Sitting of 12 March 1964

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

  MERSEY RIVER BOARD [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees):—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Mersey River Board to construct works and to acquire lands in connection with a diversion of the River Irwell in the county boroughs of Salford and Manchester, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys so provided under Section 55 of the Land Drainage Act 1930 which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to expenditure incurred thereunder by the Mersey River Board.—[Mr. Soames.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EAST AFRICA

    Secretary of State (Talks)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what has been the result of the consultations on security he has had with Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika; and to what extent it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to seek defence agreements with those Governments.
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on his visit to East African Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on his visit to East Africa.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The conclusions reached in my recent talks with the Governments of Uganda, Kenya and Tanganyika were published in joint statements, which I will circulate in HANSARD.
    Mr. Hastings: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a comprehensive defence agreement designed to safeguard the legitimate interests of these territories might go far to help create an East African Federation and to give some solid basis to the Commonwealth link in these areas? Would he not further agree that the principle could be widely applied in the Commonwealth on a formal rather than an informal or ad hoc basis?
    Mr. Sandys: I am quite sure that there was no desire among these Governments to have what my hon. Friend describes as a comprehensive arrangement. On the other hand, I am reasonably satisfied with the arrangements which we were able to make, particularly with regard to Kenya.
    Mr. Bottomley: Does the Secretary of State really think that his journey was necessary? Can he say what more could have been done by him than could have been done through normal diplomatic channels? Bearing in mind that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers are hesitating to come to London, would he not have done better to go round the Commonwealth and try to get co-operation on East Africa and other Commonwealth problems confronting the Government at the moment?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I was, of course, going to Commonwealth countries. I visited four Commonwealth countries. It is the first time that I have heard a Commonwealth Secretary reproached for making visits to Commonwealth countries. It seemed to me that my journey was necessary. It was necessary because this was a moment—rather a difficult

    635
    moment—in our relations with these three countries to which we have had to send troops recently in rather exceptional circumstances; and it was also a moment at which it was necessary to open important negotiations both on defence and on financial matters with the Government of Kenya, negotiations which had been held over until after independence.
    Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend say what financial commitments we have entered into as far as Kenya is concerned and whether they are mainly military or mainly to assist in land resettlement and farm development?
    Mr. Sandys: No absolutely firm financial commitments were entered into during my tour, but I did agree in principle to certain arrangements in the defence field. The main financial talks, on matters outside the sphere of defence, will be beginning at the official level in about 10 days' time.
    Mr. Bottomley: Does not the Secretary of State agree that what is wanted now is assistance from Commonwealth countries which are not facing immediate difficulties? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman now go round to Commonwealth countries who could be encouraged to give this help? What has been done in East Africa could have been done through normal diplomatic channels. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."]
    Mr. Sandys: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is asking me to do. [An HON. MEMBER: "He does not know himself."] What sort of help is he suggesting that other Commonwealth countries should give to East Africa? If he will explain, I will try to give him the Government's viewpoint.
    Mr. Bottomley: When it was a question of the United Kingdom entering the Common Market, the Secretary of State did not hesitate; he went to other Commonwealth countries for discussion. The issues now facing Her Majesty's Government with six Commonwealth countries in difficulties are such that the fullest Commonwealth co-operation and assistance are required, and it would be worth the right hon. Gentleman's making a trip to try to get them to assist.
    Mr. Sandys: I am surprised that I am criticised for not travelling enough. I am hardly ever in this country.
    Mr. Bottomley: This was the wrong journey.
    Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Member is concerned primarily, in his Question, with East Africa. I went to the East African countries. It seemed to me very reasonable.
    Following are the statements:

    UGANDA
    Dr. Milton Obote, Prime Minister of Uganda, and Mr. Duncan Sandys, British Commonwealth Secretary, had meetings at Entebbe on Monday, 2nd March and Tuesday, 3rd March, at which they discussed matters of common concern to their two countries. Others taking part included Sir David Hunt, British High Commissioner, Air Vice-Marshal Foxley-Norris, the Assistant Chief of British Defence Staff, and Mr. Walsh-Atkins (Commonwealth Relations Office). Dr. Obote was accompanied by the Hon. F. K. Onama, Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. F. Kalimuzo, Permanent Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr. Z. H. K. Bigirwenkya, Permanent Secretary, External Affairs and Mr. Davies. Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Internal Affairs. Dr. Obote once again expressed his warm appreciation of the help given to Uganda by British troops during the recent troubles. The situation having returned to normal, it was agreed that their continued presence was no longer necessary and that they could now be withdrawn. They will return to their station in Kenya on Monday the 9th March. Dr. Obote told the Secretary of State that while all the Command Posts in the two battalions are being Ugandanised, his Government hoped that the British Army would be willing to continue to give assistance in various ways to the Uganda Army, including increased training facilities in Britain. On behalf of the British Government, Mr. Sandys agreed that certain British Officers should continue to serve on secondment at Army Headquarters and that Lieut.-Colonel Groom, Second in Command, should temporarily take over the Command of the Uganda Army, until the end of his tour in November. He will replace Colonel Tillet who wishes to return to Britain. The arrangements for the subsequent Command and Headquarters staff will be reviewed in July, in addition, it was agreed that a small number of British Officers and other ranks should he attached to the Uganda Army for training duties. With the agreement of the Kenya Government, arrangements will also be made for the Royal Air Force to provide flying training for Ugandans under the scheme already established in Kenya. Mr. Sandys also undertook to examine the possibility of providing further places for Ugandan Officers in Military training establishments in Britain.

    KENYA
    The Prime Minister of Kenya, Mr. Jomo Kenyatta, and the British Secretary of State

    637
    for Commonwealth Relations, Mr. Duncan Sandys, had talks together on defence and other related matters on Wednesday, 4th March, and Thursday, 5th March, in Nairobi. Other Kenya Ministers taking part in the discussions included: The Hon. A. Oginga Odinga, The Hon. T. J. Mboya, The Hon. J. S. Gichuru, The Hon. J. Murumbi. Mr. Sandys was accompanied by the British High Commissioner, Sir Geoffrey de Freitas.
    2. Mr. Kenyatta expressed his sincere thanks for the prompt assistance given to Kenya by British troops during the recent difficulties.
    3. The Prime Minister of Kenya explained that his Government wished to expand and re-equip the Kenya Army and to provide it with air support. They also wanted to create a small navy for coastal defence. Mr. Kenyatta expressed the hope that the British Government would help the Kenya Government to implement this programme; and he gave Mr. Sandys particulars of their requirements.
    4. The Secretary of State undertook to have the Kenya Government's requests examined in detail as soon as possible, meanwhile he agreed that seconded British Officers and other military personnel would for the present continue to serve with the Kenya Army. Similarly specialist units of the British Army and the R.A.F. would for the present continue to give support to the Kenya forces. Mr. Sandys further agreed that the British Army should provide a training team to assist the Kenya Army and that the possibility of expanding the existing air training scheme would be considered with a view to increasing the output of pilots.
    5. Mr. Sandys confirmed that the British forces would complete their withdrawal from Kenya before the end of the year.
    6. Mr. Kenyatta agreed that subject to normal clearance the R.A.F. would be accorded facilities for over-flying and staging in Kenya. The British Government will from time to time send units for training in Kenya where joint exercises will be carried out with the Kenya Army. British naval vessels will be permitted to carry out maintenance at Mombasa.
    7. It was decided that British defence experts should return to Nairobi later in the month to pursue the discussions in more detail with Kenya officials with a view to formulating agreed proposals.

    TANGANYIKA
    The President of Tanganyika, Mr. Julius Nyerere, and the British Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, Mr. Duncan Sandys, had talks on Friday, March 6th and Saturday, March 7th. Others taking part included Vice President Kawawa, Mr. Kambona, Minister for External Affairs and Defence, Mr. Romani, Minister of Finance and Mr. Lusinde, Minister for Home Affairs. Mr. Sandys was accompanied by Mr. Stephen Miles, Acting British High Commissioner, Air Vice Marshal Foxley-Norris, Assistant Chief of Defence Staff, and Mr. Walsh Atkins (Commonwealth Relations Office). In the course of their discussion they reviewed the international situation and discussed a number of matters of
    638
    mutual interest to Tanganyika and Britain. President Nyerere asked Mr. Sandys to convey to the British Government and Parliament the gratitude of the Government and People of Tanganyika for the timely help provided by British troops in the restoration of law and order during the recent mutiny. It was agreed that the British 41 Royal Marine Commando could now safely return to Britain towards the end of this month. Arrangements are being made to replace them by a battalion from another African country. Mr. Sandys said that the R.A.F. would be willing to provide facilities for the training of Tanganyikan pilots, ground staff under the air training scheme, which is being established at Nairobi for the training of Kenya and Ugandan personnel. The British Government did not feel that they could economically and efficiently provide separate air raining facilities in Tanganyika. President Nyerere, while appreciating the British Government's offer, explained that his Government wished to have their air personnel trained separately, in their own country. With regard to the Tanganyika army, the President stated that he did not wish to ask for any outside training missions. He would however seek the services of a small number of technicians, military or civilian, who would be obtained from whatever sources were in each case most appropriate.

  PAKISTAN

    State Bank (Transfer of Money)
    Mr. Tomneyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make representations to the State Bank of Pakistan with a view to the transfer to this country of moneys, credited to the late Mr. Nonis by the Provident and Gratuity Fund of Western Railways in Pakistan, and now the property of his widow who is resident in this country.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. John Tilney): The remittance of money from Pakistan to this country is governed by the State Bank of Pakistan's Exchange Control Regulations.
    Without knowing the facts of the case, I cannot tell whether there are any grounds for an approach to the Pakistan authorities. But if the hon. Member writes to me giving me the details I will consider whether there is any action I can properly take.
    Mr. Tomney: I appreciate the Minister's responsibilities to the Commonwealth, which are now being stretched tight, but this kind of thing is simply financial nonsense. This was a

    639
    case of a person who earned entitlement to a pension and then came to reside in this country. His widow is unable to get the pension payments in this country from the Pakistan State Bank. She then becomes chargeable to the National Assistance Fund. Despite the overtures which I have made—and they have been consistent and steady over a long period—the Pakistan Government will not release this money. This is a simple book-keeping arrangement. All we have to do is to block the corresponding amount of sterling in this country—[Interruption.] Shut up.
    Sir P. Agnew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not that an unparliamentary expression? I was only trying to help the hon. Member to couch his observations in the form of a question.
    Mr. Tomney: I apologise to the hon. Member if I said anything which I should not have said, but I was trying to put an intelligent question.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Why not? My hon. Friend is perfectly right.
    Mr. Tomney: This is financial nonsense. All we have to do is to block a corresponding amount of sterling here—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no power to exempt anybody from the Rules of the House. This is Question Time. Can the hon. Member say what he has to say at least in interrogatory form?
    Mr. Tomney: Yes, Mr. Speaker; have gone most of the way. Will the Minister make strong overtures to the Pakistan Government to release this State pension to this woman in this country?
    Mr. Tilney: I should like to have details first. This is the first that one has heard of any details. Perhaps the hon. Member will write to me.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA

    Independence
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (1) if Her Majesty's Government has placed a time limit in regard to majority rule in Southern Rhodesia; and if he will give an assurance that its
    640
    independence will not be recognised whilst minority rule continues;
    (2) if he will make a statement on the future of official discussions with the Government of Southern Rhodesia regarding the independence of that territory, in view of the policy of the Southern Rhodesian Government as stated on 25th February not to initiate further discussions.
    Mr. Sandys: I have no further statement to make at present on this question.
    Mr. Brockway: In regard to the first of these Questions, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty's Government still stand by the statement of the Prime Minister that independence would not be granted until there was majority rule and whether that statement or a later one—which suggested that there should be some increase in African representation but that majority rule might be deferred for five years—now represents the policy of the Government? In connection with the second Question, in view of the attitude of the Government of Southern Rhodesia, in effect, declaring themselves independent without consultation with Her Majesty's Government and saying that they will not even consult this Government, will the right hon. Gentleman now begin to take a course which insists that Southern Rhodesia is still responsible to this Government in relation to its Constitution?
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member's last question is based on a misapprehension. I know of no declaration by Southern Rhodesia of its independence. With regard to the first question, there has been no change in the British Government's position. We are prepared to give independence to Southern Rhodesia on the same conditions as are regularly applied in the case of other territories.
    Sir J. Lucas: Before my right hon. Friend makes any decision, will he remember the great help given by Southern Rhodesia during the war in the Empire Training Scheme in the large number of young men who came and volunteered for the Air Force and also the fact that they had to introduce conscription to stop people volunteering?
    Mr. Sandys: I am well aware, and am glad of the opportunity to say so, of the

    641
    outstanding services rendered by Southern Rhodesia and its people to the Commonwealth in peace and in war.
    Mr. Bottomley: Would not the Secretary of State agree that, as to the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia, it is this Parliament which is sovereign? Is he further aware that the Constitutional Council, presided over by an ex-chief justice, has unanimously said that the Land Apportionment Act is an infringement of the Constitution? Will he say anything about this?
    Mr. Sandys: The constitutional position is well known. I would hesitate to try to define it in reply to a supplementary question. As regards the statement of the Constitutional Council, again the right hon. Gentleman has correctly represented the position. That, however, is not a matter for action by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.*

    Diplomatic Representatives
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consultations he has had with the Government of Southern Rhodesia regarding their sending accredited diplomatic representatives to foreign countries.
    Mr. Sandys: In the years before the Federation, the Government of Southern Rhodesia appointed representatives in Britain and South Africa. Since the dissolution of the Federation, they have, again appointed representatives in these two countries.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that my information is that they also have a diplomatic representative in the United States of America? Is it not a fact that the control of foreign policy in Southern Rhodesia is reserved to Her Majesty's Government here and that these diplomatic representatives are in fact unconstitutional? In view of the difference in attitude on some crucial international problems, would it not be worth while consulting the Government of Southern Rhodesia to get this matter on to a proper constitutional basis?
    Mr. Sandys: The diplomatic representative in Washington cannot be regarded as a representative of Southern
    * [Note See OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1964, col. 853.]
    642
    Rhodesia. He is part of the staff of the British Ambassador, in the same way as there was a member appointed by the Federal Government in the years before the dissolution of the Federation. The Government of Southern Rhodesia are in fact doing no more than they were entitled to do before the formation of the Federation.
    Mr. Thomson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Southern Rhodesian on the staff of the British Embassy in Washington is responsible to the Foreign Secretary here, or has responsibility to the Southern Rhodesian Government in Salisbury? If the latter is correct, is not that unconstitutional?
    Mr. Sandys: It is unusual.

  KENYA

    European Farmers
    Dr. Alan Glynasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (1) whether he is aware of the incidents of lawlessness which have occurred in Kenya affecting British persons and property on farms, details of which have been sent to him; and what action he is taking to protect British lives and property;
    (2) whether he is aware of the difficulties being experienced by many European farmers in Kenya; and whether he will make it a condition of any future financial assistance to the Government of Kenya that a proportion be allocated for the purchase of farm land from British owners.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what arrangements have been made to finance a land resettlement scheme in the central region of Kenya.
    Sir A. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if, following his recent discussions with Kenya Ministers and European farmers in Kenya, the Governments of Kenya and the United Kingdom have now agreed on further measures to facilitate the acquisition at fair valuation of more European mixed farms for the settlement of Africans; and if he will give an assurance that all European farmers,

    643
    whether their farms are taken early or late, will receive a proper price for their farms and stock.
    Mr. Sandys: I met representatives of the European farming community in Kenya last week; and they informed me fully about the difficulties which they are experiencing.
    Extensive areas have already been transferred to African ownership under the existing settlement schemes. We have been discussing with the Kenya Government proposals for a further scheme to cover other parts of the Central Region.
    The general question of financial aid and land settlement is to be examined later this month in Nairobi by officials of the British and Kenya Governments.
    Dr. Glyn: While I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the attention which he has given to this matter, may I ask whether he agrees that one of the great problems is not so much that the Kenya authorities do not want to enforce law and order, but that where there are isolated farms it is extremely difficult to enforce law and order? Will my right hon. Friend answer Question No. 6 slightly more specifically? If we are to grant Kenya sums of money, will he give his mind to setting aside a portion of it for the specific purpose of the purchase of land?
    Mr. Sandys: I can readily give my hon. Friend an affirmative answer to his last question. We have already spent large sums of money on the purchase of land and the resettlement of Africans on that land; and I announced in the House in November that the review, which was not to take place until 1966, would be brought forward and would take place in the early months of this year.
    Mr. Wall: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the million-acre scheme will have bought up about 1,000 European farms and that out of the remaining 2,000 there may be many who wish to stay in Kenya but cannot carry on farming under the present conditions with squatters on their land? Can he say anything about the problem of squatting and the intimidation of farm labour?
    Mr. Sandys: The squatter problem is undoubtedly a serious and difficult one
    644
    for the authorities to tackle. A few days ago, the Prime Minister of Kenya promised that his Government would take firm action to remove squatters and deal with cattle thieves. The Kenya Government have shown much courage in this matter, and we must hope that in this very difficult task they will be successful.
    Mr. F. Harris: While not underrating for a single moment the individual and personal difficulties arising in Kenya, is it not vitally important in the interests of all races in East Africa, and particularly for stability, that there should not be any exaggeration of lawlessness concerning Kenya?
    Mr. Sandys: Naturally I wish to see no exaggeration.

  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    Women's Migration and Oversea Appointment Society
    Miss Vickersasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, in view of the work done by the Women's Migration and Oversea Appointment Society for the past 100 years, what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to further assistance for this organisation.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. R. P. Hornby): The pattern of emigration has changed radically during the Society's lifetime. Commonwealth countries seeking British immigrants now have their own migration offices in this country, while the Department of Technical Cooperation and the British Council are concerned with meeting the needs of the developing Commonwealth countries for trained personnel. The annual Government grant towards the administrative expenses of the Society is therefore being stopped, and the final payment is being made this year.
    I would like to take this opportunity once again to express appreciation of the fine work done by the Society over the years.
    Miss Vickers: While thanking my hon. Friend for the last part of his

    645
    Answer, may I ask, in view of the magnificent pioneer work done by this organisation and the need for women teachers, if the Government cannot continue the grant, could my hon. Friend's Department have contact with the Secretary for Technical Co-operation in order to carry on this work in view of the very wide contacts that Department has in many countries which it is important should not be lost at present?
    Mr. Hornby: I shall certainly put that point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation. I am sure that the work done in the past and the hope that this may continue in future are points of which we are all very much aware.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Knowing something of the good work done by this body, may I support what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) has said? Is it not important for the Government to co-ordinate the work of various societies in this field and to increase the flow, particularly to developing countries?
    Mr. Hornby: That is probably a rather different question, although it is a very interesting one. The decision taken in this matter simply referred to the annual grant towards the administrative expenses of this particular society in conditions which are now rather different from those which existed when the grant was first made.
    Miss Vickers: If the grant is removed from this society it will completely close down. That is what I wanted to try to avoid.

    Settlement of Disputes
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will consult the Governments of all other members of the Commonwealth with a view to setting up machinery whereby the facts of a dispute between one Commonwealth Goverment and another may be elucidated and methods of mediation investigated.
    Mr. Tilney: No, Sir. Proposals for settling disputes between Commonwealth members have been suggested from time to time despite the agreement in 1930
    646
    that ad hoc arbitration proceedings were preferable to the constitution of a permanent court. However, the third Commonwealth and Empire Law Convention is to meet in 1965 and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has suggested that that Convention might consider the arguments for and against a Commonwealth court. No doubt the Convention could also discuss the court's possible powers but the agenda lies primarily, of course, with the host country, namely Australia.
    Mr. Sorensen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. However, I ask him and the Secretary of State to look at this matter again more sympathetically because, from time to time, Commonwealth Governments accuse other Commonwealth Governments of misdemeanours, as in the case of the allegation by Pakistan that the arms we supply to India will be used against her. In some cases, would not this be an appropriate method of dealing with the facts and would not it perhaps have a salutary influence?
    Mr. Tilney: This is a matter which cannot possibly be decided in the near future. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend's suggestion that the Commonwealth and Empire Law Convention should discuss this matter is by far the best way.
    Mr. Bottomley: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that this matter should be left to the Convention, which is to be held in 1965? Does not he think that the Government have some responsibility and should take action now?
    Mr. Tilney: I should have thought it much better for the subject to be discussed well away from party politics and from Government level, for the time being anyway.

  MALAYSIA

    Commonwealth Governments (Consultation)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what further consultations he has had with the Prime Minister and Government of the Federation of Malaysia in respect of Indonesian hostility towards

    647
    Malaysia, the use of British troops, and the possibility of intervention by the United Nations; and what consultations he has had with other Commonwealth Governments concerned in the defence of Malaysia.
    Mr. Sandys: The British Government have been in continuous touch with the Malaysian Government about all aspects of the situation created by Indonesia's hostile attitude towards Malaysia. We have also maintained contact with other Commonwealth Governments, in particular Australia and New Zealand, who are so directly concerned.
    The British Government will continue to give to the Malaysian Government full support in maintaining their country's independence and integrity. The Australian and New Zealand Governments have also made it clear that they will do the same.
    Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether other Commonwealth Governments have offered to share with us the military responsibility we have undertaken, in view of the very heavy strain imposed on this country there and elsewhere? Has any approach been made to the United States Government, or have they spontaneously approached us with a view to using their good offices to bring about some alteration in the present position in that part of the world and also some modification in the present policy of President Sukarno?
    Mr. Sandys: The question of military assistance from Australia and New Zealand is a matter for those two Governments and the Government of Malaysia. The United States has been doing a very great deal to try to bring about first a cease-fire and then to promote a more amicable attitude on the part of the Indonesian Government.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: In view of the decision of the Government of Malaysia to have conscription, are any arrangements being made by Her Majesty's Government to give them help in training recruits?
    Mr. Sandys: We have not been asked for any special help in this matter. We are, of course, giving them help in other directions in the defence sphere.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is there any alteration in the attitude of the Philippines to this problem?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think I have anything special to report about that.

  CANADA

    Commonwealth Education Conference
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on the progress of preparations for the Commonwealth Education Conference in Canada.
    Mr. Hornby: The responsibility for the preparations for the Third Commonwealth Education Conference to be held in Ottawa in August this year rests with Canada—the host Government—and the Commonwealth Education Liaison Committee. I understand that very satisfactory progress is being made.
    The agenda for the Conference will include for review purposes those subjects which were discussed at the Second Conference held in Delhi in 1962, and also new topics such as adult illiteracy, co-operative arrangements for the planning and development of educational institutions and the use of mass media in education.
    Mr. Thomson: While thanking the Minister for that information about the agenda, may I ask if he does not agree that the expansion of educational cooperation inside the Commonwealth is probably one of the most important ways of giving aid to the developing countries of the Commonwealth and also one of the most important ways of creating a sense of community inside the Commonwealth? Will he, therefore, do everything he can from this end to ensure preparation for this Conference so that when it takes place really constructive and expanding decisions can be taken?
    Mr. Hornby: I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend and others are very well aware of the importance of this. Perhaps he will recall what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 6th February when he told the House that the Government

    649
    would be putting forward proposals for the expansion and improvement of schemes for educational co-operation.

  INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Small Market Towns
    Sir J. Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what plans he has to help small market towns in England and Wales to improve and retain their prosperity.
    The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): The prosperity of small market towns depends on the economic circumstances of the areas surrounding them. They will, therefore, be considered as part of the regional studies on which work is proceeding. As far as industrial development is concerned, I am prepared to consider sympathetically any applications from firms wishing to expand and unable to move to development districts.
    Sir J. Maitland: Does not my right hon. Friend think that he should make plans ahead, as has been suggested to him by the Lindsey County Council and other parts of the country, to try to check the gradual deterioration in the prosperity of small market towns? They may be all right at the moment but for once should we not try to get something ready in time?
    Mr. Heath: I fully support my hon. and gallant Friend in wishing to deal with this matter in the way he suggests. The object of the study is to analyse the problem, plan ahead and produce solutions for it.

    Migration
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development why he will not accept a given rate of migration from any one area of the country as an indication of unemployment in that area with a view to directing Government assistance towards it.
    Mr. Heath: Migration may be due to a variety of motives and is not necessarily an indication of unemployment.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that migration is a very serious problem for parts of the country from which the exodus occurs, and that it is also a serious problem for those parts of the country receiving it? Is he further aware that, in some parts of the country, the situation has become so serious, and we are losing so much of our population, that urgent action is called for?
    Mr. Heath: Of course, in a broad way we took all this into account in the White Papers on Central Scotland and on North-East England. The object is to see that migration shall not go on where people do not want to leave to work in other places. But there are places where, despite very low unemployment, migration continues for other reasons. The factor my hon. Friend suggests is not, therefore, the only criterion for such Government assistance as development districts receive.
    Mr. Manuel: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is taking a very backward view about the high rate of migration from certain areas? Is he convinced that nothing can stop the build-up of population in certain areas and complete migration from others because of unemployment? If he is, he is very wrong; and he should lead an attempt to get away from such outmoded thinking.
    Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in attributing that thought or reasoning to me. Of course, we are endeavouring to prevent further expansion in the South and the Midlands by refusing industrial development certificates and this means that employment does not expand there. Moreover, we give the best inducements of any country in the industrialised West to industries to go to development districts and expand. This is a forward-looking policy in trying to deal with the problem.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Where large-scale migration from an area continues over a long period in combination with a decline in the staple industries of the area, is it not the case that the migration

    651
    masks unemployment? Is he not aware that, nevertheless, the Government have always refused, in the case of Lancashire, to take these factors into consideration in considering whether help should be given?
    Mr. Heath: I fully appreciate that point of view in the region of which the hon. Gentleman is speaking. But in that area there is today, and has been for some time, a very low level of unemployment and it cannot, therefore, be concluded necessarily that this migration is happening because of unemployment there. Indeed, a great deal of industry has gone to that area.

    Shops (Double Pricing)
    Commander Keransasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will introduce legislation to prohibit double pricing in shops, under which one price figure is crossed out and a lower one inserted.
    Mr. Heath: I am considering the recommendation of the Molony Committee that false or misleading double pricing should be brought within the scope of revised Merchandise Marks legislation.
    Commander Kerans: Could not double pricing be brought into the Resale Prices Bill?
    Mr. Heath: That Bill would not be an appropriate vehicle to deal with this subject. The Molony Committee examined this matter and made recommendations. We are moving in the order of legislation suggested by the Molony Committee. The next one is the Merchandise Marks Bill, about which the Molony Committee made a specific recommendation.
    Mr. Jay: Although the right hon. Gentleman, for some reason, thinks that the Resale Prices Bill is not the proper vehicle to deal with double pricing, would it not be in order in Committee to make an Amendment as suggested?
    Mr. Heath: The question of whether an Amendment is in order or not is for the Chair.
    Sir G. Nicholson: What does my right hon. Friend think of the ridiculous and
    652
    rather iniquitous practice of marking 3d. off a package? It seldom means anything except a calculation to deceive.
    Mr. Heath: There are various ways of dealing with this. The French Government have dealt with it by permitting double pricing but laying down the basis on which the first price must be established. But I think that we had better await the Merchandise Marks Bill.

    Paper-making Machinery (Exports)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what was the value of British exports of paper-making machinery to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Eastern Europe, respectively, in 1963 and what proportion this represented of total British exports of this type of machinery.
    Mr. Heath: The value of United Kingdom exports of paper-making machinery to the U.S.S.R. and to the rest of Eastern Europe in 1963 was £4·5 million and £4·9 million respectively. Together, these represented 37 per cent. of total exports of this type of machinery.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that sufficient long-term credit facilities will be granted to exporters to cover complete plants or other big capital projects?
    Mr. Heath: The House is aware of the arrangements we have for long-term financial guarantees and these are decided entirely on the individual projects and on the creditworthiness of the country applying for them.

    Food and Drink Processing Machinery (Exports)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what was the value of British exports of food and drink processing machinery to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Eastern Europe, respectively, in 1963; and what proportion this represented of total British exports of this type of equipment.
    Mr. Heath: The values of United Kingdom exports of food and drink processing machinery, other than domestic,

    653
    to the U.S.S.R. and the rest of Eastern Europe in 1963 were £13,000 and £51,000 respectively. Together, these represented 0·5 per cent. of total exports of this type of machinery.

    Resale Price Maintenance
    Mr. Staintonasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development whether, without disclosing confidential details, he will publish at an early date an appreciation showing the general tendency of the replies received by his department to the enquiries initiated by his predecessor to ascertain the views of the various parties as to the benefits or otherwise of resale price maintenance as permitted by the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956.
    Mr. Heath: I regret that this is not possible without providing a full analysis of the replies which would involve information provided for us in confidence.
    Mr. Stainton: While appreciating the general drift of my right hon. Friend's reply, and also remarking my consciousness of the confidential undertaking given by his predecessor in 1950 when this inquiry was launched, I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not think that he might now ask the respondents to this questionnaire whether they would be willing to cooperate in this vein? Several respondents at least have voluntarily disclosed their replies made to the President of the Board of Trade. Furthermore, does not he appreciate that the Resale Prices Bill is an historic departure in the commercial practice of this country and that the more documentation we have on record about this, so much the better.
    Mr. Heath: If individual firms, organisations or individuals wish to make public the information they gave to us, that is their responsibility. But I do not think that it would be possible for us to continue consultations of this kind in future, in confidence, if on one specific occasion we ask the people who have contributed the information to allow us to break that confidence and publish it all. For the future we must maintain the position that my predecessor took up.

    Census of Production
    Commander Keransasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development why firms are being asked to complete a census of production return to be completed and returned by 31st March.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): These quinquennial detailed censuses provide the Government and others with valuable information about the structure of industry The results are used in the compilation of several important economic indicators, including the index of industrial production. Firms are asked to make returns within three months of the end of 1963 or of their nearest business year.
    Commander Kerans: Can my hon. Friend say why it is necessary to have these complicated forms, and why firms should be given such short notice? Must we still live in an age of forms?
    Mr. Price: With respect to my hon. and gallant Friend, if we are to have adequate information about the way in which the economy works it is necessary to obtain accurate figures, and on the basis of this census we produce some important current statistics. The monthly index of production; statistics of wholesale prices; statistics of industry's fixed capital expenditure; changes in industry's stocks—these are some of the key ones. For these we require this quinquennial census, and I should have thought that it was in the interests of industry to co-operate with us in producing these figures.

    Israel (Council of Europe Recommendation)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what is the policy of the Government with regard to Recommendation 382 on the external trade of Israel, which was adopted by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on 16th January, 1964; and what action Her Majesty's Government have taken or contemplate taking on it.
    Mr. Heath: The recommendation is acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. We already admit imports from

    655
    Israel freely and Britain is Israel's biggest customer.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: I thank my hon. Friend for making the position of the United Kingdom absolutely clear, but will he see that at the meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe it is emphasised that the development of E.E.C. may cause a reduction in Israeli exports to Europe? Further, now that the treaty of association with Israel is not to come about should not we, in Europe, do all that we can to help Israel, just as we help under-developed countries and their exports?
    Mr. Heath: We would like to see all the other countries carry out this recommendation. As for the E.E.C., I understand that Israel is in negotiation with the Community on these matters at the moment.

    Anglo-Australian Trade Agreement, 1957
    Mr. Jayasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development when the Anglo-Australian Trade Agreement of 1957 is to be re-negotiated.
    Mr. Heath: No date has yet been set.
    Mr. Jay: Was not the renegotiation of this Agreement postponed because of the Common Market negotiations? Does not it now offer an opportunity for the development of Anglo-Australian trade? Will not the Minister fix some date now?
    Mr. Heath: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the renegotiation of the Agreement was postponed for that reason, but I would have thought that if there was to be effective negotiation in the Kennedy Round, the existing Agreement should be allowed to run, and that remains the position.

    Hindley
    Mr. J. T. Priceasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he is aware of the concern amongst the townspeople of Hindley, Lancashire, about the persistent high level of unemployment which has exceeded 5 per cent. of the insured population over a long period; and what action is being taken by his Department to bring suit
    656
    able work to this area, which does not receive assistance under the terms of the Local Employment Act, 1960.
    Mr. D. Price: Unemployment in Hindley should not be considered in isolation, since the practice of travelling to work is widespread in the area around Wigan. In this area the rate of wholly unemployed in mid-February was 3·1 per cent., or 2,000 workers. Projects already approved, including a substantial development in Hindley itself, are expected to provide more than 1,000 new jobs.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Does the hon. Member appreciate that my constituents in the town of Hindley are not particularly satisfied with the continual attempts to evade the real problem by giving statistical answers about the geography of the district? In Hindley unemployment is over 5 per cent., and has been for a long time. Does the hon. Member's right hon. Friend recollect that when he assumed his present high office, it was described for the first time as being the office of Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development? My constituents are getting "browned-off" at this constant refusal to provide them with work, which is the function of his Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Will the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend realise that my Lancashire constituents are tired of being fobbed off with White Papers? What they want is work, but they are not seeing much evidence of that. Will he redouble his efforts to find community employment for my constituents in Hindley, Lancashire?
    Mr. D. Price: I have a certain sympathy for the hon. Member, but he should not exaggerate. He did not point out that Hindley is only two and a half miles from Wigan.

  SOUTH AFRICA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
  Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what discussions he had with President Johnson concerning the desirability of a joint policy on the shipment of arms to South Africa; and what was the outcome of such discussions.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): None, Sir.
  Mr. Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a joint policy on this matter is desirable? Is it not the case that the United States has already cancelled big orders of arms to South Africa despite the considerable commercial pressure which has been exercised against the American Government, and that so long as our Government do not go along with that policy they should not be surprised if they are accused of diplomatic and commercial deceit and hypocrisy in this matter?
  The Prime Minister: We cannot be accused of hypocrisy. Our policy is quite clear. We do not license those arms which could be used to further the policy of apartheid. What we do is to have the Simonstown Agreement with the South African Government, and therefore we license arms which can be used only for the external defence of South Africa.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government are tolerating the shipment of arms far outside the terms of the Simonstown Agreement? Secondly, is he aware that a year ago his Government, thinking that they had a stick to beat us with, refused to impose any control on arms to South Africa? Thirdly, why do not the Government accept either the decision of the United Nations or the policy of our allies, including the United States, in this matter?
  The Prime Minister: The policies of our allies differ to a considerable extent. But we have, as the right hon. Gentleman quite well knows, the Simonstown Agreement with South Africa. which is very valuable to us. He agreed about that himself at one time. I do not know what his view is now. We have complete control, through our licensing system.
  Mr. Wilson: But the right hon. Gentleman does not use the control that he has. Will he now give an assurance that no arms will be shipped to South Africa except those specified in the schedule to the Simonstown Agreement?
  The Prime Minister: We use our licensing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer in my own way, in my own time. We use our licensing system to make sure that arms are not exported to South Africa which can be used to further the policy of apartheid. By and
  658
  large, our export licences are given to enable South Africa to defend itself against external aggression.
  Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are not willing to have our policies dictated to us—as appears to be the wish of the Leader of the Opposition—by the United States of America? Is he aware that there is a Commonwealth interest in this master, and that the Commonwealth interest is to maintain a series of bases and communications around the world, and around the oceans of the world? Is he aware that we therefore welcome the Simonstown Agreement and take the view that anything that Her Majesty's Government can do to assist the defence of the base is valuable?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. I have very much in mind the fact that if we have to go to the assistance of Commonwealth countries like India and Malaysia we have to get there.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he got out of his first two questions this afternoon by a reference to the Simonstown Agreement? Will he now give an assurance that there will be no shipment of arms outside those goods which are scheduled in the Annex to the Simonstown Agreement? Further, will he say whether the Government's decision to license the six helicopters refers to items in the Simonstown Agreement?
  The Prime Minister: I should like notice of that question about helicopters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is a perfectly reasonable thing to require notice about a specific item of arms. If my recollection is right, these are naval helicopters, but I should like to confirm that, because I do not like giving an answer that is inaccurate. We use our export licensing system for the purpose of sending arms to South Africa for external defence, and I think that that is a perfectly right thing to do.
  Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether we are, in fact, in agreement with America on this matter or whether the Americans are taking a different attitude on arms to South Africa?
  The Prime Minister: The difference is that the Americans do not have an agreement corresponding to the Simonstown Agreement.

  ZANZIBAR
  Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister what consultations he had with President Johnson regarding the desirability of pursuing a joint policy in relation to Zanzibar.
  Mr. Farrasked the Prime Minister if he will make a detailed statement on the consultations he had with President Johnson concerning the situation in Zanzibar.
  The Prime Minister: The situation in Zanzibar was one of many subjects touched on in my talks with President Johnson. I do not propose to add anything to the statement issued at the end of these talks, which were confidential.
  Mr. Rankin: Could the Prime Minister say clearly why there was such undue delay in recognising Zanzibar? Did he support the Commonwealth Secretary's remarks of 20th February when he said that 10 or 11 Communist countries had already recognised Zanzibar—a statement made in order to prejudice the issue? Will he, further, say whether or not he examined that position with President Johnson, in view of the fact that within four days of the Commonwealth Secretary's statement he had recognised Zanzibar? Did he do so in conjunction with the United States?
  The Prime Minister: We recognised Zanzibar simultaneously with the United States and with a lot of other Commonwealth countries. As the Commonwealth Secretary explained, we were anxious to collect the views of the Commonwealth countries before we recognised. That is normal procedure. It takes a little time. Indeed, two Commonwealth countries, Sierra Leone and Cyprus, have not yet recognised.
  Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend attempt to form a Commonwealth or United Nations commission of inquiry particularly concerned with finding out the conditions of the former Ministers in the island and their supporters?
  The Prime Minister: This Question deals with the recognition by Her Majesty's Government of another Commonwealth country.
  Mr. Bottomley: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the recognition of Zanzibar was unnecessarily delayed, and does not he regret that this resulted in a breach of diplomatic relations between two Commonwealth countries for the first time in our history?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We recognised simultaneously with, if I remember aright, Australia and a number of other Commonwealth countries, and this is perfectly normal procedure.

  S. G. BROWN LIMITED
  Mr. A. Lewisasked the Prime Minister when he received the communication from the hon. Member for West Ham, North, forwarding a request by the shop stewards' committee of S. G. Brown Limited, for the nationalisation of its company; what reply he has made; whether he will give favourable consideration to this request; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: I received the hon. Member's letter on 28th February. The reasons which led the Admiralty to dispose of its interests in S. G. Brown, Limited were explained fully in the House on 25th June, 1959, and I see no reason to consider reversing the action taken.
  Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prior to the nationalisation of this company there were continuous labour problems and troubles, that when nationalisation came profits were made and there was peace in the company and that since denationalisation there has been a loss and labour troubles? If as a State we are now having to subsidise the company, would it not be best to renationalise it and let the State make a profit out of this company?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's Question. I do not think it would be good policy to renationalise it. Of course, there is a long history behind this, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
  Mr. Farey-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend express his strong personal disapproval of mischievous and malicious meddling in other hon. Member's divisions, and will he make it clear that the happiness and well-being of the residents of West Ham would be better served if their hon. Member devoted his time and attention to their interests and not to those of other hon. Members' constituents?
  Mr. Speaker: Question No. 4. Mr. Robinson.
  Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. Is it not the case that the Table, under your guidance, Mr. Speaker, decides which Questions are in order? Since I have a trade union interest—[Interruption.]—in this question, was it not in order for me to submit any Question to the Table, particularly when the hon. Member for the division is afraid to represent the interests of his trade unionists?
  Mr. Speaker: The point of order is whether or not the Question was in order. It was in order, or it would not be on the Order Paper.

  PENSIONERS (NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES)
  Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Prime Minister if he will set up new machinery to co-ordinate the policies of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance with regard to the medical problems of pensioners and people on National Assistance, and especially to assess the degree of hardship arising out of prescription and other National Health Service charges.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that the existing arrangements for coordination are satisfactory.
  Mr. Robinson: In that case, would the Prime Minister ask a few chemists or doctors to tell him about the hardships that are occasioned by these charges? Does not he think that the sick might perhaps share in the pre-election largesse by having the charges abolished altogether now?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that, but if the hon. Gentleman has any knowledge of any real hardship—[Interruption.]—I was saying that if the hon. Gentleman knows of any cases of hardship and will give
  662
  me the details, I will see that the Minister looks into them to see if there is any case for adapting the procedure.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Since the individual prescription charges were put on by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1956 economic crisis and since the charges were doubled by the present Leader of he House in the 1961 economic crisis, does not the right hon. Gentleman, who keeps saying that the economy has never been stronger, feel that it is now strong enough to remove these charges which bear so heavily on the sick and disabled?
  The Prime Minister: That is really not the Question, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman. The Question asks whether there should not be some new procedure for refunding, and I have said that I would be willing to consider that, certainly if the hardship is proved. But, of course, the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman made is rather outside the scope of the Question.
  Mr. Grimond: Might this be an appropriate, if perhaps strictly out of order, moment to congratulate the Prime Minister up on becoming a grandfather? May we perhaps expect some sympathy from him for the elderly now? Will he look at this matter again, because it is the elderly who particularly need help? Since the right hon. Gentleman may soon find himself in the position of wanting more sympathy, may we expect him to have more sympathy for the old people, on whom this falls particularly hardly? Will he reconsider this matter, because surely we should now get away from these prescription charges?
  The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman but I hope that my granddaughter will not want any prescriptions, at any rate yet awhile. I will of course, reconsider the procedure if hardship is proved, and I should like to know more about this from the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson).

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister what scientific advances have been made in the sphere of detecting and verifying underground explosions without the need of on-site inspections; and whether it is now the policy

  663
  of Her Majesty's Government to seek a complete test-ban agreement without one-site inspection.
  The Prime Minister: There have been no scientific advances that would justify us in proposing a comprehensive treaty without adequate provision for effective on-site verification.
  Mr. Henderson: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the means of detection and identification are now sufficient nationally to prevent any cheating if there were a complete test-ban agreement? Would not he further agree that it is now time for the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government to consider entering into a complete test-ban agreement relying on these national means and without insisting on a minimum number of on-site inspections?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that this is the case yet. There have been no new scientific advances to justify a change of attitude. It would be helpful if Russian scientists got together with United States and British scientists and tried to thrash these matters out and come to an agreed formula.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the Prime Minister tell us anything about a claim made by a British scientist at Harwell that he has devised a method of distinguishing earthquakes from nuclear explosions, and that, therefore, a ban without on-site inspection should be possible?
  The Prime Minister: Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President, I saw that report in the Press, but I am afraid that there is no foundation for it.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Whilst we are on this question, may I ask whether the Prime Minister has taken any special action to improve the detection and verification of underground explosions in his own party? [Laughter.]

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, 16TH MARCH—Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Completion of the remaining stages of the Harbours Bill.
TUESDAY, 17TH MARCH—Supply [13th Allotted Day]. Report stage of the following Supplementary Estimates:
Class I, Vote 3, Ministers without Portfolio: Salaries.
Class VII, Vote 4, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
Class IX, Vote 2, Public Buildings, etc., N.E.D.C. findings on Building Industry.
Class IV, Vote 10, Transport Economics.
Class V, Vote 7, Agricultural and Food Services.
At 9.30 p.m. the Questions will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion, and on all outstanding Votes, under Standing Order No. 18.
Motions on the Agricultural Marketing Order, and on the Police Pensions Regulations.
Remaining stages of the Licensing Bill [Lords], and of the Television Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.
WEDNESDAY, 18TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, which it will be proposed should be taken formally to allow debate on an Opposition Motion on Housing.
Motion on the Post Office Accounts.
THURSDAY, 19TH MARCH—Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
The Opposition propose to debate Local Unemployment, until about seven o'clock.
FRIDAY, 20TH MARCH—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 23RD MARCH—The proposed business will be: Committee stage of the Resale Prices Bill: First day.
The House will wish to know that it is intended to propose that the House

665
should rise for the Easter Adjournment on Thursday, 26th March, until Tuesday, 7th April.
Mr. H. Wilson: When we come to the business for Monday, 23rd March, will the House have the privilege of the attendance of the Prime Minister? If not, may we be told whether he will be absent, paired, and, if so, with whom he is to be paired?
Mr. Lloyd: I do not really think that the right hon. Gentleman's question is worthy of an answer. I am perfectly certain that my right hon. Friend will be present when it is appropriate for him to be present.
Mr. Graham Page: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he can find time for a debate on the Motion on the Order Paper in the names of myself and of hon. Members who are members of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, calling for the withdrawal of the Statutory Instrument which was reported to you, Mr. Speaker, as making unexpected use of Ministerial powers?
[That this House approves the resolution of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments regarding the Weights and Measures (Equivalents for dealings with drugs) Regulations 1964, contained in their Second Report, regrets that the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland have together made unexpected use of the powers conferred on them by statute, and calls on them to withdraw the present Regulations and to substitute others.]
Mr. Lloyd: I have seen the Motion. All I can say on its merits is that I will convey to my right hon. Friends responsible what my hon. Friend has said.
With regard to the procedural aspect of the matter, I think that the procedure for dealing with Prayers—that they should continue until 11.30—has, on the whole worked fairly well over the last 10 years. But it was always envisaged that if that procedure meant that, for other reasons, a Prayer would be squeezed out from consideration there should be the possibility of suspending the rule in regard to that particular Prayer. Unfortunately, this case was never brought to my attention.
666
One of my predecessors as Leader of the House—the late Lord Crookshank—said that there could be difficulty in the new experiment and that special measures might have to be taken to deal with particular cases. I am sorry that I have not had a chance of considering this matter
Mr. Shinwell: Has the Leader of the House considered introducing emergency legislation before the Easter Recess to enable his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to vote at a General Election this year? Is he aware that his right hon. Friend is not qualified to vote at a General Election unless that election takes place after 10th October of this year? Does he intend to introduce emergency legislation to enable his right hon. Friend to vote in a General Election, or does he intend that the election shall not take place until after 10th October?
Mr. Lloyd: There will be no such legislation next week.
Mr. Wade: Will the Leader of the House say how many days will be devoted to the Committee stage of the Resale Prices Bill? Can he give a firm assurance that there will be no use of the Guillotine?
Mr. Lloyd: I cannot say how many days—that will be a question for the House. There is no proposal next week for the Guillotine. I have not considered the matter.
Mr. F. Harris: Does the delay in discussing the Resale Prices Bill until Monday week indicate any lack of keenness on the part of the Government in proceeding with it?
Mr. Lloyd: I thought that it would be the general wish of quite a number of hon. and right hon. Members to have time to consider the Bill, so that they might put down such Amendments as they thought best.
Mr. Wigg: When considering the Resale Prices Bill, will the Leader of the House recollect that his right hon. Friend the Minister for Education—as I think he now is—once informed the country that a three-line Whip is not an order to vote, but only an order to be present?
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If there was a possibility of an answer to that question because it was in order on business I would have allowed the opportunity, but I could not, in the circumstances.
Mr. P. Williams: Referring to Thursday's business, can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether there will be the chance of discussing Her Majesty's Government's more positive policy—[An HON. MEMBER: "What is that?"]—in relation to the settlement of local employment, rather than the negative policies of the Opposition, talking about unemployment?
Mr. Lloyd: Of course, this will be a debate on the remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill and, although it is not for me to say, I should have thought that anything would have been in order in that debate.
Mr. Fletcher: I want to revert to the question asked by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). As the Leader of the House has recognised, a very serious problem has arisen in the breakdown of the machinery of the House for dealing with Prayers. The only way in which this can now be raised is by allowing time for the consideration of the Motion in the names of a number of hon. Members on both sides—most of them being members of the Select Committee.
Does the Leader of the House think it right to allow this Motion, challenging the action of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland in making unusual and unexpected use of the powers granted to them by Parliament, to remain on the Order Paper without the House having an opportunity to discuss it?
Mr. Lloyd: The ground of criticism, if it is a criticism, was that the Instrument appeared to make unexpected use of the powers conferred. The suggestion in the Motion is that the Regulations should be withdrawn, and that others should be substituted. That is a suggestion which I shall certainly convey to my right hon. Friends concerned for their consideration. I do not regard it as a matter for me. After what I have said, I do not think that if is necessary to debate the procedure of the House.
668
I think that there is a real point here that we have to consider. If there is any chance of it arising again I shall certainly do my best to see that there is an opportunity for debate.
Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider giving Government time to debate affairs in Northern Ireland, as was done this time last year, in view of the continuing heavy unemployment there and the threat announced yesterday of severe redundancy at Short Bros. and Harlands in the next 12 months?
Mr. Lloyd: There will not be an opportunity other than those which I have already mentioned for discussing these matters next week.
Mr. Diamond: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Easter Recess. Can he say whether there will be an opportunity before we rise for Easter of discussing the Lang Report, which deals with the methods of the Ministry of Aviation in allotting contracts?
Mr. Lloyd: I cannot say today. Obviously, there are very few remaining days unallotted, but we shall have to consider in due course what use should be made of the week after next.
Sir G. Nicholson: Has my right hon. Friend considered carefully the effect of what he said about the Statutory Instruments position? Does he recollect that it was the intention of the Select Committee which recommended the new procedure that critical comment by the Committee should receive the almost immediate attention of the House? In view of what my right hon. and learned Friend said about getting out of the difficulty by getting his right hon. and learned Friend to withdraw the Statutory Instrument in question, does he not think that that goes contrary to the original, expressed intention of the Select Committee and of the House?
Mr. Lloyd: With respect, I do not think that it does. I realise the difficulties and I realise that it takes time sometimes for departmental memoranda to be put to the Committee, and so on, but if we are warned in advance of the possibility of the necessity for a debate we shall handle the situation.
Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that he will not in any circumstances deny his hon. Friends all the time they require to modify the Resale Prices Bill and that he will in no circumstances contemplate introducing the Guillotine, or, as Press reports say he might, keep them here through the night to force upon them something which they do not want?
Mr. Lloyd: I have already answered that question. Anyway, it would seem to be hypothetical.
Mr. Mellish: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House have given an undertaking about completing the remaining stages of the Harbours Bill, but that now some of his hon. Friends have put down Amendments? If those Amendments are called by the Chair, any undertaking that we have given might not be realised and, if so, we shall need extra time. Will he take a note of that?
Mr. Lloyd: We must see how we get on.
Mr. Taverne: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the House will have the opportunity in the near future of discussing the new franchise proposals to be published in Aden? In due course an Order in Council will be published. Would it not be desirable for the House to debate the matter before publication?
Mr. Lloyd: All I can say is that there is no prospect next week.
Dr. King: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Motion on the Order Paper on Public Service and Armed Forces Pensions has now been signed by 200 hon. Members from both sides of the House? That being so, will he give the House an opportunity of debating it?
[That this House, recognising the hardships of public service pensioners and those retired from the armed forces, and especially of the older pensioners in these groups, whose pensions bear no relation to similar pensions now obtaining in the public service and the armed forces, urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce special provisions to improve such pensions.]
Mr. Lloyd: There will be obvious opportunities of discussing that kind of matter in tie not too distant future.
Sir H. Butcher: Will my right hon. and learner Friend bear in mind that the present arrangements for dealing with Statutory Instruments are so much more acceptable to the House than those obtaining up to 10 years ago, and that he will be putting the House very much in his debt if he makes sure that the arrangements envisaged by a predecessor of his, the late Lord Crookshank, are fully implemented?
Mr. Lloyd: I am certainly aware of that. I remember those nights when we sat very late—an arrangement which was agreeable to some and not agreeable to others. I Clink that this experiment has worked very well. Unlike other experiments it has lasted and worked well for 10 years. I think that we have to try to maintain the position, but I shall do everything I can to see that a Prayer is not squeezed out because of pressure of business.
Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Leader of the House aware that in sporting circles there is great concern about the financing of the British scheme for the Olympic Games at Tokio and that we have reports that the Government have offered very limited help? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore kindly ask his right Ion. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council to state in the House what the Government are doing so that we may have the opportunity to debate the matter or to ask questions?
Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly convey the point to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. V. Yates: The Leader of the House referred to what he described as a hypothetical question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). Is it correct, as we read in the Daily Telegraph, that it is the Government's intention to devote three days from Monday week to the Resale Prices Bill that is, the whole of the Parliamentary time before Easter, and that the House will sit late? We are entitled to know, because it would be a rather unfair attempt on the part of the Government to force through a Measure without adequate and proper consideration.
Mr. Lloyd: I have dealt in some detail with business for next week. The hon. Member asked me about the week after next. I have said that on Monday we would take the first day of the Committee stage of the Bill. Perhaps next Thursday, if the hon. Member asks me again, I shall have more to say.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to a Motion on the Order Paper expressing the grievances of the farmers with the Government, and especially the milk producers? While not pressing for a statement next week, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give an assurance that we shall have a full opportunity of voicing the grievances of the farmers before Easter?
[That this House regrets that the Prime Minister should have given his approval to the recent statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the subject of farm incomes; calls attention to the fact that the real incomes of milk producers have recently shown an alarming fall, that in real terms their incomes are estimated to be 30 per cent, lower than they were eight years ago, that many are probably worse off now than at any time since the 1930's, that the number of cows has decreased, that milk producers are giving up milk production, and that there is concern over the possibility of a milk shortage next year; and urges Her Majesty's Government to take measures which will give greater confidence to dairy farmers and the agricultural community.]
Mr. Lloyd: I can certainly promise the hon. Member that he will have an opportunity of listening to a statement which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture hopes to make next week.
Mr. O'Malley: Is the Leader of the House aware of a Motion on the Order Paper, signed by a number of my hon. Friends and myself, dealing with Government expenditure on support for music and the arts. In view of the extremely difficult situation in which the Philharmonic Orchestra and the Royal Philharmonic find themselves, can he say whether there is any possibility of the Motion being discussed?
[That this House, gravely concerned that the Philharmonic Orchestra is threatened with extinction and at the consequences of this both for amenity at home and for Britain's international prestige in music and the arts, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to offer forthwith a grant to the orchestra sufficient to meet its immediate financial difficulties; and urges it to review the whole of government expenditure on support for music and the arts with a view to substantially increasing the present parsimonious level of assistance and making facilities more freely available to all sections of the community and particularly to the younger generation.]
Mr. Lloyd: I have seen the Motion and I gather that it was a private individual, the managing director, who took this decision. I cannot hold out any prospect of debate, but I am certain that my right hon. Friend who is concerned with these matters will have regard to what is happening.
Mr. A. Lewis: In view of the fact that a week before the Leader of the House announced the date of the Second Reading of the Resale Prices Bill the Daily Telegraph prophesied the exact date, and that the paper has now said that the Bill will be three days and nights in Committee, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least give an assurance that before coming to any decision on the Committee stage he will ascertain through the usual channels the view of the Opposition on the question of keeping us up at night to debate the Bill?
Hon. Members: Which Opposition?
Mr. Lloyd: No decision has been reached yet and no decision will be reached until there has been the usual opportunity for discussion, but the art of prophecy is still lawful.
Mr. Wigg: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that he will tell the House when he takes a decision before he tells the editor of the Daily Telegraph?
Hon. Members: Answer.

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (BIRTH OF A SON)
The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I beg to move.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, offering the congratulations of this House to Her Majesty and to His Royal Highness the Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh on the birth of a Son to Her Majesty, and signifying to Her Majesty the great pleasure given to Her faithful Commons by this happy event.
When the good news was received on Monday evening that the Queen and Prince Philip had had a son there was spontaneous rejoicing all over the country. This Motion enables us to send congratulations to Her Majesty and to the Duke of Edinburgh from this House on our behalf and on behalf of the constituents whom we represent.
I think that this is an occasion, of which we are glad to take advantage, to reaffirm our loyalty to the Sovereign. We are grateful that we are able sincerely to do much more than that because we have watched with respect and admiration the way in which the Queen and Prince Philip, while never stinting themselves in public service and public duty, have, nevertheless, been able to maintain their private life and to set aside time for their children. However demanding the claims of public life may be, it is important for us to be reminded that private duties and private joys are no less important.
The happiness of the birth of a child we have all experienced in our families and those of our relations and friends, and we share the joy of the Queen and of the Duke of Edinburgh and the sister and brothers of the new prince, to whom we would wish a very long and a very happy life, and we humbly send to Her Majesty our affectionate congratulations.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I rise on behalf of the Opposition, and those whom we represent in the country, to second the Motion which the Prime Minister has just moved in terms which I think all of us would wish to echo and to applaud.
On the last occasion when the House had the privilege of considering and passing a similar Motion the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon.
674
Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), said that it was the first time that the House had had such a Motion before it for over 100 years, I think, since 1857.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that for over that century we as a nation, as a people, had been privileged to see the monarchy enter more closely into the hearts and affections of our people, not least because of the factor mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness and their family are unstinting in the work they put in in visiting not only parts of this country, but of the entire Commonwealth of which Her Majesty is the Head.
I think it right to say, also, that whereas every family will have shared in the happiness occasioned by this event, so many more millions of our people now feel that they know Her Majesty and His Royal Highness more closely and more intimately than was possible in past generations because of the new media of communication, the radio and television, And that they therefore will be able to join all the more fully in the rejoicing which it is now the duty and pleasure of this House to pronounce upon by accepting the Motion.
Mr. J. Grimond: On behalf of the Liberal Party, I join in the congratulations offered to the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, and support the Motion.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I rise to support the Motion and to suggest to the Prime Minister that he has lost a magnificent opportunity because he has not gone far enough. In view of the number of Royal babies arriving this year, it would have been a splendid occasion for the Government to announce that a sum of money—say £5 million—would be granted to the maternity services so that a great improvement might be made in the conditions under which other babies are born.
This Motion would have been appreciated far more in my constituency had I been able to say that the Government were to pro ride money for the financing of a new maternity unit at the hospital at Ballochmyle.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that he has been very gracious and generous

675
in moving the Motion. The news appeared in the newspapers when they should have been reporting the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made at Coventry. On turning to The Times, of all papers, to read carefully the speech made by the Prime Minister at Coventry I was disappointed to find that that newspaper had given about 12 inches of space to the Royal baby and only 2½ inches to the Prime Minister. The first squeak of the Royal baby drowned the voice of the British Prime Minister.
I was greatly disappointed with the Press. Most of the newspapers did not report the Prime Minister, except on an obscure page in an obscure paragraph. It was surprising that the only London newspaper which reported the Prime Minister's speech that day was the Daily Worker——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will remember the purpose and intent of the Motion.
Mr. Hughes: Yes, Sir.
With those reservations and with those remarks—which, I believe, should be regarded as of approval—I have much pleasure in supporting the Motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved, nemine contradicente,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, offering the congratulations of this House to Her Majesty and to His Royal Highness the Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh on the birth of a Son to Her Majesty, and signifying to Her Majesty the great pleasure given to Her faithful Commons by this happy event.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

WELSH AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker: May I, as the servant of the House, ask the leave of the House to outrage its rules for the purpose of putting right an error which I myself made and now call the Leader of the House to deal with a matter relating to Welsh affairs? I can do it only if the House permits me. Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.
Matter of Regional Development in Wales and Monmouthshire being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, again referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  POLICE BILL
  As amended (in Standing Committee D and in the Scottish Standing Committee), considered.
  POLICE BILL

    New Clause.—(CHIEF CONSTABLES AFFECTED BY AMALGAMATIONS OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATIONS.)
    (1) If the chief constable of a police force which ceases to exist in consequence of an order under Part I of this Act or Part II of the Local Government Act 1958 is not appointed chief constable or other member of the successor force as from the date of transfer, he shall on that date become a member of that force (or, if there is more than one successor force, of such of them as may be provided by or under the order) by virtue of this section.
    (2) While a person is a member of a police force by virtue only of this section he shall hold the rank of assistant chief constable but shall be treated for the purposes of his pay, pension and other conditions of service as if he had continued to be chief constable of the force which ceased to exist, subject however to section 5(1) of this Act.
    (3) A chief constable who becomes a member of a police force by virtue of this section shall, subject to regulations under Part II of this Act, cease to be a member thereof at the expiration of three months unless he has then accepted and taken up an appointment in that force.
    (4) The provision to be made by regulations under section 60(2) of the Local Government Act 1958 (as extended by Schedule 8 to this Act) with respect to the chief constable of a police force who, after becoming a member of another police force by virtue of this section, ceases to be a member of that force without having accepted and taken up an appointment therein shall, if he was the chief constable of a police force at the commencement of this Act, be not less favourable than any provision by way of a pension that would have been payable to or in respect of him by virtue of the Police Pensions Act 1948 had the first-mentioned police force been combined with another force by an amalgamation scheme under the Police Act 1946 and he had neither been transferred to the combined force nor joined it within three months.
    (5) Where the chief constable of a police force is engaged for a period of overseas service within the meaning of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or a period of central service within the meaning of section 43 of this Act, and before the end of that period that force ceases to exist as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section—

    (a) that subsection shall apply to him as if he were still the chief constable of that force, but with the substitution for references

    677
    to the date of transfer of references to the end of the said period; and

    (b) paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to this Act shall not apply to him.

    (6) For the purposes of section 4(2) of this Act no account shall be taken of subsection (2) of this section.
    (7) In this section "successor force", in relation to a police force which ceases to exist in consequence of any order, means a force to which members of that police force are transferred by virtue of the order; and "date of transfer" means the date as from which those members are so transferred.—[Mr. Brooke.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    3.57 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    So far as I am aware this new Clause is non-controversial. I hope that it will be generally acceptable. It relates to the position of chief constables of forces which cease to exist as a result of amalgamation schemes or local government reorganisation. I should like the House to know that it implements proposals which have been agreed with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers.
    Those of us who served on the Standing Committee will be aware that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) raised certain questions about the exclusion of chief constables from the transfer provisions for amalgamation schemes. Hon. Members also will remember, that the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) raised a question about the compensation terms for displaced chief constables. This Clause deals with both of these matters and deals with them effectively and, as I hope, acceptably.
    The first three subsections provide that where a force ceases to exist, and the chief constable is not appointed to a post in what I might call the successor force, he shall be a member of this force for a transitional period of three months. During that period he will hold the rank of assistant chief constable but continue to enjoy his former conditions of service as a chief constable. This transitional period will facilitate the task of the new chief constable in organising the successor force, and it will also give the displaced chief constable ample time to
    678
    consider accepting a permanent appointment in the successor force.
    Subsection (4) relates to the other matter, the compensation of displaced chief constables who are serving as such at the commencement of the Bill. In general, the Government think it right in principle that displaced chief constables should be subject to compensation terms similar to those applicable to senior displaced local government officers. However, it is necessary to recognise the special history of the compensation Provisions for chief constables displaced by amalgamation schemes made under the Police Act, 1946. These were originally contained in regulations made under the 1946 Act, but those provisions were repealed by the Police Pensions Act, 1948, and the substance of the arrangements was incorporated in the Police Pensions Regulations made thereunder.
    It was thought right, in the passage of the Police Pensions Act through Parliament, to incorporate protective provisions which gave serving officers entrenched pension rights. These included the rights of a chief constable displaced by an amalgamation scheme under the 1946 Act to the pension provided in the Police Pensions Regulations.
    In recognition of these entrenched rights, subsection (4) of the new Clause makes special provision with respect to the compensation of chief constables serving at the commencement of the Bill who tire displaced by amalgamation schemes under the Bill. The subsection also applies to such serving officers who are displaced by local government reorganisation, because it may be largely fortuitous whether police reorganisation is effected by an amalgamation scheme or as part of a general reorganisation of local government.
    Subsection (4) provides that the provision to be made for the compensation of these serving officers is to be no less favourable than the existing provision for compensation by way of pension made under the Police Pensions Act, 1948, for chief constables displaced by amalgamation schemes under the 1946 Act. I submit this new Clause to the House in tie belief that it meets fully all the points which were raised in Standing Committee over this difficult matter.
    Sir Frank Soskice: The new Clause is long and complicated. I am

    679
    right, I hope, in thinking—and I understood this from the Home Secretary's speech—that the Clause meets the various proposals and arguments which were advanced by the association representing the officers concerned. The Secretary of State nods, and I accept it from him at once.
    That being so, speaking for myself, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having introduced the Clause, which remedies what I think was clearly a rather unjust position as it was left by the original Bill in its unamended form. I feel sure that all the officers concerned will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having acceded to the considerations which were put before him in Committee.
    Mr. David Renton: Like the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), I was one of those who were a little concerned about the original provisions of the Bill. Also Like him, I am sure that it is the wish of those chief officers who are potentially concerned in the effect of this new Clause that thanks should be expressed to my right hon. Friend for the comprehensive and generous way in which he has dealt with the matter.
    There is one point of detail on which I am a little perplexed. I have no doubt that there is an easy answer, and it would be appreciated if my right hon. Friend would give it. At the end of subsection (2) we find the words:
    "subject however to Section 5(1) of this Act".
    When we turn to Clause 5(1) we find that the new police force is to be
    "under the direction and control of the chief constable appointed under Section 4(2) …"
    I do not quite see the purpose of the link between the provisions in the new Clause and that subsection. I have an uneasy feeling that there may be a qualification hidden in it, and if there is, and if it is an adverse qualification, then I think that we should be told about it.
    Mr. Brian O'Malley: The new Clause meets the doubts which were expressed in Committee about the position of chief constables who might find themselves in difficulty as a result of an amalgamation. I am particularly pleased to see that the Clause embodies the idea which was put forward in Standing Committee that chief constables are auto
    680
    matically to be transferred at least temporarily to the combined authority which is created. I also take it that the implication of the Clause is that in most circumstances it is assumed that the chief constable will be offered some kind of appointment in the new police authority.
    I should say, by the way, that I understand from sources outside the House that the chief constables are satisfied with the terms of the Clause. But I should like to ask about compensation. The Clause does not make it clear, to me at any rate, what kind of compensation we are talking about. In Standing Committee, the Under-Secretary of State said:
    "If there were no possibility of a new appointment, there would be provision for retirement and payment of compensation, but I think that that would be a rare case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 17th December, 1963; c. 202.]
    When the Home Secretary talks of compensation, is he talking in terms of pension rights, or pension rights plus a lump sum?
    Secondly, assuming that under the Clause a redundant chief constable were offered an appointment with the police authority and rejected that appointment, would he still be entitled to receive compensation not only in terms of pension rights but also in terms of a lump sum if one is payable? What kind of lump sum, if any, would he be offered if he were not offered a post in the new police authority?
    If a chief constable took up a new appointment with this new police authority, would he be in receipt of any compensation in respect of a reduction in earnings which he might suffer as a result of taking up his new appointment compared with his financial remuneration in his old appointment? When he retired, would he be likely to suffer a drop in the total pension which he would have received as a result of taking up the new appointment because his old appointment had disappeared?
    Mr. Brooke: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) for what he said in receiving the new Clause. I stated when I introduced it that it implements proposals which have been agreed with the Association of Chief Constables, and the House can, therefore, rest content that the chief constables themselves are happy about what we are doing here.

    681
    May I tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) the reason for the reference in subsection (2) of the new Clause to Section 5(1) of the Act? It is to make it clear that, though the former chief constable will be serving in the rank of assistant chief constable in the new force, while retaining his rights of pay, pension and other conditions of service, that will not give him what a chief constable normally has—the direction and control of the force, because there can be only one person exercising that.
    Perhaps I can make the position clear to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) in this way. For a number of years there have been arrangements for compensation for displaced chief constables on amalgamation schemes. After all, amalgamation is not something which we are hearing about for the first time. I am excepting those chief constables who are in post at the time the Bill comes into force, but it seems desirable that in future chief constables—those who are not chief constables now, but who become chief constables and whose forces are then merged—should have compensation terms if they lose their posts, on the same lines as those which have now been laid down for local government officers.
    But the purpose of the second part of the new Clause is to preserve for those who are now in post as chief constables and who may hereafter become displaced through amalgamation exactly the same compensation terms in every respect as they are now enjoying and as they would have received if they had been displaced by reason of an amalgamation scheme at any time in the last 10 years.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 2.—(POLICE AUTHORITIES FOR COUNTIES AND COUNTY BOROUGHS.)
    Miss Alice Bacon: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, after "persons", to insert:
    "being members of the council".
    Mr. Speaker: The House will have seen from the provisional selection which has been communicated that I
    682
    thought that it would be to the convenience of the House to discuss together all the Amendments relating to the balance between magistrates and elected councillors. I have it in mind to call for Division, if that is desired, this Amendment and that in page 2, line 12, leave out from "county" to end of line 16and insert:
    "being such members of the council of the county as may be selected by the council provided that in making the selection the council shall as to a number not exceeding one third of the total number of members of the police committee select members of the council who are magistrates".
    and in page 2, line 13, leave out "two-thirds" and insert "five-sixths".
    Miss Bacon: The first group of Amendments relates to county councils and the second to county borough councils. From representations which we have received, I think that there would be a general feeling on both sides of the House that one or more of the Divisions should relate to county boroughs, where there is more feeling on this subject, rather than that all should relate to county councils.
    Mr. Speaker: The House will understand that the matter has been much discussed and that I was not anxious to multiply opportunities for Divisions in the circumstances. Might I meet the wishes of the House by suggesting that I call for Division, if it is desired, the second and third of these three Amendments and the Amendment in page 2, line 18, after "persons", insert:
    "being members of the council".
    4.15 p.m.
    Miss Bacon: That would be very satisfactory, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.
    These Amendments relate to the proposal in the Bill that one-third of all the member; of police authorities shall be magistrates. Our Amendments relate, first, to county councils, secondly, to county borough councils, and thirdly, to combine I authorities, with various variations.
    The first group of Amendments would have the effect that no magistrates would be elected to police authorities as magistrates. The second group would have the effect that if there were to be magistrates, they should be those

    683
    already members of the local authorities. Thirdly, if it is found desirable to have magistrates from outside the local authority, the proportion should be one-sixth to five-sixths rather than one-third to two-thirds.
    We have suggested these three groups hoping that if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept one, he might find himself able to accept some of the Amendments, although we would prefer the first group which suggests that all members of watch committees of county boroughs, or police committees of county councils, should be council members and not magistrates from outside the council.
    We have suggested Amendments in respect of boroughs, counties and the combined authorities because we believe that there should be uniform treatment. Until now there has been a difference in that in the counties one-half of the standing joint committee have been magistrates, while in the boroughs the watch committees have not contained magistrates other than those who happen to be chosen from among members of the council.
    We have had many protests, particularly from the borough councils which do not like the proposal that the watch committee should contain magistrates from outside the council. The main arguments are the same for both county councils and borough councils, although there is a slightly stronger argument in respect of the borough councils.
    What is our objection to having magistrates as such, selected by the magistrates themselves, on a police authority? First, we believe that police authorities should be composed of democratically elected representatives. The police authority is to be a committee of the council, but if the Clause goes through unamended, a watch committee or police committee will be the only committee of a council whose members are elected from outside the council by a body outside the council.
    "Selected" may be the better word although they would be elected in that there would have been a vote in the magistrates' committee. But this is quite different from having co-opted members of other committees, such as those who are co-opted members of education com
    684
    mittees and children's committees, and so on, where the selection is in the hands of the members of the council.
    A recent inquiry has already shown that on average throughout the country there are five magistrates on watch committees. In a watch committee of 12, with five magistrates already on because they happen to be members of a council, if another one-third, four members, are to be magistrates, nine out of the 12 members of such a police authority would be magistrates.
    I will not go far into the political question, which was raised from both sides of Standing Committee. The political composition of the watch committee could be changed by the addition of magistrates from outside, but I do not consider that to be as serious as some of our other objections.
    A great deal of finance is involved for a great deal of money has to be voted. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will argue that that is subject to the council's scrutiny, but in the first instance the expenditure of money will be considered by a committee one-third of whose members will not be elected representatives and elected members of the council. Our first objection, therefore, is that police authorities should be democratically elected bodies.
    Secondly, we believe that the judicial functions of magistrates in the courts should be separate from the administration of the police. This is very important. When a man appears in court, he ought to feel that he is being judged by a bench which is completely divorced from, and independent of, those conducting the prosecution. The Royal Commission recognised this. In paragraph 371 of its final report, the Royal Commission said:
    "We understand that in most courts a police inspector is present to ensure the attendance of prosecution witnesses. We recommend that a responsibility be placed on the senior police officer in attendance at court to transmit to the Chief Constable any criticism of police witnesses …".
    It has been recognised, also—the Lord Chancellor has recommended it and I believe that the Home Secretary himself has issued a circular to the same effect—that ushers in police courts should be lay ushers not police ushers, in order to ensure this differentiation between the police and the judiciary. It is a step

    685
    backward if, while we are doing such things as this, we provide, at the same time, that magistrates who help to administer the police also sit in the courts.
    The tight hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chancellor have gone to a great deal of trouble to ensure that the courts are called magistrates' courts, not police courts. We believe that having a number of magistrates sitting on police authorities will give the impression to people that the judicial functions of the magistrates and their functions in administering the police are somehow interwoven.
    It was argued in Committee that there was a difference between the counties and the towns. The right hon. Gentleman said:
    "I know that in the towns we live much closer together, but we do not know everything that all our neighbours are doing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 5th December, 1963; c. 88]
    All I can say is that in the North of England we know very much what our neighbours are doing and we enjoy knowing what our neighbours are doing. There is a slight argument in favour of the proposal being put into effect for watch committees rather than for the county councils, but I would like to see both treated in the same way.
    Anyone who has lived in a small provincial town will know that at social functions it is quite possible for magistrates, police officers and others ail to be present at the same time. The state of affairs proposed by the Home Secretary can in this context be a bad thing, and this is why I believe that it would he better to have a complete differentiation between the administration of the police and the functions of the magistrates sitting in court.
    It has been said that what the Government propose should be done for historical reasons, because justices of the peace have been associated with the police over the centuries. But I think that this is taking the point a little too far.
    I call attention to paragraphs 208 and 209 of the final Report of the Royal Commission, from which we see that evidence was received from the Magistrates' Association and from the watch committees. Naturally, the Magis-
    686
    trates' Association argued in favour of magistrates being on police authorities, and the watch committees argued against, although I understand that even within the Magistrates' Association there was not unanimity on this point.
    In paragraph 209, the Royal Commission said:
    "The Magistrates' Association argue that, at a time when decisions of local authorities are increasingly swayed by political views, it is particularly important that a body concerned with the police should contain non-elected persons".
    Is the Royal Commission seriously suggesting that all magistrates are non-political? Everyone knows that this is not so. Indeed, many magistrates have been chosen because of their political services. But in any case, I do not like the emphasis here and the assumption that because someone belongs to a political party he cannot have the same authority a s someone who is non-political.
    The Royal Commission goes on to say that the Magistrates' Association
    "accordingly recommended that the composition of standing joint committees remain unaltered, and that magistrates also constitute one-half the members of the watch committees."
    Then it said:
    "This view did not find favour with the Association o' Municipal Corporations, who thought that it was inherently objectionable to associate the functions of the police with the administration of justice. Our own view is that this objection is theoretical rather than real, and that there are overriding advantages in enabling the experience of justices to be made available to police authorities."
    I find it very difficult, from those paragraphs to discover why the Royal Commission calm down in favour of having one-third of the membership of police authorities composed of magistrates. The Commission does not seem to have argued the matter out at all. It seems to me that it thought in this way, "There is none at present on the watch committees. The standing joint committees have half. Let us go in the middle and make it a third on all of them". But no convincing argument was adduced to show why magistrates should be on police authorities in this way. We believe that it would be very much better if the magistrates stuck to their job of administering justice in the

    687
    courts rather than administer the police as well.
    If no change is made, there will be in the minds of people appearing before the courts a confusion about where the magistrate's job ends as a member of a watch committee and where it begins on the bench administering justice. Having regard to the fact that the Government's proposal is opposed by every watch committee of every county borough in the country, is opposed by all my hon. Friends and is opposed by many hon. Members opposite, I suggest that the Home Secretary would be very well advised to accept some of our Amendments and ensure that there is a clear distinction between the police authorities administering the police and the magistrates administering justice in the courts.
    Mr. Norman Pannell: The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) has put the case for the Amendments very cogently and there is little that I need add. I rise to speak principally because my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. H. Steward), who took a very active part in the Committee, is unable to be present this afternoon owing to illness. It is my purpose to put the views which I think he would have wished to advance had he been able to be here.
    I should welcome the Amendments as applying to both the county police authorities and the watch committees, but my interest is chiefly in the watch committees of county boroughs. I find it difficult to accept that because a modification in the composition of police authorities in the counties is considered advisable the same should be extended to the watch committees. The composition of county police authorities dates back to 1888, and the present system is really a hangover from that time. It was a sort of compromise in order to retain for the magistrates some part of the powers which they alone had exercised prior to that date.
    As regards the watch committees, it is important that the responsibility and authority for recommending expenditure should be in the hands solely of the elected representatives. It could be said that much of the expenditure is beyond
    688
    the control of the watch committee; but some of it is not. For example, the strength of the police force is a matter for consideration and decision by the watch committee, and this must necessarily affect the burden falling on the rates. Neither do I think that the political aspect of the matter can be entirely ignored.
    4.30 p.m.
    It is admitted and accepted that watch committees have developed a strong immunity to political bias. At the same time, it is a fact that the composition of watch committees is largely a reflection of the political balance on the councils. It is conceivable that the appointment of magistrates by an outside body could upset that balance. A minority group on the watch committee could enlist the support of the magistrates and so overcome the desire of the majority of the elected representatives on the watch committee. It would be very unfortunate if that were to arise as it would bring the magistrates into the arena of political controversy.
    Those were the only two points that I wished to make and I ask my right hon. Friend to take them into consideration and to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Charles Royle: It might come as some surprise to the House that I should be supporting the Amendment with a very great deal of enthusiasm in view of the fact that I am very closely connected with the Magistrates' Association. I am one of those to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) referred as taking a view opposite to that of many other magistrates on this position.
    For many years I have believed that it is completely wrong for justices of the peace to be in any way associated with police authorities. The basis of this is that hundreds of magistrates—I would say the vast majority—have a feeling that they want to get over to the people that they are very jealous indeed of their reputation for fairness and impartiality, and this can only be carried out in the courts if it is shown conclusively that they have no association whatever with the police.
    My hon. Friend has referred to the fact that over the years agitation has

    689
    been going on, and complaints have been coming from the public, and the general impression has been created that the police and the magistrates are as one. I join with my hon. Friend in thanking the Home Secretary for the circular that he has recently sent out on the matter of police ushers. This is something that I have been "having a go at" for many years.
    I have always been concerned that in the magistrates' court the usher should be a policeman, walking round, calling "Silence" when he felt necessary, administering the oath to defendants and witnesses and generally giving the impression that the police are running the court. I think that this is wrong.
    I believe that there should be a distinct line between the police and the courts and that all ushers should be civilians. I would not mind if, ultimately, the men appointed to that job happened to be retired policemen with some knowledge of court procedure. The important thing is that they should not be on the staff of the police force.
    This is one small way in which it has been possible to show that the magistracy and the police are separate entities. It was during the Home Secretaryship of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that an Act of Parliament was passed that these courts were to be called magistrates' courts and that the description "police courts" should not be used. This has been a great advance.
    I have always taken the course, when I see any reference in the national Press to "police courts," of writing to the editor at once. I have even written to the broadcasting people on the same lines. I want to be perfectly clear that what we are suggesting in our Amendment is that that principle should be carried forward in much stronger terms.
    Of course, magistrates are not democratically elected. They will not be democratically elected to these bodies. I go further in saying that they are not democratically elected to the duties of justices of the peace. I am one of those who have always been dissatisfied with the method of the appointment of justices. A lot of improvement could take place in that respect.
    690
    I have always believed that the system that has been going on for very many years, and which is now being perpetuated in the Bill, of having a standing joint committee of magistrates acting on the police authorities in the counties has been a complete anachronism. In the old days, there were no local authorities in the way that we know them today. Therefore, somebody had to be chosen to administer the police. It was natural in those far-off days that the magistrate of the district should be regarded as the most suitable person for that duty. But that has gone completely.
    We live in a democratic age where all our public services are administered by elected representatives—men and women who represent the masses of the people in our cities and towns. It is, therefore, ridiculous that this system should be carried into the future in greater strength than it has been in the past, because now the magistrates' representatives come on to the watch committees of the county boroughs in addition to being on the county councils. This may be the last opportunity for many years for legislation of this kind, and feel that the Government are taking a very big backward step in extending this system in this way.
    I go further than what is stated in this group of Amendments. I would say that no magistrate who is a member of a local authority should sit on a watch committee or any police authority. A man who is a magistrate should not be a member of a police authority. I do not believe that there is an answer to this argument. The Royal Commission failed to find one. Nobody can possibly say that a man who is a member of an authority which is administering the police can have an impartial and unbiased mind in the courts when the police are the prosecutors. A magistrate must place as much weight on the evidence for the defence as he does on the evidence for the prosecution, and if he is a member of the police authority his impartiality is likely to be affected.
    I plead with the Home Secretary to put the matter right and to accede to our request
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royce) thinks that there is no answer to the arguments

    691
    which he has put forward. I believe that there is, and I will endeavour to give it.
    What the Opposition are saying, in effect, is that it is bad for a police authority to be too closely identified with the magistrates, but that it is good for a police authority to be closely identified with democratically elected councillors—in other words, party politicians. I do not see the reasoning in that. The case which is put forward is bolstered up by an attempt to divide society into watertight compartments—magistrates, party politicians, perhaps professional men and perhaps policemen.
    I do not know what one would do about a family in which the mother was a magistrate, the father a politician, one of the sons a policeman and a daughter an official of the police authority, which could well happen. The idea of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) that these people should not consort together on social occasions is, to me, very strange.
    The hon. Member for Salford, West is probably a better Member of Parliament through having been a magistrate and probably a better magistrate through having been a Member of Parliament. I do not think that he can bolster up his argument by an attempt to make these compartments too watertight.
    I think that Parliament has a duty to strike the right balance, which is what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has tried to do. An exactly even balance, fifty-fifty, was struck on the standing joint committees. That is why I, and I alone, was in favour of that balance being retained when we were thinking this matter afresh. However, if that exactly even balance, which is ideal, is not to be retained, the two-thirds—one-third balance is as fair a balance as we can possibly achieve. I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist all the Amendments and that he will be supported by, at any rate, all hon. Members on this side.
    The only thing that I need to add is this. It would be a very bad day for this country if our local police forces were subjected to the control of local party caucuses. That is conceivably possible when two-thirds of the members are local councillors. If hon. Members
    692
    ask, "What about the Home Secretary? Is not he a party politician?", surely the answer is that this House and the Home Office have a very great tradition which itself is a safeguard and which our local authorities, in their development, have not yet achieved. Local authorities cannot yet be regarded as observing these things in the same way as the Home Office and Home Secretary.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: rose—
    Mr. Renton: This is a very short speech and, I hope, a fairly succinct one.
    As the hon. Member for Salford, West said, we are legislating perhaps for many years to come. I hope that we do not do anything further in the Bill to run the danger of any local police authority becoming subject to a local party caucus.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I understand that we are taking together the Amendment in page 2, line 11, two Amendments in line 12 and two Amendments in line 13 and line 15 and making reference to the later Amendments which apply the same kind of principle to the county borough forces as the Amendments which I have mentioned apply to the county police committees.
    I support the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon). I have no doubt that the Home Secretary has already spotted that the claim that there should be no magistrate on the police authority has been abandoned. Here we get into a mass of abstruse mathematical calculations as to how the police authority is to be constituted as between members of the council and magistrates. I regret that, while I shall vote for a scheme—
    Miss Bacon: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was present when I spoke—
    Mr. Ede: I was.
    Miss Bacon:—but I explained that we had three series of Amendments. One proposed that there should be no magistrates at all; one proposed that a sixth of the membership should be magistrates; and one proposed that if there were to be magistrates they should come out of the members of the council. However, we should prefer there to be no magistrates at all.
    Mr. Ede: I should prefer no magistrates at all, but my hon. Friend has deprived me of a chance of voting for that proposal.
    Miss Bacon: No.
    Mr. Ede: I find the scheme unworkable. It might interfere with the working of the courts as well as with the working of the police authority. All the members of the police authority are to be members of the appointing authority, but a number not exceeding one-third of the total number of members of the police committee selects members of the council who are magistrates. There are plenty of county boroughs and not so many county councils which have no magistrates among their members either as councillors or as aldermen. How this proposed instruction is to be carried out, I cannot follow.
    Secondly, if too many councillors become magistrates it sometimes seriously inconveniences the magistrates' court when the local authority is a party to an action before the courts. I have known all the rates summonses to have to be adjourned for a fortnight because all the members of the bench who turned up on the day that they were to be heard were members of the rating authority and therefore disqualified from adjudicating on the issues.
    It would have been far better if we had stuck throughout to the idea that the magistrates should not be brought into the matter at all. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) seems to think that magistrates should never discuss politics. I only wish that he could spend some time in a magistrates' court while the magistrates were discussing the decisions which they were to make. Magistrates are human beings, like the rest of us. They are at least as human as councillors. They might not be quite as human as aldermen.
    To my mind, the arguments used by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) represent what should be the basis of the administration of justice in a democratic country. Having served as a member of a standing joint committee for 30 years, I regret very much that something which has always troubled county government
    694
    should now be extended to the county boroughs.
    I find some difficulty about the way in which the system is to work. Five-sixths of the members of the police authority are to be members of the council—ordinary members of the council; and one-sixth—a minimum, I think, of one-sixth—are to be magistrates who are members of the council.
    What is to happen when there is no magistrate on the council? How is the thing to work then? There are plenty of places where that will happen. If I might make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman it would be that he should promise us that in another place he will take steps to pass the sort of Amendments we discussed in Committee and which would remove magistrates from police authorities altogether.
    While I shall vote for my hon. Friend's Amendment because it is the only thing on which I have a chance to vote against the Government, and it is more important that I should vote against the Government than that I should vote for anybody's Amendment—that is always my motto—I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman is tempted at all, or is wise enough at to adopt the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East, he will at any rate do something to ease the grave administrative difficulties which, I believe, flow from the proposals in front of us, both in selecting the police authority and 'in running the magistrates' court after the selection of magistrates has been made. The best thing of all is to say that magistrates should not be on the police authority at all.
    I do not hold the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West that if we have a policeman as usher he administers the oath. He never has in any court in which I have sat.
    Mr. C. Royle: He gives them the Testament.
    Mr. Ede: Hands them the card, yes. I had a woman in front of me in court and he handed her the card and she said, "The evidence I shall give should be the truth." He said, "Undoubtedly, madam. Now read the words on the card."
    We have to bear in mind that to attempt to put the usher in the most

    695
    solemn place of all, the person who administers the oath, is to take a completely wrong view of the way in which the court should be conducted.
    I shall vote for the Amendment, for if it is carried it will leave the right hon. Gentleman to sort out the muddle which springs from his original determination to have magistrates on the police authorities.
    Mrs. Eveline Hill: In Standing Committee, we worked very hard indeed to persuade the Home Secretary to alter Clause 2. From both sides we suggested that the democratic principle should be maintained, which was that the members of the watch committee in a county borough or of a police committee should be elected members. While an elected member may be thrown off the committee as a consequence of his losing his seat at an election, the magistrates, unelected, will carry on indefinitely.
    I am putting this point again today because, as has been said, this is probably the last opportunity that we shall have in this Chamber for a long time of trying in this way to persuade the Home Secretary, and because it is still profoundly felt by the councils of towns and cities that what has already been decided is wrong. Even places as diverse in size as Wallasey and Manchester have submitted memoranda on this point, in each case feeling that it is quite wrong that unelected people should be on a body of this description, because, of course, the elected members ultimately have to decide on the provision of the moneys for the running of the police authorities.
    I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, but I want to re-emphasise the point, made in the Standing Committee, that places like the towns which I have mentioned do feel very strongly that it is quite wrong to alter the present position. It does not seem to those places that what has been suggested is an improvement, and they see no reason why, in producing a Bill like this, a Bill which will last a very long time, we should make such a profound alteration.
    I hope that the Home Secretary will listen to the pleas which have been made here today.
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I want, first, to have a word with the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton). He mentioned something about local authorities in terms of deprecation. I think that I shall speak for most Members of the House, on both sides, when I say that remarks of that kind will be deeply resented in many of the local authorities.
    Mr. Renton: I said nothing of that sort. I certainly did not intend to say anything of the sort about local authorities. What I said was that they had not yet acquired the tradition which we have in the House, and which is so well understood on the part of successive Home Secretaries, and in the Home Office, and, therefore, have not the means of ensuring all the safeguards which we understand. That is not derogatory of local authorities.
    Mr. Winterbottom: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a perfectionist, and when he throws stones from a glasshouse he must not grumble if stones come back to him, because in his daily life and in his neighbourhood he himself would be a representative of municipal authorities.
    I want further to say to the right hon. and learned Member, criticising my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and saying, in effect, that he was talking politically, that the reason why, in Committee, we supported Amendments to keep out magistrates as such from the watch committees or from the police committees in the counties was to minimise, if possible, the dangers of political developments and acrimonious political difficulties arising as a consequence of the introduction of magistrates into watch committees of the county boroughs.
    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell), who spoke in support of the principle of our Amendments and expressed the view that it was right not to have magistrates, as such on the watch committees, expressed a principle which I accept completely and entirely. I believe that that hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in inferring that if the Bill goes through as it is at the moment

    697
    magistrates on watch committees will create untold political difficulties arising out of the unwritten agreements which there are in most county boroughs.
    5.0 p.m.
    As an illustration, the City of Sheffield has a watch committee of 12 members. I understand that at the moment four of them are Conservative and eight Labour, In the event of this Clause going through, four of the members of the watch committee will be magistrates, and the council will have to select eight more, and of the eight, in all probability two will be Conservative members of the council.
    But the composition of the magistrates' courts in Sheffield is the result of selection on other than a political basis. If the magistrates were selected on a political basis, the composition of the Sheffield courts would present a totally different personality picture than it does. Political considerations are very often outweighed by considerations of the ability of people to serve on magistrates' courts. The overwhelming proportion of the, roughly speaking, 140 magistrates in Sheffield are known to be attached to the Conservative Party. To their eternal credit, when they are acting as magistrates political considerations do not weigh with them in the slightest.
    But here the situation is that if four Conservative magistrates are selected to serve on the Sheffield Watch Committee, thereby creating a perfect balance on it between the two parties, we might have political repercussions within the council which might be damaging to the harmonious relationships which exist between the council and the magistrates' courts at present.
    If we are to have this, and if the Home Secretary is to persist, I suggest to him that it may be possible for people in future to argue the converse—that magistrates should be selected after seriously considering what their political attachments are. I am sure that that is not the wish of hon. Members opposite any more than it is hon. Members on this side of the House.
    I should not like to see a kind of public demand for an inquiry into how magistrates are selected, with questions of political allegiance being considered in that inquiry. There are hon. Mem
    698
    bers in whose areas there have been shortages of magistrates within given sections the community simply because there was difficulty in finding people of their political allegiance who would serve. I do not want a political battle to arise out of the decision to introduce a non-political element on the bench into the political element of the hurly-burly of a watch committee.
    Some people say that magistrates, because of their experience in the courts, dealing will the problems of the police and the criminals, should be able to bring important experience to bear in the deliberations of watch committees, as is suggested by the Home Secretary. I feel that those who have thought that way have not read the Bill. The duties of county borough watch committees and county district police authorities are of a very limited nature, being circumscribed by the Bill. Their duties are contained in Clause 4. They deal with the selection of chief constables, the problems of buildings and structures, police uniforms and the like. They deal with the local authority contribution to the police fund.
    In respect of none of these things is there required any special experience on the bench in coming to decisions. Generally speaking, if there should be in most of our watch committees, if not in all of them, discussions which range outside the duties of a watch committee according to the Bill, then there will be enough magistrates who are members of councils to bring their experience to bear upon those isolated deliberations.
    Because of that, I suggest that the arguments which have been put forward are out of keeping with the conception of democracy that local authorities expect shall dominate our thoughts in this House in regard to the relationship between the House and local authorities. More and more Acts of Parliament are thrusting responsibility upon local authorities. More and more, in the devolution of authority, the actual administrative function is performed by
    local authorities. Yet an important Bill like this will take powers away from local authorities, so that even in considering the financial contribution to the police fund the council which has elected the watch committee will be

    699
    powerless against the decision of a committee which might be dominated by people of a non-elected character.
    That is a very important consideration. I do not wonder that municipal authorities throughout the country are protesting about this attitude towards their local responsibilities with regard to watch committees. As I have said previously, although the Home Secretary may say that I am a Jonah, a pessimist and looking for danger which does not exist, I feel that if he persists with the Clause he will create more political confusion and strife in local authorities and controversy between local authorities and magistrates' courts than we have had in the history of Britain. That, to me, is dangerous. It is dangerous to society, dangerous to the police, and dangerous to equity and justice.
    Mr. Norman Cole: I should like to put three points and an illustration to my right hon. Friend in support of this series of Amendments, but before doing so I should like to refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle). We all know that he has great experience in the magisterial world, and I am sure that the House would like to join me in paying tribute to the work done by our magistrates, both unpaid and stipendiary, in administering justice. They put in many hours' work and perform an extremely valuable duty with the assistance of the clerk of the court. We all know that there is throughout the land a variation in the sentences imposed for similar offences, but the great amount of public service that is rendered far outweighs any point about variation in penalties.
    It is with that thought of tribute to public service in mind that I come to deal with the points that I wish to put to my right hon. Friend. First, bearing in mind what I have said about the calibre of these magistrates, and the great public service which they render, when they are first appointed to the watch committee, they of all people will not be incognisant of the possibilities of the charge of favouritism towards police evidence. I suspect that, at any rate for the first few years, we shall see magistrates, particularly those who are members of the local police committee or watch com
    700
    mittee, bending over backwards to make sure that they do not necessarily favour the police and their evidence. That would be as much a distortion of justice as if the opposite were to happen—that is, if they were to appear to agree with the police on every matter—and any kind of distortion is something which I do not believe any hon. Member would wish to see happen.
    Only a certain number of those who are magistrates of a particular county area or county borough, a microcosm of them, will be on the police committee or watch committee, but I wonder what the public will think about what they feel is any disparity in the treatment of accused by the magistrate who is not on the police committee—which is what the public will call it—and the magistrate who is? The vast majority of magistrates in an area will not be members of the police committee, but all magistrates, whether members or not, will be working sometimes in one court, and sometimes in another. This may lead to positions which the public may fail to understand.
    My third point concerns the political content of the watch committee. This was referred to by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom). He said that in future politics would loom much more largely in the relationships between magistrates as a whole and watch committees and police committees. I believe that as local government is, in many ways, largely involved in politics—there are, of course, exceptions—in future politics will play a much more important part than hitherto in the appointment of magistrates. Ça va sans dire that if a man is to be appointed to a political body the person making the appointment will make certain that he has the appropriate kind of politics.
    As the hon. Member for Brightside said, many of these people will be appointed not so much because of their ability, but because of their politics.
    Mr. Winterbottom: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should be something in the nature of an agreement among the members of a local authority, so that the appointment of magistrates to a watch committee mirrors the balance of the parties on the council?
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Cole: I do not know the answer to that. I do not know who will ap

    701
    point the magistrates. I do not know whether they will be made by the Magistrates' Association, or by my right hon. Friend.
    Miss Bacon Miss Bacon rose—
    Mr. Cole: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to finish what I am saying.
    As soon as the system begins to work, as in the example quoted earlier in this debate, if there are 12 members of a watch committee four of whom belong to the minority party and eight of whom belong to the majority party, no political body worthy of the name, be it local or national, will go out of its way to appoint people of the opposite persuasion, and thereby upset the balance between the parties on the council itself.
    Although I applaud what my right hon. Friend is trying to do, I believe that in future magistrates will be appointed not so much because of their knowledge, but because of their political affiliations. As the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, political considerations will outweigh all other factors. The appointment will be a political one, and will not be made for the purposes which my right hon. Friend has in mind. I now give way to the hon. Lady, the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon).
    Miss Bacon: During our discussions in Committee the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the magistrates themselves would make the selections at their annual meetings, and that they would not be selected by local authorities.
    Mr. Cole: I think that that will invalidate some of what I have said, but I am still worried about what might happen. It is proposed to appoint a not inconsiderable number of people—33⅓ per cent. to be exact—to a politically appointed body, which is what the police committee would be. I think that the result will be derogatory to the purposes of the Bill.
    I have had these points put to me by one authority which, on 1st April, will become a county borough. I am, of course, referring to Luton, which, on that date, becomes responsible for its own police force, and I am sure that we wish it well. The points that I have mentioned are worrying that authority as well as many others in the country.
    702
    I come next to an illustration which I hope my right hon. Friend will appreciate is put to him in all seriousness. My right hon. Friend has a certain function in regard to the Metropolitan Police. I ask him to consider what would happen if he appointed a judge of the High Court as his adviser in the Home Office and, from time to time, when occasion demanded it, that judge appeared in the High Court to legislate on a case in which a Home Office banister appeared for the Crown, and another barrister represented a private interest, knowing that my right hon. Friend had a close liaison with the Metropolitan Police in London and Scotland yard in particular and had received generally the advice of that judge, although not on that particular case he was to judge.
    Despite the high calibre of our judges, would that judge be expected to appear to shut off one portion of his mind and use the other portion of it to judge the case, A which he would not have been given any prior details, but with which on matters of general advice he may have seemed to the public to be associated in the past in his other function?
    With respect to everyone, I do not believe that the organisation that we have beep discussing is the most important point at issue. I was almost tempted to say, but I shall not because it would be wrong to do so, that justice is not the greatest point here, but it must be. Justice must be absolute. I am thinking more of those who will come before the courts—in other words, the age-old tradition of the House, that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.
    Like other hon. Members, I have had matters brought to my attention arising from cases which have been before magistrates. Although criticism may not be justified in such cases in future, as it may not have been in the past, the fact will remain that one will not be able to reply that there is a complete separation of functions. This is the main consideration. The whole purpose of our legislation here, and of this Bill in particular, is to safeguard the welfare of the public and to assure them that we govern for all by all. I believe, if things are mixed up as set out in the

    703
    Bill, however unjustified public criticism may be, the public in future will read far more into the position than is the truth.
    I pay my right hon. Friend full tribute I know what he is trying to do. I know that he has great experience, but I believe that on this occasion he has gone off on the wrong tack.
    Mr. Arthur Holt: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole). I hope that he will follow hon. Members on this side into the Lobby when this matter is put to the vote. I hope that he will give the lie to the attitude of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton), who apparently regards the term "party politician" with great scorn, and act as a Member for Parliament. I shall return to the attitude of the right hon. and learned Gentleman later.
    As hon. Members who were in the Standing Committee are aware, I have from the beginning of our proceedings on the Bill put great faith in the ability of the old watch committee, now the police authority, to carry out its duties. At the beginning of these proceedings, I was very concerned because I thought that the Home Secretary—another party politician, I may point out—was taking such powers under the Bill that he might be taking away from the police authority the real influence and responsibility over the police. The Home Secretary showed in Committee that he intends to use his powers under the Bill, which are greatly increased, only as residual powers. There will be opportunities to ask Questions in the House, but the Home Secretary has firmly indicated his view that the responsibility for supervision over chief constables remains with police authorities.
    In the case of county boroughs, watch committees have so far been composed entirely of local councillors and aldermen. I have not heard anything in our proceedings to indicate that watch committees of county boroughs have carried out their duties any less effectively than watch committees of county councils. Therefore, why make this sudden change in respect of county boroughs? What quality can magistrates bring to the discussions of the new police
    704
    authority which was lacking in the discussions of the old watch committee? There has been no evidence that anything was lacking. I can see no case for altering the position as regards county boroughs.
    I hope that when he replies the Home Secretary will dissociate himself from the idea that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire seems to have that even the term "party politician" should be treated with scorn. I do not take that view. I think that it is an honourable calling. The right hon. and learned Gentleman used the term in a scornful way and suggested that a municipal candidate who becomes a councillor is not extremely proud of becoming a councillor and does not endeavour to conduct himself in a proper way as a representative of the people carrying out public duties. Some of us fall from grace from time to time and perhaps do not act as we should as Members of Parliament, or even as members of a municipal authority.
    I took great offence at the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. I am sure that many councillors will be greatly offended when they read in HANSARD what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself will perhaps be a little shocked when he sees his words in black and white and he may like to take the opportunity on a subsequent occasion to withdraw his remarks.
    Mr. Renton: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have heard my speech. He is making the most extraordinary comments on it. He had better read my speech. I will not repeat it to him.
    Mr. Holt: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads his speech tomorrow.
    Magistrates are becoming busier and busier as magistrates. This is certainly so in Bolton. There are now afternoon sittings which go on until late hours, whereas previously the courts sat only in the mornings. I see no reason why we should burden magistrates, who have enough to do already in carrying out their duties in court, by asking them in addition to serve on the new police authorities.

    705
    This point will shortly be pressed to a Division. I hope that the Home Secretary will take the opportunity in another place to put the matter completely right so that magistrates do not have to serve on the police authority of either county boroughs or counties.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: I cannot agree with much of what the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) said, except that I echo what he said when he asked why there is any need for a change. That is the theme of my speech. I have received representations from my local authority on this part of the Bill. I want to give them to the House.
    I want, first, to take up something said by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Mr. Winterbottom). He used the phrase "the hurly-burly of politics on the watch committee". I wish to join issue with hon. Members opposite on the question of politics in local government. Even if my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) did not say some disparaging things about the political actions of certain members of local authorities, I am happy to be associated with that frame of mind. I personally feel that politics very often come first in local authority matters and that public duty comes second, but this does not appear to happen on watch committees.
    My own city could not have a more partisan council. Disgraceful 'things are happening as to education at present: the Labour Party, obviously for doctrinaire reasons, is trying to abolish all the grammar schools by any means in its power. Yet on the watch committee nobody could accuse them of being remotely political.
    Mr. Winterbottom: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. On the Sheffield Watch Committee we are in the same happy position. We do not want the set-up altered, but it is being altered in the Bill.
    Mr. Cooke: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman agreeing with me, perhaps for the wrong reasons. Despite this creeping disease of politics in local government, which is evident in far too many committees, it is my experience that, although the council itself is highly partisan, there are no politics on the Bristol Watch Committee. Everything is harmonious. This is true of relations
    706
    with the chief constable, Mr. Frost, who I believe retires today. He is an excellent chief constable.
    Sir Charles Taylor: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Cooke: My hon. Friend may well say, "Hear, hear". Our chief constable was at Eastbourne before he came to us. The present relationship is extremely happy, politics notwithstanding. A local authority would have to be in a pretty poor condition if politics affected the actions and decisions of its watch committee.
    Unfortunately, I am unable to agree with the Amendment, although I can see that the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) is right in attacking my right hon. Friend on the basis of his proposal, because she would like the magistrates on watch committees to be drawn from members of councils.
    5.30 p.m.
    Miss Bacon: May I make this perfectly clear? I have tried to do so on three occasions, but I must have failed to get the point of view across. One lot of Amendments are designed to have no magistrates at all selected from outside the council. If they fall, another lot of Amendments is designed to have only magistrates who are on the council, and, if they fall, to decide not to have one-third but one-sixth. I made it perfectly clear that what we would prefer would be no magistrates at all from outside the council.
    Mr. Cooke: I apologise to the hon. Lady. I am with her in hoping that we shall see the state of affairs whereby we shall not have magistrates on the watch committees. I support the view of my town clerk on those lines. The suggestion with which I cannot agree is that it would be a good thing, if we have to have magistrates, that they should be drawn from the council. That is a third best, if I may say so, because those magistrates are the political personalities. If we want magistrates on and it is beneficial to have them on, they should be people quite outside the political sphere, as my hon. Friend said.
    I am happy that the present system of selection of magistrates looks like continuing, because I believe that it is a

    707
    very satisfactory process of wide consultation, and a very wide variety can be chosen irrespective of their political views. One hon. Member said that his body of magistrates was composed largely of people of a Tory flavour, but in other areas it can be the other way round. Therefore, I do not think that that argument has much to do with the matter.
    My main point is concerning the announcement of the town clerk and the watch committee of the City of Bristol. The City of Bristol and its council have the right to be heard on this, and there are two representations. One is on the question of the composition of the watch committee and that is what I am now going to speak about. The other is on responsibility, about which they also feel strongly. The point which has not, I think, been sufficiently emphasised is that it is all-important in the public eye that the functions of the magistrates should be dissociated from the activities of the police. That is the main point in the argument put forward by my authority, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
    I wish to impress upon my right hon. Friend that, if he insists on having magistrates brought on, the two subjects will intermingle in the public eye and there may not be felt to be the same impartiality as in magistrates' courts. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give a satisfactory answer to that. There seems to be a consensus of opinion in the House for that view, and I am happy to support the watch committee of my own city in the matter.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: I wholeheartedly agree with the proposition that there ought to be no magistrates on the police authority at all. I am in favour of that view on a simple principle which I think has always been accepted as part of our constitutional law. It is that the functions of the Executive should be separate from the functions of the judiciary. It seems to me that the proposal in the Bill is in conflict with that principle.
    I am not in the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) found himself. I see no difficulty in the Amendments under
    708
    discussion if the House thought fit to adopt that principle. It is true that a number of Amendments are being taken together for convenience of discussion, but it seems to me that if the House wished to establish the principle of no magistrate on the police authority, all it has to do is to accept the Amendment in page 2, line 11, and the Amendment in page 2, line 18. As I understand it, if those Amendments were accepted the other Amendments would not arise and we should not be in any difficulty at all.
    It is only if, unfortunately, the Amendment in page 2, line 11, and, I suppose, the consequential Amendment in page 2, line 18, were to be defeated that we on this side of the House would then be in favour of some sort of Amendment which would reduce the damage, that is to say, an Amendment reducing the number of magistrates from one-third to one-sixth. Quite clearly, my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment was saying that this was very much a second best with which we would not be content but which we would accept if the two Amendments to which I have referred were not accepted. I hope that my right hon. Friend, if I may say so, is now quite clear on the matter.
    Why has one to be so insistent that the executive or administrative function should be quite separate from the judicial one? We had a very clear instance of that in the speech to which we have just listened. I recognise that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) was speaking in favour of the principle which I favour, but he was quite clearly of the opinion that people who are in favour of comprehensive schools are actuated by party political considerations whereas people who are in favour of retaining the grammar school position as it is are actuated purely by educational considerations.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: I said that people who were out to destroy the grammar schools for doctrinaire reasons were guilty of putting politics before public duty.
    Mr. Silverman: That puts the point with even greater clarity than before. We only have to use the word "destroy" instead of the word "replace" and we introduce into the argument the very

    709
    party political considerations which the hon. Gentleman thinks should not be introduced. I am not arguing his point, and it would not be in order to do so.
    It is perfectly proper, if the hon. Gentleman thinks so to regard one as a purely political matter and the other as a purely educational matter. I think that he would be wholly wrong, but if he thinks that way he is perfectly entitled to do so. Of course, if one thinks that way and says it, one is illustrating how impossible it is in an executive or administrative matter to avoid party political considerations. Nor, indeed, would one wish to avoid them.
    Ours is a representative democracy. I believe that we can only get a representative democracy by a party system, a fairly rigid party system—in some people's opinion a too rigid system. If we are all committed to the maintenance of representative democracy on a party system it does not lie in the mouth of anyone who accepts that point of view at the same time to regard a party political system or a party politician as an undesirable thing. If it is necessary it is not undesirable, and if we all agree that it is necessary we had better keep out the undesirability of it. While people differ in their approach to social and economic questions, one cannot keep out all party political considerations when dealing with administrative matters. If we did we would never get a proper discussion or a proper decision. This is not true of judicial functions. In judicial functions we can, we ought and we must keep party political considerations out.
    This was the fallacy into which the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) fell on this occasion, as he did in the discussion in Committee. He was saying that since it was right to have party politicians on the watch committee if they were members of the council, it could not be wrong to have party politicians on the police authority merely because they were magistrates. That was his point.
    Mr. Renton Mr. Renton indicated dissent.
    Mr. Silverman: If it were not, although, I do not want to pursue the matter, I do not want to make a false point. Perhaps he will tell me what it was.
    Mr. Renton: This is a most extraordinary gloss on what I said. I do not think it is up to me to repeat my speech to the House.
    Mr. Silverman: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member should be peevish or peeved about it. I thought that what I said was a perfectly fair representation of what he had said. To get that out of the way, I will deal with another fallacy. The other fallacy was that there are no party politicians on the magistrates' bench.
    Mr. Renton: I did not say that either.
    Mr. Silverman: It is very difficult for us to understand what the right hon. and learned Member said. As we understood it, he said that it was an advantage to have magistrates on police authorities because otherwise police authorities would be dominated by party politicians.
    Mr. Renton: Quite correct.
    Mr. Silverman: Therefore, he was saying that magistrates are not party politicians. Otherwise the argument does not make sense. He knows very well—that is why he does not like me putting it in this way—that such a proposition would be fantastically untrue. Many people are elected magistrates because they are Marty politicians. It is quite right that that should be so. Many hon. Members of this House are magisrates. The right hon. and learned Member may be one he was a recorder. I know of no more loyal member of the Conservative Party. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is a National Liberal."] Ex-Liberals and National-Liberals and Coalition Liberals make the most loyal members of the Conservative Party, and it has always been so. The right hon. and learned Member has never once, so far as I know failed in his loyalty to the Conservative Party since he did not join it.
    I do not want to pursue the point beyond this. It would be a complete fallacy to say or to imply or raise an argument on the basis that if we have magistrates on the police authority we shall be automatically reducing the impact of party political consideration. This is not true.
    Mr. Renton: Neither is the converse true, because there will be many occasions when if we have a third of the police authorities composed of magistrates a great many of them will not be party politicians.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: Some of them may not be. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has no evidence or authority for saying that the majority will not be, because the majority of them are. I was trying to point out what I think is a much graver fallacy than the one which I hope I have disposed of. That is the fallacy that, therefore, we are just as much entitled to have party political considerations on the bench as on the police authority. The two functions are quite different. If a man, being a party politician, is a member of an administrative authority or legislative assembly of any kind, he is not only perfectly entitled, but it is his duty, to give effect to the political policies and ideas of the party of which he is a member. It is not a bad mark but a good mark to be loyal to the principles one believes in when one has the opportunity of putting them into practice in an executive or administrative sense.
    It is perfectly right to do that, but equally it is wrong to do it when exercising a judicial function. The danger of this proposal is that we would compel people who have political ideas, considerations and principles and who are trying their best—and for the most part succeeding—in avoiding allowing them to influence their judicial decisions, to be put into a position in a matter where the administration of justice is involved where what is a merit on the administrative side is a fault, and a grave one, on the judicial side. If there were any practical considerations which militated against the idea of that principle one would have to look at it again.
    It has been said repeatedly, and I draw the attention of the Home Secretary to this, that only one speech so far has been made in favour of the proposals in the Bill. In almost every speech which has been made against the proposals in the Bill and in favour of the Amendment the point has been made, why does the right hon. Gentleman want to make the change? The Royal Commission never gave an
    712
    answer, and no answer was given to us in Committee. If it is conceded that the principle is one we want and there are no practical inconveniences and no overwhelming practical arguments the other way, we might just as well stick to principle.
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give earnest thought to this. We may not have an opportunity again of considering this matter for very many years. The whole merit of this Bill is that it attempts to codify the law as to the police. Heaven knows, it has stood in dire need of codification of some sort. If we are to do it now and not to change it for a generation or more, we must be careful to get it right, and not to introduce changes in principle which are undesirable in themselves and bring about no ascertainable practical advantage.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: After listening to this debate, I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the great skill and determination he must have shown in Committee in order to have resisted these Amendments which, as I was not a member of the Committee, I assume were advanced there also. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said that during the whole course of this debate there has been only one speech so far made to resist these Amendments, that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton).
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I do not know if my hon. and gallant Friend is aware that no single county Member has taken part in the debate. Every hon. Member on this side of the House has been approached by his own local authority having a vested interest in one direction, but many hon. Members have other vested interests which would be violated if these Amendments were accepted.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: It seems that the representatives from the county constituencies do not feel very strongly about this matter as they have not bothered to attend here and to give the views which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) suggests they have. They have not come here to do so.
    Mr. N. Cole: I should declare my position. I have the privilege of representing a county district and the equally great privilege of sitting for a portion of the county borough-to-be of Luton. Therefore, my remarks might have been regarded both ways.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: To get down to figures, all hon. Members opposite who have spoken have done so in favour of the Amendments and on this side the score is 4 to 1 in favour of them. I shall now make it 5 to 1. I am sure that it will be said that the only reason why I do so is that I represent a borough constituency and my local people have been getting at me. That is true—[Laughter.]—and everybody knows it. It has happened to all of us. However, I sincerely take the same view, or I certainly would not say so here. I do not go as far as practically every other hon. Member has done and declare that the question of politics never once entered into the deliberations of the watch committee of the Nottingham City Council. That would be going a little too far. I assure the House, however, that as far as I know, all its members are unanimous on this point.
    Even at this late stage, I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to look at the matter again. Practically all the arguments in favour of the Amendments have already been urged better than I can put them and I do not want to take up undue time. The only point which has not, perhaps, been sufficiently emphasised is that in what my right hon. Friend seeks to do he appears to be going against previous advice which has generally been given in principle by the Lord Chancellor in matters of this sort.
    It certainly has been with the strong encouragement of the Lord Chancellor that certain steps have been taken, most of which have been referred to, such as the adoption of lay ushers, instead of policemen acting as such, and the substitution of the title "magistrates' court" for "police court". One other point which has not yet been made is that we in Nottingham have more and more taken on the practice of employing solicitors rather than the police as prosecutors. This also has been with the encouragement of the Lord Chan-
    714
    cellor and, as in the case with the adoption of lay ushers, at considerable expense to the ratepayers.
    In doing what my right hon. Friend seeks to do in the Bill, he is going right against the principle which has been laid down, and which, I assume, the Lord Chancellor acts upon in the advice he gives, that we should not try to mix up the two things, the magistracy and the watch committees. If one does that, inevitably an accused person—and, to a large extent, the general public—will feel that he is not, perhaps, getting strict justice. I do not suggest that justice would not be done, but I very much doubt whether it would be seen by everybody to be done, which, we are told, is almost equally important.
    This is not a minor matter. A fundamental principle is involved. I therefore add my voice to the voices of all hon. Members who have spoken so far, except one, and ask my right hon. Friend if he cannot, even at this late stage, look at the matter again.
    Mr. O'Malley: With all my hon. Friends on this side, I welcome the support which has been given in this general debate on a number of Amendments concerning the composition of police authorities. It should be noted that having had a long debate on the subject in Standing Committee, we must now have another long debate precisely because some hon. Members opposite chose to support this kind of proposal in Standing Committee but when the vote was taken abstained from voting upon it. I hope that when these Amendments are divided upon this evening, at least hon. Members opposite who have supported their principle will in all conscience go into the Division Lobby with us. This is not basically a party political issue but a fundamental constitutional issue.
    Although we had a long debate in Standing Committee, I welcome another de Sate on the subject because it is important. Perhaps genuinely, there are balanced arguments for and against the kind of attitude which the Government are taking. They have tipped the scales the wrong way, however, and have come to the wrong conclusions on the evidence put before them and on the estimates

    715
    which they must have made. One can only hope that after this debate they will change their minds.
    I wish to refer to some remarks that were made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) when he objected to party politics in local government. I find that kind of attitude also in the north of England, from where I come. Lots of people say what a bad thing it is that party politics enter into local government. They ask why they cannot have candidates who are non-political. Then, the candidates stand as independents. They are really Tory candidates, however, who dare not stand under their own name.
    Sir C. Taylor: They were all independents before the Labour Party brought in party politics.
    Mr. O'Malley: If they stand for local authorities when they are Conservatives, at least they should be honest about it and say so.
    I should like to turn to the conclusions reached by the Government. They decided on a compromise. There is no room for compromise, however, in a matter like this, which is one of fundamental constitutional principle. Briefly, the compromise is that whereas formerly we have had fifty magistrates on the standing joint committees in the counties and the watch committees composed entirely of councillors, under the Bill two-thirds of the members of the police and watch committees are to be elected councillors and one-third magistrates chosen from quarter sessions and from the magisterial bench. This compromise simply perpetuates an anomaly which has existed in the counties since 1888. We are now extending it into the boroughs, which have been singularly free of this kind of situation.
    In Standing Committee, I pointed out that the minutes of evidence on which the Royal Commission came to its conclusions and on which, presumably, the Government reached their conclusions were surprising. Indeed, I have heard the opinion voiced that when the County Councils Association agreed in principle to the idea of a number of magistrates being on the police committee, what had happened was that some horse trading took place and the County Councils Association was satisfied to
    716
    make the standing joint committee dealing with police affairs a committee of the county council rather than an independent body, which it has been since 1888.
    6.0 p.m.
    It seems to me that the Government can be criticised because they have accepted the views of the Royal Commission extremely uncritically. A feature of the debates which took place on this subject was that when an impasse was reached when no good arguments could be advanced on the other side on whatever we were discussing, the Home Secretary picked up the Royal Commission's Report and used it as a bible, a piece of dogma.
    May I look briefly at the evidence given by the Magistrates' Association to the Royal Commission on the Police. If there is one lot of evidence in writing which convinces me that magistrates should not be on watch and police committees it is precisely the evidence which the magistrates themselves gave. I cannot believe that the type of evidence which was given is an accurate reflection of the attitude of a large cross-section of magistrates throughout the country. Inherent in it was an idea of superiority and a feeling that they could do the job very much better than could the elected representatives.
    We are told that the argument is not that there should be magistrates as such on it but that there should be independent persons who can stabilise and level the active political bias possibly of the local elected representatives. We are told that elected representatives
    "have not the same sense of responsibility".
    This is in the evidence of the Magistrates' Association. Thirdly, we are told that the police might be engaged in serious disorders resulting
    "from strikes or something of that kind".
    It is said,
    "This is our primary objection to them merely being in political hands".
    We also read from a witness,
    "I would have thought generally that magistrates are very free from political bias when they apply themselves to their duties".
    We read,
    "When half the committee are magistrates and sitting as magistrates they take perhaps a

    717
    more reasonable view…than the elected members".
    I am sure that they do.
    Fortunately I was pleased to hear in Standing Committee that the Government—

    ROYAL ASSENT
    6.5 p.m.
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
    The House went:—and, having returned;
    Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

    1. International Development Association Act, 1964.

    2. Plant Varieties and Seeds Act, 1964.

    3. Defence (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1964.

    4. Industrial Training Act, 1964.

  POLICE BILL
  Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
  6.14 p. m.
  Mr. O'Malley: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that much of the evidence given by representatives of the Magistrates' Association reflected adequately or accurately the ideas of many magistrates. I know that some have very different and much more forward-looking ideas. Indeed, in fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle), I should say that, although he is a prominent member of the Magistrates' Association, he made his position categorically clear when giving evidence before the Royal Commission, and also in Standing Committee upstairs, and here today. I want to consider briefly the grounds on which the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) based his case, and the case posed by the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary in Committee.
  I had considerable difficulty in understanding what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was talking about, both in Standing Committee and here this after
  718
  noon. At one stage I was not sure whether he had flown into the extreme heights of metaphysical abstraction or had descended into a morass of candyfloss nonsense. I remarked to my hon. Friends that I did not know where we were going on his argument, and I wondered whether we were going anywhere. Part of his argument that we should have magistrates was based on his assertion that when we have had trouble with the police it has tended to be in the boroughs.
  Coming from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that was a very unfair conclusion to draw from the available facts. He will appreciate that many other circumstances have to be taken into account. He knows that some magistrates on existing watch committees are also members of local authorities. He knows that in coming to a conclusion on the matter it is necessary to consider the type of area, the type of crime that occurs in cities, the closeness of contact in cities, as opposed to county areas, and even questions of historical accident and circumstance. His conclusion that when we have had trouble with the police it has been in the boroughs cannot be justified from any evidence that he or any of us can bring forward.
  He also expressed fear of political pressure. That is why he wanted to include magistrates, whom he, and presumably other hon. Members, believe to be less political in their attitudes than are elected representatives. It is interesting to note that these views have been refuted by the Government at other stages. In Committee the Home Secretary said that in his view watch committees had developed a strong immunity to political argument, and the Under-Secretary said that in his view watch committees had worked very well.
  The right hon. and learned Member also said that in the county councils there was no bossing of the police. He implied that this might have gone on in the boroughs, or that bossing could be prevented by the new organisation set up under tie Bill. But there is at least some evidence for saying that if some chief constables had been under a little more control, or had listened more to their watch committees, things might have been better in a number of cities.

  719
  In fact, the situation has been the reverse of that which was suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  One point that he raised which was worthy of serious consideration, arose when he dealt with a matter of constitutional principle. He disliked the idea that the police should have any relationship with the executive—and he obviously meant that local authorities were executive bodies. I appreciate his point, but there is a much more important and fundamental principle at stake; that when there is financial expenditure, control should be in the hands of those who are democratically elected by the public.
  Let us consider some of the arguments adduced by Government spokesmen in Committee about the reasons for the changes being brought about by the Bill. The Joint Under-Secretary said that both the standing joint committees and the watch committees had worked well. Having said that, it was strange to hear him say that they should be changed. He admitted that the existence of magistrates on watch committees was an historical accident and he reminded me of the headmaster who did not want to put anything bad on the little boy's school report.
  I am not surprised that the standing joint committees have not worked badly. This is basically the view of the Royal Commission. Are the objections to the sort of arrangements the Government are proposing more theoretical than real? If one took away a democratically elected local authority and put in its place professionals to administer the area one would not expect administrative chaos. Despite this, one would find a steadily weakening interest on the part of the electorate in the area over a period and that would apply to the interests of all sections of the district. By introducing the principle of non-democratically elected magistrates to watch committees the Government will be doing precisely that.
  Several stronger points were made by the Government in Committee upstairs, one of them being that by having magistrates on police and watch committees one would widen the field of selection. I agree, and I also agree that
  720
  some people will not stand for election to these bodies and be prepared to stand up on public platforms and become councillors, although they could play a valuable rôle as magistrates and, as such, as members of watch committees.
  The Home Secretary said that councillors who were at the same time magistrates might have little experience of judicial work and it was for that reason that the Royal Commission made the recommendation that the quarter sessions and magistrates benches should make appointments. It is precisely because magistrates are concerned with judicial work that I do not want to see them engaged in police affairs. There should be a fundamental division between the administration of justice and the administration of the police force. Whatever suggestions the Government make they must remember that it is necessary to keep a balance and to keep separated the administration of the police force and the administration of justice.
  All the historical development of the last and this century has shown that the power of J.P.s has been taken away to prevent them from acting as local government officials. We all know how J.P.s were overlooked with all sorts of responsibilities—poor law work and so on—because local authorities were not then in existence and J.P.s were the only people available to take on those responsibilities. It was because they could not cope with the work and because of the changing political climate that we saw the growth of local authorities and the transferance of functions from J.P.s to the authorities. What the Government are now doing is reversing that historical process.
  I would have a fundamental objection to magistrates going on to any kind of board or body, whether police committees or anything else, so long as magistrates are chosen in the unsatisfactory way they are now selected. Even if I regarded the situation of police committees as satisfactory, the Government's argument for widening the field of selection is out-balanced by the importance of maintaining the fundamental principle that the administration of justice and the administration of the police should be kept completely separate and divorced.
  Mr. Victor Yates: We have been discussing this matter for a considerable time and I will not weary the House by making a long speech. It is significant that the vast majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed opinions against the proposals of the Government, and the same can be said of our debates in Committee upstairs.
  Despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) about hon. Members who represent county constituencies not having spoken today, the same can be said about those hon. Members and their speeches in Committee. It was significant in Committee that the two right hon. Gentlemen who spoke in favour of the Government's proposals were both former Ministers at the Home Office.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) raised objections on behalf of the town clerk of his constituency, although those objections were fully considered in Committee and were representative of the objections expressed by most local authorities; that is, all those which are members of the Association of Municipal Corporations.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I never heard directly from the Association of Municipal Corporations and I merely formed my judgment from the views expressed by the members of the watch committee and, as I said, the town clerk wrote to me.
  Mr. Yates: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his opinion is not the opinion of the few but is the unanimous opinion of the members of the Association of Municipal Corporations. Those authorities were entitled to ask for greater consideration from the Government than has been given to their views.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) made some remarks in Committee and again today which, I should have thought, would be thoroughly offensive to most local authorities. He referred to one-third magistrates and two-thirds members of the council as being a fair proportion. It would he a pity, he said, to bring local police under the control of local party caucuses. I resented those remarks because I am speaking on behalf of an authority
  722
  which has always elected its members to its watch committee. I challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell me whether he considers that Birmingham, which has always had a watch committee elected by the council, has ever exercised its functions as a party political caucus. Sir Edward Dodd, a former chief constable of Birmingham, who was recently knighted, worked under the control of this elected committee in Birmingham for some years and the Home Secretary has paid tribute to Birmingham's police authority, not only to Sir Edward but to the committee as a whole. How did we in Birmingham achieve our success? People are appointed to watch committees on the basis of their ability, and in order to give a fair representation of the parties in the council. When that is done we get clear party opinion, as has been the case in Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester——
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. John Hynd: And Sheffield.
  Mr. Yates: It would be unfair of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) to cast on those authorities the reflection that, as they do not have one-third of the members permanently appointed from outside, a political caucus runs things——
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Member has known me for years, and he knows that I am not, by nature, an offensive person. I have cast no aspersions on the authorities he has mentioned. He knows equally well that there are some borough authorities where there have been unpleasant happenings on the police authority. That can always happen, alas, in any place; one wants to prevent it happening anywhere.
  Mr. Yates: I quite agree that the right hon. and learned Gentleman never sets out to be offensive, but one cannot decide on the composition of committees on the basis of what black sheep there might be. It is up to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and those who support his views to show that the method adapted in the past by borough authorities has proved to be wrong and inefficient. I say that, on the whole, it has not been so.

  723
  The Birmingham local authority contributes over £2 million towards the maintenance of the police there, irrespective of the Government grant. That is the amount that falls on the ratepayers, and I think it absolutely reprehensible that one-third of the committee—with no direct responsibility to the electors—should have the right to vote on financial matters. That changes the whole principle, and the Town Clerk of Birmingham and the members of the Birmingham Watch Committee—a joint committee consisting of Conservative and Labour Members—are unanimously opposed to that change. That goes for most local authorities. That being so, the Home Secretary should give fairer consideration to the matter.
  The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) raised important and fundamental questions about appointments. It would be most regrettable if, in the appointment of members of a police authority, one could not consider the political views of the magistrates from outside. It would be very serious for an all-party committee not to know the views of one-third of its membership. This is not a trivial matter but a major issue, and I hope that hon. Members will vote according to the merits of the argument. There are no party politics involved here. I regret any introduction of party politics, because the administration of the police ought to be beyond political arguments.
  I do not mind magistrates serving on a watch committee, provided they are elected by the authorities. With the existing principle of co-option the local authority has the power to appoint individuals, and can refuse to appoint someone whose co-option is suggested, but that will not be the case under the Bill. Whether we like it or not, one-third of the members of the police authority will have to be magistrates.
  Members of the public have asked me, "What is the good of a police court?" I have replied, "It is the magistrates' court." Members of the public think that the police run the courts, although we have tried to make clear that the courts are in the control of the magistrates. If magistrates are to be compelled to serve on the local authority, it will be said that they no longer run the courts. If the Home
  724
  Secretary cannot go all the way with us, I hope that he will compromise in some way in view of the very strong opposition, in the House and outside it, to this proposal.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I had not intended to discuss these Amendments, as I represent a London constituency that will be quite unaffected by their fate, but in view of some of the things that have been said in this debate, and as I think that I am, with the exception of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton), the only person to intervene who does not represent a constituency in which there is a watch committee, I think it right for me to make some contribution.
  Local authorities are political bodies—certainly those of a size sufficient to be concerned with this Bill. That is all to the good. I do not think that they would be able to work except on that basis. The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said in moving the Amendment that the political majority on police authorities would be disturbed as a result of the provisions of the Bill——
  Miss Bacon: It could be.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It could be—I accept that. My answer is, "Why not?" What is so serious about that? I am sure that she and all hon. Members will agree that watch committees have done their job without bias—and, certainly, without political bias. If that is so, the addition of a number of other members, whether or not they are politicians, will not affect the matter—[Interruption.] I hear an hon. Member say "My goodness"—the implication of that remark is that there are political considerations that affect the minds of those on these committees——
  Mr. Winterbottom: All watch committees, according to the numbers that have to be provided by the local authorities, are conditioned by the party representation in the council. Proportionately to those parties, representation is made on the watch committee, which is a political body. The position will be disturbed.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I fully appreciate that. My point is that members of

  725
  these committees, whatever their politics, discharge their duties on the committees without bias. If it is suggested that the membership of a number of these individuals will disturb the political balance within the committees and that that will have some effect, it is a suggestion that there is some sort of political bias already affecting these committees.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: Is it not precisely because of this suggestion of political bias on the part of some representatives that the proposals in the Bill are being put forward?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not certain of the implication of that remark, but I understand that if we accept that these committees work without political bias, the political proportion in the membership does not matter.
  Mr. S. Silverman: If the hon. Member had difficulty in understanding the relevance of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman), may I remind him that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) advocated this proportion of magistrates on police authorities precisely in order to redress what he said was the adverse political balance which one would have on the police authorities unless that amendment was made?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I did not understand that and I do not accept it. I accept fully that magistrates have political views. One would be silly not to do so. Many of them are politicians at one time and magistrates at another. The point of the provisions in the Bill is that whereas the political members of the police committees will be appointed by an avowedly political body, namely, the local authority, one-third of the members will be magistrates appointed not by a political authority but by the magistrates themselves who will be acting in an entirely non-political capacity. This seems to me to be of the greatest importance.
  The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) argued very strongly that when members of these committees get on to the committees they do not act in a political capacity.
  726
  I accept that. Therefore, I think it is important that we should have a certain number of members who are not appointed by a political body. This seems to me to be the advantage of having a proportion of the membership magistrates appointed by magistrates.
  Mr. Winterbottom: Will the hon. Member agree that there must be political selection of magistrates in order that here shall be political reaction from the magistrates among those who are appointed to a watch committee? If we had magistrates selected as non-political people but who had political leanings and who in many cases would alter the balance of power within the watch committee, this would arouse agitation about political considerations in the judgment of magistrates. This has happened. It happened in 1906 to the detriment of the hon. Member's party when hundreds of Liberal members were selected.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not accept what the hon. Member has just said. I accept that a political body must choose people on a political basis and that therefore those appointed by a local authority will be a political choice. I say that it is unfortunate that such a body as a police authority should be of that character and, therefore, it is of great value that there should be members of that body appointed on a non-political basis. Hon. Members have said that magistrates ought not to control the police. I agree, but if magistrates ought not to control the police, neither should a p political body.
  6.45 p.m.
  There is no ideal solution to the problem. The Bill shows how difficult it is. The Bill is not short and it has many complex provisions dealing with many aspects of his matter. These provisions are entirely different from those which deal with education and other matters coming within the responsibilty of local authorities. The reason for this difference is that difficult constitutional considerations are involved. The administration of the police involves disciplinary, legal and political considerations.
  It seems to me that with a body of this kind it is desirable to have some special arrangement. I agree that the

  727
  local authority should be one, and the most predominant, of the bodies to appoint members, but it is also desirable to have other bodies and the best source of such other bodies is the magistrates. I believe that the 33⅓ per cent. proportion of members chosen by magistrates is about the right solution. I warmly welcome the Bill.
  Sir C. Taylor: I should say for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) that I represent part of the County of East Sussex but the area also includes a county borough. I have met members of the watch committee. I have known them well individually over a great many years and I fully agree with their disagreement with this part of the Bill and their agreement with the Amendment moved by the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds. South-East (Miss Bacon).
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had a pretty bad time today. There has been one lukewarm speech in his favour and one rather indifferent speech in his favour and I will not say which I think was which. But for almost the first time in my life I find myself in considerable agreement with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) when he drew attention to the old principle of the executive and the judiciary being separate. His arguments were not new. We have all learned them throughout our lives, and I think that the principle still applies.
  Two fundamental issues are at stake. The first is that, as I believe, the elected council should be responsible for the composition of the watch committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South missed the point about magistrates, in that magistrates are not responsible to the local electorate for the rates. They are not responsible for answering to the ratepayers for the expenses of the police authority. This is the second fundamental point that we have to consider.
  I support the Amendment. I can only say to the Home Secretary that this disease of voting against the Government is inclined to be catching and, being old-fashioned, before making up my mind how to vote in the Division,
  728
  I shall listen keenly to the answers he gives to the pleas made to him today.
  Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: So many hon. Members have spoken in the debate that I do not wish to take more than a few minutes. I was encouraged to continue trying to catch the eye of the Chair by the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). The more the debate proceeds, the more the fundamental issue is disclosed. With his torch, the hon. Member for Hendon, South illuminated brilliantly the confusion which lies behind the Home Secretary's proposals which we are now discussing.
  I, too, have had representations from the Bristol Corporation. I would go further than the watch committee and say that those members of the council who are also magistrates should be disqualified from serving on the watch committee. I will explain why. This is not a question of whether one is elected or not elected. The point is a fundamental one about functions and the incompatibility of certain functions.
  It has been suggested that what makes a man unsuitable for certain types of office, like membership of a watch committee, is his political view and the danger that politics would enter into consideration. The idea is that a man's views, particularly if he is active in politics on either side, somehow make him unsuitable to control power in the community. But, of course, the whole principle on which this House rests is just the opposite of that. It is only because a man has been elected that he may control power. With the greatest respect to the Home Secretary—and that is saying a lot—the reason why I support certain of his proposals which would give him greater power over local police forces—although my watch committee does not agree about this—is just that he is political; because he has been appointed by the party which won the previous election, and he is answerable to political questioning in the House of Commons.
  If we allowed the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) and the hon. Member for Hendon, South to take their argument a little further, we should find that there

  729
  were many other functions which, so it could be said, were unsuitable for political control.
  The whole principle lying behind the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) was perfectly sound. I was going to call the hon. Gentleman the "honourable Baronet". I am not sure whether he is a baronet now. No doubt, he will be soon, unless he votes against the Government. I do not know what he will do, and I honestly do not know whether he is a knight or a baronet. However, the hon. Gentleman's point about the rates is fundamental. Of course, the watch committee, spending the local ratepayers' money, must be answerable to the ratepayers. When I hear some of the speeches which are made in Bristol by our non-political Conservatives—who call themselves citizens in order to keep politics out of voting—suggesting that, if people do not like the council and if they want to protect the ratepayers' money, they should get rid of the council and substitute another, I cannot see how such ideas fit in with the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has presented.
  If magistrates are put on the local watch committee or police authority, their function will be a political function, because the watch committee is a political committee of a political body. If a magistrate is genuinely non-political—not non-political in the way the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) is non-political—once he is put on the watch committee, his duty will be to deal with policy regarding the police with the efficiency of which his committee is charged. Therefore, one is tempting the genuinely non-political magistrate—there may be a few—by his responsibilities to enter into honourable political decisions about the police in his area. This is the point.
  It is not the views of a man which make him unsuitable for certain offices. What makes a man unsuitable for certain offices is incompatibility of double service. I do not think that some hon. Members opposite understand the principle which lies behind this matter in the British constitution. We keep various groups of people out of the House of Commons. I have had to make some study of this subject. Now, at least, there is one less disqualification for
  730
  membership of the House than there was some years ago.
  There are two reasons why people are excluded from the House of Commons. First, we exclude people who are inherently unsuitable, the felon, the criminal, the alien or the lunatic. Second, we exclude those who would be unsuitable because of incompatibility of double service. In one sense, there is no one more suitable to be a Member of the House than a judge, but we keep him out not because he is unsuitable but because, if he were allowed in, there would be the fundamental incompatibility of his duty in the House of Commons, where he might become Home Secretary—there is almost a vacancy, as we know—and his duty on the bench where he would have to listen to the arguments presented in court.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, West said that he was speaking representing the Town Clerk of Bristol. I began to wonder whether he, too, understood the British constitution. If the watch committee had taken a contrary view, the town clerk would have written the hon. Gentleman a letter in the opposite sense, telling him about it. The hon. Gentleman is not representing the Town Clerk of Bristol. The Town Clerk of Bristol—I mean this in a perfectly proper sense—is a functionary of Bristol representing in his public duties the opinions of the majority or the watch committee.
  Let us be quite clear about it. The only thing which makes a man unsuitable is the constitutional principle that to ask honourable people, whether elected councillors or magistrates—a man must be a person of character and distinction to hold either such office—to undertake certain duties would be to ask them to assume incompatible functions.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I think that the hon. Gentleman was not here at the very beginning of the debate, and I would like him to be clear about what I said. I mentioned the Town Clerk of Bristol because he had written a letter on behalf of the watch committee. I was very careful to say that the letter expressed a view with which I concurred, but I did not say that I claimed here to represent him. I may have said that I wanted his view to be represented in the House, but I added a good deal more with

  731
  which, no doubt, the town clerk would not agree.
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman still has not understood. The town clerk does not have a view to be represented. His view is the view of the watch committee, and when the hon. Gentleman says that he put the town clerk's view forward only because he agreed with it, it makes it worse. For this purpose, the town clerk is acting as a letter-box, which is his function and duty, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is any way a party to the argument in a personal sense, he is wrong.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is taking the argument seriously. We shall judge whether hon. Members opposite who have spoken really put police matters above politics by whether they come into the Lobby to vote with us. This matter is above politics. It is a constitutional question, and we shall soon know, after the Division, whether hon. Members opposite really believe that the police should be above politics in this sense.
  There is another fundamental contradiction in this part of the Bill. The Home Secretary is drawing certain powers to the centre, to himself. It would be out of order to discuss this matter further, but I happen to think that there is a case for doing what the right hon. Gentleman proposes. However, at the same time as drawing certain powers to the centre as a corrective, the Home Secretary is introducing what he regards as another corrective at the local level. This is the absurdity in this part of the Bill. The police authority which is to be set up, with the magistrates, will in toto have less authority than the watch committee which is being replaced. Until now, the watch committee has had much more power relative to the Home Secretary. Now, however, we have the completely muddled idea that we both allegedly strengthen the police authority by putting magistrates on it and, at the same time, draw greater powers to the centre.
  A case might be made—I could not accept it—for saying that the magistrates were an alternative to more central control, but what cannot be justified is the idea of introducing what is supposed to be an ameliorative element
  732
  locally while, at the same time, retaining ultimate power centrally. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will realise that he has got himself into difficulties.
  One result of the Bill will be that there will be fewer magistrates on the county police authorities than there have been hitherto. We are told that the county authorities work very well. We are told that the borough authorities work very well. We are then told that they are both to be changed, in a contrary sense to one another, one having fewer magistrates and the other having more. I do not think that it makes sense at all.
  My last point is this. We have been told that one reason for accepting the Amendment is that the Bill will be a blueprint for the police for many years to come. I do not think that this is so. Only a very simple Amendment would be required to repeal the Clauses as at present drafted, and, since the feeling about it is so strong and the general view is so firmly opposed to the present proposals on constitutional grounds, if the right hon. Gentleman did not accept the Amendment—I still hope that he will—it would be quite easy to put matters right without having to go to the length of passing another great Measure on the police.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Brooke: The Government's desire is to get the best possible police authorities. The matters which we have been discussing for the past three hours were examined very carefully by the Royal Commission. After consideration, the Royal Commission came down unanimously against the points of view embodied in the Amendments and against the arguments which have been expressed today. All the arguments were pressed on the Royal Commission by the Association of Municipal Corporations, but, after considering the whole matter and looking at it in the large, the Royal Commission unanimously recommended that we should form police authorities which would consist as to two-thirds of councillors and as to one-third of magistrates. The Government have accepted this recommendation. They stand by it and they believe that the arguments which swayed the Royal Commission have more

  733
  substance than those which have been put to the House by objectors today.
  There are three sets of Amendments before us, and, judging by the way the debate has gone, the main issue is whether there should be magistrates on the police authority. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I pass quickly over the other two. One is the suggestion that the proportion instead of being one-third should be one-sixth. I think that one-sixth would be too small a proportion in a committee of 12, and, in any case, it would not meet the objection on principle that has been adduced. I do not think that there is anything that need be said for the proposal that one should man the police committee with councillor magistrates. If we are to have magistrates on the police committee, and if it is thought that there should he magistrates there, I am quite sure that the best people for the purpose out of the whole body of magistrates should be chosen rather than we should impress certain magistrates who happen also to be councillors or aldermen.
  As to financial control, which was mentioned by some of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), we are, of course, discussing police authorities in whose hands financial control does not lie. The financial control lies with the council and not with the police committee. If the council thinks that the police committee, however it is constituted, is over-spending, the council has the remedy in its own hands.
  We are also discussing police authorities which do not direct the police force. I detected in a number of speeches today, and I regret to say one from my own side of the House, this fallacy—the idea that the police committee was responsible for everything that the police did in a town. That, of course, is not so. It is the chief constable who directs the force and who carries the responsibility for anything that his men do, and if he does the job badly he has to go and the police authority must find a new chief constable. The police authority's duty is to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force. It does not, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) imagined, in any way carry responsibility for what the police actually do.
  There have been two main arguments adduced against the proposal in the Bill.
  734
  The first, that the police authorities should be 100 per cent. democratically elected, and, the second, that under the Royal Commission's proposals, endorsed by the Government, the functions of the police and the magistrates will become blurred.
  As to the argument that the police authorities should he democratically elected, what, in fact, the Government are doing it this Bill is to set up for the first time in history a democratically elected majority on all police committees. Of course, throughout the counties up to now we have had standing joint committees on which the democratically elected element has amounted to no more than 50 per cent. and the other 50 per cent. has consisted of magistrates. It is quite true that the watch committees have consisted as to 100 per cent. of elected councillors or aldermen.
  The Royal Commission, reviewing this position, believed that the magistrates had a valuable contribution to make to the work of the police authorities, but were unable to see any grounds for this anomalous differentiation as between the counties and the boroughs. It was very strongly pressed by the County Councils Association, a body which is not without experience of democratic government, that the 50 per cent. representation—50 per cent. councillors and 50 per cent. magistrates—on the police committees in the counties should be maintained. Nevertheless, it rejected that. It said that the only reasonable thing to do was to have the same composition on police authorities in both counties and boroughs, and it recommended that the element of the magistrates should be brought in by giving them one-third of the places, but that the element of democratic control should be maintained in the watch committees and should be inserted for the first time in what had been the standing joint committees by making the proportion two-thirds to one-third.
  As to the other argument, that the functions of the police and the magisstrates would become blurred, I think that the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said that there would be confusion in the minds of people appearing before the courts, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) said that the

  735
  two bodies would become intermingled in the public eye. I think that all this is linked with the fallacy that the police committee runs the police, which it does not. If indeed those who argue like this wish serious attention to be given to their argument, the onus is on them to explain why these dreadful things have never happened in the counties hitherto, because there has been none of this blurring. There has been no confusion in the minds of people appearing before the courts outside boroughs.
  The truth is that the system has worked very well in the counties—the system of having magistrates on the standing joint committee. [Interruption.] I have explained already the reasons and I shall continue to explain them if hon. Members will allow me to complete my speech. It is quite clear that the Royal Commission had given serious attention to this argument. It was put forward by the Association of Municipal Corporations—the argument that
  "…it was inherently objectionable to associate the functions of the police with the administration of justice."—
  I am quoting from the Royal Commission's Report—
  "Our own view is that this objection is theoretical rather than real, and that there are overriding advantages in enabling the experience of justices to be made available to police authorities."
  That is the unanimous view of the Royal Commission and that is the view which is shared by the Government. Indeed, what has happened over the past years in the counties, without any sinister developments, is the practical rebuttal of much that has been said in arguments today. I think that we can fairly say that we have gone over the whole field. We spent three hours in Committee on Amendments of this character, and the Committee rejected them by 21 votes to 14; we have spent just on three hours on Amendments today, and I think that we have canvassed every argument.
  There has been, of course, as we recognise, a direct conflict of approach between the county interests and the borough interests, reflected in the conflict between the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association—the Association of Municipal Corporations arguing for
  736
  100 per cent. councillors and aldermen on the watch committees in the boroughs, and the County Councils Association arguing for the continuance of what would appear from this debate to be the detested system of having 50 per cent. magistrates on the police committee in the county.
  I can assure the House that I know what I might call the watch committees' case very well. I have had it expressed to me by many people. I have studied the Association of Municipal Corporations' evidence and its views as expressed to the Royal Commission, and its views as expressed to me, if I may say so, very forcibly and well when I consulted it, among other bodies, after the Royal Commission's Report had been received.
  This is not something about which I knew nothing until this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. H. Steward), who, unfortunately, is ill and cannot be here today, made sure that the whole Committee was aware of this view. Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will confirm it. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) did the same. She said that these views were held in places as different as Manchester and Wallasey. I do not want to draw any comparisons, but it is true that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) came to see me to make sure that I understood in full the view taken by his watch committee.
  I come back to the Royal Commission. Because we have heard so much this afternoon about what I might call the watch committee arguments and so little about the arguments which influenced and led the Royal Commission unanimously to come down in favour of the principle incorporated in the Bill, I would ask leave to read what the Royal Commission said about its reasons. In paragraph 210 it stated:
  "…we regard locally elected persons as entirely fit and proper people to discharge the functions which we propose in future should be accorded to police authorities. But we think that they can be greatly assisted in their tasks of enhancing the standing of the police force and appointing its senior officers by the inclusion in their number of a proportion of justices. Through their judicial work magistrates have a close knowledge of police affairs and problems, and they above all see the fruits and nature of police work. They

  737
  constitute a body of public-spirited citizens whose services cannot be enlisted through the normal machinery of local government; and the inclusion in the police authority of a quota from the magistracy widens the field of selection".
  In Standing Committee the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said:
  "I accept as a matter of argument that there are great advantages in bringing to bear on the administration of the police the experience which a magistrate acquires through sitting on a bench. Undoubtedly, as he sits on the bench and tries cases coming before him, listening to police evidence and acquiring a general knowledge of how the case is prepared and presented, he gathers together a valuable store of experience and knowledge, and I would not for a moment contend that such knowledge could not be most usefully made available to police authorities".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 3rd December, 1963: c. 29–30.]
  There is no dispute about the potential value of magistrates on police authorities. There is no doubt, I hope, about the proposition that the composition of police authorities should in future be made uniform in counties and boroughs. There is no doubt that the general experience in the counties hitherto is strongly in support of the Royal Commission's view that all police authorities would benefit from the admixture of a proportion, but always a minority, of magistrates along with elected members, who will always be in the majority. Those are the grounds on which I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Mr. S. Silverman: The Home Secretary has been at great pains, rightly, to tell us what the Royal Commission thought, but the Royal Commission has made its Report and it is now not for the Royal Commission but for Parliament to decide what shall be done with it. Apart from the Royal Commission's view, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us his view?
  Mr. Brooke: I am asking Parliament to decide. I expressed my views at some length in my speech today and at greater length in Standing Committee. I think that we are nearing the time when Parliament should come to a decision on the matter.
  Sir F. Soskice: There is one thing about which the Home Secretary is undoubtedly right, and that is that it is the first. Amendment which raises the
  738
  issue about which the House is concerned. Having agreed with him about that, and readily accepting that the other Amendments are second and third bests, I must go on to tell him that I think that his speech was unworthy of the occasion.
  If my arithmetic is correct, no fewer than 17 speakers on bath sides of the House are concerned about one major principle. They do not wish to see a partial or even a minimal obliteration of the fundamental distinction in our constitution between the judge and the member of the Executive. That principle was reasserted by and underlay the basic argument of every one of the 17 hon. and right hon. Members to whom I have just referred. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, did not begin to try to answer their contentions.
  7.15 p.m.
  This is not a matter which can be decided on party lines. All of us in this House, whatever view we may have on this Amendment, prize and value that great constitutional principle which the wisdom of generations has thrown up and upon which our democracy largely depends, namely, that we must have judges who are apart from the Executive. Those of us who support the Amendment feel that that principle is involved here.
  Mr. Brooke Mr. Brooke indicated dissent.
  Sir F. Soskice: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am surprised to learn that he does not think that it is involved. He might have contended that it was involved only in a minor degree—I should not have agreed with him about that—but he says that it is not involved at all. Therefore, he starts from a premise which is utterly unsustainable. Obviously it is involved, and the only question is whether there is some counter-balancing consideration justifying that degree of infringement which the Bill imports.
  The Home Secretary paid me the great compliment of quoting a portion of the speech which I addressed to the Standing Committe dealing with this topic. What he did not tell the House was that in the same speech I said that the overwhelmingly important consideration was the infringement of that principle. As the Royal Commission found and stated in paragraph 10 of its Report which has

  739
  been read out over and over again in our debates, I accept that there is an obvious advantage in having the wisdom which justices acquire in the administration of their duties put at the disposition of the police authority. That is a truism; it is obvious. However, in the same speech, I stressed over and over again, as did all hon. Members of the Committee who felt as I did, that there was an overwhelming consideration, and that was the one to which I have adverted on a number of occasions.
  Faced with that basic question of principle, whatever the right answer to it might be, and faced with speech after speech during what the Home Secretary rather complainingly referred to as the three hours which we have devoted to this important topic this afternoon, what does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says that, first, there is a financial problem. Although it is relevant and important, that is on the fringe of the question which we are deciding. He said that it was necessary that there should be elected representatives who should have responsibility. We accept that.
  The Home Secretary went on to say that the other argument was the blurring of distinction between the judicial and the executive function. He tossed it aside as though it was scarcely worthy of notice. It is for this reason that I reproach the right hon. Gentleman with having made an unworthy speech.
  Mr. Brooke: I did not toss it aside as being not worthy of notice. I said that this theoretical argument could have been advanced all these years against the composition of standing joint committees, but, although different Governments have been in power, the point has never been made and it has never been thought to be a practical objection in the working of this system, which we have had in counties for many years.
  Sir F. Soskice: Exactly the same argument could have been used against a proposal to stop calling magistrates' courts police courts and, instead to call them by their present name, magistrates' courts. Exactly the same argument could have been used against substituting for police ushers, ushers who do not belong to the police force. Exactly the same argument could have been used. Exactly the same
  740
  form of argument could have been used against every change ever proposed in this House.
  Of course, very often—fortunately it is our experience—adjustments in our social and political arrangements could have tended to ill consequences but in fact have not produced ill results. Fortunately, we are still blessed with an administration of justice which is the envy of the world. But why not keep it the envy of the world? And why, when a perfectly proper change is proposed, use that kind of archaic, antiquated argument that, "It has worked all right so far, so whatever on earth you do, do not change it"?
  Why I say that he tossed the argument aside as clearly unworthy of notice was because he used the same kind of argument about blurring the issue. That is the whole argument. It is the argument on which every consideration which has been addressed to the House today has centred and from which it derived its root force.
  Having in the course of the discussion in Committee weighed carefully these considerations which are put in paragraph 10 of the Report of the Royal Commission, with that process of balancing having gone on now throughout the three hours we have discussed this problem in this debate, I really do put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the balance comes down heavily and incontrovertibly in favour of acceptance of the Amendment which we propose.
  The Home Secretary must have had an embarrassing experience this afternoon. He has sat there alone, unsolaced, except by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton). He gave him some small comfort, which was rather derisively described by an hon. Gentleman who spoke later who called it, I think, "milkwash". Some such phrase he used about it. That was all the solace the right hon. Gentleman had. He has sat there in solemn state wondering when it was all going to end, and no doubt hoping that it would end before very long, and he had to wait for speaker after speaker, and nobody looked upon him with favour until the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), and then—with great respect to the hon. Gentleman: he knows that I have an

  741
  affection and regard for him—that really could not have brought very much comfort to the right hon. Gentleman. He did his best on a bad wicket. He displayed a considerable sense of loyalty, which does not mark everybody's performance in the House these days.
  The right hon. Gentleman has sat there alone. He should recognise, as one of my hon. Friends said, that he has got himself into a difficulty and he should withdraw from it gracefully and honourably. It really is not the province of a Minister with great responsibilities on his shoulders to dig himself into a trough and refuse to get out of it and to sit there sulkily and solemnly and refuse to listen to the case. He ought now to adopt a posture of dignity instead of the rather undignified posture he has adopted hitherto.
  I greatly hope that the House will instruct the Home Secretary by its vote that he really has made a very serious error, and that it will vote in support of the Amendment proposed.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: I think I ought to say now, as. it may have some bearing on the desire of hon. Members to address the House, that, whereas at an early stage I said that I would select for Division, if necessary, the Amendments in page 2, line 12, in line 13, and in line 18, I understand that that would not really suit the House, and having heard the debate I agree, and that, therefore, I propose to call for Division, if desired, the Amendment under discussion and the Amendments in page 2, line 18 and line 19.
  Mr. Charles A. Howell: I make no apology for intervening even at the last minute. I do not get many opportunities of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, and though when I happen to be sitting near to you I thereby shudder the more to remember what often happens when an hon. Member says "I shall be brief", I will say that, nevertheless, I shall try to be practical and brief at the same time.
  I think that the Home Secretary made a big mistake when he recalled what happened in the debate we had on this matter in the Standing Committee. He
  742
  said that the vote against the Amendment was 21 to 14. That was not a victory for the right hon. Gentleman—that was a victory for the Whips. If the Division tonight takes any cognisance of the speeches it will not be a victory for the Whips.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor)—if I can catch him before he goes beyond the Bar—referred to two speeches by hon. Friends of who have both left the Chamber, and he described them in a not very complimentary way, but they were the only two speeches which supported the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that either of them, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) or the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton), was speaking for the county councils. I think they were speaking for the esprit de corps, because both have held office in the Home Office, and what the Home Office wants they must support. I think that they were more sincere in that than was the right hon. Gentleman in his reply.
  The right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to justify what he is doing, or why he is doing it. He did not say why he wanted it. What he did say was that during every Government for a long time, in particular the one we have had for the last 12 years, nobody has seen fit to complain and nobody has brought in a Bill like this. Since this Bill was introduced a number of complaints have been made.
  What are we proposing to do? According to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire, the inclusion of magistrates is to have some tremendous effect, to make some great improvement, on watch committees. Who are these magistrates? To my way of thinking, they are amateur judges, members of the judiciary, people who, having gone to bed one night, next morning got letters from the Lord Chancellor telling them that they were made magistrates.
  So overnight a man has become a superman. The only superman I know is one my grandchildren used to watch on television, who, as soon as he was arrested had a cloak put on him, and

  743
  could fly through ceilings and windows and off to the sky. That was a superman. But no one is going to tell me that an ordinary mortal, whether a bank manager, or the managing director of a firm, or a miner, or a railwayman, or even a housewife, who goes to bed at night as an ordinary mortal, wakes up next morning suddenly changed into someone who ought to be on a watch committee.
  The right hon. Gentleman announced—I will not say he boasted—that he has introduced more Bills into this House than any other Minister. I think he is right. But this is one Bill which will not stand to his credit. I do not know whether it was he or someone else who said in the House that he has been described as the most hated man. That amuses the right hon. Gentleman now, but I was only quoting what somebody else has said.
  Of all the Bills he has introduced this is the most retrograde Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member appears to be addressing himself to the entire contents of the Bill. I am afraid that we must keep to the one point, although the group of Amendments is rather large.
  Mr. Howell: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker. I will come to it.
  If the right hon. Gentleman adheres, as he is going to—we know that—to this Clause, and brings in the magistrates, he will bring the whole of the judiciary in this country, in my opinion, into disrepute. We in Britain like to boast that here we have got nearest to the perfect judicial situation. If this Clause passes, that will not be possible.
  I would draw attention to something else the right hon. Gentleman said. He said that there had been no complaints when anyone had gone before councillor magistrates. How many of these people know who the magistrates are? The ordinary person probably does not know that the chairman is a lieutenant-colonel somebody or other who is the sort of person who gets noticed in the Press and who makes some pronouncement which gets the headlines. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the ordinary person who is charged with a mis-
  744
  demeanour or whatever it may be, asks pointedly, "Is the magistrate a member of the local authority?" Or vice versa? Of course he does not. Of course, the point is that one cannot be forced.
  7.30 p.m.
  I commend to the Home Secretary the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South {Mr. Cole), who said that magistrates might even lean over backwards not to believe the police and to ensure a fair hearing for the other side. There should be no suspicion in the other direction. In many cases it is police evidence against the evidence of an individual. I know what can happen to a policeman who commits perjury. A magistrate must accept the word of a police officer who is sworn to tell the truth. Magistrates go on a slippery slope when they do otherwise. Certain magistrates withdraw from the bench if they know the person appearing before them or are connected with him in any way.
  Suppose that magistrates belong to a watch committee and someone steals something from that committee. How can the magistrates adjudicate in such cases? Recently in the courts there have been objections to the jury. We know that in certain circumstances someone can object to the magistrate. What will happen if the defendant or his solicitor raises the point in respect of the panel of magistrates and objects to any magistrate who is a member of the council? Will that magistrate be barred from serving? The man himself may know that it will be his word against that of a police officer, and he may object to any magistrate who is a member of the watch committee. What will be the situation then? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the defendant, who is innocent until he is proved guilty, will be offered the right of challenging a magistrate? It is important that the man should be certain that the decision, when it comes, has not been biassed by any association that the magistrate has had.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has not come here with a knowledge from the Patronage Secretary of what his majority will be. We have heard that only two hon. Members have given lukewarm support to his proposal. He is steamrolling through a proposal which

  745
  nobody in the House seems to want. Nobody in the city councils, county councils and borough councils in Britain has asked for it. What it means is that the right hon. Gentleman is telling those people that he is imposing what he proposes whether they want it or not. If he will not reconsider it now, I hope he will do so before the next stage.
  Sir Douglas Glover: I apologise to the House for intervening, but I want enthusiastically to support my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I do not say that because of what has been said from the Opposition benches. I intervened in the Second Reading debate to make the case that the Home Secretary has been making tonight.
  All the hon. Members I have heard in the debate have said that there is no authority for what the Home Secretary is doing. The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) spent a great deal of time talking about the constitutional and historical background. For a long time magistrates were appointed not only to keep the law but to enforce it, and that is where the connection between the magistrates and the police forces arises. It is also the case that the Home Secretary had the authority of a Royal Commission, which has spent far more time on this subject than any one of us has had the opportunity of doing and unanimously recommended the proposals which the Home Secretary is putting forward.
  The Home Secretary is the political head of his Department, and therefore his Department would automatically lean to a political solution. But the Department, as the governing body of the police forces in the country, having considered the evidence of the Royal Commission and all the arguments which have been put forward, has favoured this compromise solution.
  The representatives of the county boroughs have been a little arrogant in their speeches when they say that this is creating a precedent. It may be that this has to be sold to the county boroughs, but it has also to be sold to the county councils.
  Here we have an agreement in a Bill to try to maintain a modified form between two different systems. Up to
  746
  now 50 per cent. of the county council joint boards have been magistrates, but in the county boroughs there have been no magistrates. Under the proposed alteration of control, county councils are to have one-third magistrates and county boroughs one-third magistrates. This leaves in the county boroughs a two-thirds' majority of political control and reduce; the 50–50 balance which existed in the county council joint boards.
  We are dealing with something which has operated successfully. I am not concerned about historical aspects. I am concerned with what works. My experience of certain county councils—I do not want to get into any controversy, and I admit that one can have only a limited knowledge in this field—leads me to say that the system in the counties has worked at least as well as, if not better than, that in the county boroughs. It is not too bad a thing to have on certain bodies people who have no other axe to grind than the fact that they have been appointed magistrates, which means that they are expected to be impartial. I believe that the system is working very well in the county councils.
  Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, said that we should not have non-elected people on this body. In any number of county boroughs—let us be honest about this and say that it is a reward for loyal service—one has on these bodies a great many aldermen, and a great many magistrates have been ex-councillors and at that particular moment they may not be elected representatives. But they are people of wide knowledge who bring to the problems—which should not be emotional but should be ones which are dealt with from acquired knowledge—very practical appreciation of the matters with which they have to deal. They bring that knowledge to the consultations and discussions which go on at the moment in the joint boards. When the Bill becomes law, they will bring that same specialised knowledge and collective wisdom—they do not get it in one day on being appointed; they get it from experience over the years—to the deliberations of the watch committees in the towns. Surely that is a good thing.

  747
  It is also a good thing that the elected members, the political representatives, will have a two-thirds' majority. It is no bad thing that their views are influenced by people who have no axe to grind but who have a specialised knowledge in this field.
  I believe that after great thought the Minister has produced the right answer to this new police structure. I have not risen to speak in support of the Minister because he is in a difficulty. I have risen to sneak because I sincerely believe that what we have here is an improvement for the whole country, and something which will do what we are all trying to do, and that is to produce a better, closely-knit, police force.
  Me, Leslie Hale: I shall not detain the House for more than a minute. I desire to apologise for not having heard all the discussion, but I left the House in the early hours of this morning, travelled to my constituency to keep a long-standing engagement, and travelled back by the fastest available means, and it has not been a singularly comfortable day.
  The main issue of principle for the Royal Commission on this head was a question of uniformity. I do not think that the Royal Commission was very excited or divided on this issue. It was obviously desirable to have the same formula for standing joint committees of counties and borough councils. The Royal Commission was, I think, impressed, as I was, by the suggestion that standing joint committees had had this membership for a long time and that it gave them the right to hear from people who saw the police in action, and people who would know whether things were right or wrong in the day to day operation of the police forces in the courts, information which would not normally be available to borough councillors unless they were also magistrates, as they frequently are.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of one false argument when he referred to the absence of criticism of standing joint committees. I was a member of a county council for 25 years.
  748
  We never knew what the standing joint committee discussed. We merely received a brief note of its discussions. But the matter has been discussed at great length, and on Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) made a moving and sincere speech in which he raised what he called an issue of deep principle, and I think that we should regret the use of the word "theoretical" which did not do adequate justice to the argument on this matter.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has moved an Amendment suggesting that there should be magistrates on the committee as borough councillors, which seems to be a fairly happy solution of a problem which has exercised the minds of hon. Members to an extent which I do not think any member of the Royal Commission anticipated.
  I understand that we are to vote on the Amendment in line 11, the Amendment in line 18, and the first Amendment in line 19. The Amendment in line 19 suggests that a proportion of the council should be selected from those who have had magisterial experience, which seems to me to be a fairly happy solution. I should have thought that the arguments were fairly evenly balanced, and I think that it would be wrong for me as a member of the Royal Commission to vote against the main Clause, or for the first two Amendments, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has almost completely embodied the recommendations that we made.
  However, I shall be happy to support the Amendments which are concerned with saying that magistrates shall not be members of a watch committee merely because they are magistrates, but that they shall be members when they have the additional qualification of being borough councillors, which I think is a distinct improvement, and deals with the issue of princiciple raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West. I should have thought that that was a solution on which agreement could have been obtained.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 159.

  Division No. 45.]

  AYES

  [7.44 p.m.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Harper, Joseph

  Oram, A. E.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hayman, F. H.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Beaney, Alan

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Padiey, W. E.

  Bence, Cyril

  Holman, Percy

  Paget, R. T.

  Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

  Holt, Arthur

  Parker, John

  Bennett, J (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hooson, H. E.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Benson, Sir George

  Houghton, Douglas

  Probert, Arthur

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Bowles, Frank

  Howie, W.

  Randall, Harry

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M,

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Bradley, Tom

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hunter, A. E.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)

  Callaghan, James

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

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

  Carmichael, Neil

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Ross, William

  Chapman, Donald

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Jones, T. w. (Merioneth)

  Small, William

  Delargy, Hugh

  King, Dr. Horace

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Dempsey, James

  Ledger, Ron

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Diamond, John

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Dodds, Norman

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Stonehouse, John

  Doig, Peter

  Lubbock, Eric

  Swain, Thomas

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

  McBride, N.

  Taverne, D.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  McCann, John

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  MacCo, James

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

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Thornton, Ernest

  Evans, Albert

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Timmons, John

  Fitch, Alan

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Tomney, Frank

  Fletcher, Eric

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

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Manuel, Archie

  Warbey, William

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Weitzman, David

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Millan, Bruce

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mitchison, G. R.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Moody, A. S.

  Whitlock, William

  Ginsburg, David

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Willey, Frederick

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Moyle, Arthur

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

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Neat, Harold

  Woof, Robert

  Gunter, Ray

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

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

  Hannan, William

  O'Malley, B. K.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Lawson and Dr. Broughton

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J, K.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Arbuthnot, Sir John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Costain, A. P.

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

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Craddook, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Barter, John

  Critohley, Julian

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hollingworth, John

  Bidgood, John C.

  Curran, Charles

  Hornby, R. P.

  Biffen, John

  Dance, James

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Bishop, Sir Patrick

  Elliot, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Iremonger, T. L,

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Farr, John

  James, David

  Brewis, John

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Freeth, Denzil

  Johnson, Erie (Blackley)

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Gardner, Edward

  Johnson Smith Geoffrey

  Buck, Antony

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Butcher, Sit Herbert

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, M.)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

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

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Chataway, Christopher

  Green, Alan

  Kirk, Peter

  Chichester Clark, R.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Cooke, Robert

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Cooper, A, E.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Hastings, Stephen

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Longbottom, Charles

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Lovers, Walter H.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Partridge, E.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Peel, John

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

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Pitman, Sir James

  Turner, Colin

  Maclean, Sir-Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  MacLeod, Sir John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Maddan, Martin

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Str Otho

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Ma land, Sir John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Walker, Peter

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Pym, Francis

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Webster, David

  Mawby, Ray

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Maxwell Hyslop, R. J,

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Whitelaw, William

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

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Mills, Stratton

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

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Morgan, William

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Shepherd, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Stainton, Keith

  Mr. McLaren and Mr. Hugh Rees.

  Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 18, after "persons", insert "being members of the council".—[Miss Bacon.]
  Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 156.

  Division No. 46.]

  AYES

  [7.54 p.m.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hannan, William

  Oram, A. E.

  Beaney, Alan

  Harper, Joseph

  Oswald, Thomas

  Bence, Cyril

  Hayman, F. H.

  Padley, W. E.

  Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)

  Paget, R. T.

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Holman, Percy

  Parker, John

  Benson, Sir George

  Holt, Arthur

  Prentice, R. E.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hooson, H. E.

  Probert, Arthur

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

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pursey, cmdr. Harry

  Bowles, Frank

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Randall, Harry

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Howie, W.

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Bradley, Tom

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Callaghan, James

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

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

  Carmichael, Net

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Ross, William

  Chapman, Donald

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Janner, sir Barnett

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Collick, Percy

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Small, William

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Jones, T. w. (Merioneth)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Delargy, Hugh

  King, Dr. Horace

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Dempsey, James

  Ledger, Ron

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Diamond, John

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Stonehouse, John

  Dodds, Norman

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Swain, Thomas

  Doig, Peter

  McBride, N.

  Taverne, D.

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

  McCann, John

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  MacColl, James

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Thornton, Ernest

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Timmons, John

  Evans, Albert

  Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Tomney, Frank

  Fitch, Alan

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

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Fletcher, Eric

  Manuel, Archie

  Warbey, William

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Weitzman, David

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Millan, Bruce

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Moody, A. S.

  Widley, Frederick

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Ginsburg, David

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Willie, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Woof, Robert

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Neal, Harold

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Gunter, Ray

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Lawson and Dr. Broughton.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Nugent, Rt, Hon. Sir Richard

  Arbuthnot, Sir John

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Hastings, Stephen

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Barter, John

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Berkeley, Humphry

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

  Partridge, E.

  Bidgood, John C.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Peel, John

  Biffen, John

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hollingworth, John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Bingham, R. M.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pitman, Sir James

  Bishop, Sir Patrick

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Pounder, Ration

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pym, Francis

  Brewis, John

  James, David

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

  Buck, Antony

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Chataway, Christopher

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

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

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Kirk, Peter

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Cooper, A. E.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shepherd, William

  Corfield, F. V.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Stainton, Keith

  Costain, A. P.

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Critchley, Julian

  Longbottom, Charles

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

  Crowder, F. P.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Curran, Charles

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Dance, James

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Turner, Colin

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Emmett, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  McLaren, Martin

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)

  Walker, Peter

  Farr, John

  MacLeod, Sir John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Finlay, Graeme

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fraser, ran (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Maddan, Martin

  Webster, David

  Freeth, Denzil

  Maitland, Sir John

  Wellis, John (Maidstone)

  Gardner, Edward

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Whitelaw, William

  Gillmour, sir John (East Fife)

  Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Glyn, Sir S chard (Dorset, N.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Green, Alan

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

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Mills, Stratton

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Morgan, William

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. More.

  Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 19, leave out from "borough" to end of line 24 and insert:
  "being such members of the council of the borough as may be selected by the council provided that in making the selection the council shall as to a number not exceeding one-third of the total number of the mem-
  bers of the watch committee select members of the council who are magistrates".—[Miss Bacon.]
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 134.

  Division No. 47.]

  AYES

  [8.4 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Arbuthnot, Sir John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Brewis, John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Barter, John

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Costain, A. P.

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Bidgood, John C.

  Buck, Antony

  Critchley, Julian

  Biffen, John

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Crowder, F. P.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Curran, Charles

  Bingham, R. M.

  Chataway, Christopher

  Dance, James

  Bishop, Sir Patrick

  Chichester Clark, R.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Cooke, Robert

  Eillott, R.W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Kirk, Peter

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho

  Fair, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Finlay, Graeme

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Freeth, Denzil

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

  Gardner, Edward

  Longbottom, Charles

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Me Adden, Sir Stephen

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Green, Alan

  MacArthur, Ian

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  MacLeod, Sir John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Shepherd, William

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Stainton, Keith

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Maddan, Martin

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Hastings, Stephen

  Maitland, Sir John

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Marten, Neil

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

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

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

  Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Mawby, Ray

  Turner, Colin

  Hollingworth, John

  Maxwelt-Hyslop, R. J.

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Hornby, R. P.

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

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Mills, Stratton

  van Straunenzee, W. R.

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Hughes Habett, Vice-Admiral John

  Morgan, William

  Walker, Peter

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Webster, David

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Whitelaw, William

  James, David

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Johnson, Erie (Blackley)

  Partridge, E.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Peel, John

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Kerens, Cdr. J. S.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Woodhouse, CM.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Pitman, Sir James

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pounder, Rafton

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Mc aren and Mr. Pym.

  NOES

  Allen, Scholefield (Crowe)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Millan, Bruce

  Beaney, Alan

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Bence, Cyril

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Moody, A. S.

  Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

  Gunter, Ray

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Benson, Sir George

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Movie, Arthur

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hannan, William

  Mulley, Frederick

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

  Harper, Joseph

  Neal, Harold

  Bowles, Frank

  Hayman, F. H.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

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

  Bradley, Tom

  Holman, Percy

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Holt, Arthur

  Oram, A. E.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Callaghan, James

  Howen, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Padley, W. E.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Howie, W.

  Paget, R. T.

  Chapman, Donald

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Parker, John

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Collick, Percy

  Hunter, A. E.

  Probert, Arthur

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hymt, H. (Accrington)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Randall, Harry

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Dempsey, James

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Robertson, John (Parsley)

  Diamond, John

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Dodds, Norman

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

  Doig, Peter

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Ross, William

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

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  King, Dr. Horace

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Ledger, Ron

  Sillverman, Sydney (Nelsen)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Evans, Albert

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Small, William

  Finch, Alan

  McBride, N.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Fletcher, Eric

  McCann, John

  Sorensen, R. W,

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  MacColl, James

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Stonehouse, John

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Swain, Thomas

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Taverne, D.

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

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

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Ginsburg, David

  Manuel, Archie

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

  756

  757

  Thornton, Ernest

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Woof, Robert

  Timmons, John

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Tomney, Frank

  Willey, Frederick

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Warbey, William

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

  Mr. Lawson and Dr. Broughton.

  Weitzman. David

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, at the end to insert:
  (5) The quorum of a police committee or watch committee shall be such as may from time to time be determined by the council of the county or county borough.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): With this Amendment we can discuss the following Amendments:
  In page 2, line 32, at end insert:
  (5) The quorum of a police committee or watch committee shall be such as may from time to time be determined by the council of the county or county borough, provided that it shall be deemed that at any meeting of the police committee or watch committee a quorum shall exist only where a majority of the members present are members of the Council.
  In Clause 3, page 3, line 14, at end insert:
  (4) The quorum of a combined police authority shall be such as may from time to time be determined by that police authority, provided that it shall be deemed that at any meeting of the authority a quorum shall exist only where a majority of the members present are members of the constituent councils.
  Mr. Woodhouse: This Amendment provides for a quorum of a county or county borough police authority to be fixed by the county or county borough council. The Amendment was put down following an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in Committee in a debate on a new Clause suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill). Our Amendment is not identical with that new Clause, which proposed to fix the quorum of all police authorities at one-third. Our view is that this would be unnecessarily rigid and would not sufficiently recognise that a different quorum may reasonably be desired in different circumstances.
  The present quorum on watch committees is three. The present quorum on standing joint committees is not fixed by Statute but fixed jointly by the county council and quarter sessions. The quorum of county borough councils is one-third and of county councils it is one quarter. In this House the quorum on
  758
  Standing Committees is a different proportion of the total in Committees of different sizes. These examples all suggest that there is a case for some flexibility. Therefore, if it is not laid down by Statute, the responsibility must be laid on someone to fix it. It seems right that police authorities, like local authorities generally, should have their quorums fixed or decided. That is most appropriately done by the body which determines the numbers on the police authority itself, the council.
  8.15 p.m.
  Although I apologise to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) for answering his arguments before he puts them forward, I think the point of his Amendments is perfectly cleat. His first Amendment goes beyond the Government Amendment only in one respect, by providing additionally that a quorum would be constituted only where councillors were in a majority. That reopens the question of inclusion of justices on police authorities which has been closed by a series of Divisions. The Government feel that, having settled that point by the Divisions which have just taken place, it would be wrong to make a change inconsistent with those decisions by, in effect, dividing this police authority into first-and second class members.
  Once it has been decided that magistrates should be members of the police authorities, they must surely be regarded as equal partners with the other members, just as they are today in the standing joint committees even though in the latter the division is 50–50 and the magistrates are not in a minority as they will be in future on police committees. The police authorities can function effectively only if the members are treated on a basis of equality.
  The hon. Member's second Amendment would make similar provision for combined police authorities, but would incidentally also provide that the police authorities should fix their own quorum. Apart from the similar objections to a division into first- and second-class status, it would be wrong that a combined police authority alone of all police authorities

  759
  should fix its own quorum. Responsibility for fixing the quorum should lie outside the police authority and would be most appropriately done by the body which determines its numbers.
  Mr. O'Malley: I am in something of a difficulty here. As I understand the position, according to the Amendment which has been moved the quorum on a police committee or watch committee is to be fixed by the council of the county or county borough. This same position will occur for a combined police authority. If I have got it wrong, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain.
  Mr. Woodhouse: I am glad to explain. The quorum on a combined police authority always has been, and in future will be, fixed by the terms of the amalgamation scheme. That has been the invariable practice. Although I shall gladly listen to points the hon. Member may make, I should add that the Amendment we propose is known to be acceptable to the local authority associations. I hope that it will commend itself to the House.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I wish briefly to address remarks to the Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) and myself. They are concerned with the quorum on police committees and watch committees on the one hand and combined police authorities on the other. Our Amendments were couched in exactly the same terms, bearing in mind that in the second Amendment the method of choosing the quorum is different from that in the first.
  I accept that in most of this debate we have been discussing the question of the composition of various committees. Our Amendments do not seek to open that argument again. The starting point of our argument in these two Amendments was expressed by the Home Secretary this afternoon, as it was also expressed in Standing Committee as reported in column 87 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. When dealing with this point, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Nevertheless, the Government's proposal is that throughout the country the democratically-elected element should be given a firm majority On the police authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 5th December, 1963; c. 87.]
  760
  It is from that statement, made by the right hon. Gentleman, that we proceed on the question of quorum. Unless we proceed as laid down in these two Amendments, this dictum will not be carried out and the democratically-elected element will not have a firm majority.
  I accept the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary—because I am trying to be conciliatory in the hope that he will accept the spirit of our Amendments—that watch committees under the terms of the Bill are in a different position from that which they occupied before. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary made his statement that the democratically-elected element must be seen to be in firm control, and unless the quorum is laid down in this respect, we could have the magistrates' elected element making decisions at a meeting. The Amendments do not break new ground, for we are working in the light of what the Home Secretary said in Committee and again this evening. On that our case rests.
  Certain disabilities are laid down under the 1933 Act and possibly the 1948 Act in respect of councillors in local government. For example, one cannot be a councillor if one has contracts with the local authority. I used the words "local authority" deliberately, not "watch committee". Certain rules and regulations are laid down in legislation about the pecuniary interests of a councillor. I hope that this will be dealt with in the reply to the debate. Will the legislation which applies to the democratically-elected element in a watch committee also apply to the magistrates' nominated or elected element? This is extremely important.
  Returning to the major point of our Amendments, we stick to the point made by the Home Secretary that the democratically-elected element must be in firm control. We do not go back to our earlier arguments this afternoon. On this basis, we hope that the Minister will accept our Amendment.
  Sir Stephen McAdden: I intervene, as usual, for only a brief moment. I see the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), but it does not seem to me that what my right hon. Friend the

  761
  Home Secretary has proposed is in any way at variance with his undertaking. The Committee will be constituted by two-thirds elected members of local authorities and one-third magistrates. That being so, my right hon. Friend has made it possible for those elected representatives always to be firmly in the saddle if they like to attend to their duties as members of the watch committee.
  I do not accept the suggestion, when we have two-thirds of the committee as elected members, that they will be so negligent—or will all be taken ill at the same time—as to put themselves in a minority. While I agree in principle with much that the hon. Member said, I think that in practice this will work Out all right.
  Mr. Winterbottom: The Home Secretary's Amendment deals with the quorum in terms of numbers and my hon. Friends' Amendments deal with the quorum in respect of composition. If the Minister's Amendment is carried and my hon. Friends' Amendments are not carried, will the numbers forming the quorum and the composition of that quorum be decided by the local council concerned? That is a very important matter, because many things are left out of the Clause.
  The Home Secretary quoted the Royal Commission against our arguments about magistrates being on the watch committee. I therefore point out that the Royal Commission recommended that the chairman of the watch committee should be appointed by the local authority. That is not in the Bill. Will the Home Secretary say that if his Amendment is carried and my hon. Friends' Amendments are not carried, the question of the quorum in terms of numbers and of composition, and all relevant matters, such as the chairmanship of the committee, will be left in the hands of the local authority from which the elected members are drawn?
  If that is so, how shall we know that it will be done, because it is not mentioned in the Bill. Presumably the Home Secretary will send out one of these secret manifestoes which he issues from time to time in terms of instructions. May I have confirmation that he will do that or, if there is some other
  762
  way of doing it, that he will give us the information?
  Mrs. Hill: I want to thank the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Government Amendment. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for taking into consideration the point which I raised about the quorum because the Bill had contained no mention of a quorum. Following the view of the House on the other Amendments, I am satisfied that it will be ensured that there will be a quorum present at meetings und that the committee will not conduct business in the absence of a quorum. My object was to ensure that business was not disposed of between the chairman and some other odd person present. I wanted to ensure that a number of people were present when decisions were taken. I am grateful for the Amendment.
  Mr. O'Malley: There is no need for me to detain the House by amplifying the argument. I should find it difficult to improve on the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). I welcome the Government's Amendment, but I was curious that they had put an Amendment down in respect of county councils and county boroughs but had put down no similar Amendment in respect of combined authorities. I assumed that the reason was that when the amalgamation scheme was drawn up provision would be made for the combined police authority to have the same power as the county council and the county borough.
  Mr. Woodhouse Mr. Woodhouse indicated dissent.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. O'Malley: The Under-Secretary shakes hi; head. I was disappointed about that I would have thought that there was every reason why a combined authority should have that kind of power.
  The Amendment is both desirable and necessary. It gives a local authority a degree of flexibility of control over what I regard as an undesirable situation, where magistrates come in from outside. Why have the Government put down their Amendment? If I am not misreading it, Section 96 of the Local Government Act provides that a local authority has the power to fix the

  763
  quorum of the committees of the council. I would have thought that that was a blanket authority.
  My second question has a bearing on a statement made by the Home Secretary in Committee about the voting powers of co-opted members. He said that co-opted members have full voting rights. With my limited experience, I have known local authority committees in which it has not been the custom for co-opted members to use their votes. I have looked at the 1944 Education Act to try to clarify the issue, but under Section 85(1) of the 1933 Act it seems that local authorities have the power to impose restrictions and conditions concerning the working of their committees. I want to know whether local authorities will have the right, under that Section, to fix the quorum and also to ensure that a quorum shall be deemed to exist only when there is a majority of local authority members present. If they have that power, there is no need for our Amendment. But on the grounds put forward by my hon. Friend I hope that the Government will reconsider the question.
  This is not an extension of our previous arguments; it is a completely different principle. I would have thought that the Government Front Bench would agree with it, according to the statements made in Committee.
  Miss Bacon: The essential question is not whether or not the police authorities have the power of fixing the number constituting a quorum, but whether or not they also have the power to impose conditions such as those set out in my hon. Friend's Amendment. Can a watch committee or a police committee say that a quorum shall be deemed to exist only if the number of members present contains a majority of members of the council, or can the committee merely fix a definite number for the quorum?
  Mr. Woodhouse: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply. I apologised earlier for having sought to answer the hon. Member's arguments before he put them, and in fact he has made a number of points which I was not able to answer before. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) quoted my right hon. Friend. On the first
  764
  occasion his reference was to a firm majority on the authority, but later the word "control" slipped in, in place of "majority". There is an important distinction. My right hon. Friend was not talking about quorums at the time but about the total membership of police authorities. The majority will always rest with the elected councillors. For the reason so well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), there is not the slightest danger, provided the elected councillors do their job, of the magistrates ever outvoting the councillors in terms of a quorum.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, South also made a point about disqualification under the 1933 Act. I confirm that any magistrate who is disqualified under that Act from membership of a local authority would automatically be disqualified from membership of a police authority.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) reintroduced the question of the appointment of the chairman of a police authority. This matter was touched on in Committee and I can reaffirm that the intention is that the chairman should be elected by the police authority and should not be imposed by the local authority. This is consistent with the kind of democratic procedure to which I know the hon. Member is genuinely devoted, and I hope that he will not quarrel with it, although it does not strictly arise in connection with the Amendments.
  Mr. Winterbottom: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the chairman of the committee and the method of selection. He must be aware that the Royal Commission recommended that the chairman should be selected from among the members of the local authority on the watch committee. Considering that that will exclude people who have been placed on the watch committee from the magisterial bench, must not we ensure, or is it not logical, that the quorum should not be violated by the absence of members—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must confine himself to a question and not make another speech.
  Mr. Woodhouse: We are not talking about the chairman in this Amendment.

  765
  The Government decided, and explained in Committee, that we did not accept the recommendation of the Royal Commission to which, I think, the hon. Gentleman is referring. In any case, his point can be easily met because councillors will always be in the majority in the police authority and it will always be within their power to secure that a councillor and not a magistrate is elected chairman. I am sure that that meets his point.
  Mr. Winterbottom: In which case will the fixing of the quorum—the number of members to comprise it and similar conditions—be left to the committee as a whole to decide?
  Mr. Woodhouse: The hon. Gentleman knows that the answer is "No" because of the Amendment the Government have now introduced. As to the conditions, this touches on the points raised by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) and the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) to which I now wish to refer.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham referred to the combined police authorities and he still wants to give them the power to fix their own quorums. To do that would make them unique, not only among local authorities but would set them apart from all other committees of local authorities, which would be taking a rather extreme step. He asked why the Government had put down the Amendment and also about the right of co-opted members to vote. The answer to both questions is that the police authority is a unique body. It is a statutory body set up in its own right. It is defined in the Bill as a committee of the parent council, but it is like no other committee of the parent council because it is vested with statutory powers in its own right. It is not exercising delegated powers given to it by the parent council and if the hon. Member will study the relevant Sections of the 1933 Act, to which he referred, he will see that in each case that legislation refers to councils appointed by a local authority and gives powers delegated to it by the local authority. This is what sets the police authority apart, in that it is not given delegated powers by the local authority.
  This also answers the question asked by the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds,
  766
  South-East; it would not be possible for the parent council to use any powers to impose, conditions on the police authority that would be in any way restrictive of the statutory powers with which it is vested by the Bill. I hope that I have now answered all the questions raised by hon. Members, and that we may now come to a decision.
  Mr. Ede: This is the sort of difficulty we get into when the committee of a local authority has been constituted the police authority, and throughout our discussions on this Bill we have never quite clearly defined the exact relationship between these two separate bodies, each of which is an authority. Very often the standing orders of a local authority deal with what is to happen on the committees of that local authority. In some cases, the standing orders give to the local authority the power of appointing the chairman of the committees, and it may very well be that one of the local authorities that will be responsible for the appointment of a police committee will have such a standing order. If that is so, is that standing order to be regarded as ultra vires? If it is to be so regarded, something should be put in the Bill, before it becomes an Act, to say so.
  This matter should be very carefully considered by the local authority associations before the Bill completes its course, so that, if necessary, Amendments may be moved to make sure that there is no doubt about it. It would be quite disastrous to local government if a dispute arose as to the exact position of a local authority and its standing orders when applied to the proceedings of a police authority to be created under the Bill. We do not want loose ends like that lying about, to cause friction and trouble when we are starting the new administration.
  I support the view that the quorum should always insist that there should be a majority of elected representatives present at a meeting, as otherwise I do not see how the pledge that has been given, and which has been quoted in this discussion, can be carried out. It is important that, particularly when consideration is being given to the demands of the police authority on the local authority for finance, we can be assured that all votes taken are taken when elected members are in a majority.
  Mr. Cole: My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary interpreted the Government Amendment in line 32 quite clearly, but is the ability or inability of a local council to fix, as it were, the constitution of the quorum somewhere else in this Bill, or elsewhere in police legislation? We may need a little annotation to make sure that we do not leave a loose end.
  Secondly, where is it stated, either implicitly or explicitly, that the chairman—and, I suppose, the vice-chairman—of the watch committee or police committee, as the case may be, shall be appointed in the way described by my hon. Friend? I would think from the 1933 and 1948 Local Government Acts, that there would not be cover for the point my hon. Friend made. All I seek is information so that we may avoid doubt later about the authority of my hon. Friend's statement.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. J. Hynd: I am not opposing the Government Amendment, but I press my hon. Friend's Amendment because from the arguments it is clear that everybody, including the Joint Under-Secretary, agrees that the quorum should be such as to ensure that there is a majority of elected members. The Minister made clear in Committee, and the Under-Secretary has now said, that this was the intention, that this is why we have the Government Amendment and that there is every reason to assume that there will be such a majority. If that is the intention, why not make sure?
  Why does the hon. Gentleman oppose a proposal which will make it quite plain and will make sure that there is no slip-up? It can do no harm to his case and cause no defect in the Bill. It will merely confirm what he said if he accepts the Amendment, otherwise, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said, we are leaving loose ends about quite unnecessarily. In view of the fact that all of us want this assurance that there will be a majority of elected members, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider accepting my hon. Friend's Amendment.
  Miss Bacon Miss Bacon rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady has exhausted her right to speak. Mr. Woodhouse.
  Mr. Woodhouse: May I, by leave, briefly reply to the point made?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has the right to speak.
  Mr. Woodhouse: I will look carefully at the point made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), as I always do at any matter that he raises, but to my mind there is no such doubt and ambiguity as he and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) had in mind. I will, however, make careful inquiry to make sure that I am right.
  The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that a local authority has only such powers as are given to it by statute. Power to fix a quorum does not by itself imply power to determine the composition of a quorum. This makes the kind of conflict which my hon. Friend has in mind impossible. He asks what provision there is in the Bill for the appointment of the chairman. It is the universal practice of the committees of local authorities to elect their own chairman. Therefore, there is no need for express provision in the Bill.
  Mr. Cole: To use my hon. Friend's own words, he said that these committees were unique. I did not use the term. I doubt what my hon. Friend calls the comprehensive pattern of local government.
  Mr. Woodhouse: It is perfectly true that these committees are unique, in the sense that they have statutory powers conferred upon them and are not exercising delegated powers given to them by the parent council. In every other respect they follow the normal pattern, and they will in this respect.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), I can only repeat the argument I made about the equality of status which I think is desirable for members of police authorities, whether they be magistrates or councillors, once they are appointed. No such objection as he and his hon. Friends envisaged has ever arisen in the case of standing joint committees which have had a 50 per cent. quota of magistrates for a very long time.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end, to insert:
  "and paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of Part V of Schedule 3 to that Act (proceedings of local authorities) shall apply to a committee appointed under this section as they apply to a local authority and as if for any reference to that Act there were substituted a reference to this Act".
  This Amendment is intended to attract to police authorities certain procedural provisions which apply to local authorities generally. They are set out in Part V of Schedule 3 to the 1933 Act. The provisions so attracted will secure the following: that decisions of the police authority are taken by a majority of members present and voting; that the chairman has casting vote if necessary; that the names of members present at a meeting are recorded and that the police authority may make standing orders for the regulation of its proceedings and business.
  The Amendment is intended simply to fill a lacuna in the Bill and to ensure that police authorities follow the rules laid down for local authorities generally in the conduct of their meetings.
  Mr. O'Malley: Why has paragraph 3 of Part V of the Schedule, which provides for the keeping of minutes, been omitted? I am curious to know also why paragraph 6, which deals with the question of a quorum in cases of disqualification, has not been included.
  Mr. Woodhouse: The answer as regards paragraph 3 and paragraph 5—the hon. Gentleman did not refer to paragraph 5 of the Schedule, but the same point applies to it—is that it is unnecessary in those two cases to make explicit provision to attract them because in each case the paragraphs refer to meetings
  "of a local authority or of a committee thereof".
  Because a police authority is by definition a committee of the local authority, there is no need to make the explicit addition.
  The reason for the omission of paragraph 6 is a little different. It is not attracted and it does not apply automatically. The reason is that the paragraph is appropriate only when a quorum is fixed as a proportion of the body it question. For the reasons which
  770
  we discussed a little earlier, this is not the case with police authorities.
  Amendment agreed to.

  POLICE BILL

    Clause 3.—(POLICE AUTHORITIES FOR COMBINED AREAS.)
    Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, after "shall" to insert:
    "subject to subsection (4) of this section".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I wonder whether he House would agree to discuss with this Amendment the following five Amendments, which are all related to the same matter: In page 3, line 14, at the end to insert:
    (4) If the constituent councils request that the combined police authority to be constituted by are amalgamation scheme should be a committee of one of those councils, the scheme shall constitute the combined police authority a committee of that council instead of a body corporate; and the provisions of Schedule (combined police authority constituted as committee of constituent council) to this Act shall have effect with respect to such a scheme and a combined police authority so constituted.
    In Clause 21, page 12, line 14, at the end to insert:
    (6) Before approving or making an amalgamation scheme the Secretary of State shall ascertain to whether the constituent councils desire to make such a request as is referred to in section 3(4) of this Act.

    New Schedule.—(COMBINED POLICE AUTHCRITY CONSTITUTED AS COM MITTEE OF CONSTITUENT COUNCIL.)
    1. In relation to a combined police authority constituted as a committee of the council of a county or county borough the provisions of this Act shall have effect subject to the following provisions of this Schedule.
    2. Subsections (5) and (6) of section 2 shall apply to the combined police authority as if it were a committee appointed under that section and section 3(3) shall not apply.
    3. Notwithstanding anything in section 21(3) and Schedule 7, there shall be no combined police fund but the police fund for the combined area shall he the local fund of the county or county borough and the amalgamation scheme shall make provision for the payment into that fund, out of the local funds of the other areas comprised in the combined' area, of contributions assessed in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.
    4. Section; 8(2) and 9(3) shall not apply, and subsections (3) and (4) of section 8 and subsections (1), (2) and (4) of section 9 shall apply as if the police area consisted only of the county or county borough.
    5. The council of the county or county section 10 () as if the combined police force borough shall have the same power under

    771
    were maintained only for the county or county borough.
    6. Any provision made under section 21 (3) (e) may be for transfer to the council of the county or county borough instead of to the combined police authority, and for the use of any transferred property by that council instead of, or as well as, that authority.
    7. In relation to an amalgamation scheme to be approved or made by virtue of section of this Act—

    (a) the reference in subsection (4) of section 3 of this Act to a committee of one of the constituent councils shall include a reference to a committee of the new or altered county or county borough; and

    (b) the request required by that subsection shall include the request of each of the following councils, that is to say—

    (i) in the case of a new county, the councils of any counties or county boroughs of which the whole or part is to be included in the new county;

    (ii) in the case of a new county borough, the council of any county borough or county district of which the whole or part is to be so included;

    (iii) in the case of an altered county or county borough, the council of the existing county or county borough.

    In Schedule 8, page 50, line 16, column 2, to leave out from "borough" to the end of line 22 and to insert:
    "as if references in paragraphs (b) and (c) to the local authority included references to a police authority which is a committee of that council".
    In Schedule 8, page 51, line 22, column 2, to leave out from "borough" to the end of line 33 and to insert:
    "any reference in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act to the authority, and any references in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act to the local authority, shall be construed as including a reference to a police authority which is a committee of that council".
    Mr. Brooke: On Second Reading, I referred to a small point arising on Clause 3, the Clause which deals with the constitution of combined police authorities, and I told the House that I knew that the local authority associations felt some concern about certain aspects of the arrangements for administering a combined police authority. I gave a public assurance that I was very ready to consider the matter further in the light of discussions with the associations or debate in the House and in Committee to see whether we could improve the arrangements.
    This series of Amendments gives effect to the promise that I then made, and I
    772
    am glad to say that these have been agreed with the local authority associations, to whom, I understand, they are wholly acceptable. I hope that they may be acceptable also to the House. We discussed the matter for a time in Committee, where an Amendment was moved, if I remember rightly, that arrangements should be made under which a combined police authority could be constituted as a committee of the largest of the combining authorities. I gave reasons why I did not think that was a completely satisfactory solution. Perhaps I may explain the way in which we propose to do it here and for which, as I have said, we have the support of the associations.
    The first Amendment No. 17 is purely a paving Amendment. We come to a more substantial one in Amendment No. 23. That adds a new subsection (4) to Clause 3, which will give the constituent council in an amalgamation scheme the option of setting up an authority constituted as a committee of one of the constituent councils instead of setting up a combined police authority as a body corporate under Clause 3 as it stands in the Bill.
    It is provided that the option will be exercisable if all the constituent councils agree, and only if they agree. It will be open to them to agree that any one of the authorities concerned should be, what I might call, the parent council, and it differs in that way from the Amendment moved by the Opposition in Committee that it should always be the largest. I remember pointing out that if there were four county boroughs of much the same size it might not be necessarily the case that the one which was marginally the largest of them, although it contained a minority of the population of the whole amalgamated area, would be thought of by everybody as necessarily the one to become the parent council.
    That means that if there is agreement among the different bodies which are amalgamating, the police authority can be the committee of whichever of the councils they decide upon. if, on the other hand, any one of the authorities concerned in the amalgamation objects to the setting up of a combined police authority of this particular kind, or if they fail to reach agreement, as they

    773
    might, as to which of the various constituent bodies should be the parent council, then the amalgamation scheme will provide for the combined police authority to be a body corporate as originally contemplated under Clause 3. That is to say it will be a body corporate as under Clause 3 in the original form of the Bill, as a kind of fall back if the various constituent authorities are not able to agree as to making the new police authority a committee of one of them.
    9.0 p.m.
    The Amendment in page 12, line 14, is a valuable addition. Its purpose is to meet the wish expressed to me that combining authorities in an amalgamation scheme should have fairly before them the alternative types of combined police authority for which statutory provision is to be made under these Amendments and that their decision should be a fully considered decision. They should have every opportunity to examine and discuss the possibilities and, if possible, reach agreement. Then the police authority will be a committee of whichever council they agree upon. But if it is not possible to obtain agreement among them there is no option but to fall back on the body corporate as originally contemplated in Clause 3.
    There are drafting Amendments at the end of the Bill, Amendment No. 43 is a new Schedule. Its purpose is to modify the provisions of the Bill to the extent necessary to apply them to a combined police authority set up as a committee of a constituent council. Its general effect is to establish the same relationship between such a combined police authority and its parent council as the Bill establishes between a watch committee and a county borough council.
    I hope that we have reached as acceptable a solution as possible on a difficult problem. Its difficulty was acknowledged in Committee. I have said from the outset that I did not wish necessarily to stand by the wording of Clause 3. I think that we shall have effected a considerable improvement as a result of prolonged discussions if we write these Amendments into the Bill.
    Miss Bacon: I thank the Home Secretary for meeting the request which we made in Committee on what I admit is
    774
    a very difficult matter. I appreciate that, on the one hand, he had to make provision in the case of a very big county authority taking in a small county borough where it would have been most appropriate for the large county to be the authority. On the other hand, I appreciate from some of the letters I have received that in the case of an amalgamation of four or five almost equal county boroughs there are difficulties about one of them constituting the police authority.
    While this proposal is perhaps not absolutely ideal because it means that any one of the constituent councils can veto the scheme, it is, perhaps, the best that the right hon. Gentleman could have done in the circumstances. I note that the associations—I take it that that means the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association—have, agreed to this.
    Mr. O'Malley: I am sorry to introduce a disharmonious note into the discussion. However, I welcome the Amendment because it restricts the possibility of the growth of a large number of joint boards. I tried to make my views on joint boards—single-purpose authorities—known in Standing Committee. I regard them, and I think the country regards them, as unpopular organisations and, to some degree, remote from public accountability and public opinion. There is a real danger of a positive rush of single-purpose authorities at this stage in our historical development.
    I welcome the Amendment as a restricting factor on the growth of such authorities. The only doubt I have is whether the Home Secretary has gone far enough in this Amendment. It is always an extremely difficult thing to get local authorities to agree with one another. It is bad enough when there are two concerned, but if there are three or four it is difficult to have any optimism about their agreeing to almost anything, particularly when it involves the pooling or giving up of powers. I think the whole history of local government tends against an optimistic view. Therefore, I would have thought a more suitable Amendment would have been one by which the local authorities could agree to have a scheme whereby there, would be a system set up of two-tier local government authorities. I should

    775
    have liked the Home Secretary to have had the power to impose that kind of agreement, if he thought fit, upon the local authorities.
    My last point is one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) when she raised this problem—I suppose it is the most difficult one—of what happens when there are three or four or perhaps more local authorities which are very much of a size. Once there are three or four authorities existing after local government reorganisation—and I assume the intention is to try to move concurrently with local government reorganisation—we shall be faced with the old problem, for here we shall have local authority areas which the Commissioners will consider suitable areas for multi-purpose authorities. Obviously, a Government Department can say, "But this is not the ideal area for the administration of the police force." The same kind of objection could be made for practically any function which a multi-purpose authority carries out. It seems to me that this kind of difficulty should not arise if there is a proper policy in considering questions of amalgamations of areas like this.
    I conclude by saying that I am happy about this because it will restrict the number of joint boards, but I wish that the Home Secretary had written into the Bill powers by which his Department, if it wished, could impose a settlement of this kind.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 14, at end insert:
    (4) If the constituent councils request that the combined police authority to be constituted by an amalgamation scheme should be a committee of one of those councils, the scheme shall constitute the combined police authority a committee of that council instead of a body corporate; and the provisions of Schedule (combined police authority constituted as committee of constituent council) to this Act shall have effect with respect to such a scheme and a combined police authority so constituted.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

    Clause 12.—(REPORTS BY CHIEF CON STABLES TO POLICE AUTHORITIES.)
    Mr. Benn: I beg to move, in page 7, line 32, to leave out from "may" to "and" in line 33, and to insert:
    776
    "refer the requirement to the Secretary of State who shall consider it together with any report on the matter submitted by the police authority concerned".
    This Amendment is one which I hope will commend itself to the Secretary of State. It was raised with me in Bristol. It relates to the way in which chief constables will operate with the police authorities. In the Bill as drafted the provision is that the police authorities have the power to ask the chief constable to make a report to them on matters concerned with their statutory duties which, of course, are the maintenance of an efficient police force. It is quite obvious that an occasion could arise when the chief constable would feel he was being asked to give a report which would not be in the public interest—as specified in the Clause—or was not needed for the discharge of the functions of the police authority. I think it is quite clear, and nobody would dispute it, that the chief constable must in certain circumstances retain some discretion whether he should furnish a report, and that where any disagreement arises between the chief constable and the police authority this obviously must go to the Secretary of State. There is really no dispute between my Amendment and the purpose of the Clause and the Government; my Amendment is well within the intention of the Government.
    The question is: if such a disagreement arises, how should it be resolved? Clause 12(3) reads:
    "If it appears to the chief constable that a report in compliance with any such requirement of the police authority would contain information which in the public interest ought not to be disclosed, or is not needed for the discharge of the functions of the police authority "—
    that is the point that I have been following—
    "he may request that authority to refer the requirement to the Secretary of State; and in any such case the requirement shall be of no effect unless it is confirmed by the Secretary of State."
    The Bill, as drafted, puts the position as follows. The chief constable goes to the police authority, and it asks for information. In most cases the chief constable will give it. But there may be a case when he honestly thinks that he should not give it. He then has the right to say "No", and the initiative for appealing against the chief constable's

    777
    decision then rests with the police authority. This is of very considerable practical importance. If the police authority has to keep going to the Secretary of State, it will greatly reduce its influence, and the chief constable—I am not suggesting that any chief constable would do it—might feel a little superior and say, "I am sorry, but I do not think that is in the public interest, and if you do not like it, you had better go to the Secretary of State." That is unsatisfactory.
    From reading what the Minister said in the Standing Committee, that is not his account of what happens. The right hon. Gentleman said:
    "…what happens if the chief constable refuses a report. It is not the case that the chief constable can then do nothing. This Clause as drafted means that the chief constable has two alternatives—only two. He cannot do nothing. He must either respond and submit the report, or if he does not wish to do that he must apply to the Secretary of State."
    That is a totally satisfactory assurance, hut it is not what is in the Bill. The Bill says that the chief constable may decline and do nothing and that it is for the police authority to appeal to the Secretary of State. I have been in the House long enough to remember many occasions when I have tabled Amendments which the Minister has said have not met the point that I had in mind. That is a regular experience of back benchers. A Minister sometimes accepts what we are trying to do but says that the Amendment does not do it. Here is a case where we accept what the Government intend to do, but the Bill does not do it.
    In case it should be thought that that was a mistake, the Minister repeated what he said in a later column:
    "I assure the Committee that this is not something that I have thought up at the last moment. It was the Government's full intention not to give the chief constable the option of sitting back and doing and saying nothing. If he thinks it right to refuse the original request, he must refer the matter to the Secretary of State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 17th December, 1963; c. 234–7]
    I invite the Minister to look again at the Bill, which says that if the chief constable feels that the information ought not to be disclosed he may request the authority to refer to the Secretary of State.
    778
    I do not want to hammer this too much. I hope I have made the point, which is that the Minister's assurance and his explanation of how it will work are wholly satisfactory to us, but the provision ought to be explicit. Occasionaly the relations between a police authority and a chief constable may not a ways be perfect either for a long period or over a particular issue, and it is absolutely crucial that the police authority and the chief constable should knew what happens in the event of disagreement. At the moment the chief constable may look at the Act and say, "You have to go to the Secretary of State", and the police authority may look at the Home Secretary's words and say "No, it is you who have to go to the Secretary of State." From this will arise a quite needless problem.
    In drafting my Amendment I ran into certain difficulties. I did not want to draft an Amendment which simply transferred the initiative to the chief constable so that if he did not like what the police authority asked him to do he could pop off to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State could consider what he said and reach a decision without the police authority having any say.
    9.15 p.m.
    I have drafted a rather longer Amendment than I would have liked. It consists of only two lines, but that is fairly long, and if accepted would provide that in the event of a dispute the chief constable
    "may refer the requirement to the Secretary of State"—
    that is to say, he takes the initiative—
    "who shall consider it together with any report on the matter submitted by the police authority concerned…"
    What will be the position? I cannot think of an immediate example, but suppose that the police authority wants to know something and the chief constable dews not think that he should provide the information, he will say, "I think that this is wrong. I shall refer it to the Secretary of State", and the police authority will say, "That being so, we shall give our reasons at the same time".
    The matter will go to the Minister who will consider both representations together, and the passage which says that the secretary of State has to confirm the matter will remain the same.

    779
    That means that in the event of a disagreement, even if my Amendment is accepted, nothing can happen until the Secretary of State confirms it. That keeps the balance right. Without any doubt the matter has to be referred to him.
    I do not attach enormous importance to this because of what the Home Secretary said. I would do if he had not said what he did, but the matter was raised by my local watch committee. I listened to the arguments very carefully, and I was convinced that they were right. I was convinced that they were right on the constitutional ground that where one has a chief executive, particularly a semi-independent one, as a chief constable is, working with a statutory body, it is extremely important to get the relationship right from the start.
    Having recommended my Amendment in those terms, I hope that the Minister will find himself able to accept it, or, failing that, will put the intention of the right hon. Gentleman into more effective words.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I am sincerely grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) for having raised this matter because it enables me to try to clear up a misunderstanding—in fact perhaps more than one—in a rather wider forum than we were able to attempt in Committee. The effect of the Amendment would be to enable a chief constable, where he failed to comply with a requirement to submit a report to the police authority under Clause 12, to refer the requirement on his own initiative to the Secretary of State who would then have to consider it along with any report from the police authority before deciding, and the essential difference from the Clause as drafted is that the Amendment would transfer the responsibility for referring the case to the Secretary of State from the police authority to the chief constable.
    It is not quite correct to say, as the hon. Gentleman did, that the initiative then rests with the police authority, because the police authority will act only because the chief constable had exercised his right under the Clause as
    780
    drafted to request that it should do so. The police authority would be taking what I might call a secondary initiative on the primary initiative of the chief constable himself.
    In explaining this Clause in Committee my right hon. Friend was concerned, in the passages which the hon. Gentleman quoted, with trying to remove a possible misunderstanding which had arisen in the Committee, that the Clause as drafted would allow a chief constable to defy a police authority and to do nothing at all in response to its demand for a report, and to do nothing at all with impunity.
    My right hon. Friend's explanations were intended to remove that misunderstanding and in fact to make it clear that there will be an obligation on the chief constable either to conform with the request for a report or to exercise his right to ask the police authority to refer it to the Secretary of State.
    I come now to the words which the hon. Gentleman read from the Report of the Standing Committee, which I, too, have studied. Pedantically speaking—I say this in a perfectly respectful sense, because it is a matter on which one has a perfect right to be pedantic—the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the Secretary of State's words is correct. What the Secretary of State was doing was explaining that the chief constable has these two alternatives. He was not at that point concerned with the question of who actually makes the reference to the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend spoke elliptically, both in column 234 and in column 237, from which the hon. Gentleman has quoted, in using the verb "refer" instead of the phrase "cause to be referred".
    I concede the point the hon. Gentleman has made and, if he studies these passages in the light of my explanation that the word "refer" should be read as "cause to be referred", he will follow the point my right hon. Friend was making.
    Mr. Benn: The word is not "refer" at all. The Home Secretary said this:
    "…if he does not wish to do that he must apply to the Secretary of State."
    It is categorical that he—that is to say, the chief constable—must apply. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman

    781
    would confirm the clear suspicion that is now apparent, that he is taking the opportunity in answering the Amendment, in the absence of the Home Secretary, to withdraw categorical assurances the Home Secretary gave, which is very serious.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I am correcting the words.
    Mr. Been: Withdrawing them.
    Mr. Woodhouse: The word "apply" and the word "refer" in the Secretary of State's remarks were intended to mean, and should be construed as reading "cause to be referred". I think that the hon. Gentleman will see that the Committee was not misled on this point if he will read the words at the beginning of column 237:
    "The Bill says that if the chief constable does not think it proper to answer—I am paraphrasing the position—
    'he may request that authority to refer the requirement to the Secretary of State …"—[OFFICJAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 17th December, 1963; c. 234–7.]
    In subsequent references to the same phrase, my right hon. Friend elliptically and succinctly substituted the word "refer" for the fuller expression "cause to be referred". I wish to make it quite clear that on the merits of the point we are discussing what the Secretary of State meant was what is written into the Bill as drafted.
    Mr. Bean: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, three times the Secretary of State used the term "he must apply". It would be a little franker with the House if the hon. Gentleman said that the Home Secretary had made a mistake. Everybody can understand that the right hon. Gentleman might, in the heat of the moment, have made a mistake. To try to read "he must apply as meaning he must cause others to apply" is to destroy the meaning of the language. If the hon. Gentleman says that the Home Secretary made a mistake, we shall know where we are. We will press on with the Amendment. But to bend the Home Secretary's words in a way that does not bear any examination is just—I do not like to use the word—to lead the House into grave and unnecessary difficulties.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I am not seeking to bend the Home Secretary's words. I
    782
    concede that he used the wrong expression. When he used the word "refer" he meant in each case the words "cause to be referred" within the terms of the Clause as drafted.
    Mr. Benn: The Home Secretary made a mistake, in fact.
    Mr. Woodhouse: He committed an ellipse, shall we say?
    Mr. Benn: Mr. Speaker, you are the guardian of Parliamentary language. Is it in order for an hon. Member to describe the senior Minister as having committed in ellipse? I do not know what "an ellipse" means. If the Home Secretary commits an ellipse, where are we? He made a mistake, and I hope to get this on the record, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: We are in the House, not in Committee.
    Sir F. Soskice: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the Home Secretary committed an intentional ellipse or an unintentional ellipse, or lapse?
    Mr. Woodhouse: My right hon. Friend is not with me and only he could answer that question.
    What is important is for the House to be in no doubt about the meaning of what we are discussing on its merits. That meaning is exactly what is written into the Clause as drafted and was correctly construed by the hon. Member for Bristol South-East in his speech. It is for that reason that he is seeking to substitute a reversal of the responsibility to rut it upon the chief constable instead of the police authority.
    Mr. BennI am seeking only to correct a Ministerial ellipse. If that is not right, I do not know where we are.
    Mr. Woodhouse: That is a correct description of what the hon. Member is seeking to do by his Amendment. Having clarified what it seeks to do, perhaps I might continue to discuss the Amendment on its merits.
    There are two objections to what the hon. Member wishes to do. First, it would enable the chief constable to do what the Clause as drafted expressly intends to avoid, which is to go behind the back of the police authority to the Secretary of State on a matter in which there is a dispute between the chief constable and the police authority.

    783
    The second thing which is objectionable in the Amendment is that it would also have the effect that every such disagreement between a chief constable and a police authority would have to be referred to the Secretary of State for adjudication, whereas the provision in the Clause is so drafted as to leave the position—this might well happen in a great many cases, perhaps the majority—that after discussion between the chief constable and the police authority of the matter on which the chief constable felt it right to refuse a report, a resolution of the dispute and accommodation between the two parties would be arrived at by one side or the other yielding. It might in that case—this would, I think, apply to the majority of cases—be unnecessary for the matter to be referred to the Secretary of State. These are the reasons why the Amendment, once we have settled exactly what it seeks to do, is objectionable.
    Although the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East referred to the opinion expressed by the watch committee in Bristol, I am advised that his Amendment would be unacceptable to the local authority associations. Our feeling is that it would be bound to lead to animosity between a police authority and a chief constable. We agree with the hon. Member that it is important that the relationship should be got right from the beginning, as he says, but we do not feel that his Amendment would contribute to achieving that relationship.
    Mr. Benn: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with what appears to be another Ministerial error when the Home Secretary said that it was the Government's full intention not to give the chief constable the option of sitting back and doing and saying nothing? If the Amendment is rejected, the chief constable would have the right to do and to say nothing, leaving the initiative entirely to the police authority, which is another Ministerial mistake.
    Mr. Woodhouse: No, he does not have the option of doing nothing. He has two alternatives, either to conform with the request for a report or to address to the police authority a request that it should refer the matter to the Secretary of State.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 18.—(ATTESTATION OF CONSTABLES.)
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: I beg to move, in page 10, line 3, to leave out "a declaration" and to insert "declarations".
    This is a purely technical Amendment. This point, which was raised in Committee, concerns election law. Some returning officers require another declaration from a policeman with regard to the return. If that is necessary, this Clause should have the word "declarations" rather than "declaration" in it. When the matter was raised in Committee the Under-Secretary said that it would be considered.
    Mr. Speaker: I should have pointed out that I have proposed that we should discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in Schedule 1, page 31, line 12, at end insert:
    "I solemnly promise and declare that I will not do anything forbidden by subsections (1), (2), (3) and (6) of section 53 of the Representation of the People Act 1949, which have been read over to me."
    They are obviously linked together. I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) would feel obliged to add to his observations on that account.
    Mr. Paget: No, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I am obliged.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I am glad again to have the opportunity to speak on the question which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has raised by this Amendment. It is one which gives serious concern to the Police Federation. The Federation has complained that returning officers take different views on whether police officers attending polling stations and the counting of votes need or need not make the declaration of secrecy which is required by the Representation of the People Act. 1949, to be made by every officer or clerk authorised to attend at a polling station or the counting of votes.
    The arguments of the Police Federation, with which I have much sympathy, are basically two. The first is that a doubt exists whether this declaration needs to be made or not. The second is that because the doubt exists much

    785
    time is wasted by officers having to make the declaration every time they are on duty if the returning officer takes that view of the law. I naturally sympathise, particularly with the second point—that it takes up a great deal of their time—but I am bound to put the following considerations before the House. It is certainly arguable, because it is in fact argued, whether the declaration is required by law, but that is a matter for the courts to determine. It is not one on which the Home Office could legitimately pronounce.
    If such a determination was made by the courts and if it did, in fact, show that amending legislation was necessary on this point, I think the House would agree that it would be more appropriate to carry out such an amendment within the scope of electoral law rather than in a Police Bill.
    Mr. Hale: This seems a most astonishing argument. If I understand correctly, the hon. Gentleman is saying that while we are discussing this matter and an Amendment is before us which might remove doubt and the courts have not decided the point which he says is in dispute, it is the duty of this House to do nothing about it. Is he saying that we should wait for some unfortunate person to lose a case and a great deal of money and then bring in amending legislation although we are actually discussing the matter at this moment?
    Mr. Woodhouse: I was going on to explain the future of this matter. I was making the point that at this stage if amending legislation is needed electoral law is the proper context for it rather than a Police Bill.
    Mr. Paget: When are we to have a Bill dealing with electoral law? The hon. Gentleman quite rightly said that it is not for the Home Office to interpret the law or to change it. It is for Parliament to do so and Parliament now has an opportunity. When admittedly there is a doubt, why not take the opportunity of clearing it up instead of having the painful process of someone losing an action?
    Mr. Woodhouse: What has not been established is whether there needs to be a change in the law, and this is what we are prepared to examine. I am
    786
    coming to that in a moment. To do it in police law would surely be to put the matter out of perspective. It would mean singling out this one declaration of secrecy, which involves a page or two of reading out aloud, and attaching it to the brief, simple and general formula of attestation of a constable. It would surely blur the importance of the attestation of a constable in this way to give an undue prominence to one relatively infrequent aspect of a police constable's duty, as though one were to add to the oath which hon. Members take when they first come to the House a reference to some specific Standing Order. But having said that it is essentially a matter for electoral law—because it touches on the general principles of the secrecy of he ballot—and that that is a more appropriate context than the attestation of a constable, I gladly add that this has been noted and is being considered along with a number of other proposals which have been put forward for the amendment of the electoral law. If it proves to be necessary it will be incorporated on the next occasion that electoral law comes up for amendment.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in some parts of the country the declaration which is in Schedule 1 on page 31 is accepted in lieu of a separate declaration for electoral purposes? Does not that make it even more necessary to get it out of the way in a Bill such as this?
    Mr. Woodhouse: What the hon. Member said is quite true, but that does not justify bringing it into the attestation formula.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 19.—(JURISDICTION OF CONSTABLES.)
    Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move in page 10, line 10, to leave out from the beginning to "a" in line 15 and to insert:
    (1) A member of a police force shall have all the powers and privileges of a constable throughout England and Wales.
    (2) A special constable shall have all the powers and privileges of a constable in the police area I or which he is appointed.
    (3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above.

    787
    I suggest that with this Amendment we also discuss the following seven Amendments in page 10, lines 25, 29 and 37; in Clause 49, page 27, line 5; and in Schedule 9, page 52, lines 42 and 50, and page 56, line 3.
    Mr. Speaker: That will be convenient, if the House agrees.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I feel sure that this Amendment will commend itself to the House because many hon. Members on both sides of the Standing Committee gave their support to it.
    The effect of the first Amendment is to give members of police forces the powers and privileges of a constable throughout England and Wales. The Bill as it stands unamended partially extends their jurisdiction. I will not take up the time of the House by elaborating the extension which it makes. This can be found in columns 315–16 of the Committee Report. It gives them jurisdiction in their own and neighbouring areas and in areas in which they are operating under mutual aid and collaboration agreements. That is a brief summary of it.
    But the Committee clearly wanted more, and in the Standing Committee I reserved the Government's opinion on an Opposition Amendment to give all constables covered by the Clause jurisdiction throughout the country. We have undertaken further consultation and have given the matter further thought since the Committee expressed its views, and we find that the proposed lifting of the restrictions on the police officer's jurisdiction is generally favoured among all ranks in the police service. My right hon. Friend recognises that there are likely to be occasions when it would be useful.
    The Clause already gives a constable jurisdiction in the police areas in which he may normally be expected to go on duty, but there could be occasions on which a police officer being in a different part of the country from where his ordinary duties took him, and not necessarily being on duty, could with advantage exercise additional authority. I am told that an example of precisely this kind happened almost on the day when the Committee was discussing the matter, to the well-known police constable, Dixon of Dock Green. It is im-
    788
    possible to foresee all the future circumstances of this kind. On reflection, we feel that it would be regrettable if the Bill imposed a statutory restriction on jurisdiction which was not strictly necessary.
    We therefore propose to lift the restriction on the regular police officer, but not on the special constable, because he does not normally find that his duty takes him outside his own area, and the representations that we have received on the subject did not suggest any special need to extend his jurisdiction. There is also the important distinction that regular police officers are under the police discipline code at all times, whereas special constables are not. A special constable in England and Wales already has the necessary powers in any area in which he has jurisdiction, whether or not he is on duty.
    This seems to be enough in his case, and the restriction is therefore only generally lifted in the case of a regular police constable. I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the House.
    Miss Bacon: I thank the hon. Member for conceding the sense of what we said in Committee. Crime knows no local government boundaries, and in these days of swift communication it is necessary for police constables to have all the powers of a constable, in whatever area they happen to be. This was what we argued, and although the hon. Member then stood strictly by the letter of the Bill he saw the sense of what we said, and the Government Amendment now meets the request which we then made.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 25, leave out from "which" to "for" in line 26 and insert "special constables appointed".
    In line 29, leave out from beginning to "have" in line 33 and insert:
    (3) A special constable who is for the time being required by virtue of section 13 or section 14 of this Act to serve with another police force shall have all the powers and privileges of a constable in any area in which special constables appointed for the area for which that force is maintained.
    In line 37, leave out from "to" to "special" in line 38.—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

    Clause 21.—(AMALGAMATION SCHEMES.)
    Amendment made: In page 12, line 14, at end insert:
    (6) Before approving or making an amalgamation scheme the Secretary of State shall ascertain whether the constituent councils desire to make such a request as is referred to in section 3(4) of this Act.—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

    Clause 25.—(CAMBRIDGE AND PETERBOROUGH.)
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 15, line 21, to leave out "shall" and insert "may".
    It might be convenient if we also took the Amendment to line 36, at the end to insert:
    (4) On the coming into force of an order under this section in respect of either of the said cities, the functions exercisable in respect of that city by a police authority under section 5 of the Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 and under the House to House Collections Act 1939 shall vest in the council of that city and shall, unless and until the Secretary of State otherwise directs, be exercised by that council in consultation with the police authority for the police area in which the city is situated.
    The effect of the first Amendment will be that I shall have a discretion instead of an obligation to make an order under the Clause depriving Cambridge or Peterborough of its special police status from the date of the local government reorganisation. This reorganisation was approved by the House the other day. I do not think I need describe in detail how Peterborough and Cambridge were the two places which acquired this special status under the 1946 Act, but they are unique in this respect. They will, however, under the local government reorganisation, no longer have populations which exceed half of the combined population of themselves and the surrounding area.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) raised certain points on the Clause in Standing Committee. He urged that Cambridge should retain its own special force and that, if that were not possible, it should have direct representation on the police authority on the grounds, as I understood it, that it might be hard on the city if it did not have direct representation at a time when the University was retaining its direct representation on a larger amalgamated force.
    790
    I made it clear, and I must now repeat, that I do not think it would be practicable for me to hold out any hope that Cambridge City could properly retain its own separate force under the future arrangements. I have been carefully considering the problems of policing for this area in the Eastern Counties, and I shall shortly be having a communication sent to the various existing police authorities giving my ideas as to what the arrangements for future policing shall be. It will then be for the existing police authorities to consider my letter carefully and let me know in due course their reactions to it.
    I am moving the first Amendment because it would be somewhat inappropriate if in advance of that I tied myself to making an order under subsection (2) of the Clause. I would, therefore, prefer to have, as the Amendment would allow, discretion rather than an obligation to make this order. I must say to my hon. Friend and the City of Cambridge that if I ask for a discretion rather than to be bound by an obligation, that does not necessarily mean that I would net wish to exercise that discretion; but it would be a mistake if I were to bind myself under the Clause to make orders in respect of Cambridge and Peterborough, whatever happened.
    There is a case for refraining from making an order at this time. The whole position can be carefully considered after the Bill becomes law and in the light of whatever the reactions of all the authorities may be to the proposals I shall make.
    The second Amendment will, I hope, be generally acceptable. It will provide that in the event of an order being made under subsection (2), the city concerned, whether it be Cambridge or Peterborough, will have control over street and house-to-house collections in the city. A deputation from the city council made this point to me.
    The situation is that when the non-county borough police forces were abolished by the Police Act, 1946, those forces were allowed by that Act to retain these functions. This would appear to be the case under paragraph 11 of Schedule 10 of the Bill. It really would be unfair if, through an Order made under subsection (2) of the Clause, Cambridge and Peterborough were to be put

    791
    in a worse position than they would have been in save for the abolition of the non-county borough police forces in 1946.
    I think it right to amend the Clause in both respects but, as I have said, neither in the case of Peterborough nor of Cambridge must I be taken to be meaning that no Order will be made. I should like, however, to retain the discretion until we can look at the whole situation when the Bill has become law, and when the eventual form of a new police authority—because I am sure that there must be a new police authority—and a new police area becomes clearer than it is at this present moment.
    Sir Hamilton Kerr: There are few people in this graceless world who say "Thank you," but I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for having listened to the advice and counsel of the Cambridge Watch Committee. It also gives me a chance to apologise to my right hon. Friend for his rough treatment in Cambridge the other day. He really heaps coals of fire on our head in giving us this concession. I noticed a few minutes ago the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) on the benches opposite; when I was Member for Oldham, West I was pelted regularly with fish and chips. I hope that the next time my right hon. Friend visits Cambridge he will let me be his guide and guardian when, like certain documents in Whitehall, I will reply to him in triplicate.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 36, at end insert:
    (4) On the coming into force of an order under this section in respect of either of the said cities, the functions exercisable in respect of that city by a police authority under section 5 of the Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 and under the House to House Collections Act 1939 shall vest in the council of that city and shall, unless and until the Secretary of State otherwise directs, be exercised by that council in consultation with the police authority for the police area in which the city is situated.—[Mr. Brooke.]

    Clause 29.—(REMOVAL OF CHIEF CONSTABLES ETC.)
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): I beg to move, in page 17, line 17, to leave out subsection (4) and to insert:
    792
    (4) The costs incurred by a chief constable or deputy or assistant chief constable in respect of an inquiry under this section, taxed in such manner as the Secretary of State may direct, shall be defrayed out of the police fund.
    It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if, with this Amendment, we took that in page 39, line 12, leave out from beginning to "but" in line 15 and insert:
    (4) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the whole or any part of the expenses of a chief constable or deputy or assistant chief constable in respect of an inquiry under this section were not reasonably incurred, he may direct the constable to pay those expenses or that part of those expenses, as the case may be, or such proportion of the whole or of that part as he may think fit.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House so wishes.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: These two Amendments concern the liability for costs when inquiries are held in connection with the retirement of senior officers in the interests of efficiency. This question of costs was not raised when Standing Committee D discussed the Clause but it was discussed in the Scottish Standing Committee, and I promised to see whether we could make it clear that the officers affected should be reimbursed those expenses that they had incurred reasonably. The difference made by the Amendments is that the Secretaries of State will no longer have complete discretion to compel the officer to pay the whole of his costs; instead, they will be able to make him pay only to the extent that the costs have been incurred unreasonably.
    This type of inquiry is something quite new, and it must be distinct from an inquiry in a disciplinary appeal since the power to require the retirement of a senior officer is not intended to be used in place of disciplinary action. The Government wish to make sure that the senior officer whose compulsory retirement has been suggested should not be prevented from exercising every right of appeal from fear of incurring a financial loss. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to give him a blank cheque, so to speak, and to provide that all his costs, even if they were extravagant, should be paid by the police authority. There must be some limit, and this is set in the two Amendments in slightly different ways.

    793
    The English Amendment provides that the costs shall be taxed. The Scottish Amendment provides that the Secretary of State must first satisfy himself that the costs "were not reasonably incurred" before directing the officer to pay. This difference reflects standard practice in the two countries. I understand that in England and Wales taxation is the long-established method of examining detailed claims for costs in this sort of situation, but the normal Scottish practice is to leave the decision to the Secretary of State. As for expenses which fall on the police authority, I reaffirm to the House that these will rank for police grant, and half will be reimbursed by the Government.
    Sir F. Soskice: The Under-Secretary's speech brings a blush to those of us who formed part of Standing Committee D for not having raised this point. I thank the noble Lady for having proposed this change in the Bill. It obviously does a measure of justice to chief constables who are at risk of being retired which should have been done at an earlier stage. Both Government and Opposition are at fault in not having spotted the difficulty before. It is not the first time that wisdom has come from beyond the Border, and we are glad to profit by it down here. I am grateful that the noble Lady referred to the provision for taxation. It would be unfortunate if the impression got about that a chief constable, having had costs allowed, is charged 7s. 6d. in the £. It does not mean that at all. It means subsequent examination as to their quantum.
    Mr. William Ross: Since I was the first to raise this matter in the Scottish Grand Committee I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lady. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) says that this is not the first time that wisdom has come from beyond the Border, but when it comes to this kind of legislation the wisdom is usually initiated by the Opposition and not by the Government. Fortunately, because we had the noble Lady and not the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Home Secretary in charge of our Bill, the wisdom was listened to.
    I should like to ask the noble Lady whether or not she has refreshed herself
    794
    about what would be reasonable or unreasonable. We had some rather strange definitions and the noble Lady, for once, spoke without that due regard for the tempers of the Opposition when she said that she thought that if a chief constable engaged far too good or too expensive a counsel that would be unreasonable. I hope that we can take it that he will be entitled to employ whatever counse he thinks adequate for the case.
    Mr. S. Silverman: We realise that the House has much more important Amendments to consider than the one now before us, but I cannot refrain from asking a question about it. Under the Clause as originally in the Bill the chief constable or deputy chief constable would get his taxed costs unless the Home Secretary exercised the power of direction to prevent him from getting all of them, or some of them. I should like to know why the Home Secretary wishes to abandon that power. One conceives that it would be exercised very rarely and that in most cases it would be reasonable and right that the chief constable's costs should be paid. But one can imagine cases—they might not happen very often—in which it would be wholly improper that the chief constable concerned should get the whole of his costs—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Ordered,
    That the Proceedings on the Police Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
    Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Silverman: I was saying that, although they might be rare, it was not difficult to imagine cases in which it would be wholly improper that the chief constable's total costs or any part of his costs should be borne at the public expense.
    If the original Clause had required the Home Secretary to make such a direction, it would obviously have had to be amended, but I cannot understand—and I do not approve—the Home Secretary abandoning a power to deprive a chief constable in a suitable case of the whole

    795
    or part of his costs. I should like to know what the explanation is.
    Mr. Paget: I, too, am a little interested in this wisdom from beyond the Border. When a chief constable is required, upon orders from the Home Secretary, to retire in the interests of efficiency, this means that he is being "sacked" either for incompetence or for some other reason. Is there any precedent for the unsuccessful litigant, as he would be in the inquiry if, as a result of it, he were retired or "sacked", being paid his costs by the successful litigant? I cannot think of any other case in which this happens.
    I am interested from the point of view of the Armed Services. If any officer in the service of Her Majesty is forcibly retired for inefficiency as the result of a decision of a court-martial, are his expenses to be paid by the State? If a civil servant is forcibly retired for incompetence, inefficiency or some other reason, are his expenses at the inquiry which results in his dismissal to be paid by the State? If not, why are chief constables selected for this privilege?
    Mr. Ross: Has my hon. and learned Friend read the Scottish Clause which deals with this matter? He will find that the inquiry takes place before the exercise of the power, and it does not necessarily follow that the person is unsuccessful.
    Mr. Paget: It may be that the Scottish Clause is not appropriate to the situation in England, but I was considering the English Clause. It may well be that, when a chief constable is successful and is not compulsorily retired, it is entirely just that he should receive his costs. But the Clause seems to provide for a situation in which, even when he is unsuccessful, he is treated in a manner which is denied to an officer in the Armed Services even when he is successful. An officer in Her Majesty's Forces, even when he is acquitted, does not get his costs, whereas, apparently, a chief constable, when he is convicted, does. I am inquiring about it. There may be a perfectly good reason, but I should like to hear it.
    Mr. S. Silverman Mr. S. Silverman rose—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that this is the Report stage. He cannot speak more than once.
    Mr. Silverman: I realise that. I was hoping that the Home Secretary would say something to satisfy our doubts——
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot speak twice on Report.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: The main difference on this question of inquiry is that we are dealing not with a disciplinary matter but with a matter of efficiency. In both Clauses of the Bill under discussion, the Scottish one and the English one, the senior officer was possibly made to pay a large part of his expenses. Under the new provisions, it will be the other way round. But it must be clear that he has unreasonably incurred expenses. I therefore feel that in an inquiry devoted to a matter of efficiency and not discipline this is fair.
    Mr. Paget: Before the noble Lady sits down——
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I have sat down.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I hope that this is only a temporary cessation of the noble Lady's speech. She has said that this arises only when efficiency is involved. But this is clearly and absolutely not so. It is true that this can be done when nothing more than efficiency is involved. But suppose that there was a chief constable who was, heaven forbid, fraudulent. Would the Minister require him to resign in the interests of efficiency and would he pay his costs in any event?
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 30.—(REPORTS FROM CHIEF CONSTABLES.)
    Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move, in page 17, line 26, at the end to insert:
    Provided that in so far as any such requirement relates to matters connected with the policing of the area for which the force is maintained it shall be treated additionally as a requirement made by the police authority in accordance with subsection 2 and subsection 3 of section 12 of this Act.
    Clause 12 recognises the right of police authorities to obtain information from their chief constables regarding the policing of their areas. Subject to the

    797
    restrictions in subsection (3), it is theoretically possible for police authorities to ask their chief constables for the same information as may be requested by the Home Secretary under Clause 30. This is likely to happen when information is required about an occurrence within their knowledge. However, when knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to a request has come to the Home Secretary through, for example, an inspector's report, the police authority may be unaware of the problem. Subject to safeguards similar to those in Clause 12(3), it therefore seems likely that the Home Secretary would acknowledge that police authorities should be informed in such cases. The question is what provision, if any, should be made in the Bill.
    As far as I can see, there are two choices, and only two. Police authorities can be given a statutory right to receive copies of reports submitted in accordance with Clause 30 subject to the exclusion of information which in the public interest ought not to be disclosed or which is not needed for the discharge of the functions of the police authority. Alternatively, if the Government were to insist that the Bill should stand as drafted, the Home Secretary would, I hope, be willing to give an assurance that police authorities will be supplied with copies of the reports or of appropriate extracts as if the Amendment had been accepted.
    Ideally, I think that the outcome should be the same in both cases, but, in practice, I think it preferable that police authorities should be sure and should know from the Bill that they will be kept fully informed. Apart from ensuring that police authorities get the information which they need to exercise their functions satisfactorily, the Amendment would be in keeping with the position of the police authority as one of the partners providing police services. The Home Secretary has repeatedly stressed his intention to maintain this concept of partnership, and it would, therefore, seem appropriate that, subject to the safeguards which I dealt with earlier, information supplied to the one supervisory partner should also be made available as of right, to the other.
    I suppose one objection which will be made—if I may do what the Joint Under-Secretary of State did to me earlier and meet his objection before it
    798
    is put forward—will be that if this Amendment were carried the watch committee or police committee would have to be informed of even the simplest telephone inquiry made by the Home Office of a chief constable. I am not moving this Amendment in that spirit at all. If the Government feel that this Amendment would cause that kind of situation to arise I hope that we shall be told that they will consider sympathetically the purpose behind the Amendment, and express their intention to meet the spirit of the Amendment when the Bill goes to another place.
    Mr. Woodhouse: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) has asked me to look sympathetically at the purpose behind his Amendment. I try to do that with all Amendments, more particularly in this case because it represents an attempt to do something similar to the intention of the Amendment which was put down in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. H. Steward) but which was withdrawn after my undertaking to look at the matter again.
    My undertaking was given expressly without commitment. The fact is that, after careful thought, and after studying again the arguments put forward in Committee, and studying also the new Amendment, we have concluded that it would really not be helpful to amend the Bill along these lines. I think it is right, however, that I should try to explain in some detail why we have reached that conclusion.
    It appeared in the Committee that there were certain misunderstandings about the operation of the Clause as it was drafted. Some were relatively minor misunderstandings. One was that, I think, of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in his suggestion that the proper channels and the chain of command, as he called it, should lead directly from the chief constable through the police authority to the Secretary of State; in other words, the police authority should not be bypassed, as our Clause would, apparently, mean. But this is a mistake, as I think the hon. and learned Gentleman did recognise, because it is fundamental that

    799
    the chief constable has the direction and control of the force himself, but can be called to account either by the Secretary of State or by the police authority separately and not by one acting through the other.
    The second misunderstanding which I think the hon. Member for Rotherham alluded to, although he was certainly not under any misunderstanding himself, was that the Secretary of State would call for reports under Clause 30 only in matters of major importance. The fact is that when the Bill becomes law every kind of request by the Secretary of State to the chief constable for information, however informal and however minor, will have to be treated as being made under Clause 30. The hon. Member for Rotherham anticipated my answer on this point. He tried to get me to find a solution to the problem he was putting forward. I can only say that off the cuff I am unable to do so.
    There is a more important—a major—point of misunderstanding. It is that the direct link between the Secretary of State and the chief constable involves going behind the back of the police authority on matters within its competence and which it is entitled to know about. This is not so. Nor is there any reason to think that the police authority will ever lack any of the information which it is entitled to have—for two reasons. The first is that it has its own right under Clause 12, subject to certain safeguards, to call for reports. Also, it is exceedingly unlikely, and contrary to all past experience, that a matter in which the Secretary of State might be interested should fail to come to the attention of the police authorities from local people, from a local M.P. or from the Press, because these are the kind of sources that are available to all of us.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. O'Malley: I specifically referred to a situation which might arise, where the Home Secretary was in receipt of information from an inspector's report of which the watch committee or police authority would presumably be ignorant, and it was particularly with regard to this kind of situation that I should have thought that an Amendment of this kind would have been useful.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I suppose it can be said that, theoretically, this could happen, but it seems to me that in practice it would be exceedingly unlikely. If it happened, it would suggest that there was a lack of liaison between the chief constable and the police authority, which would in itself be reprehensible and would give rise to much more far-reaching questions than are raised in the Clause.
    We accept—I believe this is common ground to all of us—that in the ordinary way the chief constable will bring to the attention of the police authority any important local issue in which it has a legitimate interest. If he does not do so, then, as I say, questions between him and the police authority arise which go far beyond the scope of the Clause. It is in the interests of both that they should work together. We are, after all, legislating for intelligent and adult people. We cannot legislate as if they were irresponsible children. We expect a constant readiness to report and exchange information, which is what happens now.
    The Royal Commission drew attention to this fact in its Report. It said in paragraph 162:
    "Already there is much informal consultation between chief constables and police authorities … It should be the duty of both parties to see that consultation is close and continuous."
    We entirely agree with this. It is surely better to rely on local co-operation for informal consultations, backed if necessary in an extreme case by the police authority's power under Clause 12, than to introduce statutory machinery, which is in any case open to serious objections and these are the positive objections to which I must in conclusion draw the attention of the House.
    Mr. O'Malley: Would one be justified in assuming, to refer back to the matter, that if an inspector's report had gone to the Home Secretary, the Home Secretary would obviously be in a position where, if the need arose, he could communicate directly with the police authority rather than with the chief constable?
    Mr. Woodhouse: It would certainly be within his power to do so, though I imagine that cases of that kind would be exceedingly rare.

    801
    To outline the objections in principle which have made us reluctant to table any corresponding Amendment ourselves, I would first draw attention to the background of Clause 30, which is primarily intended to out on a statutory basis the long-established practice of the Secretary of State—it has been going on for many years—to obtain such reports has he needs from chief constables. It is a practice which has, incidentally, already been given statutory recognition in Scotland under the 1956 Act.
    The most important result of this statutory basis will be that Questions can be asked in Parliament seeking information about provincial police forces. But that very important purpose, which is what lies behind Clause 30, has no counterpart in the extension proposed in the Amendment, because never since this non-statutory practice of the Secretary of State's obtaining reports from chief constables began—and that was long ago—has it been suggested that copies of such reports should he made available to a police authority. Therefore, in so far as the Clause is merely giving statutory recognition to an existing practice—and that is its primary purpose and there is no scope in it for any reference to a police authority—such a reference would have to be justified as an innovation, and justified on its own merits. Those merits have not been put in evidence hitherto. They have not arisen from past practice, and it is an innovation which has never hitherto been fell to be needed, or asked for.
    The second objection of principle is that it is essential that the Secretary of State should be able to rely on quick, full, and accurate information, and that the chief constable should report to him with complete candour. Any arrangement by which a chief constable's report to the Secretary of State automatically became available to the police authority would be bound to impede the candour with which he would report to the Secretary of State in some cases, and those of course the most serious ones.
    If I might anticipate a point which the hon. Gentleman is entitled to make, it is true that the Amendment does not require that an identical report should be submitted to the police authority, but it would place the chief constable in an
    802
    invidious position it he had constantly to bear in mind whenever making a report to the Secretary of State that he might have to make a report in different terms on the same subject to the police authority.
    To sum up the reasoning in principle, there is a fundamental point which runs through the Bill, through all the Clauses which relate to the relationship between chief constables, police authorities and the Secretary of State, the tripartite partnership. It is this. There exists a range of police activities which are the concern of the chief constable and are not the concern of the police authority, but which may become the concern of the Secretary of State, and, through him, of Parliament. That is the underlying principle which makes it necessary for me, sympathetic though I am to the hon. Gentleman's intention, to advise the House against accepting the Amendment which we have been unable to formulate ourselves.
    Mr. Paget: I do not find that a satisfactory answer. As I understood the first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, he was saying that in fact and in practice there was a candid relationship between the chief constable and the police authority, and they would in the nature of things be informed. In the second half of his speech he was saying that they would in the nature of things not be informed.
    As I said in Committee, it seems to me that the normal way to do this is through the chain of command. The police authority is responsible for policing the district. Therefore, in the ordinary way, it would be for the Home Secretary, who is responsible generally for the policing of England under this Bill, to ask the police authority, who in its turn would ask the chief constable.
    If, on the other hand, a Question is asked in Parliament—and that was the case which the hon. Gentleman put forward—and the information was required quickly and urgently, I should have thought that it would be most invidious if a police authority found Questions as to its responsibility being answered in Parliament without it having been informed either of the Question or of the Answer which it was proposed to give. That would be very embarrassing indeed. In the ordinary way, when a

    803
    Question of this sort is conveyed to the chief constable, I should have thought that as a matter of ordinary civility the police authority ought to be informed, and it ought to be informed also of the Answer.
    I do not understand the idea that there can be a level of candour between the Home Secretary and the chief constable but that it cannot exist between the chief constable and his own police authority. Surely there ought to be a level of candour between both, subject only to the reservation contained in Clause 12(3):
    "If it appears to the chief constable that a report would contain information which in the public interest ought not to be disclosed …".
    That is imported into the Amendment. I should have thought that it was sufficient protection in circumstances in which it might be contrary to the public interest for a particular Answer to be conveyed to as large a body as the police authority. It could happen very occasionally. It is an exceptional circumstance which is provided for by the Amendment.
    What the Amendment calls for is an ordinary procedure which is in conformity with ordinary good manners and which I should have thought was essential if there is to be smooth working, confidence and trust between these three authorities—the chief constable, the police authority, and the Home Secretary.
    I therefore ask whether the Government cannot reconsider the Amendment, or give the House an undertaking that in another place they will provide that in the ordinary way, subject to the exception allowed for—that is, when it is contrary to the public interest, which would be a very exceptional case—under this new procedure by which Questions can be asked in Parliament about police activities those Questions will be notified to the police authority as well as to the chief constable and that the Answers which it is proposed to give shall be notified to the police authority as well as to the chief constable. I should have thought that this was the ordinary and reasonable way to do it. I ask for some assurance to be given that this will be
    804
    reconsidered before the Bill goes to another place.
    Miss Bacon: I am sure that the Under-Secretary realises that the County Councils Association would very much like the Amendment to be written into the Bill. The Association feels rather disturbed about the position. There is a feeling that the provision in the Amendment would operate, for example, when the Home Office addressed the simplest telephone inquiry to a chief constable. Nobody would wish it to operate in that way. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will say whether between now and the Bill going to another place he will look at this again and have discussions with the Association.
    Mr. Woodhouse: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) disagrees with the Government, which he is perfectly entitled to do. I hope that he will acquit me, on explanation, of contradicting myself. He said that in the first half of my speech I said that police authorities would be informed and in the second half I said that they would not be informed. The fact is that they will be informed in the nature of things about matters which are their concern. They will not be informed about matters which are not their concern. As I explained earlier, there is a range of responsibilities which falls to the chief constable and in which the Secretary of State may be legitimately interested, either on his own account or for the purpose of answering Questions in Parliament, but which do not fall within the competence of the police authority.
    10.30 p.m.
    The Bill defines the police authorities' responsibilities and the Secretary of State's responsibilities. They are different and are not coextensive. This means that the level of candour, which was the expression used by the hon. and learned Member, cannot in the nature of things, in the extreme case, be identical for both, because the Secretary of State will be entitled to call for information for which the police authority will not call.
    Mr. Paget: That position is preserved by the Amendment. That is a provision of Clause 12(3).
    Mr. Woodhouse: No, it is not. If the hon. and learned Member studies the range of responsibilities set out in later Parts of the Bill as falling to the Home Secretary, he will see that they go far beyond those which fall to the police authority. The range of difference between their areas of responsibility is not completely described by the phrase which the hon. and learned Member has quoted.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) put her finger on the difficulty—it was the same difficulty of which the hon. Member for
    806
    Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) was clearly aware—when she referred to telephone inquiries. The fact is that the vast majority of inquiries for information will be of this short and simple kind which can be conducted over the telephone. They will, however, be equally covered by Clause 30 and the Amendment would touch them just as it would touch all the more important inquiries which he wants to cover. I do not see how one can draw any effective distinction between them.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 32.—(LOCAL INQUIRIES.)
    Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 18, line 21, at the end, to insert:
    (4) Where the report of the person holding an inquiry under this section is not published, a summary of his findings and conclusions shall be made known by the Secretary of State so far as appears to him consistent with the public interest.
    This Amendment ensures that where the report of an inquiry under Clause 32 is not published, a summary of the findings and conclusions will be made known so far as is consistent with the public interest. In moving the Amendment, I am fulfilling an undertaking which I gave in Standing Committee to put down an Amendment to this effect. There was no dispute in Committee that it might on occasion be contrary to the public interest to publish the full report. There might be matters which concerned national security or crime prevention methods which, in the public interest—
    Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman please deal with one simple question? We know of the inhibition because of considerations of national security, but what on earth could happen in the borough of Oldham, with no civil defence or armed forces, which could affect national security as between the watch committee and the chief constable?
    Mr. Brooke: What could happen in the borough of Oldham it is not for me to peer or probe into. We are, however, speaking for many boroughs and police areas. Indeed, if the House would be agreeable, perhaps it would be possible to consider also the identical Amendment in Schedule 6, page 45, line 40, which applies to Scotland.
    Taking police forces as a whole, there may well be questions of national security involved in the reports of these inquiries. Much more common than that, however, would be the case where an unexpurgated edition of the report of the inquiry might well give invaluable information to criminals as to the crime prevention methods employed in a force.
    The Amendment speaks of "findings and conclusions". I am well aware that in Committee I deprecated the use of the word "findings" which stood by itself in an Opposition Amendment. The
    808
    difficulty about the word "findings" by itself was that it left uncertain whether it would solely refer to the conclusions of the report or whether the findings would need to be interpreted as giving some indication of the general course of argument which led the inquiry up to its conclusions. In the Amendment the House will see that we use the phrase:
    "a summary of his findings and conclusions".
    In this context, there is no dubiety as to what "findings" means. It is quite clear that here the expression "findings" can be something more than the mere conclusions of the inquiry and yet is not synonomous with the whole report. I have done my best to find a form of words which will fulfil the undertaking I gave in Committee. I hope that this Amendment and the other Amendment to which I have referred will be acceptable to the House.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must intervene here. I do not think we can suddenly introduce another Amendment into the discussion. These things should be agreed when we start.
    Mr. Brooke: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but if it is not too late to agree on these identical words being introduced into difficult parts of the Bill, I think it would save another debate which would be over exactly the same ground.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the House is agreeable.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Would the Home Secretary say why there should not be in the Amendment a direction that the report shall be published, coupled with any limitation he thinks the interests of security might require? In the Clause as drafted there is no reference to publication of the report. The subsection merely says that where the report is not published there shall be publication of certain parts or a summary of it, for which everyone would be grateful, but it leaves solely at the discretion of the Home Secretary without any guidance at all the circumstances in which the whole of the report is not published. The whole purpose of such an inquiry would be defeated if it were held in secret and the report not published at all. Surely there ought to be some Amendment, perhaps not here and now

    809
    but at a later stage, to require the Home Secretary to publish it unless for stated reasons in his discretion he thinks it better not to do so.
    Miss Bacon: I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has moved this Amendment, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) thinks that perhaps it does not go far enough. What pleases me most about it is that the Home Secretary has reassured me in thinking that my language is not at fault. In Committee, when I moved an Amendment, I used the word "findings", and he said a little more about that than he has said tonight. He said:
    "I would be happy to accept it. I am, however, advised that the word 'findings' is ambiguous … I could not accept the word 'findings' because it might be held, so I am advised, to cover every word of the report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 23rd January, 1964; cc. 437–8.]
    In Committee I wanted to ensure that we did not have a report made in private and no one would know what had happened. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can reassure my hon. Friend that we shall get an adequate summary of the findings and conclusions and not an inadequate report of what has happened at an inquiry held in private.
    Mr. Brooke: That is the purpose. The words "made known" are used instead of the word "published" because I am advised that if "published" were there it would mean that it would have to be published and put on sale at the Stationery Office, whereas it may be a purely local report of limited interest and it might be desirable to make it known to the local Press and all concerned without the formality of having it published as a White Paper by the Stationery Office.
    But there is no intention whatever of concealment. I entirely agree with what has been said by the hon. Lady and by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman); there is no point in having an inquiry of this kind unless its findings and conclusions are made known, and it is certainly intended in the normal case that the whole of the report would be made available. It is only for the kind of reasons which were canvassed in Standing Committee and which received general assent—that
    810
    there might be certain passages which, if it were to be a completely frank and candid report, could not in the public interest be made known to everybody—that it seemed to be desirable to have some provision in the Bill for a summary to be made known.
    Mr. Hale: May I in a single sentence join the universal acclamation of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for having a Clause which provides that the British public, who pay, heaven knows, thousands of millions of pounds in taxes every year for these things, will if the Home Secretary sees fit, be afforded some relevant information, accurate or inaccurate, at the appropriate moment, provided that the matter does not affect the national security, the public interest or Crown Privilege or is not an obscene publication.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 45.—(POLICE COUNCIL FOR GREAT BRITAIN.)
    Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 24, line 41 to leave out from "shall" to "in" in line 43, and to insert:
    "regulate the procedure for reaching agreement on a recommendation to be made by the Council or the purposes of subsection (4) of this section and shall include provision for arriving at such a recommendation by arbitration".
    The Amendment gives effect to another promise which I made in Standing Committee—to see whether the Clause could in any way be amended to meet the known view of the Police Federation which was conveyed by hon. Members of the Standing Committee. The Police Federation felt strongly that the wording of the Clause ought to recognise that in practice the main purpose of the Police Council of Great Britain is that of reaching agreement by negotiation.
    We have devised the Amendment. I am in a position to tell the House that it is entirely acceptable to the Police Federation It overcomes the difficulty, of which we were all conscious in Standing Committee, that it would be awkward to put into an Act of Parliament all the detailed procedure and functioning of the Police Council, because that would render it inflexible, and it might be as the years went on that it was desired by the parties to

    811
    the Police Council to improve their procedure in some way. But I very much hope that the House will agree that we have met in the Amendment both the views expressed in Standing Committee and the legitimate desire of the Police Federation to have it rather more fully set out.
    Sir F. Soskice: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having changed the original form of the words as they appeared in what is now Clause 45. Genuine anxieties were felt by the Police Federation, and they were fully discussed in Committee. The Secretary of State has fully implemented the promise which he gave. I am grateful to him.
    Mr. Paget: I do not understand why my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) thanks the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary ought to have thanked us, for we have taken a great deal of trouble to improve his Bill. Why should we thank him?
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 46.—(POLICE ADVISORY BOARDS FOR ENGLAND AND WALES AND FOR SCOTLAND.)
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move, in page 25, line 18, at the end to insert:
    "after consulting organisations representing the interests of police authorities and of members of police forces and police cadets".
    This Amendment also implements an undertaking given by the Home Secretary in Commitee. It provides that the Home Secretary must consult the local authority associations and the police representative organisations before determining the constitution of proceedings of the police advisory boards. It is the intention of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland in due course to initiate the consultations required by the Amendment, and they will be glad to consider any suggestions which the local authority associations or the police representative organisations may make.
    If I may anticipate the suggestion which will no doubt be made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), I am happy to thank
    812
    anyone who feels that he should be thanked for the Amendment.
    Sir F. Soskice: The only way in which I can deal with the Amendment is to say that I am very glad that it has been made. If the Minister does not hear as much from me as he might have expected he will understand my reluctance.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 49.—(INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS.)
    Amendment made: In page 27, line 5, leave out from "section" to end of line 9.—[Mr. Brooke.]
    Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, in page 27, line 13, at the end to insert:
    (4) The Secretary of State shall appoint for each police area a panel of persons not to exceed ten in number composed of such persons as the Home Secretary may deem suitable for the discharge of the functions conferred upon them by subsection (5) of this section, being persons resident in the area and not being members of or employed in any police force.
    (5) There shall be furnished to each member of such panel as soon as may be after the end of each month a copy of all entries recording complaints against members of the police force for the area for which such panel is appointed, and any member of such panel shall be entitled to have access to all reports, statements and other documents relating to such complaint whether brought into being before or after such complaint is recorded, including any report thereon furnished to the Secretary of State in relation thereto, and shall furthermore be entitled to be present when any steps are taken in the course of any such investigation into such complaint, and to be present at the hearing of any disciplinary charge arising out of any such complaint, but shall on such occasions as he is present act as an observer only and take no part in any such investigation or at the proceedings during any such hearing, save that he may put any questions to the officer of police conducting such investigation or presiding at such hearing relating to such investigation or hearing.
    (6) The members of any such panel may report as to such investigation or hearing direct to the Secretary of State who shall take such report into his consideration but save as aforesaid the members of any such panel shall not disclose to any person other than to members of the panel to which they belong any matters coming to their knowledge concerning any such complaint investigation or hearing in the exercise of their functions under the previous subsections, and save also that before making any such report to the Secretary of State they shall furnish a copy of such report to the officer of police in charge of any such investigation or who presides over the hearing to which the report relates.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): With this Amendment we can discuss the Amendment in page 27, line 14, at end insert:
    (4) In every Regional Area there shall be appointed by the Secretary of State a panel from which shall be drawn tribunals presided over by a barrister-at-law to hear appeals, by police officers or members of the public, against any decision of a chief officer of police, arising from any complaint made by a member of the public.
    Such tribunal shall report its findings to the Secretary of State for appropriate action.
    Under this section the chairman of the tribunal shall have discretion to refrain from submitting any appeal to the tribunal on grounds of triviality.
    Sir F. Soskice: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Amendments both deal with the question of complaints against the police. In the course of our discussion in Committee this question was fully ventilated and explored, but the Secretary of State was unable to accept any of the many proposals which were made by my hon. Friends. This is a new approach, which introduces, in a sense, a kind of semi-Ombudsman. The Amendment would provide that the Secretary of State should appoint panels for each police area. They would be smallish panels—not in excess of 10 persons—and would be composed of what may broadly be described as responsible and respectable persons resident in the area who were independent of any connection with any police force.
    When a complaint is made against a police officer the Bill in its present form requires that the complaint shall immediately be recorded—I suppose in a complaint book. I am referring to complaints made by members of the public against a police officer. The Clause proceeds to set out requirements that the complaint must be immediately investigated by an investigation officer, who in due course reports to the chief constable, who, in appropriate cases, conducts a disciplinary hearing of the matter disclosed in the complaint, unless he feels that a criminal offence may have been committed by the police officer concerned, in which case the Clause requires it to be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    The Amendment would require that at the end of each monthly period complaints recorded in the complaint book have to be brought to the notice of the area panel. The proposal would not
    814
    impose an excessive amount of red-tapeism on anybody. It would be a simple proceeding. Members of the panel would be notified of complaints—one hopes that each month they would be few in number—recorded in the complaint book. So far, so good. If the panel thinks there is nothing in the complaints—if they appear to be routine complaints of no significance—it can ignore them or, if they desire, the members of the panel may decide to make a spot check, selecting one or two to see how the complaints are dealt with. Alternatively, the members may think that the record shows something of a more serious and sinister character. One hopes that that category of case will be rare.
    Supposing the panel decides to see what happens to a particular complaint. It has the right of access to all papers brought into being in the form of reports, statements taken before or after the matter had been referred to it, and so on. The members can see and read those documents. No doubt one of the panel would be deputed, if it were thought necessary, to represent the panel at the investigations about the complaint by the investigating officer. One must assume that the panel is comprised of responsible and sensible people who will not want to abuse their powers or insist on being present when steps are being taken which can have no significance in the conduct of the investigation.
    I suppose that statements would be taken by the investigating officer from the person making the complaint or people giving evidence concerning it. The individual member of the panel might ask to be present when those statements were being taken. If the investigating officer's report ultimately results in a disciplinary inquiry before the chief constable, the panel can require to be present at the hearing, but its members must act as observers throughout the proceedings, subject to one exception; that they will have the right to put questions, no doubt at an appropriate time, to both the investigating officer and the chief constable. They can thus inform themselves of all the details.
    When we discussed this matter in Committee a rather truncated form of the present proposal was put to the Home Secretary in the form of an

    815
    Amendment to the effect that there should be observers only during the hearing of disciplinary inquiries by the chief constable. The Home Secretary rejected that proposal, his main argument being that the presence of the observers would be superfluous, that there would be nothing they could do and that their presence would not be conducive to the proceedings.
    My hon. Friends and I submit that the new approach differs and cures what I agree was a defect in the previous proposal. A member of the panel can now be present throughout both the investigation and the hearing and can question the officers concerned. Having done all that, what will happen if the observer is not satisfied with the result of an inquiry and feels that further steps should be taken or that something has been hidden which should have been brought to light? What can he do? He has a specific power. He can report to the Home Secretary, who is required by the terms of the Amendment to take that report into account.
    As a matter of fairness to the investigating office or the chief constable, the member of the panel, before submitting the report, has to show it to those officers, so that they can make their own comments and know what is said about them in the report, if there is to be one. The Home Secretary can then use the powers he is taking under this Bill. He can hold a local inquiry under Clause 32, he can call for a report from the chief constable, and he can, if he thinks it necessary, use the more drastic powers which the Bill gives him. One therefore spells out a direct chain of action between the local member of the public who looks at the matter from the point of view of the affected public and the Home Secretary himself.
    It is extremely difficult to formulate a type of protection for the public which shall, at the same time, not involve an undue intrusion into and interference with what must be—or is, at any rate, claimed to be—a matter which should be peculiarly within the province of the police, but I put it to the Home Secretary—and this has been put to him many times before, and I think I am right in saying that, in principle, he accepts the validity of the argument—that although
    816
    the machinery for the actual hearing of complaints and conducting an investigation may have been—and I myself think has been—greatly improved by the Bill, there is still one gap.
    The public are not yet reassured, and the Bill does not contain any machinery for reassuring them, that complaints are, in fact, properly heard by police officers. The talk goes about that a complaint against the police is dealt with by the police, and that the public are, in fact, excluded from any participation in the inquiry into the complaint. That gives rise to some degree of disquiet on the part of the public; how much is rather a matter of controversy. The Royal Commission Report said, as has been many times repeated in our debates, that the actual hearings are properly conducted and complaints properly investigated, but that what is still imperfect is the method by which the conviction is brought to the mind of the public that that, in fact, takes place.
    I respectfully put this new approach before the House as being one that leaves with the police that degree of control which they require over their own discipline, that leaves the chief constable the officer responsible for the proper behaviour of his force, and that leaves it within his province to maintain the standard of behaviour of that force. It does not in any way impinge upon or diminish the authority of the chief officer of police as being the officer who is responsible for, and who is known to be responsible for, and has the means of enforcing, the maintenance of due discipline standards within the force which is under his command, but it gives an effective means by which the member of the public can be reassured that discipline is properly maintained, that complaints are not covered up but are properly sifted and, where there is some thing behind them that warrants that they should be dealt with more severely, more severe treatment is applied.
    I would put it to the House that this addition to the improved machinery of the Bill goes a considerable way to curing the difficulty which the Bill still discloses. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider carefully the proposals in the Amendment. They "marry in" and fit in very well, so it is submitted, with the new powers he

    817
    himself has taken in Clause 32, in particular, to institute local inquiries. It is obviously of fundamental importance to try to maintain the best possible relations between public and police; more important than all, it is necessary to try to maintain the morale of the police, which we are told has been seriously undermined by what police officers, perhaps not unnaturally, think a kind of nagging of them in the performance of their difficult and dangerous duties.
    It is suggested that this approach keeps the person who is an observer—but nevertheless armed with those powers that he will require if he thinks that there is something that should be brought to the notice of the Secretary of State—on the spot, and enables him to act, as it were, on behalf of the public in a way, nevertheless, that does not involve disturbance of or interference with the authority of the chief officer, who still remains the officer ultimately responsible—the officer upon whose personal responsibility the standards of the force, the pride in the force, and the discipline of the force will continue to depend.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. Winterbottom: I rise to put a point of view in regard to Clause 49 and to the Amendments now before us. First, want to mention the very sad case that we had in Sheffield when two people were flogged with a rhino whip in the police station, an action which was watched by certain officers of the C.I.D. who were of the highest rank in the police force.
    Under Clause 49, provision is made in the case of complaints for responsible officers from another force to be called in to investigate those complaints. Therefore, it is safe to assume that had the Sheffield case never taken place and had this Bill become an Act, the probability is that if complaints had arisen in another district nearby those very officers who witnessed and countenanced the flogging of a man with a rhino whip would have been called in by a neighbouring police authority to adjudicate on complaints made against police officers of that force.
    Our case against the investigation by a police officer of another force is based on the simple principle that dog does
    818
    not eat dog. A second point to be considered is that there has been a succession of cases in the country which have brought a great deal of disrepute to the police. I want to make it quite clear that in my opinion these cases are in a minority, that they are isolated cases. However, these isolated cases have had far-reaching effects upon the minds of the citizens of this country.
    I suggest that in order to assuage the suspicions and doubts which are prevalent in the minds of the public and in order to give an adequate protection to the police, some system should be devised whereby complaints should be the subject of investigation by someone outside a police force who would have the right of reporting back to the chief constable before the matter reached the stage of a disciplinary hearing.
    Many of these complaints can be eliminated at their very source without being referred to a disciplinary court. I feel that something of that kind would help to establish what is very badly needed in the country, a feeling of confidence between the general public and the police.
    Turning to the Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend, it is one of bits and pieces which may provide quite a succession of jobs for the legal profession. I believe that this is something which should be avoided. In an investigation at first hand of these cases we do not want anything in the nature of the rigidity that emanates from the lawyer-like mind.
    I suggest with due respect to my hon. and learned Friends, that a little more flexibility the examination of a case in the first place would be a great advantage. Whilst I cannot wholly agree with the Amendment, because it does not completely meet the position to the advantage of the police, of the public and of justice, I shall nevertheless support it, because it is the only practical alternative before us to police inspection of the police. Throughout the country, lawyers and magistrates over a long period of time have been gravely concerned that in the processes of justice nothing of this nature has been possible up to this stage. Despite what I have said about the rigidity of the lawyer-like mind, the institution known

    819
    as "Justice", made up mainly of lawyers, has said that some kind of examination such as I have suggested is necessary.
    This would be best done by a subcommittee from the new form of watch committees or police authorities of the county establishments. There, with wise chairmanship and wise direction through circulars issued by the Home Secretary, an investigating body of two or three members could be formed. The chairman could eliminate frivolous, unnecessary and unfounded cases and could start investigating only the real prima facie cases. In spite of the fact that what I have said is not expressed in any of the Amendments before us, I feel that I have justified myself as one of the Members of Parliament for Sheffield in expressing not only my own views but those of people in Sheffield who have had to deal with the situation over a long time.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I regard this as a rather sad occasion—an occasion of which some subsequent Parliament will be thoroughly ashamed. We are dealing with the most important part of the Bill after 11 o'clock at night on a Thursday when hon. Members on both sides of the House have been encouraged to go home.
    Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: By whom?
    Mr. Silverman: Right hon. Members on both Front Benches know exactly what I mean. If the hon. Member makes an effort he also will be able to understand. If the hon. Member wants to say something I wish he would rise and say it so that I can hear it.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I think that the hon. Member will find the Whip on the door still.
    Mr. Silverman: What is the Bill about? It came into being as the result of a Royal Commission on the Police. Why was that Royal Commission set up? I do not think that there is any controversy about it. We all know that it was set up because all the decent Members of the House of Commons—there are some exceptions—had become completely dissatisfied with the relations between police and public. I do not say
    820
    that those relations, if they were worse than we should have liked them to be, were the result of police misconduct or of public misconduct or that there was any justification whatever for the general feeling of malaise and dissatisfaction which was widely felt throughout the country in all political parties and which was given expression by every national newspaper.
    What was the cause of the dissatisfaction? There had been a series of reports, all of them nasty, some of them true, in respect of which there was a feeling that justice was not being done, and that it was not being done because the police were not accountable to anyone, if any member of the public made a complaint, because they judged the complaint themselves, because they judged it in secret, because they judged it without the complainant being represented, because they judged it without the complainant knowing what was being said for him or against him in the secret inquiry conducted by a tribunal formed of the people against whom he was making his complaint. Whatever else the Royal Commission reported, it was clearly not satisfied with that situation.
    It is clear, also, that the Government were not satisfied with that situation either. There are parts of the Bill which go some way to meet the objections which were felt to lie at the root of public discontent. The Bill does improve the situation in a number of ways, and we are all grateful for it. It will no longer be true, or not nearly so true as it was, that the police are responsible only to themselves. We shall be able—though it is doubtful to what extent—to ask the Home Secretary some questions if incidents again occur like the one my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) was dealing with a few minutes ago. It will no longer be possible for the Home Secretary to say, "It has nothing to do with me. I am not responsible. The police are not responsible to me. Go to the chief constable. Go to the watch committee. Go somewhere else". We have not rectified that position completely, but we have rectified some of it. It will be possible to raise matters here, and the Home Secretary will be responsible to the House of Commons for what he does concerning them.

    821
    Secondly, there is the power which the Home Secretary will have under the Bill to set up an inquiry at which everyone who ought to be represented will be represented and which will report to him. All these things are important, but the central objection is not met.
    In Committee, we had five or six different Amendments down designed sometimes to enable the complainant to be present, sometimes to enable the complainant to be represented, sometimes to enable the complainant to call evidence of his own or to cross-examine evidence called by anyone else, and sometimes designed to provide in the final result for some means of appeal. It was objected time after time that these were too many, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said on one occasion that they provided five different ways in which this inquiry could be made and the police embarrassed in their conduct of it and their morale undermined and so forth. It was not necessary to have five. Nobody wanted five. But I think what some future Parliament will be ashamed to remember is that not even the Labour Party and its leaders found themselves able to vote for even one of them.
    11.15 p.m.
    Miss Bacon: If my hon. Friend will look at the report of the proceedings he will find that we did vote for one of them. It stood in the names of my hon. Friends the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) and the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees).
    Mr. Silverman: I apologise. I made a mistake. There was an error. We did indeed vote for one of them. The Government could not even accept that. But none of the others.
    It seemed to me, and I said this in the Commitee, that if the right hon. Gentleman would accept one of the Amendments—any one—we would be satisfied. He would not accept any of them. The one which seemed to me to be most useful was one moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle), which is No. 42 on the Paper today, and which, I understand, by decision of the Chair, may be discussed with the one which my right hon. and learned Friend has moved.
    822
    What does that Amendment do? In particular, what does it do which could do any harm to police morale, or could be an offence to fair play, or any limitation or denial of justice? I can see none. It provides for a right of appeal. My hon. Friend was particularly careful to see that his Amendment did not provide for an absolute right of appeal in every case. He provided in the final sentence:
    "Under this section the chairman of the tribunal"—
    which is set up by this: I shall deal with that in a moment—
    "shall have discretion to retrain from submitting any appeal to the tribunal on grounds of triviality."
    That is given to him without argument, without representation. Under that Amendment the chairman of the tribunal has an absolute discretion, vested in him alone, which entitles him to say, "No. This is not important enough; this is not serious enough: we are not going to waste time in entertaining an appeal about it."
    But in cases which are not trivial in the opinion of the chairman, what does it provide? It does not interfere with the investigation of a complaint; it does not ask for representation in the investigation of a complaint; it does not provide for any hearing before the chief constable an which the complainant is entitled to be present or to ask questions or to call evidence or to be legally represented. It abandons all those things, and seeks to enact instead that, when the chief constable has had a free hand, completely unfettered, not disturbed or annoyed or embarrassed or harassed by anybody, and has come to his decision to the best of his ability, and made his decision, then there should be a right of appeal against that decision. It should not be a one-sided right of appeal. Nobody says that it is only the complainant who should have a right of appeal. The Amendment expressly provides that the officer complained of shall have a right of appeal, too.
    I wish someone would explain at some stage what as wrong with that, either in principle or in practice. It gives satisfaction to nose who say that the final result ought not to be beyond challenge in some tribunal which is not a police tribunal. This is what it is all about.

    823
    The Royal Commission, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was, I am sure, a valued member, decided that it would not have a national police force. It thought that the main objection to a national police force is that it leads to a police state. I do not think it does. I think that the Royal Commission came to the wrong conclusion.
    Mr. Hale: We said that this argument had been put forward. I do not think that the Royal Commission ever said that it accepted the argument. It went on to state in very full detail and very impressively the many arguments which brought it near to the conclusion that a national police force, if it were within its terms of reference, might have been desirable.
    Mr. Silverman: As usual, my hon. Friend is nearly right. It is true that the Royal Commission approached the question with great care, and it very fairly indeed, and to me convincingly, set out the arguments for a national police force. I rather think that my hon. Friend was not really of a very different opinion. Nevertheless, it did not recommend it but came down on the balance of the argument against it. That is really the only point I was making.
    Mr. Hale: It did not come down on the argument that my hon. Friend put forward as among its reasons.
    Mr. Silverman: It was among its reasons. But that is not important to what I am saying.
    Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend said that it was among the reasons submitted to it.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that interruptions may be made standing up so that I may be able to hear them.
    Mr. Silverman: I hope we may rectify any difficulty of that kind, Mr. Speaker. I did not raise the point in order to argue whether there ought to be a national police force or not, nor did I raise it in order to argue whether it was a good or bad reason, or whether anybody ever held the reason, or stated the reason, that a national police force might lead to a police State. What I am concerned with is what really does
    824
    lead to a police State. If one has a police force which is not accountable to anyone outside it, that is the classic definition of a police State.
    Mr. Hale: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Silverman: If it is accountable to someone outside itself, one has complete safeguards against the creation of a police State. If it is not answerable to anyone outside itself, then and there in principle one has the makings of a police State. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West agrees with me about that—
    Mr. Hale: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Silverman:—as, indeed, I should suppose most people would. But we have not got the situation I mentioned, except in a tentative, provisional way, which are the improvements which I have mentioned already. The Amendment would provide it, and without dong damage to anyone. It would not interfere with the investigation of the complaint by the chief constable, and it would not interfere with the chief constable in arriving at whatever decision he thought fair. But, in the result, if either party—the police officer complained about or the member of the public who complained—was dissatisfied with his decision, it would provide a method of appeal against it.
    I can see nothing wrong in principle or in practice with that proposition. I can see that there might be arguments against it if the machinery proposed were onerous, impracticable, imposed too great a labour on people, or in some other way was non-judicial or unworkable. But it is not. All that my right hon. and learned Friend has done is to ask the Home Secretary to set up a panel, but that instead of using that panel merely as observers with very limited rights which amount to no more than being told what complaints have been made and what has been done with them, and the power to write a letter to the Home Secretary if they do not like what happens, there shall be set up a tribunal of appeal presided over by a lawyer, perhaps selected by the Home Secretary, but certainly selected from a panel nominated by the Home Secretary.
    Why in the world should that be rejected or refused? I know of only one

    825
    reason. The Police Federation does not like it. But there were lots of things that it did not like. It was entitled to make its representations, and it made them very powerfully, and sometimes very convincingly, but the Committee did not always accept its recommendations, any more than the Royal Commission did. The mere fact that the Police Federation does not like the right of appeal to a non-police man in cases against a police man is to my mind a very good reason for having a tribunal of appeal, and a very bad reason for refusing to have one.
    I do not want to delay the House any longer. I know that this is a hopeless, quixotic, endeavour. I congratulate both Front Benches on the arrangements that they have made for securing that this proposal shall not be properly debated. They have arranged the situation in such a way that no adequate vote can be had on it. We are not going to have another Police Bill very soon, and this proposal has gone. I do not regard that as a good thing. I do not rejoice at it. I do not think that we have rendered a service to democratic institutions. I do not think that we have done anything to secure what we all want to secure, namely, a situation in which the public are always ready with complete confidence to co-operate with the police. That is the essence of it. People will not be easily persuaded to co-operate if they remain dissatisfied with the way in which complaints are investigated.
    I appreciate that probably nothing can be done, and certainly nothing will be done, about it, but I could not allow the matter to go by without expressing some dissent and some regret that the opportunity should have been lost to correct once and for all a sad and wide breach in our democratic institutions.
    Mr. Charles A. Howell: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his argument. I am sure that the House would be surprised if I did.
    I commend to the House the Amendment in line 13. I propose to ignore the Amendment in line 14, and to allow my arguments to stand or fall by the first
    826
    Amendment only. My reason for supporting it might surprise hon. Members.
    11.30 p.m.
    I wish to know from the Home Secretary whether, without the Amendment, Clause 49 changes in any material way the Police Act regarding police discipline. I ought to read the Clause which we are trying to amend. It states:
    "Where the chief officer of police for any police area receives a complaint from a member of the public against a member of the police force for that area he shall (unless the complaint aleges an offence with which the member of the police force has then been charged) forthwith record the complaint…"
    That is all right; the incident is recorded. But the Clause goes on to say:
    "and cause to be investigated".
    For my part, the remainder does not matter, because it states:
    "and for that purpose may, and shall if directed by the Secretary of State, request the chief officer of police for any other police area to provide an officer of the police force for that area to carry out the investigation."
    I have a blunt question for the Home Secretary. Does the starting of an investigation by the chief officer of police mean that he must complete it? Hon. Members night consider this facetious, but I have a case in which this has happened and I reported it to the Home Secretary. One of my constituents claimed that he had been assaulted by a police officer. My constituent was one of five youths in a bus who were followed. Five or six police officers followed the omnibus. This was a pretty good operation. It seemed to me that the person who instructed a sergeant and, say, four constables to go in a police car and a police van to follow one bus had a job on hand. Quite an operation was taking place.
    When the youths got off the bus, they were accosted by the police. According to the evidence which I submitted, the Press evidence, and the evidence which the Home Secretary got verbatim from the court, one lad was supposed to have made a gesture. It might have been the reverse of that given by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), but it was a gesture which upset the police. There is no question that one lad, a constituent of mine, was badly injured. A member of the public telephoned the newspaper in Birmingham while it was going on.

    827
    When it was reported to me, I wrote to the chairman of the standing joint committee, to the Home Secretary and to the chief constable. The watch committee did not want to have anything to do with it. Under the police discipline legislation, it was a matter for the chief constable. The Home Secretary wrote and told me that he could not do anything because the chief constable was instituting an inquiry under the Act. He did. I subsequently had a letter from the chief constable, however, telling me that he had completed the inquiry. He had dropped it because the father of the boy did not want it to go further.
    I was so amazed that I went a 90-mile round journey to see the father, who completely denied it. This was subsequently published in the Birmingham newspapers, who interviewed the father. I wrote to the Home Secretary and told him that this had happened. Either the father or the chief constable was telling lies if the father had not asked for the inquiry to be dropped.
    The Home Secretary knows that the chief constable never even acknowledged my letter when I pointed out that his information to me was claimed by the father to be untrue. That was the Parliamentary term for saying that somebody had told a lie. To my surprise, the Home Secretary replied to me and said that he had had a copy of my letter, which indicated that the chief constable had had it, although he had never acknowledged it to me.
    From this instance, I want the House to understand that if no change is made by Clause 49 in the Act, any chief constable who is slick enough can start an inquiry and drop it without completing it. Incidentally, the Home Secretary so much approved of what happened that he appointed the chief constable as an inspector of constabulary immediately afterwards, even before the case had been completed.
    Under this Amendment no chief constable would be able to get away with a trick like that because every incident would have to be reported to the committee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said that the committee should not be of more than 10 persons. Every month the panel would have in
    828
    formation of all instances in which complaints were made against the police. I am not attacking the police, although I may attack the chief constable in the case to which I have referred. I do not support the second Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) spoke about the chairman having discretion in cases of triviality. A case in which the giving of the reverse to the Churchill sign is complained of might be considered trivial.
    Mr. S. Silverman: If my hon. Friend has read the second Amendment he will have seen that it provides that except in cases of triviality there would be an absolute right of appeal. The concession about triviality was nut in to meet an objection that the police would otherwise be cluttered up with continual inquiries. I do not like it, but it seemed that some concession had to be made in order to get a right of appeal in cases of substance.
    Mr. Howell: I assure my hon. Friend that I have read the Amendment. My interpretation of it is that the only grounds on which the chairman would be able to refuse a case would be those of triviality. What one might call a triviality might be different from what another thought trivial. Someone might report a sign which was regarded as obscene had been given and it might be said that that was a triviality.
    Mr. Silverman: I have much sympathy with the point my hon. Friend is making, but does he realise that if for that reason we do not get the second Amendment there will be no right of appeal in any case?
    Mr. Howell: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, but I am prepared to wait to hear what the Home Secretary says. I have had occasion to be grateful to my hon. Friend for professional services and I cannot argue with him on legal matters. I stand to be corrected by the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend or any learned Member, but I believe that when a policeman has a punishment awarded against him by the chief constable or the watch committee he has an individual right of appeal to the Home Secretary. Although he may not have a right of appeal against the case,

    829
    most certainly under police regulations he would have a right of appeal to the Home Secretary against punishment threatened to be meted out to him.
    Mr. S. Silverman: The complainant has not.
    Mr. Howell: Perhaps my hon. Friend has a point there. It may be that the chairman thought the complaint trivial and the police constable had no injury. But the constable could be suspended or reduced and that would be a greater grievance.
    Although I have never subscribed to the idea of having an Ombudsman, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend is suggesting a committee of Ombudsmen to check all complaints against the police made in an area. Those persons would not investigate every case and not every case would go to a tribunal, but they would be reported to someone outside the police force. In this connection I do not divorce the watch committee or the standing joint committee for the police. This would be a special committee, an overlord. We have plenty of advisory committees but this would be almost a check committee. It would be a committee of Ombudsmen.
    I do not suggest that as an hon. Member I should have better treatment than anyone else, but I am responsible for voting money which goes to the police force. When an hon. Member representing his constituents complains to a chief constable that something has happened and the chief constable sets up an inquiry, it should be forced to a conclusion. I want to go further. When an inquiry takes place in certain conditions the Home Secretary can call for a report. What would happen under the present regulations if I asked the Home Secretary to get a report on the case which I have quoted? He would reply, "The case has been concluded because the chief constable has said that this was what the father wanted."
    But here is an idea which would encourage the public. The Home Secretary may say, "We do not have many complaints, and the publicity given to them is out of all proportion". I agree with him. That is not unusual with the Press. They have to get something startling. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield,
    830
    Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) said that it was because dog eats dog, but in fact dog does not eat dog. The newspapers do not often report when dog bites man, but there would be headlines it man bit dog. The bad man gets the headlines—the soldier who takes part in some mut y the sailor who damages his ship, the odd constable—and thank heavens it is only the odd constable—who goes wrong; these are the people who hit the headlines. My hon. Friend the Member for Brightside spoke of those policemen in Sheffield. They are the exception, not the rule, in the police force. They get the headlines. Of the thousands of parsons in this country, it is the one who goes wrong who hits the headlines. We read about him in the Sunday papers, not about the thousand who did nothing but good.
    The police have a job comparable with no other. It does not lend itself to making friends even with their neighbours. Their code of discipline applies when they are off duty, too. They can he charged under their disciplinary code with conduct prejudicial to their position as an officer, even when off duty. I think tint whatever is done by the chief constable, there should be another check; and the best way is that suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend, despite the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne. After listening to my hon. Friend's criticisms, I wished that he had helped the House by putting down an Amendment giving him all the safeguards and appeals that he desired.
    Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. Friend may like to know that there were discussions a bout this. Unfortunately, I was unable to persuade by right hon. and learned friend and his colleagues to accept an Amendment, and I thought it not worth while to waste the time of the House on it.
    Mr. Howell: I have noticed several Amendments on the Order Paper today with only one name to them. My hon. Friend might have persuaded some hon. Members support him if he had put down an Amendment.
    Mr. Silverman: Are we not discussing an Amendment which I put down?
    11.45 p.m.
    Mr. Howell: I am discussing the Amendment in page 27, line 13.
    Although the hon. Member said that we had encouraged people to go, I am afraid that they went without encouragement, and I do not blame them after they have sat here all week. I hope that the Home Secretary will take some note not only of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said but of what I have said. I hope that he will reply to the short question: does the Clause, without Amendment, in any way alter the position to which I have referred in connection with the police court case?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member has used the privilege of a Member of Parliament to make a personal attack on a former chief constable under conditions in which it was patently impossible for the other side of the case to be put to the House. It was out of the question for me to have obtained either from the Home Office or from Birmingham the full papers on this case, of which I was given no previous notice that it was to be raised. I content myself with saying that there are many facts which should be on record in this matter in addition to what the hon. Member has said, before an impartial judgment can be formed of the incident.
    These are difficult matters, and the very difficulty of them is evidenced by the fact that we have had two completely different Amendments put down, with different methods of approach. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that in Committee no fewer than five different solutions were proffered. The Royal Commission summed up the position admirably in Paragraph 433 of its Report, when it said:
    "The problem of ensuring that complaints against the police are faithfully dealt with is thus intrinsically difficult. Essentially it is to devise arrangements which are acceptable both to the police and to the public as fair and just, not favouring either at the expense of the other, and not weakening the morale of the police and their resolve to fight crime."
    In paragraph 428 the Commission said:
    "The …evidence gives us no reason to doubt that chief constables and other senior officers are, in general scrupulously fair and thorough in the way in which they investigate complaints, and our own observation confirms this impression.…Pride in their force and concern for discipline, as well as for the maintenance of good relations with the public, work together to encourage senior officers, and
    832
    in particular chief constables, to exercise the greatest care in the investigation of complaints, and even on occasion to weight the scales against the constable."
    That is the considered finding of the Royal Commission. No one would suggest that in the interest of the maintenance of the morale of the police the police should be allowed to use their powers with impunity; neither have the police themselves the slightest desire that that sort of situation should arise. On the other hand, if the police service were to feel that it was being victimised as a result of unfair criticism it is the public that would very soon suffer, because it would have lost is protection.
    As I said in Committee, a policeman works for a great deal of his time alone. He is paid the same whether or not he turns a blind eye to trouble. What we want is the kind of policeman who will not turn a blind eye to trouble—will not be looking over his shoulder all the time to see whether he will be criticised by an Ombudsman or semi-Ombudsman, but will carry out faithfully the duties imposed upon him by the chief constable and, within that framework, do everything within his power to prevent and detect crime.
    The Government's approach to the problem of handling complaints is in line with that of the majority of the Royal Commission, that is, to place great emphasis on the need to preserve intact, as far as possible, the position of the chief constable as commander of his force, bearing responsibility for the discipline and morale of his men while, at the same time—and I stress this—establishing and maintaining a system of accountability which will ensure that abuses will not go unchecked and unpunished. I feel sure that all hon. Members will agree about that. It is simply a question of getting the right balance.
    The Bill goes further than the Royal Commission, although the reforms embodied in it—considerable reforms which I shall mention before dealing with the Amendments—have been carefully framed so as not to risk interference with the morale of the forces or undermine the leadership of chief constables.
    The Royal Commission pointed out that there were comparatively few complaints against the police. There are

    833
    now fewer against the Metropolitan Police, for example, than there were 25 years ago. Only about 5 per cent. of the complaints end up with a formal disciplinary charge although, as the Royal Commission pointed out, that does not mean that only 5 per cent. of complaints have been found to have any substance. There are other ways of administering an effective rebuke of a constable outside the disciplinary code. I am sure that the vast majority of complaints are properly dealt with, even under the existing arrangements which we are proposing to improve by the Bill.
    The problem is to satisfy the complainant in the relatively small number of complaints where the outcome does not at present give satisfaction the complaint that an absolutely thorough investigation has not been made, that shortcomings concerning a police officer have not effectively been dealt with, and so on.
    Before dealing with the Amendments, I should like to set out the position against the background of the Bill. Under the Government's proposals in this Clause every complaint must be at once recorded. That is the first change, because no similar statutory requirement now exists. Chief constables will maintain complaints books for this purpose.
    Mr. Charles A. Howell: Are no records of complaints kept at present? Am I not right in assuming that an incidents book is kept on the counter of every police station or office, in which the station sergeant must record every complaint he receives?
    Mr. Brooke: In the Metropolitan Police area all complaints are recorded, but the Royal Commission found that that was not the practice throughout the country, at all provincial police stations and offices in the case of all complaints, however trivial, made by the public. The Clause will make it a statutory obligation on the police to record every complaint, however trivial.
    We are accepting the recommendation of the Royal Commission that these complaints books should be open for inspection to the inspectors of constabulary when they go round, and also to the pace authority; thus both the in
    834
    spectors of constabulary and the police authority will have a duty to keep themselves informed as to the manner in which complaints are being dealt with. The House should know that inspectors of constabulary do not take this matter lightly even now. They commonly ask chief constables to produce papers relating to specific complaints and they may go through the whole file to satisfy themselves that chief constables' actions are satisfactory This is by no means a formality.
    Next, according to the Clause, each complaint must be investigated at once by the chief constable. As soon as the Bill becomes law and the police regulations have been revised, it is intended that an explanatory leaflet should be made available explaining how complaints are dealt with and that this should be given to every complainant as a matter of course. That will be helpful.
    The next Government plan is that the officer appointed to investigate a complaint may be brought in from another police force. He may now, but until Clause 49 becomes law there is no obligation on the other chief constable to comply with the request, nor is there any power in the hands of the Secretary of Stale to insist that a complaint should be investigated by somebody from another force. Particularly in the smaller forces, where everybody in the force knows everybody else well, this may be one, of the most useful of the new provisions.
    Next, under the Government plan, unless it is clear when the investigation is completed that no criminal offence has been committed, the report of the investigation must be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is quite a new provision. The chief officer must be positively satisfied that no criminal offence has been committed—not just satisfy himself that there is no prima facie case; then an independent mind, that of the Director, will be brought to bear on the matter.
    What eventually happens to the complaint will obviously depend on its merits. If there is no need to send it to the Director of Public Prosecutions, it may lead to a formal disciplinary charge, or the investigation may show

    835
    that there is neither a case for prosecution nor for a disciplinary charge. Chief constables have been told by me that, whatever the result, the complainant must be informed, and their attention has been drawn to a recommendation of the Royal Commission that correspondence with complainants should be conducted in courteous and sympathetic—and, I trust, informative——terms.
    Mr. Charles A. Howell: The right hon. Gentleman says that the complainant has to be informed. Has he to be told, or is he to get a copy of the report?
    Mr. Brooke: He would not normally get a copy of the report, because an investigation report must be a confidential document, but he will certainly be told the outcome of the investigation. If he is not satisfied, he can write to the Home Secretary, or he can write to his Member of Parliament who, if he thinks fit, can put a Question in the House asking me to send for the report so that I can satisfy myself——
    Mr. Howell: Perhaps I misunderstood the Home Secretary. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of someone being "told", that, to me, is something verbal. Will he be given anything in writing—informed?
    Mr. Brooke: He must certainly be told in writing—
    Mr. Howell: That is informed.
    Mr. Brooke: I am glad to have made that clear.
    Of course, it is also intended that a complainant shall be entitled to be personally present at any disciplinary hearing arising out of his complaint. By Clause 48 it will be open to him to sue the chief officer in respect of any alleged civil wrong, whether or not he can identify the policy officer concerned.
    Finally and conclusively, in addition to all this, my responsibility to Parliament may be engaged if I am asked to call for a report arising out of a complaint and, in the last resort, I may find it necessary to exercise my new powers—under Clause 32 to set up a local inquiry to carry out an investigation.
    836
    Cumulatively, those changes are far-reaching, and I put it to the House that it would be unwise to go further than that and experiment with some untried scheme on which there was by no means general agreement before we had seen how these new cumulative arrangements for the investigation of complaints work out. We must remember that all this is against the background that the chief officer will be well aware, when the Bill is on the Statute Book, that any failure properly to investigate complaints against his men will, in future, expose the chief officer, not merely to criticism but to the risk of loss of office on grounds of inefficiency. I firmly believe that all these plans, tying together as they do, will make effective provision for ensuring that complaints are properly dealt with.
    Against that background, I come to the Amendments. I will not explain them in detail, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has admirably explained the Amendment in page 27, line 13, and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that in line 14. I am bound to say that both of them seem to be open to objections of principle. This Amendment gets over the objection to an earlier Amendment which we had in Standing Committee and which would apply only to a very small number of cases which go to disciplinary inquiry.
    The fundamental objection to any arrangement of this kind of having a panel of 10 or more Ombudsmen outside is that it implies a lack of confidence in the chief constable as the head of a disciplined force. It extends that lack of confidence to every senior officer who may be appointed to carry out an investigation.
    The Bill entrusts the chief constable with the control and direction of his force. Tremendous responsibilities are cast on him and the House has agreed to cast them on him and that the chief constable and his subordinates can be trusted to act impartially in investigating allegations of criminal offences and in arriving at decisions whether or not to prosecute people. I submit that a body of men trusted to discharge these duties, which affect the good name and possibly the livelihood of members of the public, ought to be trusted equally to investigate complaints against members of their service and to investigate them fairly and impartially.

    837
    I do not believe that there has been a general tendency to try to cover up. I believe that any chief constable who sought to cover up when this Bill is on the Statute Book would be heading very quickly for that situation where his efficiency would be called in question. I must say that I do not agree with the idea of a panel with a vague roving commission. I think that it would have a bad effect on the police.
    I think that confusion could result from the proposed statutory right of members of the panel to intervene at any stage of the investigation of a complaint. Investigating officers have a hard job to do. If they were never to know when a panel member was going to turn up and intervene there would be a danger of their being diverted from their primary task of getting at the truth by means of a thorough investigation.
    I think it is difficult to associate members of the public with those at police investigations. In fact, an investigation which starts by being one of a complaint may turn into an investigation of a possible commission of some crime. It is of fundamental importance that these investigations should be confidential. I think that the whole basis of police inquiries would be undermined if a member of the public were entitled to be present when they are undertaken.
    The Amendment is drawn in wide terms as to the circumstances in which the panel could intervene. Likewise, I am quite sure that the report of an investigation must be a confidential document and ought not to be disclosed to others, even to members of a panel, in the way envisaged in the Amendment. It is equally true and even more so of reports called for by the Secretary of State. It may well inhibit the absolute candour on the part of the chief constable which is necessary when reporting to the Home Secretary if, as the Amendment proposes, he might be obliged to furnish a copy of the report to someone outside.
    I do not think that, apart from these objections in principle, it would work easily in practice. Police investigations often take the form of a series of inquiries by the investigating officer of possible witnesses, one inquiry leading
    838
    to another. The investigating officer may be assisted by others. It would be extraordinarily hard for members of a panel to follow all this.
    Clause 49 requires a complaint to be investigated forthwith. By the time the panel received its monthly report as suggested in the Amendment the investigation night well have been concluded. The observer could intervene by asking questions in the course of the proceedings. I realise the excellent intention lying behind that, but in a court of law it would not make for good order if a chance member of the public had the right to question the judge when he felt like doing so. Though these investigations and inquiries are not like it court of law, one has to remember the consequence of making these statutory reports to members of the panel is the Amendment proposes.
    I submit to the House that it would be inconsistent to put the great responsibilities on the chief constable that we are doing by common consent in the Bill and then to proclaim, as we would be doing if we wrote the Amendment in, that we had lack of faith in the chief constable's ability to conduct a disciplinary hearing with fairness to all concerned.
    The objections of principle that I have mentioned apply also to the second Amendment, which both in the House and in Committee received only limited support although I know that it appeals to a number of magistrates. As an additional reason against the second Amendment I would point out that if we make provision for the complainant to appeal against the decision of the chief constable at a disciplinary hearing we shall place the constable complained of in jeopardy for the second time for the same alleged offence and that, as the Royal Commission remarked, would infringe a basic principle of justice.
    As to the complaint of a member of the force against his chief constable, there is no need for the Amendment, because the constable already has a right to complain to me under the Police Acts At the moment his right of complaint extends only to certain limited cases where heavy penalties have been imposed on him. We are now in this Bill generalising that. If the hour was earlier I could develop at greater length the

    839
    Government's more detailed objections to these Amendments, but I hope that what I have said will suffice to show that there are objections of principle and of practice to them.
    Considering how much the Government are doing in the Bill to set up this new and cumulative system to help the public and all concerned in the handling of complaints, with the duty on inspectors of constabulary to satisfy themselves about the manner in which complaints are dealt with, and the power in the hands of the Home Secretary to order Clause 32 inquiry, it would be a mistake before we have seen how the new powers work out in practice to go further into the untried country which the Amendment seeks to map out.
    Amendment negatived.

    New Schedule.—(COMBINED POLICE AUTHORITY CONSTITUTED AS COM MITTEE OF CONSTITUENT COUNCIL.)
    1. In relation to a combined police authority constituted as a committee of the council of a county or county borough the provisions of this Act shall have effect subject to the following provisions of this Schedule.
    2. Subsections (5) and (6) of section 2 shall apply to the combined police authority as if it were a committee appointed under that section and section 3(3) shall not apply.
    3. Notwithstanding anything in section 21(3) and Schedule 7, there shall be no combined police fund but the police fund for the combined area shall be the local fund of the county or county borough and the amalgamation scheme shall make provision for the payment into that fund, out of the local funds of the other areas comprised in the combined area, of contributions assessed in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.
    4. Sections 8(2) and 9(3) shall not apply, and subsections (3) and (4) of section 8 and subsections (1), (2) and (4) of section 9 shall apply as if the police area consisted only of the county or county borough.
    5. The council of the county or county borough shall have the same power under section 10(1) as if the combined police force were maintained only for the county or county borough.
    6. Any provision made under section 21(3)(e) may be for transfer to the council of the county or county borough instead of to the combined police authority, and for the use of any transferred property by that council instead of, or as well as, that authority.
    7. In relation to an amalgamation scheme to be approved or made by virtue of section 23 of this Act—

    (a) the reference in subsection (4) of section 3 of this Act to a committee of one
    840
    of the constituent councils shall include a reference to a committee of the new or altered county or county borough; and

    (b) the request required by that subsection shall include the request of each of the following councils, that is to say—

    (i) in the case of a new county, the councils of any counties or county boroughs of which the whole or part is to be included in the new county;

    (ii) in the case of a new county borough, the council of any county borough or county district of which the whole or part is to be so included;

    (iii) in the case of an altered county or county borough, the council of the existing county or county borough.—[Mr. Brooke.]

    Brought up and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.
    We have now virtually completed the England and Wales parts of the Bill. If we were to go further we would reach the Scottish Schedule 6 and I suggest that we should all return to that with fresher minds after a spell in the fresh air.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill, as amended (in Standing Committee D and in the Scottish Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Monday next.

    A.129 ROAD, HUTTON (PEDESTRIAN CROSSING)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]
    12.10 a.m.
    Mr. Edward Gardner: The purpose of my addressing the House at this rather late hour is quite simple. On behalf of more than 4,800 people who live on or near a road known as Rayleigh Road at Hutton in my constituency of Billericay, I wish to try to persuade my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to provide for the people using the road a pedestrian crossing. I am fully aware that this issue may seem of small moment when compared with some of the great subjects which are debated in this Chamber, but to the 5,000 or so people who live in this area it is an issue of importance and great personal concern.

    841
    The Rayleigh Road is part of the A.129 which runs through Hutton village and past the Hutton village hall. It is a road which hundreds of people, men, women and children, cross and re-cross daily and along which thousands of vehicles pass. It has become a notorious road in Essex. The people who live on or near it fear this road. They fear it for themselves, for children who have to use it and for old people who have to cross it. Anyone living on or near the road must inevitably, at some time, have to cross it, and he or she crosses it without any protection against the constant flow of traffic.
    There is a speed limit of 30 m.p.h. on the road. If this speed limit were respected and observed, the demand for a pedestrian crossing might have less force but the unhappy fact is that, if one wanted an appalling illustration of the contempt which the majority of motorists show for the 30 m.p.h. speed limit, tie Rayleigh Road at Hutton would provide that illustration. The police do their best with routine patrols and radar checks, but, of course, these cannot be continuous. Once they are known to be in operation, they transform the behaviour of the average motorist, but, as soon as the checks are removed, we have the same old—so it seems to those who have to cross or use the road—reckless behaviour. For the rest of the time, when there is no radar check and there are no police patrols on the road, which means most of the time, motorists, motor cyclists and lorry drivers know no discipline or restraint of any kind. Vehicles of all kinds streak past at speeds of up to and sometimes more than 50 m.p.h.
    For seven years now, the residents in this part of Hutton have been trying to get a pedestrian crossing. The nearest crossing which they can use is at the Shenfield railway station to the west, some considerable distance away, and the traffic lights at Billericay are miles to the east. In May, 1952, the Rayleigh Road Committee was formed. This committee got up a petition, which was signed by nearly 3,000 people, asking for what I am now asking my hon. Friend to agree to tonight, that is, a pedestrian crossing.
    On 28th June, 1963, the committee took a traffic census which showed that at the peak time for traffic, between 8
    842
    and 9 o'clock in the morning, about 810 vehicles were going along this road and at the same, time it was being used by about 250 pedestrians. When the volume of traffic was at its lowest, that is, between 10 and 11 o'clock in the morning, there were 342 vehicles on the road and the number of pedestrians was 158.
    In August, 1963, that is, the following month, and, it seems, at a time when many people in the area were on holiday, the local council, Brentwood Urban District Council, took a survey and census, and it found that the peak of traffic was reached between 7 and 8 o'clock in the morning, that 595 vehicles and 69 pedestrians were using the road, and that the lowest volume was reached at between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. with 214 vehicles and 107 pedestrians.
    During tie last five years—I suggest that this is an important fact—the population in this area has increased threefold, to nearly 5,000 people. From 1960 until October, 1963—last year—there were 126 accidents on this stretch of road 81 casualties resulted from those accidents, and one of them was a fatal accident, and 18 children under the age of 15 were among those 81 casualties.
    I am fully aware that those figures may not he dramatic when compared with other figures which are available on a national scale, but they are dramatic enough for the people who live in Rayleigh Road, and they want to make this road safe by the provision of a pedestrian grossing before needless loss of life and limb prove to the Ministry that such a crossing is really essential. I do not want to overstate the case, but surely one can ask this of the Ministry: how many people must be injured on this road, how many people must die on this road, before the Ministry is satisfied of the need for a pedestrian crossing?
    Of course there is always the argument, and in almost all cases it is rehearsed again and again by the Ministry—and one sympathises with the Ministry—that a pedestrian crossing would unnecessarily slow down the traffic in a particular area without giving any compensatory safety. Well, it cannot be used, I would submit, in this particular area, because the traffic there

    843
    ought to be slowed down. It is one of the things which frighten the people who live in this area, and a pedestrian crossing would at least have the effect—one would hope it would have the effect—of slowing down traffic in that area.
    The other argument which one always hears in cases of this kind is that a pedestrian crossing would impede the progress of traffic. I would answer that in this area by saying at once that nothing on this road can impede or in fact does impede traffic so obviously and successfully as the uncontrolled, undisciplined and haphazard crossing of this road by old people and young people, and indeed by people of all ages, who have to weave their way through this continuous volume of high speed traffic in an area where, of course, if the limits were observed, the traffic would be travelling at a reasonable speed.
    I would submit that a pedestrian crossing in this area would make sense, that it does make sense that it would provide the security which the people who live in the area—and surely they are as good judges if not the best judges of all—desire so much. They want to feel safe. They want to know that their children can go out and cross the road without the danger of an accident, serious or fatal. There is already a school crossing there, in the sense that there is a school patrol, and the children are escorted across the road. I would submit that that, too, shows the need for some sort of control on this road. It is a need which is obvious and of which the residents are firmly convinced from their own daily experience.
    I ask the Minister to ensure that the matter is looked into again. If need be, the residents, and, I think I am right in saying, representatives of the local authority, and certainly myself as Member of Parliament for the area, would be very happy to meet on the site a Ministry official so that if what I have said does not convince my hon. Friend of the need for a pedestrian crossing, an hour with a Ministry official—no longer than an hour would be needed—might achieve what I have been attempting to persuade my hon. Friends to agree to.
    12.20 a.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I suppose that the fact that we are here tonight is a classic example of how Parliamentary democracy works and how Ministers are constantly put through the hoop. First of all, there are letters, then Parliamentary Questions, and finally the ordeal of the Adjournment debate, which in this case has been hanging over my head for some time as a spur to goad me into what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) considers the correct action.
    No one is sorrier than I am to have been unable to succumb to this proposal, for if I had been we should not have been here at this comparatively late hour. But I am afraid that, much as I would like to acquiesce, I must stick to my guns, and I hope that when my hon. and learned Friend hears what I have to say he will not think that this consistency of mine is altogether unreasonable.
    As my hon. and learned Friend said, there has been a good deal of strong local feeling on this matter. If we had had any doubts about this, my hon. and learned Friend's own persistence would soon have removed them, for not only has he asked Questions, but I have had no fewer than six letters from him, and all of them have been very good ones. Certainly, no one could have put forward his constituents' views with greater persuasiveness and perseverance than my hon. and learned Friend. I am sure that his constituents recognise how fortunate they are in possessing such an active and sympathetic Member.
    The trouble is, of course, as my hon. and learned Friend told the House, that this area is expanding rapidly. It is one of the many examples of growth and development which Conservative government has helped to create. But because the rate of growth is so rapid, people accustomed to the former comparative tranquility find it difficult to get used to the new situation.
    What is this new situation? As I have said, we have heard a great deal about the difficulties experienced by pedestrians here. There has been a petition, and we have had representations from the Brentwood Urban

    845
    District Council, which is the appropriate local authority for submitting pedestrian crossings schemes, and because of all this agitation which has taken place over the years, we have investigated the matter thoroughly, not once or even twice, but three times.
    On each occasion we have found that the volume of traffic was not sufficient to cause serious difficulty to pedestrians who wanted to cross. Nor were the number of people likely to cross at any one point sufficient to keep a crossing in regular use at most times of the day. The absence of this factor makes it extremely difficult to justify what my hon. and learned Friend is asking for. He has just told the House that he considers the traffic heavy. But I am afraid that a census of vehicles and pedestrians carried out by the local council's engineer and surveyor over a period of 12 hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on two days last August does not confirm this. The highest number of vehicles and pedestrians recorded in any one hour was 595 and pedestrians 138. The figures varied considerably from hour to hour, and the lowest number was 214 vehicles and 8 pedestrians. Taking the hour with the heaviest flow, vehicles were passing at the rate of only 1 every 6 seconds. As my hon. and learned Friend appreciates, vehicles do not pass at regular intervals, so that with this rate of flow there are in fact several sizeable gaps every minute, giving ample opportunity to pedestrians to cross the road without difficulty. In an area like this, where expansion is rapid, traffic of this volume may well appear heavy compared with what people have been used to in the past, but this heaviness is really only a relative heaviness. In absolute terms it is not heavy at all.
    In one of my letters to my hon. and learned Friend I mentioned some figures of other places where there are not pedestrian crossings, and which I think make a very interesting comparison with the situation on Rayleigh Road. I mentioned in that letter the High Street at Cowley with an average of 1,200 vehicles per hour and 95 pedestrians. I also mentioned the High Road at Chadwell Heath, which has an average of 1,500 vehicles and 122 pedestrians per hour,
    846
    whereas Rayleigh has an average of only 325 vehicles and 65 pedestrians. I know that figures cannot be considered in isolation from other factors, but those figures show pretty clearly that neither the volume of traffic nor of pedestrians makes Rayleigh Road even a marginal candidate for a pedestrian crossing.
    My hon. and learned Friend referred to other figures which have been produced by the local committee which differ from the official figures, and I must admit that I cannot explain the discrepancy between them. It may be that the local committee's figures covered a longer stretch of road than the council took, but it is no good taking a long stretch of road, because our experience is that pedestrians like to cross opposite the object of their walk and they will not go very far in either direction to secure a crossing. Therefore, a count of pedestrians anywhere else, unless it is close to the proposed crossing, nay well produce a figure which is irrelevant to the argument. However, this is supposition. I do not know the length of road over which the local committee took its count.
    Mr. Gardner: I am told that the count taken by the residents' association was taken in more or less precisely the same spot and under similar circumstances, but it was taken in a different month. It was not taken in a holiday month.
    Mr. Galbraith: I was not worried only about whether it was taken at the same spot. I assumed that it would be taken at approximately the same spot. I was worried about what length of road on each side of the spot they allowed people to cross and count them. All I can say is that the council's count was taken without notice, which might have some relevance, and therefore I think that it accurately reflects what may be regarded as the traffic flow of pedestrians and vehicle; on the road. The council is just as anxious as the local committee is to have a crossing, and it would not be likely to take a count at a time which it felt would not produce a favourable and fair answer. After all, the council produced the figures in support of the application which my hon. and learned Friend is championing tonight.
    My hon. and learned Friend also referred to the difficulties of, and dangers to, school children. With respect to my

    847
    hon. and learned Friend, I do not think that he had a very good point there, and I shall try to explain my doubts about it. On account of their age, and particularly when they are together, school children tend to lack judgment, and that is why we in the Ministry do not consider that a pedestrian crossing by itself gives young children proper protection. They are apt to run thoughtlessly on to a crossing from a false sense of security and so give drivers very little chance to stop in time. We believe that children are better protected by being escorted across the road by an adult.
    There are, as my hon. and learned Friend knows—and he referred to them tonight—two school crossing patrols in Rayleigh Road, one near Claughton Way and the other near Hanging Hill Lane, which assist the children to cross the road in the morning, in the afternoon and at lunchtime, too. As to children who wish to catch the bus and who, therefore, go earlier than the patrols are in operation, I understand that there are not a great many of these children and also that they are of a much more advanced age.
    My hon. and learned Friend also referred to the elderly. In the same way, crossings may present a danger to elderly people because crossing the road requires considerable judgment of distance and the speed of approaching vehicles. A crossing may, indeed, tempt the elderly, whose judgment may be impaired and who may be less able to correct an error of judgment quickly and, therefore, they take less care than is needed. The important thing for elderly folk, we believe, is to take extra care or at least to seek the help of a younger, more able-bodied person to escort them across the road, even if it means a little longer wait before crossing the road. Therefore, in the view of the Ministry, a pedestrian crossing is not really a satisfactory safety device for unaccompanied young people or old people. Indeed, it may even be a positive incentive to danger and accident.
    That brings me to the accident rate. I was surprised at the figures given to me by my hon. and learned Friend. They must also include, I think, accidents not involving pedestrians, because my figures show that in the last two years only one child has been involved in an accident
    848
    on the 400-yards length of road in which lies the proposed site of the pedestrian crossing; and that was substantially below the figure given by my hon. and learned Friend. This one accident involved a boy aged nine who ran into the road and was slightly injured. During this period, no other pedestrians have been involved in personal accidents.
    It is, of course, regrettable that any accidents at all should occur on our roads, especially when they involve young people, but the record does not indicate that conditions are particularly dangerous for pedestrians here. Nor can accidents of this kind, when children suddenly run on to the road, be prevented by providing pedestrian crossings, whether they are controlled or uncontrolled.
    The record in no way suggests dangerous conditions for pedestrians. I should not, however, like the House or my hon. and learned Friend to think that we follow a policy of waiting for accidents to happen before we do anything. That is not our policy. Our policy is to look at the condition of the road, the flow of traffic and the number of pedestrians and see whether we think, in the light of these factors, that a pedestrian crossing is necessary. When we have made that assessment, we look at the accident figures to check whether our original decision was right. Usually, as in the case of Rayleigh Road, we find that the accident figure confirms our preliminary view.
    My hon. and learned Friend also referred to the speed of the traffic going through the road. I have had inquiries made but, again, they do not bear out exactly what my hon. and learned Friend has said. I understand from the police, who operate a frequent patrol in Rayleigh Road, that they consider that the 30 m.p.h. speed limit is disregarded only in the late evenings. Since 1st January this year, their efforts to enforce the limit here have included reporting 52 offenders for prosecution and warning 160 others. From these figures, therefore, it looks as though the police are maintaining not too bad a patrol.
    To sum up, I assure my hon. and learned Friend that we have considered this proposal carefully but that taking into account the number of vehicles passing, the number of pedestrians wanting to

    849
    cross and the width of the road—20 feet, which is not far to walk—I cannot agree that conditions are such as to justify a pedestrian crossing at the present time.
    In one of his letters to me, however, my hon. and learned Friend said—he hinted at the same thing tonight—that he was satisfied from his personal knowledge that there was a cogent case for a crossing here. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will understand and sympathise with me when I tell him that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is always under pressure from Members of Parliament and local organisations such as the one my hon. and learned Friend represents to provide pedestrian facilities because they feel, just as my hon. and learned Friend feels, from their knowledge of the locality that there is a cogent case for a crossing in their district.
    My right hon. Friend cannot take this local view; he has to take a wider view. This is not another instance, as I am afraid people in the locality sometimes fear, of "the gentleman in Whitehall knows best." If it were purely a local matter it would be right and proper to leave it to local decision, but it is not a local matter. Drivers all over the country are affected. A decision taken by my right hon. Friend has to be taken in the light of criteria that are generally applied throughout the whole country and are not peculiar to each particular area. The problem is a national one and it must therefore be considered on a national basis. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend would find it very difficult in the conduct of his profession if each court in each district applied a different law. In a small country such as ours there must be a certain amount of uniformity.
    The assumption seems to be that we refuse permission to erect a zebra crossing because we are too little concerned with the safety of pedestrians. I cannot emphasise too strongly that this is utterly wrong. Pedestrian crossings were first introduced in 1935. They spread rapidly and everyone thought they were a panacea for all pedestrian troubles, but by the late 1940s there were so many of them that drivers scarcely paid attention to them.
    850
    Their very success had led to their undoing. So in 1951 the number was cut deliberately by two-thirds and as a result of this cut observance has since been good. This shows that too many crossings actually endanger safety, and it is a fact that makes my right hon. Friend examine most carefully all sites proposed for zebra crossings to make sure that they are provided only where they are rally justified, otherwise the currency becomes devalued. In places where pedestrian crossings are not the right solution but where some assistance might be needed, we have carried out an experiment such as central refuges. Unfortunately, this cannot be done in Rayleigh Road because it is too narrow. It is only lust over 20 ft. and a refuge if it is to give proper protection for people waiting on the island, must be at least 4 ft. wide. This would leave only 8 ft. on either side, which is much too narrow to permit vehicles to pass safety. There would always be the risk of traffic colliding with the island or of people being hit by a passing vehicle. So a refuge would create danger rather than safety.
    Another way of helping pedestrians is seen in the experiment, started in London, of pedestrian control. It is designed to secure greater road safety by some combined regulation of the motorist and the pedestrian. It can be regarded as a bargain it which the pedestrian gives up the right to cross the road when and where he pleases at his own risk, for the right to cross in safety at specified places at specified times. Traffic control signals, incorporating pedestrian operated facilities, have been installed so that there is a safe crossing within 50 yards or so of where anyone wants to cross. In some areas where the zebra crossing hi not the right answer, some form of light controlled crossing such as the "Panda" may be what is needed.
    I have mentioned these various methods not because I think they are necessarily suitable to Rayleigh Road, but to show that we are experimenting actively to find an answer which will he helpful to all road users. I am afraid I must sly to my hon. and learned Friend that even in the light of his very persuasive remarks, Rayleigh Road fails to pass the test. This does not mean

    851
    that if conditions get worse in future, a crossing might not eventually be justified.
    The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening.
    852
    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 twenty minutes to One o'clock.

COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881
  Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881
RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Salisbury University
  Salisbury University
  Air Force
  Air Force
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Overseas Food Centres
  Overseas Food Centres
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  North-East
  North-East
  Commonwealth Trade
  Commonwealth Trade
  British Lion
  British Lion
  Canadian Minister of Trade (Visit)
  Canadian Minister of Trade (Visit)
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Advance Factory, Portmadoc
  Advance Factory, Portmadoc
  Cameras (Import Duty)
  Cameras (Import Duty)
  Pharmaceutical Goods (Prices)
  Pharmaceutical Goods (Prices)
  West Midlands Study Group
  West Midlands Study Group
  Export Trade
  Export Trade
  Growth Areas
  Growth Areas
COAL
  Smokeless Fuel Supplies, Barking
  Smokeless Fuel Supplies, Barking
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Colvilles Limited
  Colvilles Limited
  Lurgi Study Group (Report)
  Lurgi Study Group (Report)
EDUCATION
  University Students (Professional Courses)
  University Students (Professional Courses)
  Teaching Machines
  Teaching Machines
  Newcastle-under-Lyme College of Further Education
  Newcastle-under-Lyme College of Further Education
  Drenewyedd School
  Drenewyedd School
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Sculthorpe Air Base
  Sculthorpe Air Base
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Representation of the People
  Representation of the People
  Children (Death by Suffocation)
  Children (Death by Suffocation)
  Prisoners (Escapes)
  Prisoners (Escapes)
  School Crossing Patrol (Barnes)
  School Crossing Patrol (Barnes)
  Administration of Justice (Isle of Man)
  Administration of Justice (Isle of Man)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Motor Cars (Tax Receipts)
  Motor Cars (Tax Receipts)
TRANSPORT
  Transport Economics (Research)
  Transport Economics (Research)
  Salvage (Ex-gratia Payments)
  Salvage (Ex-gratia Payments)
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Overseas Service Aid Scheme
  Overseas Service Aid Scheme
  SOUTH VIETNAM
  SOUTH VIETNAM
  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, NORTHERN IRELAND
  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, NORTHERN IRELAND
  ATOMIC WEAPONS
  ATOMIC WEAPONS
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  FOREIGN OFFICE AND COMMON- WEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE (PLANNING SECTIONS)
  FOREIGN OFFICE AND COMMON- WEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE (PLANNING SECTIONS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Annual Price Review
  Annual Price Review
  Bacon (Market Sharing Understanding)
  Bacon (Market Sharing Understanding)
  Sugar
  Sugar
HOUSING
  Local Authority Houses
  Local Authority Houses
  House-building (Standards)
  House-building (Standards)
  Colne Valley
  Colne Valley
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Teachers
  Teachers
EMPLOYMENT
  Western Isles
  Western Isles
SCOTLAND
  Lobster Landings (Outer Hebrides)
  Lobster Landings (Outer Hebrides)
  Crofter Fishermen (Highlands and Islands)
  Crofter Fishermen (Highlands and Islands)
  Summer Herring Fishery (Minch Waters)
  Summer Herring Fishery (Minch Waters)
  White Fishing (Broad Bay Waters)
  White Fishing (Broad Bay Waters)

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

BIRTH OF A SON TO HER MAJESTY
3.5 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I beg to move:
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to congratulate Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, on the birth of a Son; and to assure Her Majesty that every addition to Her Majesty's happiness affords the highest satisfaction to the House of Lords."
It is my agreeable duty this afternoon to ask your Lordships to agree to send to Her Majesty the humble Address which I have just read to you. In all families there is great joy at the birth of a baby, not only in the immediate family circle but also among the more distant cousins and friends; but there can be no family whose happiness is shared by so many people as that of Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip.
Both Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh are known to many millions of people all over the world through the countless tours which both of them have undertaken and because of the photographs, news-reels and television appearances that they have made. Here in Britain, and also in New Britain far away in the Bismarck Archipelago, in the Falkland Islands, Hong Kong, the West Indies, all over the world where English is spoken and, indeed, where it is not, countless millions of people will be sharing in the happiness which the birth of a son has brought to the Queen and Prince Philip.
We, my Lords, as well as congratulating Her Majesty, should also congratulate ourselves that we are fortunate enough to have as Queen and Consort
526
two people who set great store by their family and are obviously happy with them. The baby Prince is warmly welcome and will be assured of the effection and loyalty which your Lordships will always show to Her Majesty and her Family. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to congratulate Her Majesty and his Royal Highness the Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, on the birth of a Son; and to assure Her Majesty that every addition to Her Majesty's happiness affords the highest satisfaction to the House of Lords.—(Lord Carrington.)
3.8 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have very great pleasure indeed in rising to associate myself and all the Members of the House who support me with the Motion which has been moved by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and with the terms in which he has moved it. The reference that he has made to family life is vastly important. In this country, in spite of all the changes that have taken place in the century, family life is still held in very great reverence, and the way in which families of the ordinary people look to the Palace for the news they get of the family of the highest Lady in the land is a proof of that position.
We are very happy indeed to have a constitutional Monarch who is so loved and so popular in this country, and our pleasure extends to the fact that Her Consort, Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, has endeared himself to the country in other ways as well. He has taken an interest in the general life of the nation, in industry, education, the training of youth, and the like, which has been of very great value—probably in something of the way of the late Prince Consort, Prince Albert, with Queen Victoria. I admire the fact that we have this very great interest in our country from the Prince Consort.
We are very happy indeed to have the news from the medical staff attending Her Majesty in the Palace that both Her Majesty and the baby are doing well. We should like to send her our deep congratulations and our best wishes for the whole of the Family.
3.10 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, it is my great pleasure from these Benches to support what has been said by the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition. In the middle of strife and anger in so many parts of the world, in the middle of disputes and cold warfare and hot-tempered antagonism, both at home and abroad, about matters which we all know will dissolve unimportantly in history, we are to-day brought up suddenly by an intimate personal pleasure and delight: another baby—one of hundreds born every day—has come with love into a loving family; and in this country we have another little Royal Prince whom we welcome and who carries with him, as has been said, the benevolence and good will, not only of this nation but of all the world, in his innocence and his day-old entry into human life.
I join gratefully in the congratulations to Her Majesty and to His Royal Highness Prince Philip on this happy and human occasion, because we are glad for them as well as for ourselves; and, like the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, I add our thankfulness that Her Majesty, as we are told, is in good health.
The Royal Family, in this democratic Monarchy of ours, well earn our admiration and our gratitude for their great public work. In their private lives we rejoice in their pleasure, and we love to realise that they share with us all the intimate delights of perfectly ordinary family life. This little boy, this Royal Prince, is one of us. We sincerely wish him all health and all happiness.
3.12 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, there are happenings which strike a universal chord in the minds of our people, and the birth of a Prince two days ago is one of them. We thank God for the happiness which has come to our Queen and to her husband and for the happiness of the family in which the baby Prince will find himself a member as he begins to know his surroundings. At a time when, alas! not all the homes in our land are happy and united, it means much that there is around the Throne of our country a Christian family united and happy, setting to all an example of what
528
the words "home" and "family" most truly mean.
Nor can we help looking ahead as we think of the world in which the newly born Prince will be living. He will still be young, as we measure human life, when a new century begins. May it he a century in which the nations have learnt to be wiser, a century of peace! But, come what may, the children whom our Queen has borne will be setting an example in the happiness of home and in the service of humanity, and our prayers for them will not cease, nor our prayers that the world they will know will be a world wiser and better.
On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

PROPOSED CLOSURES AND RAILWAYS BOARD'S FIGURES
3.15 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the statement by Lord Cameron, Chairman of the Highland Panel, that "there was very good reason for saying that the figures given by British Railways, in support of their plans, did not present either the whole or an accurate picture of the true accounting position in relation to the passenger services", they will now instruct the Railways Board to supply accurate profit and loss figures in respect to each proposed closure; and whether, pending production of this information, they will suspend action on closures on which transport users' consultative committees have made recommendations based on the incomplete and misleading figures supplied to them.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I am sorry that both parts of the noble Lord's Question are founded on misconception and therefore the answer to them is "No". The transport users' consultative committees do not make recommendations at

529
all on closure proposals, nor do they base their reports on financial figures. They report to my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport, on any hardship a proposed rail passenger closure may cause, and, if they wish, make proposals for alleviating it.
By agreement, the Railways Board supply the committees with certain financial data as background information, and to help them avoid abortive work in investigating alternative services in detail, if they would clearly cost more than the existing rail service. The validity and appropriateness of these figures was considered by Sir William Carrington, an independent accountant appointed by my right honourable friend, after consulting the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, to investigate the matter. Sir William reported that the figures currently supplied by the Railways Board were appropriate for the purposes of the consultative committees. He also found that the bases used in the calculations were well founded and sound in principle.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, after first saying that both parts of my Question were not relevant and therefore the answer was "No", he then proceeded to prove that they were relevant? Is he aware that if figures are supplied to a transport users' consultative committee for the purpose he indicated and they are told a line is losing £100,000, they may recommend a certain alternative which they would not, or might not, recommend if there were no loss at all? Therefore, obviously they make recommendations, as he is well aware. May I ask the noble Lord also whether the Government propose to disregard completely this statement by this highly responsible Government advisory panel?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, to answer the second part of the question first, the Government certainly do not intend to disregard the work of the Highland Panel, if that is what the noble Lord meant by his question. The Chairman of the Highland Panel, who made the statement on which the noble Lord based his question is perfectly free to make that statement if he so chooses, just as the noble Lord is, and has done. But that does not mean either that it is right or that the Government agree with it; and
530
that has, in fact, already been said elsewhere. Reverting to the other half of the question, I would say that the noble Lord is quite entitled to his opinion on that, too, but, as I have already explained in my Answer, we do not share his view on that either.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, while not disputing the arithmetical calculations of the noble Lord's right honourable friend, in view of the fact that the only effective means of communication in that part of Great Britain is the railways and that there is no effective alternative means of communication, will he give instructions to his right honourable friend to keep the railways open as a social service?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have frequently said in this House, and it has been said frequently elsewhere, that every case is considered fully on its merits.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord to say that the transport users' consultative committees do not make recommendations to the Minister? If that is so, is it not rather anomalous that, after they have heard the arguments for, and also, presumably, against, the proposals of the Board, they should not be able to make recommendations? And did not the Minister say, towards the end of his first reply, that in fact they can draw attention to hardship that may be caused or to the adequacy or otherwise of the substituted transport? Does not this amount to making recommendations? Would it not be a farce if, having gone through these hearings, the transport users' consultative committees were not to be able to advise the Minister on what, in their opinion, is the course he should take?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well what are the statutory duties of transport users' consultative committees under the Act: they are to report on hardship and on suggested means of alleviating it by alternative services, if they so wish. I was perfectly right in saying what I did about "recommendations" in the sense in which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, used the word in his Question. That is not the function of the Committee, which is to report on hardship, and I do not think there is any possible doubt on that matter.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will shed a little more light upon these arithmetical calculations which he mentioned? Do they take account of not only the cost of providing alternative transport, but also the cost of improving the roads in order to allow that transport to be provided?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think I must resist the tendency for supplementaries on this Question to develop into a debate on the Beeching Report, and I think that the noble Lord should put down a Question. I have answered the Question on the Order Paper, which is whether certain action would be taken in relation to a certain statement, and I have said "No", and why.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will not the noble Lord confirm that transport users' consultative committees, in reporting to the Minister on hardship, do in many cases recommend that there shall be alternative transport provided in order to alleviate that hardship? Secondly, will he ask his right honourable friend to have an investigation into the allegation made by the Highland Panel that the financial information did not present a true picture of the situation of the alleged financial saving for the railways through closure? Is it not highly desirable that that vital statement should be fully and properly investigated, and the facts then reported?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am not going to indulge in an exercise in semantics with the noble Lord as to the exact meaning of the word "recommendations". I have tried to answer his Question as straight as I can, and I have tried to interpret the words which he used as honestly as I am able to. If he insists that the suggested alternatives they may wish to put forward are classifiable as "recommendations", then he must have it, but that is not the sense in which I have read that word in his Question. So far as this statement is concerned, I do not feel like recommending or suggesting to my right honourable friend that he should have such an investigation, because he is satisfied as to the position already.

BULAWAYO FAIR
3.22 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action has been taken to encourage British firms to participate in the Bulawayo Fair.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the Board of Trade does not press firms to participate in any particular fair. Decisions on when and where to exhibit are left to industry, who are aware of the facilities and assistance which the Board of Trade can provide in appropriate circumstances.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is the policy of his Department to encourage British firms to take part in fairs for the promotion of British trade in areas where the market is of importance to British trade?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, where there is a fair prospect of exhibiting rendering good results in terms of trade, and where the Trade Commissioner so recommends, then it is possible for the Board of Trade to approach the representative body, such as the Cotton Board, which did exhibit last year, in order to arrange for an exhibition of a prestige character in the pavilion which has been set up by the Commonwealth Relations Office over there since 1960. There will be another such pavilion this year.

UNIVERSITY OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
3.25 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any decision has been reached with regard to the financial provision to be made by the United Kingdom to the University of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I told my noble friend on January 30 of this year, pending talks with the Southern Rhodesia Government which are taking place early in April.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether at those talks special provision is going to be considered for the medical school, in view of the great importance of the development of medical teaching in Central Africa for the better improvement of the health services in that part of the world?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am quite sure that at these forthcoming talks the matter which my noble friend has drawn attention to will be given due consideration.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, can the noble Duke give us any idea when these talks are going to conclude? Is it the intention of the Government to have the main question with regard to Rhodesia settled before the General Election?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I should be most unwise to make any comment on the General Election, but I hope I shall not be giving away any State or Government secrets if I say that it is anticipated that these talks will last about one week.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, will my noble friend give us an assurance that, irrespective of all electoral or political considerations, the Government will continue to give all the help they possibly can to this great inter-racial university?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I think I should be most unwise to add anything to what I have said. I think we must await the results of these talks which are due to take place in the relatively near future.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, would the noble Duke not agree that it would be even more unwise, if not of him of the Government, if they were to allow this great experimental and valuable university to languish through lack of
534
certainty about its future and the future of those people who are going to come as students and go out from it as trained academics?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am quite sure that those who are taking part in these talks are fully aware of the importance of the issues at stake, and that all that the noble Lord has said will be given due consideration. But, at the risk of being thought unforthcoming, I think it would be unwise of me to say anything further pending the talks that are about to take place.

NEED FOR U.N. PERMANENT FORCE
3.27 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken, since the debate in this House on February 20, 1963, on the Motion calling attention "to the need for a separate and permanent naval, military and air force, together with the necessary military government or civil affairs component, created, controlled and paid by, and owing sole allegiance to the United Nations, with its own command, structure and staff", to urge upon the Security Council and the Assembly of the United Nations that such a permanent force be set up without further delay.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when replying to the debate on the noble Lord's Motion last year made clear why Her Majesty's Government regard the creation of a permanent United Nations force of the kind envisaged in the Motion to be impracticable at the present time. The situation has not changed since that debate.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, has the attention of the noble Lord the Leader of the House been drawn to the concluding words of the Prime Minister (he was then, of course, Foreign Secretary) in this debate when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 246, col. 1433]:
"I think the practical step is that the Secretary-General, in the light of the experience

535
of the different operations which the United Nations has undertaken, should review his headquarters, in both the military and the administrative fields, so that when another operation comes along, as it surely will … the United Nations forces can operate to the best possible advantage"?
In view of that statement, have the Government pressed the United Nations to take the steps which the Prime Minister indicated should be taken? Had that been done, should we not be in a better position than we are in Cyprus?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question, is: Yes, we are encouraging the Secretary-General to build up his headquarters staff, to digest the experience of the peace-keeping operations to date and to draw on the expertise of national forces enough to plan ahead. During his recent visit to New York, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary discussed with the Secretary-General the progress of these plans.

THE EASTER RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, subject to the progress of Business, it is proposed that the House should rise for the Easter Recess on Thursday, March 26, until Tuesday, April 7.
MOTHERWELL AND WISHAW BURGH EXTENSION ETC. ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE ORDER, 1964
3.30 p.m.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I would first say that this Order establishes the new Secretaryship of State and the federal structure of his Department; and secondly, that it transfers to him the functions of the other Department. These are the functions relating to universities, the functions of
536
the Education Department; and finally the function of the Office of the Minister for Science. I know that this is a fairly complicated Order, and I should like to give an explanation in some detail. By doing this I hope it will help your Lordships in your consideration of the matter.
Article 2 (1) provides for all functions of the Minister of Education and of the Minister for Science to be transferred to the new Secretary of State. The Order deals only with ministerial functions as they are assigned at present. It takes no account of the changes recommended by the Trend Committee which, in general, the Government have decided to implement, as was announced on February 6. Article 2 (1) also provides for the Ministry of Education and the Office of the Minister for Science to be dissolved. Article 2 (3) of the Order is needed to transfer to the Secretary of State two minor functions of the Lord President in relation to agricultural research. These were not taken account of when the Lord President's other scientific and research functions were transferred to the Minister for Science in 1959.
Article 2 (4) is consequential upon the transfer of functions. It provides for the transfer to the Secretary of State of all the property rights and liabilities to which the Minister of Education and the Minister for Science were entitled. Article 3 and the Schedule provide for the amendment, repeal and adaptation of enactments and instruments. This will enable references to the Secretary of State to be substituted for references to the Minister of Education and to the Minister for Science.
Article 4 (1) and (2) provide a saving both for legal proceedings pending when the order comes into operation and for acts such as appointments or directions by the Minister for Science before the Order comes into operation. Article 4 (3) refers to the Charities Act, 1960, because under that Act the Charity Commissioners are responsible to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs in some matters. That is some of the detail which is contained within the Order, but, of course, the main point of principle behind this was touched upon by the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and

537
Lord Taylor, among others, in yesterday's debate.
I should like to say something on the principle behind all this. I think we all agree that the question of what is the best organisation for dealing with schools, the universities, scientific research and advanced development work is a difficult one. None would deny this. The Leader of the Opposition himself in another place said in November that there is probably no perfect solution. As we know, three solutions are possible. First, we can put higher education and scientific research and development under one Minister and then the schools under another. The second solution is that we can put higher education and school education under one Minister and scientific research under another. Or, finally, we could make (as we are doing now) one Minister responsible for the whole, with two Ministers of State and two Permanent Secretaries dealing with school education, on the one hand, and higher education and research, on the other.
The first is the solution recommended by the Robbins Report, and certainly there is much to be said for it as well as against it. The Robbins Report stressed (to use its words) that
"the organic connection of the universities with other forms of organised research is even closer than their connection with the work of the schools".
We fully accept the close connection between research and higher education, but we conclude—and I think the noble Lords opposite agree—that the arguments against dividing responsibility for education should not be disregarded.
The second is the solution which the Opposition Party favour. There are strong arguments against their solution. The universities are not only great teaching institutions; they are also the points at which knowledge is preserved and the frontiers of learning extended. We believe that it is essential for teaching and research to be handled together, whether at universities or in Whitehall. And we are strongly supported in this by both the Robbins Committee and the Trend Committee as well as by other learned opinion.
I submit that there would also be a danger that financing of research
538
would become unbalanced since two Ministers would be responsible for it. One Minister would be responsible for the University Grants Committee which provides the bulk of the funds for research in the universities. Another Minister would be responsible for the Research Councils which provide grants for specific researches in the universities—and they are doing this on an increasing scale—and also facilities for costly research which can be used in common by the universities. Recent experience has shown that there is a real need to establish harmony between these two sources of finance.
Therefore, I would say that the third solution is the right one. The only objection that might be raised against it is that one Minister becomes responsible for a very wide range of activities. This is worrying, and certainly was the burden of what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, have said. But the research Councils and the Atomic Energy Authority have a large measure of autonomy in the conduct of their affairs. The Secretary of State will be responsible for general supervision, but not detailed control. He will finance all the authorities, but he will not take their scientific decisions.
I would say that there is no reason at all why the Minister of State who will be in charge of higher education should not have reasonable time and opportunity to fulfil the ministerial functions in respect to atomic energy and industrial technology, as was envisaged for the Minister in the Trend Report itself. I think that it is universally agreed that the Research Stations and the Atomic Energy Authority could make, and ought to make, a bigger contribution to teaching and particularly post-graduate training in the universities. I should have thought your Lordships would agree with me that this is far more likely to come about if one Minister has the general supervision of the University Grants Committee and the research organisations.
I think that it is also true that on the education side the load should not be too heavy. Most of the administration which we are discussing is indirect: the schools are run by the local education authorities; the universities get their

539
money through the U.G.C.; and the Research Councils are practically autonomous. So administration is in one degree removed and thus shelters the Ministers responsible from undue strain—which is the chief worry in the minds of noble Lords opposite. Finally, I should say that the whole range of functions is met by the decision to have a Minister of State over each of the two units, thus enabling the load to be spread.
We believe, therefore, that the case for dealing with universities and research in the same ministerial set-up is overwhelmingly strong. We think it is right that the same Minister should control civil science as well, so that in dealing with scientific priorities and allocations this Minister can see the picture as a whole; and that is what this Order is designed to bring about. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Secretary of State for Education and Science Order, 1964, be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on the 4th of March, 1964—(Viscount Blakenham.)
3.40 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I had hoped that we should not be forced to take this Order this afternoon. It is rather short notice and it is a very important Order. It was dealt with last night by another place—I think they divided at a time which is not recorded in the Hansard which has been circulated this morning. The Special Orders Committee looked at the Order only yesterday and reported that it needed very special attention. For all these reasons, I should have hoped it would be possible to postpone it. There is one other reason, and that is that, frankly, I have not myself had time to give it the study it deserves. But I am persuaded that there is an element of urgency about it, and the noble Viscount himself has explained the Order with such care and such lucidity that I feel a little less embarrassed in dealing with it this afternoon.
Let me say at once that we on this side absolutely agree with the Government's decision that there should be one Minister responsible for education. We
540
have no quarrel about that at all. In so far as we disagree with the Government's decision, it is on the extent of the functions which are to be transferred to him. We think they are far too wide. The noble Viscount, in explaining the Order, told us that a number of the functions to be transferred to the Minister are of so indirect a character that he will have very little to do. But, of course, as he knows perfectly well, a Minister who is responsible for a service cannot divorce himself from taking a very close interest in it. At any time something may arise, he may be asked a Question in the House, some problem may come up, and for a Minister to say, "I am only indirectly interested in this" would be no answer to this place or another place, and would be very unsatisfactory. He is either responsible or he is not. If he is responsible it does not matter whether he is directly responsible or indirectly responsible.
We think that the Order goes too far in giving responsibility to the Secretary of State—not for research in the universities; we accept that. We accept the argument that research in the universities is closely allied to the work of teaching in the universities and should not be dissociated. But this Order goes very much further than that. It gives industrial research to the Secretary of State, together with responsibility for the Atomic Energy Authority and—this is debatable—also for the University Grants Committee and its functions. I myself feel that this is going to be too much for the Secretary of State for Education.
We all know the great capacity for work of the present Secretary of State. We have had many examples of it, and we do not question at all that he personally might be capable of handling all this. However, I am not sure whether he is still responsible for unemployment in the North-East of England, and whether he might have to break off occasionally from his educational work to visit the North-East; or whether he is still interested in sport and a variety of other things that have been "wished" on to him. But if he is still interested in them he will be a veritable Pooh-Bah. He will be much more than a Secretary of State for Education; he will be a Secretary of State for an enormous variety of subjects which are quite outside the function of education.

541
It was for that reason that we sought to criticise this Order and we still do, and that is why the other place voted against it. The noble Viscount can take comfort in the fact that it is not our practice to divide the House in these matters, and we just have to sit quietly and accept the position. But we wish to protest against this very wide extension of the functions of a Secretary of State, and we wish it had been possible to limit his functions to what we regard as pure education.
There is only one other thing that I should like to say. When we last discussed this matter I expressed the hope that it might be possible, before we finally came to a decision, for the Government to issue a White Paper which we could discuss without commitment on either side, when we might stand a chance, each of us, of convincing the other of our point of view. I always think it is well worth while to do this in a matter of this kind, which ought not to arouse strong political controversy. We have general agreement to a very great extent, and if the Government had seen their way to accept my advice—I think the noble Viscount said that he would see that it was considered, but I never had any indication that it was; I presume it was—it would have been very much better for the House as a whole. We could then have exchanged our views without feeling that we had to accept the position whether we liked it or not, and I think both sides would have been the better for that. But, in the circumstances, as I have said, we have no alternative but to accept the Order as it stands.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, a question? If I should know the answer I apologise, but I do not. I think I read that Mr. Quintin Hogg, as well as being Secretary of State for Education, was to continue the duties of Lord President of the Council. I am not quite clear in what capacity Lord Hailsham, as he then was, was given responsibility for the North-East, but I am quite certain that he was given responsibility for sport in his capacity as Lord President of the Council. All who are interested in this subject of sport, both inside the two Houses of Parliament and outside, are rather concerned as to whether the Minister,
542
with all this additional work under him, will still carry responsibility for sport. I am wondering whether the noble Viscount could give me an answer to that question.
LORD CHORLEY: Is the noble Viscount going to answer the questions in his speech in reply?
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: With your Lordships' permission, I was going to do so.
3.49 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord makes his final reply, I should like to speak in my capacity as a university teacher, as an officer of the University Teachers' Association and as a Member on these Benches. I do not want to repeat what I have said on more than one occasion in the debates which we have had on the Robbins Report. The university teachers, who are obviously very much concerned in these matters, were by an overwhelming majority at their last council meeting in support of the proposals in the Robbins Report, and very much opposed to what I call "the Eccles view". The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is not here and I hope he will not mind my talking about "the Eccles view". The university teachers' attitude on this matter was put up to the Prime Minister, and I would say that it is quite obvious that the present scheme has received a great deal of thought and we cannot complain that our views have not been taken into account.
I think that the present scheme is certainly a great improvement on what I call "the Eccles view". At the same time it is a complicated scheme and, obviously, a great deal is to be said against it from a number of points of view, particularly, as my noble friend Lord Silkin has indicated this afternoon, from the point of view of research. As your Lordships know, we had yesterday in this House a most interesting and valuable debate on these problems. It was made clear by more than one noble Lord who speaks with great authority on these questions that the Robbins suggestions were much better, from the point of view of the general research work in science over the country, than the Government's proposals.

543
It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was absolutely right when he said that these matters are of such very great importance, and that to get the subject on a proper balance is so vital to the future of this country, that it is not good enough, important as speed is—and certainly speed is of the essence of the contract here, because we must get ahead quickly—that a complicated and difficult solution to the problem should, to to speak, be pushed on to the universities, on to industry and on to the country as a whole, with no real chance being given either to the community or to those of us who work in the universities to have a proper look at it, put forward our views, and make such criticisms as may occur to us. I feel that this measure ought not to be allowed to go through without this being said on behalf of the universities—and, indeed, on behalf of education in this country.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Viscount not going to reply?
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: Certainly. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to comment on one or two questions which have been raised. First of all, so far as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is concerned, I can assure him I was not trying to make out that the Secretary of State was going to have nothing to do. I was merely trying to show that his burden would not be as intolerable as many noble Lords opposite think. Of course, the Secretary of State alone will be the spokesman in Parliament over the whole range of his responsibilities. He will be responsible for questions relating to the present Ministry of Education and to the present office of Minister for Science, and he will assume the responsibilities relating to the University Grants Committee which were formerly discharged by the Treasury. He will be entirely responsible to Parliament for all these matters. Both the Ministers of State will be responsible to the Secretary of State, and will report to him, but he is the head.
Now I said in my opening remarks—and I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way he took it—that I realised that some noble Lords felt that they had not had quite enough time to examine this rather complicated Order. I am grateful
544
to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for having recognised that I have tried my best to explain the details of the instrument, and for saying that, in view of the circumstances, they do not wish to divide the House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, asked me about the office of Lord President, and whether or not Mr. Hogg would be responsible for sport. At the moment, he is responsible for sport. I am not saying that there may not be further consideration of this, but at present his responsibilities for sport remain. So far as his responsibilities for the North-East are concerned, these have been absorbed in the new set-up under the Secretary of State for Trade, Industry and Regional Development. Responsibility for the North-East, therefore, is no longer the Lord President's; it is within the purview of the Secretary of State for Trade.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, am I in order, with the permission of the House, in asking a question on that particular matter? Might I just ask the noble Viscount whether he realises that one of the reasons, as I understood it, why the Government felt that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, should co-ordinate sporting activities and assume responsibilities for it was because he was not a Departmental Minister? Is the noble Viscount aware that this would seem to be an entirely different concept; and do I understand that it is at the moment decided by the Government that after April 1, Mr. Hogg will be responsible for sport? I know he is responsible at the moment, of course; but do I understand that he will be after April 1?
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: No, my Lords. I think I said fairly clearly that at the moment he is responsible, and no decision has yet been taken as to whether after April 1 new arrangements will be made; but there is time for this matter to be considered.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? It is rather important, I believe—I may have missed some Paper or statement—that we should know precisely what responsibilities the Minister of Sport in this

545
country has. Is there any White Paper which lays down his responsibilities and duties? It could be a rather wide-ranging responsibility.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: We have not got a Minister for Sport.
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: The noble Lady has, I think, given the answer, My right honourable friend is responsible for matters of sport, but he is not a Minister for Sport.
My Lords, I have endeavoured to try and answer the questions which were put to me, and I am grateful to your Lordships for giving me the chance to speak again.
3.57 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this really is—I do not know how to describe it—a "dog's dinner". We do not disapprove of the idea of a federal Minister, but the fact is that the Secretary of State for Education will be responsible for scrapie disease in sheep and for rubber spool potato graders. If one looks through the list of subjects which will now fall to the Secretary of State for Education, one sees it contains vegetable and pig research and stress-grading of timber. He is also going to be responsible for shipbuilding research. Mr. Hogg, when he was the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was responsible for injecting some necessary research and, indeed, energy into industry; and in fact he is going to be Minister for Industrial Development, because the Industrial Research and Development Association is also going to belong to him.
My Lords, this really is fantastic. We know that there were certain difficulties in the Government at the time they were choosing a Prime Minister, and we also know that Mr. Hogg is a man of great and, indeed, exceptional ability; but you do not have to give him the whole of the Government as a compensation prize—and this is really what it is becoming. Why not give him the Board of Trade and Regional Planning as well? There is a very strong argument for doing so, and it obviously fits in with schools. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, I understand, is going to be one of the Ministers of State. I am surprised we were not told about his job; it is rather interesting. We have an important new Minister in
546
this House—I do not know where he is—and I should have thought he would be interested. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will tell us how he fits in with scrapie disease.
The Secretary of State is going to be responsible for natural resources, ecology and hydrology. I see there is some connection between these subjects—all human activity is connected in some degree—but I think the Government have got themselves into an absolutely impossible position. Driven, on the one hand, by views such as the views of my noble friend Lord Chorley, and, on the other hand, pressed a bit by my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry on sport, they have completely mucked up the Government machine.
The Lord President of the Council was a most useful individual, particularly in the days when my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth was Lord President of the Council. A number of jobs that did not clearly fit into any pre-defined Ministerial structure were given to the Lord President of the Council; and the one that was peculiarly well adapted to this was, of course, responsibility for science. My Lords, I do not believe that the majority of the Government like this solution. This is a political compromise which will not last for long. It has been rushed through, even though the Special Orders Committee said that in their opinion the provision of the Order raised important questions of policy or principle. But I do not think we can hold it up long. My Lords, this Government have done some astonishing things in their time, but this is one of the most astonishing.
3.59 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shackleton having mentioned me and my former office of Lord President of the Council, I cannot resist saying a few words about this Order. I must say that the more I hear about it the less I think this is a decision on the merits of the machinery of government as against the merits or the demerits of Mr. Hogg.
And, by the way, there is a new Minister at the Ministry of Education (if this is to be called the Ministry of Education, and not the Office of Education): that is, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, to whom we offer congratulations. But

547
I think it is his duty to be here and not to, hide himself at the end of the Episcopal Bench. Really he ought to be on the Government Front Bench—he is not a Bishop. I do not understand this business of an Order affecting the Secretary of State for Education and the other Ministers, of whose number the noble Lord. Lord Newton, is one; and then he goes and hides himself as far as he possibly can at the end of that Bench. He would have been far wiser to stay outside altogether; then we should not have seen him—but then we should have complained about that. But he ought to be here, winding up this debate.
My Lords, what is the real story behind this. The former Leader of this House, the former Lord Hailsham, gave up his Peerage in the hope of becoming Prime Minister. There was a problem about the formation of a Government under the present Prime Minister—and I am not making this a matter of personal abuse. I should not think of doing it. But everybody knows—it is common talk—that there was a bargain between the present Prime Minister and the former Lord Hailsham. There was a sort of discussion as to whether or not he would join the Government; and there was something like discussion as to what position he would join the Government in; and something like a bargain, in the end.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord acting as an honest broker in this matter?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am acting as an honest noble Lord. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, is always available to come to the rescue of the Government when they are in a tight corner; and I pay him my compliments. I believe he renders a valuable service to the Government in being its apologist, though he is no longer the Deputy Leader of this House or a Minister of the Crown. But long may he continue in this unpaid and honorary activity as the main supporter of the Government when they are in difficulty! What I am saying I am saying not as an honest broker, but as an honest noble Lord who believes what he has to say.
I do not like it—the idea that this business of offices under the Crown and
548
the machinery of government should be subordinate to the personal ambitions of a particularly pushful Minister. That is what is happening. Here is the position. He has got the whole of education; he is the Secretary of State. He is two Ministers of State; and he is still the Lord President of the Council. Why is it essential for him to be Lord President of the Council? Nobody has said a word on that. The noble Viscount, the Chairman of the Conservative Party organisation, who introduced this Motion, has not told us why the former Lord Hailsham has to remain as Lord President of the Council. I think we ought to know the reason. There is no necessary tie-up between the two; therefore I think that this is wrong. Now the Secretary of State for Education, as proposed, is to be Secretary of State for Education, Lord President of the Council, supervisor of Sport. I do not complain about the sport. That will not take a great deal of his time; although I am sure my noble friend behind me will hope that it will take up a lot of his time. But I think it will not; though my noble friend will "push" him now and again to get an answer across the Floor. So he will do that job.
My noble friend Lord Shackleton is right. The scientific work of the Government was going on quite well under the Lord President of the Council. I do not think there was a need for a Ministry for Science, although I admit that my people have flirted with the idea, and earlier on invented quite a number of possible new Ministries. I did not wholly agree with them. I did not think there was any need; it was obviously a political move which we all understand. But the Lord President was in the position that he was otherwise pretty well a non-departmental Minister; because the duties of the Lord President of the Council, as such, take little time. It means a visit to the Palace for Privy Council meetings from time to time, or possibly to other Royal places. But he has plenty of time; and it is not as if the Minister for Science or the Lord President must be an actual scientist himself.
My noble friend Lord Attlee held the office; so did the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury; so did I. I would say that, as the office has to deal with science, it

549
would probably be a bad thing that the Minister concerned should himself be a scientist because scientists are specialists, and they quite naturally favour their own branch of science. It is desirable that the Minister should be impartial and above that battle; but he should be interested in science. He should inspire the work of the scientists, give them leadership and some guidance, and listen to them and see that research is done on an active scale. And there is another point: we are not taking much notice of the fact that the results of scientific research must be applied in industry, and I guarantee that nearly half the results of research are not yet being applied to British industry as they ought to be. That is part of it.
I should have thought the best thing would have been to keep scientific research under the Lord President of the Council, where it was done quite well in the past, with a limited but able staff, and with three Research Councils, plus the Nature Conservancy in action as well. And what about the university matters? Responsibility for these lay under the Treasury. I admit that that was illogical, because it was a spending body under the body that has to safeguard the spending of money. On the other hand, it was not very harmful; but if this responsibility had to go elsewhere, and if it had to be tied up with scientific research—for which there is something to be said—that also could have come under the Lord President. Instead of that, we are involved in this new empire, built up to please the personal ego of the proposed Secretary of State for Education. That is what is happening, and I do not like it. I do not believe that it is good machinery of government, and I do not believe that it will be good for education.
It was a great point in the debate on the Robbins Report, and rightly made, that the independence of the universities should be maintained. I think we all agree in principle about that. It is not improper for a Government to inspire the universities with branches of learning on which the nation may be short; but the universities should be academically independent, and I think we are all agreed about that. They could have been left where they were, or been placed under the Lord President
550
of the Council. But I do not object, in principle, to their being under the Minister of Education, although I say that it is not essential. But scientific research could have stayed where it was. As things are, we are in danger of building up too large an edifice for the pleasing of a man who is energetic and, as we all know, ambitious. I do not believe that it is good from the point of view of the proper organisation of the machinery of the Government and, although we do not in this House divide on these Orders, I must say I do not think any of us is particularly enthusiastic about what has been done.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, I was brought up to believe that people in glass houses do not throw stones. I have been noting down some of the capacities of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, not so very long ago. From 1945 for a number of years he was Lord President of the Council; he was the Leader of the House of Commons; he was boss of the Socialist Party; he was the nationaliser of coal and transport and of electricity and gas; he was the reformer of Parliamentary procedure; he was the Great Panjandrum himself in politics. And compared to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, so far as office goes, Mr. Quintin Hogg is a comparative cipher.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I interrupt—
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: If the noble Lord will allow me to finish my sentence, I should prefer to continue. Then the noble Lord, if it is allowed by the Rules of the House, can make another speech. As I was saying, so far as office goes, Mr. Quintin Hogg is a cipher compared to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. But I am glad to say that, compared to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, Mr. Quintin Hogg's intellectual capacity puts him in the nature of a giant.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I merely wanted to ask the noble Earl, before he sits down (I know how he enjoys "having a go" at me when he can, and I do not resent it) what Offices of State he has ever held? Is not the answer, "None"? And is he not now having great difficulty in

551
finding even a Parliamentary constituency for which he can stand?
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, this Bill deals with five aspects of the law in Scotland. Part I deals with intestacy: Part II with legal rights: Part III with administration and winding-up of estates: Part IV with the succession rights of adopted persons, and Part V with financial provision for the innocent spouse in a divorce. The changes made in these major issues, together with some miscellaneous clauses, make this the most important measure for the reform of the law of Scotland that has been laid before your Lordships for a considerable time.
For many years there has been concern about these branches of Scots law and this concern culminated in the appointment in 1949 of the Mackintosh Committee who reported in 1951. Since then, as your Lordships know, there has been an almost constant discussion about the Mackintosh recommendations and growing pressure for a change. This Bill, as introduced in another place, reflected both the original recommendations and the changes in thought since they were made. The Bill now before your Lordships has again been considerably changed in another place to meet the valid criticisms and constructive proposals made from both sides of the House. I am sure that your Lordships would not wish me at this stage to refer even briefly to the Bill clause by clause, so I shall confine myself to the most important provisions in each part of the Bill.
First, Part I. As the Mackintosh Report points out, our present law of heritable succession belongs to the Middle Ages, when its rules of primogeniture and male preference were admirably suited to the feudal state of society in which they were evolved. Such rules were at that time a common feature of many foreign systems. But when the Mackintosh Committee started
552
their inquiry they found that most foreign countries in Europe and America had already reverted to the principles of the earlier Roman Law whereby all the possessions of the deceased were massed together and, failing a will, devolved on the deceased's heirs equally without any privilege of primogeniture or of male preference. England and Wales made the change in 1922—that is, almost 44 years ago. Since then, as I have stated, responsible opinion in Scotland has stigmatised our Scottish provisions as quite unsuited to the state of society in which the overwhelming majority of our people now live. It was quite clear that rules intended to avoid a subdivision of feudal holdings are inappropriate to a world in which the feudal obligation is no longer a factor and in which the most usual holding of heritable property is a bungalow, a flat or a semi-detached house.
In making their recommendations on this point, the Mackintosh Committee were not breaking new ground. They were merely restating in authoritative terms a conclusion that had been reached more than 30 years before by responsible legal opinion. Part I of the Bill accordingly provides that the whole of an intestate estate, heritable and moveable property alike, shall devolve according to the same rules. These are broadly those which at present govern the devolution of moveable property, but there are some differences. The first is that the surviving spouse of the intestate is for the first time given a place in the line of succession. The second is that where both parents enter the succession the father and mother share equally. Under the present law the mother takes only if the father is already dead. Thirdly, where uncles and aunts enter the succession they do so without distinction between those on the father's side and those on the mother's side of the family.
I must emphasise that Part I of the Bill is concerned only with intestate property and does not affect in any way property that has been disposed of by will. If, therefore, anyone considers that the rules of succession set out in Part I of the Bill would produce results that are not to his liking, his remedy is to dispose of all his property by

553
will, and if he does that then, so far as he is concerned, Part I of the Bill is of no effect. But it happens, for various reasons, that many people do, in fact, die intestate, and the task of Part I is to make for these people, so far as is humanly possible, the sort of arrangements that they might themselves have made had they left wills. It is very difficult, indeed impossible, to do this with accuracy in every case. The best one can hope for is a scheme which will approximate to the likely wishes of the deceased in a majority of cases.
It is a help to know as accurately as possible how many and what sort of people die intestate. The Mackintosh Committee said, for example, that large estates, and even small landed estates, seldom fall into intestacy, and the results of a survey that we have just completed, not on a sample basis, but for the whole of Scotland, confirm the view expressed by Mackintosh and suggest very powerfully that the Bill is on the right lines. We analysed for the complete year 1961 the figures of confirmations granted in all the sheriff courts in Scotland. I shall quote these figures only once in detail. Of 26,943 estates which passed through the sheriff courts in 1961, 17,273 were testate—that is, 64 per cent.—and 9,670 were intestate; that is to say, in 36 per cent. of the cases in which confirmation was granted the estate was intestate. This underlines the importance of ensuring that the rules of law which govern intestate succession are adequate for the purpose and well adapted to the social and economic conditions of our times.
Furthermore, we learn from the figures that intestacy is far more common among persons of small means than it is among the wealthier sections of our society. During the year which we examined, 9,670 intestacies were recorded, and only 32 of these, or just one-third of 1 per cent., were estates of which the gross value, heritable and moveable, exceeded £25,000. Moreover, there were only five cases—that is, about 1 in 2,000—in which the heritable portion of the intestate estate exceeded £10,000 in value. Your Lordships may agree that the correct inference from these figures is that intestacy is very common among people of small means, that it is rather rare among people who have substantial gross fortunes,
554
and very rare indeed among those who own land or other heritable property exceeding the value of a modern eight apartment house or a very modest farm. I make this point with some emphasis because I have heard it argued in good faith that Part I of the Bill may lead to the subdivision of country estates and farms. With respect, I suggest that, in the light of the figures I have just given, Part I of the Bill is most unlikely to have any effect on such properties. Part I deals only with intestate succession and we know that estates with heritable property value over £10,000 must very rarely fall into intestacy. In one whole year, out of 9,600 intestacies there were five.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill, which contains the clauses that make certain changes in our system of legal rights. The first important change is the abolition of the legal rights of courtesy and terce. We have done this because legal rights that take the form of liferents are very difficult to administer and are, under the Bill as it now stands, a quite unnecessary burden on heritable estate. I believe that the abolition of courtesy and terce will be welcomed by your Lordships, that it is generally welcomed by the legal profession, and that it will simplify the winding up of estates at little cost to surviving spouses.
I now come to the surviving spouse's second legal right, which, I understand, is always denoted by the Latin term jus relictae. There is indeed no exact equivalent in English. Unlike courtesy and terce, which are liferents only, jus relictae is a right of a capital nature by which the surviving spouse can claim one-third of the deceased's moveable estate if the deceased is also survived by a child, and one-half of the moveables if there is no child. Your Lordships will observe that jus relictae does not extend to heritable property and that in this respect no change is made by the Bill. The only change, and it is a very minor one, is that in future jus relictae will amount to one-half of the moveables only in those cases where the deceased leaves no issue at all, because under the Bill in future the issue of a predeceasing child may claim the legitim which their parent could have claimed had he survived the deceased.

555
I now turn to Clause 8 which affects intestacy and which is, in my opinion, one of the most important provisions of the Bill, especially because of the almost complete predominance of small intestate estates. Under our present law, the spouse of a person who dies intestate can claim a share of the moveable estate by way of jus relictae, but has no claim to the ownership of the heritable estate. The significance of this emerges when one remembers that in the vast majority of cases where there is any heritable estate at all it consists solely of the family dwelling-house. The unfortunate widow has now in fact no right to the house in which she has lived, possibly for many years and, unless she can make some arrangement with her husband's relatives, she may, quite literally, find herself out on the street. This cannot have been the normal husband's intention and the present state of affairs does no credit to the law of Scotland.
The normal husband of the sort who dies intestate, if he has a house, has only a small property valued at less than £10,000. In talking to his lawyer about his will he will want his wife to have the house in the knowledge that she in her turn will probably pass on her possessions to her children or to the child who needs them most. The owner of more valuable property normally makes a will and might well leave his widow the liferent of the house. But that is not the average type of spouse for whom this Bill must provide. Clause 8 is intended to reflect what a testate owner of small property normally does in his will, by giving the surviving spouse of an intestate a right to the deceased's interest in any dwellinghouse in which she was ordinarily resident at the time of death and to the furniture and plenishings to a maximum value of £5,000—all free of death duty if the estate can stand it.
There are, of course, circumstances in which it would not be appropriate for the spouse to receive the dwelling-house itself—for example, where it is a farmhouse which is required for the running of the farm—and in such circumstances subsection (4) provides that the surviving spouse shall take, not the house itself but the value thereof. Your
556
Lordships will observe that paragraph (c) as it stands brings a dwellinghouse within the scope of this subsection where there are special circumstances of a historical nature connected with the house which make it proper that the surviving spouse should take the value instead of the house itself. The need to include some provision of this kind in Clause 8 can readily be appreciated.
But we are not satisfied that this part of the clause tackles the problem in the right way, and I should like to give notice that at the appropriate time I shall be proposing Amendments which will leave out the present paragraph (c) and will extend to the dwellinghouse of the intestate passed to the surviving spouse the device of a limit of value which has already been applied to the furniture and plenishings. An Amendment on these lines was put down on Report stage in another place and then withdrawn by the Government for further consideration of the figure proposed.
Clause 9 also deals with rights that arise only on intestacy. Under this clause the surviving spouse is entitled to £2,500 out of the intestate estate if the intestate has left issue, and to £5,000 if he has left no issue. This claim to a sum of money comes after any claims to furniture and plenishings and the dwellinghouse have been satisfied under Clause 8, but before the executor proceeds to the calculation of the amounts that may be claimed by the spouse by way of jus relictae and by the issue by way of legitim. The claim to £5,000 where there is no issue is already available under an Act of 1959, but the claim to £2,500 where there is issue is new. Finally, may I again remind your Lordships that the provision made for the surviving spouse by this clause and by Clause 8 can be claimed only out of property that the deceased has not disposed of by will. There is no question, for example, of the widow claiming the family dwellinghouse under Clause 8 if the deceased has left it by will to someone else.
The only other clause in Part II to which I should refer is Clause 12. By this clause it will no longer be possible to extinguish by an ante-nuptial contract the right to legitim of a child yet unborn. The fact that this could be done

557
was severely criticised by Mackintosh in paragraph 22 of the Report. Under the new provision the child has the right, as it should have, to choose between the benefit under the contract made before it was born and its legal rights. So many changes of circumstance can have taken place since the parents contemplated marriage that we cannot with justice do less. This Bill is rightly full of compromises to meet all conflicting needs so far as practicable. But here we can find no answer to the pertinent question: Why should certain children, unable to speak for themselves, be denied a legal right to which all other children, born and yet unborn, are entitled?
The clauses in Part III of the Bill are almost entirely concerned with the procedural steps that have to be taken for the administration and winding up of an estate. Changes in these procedures are required for two reasons. In the first place, as the Mackintosh Committee recommended, we abandon the present rules that require heritable and moveable estate to be dealt with in different ways. At present the moveables only are included in the confirmation, while the heritable property is dealt with by an entirely separate procedure. The Bill provides that in future the whole estate, heritable and moveable alike, will vest in the executor and will be administered and wound up under the same procedure. This is a worthwhile reform that should simplify the administration of estates in Scotland.
In the second place, some changes in procedure are required because of the disappearance of the heir-at-law: that is to say, the single male heir who has normally taken the heritable property of an intestate. Under the agricultural Statutes, and also under the Common Law, the heir-at-law of a tenant has had a special position in relation to the un-expired portion of the tenant's lease, and since the heir-at-law is disappearing it has been necessary to make new arrangements in Clause 16 for the transmission of leases.
I now come to Part IV of the Bill, which deals with the succession rights of adopted persons. The clauses in this part are based on a Mackintosh recommendation endorsed four years later by the Hurst Committee on the Adoption
558
of Children. Briefly, the recommendation was that for purposes of succession, and for purposes of claims to legal rights, adopted children should be placed in the same position as children of the adopter born of the adopter and his spouse in lawful wedlock. This has been the law of England since 1949. It may be asked why Scotland and England have not moved in step in this matter. The answer was given by the Mackintosh Committee who noted that one of the reasons for their appointment was the difficulty of reconciling the rights proposed for the adopted child with the principle of primogeniture.
I should perhaps make one or two points about these adoption clauses. The first is that they are in no sense retrospective; they do not apply to any succession arising from a death that occurred, or to any deed executed before, the Bill comes into force. Secondly, they apply only to adoptions made under a statutory adoption order. Thirdly, the clauses do not affect deeds executed before the relative adoption order had been made. There is one exception, however, to the rule that the adoption order must come first. This flows from the normal rule that a will takes effect, not when it is executed, but on the death of the testator. Thus, if a person makes a will after the Act comes into force, leaving his property to his children, and subsequently adopts another child, then the adopted child is included among the children entitled to succeed under the will.
I now turn to the last group of clauses in Part V of the Bill that deal with the financial provisions to be made for the innocent spouse when a marriage is ended by divorce. This Part of the Bill implements recommendations that were made in the first instance by the Mackintosh Committee and were later endorsed and extended by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce.
At present, when a divorce takes place in Scotland, the innocent spouse can claim from the guilty party's estate legal rights which are, broadly speaking, the legal rights that he or she could have claimed under the law of succession if the other spouse had died. This is the only financial remedy open to the innocent spouse, and it proceeds on the legal fiction that the guilty spouse has

559
died. Both the Mackintosh Committee and the Royal Commission recommended that instead of this claim to legal rights the innocent party to the divorce should have a right to apply to the court, and the court should have power to order such financial provision as appears to it appropriate at the time in all the circumstances of the case. Clause 25 therefore abolishes the existing legal rights on divorce, while Clause 26 introduces the new financial provision at the discretion of the court.
My Lords, these are the main features of the Bill for which I now seek a Second Reading. It is not an easy Bill, and I am grateful for the patience with which your Lordships have heard my necessary explanations. I believe, however, that in spite of its complexities it is a thoroughly sound measure which will bring our law in a number of its aspects more closely into line with the needs of a modern society. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a,—(Lord Craigton.)
4.35 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I have listened with considerable interest and a little bewilderment to the noble Lord who has just explained this very complicated Bill. I should be deceiving myself if I pretended to have any kind of knowledge of the legal implications of the Bill, or of the legal changes that have been made. Since, however, this is the Second Reading of the Bill, on which details of value can be discussed, it fortunately does not fall to me to do the explaining; and I am rather encouraged by the fact that, included in the speakers on this Second Reading, are three or four outstanding representatives of your Lordships' House who will, I hope, enlighten me in my own ignorance of the law, while I confine myself to what appears to me to be the social implications, and indeed the economic implications, too, of the changes in this Bill.
It is a very complicated Bill. I have read with a good deal of interest, and even a little understanding, what took place in another place. I was pleasantly surprised at the detail in which they examined the clauses of this Bill and
560
their anxiety to improve conditions from what they were. What occurs to me is this. While it is true that we are dealing here with succession, and while it is also true that we are dealing, in the main, with intestate estates, nevertheless one has to remember that, in spite of the very thorough examination of the Mackintosh Report and their rather revolutionary recommendations compared with what existed previously, even since the time that this Report was issued there have been a number of changes which have, if anything, increased the necessity for some kind of change in the hitherto law of succession.
In order to refresh my own mind and bring to the notice of noble Lords the kind of revolutionary changes which the Mackintosh Report made, may I read from Part III of the Report? They say:
"(1) That for the purpose of intestate succession, heritable and moveable property should be blended and form one estate.
(2) That the law of primogeniture should be abolished".
That is a kind of built-in part of the Scottish law, a fact that one would think should give a considerable amount of hesitation to any Government before proposing its abolition. The Report goes on:
"(4) That there should be succession through the mother as well as through the father"—
another great change in the traditional beliefs of Scotland.
"(5) That in any alteration of the law the principle of legal rights should be retained, though these would require re-adjustment consequent on the abolition of primogeniture and the blending of heritable and moveable estate."
This background to the whole of the Mackintosh Report is based on a very careful examination of what occurs both in foreign countries and, to some extent, in England, too. What appear to be the views of foreign systems of law in intestate successions are given, and they bear out what the Mackintosh Committee recommend.
As I say, I do not pretend to know a great deal about the operation of the law of succession, but in reading the criticisms and observations of both my honourable friends and my equally honourable opponents in another place, I was pleasantly surprised at the amount of agreement which appeared to exist, in spite of the mild differences that were fought out, and the improvements that were embodied

561
in the final draft of the Bill before it came here, so that on the whole agreement between the two sides was reached. Therefore, one is glad to think that, however complicated the provisions of this measure may be—and one has to admire the ability of the legal mind to be able to sort out this jumble of material in order to put it into some kind of order, under separate headings and to find answers for each of these problems—they have tackled them in so able a manner. That is one reason why I do not even voice the criticism that was made in another place about the time taken in order to carry out as well as they can the Mackintosh recommendations, plus such minor alterations as the Government, on the one side, and the Opposition, on the other, were able to agree upon formerly in another place.
I think that the figures the noble Lord has given to us to-day put into even better perspective than was obtainable in the other place the magnitude of the problem with which we are dealing; and one rather hopes that these figures, presumably official, will allay any kind of anxiety that appears in the minds, either of noble Lords or of Members of another place, to prevent any kind of obstructionist opposition to a measure of this kind by reason, even since the Report of Mackintosh, of the social and economic changes which one recognises have taken place for what we might call the less affluent sections of the Scottish people. I, for one, regard it as a matter of regret that not more people nowadays—in former times it was not perhaps possible—have overcome their fear of entering a lawyer's office in order to get put into proper form the future division of their possessions so that, in the case of death, there is no quarrel or dispute and so that the whole business is arranged beforehand and it is not left even to an all-embracing Act to determine how whatever substance they have left is to be divided up. If they did so, I think it would be a very great advance on conditions as we find them to-day.
If one may dare venture a piece of advice to that section of the community which I have mostly in mind, I would say this. Of recent years municipalities have increasingly adopted the practice of having available to the citizens within their areas bureaux of advice on all matters. It would appear to me to
562
be of enormous help, and it would overcome a good deal of hesitation, if local authorities made known to the people of their cities that these bureaux could give advice on matters of this kind to those people who had any little amount of property to preserve or protect, and that they would take upon themselves responsibility for either providing staff to draw up wills or advising them to go to lawyers whom the local authority could recommend, in order that these intestacy difficulties could be overcome and any apprehensions the people might feel about the little they possess would be done away with. That, generally, I think, would make this Bill, which seems to me to be an almost revolutionary advance on what has hitherto obtained, acceptable to the people of Scotland as a whole.
4.45 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, to leave out all words after "that" and to insert: "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which while suitable to the circumstances of the population of the burghs, is contrary to the normal life and feeling of the country population, is menacing to the harmony of family life, makes if difficult for families to continue in quite small properties where they have been for centuries and procures intestacy where none need exist." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I recently put down this reasoned Amendment and, therefore, I have to give your Lordships reasons for it. But before proceeding to that task I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, upon the very able and clear way in which he has presented this Bill to your Lordships. I should also like to ask him to examine a point in Part III which occurred to me while he was explaining it. It is a small point but it might be very vital.
The point is this—and my noble friend Lord Reid may correct me. If you are a heritable superior of a burgh you can succeed to the feu duties without necessarily being served heir. But if the occasion occurs that you irritate a feu and confiscate the subject for non-payment of feu duty, and then you feu or sell the subject again to somebody else, who erects a building on it,

563
you may be caught because, not having been served heir, the old owners may expunge it by the payment of back feu duties and you may be had up for essential error, and subjected to shocking damages, for having parted with it to somebody else. I have not been through Part III carefully, but I know that the noble Lord wants to make this Bill as good as possible, and this is a point he must look into. Because if the Government are going to cut out the process of serving an heir it may land the superior in trouble that way.
The noble Lord practically quoted what the Secretary of State for Scotland said in introducing this Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee in another place, but as I want to get the point exact I should like, if I may, to quote to the House his exact words. He talked about framing these rules for intestacy and said that, in framing them, he had
"kept in mind the principle that when a man dies intestate the law should try to provide, so far as it possibly can, for the disposition of his estate in the manner in which he would most likely have chosen himself if he had left a will".
That is a principle which I think we all accept—the noble Lord has practically accepted it—and it is in the light of that principle that I should like to examine from my point of view the Bill before your Lordships this afternoon.
We are told that the Law Society of Scotland is in favour of this Bill. That may be so, although those members of the Law Society of Scotland who have practices in the country have not been quite so laudatory. But I think it might be worth while considering for a moment how we come to have this Bill at all. I am told that the mixture of Roman Law and feudal law which at present forms the Common Law of Scotland came to us some 890 years ago, and has operated, with various changes, since then. But it did not operate in the burghs that had their own customary law which governed succession, which worked very well, and which was quite different from the Common Law of the land. It was only 90 years ago that that situation was changed. I suspect that what happened was that things went very wrong: great difficulties arose in the Royal Burghs—difficulties that would not have happened in the regality
564
burghs, which were generally better run—and the lawyers came to the conclusion that it was better to apply the Common Law of Scotland to the burghs indiscriminately. From that moment until this that has caused a grievance and has led to difficulties. It has been entirely contrary to the feeling in the burghs and it has led in the end, after 90 years, to this Bill.
I should like your Lordships to consider very carefully whether, in our anxiety to remedy a mistake that is 90 years old, we may not make an equally great error. There is a certain amount of reason in what I say; because this Bill started in one form, and was introduced; was withdrawn and completely redrafted; and great portions of it were put in to try and make it workable in the rural areas. It was then found, as we all agree, that those provisions were completely unworkable. So they were torn out, and the Bill was left to get along without them. My argument today is that the Bill, though well suited and a very good Bill for the towns, is not such a good Bill for the country; and I have to show that to your Lordships.
The first clause of the Bill abolishes all distinction in an intestate succession between heritable and moveable estate; that is, between real and personal estate. That works very well in the towns. After all (and the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, practically gave me this point), nobody worries about changing a house in the town; people change their houses in a town with far more ease and far less reluctance than they change their bank or their lawyer. It is perfectly right that should take place in the towns. But when we come to the country, matters are a little different; and if the Government are seriously going to try to make a provision such as the intestate would make, had he left a will, then I think it is proper to consider a little the character of the people. Here, I speak with a certain amount of diffidence; your Lordships all know Scotland just as well as I do, and many of you, probably, better. But I put forward what I think to be the principal characteristic of the Scottish people—and it has in fact been common ground in all our discussions on the Bill: that the people in Scotland, in the towns and in the country, have a tremendous

565
sense of family. The family nexus is far wider spread than it is in other places. And in nearly every case that family loyalty is connected with some place or other. I am not talking of the great houses and the great estates. I am talking of quite small families, quite small places, and of all time. I am talking of Cardnos, Cattos, Kings, Watsons—names that do not make any great appearance in history, but are, none the less, good Scots families whom we have to consider. I am not talking of great places: I am not talking only of to-day; I am talking of the past.
I would remind your Lordships of three cases which prove what I want to say, and I could make the list as long as my arm. Your Lordships who remember the history of Russia will remember that General Patrick Gordon was a General of Peter the Great, and he was always trying to get back to Scotland to his own property and his home at Auchleuchries; but Peter would never let him go, and he died in exile. Auchleuchries is only a small farm; it is not a great place. Many of your Lordships may remember that when that great Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, was over here some years ago, the one thing he wanted to do more than anything else was to go up to Scotland and see the place—it is only a small farm—where his ancestor had been born. He went up, and he saw the house. He saw the four-poster bed in which the ancestor had been born, and the old 18th century furniture, and he went away and never forgot the people who had done that for him.
Some five or six years ago when I was in Ayrshire, I met an American and his wife, and she told me that her ancestors on both sides had been sold as slaves by Oliver Cromwell. She said to me, "I am a Munro, and I want to see Foulis". Your Lordships all know that I could make that list as long as I liked. That shows your Lordships that family feeling in Scotland is nearly always connected with a place, and for that reason I think that Clause 1, while it is excellent for the towns, is unsuited to the country, and that the distinction between heritable arid moveable is still valid and valuable for the country. Later on in what I have to say, I shall come to the people who actually inhabit these small places but at this stage I wanted
566
merely to establish my picture of the way people feel.
The second clause deals with intestate succession, with the method of succession, and I think that it is contrary to Scottish feeling in the country as I know it to-day. I do not think that the present law is perfect: it is very unsuited to a country in which women have always held property, always transacted their own affairs and in which, as your Lordships will remember, a woman never loses her maiden name, whatever other name she may take. Her maiden name is always put in on all family deeds which she executes. If a woman with land marries a man with land, and they have children, and die, and the children succeed and the heirship fails in the children and you have to seek back through the spouses for an heir, according to the law that I should like to see in Scotland you would seek back for the heir to the woman's land through the woman and the man's land through the man. As the law at present stands in Scotland, you seek back through the man for the heir to both lands. But, at any rate, by that system you do get somebody in possession of the lands.
Under the system proposed in this Bill, if you seek back and there are four grandparents or their representatives (because, of course, representation comes in here), you get the whole thing divided between that generation. If there is nobody there to represent the grandparents you go back, as the clause says, to the grandparents. There is a strong objection to that; namely, that it means the subdividing and the splitting up—what is called fragmentation—of the whole property, or it must be sold and divided, which I believe is not a good thing. In Scotland we always like old properties to be owned by somebody. My kinsmen the Calders failed, and the Campbells came in in their place a long time ago; but I would far rather that that happened, than that the whole property should be split up. There is a worse point, and that is the question of half-blood. The only heir might be a great-grandmother who had in a second marriage married a Greek or Turk, and the whole property would go away to some alien. That is, I think, contrary to Scottish feeling.
I come next to Clause 8, about which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, was very eloquent, and what he said reminded me of many a conversation I have had with my friends in the Law Society on this subject. They all say that they feel it is very hard that, after many years of domestic felicity, when one of the spouses dies the surviving spouse should have to abandon the house. I quite understand that feeling, but, while it may suit the towns it does not very well suit the country. In the first place, it is a picture, and that is all; and there are a great many other pictures. For example, people do not always live a long life together and then, in due course, die. Very often a wife dies and a man marries again, or the reverse occurs. There are many cases, and I particularly do not want to point at anybody who will be recognised, but I will take the case of a small estate of a few acres—less than 100 acres. On the estate there is a house which incorporates a tower to which Sir John Ramsay retired for refuge after the defeat of William Wallace, and to which the ancestors of the owners came after the success of King Robert.
We in Scotland have few great collections of treasures, but every family has things that it values greatly. They may not be valuable. In the case I am thinking of there is a collection of pictures of members of the family from the reign of James VI onwards. They are not at all valuable pictures. They have no value in the market, but are just a collection in the family. The owner of that collection may marry a second time and then may die. The stepmother may not get on with her stepchildren, which is a common case—I can give your Lordships numerous instances of it—and the husband may die intestate. That may well happen if he does not make a will after his second marriage.
What happens if he dies intestate? The widow comes into the house. You may go to the sheriff and get the house declared an historic house. There are plenty of houses which are not in the least historic, but of which the family are just as fond. You cannot get any declaration about the pictures. The widow can take the house, she can take
568
the pictures, she can marry again, and she can die and leave the whole of it to a stranger and the family be utterly dispossessed; or she can sell back to the family, at blackmailer's rates, the things they feel they must have. Murders have been done for less reason than feelings that would be roused by such a situation, and I think that this clause needs a great deal more consideration than that which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said he was going to give to it. It is ridiculous that any widow should carry away out of a family the house and valuable hereditary moveables belonging to that family.
I want now to turn to another subject—namely, Clause 12, which really bothers me more than any other. The ordinary Common Law provisions in respect of a man making a will are so drastic that, if they were enforced, small properties could not be passed on from father to son. I do not know what the situation is in other countries, but it certainly could not be done in our northern climate. For that reason, as your Lordships may know, it has been customary to provide against that by making an ante-nuptual contract in which the provision made for your widow, and also the provisions to be made for the younger children are limited. When you go to your lawyer to make such a provision he warns you that if you make a provision for the children which is illusory the court will interfere and greatly expand it, and therefore you have to make a proper provision. I am convinced that it is only through that practice that it has been possible to hand down property from father to son. I have worked out the figures for small properties, especially small farms, and I find that on the smaller property the effect of the Common Law provision for younger children is very drastic.
When I was an apprentice in estate management a long time ago, we always had to consider the cases of farmers coming to take farms and of the capital they could provide. It was our experience, which was proved again and again, that a farm cannot stand a diminution of more than 20 per cent., in the necessary capital without risking bankruptcy. By that I mean that in taking a farm worth perhaps £100 an acre to-day, stocking and other purposes could be

569
done for perhaps another £100 an acre, and nothing would prevent a man who had capital less than the £80 an acre from going bankrupt. But if he had £80 an acre he could manage.
Many lawyers and those who favour this Bill have said to me, "Oh, but that is nonsense. We have known farmers heavily in debt, mortgaged to the hilt, but they have got away with it. They are rich men." That is perfectly true. You can bond your farm to its full amount; you can buy anything; you can expand in every direction, so long as the money that you borrow is used for expanding your productive capacity. The only thing that stops you is your own ability. I know many men who have done exactly that. I would hesitate to say whether they were millionaires or bankrupt. That is a different thing. If you bond your farm to buy jewellery for your wife or to pay the claims of your brothers and sisters, then 30 per cent. of unproductive debt is ruinous—you go bankrupt. At 20 per cent. you may manage. So the figure can be put between those two amounts.
As proof that I am not talking utter nonsense, I will remind your Lordships that the Inland Revenue have long recognised this fact and have reduced the estate duty on agricultural land. The effect on single farms is quite marked. On agricultural land itself the reduction is 45 per cent. When you work it out, with the necessary stocking of the farm it comes to a reduction of between 70 and 75 per cent. That is a considerable concession from the Inland Revenue. It indicates that what I am telling your Lordships is really the fact. The ordinary legitim fund on an ordinary farm and its capital greatly exceed that amount, and therefore, in the end, either the farmer will go bankrupt or they will have to sell.
We have had long discussions about this. We have discussed it with the Department, and they say they have no objection to farms coming on to the market, but they think that the well-known solidarity of the Scots family will induce the younger children not to press their claim, and that, in any case, they cannot tolerate the continuance of such an inequitable system. It is this inequitable system—and I think my noble friend Lord Greenhill also thinks of it in this way—which I want to tackle.
I agree that when there is a shortage of food, when there are famine conditions, it is right that one should divide equally. But the position of younger children is not quite the same. After all, Scotland is a democratic country and all the children of farm servants start at the bottom; many of the children of farmers start at the bottom; and, when I look back in history in my own family, I find that if the younger children did not start off at the bottom, they certainly started low down the scale. In the course of my practice I have had to read many a will written by citizens of Edinburgh. These wills commonly said, "Having given my children the best possible education, and having started them in life, I see no reason to make further provision for them". And, in general, the money was left to their wives.
When this Bill was first discussed, one of its framers asked me whether I believed in primogeniture. I said, "You must not ask me that question. My younger brothers are the people whom you must ask." I had not then seen the Bill, but I telephoned by youngest brother and said, "The Government have a Bill to abolish primogeniture. Would you agree with that?" The answer came back: "I would not agree with it".
I should like to mention some farming families. I have tried to find out what the younger members of those families think. They are all in the same story. They do not want the abolition of primogeniture. If we pass Clause 12 it is bound to be effective, because if one claims then they have all got to claim. The people who break the agreement are always the husbands of the daughters. If one looks at the Argentine, one finds that this takes place there and leads to fragmentation of farms and that sort of thing. One will not get fragmentation of farms in Scotland, as this is simply impossible; the holdings are just about as small as can economically survive. Under this clause farms will be forced on to the market.
On the question of equity, I should like to put this case before your Lordships. I live on a point of land, and if one drew a circle of fifty miles radius around my house, more than three-parts

571
of that circle would be in the sea. Therefore, I have about one quarter of the neighbours most people have. Yet within five miles of my house there are at least four families who have been in their farms for centuries. They own their farms. My nearest neighbour had an ancestor at the Battle of Colloden. Another has been there since the reign of Charles II. I do not know how long the third has been there, but it is some long time. The fourth is a farmer occupying just over 100 acres, and he is the fourteenth generation to own the farm.
The younger children of these people do not want the abolition of primogeniture. They all get started in life by their parent, and get a better start than most people. Coming as they do from old and respected families such as these, they can command far more valuable jobs and can occupy positions of trust. They have no reason to wish for the abolition of primogeniture. They are very proud of their ancient families and would not ask for a law to change all that. If we pass Clause 12, I am afraid the end of that state of affairs will be very near.
I know that there is a demand for farms; I know that a great many people would be glad to see more agricultural land coming on to the market. Rich men who have made a lot of money in trade want to put their money away as an investment, and they buy farms; this happens every day. Some want to establish their sons in comfortable billets. They are all on the lookout for farms. I can understand the Government wishing to put more farm land on the market. But I strongly object to the passing of legislation which will force these ancient families, humble though they may be—families of long descent, much respected in the countryside, and a social asset—to put farms on to the market to supply that demand. That is what almost certainly would be the result if Clause 12 became the law of the land.
We pleaded with the authors of this Bill that it should be restricted to land under three acres. The answer I got rather astonished me. I was told, "No; they might be three acres in the centre of Edinburgh." I put aside the proposal
572
that the three acres should be outside a burgh boundary, but the real meaning of the answer I received was: "We are going to get our way and you have got to bear it." If this is so, then we are very unfortunate. This Bill has in it many things of value, but so far as the ordinary country in Scotland is concerned it is not a good Bill.
With regard to what my noble friend Lord Craigton said about intestacy, cases of intestacy among wealthier people may be rare, but, on the other hand, they are not entirely unheard of. A man may make a will every day of this life and still die intestate; it can often happen. I sometimes wonder how many wills get lost before they are presented. My Lords, those are the reasons which induced me to put down this Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, as an Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, to leave out all words after "that" and insert the said words.—(Lord Saltoun.)
5.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am not sure how I should proceed in the light of the Amendment; but I hope that it is in order for me to speak on the original Bill which is before your Lordships, bearing in mind the important and valuable contribution to the debate as a whole which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I rise to speak with the greatest diffidence. We have heard a most clear exposition of the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill speaking, I think, for the first time for a long while from the Opposition Front Bench, and I am sure your Lordships welcomed his contribution. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun (speaking with far greater knowledge on these matters than I possess) appealing in a way which I am sure impressed your Lordships. There is great substance in what he said, and I hope that it will be given great weight. And when I look at the list of speakers who are to come after me, when I see the legal talent that is arrayed, I wonder why I am up on my feet at all.
But the fact is, my Lords, that many friends of mine have over the last weeks shown great anxiety about this Bill.

573
They have talked to me, and have pressed me to such a point that I felt I had to try and understand something about it; and the more I studied the Bill the more worried I became. I became worried, not because I think that the purpose behind the Bill is wrong, hut because I feel that the Bill in its present form does not give effect to many things that we want. Indeed, I would say that in its present form it is not a good Bill at all. When I say that, I am speaking only about Part I and Part II; the other Parts, and the Schedules, are, quite frankly, beyond me, and I only hope that not only the Government but others of your Lordships will give the necessary study to these. I hope to show your Lordships that, in Part I and Part II, there are things which ought not to be there at all and which make me fearful that the whole matter is being rushed too much.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that this is the most important measure on Scottish affairs for a considerable time. We also know that it involves radical changes in the principles on which we have worked for so many centuries. If your Lordships read the proceedings on the Report stage of the Bill in another place, you will find, I think, that my fears are confirmed on the way things have been rushed. I found such sentences as "undue haste and pressure to hurry up and get the Bill through", or "it was raced through the Scottish Committee" or that, "though altered it could have been better". All those seem to me to be signs that we have a very serious duty to perform. As I read the Report stage in another place, this House is once again being called upon to perform the function of a long-stop to catch out mistakes and try to make the Bill a better Bill. That is fine, and I am sure that we shall all do our best; but I do beg that, on such an important measure, we are not also pressured, for some reason which is not entirely clear to me, to get things done within the next several weeks.
It is no comfort to me to know that in a sense this Bill has been hatching for a very long time. We know that Lord Mackintosh's Committee made their Report as far back as 1949, and that various attempts have been made since then to bring in a Bill.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: It was 1951.
THE EARL OF PERTH: What I think we have to remember is that this Bill is not the result of many years of cogitation, but something which has come up in a short time. As other noble Lords have said, very important principles are at stake. Primogeniture is to be abolished. If it were abolished in all things, of course, most of your Lordships would not be here at all—but that is another question. Then we have heard that the differentiation between the sexes in these cases is also to be abolished. And I must be careful what I say by way of comment on that point. Then, again, we find that in cases of intestacy heritables and moveables are to count as one and the same thing. That, again, is an extremely important change. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said that the distinction was a relic of feudal times. I am not quite sure whether he is right, or whether if it is only a relic of feudal times the distinction should now be abolished.
I have been looking, as I am sure many of your Lordships have done, at the Mackintosh Report in this respect. In paragraph 8, when the Committee are talking about the question of the agricultural interests, they say:
"… the general law of succession above proposed might have far-reaching and unfortunate results on agricultural interests and on the social structure of our countryside generally."
Or, again, it says
"Such a result"—
that is, the merging of agricultural heritables and moveables—
"in our opinion would be socially and nationally undesirable and we think that in the interests of agriculture and of our national economy generally provision should be made to facilitate the acquisition of the family farm by one of the heirs from his co-heirs without the subjects having to be put up for public sale."
Your Lordships will see that they ask that some provision should be made. Can we find any such provisions in this Bill? We cannot. Some were tried and they were found to be too complicated. A series of endless legal fights were envisaged, and so those provisions were taken out. I am not saying it was not right to take out the Schedule as attempted, but if we had time I wonder

575
whether it would not be possible to find some way of putting in the provisions which Lord Mackintosh felt in his Report were so necessary to avoid national harm. I think the actual word used was "disaster".
It is quite true that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has said, "Well, from the figures that we possess from 1961 it can be seen that the issue really affects very few people." I think the possible maximum was five. But I am not very happy, quite frankly, on the de minimis argument and I would ask that this matter should be looked at by all of us again, to see whether we can find some way of ensuring that agricultural land has not necessarily to be split up and sold. I know it could be argued, "Well, it has not got to be sold for certain." But I assure your Lordships that, from examining the matter very carefully, I suspect the cases when it is not sold will be very, very few.
Of course, it may be said, "The answer is to make a will." As the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has said, sometimes wills fail. But I should like to comment on the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and say how much I feel with him that not only the Government but a public authority should make a special effort to encourage people to make wills. If this Bill goes through in even something approximating to its present form, and some of the damage which I think could occur without making a will still remains, then making wills will help very much.
Having dealt very briefly with the question of heritables and moveables, on which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, was so much more eloquent and spoke with so much greater knowledge, I should now like to take the question which I think is covered in Clauses 2, 8 and 9. I apologise for taking it in this way, but, as I have already said, I am a layman in these matters, and I cannot easily do these things in the proper order. I want to consider what happens in respect of the rights of a wife and the equality of the sexes, and see what is the result. I think in many cases the children are going to get little or nothing in an intestacy. Again, we have heard something about what is going to happen to
576
the family treasures, and I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that these very often have little, if any, value. They will be dispersed. Lastly, there is the problem of the wife or the husband's family getting a property, an agricultural property in particular, rather than the first cousins of the wife or the husband's family as the case may be. To me all of this adds up to a blow to family tradition and sentiment for Scotland, and we all know how strong those things are for Scotland. Perhaps, above all, it is a blow to the family ties in relation to land.
So far as family treasures are concerned, as I have said, their intrinsic value is little or none—but murder, as we have heard, has been done for less. What are they?—things like pictures, letters, medals which earlier generations may have won. All those may well be dispersed. I had thought there was a glimmer of hope that we might pursue a line similar to that which was envisaged for the historic house, but I heard just now that Clause 8(4)(c), which deals with that and puts forward that suggestion, is likely to come out in the course of the Committee stage. Of course, if something else is put in in its place, all well and good, if it is as good; but, none the less, I hope that, so far as family treasures are concerned, we shall find a method of avoiding their automatic, or almost automatic, dispersal.
Let me come now to the question of children getting little or nothing. If the wife has a child or children, let us first see what she gets. As the Bill stands at the moment, she gets a house, which may be very valuable indeed; she gets plenishings to the value of £5,000—and both of these are free of death duties—and then she gets £2,500. If we add all that up, on a relatively small estate—and it is perhaps the relatively small estates which one has to worry about—it is almost certain there will be nothing left, because, after taking out the value of the house, whatever it may be, the £5,000 plenishings and then the £2,500, the duty has to be paid from the balance. The wife gets all, and there is nothing for the children. Your Lordships may say that this does not matter too much because the wife will perhaps let the children have it later; but, of course, we have no certainty of that. She may marry again, she may have other children, and so

577
forth. Then, of course, that is not all that she gets. She also has, as we know, the jus relictae. I think we ought to examine most carefully whether the wife is not getting too much and the children too little.
On the third point, which is that of the wife's or the remaining spouse's family rather than first cousins, I was very much attracted, as a substitute for what is proposed, by the idea which was put out by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun—namely, that, rather than saying first cousins as such, one should partition it to the husband's family or to the wife's family, and, in that way, going backwards, try to ensure that the property, whatever it may be, attaches to or remains with the family which has the particular interest in it. Of course, there may be many ways of achieving this. I only hope that we can examine it with the greatest care over the next weeks.
Now I come to Clause 12, about which we have heard a certain amount from the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. As we know, ante-nuptial contracts are in a large degree to have little purpose if this clause becomes operative. The phrase "ante-nuptial contract" is something which frightens me, but it is very much the same as what I would call a marriage settlement. Perhaps that helps sonic of your Lordships to know what we are talking about. Marriage settlements often help to lessen the impact of legitim. It has been pointed out in the Mackintosh Report that this occasionally caused great hardship and abuse, and I, for one, should certainly want to see the possibilities of such hardship and abuse removed, as I am sure all your Lordships would.
In that connection I wonder why, for example, we cannot follow the English practice—an English practice which was introduced after the Mackintosh Report was written. I refer to the Fourth Schedule of the Intestates' Estates Act, 1952. In that, there was a provision to enable a person to go to the courts and get a reasonable provision for the children if they had not been properly treated under a will. I wonder whether we should not try to introduce some such thought as that in this instance. If we did, the courts could judge whether something was fair, but at the same
578
time it would be clear that they were not being called upon to see that full legitim was being exercised. They would have a discretion.
So much for Clause 12 in general, but I want to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 12(b) in particular. When I first read Clause 12(b) I thought I could not understand its meaning. I saw various of your Lordships, and I said, "If it means what I think it does, then this is one of the most obnoxious clauses I have ever come across, because it is introducing the principle of retrospective legislation". I said, "I do not believe I can be right, and I will come back to you after I have had an opportunity of asking those who are better informed and have had legal training whether it does mean that". I think your Lordships know the answer: it does imply, and is, retrospective legislation. I feel sure that when we come to the Committee stage your Lordships will support an Amendment which will get rid of that, because it will certainly not do.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF PERTH: When I find something like that in this Bill, it makes me the more anxious that we should examine the Bill most carefully, and should be given plenty of time to study it and see that there are not similar, if not as obvious, faults, or other changes which it is necessary should be made. As I have said, I have sympathy with the objective. I am all for trying to devise a law of intestacy which will give effect to what the husband or the wife might have wanted, but I have tried, and others of your Lordships have also tried, to show that we have doubts whether this Bill is doing this at the present time, whether it be on the question of land, whether it be on the question of family treasures, whether it he on the question of what a spouse and her children should have or whether it be on the question of which relatives should inherit what—and lastly, of course, there is Clause 12 and its retrospective feature.
My Lords, I am sure we all want to help to get this Bill into good shape, but I would ask your Lordships to support those who feel as I feel when we

579
ask that we should not be rushed too much: and if, for one reason or another, we must have a Committee stage fairly soon, and if we do not catch out all the things that should be caught out at that time, then we must go after them again at a later stage.
5.38 p.m.
LORD GUEST: My Lords, I, also, should like to add my word of congratulation to the noble Lord who presented this Bill upon the lucid way in which he dealt with it. Notwithstanding the criticisms of those speakers who have preceded me, I feel that the general provisions of this Bill—and I say advisedly "the general provisions"—will be welcomed by the majority of people in Scotland and by the Scots legal profession. As your Lordships have been told, the need for reform was recognised as early as 1924, and the Mackintosh Committee reported in 1950; so that certainly no Government can be congratulated on their expedition in carrying out this necessary reform.
I have no quarrel with the main provisions of this Bill, which assimilate heritage and moveables and direct that they should descend, roughly speaking, according to the present rule of moveable succession. It is a reform that is long overdue, and one that I feel sure will alleviate many hardships which have in the past been occasioned to widows. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, will not welcome my approbation of his Bill: he will be anxious that I should come to my criticism, and I come at once to Clause 8, which has already been referred to, under which a widow, on an intestacy, receives a dwelling-house of her choice and furniture to the value of £5,000 free of estate duty. I do not know that that change has been sufficiently emphasised, and it is, I think, a very important aspect. It is necessary to state the present position, in order to see how the widow's rights have been enlarged.
At present she receives £5,000 in cash, as the result of a very recent Act. She also gets her legal rights which are one-third of the moveables, and she receives terce which is a liferent of a third of the heritage. Under the Bill, in addition to the dwelling-house and furniture
580
up to £5,000, she receives, under Clause 9, £5,000 in cash if she is not survived by children, and £2,500 if there are children. In addition, she receives jus relictae, which is preserved, and that amounts to one-third of the moveables. Look, if you will, at what the children receive. They receive only the legitim fund, which is one-third of the moveables, and what is left, if anything, of the residue of the heritage and moveables as assimilated under Clause 21(1)(a). As a result, as I see it, in a small estate where there is little cash and the house and furniture are the main assets, the widow scoops the pool, and what is left will probably go towards paying the estate duty. With a larger estate the balance between the children and the widow will be even worse.
Noble Lords will observe, as has already been pointed out, that after the husband's death the widow can remarry; she can sell her house and turn out the children the next day. I ask, my Lords, is that fair? I suggest that this Bill gives far too generous a provision to the widow. She was undoubtedly unfairly treated before, but now your Lordships may think the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Under English law on intestacy the widow does not receive the dwelling-house. The Mackintosh Committee did not recommend that she should, and I am not aware—if I am in error I will be corrected—that any legal body has made such a recommendation; and the Faculty of Advocates recently reported against it.
The origin of this proposal is not uninteresting. I gather it was that some Member of another place said that in 95 per cent. of the cases he had come across where the house was owned by the husband, the husband wanted to "see his wife right"; but that expression is ambiguous. It may mean that the husband wanted to give the house outright; or it may mean he only meant her to have a liferent. As I read the proceedings in another place, this question as to whether it should be a life-rent or a fee was never properly discussed. I may not have been fortunate in the experience I have had, but I have never seen wills which give such generous treatment to the wife at the expense of the children.

581
The aim of this Bill should be, as nearly as possible, to give the widow and children what they would have received if the man had made a will. I seriously suggest that, if this test is applied, what is likely is that the man would have given a liferent of the dwelling-house for as long as she occupied it, and the furniture, to the widow. This would normally be the result on testacy; it would avoid any question of estate duty and it would prevent any injustice to the widow. So I seriously suggest to my noble friend Lord Craigton that, before the Committee stage, he should give careful consideration to whether a liferent would not be a satisfactory provision for the widow.
I have two minor points on Clause 8. One is in regard to historical furniture, which has already been referred to. I think that if the historical mansion house should be accepted, the historical furniture should also be included. The other matter is merely a question of drafting in regard to Clause 8(4)(c), which deals with the dwelling-house which forms part of premises in which another occupation is carried on. I am not clear that it sufficiently covered the case of an owner-occupied farm. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said it did. It certainly should.
The only other point which I wish to raise is in regard to Clause 12, which has already been referred to. I am afraid that I part company with the noble Lord and the noble Earl who preceded me, because it seems to me that the general purpose of the clause is laudable and that is to prevent a child from being shut out of legitim by provision in ante-nuptial contract of marriage, which is illusory, which is made before the child was born, and may in fact amount to nothing. This has been described as unjust and monstrous, and it seems to me it deserves to be remedied. But on turning to Clause12(b) one sees that a very different situation arises. That is, as I understand it, retrospective legislation because it would mean that ante-nuptial contracts made years ago, taking effect after the Bill came into force, would be liable to be upset. I know there are strong objections to retrospective legislation, and this is particularly so when a man may have made his financial arrangements based on an ante-nuptial contract being valid. That ante-nuptial
582
contract is going to be upset under the proposals of this Bill, and it seems to me that that is objectionable. I think—and I say this with diffidence—a misunderstanding arose on this matter when it was discussed in another place, because the answer was given by the noble Lady in charge of the Bill: "Well, if you do not like the ante-nuptial contract of marriage, you can make another one." You cannot very well make an ante-nuptial contract of marriage after you have been married. It may be that if that had been pointed out to her she would not have persisted in that clause. On the general provisions of this Bill I have no other comment; and I should certainly warmly support it. I hope the noble Lord will excuse me from waiting for his reply as I have another engagement.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

International Development Association,

Plant Varieties and Seeds,

Defence (Transfer of Functions),

Industrial Training.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL
6.14 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, the majority of the proposals in this Bill should be helpful: they are overdue, and there has been a demand for them. But it should also be acknowledged that there are features which have been very worrying to many people in Scotland. The Bill will have far-reaching effects, mainly beneficial, but in some cases

583
adverse. I hope that we can look forward to the adverse effects being very few. I would thank my noble friend Lord Perth for the able way in which he has put before us all the essential points in this Bill, about which many of us in Scotland feel strongly. He has done it so well and thoroughly that there seems little need to say much more.
I should like to take part, very briefly, in this debate because of the uncertainty and anxiety, in case these are well-founded. Many of us have difficulty in understanding what will be the results of the Bill, and especially in foreseeing its effects much later. It is not easy to judge. I refer particularly to the changes and the effect in regard to heritage in land, in cases of intestacy, and the controversial views about the inclusion or otherwise of agricultural land. I feel rather between the representatives of the law in Scotland, who say that the proposals in this Bill are entirely sensible, and the Lord Lyon Court and others who forecast serious and inevitable effects—these effects being mainly on families who may have owned a farm or farms for many generations. Like the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, I believe that we should think principally about the less well-off families. Most of those with bigger estates in land who are better off seem customarily to make wills, and should be able to make satisfactory arrangements for succession.
It might appear more natural for those of us who have a responsibility towards the well-being of others in land to be opposing the changes concerning heritage in land, and strong representations have been made during the last year or two. But as Members of one of the Houses of Parliament we have a wider responsibility, and it could be the other way. The observations from the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, are most important, and the facts and information given to us by him must influence our views on this problem. They bring some reassurance. His evidence is impressive, and there should be less cause for concern, certainly about most of those who have a heritage in land. But is there still reason for worry about a few? And how few are they; and how much concern? These are matters
584
with which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun dealt very thoroughly, and I would congratulate him upon a tremendous achievement. I do not know how far he is correct. I hope that the concern may be overstated, and I hope that we may have some good assurances about that.
The retrospective nature of the changes in Clause 12 is naturally unwelcome, as also could be the possibility that too much of Scottish heritage might go to persons overseas, instead of to nearer relations in Scotland, and I hope that this point will be referred to again later. In 1922 the late Lord Birkenhead introduced what he described as a very important Bill indeed—the Law of Property Act for England. I do not know how close is the similarity, or what comparisons can be made between that Act and the Bill we are discussing to-day. I am not sure whether that Act was a matter of bringing the situation up to date and in line with our law in Scotland, or whether it was going ahead of us. I do not know of complaints in England over the matters about which we are anxious now. I am very pleased to see here to-day my noble and very learned friend of long standing, Lord Reid. I think we were in the other place together a long time ago. In our anxieties in Scotland at the present time I hope that we may look to him, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Guest, who has already spoken, to do the best they can to allay some of these anxieties, and I am quite sure that this Bill will then leave this House as a very good one.
6.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has presented this Bill with the courtesy and clarity which we have all come to expect of him, and while congratulating him on that, I am sorry to say that I can in no way share his enthusiasm for the Bill. My remarks will be very brief because I am going to associate myself very closely with everything that has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth. In the first place, I believe the Bill to be unnecessary. Who wants it? Who has asked for it? We have been told that the Legal Society in Scotland have wanted it; we have heard of

585
great pressure of responsible opinion; but it has been thirteen years (a fifth of a man's normal lifetime) after the Report on the subject has been made by the Mackintosh Committee before a Bill has been presented to Parliament. It has been drafted and re-drafted and found to be unworkable, and now a Bill has been presented which I hope will be workable, but I am quite sure that it is going to do irreparable damage to family life in Scotland.
Its object, apparently, is to make a more just and more equitable distribution of estates in the event of intestacy. But I see little justice in forcing a family to sever what might be a long connection with a property, be it large or small; and that is what is bound to happen in many, indeed in most, cases by the provisions of this Bill. By assimilating heritable property, which from time immemorial has passed under the law of primogeniture, with moveable property and dividing it equally among the intestate's next of kin, you are striking at the very roots of Scottish traditions and undermining the whole fabric of Scottish family life, because it is quite plain that in the absence of outside resources the heritable property will have to be sold in all cases where it represents more of the estate than the share of each entitled next of kin.
It may include the whole family home, a farm, a garden, anything you please, into which, perhaps, some impersonal landlord may step in the form of a company or a combine quite foreign to the countryside and the working of the countryside, probably with no further interest in it than speculation or extracting as much as possible from the land itself. It seems clear, too, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, has pointed out, that the rights of the widow, under Clauses 8 and 9, to claim the value of the house and furnishings as well as £5,000 is going to aggravate the difficulty for whichever member of the family wishes to continue the property.
Do the Government really think they are abolishing an old feudal law for something better and more fitted to modern society? It may be feudal, but many feudal laws still exist to-day: they are still the best and we still retain them. The proposed change could affect every owner of heritable property,
586
the largest and smallest, who dies intestate. Supporters of the measure say: "You have a simple remedy. If you do not like it, make a will and you need not bother any more." But people die intestate from a variety of causes. A man may come into a little property or some money. In these dangerous days he might be killed in an air accident or a motor crash the next day, before he has had time to make a will.
Many people wait before they make their will till later on in life when they have been able to find out and understand how their children are going to develop, how they are going to marry and what position they are going to be in at the date of their death. It is normal for people to delay making a will. Of course, the heir at law may not be the most suitable person to carry on a farm; we can quite appreciate that. He may not have the training and may not wish to do so. But at least under the present system an inheritance could be left intact and some amicable agreement might be made among the other members of the family to preserve it.
I have promised to be brief. I have almost finished, and I have no intention of making a detailed examination of the Bill to-day, but I hope I have made it clear that I challenge the whole principle of the Bill. I believe the basis of our civilisation is to ensure the continuance of the family, and that one of the basic instincts of family life is for a family to prefer to keep the family home in the family. Surely, if the law needs changing, it should try to provide so far as possible for the distribution of estates to be made in a way in which those dying intestate would have wished. How many of those dying intestate would have wished to dispose of them in the manner suggested in this Bill, by selling everything up and dividing it equally? Very few, I am sure, because that is absolutely contrary to human nature. The doctrine that the distribution of money is more important than the protection of the family and the inheritance is a very dangerous one indeed.
If the Government are determined on the principles which govern this Bill. I see little use in having a Division in the House this evening. I do not know what the noble Lord's intentions are,

587
but I do hope that there will not be a Division. But I hope also that the Bill will be very seriously and drastically amended in Committee.
6.28 p.m.
LORD REID: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Craigton upon the clarity of his exposition, more especially as the Bill is one which is extremely difficult to grasp without a great deal of study. I am bound to say that I found it necessary to read some of the provisions two or three times before I thought I understood what they meant. I hope that I now do understand, but I am not yet quite sure.
Most of the provisions I would agree to. Not only would I agree, but I think they are a great improvement. Some I am not very enthusiastic about, particularly those having the effect on agricultural land which has been so well explained by my noble and learned friend Lord Saltoun. But I am afraid it is rather difficult to deal with that situation in a satisfactory way. I have been thinking about an answer, and, to be honest, I have not been able to find one. And if we cannot find one, the next best thing, of course, is to try to bring home to everybody in Scotland that the law has now been so altered that, if they have any interest in agricultural land, it is essential they should make a will as soon as possible after they have succeeded. We should try to get into their heads that even a provisional will is necessary. A man may well say, "I see no reason why I should not live many years. My affairs will alter, and it seems absurd to start now putting down what is to regulate the distribution of my affairs, 10, 20, 30 years hence". I think that we must get into the heads of the agricultural owners and tenants that they must make a provisional will, even if they are not yet ready to make a final one, so as to avoid what would otherwise be the quite disastrous effect of the Provisions of this Bill in regard to intestacy.
I do not propose to pursue that matter, but there is one aspect of the provisions with regard to intestacy about which I feel very strongly. As has been said, particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, the widow is getting far too much,
588
in many cases at the expense of the children. I am not concerned with the very small estate, of up to £5,000, £7,000 or £8,000, because there, probably, if there is an intestacy, the proper thing is to give the widow the lot. I am not concerned with the large estates; I am not much concerned with the estate of £25,000, above which figure the noble Lord said there were only 32 intestacies in the one year—although 32 is not wholly negligible. And when we get up to the range of £50,000 estates, not much injustice will be done by these provisions. I am primarily concerned with the estates (and there must be many of these) of between, say, £15,000 and £25,000. And in regard to these, to my mind, the provisions of this Bill with regard to intestacy just will not do at all, and they must be altered. I very much hope that, when we come to Committee, if there is any difficulty some of my noble friends will divide the House, because I do not think the provisions can pass as they stand without all the protest we are able to bring to bear.
Let me say why. I will take as an example an estate of £20,000, a moderate estate, and let me see how this Bill, as it stands, will work. The first priorities are the claims of the widow under Clauses 8 and 9. I do not want to take any exceptional, unusual types of case, but it must be very usual for a man leaving £20,000 to own his own house, and I should have thought that £5,000 as the value of a house is a very moderate figure these days. I noted with interest that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, was going to introduce some ceiling here—at least I understood him to say so. I do not know what he has in mind. In my criticism of a figure of £5,000 for the widow, as the value of the house, I am talking about a £20,000 estate. Over and above the £5,000 for the house the widow will get up to £5,000 for furniture and plenishings. It may well be that most men in that rank will not have furniture worth £5,000, but it is very common now for people to buy, as an investment, silver, books, pictures, minor collections of one kind and another; and all these are included in the definition of plenishings. So I take the case of a man who has put some of his money into pleasant things to adorn the house and afford himself a hobby. And I take

589
another £5,000 as the value of the furniture and plenishings. That is half the estate gone already. That is not nearly the end. The widow then gets all this free of estate duty. And she gets two more things beyond that: she gets £2,500 in cash (I am assuming there are children), and she still gets her legal rights. Therefore, in a case such as I have imagined she will get £14,000 or £15,000, whereas the children will probably not get more than £4,000 between them.
My noble friend says that the object of the Bill is to reflect what the average Scotsman would do if he thought about it. Is it really to be thought that the ordinary Scotsman, leaving £20,000, would leave three-quarters to his widow and one-quarter to his children? And remember, the three-quarters has been left outright to the widow, so that she can do as she likes with it. I should have thought that was very far removed from what the ordinary man would do with an estate of that magnitude, and I should have thought we must somehow or other see to it that the children get more and the widow gets less. There are several ways in which that could be done. It could be done by reducing the widow's right to the house to a life-rent. I recognise that there are certain difficulties there. In the case of the smaller estates it would not make much difference, because the widow's right under the other provisions would probably take the house anyway, and it is only in the moderate-sized estates that it would make much difference. I should prefer that it should be reduced to life-rent, but if that is too difficult there are other things.
I should have preferred that it should be reduced to liferent partly because, as several noble Lords have said, there is a family, sentimental affection for the house, and it seems right that the children should be entitled to have the house when their turn comes. But, apart from that, observe how capricious this proposal is. If a man with a £20,000 estate happens to have been in receipt of a good salary, and does not want money to run his business, he has probably bought his house outright, and the whole value of the house therefore will go to the widow. If on the other hand, he is a man in business, and wants all the money he can lay hands on for that business, then he has either bonded the
590
house up to the hilt or is living in a rented house, in which case the widow gets nothing except the right to live in it under conditions which she probably cannot finance. Is it sense that in order to benefit the widow there should be this grave difference, according to whether the man has chosen to put money into his house or into his business? Surely we must do something to make conditions more even for widows who are in a corresponding position but one of whose husbands happened to be a businessman and the other a professional man, or a man with a salary.
There are other possibilities. I should have thought that, in a case such as I have mentioned, £5,000 is much too much for furniture, because it will almost certainly be composed in part of things which are not really furniture at all but are more in the nature of a collection. I should have thought that only part of it would be suitable for the smaller estates—those up to, say, £30,000. There is another thing we could do. Why should the widow get all three of her provisions under Clauses 8 and 9 and get her legal rights in addition? I should have thought we could make some provision to reduce the disparity there. I should not greatly mind how this was done, provided that it is done somehow. As I say, the Bill may be all right for very small estates; it may be all right for very large estates. But I do not think it is all right for the moderate estates.
There is only one other matter that I would mention; it has been mentioned by other noble Lords. It will be apparent from looking at the Bill that, whereas on intestacy the widow is extremely well-off, if a will is made she may be quite badly off. She does not get the house, she does not get any of the other provisions; she gets no legal rights out of the heritage. If I understand the Bill aright, all she gets is legal rights out of the moveable part of the estate. That is not much. It is still for her to discharge her legal rights by a marriage contract. If she has discharged her legal rights while the family are comparatively poor and the husband makes a lot of money then she can be left virtually penniless by a rich husband who makes a will. Why this great disparity between the rights of a widow on intestacy,

591
and her rights when a will is made? I should have thought there is room for some investigation there.
The only other point is about legitim. I can quite see that we are going a little too far in making this retrospective. On the other hand, I do not go all the way with my noble and learned friend in thinking that it is an entirely bad thing to make it retrospective at all. I would hope that we might be able to get some compromise, so that if a reasonable provision is made for the children otherwise, then they shall not be able to claim legal rights where the operation of the Act would be retrospective. I throw that out only as a possible suggestion, because if one has to choose between making it retrospective without any qualification and not making it retrospective at all, I think we really ought to make it retrospective without any qualification at all. Therefore, I hope that some solution can be found.
There are many other points of minor importance which may come out on the Committee stage. I would not propose to detain your Lordships with them at this late hour, and certainly I would not oppose this Bill as a whole. But what might happen on the Committee stage is a different story. I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Craigton will excuse me if I do not remain for his reply, because I am afraid there are rather special reasons why I shall have to leave.
6.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I would not propose to be in entire opposition to the main principles of this Bill, any more than other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon have, with one or two exceptions, said that they would be. Indeed, I do not want to traverse again a great deal of the ground that has been gone over by previous speakers, although I would say that I most sincerely agree with a great deal of what has been said, and in particular with the speech of my noble friend Lord Perth.
I should like to take up one point, to start with, made by my noble friend Lord Haddington, who explained many of the circumstances in which intestacies
592
can arise simply by failure to make a will in particularly understandable cases. I should like to add to that the fact that it is by no means impossible for a man who has gone to a great deal of trouble in making a will which he thought was suitable for the circumstances of the case, to find, either because of something which he himself has done, such as marrying again or having another child after the will was made, or else because of some slip on the part of the lawyer, that his will falls into intestacy after all, despite everything that he has sought to achieve.
If we are aiming to do as nearly as possible that which the testator would have done if he had made either a will or a valid will, then I think that where a will falls into intestacy it would be a serious test of this Bill to see how nearly its provisions carry out the reasonable proposals which the testator himself made although his will was invalid. If there is one thing that I am sure that he would try and do, if he possibly could, it is to keep land, heritage, in one piece.
There is now no provision in this Bill for the agricultural unit. It was found unworkable in another place and it was taken out. I am certain that one of the main principles that should underlie everything that your Lordships think and say on this Bill is that, if possible, none of its provisions should provide for an unnecessary split up of agricultural land, whether it be the large estate or the small one. They are equally important to the country and to the people who farm them and who live on them. There are many places in this Bill where this point comes to the fore.
Of course, it is most important when considering the table of ranking in Clause 2. It may be that this is the right thing to do now; but it is quite clear that by bringing in the brothers and sisters or the uncles and aunts, each to have his or her share of the whole of the intestate estate including the land, there will be much more opportunity to split up farms and other agricultural units than there has been before. This is something which is quite inevitable if this Bill goes through in its present form.
It is further to be noted that the same underlying principle is much in evidence in Clause 8. I do not much mind

593
how Clause 8 is amended. I feel that the widow gets far too much, and it may be that a liferent on the house is the answer, although that does have the difficulty that there will be a continuing statutory trust of some sort to administer for some time after the intestacy. It may be that her £2,500 when she has children, or the £5,000 when she has not, could in some way be cut down. It may be that her jus relictae ought to be diminished or abolished; or it may be that the answer lies in the estate duty point.
I would ask my noble friend Lord Craigton, on the last point, whether he would look carefully at this, because on the figures that he has given to the House this afternoon it is quite clear that most of the estates with which this Bill will be, or is likely to be, concerned are small ones. If they are small estates, then to give the widow the house and plenishings free of estate duty is really going to achieve nothing at all, because there will be no estate duty at all. Whereas, if there should be the unfortunate case where it is a large estate that has to be administered and split up under this Bill, then to give the widow the house, even if there is a ceiling on its value, and the plenishings free of estate duty, is going to be even harder than ever on the children, who will have to find that estate duty out of the small part that is left to them.
There is another provision to which I would refer in talking about the widow being given the house, which I think underlies the danger in this Bill of splitting up agricultural units and farms. As I understand it, Clause 8(4)(b) will not allow the widow to take the farmhouse out of the farm as her own, but rather that she shall be given a proportion of the money, the value of it, as an equivalent. If it is a small farm, this in itself is inevitably going to mean, I should have thought, that the farm is split up and sold; because otherwise there will not be enough cash—particularly when there is taken into account the fact that the stock, the tractors and everything else are moveables—to satisfy the value of the house and to give it her as an outright cash payment. This seems to me another great danger that has to be faced. So I hope that, when we come to the next stage of this Bill, Clauses 8
594
and 9, and possibly the inherent provision in regard to jus relictae, will be carefully examined and thought about again.
I need say little on Clause 12, except that I earnestly support the plea that has been made by other noble Lords to do away with the retrospective provision in paragraph (b) of that clause. This seems to me to be entirely unnecessary, and a really deplorable precedent in a Bill of this or, indeed, any kind.
Further than that, I question whether it is necessary to take the full step that is taken in this clause, even though the Mackintosh Report recommended it. After all, it is only the children's provision which is now being dealt with, even under this clause, and it will still be possible to defeat the wife's legal rights by means of an ante-nuptial contract, even if the Bill becomes law in its present form.
There are two arguments on this. First, it is said that it is unfair that the children should be done out of their legal rights by a contract made when they are yet unborn, particularly in circumstances when, as it turns out later, their father becomes very much richer than was ever contemplated before the ante-nuptial contract was made. If that is the argument, exactly the same applies to the wife. She did not envisage either that her husband was to become that much richer than expected, yet she is given no recourse under this or any other clause to be given more than that provided for her under the ante-nuptial contract.
In any event, as I understand the Mackintosh Report, it is the hardship to the children at which they were aiming. If that is so, some such suggestion as that put forward by my noble friend Lord Perth would seem to me entirely adequate to meet that danger, without doing away with one of the basic rights of any Scotsman, one of the freedoms left to him: to deal with his estate in the way he thinks fit rather than in a way imposed upon him by somebody else—by law, by Parliament, or by means of a provision like this. I shall be sorry to see even this small freedom taken away unless it is absolutely vital. I do not believe that it is so vital.
I should like now to draw attention to one clause which has not so far been mentioned this evening, Clause 14, other

595
than by the Minister. I think I understood my noble friend Lord Craigton rightly when he said that this was purely an administrative clause and was not intended to affect the division under a will between heritage and moveables. In other words, I think my noble friend said that if a will is made it will still be possible for the testator to leave his entire heritage to whomsoever he thinks fit, whatever may be the effect of any of the subdivisions which will happen on intestacy. Now he will have even greater freedom, because his widow will not have any right of terce.
It is a pity that the rubric to the clause should refer to "assimilation". If I understand assimilation rightly, it means that the two sorts of property, heritages and moveables, are put together before any split-up is made. I understand that this is exactly what is not intended. Unless I have misunderstood the word "assimilation", I feel that it should not even be suggested in the side-note that this is going to happen. I should very much welcome an assurance by my noble friend that there is no suggestion under this clause that the administrator is to lump together all the property, both heritage and moveable, pay legal rights out of it and then deal with the testator's wishes under the will after that, If so, it is going to be a considerable limitation of his power to leave the heritage as he thinks fit.
The last point to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is one of great complication and one which I shall probably be unable to explain properly. It occurs in Clause 30 of the Bill. This is a reproduction, with some alterations, of a provision which came into English law by the Law of Property Act 1925, and it is Section 184 of that Act. It provides for certain presumptions for the purposes of inheritance where people die simultaneously or in circumstances where it is uncertain which died first. The present law of Scotland is that there is no such presumption one way or the other and that it is up to the person claiming under a will or intestacy to show that the person upon whom his claim depends was the one who survived.
This clause, as it now stands, will introduce two presumptions which will
596
make such things unnecessary in most cases. It is interesting and perhaps significant that the clause has added the word "simultaneously" to the English provision and thereby blocked up another freedom on the part of the person claiming to get away from the presumption; because in England it was held that, in circumstances where it was more or less certain that the deaths were simultaneous, the presumption should not apply. That is the case of Hickman v. Peucey in 1945, A.C. 305.
The danger that I see is this, and it is another case where I foresee fragmentation of agricultural estates. It does not so much concern presumption (a) in Clause 30, but presumption (b) where it is presumed that the younger person survived the older. I should like to suggest an instance of the danger I have in mind in order to help my noble friend to understand the problem of which I am afraid. I foresee a situation where a man and wife have a son, and the man and his wife have brothers and sisters. The man has made a will leaving his estate to his son, whom failing to the son of his eldest brother—in fact the son's first cousin. The husband, wife and son are all killed simultaneously in a car accident.
As the law now stands, as I understand it, it would be perfectly possible for the nephew who was in the will as the substitute for the son to say that the son died either simultaneously or before the father and to claim in the way in which the father obviously intended under the will. If, however, the proposed law is adopted as set out in this Bill, if the son was young and intestate, instead of the nephew getting the estate, as was clearly intended by the father, it would go first to the son, who would then die intestate, and thence through him, under the provisions of this Bill, it would be split into several parts and given to his uncles and aunts—the brothers and sisters of his father and mother. And only through one of them would the nephew, who was originally intended to inherit, get a very small portion of the whole.
I do not believe that it is desirable to do this, for two reasons. First, it creates an unnecessary fragmentation of an estate which was well dealt with under a valid will. Secondly, it provides that

597
there will be two death duties possible in those circumstances, although it may well be that they will be relieved by the quick succession relief, whatever that may be. I think it might be possible to deal with this in two ways: either to say that the presumption shall always be that the two persons concerned died simultaneously (and I do not think that would lead to any serious interference with people's rights); or, if that is not thought suitable, to insert some words into the Bill to provide that the presumption in paragraph (b) will not have the effect of passing property through the intestacy of the younger of the two who died together which would otherwise pass in accordance with the will of the elder. I hope that something of that nature can be inserted, because, although this is a clause of a technical nature and will not have effect very often, it is, in my opinion, a presumption which may have grave dangers and result in great unfairness.
My Lords, these will be matters which will have to be dealt with on the Committee stage. Apart from this, I wish to do nothing except to say that I give the Bill a limited welcome. I should like to see many and quite considerable changes in it, and will listen with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Craigton has to say when he comes to wind up.
7.0 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has asked me to apologise for his not being here. I echo the advice he and other noble Lords have given that people should make wills. I am grateful for the welcome given to many parts of this Bill and for the constructive suggestions made. Our discussion has hardened as it were, on to comparatively few major issues. There are no short answers in replying to a debate of this sort, and I will try to deal just with the few major issues. There are a number of other points that have been made. These will be carefully studied and I will write to the noble Lords concerned, but to answer them now as they should be answered would, I am sure, take longer than your Lordships would like me to take. I can answer quickly my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. His reading of Clause 14 is, as usual, if I
598
may say so, correct. There is no intention that heritage and moveables should be lumped together for legal rights. The present arrangement will continue under this Bill.
Let me deal first with the broad principle of the exclusion of agricultural land in some form or another from the provisions of the Bill. I feel that I should deal with this on its merits on the proposition that the new rules of intestate succession should not be applied to agricultural land or, alternatively, to land in excess of an arbitrarily fixed area such as three acres or some other figure. Your Lordships feel that property excluded in this way should descend on intestacy under the present rules of heritable succession. If we were excluding agricultural land, however defined, we should, broadly speaking, be enacting one law of intestate succession in the country and another in the town. Even in the country we might be enacting one law for the estate owner and another for the man who owned a house and garden or business premises. Certainly, such provisions could well lead to divided ownership and, therefore, to the break-up on intestacy of estates which are now viable units with both town and country property.
Artificial distinctions of this kind would be bound to lead in practice to difficulties and anomalies, apart altogether from the drafting difficulties, For example, the fortunes of the intestate relatives might be quite different according to whether certain valuable subjects descended according to the rules of primogeniture or according to the Clause 2 rules of the Bill. My own feeling is that the statistics of intestacy may convince many people that there is not enough, if any, agricultural land falling into intestacy for this to be a problem requiring any special legislative provision at all. But if any such legislation were found to be desirable, the problem would not be one merely of finding an acceptable definition of agricultural land, or of deciding the right acreage for exclusion; the real objection would be the complications and anomalies and the break-up of mixed estates that would undoubtedly arise from the existence of two different systems of succession applicable according to an artificial subdivision of

599
heritable property that falls into intestacy.
I feel that I should deal in a little more detail with the various suggestions that have been made on this subject. If the proposal to exclude agricultural property as a whole were adopted, the result would be that heritable estates under the 1894 Act definition would go to the heir at law. Feu duties would go to the beneficiaries under Clause 2 of the Bill; so, probably, would the minerals—such minerals as are severed from the surface. Salmon fishings would also go to the beneficiaries under Clause 2, and they are as often as not one of the principal amenities, if not the main source of income, of the country estate itself.
If the proposal to exclude all land over three acres in extent were adopted—and I assume for this purpose that the proposal is that land of any kind exceeding three acres should be excluded—the result would be that the heir at law could succeed to a factory or hotel property covering more than three acres of land, but if the factory or hotel property covered less than three acres it would go to the heirs under the Bill. Again, a mansion house or other rural property of less than three acres would go to the heirs under the Bill, whereas if it happened to be just over three acres it would be succeeded to by the heir at law. And what is the position of feu duties? Are these, exigible from land over three acres in extent, to descend one way, while the remainder and probably far larger numbers go the other way? If there are several properties in an intestate estate, some under three acres and others covering more than that, is it proposed that the former should descend according to one set of rules and the latter according to another?
The third proposal is that all land outwith burgh boundaries should be excluded from the new rules. This, I think, might be even more difficult than the two suggestions I have mentioned. There are farms and other country properties within burgh boundaries, just as there are factories and many urban type dwellinghouses outwith burghs. There will be single estates partly within and Partly outwith burghs, and of course burgh boundaries have a habit of changing in certain places quite frequently. I
600
believe, and I hope that your Lordships will agree, that we should not legislate in such a way as to result in this sort of thing happening. The confusion, both practical and legal, which would result would be really unlimited, and the Scots law of succession, which has some reputation for being sound in its intention and fair in its effect, would have become a code with little rhyme and little reason.
Almost parallel with that is the problem of the owner-occupied farm which, as many of your Lordships pointed out, is not passing according to Mackintosh's recommendation in paragraph 8 of his Report, although his recommendation, of course, was not that it should go to the heir at law but that it should go to one particular person. As your Lordships know, we tried in the first draft of the Bill to enact the Mackintosh recommendation that the farm should be offered in turn to the relatives, but it soon became clear that the procedure, to be fair to all, including the son in Australia, would he too expensive and lengthy to contemplate and the end result would most likely be no better than that achieved by common sense and good will. So we have taken the alternative course of treating the owner-occupied farm as normal heritable property on intestacy; a course approved by the Law Society and the Scottish Land Owners' Federation but not by the N.F.U.
What will be the result of this? Fragmentation which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is worried about, is, I believe, unlikely, if only because new farmhouses and steadings would get no assistance under the Farm Improvements Scheme. The family may, and I am sure in many cases would, get together and hand over the farm to one member of the family on mutually agreed price and terms. This may happen.
THE EARL OF PERTH: It could happen.
LORD CRAIGTON: I say they may. If not, a farm may be sold to another farmer and the price divided among the heirs. This might be unfortunate for the family but not for national agriculture. But the most important consideration of all is: how many owner-occupied farms will this change of policy affect? Mackintosh was not to know precisely. We now know fairly

601
accurately. I have given the figures before. Out of 9,600 intestate estates all but five had heritable property valued at under £10,000. There can be few, if any, farms that are valued at under £10,000 for confirmation that are viable units. There may be two or three farms among the five intestate heritable estates—I do not know. But if there were three, then three intestate farms a year not passing under the rules of primogeniture and preference for males but under more modern rules, cannot really be said to he an unbearable hardship on the families of the farmers or on farming generally. My Lords, if the facts tell us anything, they tell us that Scottish people with something substantial to leave do, in fact, make wills, and that that includes Scottish farmers.
Now I come to the point—and I am sorry the noble and learned Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Guest are not here: the question of the widow getting too much and the children too little. I must make it clear that Clauses 8 and 9 are not similar to the legal rights of jus relictae and legitim and jus relictae and legitim are not by this Bill extended to heritable property. The right to the house and a sum of money of £2,500, £5,000, are legal rights only on intestacy. The right to £5,000 on intestacy where there are no children is already the law under the Intestate Husband's Estates (Scotland) Acts, and the Bill extends this right to £2,500 where there is issue. That is the effect of Clause 9. Clause 8, as we hope to amend it, will give the spouse of the intestate the house, if it is worth less than £15,000, or £15,000 if it is worth more, plus the furniture and plenishings to a maximum value of £5,000, which they will seldom be worth in estates under £10,000 of total value.
My Lords, if the estate is a really large one—and we know that large estates must seldom fall into intestacy—it will be no real burden on the other heirs to give the widow her claims under Clauses 8 and 9, and especially if we place a limit of £15,000 on the value of the dwelling-house. I think that is agreed by your Lordships. If the total estate is around the £25,000 mark, then I believe it is unlikely that the house and furniture will be valued at anything like the maximum of £15,000 for the house, plus £5,000 for the furniture. The
602
noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, is mainly concerned about this limited class, and we shall have to study very carefully what he said. We hope that he may be able to help us. We are grateful to him for his suggestions. What really concerns me, and what I suggest to your Lordships must concern us, are the 1,999 cases out of every 2,000 where the intestate, if he leaves a house, leaves one valued under £10,000. In these cases do the provisions in Clauses 8 and 9, together with jus relictae, give the widow too much at the expense of the children? Here we have to exercise a nice blend of judgment between what the intestate would have been most likely to do, had he made a will, and what should be done to be as fair as possible in such cases to all parties concerned.
Let us look at these small intestate estates from the children's point of view. Whether the widow has the liferent or the ownership of a family house, their share of the legitim can be, at best only spending money, the price of a small car. If the widow has a liferent, the small house or their share of the proceeds, if it is sold, comes to them only when the widow dies. But while she is alive, as several noble Lords have pointed out, the small estate requires continuous administration and expenditure on behalf of the liferenter and those who will ultimately take. What is the widow's point of view? The house may be too large, or she may wish to move nearer her married children; but such a course might make difficulties for the executor who is to preserve the value of the heritage. The widow may wish to leave the house to an unmarried daughter who lives with her, or to one particular child or relative who is most deserving. She cannot do this. Is this, I must ask myself, what her husband would have wished? I do not believe so, in spite of what the noble and learned Lords have said. In all probability, he and his wife have worked and saved together to acquire the house: to some extent it is hers as well as his, and he would wish her to have it, and all the prestige and freedom which goes with it.
Of course, there is the other side. She may want to sell the house and live with her family. She may wish

603
to marry again. Why should she not? It is her life, not her children's; and her married daughter may one day find herself in the same plight. As there are so many more widows than widowers, it is the women whom Clauses 8 and 9 protect, as a generality, in these small estates, at the slight expense of the men, who are better able to fend for themselves. And at what expense? The ownership or part ownership of a small house—it is no more—when the parent dies; and, at best, a smallish sum at some uncertain date in the future.
My Lords, there is no Government policy here other than to do what is best. I am convinced, for the reasons I have given, that the balance of justice and the average small intestate's intention falls on the side of giving the house to the widow, and I am fortified in this view by the inquiries I have made, both personally and officially, from those who prepare wills for people who leave heritable property valued under £10,000. These sources, without exception, tell me that the great majority leave the family house and furniture outright to the other spouse, and that few indeed are the liferents on property under £40,000 to £50,000 valuation. I would beg noble Lords, if they doubt if what I say is right, to ask similar solicitors who deal with small estates, and to find out for themselves what their views are. I shall, however, look at the estate duty point raised by noble Lords.
Several noble Lords talked quite strongly about the widow who could take the family pictures, and the possibility that, under Clause 8, the surviving spouse might take a family heirloom, such as pictures, and that these might pass out of the family. I have much sympathy with the noble Lords' point of view on this matter. The point is a difficult one, because, although we all know what is meant by an heirloom, this is something which I am told it is very difficult to define with precision, as is required in a Bill of this nature. However, I will consider most carefully the possibility of finding some way of distinguishing between furniture and plenishings in current use, which must clearly go to the widow, and heirlooms, which might better go to other heirs.
On Clause 12, I have listened with great care to the criticism made and to
604
the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid. I readily agree that Clause 12 is, in effect, retrospective legislation, and that, as drafted, it might upset plans legally made at the time. One has to set this factor against the undoubted wrong of allowing certain children yet unborn to be deprived of legal rights available to all other children. On balance, my Lords, so far as I can see now, it seems right to say that what is done is done, but that it should not be done in the future. So in Committee I hope to move an Amendment restricting the application of Clause 12 to ante-nuptial contracts made after the Bill becomes law. If the clause is amended in this way, it will not disturb arrangements made in good faith under the existing law. I will also look carefully at the points made about giving the courts some discretion and about the position of the wife. My Lords, I have not mentioned everything, as the hour is late, but I will most carefully examine the constructive speeches, for which I thank your Lordships, and I look forward with keen anticipation to the Committee stage.
7.18 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have listened with very great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has said about my Amendment, and I do not want to take up much more of your Lordships' time on it. I will say only two things. The first is that he says that it would introduce terrible confusion if we now had one law for the burghs and one law for the rural areas. Let me remind your Lordships that it was just because of those arguments 90 years ago that the trouble which has caused this Bill to come into existence took place. Before that time there was no trouble at all.
The second thing I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Craigton is this. Every possible effort has been made to bring in agricultural land, without unfairness, but the debate to-day must show that it is impossible to do so. The noble Lord's own defence of the agricultural part of the Bill was very unconvincing, and he made one mistake which I will correct in a minute; but I should like to remind him that all the land under the Land Court is already taken out of the Bill, which gives him

605
a precedent. The Land Court are not going to have any nonsense of this kind. The point where he mis-translated me was that he attributed to me a suggestion that small farms would suffer fragmentation as a result of this Bill. My Lords, I said exactly the contrary. I said that these farms must pass as a whole. I know far too much about it to fall into that trap.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord.
LORD SALTOUN: I said that the farm will have to be sold.
The noble Lord said that the agricultural country will not suffer: what matters the family? Many noble Lords who have great hereditary estates have had them for a long time. Ought we not to consider and think of the humble men who also have hereditary estates, small though they be? Why should they be forced into the market to supply the agricultural demand of these rich men who want to put money away? I hope that when I sit down the noble Lord will rise and correct his statement. It seemed a horrible doctrine. For the rest I want to thank those noble Lords who have spoken. Everyone contributed something which I value and which I will study. The noble Lord who has remained and who asked me to put down this reasoned Amendment, has asked me to withdraw it; and the other noble Lord who asked me to do so has departed. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL
7.22 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Resumption of citizenship]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD ALPORT: When I ventured to intervene during the Second Reading of this Bill my noble friend the Minister pointed out that I was barking up the wrong tree. After examination, I think he was right, and I think that I was barking up the wrong tree. But after further examination I found there was a cat in the tree and that it bore a very considerable similarity to the one that I happened to be chasing. I might explain shortly, in view of the lateness of the hour, the point that I am making.
As I understand it from the Minister's explanation, Clause 1(1)(b) refers back to the words earlier in the clause:
"shall be entitled to registration … as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies …"
That is to say, if the man who has renounced citizenship has the qualifications set out in Clause 1(2) he is entitled, as of right, to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—provided, presumably, that he can show he renounced his citizenship originally in accordance with Clause 1(1)(a). In addition, as I understand it the Secretary of State may so register any person who would be entitled thereto if he had such a connection. I understand that to mean that he can, at his discretion, register as a United Kingdom citizen someone who does not, in fact, qualify under Clause 1(2). If that is the case, this is a fairly wide discretion; and, from such experience as I have had of nationality legislation, it seems to me that this is somewhat wider than has previously been the custom. It gives the Secretary of State fairly wide discretion in judging cases of hardship where the qualifications set out in this Bill do not apply. If that is the case, I welcome it.
I assume equally that this power will be administered, as has been the practice, by High Commissioners—acting on the advice of their experts on nationality legislation, who are the consular officers working under them—or, in certain cases, at a later stage, possibly Ambassadors. In these circumstances, presumably some instruction will be given by the Government with regard to the interpretation of this particular important provision in this Bill. I think that must be so, because it is not clear at present. I assume, for

607
instance (and I do not want the Minister to give me a direct answer on this point, because he would probably not wish to give a decision on a particular and hypothetical case), that if a man has renounced his British citizenship and taken on the citizenship of another country, and then dies within a short time afterwards, any children that he leaves—possibly being educated in Britain and having every conceivable connection with the United Kingdom—will be eligible for registration. Because although they do not qualify under the Bill, as I understand it, they would in every sense of equity and reality be entitled to be considered for registration as United Kingdom citizens. In fact, it might be most important for them that they should do so.
If that is the sort of case that conies under this particular provision, may I ask the Minister whether he can give to the Committee some indication as to what interpretation the Government are putting on to this provision and what sort of instructions will go out to High Commissioners and, therefore, to their officers with regard to their consideration of cases brought before them? I would remind the Committee that there is no appeal to the court. Under the original Act of 1948 a man who has his application turned down by a High Commissioner or the Secretary of State or a Governor—as I think is the wording of Section 26 of the Act of 1948—has no appeal to the courts. Therefore, in fact, the High Commissioner himself is the sole judge in this matter, although I have no doubt that it might be raised with the Secretary of State subsequently.
In these circumstances, it seems to me most important that clear guidance should be given to the officers administering this, and that that guidance should express the spirit in which this particular legislation has been introduced. I would remind the Committee that the consequences of this piece of legislation, or rights established under it, may not be used by persons concerned for a passage of years—perhaps five or ten years, and perhaps much longer. By that time the spirit in which this legislation has been passed by both Houses of Parliament will have faded from the minds of those administering it; indeed, in dealing with applications they may be adducing quite
608
different considerations from those intended by this House in passing this Bill.
It is perhaps inevitable (I am not making a criticism) that legislation of this sort should be very general and I think that adds to the difficulty. At the same time I am sure that the Committee would wish to be assured, before passing this clause, that the intention of this particular subsection is set out clearly by the Minister, so that when the instructions are issued to those who will have to interpret the provisions, at a distance of time and space, they will act in accordance with what was intended by the Committee on this occasion.
7.29 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: I am particularly grateful (because this is a very complicated subject) that my noble friend indicated beforehand the sort of question he was to raise on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. It has been very helpful. We are talking about Clause I, subsection (1)(a), and subsection (1)(b) and there are two classes of people who will come under this clause and under those two subsections. There are, first of all, those people who qualify under (a) and under (b). They will, as of right, be entitled to claim resumption of their United Kingdom citizenship. These are the people for whom authority will be given to High Commissioners overseas to register for resumption of their nationality.
The second class are those who qualify under paragraph (a) but not under (b)—in other words, the marginal cases. It is the intention that these should be dealt with, not by the High Commissioners' staff overseas, but by the Home Office in London. This is not a matter of law but of discretion and it is of the utmost importance that they should all be dealt with so far as possible on the same lines, though each case will differ from the others. It is impossible to say in advance in what types of case resumption of nationality will be allowed. The essential thing is that applicants must have a strong connection with the United Kingdom. If I may, I would give one simple example. If a man's father or grandfather was born in this country, he would be entitled to resume his citizenship. But it may well be that a man's great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather was born in this country, but not his father

609
or his grandfather and that he may still have strong connections with this country—business connections, or children at school here—and such a case would undoubtedly be viewed sympathetically. Speaking without tying anyone down for the future, I imagine that almost certainly such an applicant would be allowed to resume United Kingdom citizenship. I cannot go into more detail, because every case will be dealt with separately and specially in London.
The Home Secretary will be the final arbiter, but it is important to realise that everyone will be dealt with on the same lines. I can assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary of to-day—and I am quite certain that. Home Secretaries in the future—will treat very sympathetically all applicants coming in these exceptional circumstances.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I do not dispute what the noble Lord has said, but will this not add a tremendous burden of work to the Home Office?
LORD DERWENT: I do not think that it will, be very large, because I think that the bulk of those affected will be entitled as of right.
On Question, Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without Amendment: Report received.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT 1923 (AMENDMENT) BILL
7.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I realise that any legislation dealing with salmon usually arouses a great deal of anxiety in your Lordships' House, but I can assure your Lordships that no harm is intended to the king of game fish in this small Bill. As your Lordships know, the Bill has been through another place in the very capable hands of my honourable friend Mr. Percy Browne, the Member for Torrington.
In order to understand this Bill, I shall have to refer to the Salmon and
610
Freshwater Fisheries Act of 1923, because, as your Lordships will see from Clause 1, the whole Bill revolves upon that Act. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to quote the relevant section. Section 6(1) says:
"No person shall, in any fishery district, shoot or work any seine or draft net for salmon or migratory trout in any waters across more than three-fourths of the width thereof …"—
and here are the words relevant to this Bill—
"or within one hundred yards from the nearest point in the line of shot of any other seine or draft net worked in like manner and already shot or being worked in the waters, before such last-mentioned net is fully drawn in and landed."
In plain English, this means that the restrictions placed on fishermen since 1923 not to work their seine or draft nets within 100 yards of each other will be abolished, if this Bill becomes law.
No doubt your Lordships know the process of seine or draft net fishing. The boat is rowed out from the bank with a net in the stern that is unfurled as the boat goes out. The boat makes a wide sweep into the estuary or river and returns to the bank it has come from, when the net is hauled in. No trouble had been experienced with these regulations until a short time ago, but in 1961 some prosecutions took place on the Torridge Estuary because boats, after having made their draft or sweep, were less than 100 yards apart. Up to 1961, the bailiffs had turned a blind eye to this. They had agreed that, so long as the nets were 100 yards apart when they were unfurled from the boat on starting, it did not matter if they were a few yards nearer, 80 yards maybe, to the next boat on landing. But apparently in 1961 there were some prosecutions for what happened on the Torridge Estuary.
If I may return to the section from which I have just quoted, while the magistrates convicted on prosecutions, they decided that because the boats were less than 100 yards apart they were liable under that section. It says in Section 6 of the Act:
"… or within one hundred yards from the nearest point in the line of shot of any other seine or draft net and worked in like manner and already shot or being worked in the waters."
So the magistrates took the view that, even if on landing you were under

611
100 yards to the nearest boat, you were liable. That was really unfair because you had the strength of the tide and the current, and sometimes there is a very strong tide or a squall, the boats are rowed, and you can often end up far closer than you really intend to the next fisherman.
In 1961 there was the Bledisloe Committee Report on Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries, and that Committee recommended that this regulation making fishermen shoot their nets 100 yards apart should be abolished. They agreed that in principle nets had to be controlled and limited, but they went on to say that the regulations about the use of nets were much less satisfactory. They said:
"They seem to us difficult to enforce, irritating to the fishermen and, in view of the other regulated powers we propose should be retained, unnecessary. We recommend that they be abolished as soon as river boards have had time to establish by-laws … such minimum restrictions to replace them as regulations suggest may be necessary".
So this Bill, by striking out the words from "or within" to the end of Section 6(1) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, implements the recommendation of the Bledisloe Committee. If this Bill is passed, it will make no difference to the fish, because you are not going to catch any more fish. No fisherman really likes having his net near to that of another fisherman because he does not want to get them tangled up.
The object of this Bill is to make the law more practical, and I understand that all the fishermen welcome it. If under an Act you break the law due to the action of the wind and tide, this brings the law into disrepute. I do not think I can add anything further, other than to say that it will be a great help to the fishing industry generally. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
7.46 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I am glad to be able to support this Bill. As my noble friend has explained, its
612
provisions are in accordance with the recommendations of the Bledisloe Committee which recently reviewed the salmon and freshwater fisheries law in England and Wales. One of the main principles embodied in the findings was that greater discretion should be given to river boards to prescribe the most suitable measures for fisheries conservation. This is because river boards, who are charged with administering the fisheries law, know the actual local needs and circumstances. The Committee also made a particular recommendation with regard to restrictions in the present Act such as that which is now being considered, which lay down how fishermen shall use their nets. They recommended that such restrictions should be abolished as soon as river boards have had time to establish by by-law such restrictions to replace them as local conditions suggest may be necessary.
My right honourable friend has not yet been able to announce decisions on the Bledisloe Committee recommendations as a whole, but he is in full agreement with this particular recommendation. The river boards have an excellent record of fisheries administration, and it seems right that they should he given the discretion in this case, particularly when it is remembered that the present statutory restriction was embodied in the Act of 1923, long be-before river boards were created. The Bill will accomplish one recommendation of the Committee. The Act will not come into force until April 1, 1965, and the river boards who have no bylaw in operation at present and rely on the statutory restriction in the Act of 1923 will have time to make new bylaws to replace the statutory restriction, if they wish to do so.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
7.49 p.m.
Bill read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 4 [Divorce for non-consummation or intolerable conduct]:
(2) In determining whether a defender has been guilty of intolerable conduct the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of

613
the case, and except in any case where it is satisfied that the conduct complained of arose from the insanity of the defender shall not grant decree of divorce unless it appears to the court that the conduct complained of was inexcusable.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "the conduct complained of was inexcusable", and to insert:
"there was no reasonable excuse for the conduct complained of."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is really no more than a drafting Amendment, and I apologise for inflicting it upon your Lordships on Third Reading. However, it may be within the recollection of the House that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was concerned when the House was in Committee on this Bill with the juxtaposition of the word "intolerable" in the description of the intolerable conduct about which Clause 4(1)(b) is concerned, and the word "inexcusable" at the end of subsection (2) of that clause. He thought it was a pity to use the word "intolerable", which was defined with some care, and then finish up with the rather similar word "inexcusable" which was in no way defined. My noble and learned friend Lord Reid gave the House a fair indication of how he thought the courts would interpret this sort of wording when it came before them, and I did my best to explain to the House the sort of concept I had in mind in wording the clause in the way I had.
On the other hand, I see the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made, and I have thought of all the possible ways of which I was capable of thinking to put it right. I do not believe it is either necessary, desirable or possible to define the concept that is behind the word "inexcusable" in the Bill as it now stands, but I should like, if I can, to simplify the phraseology and to use a more ordinary form of words than this rather unusual epithet. I do not think there is any difference in the sense of the clause or the way in which it will be interpreted or used by the courts; but, nevertheless, I think it is right that this Amendment should be made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
614
Page 2, line 29, leave out from ("that") to end of line 30, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD'S REPORT
7.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they intend to take on the British Waterways Board's Report. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I feel quite sure that your Lordships do not want me to take very long on this Question, and I will not. But I must say a few things on this extremely complicated matter, and may I first of all start by giving a welcome to this Interim Report of the British Waterways Board? It is a good Report. Indeed, it might be said that it is the best thing that has happened to the waterways for 100 years. That is partly because it is a good Report, and also partly because so few good things have happened to the waterways in the last 100 years. In another way, the Report is a heavy blow, but this does not mean that we are particularly sorry about it. A man who had been in prison for 100 years would be very happy to suffer a heavy blow if it got him out of prison, and that is the position here.
The blow that it strikes is that it places upon the many waterways lovers, who so long fought for the preservation of these waterways, the necessity, apparently, of going on fighting and digging into their pockets in the future for the preservation of a great many more waterways. The waterways lovers of this country, out of their own pockets, have already raised over £200,000, and that is not counting any money from elsewhere. They are already committed to finding another £700,000 on various waterways repairs schemes that they have in hand or in mind. If they have now, furthermore, to try to support such major waterways as the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, and several others which are named in this Report, they are going to have a great deal to do.
Luckily, however, it does not appear as if the threat is immediate. In fact, on looking at the matter a second time

615
I do not believe the threat will ever arise, because a great many things will have to be done before the closure of any further waterways is dealt with. There is, to begin with, the question of this engineering report. I am not sure myself how far an engineering report is necessary, but undoubtedly it would be of value if we knew more about the state of many of these waterways.
There is another matter about which I wish to speak more particularly later, and that is the question of fresh legislation. There will have to be fresh legislation before the waterways can be put properly on their feet. The Board hints at the matter more or less throughout this Report and, indeed, it shows up very clearly. So as not to take up too much time, I should like quickly to run through this Report, particularly with reference to the excellent maps in it, which show the various areas where are mainly concentrated the various purposes about which the Report speaks. It is, I find, far easier to do it with these maps than simply to refer to the text.
On commercial transport, there is a very good map but, unfortunately, it does not point out that all the heavy cargo carriage is in fact on the broad waterways. The map shows very clearly, of course, that there is little cargo at all on the narrow waterways. This is entirely due to the present state of narrow boat traffic. I must confess that a year or two ago I myself thought that narrow boat traffic was coming to an end. I have changed my mind. It is clear that, on the new licensing system, narrow boat traffic may well revive and, indeed, attain a considerable volume.
At this late hour, I will not prove to your Lordships' House that narrow boat-carrying pays. This is not the time to do it, but I promise here and now that I will raise this subject again at some other time, and with figures which will show that narrow boat-carrying is a profitable method for all concerned—for those whose cargo is carried and for those who carry the cargo—and that when it increases in volume it will make a considerable difference to the waterways. Those of your Lordships who have seen this map will have seen that, should narrow boat-carrying revive, the
616
entire central area of these waterways, which now carries very little, will become completely altered in its purposes from those envisaged by this Report. Of course, we can only say that we must wait and see, and that must be the verdict on that. But if narrow boat-carrying revives, then the whole position on that map will be completely altered.
Now we come to water supply. If there is one thing which really can be carried with great efficiency by a waterway it is water, and the revenue from water supply from these waterways is going up steadily and can be raised to considerably greater heights. It is, however, thoroughly entangled in the business of fresh legislation. Since this is a major source of revenue for the waterways, the business of fresh legislation is of the utmost importance. The noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, who has been raising this matter in Questions in this House, is exactly on the point. It is most important that every consultation which the Waterways Board can have with various new water authorities should take place at the earliest possible moment. This water supply map is a confusing one, because, although it purports to give both where the water originates and where it is used, it fails to mark a single one of the 98 reservoirs which the British Waterways Board possess, and in many cases these reservoirs feed a considerable length of waterway.
A paper was contributed to the Institute of Civil Engineers by Mr. C. M. Marsh, who was, until his retirement last week, the Divisional Manager of the North West Division of the British Waterways. This paper was published on Tuesday, October 30, 1962, and in it Mr. Marsh gives a series of maps which show that the greater part of the canal system is supplied from more than one reservoir, and in different places, and that, in fact, the abstraction of water from almost any point on quite a large part of the central area of the waterways can be made good from any one of a number of reservoirs scattered over a considerable area. This means, in fact, that instead of the water supply map showing the sections of waterway which are valuable for water supply, the whole central area which is covered by this network of reservoirs ought to be

617
similarly marked as useful for water supply.
The only other thing one can say about this map is that it shows as not much use for water supply a large part of the Grand Union Canal which passes fairly close to the Bedford Sands, an area where water in the future may well be stored in very large quantities underground. Also, that part of the Canal is connected, again, to the great reservoir system I have already mentioned, and when agricultural irrigation really gets into its stride in this South-Eastern area where it is most valuable, an enormous amount of water is going to have to he fed into the area. The best possible way to do this is to feed it down the Grand Union Canal and store it in the Bedford Sands. This, of course, is all for the future.
Among the other purposes of these waterways which I must mention is pleasure cruising. The map shows that the greater part of the waterways is used for pleasure cruising. It may rather surprise the uninitiated to see that some canals are not for pleasure cruising. The fact is that the ones which are marked "not for pleasure cruising" are those which are closed for navigation. The reason, therefore, for their not being used is that they are not usable.
One thing I am very glad to see is that a number of waterways have reappeared upon the map. The Transport Commission, when dealing with waterways, had a very nasty habit. When a waterway was about to be closed, the first thing one knew of it was that it became, in Orwellian terms, an "un-fact" on the map—it vanished. The first one would know about the future closure of a waterway was that one would see a map of the waterways no longer showing such and such a canal, or such and such a branch. Now, under the new Waterways Board, I am glad to see that these "un-facts" are being "refacted" again, if that is the word. They are all reappearing—and we can only raise a cheer, in particular that the Stratford Canal has appeared on the British cruising map. Quite on what basis this has happened I do not know, because no pleasure craft has yet gone down it.
Here, again, this map is a little misleading, because it shows the pleasure
618
craft going more or less everywhere, but it does not show the difficulties that pleasure craft are going to face in the future. Wherever they cruise on the centre of the area they cause no great trouble to anybody at the moment, because there is not very much commercial traffic. But wherever they enter this system it is, as one sees on comparing the British cruising map and the main cargo map, through an entry where there is considerable commercial traffic. If these pleasure craft are going to increase in numbers very much they are going to create a considerable number of bottlenecks. It is already the case in places like Brentford that, owing to the short hours of lockage now prevailing, the pleasure craft are getting pushed into the working hours of the working boats and are causing certain difficulties. If the numbers of these pleasure craft increase very much—and we know they are going to because that is the experience of America, where things generally seem to happen a little earlier than they do here—then the pleasure craft coming into the system are going to make considerable trouble for the commercial craft. The only rational method of dealing with this would be to have much longer lockage hours at some of the entry points, so that the pleasure craft can be kept "out of the hair" of the unfortunate cargo carriers.
It may be said that this would cost more money, but I think it should be possible to limit the sum. We certainly do not want to inflict more financial losses on the British Waterways Board. There are methods of limiting this expense. The easiest way would be to do what is done all over the up-country parts of the waterways already: that is, to let the pleasure craft users work their own locks, and simply have, if necessary, somebody on duty to supervise the matter and make sure that nothing too terrible is done. In general, pleasure craft operators are trusted to work the locks over the whole of the rest of the country and nothing too terrible comes of it, and I do not see why the same course should not be pursued at the main entry points where these craft are so liable to cause trouble to the commercial carriers.
There is one other point to mention in regard to pleasure cruising: the matter

619
of moorings. I do not very much like the word "marinas" myself, but it is now in common use; there is no other word for it, so we had better use it. The mooring of these pleasure craft in marinas is a very profitable business for the marina owner. A pleasure craft on the inland waterways spends between £2 and £5 per annum on moorings for every £1 that it spends on licensing. Therefore, the provision of these marinas, which really are just somewhere to moor behind a locked gate, is a profitable undertaking for whoever does it and if it can be done by the British Waterways Board, that is all the better.
Furthermore, this is important because the shortage of moorings on the inland waterways is already starting to restrict the number of boats that can be put on them. It is a fact that marina owners opening new marinas on the inland waterways at the moment are finding that the people who apply for moorings are those who have not got boats. The shortage of moorings is such that they are booking the moorings before they are buying the boats, and if we let this situation continue we are going to slow up the entire development of pleasure cruising.
There is only one further map to which I should like to refer, and that is the map labelled "General recreation and amenity." I am afraid that I entirely fail to understand it. I think the man who made the map tried to mark those waterways which he considered the most beautiful; but in so doing he forgot quite a number of factors. First, almost all these waterways are of considerable amenity use, and, secondly, how do you measure amenity? Do you measure it purely on the beauty of the thing, or is there also beauty to a beholder?
If you mark merely the up-country canals, where an occasional pedestrian or hiker may walk along the towpath, this map may in many ways be accurate. But if you happen to pass along the waterways at the weekend, you will find far more users of canal for amenity—for fishing, strolling, picnicking—in the town areas. Opposite my own house in the middle of London there is invariably a long string of fishermen sitting far more close together than 100 yards
620
apart, though of course on the inland waterways we do not suffer from these regulations. If you count amenity by the number of people who enjoy the amenity of these waterways, then this map must be completely altered. All the area in and around London and the big towns must be included; in fact they should be included more heavily than the up-country areas where there are fewer people. Amenity, however, is a very large subject; the evening is getting on, and I must not go further into it, much as I should wish to.
I should like, however, before leaving the question to others, to make a few points on the needs that we shall have some day for future legislation, because the whole of the future policy of the Board is entangled in this. To begin with, we must free canals of the impossible tangle of, I believe, some 200 old Canal Acts, most of them over 100 years old and some over 200 years old. These give enormous rights to riparian owners and others to do all sorts of things, free of charge or toll, and it is time that these rights were abolished. I never like saying that anybody's rights should be abolished, but here I am on strong ground because I am myself the holder of some rights of the kind which I am advocating should be wiped out. I am a riparian owner on the Regent's Canal. I have, of course, the right to fish on my bit of the bank; I also have the right to carry cargoes of manure free of toll. In my case, this is not a particularly serious right, although it is true that I am alongside the Zoo and I am told that very good manure for roses is obtainable from elephants. I am also told that one has to be careful about tiger—however, that is not a serious comment.
Apart from these rights, I also own the right to keep a pleasure craft, free of toll, on the canal, not going through locks; and this right is worth, to me, about £20 or £30 a year. If the riparian owner rights in this matter are seriously used—and they are going to be seriously used in future—it will mean quite a loss to the British Waterways Board, and I cannot see why these rights should persist. I know that the Transport Act included a clause which would have abolished these rights and the Minister himself removed it. I quite understand

621
why it was removed: it was more sweeping than was intended, and would have done damage to certain particular cases which needed attention. But something should certainly be done to get rid of these ancient rights of riparian owners.
Also, before the Board can really get ahead it must sweep away a large number of antiquated contracts. There are a large number of contracts made in the early days of the canals, or in the days of the railway ownership of the canals, which nowadays are bad for the waterways and in many cases make no sense. There are several cases—some quoted in Mr. Marsh's paper, which I have already mentioned—of contracts which were made by the railway companies, when they owned canals, by which the canals supplied water for various factories, either free of charge or at a low charge, provided that the factory used the railway for the carriage of its goods. That, of course, made sense so long as the railway and canal were in the same ownership; but now that their ownership is divorced, and there are two separate bodies each with its own finances, the railway is getting the benefit and the poor old canal is having to supply water at less than its proper cost. This, I think, is a matter which should be put right. I do not know whether it would require legislation. It might be done by amicable agreement, hut something should be done about it.
There is another point. It is high time that something was done to give the canals a freer hand with riparian property. In the earlier days, the canals were very considerable property owners along their banks, and they used this property to provide wharves and industrial estates, where firms who wished to use the canal for transport could set up their businesses. In the course of the railway suppression of canals a great deal of this land was either sold off or leased off in such a manner that the businesses turned their backs on the canals. In fact, the position now is that large lengths of waterway (this is particularly true in the London area) are not approachable from the shore at all; the canal is running in a sterilised sheath and there is no conceivable method by which business can be brought back to it. Something must be done about that state of affairs,
622
if the waterways are ever to be used I again as they should be.
There is another point which must be dealt with—I refer to certain aspects of the recent Transport Act. The recent Transport Act, as we said at the time, created an enormous amount of uncertainty among the users of the waterways by making them completely insecure in their businesses. They never knew from one moment to another when the waterway might be closed and their whole business swept away, and the Act created uncertainty as to what compensation would be paid if such a disaster occurred. Throughout this Report the Chairman, Sir John Hawton, says, very gently, that uncertainty must be removed from the waterways. The waterways users must be given certainty of tenure. I feel sure Sir John is not hitting at the Minister. Sir John is an extremely pleasant and able man, and I have every confidence in him. But I feel sure that he has in his mind something in the nature of an amendment to the Transport Act which will remove the far too great powers at present in the hands of the British Waterways Board, and so give greater security of tenure to the waterway users.
There is another smaller point that came up—the business of dry docks. During the passage of the Waterways Act there were various Amendments moved from this side of the House to give the British Waterways Board a power to use its dry docks for other people. These powers were denied by the Minister at that time on the grounds that it would be competing with private enterprise. It may be that that was true at that time; but unfortunately the private enterprise docks have now closed, the British Waterways Board have disposed of their boats, and we have the position that the pleasure craft passenger carriers in the London area have got boats which they are compelled by law to dry dock once a year, but they have no dry docks, and the British Waterways Board, who could dry dock their boats, have dry docks, are forbidden to use them and have no boats. Something should be done about this.
I will not keep your Lordships endlessly on this subject; one could talk about it for the rest of the night. The

623
really important thing for these waterways is that they should rapidly get on to the making of fresh legislation. That could quite easily take place at the same time as an engineering report was produced. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that every kind of consultation which is needed for that fresh legislation to be formulated should start at once. If we can get on with that, then I believe that all the high hopes which are stated in the financial chapters of the Report are perfectly able to be achieved; in fact, I believe this to be an understatement.
8.23 p.m.
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with a great deal that the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, has just said, I cannot claim to speak with his authority on, or his knowledge of, this business. I am an amateur. I am a dry bob rather than a wet bob. But I feel most strongly that the Report is absolutely on the right lines. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, could not be with us this evening because what he says counts a great deal. I have great faith in him, and I am only too sorry that he has not been able to be present.
To my mind, the Report is a forthright, clear-sighted and well expressed document, and good to read. It comes after a long period of vexations and frustrations and of disappointments when we have had to watch, not entirely in silence, many of our canals slowly but surely deteriorating. However, the Report leaves no room for misunderstanding on this point when it says that
"The present policy of the moratorium in water policy will, as soon as possible, be succeeded by a planned adaptation of the future maintenance pattern of some more rationally foreseen and publicly desirable uses."
To me, the way the Report deals with each subject matter in turn makes it easier for the reader to grasp the essential difficulties and how the Board intend tackling them. For instance, the old method of classifying canals into three categories, as propounded by the Board of Survey, according to their financial viability, is abandoned in favour of an examination of individual waterways according to their respective and potential uses; and charts to illustrate this are given to make the meaning abundantly
624
clear. The Report favours making our waterways pay as a whole and not piecemeal, which is a most important departure from previous ideas—namely, that our canals should be multi-users
"as likely to be found the best and most realistic approach to economic administration."
Other methods have been found to be wasteful and inefficient, or uncertain, with consequent deterioration.
Quite naturally, the Report keeps constantly to the fore the question of the cost of upkeep and of administration as well as the possibility of increased receipts. It touches lightly on receipts from fishing rights which we have always known to be merely nominal. It is doubtful if they could be advantageously increased. In any case, anglers are rather picturesque subjects and are certainly not an expense. The argument of licences versus tolls is, to my mind, well made out. This has already been referred to. It is interesting to note that the toll system, which many of us thought was as dead as could be, has been revived; but for the narrow boats the licensing way is preferred.
The figures given of the cost of maintaining canals are most valuable. We learn that the cost of maintaining a canal may vary from £1,500 to £8,000 a mile, but that for pleasure craft it is £700 to £1,100 a mile, which is an important factor to which I am coming in a moment. These facts have a sharp bearing on some of our canals that may be singled out for conservation as adapted largely for amenity purposes. I am glad to see that the Board are seriously considering providing what they term "the track" while possibly leaving to private enterprise the task of hiring out their craft. Your Lordships will know that there has been in the past considerable criticism of the atitude of the previous administration to the policy of running their own boats; and in this connection I notice that the Board intend to run down their own fleet of narrow boats in the South-East and North-West of their system.
There is a good deal of useful information on the sale of water; but it is not surprising that the Board, as the noble Viscount has already mentioned, find themselves having to give away quite a lot of water free. The amenity value of our canals is rightly stressed. There

625
must be few people with any experience of our waterways who would not admit what a valuable national asset they still are, taken as a whole. If in the early days of canals, as Daniel Defoe points out in his Tour of Englund, they were a boon, if not a necessity, to timber merchants and ship builders, so to-day they can provide an easily accessible and valuable outlet to holiday makers, crowded out of their usual holiday resorts with the increase in leisure in paid holidays and with the more equitable distribution of wealth and therefore a greater spending capacity.
What could be more atractive than a quiet week or fortnight on one of our canals? After the fatigue and dangers of motoring any distance on any of our main roads, the canal would prove to be a positive rest cure. Speed and time would no longer dominate our thoughts. From its banks you would get a view of the surrounding landscape from an entirely novel angle. In addition, you have its lovely hump-back bridges—the terror of motorists and the bane of road authorities. You will find lovely aqueducts, such as Rennie built on the Kennet and Avon. Canal, to which I see the Report refers at some length. It says, in fact, that the restoration of this waterway would clearly produce a major improvement of the entire system, and that the possibility of designating the entire towpath as a long-distance recreational footpath is under consideration.
Quite excusably, some of the difficulties of restoring the Kennet and Avon Canal are mentioned. But may I say, without bias—as I have an interest in this, as your Lordships possibly know—that these difficulties must not be exaggerated. Only a few years ago barges were plying from Bristol to Reading; but neglect and deterioration did its work, and did it quickly. Only a careful engineering survey, as has been suggested, will disclose the extent of that damage and what it may be necessary to spend to get the two bad parts into proper order. The rest of the canal simply requires normal maintenance.
The Board have referred to the existence and promise of voluntary labour and to the extraordinary enthusiasm generally shown. I can assure the Board that they will get every possible help from our Trust members. The Devizes flight of locks must have
626
been one of the major engineering achievements of its time and merits rehabilitation and scheduling as an historic monument; as well as the unique Claverton Ram just west of the Dundas Aqueduct. I should like to emphasise that this is a broad canal, which puts it in a different category from the narrow ones. While talking of the Devizes flight, I understand that there is a new invention which practically does away with long sets of locks like that by having an ascending and descending container for barges in a sort of endless chain. I was told before coming here to-day that this is undergoing experiment, and I hope shortly to get particulars. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply knows something about it. I think it might be the answer.
One cannot ignore the Board's lament that they should have to start their proceedings saddled with an enormous inherited debt of over £19 million on which they are expected to pay interest. As they say themselves
"It constitutes a grievous burden, hardly a stimulus to sound financial management."
Those of us who have watched the deterioration going on, knowing well that this meant incurring increased liabilities for the future, fully sympathise with this point of view.
Before sitting down, I wish to remind your Lordships of what we owe to the Inland Waterways Association, which body has borne the brunt of the fight to ensure the survival of our inland waterways, particularly the canals. We owe them an immense debt. I consider that the Report is the first instalment. This Report is like a whiff of clean air. It is a positive statement, full of hope and a stern desire to leave behind, we hope for ever, the negative attitude which we have had to put up with in the past. Difficulties come to be overcome: and that, I feel, sums up the outlook of the Board's excellent Report.
8.33 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I was, of course, very pleased to hear from the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, and the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, that, if I may borrow the phrase, "this is a whiff of clean air". It is welcome to hear this, even if in certain respects there may be a qualification. I too, think that it is a very good job.

627
Incidentally, the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle—and I, too, am sorry he cannot be here to give his views to the House—has taken the bull by the horns; and I am glad to inform your Lordships that he has given me a copy of his speech, which I have undertaken to look at in the Department and a copy of which I shall send to the British Waterways Board. So, despite his physical absence, his views will join the matters the British Waterways Board will no doubt be looking at, because I am perfectly certain they will be looking carefully at what is said in your Lordships' House this evening.
I would perhaps fall out a little with the noble Viscount only over the business of "re-fact and un-fact". I can only say that it is as well the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was not in the House at the time. The Board is in existence with the sole task given to them by the Act of running waterways and seeing what they can do about the whole thing. The fact that they have been doing it for a little over a year is creditable, and they have done three important things. First of all, they have made a most remarkable improvement in the financial position of the whole undertaking. They estimate that, after allowing for the waterways share of the central charges of the British Transport Commission, the 1962 deficit was not far short of £2 million. But, after their first short year of office, they have indicated in paragraph 178 of the Report that the results for 1963 should be at least £300,000 better than in 1962; and, in fact, I am given to understand that when the fully made-up accounts for 1963 are available they will very likely show an even greater improvement. I would, of course, echo the noble Viscount's hope that further avoidable burdens will not be imposed on them in any way.
The second thing is that they are making important changes in the management structure which they inherited. These changes are phased over a two-year period, and began to take effect at the beginning of this month, and they are being carried out in close consultation with the staff. The Board estimate that the changes ought to result in a further saving of about £150,000 a year. So your Lordships will see that the Board are already getting on with their job
628
of management and that this is producing in the early stages welcome financial results. Third, the Board have begun the review of their entire system required by the Act. They are doing this not only from the point of view of commercial transport, but also in the light of all the varied purposes which the inland waterways could or might be made to serve. The Interim Report of the Board, on which the whole question turns, is the first step in that review and sets out really no more than the Board's preliminary ideas. T must stress that the Report is interim.
The Board propose to go on to test their preliminary views in three ways. They first propose td test them by systematic financial investigation, not only of the course that seems at first sight to offer the best solution, but of the other courses open to them as well. Second, they are going to institute the special comprehensive engineering survey to which the noble Viscount referred. It seems to me a very necessary step for them to take, in order to make a proper and thorough job of the financial investigation. For me, it takes on a little more importance than I thought was attached to it by the noble Viscount. The third point—and this is happening now—is that they will seek and welcome the advice and co-operation of all other bodies and individuals interested in the future of the waterways.
The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, mentioned the question of the Kennet and Avon canal. As he pointed out, the Board propose to start discussions with the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust, and with other people who are potential helpers and who are interested in what might be a practical and reasonable scheme. Therefore, I think the noble Lord will forgive me if I say no more about it to-night than that I think we ought to await the outcome of the discussions.
LORD METHUEN: That I can understand, my Lords. I only wanted to mention that we are itching to get on with it.
LORD CHESHAM: That, I had thought, was the idea, and I am coming back to that point in a moment. I am sure, in fact, that the Board will take into account what the noble Lord himself has said this evening.

629
My Lords, quite frankly, despite what the noble Viscount said, it is only when these three jobs have been completed that it will be possible for the real specific conclusions to be reached on future policy. The Board themselves emphasise this almost throughout the Report, and specifically at page 50, in paragraph 1 of the summary, where they use the words:
"We are not seeking specific approval to detailed proposals. We want to explain broadly what we have done, and what we think, so far."
This Report, as the noble Lord has been good enough to say to-night, has been well received here. It has been well received in another place, by the Press and by the public generally—and, I think, deservedly well received. It has been produced in a remarkably short time, and it is a most interesting and readable document. I think it is an achievement of which the Board can justly be proud, and I am sure your Lordships will wish to join me in congratulating them on it.
Now, my Lords, to the bone of the noble Viscount's Question: what action Her Majesty's Government intend to take on the Report. I think I have said enough to make it clear that, at the moment, the next steps are for the Board themselves; and I think the Chairman's covering letter to the Minister, which was published as a preface to the Report, makes it clear that they are aware of the urgency of the matter. They are already getting on with the next stage of the review, and have recently announced a number of special appointments designed to facilitate further studies which they want to do. I think
630
the only action for Her Majesty's Government at this stage was, therefore, to agree the general lines of the next phase of the review; and this, my Lords, the Government have done without delay. When the further studies and consultations have been completed, it will be necessary for the Government and the Board to discuss things, and to reach conclusions on long-term policy and on the need for legislation to facilitate that policy. The noble Viscount told us that in his view legislation will be needed; and for all I know now, it may. But after completion of further studies and consultations will be the time to discuss exactly what. Meanwhile, as I say, the action of the Government must be, and indeed already has been, to say to the Board "Well started—go on".

HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment.
SAINT JOHN'S CHURCH, SMITH SQUARE BILL [H.L.]
CHESHIRE BRINE PUMPING (COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE) BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at a quarter before nine o'clock.