the Lord Chief Justice, who welcomed the proposal when he spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place.
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I will be ready in the near future to announce the membership and terms of reference of that committee. Our intention, broadly, is that it should examine whether all or part of the present jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal should lie instead with the Court of Appeal or with some other court; and, on the assumption that the Court of Criminal Appeal is to continue to exercise some or all of its present functions, to examine its constitution, powers, practice and procedure. I believe that this thorough review will commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It will be able to include within its scope matters which the debates on this Bill show to be outside the field of unanimity.
  Whatever may be the arguments about what the Bill does not contain, I feel sure that what it does contain will command general support. It provides a valuable addition to the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal while respecting the essential rights of the appellant. With those words, I commend it to the House.
  5.20 p.m.
  Sir Frank Soskice: There will certainly be unanimity on this point:
  596
  we shall all look forward to reading the conclusions of the Committe to which the Home Secretary has referred. This House has a high regard for the authority, wisdom and learning of the noble Lord who will preside over it, as its chairman, and hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that there is ample room—and, indeed, need—for a consideration of the whole structure of the Court of Criminal Appeal and, in particular, of the topics on which the right hon. Gentleman touched, namely, whether part of its jurisdiction should go to the Court of Appeal, and kindred topics.
  I now turn to other possible points of agreement. So far as it lies in my power, I would advise the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. I say that echoing the words of the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand the Bill, its effect is to give an accused person who has been convicted and who has appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal a further opportunity of showing that he ought not to have been convicted, by having his case referred, on fresh evidence, to another jury. I understand that that is the objective which is encompassed by the limited form, namely, the compromise solution proposed by the Departmental Committee presided over by Lord Tucker, whose majority recommendation the Government have accepted. It is upon that basis that I view the Bill, and hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
  There is force in the language cited by the Home Secretary, from page 13 of the Report of the Committee, dealing with the situation in which the accused's guilt or innocence ought to be viewed in the context of the broader body of evidence which may be available. Upon that footing I would hope that the House would give the Bill a Second Reading.
  I say that subject to the caveat that it is far from clear from the language used in Clause 1(1) precisely how the Bill will work and, indeed, whether it will achieve the object which the Home Secretary indicated in the words from his speech which I have cited—whether it is properly designed to give the accused person the further opportunity that, speaking for myself, I believe that experience has shown he should have.

  597
  The history of this Measure, and especially its passage through another place, has been somewhat extraordinary, in that virtually the whole debate in another place was centred upon the question whether the powers should be wider or should be limited to the narrower compromise form in which they find expression in the terms of the Bill. I find the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman, and expounded fully and most admirably by the Lord Chancellor in another place, infinitely more convincing than the arguments to a contrary effect addressed to the other place by a number of noble Lords, including some Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
  I hold a deep and profound respect for the learning and authority of those noble Lords, but I confess that I was wholly unconvinced by the arguments which they addressed to the other place. I thought that the Home Secretary was right when he said that the conflict of view sprang from a rather deeper conflict of principle. Those noble Lords who wished for the powers to be in a wider form, as appears from their speeches, were principally influenced by the consideration that some guilty persons now succeeded in avoiding punishment, and that they ought to be punished. The contrary view, put by the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chancellor, and which appealed to me much more strongly, is based upon what I conceive to be a very deep-rooted principle in our system of justice, namely, that criminal justice should be fair, swift and final, and that except in the most unusual situation persons should never be put in jeopardy twice upon a criminal charge.
  When it is said that in any event that principle is breached when there is a disagreement upon the first trial, I answer—as the right hon. Gentleman answered—that one breach of a very salutary principle does not necessarily mean that other breaches in it are desirable. If there is one unavoidable breach—and many people would be of the opinion that that breach is avoidable, and should not be allowed—namely, in the case where juries disagree, it seems to me that that is a strong reason for doing our level best to avoid further breaches, and that we should not be encouraged to make further breaches. I felt some regret when I read certain passages in the speeches
  598
  of some noble Lords in another place who seemed to be wholly unimpressed by any consideration of that sort.
  Therefore, I begin by saying that I entirely agree with the view that the Government have taken on the initial problem raised by the Bill, namely, whether the powers should be wider or narrower. I hope that if the matter is raised later in Committee, we shall adhere firmly to the view that we should not extend these principles in any event beyond the degree to which they are embodied in the Bill.
  Having made my position clear on that issue, I want to proceed to the other aspects of the Bill, saying, however, that it is not as if judicial opinion were wholly on the side of the wider extension of the powers. There is a remarkable cleavage both of judicial and non-judicial opinion among lawyers and laymen. A very striking division was that to which the noble Lord the Lord Chief Justice pointed, when he informed another place that of 30 judges—he thought that that was the approximate figure of learned judges present at the meeting to which he referred—16 were in favour of a wider form of power to order a new trial and 14 in favour of the narrower form which appears in the Bill. That is a remarkable cleavage of opinion among learned judges whose task it is to sit upon the benches of courts of first instance and be actively concerned with this sort of problem.
  But there it is. There is a wide cleavage of opinion that must be recognised. It must also be said that the Lord Chief Justice would have preferred the powers to be in the wider form but felt that it would be inappropriate that they should take that form in view of the very marked cleavage of opinion in the world of the judiciary and of lawyers generally which still exists on that topic.
  Leaving that out of account and going to the second question which I adumbrated briefly in my earlier remarks, how in fact is subsection (1) of Clause 1 to operate? I hope that the House will excuse me if I cite from a very learned tonie—"Archbold on Criminal Pleading and Practice", a work of very great authority which I suppose every practitioner in the country thumbs and has cited from on many occasions. I

  599
  cite from paragraph 899 of the latest edition a passage which describes the practice which in fact has been followed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in its consideration of fresh evidence in the exercise of its powers under Section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. It is the practice which learned judges in that court have gradually evolved placing on the relevant wording of the section the interpretation which they think appropriate to it as reported in a very large number of reported cases upon which the practice is based, cited in Archbold, in these words:
  "It is only in the most exceptional circumstances and subject to what may be described as exceptional conditions that the court is ever willing to listen to additional evidence. One of the requisites to the granting of an application for leave to call additional evidence is that it must be shown that the proposed witness was not available to give evidence at the trial. The other requisite to the granting of such application is that the additional evidence must be such that, in the opinion of the court, it probably would have affected the verdict which the jury returned."
  I should have thought that the opinion of a considerable number of people who have reflected on the proceedings in the Court of Criminal Appeal would be that there is perhaps room for a more, shall I say, extensive review of a jury's verdict of fact. Many learned judges, I think, are understandably reluctant, when sitting in the Court of Criminal Appeal, to interfere—unless it is perfectly clear that they ought to interfere—with the findings of fact which a jury has recorded. This reluctance which springs from long experience is easily intelligible, and I make no criticism of it. It is a fact, and I should have thought that practitioners in that court would in general be in accord, that that is the general principle which underlies the view taken by the learned judges in the Court of Criminal Appeal. That is the situation from which one starts, and starting from it, and looking at the provisions of this Bill, I should have thought that it would conduce to a more perfect administration of justice if there were some wider provisions for a direct reconsideration of the conclusions on fact at which a jury arrives.
  I doubt whether the ends of the administration of justice are always best served by what I have described as the quite understandable reluctance of a
  600
  judge sitting without a jury in the Court of Criminal Appeal to substitute his own opinion on the facts—without actually seeing the witnesses before him—for that which a jury formed. If I support the principles of this Bill it is because it seems to me that subsection (1) seems to move in that direction.
  At the moment, as is reported in Archbold, the court is reluctant to hear fresh evidence and only hears fresh evidence where the circumstances are rather exceptional. Archbold goes on to point out that the court will proceed by the principle that there should be an acquittal, as I read the relevant passage which appears in the same paragraph, if the fresh evidence is such that the jury might not necessarily have come to the verdict of "guilty" at which they had arrived, had the evidence been before it. Those are the principles. I feel it is desirable that there should be some easier way of putting before an appeal tribunal further evidence available touching the question of guilt or innocence. I can well understand that it is difficult for the Court of Appeal to constitute itself into a kind of fresh jury and, as it were, to rehear the whole case. I feel that this Bill does what the Home Secretary indicated is its purpose in making it possible for fresh evidence to be more easily heard by saying, "The evidence of a new witness, or two or three witnesses cannot be really evaluated so far as the strength of their evidence goes in the Court of Criminal Appeal as well as they could be evaluated if their evidence is considered in the context of the whole of the evidence available in the case, and that can only be done if the matter goes back to a fresh jury."
  It seems to me, therefore, that the effect of the Bill is likely to be this: over and over again a jury arrives at a verdict of guilty. There is other evidence which might have been placed before it which was not, for one reason or another. It is very difficult for the Court of Criminal Appeal to form a clear view, in the first place that it ought to hear that evidence, and in the second place what would have been the effect if the court of first instance had heard it. It seems that the machinery provided for in the Bill will enable the Court of Criminal Appeal in a number of cases to produce a more certain and

  601
  fairer result than might be possible under the existing machinery. Because I hope that the Bill will have that effect, I feel disposed to support its Second Reading, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
  I do, however, venture to repeat that I think we shall have to consider very closely the wording which has been chosen, when and if this Bill reaches a Committee stage. If I may say so with respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General who I believe is to reply to the debate, it does not seem to me that Clause 1(1) indicates with any clarity, or with sufficient clarity, what it is that has to be established by an appellant when he comes before the Court of Criminal Appeal and indicates that he wishes to tender fresh evidence. Has he, in effect, to do what he now has to do, as described in the paragraph in Archbold which I read out, if he wishes the court to exercise its existing powers under Section 9?
  Will he have to show in tendering the evidence that there are exceptional circumstances which make it desirable for the Court of Criminal Appeal to exercise its powers to order a new trial? If he has to do that, I must confess that I do not think this Bill will help him at all. Indeed, it could have the opposite effect. It might mean that in cases in which the Court of Criminal Appeal, if it had heard the evidence tendered on appeal, would as the law stands have directed an acquittal, the appellant will fail. He might be in the position in which he would not derive any advantage if this Bill is passed.
  Therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to say that they will look with sympathy on any change proposed to the language of Clause 1(1) which will make it clear that one of the objectives of the Bill is that the rather stringent provision limiting the circumstances in which new evidence can be made available to the Court of Criminal Appeal is loosened so that it may be much easier for an appellant who comes to the Court of Criminal Appeal to say, "There was other evidence which might have been put before the jury. I now wish to support my argument by saying that that other
  602
  evidence would have made a difference and I ask the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a new trial".
  If the language could be considered with that end in view, I should think that it world be a very valuable provision. I hope that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will be able to say that he will look with sympathy on any examination of the language of Clause 1(1) designed to achieve that purpose.
  A number of hon. and learned Members, I know, wish to speak. I have made the points which I wished to make on this Bill and accordingly I shall not continue my observations any longer. I hope that we may give this Bill a Second Reading and resist most firmly any attempt to extend the power to grant a new trial in the sense for which noble Lords in another place contended, and I hope that in Committee we shall subject the language of Clause 1(1) to a very thorough review.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: The Home Secretary in introducing this Bill said that it was a significant and important Bill. Although I would agree with a great deal of what he said, I cannot agree with that remark at all. As drafted, this Bill, only and solely gives the Court of Criminal Appeal power to order a new trial if it sees fit in a case where fresh evidence which has a very technical and special meaning is available and is presented by the appellant to the court.
  One naturally asks oneself, "How often will this occur? Will it be a daily matter to make this Bill significant and important? "—and the answer is "No". In fact—I quote the words of the Lord Chief Justice in another place—it will occur about once a year, and it does not necessarily follow that the court in that particular case will consider the fresh evidence of sufficient importance to order a new trial. Therefore, this important Measure which we are considering is neither significant nor important but may in fact result in a new trial in, say, once every two years. I do not, of course, include the question of courts-martial. No one knows how often that would apply because there are no records and no history of it. I should

  603
  have thought that the number of times will be so unimportant that this would not apply.
  That is the position so far as the Bill as drafted is concerned. Therefore, it is quite wrong to say that it is significant, and quite wrong to say that it is important. It may well be that it came before this House and another place only because of a well-known and notorious case which took place last year. Because in one case it might have been important for a new trial, that is no reason to bring in this very special Bill and occupy the time of the House with it.
  But discussion here will undoubtedly and rightly take place, as it did in another place, on the important question of whether this Bill goes far enough. I am aware, as other hon. Members will be aware, that this is a Government Bill and the Government take the view that it should not be extended, and apparently that is the final arrangement. It is unlikely that those who think that it should go further are likely to succeed in getting it amended in that rather large measure during its passage through the House. But that does not prevent hon. Members from expressing their views during the course of its passage.
  I entirely agree with the Home Secretary and with the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) that we all await with interest the conclusions of this new Committee under Lord Donovan that has just been appointed. We shall see whether it varies or differs in any way from the previous committees which have sat to consider this vexed and awkward question, and I am sure that if necessary, and if its conclusions are unanimous the Government will introduce a fresh Bill going a great deal further than this trifling and unimportant Bill goes.
  I would say a word in answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman before I deal with the wider question of what is meant and understood by everybody as a fresh trial. I agree with what he said, that as soon as there is fresh evidence, provided, of course, that it is possible for it to be believed, and that it is available, there should not necessarily be a new trial. Just think of the opportunities that would be open to an
  604
  accused person who says, "I will not call my best witnesses at my trial but keep them for the Court of Criminal Appeal". The test is simple. The evidence must not have been reasonably available before the court below. That is the first requisite. It must be evidence which is relevant because it relates to matters which the jury had to decide and not evidence which was not relevant to the trial. And it must be such as is reasonably credible before a jury. This is the most difficult question of all to decide. Then, of course, there must be a new trial.
  One must remember that in the Court of Criminal Appeal, however experienced the learned judges there may be in deciding questions, they are not judges of fact in criminal cases. The onus put upon them is the very difficult one of deciding whether a person, not seen or cross-examined, is likely to be believed by a jury. I hope that no alteration will be made at all in that, except in those cases where these three requisites are fulfilled, before fresh evidence will be considered by the court of Criminal Appeal and considered on the question of whether they shall order a new trial.
  Now let us consider the other and much more important question, whether or not this Bill goes far enough. We are not only in this House—although I look around me and see a great many of my professional colleagues sitting there—dealing with the question of crime. The passing of laws dealing with crime and the protection of the public are very much in mind. We cannot hide from ourselves the fact that crime is on the increase, and has been on the increase. One has only to go into the courts where I used to go as a young barrister, the County of London Sessions, where there were two courts and now there are six and the same applies to the Old Bailey and elsewhere. Crime is rapidly on the increase and becoming of a more serious kind. It is not for that reason that we want to get innocent people convicted, but we want to see that guilty people do not escape and go free to commit possibly further and similar, or even dissimilar, crimes.
  Let us not forget that all these people that we are talking about in the Court of Criminal Appeal have already been convicted and found guilty by a jury. A

  605
  large number of them get off and are acquitted under the Court of Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, because of some technicality which has occurred in the proceedings, perhaps a misdirection by the learned judge or recorder who tried the ease, and it may, in many cases, be of a very technical nature indeed. If that person is entitled after the hearing of the appeal to go free afterwards I can see, speaking entirely for myself, no reason why that should happen. He should be sent back, in my view—I know a good many lawyers disagree with that, just as many lawyers agree with what I say—for trial, and in the case of disagreement there should be one further trial and it should be limited to that.
  Mr. Niall MacDermot: Can the hon. and learned Member say why he thinks it should be limited to once only? If the principle is right, why not go on and on?
  Mr. Doughty: Because I think it would be a bad practice and one which everyone would frown upon.
  Mr. MacDermot: Is not the reason that it is oppressive? If it is oppressive to do it three times, why it is not oppressive to do it twice?
  Mr. Doughty: I think the same principle applies as when there is a disagreement by a jury. I think that is about the limit which makes it non-oppressive and anything beyond that makes it oppressive. That is why I say that if there is further conviction by the Court of Criminal Appeal and a further finding of misdirection there should be no evidence offered. I do not think many would disagree with that part of what I have said.
  I realise that it would not happen during the course of this Bill, but I should like these views put forward clearly because the suppression of crime is not easy. The new Judges' Rules do not make the discovery and suppression of crime any easier. However, some people may take a different view of that, but I think this is a handicap on the police whose difficult job it is to detect crime. I think that the new Judges' Rules put a severe handicap on the police forces of this country. If the whole lame we are to weight the scales in favour of a person charged with
  606
  crime, it is equally important to see that the protection of the public is ensured. That is just as important as seeing that in accused person has a fair trial.
  This is a short and trifling Bill, a Bill which in my view—although I realise this is not a view which will be widely held in this House—should be amended so that there is ordering of a new trial in every case where the court thinks that should be done. The proviso referred to by the Home Secretary is so narrowly drawn that the Court of Criminal Appeal can very rarely apply it. That deals with Clause 1 of the Bill.
  There is the small matter—it must be a small matter, because of the trifling number of cases to which this Bill will apply—of why a judge in a new trial should be restricted in sentencing to the sentence passed in the court before. If it is a completely new trial new facts may emerge. New facts may be put before the court as to what has happened, yet the judge who tries the case is obliged; to say, "I am restricted by the sentence passed upon you before and therefore I cannot give you what I think is the proper sentence in this case." This is a very small and trifling matter, but equally I think it is a mistake.
  I hope I have made my views clear on this matter. I hope the House will feel that it can give a Second Reading to the Bill with a clear conscience, but it is altering but little the law of the land.
  5.53 p.m.
  Mr. Dingle Foot: One question which it seems needs to be asked in relation to this Bill is why we have had to wail so long for its introduction. The Tucker Committee reported on 10th April, 1954, very nearly 10 years ago. As we have been reminded, that Committee was divided on the issue as to whether there should be a general power in the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a new trial, but it was nearly unanimous, indeed it was emphatic, as regards the proposal embodied in this Bill.
  There was no resistance, there was no one concerned to prevent the enactment of its Report, yet we have had to wait nearly 10 years. We may suspect that

  607
  we would not have had the Bill introduced in the present Session but for the Lucky Gordon trial. That, I suggest, is absolutely typical of the way in which the reform of the law has been approached over the last 12 years. It happens again and again. Everyone knows that the law is defective in some particular respect; there are judicial comments representations are made by the Bar Council or the Law Society; an extremely authoritative committee is set up and reports—often unanimously—then a form of Departmental paralysis supervenes and the report is pigeonholed. We do not hear of it again for a very long time. The excuse is always that the Parliamentary time-table is too crowded.
  In relation to a Measure of this sort that always seems to me to be sheer nonsense. We could quite easily pass a Measure of this kind in an hour or two of Parliamentary time. We could pass it if necessary by sitting a little later for a couple of nights during a Session. We have had this kind of procedure for the last 12 years, but I comfort myself with the reflection that after the next General Election these matters will be dealt with with far more regularity and dispatch.
  I come to the question, which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) and debated in another place, of whether the scope of the Bill should be widened. We are all aware of this fact. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said from the Opposition Front Bench that some very eminent judges—Lord Reid is one and Lord Devlin is another, and I have the highest regard for both—think that there should be a general power to order a new trial. Opinion has been divided, and evenly divided, both on the bench and at the Bar. It is worth recalling that this matter has been considered by this House on two previous occasions, the first in 1907 and the second in 1948. I remind the House of two quotations from debates, because they express very succinctly the reasons why we should resist the proposal for a wider power to order a new trial in cases of irregularity or misdirection.
  608
  The first quotation is from the Attorney-General in 1907, Sir John Walters. He is reported in indirect speech in the HANSARD of those days as saying that
  "To his mind it was unthinkable that they should put a prisoner on a second trial for a miscarriage at the first trial for which he was in no way responsible."
  I entirely agree. After all, if there is a misdirection or some irregularity which leads to conviction, that is not the fault of the accused.
  Mr. Doughty: I did not wish to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, but it is so tempting. Of course he is responsible, assuming that he is guilty of doing the crime. He is perfectly responsible.
  Mr. Foot: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman is doing himself justice. If there is any misdirection, or if there is some irregularity, the fault lies with the court. It lies with the judge, the recorder, the chairman of quarter sessions as the case may be, or it may conceivably lie with the prosecution or be divided between the two, but the one person who is not responsible for the misdirection or irregularity is the accused.
  Mr. S. Silverman: I am following my hon. and learned Friend with great sympathy and I agree with almost everything he has said, but will he explain why this principle he is so persuasively defending does not apply also in the case of new evidence? It is on the definition of new evidence that the Court of Criminal Appeal has applied to its finding, the evidence that was not called before because it was not available. The accused is no more responsible for a miscarriage of the facts than for a miscarriage of the law or misdirection. Why, therefore, does not the principle of not putting a man on trial for the second time in circumstances for which he was not responsible apply there, too?
  Mr. Foot: I am always willing to give way to my hon. Friend, but I think his intervention was a little premature. I was just coming to the point he has raised. I was on the question of a new trial in a case of misdirection or irregularity. I gave one quotation from what the Attorney-General said in 1907. The

  609
  other quotation was from a speech made in another place in 1948 by Lord du Parcq, who had a very wide experience of criminal trials, both at the Bar and on the bench. He said:
  "I am going to say something which may seem odd, but I believe that on reflection your Lordships will agree with it. It is inevitable, and one might almost say that it is right and desirable that guilty persons should sometimes escape. It is the price we pay for making sure that no innocent person is ever convicted."
  Later in his speech he said:
  "… I would rather run the risk of an occasional guilty man escaping than put them twice in peril. That is contrary to every principle of cur law, of which it has always been a fundamental maxim that a man could not be put in peril twice for the same offence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 7th June, 1948; Vol. 156, c. 395–6, 398.]
  That reasoning is just as cogent now as it was in 1948. When there has been an error for which the accused himself is not responsible, we ought not to subject him to the ordeal of going through a second trial.
  I come now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and which has been referred to in both opening speeches. That is the question of the application of Section 9 of the 1907 Act.
  Mr. Roderic Bowen: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in fact the provisions of the Bill as it stands at the moment will mean that a man can be put in peril for the second time?
  Mr. Foot: In a sense, of course, that is correct, but it means a second trial. The Bill is the only way in which we can meet the situation which arises when fresh evidence appears after a conviction. I suggest that over the years an unduly narrow interpretation has been placed on Section 9 of the 1907 Act, an interpretation which I think, with great respect to the judges, is narrower than Parliament originally intended.
  What it comes to is this. If it is desired to call fresh evidence before the Court of Criminal Appeal, it must in effect be shown to the court that that evidence could not have been made available at the original trial. I entirely see the force of what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey,
  610
  East. It would be intolerable that accused persons or those who represent them should keep back witnesses and then, if there is a conviction, try to bring them forward to give evidence in the Court of Criminal Appeal.
  However, there may be perfectly valid and legitimate reasons for not calling a witness, even though he may be physically available. All of us who practise in the courts have had some experience of this. I will give as an example the case of the reluctant witness, the witness who may be able to help the defence but who is very unwilling to come. One can compel his or her attendance. We all know that his is extremely dangerous, and it may be undesirable. Therefore, those who represent the defence may reasonably conclude that they ought not to call the witness at the trial. Then—I have known this happen—the witness afterwards has second thoughts. Having seen the conviction, the witness becomes less reluctant and is willing to come forward and give evidence. This may be a rare case, but it is a case which occasionally arises. In such a case I personally can see no reason why the evidence should not be called in the Court of Criminal Appeal and why the court in such a case should not order a new trial, at which that evidence can be given to the jury, together with all the rest.
  I entirely agree with what was said by my hon and learned Friend the Member for Newport. This is a step in the direction of making the Court of Criminal Appeal more of a court of review. We all know that at present it is very rare for the Court of Criminal Appeal to allow an appeal on a question of fact. It must be shown that there has been some misdirection or that there has been something wrong with the trial. One must be able, in effect, to raise a point of law to have any chance in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Even though the court may think that the evidence was of a most unsatisfactory nature, if there was evidence upon which the jury could convict it will not interfere with the conviction.
  This principle has been long established in this country. It does not obtain in parts of the Commonwealth. For example, in India there is a trial, admittedly not as a rule a trial by jury

  611
  but a trial by judge alone. It used to be a trial by a judge with assessors. In each case there would be an appeal. The appellate court would not have the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. Naturally, it would have regard to the views of the court which did. None the less, the appellate court has not felt itself inhibited from dealing with the facts. It has reviewed the facts again and again.
  I myself believe that this country could with advantage move towards the Indian system. It should be the duty of the Court of Criminal Appeal not merely to look for some legal error in the course of the proceedings but also to see whether the facts really justify the conviction. This no doubt will be considered by the Committee to be presided over by Lord Donovan. It is because the Bill is at any rate a step in that direction that I personally hope that it will soon reach the Statute Book.
  6.6 p.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: As has been said, the Bill gives a very limited power to order a new trial where a conviction is quashed in the light of fresh evidence and on no other ground, and where the court in its discretion considers that a retrial should be ordered in the interests of justice. This means, if the present practice is followed—and we have the authority of the Lord Chief Justice in another place for saying that this practice will be followed—that it is only where three conditions are fulfilled that the matter can be dealt with in this way.
  The three conditions are: first, where the evidence sought to be called was not available at the trial; secondly, that the evidence is evidence that it is relevant to produce; and, thirdly, that the evidence is credible evidence, in the sense that it is capable of belief.
  I know that other speakers have referred to this, but this is the basis of the matter, The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) referred to this very limited power. It must be borne in mind that one of the learned Law Lords last week expressed the view that it hardly touched the fringe of the general problem and was almost derisory. We have the authority
  612
  of the Lord Chief Justice for the statement that the number of cases to which the Bill as drafted can refer is extraordinarily small. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East said that it might be one a year.
  Mr. Ede: On a point of order. I have always understood that the only time that Members of another place can be quoted in a debate in this House is when a member of the Government has made a statement in the other place. The Lord Chief Justice, eminent as he is—I do not seek to dispute the weight that has been placed on his views—is not a member of the Government. It would be a terrifying thing if the idea got about, because a statement he made in another place could be quoted in a debate in this House, that he must be a member of the Government.
  I have heard three hon. and learned Gentlemen in succession allude to the Lord Chief Justice and bring him in in support of, or in opposition to, the views they have expressed here. I should be glad to know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether I have quoted the rule with regard to quotations made from speeches in another place correctly.
  Mr. Weitzman: Further to that point of order. Before you rule on this point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to say that before speaking I took the precaution of looking into this matter carefully. I understand that the rule is that one must not quote directly from such speeches, but that one can refer to the subject matter.
  Mr. Doughty: Further to that point of order. I, too, was careful not to quote verbatim. I also understood that one could quote figures and facts given in another place or anywhere else in support of one's argument.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think that a quotation which is not verbatim—that is, an account of a speech as opposed to an exact quotation—does not offend the rules of order, but, apart from that, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was correct in what he said.
  Mr. Weitzman: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that upon the authority of the Lord Chief Justice the cases to

  613
  which this Bill as drafted can apply are extraordinarily few in number. I wonder why it was thought worth while introducing a Bill in these terms.
  In another place there was considerable support for the general question of enlarging the power to grant a new trial by granting unlimited power to the Court of Criminal Appeal in the exercise of its discretion to order a new trial. I am glad that the attempt has failed. Indeed, I press the view that the law as it stands should not be changed and that the limited power provided by this Bill should not be given. Practically all the arguments used against the idea of extending the powers as given under the Bill are arguments which apply with equal force to the rejection of the powers given by the Bill.
  It is said that it is wrong that a guilty person should escape. If he does escape it is mainly the result of some technical point—some misdirection on the part of the learned trial judge—hut the Bill does not purport to deal with such a case and, frankly, it is of far greater importance that an innocent person should not suffer or should not run the risk of suffering. Consider what a trial means to an innocent person. He may be on trial on a murder charge or may be involved in a long conspiracy charge taking many weeks. The actual trial follows months of waiting and there is the period of the committal proceedings. Then the jury finds the accused guilty. He appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal on grounds provided for under the Bill. There is fresh evidence and the Court of Criminal Appeal orders a new trial.
  It has been said that this power to order a new trial is something given as a favour to the accused. My submission is that it is nothing of the sort. If one gals fresh evidence of such a kind that warrants the Court of Criminal Appeal saying that there is a real doubt about the matter—that there even arises the question of a new trial—the duty of the Court of Criminal Appeal should be to quash the sentence and not to order a new trial.
  Consider what happens in the circumstances I have mentioned. The Court of Criminal Appeal orders a new trial. Again, there is the long agony of awaiting trial and the ordeal of the trial itself; and one can imagine what that means to
  614
  an accused person. What of the trial itself? Can a trial of that kind possibly be a fair one? The jury may learn—will almost certainly learn in the course of the trial—that the accused has been previously convicted of the charge by a jury. The first trial may have attracted publicity and reference may have been made to previous convictions. Damaging comments may have been made by the learned judge in sentencing the person on the first trial and such matters may receive considerable publicity. The jury on a new trial may have read of these matters and, clearly, these are matters which may prejudice the accused on a new trial.
  A further point to remember is, as every counsel for the defence knows, a second trial is in many ways thoroughly unsatisfactory. The evidence is stale, the cross-examination is repeated and loses its sting and the witness is prepared and endeavours to put forward a ready explanation which was not received before. In other words, the prosecution is at a distinct advantage. The defence is at a disadvantage.
  I have spoken about an innocent person; and in his case the prospect of a second trial of any kind is an appalling one. But even for a man who is guilty, think of the agony to which he will be subjected to to provide an opportunity to prove that he is guilty. A man stands his trial. If found not guilty that is the end of the matter. If on appeal his trial is shown to be unsatisfactory, unless the Court of Criminal Appeal is certain that he would have been found guilty despite any defect, and they apply the proviso, he should not be put in peril again. To give an example of this: a man tried for an offence where the jury disagrees after a long trials tried a second time and is found guilty. He appeals on the grounds of fresh evidence. Under the Bill the Court of Criminal Appeal may order a new trial and that, in that case, will mean three trials.
  I have referred to the publicity that is attendant on the first trial and how it may affect the fairness of the second one. It has been said in answer to that criticism that there is already publicity of the committal proceedings before the magistrates. I had the honour some years ago of being a member of the

  615
  Tucker Committee which, years ago, unanimously recommended that such publicity—that is, publicity given to evidence at committal proceedings—should be forbidden; but nothing has been done to implement those unanimous findings. It does not lie in the mouths of critics to say that because that publicity exists there is no danger of an accused person on a second trial being prejudiced because of it.
  It has been said in justification of the provisions of the Bill that now as a rule when a jury disagrees there is a second trial. That is perfectly true, and many of the observations I have already made apply with equal force to a second trial in such a case. I have always taken the view that a second trial should not be held when there is disagreement: that the accused should not be subjected to it, and that the very fact that the jury have disagreed shows such doubt that the accused should be acquitted.
  The subject matter of the Bill is something over which many lawyers of experience differ. We have heard a number of quotations from previous debates, and I should like to add just two further references. Sir Hartley Shawcross, as he then was, the then Attorney-General, said in a debate on the Criminal Justice Bill in April, 1948:
  "We must accept the view that occasionally—very occasionally, and subject to great safeguards—there may be some cases in which it is desirable that there shall be a new trial."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 1108.]
  At a later stage in the discussion on that Bill he took the view that the difficulty of providing adequate safeguards outweighed any value in allowing the court to order a new trial.
  That is still the position. I hope that the House will refuse to give this Bill its Second Reading but, if a Second Reading is granted, I hope that in Committee something will be done about the wording of Clause 1(1) so that it is made clear that the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal are not limited to consideration of fresh evidence in the way they are today; and also that some provision is inserted to show that the object which is said to be the object of this Bill, is to give a further right to the accused person, is made perfectly clear.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: The Home Secretary has outlined the earlier history of this matter with complete fairness. It is true that there was a long series of unsuccessful attempts to establish the possibility of a second trial, or a retrial, in the days before there was any right of appeal. I believe that in all those cases the attempt was made only because there was no right of appeal; that the possibility of putting a man on trial more than once for the same offence was never recommended in all those years on its merits. The Bills were a second-best. It was thought that this was a quicker way than getting a Court of Criminal Appeal established. They all failed and, in the end, a Court of Criminal Appeal, with limited powers, was established.
  It is true to say that the judges in the Court of Criminal Appeal have ever since been busily engaged in whittling down the rights accorded by the Criminal Appeal Act. They have done it in two or, perhaps, three ways. The first has already been referred to, and I do not wish to dilate upon it. Whereas Section 9 gives the Court of Criminal Appeal the power, at its discretion, to hear additional evidence in order to establish whether "on any ground" there has been a miscarriage of justice, the Court of Criminal Appeal has produced a situation in which, by virtue of its own decisions, it does not allow itself to hear additional evidence unless it can be established that the additional evidence was not available, and could not by reasonable diligence have been made available, at the original trial. I do not believe that our judges have the power to alter the law in that way. It is regrettable that they should have done so.
  The second way in which the judges have whittled down the rights conferred by the Criminal Appeal Act is in their treatment of the ground of appeal depending on the conviction being unsound because it is against the weight of the evidence. The Criminal Appeal Act is very clear about this. "Against the weight of the evidence" presupposes that there is evidence both ways, and that, there being evidence both ways, one weighs one lot of evidence against the other lot, and if the balance comes down for acquittal and the jury have

  617
  convicted, the conviction may, in a suitable case, be regarded by the Court of Criminal Appeal as unsound and may, therefore, be quashed.
  What the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal have done is to forget the words "the weight of"—
  Mr. Dick Taverne: I have not the Statute before me, but I think it reads if
  "… the verdict … cannot be supported having regard to the evidence …"
  Mr. Silverman: Those are the words of the Act, certainly. The Statute does not use the words "weight of" and my argument is faulty to that extent, 1 agree.
  But what the Court of Criminal Appeal has done has been so to interpret the words of the Act as to produce the position that if there is any evidence which, it the jury accepted it, could support the conviction, the conviction cannot be attacked. That was not what the Criminal Appeal Act said, and, although the words "weight of evidence" are not in the Criminal Appeal Act, they have been frequently used in the course of argument in the Court of Criminal Appeal as being an effective way of judging whether the conviction can or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence given.
  Under pressure from the Court of Criminal Appeal, resulting from doubt and an xiety—indeed, criticism—about the conduct of a certain appeal, the Government have yielded to the suggestion that, after all, there ought to be given to the Court of Criminal Appeal the power to order a fresh trial. I am wholly against it. The principle that no man should be placed in jeopardy on the same charge more than once is a basic principle in our jurisprudence, and ought not to be disturbed.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) conceded that and, if I may say so, advocated it with great force. He did this in respect of the suggestion that the limited powers of the Bill should be extended and that there should be the power to obtain a retrial, not merely where the ground of appeal is the availability of fresh evidence but where the ground of appeal is a defect in the summing up or some other fault in the trial for which the accused is not
  618
  responsible. I think that my hon. and learned Friend departed from his usual rigid logic when he endeavoured to establish a distinction on that ground between defects in the trial by reason of misdirection for which the accused was not responsible, and defects in the trial because the facts were not brought properly before the jury, as though in the second cast the fault lies with the appellant.
  Mr. MacDermott: It lies nowhere. In that case there is no fault; a new development has occurred. In the first case there is a fault.
  Mr. Silverman: It is true that in the first case there has been a fault on somebody's part, but the accused is not responsible for it. In the second case there may be no fault on anybody's part, but equally the accused is not responsible.
  Therefore, if we say that a man should be put on trial for the second time in circumstances for which he is not responsible, I am unable to make a distinction between faults in the matter of evidence and faults in the matter of law. It seems to me a wholly illogical and untenable distinction, and all the arguments which the Government find acceptable and decisive against extending the powers of tie Court of Appeal in this respect are equally applicable to what they propose to do.
  Why do they want to do it, and why now? What is the urgency, what is the importance of it? I have carefully read the whole of the debate in another place. I took part in the debates on the same point in 1948. I can find absolutely nothing, not a jot or tittle, not a shred, not a scintilla of new argument on this point. Nothing that was said in the other place had not previously been said 15 or 16 years ago.
  I did not always agree with everything that the Labour Government did. There were occasions when I was enthusiastically in support of the Government—on most occasions, I think, in spite of a popular impression to the contrary. There were occasions when I differed, and when I differed I thought it right and proper to say so and to act accordingly Some people may think that some of those ventures were misconceived or ill-advised, but in many of them the House and my right hon. and

  619
  hon. Friends ultimately came round to share my opinion. I have no doubt on this point and I can see no reason why having been utterly persuaded by my hon. and right hon. Friends 15 or 16 years ago I should change my mind now or withdraw the allegiance which I then gave. Indeed, there is nothing new about it.
  What has caused this? Again, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich gave the answer. He was deploring the failure to implement the Tucker Report in 1954. I do not deplore it. I regret that the Government are acting on it now. I do not think that there is a justification for it. He said that it was the "Lucky" Gordon case that brought to life again this question of discretion. I think that that is true, although it is difficult to see how the ordering of a new trial would have put right anything that may have been wrong, or made easier anything that may have been difficult, in the handling of the Gordon case by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
  I have expressed a view elsewhere. I had at one time contemplated putting a Motion down in the House, but I no longer propose to do that and I therefore make no accusations or complaint of any kind about the motives which may have influenced the Court of Criminal Appeal in dealing with that case in the way it did, but I have no doubt that the way it dealt with it had no authority under the Criminal Appeal Act.
  I would remind the House of what it did. Gordon had been convicted. Gordon appealed, and the ground of his appeal was that there was new evidence available at the time but not available to him, but this had become available to him. The Court of Criminal Appeal ordered that certain transcripts should be made and certain statements from certain witnesses should be taken by certain police officers, and then the appeal came to be heard. Not a single scrap of new evidence was ever before the Court of Criminal Appeal.
  The normal procedure is well-known. One puts in one's new evidence by affidavit and one reads the affidavit to the court. The court may decide that it does not fall within the definition of new evidence and therefore refuses to
  620
  do anything further about it, or it may decide that it falls within the definition, in which case the witness is called, gives evidence, is cross-examined. Then, the evidence having been given in that way in public, the court makes its assessment as to whether, if the evidence had been before the jury, the jury would necessarily have still convicted.
  Only then, as I understand the matter, is the Court of Criminal Appeal entitled to quash the conviction. In this case it quashed the conviction for reasons which it said were obvious, but which were never explained and were certainly not obvious to me. The evidence could never have been before the court at all, and therefore it quashed the conviction without the evidence being heard.
  I do not see how powers to order a retrial could have assisted in that case, and I do not see the relevance of Gordon's appeal to the principle which we are now discussing. I come back to that and ask in all seriousness that the Government should consider what in the world is wrong with the existing practice, what injustice is done, what is the compulsive force which compels the Government to say at this time, in this manner, that we must depart from a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence, namely, the rule that no man should be put in jeopardy twice on the same charge. It is said that this is done in the interests of the appellant. But the appellant's rights are diminished by the Bill, not increased.
  What is the present position, if we do not pass the Bill? What has an appellant to do to succeed? First, he has to satisfy the Court of Criminal Appeal that his evidence is new in the narrow, rigid and strict sense of the word and that he could not possibly have called it before the jury at the original trial. It may well be that there is no statutory foundation for these rules of the Court of Criminal Appeal, but they are established rules now and the court would be reluctant, rightly reluctant, I suppose, to alter of its own initiative a long-established practice. So the appellant has to show that the evidence is new in that sense.
  He has to show also that the new evidence is relevant or material in the sense that the jury could not necessarily be supposed to have reached the same

  621
  conclusion if the evidence had been before it. Even if it is new, even if it is material, the appellant has no right to have the conviction quashed because the court may still apply the principles of the proviso to Section 4. But if all those conditions are satisfied, there is an end to the matter.
  In all conscience, which should not it be? How can a second trial in such circumstances be fair? There cannot be a real second trial. A second trial in such circumstances is, of its nature, a different trial altogether and cannot be called a rehearing of the same case. If the case is of any importance, it will have had publicity. The appeal will have had publicity. The jury will have heard about it. The judge, of course, will conscientiously tell the members of the jury to put it all out of their minds and pay no attention to it. This is advice which necessarily has to be given in a number of cases but it is advice easier to give than to follow. Knowing relevant facts, but making certain that they do not influence one in reaching a decision, may be a good judicial principle, but, in practice, with ordinary jurymen or, indeed, with judges as well in many, if not all, cases, it is something almost impossible to achieve. One cannot have a fair trial in the circumstances.
  What is to be the nature of the new trial? Is the evidence to be the same as before? Can the prosecution, having heard what the new evidence is and having heard it canvassed and discussed in the Court of Criminal Appeal, call evidence in rebuttal, or is to be confined to the evidence which it called in the first place?
  I ask, as was asked by an hon. Member opposite: how often is this to happen? We have all been appalled by certain American cases in which there have been retrials year after year over 10, 20, or even 30 years. There is no Member of the House who would want a series of retrials like that, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. And, in principle, once one accepts the principle of the Bill, why should it be prevented? There may be new evidence at any time, and it may happen more than once or more than twice. If the Bill is given a Second Reading, I hope
  622
  that there will at least be an Amendment to ensure that this operation can be performed once and once only, and that thereafter there shall be no further retrials.
  I hope, also, that what seems to me to be the extremely clumsy drafting of Clause 1 will be drastically reviewed. I hardly know what some of it means, and I shudder to think what interpretations the Court of Criminal Appeal might put upon it. The Clause begins:
  "Where an appeal against conviction is allowed by the Court of Criminal Appeal by reason only of evidence received or available to be received by that Court under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907.…"
  The question has already been asked: under Section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act as it stands, or under the interpretation of additional evidence which has become common form in the Court of Criminal Appeal? Which is it? The right hon. Gentleman said that this was merely a matter of procedure for the discretion of the Court of Criminal Appeal. I cannot accept that view, and, in all humility, I suggest that it is an unsound view.
  It should be for the House of Commons, for the Queen in Parliament, to determine what is the nature of the new evidence which will empower the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a second trial, not for the judges, not for the court. Parliament is the sovereign authority which makes our law, not the passing decisions of evanescent judges whose advice on such points has usually been unsound and always illiberal. I hope that we shall have an Amendment making clear what is the nature of the new evidence which the Court of Criminal Appeal is to admit.
  The subsection goes on:
  "and it appeals to the Court that the interests of justice so require …"
  What does that mean? At present, it is taken for granted that, if a man shows that a conviction is unsafe by reason of new evidence which the Court of Criminal Appeal accepts as making the conviction unsafe, it is in the interest of justice that the appeal should be allowed. It has never been necessary to say so. The Court of Criminal Appeal is empowered to quash the conviction, without requiring any other condition to be satisfied.

  623
  If the evidence is the right kind of new evidence, if it induces the right kind of doubt as to whether the verdict of the jury is tenable, then the interests of justice require that the conviction be set aside and a verdict of acquittal be ordered. But under this Clause the interests of justice are not taken to demand as of right and as a matter of course that there should be a new trial. The court has to take something else into consideration. First, it has to hear the evidence. Then it has to decide to quash the conviction. Then, in considering whether to direct a verdict of acquittal or to order a new trial, it has to consider whether the interests of justice so require.
  This can arise only in a doubtful case. Therefore, if the court decides that the interests of justice, all the rest having been established, require a second trial, this is a plain indication that in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the retrial there ought to be, the interests of justice requiring it, a conviction. It will certainly be so interpreted by the public, for if the court were satisfied that the interests of justice required an acquittal, it would, presumably, not order a new trial but quash the conviction there and then. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has said so. The mere fact that the Court of Criminal Appeal decides that the new trial is in the interests of justice is itself an embarrassment to the defence at the new trial, and cannot help but be.
  Unless an urgent necessity, a compelling state of the facts, urgently requires this alteration of the law, which is a fundamental alteration of the liberty of the subject, we should hesitate long before we give the Government the powers which they seek. Why cannot they wait? Why not wait until the Committee which has been set up to consider the whole matter has reported? Why the haste to rush in with this narrow, controversial and wholly unsound proposal?
  I hope that the Government will not ask us to give the Bill a Second Reading but that if they do, they will, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said, give sympathetic attention to the drastic Amendments which would in that case be essential.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: I do not wish to repeat the arguments which have already been put forward, but I feel strongly on this matter. I have just celebrated the fortieth year of my call to the Bar. I have never wavered in my view that a man should not be put in jeopardy a second time. I have had strong opinions upon retrying a man when the jury have disagreed. This is a particularly bad practice in a borough or city where a recorder sits, where the jury comes from a limited district and where there is one newspaper which reports that "Joe Buggins", who has been tried for driving under the influence of drink, has got off but is to be retried. It is the subject of comment in the "pubs" and it is not possible to get a fair trial for him on the next occasion.
  Every one of us knows that where we have had to take part in a second trial, it is a most peculiar sensation. There is something unreal about it. It is like coming back out of time and saying to oneself, "I have been here before". It sounds almost like a gramophone record asking the same questions in cross-examination.
  If I had my way, once a man had been in jeopardy before a jury, once the jury had found that they could not agree, that would be the end of it. That, however, is not the law and the trial must be gone through again. That is my feeling about the matter and it is one reason why I reject any change in the law.
  Once there has been the publicity of a trial, it is extremely difficult to get a fair trial. We know the effect of preliminary hearings before magistrates. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will remember the famous Wallace case in which there was great publicity in Liverpool on the opening speech of the prosecution, which occupied a whole page of the Liverpool Echo, in which there were 18 misstatements by the prosecuting solicitor and when the man was not then represented. When I went in as junior counsel, I had all that weight of the whole of South-West Lancashire directed against me. The argument was put, "If he did not do it, who did?" The jury convicted the man.
  At the assizes, we tried to protect ourselves from a Liverpool jury, but it was

  625
  quite impossible. The jury came from South-West Lancashire. They had had all the publicity of the hearing before the magistrates and Mr. Roland Oliver, as he then was, who led me in the case, said night after night, "I can do no good with this jury. They do not listen." Some members of the jury were actually laughing. This was the result of publicity upon a trial.
  In the result, the Court of Criminal Appeal did what it certainly had not done before and what I do not believe it has done since: it quashed a murder conviction given by a jury on the ground not that the conviction was against the weight of evidence—the Court of Criminal Appeal could not do that; it always ruled that out—but that there was no evidence at all, but merely suspicion.
  That effect from publicity when a man is on trial for his life often turns a jury against considering the evidence. Mr. Justice Wright, as he then was, summed up in clear terms, telling the jury, though not in terms, that there was mere suspicion and that they would probably think that there was no evidence which pointed one way rather than the other. Notwithstanding this, the publicity had been damning. One gets the same kind of publicity when a man is retired.
  For these reasons—and I adopt the reasons given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney North (Mr. Weitzman)—the opinion at the Bar and on the bench is delicately balanced on this matter. I think, however, that members of the public are more in favour of the good old principle that, once a man has been tried, he should not be put in jeopardy a second time.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. Roderic Bowen: In his last two or three sentences, the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) has—certainly not intentionally—incorrectly represented the position. As I understand, the overwhelming weight of opinion is in favour of a retrial and the major conflict relates to the circumstances in which the Court of Criminal Appeal should be allowed to order a retrial. I know of no great body of opinion which is opposed to the
  626
  granting of the power of retrial in certain circumstances to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
  The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) described the Bill as trifing and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) referred to it as fundamental. On that issue, I have more sympathy with the attitude of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. The Bill, even in its present limited form, makes a basic change in the law by providing for a new trial. It is a basic change which is an inroad into the existing rights of an accused person.
  From one or two of the observations made during the debate, one would have thought that the provision contained in the Bill for a new trial on the basis of fresh evidence was in some way conferring a right upon an accused person. In fact, it takes away from him an existing right. It is clear that, unless there is an alteration in the operation of Section 9 of the 1907 Act, in every case in which a new trial is ordered under the Bill the accused person will otherwise be entitled to have his appeal allowed. Therefore, whether the Bill remains in its present form or whether its scope is widened, this is an inroad into the rights of an accused person. The real issue is whether that inroad can be justified in the interests of justice.
  I can understand the attitude of the three hon. and learned Members who have spoken and I can understand their objection in principle to the Bill. I do not agree with it, but I appreciate their point of view. On the other hand, if we once make this inroad, if we are prepared to concede that the law should permit a person to be placed in jeopardy for a second time, we should be prepared to extend the Bill to cover not only circumstances of a fresh trial, but circumstances in which a new trial is desirable because of misdirection. To suggest that there is any basic clash of principle in extending the provisions of the Bill is quite illogical. Whether the Bill remains in its present form or whether it is extended, it is an inroad into the rights of an accused person and it also involves placing a person on trial a sec and time. In my view, that

  627
  is a course which is justified in the interests of justice.
  Uneasiness has been expressed about the attitude of the Court of Criminal Appeal in relation to Section 9 of the 1907 Act. It is clear that the point which those who are opposed to the Bill have made will be met at least in part if a change is made in that regard. It is not a question under the Bill of the Court of Criminal Appeal saying, "We are not sure whether we should quash this conviction and, therefore, let us order a new trial." I could well understand that if the Court of Criminal Appeal were in doubt about what it should do. It will exercise this power only when otherwise it would have to allow the appeal.
  It is useful to refer to Section 9, because it is clear that the limitations which have been put on its operation by the Court of Criminal Appeal are not laid down in the Section itself. The words in the Section give power to the Court of Criminal Appeal to order any witnesses who would have been compellable witnesses at the trial to attend and be examined before the court whether they were or were not called at the trial. However, in its application of Section 9, it is clear that the Court of Criminal Appeal has taken the view that it would not consider any evidence except in exceptional circumstances. It has also applied somewhat rigidly the test of whether that evidence was reasonably available at the time of the trial.
  This is a difficult matter, and one of the points which will have to be looked at in Committee is whether Clause 1 should be amended so as to lay down in more specific terms the circumstances in which the Court of Criminal Appeal should order a retrial. The Court of Criminal Appeal already has a general discretion in relation to fresh evidence and the interpretation of what is fresh evidence. I should not be opposed to adding to that general discretion specific instances in which it would be required under the Bill to order a new trial. I concede straight away that it will not be easy to draft Amendments to meet that point, but this is a matter which should be considered carefully in Committee.
  628
  I do not propose to canvass the arguments for extending the operation of the Bill to cover new trials on the basis not only of fresh evidence but of misdirection. All that I would say is that I am strongly in favour of an extension of the operations of the Bill and I am sure that in Committee we shall have the opportunity of going into all the arguments for and against extending the Bill.
  hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and that it will be improved in Committee in the direction that I have indicated.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. Niall MacDermot: I wish briefly to state my reasons for supporting the Bill, particularly as I had the honour of being a member of the sub-committee of "Justice" which recently considered the working of the Court of Criminal Appeal and 'which has made an interim report specifically on the topic of the Bill to which the Home Secretary graciously referred. The sub-committee recommended an extension of the Bill in favour of an unrestricted power in the court to grant a new trial. I was one of the dissenting minority on that point. I think that the Government's proposals are right, and I should like briefly to say why.
  As many Members have stated, this is a subject on which lawyers disagree profoundly. I think that they have always disagreed profoundly on it. It is also a subject on which they feel unusually strongly. It is sometimes thought by laymen that lawyers do not have strong feelings, but they certainly do on this subject. The reason for it is simple. What divides us on this issue is what we believe to be the true requirements of justice in the situation which we are considering.
  There is a conflict of interest here. Suppose that a man has been convicted by a jury, but there has been some fault in the conduct of his trial on the part of the prosecution or an error in law or in direction on the part of the judge. Let us assume that he is guilty. Some people feel that it is wrong that he should be allowed to get away with it and therefore, naturally, they lean towards favouring an unrestricted power to grant a new trial. Other people—and I am one of them—are moved by

  629
  the consideration that to subject a man to a process of trial, particularly a full trial by jury, is a fearful ordeal. If he is innocent, it is oppressive to subject him to that ordeal twice. Once we concede that the person who has not had a proper trial, and who has been convicted by the jury may be innocent, we run the risk, if we grant a general power to order a new trial, of subjecting him to that ordeal twice.
  One reason why I am very proud of our system of criminal law is that I think that it is heavily weighted in favour of the accused man. It is more heavily weighted in his favour than under most other systems of law. It is heavily weighted on the declared principle that we think it better that a number of guilty men should get away with it rather than that an innocent man should be convicted. I would go further and say that it is better that a few guilty men should get away with it than that a number of innocent men should be subjected to the oppressive ordeal of a trial.
  It is for this reason that I am against the unrestricted power. I hear someone saying that I should be against the Bill completely. This has been the argument of the three hon. Members who have spoken. Why do I draw a distinction in the case in which a person says, "I have discovered fresh evidence"? It seems to me that this is an entirely different category. Any person who is accused of an offence is entitled to claim as of right a fair and properly conducted trial. If he has not had it, if there has been some error made in the way the trial was conducted and he has been convicted by the jury, he is entitled to claim to have that conviction quashed.
  However, if he is not able to complain of anything which happened at his trial but has had a perfectly fair and properly conducted trial, with the Crown having called its evidence and he having called such evidence as he could find or as his legal advisers advised him to call, and the jury, nevertheless, convict him, it does not seem to me right that all that should be swept aside and that he should be set free merely because he has found new evidence. There has been no fault on anybody's part. He has nothing to complain of. I think that he has good grounds for saying
  630
  that the matter should not be allowed to rest there because a new situation had arisen and new facts had come to light and, therefore, he should be entitled to have the case reopened and reinvestigated. These are the reasons why it is right in such cases to give the court power to order a new trial.
  I entirely agree with what has been said by critics of the Bill—that, as it stands, it will have virtually no effect. The reason for this is the extraordinarily restricted definition which the Court of Criminal Appeal has imposed on itself of the meaning, of "fresh evidence". This is something which is not laid down in Section 9 of the 1907 Act but it has nom become firmly established owing to our doctrine of precedent.
  I ask the Attorney-General to make clear his view on this matter as a lawyer. The Home Secretary suggested that, under the Bill, the Court of Criminal Appeal in some way will be able 'to reverse the principles it has already laid down as to the meaning of "fresh evidence" and be able to give a much more liberal interpretation to it, granting a new trial in many cases where, at the moment, it would not be prepared to quash the conviction.
  As I understand our doctrine of precedent, that is not the way in which the court will work. If we pass this Bill as it is, the only effect will be that, in some of those rare cases where, at the moment, the Court of Criminal Appeal quashes the conviction on grounds of fresh evidence, it will instead grant a new trial. Such cases will be very rare and the effect of the Bill will be extremely slight.
  What we want is to make it clear that we intend the court to have an unrestricted discretion, unfettered by previous precedent. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) has drawn attention to a case in which a witness who, under the existing rules, although available, is not called, through no fault of the defendant or his advisers but because he is a reluctant witness who is not prepared to give evidence or upon whose evidence one could not rely as being in one's favour, yet who, when he sees the appellant has been wrongly convicted, comes forward with his evidence.

  631
  But there can also be other types of case. There can be the case of a witness who is perhaps not a reluctant witness but who is not called by counsel, in his discretion, because one of the evils leading to the situation which we hope is about to be rectified is that, if counsel is put in the predicament of calling another witness, he loses the last word. Thanks to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), who has introduced a Bill to rectify that position, I hope that this predicament is one which we shall not have to suffer much longer.
  Again, it may be that the appellant has instructed a solicitor who happens at that time to be exceedingly busy and has neither the staff nor the resources to make investigations to the extent that the case really requires. In these circumstances, the court could say, "If you had made proper investigations and put an inquiry you could have discovered the witness. Therefore, he is a technically available witness". Surely in such cases the court should not be restricted.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Is my hon. and learned Friend saying that there should be no restriction, either, on the right to offer new evidence in the Court of Appeal?
  Mr. MacDermot: I suggest that it should be entirely in the discretion of the court to decide whether the fresh evidence is such that, in the interests of justice, it should order a new trial. It is impossible for us to try and lay down definitions and formulae here. It should be entirely within the discretion of the court. All we need is a provision which will ensure that the discretion shall always be maintained and shall not be whittled down again by principles which purport to be laid down by the court, thereby restricting successor members of the court. I hope that the Attorney-General will say that the Government will consider favourably an Amendment on these lines.
  A point not mentioned so far arises under Clause 2(5), which suggests that, at the retrial, a transcript of the evidence of any witness who gave evidence at the original trial may be allowed under two conditions. The first is with the agreement of the prosecution and the
  632
  defence, and I do not think that anyone would question that. But the second condition worries me. It is:
  "… if the judge is satisfied that the witness is dead or unfit to give evidence or attend for that purpose, or that all reasonable efforts to find him or to secure his attendance have been made without success".
  My anxiety centres on the fact that a transcript can give a wholly false impression of the effect and nature of a witness's evidence. One may have a witness who testifies to certain facts, but who, under cross-examination, while sticking to what he has said, does so in such an unconvincing, prevaricating way that he is shown to be lying—so much so that the jury does not believe a word of it. However, if a transcript of that evidence is read out at a retrial it will look as if the witness, having given his statement, has adhered to it under cross-examination. He may appear to have been a most impressive and convincing witness.
  It is true that there are now provisions whereby, it a witness dies, or becomes seriously ill between committal and trial, his deposition can be read out at the trial, although this procedure does not have the evil to which I have referred because, with few exceptions, a witness at committal proceedings is usually not cross-examined. The only result is that his original deposition is read and the jury warned to treat it with great care for the very reason that it was not subjected to cross-examination by the defence, which has not had the chance to challenge it.
  That argument would not apply at a retrial under this provision, however, because it would be said, "The witness was cross-examined at great length and adhered to all his answers." I have serious doubts about the wisdom of this provision. This is, perhaps, a Committee point but I should draw attention to it tonight so that it can be considered carefully. Subject to these points, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  7.18 p.m.
  Mr. John Silkin: The Home Secretary very fairly pointed out that the bench and the Bar were divided on the question of the extension of the doctrine embodied in the Bill. I might add that while the Bar and the bench disagree

  633
  upon it it has been known for sons to disagree with their father upon it, and I find myself in that position tonight.
  The truth is that I am rigorously opposed to any extension of the effect of the Bill. We know that in some ways this is a technicians' Bill, but we sometimes forget that it is also a question of human beings. I cannot help thinking that, if this doctrine were extended, the effect would be that there would be far fewer appeals, for every solicitor would have to say to every man who was convicted of an offence, and who wanted to go to appeal, "You realise that it may well be that you will have to face a trial all over again." It is at that moment, rather than the double peril, the jeopardy twice over, which has been mentioned, that injustice might occur. Consider the case of a man who has undergone three or four weeks of trial and whose counsel tells him that he might well stand a chance on appeal. Despite that possibility, in many cases he may resign himself to not appealing.
  The other point which occurs to me is the question of what happens when a jury disagrees, a question which has been raised by some of my hon. Friends. If the Court of Criminal Appeal decides that a case should be heard again and should be referred to another jury, it is just possible that there might be a balance of evidence strong enough to force the jury to disagree and then, unless the Bill is amended, there might he a game of what one might call judicial snakes and ladders, with the appeal going up to the Court of Criminal Appeal again and then being referred back again because fresh evidence has arisen on the second occasion.
  I am not entirely convinced that the Bill as it stands is wrong. I think that there is a case for it, but I believe that it could be favourably amended in Committee. As I have said, I would be very much opposed to any extension of its principles.
  7.21 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): I am grateful for the welcome which has been generally given to the Bill and for the powerful support lent to it by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich
  634
  (Mr. D. Foot), and the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot). As the Home Secretary said, this is a matter which has been very fully debated for nearly a hundred years, more especially since 1907. In the debate today we have again found a marked division of opinion. Whereas when the Bill was debated in another place last month the principle question was whether the powers of the Bill should be further extended, the principal argument today appears to have been whether the Bill should be passed at all.
  I have been keeping a score sheet during the day and I have observed with mixed regret and pleasure that almost every speaker has been a lawyer. The score, so far as the lawyers are concerned, is that three of them are against the Bill, four in favour of it as it stands and two in favour of extending its powers and giving power to order a new trial upon any ground and not merely on the ground of fresh evidence. The only speaker in the debate who was not a member of one or other of the legal professions was in favour of the Bill as it stood, and he was the Home Secretary.
  The committee of "Justice" said that it thought that lawyers were particularly qualified to deal with this matter. To some extent I agree, because lawyers have considerable experience of criminals and of the way in which criminal trials are conducted and of criminal procedures, but I am not sure that it necessarily follows that a lawyer is ultimately the best person to judge these matters. A lawyer ought to disentangle the arguments and point out the consequences, but fundamentally one comes back to a position which concerns lawyers and ordinary citizens alike. As the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North said, lawyers are very much concerned in that their sense of what is right and fair and just is involved, but the citizen ought also to consider the implications of a Bill of this nature, because it involves a clash between two principles.
  The first is that it certainly is in the public interest that the administration of justice should secure the conviction of the guilty and that obviously guilty men should not escape merely through tech

  635
  nicalities. This was the basis of the support given in another place for extending the occasions upon which new trials could be ordered. However, the second principle is equally if not more important and is in direct conflict with that. It is that justice should be swift and that the citizen should not be tortured by a multiplicity of proceedings, nor harassed by repeated trials, and that one should not involve anybody in criminal proceedings more frequently than is absolutely necessary in order that justice should be both done and seen to be done.
  It is that clash between those two principles which has produced the disagreement in the House between those who wish to give wider powers in the Bill, and those who wish to stand on the Bill. It is adherence to the second of those principles which has inspired those who are wholly opposed to the Bill and who wish to leave the law as it stands. Whatever may be the consequences in terms of the number of cases affected, this is a matter which affects both the liberty of the subject and the administration of justice, and these must always be important considerations however infrequently they may apply. We have many provisions of the law which are of infrequent application or operation but which are a very important safeguard for the liberty of the subject and the form of law under which we live.
  Part of the difficulty of the subject which we have been debating today is that the basis of the difficulty is seldom recognised. It is that the ultimate decision on all facts in indictable criminal offences is committed to a jury, and most people in this country still rightly regard the jury as the defender of the liberty of the subject. It does not matter what the judges think, or what the Government think; it is the jury which ultimately matters. When that is built in as the foundation of our system of criminal trial, one is in an almost impossible position when there is additional evidence which the jury has not had the opportunity to consider.
  This is what has created the difficulty and this is the justification for the Bill. When additional evidence becomes available, the choice is not between allowing the judges to try to estimate what effect it might have had upon a
  636
  jury, having assessed its worth, relevance and importance, which means that the duty of deciding must be carried out by a court which hears only part of the evidence given orally while reading the rest in a transcript and then trying to make an assessment; and, saying that on questions of fact the jury must be the judge. If someone feels that he should have another chance of establishing his innocence because there is more and better evidence than was available to the first jury, the alternative, and it is the right alternative, is to allow a new jury to reconsider the whole of the facts and the evidence together and to leave in the hands of the jury the responsibility of protecting the liberty of the subject.
  The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich thought that the way in which the Bill was introduced was an illustration of the way in which law reform came about, and he promised that a Labour Government would behave in a wholly different manner and that we would have from them floods of reform of every nature. I am bound to say that I was a little surprised considering that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office in 1948 when this amendment of the law was first rejected.
  Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that on that occasion his party did not vote and that when the Attorney-General of the day advised the House of Commons not to agree with the Lords' Amendment, everybody in the House of Commons agreed with him, including the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party.
  The Attorney-General: They did not take it to a vote, but I think that it was the present Lord President of the Council who originally put forward the proposal which is now incorporated in the Bill before it first went to the House of Lords.
  Be that as it may, to complain that this Government do not indulge in law reform is a little harsh when one remembers that in the present Session of Parliament, which is the last of this Parliament, the Home Secretary is going to introduce for the first time anywhere in the world a scheme for the compensation of victims of crime; we are adjusting the administration of justice in London;

  637
  we are passing the Police Bill; a Conservative private Member is altering the order of speeches in criminal trials in a Bill, which received a welcome in the course of today's debate; and the Government have introduced a scheme to help successful unassisted litigants who are opposed by assisted litigants.
  Since 1959, in the course of this Parliament, 44 Measures have been passed dealing with reforms of the law; 15 of them were promoted by private Members, but 12 of those were promoted by Conservative private Members with Government support. I therefore do not think that one ought to indulge in these polemics, and with a cursory glance at the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich I return to the Bill.
  Mr. D. Foot: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain why the Government have been sitting on the recommendations of the Tucker Committee for nearly 10 years?
  The Attorney-General: As I have been a Member of the Government for only a short time, I do not think it would be proper for me to contemplate what my predecessors were thinking about during that period.
  There is one point which has led to a great deal of debate and has clearly troubled even those who give general support to the Bill. It was raised by the Committee of "Justice", and also by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, namely if the Bill is passed in its present form, what will be the practice of the Court of Criminal Appeal in considering fresh evidence, and to what extent will the C.C.A. be bound by the rules which it has so far laid down before it will consider any fresh evidence?
  I am authorised to say that it may be that if this Bill is enacted the court will consider it desirable to review its practice having regard to the provisions of the Bill. I know that that does not go very far, and I propose to elaborate it later. I do not think that it is right to say, at least on matters of practice, that the C.C.A. is bound by the doctrine of stare decisis, and there is authority for the view that, where the liberty of the subject is involved, the C.C.A., at least on points of practice, and probably on matters of substance, is entitled not to
  638
  regard itself as bound by its previous decisions. Naturally it pays great regard to its previous decisions, and one would not expect it to depart from them readily, but perhaps I should explain to the House the present position about the admissibility of evidence. It is not perhaps as rigid as one might think, and there is some elasticity in it. There are three rules.
  First, the evidence must be evidence which was not available at the trial. There has been a case recently in which a wife wanted to give evidence for her husband. She was available at the trial, but, due to a misunderstanding, she was not called. Because the C.C.A. thought that the administration of justice and the liberty of the subject was overriding, it admitted that evidence, thus showing some appreciation of the fact that there is, and ought to be, some elasticity in these matters.
  Mr. S. Silverman: When was that?
  The Attorney-General: I do not have the actual reference, but the case was referred to by the Lord Chief Justice in his speech in the other place. I shall try to find it for the hon. Gentleman.
  There will arise a difficult question about whether a confession made by third parties which would not be admissible on the retrial, will be heard by the C.C.A. as a ground for ordering a new trial because it may indicate innocence. I remind the House that the law as laid down by this House on this topic is in Section 9 of the 1907 Act which gives the C.C.A. a complete discretion to call evidence before it if it thinks it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice. It is in pursuance of that provision, which is the overriding direction from Parliament to the C.C.A. that the court has up to now, when it has no power to order a fresh trial, laid down for itself some rules which have been applied with some elasticity in considering when it should or should not hear additional evidence.
  The last two rules cannot be open to any objection. The first of these is that the evidence must be relevant to the issue. One cannot imagine that a court ought to consider granting a new trial on evidence which is wholly irrelevant to the case. The third rule is that the evidence must be credible, and I imagine

  639
  nobody would expect the court to order a new trial on evidence which it does not find credible. That is common sense.
  Therefore, it comes back to the first rule which is the only limitation of importance, and that is whether or not the evidence was available at the trial. One can see that if we departed from that rule we would get into the difficulty that an accused person might decide to run one defence and not call, for example, his alibi evidence, and then decide to run an alibi when he gets to the C.C.A. because he wants to try another defence. It surely cannot be held that people should be entitled to claim fresh trials when they behave in that way.
  I agree very much with what the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North said about it being impossible for the House to formulate rules as to the circumstances and the evidence which the C.C.A. ought to take into account before it makes an order under this Bill if it is passed in its present form. I recognise that this is a difficult problem. I should like to give it further consideration, and if Amendments are tabled in Committee they will be discussed on their merits. I cannot give undertakings about Amendments which I have not seen and when I do not know what they contain. All I am saying is that I recognise that the anxieties of hon. and learned Members who have spoken are devoted to a point which requires very careful consideration, and I assure the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North that I shall give it that consideration.
  There are two Amendments about which I should perhaps tell the House now, as it may be convenient for hon. Members to consider them. The Bill as it stands only enables an appellant in respect of whom a new trial is ordered to be tried either for the offence of which he was convicted at the original trial, or an offence charged at the original trial as an alternative count. It is proposed to introduce an Amendment to cater for a third set of circumstances, namely, where it becomes apparent to the C.C.A. on considering fresh evidence and deciding to order a new trial that the appellant should be tried not for the offence of which he was originally convicted, but for another
  640
  offence of which he could have been convicted on the original indictment.
  For instance, he might have been convicted of murder. The C.C.A. might think that he should not be retried for murder, but that he should be retried for manslaughter because the fresh evidence indicates that there ought to be a retrial for manslaughter, which, being an alternative, lesser verdict, the jury might have convicted on, but had not done so because it convicted the appellant of the more serious charge. I mention that so that hon. Members who are interested might consider its implications.
  The other Amendment concerns the power of the court at the second trial to grant costs. This is a very technical matter. It is thought that probably the court of second trial ought to have a slightly wider discretion to order the payment of the costs not only of that trial but of the previous proceedings, because it will be the court which is sitting at the final conclusion of the matter, and which can review the whole proceedings and take account of all that has gone before.
  I entirely concede that, logically, the arguments which were advanced in another place, that we should endeavour to see that accused persons do not escape on a technicality and that justice is done not only to the accused but to the prosecution, have some force. But they have been considerably overstated. Everybody who has put them forward has overlooked the balancing factor of the overriding objection to prolonging criminal proceedings in the case of individual citizens who have to go through them.
  It is said, first—and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said it—that the guilty will continue to escape on technicalities; that the incidence of crime will probably be encouraged, and that the law will fall into contempt. That is putting the argument too high. The Court of Criminal Appeal does not allow appeals in the case of a guilty person unless there is a doubt about his guilt. Even where there has been a misdirection of the jury or some other defect in the procedure, even when the Bill is passed the Court of Criminal Appeal will still have the proviso to

  641
  Section 4 of the 1907 Act, and if it is satisfied on all the facts that the only proper verdict which could have been reached by the jury if everything had been done regularly is the verdict which the jury in fact arrived at, it has the power to dismiss the appeal.
  Conversely, one cannot imagine that the Court of Criminal Appeal would ever order a new trial where it was quite obvious that the appellant was innocent, or ought to be acquitted, where for example the prosecution had a fatal flaw in some part of its case. Therefore, the area between is the only one with which we are concerned—the case where it is not obvious to the Court of Criminal Appeal that the accused person ought to be convicted, despite a defect, nor obvious that he ought to be acquitted, because of the defect. The Bill is intended to deal only with a situation where there is fresh evidence which either the accused wishes to bring forward or the Home Secretary believes should be brought to the attention of the Court of Criminal Appeal on grounds of public interest.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Will the Court of Criminal Appeal retain the power to apply the proviso instead of ordering a new trial in cases where there is new evidence? That would seem to be an anomaly, for the Court of Criminal Appeal would be putting itself in the place of a jury in deciding that the new evidence would positively make no difference. That would be further diminishing the right of the appellant. If the Court of Criminal Appeal is not to apply the present position and quash the conviction and order the entry of judgment in the appellant's favour where new evidence has established a doubt, why should it retain the power of the proviso because it has come to the conclusion that there is no doubt?
  The Attorney-General: As I understand it, under the Bill the Court of Criminal Appeal will have power to apply the proviso even though there is fresh evidence, but it would apply it only if it were satisfied that the jury would have come to the same conclusion even if it had had that
  642
  additional evidence before it. One can appreciate that this would apply only in a very limited field. Perhaps the court would be able to say that the rest of the evidence was so overwhelming that the fresh piece of evidence—because of its irrelevancy, or its smallness, or its unimportance, or its lack of credibility—would not have persuaded any jury from coming to the same conclusion, that the accused was guilty.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Is not that in direct conflict with the only ground on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has defended Clause 1, namely, that if it is a question of fact it is for the jury properly directed at a trial to weigh the facts and come to a conclusion on those facts—and that it is not a matter for the judges? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is abandoning that principle in favour of the proviso it is difficult to see what case is left for Clause 1.
  The Attorney-General: At first sight that sounds attractive, but is it not the position that the judges, without entering into a conclusion of the whole matter but considering all the evidence, one side against the other, may in a very limited number of cases, at the extreme end, be able to say that even with the additional evidence—owing to its nature; its irrelevance or smallness—the rest of the evidence is so overwhelming—for instance, if there is a direct confession by the accused—it would make no difference?
  It may be that to some extent they are entering into the field of assessing evidence, but they are not entering into a field where there is a sharp, direct and important conflict of evidence which might have resulted in the jury's arriving at a different conclusion if it had had the fresh evidence before it. Where there is an important conflict of evidence it is right that another jury should be given the responsibility of considering once again that conflict of evidence.
  It is also argued that as we already have retrials where a jury has disagreed, why should we object in this case to having a retrial in the event of fresh evidence coming to light? Conversely, those who oppose the Bill from the other end say that they would not wish for a retrial even in the case of a disagree

  643
  ment. They logically follow up that argument by saying that we should not have a retrial even in the circumstances referred to in the Bill.
  But remembering what will happen under the Bill and what would happen with a disagreement, one can see that there is a substantial difference. Where there is a disagreement the matter has not been concluded at all. The second jury do not know what conclusion the original jury would have reached. Furthermore, the matter has not been through the Court of Criminal Appeal, and to that extent the fact of having a first trial, going to the Court of Criminal Appeal and then going again to another jury, is something more arduous and more oppressive than simply having a retrial after nothing has happened except the disagreement, when the second jury knows nothing except that.
  These distinctions are arguments against giving the right of a retrial even in the cases mentioned in the Bill. We therefore have to consider why, under the Bill, we should give power for a retrial. It seems to me that the criminal law has always adhered to the very strict principle that we ought to confine retrials to the absolute minimum. So far in our law the only retrials that occur arise, first, when there is a venire de novo, which is very rare. It occurs when the first trial is wholly a nullity and the accused has not been at peril at all, and therefore no conclusion has been reached. The second is in the case of a disagreement. The law has always thought it right that a proper conclusion should be reached and that there should be at least one retrial. I think that there is power to have any number of retrials following any number of disagreements, but the general practice of the law is that there is never more than one.
  Finally, we come to our present position. The only justification for the extension of the principle that people should never be put through the process of a criminal trial more than once is that it is better that an immediate issue as to fact should come to a jury for decision. It must be for the jury, which is the protector of the liberty of the subject, to decide. It is unsatisfactory to leave judges to hear part of the evidence and consider transcripts on the
  644
  other part and then try to come to a conclusion on the facts.
  This is the justification for the Bill and the reason why we can take a small step forward. It may be a small step. But I think it right that it should be a small step. It may deal with a few cases, but they are important cases in which the liberty of the subject and the administration of the criminal law are very closely involved. For the reasons which I have advanced, and which have been advanced by other speakers who have supported the giving of a Second Reading to the Bill, I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [Lords]
    BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL
    Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

    INCOME TAX MANAGEMENT [MONEY]
    Resolution reported,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to General Commissioners for the purposes of the income tax and their clerks and officers of Inland Revenue and to transfer from the General or other Commissioners to officers of Inland Revenue the powers of assessing income tax and related functions it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament—

    (a) of payments to General Commissioners by way of travelling allowance or subsistence allowance, and

    (b) of pensions or gratuities to or in respect of any full-time clerk to any body of General Commissioners.

    Resolution agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS
    [12th February]
    Resolution reported,

    INCOME TAX MANAGEMENT (INCIDENTAL CHARGES)
    That any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to General Commissioners for the purposes of the income tax and

    645
    their clerks and officers of Inland Revenue and to transfer from the General or other Commissioners to officers of Inland Revenue the powers of assessing income tax and related functions may include provisions imposing incidental charges to income tax for any year.
    Resolution read a Second time;
    Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No 90 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

  MEAT (TREATMENT)
  7.55 p.m.
  Sir Barnett Stross: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Meat (Treatment) Regulations 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 19), dated 10th January 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th January, be annulled.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. Let us get this clear. There is first on the Order Paper a Prayer in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross):
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Meat (Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 44), dated 15th January 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be annulled.
  Is that not being moved?
  Sir B. Stross: The Prayer which I am moving is to be the first Prayer. I was about to ask your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to move them both together.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is moving the second Prayer.
  Sir B. Stross: May I move the other one formally?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We can have only one Motion before the House at a time. But if it is agreeable to hon. Members the two Prayers may be discussed together.
  Sir B. Stross: Then I will formally move the second one.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot do that. He must move the first Motion first.
  Sir B. Stross: I am moving the Motion in my name on the Order Paper—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I will make the position clear. If the hon. Member moves the Motion in his name, the second Prayer on the Order Paper—the Prayer in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock—may be discussed with it, but a vote may be taken only on the second Prayer.
  Sir B. Stross: That is quite clear, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I will carry on as I began, for the sake of order.
  With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and for the convenience of the House, I should like to be able to discuss the two Prayers together. I understand that you have given a Ruling that if we wish to vote we can vote only on the Motion which I have moved.
  The first thing to be noted is that there is some difference between these two sets of Regulations. They deal with the same topic, the same subject and substances axle the Schedule is the same in both instances. The difference lies in the penalties when an offence is created. We notice, for example, in the one referring to England and Wales the penalty for a breach of the Regulations may be £100 maximum or three months' imprisonment, or both. If there be a continuing offence the fine is £5 per day. North of the Border the figure is again £100, but it is possible for an offender to be sent to prison for six months instead of three months, and if the offence continues the penalty is not £5 per day but £10 per day.
  We note, further, that should the offence be an indictable offence on conviction the fine may be as much as £500 and the imprisonment may be for a term not exceeding one year. Both penalties may be incurred. If the offence continues the penalty is £50 for each day. So I come to the first question which I wish to ask of the Parliamentary Secretary. How is it that there is, apparently, much harsher treatment for an offender north of the Border than for an offender in England and Wales? The reason may be that it is not the harshness of the treatment against the offender which has brought this about, but a difference of attitude in Scotland towards these matters connected with the health and safety in health matters for their citizens.
  Those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee which dealt with

  647
  legislation introduced a few years ago relating to slaughterhouses remember that we had many weeks of arduous and close discussion, and that, again and again, it was necessary to point out to the English Minister how much in advance were Scottish customs compared with those south of the Border. At that time we were urging that there should be fewer slaughterhouses so that there might be better regulation over anything done to meat which might spoil it or bring about a disposition of the citizen and cause illness. We showed that in Scotland this protection was available and that there was closer and better control. I am under the impression, therefore, that here the Scots have introduced the stronger and apparently harsher penalties because they are in line with the determination to do everything possible to protect their citizens.
  We see that both these Statutory Instruments are simple enough in nature. They make it an offence to sell, consign or deliver any raw—and this is an important word—any "unprocessed" meat intended for sale for human consumption which contains substances of the kind specified in the Schedule. The Schedule contains a list of very interesting subjects with which I will deal briefly in passing and a little more fully later, if I have time to do so. The first one is ascorbic acid, known more commonly as vitamin C. The next one is erythorbic acid, technically known as isoascorbic acid and similar in appearance to vitamin C, but with little vitamin action.
  The third one is nicotinic acid, the heat stable part of the vitamin B complex which functions in the body as a substance called nicotinamide. And we say, for good measure, any possible sales of this substance, to prevent anyone finding their way through the Regulations by using some other similar substance not mentioned.
  Why have these Regulations been framed? It must be for a number of reasons. We have had outbreaks of illness affecting quite large numbers of people. There was one at St. Albans, a description of which was given on 12th December, 1963, in the Daily Mail. There, about 70 children and 12 teachers became ill after eating a meal in school. Several families were also affected.
  648
  About this time, too, there were outbreaks at Deptford and Kensington, and representations were made.
  Much earlier, in America it was reported that cases of illness had been noted there. The symptoms that came to light at St. Albans, for example, were that after a meal those who partook of it suffered from flushing, tingling, burning sensations in the neck and face in particular, itching and a feeling of faintness. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has ever had much nicotinic acid, because, if so, he will know that the feeling inside the skull is rather as though a hammer was beating inside it. I want to make it quite clear that everyone recovered from these epidemics. It was made manifest that the cause of the illness was that they had eaten meat dusted with a powder containing nicotinic acid, ascorbic acid and probably sugar, but it was the nicotinic acid which caused the symptoms to which I am referring.
  The practice of making meat look red either by preserving its colour, or bringing in a fresh colour—I will deal with the possibility of a fresh pigment being formed in this way later—has been going on for some time. Questions were asked in the House on 16th and 19th December, and in another place. We know that the preparations being used were three in type, two of them British, one called Evered, one called Primox, and one, Dutch, called Salox Red. All are much the same, but there could be variations. If, instead of nicotinic acid, which caused the illness or the symptoms, nicotinamide had been used, there would have been less likelihood of illness.
  Three strengths were offered by the manufacturers to those who bought it, and these were described in the British Medical Journal of 21st December. There was a medium strength for allegedly fresh meat, a double strength for imported meat and a weak strength for sausages. I presume—and I think that it must be true—that sausages are still exempt and, therefore, it is still possible for this substance to be used. I think that the Minister was persuaded that the purpose was not to preserve meat. The use of these substances was actually intended to deceive the public, making meat look fresh and red when, in fact, it was not so.

  649
  For these reasons we have these Regulations. I think that the Minister must have persuaded himself or have been persuaded here and by advice outside, that these substances tended to conceal the bad quality of meat and to make old meat look less old.
  I would mention that in America there had been some cases. In the American Journal of Public Health for 1962 some outbreaks were reported, and they were described as showing, in some instances, severe cases of anaphylaxis, which means shock. Therefore, rather heavy doses of nicotinic acid must have been involved.
  The British Medical Journal of 21st December mentioned the minimal amount of nicotinamide that was required. It is quite small—10 to 12 milligrammes—which is quite enough for our physical bodily requirements. Any good diet contains it. We do not need more. It is an essential vitamin.
  A very interesting point is that we are dealing with things essential to life, and yet we have to bring in Regulations to prevent them from being used. The reason is that nicotinic acid, or nicotinamide, which is essential to life, is normally available in a reasonable, balanced diet. It prevents a most distressing condition—which is caused in its absence, or if there is a gross diminution of it in the diet—called pellagro, which is found in Africa and, strangely enough, in the richest continent of the world, North America, and in some of the Southern States, where the diet is grossly deficient in nicotinamide or nicotinic acid, and where skin diseases occur, and melancholia, and out-and-out madness. I am told—and I know that this is true, from my own experience—that double the normal daily dose can cause this severe type of flushing and faintness in some people.
  What we object to is that the Ministry ever allowed this substance to be used, for it meant that butchers were dispensing a powerful medicine—an essential drug, but a powerful medicine—for purposes not of the best type. They were dispensing it instead of doctors. With the best will in the world, it is not for the butcher to dispense substances which could conceivably be dangerous, and to dispense them irrespective of the public need.
  I know that the manufacturers, once they found out what was happening, sent
  650
  advice to the butchers, who, in many cases, diminished the strength to one-fifth. I praise them for doing this and for having given careful instructions, but I do not praise them for the motives which made them originally invent this interesting substance. It was not illegal for this to be done. It was assumed that these things were safe and we know that they were effective. Every manufacturer who is interested in the use of additives to food must ask himself three questions. He must say to himself, "Is this stuff really harmless?" Then he must say, "Is it legally permitted?" Thirdly, he must ask. "Is it effective in use?"
  When he asks himself whether it is harmless, he sometimes makes a mistake. This, I think, is the fault of the Ministry. "Harmless" is not quite the same as saying that there is no evidence that it has as yet done harm. "Harmless" should mean in the eyes of the Minister and his Department that there is ample evidence that it cannot do harm, whereas, in fact, we know that we have a permitted substance which is essential to life in proper amounts in our diet, but which, through an overdose, can do harm.
  This has been quite a tricky business. Colour in meat is due to two closely-related slit stances, one of which is found in the blood which we call hæmoglobin and one in the muscle which we call myoglobin In the first there is an atom of iron attached to the globin part which has a protein molecule. Normally, when an animal is killed the meat will respire and go on discharging carbon monoxide for many days. Even if it is cut up into small pieces respiration will continue, but less so, I am advised, if it is minced into very tiny pieces. If the oxygen is linked fully to the atom of iron, one gets a red colour. If it is lost, or partially lost, we get either a purple colour, or, if there is incomplete oxidisation, the iron will become brown like rusty iron.
  Brown colour in fresh meat is not desirable. The chemists found this interesting method of making the meat look red again, as if it were prime meat. They found it convenient for a number of reasons. I think that those reasons were essentially commercial and because the meat was easier to sell.

  651
  Before I leave this business of colour I ought to say a word or two about the sausage, which, I believe, is to be exempt from these Regulations. Inside the sausage certain things happen.
  Mr. William Ross: Things usually happen when the sausage is inside someone.
  Sir B. Stross: Before it is cooked it still releases oxygen, or can release oxygen. At the same time, the surrounding air can percolate through the skin of the sausage and get to the meat, but that does not happen enough to cause full oxidisation. Therefore, there is a tendency, unless something is done to disguise the sausage, for the meat to look brown, or dark purple. It was discovered that with these substances mentioned in the Schedule, ascorbic acid, nicotine acid, or nicotinamide one can help to colour and preserve the meat. In the use of nicotinic acid a new colour is formed, which is a red pigment, which, together with ascorbic acid, makes it remain red.
  That is the way in which the clever chemists have been able to deceive us all. For months, as I passed a butcher's shop in Kensington and saw entrancing sausages and minced meat, all of a wonderful colour, I thought "He must be a wonderful butcher. How fresh and red his meat is!" Having done my homework on these Regulations I have to conclude that he must have dusted his meat with powder containing vitamins and sugar.
  I do not want to make too much of this matter. It would be a mistake to do so, because, after all, there is no evidence that anyone can take an overdose of ascorbic acid. An hon. Lady Member of the House laughed at me when I advised her to take for a cold 200 milligrams. She thought it nonsense and took 1,000 milligrams. The normal daily requirement is 30 milligrams. The excess is very quickly excreted and we have no evidence that it does harm. Moreover, erythorbic acid has little or no action, but it helps to produce this deceiving colour. They are plain deceivers.
  We know that it was legal, because it was specifically excluded from the preservative and anti-oxident regulations
  652
  of the Food and Drugs Act. Normally, one could use 1 per cent. and it had to be at a refrigerated temperature. At a higher or lower temperature it does not work and one gets a wrong colour. Erythorbic acid is found in yeast and liver and to a lesser extent in lean meat and some vegetables, such as potatoes. It is part of the vitamin B complex and we must have it to live healthily, but in excess it creates unhappy, miserable symptoms. Some people have been made thoroughly ill by it.
  Clinically, it has been used to try to cure chilblains with, I think, little success and with better success it has been used in cases of frostbite. It has been used even for severe headache and migraine, with what success I do not know. It would be a mistake to think of it in terms of a poison, for relatively it is not toxic. It produces these unhappy symptoms, but big doses can create rigors. A catastrophe can occur if someone takes much to big a dose.
  I ask four questions in addition to the one I asked about which Scotland is so much more progressive than we are in England. Why was there some serious delay after we had information? I believe that the reports were coming through throughout the autumn as a result of epidemics or attacks of illness. We had the information over a year ago from the United States. Why is it that only raw and unprocessed meat is to be freed from these substances? Does this mean that they or similar substances can be used on cooked meat? There is nothing in these Regulations to prevent cooked meat being so treated, or any compounded substance—that means a sausage and meat so treated that it is substantially changed. The definition of "processed" in these Regulations makes this quite clear and I should like an answer to that question.
  Thirdly, why have artificial colours not been included in these Regulations? I cannot make much of this for that would be wrong and probably not in order, but we know that we are demanding and have kept demanding for a long time—certainly I have for many years—that we should have from the Minister a scheduled pharmacopaeia of substances which may be permissibly used. After many years of discussion of these matters we have a form of schedule.

  653
  There is a permitted list, but I suggest that it is not carefully enough framed.
  This example, when we are trying to annul these Regulations, proves that apparently innocent substances can create damage. The sausage can still be treated with these substances and normally, especially if it is a beef sausage, it is treated with a coal tar dye derivative. It is time this sort of thing was looked at again.
  I know that some of these things are said to be innocent, because no harm has been proved up to date in the amounts to which we are subjected. That is not a very scientific or proper way of looking at the subject. We have asked that there should be regulations to support these Regulations so that even the sausage shall become an innocent piece of diet in every sense of the term.
  We feel that it is a mistake to wait for anyone to fall ill and then threaten those who have, quite innocently, produced something to make a food look attractive. We should have warned people earlier that it would not be possible to do this. Then the chemists, the inventors, the butchers and certainly our citizens would not have been in this situation. We should not wait until we have to punish, or threaten punishment, but should have an admitted list which will, as far as possible, prevent any accidents of this type.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: When I studied these Regulations, I noticed some differences and came to this debate with the intention of querying them. After listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross) I am rather sorry that I came, because I now wonder whether it is safe to eat anything. What can be done to unprocessed meat is most frightening.
  My hon. Friend mentioned additives which make meat look better. These do not improve the quality of the product. Do what they will, the chemists and the scientists cannot make the meat of an old cow taste as good as that of a maiden heifer. I hope that the Government will take strong action against meat traders who try to deceive the housewives by adding to the product something which does not increase its
  654
  value as a food but merely alters its appearance.
  I am not a medical man. Having listened to my hon. Friend, I am rather glad I am not, because his description of what can happen to one's body rather frightened me. Certainly, his descriptions have reinforced my belief that we should prevent scurrilous forms of advertising and the use of additives whereby people are deceived into thinking that they are buying a superior product which, in fact, has not been improved at all. My hon. Friend says that some dyes are quite harmless, but, nevertheless, it is dishonest to colour a product in order to convince the consumer that it is superior.
  I remember an incident years ago. I saw a butcher making sausages. The first to come out of the machine were hung in the window at 8d. per lb. He then manipulated more out of the machine, using the same type of meat, dressed them in a little parsley and placed them on a tray in the window at 1s. a lb. When a customer came in for sausages he asked whether she wanted the best. Naturally, she would say "Yes" The only difference between "best" and the others was that the "best" were dressed with parsley and the others were not.
  That sort of thing is deceit of the public and I am glad that the Government have at last taken some action to prevent the use of additives which improve appearance but not quality. Ladies have always used additives to improve their appearance and we males are delighted. But do not let that be done with meat. It is a most dangerous thing to do
  One difference I notice between the two sets of Regulations is that, in Scotland, a butcher or purveyor of meat will be liable to a fine of £10 for every day during which he engages in this practice, whereas the fine in England will be only £5 a day. Why the difference? Scottish beef is the finest in the world and anyone who tampers with it should pay the penalty, but I see no reason why a Scottish purveyor of meat should have to pay a fine of £10 while a Sassenach, for committing the same offence, should pay only £5 The Regulations applying to Scotland mention a fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment for six months, or both. The Regulations applying to

  655
  England mention imprisonment for only three months. Why the difference?
  Scottish beef is sold in London and to tamper with it there is as serious as tampering with it in Glasgow. Legislation passed recently has appeared to discriminate between the two countries and although we in Scotland are hardier, stronger and more virile, I do not see why larger penalties should be applied to Scotland. It is worth remembering that when any money is going we are always at the bottom of the queue; but when penalties are being imposed, harsher standards of punishment are applied to Scotland.
  I am not saying that Scottish beef is the only good beef—just that it is about the best in the world. The other day I saw some French beef, from a 12month-old steer of a Charollais-Friesian cross. It was wonderful beef. Why have the Scottish Office allowed the Scottish trader to bear this double punishment compared with his counterpart in England and Wales?
  Since speaking I have recovered my confidence in food generally and although I felt at the beginning of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that I would become a vegetarian, I have since decided that I will go on eating meat, just as I have in the past.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. John Silkin: I support my hon. Friends in questioning this Statutory Instrument. The House may recall that it was in answer to a Question of mine last December that these Regulations were imposed. [Hon. Members "Oh."] Perhaps I should say that my Question preceded their imposition. If I do not have a fraternal interest, I may be said to have a step-fraternal interest in them.
  We live in a world in which more and more synthetic foods are coming into existence. This trend has been noticeable for more than half a century. Indeed, "Saki" in one of his stories written about 1910 envisaged a state of society in which every Englishman was eating a synthetic breakfast food called "Filboy Sludge", which was so terrible that only an Englishman, with his tremendous sense of duty, could be induced to eat it.
  656
  Today the trend is moving further towards synthetic foods. We not only have synthetic breakfast foods, but also what may be described as synthetic meats. We have grown accustomed to broiler fowls which taste like a mixture of blotting paper and octopus—not that I have tasted either. We are more and more coming to lose the flavour and enjoyment of our food. This in itself is bad enough, but now it can have harmful effects.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, having considered the question of nicotinic acid, said in December last year:
  "… nicotinic acid is not necessarily bad, when used in small quantities." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1963; Vol. 686 c. 844.]
  This is true. In fact, it is the substance which enables us to live; although on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman missed the point. In that case nicotinic acid was used to disguise meat, and that is a different matter. It was not necessarly that the acid made the meat harmful, but that it could disguise stale meat from the purchaser's eye.
  For this reason it appears to my hon. Friends that there should be an extension of these Regulations. I am told, for example—and I will no doubt, be corrected if I am wrong—that an injection of hormones into cattle is a means of making them more tender, although it renders the kidneys of the bull inedible in the sense that they are harmful to human digestion. But what are the means of seeing that these kidneys will be destroyed? The butcher should see that they are, but I gather that there are no regulations to prevent them being sold in the butcher's shop. This matter should be looked into.
  I agree that this so-called tenderising of beef may be harmful. The Government are endeavouring to recognise this, because they are talking about the labelling of meat. This will be difficult. I am not altogether sure how one could label a single chop, loin or joint and this may create difficulties for the butcher. We are all concerned with health and healthy eating habits and, for these reasons, I hope that the Government will consider extending these Regulations.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross) for his fascinating and learned discourse on the dangers of innocence. People have unsuspectingly been eating meat that they thought was of the best, only to find that it was titivated to be the more readily sold. Since there is danger attaching to this matter, I want to know what the Secretary of State for Scotland was doing between 10th and 15th January.
  The Regulations for England and Wales were laid on 10th January. Whether or not the Secretary of State was touring abroad, chasing the deer, shooting the grouse—although I have my doubts about that at that time of year—I do not know, but it was only 15th January that found him signing the Regulations for Scotland. Where was he during those five vital days? Could he not be found? If it was sufficiently important to protect the people of Scotland from the possible ill-effects of this practice, the right hon. Gentleman should have been as speedily on the job as were the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health in England and Wales. Or could he not make up his mind about the need to take action? The chances are that he could not be found.
  The result is that the Regulations came into force in England and Wales on 23rd January, but did not come into force in Scotland until 30th January. Those are very important dates, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) appreciates how important they are—
  Mr. Archie Manuel: Yes—Burns's birthday.
  Mr. Ross: Exactly. I want to know whether the haggis is processed or unprocessed—and I can assure my hon. Friends that the "Rustic, haggis-fed", is someone to make any country proud. I do not want to recite the ode to the haggis tonight, but the fact is that Burns celebrations in Scotland do not all take place in one day—they are spread over about 10 days. During those 10 vital days this year probably more food was eaten than at any other time, apart from the beginning of January—Hogmanay. It was vital that we should have had fairly speedy action by the Secretary of
  658
  State, and I cannot understand why we should have been a week later than England and Wales. Incidentally, it is no good Welsh hon. Members who sit for Scottish divisions praising Scotland, when the Secretary of State has fallen down on his job.
  I already have enough reading to do, what with Bills about agriculture, the police, housing, and all the stuff that is going through the sausage-machine of Parliament, without having to perplex myself about exactly how various things are defined in the Regulations. First, we are told that
  "…'animal' does not include bird or fish …"
  But when we read the Regulations we do not find any mention of "animal" at all. It is only mentioned in terms of another interpretation. In order to find the relevance of "animal" we have to read the interpretation of "meat which, we are told
  "… means the flesh or other part of any animal which is intended for sale for human consumption…"
  It would have satisfied even my simple mind as being adequately defined as the meat of the animal we are talking about, rather than having to be told that
  "…'animal' does not include bird or fish …"
  After the definition of "meat", we have the definition of the word "processed." "Processed", I gather, is reasonably important, because it takes four lines to define it, but when it comes to enforcement and the Regulations dealing with the sale of raw meat, the word "processed" is not used at all. It is, therefore, defined only to provide an easy and unspecific way of defining "unprocessed". The definition reads:
  " 'Processed', in relation to meat, includes curing by smoking"—
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), who spoke on the Adjournment last night, is not present.
  The definition goes on:
  "and any treatment or process resulting in a substantial change in the natural state of the meat but does not include boning, paring, grinding, cutting, cleaning or trimming; and 'unprocessed shall be construed accordingly".
  Therefore, one starts to work out what "unprocessed" means—what it includes and does not include. This is far too

  659
  comprehensive a definition of "processed". Therefore, in the unprocessed state, certain things which we might construe as processed are considered unprocessed and vice versa.
  Next, there is the question of penalties. There is a difference between Scotland and England not only in the penalties but also in the matter of actual contravention. I notice that in Scotland
  "if any person contravenes or fails to comply with any of the foregoing provisions of these regulations he shall be guilty of an offence under these regulations."
  I presume that this would mean contravention of an instruction to destroy or an instruction to hand over, but in England and Wales the words are:
  "if any person contravenes the provisions of regulation 3 …"
  which simply states that
  "No raw and unprocessed meat shall contain any added specified substance."
  and
  "No person shall sell, consign or deliver any raw and unprocessed meat which contains any added specified substance."
  Is there any subtle difference to account for the fact that certain words are necessary in Scotland and unnecessary in England? Does it mean that the Scots are more careful and are leaving no loophole?
  We in Scotland have more experience of this matter. The last Regulations concerned with meat related to slaughterhouses and inspection and destruction of meat. We then discovered that the position in England and Wales is chaotic and will remain so for quite a time. We found that the qualifications of the people who are doing the job in Scotland are and always have been much higher and that our Regulations have been in existence for a great many years.
  It might, therefore, be wise to find out what the Scottish Office was doing during the period to which I referred earlier. It may be that having had more experience and attaching more importance to these matters, people at the Scottish Office may have been doing a better job. This may be the reason for the five-day delay. I give them the benefit of the doubt.
  There are three matters connected with the penalties. First, there is a
  660
  Scottish Standing Committee and as a result we have far better legislation and a concentration on the things that matter. What matters here is not penalties on the butcher but the safeguarding of the public. When a butcher knows that he is adding something which adds nothing whatever to the nutriment of meat and he knows that all he is doing is disguising its age or its quality, seeking, in fact, to pass something off on the public, the penalty ought to be pretty severe, bearing in mind the kind of effect we now know these things have. It took us a long time from the discovery of what happened in America, about a year until the Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), till action was taken by the Government.
  In Scotland, the offence can be dealt with not only under summary jurisdiction but on indictment, with the result that we get not just a penalty of £100 or six months—incidentally, the change here stems from the work of the Scottish Grand Committee last year in dealing with criminal justice and the revision of penalties—but a possible penalty of £500 or one year's imprisonment on indictment. Undoubtedly, if matters are dealt with in this way, we shall have no repetition of trouble in Scotland. We value the quality of our food, we value the protection of the public and, indeed, we value the good name of Scotch beef. One of the things I am sorry about is that this has been applied to beef in England and everything has been passed off as prime Scotch beef merely on the basis of colour, with a disadvantage to Scotland, and, from that point of view, the penalties might have been higher, although they will probably be tied by the legislation under which we are moving.
  Are the Government looking at this matter seriously from the point of view of the protection of the public? Here is a powder which in itself is harmless and, more than that, is essential to life but which, in the hands of people who do not know its qualities, can become a danger. Butchers and grocers should not think that they are also chemists, and the same applies to manufacturers. As has been said, the modern trend

  661
  is that of the super-store, with everything packaged, glossy and lovely-looking. In fact, despite all the superficial covering, our food is probably more dangerous than it was when the grocer had his open sacks and mixed teas, coffees and the rest, blending things to suit himself and the customer's particular needs. This being so, a far greater responsibility is thrown on the people who can control the purity of our food—that is, the Minister of Health and the. Secretary of State for Scotland, or the Minister of Agriculture so far as he is here involved. In Scotland, of course, everything devolves upon one person. The Secretary of State is everything. We hope that, one 'day, we shall even have him here with us.
  The responsibility is very great indeed and I hope that an answer will be given to the succinct question put by my hon. Friend. Only about a week ago, we had another incident, and action was taken by the Government, after a sudden appreciation of the dangers, to ban certain uses of a particular substance. The difficulty is that we do not always know what will happen until trouble occurs. I hope that the Government will tell us that they are looking into the matter much more carefully and that they will ensure that, quite apart from the use of substances which we do know cause harm, the use of something as an additive, even though it does no harm, will not be allowed so long as it has no active good purpose.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. William Small: This problem has been with us for many years. When I was a schoolboy and I ran errands for my mother she used to tell me, "Tell the butcher not to sell me meat containing Madame Rachel".
  "Meat" is defined in these Regulations as meaning
  "the flesh or other part of any animal which is intended for sale for human consumption."
  I can understand how the public health inspector deals with meat which is killed in a slaughterhouse, but how does he deal with venison? Is the deer killed in a slaughterhouse? One type of meat which lays itself open to dressing up if it is stale is venison, because normally only a specialist can tell that it is venison. The sale of venison is not
  662
  big enough to justify it being called "meat". I am sure that the Minister recognises that it is hard to dispose of the whole animal because there is not a retail market for it.
  I should like to know what the position of venison is under these Regulations.
  8.52 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): Like, I am sure, the whole House, I have listened with great interest to the points which have been raised, and particularly to the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross), which was extremely detailed and knowledgeable. I am grateful to him for the way that he put his points forward and for bringing this matter before us, since it gives me the opportunity to explain the position and to answer some of the questions which he and other hon. Members have put.
  As hon. Members will know, my right hon. Friend, acting jointly with the Minister of Health, has powers under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, to make regulations to control, among other things, the addition of substances to food to protect the interest of the consumer. It is obvious from the speeches that protection of the consumer is paramount in hon. Members' thoughts. These are the powers under which the Regulations which we are discussing were made.
  It may be necessary either to protect the consumer against the addition of substances of such a kind or in such quantity as would be physically harmful to him; or to prevent him from being misled about what he is buying. There are, therefore, the two considerations—whether something is harmful, and whether something will mislead him. Ministers have made rather more regulations in the first category—for example, the Lead in Food Regulations and the Preservatives Regulations—but the Regulations we are discussing deal principally with things which deceive the public. They aim at preventing the customer from being misled as to the quality of the food that he or she is buying. We already have the Colouring

  663
  Matter in Food Regulations, 1957, which prohibit the use of dyes and other colouring matters on any meat, game, poultry, fish, fruit or vegetable which is sold raw and unprocessed, and the Colouring Matter in Food Regulations are at present being reviewed by the Food Standards Committee. This, in fact, answers one of the hon. Member's specific questions; under the Regulations one cannot use any of the coal tar derivatives on raw meat.
  Sir B. Stross: I appreciate this and we are all grateful that it is so. It makes us wonder why it is allowed for meat which has been processed in such a way that there is a substantial change, namely, sausage meat or mincemeat.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I intended to come to that later in my remarks when dealing with the question of processing, to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) also referred.
  The substances against which the Meat (Treatment) Regulations are directed are not colouring matters within the terms of the Colouring Regulations. The practice which is the subject of these Regulations is, strictly speaking, not the colouring of meat, but the use of certain proprietary preparations to preserve or to restore the fresh, red appearance of meat.
  The active ingredients of these preparations are, as the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, Central pointed out with great detail and knowledge, nicotinic acid, nicotinamide and ascorbic acid. The effect of their use, principally on minced meat but also on joints of meat, is to prevent the normal colour change in meat after it loses its freshness. Thus, when meat is minced, the fresh red colour gradually degenerates under shop conditions, the reasons for which were also explained by the hon. Member, and it assumes a dull and, perhaps, less attractive appearance after a day or so.
  Meat minced with a mixture of nicotinic acid and ascorbic acid assumes a bright pinkish colour, which is maintained without much change for a longer time. I understand, furthermore, that it is also claimed that further additions of these preparations will brighten up the colour again later.
  664
  The House will, therefore, readily appreciate the undesirability of this practice. I entirely agree with what hon. Members have said about it. Not only does it deceive the purchaser as to the true condition of the meat which he or she buys, but it can also, by maintaining a fresh appearance to the meat, mask any deterioration of it which may have occurred. That is why the Government have introduced the Regulations.
  I turn next to the point about a warning to the trade, which hon. Members opposite have raised. There have always been the general provisions of the Food and Drugs Act against misleading consumers as to the nature, substance or quality of food and against the addition of anything which might be harmful. Therefore, although the Regulations have not been brought forward earlier, the general provisions have covered the position to date.
  There is, moreover, the possibility that if any of these preparations which contain nicotinic acid are used in excess to give the maximum effect, as seems to have happened, or if they are not mixed evenly with the meat, nicotinic acid poisoning can result. The word "poisoning" is, perhaps, a rather strong term to use in the context of the product of which we are speaking, but I cannot think of any other word to use instead.
  Nicotinic acid poisoning could also be caused by the normal and correct use of the substance if the treated matter is eaten by certain people who are particularly susceptible or allergic to nicotinic acid. This could well happen. Although it is not a dangerous form of poisoning, it is not a risk which anybody should undergo if it can be avoided. Although the prevention of health risk is not the prime purpose of the Regulations, it was the occurrence of one or two cases of illness which first drew my right hon. Friend's attention to the practice.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock criticised the Government for not acting sooner in this matter. In August, November and December last year, the Ministry of Health and my Department received reports from medical officers of health of some isolated cases of mild food poisoning

  665
  attributable to the addition of nicotinic acid to minced meat. These symptoms were as the hon. Member described—a warmth, itching, redness and flushing of the face, neck and extremities. I understand that no diarrhoea or vomiting incurred in any of the cases. The poisoning was short-lived and there were no permanent after-effects. Indeed, I am advised that no lasting damage occurs from this kind of overdose, although it is unpleasant for its recipient. The Ministry discussed the use of the preparations in question with the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations and, as a result, the Federation recommended its members not to use them.
  The reports which had been received were put, at the first opportunity, to the Food Additives Sub-Committee and the Food Standards Committee, which met in November and December respectively. That, happily, coincided with the Question put by the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin).
  The Food Standards Committee recommended that, as the use of these substances on raw and unprocessed meat could deceive the customer and mask deterioration of the meat, it should be stopped. My right hon. Friends accepted this advice and made these Regulations accordingly on 10th January. This was less than one month after it had been referred to the Committee. I do not think that the Government can be accused of acting slowly or laggardly in this matter once their attention was drawn to it.
  Meanwhile, the Food Additives Sub-Committee is currently considering these substances in more detail, including their use in processed meat products, and will be advising my right hon. Friends as soon as it can whether there is any need to extend the scope of the Regulations. I can assure the House that everything that has been said in this debate will be noted and I am sure that the Sub-Committee will pay great attention to it.
  The point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central about sausages will also be considered by the Sub-Committee. It has always been understood, however, that the sausage was properly regarded as a processed product, because the form of the meat is substantially changed. It has been so
  666
  regarded for the purpose of other regulations, such as those on colouring, which I referred to earlier. These considerations are entirely different from the addition of nicotinic acid to flour, which is done—and is required by law to be done—to replace vitamins lost in milling. The Sub-Committee will, naturally, take full account of what has been said in the debate about the substance.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central referred to the article published in the United States in 1962, in which cases of anaphylaxis were mentioned. But the people so affected were under treatment with nicotinic acid administered by injection, not taken orally. No cases of anaphylaxis have occurred as a result of nicotinic acid being taken orally. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue in this instance.
  The article was noticed by the Ministry of Health. At the time the information it gave did not suggest that the use of the substances in question called for any action here. No case had been reported and there was no cause for disquiet. The particular point raised by the hon. Gentleman was a different issue altogether. The article was concerned with the medical aspects. I can assure the House that we have moved as fast as we could in this matter and have taken proper and adequate safeguards.
  The last suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman was for a general review of additives used in food and he urged us to compile a pharmacopoeia of permitted substances. As he appreciates, that is a formidable task, but it is exactly what we are trying to do, and I hope that he will give us credit for it. The Food Additives Sub-Committee is working through the whole range of food additives and will carry on until it has finished. It would be impossible for this or any other body to do the whole job at once. Nor is it only a matter of compiling a set of lists. The lists must be kept up to date and on top of its other labours the sub-committee is endeavouring to review the Regulations every five years as a matter of routine.
  This re-emphasises my point that we are very alive to this situation and to the dangers inherent in it. With all additives to food, whether colourants or others,

  667
  the maximum safeguards are used, but if something of urgent importance comes up, the Sub-Commitee meets ad hoc to decide what may be necessary. A great deal of work is involved and I do not think that the work done by the Sub-Committee, which is quite considerable, is always sufficiently appreciated by the House or by the public generally.
  I was asked about the difference between the Regulations concerning Scotland and those concerning England and Wales. The difference in the penalties arises because the penalties are governed by enabling legislation. For England and Wales this is the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, while for Scotland it is the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956. These Acts prescribe different penalties. The maximum penalties in the Scottish Act are higher than those in the English because in Scotland it is the practice to treat several related contraventions as part of a single complaint or charge which attracts a single penalty, Under Scottish law, several contraventions can be taken together and one penalty imposed if that is so decided by the court. In England and Wales, such contraventions are treated as separate charges, each attracting a separate but smaller penalty. The net result is that the different maximum statutory penalties simply even out to produce the same net result in the two countries.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock referred to the gap between laying the Regulations and bringing them into operation. This is to enable full notice to be given to the interested parties and I am sure that that was the reason for the delay between bringing the English Regulations and the Scottish Regulations into operation.
  These Regulations are not a substantial item in our programme of food additives legislation, but the need for them has arisen and I am sure that the House will agree that they are useful. I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central will not press his Prayer, because it is plain that he and his hon. Friends are as much in favour of these Regulations and of stopping the practice which has come to light from the unfortunate incidents last year as are the Government.
  Dr. Stross: In view of the full answer which we have received, which has certainly satisfied me in the main, although it has not given me sufficient satisfaction about the possibility of coal tar dyes, which are not covered by the Regulations, and as it is recognised that the House is insistent that this sort of thing should be watched, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  EMPLOYMENT, BARTON-ON- HUMBER AND SCUNTHORPE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I wish to draw attention this evening to a certain part of North Lincolnshire, and to draw attention in particular to two problems which are somewhat correlated, but which have regard to, and arise from, two parts of North Lincolnshire, namely Bartonon-Humber and Scunthorpe.
  This is a time—and we had some reference to this in the last debate—broadly speaking, of mass production, diminution in taste—and I would add in individuality—and of over-concentration in urban conglomerations at the expense of individually developing and self-expressing smaller communities. Barton-on-Humber is one of these smaller communities one in which there is a very distinct consciousness not only of the rights of the sturdy people who live there, but also a distinct consciousness by those people of their duties to the community in which they live, and this is no bad thing to find in these days.
  Barton has a working population of about 2,350 men and about 650 women. They are a self-helping community, which goes very well with the description that I have given of them, and as one example may I cite that over a period of 12 years there were constant efforts by this small community to raise money to build themselves what is now, I am glad to say, perhaps the finest warmed open-air swimming bath in the United Kingdom. It was opened last year. That is one example of the regard for self-help, self-respect, and

  669
  pride which these people in North Lincolnshire have in their community.
  They are a go-ahead lot, but unfortunately since the war there has been a very serious contraction in two of their main activities, namely, in the brick and tile industry, and in the cycle industry, with the result that there has been a marked falling off in the number of jobs available to people in Bartonon-Humber itself.
  That has meant a marked increase in the dependence for employment on the steelworks in Scunthorpe, which is about 14 miles away. Nearly 30 per cent. of the men, and 15 per cent. of the women, are driven out of the Barton to which they belong and which they love to find jobs. This is bad. It is bad from the point of view of the individual worker, because people who work at a distance from where they live are very often the first to be dispensed with when a depression sets in. And even if that does not befall them, they have the considerably increased expense of working that distance away from home, and the physical racket of having to go to and from work every day, with the increase in time that that means in their working day.
  It must not be forgotten that the steel works in Scunthorpe operate on a shift system, which means that these wretched people from Barton sometimes have to travel those 14 miles to work and back at night. It is bad also from the point of view of the community, because however much these people may prefer to live in Barton, in a smaller and more individualistic community, since they have to bear the physical burden of going that long distance every day to and from their work they naturally take the first chance that comes their way to live in Scunthorpe. That is bad for Barton. It means that this real, live, self-expressing community is gradually running down.
  More industry must be brought to Barton. None has been brought there. One of the main reasons for this is that the Government do nothing for Barton. Instead, they rely on certain figures, which happen to be correct but which, in my submission, give a totally false impression. Nearly one-third of the workers of Barton are virtually "unemployed", although they go
  670
  to Scunthorpe to work. They are not registered as unemployed because they have the spirit and perseverance to find work as far away as 14 miles, with all that that means in discomfort, especially in the winter. So they are not regarded as unemployed, and the Government can sit back very conveniently and forget all about them.
  I use those words, which are a little harsh, because this is not the first time that I have mentioned the question of Barton-on-Humber in the House, and drawn attention to the state of affairs that exists there. Nothing of a positive nature has been done. I shall refer shortly to something of a negative character which had its inspiration in the Government, if it was not the first-hand work of the Government. First, I want to mention another point about Barton. It used to be a good little port. Ships up to 500 tons used to go into Barton Haven right up until 1954. There was also a considerable lighterage trade across to Hull, as well as the trade from ships coming direct to Barton. But because—doubtless for very good reasons from its own point of view, and having regard to its responsibilities—the local drainage board decided to divert some water which used to come out through Barton Haven, the harbour has been silting up almost visibly ever since 1954. Now, even barges have difficulty in going there except at springs, let alone ships up to 500 tons.
  I wonder whether the Government know that no authority is responsible for this port. I submit that an authority should be responsible for looking after small ports and for seeing that they remain viable, instead of being allowed to decay. The Government have not helped. They have done nothing.
  Now I come to the point in respect of which the Government may be held responsible, indirectly, at any rate, for doing something. Barton is one of the many towns which will be slapped down if Dr. Beeching has his way. Here was a little port, with admirable road and rail communications. I am convinced that over the last 10 years saboteurs have been a: work, trying to make that excellent railway connection as inconvenient as possible and to prevent it from paying.

  671
  Let me give one example. The enterprising people of Barton used to arrange school parties to go to Hull by ferry—the ferry with which Barton was connected by a small branch line, shuttling to and fro. When it was known that there were concerts on a certain night of the week in Hull to which the school children went, this malign influence—I can call it nothing else—especially came along and arranged that the connection with the ferry to Hull should no longer operate. Now, these children have to remain in Barton. The railway is used to a less extent and culture is not served either.
  I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary for this, but he must realise that it is a serious situation. He may have a more charitable explanation than I about what has been going on in British Railways which allowed timetables to be arranged completely regardless of the cultural life of this small but valuable community. I wish to hear from the hon. Gentleman about what he and the Government intend to do for Barton, this small port, which could be of such value to this hitherto vital community and which is not without national significance. Since the war the malting business in Barton has built up an export trade to the Continent which should interest the hon. Gentleman. It amounts to between 45,000 and 50,000 tons a year, which was dependent on the barges going to and fro between the maltings and Hull.
  The second problem with which I wish to deal is related, because the steel industry comes into it. It refers to Scunthorpe. The Scunthorpe region is the largest steel-producing region in this country. I know that most people think of Sheffield when steel is mentioned. Although a bit of steel is produced there, Sheffield only polishes up the stuff which we make in Scunthorpe. The town has a fine record and a forward-looking council. Great efforts were made with wonderful success to house the increased number of steelworkers and their families as the industry developed. Scunthorpe is a town of 70,000 inhabitants and has grown at a phenomenal speed. But it is a one-industry town and the women fare badly.
  672
  There is a hidden pool of unemployed women, probably numbering 2,500. The national average of employed women is about 35 per cent. In Scunthorpe the figure is 23 per cent. If, to the number of unemployed which are shown on the books, there were added this 2,500, who would have jobs in light industry, were such jobs available, Scunthorpe would be—dare I say it about this Eldorado?—a depressed area, a development district, and I wish to know what the Government propose to do about it.
  I have a suspicion that the Government dissuade industry from coming to Scunthorpe, and on paper they have a good reason for doing so. It is that other areas may appear more necessitous. Last year there was a slight depression and we felt it in Scunthorpe. That is the danger of having to rely exclusively on one industry. Most of the families depend on the steel industry for employment and if there is a sudden depression the result is a drastic diminution in their income. Except for 500 workers who are employed in light industry, the people in this borough of 70,000 inhabitants have nothing on which to depend when times are hard in the steel industry. That sort of depression could happen again.
  The regular unemployment figures, are, thank Heaven, very small. Do the Government propose to continue to stand pat on those figures, or will they look at the reality underlying the figures? I hope it will not be considered frivolous when I remind the House that we are approaching a General Election, and I hope it will not be considered an offensive description if I say that aid is being handed out at a most significant speed. But nothing has come to this north-east corner of Lincolnshire except the Beeching slap in the face. I am not sure that this place should not be a development district. I hand to the Government, on a plate and just before the General Election, the opportunity to do something for Scunthorpe.
  Why not transfer a Government Department there and provide employment for the women? Have they considered that, or have they always at the back of their minds something which has not been openly expressed—the idea that they cannot send anything to Scun

  673
  thorpe, because there is so little registered unemployment there? There are other things besides numbers of registered unemployed which should be considered.
  If the Government did something to Scunthorpe and by their action won away the voters of Scunthorpe from me, I would willingly lose my seat. If, on the other hand, they prefer my presence because they are not prepared to do anything for Scunthorpe, it is up to them.
  9.23 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price) rose—
  Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will there be an opportunity for some of my hon. Friends who have been here for some time to continue this discussion? You may recall that I advised you that some of my hon. Friends would wish to continue it. I also advised the Government Whip, whose duty it is to inform the Minister, that we should not be changing but extending the scope of this debate to other parts of the country. Is it in order to continue the discussion when there is a Minister from the Board of Trade here to hear it?
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot go further than thee. What the hon. Member said is absolutely accurate to this extent. He gave me, personally and informally, notice that other hon. Members would wish to take part in the debate. I said, I think rightly, that that was perfectly all right with the Chair if they gave warning to the Minister responsible. All that has happened at the moment is that the Minister has risen and, in accordance with the Ruling I gave, I think last month, I am required by precedent to call him if he rises in those circumstances.
  Mr. Lawson: May my hon. Friends put their points before the Minister replies?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot ask me that, because the Minister is not under my control. I am obedient to the circumstances, which are that he has risen and I am, in those circumstances, obliged to call him when he does so.
  Mr. Price: Perhaps I may assist the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). I an endeavouring to reply to the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) and I understand that a number of other hon. Members wish to take advantage of the fact that we have got on to the Adjournment a little earlier than usual to raise a number of general points. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will be here although, of course, in the shore time available no Minister can answer in detail all the points made.
  It is the normal custom that proper notice is given on the particular subject which hon. Members wish to raise. No notice has been given to me or, as far as I know, to any other Minister. I shall, therefore, reply to the hon. and learned Member for Brigg, whose Adjournment debate this is, and whose subject has been put on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Lawson: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) knew of this proposal and was quite happy that we should have a few worth on the same lines as those on which he has spoken. He is quite happy to wait while one or two of my hon. Friends speak and, on that basis, for the Minister to reply.
  The procedure adopted tonight is exactly the procedure described to us as agreed procedure to be carried out if it appeared that a debate was coming to an early termination. Under those circumstances, if hon. Members have points to put in a debate the opportunity should be used. Is the Parliamentary Secretary not prepared, in these circumstances, for the debate to continue a little further before he replies to it?
  Mr. Price: I understand that the points which were to be raised were not to be about Barton-on-Humber or Scunthorpe. That was the subject put down for the Adjournment debate. Although hon. Members are perfectly free, according to the rules of the House, to raise other points after I have replied to the hon. and learned Member, I think it only courteous that I should reply at once to him on the subject of Barton-on-Humber and Scunthorpe. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable arrange

  675
  ment. I understand that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies wish to raise no doubt similar, but wider points about places in Scotland—
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: And Cornwall.
  Mr. Price: Or Cornwall, or anywhere else.
  The hon. and learned Member for Brigg, has drawn our attention this evening to the current situation and prospects in two, apparently very diverse, towns in his constituency—Barton-on-Humber and Scunthorpe. As he reminded us, Barton is a small urban district with a population of less than 7,000. It grew modestly during the 1950s, but more recently the pace of development appears somewhat to have slowed down.
  Scunthorpe, on the other hand, is a town of substantial size. Its population is not far short of 70,000, more than ten times that of Barton. What is more, Scunthorpe has been in recent years one of the most rapidly growing towns in Britain. In 1931, its population was less than 35,000, so that it has more than doubled in size during the last 30 years. There can be very few towns, even in the so-called "booming South-East", of which we have heard so much in recent months, which can match Scunthorpe's record of dynamic growth.
  But, although these two towns have, superficially at least, got little in common, there is one problem which they share, and it is for that reason that the hon. and learned Gentleman has, very properly, linked them in this debate. The link is this: both Barton and Scunthorpe feel that they need further industrial development. I should like, in a moment, to comment in detail on the case which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward for each of these two towns.
  First, there is one general point which I must make. The desire for further industrial development is something which Barton and Scunthorpe have in common, not only with one another but also with the vast majority of towns, large and small, in the country as a whole. This is quite understandable. There can be very few of us who do
  676
  not want to feel that our own particular town is developing, growing and becoming more prosperous. There are many places which can produce good social arguments—like those which the hon. and learned Member has put forward tonight—why further development is particularly desirable for them.
  The demand for new industry is, therefore, virtually unlimited. But, on the other hand, the supply of new industry at any one time is, of course, by no means unlimited. Indeed, the amount of "steerable" industry available—that is new industrial development which is not tied to a specific location—is very strictly limited. The Board of Trade cannot, therefore, expect to be able to satisfy all the requests for new industrial development which are made to it. There must be some order of priorities. The overriding priority must, of course, be that which the Board under a statutory obligation to give to the needs of the development districts. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to quarrel with that priority.
  I should like to turn now to the particular case of Barton-on-Humber. As I have said, the urban district of Barton has a population of about 6,600. The Barton Employment Exchange area, which covers a rather wider area than the urban district, had 2,848 insured employees in mid-1962, the latest date for which figures are available. Nearly 500 of these workers were employed in agriculture and quarrying, just over 1,000 in manufacturing, and the remainder in the service industries. In addition, a substantial number of workers travel to work in Scunthorpe each day and for employment purposes are registered there.
  The House will recall that people tend to register as employed persons in the place where they work, but, if they become unemployed, register where they live, which is not necessarily in the same employment exchange area. The manufacturing firms in Barton are all relatively small, but they provide a sound basis for the town's prosperity and should continue to do so.
  Unemployment in Barton has not, I am glad to say, been a serious problem in recent years. The average number of workers wholly unemployed in the Barton Employment Exchange area during the 12 months of 1963 was 90, which

  677
  amounted to 3·1 per cent. of the working population. The comparable figure for Great Britain as a whole was 2·3 per cent. In January of this year, there were 50 men and 15 women registered as wholly unemployed—2·3 per cent., compared with a national figure of 2·1 per cent. If it is recalled that the Barton people working in Scunthorpe appear as Scunthorpe employed and not Barton employed, the percentage of true Barton people would be lower.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: What is this question of true Barton people?
  Mr. Price: I mean people living in Barton. I thought that that was part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.
  I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the unemployment figures do not in themselves form a strong case for permitting further industrial development. Indeed, he did not base his case on them but rather on the need to provide jobs in Barton for the several hundred workers who travel to work each day in Scunthorpe.
  If this were an ideal world, I might agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that everyone should be able to find the job of his choice in his own home town. But we are not living in an ideal world, and in the real world the increasing scale and specialisation of modern industry means that a town of Barton's size cannot possibly have a a sufficient range of industry to provide more than a relatively narrow range of jobs.
  An increasing degree of travel-to-work is in inescapable feature of the modem industrial society in which we live. I cannot regard 14 miles as being an utterly intolerable distance to have to travel to work each day. I can appreciate that for some people a journey of 14 miles daily to and from their work involves a certain amount of inconvenience. But I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman painted rather too black a picture. I am by no means convinced that all the workers who now travel to Scunthorpe would necessarily prefer to work in Barton. In any case, I am sure that he would agree that any hardship which may be involved in travelling some distance to one's work is not at all comparable with the hard
  678
  ship one faces if one has no job at all to which to travel.
  In other words, the development districts' need for new industry must come before the needs of places like Barton-on-Humber. But that does not mean that Barton will be totally neglected by the Board of Trade. The Barton Urban District Council has been in touch with our regional office in Leeds and I hope that it has felt that it has been listened to sympathetically. The council has been told that we should be prepared to grant an industrial development certificate for Barton for any suitable project which could not be expected to go to a development district.
  I can repeat that undertaking tonight. Our regional office has, in fact, drawn the attention of two or three firms, which were known to have suitable projects in mind, to Barton as a possible location. So far, the firms concerned have preferred to go elsewhere. However, we sharll continue to bear the general situation in Barton in mind and to bring the town to the notice of firms on appropriate occasions.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned the need to develop the harbour facilities of Barton-on-Humber. This, as he knows, is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, since any Government assistance would have to be given under the Harbours Bill, which is at present before the House. I will, therefore, limit myself tonight to commenting on the factual position regarding Barton Haven, as I understand it. The harbour at Barton-on-Humber is a tidal creek on the south side of the Humber used for barging goods over to Hull docks on the opposite bank. The harbour has been silting up, apparently because improved land drainage has reduced the fresh water flow. I understand that the minimum cost of the dredging required would be about £6,000.
  Under the Harbours Bill the Minister of Transport would be empowered to give financial assistance to statutory harbour authorities by way of loan and, in exceptional circumstances, grant. There is, however, no statutory harbour authority for Barton Haven. It is within the limits of the Humber Conservancy Board, but its responsibility is the general conservancy of the estuary. It is

  679
  the responsibility of the individual harbour authorities, for instance the British Transport Docks Board at Hull, to dredge and maintain the immediate approaches to the harbours on the estuary.
  In relation to Barton Haven it is the responsibility of the individual wharf owners who, from the Government's point of view, are individually non-statutory harbour authorities, to finance and carry out any dredging or other operations necessary to maintain the use of their wharves at the level they desire. Barton-upon-Humber is not a development district, so no question of assistance under the Local Employment Acts arises.
  The underlying principle which applies to both statutory and non-statutory harbours is that harbours are a commercial activity and must be self-supporting. The cost of maintaining them must be financed out of the trade passing through them. It is, therefore, up to the wharf owners in Barton Haven to consider whether they can themselves, in conjunction, carry out such dredging and other works as they think necessary; or whether there would be any advantage in their discussing with the urban district council and any other bodies in the area whom they think appropriate the possibility of setting up a statutory harbour authority for the Haven, to obtain the benefits of the Harbours Bill. Under the same Bill this could be done by means of an application to the Minister for a harbour empowerment order.
  As to Scunthorpe, much of that I have already said about Barton applies equally to the larger town. Scunthorpe's rapid growth and current prosperity have been based on the development of the steel industry. The insured population of the Scunthorpe Employment Exchange area, which also includes Brigg, was nearly 50,000 in mid-1962. Nearly half of these workers were employed in the steel industry or its ancillaries. Scunthorpe is at present producing 11 per cent. of our crude steel output.
  I appreciate that the dominant part which the steel industry has played in Scunthorpe's development has caused some problems and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman reminded us, the
  680
  most immediate of these is the shortage of jobs for women in the town. For every 100 men at work in Scunthorpe there are only 30 women in employment, whereas in the country as a whole the ratio is 100 to 55. I fully accept that Scunthorpe needs new industry which will employ women and girls, and within the limits set by our obligation to the development districts we are prepared to see industrial development of this kind in the town. But I must add, because I do not wish to encourage false hopes, that past experience suggests that the number of suitable projects coming forward in the foreseeable future is likely to be quite small.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman also suggested that diversification of industry in Scunthorpe is desirable to reduce the extent to which the town is dependent on steel. I have some sympathy with his argument, but I can see no reason why the development of the steel industry should not continue to be the basis of Scunthorpe's prosperity in future, just as it has been the reason for its rapid growth in the past.
  I developed the point when talking about Barton, but it applies even to a place the size of Scunthorpe. I think that we cannot expect a community of 70,000 people to have that full diversification of opportunity, particularly when one recognises that in industries like steel the minimum basic size of unit of production is so much larger than it was before the war. I think that one has to look to communities getting on to nearer half a million people before one can expect to find a complete balance in one's industry so that there is not complete dependence, or excessive dependence on one industry. That community will probably be getting on for that size—though not of people employed—for us to get a really full balance, but I think that the House will agree that that is something very much larger than a community of 70,000 people.
  In considering applications for industrial development certificates for Scunthorpe, the Board of Trade will beat in mind the employment situation in the town, including the probability that the working population will go on increasing. But we must continue to be guided principally by the current levels of unemployment. In Scunthorpe, I am glad

  681
  to say, unemployment has recently been below the national average. In January, it was 2·0 per cent. and the annual average for 1963 was 2·2 per cent., which was just below the national average.
  Therefore, I must warn the hon. and learned Gentleman that the development districts and those places with a level of unemployment well above the national average must continue to have a higher claim than Scunthorpe upon the limited amount of genuinely steerable industry. This priority, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree, is socially and economically just.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Before the Parliamentary Secretary sits down, perhaps he can answer this question. When considering what unemployment there is in Scunthorpe, will he bear in mind those women who do not register there because they know that to do so is futile? If they were taken into consideration, too, I would be far more satisfied.
  Mr. Price: I recognise that point but, when it conies to priorities, the place where the women are actually registered as unemployed must have the priority, because if they need the work sufficiently they are prepared to take it outside their own home town. The place where they are registered and known to be seeking work must have priority over the place where they are not openly seeking work, but would, no doubt, take work if it came along.

  EMPLOYMENT, FALMOUTH
  9.48 p.m.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you and the House will grant me indulgence and allow me to make a short speech on a very different type of constituency problem at Falmouth—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but my duty requires that I should ask him whether he has given notice to the Minister whom he believes to be responsible.
  Mr. Hayman: Yes, Sir. I said that I would make a short point, but did not want a full reply. I said that it
  682
  was a very important point that I wanted to put to the hon. Gentleman in order that he might convey it to his Minister.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member mentioned to me a few minutes before I came into the Chamber that he intended to raise a matter. I said that he was perfectly free to raise it, but that I would not be able to reply.
  Mr. Speaker: That is quite all right with me. My duty is out of it.
  Mr. George Lawson: Am I to understand, Mr. Speaker, that you are asking that each hon. Member who takes part in an Adjournment debate in circumstances such as these individually will have been expected to have given notice to the Minister concerned?
  Mr. Speaker: No, I am simply asking whether notice has been given, because the hon. Member knows what the consequences would be if it had not been given; but supposing that a reputable agent—it might be the hon. Member himself—had given notice on behalf of another hon Member, that would satisfy me.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: Further to that point of order. I understand that because of some misgivings and doubts from the Chair on an occasion last week, or the week before, there was some discussion about this through the usual channels. I understand that what has been formally agreed now is that if the House is thought to be rising early, notice can be given through the usual channels, that is, the Whips' Office, which informs the Minister concerned. This has been agreed now and I hope that it will be accepted.
  Mr. Speaker: That is quite all right, but the hon. Member is wrong in thinking that the Chair has any misgivings. The Chair has no misgivings. It has absolute confidence in every Member, but somebody else had misgivings and I am aware of the exchanges. As far as an hon. Member says that notice has been given, that is good enough for me. If a quarrel exists it relates between others.
  Mr. Hayman: Falmouth and Cam-borne carry the name of my constituency but tonight I am concerned principally with Falmouth. I had an Adjournment debate last May to which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who is present, replied and therefore the hon. Gentleman is cognisant with the general position there.
  In December last unemployment in the Falmouth employment district, which is much larger than the borough, was 12·9 per cent. In January it was 17·1 per cent. It is still running at about the same figure, but the main difficulty is that the Falmouth shipyard, which is one of the finest ship-repairing yards in Europe, though perhaps small in comparison with some others, employs just over 2,000 men now compared with about 3,000 a few years ago. Ten unions are involved and most of the skilled workmen are out of work. They have been out of work for so long, though perhaps at different periods, that most of them have run out of unemployment benefit.
  The President of the Board of Trade was in Cornwall on 2nd January. He visited the shipyard and met the employers, and at my request he was good enough to meet representatives of the men who work in the yard. The whole of Falmouth is greatly concerned about the situation. Two unions have invoked the aid of their national executives, and tomorrow afternoon I am meeting the Mayor of Falmouth about a request which has been nut forward that the President of the Board of Trade should receive a deputation from the council.
  The fate of the shipyard is the fate of Falmouth, and indeed of West Cornwall. We are cut off from the great industrial areas but my constituency, in particular, has centuries of history as an industrial unit in Britain. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to give serious attention to what I am saying now. I hope that he will convey to the Minister the arguments I am putting forward and the plea that the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to receive a deputation from Falmouth Borough Council.

  EMPLOYMENT, SCOTLAND
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: I am very pleased that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) had the opportunity to raise the subject of the location of industry in certain parts of the country at a sufficiently early time for some of us to join him.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I must ask him whether he has given warning to the Minister responsible, or the Minister he believes to be responsible.
  Mr. Manuel: May I reply in this way, Mr. Speaker? It is the same Minister who has been responsible for the location of industry throughout the United Kingdom, and I understand that my hon. and learned Friend, who was sponsored through the usual channels, has done what was necessary. He has assured me of that and, therefore, I think that the agreement which has been made is satisfied.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman's answer is the word "Yes". I am obliged to him.
  Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot quite understand this. My understanding of the position is that it is sufficient that one hon. Member gives advice that several hon. Members may wish to intervene in a debate of this sort on a given subject and that such advice given by that one person is the advice which is accepted. I have not yet been informed that each is expected individually to give such advice.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know how often I shall need to say this. As far as I am concerned, I accept the assurance of the hon. Gentleman in question. If he thinks that he has done it through an agent or a series of agents, perhaps, that is good enough for me. I do not wish to inquire into what happens behind the scenes. I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance. That is all.
  Mr. Manuel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg on what he had done, but I do not think

  685
  that he received very much satisfaction from the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. We got the usual reply which is becoming commonplace now about the need for employment to be created in many areas of the country. I wish to deal with the plainly apparent need in many parts of Scotland. I should be quite willing to include England and Wales, too, and I am not, therefore, putting the Parliamentary Secretary in the position of needing data about any particular area.
  It is well known that many areas, particularly in Scotland, are doing everything possible, through the local authorities and through combinations of associations which have formed development committees, to bring industry where it is needed. I disagree profoundly with the case put by the Parliamentary Secretary when he says that, in modern conditions, modern industry being what it is, we must accept the idea that a journey of 50 miles will be commonplace, or words to that effect.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): Fifteen miles.
  Mr. Manuel: I have always believed in and propagated the idea that industry should serve the needs of the people and that people should not, willy-nilly, be driven by economic need into the congested areas and that, similarly, industry should not always be located there.
  The need is becoming glaringly apparent in those parts of the country where the older industries, mainly coal mining and shipbuilding, are passing out and new industries are not coming in to replace them. In these parts, unemployment runs at twice the rate in the rest of the United Kingdom. Special attention to their needs is urgently required. Much is at stake, and what would happen has been clear for a number of years now.
  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. MacArthur.]
  Mr. Manuel: In these areas there has been a cessation of the old employment agencies and inevitably depopula
  686
  tion has taken place. There has been a gradual lowering of conditions and there is left only a nucleus of labour because the best labour has inevitably moved out.
  I am glad to see that the Leader of the House has arrived. I hope that he will reply at the end of the debate. I am sorry that he has missed part of my contribution. He is deputy Prime Minister, and that is a very onerous position these days. In these areas the older industries have died out, or are dying out, or are contracting to such an extent that they are not giving the employment which they formerly gave, and very serious problems are arising.
  I am sure that the Leader of the House will appreciate my next point because he has always taken an interest in local government and local government finance. During his period at the Treasury and in his Budget speeches much thought had to be given to local authority areas. In local authority areas where old industries are dying out and modern ones are not taking their place, there is depopulation and inevitably local authorities are receiving a lower rate yield.
  The local authorities have taken on their shoulders onerous burdens because they have invested in houses, hospitals, libraries and clinics and all those things which they have tried to bring into being to create a good life for the people. In some local authorities in Scotland—for instance, in the old mining areas which are dying out—repayment of loan capital, sometimes running into millions of pounds, is spread over 60 years. An onerous burden is placed on local authorities and they are getting no help from the Government in respect of it.
  What is the answer to this problem? In spite of all the inducements given in the Local Employment Act and the assistance in setting up industries given in the last Budget, it is clear that private enterprise is still not going into these areas. The Government must do something more of the carrot to induce industries to go into these areas is not big enough. Perhaps the Leader of the House will agree that what is needed is for the Government to make certain that Government-sponsored industry goes to these areas, thus saving them

  687
  from the inevitable degradation and decay which will take place if Government action is not taken.
  10.4 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: Before I raise a number of points, I should like your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, about the fact that a Minister is not present from the Board of Trade to reply. I understand that in the usual courteous way, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) informed the responsible Minister that if there were time after my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) had made his case, hon. Members from Scotland would wish to raise various matters. What is the position of hon. Members if the Minister simply walks out?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): It is not a matter for the Chair whether the Minister is present. It is not possible for the Chair to enforce the presence of anybody.
  Mr. William Ross: Further to that point of order. You will bear in mind, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that very formally—it is something that I have never known during the long time that I have been a Member of the House—I heard Mr. Speaker ask my hon. Friend who rose to speak whether he had informed the Minister, and Mr. Speaker accepted the explanation that he was given. I should have thought it incumbent upon the Minister to wait to hear the debate.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. It is true, I understand, that the hon. Member said that he had informed the Minister, and therefore the Chair does not deprecate the hon. Member raising the matter. The Chair cannot, however, go beyond that. It is no responsibility of the Chair whether or no a Minister is present.
  Miss Herbison: I accept your Ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Fortunately, we have the Leader of the House with us. I should like to ask him what reply we on this side from Scottish constituencies will have at the end of the debate. Is it not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's responsi
  688
  bility to ensure that the work of the House is carried out in a reasonable way? It certainly is most unreasonable, apart from being discourteous, that a Minister should walk out at ten o'clock. Perhaps it is because there is not one Tory back bencher present in the House.
  Mr. Cyril Bence Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East) rose—
  Miss Herbison: I was merely giving way so the Leader of the House may reply. I am willing to give way again to hear what his attitude is, since he is responsible not only to his own Front Bench and his own back benches, but is also responsible to every Member in the House. I ask him to give a reply about the treatment that Scottish Members are getting.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): This is a case in which one has to have regard to all the circumstances. If the hon. Lady were to know them, I do not think that she would be quite as critical as she is being. I have come here and, at least, will listen to what is said and will certainly report it.
  Mr. Manuel: To whom?
  Miss Herbison: Since there is to little time, I cannot carry the point further, but I hope that it will be taken up through other channels so that we can find out what protection back benchers have in the House. I am at least glad that one of the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland is present. He might do a little more than his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did in trying to ensure that the mining industry continues to flourish in Scotland.
  The Minister who replied to my hon. Friend who raised the matter today stressed strongly that the President of the Board of Trade and the Government must be guided principally by the level of unemployment. I want to talk for a few minutes on an area which has heavy unemployment. In Scotland, we have 101,000 men and women unemployed. The tragedy is that almost 70,000 of them are men. Seventy-thousand of the breadwinners in Scotland are without a job and have little hope of finding one in the near future.

  689
  The position is even worse than the figures lead one to believe, because many of the 70,000 have been unemployed for such a long time that they are getting no unemployment benefit. But besides the degradation of being thrown on the scrapheap of unemployment for a long time, they have the further degradation of having to apply to the National Assistance Board to have any means to live and to keep their families.
  If any area that, according to the Government's own definition, should be having far more assistance than at present, it is Scotland. An even greater tragedy than that of the 70,000 men I have spoken about is that of the 8,000 boys and girls under 18 who are out of work at the very threshold of their working lives. The biggest indictment against the Government after 12 years in office lies in what they have done to thousands of young people in Scotland.
  What are the Government's proposals? For almost eight years they steadily refused to build advance factories in Scotland. A previous President of the Board of Trade said that industrialists wanted tailor-made factories. He himself was always beautifully dressed in tailor-made clothes, but we have discovered that there was as little proof in that statement as in many others made by the Government.
  Under great pressure the Government finally decided to build some advance factories and these have brought work which we would not otherwise have had. I have two in my constituency. One was let before it was finished and the other was scarcely finished when it was let. These advance factories, at least in my constituency, have "gone like hot cakes". If only that part of my constituency so badly hit by pit closures had been given advance factories years ago, we should now have had a thriving community with diversified industry.
  We have been told by the Government that a 15-mile journey to work is no hardship. It is not—provided there are easy travelling facilities. But human beings are not birds. When one talks of 15 miles that may be true as the crow flies, but it is not always only 15 miles by road. That is certainly so in Lanarkshire. We need a new industrial estate in the Wishaw-New Mains area, which
  690
  has not had a single penny spent on it under the Local Employment Act.
  Time and again hon. Members from this area have made the strongest representations to the Board of Trade. New Mains is in my constituency and Wishaw is in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). An industrial estate would help not only the immediate area, but the areas which have been hurt by the closing of the mines and of Cokeness Ironworks, places like Carluke and Ford. Ministerial answers about travelling to work from places as isolated as Ford have Peen farcical, and that is why I said that human beings were not birds.
  An additional difficulty is that in the winter roach in this area are sometimes impassable. What employer with this pool of unemployed labour will take a man from 15 miles away when in the winter he may not be able to get to his job every day? At least the Under-Secretary listens to us and I think that he is concerned about Scotland. He and his right hon. Friend should show far more guts a bout this matter and should fight to give Scotland the industries it so desperately needs.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: The House will be grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) for raising the subject of bringing industry to small places like Barton-upon-Humber.
  Scottish Members represent areas which contain small burghs. Small communities are very valuable and I was shocked when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade expressed the view, presumably the Government's, that a community of fewer than 500,000 people cannot expect the economic diversification which is necessary to provide full employment. Have we all to choke together in huge conurbations of 500,000 people before we can have a variety of occupations? If so, this is a sad day for civilisation.
  I regard the small community, the small township, even the market town, as an invaluable part of a civilised community. It is often the centre of a recreation of energy, a flowing out from the city, almost a cyclical renewal of

  691
  life from the big conurbations, and an important factor in maintaining a stable society. I was amazed that the Parliamentary Secretary, with his industrial connections, should have made such a frightful statement. For his view that populations of less than 500,000 cannot expect the sort of diversification needed to maintain full employment is frightful. That might have been true 100 years ago, but modern industries do not employ vast numbers. The so-called new industries have extensive plant monitored by only a few hundred men and women, but with tremendous output. The oil and chemical industries are good examples. There is no need to have an oil plant in the centre of a population of 500,000.
  Oil plants can be put down in areas of small communities, because only a few men are needed to work such plants. On the West Coast of Scotland there are many small towns with populations of between 5,000 and 7,000. The young people of those areas are having to move out into the huge conurbations to which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade referred. Instead of allowing those areas to become depopulated, we should establish light industries there to produce consumer durable goods. By using modern techniques, these small communities could produce a lot of goods.
  The attitude adopted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is nineteenth century. It is completely out of date. The Government talk about modernising Britain, but they are not thinking of modernisation. They may be thinking of modern techniques, but they are still back in the nineteenth century, when one had to put down an industry in an area with a large population. That is not the position today. Anyone who visits an oil refinery can see that a small labour force is responsible for a tremendous output.
  The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that we should create townships of half a million people. I do not agree. I think that we should create small communities, and get our people away from the huge conglomerations into which they have been concentrated. I am an engineer. I have spent most of my life trying to produce more and more goods
  692
  with a smaller and smaller labour force. I hope to see the day when many of our small burghs in Scotland are not merely dormitory towns with populations which are getting older all the time, but are small, thriving, dynamic, communities in which there are a number of industries producing small bits and pieces for the motor industry, or for the different branches of trade and commerce.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will invite his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to come back to the House and express his regret that in the second half of the twentieth century he is thinking in terms of the early part of the nineteenth century, when producers put down industries only in areas where the maximum amount of labour was available.
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: It is an old and established tradition that if there is a premature conclusion of Government business the Adjournment debate is started right away, and it is very difficult to be out of order on that debate.
  For a long time there has been a practice—and it is one that I shall do everything I can to safeguard—that Members who have problems—and we certainly have plenty in Scotland—can inform the Minister concerned, and the Chair, and we can then debate those problems if the debate on the subject that was originally selected for the Adjournment is concluded.
  The original mistake tonight was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who spoke after my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), because one thing which an hon. Member is not allowed to do on an Adjournment debate, or any other debate, unless we are in Committee, is to speak twice. I understand that there may be good reasons why the Minister left, but in those circumstances his responsibility was to ensure, out of courtesy to the House and to preserve the rights of hon. Members, that someone from his Department was here to answer the debate.
  When I saw the Leader of the House come in I hoped that he would make a speech attacking the Board of Trade.

  693
  I can remember one of the best speeches he ever made, on 26th June, 1963, at about midnight, on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. He was then speaking as a back bencher, and I supported him. That is more than he has ever done for me. He was pleading the case of Port Ellesmere—a district in his constituency which had been left out of an industrial development area. He referred to the effect that that, plus a change in the Finance Bill, would have on development in that area. I hope that something has stirred in his memory and that he recollects the occasion.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): It is Ellesmere Port.
  Mr. Ross: Yes—Ellesmere Port. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has got it—and they have got him.
  The point that he was raising was a serious one. Because of the definition of a certain area, here was a small borough which had undertaken to take overspill from Liverpool, but in respect of which, by virtue of the fact that industrialists could not possibly be attracted there, there would be a frustration of development and a frustration of the hopes of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in respect of overspill.
  The same thing applies in Scotland, but with the difference that there are areas there which are not so fortunately placed as that part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. I am referring to the fact that there are 100,000 unemployed persons in Scotland, and there are areas there which have double the average rate of unemployment that exists in England, and which are not within development districts. Therefore, from the point of view not of overspill alone but of obtaining employment, those areas are denied benefit by the President of the Board of Trade.
  If there is one thing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the House has no right to sneer at it is the representation of the Scottish people in this House, certainly on this side of it.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I never sneer at anything.
  Mr. Ross: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has plenty to worry him about the way in which Scottish legislation is handled by the Scottish Office. He knows the muddle that it is in. He also knows that there is not a single Scottish Tory back bencher on the Standing Committees which are considering the Agriculture and Horticulture Bill, the Police Bill and the Housing Bill. That shows the extent of their interest.
  While this problem exists we shall speak. We believe that it is the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade either to be here himself or to be sure that somebody else is here when we give him reasonable notice that we wish to raise a matter of this kind. My hon. Friends have spoken about the position in Lanarkshire, Dunbartonshire and Ayrshire. This is a serious matter. Britain is in the middle of a boom, but Scotland, once more, has a high unemployment figure. We cannot blame the weather this time. We must take account of the failure of the Government's policies. They may be well intentioned, but they are not working Every week brings the story of another factory closing.
  We have heard of the serious position of the factory in Falkirk. It has been there for generations, but 650 people are losing their jobs there. The same is true of Acme Wringers, in Greenock, which is dropping part of its production. This will probably mean the loss of about 1,000 jobs. What a song and dance we get from the Government if something is done that may produce that number of jobs in five or six years. I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that when this kind of thing occurs again steps will be taken to see that a Minister is here properly to do his job in this House—
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

GAS
  Employees (Provident Associations)
  Employees (Provident Associations)
  Gas Production (Oil)
  Gas Production (Oil)
  Coal Carbonisation Plant
  Coal Carbonisation Plant
COAL
  Smoke Control (Regional Advisory Committees)
  Smoke Control (Regional Advisory Committees)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Iron and Steel Federation (Industry Fund)
  Iron and Steel Federation (Industry Fund)
  Iron and Steel Producers (Export Market)
  Iron and Steel Producers (Export Market)
  Local Employment Acts
  Local Employment Acts
  Fuel Costs, Scotland
  Fuel Costs, Scotland
  Iron and Steel (Imports and Exports)
  Iron and Steel (Imports and Exports)
  Iron and Steel Industry (Productivity)
  Iron and Steel Industry (Productivity)
EDUCATION
  Educationally Subnormal Children (Teaching Machines)
  Educationally Subnormal Children (Teaching Machines)
  School Frontages (Street Parking)
  School Frontages (Street Parking)
  Primary and Secondary Education
  Primary and Secondary Education
  Teacher Quotas
  Teacher Quotas
  Married Women Teachers
  Married Women Teachers
  Schools (Glass Panel Doors)
  Schools (Glass Panel Doors)
  Boxing
  Boxing
  Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council (Report)
  Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council (Report)
  Deaf Children, Essex
  Deaf Children, Essex
  School Leavers (North-East)
  School Leavers (North-East)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Theddlethorpe Dunes
  Theddlethorpe Dunes
  University Air Squadrons
  University Air Squadrons
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Mr. Winston Field (Statement)
  Mr. Winston Field (Statement)
CYPRUS
  Negotiations
  Negotiations
HOME DEPARTMENT
  General Elections
  General Elections
  Immigrants (Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland)
  Immigrants (Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland)
  Greek Royal Visit (Report of Inquiry)
  Greek Royal Visit (Report of Inquiry)
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Livestock Group of Companies (Police Inquiries)
  Livestock Group of Companies (Police Inquiries)
  Local Employment Acts (Standard Grants)
  Local Employment Acts (Standard Grants)
  Magazine Subscription Salesmanship
  Magazine Subscription Salesmanship
  World Conference on Trade and Development
  World Conference on Trade and Development
  North-East (Publicity and Public Relations)
  North-East (Publicity and Public Relations)
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (TRAINING COURSES)
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (TRAINING COURSES)
  COURT HEARINGS (BOLTON, MANCHESTER AND PRESTON)
  COURT HEARINGS (BOLTON, MANCHESTER AND PRESTON)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Contracts
  Government Contracts
  Steel Companies
  Steel Companies
  CYPRUS
  CYPRUS
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Town Terminal, Belfast
  Town Terminal, Belfast
  URUGUAY (FLAG DISCRIMINATION)
  URUGUAY (FLAG DISCRIMINATION)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Chronic Bronchitis
  Chronic Bronchitis
  Mentally Subnormal (Staff Training Council)
  Mentally Subnormal (Staff Training Council)
SCOTLAND
  Children and Young Persons (Committee's Report)
  Children and Young Persons (Committee's Report)
  Central Scotland (Publicity and Public Relations)
  Central Scotland (Publicity and Public Relations)
BRITISH ARMY
  Leave (Travel Warrants)
  Leave (Travel Warrants)

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

DOMINION STATUS AND COMMUNIST RÉGIMES
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention in future to grant Dominion status to Communist régimes.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I am not altogether clear as to exactly what my noble friend means by the words "to grant Dominion status", but I take them to mean to grant full independence within the Commonwealth. The decision to grant independence to a Dependency is a matter for Britain and Britain alone, and the British Government will decide on the right course of action in the light of the particular circumstances of the Dependency. Membership of the Commonwealth, however, is of course a different matter and requires the agreement of all the other members. We cannot prejudge how they will reply to any particular request.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Duke for his Answer. I was of the opinion that Her Majesty's Government had granted Dominion status to the new Government of Zanzibar. Is the noble Duke aware that, if that is so, many people are surprised by the alacrity of the Government in granting such status to a Government which, so far as the public can judge, appears to be of Communist origin and of Communist sympathies?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I would point out to my noble friend that, far from granting Dominion status to the new Government of Zanzibar, we have not yet granted recognition.

GRANTS FOR OVERSEAS SPORTS
3.7 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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 how many applications have been received from governing bodies of sport asking for grant-aid for teams competing in overseas events; how many of these have been accepted and how many rejected; what amount of money has been granted for this purpose during 1964; and whether they will make a statement.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH): My Lords, 15 inquiries have been received in connection with the scheme for Government assistance to teams competing in overseas events, or which 5 may be regarded as applications for financial help. None of these has been accepted and none has been rejected. It follows that so far no money has been granted for the purpose. The Advisory Committee which was set up following the announcement in your Lordships' House on November 14, 1963, has been engaged in formulating the criteria for judging applications for assistance. A questionnaire designed to secure the requisite information will be circulated to the various national sporting bodies within a week.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that his reply is not quite straightforward? I do not mean that rudely, and I will ask him a question, if I may, to elucidate. First of all, is it not true that none of these applications has been accepted or rejected because none has been considered? The next question that I should like to ask the noble Earl is this. Is he aware that my Question asks how much money has been set

639
aside during 1964 for this purpose? I wonder whether he could please deal with those two points first?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, these applications are being considered, but in fact it is not possible, I fear, to give the noble Lady a figure to-day, not even within broad limits. The difficulty is that this is a field in which at this stage no one, either in the Government service or outside it, has enough information on which to base a reliable estimate. The Committee is bound to feel its way. Much will depend upon the merits of the claims which come before the Committee. At the same time, I think the noble Lady will no doubt agree that there must be a limit to the sum which can be granted.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, the noble Earl is still being evasive. Does he not realise that the Committee has not yet met to consider these applications? Would he not agree that this is an extremely long delay, as we were informed in this House that this Committee was to be set up on November 14 last? Finally, is he aware that everyone who knows anything about these matters believes that the amount of money which has been set aside is so derisory that the Government are afraid to say how little it is?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, in regard to the first part of the noble Lady's supplementary, I do not think that there has been any avoidable delay, having regard to the fact that Christmas intervened and that there has been a change in the chairmanship of the Advisory Committee. The first task has clearly been to decide how to process the applications.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the noble Earl stated that there must be a limit to the amount of money made available for this purpose. Would he be good enough to tell the House what the limit is?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot do that to-day.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I wish to be fair to the Lord President of the Council, who is, I think, still responsible for sport. Would it not
640
be a reasonable defence for the noble Earl to advance that the Lord President was occupied for some weeks in the campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party in furtherance of his own career, which might well explain the delay during that time, when he could not give attention to the work of his office?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, am I right in thinking that in his reply my noble friend stated that, of the applications received, none was rejected and none was accepted? Is he aware that the British Universities Sports Federation put in an application last summer for aid to help them send a team to the World University Games in Brazil, and that this was rejected?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, this particular re-formed Advisory Committee was not in existence at that time.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Question is:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government how many applications have been received from governing bodies of sport …"?
It does not say anything about any Committee.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he has been good enough to look into the question which I asked him yesterday—namely, the position of Wales with regard to membership of this Committee?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Yes, my Lords, I can add something to what I said yesterday. The position of Wales is, of course, somewhat different from that of Scotland in that there is no completely separate Welsh Education Department; but I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that Sir John Lang's Committee intend to invite a representative of the Welsh Committee for Physical Recreation to attend meetings in all appropriate cases.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me, in conclusion, whether, if I put down a Question say in two weeks' time, he could then tell us a little more about which applications have been accepted

641
and which have been rejected? Will the Committee have met by then?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: The noble Lady can always put down a further Question. I know the noble Lady well. After all, she has been the World Sprint Champion, and I feel this afternoon it is not possible for me to sprint much further along this particular track. She is also a remarkable skater, and I think she will appreciate that if I go any further this afternoon I may be skating on rather thin ice.
LORD WISE: My Lords, before we conclude, may I say that the noble Earl mentioned applications in regard to overseas athletics. Could he tell us how many applications have been received in other branches of athletics at home, or would that require the putting down of a further Question?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: The Question relates only to overseas grants.
LORD WISE: If I were to put down a Question, would the noble Earl be able to give me the information as to how many applications have been received?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Any noble Lord is welcome to put down a Question.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, are all these governing bodies of sport set against the idea of games being played for fun?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I play all games for fun.

HONG KONG: REFUGEES AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
3.15 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: 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—

(1) Whether it is true that on or about November 26 last a junk escaping under gun-fire from the mainland was arrested at Lamma Island by the Honk Kong Water
642
Police: and that this junk contained 52 refugees (27 men, 19 women, and six children);

(2) and whether a few days later these unfortunates were returned by Hong Kong across the Chinese Railway Frontier to the Chinese authorities;

(3) if so, whether any serious attempt was made before doing so to pass on such of them as Hong Kong could not absorb to some alternative safe refuge such for instance as through the Red Cross or some refugee organisation under the aegis of the United Nations;

(4) and finally whether, in view of the outstanding record of Hong Kong in such matters, it is not most unfortunate that such an incident should have taken place; and whether strict orders against its repetition should not be issued, bearing in mind the obligation entailed by the Declaration of Human Rights of June 18, 1948, which prescribes (Article 12(1)) that "Everyone has the right to seek and be granted in other countries, asylum from persecution".]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, it is true that on November 26 last year the Hong Kong Police intercepted a junk carrying 52 illegal immigrants. We have no evidence that this junk left the mainland under gun-fire. Two members of the party did say, however, that their boat had been chased by an armed Chinese junk and that their party had thrown fish bombs at it in order to get away. This story was not corroborated by any of the other members of the party and is believed by the Hong Kong authorities to be false. After the usual careful inquiry, the party was returned to China across the land frontier at Lowu on December 3, the Hong Kong immigration authorities having satisfied themselves that this was a case of attempted illegal entry. The question of asylum did not therefore arise.
As I feel sure the noble Lord is aware, the return of illegal immigrants to China is a frequent occurrence. In 1963, 1,883 were returned. I am glad to note that in the fourth part of the

643
noble Lord's Question he pays a tribute to the outstanding record of Hong Kong in receiving and caring for immigrants. As your Lordships are aware, more than a million immigrants have been absorbed into the Colony's population since 1949.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for his Answer, the first part of which does in fact confirm the truth of what I asked him to confirm in regard to two of my points. The actual number of persons is slightly different, but that really does not make much difference. What matters very much in the latter part of my Question is whether any alternative asylum was sought for these unfortunate people before they were returned, which on the grounds both of humanity and of international law should have been done. The more so, as I am informed—and I have no reason to doubt it—because an offer was made from a neighbouring territory not only to pay for these people, but to receive them. I yield to none in my admiration of Hong Kong—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD KILLEARN: I am very sorry, but I am determined to pay a tribute to Hong Kong, if you do not mind. I have been there countless times. I started in Hong Kong first as long ago as 1902 and know the Colony extremely well. There is no greater admirer of it than I am. I am terribly pained by an incident of this kind because their record as regards immigrants is marvellous.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD KILLEARN: May I have an answer to the latter part of my Question?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord has repeated his tribute to the Hong Kong authorities. It is certainly richly deserved. The point the noble Lord must accept is that this case to which he has referred was a perfectly normal, straightforward case of an attempted illegal entry and therefore the question of asylum did not arise. Illegal entrants to Hong Kong have to be returned to China. As I said in my
644
substantive reply, no fewer than 1,883 were returned last year.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask one question as a matter of elucidation. One can say that a man is an illegal immigrant or one can say he is a political refugee. The noble Lord described them as illegal immigrants. Were they also political refugees? Were there any political aspects involved?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am glad the noble Marquess has asked me that question. Your Lordships may have noticed that in my substantive reply I made it clear that careful inquiries had been carried out. These careful inquiries cover, among other things, the circumstances in which these people leave China.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They were not political refugees?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, could the noble Marquess define briefly the difference between an illegal immigrant, coming from such countries as China or East Germany or places of that kind, and a refugee?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I should be pleased to answer a Question on that subject if the noble Lord wishes to put it down. It has no bearing on this Question.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, could the noble Marquess enlighten the House as to what an illegal immigrant is?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes, my Lords. Every day 50 immigrants from China are allowed into Hong Kong.
LORD KILLEARN: Who gives them papers to that effect? There are no relations between the two.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, they leave China with exit permits from China and we have arranged in Hong Kong a quota system of 50 a day. This has been maintained more or less through the last year. Your Lordships will see that the life of the whole Colony would be threatened if there were not immigration control, and therefore it is necessary, if people try to break the rules, to send them back to

645
the country from which they come. I think the noble Lord will appreciate that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am not absolutely clear even now. I was very grateful to the noble Marquess for his Answer, but if a man was both an illegal immigrant and a political refugee would he be sent back? I ask that, because I cannot believe that any political refugee would have legal immigration forms.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No, my Lords. I think this is quite clear. I have been rather drawn on this question. This situation obviously arises in other parts of the world. But if a person can establish that he is a political refugee and the question of asylum arises, this is another matter. But in this case we were quite satisfied that there was no question of these people being political refugees running from possible persecution. Therefore the question of asylum did not arise.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, what happens when they get a permit from Red China for an exit into Hong Kong? Are these people who are given a permit by China to come out all political refugees, or are they coming out for some other purpose? That does not seem to me to be very plain.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sorry that I have not made myself clear. The position is that there are a number of people in China who, for one reason or another, wish to come into Hong Kong. One of the reasons given—a perfectly normal human reason—is that they have relations there. When they wish to leave China they should ask for exit permits from China. If they have not asked for exit permits from China, they have infringed the Chinese regulations. Therefore it is possible that if, over the 50 quota in a day, some people were returned who had not asked for their exit permits, they would have infringed the Chinese regulations and I cannot say what the Chinese authorities would see fit to do about these people. I hope that the noble Earl has followed the point. The 50 who come in every day
646
is a quota which the authorities in Hong Kong have thought it is possible for Hong Kong to bear. That is the position.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, arising out of the original Question and the supplementaries, it is obvious—and perhaps the noble Lord will confirm—that the quota of 50 is established by the Hong Kong Government in the light of their existing difficulties and the large number of refugees. But the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, has put on the Paper is: what efforts can be made to assist those people who wish to leave China and who can obtain permits to leave? If countries like the Philippines or Formosa and others were willing to take Chinese who were able to get an exit permit from China, would the Hong Kong Government uplift their quota in order that this could be achieved?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, this is a very difficult question. I was perfectly frank and straightforward in my reply. I think the noble Lord will appreciate that a number of people might say that they wished to travel on further, but, when they got to Hong Kong might not, in fact, do so. So we have to be particularly careful not to exacerbate a situation that is already very difficult.
LORD SHEPHERD: It could be conditional.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It is perfectly possible for people, as the noble Lord is well aware, to leave China to go to Hong Kong and then go on overseas. I have some quite interesting figures here which I will give, as your Lordships have gone into this in detail. In May, 1962 (which noble Lords will remember was the time of the tremendous exodus from China), at a meeting of the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, a resolution was passed about these refugees and the Formosan authorities declared that they would be very pleased to take them. The total number of people who arrived in Formosa was 771, and the figures with which we were dealing, of course, were between 60,000 and 70,000.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords—
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I wonder whether I might remind your Lordships that we are perhaps in danger of having a debate on this subject. We have had three Questions in 20 minutes, and we have three very important debates on Bills to come. I understand perfectly that this is an important matter. If your Lordships are not satisfied with the very full answers that my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has given, perhaps it would be convenient to put down an Unstarred Question.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I appreciate the point that the Leader of the House has raised, but I was on my feet when he rose. As one who has visited Hong Kong, I appreciate the difficulties of the Hong Kong Government. There is the great overcrowding in Hong Kong and a terrible housing problem. I want to ask the noble Marquess whether, if someone comes on an exit permit from the Chinese Government, investigations are made to ensure that that person is not going to function in espionage or subversive activities in Hong Kong?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not want to be drawn into too close detail about the exact nature of the investigations. The noble Lord, I am sure, can draw his own conclusions on exactly what these investigations are. But one of the important aspects of the investigations, of course, is that the authorities should be satisfied that the people are not fleeing from persecution; in which case, of course, they would receive asylum. But their background is, so far as possible, gone into, and the people concerned do all come from Kwangtung. They do not come from other parts of China. It is a stipulation, the idea being that if people come from Kwangtung they are more likely to be related to people in Hong Kong than if they come from any other part of China.

CYPRUS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that in a few minutes' time my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on Cyprus.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I had only just been informed privately that it was understood that the statement on Cyprus would not be made, as there had not been time to deal with it. Which is correct?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have not heard about that. I will look into the position for the noble Earl. It is, of course, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations who is due to make the statement. I have not seen him for half an hour, but I will let the noble Earl know the position.

LICENSING BILL [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the House to be in Committee (on Re-commitment) on Report of the Bill from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills have made some Amendments to the Bill. These Amendments are printed on the Paper available to your Lordships and are included in the Bill which is now to be considered by the Committee of the Whole House.
On Question, Motion agreed to
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: This Bill has been amended by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I understand that no further Amendments have been put down to this Bill for this afternoon.
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

LEGAL AID BILL
3.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think that your Lordships will expect me to speak for very long on this Bill, for in its main features it is similar to one to which your Lordships gave attention in March of last year. I then explained it pretty fully, and it is not very easy to make a different speech proposing for a second time that the same Bill should be read a second time. But if perchance some of your Lordships have looked at Hansard and seen what I said then, I hope they will forgive me and not accuse me of tedious repetition if I say much the same to-day.
When the Legal Aid Scheme was being devised by the Rushcliffe Committee, and the Legal Aid and Advice Act was considered in Parliament—and, indeed, since then—there has been much discussion in Parliament, in the Press and in legal circles about the problems which this Bill seeks to tackle. It has, indeed, been an intractable problem. Many suggestions for its solution have been considered, and this Bill contains what we believe to be the best way of dealing with it. As your Lordships know, in the ordinary way the successful party in litigation obtains an order for costs against his unsuccessful opponent. If a man is sued by an impecunious person whose claim fails, it may not be possible to obtain from him the costs which he has been ordered to pay. That is one of the chances of litigation.
I think it is generally agreed that the provision of legal aid to help those considered to have cases worthy of litigation (maybe to recover damages for personal injuries, maybe to establish some right or other) is a very desirable and beneficial social service of which we may well be proud. But if, as a result of obtaining legal aid, a man embarks on litigation and loses his case, and is then ordered to pay the costs incurred by his successful assisted opponent, the result may be to ruin him or drive him to bankruptcy. That is why Section 2, subsection (2)(e), of the 1949 Act pro-
650
vides that the assisted litigant's liability to pay his opponent's costs is not to exceed
"the amount (if any) which is a reasonable one for him to pay having regard to all the circumstances, including the means of all the parties and their conduct in connection with the dispute".
I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a proper provision so far as the assisted litigant is concerned. But it must be recognised that it operates unjustly in relation to the successful unassisted litigant. He is unlikely to get an order for the payment of all his costs made against the assisted litigant. He may not get any order at all for the payment of any of his costs. So it can be said, as my noble and learned friend Lord Reid has in fact said, that, so far as the assisted litigant is concerned, this is an example of "Heads I win, tails you lose". The injustice is even greater if the assisted litigant appeals and loses again, for then the unassisted litigant, though successful, may find himself having to pay two sets of costs: and if the assisted litigant appeals to your Lordship's House and loses, three sets of costs. It is in an endeavour to remedy that situation in some degree that I bring this Bill before your Lordships.
There are, I know, some who hold the view that if the State aids a litigant who loses, then if that litigant cannot pay the successful litigant's costs, the State should do so. That would indeed cast a heavy burden—and an unacceptable one—on the Treasury and the taxpayer, and it is open to the serious objection that to adopt that solution would put the successful unassisted litigant sued by an assisted person in a far better position than the successful litigant sued by an unassisted person of limited means. In the former case, the successful litigant would be certain to get all his costs paid: in the latter case, he would be unlikely to do so. The provision made in this Bill is designed to secure that a person sued by an assisted person is not put in such a preferential position.
Clause 1 gives the court power to order the payment out of the Legal Aid Fund of costs to the unassisted party. It provides in subsection (2) that before such an order can be made the court has to be satisfied
"that it is just and equitable in all the circumstances that provision for those costs should be made out of public funds …"

651
and, further, that the court is under a duty to consider
"what orders should be made for costs against the party receiving legal aid and for determining his liability in respect of such costs".
The purpose of this is to ensure that the court keeps in mind the fact that the assisted litigant can be ordered to pay costs, and to ensure that the court considers whether he should be ordered to do so. These two matters must be considered by every court, whether appellate or of first instance, before any order is made for payment out of the Legal Aid Fund.
My Lords, there is one further limitation imposed by subsection (3) on the power to order payment of costs out of the Fund. That subsection provides that no order shall be made for the payment of the unassisted party's costs if these were incurred at first instance only unless that party was the defendant and the court is satisfied that he would suffer severe financial hardship if no order were made. There are two points I should draw to your Lordships' attention in connection with this. First, in courts of first instance such orders for the payment of costs out of the Fund can be made only in favour of unassisted defendants. The reason for this is that, if a man chooses to sue then there seems to be little justification for the State's being required to pay his costs if he succeeds against an assisted litigant. Secondly, the order can be made in favour of a successful unassisted defendant only if the court is satisfied that he would suffer severe financial hardship if no order were made. It was this provision that gave rise to some discussion and criticism in another place.
I have carefully considered the views expressed, and have given much thought to the suggestion that this particular provision should be dropped. I have come to the conclusion myself that this provision must be retained in the Bill. If it is omitted, the result will be that the Fund will become liable to pay all the costs of every successful unassisted litigant when the litigant could not show that the failure to pay him out of the Fund led to his suffering severe financial hardship. Big corporations and insurance companies, who are of course frequent litigants, might
652
thus get their costs, and this would place a very substantial burden on the Fund, and so on the taxpayer. It is not possible to calculate with any certainty how great it would be; but to do this would indeed be to place the successful defendant sued by an assisted plaintiff in a better position than one sued by an unassisted plaintiff, from whom he would not be certain of getting his costs.
Clause 2, subsection (1), is new, and it is my intention to make regulations for the purposes contemplated by the three sub-paragraphs of that clause. It is necessary, and I think appropriate, to prescribe by regulations what are to be treated as separate proceedings, and also what are to be treated as instituted by the party receiving legal aid—for instance, proceedings by way of counterclaim and cross-petition. I am at present considering the manner in which this Bill should be applied where the unassisted party is acting in a fiduciary, representative or official capacity. It will be necessary to adapt the "severe financial hardship" requirements for unassisted parties such as trustees, executors and administrators. It is not by any means easy to devise a fair scheme for the application of the Bill to such persons, but I am confident that it will be possible to devise a satisfactory method in relation to their costs. The regulations will of course be laid before your Lordships in due course.
Clause 3 makes the necessary provision for adaptation to Scotland. Clause 4 makes it clear that if the Northern Ireland Parliament decides to legislate on the lines of this Bill it can do so in relation to Northern Irish appeals to the House of Lords or in references to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
My Lords, I do not think you will expect me to say much more about this Bill. I commend it to your Lordships, It is, I think, a useful reform and will at least go some way to remedy an injustice which has been apparent ever since the Legal Aid Scheme was devised, an injustice to which much thought has been given over many years in an endeavour to find a satisfactory way of dealing with it and I commend this Bill to your Lordships as one that gives the courts considerable powers to alleviate the hardship suffered by successful opponents of

653
assisted litigants. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

BRITISH NATIONALS IN CYPRUS
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps I might now repeat the Answer to a Private Notice Question put to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in another place. The Question was whether, in view of the widespread disturbances which occurred this morning in Cyprus, he would make a statement on the position of British nationals on the island. The Answer is as follows:
"For some time the Commander-in-Chief of Cyprus has had authority to arrange for the exacuation of Service dependants and other British nationals who are living outside the Sovereign Base Areas. Plans have been made for this purpose and the necessary air transport is held in readiness. In view of the renewed outbreak of intercommunal violence the Commander-in-Chief was reminded this morning that he has full discretion to proceed with the evacuation of British civilians should be consider that their safety requires it."
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for getting the Answer that I was doubtful was going to be made. I must apologise for having made the interruption I did, but I had other information which led me to do that. May I say that we have been very concerned at the sudden transfer of heavy armed activity to the neighbourhood of Limassol; and I think the last part of the statement that has just been given to us is of importance. But I feel we can be satisfied that proper steps have been taken.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl. Her Majesty's Government share the concern that he has expressed at the deterioration of the situation in Cyprus, and hope that all parties will act with restraint.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the statement he has made. I am quite sure that the Government have taken the right course.

LEGAL AID BILL
3.44 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, those of us who are interested in the subject of legal aid will have had the advantage of hearing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this subject once before. It was an unfortunate occasion because I think there was some mishap and the Bill should never have been introduced in this House at that time. But I was glad that on both occasions the noble and learned Lord went out of his way to say that the Legal Aid Bill had been a success and that a great many people who would not otherwise have been able to get justice done had benefited from the provisions of that Act. That is certainly true.
This is not the occasion to go into the statistics or to discuss the workings of the Act; we have done that on a number of occasions. The extent of the successes of assisted persons is really remarkable and it does justify the provisions of this Act in every possible way. I thought I would say that, because it might be thought by the introduction of this Bill that some reflection was cast on the system of legal aid; and I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree that there is nothing of the kind involved. But we all recognise that injustice can be done or hardship caused to successful litigants who are not State-aided as a result of the assistance given to persons to bring actions. This Bill is an attempt to try to mete out some kind of justice and to alleviate hardship.
My criticism of the Bill is that it is rather vague in the way in which it is going to operate. It leaves far too much to the discretion of the court without giving the court any direction as to how that discretion is to be exercised. In order to qualify for assistance three conditions have to be satisfied. First, the unassisted party must have been the defendant in an action brought by the assisted party. That is quite understandable and, I think, right. But the Bill

655
makes no provision in terms for the position where there is an action brought by an unassisted party and there is a counterclaim brought by the assisted party and the real proceedings are based on the counterclaim. Whether in that case the unassisted party can get relief under the terms of this Bill is not clear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, forgive me for interrupting for one moment. I thought that I indicated this when I said that that is one of the matters that will be dealt with by regulation under Clause 2 (1). As a matter of fact, I gave the instance of a counterclaim as one of the particular cases.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sorry but I did not catch the actual terms of that. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is getting powers to make regulations. I wanted to confirm that it would be on this point among others. So far, that is all right.
The other condition is that the court must be satisfied that it is "just and equitable in all the circumstances" that there should be relief given to the assisted party. What is going to be the criterion? I cannot say; and the Bill gives no assistance in that direction. Will it be the normal thing for the unassisted party to qualify for help, subject of course to the third condition, or will it be something exceptional? Or will there be any kind of direction given to the court: as to what is meant by its being "just and equitable in all the circumstances" that provision for an unassisted person should be made out of public funds? It strikes me that this provision is so vague that different Judges may interpret it in different ways. There certainly ought to be some guidance given either in the Bill or by way of regulation as to what should be the criterion upon which the court should act.
But once they are satisfied that it is "just and equitable" that relief should be given, then the unassisted party will have to show that he is suffering "severe financial hardship" unless an order is made for his assistance. Again, what is "severe financial hardship"? Does it differ from "financial hardship"? Does it mean, for instance, that you have to show you literally cannot pay the costs that have been caused as a result
656
of the proceedings? Does it mean that you will be bankrupt if you have to pay them? Or, does it mean that your family will be deprived of necessities? It is capable of so many interpretations. This expression, "severe financial hardship" is capable of so many interpretations that I should have hoped that it would be possible to have some kind of clarification, or direction as to what is intended, in the Bill itself. Obviously, as the Bill stands it can apply to very few cases indeed. I imagine that "to be satisfied that it is just and equitable" and also that "severe financial hardship will be caused" would make it apply to exceedingly few unassisted litigants. The measure of this is that, in another place, it was stated that the estimated total cost of this scheme would be something in the order of £40,000. Obviously, that cannot involve very many people, and I hope it will be possible to give some guidance as to what these words mean.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was quite right in saying that in another place these particular words were the subject of a good deal of controversy. And it was not based on Party at all. I think that most of the objection was taken by the noble and learned Lord's own political friends. They wanted to go too far, in my opinion, and to delete these words altogether, so that every unassisted person who was successful in the terms of the Bill should qualify for assistance. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that that would be going too far. But would it not be possible to find some halfway house between severe financial hardship and hardship? If it were possible to devise some form of words where "hardship is caused" to a person as a result of having to pay these costs, then he should qualify for assistance. I think that that would meet with the approval of most people and I should be grateful if, at a later stage, the noble and learned Lord would examine that, without going all the way.
The only other point I want to refer to is the direction to the court that they should take into account the possibility of getting a portion of the costs from the assisted party. This is put in terms in the Bill, though it is already the duty of the court to ascertain

657
whether, in the event of an assisted party being unsuccessful, he should be ordered to pay costs. So far as I can see, in the vast majority of cases he will not be able to make any contribution at all, because already, in assessing the contribution which the assisted party has to make towards the cost of proceedings, the fullest possible levy is imposed upon him, based not only on his own earnings but on his wife's earnings as well—which I always think is most unjust. It seems to me difficult to think of many instances where the assisted party would be in a position to make any further contribution beyond that which he is already asked to make. But what is the point of putting this in terms in the Bill, when it is already the duty of the court to make these inquiries in any case?
I realise that most of the points that I have made can be dealt with in Committee, but I thought I should raise these points so that the noble and learned Lord could look into them. I am sure he realises that at least this question of severe financial hardship will definitely be discussed at the next stage of the Bill. In general, I am sure that every Member of this House will wish to give this Bill support in principle, and we hope that it will receive an unopposed Second Reading.
3.55 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I do not know whether making a maiden speech on the 13th of the month is a sign of courage or of recklessness, but I suppose that the principal worry of all maiden speakers is to ensure that they observe the custom of your Lordships' House in not making a controversial speech. It is, of course, my desire at all times to observe the customs and great traditions of your Lordships' House. At the same time, I have had very little experience of making non-controversial speeches, and I cannot remember when I last made one. However, I shall hope to keep out of trouble if your Lordships will allow me to make some observations on the place of this Bill in our legal system as a whole.
I cannot remember a time when I had not concern, in the Quaker sense, about legal aid. If I look back to the days
658
before the war, legal aid to me meant stopping work at midnight in order, while my wife went to sleep upstairs, to start reading memoranda written by many people about whether we could not one day achieve a system under which it would be true to say that no one in this country could not afford to enforce his legal rights. And sometimes I myself would write such a memorandum, because it has always seemed to me that if men and women have legal rights which they cannot afford to enforce, they might just as well throw them into the wastepaper basket, for all the use they are.
In those days, in the '20s and '30s, as your Lordships will remember, we had a very limited system of legal aid indeed: very little in our criminal courts and, so far as civil litigation was concerned, nothing in the county courts, nothing before the magistrates; it applied only in the High Court, and then only if you had an income of no more than £2 a week or, in exceptional circumstances, £4 a week, and if you have no more than £50 or, in exceptional circumstances, £100. If you fell within those limits, then your litigation was done for nothing, and one might even reach your Lordships' House—though the qualifications for that were still stricter, because you had to have no more than £5 in the world. If you fell a penny outside those limits, you got no help at all. This all seemed to me, on the face of it, a system which lacked common sense. Of course, if you received legal aid for litigation, the litigation was done entirely by lawyers—I would have said free; but that perhaps would not be quite accurate, in view of the fact that every barrister or solicitor who had to go to another town to undertake such a case had to pay out of his own pocket his travelling expenses and hotel bill, so that in fact he ended up with a minus quantity.
Outside the field of litigation, there was a very great need for legal advice in those 20 years in which we had an average of 1½, million—and sometimes 3 million—unemployed, and their families. As your Lordships may remember, all this was catered for, in the main, by bodies of lawyers attending "poor man's lawyer" centres. The three political Parties helped; the trade unions helped

659
their members, and there were one or two religious societies. But it may not be out of place to remember bodies, like the Bentham Committee, which did such valuable work in this field, and Cambridge House, which had the largest legal advice system in London, dealing with 30 or 40 cases in an evening. There were other bodies, like the Mary Ward Settlement, where young barristers and solicitors used to go along in the evening and do what they could. In the main, too, they were financed by the legal profession, though not, I suspect, by young barristers, who had their own problems in that field. I remember that when I started at the Bar it took me three years to earn three guineas.
Such was the legal aid system, so far as it went, before the war broke out. Then, as your Lordships may remember, it all collapsed, partly because of the increased need for solicitors, owing to the complexity of war-time emergency legislation, housing difficulties and, unhappily, the start of the break-up of so many marriages. And out of 19,000 barristers and solicitors in practice when the war broke out, 11,000 joined the Forces. Those who were left simply could not cope, and all over the country the thing just ground to a standstill.
I remember one Saturday, with others, getting together representatives of all the "poor man's lawyer" societies in London to see whether we could present some agreed scheme to the Government. There were, I remember, very different views. Then I went off myself. Perhaps I may mention, just as an example of the intense interest I have always had in this subject, one occasion that I recall. On the day I left Chambers, as I was going out of the door, not knowing whether I should come back to practise at the Bar, I remembered something, and I went back and wrote a letter to the then Lord Chancellor begging him to do something about legal aid. While I was away he appointed the Rushcliffe Committee, of which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was a member. By the time I came back that Committee had reported; and in 1949, as your Lordships know, the Labour Government passed the Legal Aid and Advice Act, the finest system of legal aid, I think, in the world.
660
I do not say that because all English lawyers feel that all foreign lawyers think that everything to do with English law is better than their own; but for two reasons. The first is because in the last fifteen years I have had an opportunity of seeing the system at work at very close quarters, and in detail, and when Chairman of the Bar Council I was naturally concerned to some extent with its administration. It has seemed to me to work extremely well and to be a system of which members of all Parties may well be proud. It is none the worse, I hope, for being run by the lawyers themselves. All the work on the legal aid committees—local legal aid committees, area legal aid committees and the central committee in London—is done by solicitors and barristers, giving their services free. I should like, if I may, to say, on behalf of the Bar, that the major part of the work has always been borne by the solicitors' branch of the profession; and I would pay my tribute to the extremely efficient manner in which it has been run by the legal aid department of the Law Society. I think that, wherever public money is involved, we should look from time to time to see that it is being spent with due economy. But the system has seemed to me to work extremely well.
The basic principle that people should pay what they can is, I am sure, the right one. As your Lordships may know, the contribution which the legally aided person is required to make is what he can afford. I remember a time, two or three years ago, before the regulations operated by the National Assistance Board were altered, when one-third of all the certificates granted by legal aid committees saying, "Yes; you seem to have a good case", were not taken up simply because the legally aided person could not afford the contributions he was called upon to make. If I emphasise this to-day, it is because I get a little tired, as I think many lawyers do, of continually reading in the papers, or hearing on the wireless or on television, references to our "free legal aid system", which, of course, it is not.
The second reason why I feel, with some confidence, that this is the best legal aid system in the world is because, through my association with the International Commission of Jurists, I have been to meetings of lawyers from all

661
over the world in The Hague, in Delhi, in Lagos and in Rio de Janeiro, and have therefore had perhaps rather more opportunity than most English lawyers of hearing what foreign lawyers think of English law. If it is not thought to be irrelevant, I would say that one is naturally glad when one hears from lawyers of all nationalities the view expressed that English Judges are the best in the world. If I may say so, nothing has been more remarkable during the whole of the period I have been at the Bar than the way in which the standard, both of the High Court Bench and the County Court Bench, has continually gone up. There are reasons, tax-wise, pension-wise and otherwise, for this. On the Bench to-day we lack, perhaps, one or two of the flamboyant characters that we used to have; but they are better Judges for that; and I strongly suspect that we have perhaps the best Bench that we have ever had.
So, too, in any discussion with foreign lawyers of any question of legal aid I have never heard any view expressed except that of course the English system of legal aid is much the best. When it comes to English law, however, the opinions expressed are very different. Naturally enough, they say—and it is true: "You have a system of law under which the Acts of Parliament are contained in 43 volumes of existing Acts, starting with an Act in 1235, so that you may look at 60 different Acts to find the law on one point; 99 volumes of delegated legislation, and about 350,000 reported cases". My Lords, one may remember that the whole of the Code Napoleon was drafted complete in ten months—and it is not perhaps surprising that to some the format of our law hardly seems to be right in an age when we are on the threshold of a scientific revolution. But about our legal aid system, I think I can say that they are all agreed. As a whole, it seems to be working extremely well and smoothly, subject, perhaps, to three points.
The first is that I think we ought at some time to consider whether or not it should be extended to at least some administrative tribunals, because the decision of an administrative tribunal may be just as important to a citizen as the decision of a court. Secondly, there is the difficulty of the man of moderate means
662
who has an action brought against him by a legally-aided person and then cannot recover any of his costs—and it is, of course, that difficulty which this Bill is designed to meet.
But, my Lords, there is a third and much greater defect in our legal aid system: that, while our legal aid system in criminal cases works, as a whole, extremely well and very smoothly until the convicted man leaves the dock, it then completely breaks down. He has to decide within ten days whether or not to appeal. His legal aid certificate has expired. Of course, the solicitor or barrister who has appeared for him may or may not advise him free. But they are under no obligation to do so; and if he is at once whisked away to a prison a hundred miles away it would be unreasonable to expect them to go there. So there he is, faced with a form which muddles up an appeal with an application for leave to appeal. As your Lordships know, broadly speaking, there is an appeal by right on a question of law, which is narrowly construed, and in any other case you need leave. I say "muddled up", because Parliament provided that the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeal must have Parliamentary sanction—and they have—and for two forms, one for appeal and the other for application for leave to appeal. But the Court, without any Parliamentary approval or sanction—though it has been sanctioned since—put the two forms into one.
So here the man is: he does not know himself what are grounds for appeal and what are not. "Do you wish", he is asked, "to be present at the hearing of your appeal?" "Yes, I do", he says. Do you wish to apply for legal aid?" "Yes", he says. And in the large majority of cases the next thing is that he gets a notice saying: "Your application for leave to appeal has been dismissed." He has not been there; he has not been represented, and he has not been heard. No wonder he thinks that he has been "done". If he has the right to appeal, and his appeal is heard and is dismissed, he is then sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment for having dared to exercise a legal right. It is not done quite in that form, but in the form that, unless the court makes an order to the contrary (which

663
is very unusual) the time up to six weeks taken by an appeal does not count for the purposes of sentence. So the practical effect is that, for having appealed, he gets an additional six weeks in prison, originally based on the time when there were different conditions obtaining with regard to an appellant and other prisoners.
Those conditions do not now obtain. That admirable body, the all-Party body "Justice"—for which my noble and learned friend Lord Shawcross, and my noble and learned friend whom most of us have been used to calling Sir Edwin Herbert, but must now remember as Lord Tangley, have done so much work—has recently published a fully documented Report calling attention to the urgent need which arises in this field. It is there pointed out that the Court of Criminal Appeal is cluttered up with appeals many of which would never have been brought at all if only the man had been able to get some legal advice at the time when he had to decide whether to appeal or not.
I am hoping that perhaps at some time the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, whose keen personal interest in legal aid I know, will be able to tell us whether, and, if so, when, the Government propose to deal with this problem. He will not, I hope, tell us that it must await the Committee on the work of the Court of Criminal Appeal which is to be presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Donovan, and I hope that he will not do that, for two reasons: first, because this is not really a question of the work of the Court of Criminal Appeal—it is really a legal aid question to be considered by the legal aid authorities; and, secondly, because I am not young enough not to know that if the powers that be want to stall on something, the appointing of a Committee is not at all a bad way.
I welcome this Bill, and the only observation which I would respectfully make about it is this. The problem with which it is dealing, while it is increased by legal aid, is not fundamentally a legal aid question, in this sense. Everything has advantages and disadvantages, and having more money than other people has certain advantages. But in any country, whether you have this legal aid system or some other legal aid system, or no legal aid system at all,
664
there will always be solicitors who, in some cases at all events, will take up the cases of poor people, either for philanthropic reasons or simply because they think it is a good case and they are going to make some costs out of it. Your Lordships may remember that one of the results of our present legal aid system was to kill stone dead the "ambulance-chasing solicitors", as we used to call them.
Therefore, in any system it is, I am afraid, one disadvantage in being a rich man that you may find an action brought against you by a poor man and you will not be able to recover your costs. I agree that the anomaly is increased by having a legal aid system, and it is increased in a country where, unlike America and so many countries where each litigant always pays his own costs, under the sporting spirit in which we conduct litigation the loser pays all, and, of course that aggravates him. This is not to deny that there are cases in which a man of moderate means, not requiring legal aid himself but having a large action brought against him by a legal-aided plaintiff, may suffer real hardship from being unable to recover his costs. Therefore I would join in welcoming this Bill, but express the hope, if I may, that the Government at some time—whether they think it has any vote-catching propensity or not—will deal with the two other problems to which I have ventured to refer.
4.15 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate my noble and learned friend upon his maiden speech, to which all of us have listened with the greatest attention and appreciation. We have known, of course, that he has a great command and knowledge of the law, and we are glad that he is now present with us and able to contribute to our discussions upon this and, I have no doubt, upon many other matters which will come before your Lordships. I am sure that he will always be listened to with interest and attention. He has, in fact, contributed to this discussion a very succinct and able survey of the problem of legal aid generally, and of the situation with which we are now confronted.
I suppose I ought, before continuing, to say that, like many other lawyers, I have an interest in this matter. I have

665
conducted cases for legally-aided litigants, and no doubt I shall do so in the future. In this respect, the legal aid system in this country is, I think, unique and extremely valuable, because its fundamental principle is to try to make available for every litigant the kind and quality of legal assistance which he would be able to get if he were not handicapped by lack of funds, so that there may be no discrimination between the service which is rendered to him as compared with that which somebody else, who has command of ample means, can get on his own account. So the services of the great majority of solicitors and barristers are available to those who are granted legal aid certificates, and they can choose to conduct their cases whomever they please. That, I think, is a very great merit.
The Bill which is before us has arisen out of the seeming anomaly that, in an appreciable number of cases, people who are putting forward claims, and do so having been granted legal aid, do not succeed in them, and the party against whom they have made the claim is unable to recover the costs which normally he would have been able to recover if his opponent had had sufficient means to pay. It may well be said that that is a risk to which people are subjected in any case. They might have claims brought against them unsuccessfully by impecunious people, whether those people are legally aided or not, and the law hitherto has provided no remedy for them. Still, the fact remains that the number of such claims has been increased by the institution of legal aid, and it is regarded as a grievance that people should be subjected to expenses by an institution supported by the State, and not be able to recover the expense to which they have been put.
A particularly galling feature of this arises occasionally. I have experienced it when I have had a claim put forward against a client, and I have been told in effect: "If your client is not prepared to make some offer to settle this, his opponent is going to seek legal aid". If that opponent is not successful in it my client will have to pay the costs anyhow, so it would pay him better to
666
make a small payment and avoid having to run this risk. That is one of the ways in which I think legal aid can become a little obnoxious, although its general principles and its object must be commended by all of us.
This Bill attempts to remedy some of these grievances by giving the court the power in certain cases to order the payment out of the Legal Aid Fund of the costs of the successful party who has not been legally aided. This power is hedged about with very severe restrictions. First of all the court has to find that it is just and equitable that it should make such an order. In the ordinary way, if there is no question of legal aid the practice of the courts in this country is to order the unsuccessful party to pay the successful party's costs. The phrase which is used here, that the court should be "satisfied that it is just and equitable", appears to import some new criterion of an entirely unknown and undefined character. It may be that it is impossible to define it at this stage and that the only way in which the thing, can be done is to use some phrase of this kind and leave it to the experience and the ingenuity of the Judiciary to put an interpretation upon it which, in time, will become standardised and which we shall all then be able to understand. But at the present moment I must confess that it seems to be extremely vague.
There is then the further qualification that the court must be satisfied that the successful unassisted party will suffer severe financial hardship unless such an order is made. Again, I do not know how "severe financial hardship" is going to be determined. It seems that every litigant who wants to invite the court to take advantage of this provision will have to make a very full and complete disclosure of the whole of his resources and income. I suppose that these matters can be referred to masters or registrars in Chambers where they will not receive publicity; and that undoubtedly must be essential, otherwise people who want to apply will be placed in a very difficult and humiliating position—indeed, one which might subject them to other unfortunate consequences.
But, apart from the necessity to disclose the whole of the applicant's financial position, there still remains the question, what is meant by "severe financial

667
hardship"?. I do not feel at all happy about that, on the face of it. It will be said, in the first place, that the unassisted litigant is not likely to suffer a great deal of hardship, otherwise he would, presumably, have been able and willing to apply for legal aid himself. Therefore this provision must mean something a great deal more than that. Here, again, I feel that, there is a case for looking at this phrase once more. I think I should feel happier about it if some other wording than "severe financial hardship" could be adopted, because this is an entirely intangible criterion. I cannot, myself, see by what means it is going to be assessed. In fact, I am not at all sure that this would not be a better provision if this were left out entirely and it were left to the court to say whether or not it is just and equitable to make the order, and to leave it to them. But these are matters which no doubt can be pursued in more detail in Committee. On the general principle of the Bill, I am certainly very happy to welcome it.
4.27 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this Bill as one of those who were lined up on the last occasion when the pistol went off, who found ourselves near the back and the race never started. I think it is good that the Bill should now come to us when we are in a position to handle it effectively, and I should like to address some remarks to your Lordships rather on the lines of those which I made on the last occasion. Before doing so, however, I should like to add my tribute to what has been said about the maiden speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. Those of us who have worked with him on very many public causes for many years, know very well of his eloquence, and his even greater powers of persuasion; and I think this House as a whole, and we on these Benches in particular, are extremely fortunate that we now have the advantage of his counsel and eloquence in our discussions here.
On the last occasion, I recalled to your Lordships that it was the driving energy of the late Lord Jowitt to which we owe the passage of this Legal Aid Scheme which has received so much commendation this afternoon, and I
668
should like to feel that I was on that occasion a humble lieutenant of his. Since then it has developed into a very fine system, and tribute has very properly been paid to it, not only here this afternoon but in other surroundings, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has reminded us. We are, in a way, now building up a double system of legal proceedings in this country. In a sense, it is parallel with the National Health Service, in which there are now many medical practitioners practising, so to speak, independently, some with a foot in the National Health system, and others entirely devoted to it. That system is not working too badly, but, of course, the emphasis is very much on the National Health side of it. In legal proceedings the emphasis is still more on the private enterprise side than on what one might call the public side. But I think the drive is in that direction, and it may well be that before long a great deal more of the litigation in this country will be conducted on lines in which the State is providing the legal assistance which every citizen ought to have at his disposal in connection with the solution of his legal problems.
This Bill, as has been pointed out this afternoon, is intended to assist the defendant who succeeds in an action which is brought against him by a legally assisted person. Unfortunately, as this type of legal aid has developed it has become more and more realised by that small but very active section of the community who are only too ready to find ways of cashing in on public help of this kind that the scheme can be used as a very effective method of blackmail; indeed, I have even heard lawyers refer to the Legal Aid Act as the "blackmailer's charter". It was referred to very knowledgeably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner in his speech, and he drew our attention to the fact that this has always been a difficulty, and no doubt always will be, but that the legal aid provisions have, in fact, very much assisted this type of blackmailing litigant in his endeavours to increase his fortune at the expense of much more respectable citizens.
I believe that, quite apart from today's Bill, there are a number of ways in which the actual machinery of the legal aid could be improved. I have

669
been told by people involved in litigation of this kind that the first thing they knew was the service of a writ upon them. In the ordinary sort of decently conducted litigation there are very often long negotiations, which I should think, from my own not very great experience of it, result in three or four cases out of five in some kind of intelligible and intelligent compromise. That, I think, is greatly to the benefit of everybody concerned, because as we were told in the New Testament long ago:
"It is much better to make peace with thine enemy while thou art in the way of him."
Unfortunately, to a large extent at any rate, it seems that legal aid does not conduce to that type of "making peace with thine enemy"; that is a great pity, because the result is a great deal of expense which could be avoided.
I should like to follow up, first of all, the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, in respect of the last two of these conditions before the making of an order for help with his costs to the successful litigant in these circumstances—this "just and equitable" condition on the second head. I think I am very much in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, was suggesting: that it ought rather to be twisted the other way round; the order should be for the costs unless, in the view of the judge, it is just and equitable that he should not have them. The ordinary rule is that if you win your case you are entitled to costs; and prima facie, it should be only in those cases where it is not just and equitable that the man should have his costs that he should be deprived of them. That would be, I think, an improvement of the Bill.
But the real difficulty, of course, is this qualification about "severe financial hardship". This was in the Bill when we had it here before, and I think that, with the possible exception of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, everybody who took part in that debate, just as this afternoon (I remember the noble Lord, Lord Silkin referring to it), felt that this is altogether too severe a limitation upon a successful litigant getting an order. I remember a speech
670
by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, very well argued, and very convincing, which carried a great deal of weight with your Lordships. All the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack can say in answer to this is that very careful consideration has been given to it, but that he has not been able to think out any methods by which the wealthy corporation, the millionaire, and other people like that, would not be able to cash in. If there is no other method, I think it would be better that they should have it rather than that middle-class people of limited means should be brought to the verge of ruin—as I have known happen in a number of cases, and as will continue to happen if these words are strictly construed by the judges.
On the last occasion somebody said, "It is true that this is not perfect, but it is half a loaf". I am not sure that it is as much as half a loaf. I do not think it will prove to be more than a few crumbs. The number of these cases that go to appeal, which are the ones in which this aid will be given, is very small indeed. The real burden of the expense is at the trial, when the matter is fought out, with the expenses of all the witnesses, and very often long-drawn-out proceedings; and if a successful litigant on that occasion is not going to have much help, I am afraid that it is going to be a matter of a few crumbs and not half a loaf of bread. I am sure that, with the resources at the disposal of the Government, and the ingenuity they are able to display when they are driven to it, they should be able to think out some method which would at any rate alleviate this position. On this occasion we shall have a Committee stage, which we were deprived of on the last occasion, and I hope that it will be possible to put down Amendments to make this a better Bill than the one now before your Lordships' House.
4.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the exception of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, this Bill has, so far as I can see, received a very favourable reception from your Lordships' House and I thank your Lordships for it. I should like to say straight away, in reply to something the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, that I

671
certainly think nothing that I said in the course of moving the Second Reading could possibly be regarded as any reflection on the operation of the Scheme.
Perhaps before I come to reply to the detailed criticisms made of the Bill, I might refer to the somewhat general observations which have been made. Indeed, the short debate we have had has traversed a wide field. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner—I am not sure whether it is proper for me to call him "my noble friend" any longer, although of course we were both for many years on the same circuit; we have known each other for many years; we have engaged in controversy on previous occasions and I look forward to enjoying some controversy with him in your Lordships' House. I listened to his speech, as I know your Lordships did, with the greatest possible interest, and I am sure that he will contribute very greatly to your Lordships' debates. I can assure him that, so far as I am concerned, I thought that he succeeded in being almost, if not entirely, uncontroversial.
I was grateful to him, too, for the tribute that he passed to the Legal Aid and Advice Act. He emphasised the fact that that Act was passed by the Labour Government of that time. That, of course, is true. It was in fact, I think, perhaps the only Act of that Government to which I was able to give complete support, for of course that Act embodied the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee of which I was a member, and which was, as the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, said, set up by Lord Simon when he sat upon the Woolsack. I was grateful to the noble Lord, too, for reviewing the history in relation to legal aid. Of course, the Act passed in 1949 had very limited application during the period of the Labour Government, and, as the noble Lord would recognise, it is since then that it has been gradually extended from one court to another court; it has been extended in scope almost consistently, until now it covers almost the entire range of legal procedures.
He drew attention to the extension of legal aid to tribunals. That is a big and a difficult question, which of course has to be considered. He drew attention, too, as indeed "Justice" has, to the
672
difficulties that convicted persons may have with regard to getting legal aid after conviction. I can say that that is being considered also. He drew attention to the use of the forms between the notice of appeal and application for leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. I hope that the whole system of appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal will fall to be considered by the Committee of which Lord Donovan will be chairman.
I must say that I have never heard, as Lord Chorley says he has heard, the Legal Aid and Advice Act—passed, as I have said, by a Labour Government—being described as a "blackmailers' charter." I do not believe that that really is the case. I recognise, as indeed Lord Douglas of Barloch said, that sometimes people may say, in the hope of getting a settlement, "If you do not settle with me, I will get legal aid and take you into the courts." But it does not follow that because someone says that, he will get legal aid. He has to show that he has a good cause of action, and he has to come within the financial limits. Then Lord Chorley went on to assert that in legal aid cases—
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I just say that I did not associate myself with this view, but I have heard it so described by members of the legal profession, it may be inaccurately, and it may be that there are few people involved in this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord should have thought it right to give such an accusation the widest possible publicity, as indeed anything that he says in this House naturally has. I want to go on to point out that the noble Lord went on to assert that in legal aid cases service of the writ takes place without notice. I must confess that I am surprised to hear that. It may have happened in some cases; I do not know. For instance, it may have happened where a case has come forward so late that, to avoid the Statute of Limitation from operating, the writ has been served without delay. But when the noble Lord bears in mind that the effect of a legal aid certificate will be to enable solicitors to be employed who can act, as they do in the case of an unassisted litigant, I must confess that I see no

673
reason at all why solicitors acting on behalf of the legally aided client should not follow the normal procedure.
Nor do I think that the noble Lord is on any sound ground when he says that the receipt of legal aid does not conduce to "making peace with the enemy". I do not think it is right to assume that the receipt of legal aid is a bar, in proper cases, to achieving a settlement. But in relation to that, there is one point to which I would draw the noble Lord's attention—namely, that if, as he suggests, you give the unassisted successful defendant such enlarged rights of getting costs against the State if he wins, then, indeed, that may tell against the achievement of a satisfactory settlement.
Now may I come to the criticisms of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made a point that he thought that there was too much discretion left to the Judges. The Judges always have discretion as to costs. They have laid down certain principles which they follow in exercising that discretion. I quite agree that this proposal leaves a great deal of discretion to Her Majesty's Judges, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, paid a well-justified tribute. I think we can rest content in leaving it to them to exercise that discretion properly. I should, in passing, just like to say that your Lordships will know that, under the Bill, the test about it being "just and equitable" to make the order will apply in every court, appellate courts as well as in courts of first instance. I can assure your Lordships that I have given, and indeed I know that my predecessor gave, most careful and prolonged consideration to seeking to devise a satisfactory way of expressing the tests which have to be laid down, if you do not go so far as I gather Lord Chorley would want to go, of giving the successful unassisted defendant the almost invariable right of recovering his costs against the State. I do not think that the Judges will, in fact, have any difficulty in exercising their discretion properly under that phrase.
Nor, indeed, do I think that they will have difficulty in interpreting and applying the test of "severe financial hardship", which applies only in relation to the costs incurred by the successful unassisted defendant in the court of
674
first instance. Again, I can assure your Lordships that most careful consideration has been given to that wording. It was suggested that the words "exceptional hardship" should be used. There is a real risk, if you use that formula, that it would be interpreted more restrictively than "severe hardship". Again, "substantial" was a word that was contemplated, but there were reasons against that which I can, if need he, deploy later. It has been suggested that the word "severe" should be left out, but a successful unassisted defendant who does not get his costs paid or an order for costs against the unsuccessful plaintiff will always suffer some financial hardship, and I believe the concept of "severe financial hardship" for this test is right, if you accept the principle which I invite the House to accept, that the successful unassisted defendant sued by an assisted person should not be put in a better position than he would be if sued by an unassisted person.
I do not think—I can assure your Lordships that great thought has been given by many people to this—that it is possible to give any clearer guidance to the courts; nor is it possible, I think, or indeed desirable, to limit their discretion in the operation of this Bill. In each case they will have to consider the circumstances of the parties. If Lord Douglas of Barloch looks at Clause 2(2) he will see that there is power to make regulations for referring
"questions of fact relevant to … applications, for inquiry and report by a master, a registrar or a district registrar, as the case may be".
I think that answers the question he put about that.
Finally, I would say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is wholly wrong in suggesting that this test of "severe financial hardship", if left in the Bill, will mean that in future successful unassisted defendants will still be brought to the verge of ruin, or actually ruined, by the imposition of the costs. I do not for one moment think that that will be the case. If that would be the result, then I cannot believe a Judge would not say that that particular defendant would suffer severe financial hardship if an order for costs against the Fund were not made in his favour.

675
I think the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, was that the successful unassisted defendant would not get an order for costs in his favour unless he was otherwise able to apply for legal aid himself.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I may not have made myself clear to the noble and learned Lord. What I was suggesting was that if he himself was not legally aided, then one started off with a presumption as to what his financial position was and as to what might or might not be severe hardship.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think we are on the same point. I do not think that follows at all. His means might not be such as to bring him within the scope of the Legal Aid Scheme. On the other hand, he might find himself, while just beyond that scope, faced with having to defend a case which might last a considerable time and incur a considerable amount of cost. I certainly would consider that one of the matters to be taken into account in the exercise of this discretion should be not only the means of the defendant but also the extent of the costs which will have to fall upon him if no order is made. I have no doubt, from what your Lordships have said, that we may have some further discussion on this matter during the course of the Committee stage. We take the view that it is not possible to go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has indicated; that we must have some greater fetter in the court of first instance than in the appellate court; and we take the view that this wording, which has been considered and seen by Her Majesty's Judges, and indeed has been seen and considered by the Bar Council and the Law Society, is really wording which is appropriate to achieve the result desired.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
4.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. It is some years since a Public Works Loans Bill was last before this House and it would perhaps be helpful to your Lordships if I were to sketch in the background to this Bill before going on to describe its main provisions. Some time ago the Government felt that the time had come to have a general review of local authority borrowing arrangements. This review was carried out in association with representatives of the local authorities. The policy changes decided upon in the light of this review were incorporated in a recent White Paper on local authority borrowing. The White Paper contained three main proposals. The first was that a limit should be placed on local authority temporary borrowing because of the consequences which an unchecked increase could have for monetary arrangement. The second proposal was that local authorities should be allowed greater access to the Public Works Loan Board, and the third that impediments to the adoption of modern lending and borrowing technique should be removed.
The Government intend that local authorities' temporary borrowing shall be limited to 20 per cent, of their outstanding loan debt and that authorities whose temporary borrowing exceeds this figure shall be allowed four years to get it down. There are perhaps 300 or so authorities in this position, mostly larger ones. The Government propose that local authorities shall have access to the Public Works Loan Board on a rising scale. The intention is that in the financial year 1964–65 they will be allowed to meet 20 per cent, of their long-term need from the Board. In the following year they will be able to meet 30 per cent., in the third year 40 per cent, and in the fourth year, the financial year 1967–68, 50 per cent, of their needs in this way. Thus by the time that the restriction on temporary borrowing becomes fully effective, local authorities

677
will be able to meet half their long-term borrowing needs from the Public Works Loan Board.
It is recognised that smaller authorities do not find it as easy to borrow on the market as larger ones. It is accordingly intended that the percentage quota arrangements I have described should be coupled with a provision that favours smaller borrowers. It is proposed that any local authority should be allowed to meet the first £50,000 of its long-term borrowing needs from the Board. This arrangement will enable between 300 and 400 of the smaller authorities to meet all their long-term borrowing needs from the Public Works Loan Board—if they wish to do so—even during the first year of the new arrangements. It is hoped that in subsequent years it may be possible to allow local authorities to borrow up to £100,000 each from the Board, if this is greater than their percentage quota for the year would otherwise allow. Finally the Public Works Loan Board will act as lender of last resort, as now, and be empowered to make additional loans above a local authority's quota, if it is satisfied that the authority cannot raise the necessary funds on the market.
Greater freedom to borrow from the Board will be accompanied by a change in the terms on which loans are made. In future the rate of interest on loans from the Board will be mostly related to the rate at which the Government borrow, instead, as at present, to the rate at which local authorities borrow on the market. This should reduce the cost of their longer-term borrowing. It is impossible to say in advance what the saving will be, because the trend of interest rates cannot be forecast. All I can tell the House is that if the new arrangements were in force to-day charging interest on the new basis would mean that local authorities would pay up to ¾ per cent. less on loans from the Board, depending upon the period of the loan. I should add that not all the Public Works Loan Board loans will be made at the Government rate. This rate will apply only to loans within an authority's annual quota. Any additional loans which the Board makes as lender of last resort will be made at the local authority market borrowing rate, as at present.
678
The general effect of these new arrangements will be to introduce a measure of control over temporary borrowing and to permit substantially greater borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board. Noble Lords who are wondering whether the mixture of stick and carrot is suitably balanced may rest assured that the ratio of carrot to stick is agreeably high. It is estimated that the amount of excess temporary debt to be funded is about £300 million, whereas Public Works Loan Board loans to local authorities in the four year funding period will be several times as great as this. For example, loans by the Board in 1964–65 and 1965–66 are expected to be in the region of £240 million and £340 million respectively, and in subsequent years they will be even greater.
I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 makes the necessary new provision for funds for the Public Works Loan Commissioners. The clause provides that £650 million shall be available for making local loans. We believe that this amount will provide the Public Works Loan Board with sufficient funds for the next two years. The clause also enables the Loan Commissioners to undertake to make loans after the period during which money may be issued under this Bill. Because the commitment provision covers a rather longer period than the lending provision, we need to specify a larger amount. As is usual, and as has been done in past Bills of this nature, we have provided an additional £100 million for this purpose.
Clause 2 of the Bill specifies the Treasury's powers to fix and vary the rate of interest charged by the Board. To a large extent the provisions of this clause actually reproduce and consolidate existing legislation, some of which dates back to 1897. But the clause is also designed to provide for the introduction of the dual interest rate system which I have already described. The reference in Clause 2 in lines 9 and 10 on page 2 of the Bill to
"different rates of interest may be fixed in respect of different sums borrowed for the same length of time "
is a reference to the system of dual interest rates. It does not imply that different types of local authority will have to pay different rates of interest

679
or that smaller authorities may have to pay higher rates than larger ones.
Clause 3 of the Bill provides for a number of procedural changes on Public Works Loan Board matters and in the law relating to temporary borrowing by local authorities in Scotland. It contains some useful reforms which I know that local authorities welcome and which my Ministry welcome, too, for the simplifications they will introduce into local authorities day-to-day accounting operations. Clause 3 (b) (i) for example gets rid of the existing restrictions that the P.W.L.B. loans must all be repayable by instalments. This will be a considerable convenience to the growing number of authorities which practise loans pooling in one form or another and prefer to borrow a fixed sum for a fixed period. Clause 3 (c), (d) and (e) simplify the accounting arrangements for the loans. The repeals here are largely designed to bring the law into line with existing practice.
I should perhaps also refer to Clause 3 (g), which repeals the existing legislation that restricts temporary borrowing by local authorities in Scotland. The present law provides that these authorities may not have more than 15 per cent. of their outstanding debt in the form of temporary borrowing. The effect of repealing this section of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, will therefore be to permit Scottish authorities to increase their maximum temporary borrowing from 15 to 20 per cent. of their outstanding loan debt. Incidentally, the new restriction is not provided for in this Bill. This is because existing powers under the Control of Borrowing Order, 1958, permit the new restriction to be imposed without the need for fresh legislation.
Clauses 4 and 5 provide for the write-off and remisison of various 19th century loans to four harbour authorities, three of them in Cornwall and one in Northern Ireland. These are loans where the outstanding principal is unlikely to be recovered and the Government feel that the time has now come formally to remit the loans in question. Clause 6 amends and clarifies the re-borrowing powers of local and other public authorities. The length and apparent complexity of this clause is due to the variety of circumstances which have to be covered, such as different methods of repaying loans and the different situations in which the
680
need for borrowing may arise. There is some obscurity in the present thirty-year old law—the 1933 Local Government Act is the main provision—brought about by changes in accounting techniques, and in particular there is some doubt as to the situation when repayment is made through a loans pool. This clause is designed to put the matter beyond doubt.
Clause 7 increases the limit on outstanding Treasury advances to the Government of Northern Ireland for the use of the Northern Ireland Government Loans Fund. This fund makes loans for public works, mostly to local authorities. The effect of this clause is to increase the present limit of £30 million on outstanding loans in the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1955, to the £40 million provided in the present Bill. At a time when we were increasing the funds available for local authorities to borrow from our own Public Works Loan Board, it seemed appropriate to extend the Treasury power to make advances to the Government of Northern Ireland for the purposes of its own comparable fund, since outstanding advances are over £25 million, less than £5 million short of the limit. Clause 8 provides for any increase in rate deficiency grant or Exchequer equalisation grant that becomes payable as a result of changes brought about by this Bill. It is customary to include a provision of this kind whenever there is a possibility of this sort of thing happening.
As your Lordships will realise from what I have said, this Bill, besides increasing the amount available for loans from the Public Works Loan Board to local authorities, also provides for a number of helpful procedural changes. These will be supplemented by other administrative changes, one of which will enable the P.W.L.B. to advance money in about half the time required at present. This will, I am sure, be welcomed by the local authorities.
In concluding my remarks, I should like to remind your Lordships of the general object of the policy changes that are being made. It is to reconcile the needs of monetary management with the natural and proper desire of local authorities to have ready access to capital as cheaply as is compatible with prudent finance. This demands some

681
restriction on both the use of temporary borrowing by local authorities and the provision of long-term finance by the Exchequer. The Government believe that their proposals strike the right balance and that the new arrangements provide an answer to the needs of 1964 and the future. With this thought, I commend the Bill to your Lordships, and I now beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hastings.)
5.6 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am sure we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, for his explanation of the provisions of this Bill and for his compendious summary of the new proposals embodied in the White Paper. This Bill is, in fact, unobjectionable, and it is also unexceptional. It does not enshrine any element of high policy. Its main purpose, as is stated in the memorandum accompanying the Bill, is to give effect, in so far as legislation is necessary, to the new proposals as set out in the White Paper. Accordingly, there can be no objection to the Bill.
That is not the case, of course, with regard to the new proposals. They are objectionable, and they will have a serious effect upon the finances of local government. It is proposed to impose a restriction upon local authorities as regards the measure and volume of temporary borrowing. It is very difficult at the present time for local authorities to obtain the finance for capital projects which they need from year to year. The local authorities borrow in total something in excess of £500 million a year—in 1962 I think the sum was £550 million. The loan charges of local authorities are at present in the region of £415 million a year; in the future, the borrowings, and, as a consequence, the loan charges, are likely to grow very substantially. After all, we have a good deal to do in the field of local government in the building of houses, clearing the slums, building schools and rebuilding town centres; so the measure of increased finance that local authorities will need will grow and grow.
The noble Lord did not, I feel, explain why the Government are taking these
682
steps at the present time. The result will be that loan charges of many local authorities will be increased, and there is no suggestion, in the White Paper or elsewhere, that this change, which is important, has been made in the interests of local government. It has been made, of course, in the interests of the national finances. To that one could take no exception, except on this basis: that the local authorities will have to pay, because the proposals embodied in the White Paper, which we understand will become effective as from April 1, will result in the local authorities having to pay higher interest rates for their monetary needs. My Lords, it is to these proposals that I shall address my remarks.
It is the case that, since 1954, successive Governments have forced local authorities to borrow temporarily as a result of denying them, except in the last resort, access to the Public Works Loan Board. The consequences of this will be seen in a moment, when I give the figures. But the Government now propose to restrict the proportion of temporary borrowing, which will inevitably result in local authorities having to go into the long-term market for at least 50 per cent. of their long-term requirements, and they will have to pay a higher rate of interest. No doubt the Government have become somewhat frightened at the consequences of their policy of non-access to the Public Works Loan Board since 1955—and well might the Government be frightened—for at the present time temporary borrowing of local authorities amounts to no less than between £1,200 million and £1,300 million, representing 15 to 16 per cent. of the total local government debt. Of this total, £800 million is on seven days' notice, and £160 million is from foreign bankers.
My Lords, it is an unedifying story of the actions of successive Governments since 1953 in regard to local government finance. It deserves recounting, and I am perhaps not wholly disqualified from recounting it by the circumstances that I was for fifteen years a member of the Public Works Loan Board and I was intimately concerned with the discussions which took place in 1945 and led to the very wise decision of the then Coalition Government, that the

683
Public Works Loan Board should provide all the capital needed by local authorities except in certain quite unimportant special cases. Sir John Anderson, as he then was, later Lord Waverley, was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He realised that, on the conclusion of hostilities, there would be an enormous demand for money by local authorities to carry out war damage repairs, to replace destroyed buildings and to carry out accumulated repairs to houses which had been neglected for years—and, indeed, for repairs to roads. He knew that if the local authorities were left to their own devices to get this money, there would be an unholy scramble; that there would be the chaos of competition, with the result that the rate of interest would be pushed up.
To avoid that, as I have said, the Government introduced the Local Authorities Loans Act, 1945, under which the local authorities were required, save in special cases, to borrow money from the Public Works Loan Board. In short, it was a planned provision of the necessary finance. The rate of interest charged was roughly the same as the Government paid; and, as I have said, legislative effect was given to that by the Act of 1945. Experience has shown how wise that policy was. Over the seven years from 1945 to 1952, over £1,600 million was provided for the local authorities by the Government, through the Public Works Loan Board, and it was provided at a rate of interest of just under 3 per cent., taking one year with another. Contrast this with the state of affairs after the conclusion of the 1914–18 war, when there was no planning of the provision of finance. Local authorities were left to their own devices; there was a scramble for finance which pushed the rate up to over 6 per cent., and local authorities were compelled to finance housing schemes by money borrowed on long-term at 6 per cent.-plus. Some of these stocks were issued at a discount, and some of them for 60 years—and certain local authorities are still paying the high rate of interest of 6 per cent.-plus.
This arrangement of 1945, it is quite clear, was a sound and wise one, as the comparison I have given amply demonstrates, I submit. Indeed, it was so successful and so sound that the Tory
684
Government of the day promptly put an end to it—I suppose in pursuit of "setting the people free". But it is the case that, as from January 1, 1953, that arrangement came to an end; it lapsed. Local authorities were told to get their money where they could, except that they could not, other than in very special cases, obtain any of it from the Public Works Loan Board.
That has been the position since October, 1955. The Board became lenders only in the last resort, and they became lenders in the last resort at a steadily rising rate of interest; so that, between 1954 and 1961, the rate of interest was, on occasions, 7 per cent. My Lords, 3 per cent. under a Labour Government and 7 per cent. under Tory Governments—which, I suppose, is how Conservative planning works! At any rate, it is an outward and visible sign of "setting the lenders free". The enormity of this increase in the rate of interest will be appreciated when I say that a 1 per cent. increase on an expenditure of £550 million on a 30-year redemption basis amounts, over the whole period, to no less than £83 million. On coming down to smaller matters, 1 per cent. on a house costing £2,200 represents 7s. 3d. per week on the rent for 60 years.
As I have said, this has been done, not to help local authorities but to help national finances—I suppose to avoid the approaching balance-of-payments crisis. It was, I submit, my Lords, to mitigate the consequences of the mismanagement of the national finances. It is really a little unworthy that the London County Council should go to the market with a stock carrying £5 17s. 7d. on redemption as a rate of interest and have most of it left for the underwriters. In my submission, that is monumental evidence of the mismanagement of the national finances. At a time when local authorities face vast expenditure they are very much concerned that the rate of interest should be as low as possible. Not only has the rate of interest been higher than it need have been, but it is higher than it was under the arrangements negotiated by the late Lord Waverley. It is not very comforting that money for local authority needs should be obtained from abroad. It is neither encouraging nor worthy that the credit of British local government should

685
be hawked around the money markets of Europe. As I have said, £160 million of "hot money"—or, as some people a little more correctly call it, "vagabond money"—has been borrowed from foreign banks and is repayable at short notice. Waiting, I suppose, for another balance-of-payments crisis, the high priests of the Treasury sit around telling their beads in a state of buoyant pessimism.
As a result of Government policy, something of the order of £1,200 million worth of permanent assets, of schools, colleges, houses and roads, have been financed by short-term borrowings. I suggest that no sensible people can derive any comfort from that situation. Much of the borrowing—£800 million—is on a month's notice, and some of it is on seven days' notice. The Government are scared, no doubt, and propose some new arrangements. The noble Lord has indicated what these arrangements are. I am informed that there are 300 local authorities where the outstanding short-term borrowing is in excess of 20 per cent. of the total local debt; and some where the proportion is 50 per cent.
The application of this 20 per cent. proportion to those authorities where the short-term debt is at present in excess of that figure imposes on them a double obligation: they have first of all to bring their existing debt within the framework of the 20 per cent., and they must then see that in any future financing or borrowing they are still within that proportion. Therefore you are imposing on these authorities a double obligation. These authorities have not got into this position through any wilfulness; it is because they have, for the most part, been active, vigorous local authorities, getting on with the job of providing the social services which their ratepayers are entitled to have. The result will be that these authorities in excess of 20 per cent. will be punished—if I may use that term—because they will have to borrow more in the long-term market than would otherwise have been the case.
So, my Lords, we take the view that these new proposals ought not to receive the support of Parliament. They are not, as I have said, embodied in the Bill. As was the case between 1945 and 1952 the local authorities should be financed
686
by the Government through the Public Works Loan Board; and the rate of interest should be the Government lending rate and not the local government borrowing rate. There is an enormous amount of work to be done by the local authorities. Since they are, for the most part, agents of the Government and are carrying out a social and welfare policy decided upon by Parliament, at the instance of Government, the local authorities who incur the capital expenditure should be able to obtain it at a rate of interest that is about the same as the Government's own rate of interest.
There is a case to be made for having a specially low rate of interest for local authorities, having regard to the social significance and social value of the services upon which the money is spent. There can be no expenditure of greater social value than that upon social services, schools, houses and roads. Indeed, it is the case that much of the infrastructure of society needs to be repaired, to be reconstructed, to be refurbished, as it were. Much of it is a survival from the Industrial Revolution. They had the spacious ease; we now have the liability squeeze. We have to rebuild the centres of many towns and cities, and it is not inappropriate that the money necessary for these social purposes should be provided by the Government at a low rate of interest. This is especially so at the present time, when the burden of revaluation is supposed to be bearing hardly upon a considerable number of ratepayers in a number of districts, and when legislation is being considered for the relief of the alleged hardships in those cases.
Side by side with that we have the proposals as set out in the White Paper for adding to the burden of rates by increasing, or taking steps which will increase, the rate of interest that will have to be paid by the local authorities. My Lords, here we are, after twelve years of Tory rule, reaching the edifying position of putting ratepayers on a means test. Councillors are to become guardians, and local government officers are to become relieving officers. That is the position regarding local government rates and the financing of local government to which the Government have brought this country. As I have said, the Bill is not concerned with any

687
matters of policy; it is a Bill to correct certain anomalies and, principally, to give effect to the legislative aspects of the proposals set out in the White Paper. The consideration of the finance of local Government will have to be dealt with when the Rate Relief Bill comes to your Lordships' House. In those circumstances, there is no reason why the Bill before us this evening should not obtain a Second Reading.
5.30 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to intervene briefly on one point: this question of short-term borrowing by local authorities. I think it is sometimes forgotten, and the White Paper rather tends to gloss this over, that local authorities indulge in short-term borrowing for two purposes, and only one of them is because it is cheaper from time to time to borrow on short-term than to take long-term loans. Sometimes this works the other way round and the local authority are prepared to pay a higher rate for a short-term loan rather than be committed for very long periods to what they consider to be a high rate of interest. I know that more than one authority has been prepared to pay 6 per cent. for loans of three months rather than be committed to a rate, which they consider very high, of 5½ or 5¾ per cent. for twenty or thirty years.
To that extent, I am pleased, rather than otherwise, to see in paragraph 19 of the White Paper that local authorities, in going to the Public Works Loan Board, will not require to take their loans for the full sanction period and may borrow for a shorter period, and then go back when the loan has been repaid to borrow the balance of their needs at that time. I am disappointed, however, to see that the minimum period for which they can borrow under these arrangements is being raised from 7 to 10 years, because I am certain that there are many authorities who would be reluctant to enter into an arrangement to borrow at high rates of interest, even for a period of ten years, if they thought that there was the possibility—in fact, one might say, if some of them foresaw the certainty—under another Government of being able to borrow for a much shorter time and at a considerably lower rate of interest. I hope, therefore, that the Government, who after all are
688
seeking in this Bill merely to remedy some of the worst consequences of their own actions since 1953, as my noble friend Lord Latham has said, will reconsider this question of raising the minimum period from 7 to 10 years.
I have never been able to understand Government policy in relation to borrowing, either from the Public Works Loan Board, in relation to local authorities, or from the Treasury in the case of nationalised undertakings. Now that this Bill has been produced to improve the arrangements for local authorities, I wish the Government would give some consideration to the circumstances in which nationalised industries borrow. At the moment, the policy applied to them is the very reverse of that applied to local authorities.
To local authorities, the Public Works Loan Board was the lending authority of last resort and they only came to the Board if they could not get their money by other means, particularly by going to the market. The nationalised undertakings, by action of the Government, have been prevented from going to the market and must do all their borrowing, except for comparatively small amounts on overdraft, from the Treasury. They have had no other option. If the loan sanction period has been in excess of 30 years, they have had to take the money for 30 years, at this exceptionally high rate of interest, and they have no authority whatsoever to borrow short-term money, as have the local authorities.
Inasmuch as the Government's interest in relation to both these bodies is to exercise some measure of control over the total amount of money that is being borrowed at one time, it seems to me reasonable that the same set of principles should apply to both types of authorities, and the most favourable conditions which are to be enjoyed by local authorities should be extended to undertakings which, in many cases, are doing work which, prior to nationalisation, was being done by local authorities. We have the ridiculous situation that if a local authority had still been the electricity undertaking, it would have had the benefit of these operations in relation to its electricity undertaking, but now that there is a nationalised electricity undertaking they must go to the Treasury and pay the extortionate rates

689
of interests that have been demanded over recent years, as high as 6½ and 6¾ per cent. There are quite a number of Boards which have this millstone round their necks for the next twenty or thirty years.
I recognise that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bill which is before the House, except that it is reasonable to say that if the Government think that this is good policy to apply to public borrowing in one field, it cannot be bad policy in another, just because the borrower happens to be another type of public authority. I am in favour of Her Majesty's Government's giving consideration to applying these conditions, unfavourable as they are, to nationalised undertakings also, because these conditions will be of considerable advantage compared with the present system.
5.37 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Latham, started by saying that he had no objection to the Bill, I was prepared to congratulate myself, but obviously that was rather premature, because he then raised a great many objections to the proposals for carrying out the principle of the Bill. I must therefore address my few remarks in winding up this short debate to some of the noble Lord's objections. The noble Lord started off by criticising us for restricting temporary borrowing, but, later on, he said that the Government were evidently dismayed by the extent of borrowing and added, "And well they might be". It seems to me that if he believes that the Government were justified in being frightened at the extent of temporary borrowing, he can hardly criticise them for wishing to restrict temporary borrowing in the interests of sound finance.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, authorities had to borrow on short-term by reason of the Government's own action, because the Government ceased to provide money for the local authorities.
LORD HASTINGS: None the less, I think that the noble Lord's two arguments cancel each other out. The third one he has produced I shall mention later. The noble Lord went on to say that it was difficult enough already for local authorities to raise money in the
690
open market. But I would remind him that it will be much easier in future, because no less than half their requirements will now be met from the Public Works Loan Board at the Government rate of interest. So there is no question of making it more difficult for local authorities to borrow money; it will be made much easier, and I am sure that they will welcome that.
The noble Lord said that loan charges would be increased for many local authorities. That is true in respect of 300 or so whose borrowing at short-term rates is in excess of the 20 per cent. figure which we are now going to fix, but that will not be true for the vast majority of local authorities—some 1,400 or 1,500—who, as a result of this, will still be able to borrow, and borrow more than they are doing at the moment, at short-term rates. The noble Lord quoted a figure of 15 per cent. as the overall national figure of the amount of short-term borrowing by local authorities. The preponderance of these authorities will be able to increase their short-term borrowing up to a figure of 20 per cent. It is only the minority of 300 or so who will face increased loan charges as a result of this Bill and the proposals to carry it out. One cannot argue that this is putting a greater burden on local authorities because this minority have simply wished to take advantage of cheaper rates or other reasons, such as those the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned, to borrow short. The majority have not done so and they will merely be facing the same sort of charges as the majority of local authorities are already facing. I do not think that one can call that unfair to the minority.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, that is not the view, as the noble Lord probably knows, of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, who have definitely stated that for many councils it will mean an increase in the cost of servicing loan debt.
LORD HASTINGS: I have said that in some cases this will be so. The next point the noble Lord made was that this Bill and these proposals are not in the interests of local authorities, but of the Exchequer, the Government, or, in other words, the national economy. Surely the noble Lord cannot divrce

691
the interests of local authorities, borrowing, £1,000 million a year either for new works or for servicing their loan charges, from the interests of the nation as a whole, especially when the Government are financing the local authorities to the extent of more than half all their expenditure. Surely, in the interests of sound economy the local authorities and the Government must stand together. One cannot sink while the other swims; and we hope that they will both swim. That is one of the purposes behind the Bill.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the local authorities stood together in the seven years when they obtained their finances from the Public Works Loan Board at a rate of interest of 3 per cent.
LORD HASTINGS: I am coming to that now, if the noble Lord will be patient. I think that what I have said so far also, to some extent, looks after the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, about the reasons why sometimes local authorities borrow short at high rates rather than accept a debt over a long period, in so far as they will still in the majority of cases be able to borrow more short-term money than they are doing at the moment.
The noble Lord has gone over old ground, of course, and we are really brought up against the fundamental difference of opinion between his Party and mine on the question of finance and the way to manage the economy. He said that the Government have forced temporary borrowing on local authorities by denying them the use of the Public Works Loan Board. It is quite true that there was after 1952 a transitional stage for three years when the local authorities could borrow either from the Public Works Loan Board or from the market, and then in 1955 they were obliged to borrow entirely from the market at large. As a result, and quite rightly and properly, they began to look around to see the advantages of short-term borrowing, especially for repaying their maturing loans. That was foreseen.
LORD LATHAM: Surely they did not borrow short in order to repay a long loan?
LORD HASTINGS: As the noble Lord himself said, they have to service charges of over £300 million a year, and
692
have borrowed short in the pooling system to help repay. As I was saying, this was foreseen, and at the time of the Radcliffe Committee, which reported in 1959, the Government were fully apprised of the future possible difficulties of short-term borrowing. They arranged to collect a lot more statistical information than was available at that time. As a result of that information they began to review the situation two years ago and came to the conclusion that, in view of the great increase in local authority borrowing in general, which had doubled since 1955—that is an important point—it was now desirable to introduce the system by which half the requirements would be met from the Public Works Loan Board and half on the open market. This is not a reversal. It is a consistent policy, and an evolutionery one. We are not going back to the period of the Labour Government.
I would remind noble Lords opposite that their cheap money policy—which they are now advocating again—led them into serious difficulties and eventually ended up in inflation which they found they were unable to control. We do not intend that to happen. That is why we are adopting this system now. I hope that most noble Lords will be satisfied with these explanations and will give the Bill a Second Reading.
If I may just refer to this question of the nationalised undertaking—and as the noble Lord said, it is rather outside this Bill—this was mentioned in a speech of my noble friend Lord Amory when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Radcliffe Committee was being discussed. I think it was in November, 1959. If the noble Lord will refer to that speech I think he will see that this particular point was then considered and was adequately answered. I now ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, before the noble Lord finishes, he mentioned the fact that what is being done to-day is done because circumstances are very different from those in 1955. It may be that something which appeared satisfactory to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, in 1959 is not necessarily satisfactory to-day. In fact, during the years 1959 to 1964 the nationalised under-

693
takings have continued to suffer under this disability. I would suggest that the Government might have another look at this. As I say, what was considered reasonable in 1959, either before or just after an Election had been successfully fought, might not be so good in 1964 and I do not put this point forward for electoral reasons.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NEW TOWNS BILL
5.47 p.m.
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a second time, I would suggest that the Bill is of a strictly non-Party nature. I cannot believe that there is any disagreement between the political Parties as to the necessity for, or the desirability of, this Bill. I think it would be entirely appropriate for me at the outset of this debate to pay tribute to the work of the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Reith, and to the work and vision of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who was responsible for the first New Towns Act in 1946. The experiment which was started then has stood the test of time and is likely to go on to further success.
The Bill before your Lordships is a short one, and its main purpose is to continue the work begun in 1946 by providing authority for further loans of £150 million for the New Towns. The last New Towns Act, 1959, brought the total amount available for the New Towns up to £400 million, and that was the latest of a series of increases from the modest £50 million with which a start was originally made. In addition, I should mention that the 1959 Act provided for expenditure by the Commission for the New Towns. The total commitments to December 31 last were £394 million, although the advances actually made lagged somewhat behind commitments and had reached the figure of £339 million. These overall figures relate to the New Towns in Great Britain as a whole.
The second purpose of the Bill is to simplify the financial procedure in connection
694
with the New Towns Commission. The Act of 1959, which provided for the setting up of the Commission for the New Towns, required that advances to the Commission to meet capital expenditure liabilities taken over from development corporations should count against the £400 million authorised for advances to those corporations. On the other hand, advances required to finance capital expenditure of the Commission on its own account were to count separately against a total of £5 million authorised for that purpose. As a matter of financial administration, however, it is impracticable to make this distinction because when advances are made it is not possible to say precisely how they will be spent.
The Commission employs all its financial resources, whether they accrue from rents or other income, or whether they are advances made by the Minister, to meet expenditure of all kinds. In this way its borrowings can be kept to the absolute minimum with advantage to itself and to the Exchequer. The Commission cannot keep its borrowings in watertight compartments and still make the best use of its resources overall. In any event, the distinction between expenditure on liabilities taken over from development corporations and on liabilities undertaken on the Commission's own initiative is not significant, since both are for the same general purpose of managing and improving the New Towns. The Bill therefore provides that in future all advances to the Commission, as well as to the development corporations, should count against the single authorised total. If this were not being done, it would be necessary to provide for an additional sum for the Commission. So much for the outline of the Bill.
I think we should not let this occasion pass without a brief review of the progress of the New Towns. Crawley and Hemel Hempstead have now passed to the Commission for the New Towns, having reached their target populations. Apart from Skelmersdale and Dawley, which have only been established quite recently, the other New Towns in England and Wales are all well on the way towards their main targets. It is therefore an appropriate moment to look at the financial position, and I think we

695
can claim that this is reasonably satisfactory.
Approximately 80 per cent. of the total expenditure is on housing, and the aim of housing is to make ends meet with the aid of the Exchequer housing subsidies. It follows, therefore, that it would be too much to expect a high rate of return on the total investment. We expect corporations to aim at getting current market value for their factories, shops and offices, but the surplus on this relatively small proportion of the total capital expenditure, when spread overall, will inevitably be quite modest.
On a total capital expenditure in England and Wales of £280 million to March, 1963, there was a net revenue surplus of £360,000. On General Revenue Account there was a surplus of £730,000, but a deficit of £370,000 on Sewerage Revenue Account reduced this to £360,000. Over the whole of the New Towns there was a cumulative deficit at March last of £2½ million. This is gradually being reduced, but it will be some time yet before these deficits are wiped out.
These figures summarise the revenue position shown in the audited accounts of the corporations and the Commission. There has been correspondence in The Times, your Lordships will have seen, suggesting that there is really a much larger surplus, which was arrived at by adding back various transfers to reserve, provisions and other charges against revenue. That is as may be. The accounts have been published, and the reader is free to construe them as he wishes. For my part, I am quoting the final revenue position as shown in the balance sheets. The important thing, whichever way one reads these accounts, is that investment in the New Towns is paying its way. It is right that this kind of investment of the taxpayers' money should be subjected to the normal financial tests to ensure that they are getting value for money. The return is small, it is true, but it will improve steadily. I would remind your Lordships that the figures I have quoted above relate to the New Towns in England and Wales.
The position in Scotland is rather more difficult because of the lower level of house rents which have obtained there in general. The revenue deficits of the
696
four Scottish New Towns totalled £4½ million at March, 1963. This is mainly attributable to losses on housing, offset by returns from industrial and commercial development in the same way as their English counterparts. Nevertheless, it is only right to add that the Scottish Development Corporations are charging rents which are more realistic than those of many of the Scottish local authorities. I should not like it to be thought that, because I have concentrated on the financial picture, the Government are content to judge the success of the New Towns by that criterion alone. I believe that the success of the New Towns programme, considered as a social experiment, is now generally accepted, not only in this country, but throughout the world. I do not think it necessary to take up time in arguing the point, but I did not want it to be overlooked.
The additional amount made available in this Bill for advances for New Towns purposes is expected to cover expenditure during the next three to four years. It might be helpful if I were to say a few words about likely development in the near future. In the South-East, the eight New Towns designated between 1946 and 1949 to accommodate overspill from Greater London, and which had an existing population of under 100,000, have so far grown to nearly 400,000 and are at present planned to accommodate, eventually, well over 500,000 people. Meanwhile, we have had to face the prospect of a very rapid growth of population in the South-East region in the next two decades, the greater part of it arising from the natural increase of the population now living there. The full scale of this prospective increase became apparent only in the late 'fifties. For the past three years a comprehensive study of the planning implications for the South-East Region has been going forward, and the Government will publish the results of this study soon. The matters considered in the course of the study have included not only the possible need to create more New Towns, but also the desirability of expanding the planned population of some of the existing New Towns.
So far as possible expansions are concerned, studies have already been made and published, at the Minister's request, by the Stevenage and Harlow Corporations.

697
A good deal was said about the proposals for Stevenage recently in another place, and I do not propose to go over that ground at this stage. I anticipate, however, that we shall hear a good deal more upon this subject today, and I prefer to wait and see what is said. In any case we have a considerable way to go before final decisions are taken.
There are, however, three general points about the expansion of existing towns which I should like to put forward. First, the time factor. Neither the building of a New Town nor the expansion of an existing one can be started very quickly. In both cases, there are the necessary but time-consuming preliminary processes of consultation to be gone through and much basic planning to be done. But, other things being equal, you can get an expansion under way more quickly because there is an experienced and fully staffed Development Corporation there ready to move into action as soon as the word is given.
Secondly, experience has shown that many of the facilities which people nowadays look for in a town—such as big departmental stores, shops serving special interests, a second cinema, a concert hall, a civic theatre and things of that kind—do not become a commercial proposition until the population has risen above the sort of levels which we had in mind when New Towns were first designated. Thus, a New Town of 100,000 to 150,000 can offer its citizens a fuller life than a smaller town.
Thirdly, it is only when populations of New Towns have reached 50,000 or 60,000 that they have begun to show signs of attracting office employment on a large scale. For example, in Harlow, out of an estimated population of 55,000 in 1961, only 800 people were in office employment. By 1963, when the population was nearly 62,000, the number of office workers had increased by almost a half to 1,150. The great majority of the growth of employment in London is, as we all well know, in offices and commerce generally. Further growth in existing New Towns should, therefore, attract more of them out of London; it is unlikely that a fresh New Town would do so for many years. There are important
698
considerations; but, of course, each town has its own character and its own problems, and there is no rule of thumb which can be applied to all of them. Each must be considered on its merits, and a balance struck between the factors favouring and those working against expansion.
Turning now to the West Midlands, we have Dawley, where the Corporation has been set up and is preparing to receive overspill from Birmingham; and we have the proposal to set up a new town for the same purpose at Redditch, on which a public local inquiry was held recently. In the North-West the position is much the same, with the Skelmersdale Corporation getting into its stride and a decision pending on the proposals for Runcorn. Both of these are intended to accommodate overspill from Liverpool and North Merseyside. In addition, as we know, a New Town is necessary in the Manchester area, and the Minister hopes to make an announcement about its proposed location shortly.
In the North-East we have Peterlee and Aycliffe, both of which are in the growth area defined in the recent White Paper on that region, and both of which it is proposed to expand—Aycliffe to accommodate a further 20,000 people, and Peterlee to provide additional land for industry. A third New Town is proposed at Washington as a contribution to the housing and employment needs of the Tyneside-Wearside area.
To round off the picture, in England and Wales, we have the New Towns at Corby and Cwmbran which were set up to meet local rather than regional needs. Additional land was designated in 1963 for Corby, and the present population of over 41,000 is now expected to grow to 55,000 to provide for the increased labour requirements of the Stewarts and Lloyds' Steelworks; and thereafter by natural increase, to 75,000. Cwmbran, which is planned to reach an eventual population of 55,000, has so far grown to rather over 32,000.
My Lords, in Scotland the population of the first three New Towns—East Kilbride, Glenrothes and Cumbernauld—now exceeds 56,000, and, of course they still have a long way to go. In the fourth, Livingston, which was designated less than two years ago, house building

699
has started and factory building will shortly begin. The industrial success of the New Towns in Scotland was recognised in the recent Central Scotland White Paper which identified all four as major growth areas. Technical investigations are now under way at Irvine, in Ayrshire, which was mentioned in the White Paper as a possible fifth Scottish New Town. These will enable the scope for growth to be assessed, and in the light of the outcome and the views of the local authorities my right-honourable friend will decide whether the expansion of Irvine can most suitably be undertaken under the New Towns Act.
To conclude this review, I wonder sometimes whether the magnitude of this undertaking is always fully appreciated. Already the combined population of the New Towns in England, Wales and Scotland—that is, 570,000—is greater than the population of Sheffield, which is about half a million. Looking to the future, if all the new foundations and expansions now proposed go forward the number of New Town dwellers will eventually equal the combined present populations of Sheffield and Birmingham—1½ million. These figures, I may add, take no account of any new proposals for New Towns which may emerge from the current regional studies.
My Lords, I hope that, in view of the necessity for going ahead with the New Towns programme, and for the expanding of the existing New Towns up to their target figures, and perhaps in some cases beyond, this Bill will commend itself to your Lordships, and that you will give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hastings.)
6.5 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I have no doubt at all that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. The noble Lord, in replying to the previous debate, said that when he heard the statement from my noble friend Lord Latham he assumed that the Bill was going to be non-controversial and that there would be no criticisms of it. I hope he will not assume that on this occasion. While we recognise the need for more Government money for the New Towns. I think
700
he will hear in the course of the debate this evening a good deal of comment on the way in which it is proposed to spend that money. But, so far as the noble Lord's own speech is concerned, I should like to congratulate him on having made a very able statement of the position, an impartial review of the New Towns and of what they are hoping to do. I would also thank him personally for the references he made to the noble Lord, Lord Reith, and to myself.
The fact that we are about to authorise an expenditure of £150 million on top of the £400 million already authorised, is, of course, a measure of the confidence the Government, and this House, have in the advantages of dealing with social, housing, and other overspill problems by way of New Towns. We recognise to-day that people living in the New Towns are being provided with a healthy and convenient way of life in a new and better environment. The New Towns were started as a social experiment, and I think it is fair to say that they have now gone beyond the experimental stage and are accepted as a successful way of life.
I was also glad to hear that the financial position is, as the noble Lord said, reasonably satisfactory. He referred to some correspondence in The Times in which Sir Frederic Osborn, among others, tried to establish that it is more than reasonably satisfactory. I am not going to enter into that discussion. Which view one takes depends on the way one looks at the figures: and I think that any competent accountant can establish either view. But I am satisfied with the statement that the financial position is "reasonably satisfactory". After all, we have to bear in mind that the financial position of New Towns cannot be compared with a private venture. If this were a private venture there would be a profit on the housing, as well as on the other facilities provided—shops, industry, and so on. But in this case, where 80 per cent. of the expenditure is non-profit-making, it is very satisfactory indeed to find that, as regards the 20 per cent. expenditure, there is a reasonably satisfactory return.
It had been the original intention to develop, as a beginning, some twenty New Towns. I think that fourteen were

701
actually started during the days of the Labour Government and since then we have seen four more started. But still we have not reached eighteen completed. While I do not want to spend much time in criticising the Government for their belated conversion to the idea of New Towns (because it is only in the last two or three years that they have actually decided to designate areas for New Towns), the fact remains that for a very long period nothing at all was done about New Towns. The result is that we are very much behind in dealing with the problems of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and other of the large conurbations. The noble Lord said that we may expect an announcement about Manchester. But I have heard that for a very long time; as a matter of fact I had hoped to make an announcement myself about Manchester some sixteen or seventeen years ago. I hope that it will not be delayed the same length of time from now.
Quite obviously, we are all now taking credit for the success of the New Towns. But it was not always so, and last night I had the curiosity to look up the Report of the debate on the Second Reading of the New Towns Bill in 1946. I may say that it is the first time I have read that debate since 1946, but I thought that, in view of this debate, it would be interesting to see how the New Towns were received at that time. They were not opposed, but they were received in a very cool and sceptical manner. Indeed; there was only one speaker who came down definitely and strongly in favour of the New Towns, and that was the noble Lord, Lord Molson. I do not know whether even he remembers the speech he made at that time, but he was strongly in favour of the principle, of New Towns and of the Bill. Other speakers were not entirely enthusiastic—even my own colleagues; but they were more encouraging than the then Opposition. But the Opposition, apart from being sceptical about the whole thing, doubted very much whether anything would come of the proposals. However, here we are, and let us all take credit for them; because the New Towns have been developed—initiated under one Government and developed under
702
another—and we are all entitled to a certain amount of credit.
One of the features of the New Towns (I hope the House will not mind my travelling a little wide) was that each one had a separate development corporation, and the purpose of that was to give them a fairly free hand to carry out experiments and to ensure that New Towns were not necessarily all built on the same pattern. And I think that principle has largely worked. Almost every New Town has some special feature which is attributable to the ideas of the particular development corporation concerned, and to its architects and other officers. Just to mention one or two, I think Crawley's industrial area is unique—I should think it is one of the finest in Europe. Harlow's general layout is most attractive; I think it is almost the most attractive of the New Towns. Stevenage has a civic centre which is almost unique and certainly its shopping centre is something that we can feel very proud of. I could go on and say that there is something about each one of the New Towns, some special feature, which I think justifies the original conception of entrusting the work of developing the New Towns to separate development corporations. I am therefore very sorry indeed that this Government departed from the original conception, and are handing over these New Towns to a Commission for management when they are substantially complete. Incidentally "substantially complete" does not mean what it says, because each of the New Towns that has been handed over as being substantially complete is now in process of being substantially expanded; but I will say a word later about expansion.
The original conception—and this was one which was accepted on all sides; indeed I was pressed at the time by the Opposition to ensure it—was that when New Towns were substantially complete they should be transferred to the local authorities. And I still think that that was the right thing to do. I do not say necessarily hand it over lock, stock and barrel without any financial conditions: of course, the nation, which had spent large sums of money, was entitled to be safeguarded in respect of its expenditure, and to ensure that it received back what it had spent. But, subject to that, I believe

703
that it would have been wiser, if it was desired to end the development corporations, to leave the further management and development and expansion of the New Towns to the local authorities. I say that because the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred to the new Commission and to the complications in finance which have arisen. I still think that perhaps the day is not too far distant when we shall have second thoughts about that plan and hand the New Towns over to the local authorities as originally envisaged.
We are now coming to what one might call the second generation of the New Towns. We started off with a maximum population for each New Town of 60,000. It was always envisaged (although, of course, the population figures were not known at that time; nobody contemplated so large an increase in our population) that there would be some natural increase in population, and that provision ought to be made for it in connection with the development of the New Towns. One thought in terms of 10,000 or 15,000 additional to the 60,000 population originally planned. I do not think that anybody ever contemplated a vast expansion of any of the New Towns where they had been substantially completed.
With a town like Corby, which was originally planned for say, 15,000, I could understand it if, at an early stage, it were decided to expand it to a much larger population; or Newton Aycliffe, which was designed for the same population. If development has not gone too far, it is possible to expand a New Town to almost any size you like, if other considerations are favourable. But where you have got a town that is substantially completed, where you have virtually got your target population, where you have built up all your services and amenities, your shops and industry, civic centre, educational facilities, your social amenities and all the rest of it; where you have built it up on the basis of a certain population, it seems to me to be thoroughly bad planning then to contemplate increasing the population to more than double its original figure. And that is the position in Stevenage.
704
I should like to say something about Stevenage. I have a great affection for Stevenage. It was the first of the New Towns, and, to put it no higher, was not very favourably accepted at the time. Indeed, I was taken to the courts, and the case had to come as far as this House before the plans were finally allowed to proceed. To that extent, the progress of Stevenage New Town was retarded. It has more than made up for lost time, however, and I would say that, taking it all in all, it is to-day probably one of the finest of the New Towns that we have. As I have said, all its services, its amenities, and everything that has been provided there, have been geared to a population of about 60,000. It is capable of expansion to 80,000. But to try to expand it to 140,000 or 150,000, as is now contemplated, is, I believe, sheer madness. Indeed, I can only think that the Minister is so exuberated with the success of New Towns that he wants to build super-New Towns, regardless of the local conditions or anything else.
I have in the last week or two gone into the question of this expansion of Stevenage, and I have tried to find out what is the case for it, who is backing it, who are the advocates of the expansion. I have found no advocates for the expansion other than, I presume, the Minister himself. All the local authorities in the area are against it. Every possible planning consultant who has taken an interest is against it. Every individual I have spoken to is against it. None of them is in any way biased. This is not a Party political matter, as the noble Lord will soon find out. This is a matter on which all Parties feel the same. I have taken the trouble to consult my own political friends, as well as my political opponents, and there is no difference of opinion among them.
I have discussed the matter privately with members of the Stevenage Development Corporation. They were asked: Is it feasible? Is it physically possible to expand this town to 140,000 or 150,000? They went into the question, and their answer was: "Yes, it is physically possible". But they were not asked whether they thought it was desirable. Had they been asked that question, they might have given a quite different answer. How is it physically possible?

705
It is physically possible not by adding to the New Town, not by normal expansion, but by building virtually an entirely New Town, separated from the old by a busy arterial road, by the old Great North Road; by industry; by shopping; by a main-line railway, and by various other obstructions of that kind. Communication from the existing Stevenage to the new Stevenage, across all these obstructions, can be only by tunnelling or bridging. If, for instance, it were thought that the existing shopping centre should be used by the new expanded town, people would have to come, either by way of bridges across the arterial road or by means of tunnels, both of which would be expensive. Apart from that, they are most undesirable.
The drainage and sewage disposal services also would have to be new ones. I am not sure about water, but I think that here too there is some difficulty. At any rate, it means virtually building an entirely New Town. It may be called "Stevenage", although that may lead to a good many complications, if a person is asked to find his way to a certain street in Stevenage and does not know which side of the railway or the arterial road it is. So the new addition will have to be given another name. Be that as it may, it cannot in fact be part of one town; there will be two separate towns.
I recognise that the Minister and the Government have a problem in finding accommodation for the increase in overspill population in London, and that they must find accommodation somewhere. My own proposal would be that, now that the New Towns have been established as successful, other New Towns should be started further away from London. As a matter of fact, looking back, I suppose that none of us was courageous enough to go further away from London. We wondered whether people would be willing to travel more than thirty miles away from their existing homes to a new home. We thought of the old folks wanting to visit the youngsters who had gone to the New Towns. We did not want to make it too difficult for them. But, looking back to-day, if one had one's time over again I think it would have been much wiser to go fifty or sixty or more miles away
706
from London and there would have been no difficulty in getting either industry or the population there.
I would suggest to the Government that they are making a terrible blunder in creating this expansion at Stevenage. Apart from anything else, this area is already full of built-up populations. If it is expanded as intended it will be within a short distance of Luton, which itself is expanding, and of other towns. It is already close to Welwyn Garden City, Hitchin and so on, and we are in danger of creating a large conurbation, which is exactly the thing we are trying to avoid. In any case, the idea of having towns built on both sides of an arterial road is abhorrent to all planners, and most of all to the Government themselves. Just imagine a private developer coming along for planning permission to develop on either side of the main arterial road! What would be the Government's or the Minister's view about that, if the Minister had to decide it on appeal? He would dismiss the appeal without hesitation. Yet that is the thing which the Government are proposing to do.
Moreover, this provision for an increase in population is not entirely for an expanding population; it is, as I understand it, intended for commuters. Do we really want to encourage people living in these New Towns to travel to and from London every day? Surely that is the thing we are trying to avoid? Yet the Government themselves are wing to accentuate the problem. I imagine that the noble Lord will tell us that, if the Government decide to proceed with the project, the area of the proposed New Town will be designated by the Minister; that it will be open to objection: that if the objections are serious there will be a public inquiry and then the Minister will decide. In the case of the ordinary New Town, that is the procedure laid down in the New Towns Act, and I think it might be regarded as satisfactory. I think the Minister could be trusted to look at the proposal objectively, even though he initiated it himself. I know that it has been criticised in the past that the Minister himself initiates a proposal and then is the judge of whether or not it is to proceed. And this would be the case here. But this is quite exceptional.

707
This is a case where Parliament ought to have a voice in the matter.
In the case of the ordinary New Towns Parliament is merely informed that a New Town is proposed to be developed in a certain place; there is a public inquiry, and one can trust any Minister to deal effectively with the objections. But this is really a very serious matter of national policy, and I do not think it should be entrusted to a Minister without reference to Parliament. Therefore I would suggest that before the Minister goes any further he should seek the approval of Parliament for this particular proposal. It is so important and has aroused so much opposition that for his own sake he would be wiser to get a full discussion on it, with his proposals definitely on the table so that they can be thoroughly studied, and to take the views of Parliament without putting the Whips on. If he did that, we should probably get a satisfactory result. Perhaps wisest of all would be if he withdrew this nonsensical scheme—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD SILKIN: —and did not waste any of our time. I hope that in these circumstances the noble Lord, who I am sure is himself perfectly blameless in this matter, will convey to his right honourable friend what I imagine will be shown to be the feelings of this House about the matter—they have already been expressed in another place—and that wiser counsels will prevail.
Having said that, my Lords, I want to conclude by saying that there is, of course, no objection in principle to a proper expansion of the existing New Towns. They must be reasonable and bear relationship to the old population and to the services which have been provided, so that such services are not overburdened in relation to shopping, social amenities and all the rest. Subject to that, I recognise that there is a problem which must be met, and none of us would wish to put undue difficulties in the way. But the case of Stevenage is really a piece of thoroughly bad planning, and I hope we shall have heard the last of it in the course of the next week or two.
6.34 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I welcome the proposal in the Bill to raise the amount of advances to
708
development corporations and to allow the Commission for the New Towns to have a new limit of £550 million for capital expenditure. Four of the New Towns are in the diocese of St. Albans, and in the twelve and more years I have been Bishop I have seen these towns grow, not only physically, but in their sense of responsibility. I have no doubt at all that those who live in the New Towns have opportunities for fuller lives before them than they enjoyed in their previous homes. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, they provide a fuller way of life. I consider that the Government who sponsored the New Towns Act of 1946 and all who have developed this work deserve our gratitude. I should like to express my own grateful thanks to the noble Lord who has just spoken for his powerful speech. He addresses this House with great authority and knowledge on this subject.
Last week the Church Assembly was debating the Leslie Paul Report, The Deployment and Training of the Clergy, and I greatly hope that a Measure may later come before Parliament providing for a new parochial form, for a major parish (unless some more suitable description is found), to be run by a college of clergy, all of whom would enjoy incumbent status and all of whom would work together under a leader who would properly be called a dean, and that at last one might have a town dean to distinguish him from a rural dean. If a Measure on these lines is approved, then I can see that, even if a New Town reaches a ceiling figure of 160,000, it would provide in this century an opportunity for a unique experiment in pastoral care, with a dean in charge, say ten incumbents in his team, and all of them co-operating in the one ecclesiastical unit.
These New Towns have certain great advantages and, as has been mentioned, there are financial gains. Nevertheless, within New Towns much needs to be done for neighbourliness, and here the Churches have played a distinctive part. Our policy in the diocese has been, so far as possible, not to split up these areas into new parishes, but to have a rector or vicar and under him assistant curates; in each neighbourhood unit a church and a parson—but only one church, one parson—for 10,000 people. This is inadequate, but it is all we can

709
afford in terms of men and money at present. This pattern of parochial work, as informal observers have said, has helped to build the different neighbourhood units into one community. I have heard members of the development corporation remark that, even if their town has greatly to increase in size, they hope in the future that it may still be treated by the Church of England ecclesiastically as a single unit.
I should now like to turn from New Towns in general to say a word or two about Stevenage. There are three points want to put before the House. I know there is a feeling among clergy and ministers in the area that some expansion is inevitable and that we must provide more homes for our younger people. But the population of Hertfordshire having been increased more rapidly than in any other county, we in Hertfordshire face an enormous special problem in housing our young couples as they grow up in these New Towns and housing estates. Reference has already been made to local opposition to the proposals for Stevenage. I respect the force of the argument submitted by Hertfordshire County Council, that they will amend their development plan to take any increase in population which is shown to be necessary but that they oppose the expansion of Stevenage and insist that it is for the local planning authority to decide where the increase can be best accommodated.
Speaking in another place, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that the Government had in mind to raise the population to 100,000 and to reach this total by 1981. I welcomed Lord Silkin's comment that this was thoroughly bad planning and, in his judgment, sheer madness. The Minister has admitted that, though he sees expansion to the 100,000 figure as the sensible course, it would have been desirable to await the publication of the South-East Study, so that public opinion and Parliament could see the background as a whole before this expansion was begun. I endorse Lord Silkin's plea that Parliament should be consulted.
The Minister said that his trouble was that if he deferred this decision, the momentum of Stevenage could run down and valuable staff and the cohesions of
710
a team in a few months could be lost. I wonder how far this conclusion of the Minister of Housing would be generally supported. There are those well able to judge who maintain that there is no sign of slackening momentum in Stevenage, where expansion to whatever the approved figure may be is awaited with keenness and anticipation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, told us that there is a considerable way to go before final decisions are taken, and I submit three reasons for urging the Government to allow further time for reflection. First, there is strong local feeling against any expansion West of the Stevenage by-pass. We have already been reminded that this is not a political issue; Conservative and Labour are of one mind. I am told that all Hertfordshire Members of Parliament oppose their own Minister on this proposal.
Then there is an unbalance in this plan. Bedfordshire is about to lose Luton when it becomes a county borough. Bedfordshire would welcome an increase in population. The Bedfordshire County Council is to-morrow to consider a plan for expanding certain areas in that county. Would it be possible for a New Town perhaps to be sited in Bedfordshire? Certainly, the country between Stevenage and Luton on the West contains thriving villages, listed villages allowed a limited expansion for their own needs, and these villages could be swallowed all too easily. Here is attractive rolling country, good for farming, and the Hertfordshire executive committee of the National Farmers' Union is reported to have described the proposals as a disaster to agriculture in Hertfordshire. And, my Lords, if Stevenage were to expand too rapidly it could overgrow its strength—and it has a proper pride in its strength and in being the first New Town.
I believe that when you live in a place with a population of over 1,500 you lose your sense of community. Nevertheless, there are community groupings at work. There are societies and organisations connected with schools and youth work and various recreative activities, that all weld a place together, and this welding should be seen to be done before a further load of population is added. In this work the Churches

711
are active and, as Christians share common concerns and are alive to others' needs, there is an unfreezing and a mixing of people taking place. Let this go on!
If I may, I will make two points before I close. I consider that the Church's work in future years would be greatly helped in certain New Towns—and here I do not have Stevenage specially in mind—if more facilities were available to householders to buy their houses. This would deepen people's roots. If some men only rent their houses they feel they have no real stake in the town. Further, we could do more in some New Towns if the authorities were less demanding in their building standard for churches and church halls. We are finding that a well designed but inexpensive church hall, adequate for our needs, is rejected because it does not come up to New Town specifications, and churches cannot compete with those who can draw on the public purse. Stevenage expanded to 140,000 people would be within four miles of Luton, and there is no comparison between this situation and the three miles between Hemel Hempstead New Town and Watford. I find it impossible to believe that Stevenage and Luton would not become one big sprawl before the end of this century.
I have made a few down-to-earth comments on a matter that concerns our use of Mother Earth. I am sure, from my knowledge of Hertfordshire, that the county would gladly accept its fair share of increased population provided its county council is taken into close consultation with the Ministry, and there is general agreement where the newcomers shall be housed. I believe that to pause now, to consult now, to wait now for the South-East Study, before taking this decision about Stevenage's future size, would be wise tactics and make for good will. But, my Lords, whatever may be decided, this to me is clear: the Christian community must do its utmost to serve the newcomers wherever they are from and however many there be.
6.45 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I almost feel it is incumbent upon me to start with an apology for trespassing in Stevenage, because although the remarks
712
which I have to make are not directed to Stevenage at all, I have no doubt that in their general application they might have some bearing there, also. I am particularly pleased that I should be following the right reverend Prelate, because I should like to say that in Scotland we have found that in the New Towns one of the biggest single factors contributing to the establishment and building up of the community spirit has been the part played by the new churches built there. We have found, as appears to be the case this side of the Border, that people coming from older communities, where they may not have taken a very active part in church life, seem to regard it as part of the new spirit, that they should become not merely members of the Church but active members of the Church. And, together with clergymen, they become very active in building up that new spirit.
The second thing I should like to observe about New Towns is that it is surprising how very quickly a community spirit develops. One hears people who have sometimes come from very far away talking within only a few months about "we"—"what we have done"—and about "our town", as if they had lived there all their lives. A New Town is really for a very long time quite an artificial thing, and it needs all the encouragement it can get from everybody concerned. One of the difficulties is that amenities, which have sometimes grown up naturally over very many years in older communities, have to be created artificially in a New Town. The local government body is very often the smallest body—I do not know the designation in England, but in Scotland it is a district council—with very limited functions. The local authority having responsibility for the area is more generally the county council. They have very large problems placed on them by the very fact that a New Town is being built in their area. They have to provide a great deal of new roads and sewers; they have to provide a considerable expansion of their school building programme; and very often they have to do so in the teeth of opposition from other parts of their area who feel that this section of the community is being favoured at the expense of the older areas. It is surprising, therefore, that the existing local authorities have in fact

713
done as much as they have done, and one cannot blame them for leaving other aspects to a later date.
When I was in conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, earlier in the day on this subject he reminded me of the change that has taken place in the Government's attitude to spending for amenity; that New Towns, in Scotland at any rate, have the power of spending up to £2,000 a year in revenue on the amenity side of things; that they have authority to spend up to £4 per head of the projected population as a contribution to capital developments. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, talking about the larger population which enabled a second cinema to be constructed. In Scotland we cannot get a first cinema, because with the change that has taken place it is no longer a commercial proposition for anyone to put up a cinema. We have been trying for a very long time to get the Scottish Office to permit us to do it ourselves because, strangely enough, a cinema is one of the things which the New Towns are very keen to have in their midst.
It may well be that the commercial interests are as wrong in their attitude to a cinema as the Church might have been if they had been timid in relation to building new churches. Because just as people who were not accustomed to taking an active part in church life in an older community become active church members in a New Town, it might well be that people who had ignored a particular kind of amenity such as a cinema might not ignore it when they came into a newer community. I do think that the Government ought to be, not merely empowering the development corporations to spend money on capital projects, but going out of their way almost to compel them to use this money ahead of requirements.
One of the difficulties in a New Town, if it is growing fairly slowly—and I should imagine this has a bearing on the Stevenage problem—is that if the process goes on for a very long time there is the rather artificial condition that the town consists very largely of people in particular age groups—almost entirely in, say, the 25 to 40 or 45 age groups, because it is generally the
714
younger people with children who tend to go into the area. If the development is expanded so that another ten or fifteen years is added to the growing period of the town, then you add another ten or fifteen years to the time during which these almost artificial conditions exist. In the New Town with which I am particularly associated we have, for a variety of reasons, deliberately sought to import old people into the town. We have done so because we have felt that a town without old people is not a natural community. But old people are not necessarily going to find jobs in a New Town.
Quite a number of the folk who have come to work in Scottish New Towns have come from South of the Border. One way we have found of encouraging them to do so, and of helping the better aspect of the New Towns, has been to encourage them to bring their elderly relatives with them. If a man has a widowed mother whom he lives near in, say, Manchester, Liverpool or Newcastle, or even in London, he might be reluctant to go 300 or 400 miles away from her. But in such a case we have found that by saying, "If your father or mother or your parents would like to come up also, we will put a small flat at their disposal, and they can still live near you", we have encouraged these people to come all that distance, and, at the same time, it has helped us to have this better-balanced community.
For these reasons, although the town with which I am particularly associated is still only 15,000 in population, it is a remarkably well-knit community, with a real sense of community life. But it has taken us from 1948 up to this date to reach this figure of 15,000. Our target population figure has recently been increased to 55,000, but I think it would be a disaster if we were to proceed from 15,000 to 55,000 at the same rate. In fact we are taking steps to see that the rate of progress is at least three times as fast as anything that has been accomplished in the past. I think it is important to avoid spreading this wholly unnatural sort of thing over many more years than is absolutely necessary. It would seem to me, if I might be forgiven for intruding into Stevenage for just a moment, that to seek to take it from

715
the figure of 80,000 up to 150,000 and to extend its development to 1981 is to inflict on a community which will be relatively complete, and which has perhaps got over all its initial difficulties, the same difficulties all over again by grafting on to it a recurrence of its initial problems. I think the Government will be well advised to look at that aspect also before committing themselves too far on the matter.
But hope that the Government, in so far as they function from St. Andrew's House, will give every encouragement, even to the extent of bringing pressure to bear on the New Towns in Scotland, to their making use of the monies which are available for the development of amenities; because without that being done by a development corporation, it must wait until the local authorities take over in due course, some years ahead, whether it is handed over to them directly or not, and a great deal of the advantage of living in a New Town can be lost in the interval.
6.55 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this New Towns Bill which we are discussing this afternoon is, at a first glance, in one sense, a very simple and straightforward Bill. It is different from many of those Bills with which your Lordships have been concerned during recent weeks, in that it consists of only two clauses and covers only two quarto pages. I will not say that it is a small Bill, for even in the days in which we live no Bill that asks Parliament to vote over £150 million can be called small; but, at the same time, it does appear, as I have said, short and straightforward. In fact, however, I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that it requires a great deal more examination by Parliament than might at first sight seem necessary; and that that is the general view of all Parties in this House is shown, I think, by the number of Peers who have put down their names to speak this afternoon, including the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, himself, who is, after all, the creator of the original New Towns Act, and who has spoken with such force and such wisdom this afternoon.
716
I think it is not surprising that this should be so, for, after all, we really have been told terribly little except generalities about the purposes for which these very large sums are required. It is, indeed, I am afraid, yet one more rather disturbing example of the growing practice of Governments of all Parties to govern from outside Parliament. They come to Parliament with some Bill of apparently quite unexceptionable character but drawn in very wide terms, and, having got extensive powers under that Bill, they exercise them in an extremely far-reaching manner without further reference to Parliament at all.
What, after all, does this Bill in effect say? It says, first, that Parliament has already approved in principle the creation of New Towns. Then it says, secondly, that, in accordance with that policy which Parliament has already approved, the Government have now spent the full amount, or practically the full amount, that Parliament sanctioned. Now they ask Parliament for an additional £150 million to carry further that policy which Parliament has approved. "Please give us this money," they say, in effect, "and we will spend it as seems to us best for this purpose". It is apparently regarded as a matter for Government and Government Departments alone, and not for Parliament.
Of course, it may be argued that in any case it is not a matter for your Lordships' House, for this is a Money Bill and, since 1911, matters of finance are outside our sphere. We therefore could not in any case, as I understand it, vote against the Bill, even if we wanted to. But I suggest that in this particular case the question of how the money is to be spent is a matter not only with which we in this House can properly concern ourselves but in which we have a definite duty to concern ourselves, for we have an equal responsibility with another place to ensure that the principles and purposes of the original New Towns Act of 1946, which we in this House helped to pass into law, are not infringed, much less set at naught, by subsequent legislation. That is always a danger, and I think it is especially a danger in this particular case. Like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I am not an opponent of New Towns. I was a friend of Sir Patrick

717
Abercrombie, from whose Greater London Plan the whole idea of New Towns originally derived. I think it was a fine idea; and I think the practical experience of nearly twenty years has amply confirmed this. I live on the very edge of a New Town myself, so I can speak with personal experience.
But the success of Sir Patrick's conception—and I am quite sure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will agree with this—depends entirely on the recognition by everyone, from Governments downwards, that the New Towns must remain limited, to some extent, in population, and must cover only a limited area. He was concerned, as was the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to check the sprawl of London (already growing wider and wider) over the whole surrounding countryside. It was an integral part of his conception, as I understand it, that not only London itself, but the New Towns also, should keep within bounds, or the whole principle underlying his Plan would be entirely nullified. And that, too, as I understood it, was the principle underlying the New Towns Act, 1946. Indeed the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—who is not here at present—in a speech in which he moved the Second Reading of the New Towns Bill on July 11, 1946, emphasised this. He spoke Of [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 142, col. 323]:
"a long-range programme for the establishment of new towns, of moderate size, where people can live … in healthy and pleasant surroundings."
Going into rather more detail subsequently, he referred to the population of these towns as varying between 30,000 and 60,000.
That I would suggest is the broad principle—I am not talking of exact figures—which must govern all legislation relating to New Towns. And as I see it, it is the duty of Parliament, when voting money in relation to them, to obtain as much information from the Government of the day—whichever Party they may represent—to ensure that this essential principle to which I referred is not vitiated. This seems to me to become particularly important in the case of the present Bill in view of certain statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of
718
Housing on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, which, I must say, rather alarmed me, and I feel may well have alarmed other people also.
I will quote what the Minister said. It is rather a long quotation, my Lords, but it is necessary to give it fully [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 687 (No. 34), col. 727]:
"… there seems to be an assumption … that there is necessarily something sacred, something finite, in the originally designated area of a new town. Obviously, when a new town is designated, successive Ministers of Housing and Local Government make their decision on as long-term a basis as they can on the population and other data currently available to them, and the same applies to local planning authorities when they are preparing development plans and town maps. But none of these people, whether they be Ministers—not even Conservative Ministers—civil servants, or local planning officers, are prophets, and if planning is to work at all it must be on the basis of a considerable degree of flexibility—in other words, of changing plans to meet changing circumstances."
My Lords, the Minister obviously regarded that as a platitude, almost as a truism, and everyone must agree. Indeed, at first sight it seems full of sweet reasonableness. But, in fact, if one examines it further, it drives a cart and horses through the whole great basic principle underlying both the Greater London Plan and the New Towns Act, 1946. There are, apparently, in his mind—and, I suppose, in the Government's mind as well—no limits to the possible growth of the towns created under the New Towns Act. It is merely a question of expediency, of what seems convenient to the Minister of the day and to his Ministry at any given time; and neither Parliament nor anyone else can do anything to stop it. Once Parliament has voted the money, the Minister can do what he likes. That is surely something very alarming in principle, and, I think, yet more alarming when the curtain is lifted for a moment and we can see what the Ministry actually have in mind to do with the money we are now being asked to vote.
Of course, I cannot speak with personal knowledge of the greater part of this country—the industrial Midlands, the North and Scotland—to which the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary equally applies. I cannot, therefore, follow the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in

719
the most interesting remarks he made this evening. But there is one county about which I do know something, and that is Hertfordshire, which happens to be one of those counties where we have been given just such a peep into the Ministry's future plans: and that gives one, I think, no reassurance at all.
What I have in mind is, of course, Stevenage, which has already occupied a considerable part of our debate. When I remember Stevenage first, it was a small, sleepy, country town with a population of 6,700 people, through which there happened to run both the Great Northern Railway and the Great North Road. It was for that reason, I suppose, chosen to be one of the New Towns under the Act of 1946, with a target population of 60,000; although I gather it was already recognised that that figure might have to be expanded to 80,000. But that 80,000 has always been accepted, until lately, as the largest population compatible with general planning for the county, as envisaged under the Abercrombie scheme.
It was therefore with a serious sense of shock that the county authorities—and I imagine everyone else in Hertfordshire—heard a little over a year ago that the Ministry now contemplates this much larger increase to 140,000. This is more than double the figure which hitherto had been regarded as the limit of ordinary good planning under the Act. I should like briefly to present some simple figures to your Lordships—they have not been given before—in order that the House may appreciate what this new and startling proposal will mean for Hertfordshire. By 1973, just under ten years from now, if this plan goes through in its present form, Stevenage (which will have a population of 140,000) will be within four miles of Luton and Dunstable, of which the estimated population by that date will be 212,000. It will be three miles from Welwyn and Hatfield New Towns, by that time with an estimated population of 73,000; and it will be, I gather, only 1½ miles from the conurbation of Hitchin, Letchworth and Baldock which, by that time, will have an estimated population of 72,000.
That must mean that if the Stevenage proposals go forward in their present form, there will be, between all these
720
towns concerned, no longer any countryside in the real sense of that word, but only a kind of suburban "no man's land" between the various towns—and that can be narrowed every time the Minister changes his mind; and what, under the original New Towns Act, was intended to be an imaginative scheme for increasing the population of Hertfordshire but preserving the countryside will end by spreading a vast sprawl of housing over a hitherto relatively untouched area of rural England. That is what it means.
Moreover, I suggest to your Lordships that what is proposed for Stevenage itself is not even based on the principle of good urban planning. For, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has already said, it will create a community, one part of which will be cut off from the other by the double barrier of a main railway line and what will be rather ironically called "the by-pass". I have been told—with what truth I do not know—that the Government have been advised by planning experts that that will not interfere in any way with the unity of the community as a whole. Well, I can only say that that has not been our experience at Hatfield. We, too, have the Great Northern line running right through the town, cutting off the part on the East side of the line from the part on the West, and I could almost say that they are still different worlds. I am quite certain that it would be the same thing, in a much greater degree, in Stevenage. Why, then, with these other experiences before us, are we asked to fall once more, quite unnecessarily, into the same error?
I have dealt, I hope at not too great length, with some of the wider issues raised by the Minister of Health's new plans, and I have instanced the case of Stevenage. They have aroused, as the Government knew before and as they have been told this afternoon, the widest opposition in Hertfordshire. The County Council are against them, the local authority of Stevenage are against them and the Hertfordshire Society are against them. It has united sections of the population which could not, I suspect, see eye to eye on any other question. And what worries them most is that they have the disagreeable feeling (if I may use so vernacular a word) that they are being "bounced".

721
Although the present Bill makes no mention of Stevenage, yet, after it is passed into law, not even Parliament, as I have already said, will have any further say in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, if I heard him aright, said that he was not going to say much about Stevenage at this stage; but what other stages are there for us? I cannot see any stage in which he will have an opportunity of developing this point.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I meant to say that I was going to keep it for winding up, after I had heard the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the later part of the present stage. And what is more, a very dangerous precedent for other areas will have been created. I fully realise that the Government spokesman, the noble Lord, may retort to those of us who have criticised the Government policy, "That's all very well: but what is your alternative? It is all very well to criticise; but what, faced with the same problem, would you do?" I think that that is a perfectly valid point and I must try to give an answer to it. And my answer, before I heard the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would have been this. First, I would say—I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would say after the inquiries he has made—that according to all my information there is plenty of room to accommodate a population up to 100,000 within the existing designated area of the New Town of Stevenage merely by developing fully the eastern part of the area. I understand that that could be done, because it has not been fully developed yet, without overcrowding and without going anywhere beyond the designated limits of the town.
That should deal with a prospective population of up to 100,000. That leaves still a gap of 40,000, and surely that could be bridged by building, not outwards, but upwards, by building higher houses to accommodate the larger population which is now envisaged. That, I should have thought, could be done without any injury to the Abercrombie Plan or the New Towns Act. I do not say that higher houses are an ideal solution—those great massive residential
722
towers reaching up into the upper air. We have one at Hatfield. I cannot say that I am greatly enamoured of it. But these towers do maintain the balance between the town and the countryside, which is now so gravely threatened and which would be more gravely threatened if the present scheme for Stevenage went through. What is more, I believe that they are not unpopular—that, at any rate, I understand is the experience at Hatfield with those people who live in them.
There is also the new proposal—new, at any rate, to me, which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, this afternoon, to build yet newer New Towns yet farther out. That is clearly something that deserves most serious consideration, and I should like to think it over before coming down on one side or the other. But with regard to the outer limits of the existing New Towns, at any rate, beyond which they must not encroach upon the countryside, they surely must remain virtually inviolate. Otherwise, all we have sought to achieve in the last half century of town and country planning would be steadily eroded, till finally, almost without our knowing it, the battle might be irretrievably lost.
I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who is to reply, will be able to assure the House, therefore, that he will report what has been said in your Lordships' House to-day to his right honourable friend the Minister and that he will particularly ask him to give an assurance that before matters have gone any further—I was going to say, before the Committee stage of the Bill—he will consider further, before it is too late, this plan for Stevenage, which seems, I think to the whole House, to infringe every principle of good planning. I also hope that he will adopt the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, this afternoon that this scheme, which has such very wide implications, should be submitted to Parliament for its approval before any final steps are taken to implement it.
7.16 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I find myself, I think almost for the first time in my life, in most hearty agreement with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I only hope that it will not

723
give him any doubts of his own rectitude in this matter of Stevenage. I hope that there may come out of this impending disaster a useful lesson—that is, that it is always likely to be attractive to Ministers, of any Party, to expand an existing town rather than become involved in all the expenditure necessary to supply what is called nowadays the infrastructure of another New Town. But, as the noble Marquess said at the end of his speech, another New Town is the real answer to the problem of Stevenage.
And it is the answer not only to the problem of Stevenage but also to the problem of the country as a whole. I have seen a list of 25 proposed sites for New Towns drawn up by a planner, and 25 New Towns is what I think we shall need in the not very distant future, because we have already in our cities half a million certified slum dwellings and another couple of hundred thousand which will have only another five years' existence. If we are to deal with a problem of this size, then the answer is the creation of more New Towns, because there is not the accommodation within the towns where these people are now living.
I agree with the noble Marquess that, when a New Town is founded, a fixed population ought to be settled. I do not think that the noble Marquess, any more than I, would wish to be too firm about the figure, though no doubt we should be anxious when we caught the Minister wobbling. What I think is not always realised is that every town, big or small, if it is to be a success, must have inherent in it the ability to house its second generation. Every New Town will come to a stage, within 25 years or so, when a considerable increase in size is essential to meet this, amounting to a good 50 per cent. Therefore, when planning a New Town, allowance must be made for this aspect.
I thought that my noble friend Lord Silkin, who was so largely responsible for New Towns, was very restrained in his criticisms of the Government, and I am going to follow him in restraint; but even at the cost of sounding as if I were indulging in recrimination, I cannot but mention the falling of in the construction of New Towns under the present Government.
724
The Labour Party founded fourteen New Towns. The Conservatives during their twelve years of office have founded only four New Towns, and of those, two (one of which is not yet designated), Runcorn and Redditch, are not in the strictest sense of the word New Towns. I assure your Lordships that I am not saying I do not desire the towns of Runcorn and Redditch, because I have no doubt that they are admirable sites for the purpose for which they would be built. But they are not New Towns: they are satellite towns, which is something different. As I say, the present Government have designated only this limited number of towns. The result will be, I fear, that we shall find the construction of New Towns in the future considerably more difficult, because the people who have worked in the original New Towns, seeing no prospect of further New Towns, will have tended to go into other employments and taken with them their all too rare skills. This is a difficulty which inevitably the New Towns corporations will come up against when they need to establish New Towns.
This seems to me to be extremely serious, and I do not see how it can be got over. What is more, I feel that there is another trouble which will make the work of the new corporations extremely difficult, and that is the lack of adequate statistics and research. It is true that a certain amount of information is given by the Registrar General, but by this time there ought to be an immense fund of knowledge available from research made into these towns which would enormously facilitate the foundation and development of others.
I have tried to point out the urgency of this question. I hope that the Government will go ahead now, and I hope and pray that they may not again decide to put up the red signal and say "Stop!" Let us now go forward with a practice of whose success we are assured, and not only shall we thereby be doing good to our towns and finding dwellings for their inhabitants, but we shall be saving our countryside, because the alternative is sprawl.
7.24 p.m.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, even in 1964 there appear to be miracles. I

725
never expected to see the noble Lord who has just spoken on the same side as the noble Marquess who spoke before him. It is almost a case of the lion lying down with the lamb—although I should not like to say which is which. Last July, your Lordships will remember, the last time we had such co-operation between both sides of the House, some of us voted against the Government and defeated them on the Peerage Bill, which, incidentally, enabled us to have our present Prime Minister. So anything may come out of this debate, although, this being a Money Bill, we shall not have the pleasure of voting either against or for the Government this time.
I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, because, as we all know, he is really the father of Stevenage. And from what he said this afternoon he looked almost as if he might be the father of twins. Many years ago there was another famous pair of twins who lived at Stevenage. They were well-known poachers called Albert Ebenezer Fox and Ebenezer Albert Fox, and from time to time they used to come up for poaching offences before my father, who was chairman of the bench. Both of them had committed over 100 poaching offences, and when one had too many, his brother used to go and act for him. Incidentally, my father used to tell me that the way he could tell them apart was because one had three creases at the back of his neck and the other had only two. I would suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, thought that the twin new towns of Stevenage might have to have names, one might be called Ebenezer and the other Albert.
To come to rather more serious matters, I should like to say that I am speaking this evening as Chairman of the Hertfordshire Society, an office which I have had the honour to hold for 28 years. I would say that, since I became Chairman of the Hertfordshire Society 28 years ago, I do not remember any proposition which has resulted in more opposition than this extension of Stevenage. I have been approached by the Chairman of the Hertfordshire Branch of the National Farmers' Union, who came to see me; and to quote the local Stevenage and Herts Express, the heading says:
726
"Expansion Across A.600 Would Be 'Disaster for Agriculture'. Stop this dastardly ruination, say N.F.U."
That is the sort of heading that is appearing in the local papers. Another heading, in the Herts. Advertiser, is:
"Ministry planning to grab rural strip? Farmers shocked to hear of plan."
I will not quote more from these newspapers, but I should like to say, from the agricultural point of view, that this enormous spread of Stevenage from its present site right across to the West, within four miles of Luton, would cut Hertfordshire in two. It is not easy in these days to farm in Hertfordshire because of the competitive wages in industry. But I feel that if Stevenage is to grow to 150,000 population, and other towns such as Luton and Dunstable, which are also twin towns now and are expecting a population of 200,000, in addition to, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, Welwyn and Hatfield—another pair of twin towns, expecting a population of 73,000 or 75,000—we in Hertfordshire are going to become like Southern Lancashire, where we have all the towns of Bury, Oldham, Bolton, Wigan, Leigh and so on, almost joining each other.
I feel that Lord Silkin's advice to the Minister who will be replying, either to refer the matter to Parliament or to withdraw the scheme and not waste any more of our time, is very good advice. But it is not advice that the poor noble Lord, Lord Hastings, can take personally, although it is advice which I hope he will transmit to the right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Housing and Local Government (as I believe he is now called although at one time the Department was called the Ministry of Town and Country Planning). I feel that it might almost be suggested, if the Stevenage plan goes on, that it should be called the Ministry of Town into Country Sprawling—we have heard so much of the word "sprawl" this afternoon.
I should like to say a word or two about the Hertfordshire County Council. I do not think that the Hertfordshire County Council have had fair treatment in this matter. I was on that Council for fifteen years, from 1931 to 1946; and I was also on the Town Planning Committee in those days. On November 26 last the Hertfordshire County Council published a little booklet called

727
Representations on the Expansion of Stevenage. In that booklet, on the first page, about halfway down, occur these words:
"The County Council have now carefully considered the technical appraisal by the Stevenage Development Corporation and have consulted all the county district councils concerned which all oppose very strongly any expansion of Stevenage above 80,000."
That statement is most interesting, because the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, told us that the Stevenage Development Corporation was asked for its opinion on feasibility, but not on desirability. This calls it "Technical appraisal", which is almost the same thing as feasibility. It is interesting, in this connection, that the Stevenage Urban District Council are against this scheme, as are all other rural councils and urban district councils in the County of Hertford. I should like to suggest that the question which was asked should have been rather extended, because Stevenage Corporation have done a good job, and I think they would have been able to express an opinion to the Ministry, and if the Ministry had taken their advice as well as that of the County Council, we might never have got to this stage.
This afternoon we have heard some excellent arguments against the extension of Stevenage put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury: and also, I am glad to say, the Church has come to the aid of the State. We have heard from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St. Albans more excellent reasons against this expansion of Stevenage. But I feel there are two other reasons against it: the questions of water supplies and drainage. Some noble Lords may be aware that in 1948 I had to start an action (which I won in due course, after eight years) against Luton Corporation for polluting the River Lea. The Luton Corporation spent, I think, £600,000 or £700,000 on their sewage works at the time and the use of the River Lea was the only possible way in which the Corporation could get rid of their effluent. It still comes down the Lea, although the situation is greatly improved, apart from the effect of the Surf, Tide and Daz, which froths where we have a waterfall or mill, as it does in so many other rivers. It was suggested that Luton Corporation
728
might pipe its effluent to the sea. That proposal would have been far too expensive. In 1948 they said it would cost £30 million; in these days £70 million.
As regards Stevenage, the Hertfordshire County Council memorandum called Representations on the Expansion of Stevenage goes into the question of water supply, and also drainage. I should like to quote from page 11 of their memorandum. They, of course, quote the words of the drainage consultants, and these words occur:
"Moreover serious difficulties are known to exist at the present time at Rye Meads on the treatment of sewage, particularly purification, and the Metropolitan Water Board and the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board are deeply involved in the results of treatment and the Catchment Board have urged that the whole question of sewage treatment and disposal should be very fully investigated in consultation with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and before any decision is made on the expansion of Harlow and Stevenage. The same applies to the cost of extensions to the Rye Meads works in that the implication of further expansion of towns other than Stevenage and Harlow does not seem to have been taken into account."
I regard that as a very serious statement regarding the sewerage question.
If we come to the water question, a little further down this document says:
"The Lee Valley Water Company's report shows that some of the short-term and all the long-term water supplies required would not be obtainable locally and would involve the provision of impounding reservoirs (to conserve winter flows) and trunk pipe-lines on a scale and to a cost not hitherto contemplated. This would inevitably increase very considerably the cost of water supply."
At the very bottom of that page, the last paragraph says:
"The County Council are therefore strongly opposed to any expansion of Stevenage over 80,000 for all the reasons advanced above."
As this document runs to eleven pages, a good many other reasons are given, though I have not quoted them. I feel that this is a most serious document, and that it should be given the publicity which it deserves.
I have little more to say, except that I am assured by the Hertfordshire County Council that the number of inhabitants of Stevenage could be increased to between 90,000 and 95,000, on the land which is at present designated, without going to the west of the main road or the main railway. A good deal of in-filling could be done. And I

729
would point out here that it is a fact that people do not like living too far from the main shopping centre. The noble Marquess has suggested what I was going to suggest, that the buildings should go up instead of outwards. I live near Welwyn Garden City where there is a wonderful new hospital, but I am told that the patients, when they can walk about from the hospital, and also the employees, find that this hospital is a long way from the centre of Welwyn Garden City. The fact is that people like living near the town centre if they can, and I think they would prefer to live in a building which goes up, such as a block of flats near the town centre, rather than miles away from it.
I should like to talk for a moment or two on this question of how far the New Town should be from London. It was stated the other day that Stevenage, which is 28½ miles by train from King's Cross, might become what is called a commuters' paradise. That is not the purpose of New Towns. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the late Government and the present Government did not put New Towns further from London. I am sure that New Towns as near London as Stevenage do encourage commuters. I am definitely in favour of planning in these ways, although I sit on these Benches, and I am sorry that such a large extent of office building has been permitted in London. I am told that there is room for 400,000 more commuters to come into London to work in the office buildings which have been put up. That is a very large number, and we do not want them to have to live 28½ miles from their work. In fact, one of the only good reasons put forward for the expansion of Stevenage to the west of the main railway and the main road was that Dr. Beeching, who is a very ingenious man, thought that it might enable British Railways to make a profit on that particular line to King's Cross by baying more commuters going up to London every day. That is certainly not a sufficient reason for this expansion.
Perhaps I may quote one or two more figures. In 1946, the area of agricultural land in Hertfordshire was 69 per cent. of the total acreage. From 1946 to 1964, 300,000 extra inhabitants had been absorbed into Hertfordshire, and
730
the area of agricultural land, as against built-up land, had been reduced only to 61 per cent. I think that is very satisfactory. I feel that much of that is a result of the good town planning of the Hertfordshire County Council and the other local authorities. If we could be assured that the Minister would consult with the Hertfordshire County Council and ask them to produce alternative plans, a lot of the population which the Minister and the Ministry appear to think are likely to come into South-East England could be absorbed in other parts of Hertfordshire without this extension of Stevenage.
There is only one other fact that I should like to bring to the attention of your Lordships. We have been told that it is essential to increase productivity, increase employment, and to encourage people to live in and not come away from such areas as the North-East, about which our former Lord Hailsham, now a Member of another place under another name, has produced a report in order to try to help that part of England. I hope that this urge to allow people to come to the South-East will not have a bad effect on employment and productivity in the North-East, the North-West, or even in Scotland. I feel that this is really a national matter, and I am delighted that this debate has not gone on Party lines in any way. I have not made any political remarks—they are remarks from my experience of Hertfordshire, and also my views of planning, which in many ways correspond more with those of Lord Silkin's Party than with some of my own. I hope that, when the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, replies, he will be able to say (if he cannot say what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would like him to say) that this matter will be referred back for further serious consideration.
7.40 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, so many admirable speeches have been made in the course of this debate that it is almost superfluous to add anything. The main reason and excuse for my intervention is that I have taken a lifelong interest in planning and I have been concerned with the problems of planning, both in office and as a private Member in another place and here; and

731
it is from the planning point of view that I wish to intervene. I can do so more briefly than would otherwise have been possible because the main facts have been so excellently stated in a memorable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. My experience in dealing with planning in office, though far less important and distinguished than his own, was, in fact, even earlier, because 22 years ago I became the first Minister to be concerned wholly with this subject of town and country planning, and many discussions did I have with my friends, Patrick Abercrombie, William Holford and others. I intervene now because I believe that this proposal, and the evils which are implied or likely to follow, will prove one of the most serious setbacks that has taken place to the cause of planning in this country.
The objections to the expansion of Stevenage beyond the motorway are so enormous that one does not know where to start. But I am not going to say anything at all technical. I am going to call attention to one fact which must be obvious to any layman, even if he has never studied town and country planning at all: that it is not a very good idea to put a motorway designed to take traffic from London to the North of England in the middle of a town. That proposition is so simple that, really, I think it should not be lost sight of: nor should we accept ridiculous answers to it.
In another place, my Lords, believe it or not, there was a passage in the Minister's speech suggesting, in answer to those who had raised this objection, that, after all, Professor Buchanan's Report had made us familiar with the idea of motorway standards in cities. Has there ever been a greater misunderstanding of Professor Buchanan? The title of Professor Buchanan's work was Traffic in Towns. He came to the conclusion, quite rightly, that, for the sake of internal traffic in some of our existing cities, modern conditions might mean that we had to perform rather difficult and painful acts of surgery. But there is not a syllable in Buchanan's work, from beginning to end, which suggests that a motorway, designed for long-distance traffic, is the proper thing to put into the middle of a town. Really! The fact that the Minister should have
732
included a passage raising such a point in another place makes one doubt the intellectual calibre that lies behind the proposal to put this New Town on the other side of the motorway. Since I have the greatest admiration for the present Minister and his capacity, I am bound to say that I do not think he has received good advice, and I hope that he will look at the proposal again.
My Lords, I have never known a proposal against which there has been quite such a consensus of expert opinion, in both Houses of Parliament and in the country. When, in 1946, the New Town of Stevenage was started, there were respectable arguments on planning grounds for considering that the place should not have been selected at all; and that it was too near London. But there were very powerful arguments on the other side, too, and I think that those of us who studied the problem could have felt a good deal of sympathy for the then Minister (now the noble Lord, Lord Silkin) when, anxious to make a start, he decided that this was the place at which to do it. But what I am quite certain of is this: that, had he been told that that New Town was to be a town of 150,000 people, or thereabouts, he was far too good a planner to say that this was the place to put it. He would have done nothing of the sort.
Passing for the moment from the impossible conditions in Stevenage itself, let us look to the area on which it is proposed to put this other New Town—because, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is quite right; it is, to all intents and purposes, another town, however much it is linked with the existing one. That area is outside the existing Metropolitan Green Belt, but it is within what has been called the "Extended Green Belt", which was proposed as long ago as 1956. Successive Ministers of Housing and Local Government, or successive Ministers of Planning, by whatever title they have been called, have made it their policy to prevent development within that area just as though it had been the Green Belt. Now, that Green Belt, which is of the greatest importance to other places in Hertfordshire, and is extremely important to Luton, is to be invaded on the proposal, not of any planning

733
authority outside London, but on the proposal of the Ministry itself. The Ministry itself that wished to protect this Extended Green Belt is taking the lead in destroying it. It was suggested in another place that it might still be possible to separate this extended town from Luton. I wonder for how long. My Lords, in this House we are all old enough to remember when Luton and Dunstable were separate. Look at them now!
I shall not labour the point of how bad the planning is that is involved, both in Hertfordshire and in Stevenage itself. I turn to the only defence and explanation that has been advanced. There has been no real attempt to say that what is proposed would not be disastrous for many good causes, but it has been said that there is a great increase in population and that this great increase renders this action necessary. Let me say at once that I think the Minister is right to attempt to be far-sighted and to take population into consideration. Where he seems to me to have gone so far wrong is in assuming that he is the only planner who considers population. What does he suppose the Hertfordshire County Council do? The Hertfordshire County Council happen to have as their planning officer a Mr. Doubleday, who was one of the advisers in the original Ministry of Town and Country Planning and who will be well known to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, both in his ministerial days and afterwards. Of course the County Council have been considering the increase of population, immediate and more distant, and what should be done about it. But the County Council were not consulted at all. Why not?
Why was it so important to ask the Corporation, "Will it be possible to expand up to 140,000 or 150,000?", but not to ask the County Council, "What do you think about it? What are your plans for dealing with an increased population?"? I have always held, and hold to-day, that there is a lot of physical planning in town and country in which the Ministry in London must be closely concerned; but I have never thought this involved not consulting the county councils in this matter. The reason why the County Council were
734
not consulted, I suppose, was based on administrative convenience. It is easier for a Ministry in London to deal with one single Corporation, and to arrange an enormous increase in population with that Corporation alone, without bothering about what anybody else thought. It is easier to do that than to ask the County Council, who have devoted so much time to studying this problem. It is easier, my Lords; but is it tolerable?
I come to the point that has been made, I think, by several of the previous speakers, and in particular by my noble friend Lord Brocket; that, of course, expansion, and large expansion, of population in Stevenage is possible without increasing the area at all. There is no question that a population of 95,000 at least could be accommodated. I am not saying necessarily that it ought to be accommodated, but it could be accommodated within the existing boundaries; and more compact building which would make that possible would not only do no injury but, in the opinion of most architects and planners, would greatly improve the quality of the place, and would do so without the sacrifice of open space and amenities. I beg the Minister to think again and not to persist in a plan so injurious to Stevenage, so injurious to Hertfordshire and so injurious to England.
What appals me is the power of the Minister to proceed with what we, unanimously, I think, judging from the speeches, believe to be a disastrous scheme, without any Parliamentary control at any stage. As I have said, of course these things are administratively convenient; but administrative convenience is no ground whatever for treating the County Council in the way that this County Council have been treated and in the way in which it is proposed to continue to treat them. One of the Acts I helped to conduct through another place, when I was a Minister, was precisely an Act to give planning powers to county councils, because up to that date the planning powers had been vested in authorities far too small. I little thought that the time would come when the county councils to whom we transferred these planning powers, county councils that were using them and planning to save their countryside while providing more houses would be overridden entirely as is now proposed.

735
I expect that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will say that nothing has been finally decided yet. Of course it has not. But the Minister has shown his affection for this scheme; he has got the Corporation to say that it is feasible, and he could go ahead, when this Bill is passed, without any vote of either House at all. I have no doubt that there will be a public inquiry, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said. But the public inquiry, whatever the inspector reports, will not bind the Minister. I do not believe that this is the way to make town and country planning, which is so necessary for the immediate future of England, either easy or tolerable. I beg the Minister to think again.
7.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, so much has been said in your Lordships' House this evening about the Stevenage plan that I would only seek to add my voice to the objections which have been put up to it. It seems to me, from what I have been able to study on this subject, that the difficulties from both technical and policy viewpoints are so acute that my right honourable friend the Minister really must look at this again, and preferably drop it altogether. But what I did think might be convenient would be to take the opportunity of this Bill to raise the subject of the inquiry procedure, if such an inquiry into a draft designation order for a New Town should come about, which has in the past caused a great deal of difficulty. It may be that I ought to have known about the developments that have taken place, very largely, I think, as a result of the Report of the Franks Committee and the most enlightened interpretation that the Government have put upon that and the measures they have brought in since.
I asked my noble friend Lord Hastings about what the procedure would be, hoping that a great change had taken place since the days of the case of Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I am glad to have had his assurance that this is so, and that a very different method of procedure is now adopted, but I feel it is not very widely known, and I should be very grateful to my noble friend if he could repeat
736
for the benefit of the House, and for the public of this country, who may come as objectors to one of these local inquiries, what the up-to-date procedure is. Because it seems to me that it fulfils everything that the Franks Committee reported and recommended, and it gives a very fair chance indeed to an objector at one of these public inquiries properly and fully to deploy his case and bring all the arguments that he can conceivably wish to bring before the Minister and his Inspector. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to give the details of this new inquiry procedure to the House this evening.
8.0 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I suppose that any uninitiated person reading this debate would think that some miniature Frankenstein had come across the House of Lords and deliberately sabotaged what appears to be a relatively innocent Bill. But anybody with any knowledge of the background of what is planned for Stevenage would surely have a very different conception, whether or not he was an expert on town and country planning. I have a great many local ties with this area. From my early childhood until my late teens I lived in the town of Baldock, and I still have relations and close friends in the Baldock and Stevenage areas and in the areas approximating towards Luton. So I feel justified in taking up some of your Lordships' time in adding my protest on these extraordinary proposals.
I do not intend to go into the technicalities of the planning side of this matter, because I am not an authority on that, but I wish to say a word or two about the principle of the whole thing. Granted there is a shortage of housing for people who want to work in or near London. Granted, too, that there must be a solution to the present pockets of unemployment. But there are a number of alternative areas, not so far from London, which could have been chosen for this increase of conurbation. For example, there is Huntingdon, where a large L.C.C. development plan is already taking place. Is that not a possible alternative solution? Then there is Peterborough. There is a good deal of land in that area which would help in regard to the allegation that the

737
British Railways commuting service between Hitchin and London is losing money. Housing could surely be diverted to the Peterborough area, because it takes just about as long to get from Hitchin to Peterborough as from Hitchin to London.
In any case, I do not accept the premise that only a few people travel from Hitchin to London. I used to travel on that line a great deal. I now use it only occasionally, when I go to the area visiting friends or speaking. But, travelling back to London during the morning rush hour, I observe that the compartments on the trains are relatively full, so I do not think that that argument can be put forward. In any case, one has only to travel in the conditions which those living in Surrey, Sussex and Kent endure, to the City of London or the West End to see what could happen if these proposals regarding Stevenage go forward. The public transport is already stretched to the limit. Stevenage and Baldock stations and all the others are small, and whilst the train service is reasonably adequate at the moment, it would have to be considerably increased to take the large, increased number of commuters (if one can use that word) if this plan goes through.
As has been said, all this discussion has been on non-Party lines. I know that my honourable friend the Member for Hitchin has had messages of support from all sections of the community, from the Letchworth Young Socialists to the leading landowners of Hertfordshire. I should like to pay particular tribute to the Hertfordshire Express. Speaking for myself, it was from that source that I got my first intimation of this scheme. As has been pointed out by other noble Lords, there seems to have been little or no consultation with the Hertfordshire County Council, or the Hitchin Rural Council or any other responsible body.
I should like to quote briefly from what the representative of Kimpton, which is part of the Hitchin Rural District Council, said in a recent edition of the Hertfordshire Express:
"The Housing and Town Planning Committee of this Council (the Hitchin Rural District Council) have today refused permission for eight houses to be built in Kimpton because this is a restricted village. But now it seems
738
it is good planning to have a housing estate of about 150,000 people within three miles."
That seems to me to be pretty fair comment on what will happen if this scheme goes through.
There is also the point that when the New Town of Stevenage was designed, the factory area was placed on one side of the Great North Road and the housing area on the other. It seems to me that if this plan goes through we shall have an extraordinary conurbation of factories and houses, which is a quite appalling piece of planning. The present New Town of Stevenage, with its compact shopping centre, with every safety precaution taken for children, with its new community centre and its new Locarno ballroom, seems an altogether compact outfit for the mainly young population which it serves. It is surely ordinary common sense to see, from the fact that many of its residents are young people, that they will themselves have children—the birth rate in Stevenage is high, as it is in all New Towns—and therefore, if this greatly increased conurbation takes place, an enormous strain will be put on the hospital services and all the welfare services.
Equally, from an æthetic point of view, some of the loveliest countryside within 70 or 80 miles of London is going to be uprooted. Good farmland will be lost. I know that in ministerial circles that might be ruled out as a parochial and sentimental objection, but already there is the cry that agricultural land is diminishing. Truly, this proposal is going to make it far worse. It might be said that a public inquiry will take place. Certainly, it will. But even those who have limited knowledge of the law must realise that public inquiries are lengthy and costly. Surely the fact that there has been so much righteous opposition to this scheme is grounds alone to make the Minister think twice.
I suppose that on these things I am getting a reputation as a rebel. There was a certain matter over the London Government Act (as it is now) over which I rebelled, and I make no apology for it; and I shall certainly make no apology for rebelling here. My own childhood memories, and even present-day memories, of this area are of an essentially happy community with its

739
services geared to a proportionate number of people. On grounds of amenity—hospital facilities, clinics, children's facilities, transport and everything else—this is nothing short of a crazy scheme.
Having said that, I would add that in principle I support this Bill. We certainly need New Towns. I have always supported the idea of New Towns because they mean that young people have more chance of getting a decent home; but conurbations of this kind add to the problem rather than help in its solution. I join with other noble Lords in urging the Minister to think again very carefully before carrying out a proposal that is opposed by countless thousands of people.
8.12 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, those of your Lordships who know me will know that nothing but the strongest feelings would have induced me to make a speech in the middle of dinner. I know that most of your Lordships will feel the same. Therefore, although I promise your Lordships that I shall be as brief as is humanly possible, I should like your Lordships to realise the sincerity with which I speak.
I am here to-night basically because for most of my life I have lived within eight miles of Stevenage, in North Hertfordshire. Therefore, because I am deeply in agreement with all other noble Lords who have spoken tonight, I felt that I had to add my support and voice my protest against what I can regard only as a completely deplorable proposal. At this stage in the evening, especially in light of the number of speeches we have had (and weighty speeches, too: for such speakers as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, should not lightly be disregarded in matters of this kind; and others of your Lordships who have taken part in the debate have spoken with knowledge either of planning or of Hertfordshire, sometimes of both), I should like briefly to sum up the views of my noble friends who have spoken against this proposal.
First, on the matter of principle, I do not think a single voice has been raised against the principle of New Towns, nor have we considered—even had that been possible—any opposition to the voting of money for this purpose. What we have felt (and I think this was voiced
740
by my noble friend Lord Salisbury) was that it was becoming a matter of increasing anxiety to many people that, having voted the money for this general purpose, neither Parliament nor any local body, so far as one can see, has any further say in the matter except by way of a public inquiry. The Minister himself is directly responsible for New Towns, and in the normal way the procedure of a public inquiry is not entirely unsatisfactory. The planning authority usually puts up a proposal; there is an objection by local interests, and the matter comes un before an inspector and is eventually adjudicated upon by the Minister. But in this case the Minister is judge and jury in his own case. In this particular case, as my noble friend Lord Conesford mentioned, he has consulted nobody. He has not consulted the planning authority. He has consulted his own creature, the development corporation, I do not know why—possibly for motives of convenience. That is the first principle.
The second principle is this. The Ministry must make un their minds on which leg they stand. Either they believe in the Green Belt policy or they do not; either they believe that New Towns should be subject to Green Belt policy or they do not; either they believe the English language means what it says or they do not. We cannot build bypasses in 1962 (and the word means that the roads should by-pass towns) and then, in 1963, say that motorways should go through the middle of towns. The Ministry must set out their ideas about this. The Ministry on the one hand tell the local authorities they must preserve the Green Belt, and they then tell us that they are taking elaborate steps to make sure that the preservation of the Green Belt is impossible.
I dare say that I shall be told by the noble Lord who is to reply that, by administrative action, having expanded Stevenage in this way they are going to stop the erosion of the Green Belt. I do not believe any capable planner would believe that a Green Belt of four miles could be sustained, let alone a Green Belt of one-and-a-half miles. This is the sort of proposition we are going to be faced with in Hertfordshire. I believe the thing is completely and totally untenable. We shall have erosion

741
and within a generation we shall have another Lancashire in North Hertfordshire. As regards the detailed planning of Stevenage, the matter was adequately dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and other noble Lords, and there is little more that one can add. On the face of it—and I do not pretend to be a planning expert—the whole scheme was a travesty of good planning. I should also have thought it was unworkable.
There is one further point which has not been very much aired this evening, and that is the educational aspect. As the Under-Secretary said in another place, these New Towns have a very high proportion of young people—as, indeed, I think was their purpose. And the Minister said that in Stevenage over 70 per cent. of the population in 1961 was under forty years of age, compared to the national average of just over 50 per cent. The natural corollary to that is, presumably, that they have young children. Therefore, the educational provision that has to be made in New Towns is a great deal more complex and elaborate than is needed in some of the older towns. One of the great disadvantages of this particular plan for Stevenage is that educationally this could well be appallingly expensive or unworkable—or both.
My noble friend Lord Conesford, in his admirable speech, said that this scheme was bad for Stevenage; and I agree with him. He said that it was bad for Hertfordshire; and I agree with him. At the moment we have to drive something like 20 to 25 miles before we in London get into anything like real country. If this sort of scheme is persisted in, I believe that somebody in the metropolis will have to drive something like 45 miles before he gets into country. When one considers other capitals, such as Paris, Rome, Bonn—even New York—this is an appalling thought. London will become worse than anywhere else in the world, and I believe that there is nothing more important than to avoid this ghastly conurbation. There must be Green Belts; that is the most important thing of all.
I think I have said enough on this subject. I would say to the noble Lord who is to reply that I do not entirely envy him his task. His right honourable
742
friend seems to me to have got together an almost unique body of people, as has been pointed out. It is the first time in my memory that all the local authorities in Hertfordshire have ever agreed about anything. The Hertfordshire Society, the farmers, agree with the people who live in the towns. That is most unusual. The right reverend Prelate has added his voice for the Church. There is practically nobody, so far as I can see, who is a friend of this scheme. Every Back-Bench Member in the House of Commons takes this view and, so far as I can remember—I have not been here for every speech—I do not believe there has been a single speech in your Lordships' House to-night in favour of the Minister's proposal. If I may say so to my noble friend Lord Hastings, I do not know whether this constitutes a record, but it seems to me very near it.
I hope that, in the light of this feeling, the Minister will really think about this matter again. I know the noble Lord will say that nothing is decided, and I hope, indeed, it is not. But we have made our protest this evening because, as has been pointed out, this is the last chance we shall have in Parliament of making a protest. It was therefore most important that we should make it, and I hope that the noble Lord will think the protest has been clear enough and loud enough. Incidentally, I may say that the noble Lord has had a very bad Press. This is the first time for a very long time that I have seen the Daily Telegraph and the Observer agree. This is an unusual conjunction.
I should just like to quote to the noble Lord the last paragraph of a leading article in the Observer. This says, rather pessimistically, I think:
"It will probably be done."—
this was a reference to the scheme—
"Regional protests of this sort are mouse squeaks in Westminster. In fact, the new appendage will solve less than 1 per cent. of the Ministry's southern housing problem. It seems a high price to pay for so small a relief."
We have had our "mouse squeak" in your Lordships' House. I thought the noble squeak was a very good squeak, and I hope that it has been a loud enough squeak to reach my noble friend's ears. I can assure him, having lived in Hertfordshire for many years,

743
that there is really deep feeling on this matter and that if the Minister pursues this particular policy he will find himself in real trouble, both nationally and locally.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I rise to say two things. First, the Town and Country Planning Association, of which I am President, is firmly convinced that these proposals with regard to Stevenage are thoroughly bad planning. Secondly, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Salter, who was my predecessor as President of the Town and Country Planning Association, to say that he much regrets that a previous engagement prevents him from being here to-night, for he would have expressed the same view.
8.23 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, we have certainly had a most stimulating and impressive debate, if only for the unanimity of the views expressed on one aspect of the Bill before us, which is to authorise further loans of £150 million for all the existing New Towns, including the recently designated ones. And here I would express the hope that the main purpose of the Bill will not be forgotten by your Lordships.
Before coming to the main topic of Stevenage, I think I need refer to only one matter with which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, dealt in a general way; and that was his regret that the New Towns were being handed over to the new Commission instead of to the local authorities. As he knows, we changed our mind about that, and did not hand the two towns over to the local authorities. The noble Lord seemed to admire the independence of the development corporations and the way they were able to get on with the job, and I should have thought the same thing applied equally to the new Commission for New Towns. After all, it has local committees, a local manager and staff on the spot. I do not think I need say any more on that point. I was grateful for the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on Scottish affairs, and of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who has given me an opportunity to clear up a point which I think is well worth clarifying for the greater confidence of the public, not to mention that of noble Lords behind me.
744
To turn now to this question of Stevenage, so much has been said about it, that I feel that, to put the matter into proper perspective, I should explain the present position precisely. In view of the forecast by the Registrar General of a very much greater growth of population than had previously been envisaged, the Government early in 1962 put in hand a thorough study of the problems of the South-East of England. This, of course, is already well known. But from the beginning of this study it was apparent that there would have to be substantial growths of many towns in the South-East. The Minister therefore invited Stevenage and Harlow, which seemed to be the New Towns most capable of further growth, to make technical studies of the feasibility of further expansion. The report from Stevenage was submitted to him early last year and was published by the Development Corporation at that time.
I think it is just worth pointing out, in view of what has been said about the feasibility only being investigated, that when it reported the Corporation did say that the expansion would be advantageous. So far, the Minister has neither accepted nor rejected this technical report. He has had the report examined, and has also had a number of other possibilities explored. This he is entitled to do; indeed, he would be open to serious criticism if he did not investigate such an issue very thoroughly before making public any proposals. He has not yet, however, made any formal proposals for the expansion of Stevenage. Criticisms and comments on anything other than the Stevenage technical report are therefore based on no more than speculation and rumour. If and when the Minister is satisfied that there is a clear prima facie case for expansion of Stevenage, and he has specific proposals for expansion in mind, then he will consult the local authorities formally on them, as he is required to do by Statute.
The noble Lords, Lord Brocket and Lord Conesford, in particular, referred to the fact that the Hertfordshire County Council had been ignored, had not been consulted and had been badly treated, and that they had had technical investigations carried out of which the Minister has not yet taken any notice. My

745
Lords, the Minister must first carry out his own technical investigations, and must come to some conclusion on whether or not this expansion is a reasonable scheme. When he has done that he will go to the County Council and have the full consultations which noble Lords wish him to have. At that stage, of course, any technical investigations the Council have carried out will be tabled and comparisons can be made. Does the noble Lord want to say something?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, what I do not quite follow is this: if there is this problem of population, would it not be relevant to ask the County Council at the same time what are their plans for housing this increased population?
LORD HASTINGS: I shall be coming to that point a little later.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, would it not avoid doing it twice if the Minister obtained their advice first, before making up his mind?
LORD HASTINGS: I do not think it is quite so simple as that. Unfortunately, there are always procedures to be gone through. If after this consultation the Minister still thinks he ought to proceed, he will publish a draft designation order which can be the subject of a public inquiry. This part of my speech is important, and is in answer to the queries of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. At this public inquiry a representative of the Minister will be present to explain and defend the proposals. In addition, the Ministry representative will be open to cross-examination on matters of fact and expert opinion, but not, of course, on questions of ministerial or Government policy. The person appointed by the Minister to hold such an inquiry is not normally, in the case of New Town inquiries, a Ministry inspector but someone from outside the Department. He has power to make recommendations, and, indeed, would be expected to do so. Finally, the report of the inquiry will be available to those interested.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, could my noble friend also say whether or not it is true that the Ministry will make available beforehand
746
to those who are interested in the public inquiry a statement of a fairly wide-ranging nature of the proposals which the Minister has in mind and the reasons for them?
LORD HASTINGS: Yes, that is quite true, my Lords. The Minister will make available such a statement in writing before the inquiry, and the representative of the Ministry will attend the inquiry to explain that statement and to be cross-examined upon it in the way I have indicated. Therefore I think the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is going beyond what is justified when he says that the Minister is judge and jury in his own case. That is certainly not so. Only after a very full public ventilation of a scheme will the Minister decide finally whether the plan should proceed. The decision is by no means a foregone conclusion, and that must be fully realised.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to the problems of expansion.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, before the noble Lord passes on, I am sorry to intervene again but he referred to my speech. I think I must ask this: if there is an inquiry and the Minister is not judge in his own case, then who is? The Minister is the ultimate arbiter. The noble Lord said that I was inaccurate in what I said. I do not quite understand why. Perhaps he will explain.
LORD HASTINGS: He certainly is not jury in his own case.
LORD LLOYD: I withdraw the word "jury", but he is the judge.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, my noble friend is using the word "jury" in a curious way, because if the Inspector is called "the jury", the Minister can completely ignore the "jury", which normally a judge cannot.
LORD HASTINGS: The Inspector is an independent person. We all know the Minister has power to take the decision, but the decision will be taken with an objective report before him. That is really the point I wish to make. There is every possibility of deploying the case in opposition.
I was talking about the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on the problems of expansion of New Towns whose

747
services and amenities are based on a known population of 60,000 or 80,000.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the point about the inquiry, I did make the point—and so did the noble Marquess—that in the very exceptional circumstances of this case (it is the first time that there has been a proposal for a large expansion of this nature), ought not. Parliament to have the opportunity of expressing a view before even it went to a public inquiry, and ought not Parliament to be in possession of all the facts? I am not asking the noble Lord to say, "Yes" or, "No" now. I realise that this is a matter which must be considered, but I hope that it will be taken very seriously.
LORD HASTINGS: I had not overlooked the point; I was coming to it in precisely one minute, I think, or half a minute. I was referring to this question of the problems of expansion from a known base to a different target altogether. I feel sure that such matters will be considered at the inquiry to which I am referring. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St. Albans made a most interesting and constructive speech about the community spirit—which was echoed in a slightly different way but none the less echoed, by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—and how a community spirit can be achieved gradually; but then, with a sudden expansion of population, it may be lost and has to be refound and he dealt with the problems of pastoral organisation. These things are all part of the consideration of a proposal for an expansion such as this.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who also spoke upon this particular matter, quoted my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary in another place. This brings me to the question of national policy, which the noble Lord opposite first mentioned and which has been referred to by other sneakers: that because this is not merely the establishment of a New Town but an expansion or almost doubling of an existing New Town it is therefore such a special case that it assumes the nature of an issue of national policy about which Parliament should be consulted. I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to this opinion of your Lordships' House, but
748
I would suggest that even if such a procedure as that proposed were eventually to be followed by my right honourable friend, possibly a public inquiry, where all the facts would be threshed out in much greater detail and at much greater length than we have been able to do this afternoon, and the results of which would be available to Parliament might help the consideration of this matter as one of national policy.
To go on from there, I just want to say that the arguments which have been put forward this evening have been broadly grouped under three heads: first the growth of Hertfordshire—the argument that the County will be taking too great a share of the growth in the South-East; secondly, the risk of coalescence and the running together of the various communities in the area; and, thirdly, the effect on Stevenage itself—that further growth, particularly if it takes place west of the A.1 motorway, will spoil Stevenage as a town.
My Lords, the share of the further growth in the South-East which ought to be taken by Hertfordshire is a question which can be considered properly only in the light of the full South-East study. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, "Why not put the New Towns further out?"; the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, said that we should need many more towns—he spoke about twenty-five or so. Then the right reverend Prelate asked, "In any case, why should not a local planning authority—that is to say, the county council—decide about where the populations grow?" I can only say to noble Lords that this study will be published soon and I am afraid I must ask noble Lords to wait for it. It is extremely difficult to discuss this problem without having seen the study and all the arguments that are put forward. When this is possible, perhaps noble Lords will appreciate better the great difficulties of the situation.
Of course, the purpose of the study is to aid local planning authorities in deciding where to put the bulk of the population, but noble Lords will find that the likely increase in population is such that we shall have to have a number of New Towns. As noble Lords know, decisions on such matters would be outside the scope of the local plan-

749
ning authorities. But there is no question of neglecting the place of the local planning authorities when the facts and results of the South-East study are published. The Minister has given assurances that if he should decide to start the process of consultation on Stevenage to which I have referred—consulting with the county council and local authorities before publication of the study—the inquiry itself would certainly not take place before the study is published or before all the arguments in the study are known by all concerned.
The right reverend Prelate asked why we had to take the decision now even to go ahead consulting, but we do not see any reason to postpone such a decision or to waste any time. Among other matters, it is important for the Development Corporation of Stevenage to know where they are—they have of course a population of some 55,000 now and according to present plans they would stop building when they reached 60,000, which would presumably be next year. Then we have to allow for natural increase which will bring the population up to 80,000. That meets the point of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, who was talking about making an allowance in a designation order for natural increase. That is done. The building by the Development Corporation will stop at 60,000 and then over the years natural increase will take the population to 80,000 as it is now planned. So obviously the moment is coming now when the professional and expert staff of the Corporation, not to mention the building force, will be leaving Stevenage if a decision on possible expansion is not taken one way or the other; and that is why we shall go ahead with consultation at any rate.
There are arguments about spread—I think the noble Marquess called it the suburban "no-man's-land" when referring to the coalescence of one town with another—and about the policy of the Green Belt to which my right honourable friend is firmly wedded: he has constantly stated he is a firm believer in the Green Belt. There were technical arguments about the motorway, about the A.1. My Lords, at this time of the evening I need not go further into these arguments. They will be gone
750
into very much more thoroughly if there is a public inquiry on this question of expanding Stevenage. All I would say is that there are arguments on the other side; that the case has been rather overstated in regard to the A.1 motorway, and that there would be great difficulties in expanding Stevenage up to 100,000 or so entirely on the East side of the motorway, as has been suggested, for it would create serious traffic and road problems for the people travelling to work on the present industrial site. These are matters which will be threshed out in detail; and I think I have said all that I need at this moment.
I ask noble Lords to believe that we are examining the whole proposal most carefully. No decisions have been taken yet, no proposals have been made; but my right honourable friend will certainly consider deeply, and study deeply, what has been said and the feelings of your Lordships' House. I am sure your Lordships can go home feeling that my right honourable friend and the Government are not committed to anything. Having said that, I hope you will not resist a Second Reading of this New Towns Bill which is designed mainly to carry on the good work in some 18 or so New Towns, both existing and designated towns where building will shortly start.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

  U.K. AND AUSTRALIAN CHANGES IN PURCHASING POWER
  U.K. AND AUSTRALIAN CHANGES IN PURCHASING POWER