Sitting of 5 May 1964

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ELIM CHURCH MOOR LANE BOLTON BURIAL GROUND BILL
  Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.
  SAINT JOHN'S CHURCH, SMITH SQUARE BILL [Lords]
    BARRY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
  BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL
    SAINT GEORGE HANOVER SQUARE BURIAL GROUND BILL
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  MACDUFF HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  LAND REGISTRATION
  Mr. Abseasked the Attorney-General how many counties and how many county boroughs have requested that the compulsory registration of land should be extended to their areas; when it is anticipated that their requests will be granted; what steps are being taken to train adequate staff to man the needs of the Land Registry; whether he will initiate a training programme of suitable clerks and map makers for the Land Registry; and whether he is aware that if the Land Registry system were extended solicitors would be able to reduce conveyancing fees.
  The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): Six counties and 12 county boroughs have requested that the system of compulsory registration of title on the sale of land should be applied to their areas. The system will be applied to those areas as soon as the necessary additional staff can be recruited and trained and the accommodation provided for them and I cannot give firm dates today.
  The recent rapid increase in the volume of conveyancing work throughout the country has thrown a very heavy load on the Land Registry, where the staff is already being expanded at the rate of some 10 per cent. per annum. The recruiting problems are, however, serious. The training of recruits is at present undertaken on the job, but a further review of training methods and other procedures and of the recruiting arrangements is now under urgent consideration.
  I am, of course, aware that transactions in registered land are cheaper than transactions in land which has not been registered and it is the Government's policy to extend the compulsory registration system as rapidly as practicable, having regard to the staff and accommodation problems involved.
  Mr. Abse: Is it not a fact that many of the 18 areas have been waiting for years? Is it not most unfortunate that the most that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can say in giving this nebulous reply is that the extension and training are under urgent consideration? What does that mean? Does it mean that after all these years of growing house purchase lawyers have to endure a system which compels people to pay more than they need? Is it not time that this Government started thinking about house purchasers?
  The Attorney-General: This is the responsibility, of course, of my noble Friend and the Treasury. As I have told the House, there is a planned expansion of 10 per cent., but the amount of actual conveyancing has increased very substantially. The fact still remains that voluntary procedure by registered title is available for the whole country. The only question that we are discussing here is the extent to which it should be expanded compulsorily to all areas

  1087
  of the country, because any owner of property can make the title to that property a registered title even though it is not in a compulsory area.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is now 40 years all but one year since the system of what was then called the new conveyancing was enacted by Parliament, and that although a registration system was not then made compulsory it was regarded as being experimental with the idea that gradually it could cover the whole country, making a simpler and cheaper process and one more convenient for everybody? Is it not time, after 40 years' experience of the advantages of the registration system, that something should be done to make it applicable throughout the country as a whole?
  The Attorney-General: As I have said, the Government's policy is to press forward within the difficulties that exist of recruiting the technical staff and providing the accommodation. I certainly accede to the proposition that we should increase the number of areas which are subject to compulsory registration as rapidly as follows.

  LAND LAW (CONVEYANCING)
  Mr. Abseasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the existing state of land law is resulting in high conveyancing fees and that no major simplification of land law has taken place since 1925; and whether, in order to effect a reduction in conveyancing fees, he will appoint a suitably qualified committee to inquire into the changes needed in the land law to meet the needs of a house-owning society.
  The Attorney-General: The Law Society has recently appointed a working party to inquire into the practice and procedure of conveyancing, with the object of finding ways of reducing the amount of time spent on conveyancing and so reducing the cost to the public. In the light of the working party's findings, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will consider the question of appointing a committee to examine any aspects of the land law which then appear to need reconsideration.
  Mr. Abse: Why should it be left to solicitors to take the initiative in having a committee which can only consider simplification of procedure? Is it not abundantly clear that this legislature has the responsibility to simplify the law? After 40 years, is it not high time that we started considering how we can remove the incubus, for such it is, of feudal law which is on the back of every house purchaser? Does the Government really believe in house purchase or are they so concerned with old feudal law that they will not make any radical change?
  The Attorney-General: I do not accede to the propositions of the hon. Member. The law was radically reformed in 1925. The matter is not being left to the Law Society; it has volunteered to undertake, and is undertaking, the working party. I am sure that every member of the solicitors' profession, to which the hon. Member belongs, and its governing body are anxious that conveyancing costs should be reduced as expeditiously as possible, but there is an overriding public interest in having certainty of title. Nothing is worse than that people should buy litigation when they buy land.
  Miss Bacon: If, as the Attorney-General has said, there is a working party, after which a committee might be appointed and we then have to await the committee's report, how long will it be before people wanting to buy houses get a reduction in conveyancing fees?
  The Attorney-General: I cannot forecast how long that will be, but there are other steps which can be taken and which are being considered as to the way in which it is possible to arrange for the conveyancing fees to be spread over purchasers and made easier for them.

  COUNTY COURTS (NON-SUITS)
  Mr. Liptonasked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to abolish the power of non-suit in county courts.
  Sir B. Jannerasked the Attorney-General whether he will make a statement on the right of plaintiffs in county court actions at their request to have their cases non-suited at any time before judgment even after the full evidence on both sides has been heard; and whether he will

  1089
  introduce legislation to remove this right as has been done in respect of High Court actions, or to make the right subject to the discretion of the court which hears the case, in view of hardships which are caused to defendants, particularly when the plaintiffs have been legally represented throughout the hearing.
  The Attorney-General: In 1959, the County Court Rule Committee decided that the power of non-suit still served a useful purpose, particularly in cases where the plaintiff is acting in person. Any hardship to defendants can be adequately compensated by the award of costs, as happened in the recent case in which the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) was engaged. The Government agree with the views of the Rule Committee and do not consider that legislation is desirable.
  Mr. Lipton: Is the Attorney-General aware that the non-suit procedure operates, apparently, only to the advantage of shady property companies who evade exposure by sliding out of litigation, sometimes at the last minute, and after being represented by counsel in an attempt to exploit poor defendants? Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, whereas this power might be applicable or useful in the case of a plaintiff who is not legally represented, in most cases nowadays the non-suit is operated in the way to which I have referred?
  The Attorney-General: I know of only one case in which that has happened. While the non-suit is very rare indeed in litigation, it is exceedingly useful and it is maintained for circumstances in which the plaintiff appears in person and is not represented and is not aware of either the procedure or the evidence that he ought to have brought. It is, therefore, fair to him that he should have an opportunity of putting his case properly if he wishes to bring it again. I agree that if there were any widespread misuse of the power to ask for a non-suit, different considerations would arise.

  PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALLERS
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Attorney-General what consultations the Director of Public Prosecutions has had with police forces regarding allegations of bribery in professional football; whether
  1090
  inquiries into this matter with a view to instituting criminal proceedings have been completed; and if he will make a statement.
  The Attorney-General:The Director of Public Prosecutions has been consulted by the police about these allegations. It is not the practice to disclose particulars of such consultations. Police inquiries are still in progress and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Attorney-General bear in mind that we are a little handicapped at present and that, if I understand the position correctly, when the present Bill becomes an Act of Parliament we shall have the right in Parliament to put questions directly regarding the retorts of chief constables? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that these incidents have cast a black cloud of suspicion over the whole sport and that with the World Cup to be played here in 1966 people generally would prefer it if the Attorney-General would take resolute action by consulting the Home Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions so that the whole business can be dealt with?
  The Attorney-General: I am, of course, aware of the grave public anxiety with regard to the sport of football against which these allegations have been made. I assure the hon. Member that I am in touch with the Director of Public Prosecutions and am anxious about this matter and will see that the Director's consultations are completed as soon as they rapidly can be.
  Mr. Mason: Is the Attorney-General aware that this bribery and corruption in football could have been unearthed and cleared up twelve months ago but that this was not possible because of a rapidly and dangerously growing practice of what is called cheque-book journalism, which discourages key witnesses from both giving evidence and assisting the law and, at the same time, encourages them to withhold the evidence so that they can give it to the highest bidder from the Press world? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this is a dangerously growing practice, that he ought to deplore it and that he should take steps to curb this practice from developing further?
  The Attorney-General: This matter raises big issues about the administration of criminal law. It is right that those who may be involved in criminal offences cannot be forced to make statements. Whether statements are bought from them which they are not prepared to make for the purpose of convicting themselves is a different question which raises big issues.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    University Grants Committee (Accounting Responsibility)
    Mr. Albuasked the Secretary to the Treasury why the Department of Education and Science has not assumed accounting responsibility for the University Grants Committee.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter): It has, with effect from 1st April, 1964.

    House Mortgages (Interest Rates)
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the Public Work Loan Board interest rates at the end of 1950 and 1960 for house mortgages borrowed on 10 and 20 year agreements; and what were the monthly repayments for a £2,500 loan in each instance.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): As the reply consists of a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Spriggs: I wonder whether the Minister would care to accept an invitation to visit the large number of people in my constituency who would like to buy a house for themselves and their families but who cannot afford to do so because they are in the £8–£10 a week wage group. Will the hon. Gentleman do something about helping these low wage earners? Will he accept my invitation to meet these people to discuss their conditions?
    Mr. Macmillan: The Question on the Order Paper related to interest rates for loans from the Public Works Loan Board. The hon. Member is referring more to mortgage rates of building societies for private houses. That is a
    1092
    different question. If the hon. Member would like to put it on the Order Paper, I will answer it.
    Following are the figures:

    Date

    Loan repayment period

    10 years

    20 years

    31 st December, 1950:

    Public Works Loan Board rate of interest

    2½%

    3%

    Monthly repayments on loan of £2,500

    £23

    13s

    7d.

    £13

    18s.

    7d.

    31 st December, 1960:

    Public Works Loan Board rate of interest

    6¼%

    6¼%

    Monthly repayments on loan of £2,500

    £28

    6s.

    8d.

    £18

    7s.

    11d.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the cost of renationalising the steel industry at current share prices.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Answer must depend on the degree of confiscation contemplated in any such enterprise. On the assumption that the companies concerned were taken over on the same basis as was used in the nationalisation measures enacted in the 1945–50 Parliament, that is to say, Stock Exchange values as at an arbitrarily selected date or dates, it is material that the market value of the securities of steel companies formerly nationalised and now in private ownership and for which market quotations are available was about £490 million on 22nd April, 1964. These figures include £18 million of securities still held by the Iron & Steel Holding and Realisation Agency. In addition, at the latest available date these compaines had outstanding bank overdrafts and loans totalling approximately £143 million.
    Mr. Ridley: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether, if ever a Government nationalised and paid full compensation, he would not agree that it would be a colossal waste of the nation's

    1093
    capital and that the money spent in this way would be equivalent to five years of the school building programme?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is certainly one of the objections to that course, but, as my hon. Friend will certainly agree, there are many other objections.
    Mr. Houghton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply is simply a piece of political propaganda? Will he inform his hon. Friend something about the processes of nationalisation so that he will not ask such unsophisticated questions in future?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I gave the facts in reply to a Question on the Order Paper. If, as is often the case, the facts of the matter amount to political propaganda for the Government, that is not my fault.

    Germany (B.A.O.R. Costs)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement about his discussions on the difficulties which have arisen in connection with the promise made a few months ago by the Federal Republic of Germany to purchase arms from Great Britain to cover the cost of maintaining the British Army of the Rhine.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not clear what promise the hon. Member has in mind. The two-year agreement on this subject which ran up to the end of March, 1964, has been fully implemented, as I informed the House on 7th April. It related to the foreign exchange costs of maintaining British forces in Germany. As regards the future, during his visit to London in January, the Federal German Chancellor told my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, that the Federal Government would give urgent and sympathetic consideration to the question of new arrangements regarding the foreign exchange costs of maintaining British forces in Germany. We are in contact with the Federal authorities with a view to detailed discussions in the near future.
    Mr. Fernyhough: But does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time that we came to a firm arrangement about these costs to make it clear to the Federal Government that if they
    1094
    are reluctant to purchase British arms we shall not mind if they purchase British cars, British ships or textiles, to the equivalent value, since many of us think that that would be better for them, better for us, and better for the peace of the world?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Of course, it is with a view to coming to just such a firm arrangement that the discussions to which I referred in my main Answer are taking place. As regards the subject matter of the purchases, I think the main thing is that there should be a substantial volume of them, and that is probably more important, as the hon. Gentleman says, than their precise character.

    Royal Mint
    Mr. Greyasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he has reached a decision regarding the siting of additional premises for the Royal Mint; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Millanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sites he is considering for the rebuilding of the Royal Mint.
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors he is taking into account in considering the resiting of the Royal Mint.
    Mr. Willisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to make an announcement about the rebuilding of the Royal Mint.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will remove the Royal Mint to Scotland.
    Mr. Rossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for rebuilding the Royal Mint.
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about removing the Royal Mint from London.
    Mr. Pentlandasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that the North-East of England is given full consideration when considering the rebuilding of the Royal Mint.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Neither rebuilding nor extension of the Mint is an immediate prospect, and it would therefore be premature to select a site.
    Mr. Grey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland seems to have more information than he has, and has already indicated that there is a possible chance that the Royal Mint will go to Scotland? If there is to be a transfer, will the North-East——
    Mr. Ellis Smith: And Stoke-on-Trent.
    Mr. Grey: —be given a chance, and if it is, will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that there will be no funny business such as there was over the removal of the Post Office Savings Bank?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I certainly cannot, in reply to the last part of that supplementary question, but on the main part and point of it, when the time comes the claims of all parts of the country will be very carefully considered.
    Mr. Willis: But if the plans are not already made but it is known that the Mint will at some time be shifted, should they not be hastened up? Is not this precisely the kind of establishment which could well be shifted from London and put into an area which is badly needing employment? Would that not be better for the country as a whole?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is arguable, but the rôle of the Royal Mint is a very special one. When the time comes to rebuild we shall very carefully consider, first of all, whether it should leave London, and secondly, if it does, where it should go.
    Mr. W. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that we debated yesterday plans for twenty years ahead—up to 1981—and presumably the location of the new Mint, if we get one, would be included in those plans? Surely the right hon. Gentleman should be able to give the House some idea of when a decision will be taken, and if and when the Government come to a conclusion, will they not have regard to the unemployment situation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), because this is the only chance the unemployed in Scotland will have of seeing any money?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The location of the new Mint would, of course, only be in the plan discussed yesterday if it were decided to place it in the South-East.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that in 1707 when the Union of the Parliaments took place a promise was made—by a Tory Government—that coins would continue to be minted in Scotland? Would he, even at this rather late hour, take steps to redeem the promise of his former colleagues?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think a promissory note 250 years old may perhaps be thought to have lapsed, but as the hon. Gentleman is an historian he will recall with interest the fact that coins have been minted on Tower Hill continuously for a thousand years.
    Mr. Ross: Not only on Tower Hill but elsewhere. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that among the titles of the Master of the Mint is that of Governor of the Mint of Scotland and that this has been so since 1817 when the Edinburgh Mint was closed down and its offices transferred to London? If there has got to be a resiting of the Royal Mint, would it not be only a matter of historical accuracy, and of just continuity, and of justice to transfer the titles the other way, so that in future the Governor of the Scottish Mint is also the Master of the London Mint?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will still retain that ancient office, and when the time comes to make this decision I am sure he will give the hon. Gentleman's proposition due weight.
    Mr. Pentland: Will the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that when the time comes for this question to be discussed at Cabinet level—the question of the new site for the Royal Mint—political considerations will be put on one side?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is undoubtedly a fact that this will be considered, when the time comes, on the merits of the matter, and I understand from this Question Time that we shall not lack advice.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend, in his long-term plans, bear in mind that Ulster will be very glad to help him in this matter?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Ulster is never forgotten, and if we tried to forget it my hon. and learned Friend would prevent us.
    Mr. Rhodes: Is the Chief Secretary not aware that a lot taxpayers are not as much interested in where the new Mint is to be as to what happened to the old one at St. Luke's that the Bank of England sold to Oddenino's Trust, who within a month made a profit of nearly £750,000 by selling it back to the L.C.C.?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It hardly arises on this Question.

    Budget (Representations)
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many constituents of the hon. Member for St. Helens have written to him about the Budget; and what were his replies.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It would require a disproportionate amount of time and expense to assemble the information for which the hon. Member asks. Letters addressed direct to my right hon. Friend, and not through hon. Members, are not recorded on a constituency basis.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents feel that the Budget was most unjust, particularly to the poorer sections of the community, and that they draw his attention to the pensioners and the poorer wage groups, and they draw his attention to what is to happen in the autumn when the Government go to the country? Why is the right hon. Gentleman afraid to tell the House what my constituents think of the Government?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Gentleman, as far as I can see, did not himself, over the period, forward any such letters, I can only imagine that that supplementary question is based on intuition.

    Civil Service Pay Agreements
    Dr. Brayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he treats Civil Service pay agreements which are not contracts as morally binding on the Treasury, in view of the decision in the cases of Dudfield v. Ministry of Public Building and Works and Faithful v. the Admiralty.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In accordance with the principles enunciated in a National Whitley Council Agreement of 1921, the Government regard such agreements as morally binding, subject always to the discharge of their ultimate responsibility for determining what the public interest requires and to the overriding authority of Parliament.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Chief Secretary aware that the qualifications he has just put to his reply will strike the lower paid civil servants with a great deal of alarm? Is he aware that this particular case, in which the Attorney-General, appearing for Ministers of the Crown, pleaded that the Treasury was not to be trusted has totally undermined the joint negotiating procedure on wages?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think it would cause alarm to any official who is aware of what is the position and has been the position for over 40 years. If the hon. Gentleman will study the 1921 Whitley agreement to which I referred, he will see it was made clear, and it has always been made clear, that the Government can neither waive nor escape responsibility for the public well-being, nor, equally, can the Government effectively bind Parliament necessarily to vote money in any particular case.

    National Central Library
    Mrs. Castleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make the grant-in-aid of the National Central Library conditional upon the suspension of its interlending arrangements with any countries which enforce a policy of apartheid in their libraries.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that apartheid is strictly enforced in the majority of libraries in South Africa and in the organisation of librarians in that country? Is he also aware that the Library Association of this country has deeply deplored that policy? Is it not intolerable that public money should be used in any way to underwrite that policy? When are the Government going to take an unequivocal and firm stand against apartheid?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If one disapproves, as I think we all do, of the

    1099
    follies and errors of apartheid, almost the most foolish way of dealing with it would be to deny those concerned free access to books.

    Commonwealth Theatre Companies
    Mr. Godman Irvineasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the practice of the Inland Revenue with regard to the taxation of the cast of Commonwealth theatre companies playing in this country in celebration of the 400th anniversary of the birth of William Shakespeare.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The ordinary law will apply, but my hon. Friend may like to know that in the case of an employee of a non-resident employer there is no liability on the earnings in this country if the employee is neither resident nor domiciled here.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Stratford Festival Company of Canada has recently visited this country for 28 days at a cost of £35,000 and that the visit was made possible by a grant from the Canadian Government of £8,300, a grant from the Canadian Council of £8,300 and a grant from the Chichester Festival Theatre of £8,000, the balance to be carried by the Stratford Festival Foundation of Canada? Is he aware that the takings in this country did not exceed £500 whereas at home the company was taking £1,500, and also that all the salaries are paid in Canada? Is he satisfied that the best way of expressing appreciation for a generous gesture of this sort from a Commonwealth country to mark the 400th birthday of a great Englishman is to issue every member of the cast with a buff form from his Department?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If my hon. Friend will study the answer which I gave—while I cannot refer, in accordance with ancient and proper custom, to the affairs of any individual taxpayer—he may well derive some considerable comfort from it. With regard to the other matters to which my hon. Friend referred, I should like to take the opportunity of welcoming the very appropriate visit to this country of this very fine company.

    Dispersal from London of Government Work (Report)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will publish the Report on the Dispersal from London of Government Work by Sir Gilbert Flemming as a White Paper.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that to bury Government statements of policy in HANSARD is merely helping to create the misconceptions outside and inside which are resulting in jealousies which are solely his responsibility? Does he realise that London is the ceremonial, commercial and administrative capital of Great Britain? Does he also realise that if we are to bring about a fairer distribution of the wealth and industry of Britain between Land's End and John-o'-Groats, then a much wider and better publicised plan than he has at the moment in mind is necessary to achieve that end?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As it happens, I am answering another Question on this subject later this afternoon which the hon. Gentleman has allowed to go written. With respect, his supplementary question has very little to do with the Question on the Order Paper with which we are dealing. The reason why this Report cannot be published is that it is an ordinary confidential working document within the Government machine. Full statements of Government policy are made from time to time. I have made two or three in the last few months on a matter in which I know that the hon. Gentleman and the House as a whole take a very great and proper interest.
    Mr. Houghton: Would the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Report is made available, confidentially if necessary, to the staff interests most concerned? Is he aware that there is a good deal of peturbation among Government servants in London at the dispersal plans, and that it would be for good staff relations if they were brought into the confidence of the Government to the utmost extent?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I share very much the hon. Gentleman's views on that matter. It is our intention, and has been our practice, to have the closest

    1101
    consultation on changes which, though very much in the public interest, obviously arouse human and personal problems for the staff concerned. I will consider the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised, and it may well be that it has in some degree already been dealt with.
    Mr. Rankin: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is taking a rather unfair advantage of the fact that I had tabled a Written Question on another aspect of the problem? Will he not try to answer the point that I made with regard to the redistribution of wealth and industry more clearly than in the statement which he has already made?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman has sufficient experience of this House to be able to place on the Order Paper the Question that he wants. He asked a specific Question, whether I would publish a Report, and I gave him a very specific answer.

    London Opera Centre
    Mr. Pavittasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of the Arts Council grant allocated to the London Opera Centre to date; and what percentage of grant is used to provide teaching.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Arts Council has provided £24,000 for the Centre up to 31st March, 1964, and has allocated a further £31,500 in 1964–65. The sole purpose of the Centre is to provide teaching.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this is a completely disproportionate allocation of money as between the upkeep of a building and the teaching carried on there? Is he aware that there is at present confusion and chaos in the Centre, where the two principal directors, Joan Cross and Anne Wood, have been summarily dismissed? Will he use his influence so that more is spent on teaching, which will represent a policy which will give opera lovers the kind of school that they deserve?
    Mr. Macmillan: About half the Centre's grant goes on account of maintenance, about 27 per cent. on teaching salaries and the rest on
    1102
    administration, including the warden's salary. I deeply regret, as I am sure we all do, the personal difficulties it involves, but the Arts Council is the arbiter of where the moneys provided by the Treasury for it should go and the detail of how they should be spent.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of public anxiety about recent events involving the Centre? It appears that, following the expenditure of a considerable amount of public money, all that has happened is that we have lost an opera school which was functioning well, if on a small scale, and gained a white elephant of a building and not much else. While I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman should intervene directly, can he perhaps persuade the Arts Council to conduct an objective inquiry into the whole affair and so see whether we can rescue something from the wreckage?
    Mr. Macmillan: The building and maintenance costs are shared between the London Opera Centre and the Royal Opera, Covent Garden. As to future policy, the school has been going only two terms and there have been difficulties, and I think it would be wise to wait to allow the teething troubles to be overcome.
    Mr. Pavittasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the original cost of buying the Troxy Cinema for the Arts Council to house the London Opera Centre; and what is the amount spent to date in alterations, repairs and general upkeep of the building.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Troxy Cinema has not been bought, but is held on lease. About £120,000 has been spent on the building to date.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the extreme difficulty of hon. Members in trying to affect the policy of the Arts Council in that their only avenue is through his Department? In view of the concern which he has already expressed, will he look again at the whole arrangement whereby this white elephant was leased and the arrangements by which it will be retained with a view to having the opera school not linked to a national opera

    1103
    house but rather as one which will give service to opera over the whole country?
    Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question raises the difficulty of trying to get arts matters out of direct political control and handled as far as the artistic and technical side of an opera school are concerned through a council; and it makes differences of this sort a little harder to deal with. But the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Treasury is just as concerned as anyone else to ensure that public money is spent as wisely as possible.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that none of the political parties could have made such a mess of the operatic world as has been made by the Arts Council? Will he not accede to my hon. Friend's request and ask the Arts Council to set up a special committee of inquiry to go into the whole question of opera and opera schools and training in this country?
    Mr. Macmillan: I do not think I should under take to put any political or other pressure on the Arts Council in this direct way. Naturally, the Treasury is concerned that moneys provided by the taxpayer for the arts through the Arts Council should be spent as wisely as possible. As I have explained, I can assure the hon. Member that the Department is interesting itself in this and similar matters.
    Dame Irene Ward: While accepting the view that the arts should be taken out of the political arena, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that what we want is that it shall be under just administration? Is it just that people of integrity like Joan Cross and Anne Wood should be sacked by Sir David Webster for saying that the Arts Council or the Covent Garden Opera School had issued a false prospectus? Is my hon. Friend not interested in justice and in seeing that the taxpayer pays for just administration and not for "phony" administration by the Establishment?
    Mr. Macmillan: I am sure that my hon. Friend has a wide and deep personal experience of the sort of personal difficulties that arise in artistic matters and I do not think that it would be pro-
    1104
    per for me to comment on the personal aspect that she raises.
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Covent Garden Opera School; and, in view of the inaccuracy of the prospectus issued by the school, if he will diminish the grant to be made in future to the Royal Opera House.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The administration of the London Opera Centre is a matter for the Board of the Centre, in which the Arts Council has confidence. I see no reason to diminish the Exchequer grant to the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, which in any case does not provide the funds for the London Opera Centre.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is it not a fact that, although the Arts Council may have confidence in the Opera School and Sir David Webster, a great many people have no confidence in either? Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced that justice is the basis of the Conservative philosophy, will my hon. Friend explain now why two women of high integrity, both highly respected among musicians and lovers of music, should resign and then be sacked by Sir David Webster? Is my hon. Friend further aware that a great many people do not think that the Opera Company and the Arts Council are run by justice but by people who are not just?
    Mr. Macmillan: I see no reason to change the answers I have given so far. My hon. Friend knows that the present trouble arises from a clash of personalities between the two ladies to whom she referred and the administration of the new school. Although my hon. Friend may be willing to adjudicate on this issue, I am not prepared to make any statement now as to the rights and wrongs of the dispute.
    Mr. Channon: While dissociating myself from the suggestion that the subsidy to the Royal Opera House should be reduced, so that we are able to judge whether the large sums of public money spent on the school have been wisely spent, may I ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary how many pupils have been taught in these two terms?
    Mr. Macmillan: I cannot answer that without notice.

    Civil Service (Science)
    Dame Edith Pittasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to secure a better understanding of science among members of the Administrative Class of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad to say that the Royal Institution of Great Britain has been good enough to arrange a course of lectures and seminars in scientific subjects for members of the Administrative Class of the Civil Service. The first course will begin in the autumn, and will be in the main for younger members of the class. The aim will be, not to try to teach administrators to be scientists, but to improve their knowledge and understanding of scientific developments and of the scientific approach. The Royal Institution's tradition and long experience in the exposition of science, and its facilities for this purpose, are an assurance that this will be a most valuable development, and I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the Institution, and Lord Fleck and Sir Lawrence Bragg in particular, for their help over this.
    Dame Edith Pitt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information, which is very welcome. Will the opportunity apply to women members of the Civil Service?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Certainly.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend elaborate a little? How many people will attend this course? Will attendance be compulsory? How long will it last?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I said, the details are to be worked out with the Royal Institution during the summer. The aim is to concentrate this mainly on a section of the younger members of the Administrative Class.
    Dame Edith Pittasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether suitable members of the Scientific Civil Service are given an opportunity of transferring to the Administrative Class of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. Arrangements already exist whereby scientific staff in the Civil Service may be considered for transfer, if they wish,
    1106
    to the Administrative Class. A competition was held earlier this year, as a result of which thirteen members of the scientific officer class have been appointed, subject to trial, as principals in the Administrative Class.
    Dame Edith Pitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have very great respect for the Civil Service and approve of this integration? But is it intended further to conduct additional experimentation to continue the infiltration of the scientists into the Administrative Class?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The general policy is to secure that the Administrative Class has a substantial number of members with knowledge of science. We shall see how this experiment works. It if is successful, I hope that it will be repeated.
    Mr. Albu: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the marking of the examination papers for the Civil Service Administrative Class is not weighted against those who read science at university?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that is borne out by the results.

    Pensions
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for the introduction of a further Pensions Increase Act.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: None, Sir, at present.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware how very high winter coal prices hit people on small fixed incomes, particularly those who have nowhere to store coal bought at summer prices? Will he turn his great mind to the problem of what to do to help people to be able to provide warmth for themselves at these absolutely ridiculously high prices when the winter comes?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: These are very much matters which, in our continuing review of this problem, are borne in mind, but my hon. Friend, who is very familiar with this subject, will recall that as recently as early last year we brought into effect the fourth of the Pensions Increase Measures introduced

    1107
    by the present Government and that it was the largest and most expensive for the taxpayer of any such Measures, and that since then there has been a high measure of stability in the index of retail prices.
    Mr. Houghton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in November 1962 he promised the House that he would try to find a better way of adjusting public service pensions than periodical Pensions Increase Bills? Has he any statement to make about that?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I made a reply on that matter, I think in February, to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) to indicate that I had no proposals on that subject.
    Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 223 hon. Members on both sides of the House have signed their names to a Motion urging that something be done?
    During the debate on the Pensions (Increase) Bill hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed that never again should the old retired pensioners have to plead in this way, and that there should be a Measure which would compensate automatically in some way for the problems faced by the very old pensioners. In those circumstances, and with the spare time which the Government have before the General Election, cannot they bring in a Measure of that kind?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I told the House during the debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I have given close study to this matter, but I have not been able to find any system which is better than the present one, with all its imperfections. For example, the suggestion is often made that these pensions should be linked to the cost-of-living index, but that would in fact have resulted in much less advantage to the pensioners than the system applied in the 1962 Act.

  LAND TRANSPORT
  Ql. Dr. Brayasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the Minister of Transport, the Secretary of State for
  1108
  Industry, Trade and Regional Development, and the Secretary of State for Education and Science to undertake a joint study of the long-term technological possibilities and requirements of land transport.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): No, Sir. I do not believe that a study in such broad and general terms would produce useful results.
  Dr. Bray: Is the Prime Minister aware that a number of possibilities in new systems of land transport do not seem to have been considered in any recent Government report and no existing Department is properly equipped to evaluate as a whole? Does not he feel, therefore, that some joint study is required?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman has any particular proposals or suggestions in mind, I would like to hear them, or perhaps he would explain them to my right hon. Friend, when I would be in a position to consider them.
  Dr. Bray: Is the Prime Minister aware of the tracked hovercraft system and the monorail system which have been tried out in many other countries?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, we are aware of these proposals. They have been considered, but I do not think that a general inquiry would lead to more useful results.

  SOUTH AFRICA
  Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister whether he will bring before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference the report of the United Nations Special Committee on South Africa, with a view to agreeing a concerted policy regarding its recommendations.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) on the 30th April.
  Mrs. Castle: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall his speech at Southampton a few days ago when he warned that the greatest danger in the world today was that of racialism and hoped that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers'

  1109
  Conference would provide an opportunity to bridge the gulf between the old world and the new? If he meant what he said, will he not institute a British initiative at the Conference to have this valuable report on how to get rid of apartheid discussed at the Conference and thus use the Commonwealth for its correct purpose of striking a blow against racialism?
  The Prime Minister: Every Commonwealth country is aware of the report, which is in two parts. The first requests South Africa to convene a conference to consider how the Constitution could be run on non-racial lines. The second part proposes economic sanctions if South Africa does not obey this within a certain time. I have explained many times that Her Majesty's Government are against economic sanctions against South Africa or any other country.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: May I ask the Prime Minister about the fundamental basis of Government policy? Does he accept the finding of the Committee that apartheid is a violation of South Africa's Charter obligations as a member of the United Nations? Does he agree with the finding of the Committee that, unless the United Nations reacts against this challenge to its authority, the threat to peace and security in Africa and the world will be greatly increased?
  The Prime Minister: We have made it plain time and again on behalf of the Government and, I think, of everyone in this country that we are against apartheid, but we do not feel that this——
  Mrs. Slater: How much?
  The Prime Minister: I am answering the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) if the hon. Lady will wait. We do not feel that this constitutes a threat to the peace or a breach of the peace under Chapter VII of the Charter.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the Prime Minister read paragraph 20 of the report? It says:
  "The Special Committee is convinced that positive and dynamic action by the Security Council is essential to prevent a violent conflict in South Africa, which might have serious international consequences and which the
  1110
  United Nations is in duty bound to prevent by every means available to it under the Charter."
  The Prime Minister: We are studying the Report but, as I have said, we do not believe that Chapter VII, which provides for mandatory and coercive measures, applies. If the party opposite is in favour of economic sanctions against South Africa, it must say so clearly.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SPEECH)
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on Friday 24th April at Saffron Walden on foreign and economic affairs represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Wyatt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that speech the Foreign Secretary spoke of his determination to adjust our policies to changing needs? In that case, would the Prime Minister consider urgently calling a conference of America, Russia and ourselves to go into these reports that Middle Eastern Powers have nuclear weapons and, if they are found to be true, to decide what action should be taken? If those Powers are to have nuclear weapons, the whole world is in danger.
  The Prime Minister: There is a Question on that subject which I will answer on Thursday. I can say now that there is no evidence to support the suggestion made in certain newspapers yesterday.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: Is the Prime Minister a ware that the failure of the pre-war Conservative Government to apply oil sanctions against Mussolini when he was about to invade Abyssinia was one of the main causes of the Second World War?
  The Prime Minister: I have already said that if the hon. and learned Member and his hon. Friends wish to apply sanctions against South Africa, Cuba, or China, they should say so. That is not the Government position.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The Government of which he is a member and previous Governments have applied sanctions in the way of trade boycotts against many Communist countries. Does his answer mean that there is now no strategic ban against any goods to any Communist country?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. There is the COCOM list of strategic materials which we do not supply to any country which might be an aggressor against the N.A.T.O. alliance. Otherwise, we apply no kind of boycott.

  SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
  Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the 600th anniversary of the first recorded meeting of a representative Scottish Parliament will occur in 1967, whether he will consider appropriate ways of celebrating this occasion.
  The Prime Minister: I will consider discussing this suggestion with the Leader of the Opposition a little nearer 1967.
  Mr. Rankin: Is the Prime Minister aware that I welcome that. Answer, realising that by then my right hon. Friend will be in his place and he will be on this side of the House? Can he assure me that when that change takes place his views will not be altered? Can he also assure me that in this matter he will give Scotland the treatment which he has already said he proposes to give to England?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I can be relied on absolutely to give Scotland fair treatment in this matter On the hon. Gentleman's first question; the hon. Gentleman is easily pleased, but will be disappointed.
  Mr. Healey: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Leader of the Opposition in 1967, does he mean the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) or the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)?
  The Prime Minister: I could not say which right hon. Gentleman opposite will be chosen at that time.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (SPEECH)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Education and Science made on Wednesday 22nd April at Stirling on economic matters represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Hughes: Would the Prime Minister explain why the Secretary of State for Education and Science described the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) as the Mao of the Conservative Party? Is he not aware that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is not a Marxist Communist, but a Right-wing anarchist? If the Secretary of State does not realise that, is he not a complete political illiterate?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. About the only similarity which I can find between Mao Tse-tung and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is that both have published slim volumes of verse.

  LAOS, CAMBODIA AND VIETNAM
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister if he will propose to President Johnson, Mr. Khrushchev, Mr. Chou-en-Lai, General de Gaulle and the heads of other Governments represented at the 1954 Geneva Conference a re-call conference at summit level to discuss measures to achieve the pacification and neutralisation of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam under United Nations guarantee.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has already encountered great difficulties in his efforts to secure the agreement of all the Governments concerned to a conference on Cambodia, and I think a proposal to add Laos and Vietnam to the agenda would greatly increase the difficulties.
  Mr. Warbey: Does not the Prime Minister yet appreciate that there can be no permanent peace and stability in Laos and Cambodia until there is peace

  1113
  and stability in Vietnam? As President Ho Chi-Minh has recently reaffirmed his willingness to agree to a settlement of the Vietnamese question on the basis of the Geneva Agreements, including neutralisation and the progressive reunification of the country, what is now the obstacle to the holding of a peace conference in order to bring peace to that war-distressed country?
  The Prime Minister: I am only too anxious that there should be peace in South-East Asia. I took some part in securing the Laos agreement. The next thing to do is to try to meet the wish of Prince Sihanouk for a conference on Cambodia. There is little chance of such a conference on South Vietnam being effective so long as there is Communist infiltration from Hanoi.
  Mr. Warbey: Has not the Prime Minister taken note of the fact that President Ho Chi-Minh, whom he blames as being responsible for the situation, has reaffirmed his readiness to agree to a peace settlement in Vietnam, provided that it is on the basis of the Geneva Agreements which provided for the neutralisation of the whole area? What more does the right hon. Gentleman want?
  The Prime Minister: It is not on the basis of the Geneva Agreements for North Vietnam to be pouring infiltrators and subverters into the south of the country.
  Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even in the United States of America taxpayers and some progressive senators are now aware that a policy of neutralisation in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and the rest of the Indo-Chinese Peninsula would be progressive? Would he, therefore, use his powerful influence once again to endeavour to follow the lines of the Eden Conference at Geneva in 1954, for which the world was then truly grateful?
  The Prime Minister: The objective of both sides of the House is probably the same—the pacification of the area. However, I do not think that the method proposed by the hon. Gentleman is the right one now.

SOUTH ARABIAN FEDERATION (DEATHS OF BRITISH SOLDIERS)
The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a short statement.
Her Majesty's Government have been informed by the United States Government that their embassy in Taiz has said that there is no truth in reports that the heads of British soldiers were publicly exhibited in Taiz.
Mr. Healey: I think that the whole House will be deeply relieved to know that at least in one important particular the report which was published on Sunday has proved to be untrue, but does not the Prime Minister agree that it is most improper for the G.O.C. Middle East Land Forces to have given international currency to such a report on so scanty evidence, without first informing the Minister to whom he is responsible?
Is the Prime Minister aware that such a report has caused great distress to the families of those concerned, one of which first heard this appalling story on television without any prior notice from any official source? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is most undesirable at this time to inflame emotions on an issue which, above all, requires a cool appraisal? Can the Prime Minister tell us what steps he is taking to ensure that such an occurrence does not take place again?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that the G.O.C. shares the deep regret that so much unnecessary distress and anxiety should have been caused. I think that everybody feels the same way and I will take the necessary steps to see that such a situation does not recur.
Mr. Grimond: From the statement itself it is not apparent whether the Government actually accept or reject the United States information. If they reject it, are they taking any further steps to find out what happened? If they accept it, surely it is very odd that there is no formal expression of regret or explanation as to how this statement

1115
came to be made? May we take it that one will be made in due course?
The Prime Minister: It is not a question of rejecting or accepting. This is the information which we have been given and for which we asked the United States Government, who obtained it from their embassy. Further knowledge I do not have. I have given all the knowledge that I have today to the House.
I have already said that I will take steps to see that such a situation does not recur if it can possibly be avoided, and I express the deepest regret of the Government, and, I think, of the whole House, for the distress which has unnecessarily been caused. I think that everybody will feel that it is much better not to cause any further distress to the relatives.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Important and regrettable though this tragic matter is, is it not even more important at this grave time that this House should do a service to our British dead by ensuring that our troops, the Federal forces, and the people of Aden are fully supported in their fight against Yemeni Republican aggression and Egyptian imperialism?
The Prime Minister: I have made it clear on a number of occasions, and I do so again in response to my hon. Friend, that we must accept the obligation to stand by those to whom we have obligations, and this we will do in the Arabian Federation.
Mr. Wigg: Before the Prime Minister passes any strictures on the G.O.C., will he bear in mind his own responsibility in the matter? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this story was current throughout Fleet Street on Sunday? What steps did the Government take even to point a word of caution that there was some doubt about it, or to inform the Press that they were seeking to confirm the story? Is it not a fact that Government circles did all that they could to boost this story in the hope that it was true?
The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a most offensive suggestion. The moment we could possibly do so we sought to estab-
1116
lish the facts, and it is on facts that I prefer to give information to the House.
Mr. Loughlin: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that action should have been taken by the High Commissioner in Aden to inform Her Majesty's Government of the situation? Is not he also aware that an increasing number of British boys will be in danger if the present situation is allowed to go on? Will the right hon. Gentleman bring back Sir Kennedy Trevaskis and ask him to discuss the whole situation in Aden, which is not a war against the Yemeni, but is a bolstering up of the sultans against a tribal rebellion?
The Prime Minister: Sir Kennedy Trevaskis was back here and discussed the whole situation the week before last.
Mr. Healey: It seems that there are two issues at stake here. One is the propriety of the military commander in making a statement which was bound to have most inflammatory international consequences, without the authority of Her Majesty's Government. I take it from what the Prime Minister said that on this issue new instructions will be issued to military commanders which will give them better guidance.
The other is the wisdom of the commander himself in giving currency to such a statement on evidence, which seems, from statements in the Press, during the last day or so, to have been scanty in the extreme. Has the Prime Minister called for a report from the local commander as to the evidence on which he took this action and made this report?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Naturally, we are asking for an account and why this statement was made on the evidence available. I think that we must realise that in the shock and emotion of certain situations things may be said which may be bitterly regretted later. No one can quite guard against that, but we are trying to see that the situation does not recur.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can discuss this further without a Question before the House.

COMPANIES (POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS)
3.38 p.m.
Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to
move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that no funds of any company shall be contributed to the support of any political party or to the furtherance of any political objects unless the support of such party or the furtherance of these objects has been approved by a resolution passed at a meeting of the company, and to provide further that all shareholders shall be informed when such contributions are made.
My proposed Bill should commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is designed for the protection of shareholders. Its purpose is simply to ensure that their money shall not be contributed without their knowledge or consent either to a political party or to an organisation which carries on political propaganda.
Since one political party in the State refuses to publish its accounts or the names of its contributors, we cannot tell how widespread this practice may be. From time to time, however, examples come to light. Only last November, during the Sudbury and Woodbridge by-election, the Labour candidate received a letter from a correspondent who lives in Kenya. The letter said:
"I am a shareholder of Messrs. Fisons Ltd., who have headquarters at Felixstowe, Suffolk. For some time I have been trying to obtain from Messrs. Fisons details of contributions made by the company to the Conservative Party. After initially refusing me this information the company has now sent me details as follows: 'Amounts ranging from £50 to £250 have been donated to local Conservative Association offices in those constituencies in which the company or its subsidiaries operate factories or branch offices. Taking the group as a whole the total of all such donations last year amounted in aggregate to £2,320.'"
That was not denied by the former chairman of the company, who was interviewed by the Press. He said:
"One of the reasons"—
and the House will note that phrase——
"we made these subscriptions was because we thought that the nationalisation of our company was not in the interests of our customers the farmers, nor of those who work for us, nor of our shareholders."
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Foot: I see that that quotation arouses the enthusiasm of hon. Mem-
1118
bers opposite. I will go on to an even more remarkable case, concerning a company called Allied Ironfounders. Here I quote from a report in the Guardian of 15th April last, which stated:
"The company, Allied Ironfounders, of Brook Street, Mayfair, sent its last contribution (to the North Ealing Conservative Association) through the Conservative Central Board of Finance towards the end of the last financial year, probably during the last week in February. The sum was £150, and seems to have been an instalment of a larger sum, not yet disclosed, paid into the Central Board in October, shortly after the company had filed its latest return with the Board of Trade. This showed that the company's major shareholders included the Prudential…the Church Commissioners…and the Co-operative Insurance Society. Other shareholders included the National Bank, headed by Lord Pakenham, the Labour Peer, Baring Brothers, and the Minister of Agriculture. A spokesman for the Ministry said that the Minister's stake in the company (7,680 Ordinaries) was not Government money. It was being held in trust by the Minister for the colleges and universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham under authority granted by Parliament in 1925. The University of Nottingham had a smaller separate stake of its own and so had Brasenose College, Oxford, University College Hospital, London, the Central Finance Board of the Methodist Churches, and a limited company registered in Sweden. Asked for his comments yesterday the Conservative Agent for Ealing, North, said that it was a matter for the central board. The relevant official of the central board, Mr. G. G. Carlyle, said that it was a matter for the Conservative Central Office. The Central Office was not in a position to discuss the question further yesterday."
I appreciate that not every board behaves in this way. I am sure that we would all like to commend the example of Mr. Paul Chambers, the chairman of I.C.I. who, a few weeks ago, said:
"We do not make any contributions to any political party funds. We as a Board represent something like 500,000 shareholders and we do not know which way they vote."
It must be a great relief to the shareholders of I.C.I. to feel that, at any rate, their money is not being thrown down the drain.
My Bill would not be confined to contributions made direct to political parties; it would also be concerned with contributions to political campaigns. Only a few days ago a body called Aims of Industry published an article—it was really more in the nature of an opinion—by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), entitled, "The

1119
Legal Right of Directors to Defend the Assets and Trade of Companies".
In opening this article, the hon. and learned Member said:
"Many companies are worried about the renewed political threats to expand nationalisation and State control over industry.
But they are not sure what they can do about it. Are they within their rights in subscribing to campaigns for free enterprise and against nationalisation? Will such expenditure be allowable for tax? Some companies are hesitating to subscribe to bodies undertaking such work for industry because such payments have recently been subject to political attacks in the press and on television. It is becoming a common experience for the Boards of public companies to receive questionnaires from politically active shareholders, asking for disclosure of any contributions their company may be making to Aims of Industry and other organisations."
That makes it abundantly clear that there are many cases in which shareholders simply do not know—and are not allowed to know—whether their companies are contributing to political propaganda. The Bill would not prevent contributions of this sort. It would merely provide that they could not be made without a vote at the meeting of a company and without the knowledge of the shareholders. In other words, what I propose to do is to put companies under virtually the same obligation to their members as applies in the case of trade unions.
Hon. Members will recall that by the Act of 1913 a trade union may not apply its funds to political objects, as defined in the Act, unless three conditions are satisfied. The first is that the furtherance of the political objects in question must have been approved on a ballot by a majority of the members; the second is that the payments have to be made out of a separate fund; and the third is that any member may contract out from contributing to such a fund.
Those objectives set out in the Act are not all-embracing, but I have made very careful inquiries and I am assured that no payments to a political party or for any political object are made by any of our trade unions except out of a separate political fund established after a vote of the members. In other words, no trade union uses its general funds unknown to its members for a purpose for which those funds were not subscribed. What the Bill would pro-
1120
pose is that the same rule should apply to companies. If the Bill became law they would still be able to subscribe, if they wished, to political organisations. But they would no longer to able to do so behind the backs of their shareholders.
I imagine that the House will have no doubt about the purpose of the Motion. I say quite bluntly that it is intended as a challenge to the party opposite. Everyone knows that it is that part, and that party alone, which benefits from secret contributions of this kind. I do not know whether it is right, but I am told that hon. Members opposite intend to vote against the Motion today. So be it. Let them use their majority while they can. It is already well known that after the next General Election a Labour Government will amend the Companies Act to provide that contributions of this sort to political parties and political organisations shall be disclosed in companies' published accounts.
I want to put to hon. Members opposite a question which some of my hon. Friends and I intend to go on repeating, unless it is answered, between now and the next General Election. Will the party opposite disclose the names of the companies which have contributed to its funds since the last General Election, and the amounts that they have subscribed? Alternatively—if it feels that any breach of confidence might be involved in so doing—will it disclose the number of those companies, without the names, and the total amount of subscriptions?
I say that we intend to try to get an answer to that question before the next General Election. If the answer to both those questions is "No", then the electors will certainly draw their own conclusions.
Mr. Speaker: Sir John Foster.
Hon. Members: Stranger.
3.50 p.m.
Sir John Foster: The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) has proposed in his Motion that the contributions to political parties made by companies should be approved by the shareholders. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman realises what he is doing with

1121
regard to the registration of political parties. He has not faced the difficulty that by the introduction of legislation which has to define or incorporate political parties he is striking at the roots of the freedom of our democracy.
If a section of the Socialist Party seceded, would that be a political party? Does a political party have to have candidates in the field? How many members must it have? If we are to look into the constitution of a political party, we have either to register it or to incorporate it. What shall we do when certain persons constitute themselves into what they think is a political party? Must they come under the provisions of the Companies Act and resister as a political party? We should get a situation in which a political party, according to this proposed legislation, would have to be defined and picked up.
It is impossible to prevent contributions to a political party unless there is a system of registration or incorporation——
Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: Will the hon. and learned Member permit me to intervene?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Our practice does not allow an intervention under the Standing Order.
Sir J. Foster: I can understand the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) seeing the difficulty.
The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich and I belong to a very praiseworthy institution called "Justice". If he does not belong, I hope that he will join, but I believe that he is a member. That is not a political party. What he is requiring, by his proposed legislation, is that every time a company subscribes to organisations like "Justice", or the Fabian Bureau, or African Affairs the shareholders must know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not"] He would find that this would so affect the sinews of war of many of these organisations that they would be unable to work, because, according to his proposal, a company must notify its shareholders every time it makes a contribution to such organisations as the Federation of World Government.
We should find that any splinter group which set itself up could be stopped by
1122
the Government of the day, who would say, "We will not register you as a political party". If a section of the Socialist Party broke away, or if the Socialist Party found that its Left-wing members were trying lo constitute themselves as another party, should we find that the registrar of political parties would object? Suppose they refused to register or incorporate themselves. We should find that a company would be in difficulty in deciding whether it could subscribe or not.
I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich would subscribe to the view that any co-operative society which elects Communists is free, without Government interference, to subscribe to the Communist Party. I believe that this freedom is very valuable in this country, and that they should not be required to notify every member of the co-operative society. Also, the proposed legislation of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not catch partnerships.
Let us look at the principle behind this, which is that when a company has entrusted the direction of its affairs to the directors of the company, it is a matter for the company itself, apart from its shareholders, to decide what is best in the interests of the company. The chairman of Fisons said that he would make subscriptions in every direction which was best for the interests of the company. In my submission, that is the justification for the present freedom.
If we take the other view, and the legislation proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman is introduced, we should find that the Government would be interfering with the freedom of association of persons for political ends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] What hon. Members opposite want is regulation for regulation's sake. They want to make it a criminal offence for people to constitute themselves as a party without registration or incorporation. They want to make it a criminal offence for a company to subscribe to parties. They want to make it a criminal offence for any company not to notify its shareholders when it subscribes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—for example, to the C.N.D. They want to make it a criminal offence in every case where a political party constitutes itself without

1123
the leave of the Companies Act. There will be a registrar who says "No". The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich and one other hon. Member would not constitute a political party. But if there were several, they could become a political party.
I do not think that the hon. and learned Member realises how far-reaching is this proposal. This proposal has been debated by the House on several occasions, and it has been pointed out time and again that what we value in our democracy is freedom of association. The hon. and learned Member is trying to prevent freedom of
association for political purposes and objects.
I understand the reason for the interruptions from hon. Members opposite. They do not like to face the fact that a proposal to regulate parties and political objects is a grave attack on democracy. It is for these reasons that I urge the House to reject the Motion.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 220.

Division No. 89.]

AYES

[3.59 p.m.

Ainsley, William

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

Peart, Frederick

Albu, Austen

Holman, Percy

Pentland, Norman

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Holt, Arthur

Prentice, R. E.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hooson, H. E.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Houghton, Douglas

Probert, Arthur

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Beaney, Alan

Howie, W.

Rankin, John

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Hoy, James H.

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Bence, Cyril

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Rhodes, H.

Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Blackburn, F.

Hunter, A. E.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Blyton, William

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

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

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

Bowles, Frank

Kelley, Richard

Ross, William

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

King, Dr. Horace

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Lawson, George

Short, Edward

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Silkin, John

Cliffe, Michael

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Collick, Percy

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Skeffington, Arthur

Crossman, R. H. S.

Lipton, Marcus

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Loughlin, Charles

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Dalyell, Tam

Lubbock, Eric

Small, William

Darling, George

McBride, N.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

McCann, J.

Snow, Julian

Davies, Harold (Leek)

MacColl, James

Sorensen, R. W.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

MacDermot, Niall

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Deer, George

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Spriggs, Leslie

Delargy, Hugh

MacPherson, Malcolm

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

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

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Stones, William

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Manuel, Archie

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

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mapp, Charles

Swingler, Stephen

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Marsh, Richard

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Evans, Albert

Mason, Roy

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Fernyhough, E.

Mayhew, Christopher

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

Finch, Harold

Mellish, R. J.

Wade, Donald

Fitch, Alan

Mendelson, J. J.

Wainwright, Edwin

Fletcher, Eric

Mitchison, G. R.

Warbey, William

Foley, Maurice

Monslow, Walter

Weitzman, David

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Moody, A. S.

White, Mrs. Eirene

Galpern, Sir Myer

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Wigg, George

Ginsburg, David

Moyle, Arthur

Willey, Frederick

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mulley, Frederick

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Greenwood, Anthony

Neal, Harold

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

Grey, Charles

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

Winterbottom, R. E.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

O'Malley, B. K.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Oram, A. E.

Woof, Robert

Gunter, Ray

Owen, Will

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Paget, R. T.

Harper, Joseph

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hayman, F. H.

Pargiter, G. A.

Mr. Dingle Foot and Mrs. Castle.

Healey, Denis

Pavitt, Laurence

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Goodhew, Victor

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

Gower, Raymond

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Arbuthnot, Sir John

Grant-Ferris, R.

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Green, Alan

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Atkins, Humphrey

Grosvenor, Lord Robert

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Barter, John

Gurden, Harold

Peel, John

Batsford, Brian

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Percival, Ian

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Bell, Ronald

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Pitt, Dame Edith

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Pounder, Rafton

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Berkeley, Humphry

Hay, John

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Pym, Francis

Biggs-Davison, John

Hiley, Joseph

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Bingham, R. M.

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

Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Black, Sir Cyril

Hocking, Philip N.

Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

Bossom, Hon. Clive

Holland, Philip

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Bourne-Arton, A.

Hollingworth, John

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Box, Donald

Hopkins, Alan

Robson Brown, Sir William

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

Roots, William

Braine, Bernard

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Brewis, John

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Hughes-Young, Michael

Russell, Sir Ronald

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Scott-Hopkins, James

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Iremonger, T. L.

Seymour, Leslie

Brown, Percy (Torrington)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Sharpies, Richard

Buck, Antony

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Bullard, Denys

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

Bullus, Wing Commander Erie

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

Burden, F. A.

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Stainton, Keith

Campbell, Gordon

Kitson, Timothy

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Lagden, Godfrey

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Storey, Sir Samuel

Cary, Sir Robert

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Studholme, Sir Henry

Channon, H. P. G.

Leather, Sir Edwin

Summers, Sir Spencer

Chichester-Clark, R.

Leavey, J. A.

Talbot, John E.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Teeling, Sir William

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Lilley, F. J. P.

Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

Cleaver, Leonard

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Cooke, Robert

Litchfield, Capt. John

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'd field)

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Longbottom, Charles

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Corfield, F. V.

Loveys, Walter H.

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Coulson, Michael

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Turner, Colin

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Crawley, Aidan

MacArthur, Ian

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Cunningham, Sir Knox

McLaren, Martin

Vane, W. M. F.

Curran, Charles

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Currie, G. B. H.

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Walker, Peter

Dance, James

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

Madden, Martin

Wall, Patrick

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Maginnis, John E.

Ward, Dame Irene

Doughty, Charles

Maitland, Sir John

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Aleo

Marshall, Sir Douglas

Whitelaw, William

Drayson, G. B.

Marten, Neil

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Matthew, Robert (Honiton)

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

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

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Wise, A. R.

Emery, Peter

Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Mawby, Ray

Woodhouse, C. M.

Fell, Anthony

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

Woodnutt, Mark

Finlay, Graeme

Mills, Stratton

Woollam, John

Fisher, Nigel…

Montgomery, Fergus

Worsley, Marcus

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Forrest, George

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Gammans, Lady

Morrison, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

Neave, Airey

Sir Godfrey Nicholson and

Glover, Sir Douglas

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Sir John Foster.

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

CRIMES OF VIOLENCE (COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS)
4.9 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence. Command Payer No. 2323.
In a White Paper which I recently presented, entitled The War Against Crime in England and Wales 1959–1964, the Government set out all that is being done to deal more effectively with criminals, but if we truly care about protecting the public we should not stop at that but should also think and plan how we can more effectively help their victims.
The idea that the victims of crimes should be compensated by State action is comparatively recent. Only during the last 10 years has it been discussed in this country to any extent. There is by now widespread agreement that some form of State compensation is desirable, but that it should be limited to crimes causing personal injury. Reasons for excluding compensation for loss of property or damage to property were set out, for example, in a report that was produced in 1962 by a committee of "Justice", on which I remember that hon. Members of all three parties sat.
One of these reasons is the assumption that owners will seek some protection for their property through insurance. That assumption, as the "Justice" report said,
"cannot easily be made in the case of crimes of violence, since the victim's risk is more remote, and the need for personal protection through private insurance is less obvious in a civilised community."
The "Justice" report went on to make the point that
"the community should be concerned more with loss of life and limb than with loss of property."
The Government have all along taken a similar view, and that is why the scheme proposed in the White Paper is confined to personal injury.
The previous White Paper which was presented to Parliament in 1961 by my predecessor suggested two possible types of scheme: one of them would be
1128
broadly similar to the Industrial Injuries Scheme and would involve weekly payments of compensation. Under the other, described as a "court scheme", the victim of a crime of violence could make a claim against the Home Secretary, much on the lines of the claim for damages which, under the existing law, the victim makes against the aggressor. Under this second type of scheme, entitlement to compensation would be decided by the courts, unless, of course, a settlement was reached out of court, and compensation would take the form not of weekly payments, but of a lump sum.
Possible compensation schemes have also been put forward by a number of other bodies all of whose views the Government have taken into account. Indeed, some of their proposals will be found embodied in this White Paper. There were proposals not only by the committee of "Justice," but by the Bow Group and by the Association of Municipal Corporations. Also, there was a particularly valuable report, on which we have largely drawn, by a committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), in which several other of my hon. Friends took part.
The schemes submitted to us were embarrassingly different in their form, but all were agreed on two fundamental points: that claims for compensation should be determined by a judicial or quasi-judicial body, and that compensation should be payable only in deserving cases—that is, that the victim of a crime of violence should not be entitled automatically to compensation. For instance, if the victim himself was partly to blame, that ought to be taken into account.
Apart from these two fundamental points, there Were sharp differences among the various proposals on a number of matters, including in particular the scope of the arrangements—for example, to what extent sexual offences should be included. The schemes differed also as to the basis of compensation. Some favoured a lump sum; others favoured periodical payments; and others, a combination of the two. To devise a theoretical scheme in this field is not so very difficult. But how will it work out in practice? That is the test.

1129
The Government's concern has been to produce a scheme which will stand the test of practical experience. There are all sorts of imponderables. Nobody can tell how many claims there will be. Any estimate based on the number of crimes of violence shown in the criminal statistics would suggest that each year many thousands of victims might apply for compensation. But, as the White Paper which we are discussing points out, a great many of these crimes arise out of brawls or family disputes where there may be no case whatever for any compensation. Besides that, many who deserve compensation may already be entitled, as a result of their injuries, to other payments from public funds, and this will reduce or possibly even eliminate the compensation payable to them by the Board proposed in the White Paper.
It is because of these doubts about the extent to which the scheme will be needed, and because of the difficulty of ensuring in a pioneer scheme that public money is not wasted on undeserving or fraudulent claims, that the Government think that the sensible thing to do is to start on an experimental basis which can be modified later if necessary. We propose that compensation shall be paid ex gratia because, as the White Paper says, we do not think that the State can be held liable for injuries caused to people by the acts of others.
I will go through the main details of the scheme as set out in the White Paper. This, of course, is a Motion to take note of the White Paper. The White Paper is not the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be altered. It is not law at all. We will certainly take note also of any proposals made in the debate, and we will consider whether we could improve the scheme by incorporating them.
In paragraph 9 of the White Paper it proposes the establishment of a Victims of Crimes of Violence Compensation Board. If someone can think of a shorter title than that, well and good. Pending discussion of the White Paper in Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have, of course, not yet been able to send out any invitations to people to become members of the Board, but we
1130
have been considering possible names, in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. We are also planning to second a small number of civil servants to form the Board's initial staff quickly.
The necessary Supplementary Estimate will be presented to the House as soon as practicable. If the Board has to incur expenditure before the Supplementary Estimate is voted, an advance will be made from the Civil Contingencies Fund.
Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Could my right hon. Friend say whether the Government plan that the members of the Board should be full-time paid, or how otherwise?
Mr. Brooke: This is one of the matters for consideration. It may be that the chairman will need to be full time; I am not sure. I do not think the other members will need to be full time, but we cannot tell this for certain until we see how the claims come along. Therefore, we should avoid creating a large Board of full-time people in the first instance. It may well be that not even the chairman will need to be full time.
I was saying that if the Board has to incur any expenditure in advance of a Supplementary Estimate, the Civil Contingencies Fund will be used. At least, until we find that the number of claims requires a more elaborate organisation, we do not propose to set up offices all over the country for dealing locally with applications for compensation. As paragraph 11 says, the Board will be based on London. I would like the House to know that the selection of premises for the Board is going ahead, though, of course, nothing will be committed until after this debate. The Board will also hold hearings in Edinburgh and Cardiff, and elsewhere if necessary.
The decisions in individual cases are to be those of the Board alone. That is made clear in paragraph 12, and I am sure that this is right. Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland nor I propose to intervene in individual cases. Our object in setting up a body of distinguished lawyers to determine claims in accordance with the procedure laid down in the White Paper

1131
is to make the decisions of the Board wholly independent of Government Departments.
This is, of course, on the understanding, first, that the Board acts in accordance with the principles and procedure outlined in the White Paper, subject to any modifications that may seem desirable after this debate, and, secondly, that the Board submits an annual report and accounts to Parliament. The accounts of the Board will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Paragraphs 13 to 18 of the White Paper describe the scope of the scheme. It is explained there that personal injury may arise from a great variety of offences, and that it is not, therefore, proposed to specify a comprehensive list of crimes to which the scheme will apply. Any list of that sort might prove to be unduly restrictive. It might exclude some offences which could occasionally give rise to personal injuries. Besides the precise nature of the crime is not always apparent when the offender has not actually been brought to justice. What matters more than the name of the offence is the circumstances of the incident.
For these reasons, we think it right, at least in an experimental scheme of this sort, to do without a list of offences, but we intend that the scheme shall cover very much the same ground as the other schemes which have been proposed.
It is proposed to exclude certain categories of injury from the scheme: in the first place, the more minor injuries as defined in paragraph 14, that is to say, injuries giving rise to less than three weeks' loss of earnings, or, alternatively, for which less than £50 compensation would be awarded. Drawing the line there, I think, will not exclude any really deserving case, and it will help to keep the scheme, at this experimental stage, to manageable proportions.
Two categories of offence are excluded altogether: first, motoring offences, which, I think it will be generally agreed, fall into quite a different class from the rest of offences with which the scheme is designed to deal except, of course, where the motor vehicle has been used in a deliberate attempt to run the victim down; and, second, offences committed against a member of the offender's
1132
household living with him. In this latter case, we feel that the difficulties in clearly establishing the facts and ensuring that the compensation does not, in the end, benefit the offender are so great that these offences should be excluded, at least from an experimental scheme.
Paragraph 15 makes clear that the Board will take into account any share of responsibility attaching to the victim of the crime. This is one of the fundamental points on which all who have studied the matter are agreed.
To assist the Board in determining whether an applicant was in any way to blame, the Board will have before it not only the applicant's own version of events, but also information about the relevant circumstances obtained by the Board's staff from the police. The sort of case in which one might expect the amount of compensation to be reduced, or, indeed, no award at all to be made would be where there had been a public house brawl, for instance, or a fight between rival gangs. Again, the Board will have to pay particular regard to the question of the victim's responsibility when considering applications arising out of sexual offences.
Paragraphs 19 to 22 deal with the basis of compensation, and on this there are two points which I wish to make. First, the House will see that the Government have decided on a scheme based on common law damages rather than on the Industrial Injuries Scheme. We feel that lump sum payments are more satisfactory, particularly for a scheme which is experimental. We think it right that the basis should be broadly the same as that on which the victim is entitled to recover damages from the offender.
Secondly, the common law damages basis is to be subject to certain limits, in particular as to the rate of loss of earnings which may be taken into account. If there were no such limit, the scheme might result in very wide variations of compensation for similar offences which would be quite inappropriate in an ex gratia scheme. The film star or industrial tycoon earning many thousands a year might receive an award which was disproportionately and astonishingly high if no limit of earnings were included.

1133
It is proposed in paragraphs 23 to 27 that the initial decision on a claim shall be made by one member of the Board. If the applicant is not satisfied with that decision, he may claim a hearing before three other members of the Board, the original member not taking any part. In reaching the initial decision, the Board member will have before him such information as the Board's staff have been able to obtain on the circumstances of the application, and this will include information provided by the police. Where, however, a hearing is held, the three members of the Board will reach their decision solely on the evidence brought out at the hearing.
Mr. Niall MacDermot: Purely for explanation, will the right hon. Gentleman answer a question on the point he has just left, the basis of compensation? In paragraph 22 of the White Paper it is said that, although compensation will be based on common law damages, there will be no award for "loss of expectation of happiness". What is intended to be excluded by that phrase? Is it, in effect, a reference to what common lawyers think of as general damages as opposed to actual pecuniary loss? In accident cases, of course, general loss of amenity and loss of enjoyment of life may be a major part of the damages.
Mr. Brooke: I am not a lawyer, so I hesitate to answer "off the cuff" when a lawyer puts that question to me. I was advised that, in general, these words in paragraph 22 would have a clear meaning for lawyers and that the exclusion of a consideration for loss of expectation of happiness would convey a precise interpretation to lawyers. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman will, no doubt, speak later in the debate, and my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to reply.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: Will the Home Secretary just confirm that it is not intended to exclude a payment of general damages for pain and suffering?
Mr. Brooke: It is intended that the compensation shall be as closely as possible on the basis of common law damages for which the victim might sue
1134
the assailant, subject simply to these three exceptions which are set out here.
Sir Frank Soskice: I am sorry to interrupt the Home Secretary further, but we are on a vital point here. To say that the damages will be on the common law basis, and then to say that one does not know whether what is a prime element in the assessment of damages on the common law basis will or will not be excluded, is hardly to give an adequate answer.
We want to know: is a person who has been impeded in the enjoyment of life to receive compensation for that—it may run into several thousands of pounds—or is he not? With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it makes all the difference. As the Minister responsible for the White Paper, he ought to be able to tell us whether the element to which I refer will or will not be included.
Mr. Brooke: I have said that the White Paper, in my view, sets out the position perfectly clearly here. It may well be that the compensation will in some cases run into thousands of pounds—I have no doubt of that—but there will not be an element comparable to exemplary or punitive damages and there will not be an award for loss of expectation of happiness.
Sir F. Soskice: I am sorry to press the Home Secretary, but we must understand what we are discussing. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know what the answer to the question is, and if he does not have a piece of paper in his possession to tell him what the answer is, will he please get some information from his expert advisers on what, to my mind, this extremely obscure phrase is intended to mean?
The right hon. Gentleman says that, in his opinion, what the White Paper says is perfectly clear. All I can tell him is that those of us who have had anything to do with the law on this side of the House find this particular aspect of it most obscure; and we should be very surprised if lawyers on the benches opposite found it any easier to understand.
If the right hon. Gentleman can get some spiritual sustenance on it during the course of his speech, if he can go on long enough for a message to go to the Official Box and for a reply to come

1135
back to him, it would be a great help. Otherwise, I must put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he is not doing his duty to the House.
Mr. Brooke: I do not need any spiritual sustenance at all. I am not a lawyer myself, but I have put paragraph 22 to eminent lawyers and they have told me that, in their opinion, there is no dubiety at all as to its meaning. If lawyers on both sides of the House wish to question that, the debate is, after all, taking place so that any points on which hon. Members are uncertain may be ventilated. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State is to wind up the debate later. In my view, there is no uncertainty here.
Sir F. Soskice: I am very sorry to intervene again, but it really is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that all the distinguished lawyers who have been at his elbow tell him that there is no dubiety about it. Will he please tell us what they tell him it means and what he thinks it means? It is no good saying that it is perfectly clear, but that as he is not a lawyer he has not the dimmest idea what it means. We want to know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks it means and what the Government intend it to mean.
Mr. Brooke: I have told the House that the Government intends it to mean exactly what is set out here, and I am not going to redefine this in my own words for the pleasure of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am assured that this is perfectly clear to those who have studied it. If it is not clear to hon. Members, we have five hours ahead of us in which the matter can be ventilated and discussed. Members on both sides who belong to the legal profession will say whether or not it is clear to them.
Mr. Charles Doughty: If hon. Members opposite reflect for a moment, they will realise that one of the elements of general damages is loss of amenities of life in future, not earning capacity. That is defined as loss of happiness—an unfortunate word. Surely, while giving damages for loss of earning power, that would be sufficient to exclude damages for loss of enjoyment in future,
1136
such as the enjoyment of holidays, theatres and cinemas. That is an element now included in general damages, but which by this expression would be excluded.
Sir F. Soskice: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) is one of the distinguished lawyers who advised the Home Secretary, but does not the right hon. Gentleman know enough about his own White Paper to say whether he agrees with the hon. and learned Member? If the hon. and learned Member is right, it means that instead of damages being several thousands of pounds they will be limited to very small sums. May we know what the Government mean? What do they want? Surely the right hon. Gentleman can tell us that.
Mr. Brooke: I have said that the damages in a number of these cases may amount to several thousands of pounds. As far as I could ascertain, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) gave a correct paraphrase of paragraph 22. But I do not propose myself to paraphrase paragraph 22. We are discussing the White Paper, which has been before the House for several weeks. It was very carefully drafted, and, in my submission, there is no uncertainty about this. If there is uncertainty about it, we can make good use of this debate to discuss it. If further questions are asked, we will endeavour to answer them.
I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) should permit me to conclude my speech, because all I am seeking to do is to make a short speech in introducing the White Paper and to throw the whole matter open to debate. If my speech is to be interrupted throughout by individual points which hon. Members may wish to raise later, I fear that it may occupy far too much time.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I sympathise a great deal with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Whether or not the White Paper was plain in its meaning, it has ceased to be plain by the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East

1137
(Mr. Doughty), who raised the key question which nobody has answered. The White Paper says that expectation of happiness is to be excluded. The Home Secretary says that that is perfectly clear, and that if it is not we can argue about it in the debate. That is well and good. But the hon. and learned Member has said that expectation of life——
Mr. Doughty: Not expectation of life.
Mr. Silverman: —is to be equated with amenities.
Mr. Doughty: I never used the phrase "expectation of life".
Mr. Silverman: Very well—that the expectation of happiness is to be equated with amenities within the ordinary meaning of the common law. If that is so, clearly there is excluded from it the principal element in the assessment of common law damages. Surely the House is entitled to be told at an early stage whether the Government intend that or not.
Mr. Brooke: I do not intend to say anything more at this stage beyond drawing attention to the terms of the White Paper. It is the terms of the White Paper which matter. I do not clearly carry in my head the words used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East. I do not propose at this stage further to define paragraph 22. It would be best if I were enabled to continue my speech. I should like simply to finish describing the procedure which we suggest and then to throw the whole matter open to debate.
The object of the procedure which I have described by which, in the first instance, an application would go to one member of the Board who would reach an initial decision on it and then, if the applicant was dissatisfied, he could claim a hearing before three other members of the board is twofold. The first is to ensure that the Board is provided with all relevant information to assist it in reaching its decision. The second is, in disputed cases, which we hope will be a very small percentage of the total, to ensure that the applicant is given a judicial-type hearing by people who are not in possession of information to which he, the applicant, has not had access.
1138
It is a matter of deep regret that the perpetrators of crimes of violence can so rarely be made to recompense their victims. Where the offender is a man of means, be can be sued in the courts, as I have indicated. But far more often these criminals have no means, and if the crime is serious they are likely to have been sent away to prison. As I explained when the White Paper was published, until prisoners generally are able to do a full week's work in prison for a reasonable wage, it is not practicable to hold back part of their earnings for compensation to the victims. But the Government do not think it right to delay the implementation of the scheme proposed in the White Paper until that stage is reached.
It may well be that in future the concept of personal reparation to the victim should play a greater part in our penal system. If this was to come about, there would be less call for a State compensation scheme. This is a large question witch I hope will, in due course, be examined by the Royal Commission which has recently been announced. For my part, I want, if I possibly can, to keep my speech short, because many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and to let the White Paper speak for itself.
I commend the scheme to the House as a plan which makes it possible to go ahead quickly, without legislation, on a flexible and experimental basis. It is a scheme which makes very adequate provision for its purpose and which in operation will be fair to the applicant without omitting the necessary safeguards for the public purse. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will welcome any constructive comments from both sides of the House. As the White Paper emphasises, there is virtually no previous experience anywhere in the world on which to draw. It may well be that experience of running the scheme will suggest that it should be modified in some respects. The basis on which we propose that it should be introduced will allow that to be done.
No other country of comparable size has embarked on any such scheme. Except for a scheme introduced by New Zealand three months ago for its far smaller population, we are the pioneers

1139
of the world in this. If, in the light of experience, it is eventually decided to have a permanent scheme, it may well become desirable then to put it on a statutory basis. But since the principle of compensation for crimes of violence is generally agreed, it seemed to us desirable to get ahead with the experiment to enable victims of crimes of violence who deserve compensation to receive it.
I hope that the House will support the Government in a new and humane reform.
4.39 p.m.
Sir Frank Soskice: I should very much like to discharge the normal courtesy of the House in thanking the Home Secretary for explaining the purposes of the White Paper. My difficulty is that I am not sure what the appropriate form of thanks would be in this case, since the Minister responsible for the White Paper called the House's attention to paragraph 22, said that that was a crucial paragraph because in it was defined the quantum and basis of the compensation which would be awarded, and then, almost in the same breath, said that he had not the dimmest idea of what it meant.
Mr. Brooke: It was the right hon. and learned Gentleman who said that he could not understand it.
Sir F. Soskice: I absolutely agree. I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have not the dimmest idea what it means; I wish I had. I feel a considerable disadvantage in proceeding to discuss a scheme without knowing what the right hon. Gentleman means it to mean. However, subject to that qualification—which seems to be one which ought to be posed—I thank the right hon. Gentleman and say no more about it.
I had hoped when I saw that paragraph that it meant that compensation would be awarded subject to some limitation as to the rate of earnings to be taken into account and subject to the exclusion of exemplary and punitive damages, upon a full common law basis. If that were the case, and I greatly hope that it is, it would mean that loss of enjoyment of life, loss of faculty and loss of capacity to do this, that or the other that a normal
1140
person can do, would all be matters which can be taken into account in the assessment of damages, but after they are taken into account the resulting figure may in particular cases be very large indeed.
As the Home Secretary said, it may reach thousands of pounds. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) came to his help. The Home Secretary did not quite understand what the intervention meant, although I think that we all understood it. It seemed to conflict with what the right hon. Gentleman thinks that these words mean. However, I thank him.
We start this debate with a wealth of valuable and learned authority. The Home Secretary referred to the publication by "Justice" and the committee, which was also very valuable, over which the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) presided. There is also the extremely valuable report of the working party of the Home Office which reported in June, 1961, together with other reports to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. We have had two Bills on the subject. One was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and one introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson). Both were similar in terms.
So we start after very considerable consideration has been given to this matter. I think that it is agreed by all, as the Home Secretary said, that the time has come when we as a pioneer country, with the single exception of New Zealand, should recognise that this ought to be part of our welfare scheme and that persons who are completely innocent members of the public and, owing to some misfortune are physically injured by criminal acts of violence, should receive compensation. We start from that premise.
I go with the Home Secretary at least this far in thinking and saying that the situation is one which will evolve. We have little experience of this and I do not disagree with him in principle in putting before the House what is, admittedly—paragraph 8 of the White Paper says so in terms—a purely experimental proposal. I did not gather whether he suggested that it should be

1141
followed by a more precise outline of a scheme, but I gathered that there should not be such a further paper and that this rather vague proposal is all we are to have before the Board is set up and begins its work.
So far so good. We cannot, in matters of compensation, obtain complete consistency. In the publications to which I have referred, the basis on which compensation should be awarded is discussed. It is said by some that it is the duty of the State to the citizen to maintain law and order and that, if the State falls down in the discharge of that duty and consequent harm results to the citizen, the citizen has at any rate a moral claim to compensation. I think that a difficult argument to accept. We are all "the State". The State, viewed as a kind of abstract conception remote and different from us, seems in the context we are discussing to be somewhat of an unreality.
We all collectively try to see that law and order is enforced. We set up a police force and public institutions, but we know in advance that we shall not succeed altogether. All we can do is to do our best to see that law and order on a broad scale is maintained. Therefore, it seems unreal to base a claim for compensation upon the assumed failure of the State or society at large to maintain law and order. That is not the basis on which we can proceed. The real basis is that as society evolves new situations are uncovered on which strong public feeling works.
In view of the increase in crimes of violence recently and the emergence of cases in which, obviously, there is a strong claim to sympathy, such as cases set out on page 9 of the Home Office working party's report—several cases are set out of people being attacked by criminals—public sympathy is with the victims of those assaults. It says that as a matter of moral right they should be assisted in the only way in which, unfortunately, they can be assisted—by some monetary compensation. In framing details of a Welfare State, one finds it is not always possible to arrive at complete consistency.
If a workman is injured while at work and there is no fault that he can show on the part of his employer, he gets industrial injury benefit and a disability pension,
1142
whereas, if he can show that there was a fault or an unsafe system in which he was required to work, he is entitled to a lump sum award by way of damages. That seems illogical because it makes little difference to him whether there is a fault or not; he has been injured and the injury may be lasting and serious.
Similarly, when we consider motor accident cases I have always thought it very illogical that the question whether an injured person was at fault should play such a large rôle in the determination of an award of damages which he should receive. If an elderly pedestrian crosses the road and steps out immediately in front of a motor car owing to absent-mindedness, he receives no compensation because it is his fault. If, however, he steps out into the road 30 or 40 yards away from the motor car so that the driver would have an opportunity of avoiding an accident if he were exercising reasonable care and then the pedestrian is injured, he may be awarded £10,000 damages.
The absence or presence of fault on his part or on the part of the motorist in a case of a human tragedy of that sort is something which, comparatively speaking, is irrelevant. If we wanted to reach complete consistency we should have to examine the whole basis on which awards are based. It is in the public interest that a man should not be suddenly reduced to a wreck and made an invalid. If he is so reduced he should be cared for as far as an award can see that he is provided for. One must accept the fact that we cannot be wholly logical. If one tried to be completely logical in these matters it would seem difficult in the first place to justify simply giving compensation for personal injuries received by the victims of crime.
One of the examples given is of a ruffian who breaks into a cottage occupied by two elderly people, cracks the old gentleman over the head and steals his life savings, which are kept in a box under the bed. Under the Government's proposal the old gentleman would receive compensation for having his skull broken, but not for having his life savings taken away from him.
It is quite unrealistic to say to him, "You might have kept your savings in a bank; then you would not have

1143
lost them." That is just as unreal as if he were told that had he been wearing a crash helmet he would not have had his skull broken. People live like that and in the long run it may be very difficult to confine claims for compensation simply to personal injuries which result from violence.
It may be difficult to say that when a rascal diverts many thousands of small depositors' savings to his own use some form of compensation should not be made available in their case. It is very difficult to draw a line. However, I do not put that as a reason for not at any rate making this limited but very valuable and human reform, and I entirely support the Government in their determination to do so.
I underline that this proposal of the Government should be strictly regarded as an interim measure. I do not believe that one can operate a scheme of this sort simply on an informal ex gratia basis. Sooner or later, when we have experience of the kind of claims which are thrown up and of the difficulties which emerge, the Government must address themselves to the task of reducing to legislation the basis on which claims can be made by victims of aggression by criminals. It may take a long time to do this, but in the long run I believe that it will be found impossible to work a scheme of this sort on this comparatively informal basis.
Furthermore, it is right that it should be done in the long run through a Statute and not on this informal basis. There is, after all, something humiliating about an ex gratia payment. If a man or woman has been seriously injured and it is the feeling of the moral sense of society that he or she should be compensated, then the compensation should not be by way of grace, as it were; it should not be a gift. Such people either should or should not be entitled to it, and the Statute should lay down the circumstances and the conditions on which they should be entitled to receive such compensation as the law provides.
In any case, I do not think that the ex gratia system can work on this informal basis for the following reason: experience shows—and I am certain that those in the House who are lawyers
1144
Will agree—that most difficult questions are thrown up in the assessment of compensation. That was why I was anxious to know what were the Government's intentions on the general question of pain and suffering and loss of happiness. Day in and day out in the courts cases arise in which there is acute controversy between medical men and other experts as to what is the proper basis on which compensation should be assessed by the judge who tries the case.
There is the well-known case in which there is an hysterical element in the injury. One expert will say that when the case is disposed of the hysterical element is likely to clear up and the loss of faculty is likely to come to an end, but another expert will say that the hysterical element is so deeply rooted that, looking forward into the years, there is little likelihood of the patient ever regaining his powers or becoming anything like what he was before he sustained the injury. That type of dispute occupies the courts a great deal. The courts do what they can by asking that medical reports should as far as possible be agreed, to eliminate this extremely expensive sort of controversy, but it is not altogether possible to do so.
I therefore fear that a tribunal which approaches the matter on the basis suggested by the Government—admittedly simply as an interim measure—will find that in the long run if it does not have clear terms of reference and all the paraphernalia of law by reference to which to judge the case there will be much dissatisfaction especially if there is no right of appeal. Many persons will go away from the tribunal feeling that they have not been properly dealt with.
It is to be hoped that in a very large number of cases, irrespective of whether there is a lower limit imposed, as the Home Secretary suggests in the White Paper, there will be preliminary negotiations, as there are in the courts when personal injury cases arise, and that a large percentage will be disposed of without any hearing. But that leaves over the serious type of case, such as the examples quoted on page 9 of the Home Office Report of people reduced to a physical wreck. Such cases may involve damages of £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000. These elements must all be taken into account. It is a major piece

1145
of litigation and the right result, as far as human judgment can bring it to a proper result in a difficult situation of that sort, must be achieved. That is what justice demands.
That is one side of the difficulty which will have to be encountered. The other side arises from what the Home Secretary said in his speech. It is the consideration that those who are responsible, as it were, for the infliction upon them, in a general sense, of the injury ought not to benefit either at all or to the same extent. If a person is injured in a gang fight because he is a participant in the fighting, he cannot expect to have very much public sympathy when he sustains a wound.
But while so stating the question, one raises a series of different possible hypotheses. There may be a man who has frequented criminal circles and of whom at first sight one would say, "He has no claim if he is knifed during a public house brawl". But he may say that that is not the case, that he had left his former associates and that they were after him because, for example, they thought that he would be a potential squealer. Or he may say that he was doing his best to prevent violence from being inflicted on others by the person ultimately charged with the offence of inflicting the violence on him. If one is to try to achieve justice one needs a proper form of judicial hearing.
For these reasons I think that we must face the situation that a judge, in the full sense, should be asked to undertake these cases—a judge of the Queen's Bench Division, or, in smaller cases, a judge of the county court. The question of the victim's character has been raised. A man who has been an habitual associate of violent persons perhaps should not have the same claim to compensation as a completely innocent member of the public who has never had such associates but who is suddenly attacked in his shop by a violent criminal.
On the other hand, a man's character may be bad, but bad in an irrelevant sense. Most people would say that if a member of the public is injured by a violent criminal it is not very relevant that the victim is a man who habitually presents misleading and fraudulent returns for the purpose of his income tax assessments. These are all cases which must be precisely provided for by the letter of
1146
the Statute. One needs judges to try these cases, and it is requisite that the Statute should provide judges with guidance as to the sort of situations and circumstances which they must take into account.
I take the view that this kind of problem will be one of the most difficult which the courts have to deal with. Goodness knows, already cases of compensation as a result of personal injury in motor accidents are very puzzling for courts who have to try to arrive at a fair figure to compensate the person who is badly injured. That is one of the most difficult tasks which judges have to perform. Here, the judge not merely has that task, but, in addition, must address himself to trying to assess the degree of culpability or participation of the injured person in the commission of the offence.
I put another point to the right hon. Gentleman. It has been said in a number of the publications to which I have referred that an award, if a hearing is necessary, should not take place until after the person charged, it' there is a person to be charged, has been brought to trial. The question has been raised and discussed whether, when a member of the public is injured by a violent criminal, it should be necessary that the criminal, or any criminal, should be charged and convicted of that offence.
What is asked is whether it is first necessary, when a man has had his head cracked open, that the cracker should be brought to justice and convicted. If that is necessary, then we are providing inducement for the person who is injured as it were to make certain of the conviction of the aggressor. That is utterly undesirable. The hope that he will gain compensation should not influence a victim who gives evidence at the trial of the person accused of a violent offence.
I should have thought that it would be most undesirable that it should be requisite that there should be a conviction before compensation is awarded. If so, juries will begin to wonder when they listen to the evidence of witnesses for the prosecution, witnesses who may have received injuries, whether the hope of an award of compensation conceivably could have influenced the witnesses' evidence. I should have thought that it is much better that it should not be

1147
necessary that a conviction should first be obtained.
If the view is taken that it should not be necessary that there should first be a conviction, other difficulties arise which must be carefully thought about. A criminal who is charged with an offence and acquitted may be in considerable danger. An offence is committed and a man may be accused, brought to trial and acquitted, or there may be not enough evidence to bring anybody to trial with any hope of proving up to the level of certainty which is requisite in a criminal case that he was guilty of the offence.
I put this position to the Home Secretary. A man is acquitted and is, therefore, prima facie entitled to be regarded by his fellow citizens as completely innocent. It is true that at the moment the victim of his violence could sue him in the courts. In practice, we know that that very rarely happens, because in 99 cases out of 100 he is not worth powder and shot. If there is to be a public fund from which compensation can be obtained, I should have thought that it would not be unusual that there might be a kind of second hearing of the circumstances attending the commission of the crime.
I ask the Home Secretary to consider, for example, the case of a housing estate and a small child who has been violently assaulted, whether sexually or otherwise—it does not matter. X is suspected. A rumour runs round the estate. There may be not sufficient evidence to bring X to trial, or X may be brought to trial and acquitted. If then there is to be a hearing before a judge in which the child is called upon to give evidence in support of a claim for compensation in respect of perhaps very serious injuries to the child, rumour begins to go around that X was responsible after all. People say, "He was lucky to get away with it. They could not prove it against him, but the child got compensation." If the child giving evidence says: "I was assaulted. I think that it was X: It was a man like X, but it was dark and he hit me on the head and I cannot be certain", X will be faced with ruin. He cannot go on living on that council estate.
1148
That kind of contingency is one for which some provision must be made. The Home Secretary has not said—I do not think the White Paper says—whether the proceedings of the tribunal will be in private.
Mr. Brooke: I know how carefully the right hon. and learned Gentleman has read the White Paper, but may I point out to him that paragraph 27 says this:
"Procedure at a hearing will be as informal as is consistent with a proper determination of the application, and the hearing will be in private."
Sir F. Soskice: I am obliged to the Home Secretary. I remember that passage, now that he reminds me of it. But is that altogether right? Is justice, if justice is involved here—it is bound to be in a great many cases—to be done in private? It might be said that the rule should be that the hearing should be in private, unless either the accused person, if he is to give evidence, or the victim wishes that it should be thrown open to the public.
Even that is difficult, because it presents the possibility of pressure and blackmail. For example, a married woman struck on the head by a man who has come into the house may know perfectly well that, if she makes a claim, he is likely to say that she invited him into the house and will ask for the hearing to be in public. That is an undesirable situation, and I think that the question of publicity must be very carefully considered.
If it is to be in private, at least the person who if he has been acquitted is, nevertheless, impugned as the result of the hearing of a claim for compensation should be able again to defend himself. He should not be in the position of having been acquitted by a jury of the commission of a crime and then not being heard in relation to an award made for compensation to an assumed victim of his when he still denies that he had anything to do with the infliction of the injuries.
Those are problems which I put to the Home Secretary. I think that, when we have had more experience of the working of the scheme, they will be thrown up, and it may not be altogether easy to resolve them. Therefore, to

1149
summarise that part of my argument, I think that one must contemplate in due course that this informal scheme will have to be superseded by a scheme which is properly defined by Statute and it will not have to be administered by a somewhat informal board.
It will have to be administered by judges of the High Court or the county court, as the case may be, and proper legal procedure will have to be applied, because matters of very great moment, both for the person accused and for the person claiming compensation, in a large number of cases, though not in all cases, may be involved. It is greatly to be hoped that it will be possible to settle a very high percentage of cases before they get to any court. I do not think that in the long run we shall be able to leave the matter as it is.
I turn now to the question of the basis on which the compensation should be assessed. Personally, I very much prefer the conception of a common law award of damages to the alternative proposal of a pension under the terms of the Industrial Injuries Act. I prefer it, because violent injury can affect different people in all sorts of different ways. It can make one person a nervous wreck. It may have all sorts of effects which cannot be foretold at first sight. The basis on which judges award damages when they make a common law award is best calculated to evaluate fairly to the claimant all these imponderables in his condition which may result from the infliction of the injury.
Therefore, I hope myself that the Home Secretary will adhere to what he has embodied in his scheme, namely, the common law basis of award, but I hope that it will be made sufficiently wide to enable all the consequences to the injured person to be taken into account, so that, if he is a wreck, if he is seriously crippled, the award will be commensurate and the happiness of which he is deprived in the enjoyment of his life will not be excluded as an element which the judge can take into account in making the award.
I pass from that side of the scheme to the other side of the scheme. A public fund is now being set up. It is based, broadly speaking, on the concept that the criminal has injured an individual
1150
and that these should, therefore, be some retributive payment, as it were. I think that it is very useful in the reform of our penal system that the fact that a criminal has done injury to a person should be brought home to him in the form of some contributory payment on his part by way of compensation.
I quite agree with the Home Secretary that this cannot be done practicably until criminals are allowed to work upon the basis of full and complete remuneration. When they are, those who are concerned with the question of penal reform might well think that the principle of retribution by way of a money payment, not so substantial in size as seriously to impede the prospect of the criminal returning to society and being ultimately rehabilitated into it, should be taken into account.
That is useful, but it is a completely different side of the problem which we are considering. It is a matter for penal reform. What we are doing now is setting up a public fund, and I should have thought that it was desirable that there should be a well understood dichotomy between them. It should be well understood that the claimant here is being compensated from the public purse. He is not being compensated directly by the person who has inflicted the injury on him.
As a matter of penal reform, however, the criminal who has done the injury might well be called upon—it would be of value as a feature in our penal system—out of the money which he is enabled to earn whilst serving his sentence, or even after he comes out, to make some suitable retribution to the public fund, but there should not be a relation between the injury that he has inflicted and the amount which the judge, or whoever the appropriate authority may be, decrees that he should restore to the public fund.
There should be two quite separate things—his punishment and what he should contribute out of his earnings, and the compensation the victim gets out of the public fund. These should not be related to each other. There should be no more than the very general relation which resides in the concept that the person who is injured is entitled to compensation and, in a broad sense.

1151
the person who inflicts the injury should make some retribution for the offence he has committed.
Those are the general considerations that I venture to put forward. To summarise them shortly before I conclude my observations, I think that the attitude which the Government have adopted in accepting liability for compensation is to be commended. We are right to do that. No doubt we are inconsistent in some ways in accepting this liability on behalf of the public purse. That cannot be helped. Later, perhaps, the scope of the compensation will have to be enlarged as the problem develops. That. I submit, is absolutely right.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in proposing as he has done, something by way of a purely experimental scheme purely for an interim period. I think that it should be reviewed soon and constantly re-examined to see what problems it throws up. In due course, we must accept, I think, that an informal basis of ex gratia compensation will not meet the needs thrown up by this problem in the long run and that a Statute will have to be substituted setting out precisely what has to be determined, both in terms of amount and in terms of participation of the injured person in the commission of the offence, so that judges may have clear guidance on what it is they are to determine.
I think, further, that the scheme will have to be, in the cases which are not capable of easy solution by preliminary negotiation, decided properly on judicial principles by Her Majesty's judges. I myself believe that the question of appeal will also have to be considered. That should be one of the features which are applicable in the case of a full hearing of claims by persons who have been badly injurd as a result of aggression by others.
5.12 p.m.
Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has given the general blessing of the Opposition to the Government's proposal, because it is important that a venture of this kind should start in a spirit of general agreement. Men have always suffered from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and most
1152
of the sufferers have suffered without any compensation. In this age of the Welfare State, we look to the State to provide compensation to individuals who have suffered through no fault of their own.
Hitherto, all State schemes for paying compensation have been built up on foundations which have been laid by charity, or charitable individuals, or other private people who made it their business to try to right some wrong. The pioneering work has been done by private munificence, sometimes from private profit, by the Church and by other organisations, and in every case the ground has been thoroughly explored before the State has started to take over and to run the scheme.
This afternoon, for the first time in history, I think, the State is entering into a virtually unchartered area of social aid. This is a completely novel idea which we are now canvassing. I think that there will probably be those who will say that such a project is one which really ought not to be undertaken at all. For my own part, I disagree with them. If this work has not hitherto been attempted, I think that the reason has been that it has been too difficult a task for anyone but the State to undertake. I think, too, that there is a very wide feeling among the public of a special sense of responsibility for those who are the victims of criminal violence.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to cases which had been mentioned in a Government White Paper. Perhaps the most obvious and classical example is that referred to on page 9:
"A middle-aged woman was attacked and robbed when returning from a church service on Christmas Eve. Several of her ribs and teeth were broken and she lost the sight of one eye. As a result, she lost her employment as a secretary and has been unable to work again."
A number of other cases of the same kind are given, which, I think are cases which everyone would feel are deserving of compensation from some source, but so far no source has been forthcoming, charitable or otherwise. This afternoon we are considering whether we cannot do something about cases of that kind.
If this is a novel idea, I feel that there are very strong reasons for making an altogether novel approach to it.

1153
I had the honour to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General as chairman of a Committee which considered this problem. I think that all of us on that Committee felt the need for something to be done to deal with the straightforward kind of case to which I have referred and which will be present in the minds of all hon. Members. But, of course, the trouble is that the majority of cases which fall within the broad definition of victims of crimes of violence are not at all straightforward. The violent crime is very seldom a simple matter. I refer to the paragraph in page 14 of the Report of the Committee on Victims of Violence, in which we said:
"We consider that accomplices and accessories should have no right to compensation in any event. The case of others who are not wholly free from responsibility is more difficult. They may include victims who have been guilty of provocation or of some negligence, and victims who have been in association with the criminal, for instance members of the same gang. We do not think that it is possible or desirable to legislate for all these cases."
On the following page, we go on:
"The question of family relationship is relevant. For instance, compensation paid to a wife injured by her husband would often go straight into the husband's pocket. We are of opinion that no claims for injuries caused between spouses whether living together or not ought to be allowed. In the case of other family relationships and also of certain social relationships—for instance, partnerships—it would be necessary to give the court some discretion in order to prevent abuse. Injury sustained by one prisoner as the result of a criminal assault by another prisoner would need special consideration. Special provision would need to be made for the police and for prison officers. These two classes of people are particularly at risk."
The majority of crimes of the kind that we are considering this afternoon are concerned with accomplices, with relations, with lovers, and with others who have contributed by provocation or by negligence to their own injury.
In the Committee, of course, we were thinking in terms of providing compensation as of right. We therefore recommended giving wide discretionary powers to the courts in dealing with such claims. Indeed, we suggested that the courts should have complete power in their discretion to reduce or extinguish the compensation in any case where they thought it appropriate. I confess that I was uneasy and so I think
1154
have been all of us who have considered this matter. It would be extremely difficult for the courts to exercise such a discretion. They would not be adjudicating as between two individuals or as between an individual and a public department. They would be dealing simply with the payment out of public money, and they would be doing so with the barest framework of rules upon which to act to guide them.
I think, therefore, that there are immense advantages in doing as the Government now propose, that is to say in starting with an ex gratia scheme. I have no doubt that a whole case law of rules can be built up and that when that case law comes into existence it may well be possible, as the right hon. and learned Member for Newport has suggested, to review this scheme and to put it into statutory form.
I am sure that the Government are right in basing their proposals on the principle of common law damages rather than on that of social insurance. It is very commonly thought that the difference between these two schemes is the difference between a scheme involving weekly payment on the one hand and one involving lump sum payment on the other. I do not think that that is so. I believe that the fundamental difference between the two schemes is the basis on which we shall calculate the amount of compensation which will be paid over. In the case of common law damages account is normally taken of pain and suffering and loss of amenities as well as of earnings.
As I understand the White Paper, the phrase used which has given rise to some discussion, "loss of happiness" was probably intended to be not too explicit. This, as I would read it, was because the Government's intention in issuing the White Paper was to give rise to debate so that these difficult problems could be discussed. No doubt the Government will listen to the debate and will carry out to the best of their powers the various suggestions made in it.
I hope that compensation will include a full and fair element for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities. If it does not, it will be simply coming back again to a National Insurance basis. National Insurance would give a flat-rate maintenance grant having

1155
regard to nothing else than the duration of the disability and the family responsibility of the victim in question. I prefer the first of these. I wish to press that view strongly on the Government.
I began my consideration of this problem in favour of the National Insurance principle, but it seems to me that National Insurance is by its nature intended to cover some specific risk—general loss of earnings—and that the victims of crimes of violence are very often themselves not earners. When the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) introduced a Bill to deal with the matter on a National Insurance basis he had to insert in it a wholly artificial provision to assume that the individual injured was an earner although he was not earning. That seems to me wrong in principle. It would be much better to deal with the matter on a proper basis of compensation for injury.
There is another reason why we should deal with the matter in this way. When criminal proceedings are pending, and they will be in a number of these cases because the criminal may be apprehended, the question will arise at his trial whether a crime has been committed. Also, an equally important question from the point of view of the victim, will be whether he or she was involved in circumstances which might disentitle him or her to any compensation, whether provocation or otherwise. It would clearly be wrong to prejudge these issues of the trial by some preliminary quasi-judicial proceedings before the tribunal at which these very issues would have to be tried. Criminal trials, fortunately, do not take as long as civil actions; nevertheless, they take a long time and there will be appeals, and so on. Therefore, it will be necessary to hold up any payment of compensation for weeks and months. That is wholly contrary to the idea of National Insurance weekly payments.
A large element in assessing common law damages is the weekly earnings of the person concerned. My right hon. Friend is entirely right in adopting the principle, which I think was first recommended by the Committee over which I presided, of putting an upper ceiling on the amount of earnings which can be
1156
taken into account. Although we should have fairly broad bands of differentiation if we are to do justice, nevertheless I believe that there should be a limit to the width of the bands. As my right hon. Friend has said, it would be quite wrong to compensate in full a man who is earning tens of thousands of pounds a year at the Bar when a man who has suffered exactly the same injury has received only a few hundred pounds because he was old and unemployed. I therefore think that this limit is absolutely justified.
A scheme to cover ordinary people who suffer injury or loss of health, whether temporarily or permanently by the malicious act of a fellow-subject is what we want, and I think that this is what is suggested by the White Paper. People with higher earnings, just as people with property, ought to insure against the loss if they want some special compensation. Both the Committees referred to in paragraph 4 of the White Paper set out a list of the crimes in respect of which compensation should be paid. There was very little difference between the two lists, and there is little difference between the suggestions of either Committee and what is suggested in the White Paper, namely, the total refusal to enumerate any particular crimes.
It could be said that what all of us have in mind in this connection is that compensation should be payable for a criminal assault, which is an element in nearly all these crimes, but unfortunately that definition in itself is not quite wide enough. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what he has in mind about such crimes as poisoning.
When thinking of victims of crimes of violence people do not ordinarily think of poison, but it can have a very powerful physical effect upon the sufferers. If we are going to include poison then at once we are venturing into a new and much wider field. A crime can be committed, for instance, under the Food and Drugs Act which may lead to the very severe poisoning of individuals. Those individuals are the victims of crimes. Are such cases as those to be capable of being included within the Government scheme? Of course, the moment that we enter upon the Food and Drugs Act we enter also

1157
on offences under the Factories Act, and so on.
Here we are embarking on a much wider field than any of us, I am sure, had in mind. I do not want to enter into that field. I would sooner limit our definition to a criminal assault, but if we are going wider than that I want to know just how wide we are going. For instance, here is the kind of case which could occur. It might be the result of some kind of criminal negligence on the part of someone, possibly the pilot of an aeroplane, and, possibly, someone not in the aeroplane, resulting in a very serious air accident and a great number of claims being made.
Are cases such as that to be included? My feeling about it is that they should not be included. Indeed, I would like to see them deliberately excluded, because I do not think that such cases are the kind that we have in mind. I think that if compensation is payable in a case of that kind it should come from the air company or some other source and that no attempt should be made to recover it from the individual whose criminal negligence might possibly be the cause of the damage.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that air operators are already required to cover passengers against accident up to £12,000 per passenger.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That may be so, but, nevertheless, it might be possible for passengers to claim Government compensation in cases of this sort and it might be possible, therefore, for the airline to recover compensation from the Government without benefit to the passenger concerned simply because of the operation of a scheme of this sort.
I am certainly apprehensive about the proposals in the White Paper covering pregnancy from rape. The Committee recommended against any such compensation. We were, of course, considering the payment of compensation as a right, and again it is different when we are dealing with the matter on an ex gratia basis. Ex gratia payments are more flexible, but there will certainly be a number of cases where women who have become pregnant will put forward claims that such pregnancy is due to
1158
rape, and it will be exceedingly difficult to adjudicate on those cases.
I have little doubt that quite a number of suck cases will find their way to Members of this House and that we shall be asked to take the matter up. Parliamentary pressure will be brought to bear. I think I am right in saying that it will be out of order to put down Parliamentary Questions about particular cases because I imagine that there will be no direct Governmental responsibility, but it will certainly not he out of order to raise the general question, which must, of course, be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, as he said this afternoon. I am particularly anxious that cases which can involve controversy of this kind should not come in in the first place. I think that it is asking for trouble, but I am afraid that as it is in the White Paper it is too late to go back on this particular promise.
Finally, something about recovery from the criminal himself. Of course, the criminal is primarily liable to his victim. That is the present law, and I do not think that anybody would wish to change that. But it is generally quite useless to pursue the criminal because he has little or no means. If he is caught he probably goes to gaol for a spell and is therefore unlikely to earn any money. In a short time the victim loses touch with the offender and there is an end of the matter.
In any case, even if there are cases where the victim can successfully bring an action against the criminal, he will do so in the civil courts and he will be quite a different person from the prosecuting public. Therefore, the criminal will not generally regard himself as being punished twice over. If, however, the State pays the victim, as proposed by this scheme, the State itself will quite rightly claim the right to recover what it has paid from the victim in due course. Indeed, this is in the White Paper and is common ground and the proposal has been pressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport.
I have some doubts about it because there will be great practical difficulties in the situation as a result of this scheme. The individual victim loses touch with the criminal, but the State rarely if ever loses touch with criminals. There will, therefore, be a continuing

1159
liability and the State will know only too well that it has paid out £1,000 or £2,000 which is due back from A whenever A has the money.
When A comes out of gaol he may continue in his wicked ways, and nothing much can happen. We all hope that when A comes out of gaol he will go into ordinary life, become a good citizen and start earning money. Is it likely to make A a good citizen to know that he has a debt of, say, £2,000 hanging over his head and that if he begins to earn and save money the State can take it all away from him? I do not think that this will do much to help to reduce crime. Therefore, I do not think that this right of subrogation, as it is called, will be very helpful. On the contrary, I think that it will do a great deal of damage and that it will need a great deal of thought.
Another consideration. Even supposing that we have, as suggested by my right hon. Friend, a system of the payment of wages in prison, those wages will have to be found by the State. The man will know that he is in prison as a punishment for his crime, and if the State says, "Ha ha, we are going to have it out of you now; we are going to dock you a couple of pounds a week for the man you have injured," this is going to be regarded as double punishment, and no amount of argument will explain that away.
Mr. Charles Curran: It seems to me that my hon. Friend is reading into the White Paper more than I am. The White Paper says
"…a person who has been compensated by the Board will be required to undertake to repay them from any damages he may obtain by suing the offender."
It does not say that a person who has been compensated by the Board shall be required to take proceedings against the offender, and still less does it say that the State shall be required to take action against the offender. It simply says that if the person who has been compensated obtains damages then he may be required to repay the compensation. There is no obligation imposed. My hon. Friend's argument amounts to an obligation imposed.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not saying that we should impose an obligation but that when the State makes payment under the White Paper it will, by the process of subrogation, itself be entitled to sue the offender. All I am saying is that the State's right arises from the fact that it pays the victim. I do not say that the State will be obliged to exercise that right, but it will have the right, which it will be extremely difficult to exercise. Although I am certainly not against this principle, because I think that it will be essential, I do not think that it will be impossible to say that the State shall pay and not be entitled to recover, but it will give rise to extraordinarily difficult questions that will have to be considered.
The scheme will give rise to many difficult questions. I am not in any sense trying to "crab" it; on the contrary, I think that these questions are important, and should be raised. Their solution is probably the solution of our whole system of criminal law, and for that reason I welcome this White Paper. The scheme will not be simple to work. It will not do anything to solve our difficulties, but that is a good thing, because it will force us to set to work to solve our difficulties. I see this as the beginning of a new system that may lead us, some day or other, to a better system of punishment and criminal law.
5.40 p.m.
Mr. Niall MacDermot: As I have a number of critical things to say about the White Paper, perhaps I may begin by giving as warm a welcome as I can to the scheme itself. I think it the logical corollary of the general movement away from the retributive conception of punishment to putting more emphasis on deterrence, prevention and reform that, at the same time, society should take an attitude of greater responsibility towards the victims of crimes of violence. It is significant that in the movement that has been taking place in the last few years, penal reformers have been prominent in advocating such a scheme.
One can quite understand why the Government wish to introduce a temporary and experimental scheme. Nevertheless, it is a matter for regret that after so much labour they have not been able to produce a Bill; and that,

1161
instead, we have this constitutional anomaly of a scheme of far-reaching importance being introduced merely by a White Paper. We are, presumably, to have one debate on it which is to be, at the same time, in effect, a Second Reading debate, and a complete series of Committee debates on every paragraph of the scheme. The result will be that this House will be unable to give the details of the scheme the attention they deserve.
I propose to respond to the Home Secretary's invitation to try to make some constructive suggestions, and I must therefore apologise in advance for making what will be primarily a Committee speech. The only other Second Reading point, as it were, that I wish to make is to express agreement with what has already been said in congratulating the Government on having come down on the side of a compensation scheme rather than of an insurance scheme, though I would only be repetitive if I gave my reasons.
Is what we have in the White Paper intended to be the scheme? I am not quite clear of that. I see the Home Secretary nod his head—perhaps he means that this is the scheme subject to any amendments he will make as a result of what is said in this debate. I understand that to be the proposition. If so, my comment—and I hope that it will not be dismissed as a lawyer's quibble—is that a serious defect of the scheme is that it is vague and incoherent.
The scheme must be applied, and it must be applied by lawyers. That is right, particularly as the common law basis of damages is being accepted as the basis of compensation. It is only lawyers who know what that basis is in practice so, rightly, the tribunal must comprise lawyers. But if lawyers are to approach such a scheme as this they first have to know the precise definition of what is meant. They must know what is to be the scope of the scheme, what kind of crimes are to be covered by it, what exactly is to be the measure of damages, what exactly they are to discuss or leave out. On what are practical matters from the lawyer's point of view, I find myself on reading the scheme riddled with doubt, as I think most lawyers will be.
1162
Let me give some examples of what I mean. In paragraph 13, which is headed "Scope of Compensation Scheme", I am unable to find a definition of the scope of the scheme. I am told what it is not, but I am not told what it is. It begins with the general statement:
"Personal injury may arise from a great variety of offences, including crimes against property as well as crimes against the person."
That means, presumably, that the scheme will be limited to personal injury, but the White Paper does not say so specifically, and it does not make clear the very pertinent point mentioned by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), about whether or not poisoning is covered.
The paragraph continues:
"It is not, therefore, proposed to specify a comprehensive list of crimes, the victims of which may apply for compensation."
I think that other schemes, and the New Zealand Act in particular, give a specific list of crimes. There are strong arguments for making a list but, if that is not done, let us at least define the kind of crimes to be covered. Instead of that, the paragraph says:
"Broadly speaking, however, applications are likely to arise either out of…"
and there comes a list of various offences. The question is not what applications are likely to arise but what applications will be received as valid. Are those words intended to mean that any applications arising out of these classes of offences will be accepted, and none other? If so, the scheme should say so, and it does not.
One reason why this is very important is that in paragraph 26 we read that no costs of legal representation will be paid. People who have serious injuries and want to know in a borderline case whether or not they should pursue a claim will, in my view, be foolish not to employ lawyers, because lawyers will present their case better and more effectively for them. That will involve applicants in quite substantial costs. As I say, they will want to take advice on whether or no they have a valid claim under the scheme. If the whole thing is worded in woolly terms—as I think this is—lawyers will not be able to give any confident answer to them.

1163
It is no good the Home Secretary saying that to start with it will be experimental, that we will see how it works out, and that it will be informal. People will incur liabilities and costs, and will want to be advised whether or not they have a good claim. That is one of the practical reasons why parity should apply——
Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned Gentleman interrupted me, so I hope that he will not mind my interrupting him at this point. We both have a common object; we both want to get this scheme into as good shape as possible. It is fair to me to make the point that whereas the hon. and learned Gentleman is quoting from paragraph 13 and the broad outline of the scheme, it is in paragraph 14, which he has not yet mentioned, that it is stated that the Board will entertain applications only in certain cases. That is where the definition comes that he says is missing.
Mr. MacDermot: With respect, I have not made my point clear. I agree that there are various limitations, which are considerably clearer, in the succeeding paragraphs, including paragraph 14, but nowhere in paragraph 14 can I find the kinds of crime of which a person has to be the victim before he can successfully make an application under the scheme. That is what is not clear. That is dealt with in paragraph 13 only, and in a negative and unclear way.
I want now to deal with the basis of compensation, a matter on which a number of us interrupted the Home Secretary at length. I think that I carry all lawyers with me in saying that the phrase which disturbs us—
"no award for loss of expectation of happiness"—
is not a term of art known to the law.
The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): It is a quite well-known phrase which is used frequently. It is used in Clerk and Lindsell on Torts. It came from Benham v. Gambling, which is discussed in Clerk and Lindsell, and it means little more than the expectation of life. The law in Rose v. Ford dealt with the loss of expectation of life. What was said in Benham v. Gambling is that one looked, not to the expectation of life, but
1164
to the expectation of happiness in life. This idea is set forth in Clerk and Lindsell. To make it clear that this is what is intended, one need only turn to paragraphs 128 and 129 of the Government White Paper published in 1961 which make it plain that the phrase "loss of expectation of happiness" is intended only to deal with what used to be known as loss of expectation of life.
The hon. and learned Member will, I am sure, be delighted to know that certainly the view of the Government is that it is not intended to limit claims for damages in respect of loss of faculty, capacity or anything of that nature or loss of the ordinary amenities of life because of loss of faculty or capacity.
Mr. MacDermot: I hope that with that intervention the right hon. and learned Gentleman has persuaded the Home Secretary at least that this phrase is not clear to lawyers, because from two distinguished lawyers on the benches opposite we have had completely different and conflicting explanations of the meaning of the phrase.
I cannot think that the Attorney-General's explanation can be accepted, and for this reason. He says that "loss of expectation of happiness" means that term as used in the case of Benham v. Gambling—that is, a claim for damages under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, arising out of the death of a person. In the White Paper, we see that the limitation that there will be no loss of expectation of happiness deals with the ordinary case of compensation based upon common law damages. It is the next sentence of paragraph 22 that deals with fatal injuries.
If it were said in relation to cases of fatal injury that there would be no award for loss of expectation of happiness, my mind would have gone at once to Benham v. Gambling, but it does not turn at once to that case when we are dealing generally with the basis of compensation.
The Attorney-General: There are people who, although they are not dead at the time of their claim, plainly will live only two instead of 20 years. They have lost what might be called expectation of life, but they have, in fact, lost an expectation of happiness. Whether a person is dead and his dependants are

1165
claiming or whether he is alive and not expecting to live so long, it is only the loss of expectation of living a happy life which is excluded by these words.
Mr. MacDermot: I am comforted by that reply and I hope that among the amendments to be included in the scheme will be a change of the wording to make it abundantly clear to the tribunal that that is what is intended, and nothing else, because on reading the wording many of us feared that it would extend to a large part of the sphere of general common law damages. We are certainly greatly relieved by the reply which the Attorney-General has given.
I will review rapidly some of the other points which have occurred to me. I do not want to make my speech long, because many other hon. Members wish to participate. I hope, therefore, that I will be forgiven if I do no more than refer briefly to a number of the points. The proposed name of the tribunal is long and the Home Secretary invited suggestions. For what it is worth, I throw out as a suggestion "violent crimes compensation board", saving quite a number of words.
On paragraph 12, I agree that as part of a permanent scheme we surely cannot accept that there should be no right of appeal. We all know that in dealing with common law damages, even the most experienced judges sometimes go very much astray in their assessments and have to be rectified by the Court of Appeal. Unless there is a similar right of appeal, the same kind of error will from time to time undoubtedly arise in dealing with a tribunal of this kind. In addition, if it is intended to relate the level of damages to the general common law damages, one of the most effective ways of doing this would be to give a right of appeal to the same tribunal as hears appeals against damages at common law.
To deal with paragraph 14, I should like to express some dissent from the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) concerning cases where an offender has not been brought to justice. I understood my right hon. and learned Friend to suggest that if a man who was alleged to have committed the crime had been prosecuted and acquitted, it would
1166
not be right that the victim could then try to reassert the claim before the tribunal in order to get damages. Surely, the victim is already entitled to go to the common law courts and, if the alleged criminal was a man of means and was worth suing, to say "Even though he was acquitted by the jury, nevertheless I still allege that he assaulted me. The burden of proof is not so high on me here. I only have to prove on the balance of probability that I am right and do not have to prove, as in a criminal case, beyond reasonable doubt."
Clearly, it is right to have the provision as is contained in the scheme that it is not necessary that the offender should have been brought to justice, so that compensation can be awarded in cases where the identity of the offender cannot be established. In my view, that should apply also in cases where the alleged offender has been acquitted by a jury.
On paragraph 15 and the question of taking account of any share of responsibility of the victim, I entirely accept the principle that it is right that this should be written into the scheme. This, again, is a matter in which a clearer definition would help. Is it intended that there should be an apportionment of liability as in, for example, a claim for negligence at common law, where damages are reduced proportionately to the share of responsibility of the plaintiff? Is that what is meant by the words "take account"? If so, I suggest that this should be stated specifically.
Paragraph 16 deals with the admittedly difficult question of claims in relation to sexual offences. I entirely agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Hendon, South about the danger—indeed, we must accept it as being more than a danger, even a certainty—that fraudulent claims will be put forward in this connection. Paragraph 16 is designed to protect the public funds against claims of that sort. I wonder, however, whether it does not go a little too far in that it specifically requires that the circumstances of the alleged assault must
"have been immediately reported to the police".
Obviously, in many cases, if the matter has not been reported to the police with

1167
promptness, that of itself would cast serious doubts upon the claim. That is something which would be looked at and investigated by the tribunal.
Must this, however, be an absolute prohibition? Surely, there may be occasions when there are good reasons why the matter was not reported at the time to the police but, nevertheless, the person concerned later wanted to pursue the claim. There would be a heavy burden upon claimants to establish their case, but if they could satisfy the tribunal that they were the subject of a criminal assault, even though it was not immediately reported to the police, should that be a bar upon them? If a bar of this kind is to be proposed, let it be more precise. What does "immediately" mean? Surely, there should be a specific time limit so that people advising a claimant will be in a position to advise whether the delay which has occurred would be accepted as within the meaning of the phrase "immediately reported to the police". Personally I welcome the fact that the scheme does extend to the damages resulting from a pregnancy created by a sexual assault. I, indeed, would have liked to have seen it extended to the maintenance of a child born as the result. I can see that in the initial stages of a scheme of this sort it is perhaps better to limit it at first.
Paragraph 23 provides for the determining of applications and that
"Every application will be made in writing, as soon as possible after the event…"
Again, this is very vague. Is it not better to have some prescribed time limit and, if necessary, give the tribunal a discretionary power to allow an extension of time on good cause being shown?
Paragraph 27 says:
"Procedure at a hearing will be as informal as is consistent with a proper determination of the application, and the hearing will be in private."
I think that is right. Nothing is said about rules of evidence, but obviously from the fact that inquiries are to be made of the police and so forth, it is clear that this tribunal is not going to be bound and tied to the ordinary rules of evidence but presumably to some
1168
extent will have to work out its own code of evidence.
In view of this and other uncertainties, would it not be advantageous if reports of this tribunal were published periodically? This would easily be done, and still preserve anonymity, as is done, for example, with periodical reports of appeals on planning decisions, and there are other examples from other tribunals. But again, for the benefit of those who have to advise prospective claimants, it is going to be very difficult for the ordinary practitioner to know what the practice and what the form is if he does not happen to have dealt with this sort of case before, unless some system of reporting is developed, and I suggest that to the Minister for consideration.
Mr. Brooke: I think that is a valuable suggestion, but on certain points the hon. and learned Gentleman made earlier he seemed to me to have fallen into the same difficulty as we were in. Either we have a general scheme based on a White Paper which gives the Board considerable opportunity during this initial experimental period to use its common sense, or we use a statutory scheme under which judges will be required to apply the law laid down by Parliament with exactitude, and I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman should criticise it at one and the same time for being too vague and too rigid, as he did.
Mr. MacDermot: I do not remember complaining that it was too rigid at any point. I do not know what the Home Secretary has in mind. I have complained a number of times that a number of terms were too vague. The Home Secretary urges that the tribunal should be allowed to apply its common sense. That, of course, is an unusual quality, because it is one we all think we have ourselves to a sufficient degree but are reluctant to recognise in anyone else. I stress the point that the more we leave things loose and flexible to the tribunal to develop, the more difficult the task of the tribunal will be, and also—and it is a very important factor—the more difficult is going to be the task of anybody who tries to advise a claimant as to what his position is under this scheme.
There is just one other point which I omitted to deal with on the basis of

1169
compensation. The last sentence of paragraph 22 provides that
"Where applicable, compensation will be reduced by the amount of any payments from public funds payable, as a result of the injury or death, to the person to whom the award is made."
I suppose the implications of this have been considered. Presumably what it means is this. Suppose, for example, a widow receives a pension under some State scheme, albeit as the result of some contributory scheme, this benefit will hdve to be deducted from any compensation she gets, whilst a precisely similar benefit she gets under a private scheme—for example, a group life pension as provided and run by many employers—would be outside this provision and no deduction would have to be made for that. It seems to me that to try to draw a dividing line between benefits she receives, as a result of death, from public funds and benefits which she receives from other funds may produce anomalies which will certainly seem unjust to many of the claimants.
Those are the principal points I wanted to raise. I commented on the difficulty we are in here in having both a Second Reading and a Committee debate at the same time. I am wondering whether, as the whole of this matter is being dealt with on such a very informal basis, it will be possible after this debate, when the Government spokesman has replied, for the House to find some means of having an informal committee to go through the scheme to try to see that it is in the best shape possible before it leaves this House. I feel sure that if this scheme had been put forward as a Bill in the ordinary way it would have been very substantially amended in Committee.
6.6 p.m.
Sir Gerald Wills: I should like, quite briefly, to welcome the proposals which are set out in the White Paper. Many of us have felt for some time that the innocent victims of crimes of violence should, in certain circumstances, be compensated. That is something we have felt increasingly strongly about as the years have gone on. The problem has been to find the best way of doing it and to settle such questions as, from whom should the compensation come? How should it be calculated?
1170
For what types of crimes of violence should it be paid? Those are the problems which have exercised the minds of many thinking people, and as the result of this consideration this White Paper has been produced.
I must say that it makes it clear that we are sailing in almost uncharted waters, and, so far., the course of this debate has certainly not contributed to making the waters any clearer. Indeed, a few more shaols have been placed in the water as the debate has progressed. It is quite clear, however, that the proposals in this White Paper must be in the nature of a trial run, and what is said in the debate will be taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend, and his proposals will be modified to the extent of the effect that consideration has upon his mind.
Therefore, with these views in mind, I consider that it is right that this scheme should at present be non-statutory. I think, also, that it is right hat the compensation should be ex gratia and that it should come from a grant in aid. Nevertheless, I imagine that the time will come when the whole scheme has to be on a statutory basis and that more adequate means will have to be taken to provide the moneys from which the compensation will be paid.
To come to the composition of the Board which is to be set up, I do not think that it will have an altogether easy task. It is to have as its chairman a man of wide legal experience and the rest of the Board will be people with high legal qualifications. Judging by the lawyers who have spoken this afternoon, it will need them. But I have no doubt that if modifications are needed, in the light of the arguments which have been put forward, they will be made, in the composition of the Board, and in other ways as, for instance, the places in which it is to sit.
I certainly think that it is a good thing that the Board's reports and accounts will be open to debate in the House. They may give good cause for debate each year, and provide the House with excellent opportunity to consider the work of the Board and the benefits which the Board is giving to those who suffer from these crimes of violence.
In paragraph 12 of the White Paper it seems to be made clear that the Board's

1171
decision on the compensation will not be subject to an appeal or Ministerial review. This may be reasonable enough, at any rate while we are gaining experience of how the Board is operating, but in paragraph 25 we seem to be a little less clear. Here it seems to be envisaged that one member can decide whether an application is to be allowed and also that that one member can decide on the amount of the compensation to be offered. If the applicant is not satisfied he can take his case to three other Members of the Board, not including the member who has already given what the applicant regards as an unsatisfactory decision. The applicant can make out his case again and can bring witnesses in order, he hopes, to strengthen his case.
This appears to be a system of appeal; it is an appeal from a decision of a Board to the same Board. I suppose that, in fact, it is not an appeal at all, and I wonder whether there ought not to be a system of appeal. If this is deemed to be an appeal from the original decision of the one member, it does not seem right that it should be made to the same Board. Experience will show. We ought to keep this in mind as a possible weakness in the mechanism.
It is entirely to the good that in paragraph 28 the principle of contributions from the offender is upheld. It would be quite wrong that an offender should not be required to contribute towards the compensation paid in respect of the harm which he has done. I know that there are vast complications, but at least he should contribute for as long as he is under sentence—if he is caught. This is, of course, entirely dependent on whether we introduce a system whereby a prisoner is allowed to earn reasonable wages while serving his sentence—and to do the work to earn them.
This is outside the scope of the White Paper, but I hope that before long it will be possible to provide full-time productive work for prisoners undergoing sentence. This might well enable them to earn sufficient towards the compensation which the State has paid to the victims of violence and possibly—not a bad thing—to pay towards the upkeep of their families while in prison; and
1172
although I know that I am a little outside the scope of the White Paper, I hope that it will also help towards the rehabilitation of prisoners.
I know the difficulties which my right hon. Friend must have had in framing a White Paper which was flexible, experimental and yet sufficiently definite to avoid some of the criticisms which lawyers, in particular, have found it so easy to make about the scheme. I know, too, that my right hon. Friend realises that it is necessary to provide compensation for victims of crimes of violence. I am glad that this realisation has been indicated in the White Paper, because I often feel that far too much attention is paid to the criminal who has knocked someone about or hit a woman on the head and not nearly enough is paid to the victim of the assault. I have sometimes felt that it is a tendency of our age that we spread all the consideration around the criminal and not nearly enough around his victim.
In the White Paper an attempt is being made to adjust that balance. I hope that if the scheme becomes effective it will work well and will meet a need which hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged to exist for a considerable time. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing the White Paper forward. It is one more example of the constructive thinking which he and the Home Office are bringing to bear on our penal problems. I welcome the White Paper.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Alan Fitch: I am in general agreement with the proposals outlined in the White Paper. It is a timely document, because the general public are certainly in favour of some such scheme. As the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir G. Wells) said, there is a feeling in the country that those of us who are interested in penal reform are more concerned with the offender than with the victim. This is not so, as will be shown by the fact that the House will almost wholeheartedly agree with the general principles, if not some of the details, outlined in the White Paper. This will show the public that we are as concerned with the victim as with the offender. It was Margery Fry, a great penal reformer, who was most concerned

1173
that the offender should make restitution to the person harmed.
The other day I was reading a copy of the Howard Journal, the organ of the Howard League—a copy from 1958. The Journal was calling upon the Home Secretary to take this matter up with the Committee for the Treatment of Offenders so that the whole question of compensation
"to the victims of assaults who have suffered injuries such as to impair their future earning capacity and usefulness"
could be considered. The Journal said:
"The number of assaults which have such consequences is fortunately not very large. But, to the victims, they may mean the end of any normal sort of life. The whole question deserves urgent and careful consideration."
That paragraph appeared in the Journal of the Howard League as far back as 1958.
I turn to the White Paper. I am not a lawyer and it would be impertinent to attempt to argue—as I have not the knowledge with which to argue—as some of my hon. and learned Friends and some learned Members opposite have argued today. But I feel that the right hon. Gentleman is right. There are many things on which I do not agree with him, but on this occasion I feel that he is right in introducing what I would call a pilot scheme with the principle of ex gratia payments, for the simple reason that we have no previous experience to go on. It is common knowledge that such a scheme has been introduced in New Zealand; it came into operation at the beginning of this year. I know that three or four months is not a long time but the Home Secretary, who mentioned the scheme, may have some idea of how it is working.
I hope that this will be only a pilot scheme and that it will eventually give way to a far more fundamental and comprehensive system of compensation. But I feel that at this stage—possibly some of my hon. Friends will disagree—to have introduced a more comprehensive and fundamental scheme would have been too risky, because if it had failed the whole idea of compensation for the victims of violent crime would have been prejudiced for the future. I do not suggest that this is a simple scheme after what we have heard today, but I think that it is far better to start with a scheme which
1174
I might describe as elementary in the best sense and that we can certainly move on from there.
The more fundamental scheme must in my opinion bring in the offender, but, as the Home Secretary and others have said, this is not a practical proposition at the moment. We cannot ask a prisoner who is being paid a very small amount a week in prison to make any contribution—not that morally he should not do so, but on practical grounds it would be quite impossible.
I am more interested in the broad principles of the White Paper than in the more legalistic aspects. There are certain things on which I have doubts, however. Perhaps that is because of my legal ignorance. For example, there is the proposal that people living in the household of the offender cannot claim compensation if they are the victims. What about the sub-tenant living in the same house? Is he counted as a member of the household? Is he included in those who cannot claim compensation?
Again, it is possible for a mother-in-law to be living in the household. If she is violently attacked, will she get nothing? After all, if she happened to live only next door presumably she would be able to claim. There are certain questions like this which are vaguely dealt with in the White Paper. I agree that perhaps it is because I am not a lawyer, but I am not sure that all the members of the Board should be legally qualified. The majority certainly should be, for obviously this is a legal matter. But it should be possible to include members who have some expert knowledge of penal matters, but who are not necessarily lawyers.
Then there is the interesting question that any one apprehending a criminal—by assisting the police, for instance—and who is injured in doing so will be liable for compensation. What about a political demonstration which turns out to be rather violent so that the police have to take certain action? Suppose a member of the public, an extremist, helps the police from a political motive. Will such a person be eligible for compensation? While, in principle, this may be right, there are dangers since, as I say, one may have an extremist joining in and using violence on the

1175
excuse that he is assisting the police but becoming a victim himself. These are points which should be made clear. On the other hand, if this scheme encourages members of the public to help the police in difficulty then it is all to the good. There has been a certain reluctance among members of the public to help the police in the apprehending of criminals.
I presume that those appearing before the compensation board will be entitled to legal aid. We are also informed that these hearings will be in private. That is probably good in principle, but I wonder whether the Press should not get some information. It is desirable, at least in certain cases where people are awarded compensation due to particularly vicious attacks, that reports should be issued to the Press. I do not think that secrecy should be carried to the length of not even issuing a statement after a hearing, provided that intimate details are not revealed. I assume from the wording of the White Paper that the Press will not be admitted to hearings by the Board.
As has been emphasised by several hon. Members, this is a pilot scheme. I hope that, in a few years time, we shall have a far more fundamental one to replace it. Certainly, such a scheme should have provision whereby the offenders are made at least partially responsible for some kind of restitution. We should think about this now and, in considering priorities for penal reform, those of us who are particularly interested in it put the question of a full week's work and a mere normal wage at the top of the list. I appreciate the Home Secretary's difficulty at the moment in that there is such overcrowding in our prisons that it is hard to operate a scheme whereby prisoners could put in a 48 or 44-hour week.
It is also at present impossible to pay a full week's wage because one cannot do this without first consulting the unions and the employers. But this is something that the right hon. Gentleman could do now. He should immediately open discussions with the unions and employers of this problem. If we are to make a practical reality of the view that offenders should make a practical contribution towards compensating their victims it can only be done if the problem is tackled
1176
in the way I have suggested. We should think about this now and not leave it to the future.
But not only is work itself necessary. It must be the right type of work. Much of the work done in our prisons, at least in the past—I think it is improving now—has been of a destructive nature, such as the dismantling of telephones and mail bag sewing. There is little purpose in that sort of thing. When I visited Strange-ways, three or four years ago—I hope that things have changed now—many prisoners were sorting cigarette boxes, separating the paper from the cardboard. That is not the kind of job which is likely to rehabilitate them.
These are matters which can be tackled now. If we are to have, eventually, a comprehensive scheme we should be seriously thinking of these problems. I believe that the Government are right to be cautious. We should not over emphasise the problem and give the impression that there are thousands of victims. It has been emphasised by a well-known professor, Professor F. H. McClintock, that the chance of being attacked by someone unknown to one is about one in 10,000, and I think that a fair estimate.
Those of us interested in the subject will watch the progress of the scheme with interest and look forward to debating the annual reports. But our main interest will be in regarding this White Paper as the basis for a more fundamental and comprehensive scheme.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Frederic Harris: I hope that my lawyer colleagues on both sides of the House will not mind if I say that when I saw the Motion on this subject, in which I take a very close interest, I was somewhat concerned that this might turn into a lawyers' field day, as often happens with such debates. I was not disappointed up to the last couple of contributions, even to the extent of the many interruptions of the Home Secretary, because it was natural that this should follow. However, I would be concerned if the Home Secretary decided to appoint too many lawyers to the Board because, from what we have heard today, there will obviously be tremendous differences of opinion when the scheme is operated. I could imagine in such circumstances

1177
that some compensation would then be forthcoming extremely late after the discussions.
It seems to be a contradiction in terms that in what is presumably a fully civilised country, where mainly the circumstances of our people in the main are obviously much better than ever before, the incidence of crime, and in this context crimes of violence in particular, is sadly and steadily on the increase. Regrettably, this is an unfortunate fact which makes this Measure we are considering today both necessary and urgent.
During my Parliamentary career have been a very strong advocate of compensation being paid to innocent—and I stress "innocent"—victims of crimes of violence. This special interest of mine stems from many years ago when a police officer in Croydon was tragically killed on duty. Subsequently, in an Adjournment debate in November, 1952, I asked the Government for renewed consideration for widows of police officers killed on duty, and I was gratified that they finally agreed. I then pressed for general insurance for police officers themselves when on duty. In due course, this subsequently followed with compensation for innocent members of the public who themselves were victims of crimes of violence.
If I had any major criticism to offer, it would be of the time that all this has taken. The wheels of Government turn very slowly in such matters. My own personal interest goes back for more than 11 years. However, I am reminded, as we are reminded by the White Paper, that, with the exception of New Zealand which started a scheme at the beginning of the year, no other country has yet tackled this rather difficult problem. I am very pleased that our Government's outlook is so progressive.
Unless the present unfortunate crime rate is in some way abated or arrested, with an ever substantially increasing population, on the face of it, crimes of violence, too, will continue to increase. In Croydon one learns only too frequently of such disturbing cases. The figures for Croydon for 1962—the latest I can find available and which I have obtained from the Report of the Croydon Justices—show that there were 203
1178
cases of general crimes of violence compared with 131 in 1958, an increase of some 70 per cent. in four years. In the same period, the population of Croydon increased by only 1·6 per cent., namely, from 249,500 to 253,690. While the population has increased by only 1·6 per cent., recorded crimes of violence—I admit, of a general nature—have risen by more than 70 per cent. These startling comparisons should be carefully recorded.
As will be noted, the rate of such crime in Croydon has increased far faster than the increase in the population, yet I am given to understand that in this respect Croydon compares very favourably with the rest of the country. This proposed legislation will therefore cover a major problem, for, on the face of it, the number of cases will steadily increase.
As is so with most towns, Croydon has very efficient local newspapers which always endeavour to highlight cases coming before the local courts. Only last Friday I read a report saying that thugs had attacked a watchman of 70 years of age for a mere £3 and that he had eventually had to be taken to Croydon General Hospital and treated for rather severe cuts about the head. Such an incident is mild compared with many. Too often we learn of young girls being physically and violently attacked, and also of lonely old ladies being so attacked.
Nor do these troubles stem only from people born in this country. Today we have more immigrants than ever before. Some of them come from countries without a moral code similar to that to which we are accustomed and from countries which do not have sufficient resources necessary to keep law and order properly. Quite understandably, therefore different standards are set. Consequently, such immigrants often imagine that they can achieve their ends by taking the law into their own hands and using physical violence on unsuspecting victims.
It is therefore only right and proper that financial compensation should be provided for the victims of such terrible acts via the State and on behalf of the community, and that, wherever possible, the State should try to recover some of the compensation from the guilty party.

1179
One assumes regretfully that this will be only very seldom. In a way, it is rather strange to call this compensation, for nothing can really compensate the victim. However, such monetary payments as are made obviously can be put to good use and often, one trusts, to restoring the victim to something approaching normal health.
One other pleasant fact about these proposals is that, on the fact of it, they are out of reach of all political argument and we can unanimously give them full support. I cannot imagine that any hon. Member will be opposed to the principles of the scheme, although obviously many are critical of the details. Nor could I imagine that anyone in the country would seriously oppose the main proposition. With such unanimous support, any comment can apply only to the details. For instance, one disturbing feature with such a scheme is that a line has to be drawn somewhere. We will have a situation whereby someone will be physically attacked one day and will receive no compensation, yet if he is attacked the next day he will receive it. This, sadly, is pointed out in paragraph 14 of the White Paper, but obviously it is unavoidable. The White Paper rightly sets out, too, those who will be entitled to claim compensation, and with public funds at stake, one realises that it is necessary to be as specific as possible.
I should like to repeat to our present Home Secretary what I said in the House to our former Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary. I sincerely hope that the authorities will be as sympathetic as possible, for if it is agreed that the State is going to compensate in such cases, let us for goodness sake compensate. Do not let us try to find reasons why we should not compensate the victim.
Another justification for this is that many members of the public, including myself, often feel that the interests of the offender are placed before those of the victim. The White Paper itself quotes emphatically that this is certainly not the correct emphasis.
I am reminded, too, that much physical violence these days stems from excessive drunkenness. Unfortunately,
1180
many of us feel that sometimes magistrates and judges do not use the severest of penalties. In my opinion there cannot be any mercy for a person who commits physical violence at all, and the strongest possible penalties should always be enforced.
Against that general background, while realising that such a scheme must be flexible, I would assume that, on average, in a town like Croydon there might be only five or six cases out of about 200 who would be in a position to claim compensation under this scheme. If that be a correct assumption, I suppose that the average number of cases a year on which the Board might have to pay out might be about 1,000, although on the face of it the Board will handle many thousands of applications.
I do not know whether in winding up the Minister will be able to give any information on the assumed total amounts of compensation in which the country might be involved, or, indeed, if the Government have any thoughts about the number of cases which the Board may handle. I do not know whether the Minister can give an indication of the amounts of compensation which will be paid in certain circumstances. Is it possible to give any kind of examples, for such general information, whilst obviously hypothetical, will be very helpful in giving us an idea of what the Government have in mind with these proposals.
After all these years, I would particularly like to know the date on which the scheme will actually become operative. I have listened to the debate, and I have read the White Paper most carefully, but I still do not know the actual date which the Government have in mind from which the scheme would operate.
I conclude by saying that I very much welcome this Measure, and I ask my right hon. Friend that it should be instilled right through the Board when it is set up, and through the officials who will operate the scheme, that it should be interpreted in the broadest and most generous sense. Although, unfortunately, Parliament cannot put right the entire harm done to such victims of violence, it can by this small measure express some practical and limited consideration for them.
6.44 p.m.
Mr. R. E. Prentice:I am glad of the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris). It reminds me of occasions in the past when we used to follow each other in debates on the Croydon Council, usually with less agreement than we have this afternoon. It reminds me, too, of occasions when I was his opponent in two General Elections before I moved to an area of greater political sophistication. I was glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the timing of this scheme. He felt that it could have come in earlier, and I shall develop that point in a moment.
I think that the House is in a rather curious situation in this debate. We seem to be doing what might be described as legislating by White Paper. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) pointed out, we have to concentrate our Second Reading points and all our Committee points into one debate. It is not surprising that all kinds of points of confusion have already arisen in our discussion, and that it will probably be impossible to answer many of the detailed questions which have been asked, purely for lack of time. Although the House is in an unsatisfactory situation, and the White Paper is in many ways an unsatisfactory document, I join in welcoming the fact that some scheme is to be started, whatever detailed criticisms there may be of it.
I have never cared much for this rather stuffy and legalistic discussion on whether the State has a liability to the victim in cases of this kind. This sort of discussion seems to put the State in the position of being the defendant in an action, which I think is unreal. I prefer to welcome this scheme in the sense that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) welcomed it when he opened the debate for the Opposition, and said that he saw this as a reasonable extension of our welfare services. I only add that I would be glad to see no scheme of this kind at all if I felt that the community made sufficient provision for those who were sick and disabled. I believe that the Welfare State is only
1182
beginning in these matters for those who are sick and disabled, particularly the long-term sick and the permanently disabled, for the community owes them a much higher duty than it performs at the present time.
So long as these provisions are adequate, I think that we recognise special categories. War pensioners are one, the industrially disabled are another, and I am sure that public opinion is ready, and has been for some years, to recognise victims of violent crime as another special category—a category of people who are injured unexpectedly. This is not one of the risks against life for which people are prepared or insured, or, indeed, could be expected to insure.
These people are injured in cases which usually command wide public sympathy, and a scheme for compensating them is relatively cheap. All the estimates which have been made of the cost of a scheme of this kind show the cost to be a few pence per citizen per year. In other words, it is something which can be done without raising the difficulties which are involved when one talks about a much better deal for the sick and disabled in general.
When I spoke on this subject under the Ten Minute Rule procedure about a year ago I referred to a case which had been quoted by the late Miss Margery Fry in 1957. This case illustrates particularly well the argument for a scheme of this kind. A man was so severely attacked by two criminals that he suffered from blindness and other permanent injuries. He sued the two criminals in court, and was awarded damages of £11,500. The two men concerned were unable to pay. He took them to court for a payment order to be made, and they were ordered to pay 5s. a week each. Miss Margery Fry pointed out that the victim would have to live for 442 years to collect the last instalment of the damages.
Following my reference to that case a year ago, I received a letter from Mrs. Richardson, the wife of the victim. She said that she was glad that the case had beer raised and went on,
"But may we point out that we do not even get the £1 a month that you mentioned, as we have £240 costs of the court to pay before we can have anything?"

1183
I believe that that case, as much as any other—and I am sure that hon. Members who are interested in the subject could quote others—illustrates the need for this reform. But the House should criticise the Government for not having made this move some years ago.
The article to which I referred, by Margery Fry, was written in July, 1957, and it sparked off a number of resolutions by various bodies, including the Howard League of Penal Reform, in favour of some scheme. The evening newspaper the Star was for some time interested in the subject, and campaigned for it. Just over four years ago I was fortunate enough in the Ballot for Private Member's Bills to be able to introduce a Bill to provide a scheme of this kind, and in the following session, three years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) introduced another such Bill—and I had another go a year ago.
The argument brought against us when we tried to legislate on this matter was that the Government needed more time to work out all the complicated issues surrounding the problem. We were told that it would be difficult to decide how to deal with cases in which members of a family were injured, or in which criminals had had an argument about the division of spoils from which injury resulted, and so on. We accepted that argument. I think that my hon. Friend and I both felt, when we introduced our respective Bills, that we would need a complicated Committee Stage in order to thrash out these points and to reach decisions.
The Government said they needed time, and they set up a working party, which reported in June, 1961, nearly three years ago. That White Paper can be summed up by saying that the working party found that certain decisions needed to be arrived at but that there was no fundamental objection to the introduction of such a scheme. The Government, however, have delayed and delayed and delayed, and many people have been injured in the meantime without receiving any compensation.
If, after all that delay, the Government had now come forward with a complex Bill and said, "We have taken all these
1184
years to work out our decisions," we might have conceded that as a reason for the delay, but they have not done that. Instead, they have presented a White Paper saying that all the problems still lie ahead, and proposing the introduction of an experimental scheme in order to see how it works. I should have thought that they could have done that four years ago, or earlier. They would have relieved much hardship if they had done so.
I turn now to the White Paper. I feel that the vagueness of many of its proposals are bound to give rise to practical difficulties. Here I give the reverse of the penny, as it were, of my previous argument. In view of the time that has elapsed it should have been possible to be more specific about some of the points that are involved. It is a grave weakness of the scheme that it lays down no specific list of crimes. Quite clearly there will be a borderline. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) mentioned poisoning cases and other types of case in respect of which it is completely unclear whether they will be included.
That is all the more serious because there is no written in right of appeal. Some people will feel that they have a good case, but they will be turned down, although, from their point of view, their case is as valid as others in respect of which compensation has been paid. There will be no Act of Parliament or terms of reference to which to refer in order to settle cases of this kind.
I want to ask a question concerning one of these points of vagueness to which no reference has yet been made. I refer to cases in which it is held that the victim has contributed to the result. A paragraph in the White Paper says that the Board will have to take into account the share of responsibility. What is expected of the Board? Are we to take as a model the practice that is normally followed in the courts, in cases of contributory negligence? Will it be held that a person who, under full liability, would have been entitled to damages of £1,000 will receive only £500 because he was half responsible for what happened? Is that the proposal? Or will the Board have to work it out as it goes along? This is a fundamental point, and one upon which

1185
clearer guidance should be given to the Board.
I ask the Government to reconsider their attitude about backdating cases. I realise that certain difficulties are involved, and that it is probably impossible for the Government to accept an open-ended liability for all the cases that have ever occurred, but because the scheme has been so long coming I wonder whether they might consider fixing some date in the recent past—perhaps in the last year or two—after which any injuries from crimes of violence would quality for compensation. I believe that in the New Zealand scheme some backdating is provided for, and that might be a precedent for our scheme.
Another point that worries me a little arises out of the references made to the need to exclude cases of minor injury and the yardstick that is suggested, that cases will be excluded where the damages awarded would be less than £50 or where the loss of time from work is less than three weeks. I would have thought that although some such limit is needed the £50 figure could be reconsidered. I am thinking particularly of retired people or other people who are not at work, such as housewives, in whose cases there will be no element in respect of damages for loss of employment, and where the damages will be confined to pain, suffering, shock and elements of that kind.
I would have thought that we might thereby be excluding some injuries that could be quite serious to an elderly person. The sort of case that might merit damages of £35 or some such figure could be very serious for the individual concerned. To a pensioner who had not got much money the sum of £35 might be an important element of compensation. I am not sure that £50 is the right figure in this context.
The Government should also reconsider the question of the maintenance of a child born as a result of rape or some sort of sexual assault. If the scheme is to include compensation for women who have been the victims of assault—and I feel that it should, despite be difficulties which have been referred to—it would seem unreasonable to exclude the most expensive element of all, namely, the subsequent main
1186
tenance of the child. Although it might be difficult to find a formula here, this is surely one of the things which the Government should reconsider.
Although there are many other points that I would have made if there had been more time, I want to refer only to one other aspect of the scheme. I believe that everyone who has spoken on the subject of the type of compensation awarded has expressed a preference for lump-sum compensation rather than the type of benefits awarded under the Industrial Injuries Act. I am not so sure about that. When I introduced the Private Member's Bill to which I have referred I allowed for the type of benefits awarded under the Industrial injuries Act, although I was then up against the difficulty of the Rules of Order, and of introducing a Private Member's Bill that made a demand on the Exchequer. To some extent this dictated the type of scheme proposed. I had no dogmatic preference for that type of compensation.
It seems to me that the arguments are fairly evenly balanced. Lump sum payments would probably be more popular and would probably be chosen by more people, if there were a choice. They provide a parallel to what victims would obtain in a court of law if they could successfully sue the criminals concerned, as they have occasionally been able to do. As other hon. Members have pointed out, lump sum payments allow for more flexibility than does any form of pension and make greater allowances for the circumstances of the case.
On the other hand, a disability pension of some kind is more flexible in another way. It could be reassessed later in life, if there were unexpected developments from the injury or if there were new and unforeseen symptoms of disability. It could be reviewed later in life if the cost of living went up. If a scheme were tied to the industrial injuries scheme, increases in benefit for industrial disability would automatically lead to increases in benefit for the victims of crimes of violence.
There is another important point. Some kind of weekly pension payable could be paid immediately. The assessment of a sum for damages might well depend upon certain medical aspects of the case being sorted out over a period

1187
of months. It might be necessary to see how a patient responded to hospital treatment, and so on. I realise that in the White Paper there is a reference to the possibility of making more than one lump sum payment, but this might not meet the varying circumstances which could arise in one case. The Committee of "Justice" in reporting on this looked at the pros and cons of both kinds of payment and suggested a compromise which it described as a hybrid scheme. It was that there should be power to make some sort of first-aid payment from the beginning. Someone suddenly thrown out of work should not be forced to use up all his savings before turning to National Assistance and he should get some sort of first-aid payment at an early stage.
It was suggested that when the claim had been settled, compensation should be paid in two parts. Compensation for the loss of earning power could take the form of a weekly pension. There might be a lump sum for the loss of faculty and amenity which we are all glad to realise is included in the scheme, although the Home Secretary did not seem sure whether it was included. What was suggested by the Committee of "Justice" combines the better features of both alternative kinds of payment and I should like to see this considered. If and when we move from this temporary scheme to a more permanent scheme in the form of legislation, this point ought to be considered in much more detail.
The House, and I think the country, should welcome this scheme, so far as it goes. Like many other things which the Government are doing now it deserves the description of being too little and too late. Nevertheless, it represents a hesitant step in the right direction and for this reason I am sure that it will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the country at large.
7.3 p.m.
Mr. Charles Curran: Like the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) I welcome this scheme. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman did less than justice when he asserted that the Government have been far too late and too dilatory in taking action about
1188
this matter. This debate demonstrates the enormous number of complexities which arise over a scheme of this kind and how easy it is, no matter what scheme is put up, to riddle it with criticism. This afternoon we have had several hours of criticisms and I do not think that we have heard the last of them. Although I wish to make some criticisms, I think it only fair to say first how much my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is to be congratulated on tackling this extraordinarily complicated matter. Whatever the criticisms may be, my right hon. Friend is entitled to credit for that.
I was glad to hear him make some reference—it is not the first time that he has done so—to the need for making changes in our prison system so that we may make criminals pay. There is no doubt, as the White Paper says, that there exists a considerable public demand for changes that would make the criminal pay in cases of crimes of violence. But there are, of course, difficulties about that. The impediment to it, which makes it necessary for us to have this scheme, at any rate pro tem, is that as our prison system is run at present it is not possible to extract from a criminal an amount of useful labour which would enable us to levy tribute on him for the benefit of his victim.
My right hon. Friend has referred more than once to his desire to make changes in the prison system so that we may get useful work done by prisoners, and I hope that he will not lose sight of that aim. We need to make the gaols of this country places where people can do useful work for money. I wish that the Home Office would be quite unconventional about this. For example, it might make an offer to the Coal Board to take over a coal pit or a group of pits and run them with prison labour.
After all, the Soviet Union have been doing that for a long time. The Soviet Union's Vorkuta coalfield, which is in the Arctic Circle, produces about one-tenth of all the coal in the Soviet Union and it has been run by convict labour for a good many years. It was run by convict labour throughout Stalin's life and it probably still is. Many Westerners who have done time there have told us in print how the convict labour is organised in that coalfield.

1189
I am not suggesting that the Home Office should imitate the way in which Stalin handled that labour, but I suggest that the Home Office might do worse than consider taking over some segment of British industry, such as a coal mine, or a group of coal mines, or a group of firms, and using them as places where people serving prison sentences could be put to work which would justify the payment of wages. Out of those wages they could be required to compensate persons who had suffered from their violence.
The second difficulty about making the criminal pay is that in order to do so it is first necessary to catch him. As we know, the rate of detection of crimes of violence in this country, and of other crimes, has dropped. If we are to say that no one who is assaulted shall receive compensation unless the criminal responsible is arrested we shall exclude a great many people from receiving any benefit at all. Unfortunately, with the present methods of coping with criminals it is not possible to do more than arrest what appears to be quite a small proportion of our lawbreakers. For these two reasons, therefore—the impossibility as things are of making criminals pay even when they are captured and the apparent impossibility, or near impossibility, of arresting more than a small proportion of them—it is necessary that we have a scheme such as the Home Secretary has put before us today, for the purpose of seeing that people who are injured by criminals get some sort of compensation.
I invite the Home Secretary to look again at one conclusion which is embodied in paragraph 5 of the White Paper, where it states:
"Virtually all the public comment since the appearance of the official working party's report has accepted, on the one hand, that some compensation should be available for the victims of crime and, on the other hand, that compensation can justifiably be restricted to the victims of crimes of violence."
That is perfectly true, but I want to suggest that although that statement has been made over and over again, and public comment has accepted that it is only the victims of crimes of violence who should have consideration in the payment of compensation, we are not necessarily required to accept that here.
1190
I invite the House to consider two sets of circumstances. An old woman is attacked by a burglar and beaten up. Under this scheme she will be able to ask for compensation and there is power to make an ex gratia payment. I also invite the House to consider the case of another old woman whose house is burgled. The burglar does not attack her but steals whatever money and valuables she has on the premises, and at the same time does a lot of reckless and wanton damage, as criminals quite often do. As things are, the second victim has no claim at all for compensation under this scheme. I suggest that we ought not to be quite so emphatic in asserting that crimes against property shall never in any circumstances entitle the victim to a claim to any sort of compensation under this scheme.
The discretionary powers of the compensation Board ought to be widened so that it might consider in some circumstances payment of compensation to people whose houses are invaded by criminals but who are not themselves attacked and to whose property much damage is done. The compensation Board might also take account of the fact that there is a sizeable number of old people who keep money and valuables hidden in their houses. Quite a lot of old people do not trust banks. They keep the accumulation of a lifetime under the mattress. It may be carried off by burglars. It seems very hard that in such circumstances it should not be possible for a victim to make any claim for compensation on the ground that it was a crime simply involving property.
The stock answers for making this distinction between compensation for victims of crimes of violence and no compensation for victims of crime against property are two. It is asserted, first, that one can insure against loss of property and, secondly, that the State provides a civil remedy. Both those answers have some substance in them, but when we examine them we find that we should not push them too far. It is true that anyone can insure against robbery. I suppoes that, equally, one can insure against risk of assault. Most insurance companies will insure against anything, but people rarely insure such risks. We have to recognise that many old people, as in the examples I have

1191
quoted, do not insure against robbery. They may be victimised by criminals and find that they have no remedy.
It seems that in this scheme we are accepting that the State has a responsibility to citizens whom it fails to protect against violence. I believe that the State has a responsibility for such citizens and also a responsibility towards citizens whom it fails to protect against burglary and other crimes against property. I do not believe that we can fragment the responsibility of the State quite so easily as the White Paper suggests. The State has responsibility to give every citizen protection by law and order. That is the social contract. The citizen surrenders some freedom and income and, in exchange, the State undertakes to give him protection against lawlessness and disorder. When the State fails to fulfil its side of the bargain, the citizen, at least in some circumstances, has a right to look to the State for compensation.
Under this scheme the State agrees in certain circumstances to make ex gratia payments. In setting up the Board we should give it discretion in certain circumstances to pay rather more generously and more widely than the White Paper contemplates. I am not asserting that the State ought to accept responsibility for reimbursing every citizen who suffers from robbery or burglary. Obviously that would not be reasonable or, indeed, practicable. If a lady chooses to keep a mink coat in her bedroom and it is carried off, there is no reason why she should look to the taxpayer to reimburse her for her loss. In those circumstances she must look to the insurance company, or in a desperate case to her husband or a gentleman friend, or both.
I suggest that the State should take responsibility in some circumstances in which it might be reasonable to do something for people who suffer crimes against property which do not involve violence. I ask whoever is to reply for the Department to tell us if the Government think it necessary to maintain the very narrow limitation set out in the White Paper. I suggest there are various ways in which the frontiers of the White Paper in respect of claims in cases of crimes of violence might be extended to include claims in cases of
1192
crimes against property. Obviously, the claims would have to be limited and no one should be allowed to claim unless he can give proof of having suffered damage, and he should be required to provide evidence.
We should not accept as easily as we do in this White Paper that the distinction between crimes of violence and crimes against property is one which needs to be preserved in this emphatic fashion. I think that the distinction has been drawn too sharply. I hope that when we get the proposal put in the form of a Bill we shall find that it gives the compensation Board a wider range of discretion than is now proposed.
7.16 p.m.
Mr. Carol Johnson: The Home Secretary and the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary will, perhaps, not have been altogether surprised at the critical comments made on the Government White Paper.
Despite what was said by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), after this long period in which the Home Secretary has been considering the matter, assisted by departmental inquiries, in view of the reasons he has given from time to time for rejecting a number of proposals which have been published in recent years and the general attitude of the Government to Private Members' Bills, to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) referred, the House might have expected that when a scheme was eventually put forward it would be a great deal clearer than the one we have been discussing. Certainly, we could have expected that it would not contain some of the inadequately defined proposals to which I propose to refer.
Naturally, many of us, as was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), would have preferred a statutory scheme providing benefit as of right payable on proof of injury and that its details would be fully set out in a Bill or a statutory instrument. That would have given Parliament, the public and all interested parties an opportunity to assess specific proposals and to know the precise intentions of the Government. We have to take a great deal on trust.

1193
We have before us a proposal for an experimental scheme which, it is suggested, can be altered and improved in the light of experience. That might appear to the House to be a good reason for accepting the scheme as proof of the Government's good intentions, but the Government do not seem to be very clear even about the basis of the scheme. If we refer to paragraph 6 we find that they
"accept the principle that the victims of crimes of violence should be eligible for some compensation for personal injury at the public expense.…"
That seems to be a statement clear and precise enough, but two paragraphs later the Government retract. They say:
"The Government do not accept that the State is liable for injuries caused to people by the acts of others."
The Government cannot rely upon two irreconcilable principles in setting up a tribunal to deal with claims for compensation. It almost tempts one to spend one's time arguing again the case for the proposition that the State, in modern times, has a duty to help the victims of crimes of violence. However, this evening we can perhaps more profitably consider what the Government are prepared to do. If the House is to be asked to give its general approval to the experimental scheme in the White Paper, which it is assumed—and this was confirmed by what the Home Secretary said in his opening speech—will lead to some permanent scheme, surely the Government can concede that the principle of compensation is accepted.
In any event, once the scheme is brought into operation the payment will have to come out of general taxation. Whatever the Government may say, that seems to indicate clearly some State liability. I noted that in opening the debate the Home Secretary said specifically that some form of State compensation is desirable. I hope that when the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary replies she will make it clear that that is the basis of the scheme.
As has frequently been said during the debate, the scheme which we are considering is experimental, but it seems to me to leave a number of material points so uncertain that, in practice, it will be difficult for the tribunals to work the scheme properly. The scheme of payment—I will say a little more about that
1194
shortly—is to be administered by a Board, and the decisions of the Board are to be final; they are not reviewable by the Minister nor are they subject to any right of appeal. Does the hon. Lady consider this satisfactory, and is she certain that it can be maintained?
The proceedings before the Board are to be in private, and I understand that no reports will be published, the effect being that the Board's power will be absolute. We must, therefore, assume that the Board's decisions will always be right. Take, for instance, the argument which occurred early in the debate about which elements are to be included in any claim, and particularly the reference to expectation for loss of life or loss of happiness. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Board comes to a conclusion on that element, which may be a major part of the claim, with which everybody disagrees. As I understand, this point cannot even be discussed in the House, if at all, until after the first annual report has been submitted to the House, which, from experience of other such bodies, will be about 18 months after it comes into operation. Even then it is by no means certain that the Report will deal specifically with individual cases.
For those reasons I urge upon the Government that either a means should be found for establishing a right of appeal, or at least an opportunity should be given to raise points of importance about the scheme in the House. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) put forward a suggestion which I understood the Home Secretary undertook to consider—that reports should be submitted at shorter intervals. That may well cover some of the criticisms which I have made. I have not overlooked the provision in paragraph 25 that an applicant will have a right of appeal from the member of the board to three other members, and perhaps the hon. Lady will explain a little more clearly how this procedure will operate.
I must confess that when I read the White Paper originally I assumed that the applicant would be seen, in the first instance, by a member of the Board, that then he would be notified of the member's decision and that then he would have a right of appeal to three

1195
other members. But, in fact, the Home Secretary said that the original case will be decided solely on correspondence, that the applicant will never be seen by any member of the Board and that the decision will be communicated to him.
In those circumstances, may I ask, when the case is reheard by the three members of the board, whether there will be a written statement by the member who originally heard it, giving clearly his reasons either for refusing the claim or for assessing an award with which the applicant is dissatisfied? Next, if that is to be provided for the Board, will copies be supplied to the applicant, because in the absence of this he will be at a considerable disadvantage when going on appeal to the three members of the Board. These aspects of the matter should be considered by the Government.
When originally reading the White Paper it seemed to me that for an experimental scheme the administrative structure was likely to be rather expensive. The Home Secretary this afternoon minimised that by indicating that perhaps for the time being it would not be necessary to have many offices and that it might not be necessary to recruit many staff, but I think that the hon. Lady will agree that it would be very unfortunate if, at the end of the first year's working, it were found that the cost of administration had exceeded the claims paid.
May I comment on the composition of the Board? Unlike some of my hon. and learned Friends, though I am a lawyer, I consider that it is a profound mistake that in addition to a chairman of wide legal experience, the Board is to include five other members, all of whom are lawyers. Does the Under-Secretary consider that for a scheme of this nature expensive high-powered lawyers are the best people to make the scheme operate? We have not been told the salaries which are to be paid, and they may well be paid on a sessional or daily basis, but as the schemes are not to be legal schemes, and as the compensation afforded by the Government is not to be compensation as of right, I think that a better case for the employment only of lawyers on the scheme must be made by the Government.
1196
However skilful lawyers may be in dealing with the facts of any case, is it not inevitable that many cases will depend on local circumstances, on medical knowledge and on knowledge of everyday life which could more suitably be provided by others? Surely it is most desirable that the Board should include at least one medically-qualified person, and justices of the peace, with their day-to-day experience of the type of case likely to lead to these claims, could suitably be employed. Having regard to the large number of women applicants who will inevitably come forward, surely it is important that at least one woman should be appointed to the Board. That suggestion, at least, might commend itself to the Parliamentary Secretary.
I want to echo a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North—to ask when the lump-sum payments provided for by the scheme will be made. For instance, let us consider two straightforward cases, one in which the injury is of four weeks' duration and another in which it is of 12 months' duration. There can be no payment at all until the claim is made and admitted, and this will take time, although I hope that the Home Secretary will impress on the Board the desirability of dealing with these cases with expedition.
In paragraph 19 of the White Paper it is envisaged that more than one payment will be made in the long-term case. Are the payments to be made only retrospectively? In a case in which a doctor certifies on an admitted claim that it will be of at least six or 12 months' duration, cannot payment be made in advance to cover that period, or must the applicant wait until he is completely restored to health before he gets his complete payment?
Another general point arises which does not seem to be dealt with in the White Paper and which I ask the Joint Under-Secretary to deal with. Are these payments to be subject to tax? This point will arise if serious injury incapacitates a man for longer than 12 months, for, to take the somewhat analogous example of sickness benefits, I understand that these are considered to be a form of income but are not assessable to Income Tax for the first 12 months, after which the Inland Revenue can assess the benefits for Income Tax.

1197
Is the same principle to apply to payments under this scheme, or will the fact that the payments are of a lump sum character create a different situation? In any event, it is clear that, if the payments are not to be assessed for Income Tax purposes, some regulations will be needed to cover the matter.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that common law damages are never subject to Income Tax, and that, by analogy, these sums certainly would not be?
Mr. Johnson: If that is so, perhaps the hon. Lady would confirm it when she replies.
Mr. Doughty: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is right: common law damages are never subject to Income Tax. What are subject to Income Tax are the weekly earnings which have to be taken into account. Once Income Tax on that basis has been dealt with, the damages awarded are nothing to do with tax.
Mr. Johnson: I hope that the position is clear. As an essential element in the claim is to be the earnings of the applicant, I do not think that the position is quite so clear as the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) suggests. In any event, I ask the Under-Secretary to deal with this point.
I want to raise a few questions about the compensation. Paragraph 22, which deals with the assessment of compensation, contains the general provision that
"the rate of loss of earnings…will not exceed twice the average…of industrial earnings at the time that the injury was sustained."
Assuming that the scheme were to come into operation forthwith, we shall, presumably, work on the basis of the latest official figure of £16 14s. 11d. a week. I assume, therefore, that the inference is that in no circumstances can the rate of loss on this part of the claim exceed twice that figure, which is £33 9s. 10d. All questions of overtime and bonus payments are presumably ruled out.
There is also a reference to the sex of the victim. The average industrial earnings for women are at a very much lower level, namely, at present £8 8s. 3d. In this case presumably the ceiling for
1198
women will be roughly half that for men. All this seems fairly clear, but I should like the Under-Secretary to deal with what is said in paragraph 22 about earning capacity. Are we to understand that the assessment in the case of any applicant in employment whose earnings are lower than the average industrial earnings will be on the lower figure?
I want to refer again to the question which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North raised, namely, what is meant by "public funds", in the final sentence of paragraph 22, which are to be deducted from the award which is made? Is this intended to cover benefits payable under the National Insurance Act and the Industrial Injuries Act, or is something else visualised?
Paragraph 17, which deals with the position or members of an offender's household, also seems to require some elucidation. Does this mean that lodgers, paying guests and servants are to be excluded from benefiting under the scheme? Presumably anybody coming in to work in the household by the hour or by the clay will be covered, but what about au pair girls, of whom there are now thousands in this counry? Is an au pair girl to be regarded for the purposes of this scheme, as a member of the offender's household?
I apologise to the hon. Lady and to the House for asking so many questions, but the more I read and consider the White Paper the more questions occur to me. I do not envy the members of the Board having to start with what I regard as inadequate guidance.
Lastly, I should like to ask the Under-Secretary what the future position with regard to the scheme is to be. Paragraph 12 slates that the Board, when it comes into existence,
"will…act in accordance with the principles and procedure outlined in this White Paper, if approved by Parliament."
The Home Secretary said that he was taking steps to second staff to the Board, that premises were in mind, and that he was considering the names of members of the Board. All we have this afternoon is a Motion asking the House to take note of the White Paper, so no approval is to be given today to the White Paper.

1199
In any event, as the Home Secretary said, he will wish to reconsider the whole scheme in the light of this debate. It is, therefore, essential that at some stage a further White Paper or a regulation, should be promulgated which will be the basis of the scheme and the terms of reference of the Board. Before they can become effective, it is clear that they will have to be approved by the House.
I therefore ask the hon. Lady to tell us in what form and what time it is proposed to obtain final approval which will enable the Board to embark upon the operation of this experimental scheme.
7.37 p.m.
Mr. R. M. Bingham: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) that any scheme for compensation of this nature must bristle with so many difficulties of substance and technique that it is extremely difficult to propound a scheme which cannot be demolished, or almost demolished, by detailed criticisms.
Echoing what my hon. Friend said, I believe that the Home Secretary is to be congratulated on selecting from many alternative schemes suggested and available a scheme which appears to combine the qualities of a bold and fair experiment with the merits of leaving the difficulties which will undoubtedly arise to be dealt with by the common sense of the members of the Board as and when they arise.
Today, we are discussing the scheme and difficulties which it is suggested may emerge. It is possible that, in practice, a whole host of different problems will arise and many of those discussed today will never arise. I do not say this in any way in derogation of this scheme, but there are inevitably many points of detail which strike one on reading through any scheme such as this as possibly needing some measure of further consideration.
The first point that strikes me is that compensation is to be ex gratia. I appreciate that in an experimental scheme of this nature the flexibility would be lost if an elaborate structure of rights were set up. However, I hope that the fact that the compensation is stated to be
1200
ex gratia will not necessarily prejudice the nature of a further scheme as and when it is evolved in the light of experience, because it does not seem right for victims to be told that their only right it not a legal right, but an opportunity to apply for an ex gratia payment. I do not think that such a statement will be appreciated by victims who have to apply for compensation.
There is the further fundamental long-term defect that, if the payment is ex gratia, it is very difficult to erect a satisfacory structure of appeal. It is difficult to appeal in relation to compensation granted on an ex gratia basis. I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) that, when the scheme is reduced from its experimental and flexible stage, a move towards the erection of a structure of rights should be undertaken. Paragraph 11 of the White Paper states:
"The Board will be based on London but may establish offices outside London if the need arises."
I hope that that may be altered. It seems to me that this will be a Board which will be peripatetic or which will receive letters. It will either be going round the country, like official referees or other tribunals, or it will be in an office receiving mail, like the National Insurance Commission. In neither case does there seem to be a necessity for these offices to be located in London. This seems to be a golden opportunity for the Government's policy of decentralisation to be undertaken, and if it is, I hope that it may be located on Merseyside.
I want to ask a question on paragraph 14 of the White Paper concerning the conditions, or, to borrow from another context, the "gateways". Subparagraph (a) states that
"the Board will entertain applications only in those cases where there has been…an attempt by the victim, acting as a member of the public, to apprehend a criminal;"
I should like to know what is meant by "a member of the public"? Does it include a member of a police force? I am not sure that a member of a police force apprehending a criminal is acting as a member of the public, because he has a duty over and above that of a member of the public. If, in fact, for any reason this scheme is intended to exclude police officers, an

1201
alteration of that wording might be considered.
In paragraph 15 the Board has to take into account a share of responsibility attaching to the victim
"whether because of provocation or otherwise,…"
The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) raised the question of what he called contributory negligence, although that, possibly, is not a very exact term in this context. It may commend itself to the Home Secretary to define this a little further. In view of the flexibility of the scheme it may not he necessary to do so, but I can see great difficulty. The Board might have a great difficulty in trying to define, or to put into practice, the words, "take account of any share of responsibility". A more exact phrasing might be needed to indicate what is in mind, as to whether negligence as well as deliberate action is to be included and whether blameworthiness as well as causative potency is to be included.
The Member for East Ham, North, in dealing with paragraph 16, put in a plea for compensation to be payable for the maintenance of a child born as a result of a sexual offence. That, in my view, would be a mistake. There are summary proceedings already available, not like High Court proceedings, and I can see great difficulties arising if the plea of the hon. Member for East Ham, North were acceded to.
Paragraph 22, which is a vital paragraph, deals with the basis of assessment of damages. The fundamental rule is that they shall be assessed on the basis of common law damages. If that is to be realistically put into practice, I should think that the right of appeal is absolutely necessary. The members of the Board will presumably be in touch with the scale of damages to be applied currently by the common law judges, but I am not sure that, if they are to hold their meetings in private, they will necessarily keep in touch over the years with the subtle alterations in the scale of values which are applied. Over and above that, there is the provision in sub-paragraph (c), which was mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, that there shall be no award for loss of expectation of happiness. I would suggest that that
1202
provision could be deleted as being superfluous.
If this sub-paragraph were to be redrafted so as to distinguish between fatal and non-fatal claims, and non-fatal claims were subject to the limitations of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) and fatal claims were to be assessed only under the Fatal Accidents Act and not under the Law Reform Act, it seems to me that everything in this paragraph would be achieved with the exception of claims for damages for loss of expectation of life by a living plaintiff. That would not be covered. At the moment, I am not quite clear why a plaintiff who has a common law claim for damages for loss of expectation of life, and who is alive, should not receive damages which he would recover if he sued in court. I can well appreciate that damages for loss of expectation of life should not be awarded because the person concerned is no longer alive to enjoy the benefit and they are largely notional in the sense that a notional sum is deducted from the fatal accidents damages.
If sub-paragraph (c) were entirely deleted and sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) were made qualifying conditions to non-fatal claims and it was simply said that fatal claims would be assessed, subject to the income provisions upon the basis of the Fatal Accidents Act and not Law Reform claims, I think that everything would be clear and the fears which have been expressed about the phrase, "loss of expectation of happiness," would be cleared up. It seems clear from what has happened—and perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will clear this up when she replies to the debate—that the phrase "award for loss of expectation of happiness" cannot refer to claims for compensation for personal injuries by a living plaintiff, because loss of expectation of happiness is not an element in such an award, as witness the recent House of Lords decision in the case of West v. Shephard where that was laid down fairly definitely by a majority of the House of Lords.
The next point, which so far has not been made unless I have missed it, is that in paragraph 26 of Cmd 2323 it is provided that
"At the hearing it will be for the applicant to make out his case;"—

1203
No one can quarrel with that—
"he and a member of the Board's staff will be able to call, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and the Board will reach its decision solely in the light of the evidence brought out at the hearing."
Here I see some difficulty and discontent arising in practice. The victim who is rejected by the judge of first instance and who appeals will have to undergo a curious sort of appeal.
I am thinking primarily of an elderly lady who has claimed for neurosis, which may or may not be an accurate claim because, being subjective, these claims are difficult. She goes to the appeals tribunal and finds that it is composed of three colleagues of the person who has rejected the claim. That in itself is understandable. There is nothing particularly wrong with it, except that if possible it is better to have appeal judges drawn from a body different from that of the judges of first instance.
The difficulty is that she finds that counsel for the defendant, she being in effect a plaintiff, is a servant of the judges by whom she has been judged and is about to be judged. He is a member of the Board's staff. There may be some, but I cannot think of any tribunal or court where that procedure takes place. One takes the case of a ratepayer appealing against a valuation officer's assessment of the rates. The valuation officer is not employed by the valuation court and there would be quickly a strong protest if that were the case.
At the same time, I see the point of putting the procedure in this way. It is obviously expeditious and economical, because otherwise one would have to set up two bodies, on the administrative and the judicial sides. Nevertheless, I think that somebody, and particularly someone who has a subjective illness such as neurosis, will be discontented with an adverse decision when it is found that the case is presented by somebody who in effect is the employee of the judges.
The last sentence in paragraph 28 says that
"…a person who has been compensated by the Board will be required to undertake to repay them from any damages he may obtain by suing the offender."
1204
This is already a matter of general principle and I have no objection to it, but I can see a practical difficulty arising. By reason of the qualifying conditions, the compensation damages may be significantly less than common law damages, particularly because punitive damages are ruled out—and one finds in this type of case a strong element of punitive damages when it is taken in a common law court. One may have a situation where the compensation awarded by the Board is £2,000 and the victim later sues in a common law court and gets £3,000.
If a person is entitled to £3,000 under common law he will have already received £2,000 of that money. When the victim sues the criminal and begins to obtain money, it will be obtained in almost all cases in small instalments, probably on an order made in a county court. Is it fair in that case that the money should be first applied to a reduction of the £2,000 and not in satisfaction of the excess of £1,000 which goes to make up the common law damages? I think that the second is the right way of doing it, and in practice that is the situation which is likely to arise frequently, assuming that the victim sues the criminal.
Lastly, the duty on the Board, on receiving an application, is to go into a process of sifting. The Board's staff have to sift the application and seek further information. This will not be an easy process. Fundamentally it arises out of the fact that the structure of the scheme is almost an inquisitorial procedure rather than a contest between two parties. A contest between two parties is the best way of seeing that a case is fairly and thoroughly sifted. In many personal injury cases there is often a strong though subconscious element of exaggeration, and patently fraudulent claims are not by any means unknown. The subconsciously exaggerated claim is much better sifted, and much more economically, through the ordinary common law procedure in a contest between the two parties.
How will the Board do the sifting? Will it read the depositions of the criminal trial? What kind of information will it rely on? Will it try to obtain a transcript of the criminal trial if that has already taken place? What weight

1205
will the Board place on the conviction itself? A conviction has no bearing at all in common law. The fact of conviction is virtually irrelevant there. What weight will be put on the crime charged or on the crime of which the criminal has been found guilty? That can significantly affect such questions as corroboration. If he has been acquitted of grievous bodily harm, that may not mean that he is not guilty of common assault. He may not have been charged with that, because frequently a lesser offence is put forward by the prosecution when a greater could have been proved.
The Board must sift not only to satisfy the applicant but to make certain that the funds are economically administered. This seems to me to raise difficulties in practice and to lead to conceptions which strike a lawyer as somewhat novel. If weight is to be attached to depositions in criminal cases as showing the outline of events, and I cannot see another method of expeditiously and economically getting at the facts, it will introduce novel elements. One would not know where they would be likely to lead. With these reservations, I welcome the scheme and add to the congratulations already voiced to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and to the Home Office for bringing forward a bold and imaginative project.
7.59 p.m.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham), after his very informed speech, that it is difficult, in practice, to get the kind of scheme to achieve the object which we all have in mind, that is, a fair measure of compensation to victims of crimes of violence. The Home Secretary, whom I commend very much for bringing forward a scheme though I do not entirely agree with it, suggested that it was easy, in theory, to project a system for compensating victims of crimes of violence, but that it might be very difficult to implement that scheme in practice.
I sat for some months as a member of the committee of "Justice" which considered this subject. We found it extremely difficult, in theory, to propound a scheme that would meet the practical difficulties which we sought to anticipate.
1206
I prefer the more precise type of scheme put forward by the "Justice" committee to the Government's scheme. I also prefer the hybrid scheme put forward by "Justice" for the provision of weekly payments as well as for the provision of a lump sum. The reason for my preference on this aspect is twofold. First, if we are to meet or mitigate the hardship resulting from a criminal attack we have to provide for weekly payments while the wage earner is incapacitated from earning.
"Justice", in support of its first-aid scheme of weekly payments, cited that actual example of a man earning £20 a week. He had several children. As a result of an attack he was incapacitated and had to go on National Assistance during the period of his incapacity. His weekly receipts were reduced to £10 a week, he had to incur all kinds of debt while off work, and really never recovered his position, and would not even if a lump-sum payment was to be made later. There will always be real hardship, to an incapacitated wage earner without the payment of a weekly sum, which can be regarded as an interim payment, in addition to the later lump-sum payment.
The second point is that it is objectionable for two tribunals to be considering the same facts at the same time or, possibly, for one tribunal—for example, the Compensation Board—to be considering the assault when the man charged with that assault has not been tried. I feel that if any scheme is to be operative without doing offence to our criminal law it is necessary that the assailant should have been tried and convicted, and the time limit for appeal to have expired, before the Board can properly sit to consider whether compensation should be awarded. That being so, I feel that we need the kind of hybrid scheme put forward by "Justice".
I want now to respond to the Home Secretary's invitation to criticise the present scheme and put forward suggestions for its improvement, because I accept that the view of the Home Secretary and of the Government that we need a flexible and experimental scheme is perfectly understandable. A good deal has been made by non-legal hon. Members of the lawyers pointing out difficulties in this scheme. Some hon. Members have pointed out that no two members of

1207
the legal profession seem to agree on an interpretation of given words either in a Bill or in a scheme. I suppose that that is a justification for the existence of the profession. Nevertheless, when a scheme is to be administered by lawyers, they want to know with a fair degree of precision what they are asked to administer, and the real criticism of the White Paper is that it gives them insufficient guidance.
I should here like to take the point made first by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) about the inclusion in paragraph 22 of the words:
"Compensation will be assessed on the basis of common law damages, except that…
(c) there will be no award for loss of expectation of happiness."
When I read those words, I gave them the same kind of interpretation as did the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), who intervened earlier to say that he understood them to include loss of amenities.
I think that the confusion arises in this way. In common law assessment of damages for personal injury, loss of enjoyment of life is a well-known head of damage, and it is very difficult, even for a lawyer, to distinguish between loss of enjoyment of life in future and loss of expectation of happiness. I am sure that no lawyer in this House thought of the case of Benham v. Gambling, because that decision seems to be quite irrelevant to what has to be considered in this part of the paragraph. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Garston that these words could be excluded altogether. Although the Attorney-General, in his helpful intervention, told the House about the kind of meaning he ascribed to words, it would still be open to the chairman of the tribunal to give to them the kind of interpretation that first came to my mind and came, quite clearly, to the minds of other hon. Members.
Another point raised by many hon. Members refers to the limitations of the scheme. The White Paper is entitled Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence, but I am now not so sure that that is so limited. Is the scheme wider in its scope? Is it intended to be a scheme of compensation for those who
1208
suffer personal injury as a result of crime? Paragraph 5 states:
"Virtually all the public comment since the appearance of the official working party's report has accepted, on the one hand, that some compensation should be available for the victims of crime and, on the other hand, that compensation can justifiably be restricted to the victims of crimes of violence."
The first sentence of paragraph 6 reads:
"The Government accept the principle that the victims of crimes of violence should be eligible for some compensation for personal injury at the public expense and propose to make arrangements for this purpose as soon as possible."
That, I understand, is a clear declaration of intention by the Government to compensate the victims of actual crimes of violence, but paragraph 13—Scope of Compensation Scheme—states:
"Personal injury may arise from a great variety of offences, including crimes against property as well as crimes against the person. It is not, therefore, proposed to specify a comprehensive list of crimes, the victims of which may apply for compensation."
I should have thought from that that the Government is saying that the scope of the scheme will be wider than that included in the normal ambit of the term crimes of violence.
I should like to know whether the scheme is intended to be limited to what we in the legal profession know as crimes of violence, or whether it covers personal injury sustained as the result of another crime. Burglary has already been adverted to by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran). If an old lady was disturbed in the night by a burglar, came to the top of the stairs and, frightened by the burglar, fell down the stairs and suffered serious personal injury as a result, would she be covered by this scheme? From my reading of the earlier paragraphs she would not be, but I think that by paragraph 13 she could be. With the greatest respect to whoever he may be, how can the legally-qualified chairman possibly interpret the matter without greater guidance from the Home Secretary?
Mr. MacDermot: Is not the difficulty made greater when one sees from paragraph 14 (a) that the injury has to be
"…directly attributable either to a criminal offence involving the use of force or to an attempt…"?
Some burglaries may involve the use of force, while others are merely the

1209
opening of a door, and involve no force. Is one to lead to a claim, and the other not?
Mr. Hooson: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member. And if a burglar attacks the man in the house but not the wife, but the wife takes fright and falls down stairs, is that covered? More guidance is needed.
The reason why "Justice"—and I see that the, Conservative Party committee did exactly the same—put forward a schedule of offences was that it thought that there was such great scope for fraud in the kind of scheme now put forward. Unless we limit the kind of injury and the kind of offence, one can very soon enlarge this into a scheme of very wide scope indeed. After considering the difficulties, the committee of "Justice" thought it better, certainly in the initial period, to limit their scheme to scheduled crimes of violence, and to physical injury, and to exclude psychological injury.
From paragraph 14, it seems to be possible for the tribunal in this case to consider not only physical injury, but also a neurotic state resulting from an attack of some kind. The scope for fraud, however, is considerable, and the scope for unconscious fraud is also considerable. There is a good deal to be said in the early stages for not encouraging the kind of litigation neurosis which is so common in our courts by limiting the compensation to direct physical injury. Certainly, that was the conclusion that was reached by the committee of "Justice" when it considered the matter.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will not think that because I am indulging in criticism of the scheme, I do not approve of it generally as an experiment, but I hope that this kind of criticism will be thought to be helpful when the whole matter is considered later. I should have thought it important to give guidance to the Board about what the standard of proof should be. Paragraph 26 states that
"At the hearing it will be for the applicant to make out his case."
That is unexceptionable. To what degree, however, must the applicant make out his case?
Mr. Bingham: A balance of probabilities.
Mr. Hooson: I would say that in my personal view the hon. and learned Member is correct, but, nevertheless, guidance is necessary. If one considers the standard to be a balance of probabilities, we have this matter regarded as a civil matter, which I think is right.
Nevertheless, we have to consider the position of a man who is charged with robbery with violence. He may be acquitted of the offence. Let us assume that the victim of the alleged crime, which is found not to be a crime, then applies to the Board for compensation. The Board comes to a decision on a balance of probabilities that the claimant was the victim of a crime of violence which had been perpetrated and awards the claimant damages. As a result of the decision of the second tribunal, there would be a strong reflection upon the man who had been acquitted in the criminal court. In such a case, there must be hardship to somebody, either to the assailant who is originally charged or to the victim if he or she has sustained injury.
A decision must be taken to specify the standard of proof. My view is that the standard of proof should clearly be laid down by the Home Secretary and not be left to the Board to decide. It is very much a decision for Parliament to take and not for the tribunal which considers the case.
In giving reasons why I preferred the "Justice" scheme, I touched upon the point that guidance should also be given as to when the Board should properly sit to arrive at a decision in a case or when the one member takes his initial decision, in relation to criminal proceedings being taken against the assailant. If, for example, a man is apprehended for an offence of robbery with violence and for some reason his trial is delayed, but his victim applies to the Board for compensation and the Board decides to award compensation without the man having been tried, this could have serious effects upon the possibility of a fair trial for the man.
However private the deliberations of the Board, people are bound to talk. A victim of a crime who has recovered compensation might be in the witness

1211
room of a court and might talk to other witnesses. It could reach the ears of a jury that the alleged victim had received compensation. It is important to lay down guiding lines at least for the Board on this matter.
Another point of criticism arises from paragraph 21, which states that
"Where the injury has proved fatal, the spouse or dependants of the injured person will be eligible for an award of compensation."
To a lawyer the use of the disjunctive "or" in those words means that either the spouse or the dependants can claim, but not both. The spouse may not be a dependant, or both the spouse and children might be dependent. I should not have thought that it was intended to make them exclusive claimants in this way. It surely is intended to cover the spouse "and/or" dependants.
Under the Fatal Accidents Acts, which are referred to in paragraph 22 only for the purpose of assessment of the sum, a spouse and children rank as possible dependants. It should be made clear to the tribunal which is to be entrusted with this responsibility that other dependants are not excluded if the spouse is considered to be entitled to some degree of compensation.
I well understand the Government's view, although I do not altogether heartily endorse it, that a flexible scheme of this kind is desirable for an experimental period. It is important that the chairman of the tribunal should be a man of good calibre, because no lawyer in modern times will have as much scope for the development of the law and the creation of new case law as will the chairman of this Board. I agree that eventually we must arrive at a more precise scheme, and to a large extent I endorse the criticisms which were made initially by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport and which, later, were repeated from other parts of the House.
Nevertheless, the proposals which are before us are an important step forward. No one can give a logical justification for compensating victims of crimes of violence and not compensating other victims of crime. On the "Justice" committee, we spent several sessions in trying to work out a logical justification for this, but we failed completely
1212
Suffice it to say that there is a great public demand for measures of this kind and that ordinary and right-thinking members of society overwhelmingly now feel that it is right, proper and necessary for the State to provide compensation of this kind.
8.18 p.m.
Mr. Ian Percival: The object of the scheme which we are considering is set out in the last sentence of the White Paper that we are debating, and it is perhaps, even at this stage of the debate, worth reading it aloud:
"These proposals are put forward as a practical method of meeting what is now an acknowledged need simply and quickly, and of ensuring that, in all the consideration which is being given to new and more effective methods of treating offenders, the sufferings of innocent victims of violent crime do not go unregarded."
I think everyone in the country would agree with and applaud the sentiment expressed in that sentence and the object set out in it. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that every speaker in this debate has welcomed it.
We have had a most erudite, learned and technical discussion. It seems to me that it may be appropriate, now that we are getting towards the end of the debate, to draw attention back to that object as there set out, and to remind the House that the emphasis is, and must be, upon the necessity of finding a practical way of doing something simply and quickly.
I think, again, that all would agree with what is said in paragraph 8:
"The public does, however, feel a sense of responsibility for and sympathy with the innocent victim, and it is right that this feeling should find practical expression in the provision of compensation on behalf of the community."
What we are all looking for is something practical to do. We all, of course, want to see compensation given to the innocent victims of crimes of violence. We all want to see it done quickly. The sole question is how, in practice, can it be done?
Of course there are immense difficulties. Of course a great many of those difficulties remain unresolved. A great deal of this debate has been on those difficulties and upon the fact that a number of them remain unresolved. Some speakers seemed to be getting very

1213
close to saying that, because there are so many difficulties yet unresolved, it is wrong to do anything till those difficulties have been resolved, while other speakers went to the other extreme and criticised the Government for not having done something sooner. It appears to me, and, I am sure, to many other Members of the House, as it certainly does to a very large number of the people of this country, that the time has come for a little less talking and a little more action.
Over the last few years some very learned and very experienced bodies have spent a good deal of their time considering this very question. There was the working party, there was "Justice", there was the Conservative committee. Between them they have managed to draw attention to an immense number of difficulties. That, of course, is very useful: I do not decry that at all. Between them they have managed to draw attention clearly to a great many difficulties, but between them they have been unable to find any clear answer to those difficulties. It seems to me that it is necessary, and that the public require, that something be done without a lot more talking. It does seem to me that it is the combination of the need for urgency, on the one hand, and, on the other, the fact that there are a number of difficulties which so far have proved intractable that is both the justification and necessity for getting ahead with a pilot scheme, and a pilot scheme which involves a very considerable degree of flexibility.
I agree what what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham) and by other hon. and learned Gentlemen that it is to be hoped that this scheme will be followed by something more permanent and more precise. If I recollect correctly, that was what was said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in opening this debate; that was exactly what he said was the Government's object. This object of the scheme is to get something going in practice, so that experience of the difficulties can be gained in practice, and overcome, and this scheme is simply regarded as the forerunner of something more permanent and more precise.
What we need at the moment and what this scheme gives to us is a pilot
1214
scheme whereby something can be done and done quickly, and a pilot scheme of sufficient flexibility that it will not become completely bogged down in a mass of technicalities before it gets under way. In this debate we have heard a great deal about technicalities and difficulties. They have been most interesting, and I am sure they were all discoursed upon and followed with close interest, but I would respectfully suggest that in some instances there has been rather too much emphasis on the difficulties.
The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) suggested that there ought to be in this pilot stage more precise guidance on certain matters. That is a matter of opinion, and I merely beg to advance a different opinion, that there is a considerable degree of guidance given in paragraph 14. I accept that it is a matter of opinion, but if one reads the provisions to which they were referring together with paragraph 14, there is a considerable measure of guidance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) raised technical difficulties over subrogation and its results. I suggest with respect that they simply do not arise.
Another hon. Member suggested that it was a great weakness of the Bill that there was not a list of offences. Again, this is a matter of opinion, and I merely venture to express a different opinion. It appears to me that it is very questionable whether lists and categories are useful or not. One must appreciate that there are two approaches. If one makes a list and then finds that there is something that one did not think of, which is deserving of compensation but which does not come within the list, one may have done a disservice to the people one wishes to help. It does not always work out to the advantage of the people one is trying to assist to have things too precisely laid down. I suggest that in this case, which is by common consent, and publicly stated, an experiment, one ought to err on the side of flexibility rather than risk tying the Board too closely, more closely than one intended, by having fixed lists.

1215
I make the point in general terms. I suggest that at this experimental stage we should not tie ourselves down in technicalities. I am glad that the Board will not be hedged about with a great many technicalities and rules. I hope it will not hedge itself about by introducing too many technicalities and rules itself. That is the way the law gets into tangles. One often finds that in trying to lay down rules—perhaps this applies even to legislation—one thinks that one has thought everything out and foreseen all the practical situations which will arise and drafts one's rules to cover them, and then one finds within a very short time that a practical situation arises which one would have covered had one thought of it but which is excluded because the rules as drawn exclude it. Consequently, I repeat, I am glad that we are not hedging the Board about with too many rules, and I hope that the Board will not hedge itself about too much with rules and regulations of its making which it then feels obliged to follow.
There are two points on which I should appreciate my right hon. Friend's guidance. One concerns sub-paragraph 22 (c). I do not wish to put forward any technical arguments at the moment, but would make just one point. It appears that those words either do less than the Government intended they should do, or do more than would be generally acceptable to the House. I do not press my right hon. Friend to give any firm interpretation of the words now, because those of us with some experience of the law would regard it not only as unfair but as unwise to press for an off-the-cuff interpretation which would be taken as conclusive and final. It is far better that the sub-paragraph should be reconsidered by those concerned in the light of all that has been said today. I merely ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the words because it appears at least possible that they either do less than was intended by the draftsman or do more than would be generally acceptable, judging by what has been said in the course of the debate.
As to my second point on the scheme itself, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Garston raised the question of appeal. I would not go as far as he
1216
did on that, for I think there is force and reason in making the Board's findings final and not subject to Ministerial interference. It seems to me, however, that there is a half-way house. A number of commissions established at the moment—for instance, the Foreign Compensation Commission—have the right and sometimes duty to review their own decisions. If we are not careful in this case, we might get a situation where the Board's decision will be so final that even the Board cannot do anything about it although fresh evidence, which is conclusive, may be presented to it.
I ask my right hon. Friend, therefore, to consider introducing into the scheme a right of review by the Board itself. I think it likely that the Board would only exercise that right of review on the production of fresh evidence, but, following my own argument, I would not want to hedge that right about with a lot of rules. I would prefer to leave it to the Board to make its own rules as to when it should use the right. Such a right of review would avoid the possible danger of the Board finding itself unable to change a decision which it had reached without full knowledge of the facts and which it would like to change on the production of fresh evidence or for any other reason.
Like all other speakers in the debate, I greatly welcome this scheme and wish it well. I also wish well to those who have the working of it in their hands. I am sure that we all hope that they will get on with it quickly and find themselves able within the framework of this scheme to make a good job of it.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. John Mackie: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument as I gather, Mr. Speaker, from the mutterings behind your Chair, that a long speech will not be welcome at this time of night.
Like other hon. Members—including, if I may use the expression—lay Members, I speak a little diffidently in entering a lawyers' paradise like this debate. I was amused by the plea of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) to get rid of woolliness in the White Paper and by the plea of the hon. and learned

1217
Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) for precision. I always thought that the last thing that lawyers wanted was precision, because they live on woolliness and imprecision. Perhaps I misjudge them.
I think we all agree, as did the hon. and learned Member for Southport in reading the last sentence of the White Paper, with this scheme to help hard cases because of the increase in crimes of violence and that we do not disagree in any way with what the Government are trying to do. But there are other innocent victims of violence about whom I want to speak.
First, however, several hon. Members have raised the question of keeping the Board's decisions private. It would be a very good thing to keep them private, especially if considerable awards were made, because of the number of begging letters, salesmen and other types of people who descend upon one who receives an award that is publicised. We all know what the Press can do in making a thing like that public.
I wish to concentrate on paragraph 18. I raised this question during the debate on the Address last autumn but, to use the Prime Minister's expression, I did not get a rise out of the Government then. I therefore make no apology for raising the matter again tonight. It concerns the fact that motoring offences are to be excluded from the scheme. Paragraph 18 says:
"injuries caused by identified vehicles are covered by insurance arrangements…"
I hope that the Home Secretary does not think that that is the case, for it is not. Not all of these cases are covered and that is why I want to raise the subject.
There are many hard cases of violence caused by motoring which are not covered by insurance, and I will give the illustration of a case which occurred in my constituency. Mrs. Brown, a lady of about 60, was walking home from work when a small van drew into the pavement; the passenger opened the door and knocked her down, breaking her thigh. She has been an invalid since for two or three years. She sued the motorist in the normal way, but the judge said that it was not the motorist's fault, for he could not he responsible for his passenger.
1218
The passenger was then sued and an award of about £3,000 was made. However, the passenger was a man of straw—in fact, the passenger was a woman, but I gather that legally one cannot have a woman of straw, but only a man of straw—and Mrs. Brown got nothing. The case was proved in court and damages were assessed. It would be the simplest thing for the Home Secretary to include in the scheme that type of violence, committed by negligence, or carelessness, or as a crime. In these instances, the case would be proved and damages assessed and the Compensation Board would have little to do.
As motoring increases, there will be more of these cases and it would be quite simple to include them. At the moment, only a deliberate attempt to run down a victim is covered. I appeal to the Home Secretary to think again about the type of motoring offence which I have mentioned and which has caused great hardship when there has been no compensation. I will leave it to the legal brains to decide the issues which have been discussed today and how to get the scheme into shape. I content myself with an appeal to the Home Secretary to think again about motoring offences.
8.37 p.m.
Mr. Alan Brown: I begin by expressing my appreciation to you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity which you have given me this evening to make a small contribution to the debate, the more so because it happens to be just 18 years ago this week that I began as a voluntary worker in this form of social service, covering delinquency and juvenile and child welfare.
There is no substitute for practical experience of dealing with delinquency, with meeting delinquents young and old, delinquency in the raw. With the greatest respect to the lawyers who are present, I believe that in court they do not reach that acquaintance with delinquents which we workers in the field manage to reach. The measure of the appalling social behaviour displayed by delinquents of all ages has to be seen to be believed.
I mention that because I believe that in any approach to a consideration of this White Paper we must remember that we are dealing with delinquent people,

1219
young and old. I think that it would be silly to approach them with any starry-eyed attitude. If the young delinquent is a he and thinks that he can "pull a fast one" over someone, he will certainly try to do so. If the young delinquent is a she, it is a certainty that she will.
During the 18 years that I have been working on problems connected with delinquency the proposition has been made on several occasions that the State or the public should be made financially responsible for compensating victims of crimes of violence. I suppose that one of the most ardent appeals ever made was made by Miss Margery Fry. She did wonderful work in relation to the prisons, and did a great deal to ease the lot of criminals undergoing penal sanction. I remember her turning her attention to the problem of the criminal's victim. I have a paper which she published on the subject about 12 years ago.
But, contrary to public belief, Miss Fry was not the first social worker to propose such a scheme. I think that it was Mr. Ruggles-Brise who, towards the end of the last century, drew attention to the plight of a victim of robbery with violence and suggested that some form of compensation should be paid to that unfortunate man who, as a result of a heavy blow on the head during the commission of the crime, was rendered incapable of following his calling, and a further result was that his wife and children were reduced to receiving parish relief—not a situation to be compared with present-day National Assistance.
Turning to the proposition in the White Paper that the State should be financially responsible for compensating victims of crimes of violence, the pressure of certain sections of public opinion over the last decade led to the appointment of a working party to consider the practicability of introducing a scheme of this sort. This working party reported in June, 1961, and laid great emphasis on the difficulties of producing a satisfactory plan.
It is interesting to note that the working party suggested two alternatives: either a scheme on the lines of the provisions for compensation for in-
1220
dustrial injuries—which was along the lines that Miss Fry had originally suggested—or a scheme based on direct grant assessed on the basis of common law damages with certain changes in procedure, which, I think, is the suggestion now before us.
It was so complicated and bristling with such difficulties that nothing was done, and, as we were told today, "Justice" appointed its own committee to study the problem. It is self-evident that, brilliant as was the "Justice" report, which was debated in another place in December, 1962, certain difficulties remained, and that that is why this White Paper has been produced. I think that these difficulties still exist.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) brought very powerful arguments to bear on this matter, as did my hon. and learned Friends. They also made what I would call strictly legal criticisms. I have no doubt that they are quite valid criticisms, but I wish to give my views on the White Paper in my rôle as an ordinary layman, and as one who has had some experience of the criminal mind.
In the whole concept of compensation from the public purse for victims of crimes of violence we are faced with an underlying problem. I do not refer to the inadequacy of social insurance benefits, because the Government do not intend to use this method. The underlying question is: is it right for Mr. Smith, or Mr. Jones—yourself or myself—being members of the public, to have to pay the costs which, in a moral sense, have been incurred by the criminal act of a delinquent—call him "Bill" Sikes, if you like?
My right hon. Friend stated that he accepted the principle that the victims of crimes of violence should be eligible for some compensation for personal injury at the public expense, but he qualified this statement by adding that any compensation paid would be ex gratia and that the Government do not accept that the State is liable for injuries caused to people by the acts of others. I agree with my right hon. Friend. What I do not agree with are the sentiments expressed in paragraph

1221
28 of the White Paper, under the heading, "Recovery from the Offender", which states:
"The view is widely held that a scheme of State compensation for the victims of crimes of violence ought to make provision for a contribution from the offender, where possible. The Government agree that where the offender has the means he ought, in principle, to be required to make restitution to his victim…"
The second "ought" is not strong enough. In all circumstances where it can be proved that the perpetrator of the crime of violence is in a position to pay the financial costs of his criminal act it should be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to make him pay. I shall be most grateful if my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will deal with this point when she winds up the debate.
Paragraph 8 of the White Paper says that
"Compensation will be paid ex gratia. The Government do not accept that the State is liable for injuries caused to people by the acts of others. The public does, however, feel a sense of responsibility for and sympathy with the innocent victim…"
I cannot quarrel with those sentiments. I imagine that we are all anxious to protect the interests of the innocent. But paragraph 15 says that
"The Board will also, in assessing the amount of compensation in accordance with the principles set out in paragraph 22 below, take account of any share of responsibility, whether because of provocation or otherwise, which in their opinion attaches to the victim of the crime."
Surely the phrase
"because of provocation or otherwise"
scarcely seems to denote a lack of innocence on the part of the victim. If I provoked another man so that he committed an assault on me which was of such violence that I could qualify for compensation, I think that my innocence in the matter might well be in doubt.
In paragraph 16 there is a reference to a sexual relationship from the existence of which an offence involving a crime of violence is committed. I can visualise circumstances in which, in a case of alleged rape, a victim would be far from innocent. I am sure that I am not alone in my opinion, because there are other social workers in the House. From my own knowledge of adolescent female delinquents I am per-
1222
suaded that the Compensation Board, the members of which are to be lawyers, would be paying out large sums from the public purse unless at least some of the members were experienced and had first-hand knowledge of dealing with these young ladies.
It is my opinion that the terms of this White Paper create what could become a happy hunting ground for a highly undesirable type of young criminal who is prone to carry a knife or a razor. I do not have to remind hon. Members that last week a young man had his face slashed open by his compatriots. I cannot accept the view that the public should pay for such things as that. If public money is to be used, it should be used solely to compensate innocent people.
I should feel a lot happier if the compensation—its scope is defined—was not paid unless the offender had been brought to justice, or paid only in the most exceptional circumstances if the offender has not been brought to trial. I know that the lawyers will disagree with me, but my aim is to eliminate fraud. In principle, I welcome the intention of the Government to provide compensation for victims of crimes of violence. I think that the wording of these paragraphs in the White Paper should be tightened up considerably and the present fraudulent possibilities eliminated.
As one who has spent much of his life assisting in the fight against crime, especially crimes against young persons, the last thing I wish to see is the introduction of any scheme which could possibly result in bigger profits being made than can be made already in the world of crime. To do so would be disastrous. As has already been mentioned, schemes of this kind are full of intricacies and dangers, but the major decision must result from consideration of means and policy.
If my right hon. Friend says, as he has said today, that he desires to operate a scheme of compensation for victims of crimes of violence, I am quite certain that a workable scheme can and will be produced, and that the gaps in the proposals contained in the White Paper will be closed.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: I appreciate that in a debate of this kind in which we have had speeches by lawyers from both sides of the House, there is an enormous number of questions to which replies will be expected. I had to smile when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that the fact that two lawyers can never agree with each other is a justification of the profession. I should have thought it was a consequence of the profession rather than a justification.
I wish to put a question which may have been asked already. Whether it has been asked or not I am not sure, but it is a very simple question. I hope that if it has been asked already the Under-Secretary who is to reply to the debate will forgive me. If it has not been asked, I want to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the position. I refer to paragraph 14(a) which makes reference to the degree of injury that may be incurred:
"directly attributable either to a criminal offence involving the use of force or to an attempt by the victim, acting as a member of the public, to apprehend a criminal."
I link this with paragraph 18, which says:
"Motoring offences will also be excluded from the scheme, except where the motor vehicle has been used as a weapon—i.e. in a deliberate attempt to run the victim down. Injuries caused by identified vehicles are covered by insurance arrangements…"
There have been cases of burglary attempts of one kind or another in which criminals have used uninsured vehicles. Let us assume that there is an attack on a Post Office van. The hon. Lady the Under-Secretary puts me in mind of the Post Office because she was for some time Assistant Postmaster-General. Assume that the criminals use an uninsured vehicle in their attack on the Post Office van and a member of the public goes to the assistance of the Post Office van man. In the melée the criminals then get into the uninsured vehicle and drive away. Without any deliberate intention of using the vehicle as a weapon, when driving away they run down the person who went to the assistance of the van man and he receives substantial injuries.
It may be that such a case is not intended to be included in the provision outlined in paragraph 18. I appreciate
1224
the truth of the statement in the last paragraph of the White Paper:
"There being virtually no previous experience anywhere in the world to draw upon…
The White Paper and its drafting will inevitably do something by way of exploration of the problem.
I am not attempting to be carping in advancing this view. Nor am I critical of the Home Secretary in the preparation of the White Paper. I recognise the difficulties attendant upon trying to produce a scheme of this kind, but the fact that we have had experience of the type of accident to which I have referred prompts me to raise the matter, and perhaps the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary of State will deal with it in reply.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: It must be a long time since a proposal put forward by the Home Secretary or by any other member of the Government has received such a very general welcome in principle coupled with such extensive and devastating, criticism in detail. Like other hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have taken part in the debate, I welcome the Government's proposals, with such reservations as I will indicate in a moment.
I suppose that our chief criticism is that if the Home Secretary had acted earlier—two or three years earlier—when this matter was first raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) and East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) we should by now have had the benefit of two or three years' experience of an experiment and would have been able to put this novel and complicated subject on a more satisfactory and, I should have hoped, a more permanent basis. I almost feel sorry for the hon. Lady who is to reply to the debate, because she has already been asked so many questions that I do not want to add to her embarrassment by introducing others. But there are certain cardinal features to which I hope she will address her mind in her reply.
First, the House is entitled to know the procedure which the Government contemplate after we have concluded this debate. We are being asked to

1225
take note of this White Paper, and that Motion will obviously be carried. The House will then have taken note of it. It does not follow that the House will have approved the White Paper. Paragraph 12 of the White Paper suggests that the Government will act in accordance with the principles and procedures outlined in the White Paper "if approved by Parliament". I repeat that tonight we shall not approve the White Paper.
I imagine, therefore, that we shall hear from the Home Secretary or the hon. Lady that after tonight's debate a scheme will be propounded and laid before Parliament. I assume that in that scheme the Home Secretary, as he has promised, will take note of the various criticisms which have been made in the debate, because it must be obvious to him by now that there are a great many ambiguities, to say the least, in the scheme in the White Paper. I think that we all realise that the subject is inevitably fraught with such difficulties that it may never be possible to avoid all inconsistencies in a measure of this kind.
I will deal next with the principles involved in the proposal. I notice that practically every one of the distinguished bodies which have dealt with the subject—for example, "Justice", the Conservative Party pamphlet, in respect of which the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) was chairman, and the Government White Paper—have thought it necessary to find some principles to justify the State in making payments of compensation to the victims of violence. For myself, I see no great difficulty in finding a principle. One has only to recollect, as a matter of history, that in primitive societies an individual who suffered from an act of violence resorted to vengeance.
In the old days the law was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In fact, it was because a civilised society arose out of a primitive society that people were led to surrender their primitive rights of vengeance for the protection both of themselves and their property by the State. It was largely through the readiness of the State to set up graduated scales of compensation for various kinds of injury related to various classes of people that the law
1226
of England was able to evolve. Therefore, it does not strike me as anything historically novel that the State should now recognise an obligation to pay compensation to victims of violence. It seems to me to follow as a corollary of the obligation taken by the State to deal with crime and protect society.
Having said that, I must comment on the apparent contradiction in paragraph 8 of the White Paper. The Government say that they—
"do not accept that the State is liable to injuries cawed to people by the acts of others"—
and for that reason they propose that compensation will be paid ex gratia. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot both ask Parliament to include in the Home Office Vote sums which are to be payable under the scheme and at the same time pretend that there is no obligation. The Government themselves rely, I think rightly, on the fact that the public has in the last few years come to realise that there is a sense of responsibility for innocent victims of crimes of violence. I therefore hope that it will not be long before, as a result of the provisions we are considering tonight, what is now to be introduced as an ex gratia payment or series of payments will be transformed into a legal liability.
Even while waiting for that transformation to take place, it seems to me to be thoroughly undesirable, as so many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite have said, that we should in the White Paper apparently condone the intention of the Government to pay out large sums of public money on principles which are so vague, ambiguous and ill-defined.
I echo the proposals made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) that this scheme is about as vague, woolly and incoherent as has ever been put before Parliament I do not share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), who advocated the extreme opposite, that the scheme should be as flexible and as vague as possible. It seems to me that there will be a very serious risk of considerable injustice and inequality arising as between one claimant and another, unless the principles to be applied by the Board are

1227
laid down with much greater precision than is the case at present.
In his context I want to refer again to paragraph 22 of the White Paper. I urge the Home Secretary before he introduces his scheme to give much greater thought to this matter than he has obviously been able to do as yet and to pay attention to the criticisms which have been addressed to him during the debate. I find it impossible to understand, having heard his speech and the intervention of the Attorney-General, what is meant by the exclusion from compensation of any—
"award for loss of expectation of happiness".
The Attorney-General, who seemed quite satisfied, told us that the intention of the phrase was to exclude any payment for the loss of the chance of living a happy life, whatever that may mean.
The Attorney-General referred to the case of Benham v. Gambling. This was a case in which the representatives of a deceased person brought a claim because the person they represented had died as a result of an accident. I do not know whether the Attorney-General was aware that, since Benham v. Gambling to which he referred as being the last word in explaining paragraph 22, was decided, a recent decision in the House of Lords has thrown considerable doubt upon the applicability of that case.
I would remind the Home Secretary that even now when the courts of common law come to consider what damages are payable at common law as a result of personal injuries there is a wide divergence of opinion among judges as to what is the right criterion to apply. For example, the last case on this subject was that of West v. Shephard, reported in the Law Reports, 1964, in which three law lords reached a decision one way and the other two dissenting law lords reached a decision another way as to whether, in the circumstances of that case, where a lady had suffered injuries, the appropriate damages were as some of them thought £17,500 or as others thought £10,000.
There is obviously the greatest occasion for different views as to what is the appropriate measure of damages. It seems to me absolutely essential that the Board should be told whether it is to apply ordinary common law principles,
1228
or, if it is to exclude something, what it has to exclude. May I give the Home Secretary one illustration? Suppose, as a result of some criminal act of violence a lady loses the sight of an eye and suffers facial disfigurement, as a result of which she loses not only her earning capacity but suffers a great deal of pain and suffering, her enjoyment of life obviously is very considerably reduced. What is to be the principle which the Board should apply in that case?
Is it, as the Attorney-General says, that the tribunal should exclude anything relating to the loss of the chance of living a happy life? Obviously, a person who has suffered an injury of that kind cannot live the same kind of happy life as previously. Might I draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that in the case to which I have just referred him, one of the Law Lords pointed out that
"…in reference to a judicial process which must so often be undertaken such as that of the assessment of damages for personal injuries I would favour simplicity of expression and an absence to the greatest extent possible of any elaborate or complex formulae."
Having said that, I suppose that it is inevitable that when the Board is set up there will be a great deal of hit and miss with regard to the damages it awards. It is regrettable that no costs will be awarded to those who wish to be legally represented before the tribunal. It will make it almost impossible for legal advisers to advise victims of crimes of violence either whether they should apply at all or, if they apply, the kind of award they are entitled to obtain and whether they should be satisfied with the award that they in fact obtain.
It seems to me that that situation can be remedied only, and then only partially, if the Home Secretary insists not only on an annual report being laid before Parliament of the activities of the Board but, I would hope, on a more frequent report, such as a quarterly one. Bearing in mind that these cases can be decided in private, that public money will be spent and that the whole scheme is of an experimental nature, it seems to me essential that Parliament should be supplied, preferably quarterly, with details of all the awards made.
I do not think it necessary to give the names of the parties, but it is essential that we should know the nature of

1229
the crime of violence out of which the claim arose. We should know the nature of the injuries and whether there are any contributory factors by the victim mitigating the amount that he might claim, and we should know the amount of the award. It is essential that Parliament should have full notice of all relevant details, omitting the names if necessary, of all the cases on which the Board has adjudicated. It would be useful also to know whether the claim was the result of an award by a single member or of an appeal to a tribunal of three.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South raised the question whether any payments in the awards made by the Board were subject to Income Tax. I should think it quite obvious that they were not in any circumstances subject to Income Tax and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to confirm that that is the case.
The hon. baronet the Member for Hendon, South raised the very interesting question whether it was appropriate or sensible that if an award had been made the State should claim to be subrogate to the rights of the victim in order to recover the award from the criminal. I was impressed by his argument that if any such claim were pursued it might have an adverse effect on the chances of recovery and restoration to civil life of the criminal concerned. Apart from that, I should have thought that no question of subrogation could possibly arise in the case of ex gratia payment, it being a voluntary payment and not one made as a legal obligation. Perhaps the Home Secretary will consider that no question of subrogation arises.
I should have thought that if it is intended to recover from the offender the amount of compensation paid to the victim, some far more definite legal machinery will be required than is contemplated in paragraph 28 to enable the State as a matter of law to effect recovery from the offender. Various hon. Members have raised the question whether the Government are right in confining the scheme to personal injuries and excluding injuries to property.
I agree with the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) in thinking that as a matter of logic it is difficult to draw
1230
any distinction between requiring the State to compensate the victim of the crime if he has suffered some personal injury and refusing to compensate him if he has suffered some damage to his property. While I am convinced that public opinion supports this scheme in relation to personal injuries, I do not think that it would be prepared to see the scheme extended to claims in respect of damage to property, however logical a case one might be able to make out for such an extension.
I apologise for troubling the House with various points of detail, but it is the only way in which one can hope that these matters will be considered by the Home Office between now and the time—not, I hope, far distant—when the scheme is adumbrated. There is the exclusion from the category of claimants members of the household of the criminal. I think that we would all agree that the proposal as it stands is right, but I suggest to the Home Secretary that an exception should be made in the case of fatalities—for example, murder. One knows that very often the victim of the murder is a member of the household of the criminal. In such cases, those who suffer are the children, and I think that there can be no possible ground for excluding those children from compensation, as in that case there would obviously be no question of fraud on the fund.
I would also ask the Home Secretary to bear in mind the point made by the Committee of Justice, and to include in paragraph 14(a) injury to persons trying to avoid, frustrate or prevent a crime as well as those trying to apprehend the offender. That would seem to be not only just in itself but would also be a valuable assistance to those seeking to reduce criminal activity.
Various hon. Members have dealt with the question of whether the board as proposed in the White Paper is properly constituted. For myself, I think that it is. Decision in these matters must be given to a body of lawyers familiar with weighing evidence and applying the principles of common law damages. Questions of quantum will inevitably be very complicated—at least as complicated as those that arise in the law courts—and, like my right hon. and learned Friend

1231
the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), I hope that in due course the responsibility for making these awards will be transferred to one of Her Majesty's judges. My own view is that in the interval it is right that the Board's decision should be final. It would be wrong to subject the decision of the Board to Ministerial approval, and I do not support the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Southport that the Board have power from time to time to review awards that it makes. Everything points to the desirability of producing an end to litigation of this kind.
One hon. Member hoped that the Board would not hedge itself around with too many technical rules. I do not share that view. It seems to me to be essential that the scheme should not be regarded as one in which the Board has a quite arbitrary decision in making ex gratia payments. It is obviously in the public interest that the Board should feel itself under an obligation from the outset to formulate rules of general application concerning the awards which it proposes to make. It is essential that full particulars of the awards, with all the relevant details, should be published in quarterly reports to the House of Commons so that we may judge the way in which the scheme is being worked.
I share the view that this is a desirable scheme. It is obviously experimental. It is unprecedented in the sense that apart from the experience in New Zealand, such a scheme does not apply anywhere else in the world. I hope that we regard it as purely experimental, that the experiment will not be of long duration and that all the necessary information will be laid before Parliament to enable us to review it, to criticise it annually and, within a short time, to place the subject on a permanent basis under legislation approved by Parliament.
9.27 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): We have had a useful debate and I will do my best to deal with the many points that have been raised. The debate has reminded us once again that one of the great difficulties has been to find a workable and acceptable scheme. As the hon. Member for
1232
Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has just said, we are virtually pioneers in this field. Whilst all sections of opinion have endorsed the validity of the underlying purpose of the scheme, there has, at the same time, been a wide diversity of opinion about its practical application.
As the hon. Member has said, two fundamental points of agreement have, however, run through the many proposals and through today's debate. In the first place, we are agreed that claims for compensation should be determined by a judicial or quasi-judicial body, and secondly, that compensation should be paid only in deserving cases. The Government's task has been to produce a scheme that would stand the test of practical experience and ensure that public money is not wasted on undeserving or fraudulent claims or upon undue administrative costs.
In our judgment and, I believe, in the broad judgment of the House, this experimental ex gratia scheme makes adequate provision for the purposes which have been set out. We believe that it will be fair in operation and that it will have the advantage of enabling us to go ahead quickly. We recognise, however, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, that there is a great deal to be learnt. We are anxious to incorporate all the ideas that we have heard today and those which may come following today's debate which will serve to strengthen the scheme.
The hon. Member for Islington, East asked about our immediate intentions concerning the scheme. We are anxious to take into consideration all the comments and suggestions that have been made today and which are forthcoming in the debate in another place later this week. Many of the comments have been for clarification, but if there are points of substance on which it seems desirable to modify the plan the House will certainly be informed. My right hon. Friend hopes that this could be done by means of a statement rather than by another White Paper, because we are all anxious—and this was the spirit especially of the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East—to get on with the scheme and that there should be no avoidable delay in enabling us to start this experiment,

1233
which we all consider to be desirable. I would stress that should there be any major modification of the scheme then of course the House would be kept informed.
The other major point which the hon. Gentleman made was with regard to the conditions in paragraph 22(c) of the White Paper. I think that possibly in this context I should take the advice of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), who said that it would be unwise to be—indeed, he was kind enough to say it would be unfair to ask me to be—categorical as to the interpretation which would be put on it. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, not being a lawyer myself, that I found, as my right hon. Friend did, his explanation very clear, particularly reading it in conjunction with the previous White Paper. We do accept the difficulties which hon. and learned Gentlemen have brought forward. It is our intention to make this scheme as clear as possible, and I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that this point will be very carefully looked at.
As I said a few moments ago, many people are anxious that this scheme should start as quickly as possible, and have been critical that we did not start it sooner. If this debate has shown anything, it is, I think, that the considerable discussion which has gone on outside the House, over the last 10 years, has borne fruit. It is a difficult problem, and one to which it has been wise to give the maximum consideration, and that is why I think that possibly the House will endorse the wisdom of this experimental ex gratia scheme at this time.
If we had introduced legislation, as some hon. Members have suggested, particularly the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), we should have held up the inception of the scheme. We all recognise that in the future, having learned by experience, complicated legislation will be necessary in this field, but in the meantime I think we have made a very useful start.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport asked about the compensation awarded after the acquittal of a criminal. I would say to him that if the Board makes an award
1234
it does not, of course, imply that that particular offender committed the assault. It implies only that the victim was assaulted by someone. It is inevitable, unless compensation is to be paid only where there has been a conviction, whether the hearings are in private or not, that suspicion of a particular person's guilt will remain.
Sir F. Soskice: The difficulty arises, does it not—and I should like the hon. Lady's view on this—where there is the question whether the victim has been himself responsible in some degree for the injury he has received? In that case we might get the accused person acquitted; then the victim brings a claim, and the claim is considered by the Compensation Board. I suppose that the accused person again has to give evidence, and all other persons give evidence who can throw light on the question whether the claimant was himself implicated in the offence.
That surely means that the whole thing has to be gone into again, that the accused person, although acquitted, has to be recalled, and the matter reconsidered. The claim may then succeed, and that can only be on the basis that the accused person was the person who inflicted the injury.
Miss Pike: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has demonstrated one of the difficulties inherent in a scheme of this kind, and I am sure that he would not wish me to comment on this tonight. This is, of course, one of the difficulties which will confront the Board, and I would suggest to hon. Members that it underlines the necessity for having a Board which is constituted of legal personnel with broad experience.
Some hon. Members have suggested that perhaps we do not need a Board composed wholly of the legal profession. However, in spite of prejudices which may be in the minds of some hon. Members I think that the general view would be that the greater wisdom would be to have a Board composed of people with very wide experience in these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) asked whether a compensation application would be held up pending criminal proceedings. The answer is that it will

1235
if there is a prospect of proceedings being taken in the near future. Payment of an interim award of compensation is not ruled out if it is clear that the applicant deserves and needs it.
The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) asked whether we could have published reports of the Board's decisions without the names of applicants. This was also what the hon. Member for Islington, East was asking for. We must recognise that there must be an annual report presented to Parliament—this is obligatory under paragraph 12 of the White Paper—and it will be for the Board to indicate any major decisions that it has taken or processes that it has set out.
Here again, we must look very much to the spirit in which the experiment will take place. Everyone is anxious that the scheme shall work, and I am sure that the Board would wish to build up case law and that it would feel that it was in the best interests of its own work, as well as in the interests of Parliament, that the fullest possible reports should be given to Parliament so that we could review the scheme and see how far we should extend it.
Several hon. Members—the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir G. Willis), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport, in particular—asked why there was no right of appeal. I think that it must be demonstrated that this is, in effect, provided by the right to a hearing before three Board members where the applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the single Board member either because no compensation is offered or because he considers the amount offered to be inadequate. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Garston said that there was no reason to think that three members would be unable to act in an objective manner, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater pointed out that they are members of the same Board as a single member who took the initial decision and that there is a possibility that in many cases there would be a doubt in the mind of the unsuccessful applicant. But, here
1236
again, I think that to add any further procedure would be to complicate unduly the scheme that we are setting up at this stage.
Mr. C. Johnson: Would the hon. Lady say whether or not the decision of the three members must be unanimous, or whether the finding could be based on a decision of two out of three with one dissentient?
Miss Pike: This will be for the discretion of the Board to decide. I do not want to keep on reiterating that this is an experimental scheme, one in which we are giving wide discretionary powers to Board members in the belief that they will build up the most suitable forms in this sphere.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Garston was a little worried that the Board members might, with the possible procedures going on, become so much involved in this type of work that they would become out of touch with procedure in the courts. In the initial stages, as my right hon. Friend said, it is thought that a great many of the Board members will be part time, and it may well be that in this way they will be kept completely in touch. We cannot judge at this point how many Board members will be needed and what the scope of the work will be, but I do not think that we need worry that they will be people who will in any way be out of touch with the work that they are called upon to do.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) asked whether the information available to the Board at the hearing would also be made available to the applicant. In the White Paper he will see that the decision must be taken upon the evidence given at the time of the hearing before the three Board members. It is the intention that all the information before the Board at a hearing shall be made available to the applicant.
Mr. MacDermot: Suppose that there is no hearing in that sense and that the decision is given by a single member of the Board. Will the evidence on which he bases his decision—which has been obtained by the Board's staff—be made available to the applicant?
Miss Pike: No. In that case the final decision is that of one member. All the information will be available on appeal to the three members of the Board who hear it. They, in effect, will be judging on the evidence before the court and not on the informal evidence upon which the single member will reach his decision.
Mr. C. Johnson: This is an important matter. Unless the applicant whose case has been dismissed initially by one member of the Board is told of the reasons for refusal, he will be at a considerable disadvantage in considering whether to appeal, because it may be that the reasons are overwhelming. As I understand, his application will be considered de novo, but his further efforts may be wasted if the reasons against him, which have been unknown to him, are overwhelming. I imagine that, under these conditions, in practice every case which is refused by a single member of the Board will automatically go to appeal to three members.
Miss Pike: That is an extremely useful point and we will certainly consider it. The hon. Gentleman also asked about occasional payments made in advance and, as I have said, there is no reason why these should not be made.
The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) commented on the absence of a list of crimes in the White Paper. We do not consider this to be a defect in the scheme. Indeed, it is one of its merits. It means that any claimant who comes within the spirit of the scheme is not ruled out from consideration. There is no reason to think that anyone seriously injured as a result of a crime will be put off from claiming because there is no list. On the other hand, I think that it will bring into the scheme people who could be ruled out if we had too rigid a list of crimes.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Could such technical offences as those under the Food and Drugs Acts or the Factory Acts be entertained by the Board?
Miss Pike: No. They must be crimes of violence. My hon. Friend earlier brought up the question of poisoning, and here again the answer is that this must come within the category of crimes of violence. In this context also, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery asked about the standard of proof, the balance of probability, as in civil actions. It is the intention that that should be the standard of proof. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for rushing through my speech like this, but I am anxious to answer as many questions as I can.
The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North asked whether there should be a specific time limit prescribed for reporting an offence to the police and making an application for compensation. Here again we think this is for the Board to decide. The White Paper merely outlines the scheme and quite deliberately leaves such details to the Board. We want people to be brought into the spirit of this scheme.
Many hon. Members were worried about safeguards against fraudulent claims. In the first place, the circumstances of the injury must have been reported to the police without delay or have been the subject of criminal proceedings. This is in paragraph 14(b) of the White Paper. In view of the difficulty of establishing the facts in respect of members of an offender's household, people living with him are excluded from the scheme. An applicant must also be prepared to submit to a medical examination. Lastly, it will be the responsibility of the Board and its staff to make any necessary inquiries, particularly of the police, to establish that claims are bona fide and, of course, it will be for the claimant to make out his claim.
The rules may have to be fairly rigid to some extent. The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North was worried about sexual offences in which there might be some difficulties. These are difficult problems because these cases are peculiarly open to fraudulent applications and we must be strict to safeguard public funds in this matter. But I believe that we have left sufficient discretion to the Board to enable it wherever possible to bring in the bona fide case.

1239
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) and others asked about the member of the public who went to the assistance of the police, particularly, I understand, in the controlling of unruly political demonstrations, and so on. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) brought up another case, near to my heart because of my recent responsibilities. Other hon. Members have been worried about people helping the authorities in the course of their duty. I can assure the House that those people should come within the scheme if they are injured while helping the authorities in this way. The scheme does not necessarily mean that the violence has to be directed specifically at them. If they are helping in this way, they will come within the orbit of the scheme.
Mr. Loughlin: The two paragraphs which I read, relating to persons being injured accidentally or incidental to the result of an armed raid, specifically state that such people come within the scope of the scheme only when the vehicle is used as a weapon and the injury is deiberate.
Miss Pike: In the specific case which the hon. Member mentioned, it would depend very much on the circumstances and interpretation. If the offender were trying to batter his way out and so could say that the injury was accidental, or if the injured person had been trying to apprehend the offender, this could well be within the spirit of the general meaning of this part of the scheme. I do not wish to make categorical statements at this moment, but it is intended that the people who are helping the forces of law and order should not be in any way at a disadvantage because of their help. This must depend largely on the circumstances, and it is in this respect that the information from the police will be of advantage to the Board.
Several hon. Members have spoken about members of the police themselves. We have particularly in mind the ordinary member of the public who goes to the aid of the police, but it is not the intention to exclude police or prison officers from compensation in the circumstances. They would be eligible on the same basis as ordinary members of the public, subject to the qualifications, in the last sentence of paragraph 22 of the
1240
White Paper, which seek to ensure that people do not get compensation from two different types of public funds.
The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North and the hon. Member for East Ham, North asked about the allocation of responsibility in paragraph 15 of the White Paper. Clearly, it will be necessary for the Board to make an apportionment of responsibility to arrive at the amount of compensation when compensation is reduced because of the partial responsibility of the victim of the crime. Here again, case law will have a great bearing on the apportionment in these cases.
Mr. MacDermot: I am following with great interest the number of occasions on which the hon. Lady says that this will be a matter for the Board to decide, and that it will develop its own case law. If that is so, I urge, once again, that the Board should publish something more frequently than an annual report, because, from a practical point of view, it follows that a member of the legal profession who wants to advise on this scheme will have to say, "I cannot begin to advise you for a year because I do not know what case law has been developed". It will be a secret case law.
Miss Pike: I recognise the difficulty to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, but the great thing is that we must get this scheme started. We must get these cases going, and in the light of that we must see the type of reports that we want and the type of progress that we make. I am conscious of the fact that I am saying that this is a growing and expanding scheme, but, as we have seen this evening, that is the very essence of the scheme and the very basis for the fact that we have this experimental ex gratia scheme in this way.
Another important point raised by hon. Members referred to members of the offender's household living with him. Perhaps I could elucidate what this means. This part of the scheme was intended primarily to exclude an attack by a husband on a wife, or vice versa, where compensation might benefit the offender, and where the facts would be difficult to ascertain. Sub-tenants in the same house are not necessarily ruled out.

1241
One hon. Member asked about au pair girls. They would not necessarily be ruled out, but it is impossible to foresee the circumstances in which a claim may arise in which different categories of people would be involved. I think that it is important to work within the principle of paragraph 17 so that people will not be encouraged to bring forward fraudulent claims.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery asked about the spouse, or dependant, referred to in paragraph 22. It is intended that the class of persons to be compensated under this head are the same as those under the Fatal Accidents Acts, that is to say, spouses, children, including adopted and illegitimate children, and certain other persons provided for under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1959. The total sum to be awarded would fall to be apportioned among the applicants in the same way as under the Fatal Accidents Acts. I hope that that meets the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Wigan asked about the New Zealand scheme. We are proud of the fact that we are pioneers in this field, but, as hon. Members know, New Zealand brought in her scheme in January of this year. According to the information that we received from our High Commissioner on 1st May, no claim has arisen for consideration since the New Zealand Criminal Injuries Act came into force, but, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there is a certain element of retrospection in their scheme and they had under consideration six claims relating to crimes in 1963.
Three of these have been decided on the basis of informal opinions from the Crime Compensation Court established by the Act, and awards made of £1,000, £450, and £200. I give that information because we have proudly been saying that we are pioneers, and it is as well to give credit to our Commonwealth friends when they go ahead with schemes like this one.
The hon. Member for Wigan also asked me whether applicants for compensation would receive legal aid. The answer is "No". This would not be consistent with the practice of the administration of tribunals, and it would also be liable to make hearings more formal than is intended. The hon.
1242
Member for Islington, East raised the question of Income Tax, as did the hon. Member for Lewisham, South. The answer again is "No". When I was nodding and shaking my head I did not know whether I was giving the right indication, because the questions were framed in different ways by the hon. Members.
The hon. Member for East Ham, North raised the question of the lower limit. It is a relevant point that £50 may be a large sum to some people, as may three weeks' earnings. The only difficulty is that we must have a limit, especially as we wish to make certain that we are not flooded with a great number of cases. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport hoped that a great degree of flexibility could be brought into the scheme. I am sure that that is the spirit with which we all want the scheme to be administered.
I need not go into the reasons why this is to be an ex gratia scheme, as opposed to one based on the insurance principle. Most hon. Members agree that this is the wisest way to go forward at present. I hope that I have shown the Committee why it is necessary that the Board should consist of members of the legal profession, especially in the initial stages.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham) wanted to see the headquarters established on Merseyside. It is our intention to establish them in London, but as the scheme develops regional offices may be developed throughout the country. We want to keep administrative costs as low as possible.
This has been a most interesting and constructive debate. Its real importance lies in the fact that it has reflected widespread agreement that there should now be some form of compensation for victims of crimes of violence, and that this compensation should be limited to crimes causing personal injury. Tonight's debate has marked the most significant stage in the wide ranging discussions that have taken place on this subject in the past 10 years. Tonight, we are near the culmination of the purely theoretical argument, and the contributions that have been made in

1243
today's debate will colour the practical application of the scheme and illuminate some of the problems that lie ahead.
Now we are at the base line for the practical experience which will flow from the inception of this scheme. Future discussion will be concerned to an increasing degree with practical assessments of the progress of the scheme, and the pitfalls and obstacles to be overcome. This, as the House will agree, is one of the most worth-while experiments that we can make in social responsibility. None can see the final legislative form in which this principle may be embodied, but we should all recognise that the great value of the proposals before us lies in their flexibility. This flexibility is designed to enable sound theory and wide experience to be welded into the most effective expression of justice in this field.
I commend this scheme to the House and hope that we would all wish it well, and wish great success to all those people who will take part in its administration in the future.
Mr. F. Harris: Will my hon. Friend say when the scheme is supposed to operate?
Miss Pike: As quickly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence, Command Paper No. 2323.

CHELTENHAM (FUTURE STATUS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
10.0 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: It is with some trepidation that I raise the question of the future status of Cheltenham, in view of the presence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach). I am glad to see him here tonight. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that he will catch your eye and be able to say a few words on this important subject. We are all sad that he is not seeking re-election at the next General Election. I feel that anything I have to say is no reflection either
1244
on the borough which he represents or the admirable administration which it has enjoyed in past years.
I wish to raise the whole issue brought up by the January, 1963, Report of the Local Government Commission for England dealing with the South-Western General Review Area. In that Report there were two main proposals. The first was that Cheltenham should be expanded to take in Charlton Kings urban district, which I consider completely unobjectionable. I have heard no objection to that proposition, because it is virtually part of the City of Cheltenham already. Secondly, it was proposed that parts of my constituency in the Cheltenham Rural District Council area, Prestbury, Leck-hampton and Swindon, should be incorporated into Cheltenham. The second recommendation was that the whole should be made into a county borough as opposed to a non-county borough, as it now is. It is to this proposal that I wish to direct what I have to say.
This has been the subject of a public inquiry. My right hon. Friend will soon receive a report from his inspector and will have to make up his mind whether to agree to the proposition. On behalf of my constituents, who have much at stake in this matter, I must point our some of the objections to the proposed course of action. In the past few weeks there have been many arguments about the exact population figure involved. This arises from the Local Government Act, 1958, which specified 100,000 as the minimum population for a county borough. By juggling with figures for the proposed new area, including Charlton Kings and the parts of Cheltenham Rural District which are proposed for inclusion, the final population is expected to reach 100,000 in or about 1971.
In 1958 the area so circumscribed had a population of only 86,300. In 1961 the figure had risen to 90,000, and the whole proposition is based on the speculation that by 1971 the increase in population in the area will have reached a figure of 100,000 or so, which would bring it just within the ambit of the 1958 Act for inclusion as a county borough. It is rather scraping the barrel to produce the necessary figure, but that is not really the point. The point is that 100,000 in itself, is far too low a figure for a county borough. The figure

1245
should properly be something like 200,000 or 250,000 rather than a smaller figure, which would make it too difficult to provide the specialist and expensive services which local government is called on to provide in these days. Tonight it is not so much the exact population figure about which I wish to talk as the effects of this proposition were it allowed to go forward.
First, there is the effect that it would have on services provided by the local government organisations in Gloucestershire, and secondly its effect on the rate which those living in Gloucestershire would have to pay. In all, I have to say there are two main principles to which I adhere. First, as we go forward into the future, all units of local governments must tend to become bigger and we should bend our efforts towards making bigger rather than smaller units of local government. Secondly, in any representative part of the country where there is an industrial area development with country districts surrounding, it must be an essential part of the structure of local government that the country districts are thrown in with the town districts so that we have some marrying of requirements and subsidisation of the rural districts by the town and developed parts of the country. Those two principles, that of larger units and including rural with urban development, seem to have been denied by the proposals before us.
Cheltenham Rural District Council, which administers part of my constituency, has an area which entirely surrounds the City of Cheltenham. It would more or less cease to exist if these proposals went through, because a quarter of its population would go into the new county borough and a very small rural district would be left. With the tendency towards much larger rural districts of 20,000, 30,000 and even 40,000, Cheltenham R.D.C. would cease to exist.
In particular, I refer to the town of Prestbury, which has an entity of its own. It existed long before Cheltenham was a town, indeed when Cheltenham was a hamlet. It has no great affinity or interest with Cheltenham. It is interesting to note that the rural district council had a poll of inhabitants of Prestbury and out of 3,006 inhabitants 2,041 took part, and 1,793, 85 per cent., were
1246
against the proposal. They gave strong indications of the strength of the local feeling on the matter.
Gloucestershire local education authority covers a population of about ½ million and about 100,000 or one-fifth would come out of that if Cheltenham became a county borough. I realise that Cheltenham is at present an excepted district, but its exception has many riders to it which curtail the independence of Cheltenham education authority to a large extent. That is particularly so in higher education. North Gloucestershire Technical College and the Gloucestershire College of Art are administered by the county already. If the proposals went through they presumably would become part of the borough and, as these important institutions serve the whole county, we would have the anomalous position of the two main higher education establishments under one authority and the population which uses them under another.
In primary and secondary education the county council controls the education estimates, appointments of senior staff and educational administration and the amount of new school building. This would go if Cheltenham became a county borough. There are many transfers between one and the other. The whole educational omelet in Gloucestershire is too closely mixed to be possible to separate in future. I am certain that it would net be good for education in the county. There is a large amount of co-ordination already. Various committees have representatives from both the County and the City of Cheltenham. From the experience we have I do not feel that there is any need to alter the present arrangements whereby the excepted district co-operates with the county education authority.
There are also the specialist services. The county council employs no fewer than 14 highly-qualified specialist officers. It is unthinkable that Cheltenham could provide those 14 specialist officers on its own. It would be a very great expense to the town if it tried to do so. It seems to me that it is much better to make the drama expert, the music expert, and other experts available for the whole county rather than trying to reproduce the whole system on a smaller scale in the city.

1247
I therefore hope that the local education authority will continue to administer Cheltenham. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) is here. The arguments which I adduced, in my opinion, also apply to the City of Gloucester, which has an even smaller population than the City of Cheltenham. At some stage in the future I hope to see the whole of Gloucestershire administered by the county education authority.
Other services, such as fire, police and ambulance are at present joint, and Cheltenham has said that it would like to see them continue to be joint if Cheltenham becomes a county borough. On the other hand, the health service has been delegated in the past, and so has planning. What I have said about education would apply very nearly to the Health Service and to the planning authority in the county, because although they are delegated at present a large measure of control exists from the county and there is already a large amount of co-operation. To try to set up a completely separate organisation would multiply the number of officers without, in my opinion, achieving any greater efficiency of service.
The county planning officer already feels that it is difficult to have the City of Gloucester exempt from his overall planning, and I believe that the House is beginning to accept that planning as a service should be carried out for a very wide area. If we had not only the City of Gloucester, but also Cheltenham, taken out of the county planning officer's area, we should take a backward step. There is always the point that if one tried to produce a complete planning authority with a smaller population one might not be able to attract enough staff of a high quality to perform the functions. If every town of 100,000 had its own planning authority the demand on planning officers and trained staff would be so great that our standards as a whole would have to fall. I feel that we should see planning much more as a regional affair rather than trying to parcel it out in small units.
I must mention the question of rates, although I emphasise that it is not only the level of rates which I consider to be important. I think that it is fair
1248
for people to pay a good rate if they receive a good service in return. But where, as I have tried to outline, we shall get a worse service in the county and at the same time shall be asked to pay more rates, it is fair to protest on behalf of those who live in the county.
The figures which I shall give have been agreed between the finance officer of Cheltenham and the finance officer of the county council. An extra £51,000 per annum for paying extra staff for setting up new departments will have to be provided if the two are divided and Cheltenham is made a county borough. Whoever pays, it is a net addition to the cost of local government. It must come out of somebody's pocket. It seems to me that that is duplication—and that is a measure of the cost of these proposals.
If the proposals to make Cheltenham a county borough had been in force in 1963–64, the present borough rate in Cheltenham would have been 10·7d. lower. On the other hand, that part of the Cheltenham Rural District Council which would have been transferred to the borough would have had its rate increased by 5·8d. to 10·5d. and the rate in the remaining part of the Cheltenham Rural District would have gone up by 4·7d. The county rates in the rest of the county, which is covered by my constituency and by that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), would have risen by 2·5d. This is the measure of the cross-subsidisation which takes place. It is fair to add that these figures are based on the new valuation and therefore represent considerable percentage increases on the rates which we have to pay at present.
I think I have said enough to show that the proposal will greatly affect my constituents, will affect the services provided, and will affect the rates they have to pay. The county overheads will rise. Cheltenham's overheads will rise. The unit of local government will be made smaller rather than bigger. The general feeling of a move towards bigger units is being thwarted. I hope that when the Minister considers this proposal he will find that what I have said is true and will be able to resist the proposal and leave Gloucestershire as it is at present, with the county controlling the Borough of Cheltenham.
10.16 p.m.
Major W. Hicks Beach: As this matter which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who is one of my neighbours, refers specifically to Cheltenham, my constituency, I am very glad indeed to have the opportunity to state the facts.
Let me say straight away that I do not accept the figures my hon. Friend gave about the population of Cheltenham, nor do I accept the comparison between Prestbury and Cheltenham, unless we go back 200 years. After all, even a county council must move a little with the times. We cannot base figures on what happened 200 years ago. I do not propose to deal with that, however.
I come straight way to the facts as present. My hon. Friend is a newcomer to Gloucestershire. We first saw him only in 1958. Anyone who knows Gloucestershire and Cheltenham will recognise that today Cheltenham is a very different place from what it was before the war. An enormous advance has taken place since the war, in particular in industry, quite rightly, because Cheltenham is a progressive borough which wants to help industry and everyone else. Instead of being, as it was in 1939, largely a residential and scholastic centre, with a population of about 50,000, the borough area has expanded since the war and now has an estimated population of 100,000.
The House will be aware that Parliament has laid down, in the Local Government Act, 1958, the procedure whereby a local authority can extend its local government status. Cheltenham accepted the procedure laid down by the House by applying for county borough status. Cheltenham proceeded on the lines laid down. The House appointed a Local Government Boundary Commission to hear evidence from all local government authorities concerned. This was done. The Commission reported to the Minister in January, 1963. I regret to say that my hon. Friend did not think it proper to read out the Report. It is proper for me to refer to the recommendation in respect of Cheltenham.
The Commission, having heard all the evidence, made this recommendation in paragraph 105 on page 24 of its report:
1250
"We accordingly recommend the constitution of a county borough comprising the borough of Cheltenham and the built-up part of the urban district of Charlton Kings, with parts of the parishes of Leckhampton, Up Hatherley, Prestbury, Swindon and Uckington."
The next step in the procedure laid down by Parliament was that all local authorities affected had the power to object. Objections in this case were received from the county council and Cheltenham Rural District Council. An independent inquiry was appointed by the Minister. It sat in Cheltenham from 3rd March to 13th March last and heard the cases of all the local authorities concerned.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: On the question of the Commission's hearings, does the hon. and gallant Member not find, as in the case of the Gloucester proposals, that the Commission had a tendency to ignore representations made by the smaller authorities?
Major Hicks Beach: I found exactly the reverse, and, as a lawyer, I have attended many public inquiries. I must refer to the next step in the matter with some reluctance. It was a Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on 14th April, when he asked when my right hon. Friend expected to make his decision on the report of his inspector on the public inquiry into the future status of Cheltenham.
My right hon. Friend replied that he had yet to receive the inspector's report. My hon. Friend then asked:
"Will my right hon. Friend at least assure us that when he receives the inspector's report he will read it himself?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1964; Vol. 693, c. 228.]
I mention this only to make clear that I and the people of Cheltenham are quite satisfied that the Minister reads every report and we wish to dissociate ourselves from any suggestion to the contrary.
The present position is that we have the Commission's Report and that the inspector's report is to come. It would not be proper for me, nor is this the time, to make further comment except to say that I am satisfied that when he has sifted all the evidence my right hon.

1251
Friend will come to the conclusion that Cheltenham is a borough of county borough status.
10.24 p.m.
Mr. John Diamond: In the thirty seconds or so left to me, I wish only to say that I have listened carefully to what has been said and that I do not want to intervene in an argument between two hon. Members opposite.
Why the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) wanted to bring in the City of Gloucester I have no idea. It does not give one an opportunity to answer the argument which, I should have thought, was as ill-informed as it was utterly premature.
10.25 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): This is a somewhat unique occasion, in that we have present all the Gloucester County Members, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond).
I find myself at some disadvantage in having a constituency interest, on the one hand, and a ministerial responsibility on the other. However, as far as the county goes, I can claim to some extent to have a foot in each camp. I represent a Gloucester county constituency and, in so far as I was educated at all, I was educated in Cheltenham—though I never regarded myself as scholastic, as my hon. and gallant Friend described it.
I am also a member of the Cheltenham Society. Therefore, despite the caution thrust upon me by my right hon. Friend's responsibility, there is the advantage that I need not give any indication as to which side I am on.
Almost exactly a year ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Sir E. Leather) had the Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) rather aptly quoted Lord Melbourne as saying:
"Pray, Sir, have the goodness to leave things alone."
That seems to sum up very aptly the plea made by my hon. Friend the Mem-
1252
ber for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
Whether it is entirely apposite in the light of the changes that have occurred in the last 200 years to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred, I am not sure, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury started by suggesting, in effect, that there had been a good deal of juggling to reach a population of 100,000. Population, however, is not the sole criterion, as is quite clearly laid down in the Act.
I thought that my hon. Friend did a little juggling himself. He mentioned Prestbury, with a population of 3,006 and 2,041 people who had bothered to answer the questionnaire. From that he made a percentage of those against of 85, but if one takes it as a percentage of total population the figure is a little over 60. That, I agree, gives an overall vote against the proposal, but not quite such a preponderant one. There is a perfectly true story of a village not far from here which managed to get an 86 per cent. vote one way and 85 per cent. the other—but what that proves I am not sure.
The hon. Member for Gloucester will know that these inquiries are technically and literally into objections to the proposals rather than into the proposals themselves, and because there is an objection by the County Council of Gloucester to the continued county borough status of the city, it is relevant in so far as the considerations that will be given by my right hon. Friend are considerations as to the effect on the county of the Cheltenham proposal and the Gloucester objection.
This is, perhaps, the moment to warn my hon. Friend that, because these two objections must be linked, it may well be some considerable time before a decision is taken. My right hon. Friend has not yet received his inspector's report. That is understandable, because the inquiry was long and complex. When he does receive it he will study it very carefully. I can assure the House that in these local government matters my right hon. Friend does read the reports. I admit that he reads them a great deal faster than I can, but he does read them, and studies them most carefully and will do so in this case.

1253
Nevertheless, the balance between county and county borough proposals is bound to be determined by what happens in the case of Gloucester City, and it may well be that my right hon. Friend will find it right to postpone a decision until the later inquiry into the Gloucester City proposal is held and a decision taken. My hon. Friend and hon. Members opposite will not expect me to go further now, for fear that I should touch on the merits of the matter, which would, I think, be wrong.
1254
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury referred to the various services that might be affected both from the point of view of the town of Cheltenham and of the county. Those are two matters that are relevant to the inquiry, and I assure him that every factor will be most carefully considered before a final decision is come to.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

  CIVIL COURTS (JUDGMENTS)
  CIVIL COURTS (JUDGMENTS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Civil Servants (Establishment)
  Civil Servants (Establishment)
  Income Tax and Social Services
  Income Tax and Social Services
  Customs (Pornographic Literature)
  Customs (Pornographic Literature)
  Literature (Imports)
  Literature (Imports)
  Shorthand Typists, Central London (Pay)
  Shorthand Typists, Central London (Pay)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  Technicolor Limited
  Technicolor Limited
  Government Departments (Dispersal)
  Government Departments (Dispersal)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Waiting List, Northern Ireland
  Waiting List, Northern Ireland
  Public Opinion Surveys
  Public Opinion Surveys
  London Telecommunications Region (Dialled Calls)
  London Telecommunications Region (Dialled Calls)
  Kiosks, Nottingham
  Kiosks, Nottingham
  Apparatus and Equipment (Research and Development)
  Apparatus and Equipment (Research and Development)
  Bulk Supply Agreements
  Bulk Supply Agreements
  United Kingdom—South America (Communications)
  United Kingdom—South America (Communications)
POST OFFICE
  Post Office Savings Bank
  Post Office Savings Bank
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Pay-Television (Feature Films)
  Pay-Television (Feature Films)
  Pirate Radio Stations
  Pirate Radio Stations
HOUSING
  Housing Revenue Account, Oldham
  Housing Revenue Account, Oldham
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Planning Engineers
  Planning Engineers
  Compulsory Purchase Orders, Middlesex
  Compulsory Purchase Orders, Middlesex
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
WELSH AFFAIRS
  Rural Depopulation, Mid-Wales (Report)
  Rural Depopulation, Mid-Wales (Report)
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Constitution
  Constitution
  Mr. Nkomo (Indian Representations)
  Mr. Nkomo (Indian Representations)
MALDIVE ISLANDS
  Diplomatic Representation
  Diplomatic Representation
KENYA
  Million-Acre Scheme
  Million-Acre Scheme
MALTA
  Draft Constitution
  Draft Constitution
BASUTOLAND
  Constitutional Conference
  Constitutional Conference
  UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC (NUCLEAR WARHEADS)
  UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC (NUCLEAR WARHEADS)
  CYPRUS (UNITED NATIONS FORCE)
  CYPRUS (UNITED NATIONS FORCE)
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Companies (Political Expenditure)
  Companies (Political Expenditure)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prosecuted Persons (Names and Addresses)
  Prosecuted Persons (Names and Addresses)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Warble Fly (Dressing of Cattle) Order, 1948
  Warble Fly (Dressing of Cattle) Order, 1948
  Beef Cattle
  Beef Cattle
  Dairy Cattle
  Dairy Cattle
  Farming Grants and Subsidies
  Farming Grants and Subsidies
  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT WORK
  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT WORK
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Air Services, Scotland
  Air Services, Scotland
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (LEGAL SECTION)
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (LEGAL SECTION)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Leave Warrants (Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
  Leave Warrants (Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Aged Persons
  Aged Persons
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Pentonville Prison
  Pentonville Prison

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

C.I.D. DUTIES AND POLICE OFFICE WORK
LORD WILLIS: 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 is the average case load of C.I.D. officers: what amount of overtime is being worked by C.I.D. officers: and what steps are being taken to bring in more civilian personnel to take over routine office duties in the police and to equip police stations with modern office and labour-saving equipment.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My LordS, no reliable figure for the average case load of C.I.D. officers can be obtained, because no clear division can be drawn between the work of crime investigation done by the uniformed branch and the C.I.D., and the records kept nationally do not show the fluctuating strengths of the Criminal Investigation Departments in all the forces in the country. In broad terms, however, the average case load per operational detective in England and Wales in urban forces may be said to be in the region of 250 a year; in rural forces the figure is considerably lower. The case load in Scotland is, in general, lower than the level in England and Wales. In the Metropolitan Police the average number of complaints of crime investigated by C.I.D. officers on divisional strength in 1963 was 322.
According to figures supplied by the Association of Chief Police Officers for the use of the Police Council for Great Britain, the weekly hours of overtime worked by operational detectives in provincial forces in England and Wales
1138
during the last four months of 1963 were, approximately, 10½ for chief inspectors, 9½ for inspectors, 8½ for sergeants and women police sergeants, 7 for constables and 4¾ for women police constables. Comparable information provided by the Chief Constables (Scotland) Association showed the weekly hours of overtime in police forces in Scotland during the same period as, approximately, 5½ hours for chief inspectors, inspectors and sergeants, 4½ hours for women police sergeants, 5 hours for constables and 2 hours for women police constables. In the Metropolitan Police the figures for the same period were: chief inspectors 17½ hours, inspectors 20 hours, sergeants 15¾ hours, women police sergeants 10½ hours, constables 14 hours and women police constables 9¾hours a week.
Opportunities for employing more civilian staff to take over routine clerical duties from police officers are continually being looked for, and appointments of civilians being made which release police officers for other duties. I am told by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary that much is being done to equip police stations with modern office and labour-saving equipment. In the Metropolitan Police the simplification of procedures and the provision of up-to-date equipment are constantly under review by the Research and Planning Branch of the Commissioner's Office.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that very long and thorough reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that this really represents a rather appalling picture, when it is considered by experts that 50 cases a year is sufficient for a C.I.D. officer, whereas he has mentioned 200 or 250, and in some areas of London, I believe, it is as high as 500? Is it not really rather too much for a C.I.D. officer to manage, and at the same time keep his patience? Would the noble Lord not therefore agree that there is a strong case for taking special measures in this matter to provide C.I.D. officers with more tape recorders and more typewriters, and, above all, for recruiting many more policewomen into the Force, as a matter of urgency, in order that they may take over some of these other duties?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, as I say, these figures are approximate, because it is very difficult to tell, when you are talking about case loads, whether a detective undertakes the whole investigation or only part. It is quite clear, of course, that in cities like London, where the police are under strength, the case load must be heavier than in forces where the police are not under strength. One of the troubles about recruiting more policewomen—and it is not as difficult as one might think—is the wastage. They are apt to be very attractive and they get married; that is one of the great troubles. But, of course, it is a matter which is causing concern. As regards the provision of tape recorders, I am informed by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary that there is no difficulty about this. They are provided, and if a detective wants an additional tape recorder for particular work at any time, it is quite easy to obtain. I do not think there is any difficulty about tape recorders.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as far back as 1958 the Select Committee on Estimates in another place reported on the police in England and Wales, and drew sharply to the attention of Her Majesty's Government the need for modern office equipment and for the civilianisation (if I may coin a word) of some of the clerical duties in police stations? That was six years ago, and yet we are getting the same old story. Does the noble Lord not think that is a long time to await action?
LORD DERWENT: In fact, police forces are proceeding, both with civilianisation, where possible, and with the use of modern equipment; but the noble Lord must remember that that there are quite a number of police duties which cannot be done by civilians.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is the noble Lord accepting the implication of my noble friend's supplementary question, that, whereas it is a waste of a male police constable's time to be engaged on clerical duties, it is not a waste of a woman police constable's time? And will he not consider the employment of civilian staff for these duties?
LORD DERWENT: Of course, women police constables do specialized
1140
work, but it is just as much a waste of their time if they have to do unnecessary clerical work as it is in the case of a male police officer.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, if the noble Lord says it is wastage to get married—a most unfortunate term, I think, which rather reflects on the noble Lord himself—may I ask him why these married women cannot be used for these civilian jobs?
LORD TAYLOR: On a part-time basis.
LORD DERWENT: They are, of course, frequently asked if they will stay on and do civilian jobs, but they cannot remain in the police. When I said, "wastage", I agree with the noble Baroness that perhaps that was unfortunately phrased, but I was looking at it purely from a police point of view.
LORD WILLIS: I should just like, if I may, to press home this question of urgency, because, although I know a great deal has been done, there are still stations where I know the policewomen's branch argue with the station officer about who can use the typewriter at certain times, and where there is an enormous amount of time wasted in writing out summonses, and so forth—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order !
LORD WILLIS: I think some kind of direction would help. Does the noble Lord agree?
LORD DERWENT: Yes and no, my Lords.

HYDE PARK RESTAURANT CAR PARK
2.38 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that a portion of land in Hyde Park is to be converted into a car park for the use of those who will patronise the new restaurant now being erected near the south bank of the Serpentine.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL NAVY (EARL JELLICOE): Yes, my Lords. The present parking facilities are very limited, and some small extension of them will be necessary for the convenience of the patrons of the new restaurant.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his reply, which I cannot say I find particularly satisfactory, I should like to put to him one or two supplementary questions. First, why is it necessary for the patrons of the restaurant to have parking facilities, whereas those people who play bowls, or bathe in the Serpentine, or ride in Rotten Row, or putt on the putting green do not also require parking facilities? Secondly, would it not be possible for part of the main road around the park, which is already used as a car park, to be set aside for people coming to the restaurant? The third question is whether it would not be possible for patrons of the restaurant who come in cars to put their cars in the new underground car park which has recently been opened and which, except to a certain limited extent, never seems now to have any cars there at all.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if I might answer the third supplementary question first, I thin k the new car park is a very long way from the proposed new restaurant; and the noble Lord's idea, while it would commend itself to me personally, might not commend itself to the less athletic patrons of the new restaurant. I think that the first and second of the noble Lord's supplementary questions go somewhat together. It is hoped that this "gay, modern restaurant", as it was described by my right honourable friend at his Press conference last October, will attract new patrons. The effect would then be that the road used for car parking at the present time would become very jammed by the cars of those who were patronising the restaurant.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, would it not be the fact that the people who use the road now could park in the underground car park, which is not so very far away, so that people using the restaurant could park on the road?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Earl give the number of cars
1142
for which this car park is to be provided and the amount of Royal Park space that is to be taken over? Could he also say whether this restaurant is going to be a new structure?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as the noble Lord will see if he strolls past it this evening, the restaurant is going to be a new structure. It is practically complete and its design was approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission. I gather that the parking place is to be pretty small. It was designed for something like 60 cars. What will be lost to the Park on the side of the Serpentine Bridge Road (if it will be lost) will be gained on the other side, where, as the noble Lord knows, there is an area of tarmac. It has been there for some time, and the present plan is to dig that up and restore it to grass.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that three years ago this House, on my Motion, struck out a clause from the Public Health Bill that would have enabled the local authorities to take over land in open spaces for this purpose? Is it not unfortunate that Her Majesty's Government should treat with so little respect the Royal Parks and the rights of the public peacefully to enjoy them?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, all my noble friend's actions in this House are vividly in my mind and I do, of course, recall that particular Parliamentary occasion. But, with due respect, I do not think—though I am venturing into legalistic matters—that my right honourable friend is a "local authority". I hope I indicated in my Answer to a supplementary question that my right honourable friend is conscious of the importance of the amenities of the Park, and of preserving and enhancing them where possible. It is for that reason he is taking action to eliminate this tarmac eyesore on the other side of the Bridge Road and to restore it to grass.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, would it not be possible in the future for Parliament or the public to be informed about what is going on in the Royal Parks (it was only by chance that I read about this car park in the paper), so that Parliament can decide whether pieces of the Royal Parks should be taken for purposes for which they were never
intended?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would entirely agree with the noble Lord. Of course, it was with that thought in mind that my right honourable friend explained the concept of this restaurant very fully in a Press conference last October.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in view of the general sympathy in all quarters of the House for preservation of the Parks, would the noble Earl consider the possibility of this car park being put below ground level? Only a small number of cars is involved. I am sure that if this were possible—and I recognise the expense factor—an eyesore could be taken from this Park.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure my right honourable friend will be very glad to consider that suggestion, which I will pass on. I think there is a difficulty here. A good deal of preliminary work has been done, including the drainage, for this car park. As the noble Lord will see, if he looks at the report of last October's Press conference, it is planned to have another restaurant on the other side of the Park and it is conceivable that his suggestion might be more applicable there.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, will the noble Earl give an undertaking that, when the new restaurant is being considered, the amenity that is required for offices—the provision of below-ground-level car parks—will apply for the new restaurant?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I cannot give an undertaking, but I will bring that idea to my right honourable friend's attention.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether this car park is to be used solely by the patrons of the restaurant and whether anyone else will be allowed to park there?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am afraid I should need notice of that question.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, can my noble friend say what will happen when the provision for 60 cars proves to be wholly insufficient? Will further acres of the Park then be taken over for a sure that the new restaurant is going to
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am similar purpose?
1144
be a great success, but I do not think that we should unduly anticipate that success.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, as well as saying whether the car park is to be used exclusively by those who are enjoying the amenities of the restaurant, will the Minister say whether a time limit will be put upon parking?—otherwise, somebody may come for, say, a luncheon meal, park there and stay for an evening meal as well.
EARL JELLICOE: Certainly, my Lords.

STUDENTS AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
2.47 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they approve the practice under which university and college students who are apparently involved in criminal offences are not prosecuted; and on what grounds this differentiation between students and the rest of the population is justified.]
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, except where there is a statutory restriction on the right of the police to prosecute, it is the responsibility of the police to decide, in all the circumstances of a particular case, whether proceedings should be taken. Her Majesty's Government know of no evidence to suggest that there has been discrimination in favour of a particular class of persons.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, and I appreciate the constutional position. But is the Minister aware that there have been in the past year two incidents—one at Oxford and one at Cambridge—each of which resulted in a death, and a third at Welwyn Garden City by which a breach of the peace might have been caused, and that in not one of these cases were criminal proceedings instituted, and that in the two more serious cases no disciplinary action was taken by the university

1145
authorities? Does the Minister appreciate that it is being widely said that there is one law for the student population and another for the rest?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, whatever has been said, this is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government, but for the chief officer of police.

DEPTFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL AND UNITY THEATRE FUND
2.48 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: 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 why a grant of £100 from Deptford Borough Council to the Unity Theatre Rebuilding Fund was refused the sanction of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, my right honourable friend refused his consent because he did not think it desirable that a contribution should be made from the rates to a body whose activities seemed to be directed to Party political purposes.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask under what Act and on what basis this sanction was refused? Is the noble Lord aware that under Section 132 of the Local Government Act, 1948, local authorities are allowed to levy up to a 6d. rate and put the proceeds to theatres, orchestras and the like? Nothing in Unity's constitution or in the Deptford contribution contravened this Act.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, it is true that under that section quoted by the noble Lord, local authorities may make such a contribution. There are certain conditions attached, as the noble Lord is aware, but it is entirely their own responsibility and they can do so without the consent of the Minister. It is under Section 136 of the Local Government Act, 1948, that local authorities are obliged to ask for the Minister's consent; and that is what occurred on
1146
this occasion. On a previous occasion, in 1957 I think, the then Minister refused consent on the same ground, and the truth of the matter is that the Government do not consider that money provided by the ratepayers should be used for any purpose with a Party political undertone, no matter which Party is involved. And if the Minister's consent is entailed, we feel quite sure that in those cases it should not be forthcoming.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his further reply, may I ask him, further, whether if the Deptford Borough Council now offer Unity Theatre this sum under Section 132 they have a perfect right to do so? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is the Government's intention to keep a record of all the theatres in this country and of the political affiliations of all their directors?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's second question, I am quite sure the answer is No, though the noble Lord will be well aware that the appeal literature sent out by Unity Theatre makes perfectly clear that it has political affiliations and even political purposes. In reply to the first question of the nobe Lord (I am not quite sure that I remember what it was now) the Council have the authority to do this on their own bat under Section 132, so long as they feel that it is within their powers to do so. If they are satisfied of that, the responsibility is theirs and they will answer to their own ratepayers for taking any action under that section, but the Minister would not come into it at all.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as I am the person who opened the first Unity Theatre in the 'thirties, in what was I think a disused Nonconformist church, could the noble Lord say, when he talks about political undertones, whether there is anything sinister about it, or does he simply mean "Parties as represented in this country"?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, there is nothing sinister at all. The fact is that Unity Theatre is apparently backed by a political Party and in its appeal literature refers to the fact that it is a world-famed theatre of, in this case, the Labour movement. But it might be some other

1147
political Party. There is nothing sinister about it and there is no reason why a theatre should not have these undertones. The point is that we believe that the general rate fund should not contribute under the Local Government Act, 1948, with the Government's consent.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, do I understand the Minister to say that if the Deptford Borough Council operate under Section 132 the Minister does not come into it at all, so that they are quite free to get on with it?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I think it is a question of legal interpretation which it is for the Council to go into; but there is the right to act under that section. If the Council do come to that conclusion, they bear their own responsibility. The Minister would not be involved.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is one of the most lively theatres in London and very deserving of support?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a short statement on Yemen and Aden.
SAINT DIONIS BACKCHURCH CHURCHYARD (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL [H.L.]
2.54 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a, —(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I do not intend to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, but I am sure that, but for his
1148
unfortunate and regretted absence, my noble Leader Lord Alexander of Hillsborough would have spoken on behalf of his native place, Weston-super-Mare. Petitions against this Bill were presented by Somerset County Council, Cardiff Council County, Portishead Urban District Council, Cleveland Urban District Council and Weston-super-Mare Borough Council. The Committee heard counsel for the petitioners and many witnesses. They devoted some nine days to their deliberations. I realise that the views put to the Committee were most carefully and patiently examined, but, with the greatest respect, I would say that Weston-super-Mare Borough Council are very unhappy about the Committee's conclusion.
The advice the Council have had from an eminent consultant on tidal conditions and estuary problems is, in level terms, to the effect that conditions in the channel are complex. The range of tides, up to 50 feet at the eastern end, is one of the highest in the world, and there is a very large amount of silt in suspension as the tide ebbs and flows. The consultant was unable to give us any kind of assurance that the construction of the jetty, and more especially of the wharf at the end, will not have an adverse effect on Weston-super-Mare. He says that the proposed work might well alter the line of the new channel, which, in turn, would allow this mud to be deposited over the existing sands of Weston Bay. It might well change, also, the currents in the Bay, which could result in the borough's existing sewage outlet into the main stream being disturbed and this outfall not being carried out to sea, with consequences of which some holiday resorts in this country are painfully aware.
The Council's expert advisers say that, with these great questions at stake, it is reasonable to expect that the Promoters of the Bill should carry out hydrological surveys before seeking to proceed with the proposed works. The Promoters' expert consultants seem quite satisfied that the works will not have any adverse effect on Weston Bay, although at no stage have the Promoters suggested that they would be willing to give Weston-super-Mare an adequate and comprehensive protective clause covering adverse effects.

1149
As your Lordships know, Weston-super-mare has a significant position in the holiday trade of this country. Already some £6 million is spent every year by visitors and, as an independent survey showed, in 1963 the resorts' visitors included 2,500 from overseas. The holiday industry occupies a most important place in the national economy, and I can hardly believe that it is a sound policy to give any encouragement to proposals which will seriously interfere with the amenities of a substantial and attractive part of Somerset, when there are alternative solutions to the problem of iron importation in South Wales. In conclusion, I can only say that, while I cannot press for the House to oppose the Third Reading, I hope that these considerations, which will he on record, will receive attention in another place and that the Bill will be considered at greater length.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
INCOME TAX MANAGEMENT BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

HARBOURS BILL
3.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Harbours Bill, consents to place her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, as I come to propose the Third Reading of this Bill to your Lordships there is very little for me to say: in fact, there is only one small point that I want to mention. On the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Teynham moved an Amendment the effect of which would have been to give a right of appeal to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport against the termination of harbour charges by the Ports Council. My noble friend Lord Teynham is abroad and wishes to ask the House's understanding of his absence, and I said that I would mention the point in his absence. I promised at the conclusion of the discussion we had on that Amendment, at the urging of my noble friend Lord Teynham and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I think also my noble friend Lord Cottesloe, to look at the matter again. All I want to say is that I have faithfully carried out that undertaking. I have looked at it as carefully and sympathetically as possible, but I was bound to come to the conclusion that it would not be right to accept the proposal. I am not going into all the arguments about it again, but I want to emphasise that I looked at it carefully and came to the conclusion that it would not be right to adopt this suggestion, because it cuts right across the carefully considered principle which governs that section of the Bill.
I also examined the recommendations of the Franks Committee's Report, about which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was worried, and I found that, so far as one can take it from generalisation, they were entirely in support of leaving the Bill

1151
as it is, rather than making the Amendment. I have nothing more to say, except to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a —(Lord Chesham.)
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I should like to express our thanks to the noble Lord for his courtesy and, indeed, help, in accepting a number of the Amendments that were moved from this side of the House. This is a Bill which was unopposed; it has engendered no political controversy, and I think that, as a result of the Committee stages in both Houses, it has come out a better and more workable Bill. We are particularly pleased that the noble Lord saw fit to accept our Amendment on redundancy, and also to go as far as he reasonably could with regard to the penal clauses in Clause 20, dealing with control and movement. All that remains is for this legislation to be enacted, for the operation and administration of the courts to be efficient and to be a credit to this great maritime nation of ours.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, I should not like to forgo the opportunity of thanking all noble Lords on both sides of the House who have done valuable and patient work in improving the Bill and making useful Amendments which I am sure will commend themselves in another place when they get there. I think that this is an important Bill for the port industry. It brings in an entirely new conception of ports as a national responsibility, rather than a local one, and I am sure that the work we have done on this Bill will make the future of the ports secure and a bright one. I should like to thank all noble Lords, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who is also absent abroad, for the work they have put in. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

NURSES BILL
3.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I must disclose a very real interest in this Bill, as I have just become Chairman of the Fountain and Carshalton Group Hospital Management Committee, a group that deals with hospitals for children with mental disorders, one of which, Queen Mary's, Carshalton, is a comprehensive hospital for paediatric and mentally subnormal children.
Up to the present, the enrolled nurse (known as the assistant nurse until the passing of the Nurses (Amendment) Act, 1961) had been neither trained nor employed in hospitals for the mentally disordered in England or Wales. The nursing staff at these consists of registered psychiatric nurses with a three-year student nurse training, student nurses, and a large number of nursing assistants, many of them with long experience but without formal training or qualifications gained through examination. The General Nursing Council of England and Wales wish now to begin the training of pupil nurses for hospitals for the mentally disordered and to put them on the roll. They have already drawn up a syllabus for a two-year training course.
I believe that your Lordships will welcome this move, since it should attract more staff to psychiatric nursing and also improve the quality of nursing staff in these hospitals. The Council already possess powers to make rules covering such training for the Roll, but they do not wish to use them until there is power to admit existing nursing assistants to the Roll by virtue of their acquired knowledge and experience over a number of years. I am sure we shall all feel that it would be unfair if young enrolled nurses, after two years' training, were placed in a position of seniority, with, incidentally, higher pay, over nursing assistants with many years of experience.
A similiar situation arose in general hospitals when pupil-nurse training was introduced after the passage of the Nurses Act, 1943, and to meet this that

1153
Act required the Council to make rules for the enrolment of assistant nurses by virtue of knowledge and experience of nursing. The Act required the Council to make rules for the admission to the roll of persons who applied within two years of the making of the rules, and were able to meet the requirements of those rules in respect of prescribed periods of nursing practice completed before March 17, 1943. Further rules made by the Council required certain applicants to apply by February 3, 1946. Still further rules made by the Council permitted certain applicants to be enrolled on the basis of certain experience in nursing and midwifery acquired by January, 1947, or certain experience in nursing by January 1, 1948—later extended to January, 1949. Such applications had to be made by January 1, 1949. A large number of non-psychiatric assistant nurses were enrolled under these rules, and at the same time training for the roll was started in general hospitals.
The main purpose of the Bill before your Lordships (which was piloted through another place by my right honourable friend Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith, to whom I am most grateful for a great deal of help) is to enable persons with suitable knowledge and experience of psychiatric nursing to he admitted to the roll without undergoing the training and examination which will be required for new entrants, when the training for the roll is introduced in psychiatric hospitals. The Council will be empowered, by Clause 1(1)(a) and (b)
of the Bill, to make rules for admission to the roll of nursing assistants by virtue of knowledge and experience of nursing of mentally disordered patients over a period prescribed by the Nursing Council in those rules, and completed by a date also to he prescribed. The date prescribed under the rules will be important, as it will mean that suitable existing nursing assistants with the necessary experience will be given the chance of admission to the roll. It will also make it clear that periods of practice after that date will not count. In fact, this means that the chance is given to enroll, but that after the specified date laid down by the Council, training and examination, and not experience alone,
1154
will be the necessary qualification. Moreover, admission to the roll will be by the same method in all kinds of hospitals, which I believe is the best possible solution.
I come to the second purpose of the Bill. Some people with the requisite experience in general hospitals for enrolment under the rules made under the Act of 1943, failed to apply by the closing dates, to which I have referred earlier. Clause 1(1)(b) of the Bill before your Lordships gives a second chance to these people to apply for enrolment, provided that they are currently engaged in nursing.
The third purpose of the Bill, covered in Clause 2, is to validate enrolments which were made by the General Nursing Council in all good faith but which are of questionable validity. The Council's powers to make rules derive front Section 2(2) of the Nurses Act, 1943, and Section 3(1) of the Nurses Act, 1957. These sections gave no powers to make rules allowing admission to the roll of untrained persons by virtue of experience if that experience was gained after March, 1943. But, in fact, as I have already said, rules were made which purported to enable the Council, in certain circumstances, to recognise as adequate for admission to the roll experience gained later than 1943. The rules mentioned earlier as being made under the 1943 Act, and permitting enrolment on the basis of experience subsequent to March 17, 1943, are therefore of doubtful validity. Other rules made by the Council, purporting to give the Council discretion, in individual exceptional cases, to dispense with the requirements of their rules, and enrolments made under these dispensing rules are also of doubtful validity. Clause 2 validates all such enrolments. Clause 3 is merely definitive.
Clause 4 applies the provisions of the Bill to Scotland, where the position is similar to that in England, with one important exception. In the Enrolled Nurses (Scotland) Rules, 1961, the General Nursing Council for Scotland made rules, first, to start training for pupil nurses for the roll in psychiatric hospitals; secondly, to allow the admission to the roll, by virtue of specified experience in the nursing of the mentally disordered, and. thirdly, to give a further opportunity for enrolment, under the rules made by the General

1155
Nursing Council for Scotland, after the 1943 Act was passed to those who failed to apply within the time laid down.
It may be said in this case that what Scotland thinks to-day, England acts on to-morrow. But although the Scottish Council had statutory powers to do the first of these three things that I have mentioned, there appears to be a doubt whether they had the power to do the second and the third. Clause 4 of this Bill resolves this doubt, and puts the Scottish provisions on all fours with those for England and Wales, with one exception. The Nursing Council of England and Wales feel that persons making belated application for enrolment under the Act of 1943 should be currently engaged in nursing. In the 1961 Scottish rules, the Scottish Nursing Council have not required the applicants "out of time" to be practising nursing at the time they made their belated applications. It is for this reason that the words, "is engaged in nursing", which appear in Clause 1(1)(b) of the Bill, are disapplied as to Scotland by Clause 4(e). This does not appear to be a matter about which England and Wales need have a dispute with Scotland. It is considered that each Council is entitled to form its own opinion. I hope that I have managed to explain this Bill sufficiently to your Lordships, and that you will be willing to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Grenfell.)
3.18 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I feel that I am speaking for your Lordships on both sides of the House when I say how pleased we are that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is piloting this Bill through the House, because we all recognise his profound interest in the welfare of the mentally disordered. The noble Lord has explained the Bill very carefully and in great detail. We recognise that this is an advance in the field of mental welfare, because at least the General Nursing Councils of England and Wales and of Scotland now propose to introduce a two years' training course for the enrolled nurse in psychiatric hospitals.
1156
It would, of course, be invidious for a young enrolled nurse, having completed her two years' training, to exercise authority over the assistant nurse who has acquired her knowledge through years of practical experience. Therefore, provision is made, quite rightly, for the enrolment of the assistant nurse. This method of adjustment is not new to this House or, indeed, to the other House, because it will be recalled that it was accepted before, and found eminently satisfactory, in 1943 when the nurses in the general hospitals were given a similar position to that of the nurses about whom we are talking to-day.
Indeed, this Bill can be regarded in one sense as a vote of confidence in the assistant nurse. Without any academic qualifications she was attracted to nursing as a vocation and chose the demanding field of psychiatric nursing. Your Lordships will recall that many years ago there were some State Registered Nurses who expressed misgivings that a roll of nurses should be established. They believed not only that it might mean dilution in the long run, but that it might indeed debase the value of State Registration. I think to-day we may say that, finally, all those fears have been dispelled.
The enrolled nurse has proved a credit to her profession and has evinced a sympathy and compassion, especially in the field of the chronic sick and care of the aged, which commands our admiration and respect. We must recognise that the country is growing older and that these particular qualities in our nurses will be needed more and more in the years to come. I would say that these are the same fine qualities of character and temperament which the assistant nurse has brought to psychiatric nursing. If you are distressed and feel a sympathetic hand on your shoulder, you do not demand academic qualifications. This nurse rightly deserves the enhanced status which this Bill confers upon her. The widespread demand for her services can be assessed by the fact that 50 per cent. of our hospital beds are occupied by patients with some degree of mental disorder—a minor degree or a major degree; a minor neurotic or a major psychotic.
But here I must be a little critical. In another place the Parliamentary

1157
Secretary was asked about the scale of pay for the newly enrolled nurses, and he replied that it is still under negotiation by the Nurses' and Midwives' Whitley Council. It is sheer hypocrisy, on the one hand to pay lip-service to these fine, dedicated nurses and, on the other, to turn a deaf ear to their pleas for a fair return for their labour. For the Government to continue to haggle—and I use the word "haggle" deliberately—over what these nurses should receive is not only inhuman but stupidly short-sighted. I would ask your Lordships to go into the Library and read to-day's Guardian, in which there is a report of these negotiations which will determine what these women about whom we are talking to-day shall be paid.
In the argument between the Ministry of Health and the nurses, says the Guardian, an effort is being made to bridge the 5s. gap between the two sides on the extra payment for Sunday duty. According to the recent statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think this is approximately the new price of a packet of 20 cigarettes. So, when I used the word "haggle" just now, your Lordships will agree that that was not a misuse of the word. This is the extra pay for Sunday work. The proposed additional payment for the assistant nurses to whom I have just referred for night work for a whole week, covering at least the period between midnight and 6 a.m., is 25s.
This Bill is being introduced in order to augment the number of nurses but, meanwhile, prejudice and custom, their enemies, are busily at work behind the scenes preventing these women from receiving the relatively small salary for which they ask. One cannot help commenting on the glaring injustice of one Government Department permitting rich and powerful tycoons to make colossal profits at the expense of the community, while another Department fails adequately to compensate the poor and modest nurse who serves the community day and night. When one thinks of profits of £3 and £4 million, I would also ask noble Lords to bear in mind the 5s. and 25s. additional payments per week for which these nurses are asking.
I have said that the Government's attitude is stupidly short-sighted. There
1158
are in this country to-day 10,000 empty hospital beds—empty for lack of nurses. Of course this is one reason, and a most important reason, why this Bill is being introduced; and we have had reports over and over again that low pay hinders recruitment. Therefore, I say that, although we welcome this Bill, it will fail in its objective if the conditions of service are not improved. Probably things would improve if the public were better informed about mental health. They need to be better informed so that the last vestiges of superstition and inhumanity can be removed.
I must say—and I say this more in sorrow than in anger—that one would have thought that the chief Minister of the land would have set a good example. I was shocked to hear on television the Prime Minister at the Royal Academy dinner revert to the crude language of the 19th century in his reference to lunatics and lunatic asylums in a callous joke he perpetrated at the expense of psychiatric patients. The Prime Minister exhibited a profound ignorance of the social trends, and in the space of a few seconds on television succeeded in pushing the clock back 50 years. People already disturbed in their minds were watching that night, and they must have felt cruelly treated. And the nurses whom we are discussing to-day, responsible for the care of these people, care trained as they are in the right approach and the right language to use, must have felt that their efforts had been undermined. In the course of the years there has been a slow but unmistakable change in the attitude of the general public to sickness of the mind, and I think we should all rejoice to-day because this Bill represents another milestone on the way to a society which regards physical illness and mental illness with equal concern and compassion.
3.28 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I would join with the noble Baroness in giving this Bill a very warm welcome. I am particularly pleased to see that it ensures that the people who wish to nurse mentally-disturbed patients can now, with two years' training, get on to the roll of nurses. I think it is important, too, that the Bill makes it possible for the large number of nursing assistants

1159
who have really been carrying the burden in mental hospitals for a long time—I believe I am right in saying that there are some 22,500—to be put on the roll even though they have not passed any examinations, but merely because they are very experienced people who have done a very fine job of work. That is one reason why I wish to speak on the Bill. I want to say how very pleased I am that the work of these people has been recognised, for I feel that anything we can do to impress on them that we do appreciate their work should be done.
The other thing which I am very pleased to see is that, under the Bill, when these experienced women and men come on the roll they will be full members of it and will not be inferior in any way at all to younger people who got on the roll by receiving an official training and passing an examination. They will be just as eligible for promotion, if they are good, as if they had taken the examination. That is a very proper step to take and one which we are very pleased to see.
The other good move, I think, is that there has not been an attempt to make two rolls of nurses, one for the general nurse and one for the nurse trained in taking care of mentally deranged patients. This means that nurses will be able to change from one kind of hospital to another if they so wish, which will do a great deal to break down the barrier which still exists in some places between mental hospitals and general hospitals. Naturally, too, one is pleased to see that those women or men who, because of family commitments or other reasons, did not apply to go on the Roll on January 1, 1949, are again going to be allowed to apply. Finally, I was very pleased to find out that Scotland moved just a little faster than England did in this matter, but being a cautious country they had doubts as to whether they were quite legal, and so to be properly lawful they come in in this Bill before us. I have very great pleasure in supporting the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has put before us.
3.33 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, both for introducing this Bill
1160
and for his very clear exposition of its purposes. Perhaps I may say that I have a particular interest. I happened to be a member of the Joint Visiting Committee when the late Sir Kingsley Wood, in the 'thirties, laid the foundation stone of the Runwell Mental Hospital, and subsequently I was for some ten years a member and chairman of the Hospital Management Committee. The work of the nurses and of the staff attending those unfortunately suffering from mental illness is beyond all praise. But, with some knowledge of the shortage of nursing staff in mental hospitals, I am sure that the co-operation and help of those now termed "nursing assistants" is absolutely necessary. Without that help, nursing in our hospitals would break down. I am therefore glad that this Bill will at long last, improve their status.
In 1939, the Inter-Departmental Committee, the Athlone Committee, for the first time formally recognised a second grade, that of nursing assistant; that is, the person who is less highly trained than the State Registered Nurse but, at the same time, undertaking important and necessary nursing duties. The Nurses Act, 1943, gave official recognition to these nursing assistants. The next step forward was the Act of 1961, introduced to your Lordships' House by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. This Act provided for the change of name from nursing assistants to enrolled nurses. In the discussion of that Bill I ventured to point out that it did not apply to mental hospitals, and expressed the hope that nurses in the profession, including those in mental hospitals, would be brought closer together; for, after all, they are members now of one unified profession. This Bill, I am happy to say, fulfils that hope.
May I pay tribute to the admirable work of the Royal College of Nursing, for the most valuable help the College has been giving to nursing assistants, both in general and in mental hospitals? May I quote a few words from a statement issued by the Royal College of Nursing in 1962, shortly after the passing of the 1961 Act:
"Both registered and enrolled nurses have a part to play in the care of the patient, and the enrolled nurse must be established as an

1161
integral part of the nursing team. She should occupy a well-defined place in her own right, and certain work, for which she has been trained, should be assigned to her. She should be responsible to the sister-in-charge or deputy of her ward or department for the work she undertakes. The enrolled nurse should also join in the appropriate group discussions relating to the care of the patients …"
My Lords, I am sure that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be welcomed by the staff in mental hospitals, and I hope that it will have a speedy passage to the Statute Book. I again express very sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for introducing the Bill.

THE YEMEN: DECAPITATION OF BRITISH SOLDIERS REPORT
3.35 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt the debate for a few moments to repeat a short statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The statement is as follows:
"Her Majesty's Government have been informed by the United States Government that their Embassy in Taiz have said that there is no truth in reports that the heads of British soldiers were publicly exhibited in Taiz."
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord for making this statement. I am sure he will agree that the reports caused very great distress to the parents, relatives and friends of those concerned, and it is a great relief to all of us that we are now informed that there is no truth in these reports. I should like to ask the noble Lord how it came about that these reports were made at all. I understand they emanated from the Commander on the spot, and resulted from a statement made to the Press. I would ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree that it is undesirable that commanders should make statements to the Press in these circumstances, and that if they have any information of the kind which they honestly believe to be true it would be better that they should make it to the Government and and not to the Press, and leave
1162
it for the Government, the Foreign Office or whichever Department it may be, to deal with the matter as they think right? If that had been done in this case a great deal of distress and unhappiness would have been saved to the families concerned.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I share with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the relief that this distress, which must have been very acute, to the relatives has now been dispelled and that there is no truth, so far as we know, in the story. The story originated from what was considered to be a reliable source, from the Federal Army, and the General Officer Commanding, having received the information, believed it to be reliable and thought it best to make it available. But, of course, he did qualify his remarks by saying "If this is true". Now that it is shown not to have been true, I am quite sure the General Officer Commanding shares the regret that this unnecessary distress has been caused.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I ask whether the General Officer Commanding has a political adviser? One understands that in situations of this sort there are both military and political problems to be settled. One would have thought that where rumours were rife the General Officer Commanding before speaking to a Press Conference would consult the political adviser. In any case, I support my noble Leader in saying that rumours should be reported to Whitehall and, until they are substantiated, no statement at all should be made publicly.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course there is political advice available in Aden, but I am afraid I could not say whether or not, in this case, political advice was called for.
THE EARL. OF SANDWICH: My Lords, is not General Cubbon an officer of the highest honour, integrity and ability, serving his country well in a most difficult situation? Is it not possible that the information that he received, though incorrect so far as it applies to the streets of Taiz, may be correct in another way—that is to say, that the heads have been decapitated, but left where they are, or exhibited somewhere else? Ought not Her Majesty's Government to give credence to those who are our friends and fighting on our side, before accepting as

1163
absolutely veracious the information that comes from an enemy territory, The Yemen, and from the United States Embassy in that country which is by no means friendly to us?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend that General Cubbon is a most distinguished officer who has rendered great service to this country, and I hope that nothing that I have said, and I am sure that nothing that noble Lords opposite have said, will detract in any way from his reputation. I am absolutely certain that he did what he did for the best of reasons. With regard to the latter half of my noble friends question, the best information we have, which is from the United States Embassy in Taiz—and the United States, I would remind my noble friend, are our closest allies—does not give credence to the story, and I think we must accept that these heads were not shown in Taiz. I, for one, am glad that that is so.
THE EARL. OF DUDLEY: My Lords, what worries me a little is that the report should be given by the Commanding Officer to the Press. I do not see why it should have been given to the Press—why it should not have been confidential. as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has implied, to Whitehall.
LORD CARRINGTON: General Officers Commanding have, of course, the right to give Press conferences if, in their opinion, it is right that they should do so. On this occasion General Cubbon thought it was right to give this information. He prefaced it all by the words, "If it is true"; and I think he acted from the best of all possible motives. In this case it turned out that it was not true, and I, for one, as I say, am glad that it was not.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I do not wish to say anything —none of us does—which detracts from the military reputation of the General concerned, but, arising out of this experience, would it not be wise for the Government, in cases where there is any room for doubt, to advise military officers in command not to communicate with the Press before they have communicated with Whitehall? Had that been done, it is highly probable that
1164
such embarrassment as this would have been avoided. The point is, can the Government do something to avoid a repetition of this somewhat unhappy experience?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is quite normal for General Officers Commanding to give Press conferences, if they feel it necessary to do so, in their own commands; and I think it has been shown over the years that this has not been abused in any way. But certainly I will pass on the suggestion of the noble Lord to the Minister of Defence, whose responsibility it is.
THE EARL. OF SANDWICH: My Lords, is not one of the most undignified things about this country at the present time the eagerness with which Press and public opinion one day accepts these stories as accurate and uses them as propaganda against President Nasser, and the next day, because of a denial, switches over and blames our own men on the spot?
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, does the Press have to be a whipping boy for everybody in everything?

NURSES BILL
3.46 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, if I may return quite briefly to this Bill, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Grenfell for having introduced what I think we all agree is a most welcome, useful and necessary measure, and I hope that your Lordships will therefore give it a Second Reading.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I should like, first of all, to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, for her nice, kind words about me, and for her great tribute to the nurses, which I certainly most heartily agree with. Finance does not come into this Bill, so I will not comment on that; and probably she would not really expect me to agree wholly with her closing remarks. I can assure her from my observations, of which there have been many in the last few years, that the clock has not

1165
been put back but is ticking on quite nicely. I should like to thank noble Lords who have spoken for this Bill; I am most grateful for their help and assistance. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POLICE BILL
3.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve iself into Committee.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
PART I
Police authorities for counties and county boroughs
2.—(1) The police authority for a police area consisting of a county or county borough shall be a committee of the council of the county or borough constituted in accordance with the provisions of this section, to be known, in the case of a county, as the police committee and. in the case of a borough, as the watch committee.
(2) The police committee for a police area consisting of a county shall consist of such number of persons as may be determined by the council of the county, and of that number—

(a) two thirds shall be members of the council of the county appointed by that council;

(b) one third shall be magistrates for the county appointed by the court of quarter sessions for the county.

(3) The watch committee for a police area consisting of a county borough shall consist of such number of persons as may be determined by the council of the borough, and of that number—

(a) two thirds shall be members of the council of the borough appointed by that council;

(b) one third shall be magistrates appointed by the magistrates for the borough from among their own number.

(4) The magistrates to be appointed members of a police committee or watch committee shall be appointed at such times, in such manner and for such term as may be pre-
1166
scribed by rules made by the Secretary of State; and the other members of a police committee or watch committee shall be appointed at such times, in such manner and for such term as may from time to time be determined by the council responsible for appointing them.
THE CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I should like to point out that there is an error on the Marshalled List: the name of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, should not be associated with Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, but only with Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "persons" and insert "members of the council". The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in a sense hang together, and I will say most of what I want to say on all four together. They actually divide into two pairs. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are designed to remove the magistrates from the police authorities where they at present sit; that is to say, from what has been the standing joint committee. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are designed to prevent the inclusion of magistrates in watch committees.
I think it is clear that the intention of this clause is to tidy up, and I think that we are agreed that it is an anomaly that magistrates have until now sat on what may be called a county police authority, but have not sat on the police authority in the boroughs. The tidying up can be effected in either of two ways. One can either add the magistracy to the type of police authority from which they are at present excluded, or one can exclude them from those authorities in which they are at present included. The Bill proposes to take the course of adding magistrates to the borough police authorities; and the Amendment proposes that the magistrates should no longer have an ex officio position at all on the police authorities, either in the counties or in the boroughs.
The presence of magistrates on the standing joint committee goes back to the days when the justices were the administrative as well as the judicial authority for local government. It goes back, in fact, to the days before the present democratic system of local government was established throughout the country. Their presence, therefore,

1167
is something of an historical anachronism. They are not only anomalous but also anachronistic. Their presence on the police authority is out of keeping with the spirit of the time in more ways than one. First of all, because the police, like any other public service, ought to be responsible, in so far as they are responsible to anybody, to an authority which is derived from democratic election—that is to say, to the Home Secretary in regard to national matters, and to elected municipal bodies in regard to local matters. After all, that is the pattern in relation to public services generally, and that is the pattern which surely is now also appropriate in the spirit of this age, in relation to the police.
The other reason why it seems of some importance that magistrates should not participate in the police authority is the simple yet fundamental one that magistrates must be seen to be entirely independent of police. The magistrates' function is judicial, and they are in no way associated in the initiation or conduct of prosecutions or in the discussion of matters concerning prosecutions. The function of the police may be to bring offenders to court. The function of the magistrates is to adjudicate without bias when offenders, or alleged offenders, have been brought to court. In order to maintain public belief in the independence of the magistracy—and I do not question that that independence is real —it is important that they should not be associated in the authority which controls the police.
The importance of this is, perhaps, enhanced by the fact that this Bill takes some steps, though rather modest ones, to increase the control exercised by the police authority, that is to say by the mainly elected police authority over the police. In so far as that control is to be exercised, it becomes additionally important that it should be exercised by an authority which is wholly and solely elected and which does not include members of the magistracy who are appointed rather than elected. For these reasons, I would ask the Committee to accept these Amendments in order that the pattern of the police authority may be brought into line with what is now the accepted pattern of local government throughout the country and
1168
the accepted pattern of democratic control.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("persons") and insert ("members of the council").—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
LORD RAGLAN: Until four years ago, when I was superannuated and succeeded by a county alderman ten years my senior, I was for many years chairman of the standing joint committee of my county. That committee, so far as the magistrates were concerned, consisted of chairmen of benches; and it is my belief that in their capacity as chairmen they acquired experience of the police which was valuable to them as members of the authority—experience not available to the elected members of a local authority. Surely the noble Lady, in view of her long experience, must be aware that neither magistrates nor members of a police authority have anything whatever to do with the initiation of prosecutions. I should like to oppose this Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: This, of course is a matter of principle. I am in some difficulty because we are talking about Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, and the real point underlying this also applies, except in detail, to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 8. Therefore, I shall put my case on the general question of police authorities, and will not add to it on later Amendments, except as to any points of detail. in other words, the case for Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 is different in detail from the case for Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 8, but the basic principle remains the same. The effect of all these Amendments taken together would be that county and borough police authorities would consist entirely of members of the council appointed by the council. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 will he leaving the counties as is suggested and will be dealing with county boroughs.
I should like to start by repeating something I said on Second Reading. The Royal Commission discussed the composition of both kinds of police authorities in paragraphs 207 to 210 of their Report. They recognised, that
"a body associated with local authority ought clearly to contain elected councillors"
whom they regarded as
"entirely fit and proper people to discharge the functions of police authorities".

1169
The Commission then went on to say that they thought they could be greatly assisted in their tasks by the inclusion in their number of a proportion of justices. They continued:
"Through their judicial work magistrates have a close knowledge of police affairs and problems, and they above all people see the fruits and nature of police work. They 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 the view of the Government that is a sound appraisal of the reasons for including some magistrates on police authorities.
As to the first part I quoted, it is interesting to note the view the Royal Commission take of councillors serving on a police authority. There was at that time considerable discussion in the Press and in the country generally as to whether in fact councillors, as members of political Parties, were proper people to be concerned with police authorities. It is argued by some people that perhaps they are not. Here again the Royal Commission took the view that they were proper people. So there were the two sides. The Royal Commission's view was rather that the police authority would be strengthened if its members were also drawn from another source, that other source having particular knowledge of police problems.
I should like now to say a word about the standing joint committee system as we know it to-day. It has worked extraordinarily well, and the County Councils' Association strongly pressed the Royal Commission to keep the present system in the counties, which is 50 per cent. councillors and 50 per cent. magistrates. The general experience in the counties has been such that there is strong support for the Royal Commission view that all police authorities would benefit from the inclusion of justices.
Two main objections of principle have been put forward by the noble Lady and, I imagine, by the noble Lords who also have their names down on the Amendment. The first is, I think, that the inclusion of magistrates blurs the distinction between the Judiciary and the police. Really, I cannot accept this suggestion. It completely overlooks the
1170
true nature of the function of the police authority, which is not to give directions to the police about their operations. The force is under the direction and control of the chief constable. The duty of the police authority is to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient force. The view of the Royal Commission was that the objections to associating the functions of the police with the administration of justice were theoretical rather than real. That is in paragraph 208.
Underlying these Amendments is another theory which also I cannot accept. It is not stated in these words, but the theory is that justice up to now has not been thought to be impartial, because there have been magistrates on the standing joint committees. Really, one cannot accept that, and I have never heard it suggested. The second objection which the noble Lady raised was, I think, that the inclusion of magistrates on the police authority diluted the democratic element in the system for administering and controlling the police. I think this objection might have some validity if the magistrates were in a majority, but they are going to be in a minority, and of course amongst the minority of magistrates are likely to be some councillors.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Surely, he must agree that the objection as stated by him holds. It does dilute the democratic element. He cannot reject that altogether.
LORD DERWENT: If, of course, the noble Earl thinks that democracy exists only in elected councillors. But I really cannot see that one can say that magistrates are necessarily undemocratic. Even if there are any objections to the minority element of non-elected members, I really do think they are outweighed by the advantages—which the Royal Commission saw and with which the Government agree—which magistrates can bring to the special problems of local police administration. I am afraid that I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.
sLORD MORRTSON OF LAMBETH: I have listened very carefully to the Minister of State and to all the arguments he has advanced. But I have

1171
not yet heard him advance any argument whereby the nature, the character, the efficiency of the police authority will be improved in operation by the addition of magistrates, or, indeed, by the preservation of magistrates on the police authority of the counties. That is the real point that he has got to prove: that there is an advantage in the quality, the ability of the police authority, if a one-third element of magistrates is included in the watch committee or in the county police committee. But the noble Lord has not uttered a word which shows that that is the case.
I am not sure of my history about standing joint committees, but I suspect that it is this. When the Local Government Act, 1888, was passed, it took away a lot of administrative powers from the quarter sessions, which formerly administered many local affairs in the counties as such, and passed them to the new county councils. I should imagine that this element of 50 per cent. of magistrates on the standing joint committee may have been provided to comfort the magistrates, by the fact that they were given some locus and some power in local affairs which otherwise might be missing. I can understand that as a transitional arrangement, and possibly as a Parliamentary device to minimise criticism and opposition about the great changes in the Act of 1888. But we are now in 1964 and, whatever may have been the reasons before, there is an onus upon the Government to show, as I have said before, that there is a positive advantage in the inclusion of magistrates.
The Minister quoted, without agreeing with them—because he took the view of the Royal Commission, and I was glad of that—some people who thought that, because local authorities were largely, though not entirely, composed on the basis of local political Parties promoting candidates, they were therefore not suitable to be a police authority. The Minister rejects that argument, and so do I, partly on the ground that, so far as I know, the watch committee, or the standing joint committee for that matter, cannot institute or restrain prosecutions. If I am right, I think that is as it should be, because I should not like a body of
1172
political people to determine, possibly for reasons of political or personal favouritism, who should be and who should not be prosecuted. I think that responsibility is better left with the chief constable, as in national affairs it is left with the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General, as the case may be. But if that be true, and I think it is true, then this argument of political influence about prosecutions or non-prosecutions completely falls to the ground.
In any case, although councillors, in the greater part—and this has come about not only by our action, but by the actions of the Conservative Party as well—are to a great extent organised on Party lines, when it comes to the appointment of magistrates (I speak in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, which perhaps is just as well) it is a fact that the wishes of political Parties about the appointment of magistrates are taken into account. If you take the past, it was especially the case that the Conservative Party's views were taken into account. In London—and I believe this is true of some places elsewhere—there is a committee to advise the Lord Lieutenant of the County on the recommendations he makes to the Lord Chancellor; and that committee is operative. In other places, the Lord Lieutenant has greater freedom, I believe, though he takes the advice of an advisory committee.
Nominations come to these committees and they have a duty, which I think, broadly, they discharge, of choosing people who, mentally and psychologically, and by reason of their capacity to have a judicial mind, are fitted to be magistrates. That is taken into account, and quite rightly. And if a man has been prosecuted or locked up for something which is discreditable, it is very difficult for him to become a magistrate, and that is quite right. Nevertheless, it is known in the bulk of cases to which political Party these gentlemen or ladies belong. It is another factor which is taken into account by the advisory committees, and probably by the Lords Lieutenant; and I do not think this is unreasonable. Years ago, in what some people call the good old Tory days, but which I would call the bad old Tory days, it was not easy even for a Liberal,

1173
especially if he was a radical Liberal, to become a J.P., and it was very difficult for a Socialist to become a J.P. Those days have largely gone, but even now my people say that they do not get a fair crack of the whip because of their political opinions.
There we are; and the fact is that political opinion is taken into account, not as the primary factor but as a factor in the selection of justices, in order that there shall be a fair distribution as between one political Party and another. It is not done because the authorities want them to function politically, but in order to get a wider spread of social class, outlook, general opinion, and so on. But there is an obligation on all of them to be judicially minded on the bench, and to be fair. Therefore I cannot see that a magistrate is necessarily an angel and the councillor is necessarily a suspect. Of course, we all have to recognise that there are aldermen, as well as councillors, and that, though they are not elected, they are equally eligible for the watch committee or the standing joint committee in the county. I cannot see that a magistrate is necessarily a person of particular virtue to sit on one of these committees, and that a councillor is open to some suspicion.
The Minister of State will answer, "Hang it! I am giving them two-thirds, anyway, which is more than they have on the standing joint committees, although it is a new innovation to have them on the watch committees." I see his point; but what I cannot see is how this is going to improve the character, the quality of the work of the watch committees. It may well be that, in the appointment of representatives on the police committees in the counties, or on the watch committees in the boroughs, quite a number of justices may be included who are also members of the council, so it does not mean to say that you are going to exclude magistrates. My noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger did not argue that magistrates, as such, should be excluded. They will be eligible as members of the council, so some may be appointed in that way. But I still want to know what is the positive, peculiar, outstanding virtue of a magistrate, as against a councillor, that makes him best fitted to sit upon a watch committee or a county police committee.
1174
Even in the counties (although I agree with the Minister of State, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the standing joint committees have worked well), the powers of the standing joint committees, vis-à-vis the police, are, if anything, less than those of the watch committees of boroughs. There is no logic in keeping the present position, and the Government are proposing, in accordance with their usual slavish notion of making everything the same everywhere, that, because there are magistrates on the county committees there should also be magistrates on the borough committees. But the borough watch committees have worked very well. As a matter of fact, all this talk about greater powers for the Home Office and the Home Secretary is to some extent nonsense, because any chief constable who gets a wink or a smile from the Home Office takes notice of it. The Home Office has extraordinary authority over chief constables—and up to a point I think it is right that that should be so. No chief constable, to my knowledge, wants to upset the Home Secretary.
The only trouble I had was when Wolverhampton wanted to promote a deputy chief constable, and I thought they had better have somebody from outside. We had a lovely row, and I was prepared to withhold the grant. Then we finished up friends and had a nice tea-party one Sunday afternoon. Later on the deputy chief constable got promoted to be chief constable of Barrow-in-Furness, but not of Wolverhampton. This is the kind of thing about which rows occur. But, after all, a little bit of a row between local authorities and the Government is part of the British way of life. It is one of our sports—not quite as sporty as football, especially the last Cup Final match, which was very good. Still, it is part of our way of life, and I do not want to see nationalisation of local government. I have had enough of it with the nationalisation of the Greater London Council election, on both sides. I do not want to see local government nationalised: let them have their disputes. But why do the Government want to interfere with the boroughs, who have had the police authority through their watch committees? On the whole, the system has worked very well. If a watch committee are inclined

1175
to take improper liberties, the Home Office can sit on them; and, at the end of the day, the Home Office is the master of the situation.
I would beg the Minister of State to think again. I think my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger is right to seek to exclude the statutory, co-opted, magisterial element from both authorities, and I will vote with her. But I also think it would be right, if we cannot get them off for the counties, that we should keep the status quo for the boroughs. I say to the Minister of State, with great respect (he has stated his case with his customary ability, but not with convincing ability, because he cannot), that I still want to know what is the particular charm of a magistrate which makes him of outstanding, special value as a member of a police committee.
4.15 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I have never been either a member of a local authority or a magistrate. It might therefore be fairly argued that I know nothing about the subject under discussion: but it might equally be argued that I am in a better position to have an objective opinion. I listened with particular interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said, because, although we sit on opposite sides, I usually find myself in agreement with him. But it seemed to me that he was expressing a resentment—perhaps understandable, if he took it that way that these Amendments put down by my noble friend are a reflection on, or a criticism of, magistrates. They are nothing of the kind.
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, told us, engagingly, that he had been chairman of a bench and that he had been superannuated, and succeeded by an alderman who was nearly old enough to be his father, simply because that alderman was a member of the local authority. He said, quite rightly, that the chairman of a bench of magistrates is a person of experience; but those appointed to these committees would not all be chairmen of benches.
LORD RAGLAN: I said that the magistrates who are members of the standing joint committee in my county are all chairmen of benches.
LORD STONHAM: Yes; I gathered that from the noble Lord's first remark. What I am saying is that there is nothing in the Bill about those who become members of a police authority by reason of the fact that they are magistrates all being chairmen of benches. Quite frankly, one of my principal reasons for supporting these Amendments is that persons of little or no experience that I value are appointed as magistrates.
My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth was speaking about the political nature of some appointments. It is only quite recently—certainly within the last three years—that a certain political Party had a meeting of its executive committee in a constituency to decide how they should answer an invitation to recommend some of their number for appointment as magistrates. They were all stalwarts of the Party; all members of the executive and all people of very great worth. And they decided that, since this was, as it were, an award for merit, they were all of equal merit and so all thirty names went forward. That is one example.
I will give another. This one is very recent, and it concerns a lady who was the matron of a hospital. Your Lordships will say immediately that she was an eminently suitable person for appointment as a magistrate; and, indeed, so far as character was concerned, of course she was. Unfortunately, in all other respects, so far as judgment was concerned, she was not. But although, because of that reason, and in spite of the intense difficulty of getting rid of a matron, her employers were about to do so, she was just at that time appointed a magistrate.
These examples, of which I have personal and recent knowledge, emphasise what my noble friends have been saying about this being a completely undemocratic procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, put up an Aunt Sally of his own. He said he could not agree that magistrates, non-elected, are necessarily undemocratic.That is not the point. It is not the point that the persons appointed are of themselves not democratic persons and are not supporters of our democracy. It is the fact that the method of appointment itself is a negation of democracy. That is the whole point.
LORD DERWENT: Is the noble Lord saying that the magistracy is undemocratic?
LORD STONHAM: No; I did not say anything of the kind. What I am saying, and what I maintain, is that these estimable persons who are appointed as magistrates are appointed in such a way that they are not answerable to a democratically elected authority. Therefore it is an undemocratic procedure. I hope the noble Lord will not again endeavour to persuade the House that he does not understand what I am saying. The principle is undemocratic, not the persons who may be appointed. They may be very good indeed.
Last evening I was in the city of Birmingham, which I was astonished to learn has grown in population to nearly four million. I had gone there to speak on the subject of penal reform. Therefore, a considerable proportion of those who were listening to me—there were no more than 100—were magistrates. A number of us met socially afterwards. There was no question at all among those magistrates who were members of the Birmingham City Council—and quite a number of them were—that the proposal in this Bill to appoint to a police authority persons who are not members of the local authority but who are appointed merely because they are magistrates is wholly wrong, is a slight on the city and on the local authority; and is a lessening of the control which they feel, as elected representatives, they ought to exercise on behalf of their ratepayers and the people they represent.
Another point is that if the police authority is composed of elected councillors, or even if it includes some alder who are themselves elected by the councillors, they can be got rid of by John Smith or Bill Brown after three years at the most. But the persons who are appointed to a police authority simply because they are magistrates cannot be got rid of in the same way. Their removal is going to be very difficult. Therefore, on the grounds of justice, of good sense and of what I understand to be the elective basis of our democracy, I think these are good Amendments, they should he accepted, and they will improve the Bill. But the most important ground of all for these Amendments is that it is bound to lead to difficulty and to em-
1178
barrassment at times if there is a division of responsibility between a magistrate's duty as a magistrate on the police authority and his duty as a magistrate in court. Therefore, I support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: To my mind it is very regrettable that questions of politics and democracy should have been brought into this debate. All we ought to be considering is whether the administration of justice from the widest point of view is going to be helped by putting the magistrates on to these committees. Quite frankly, having said that, I cannot myself see how it is to be helped. One reason is that it is difficult to conceive of any local authority which will not have among its members a fair proportion of magistrates; and nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has said, has shown me any good reason why magistrates are likely to improve the composition of such committees.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I apologise for speaking at all, because the arguments have been so well put, but I feel strongly about this question. In my opinion, the criticisms we are making on this clause and the related ones are so strong and overwhelming that I cannot keep silent. I was astonished that the noble Lord should bring in the argument that the magistrates are apparently democratic. I think we must have misunderstood the noble Lord, but he is apparently under the impression that magistrates are in some way a democratic force.
LORD DERWENT: I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had been speaking in a form of shorthand and he did not express himself as he should. He now has explained what he meant; and I fully understand him.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Well, I am glad that between us we have explained it; but surely the noble Lord understood that the most fundamental objection here is that the procedure the Government are adopting dilutes the democratic element. He must, at least, understand our objections on that point. He may feel that the democratic element should be diluted. It is much diluted in the counties at the present time. The noble Lord can, if he likes, continue that or modify that; but he must understand the basis of our objection. Local

1179
government to-day is supposed to be democratic. That is the essence of it. I agree that if one goes back historically one finds that this country was not governed democratically. It was not governed democratically in the counties or at the centre. When I read these particular provisions of this Bill—although on this side, we like the Bill as a whole—and when I listen to the arguments presented by the noble Lord, I am astonished that we ever got democracy in this country at all. It is amazing that we got the Bills in 1832, in 1867 and in 1884, and that women ever got the vote, because people were then able to say: "We are getting on all right and the tradition is that women do not have the vote."
Let us not look at the historical grounds; let us just look at democracy, at the issue of principle. The noble Lord must agree that, apart from this particular instance, local government is democratic. In this way, and certainly in the boroughs, we are actually making local government less democratic. We are introducing a non-democratic element. I am an old City Councillor and I may be told that on some of these committees there are co-opted members. But that is a different thing altogether. They are co-opted by the council; they are headmasters and educational experts, co-opted to the education committees, and so on. This is not a question of co-option; these are appointments. But we are told of the appointments that
"one-third shall be magistrates for the county appointed by the court of quarter sessions for the county".
We regard this as absolutely fundamental. The noble Lord opposite and his colleagues are actually making local government less democratic in important respects than it has been before. For myself, I hope and believe that the noble Baroness, who put it all with such force and clarity at the beginning, will press this matter to a Division. So far as I am concerned, I feel we must register the strongest protest, because in my opinion this violates one of the most essential features of British government.
VISCOUNT HAWORTH: I should have thought that, on the whole, magistrates could be presumed to have gained, during their tenure as magistrates, some
1180
knowledge of the police problems and methods of working, and that in that respect they would be valuable on the committee to give what is in some ways an outside, but an informed, opinion on police problems. I realise, of course, that this makes some inroad into what noble Lords opposite are pleased to call the principle of democracy. There are many inroads into this principle. It depends on whether you call democracy merely a matter of free election. How free these elections really are, how free the voter is to choose the man he wants, is a matter of debate. Nevertheless, I would go so far as to say we should not necessarily interfere with this democratic principle without a reason. But I think there is an adequate reason here; and the control of the committee through the casting of the votes, still remains with the freely elected members. One could be very cynical indeed.
One could make the point that perhaps it is best that the committee should be completely democratic; that it should have no technical knowledge of what it is trying to do: therefore it is less liable to interfere in matters which it does not understand. I, personally. would not take that view. I would strongly oppose the Amendment.
4.30 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: Perhaps it may suit the Minister if I say what I want to say now, because I understand he wishes to reply. I was anxious not to speak on the first and second Amendments because, although I am not out of sympathy in any way with them, I wanted to present to the Committee the case of the watch committees of the municipal corporations, who feel very strongly about this matter. Whereas the noble Lady's case goes the whole way, the corporations do not want to go the whole way, because they take the attitude that if the counties like the system and prefer to have it for their own affairs, that is very well, but they see no reason why this should be imposed upon them.
I must say it seems to me that the Government's mind "moves in a mysterious way" its "wonders to perform". We are told that the commissioning of magistrates to police authorities in the counties has been a

1181
striking success. And what do the Government do in this Bill in order to emphasise that? They reduce the number from one-half to one-third, which seems an extraordinary way of expressing public confidence. It seems to me that it is more than likely that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was right: that this was a compromise arrived at in 1888, and that the Government perhaps realised that they had overdone it and are slowly reducing it. In any case, that seems to me no reason why the system should be imposed upon the watch committees.
The noble Lord who just sat down talked as if, without this power of magistrates to nominate members of watch. committees, the committees would not have people with experience on the bench. I am not decrying the value of experience on the bench. Having had some myself in my earlier years, I know it teaches one a lot. But I think the noble Lord missed the entire point.
The Association of Municipal Corporations have had a survey made and at present on the average on each watch committee there are at least five members who are magistrates. But the point is that they are not there because they are magistrates, but because they have been elected in a democratic way. And surely if they are on a committee which has the responsibility of the appointment of chief constables and of financing the police in an area, it is the citizens of that area who should elect them, and a portion of the membership should not be handed over to nomination by magistrates, because these magistrates need not necessarily know the area very well. They may have to live within fifteen miles, or there may be some regulation like that, but they may have no real local knowledge.
I realise that in the Government's view a local government body can be greatly assisted by a proportion of magistrates. I would not deny that for a moment. But what I am denying, and what I think noble Lords opposite will deny, is that this is the way to do it. I have here some record of the evidence that was given before the Royal Commission and the evidence is not just the somewhat idealistic views of noble Lords opposite. The Inns of Court
1182
Conservative and Unionist Society, in their evidence, repeated the views which we are now expressing: that it was not right that persons who exercise judicial office should be associated with a police authority just because they are magistrates. The Law Society took the more extreme view that justices, because of their holding of judicial office, should not serve on watch committees, on the grounds that it is constitutionally wrong to intermingle the Judiciary and the Executive. The Association of Municipal Corporations appreciate that view, but they are not prepared to go to that length. While they feel that there is great force in that view, they do not regard the fact of being a magistrate as a bar from membership of a watch committee.
There is a possibility, too, which is not entirely negligible, that nomination might upset the political balance in matters where there is a difference of opinion, and might introduce politics where that has been singularly absent in the past. At present, watch committees represent roughly the political constitution of the borough, and the magisterial members may have political views which concur with the minority, so the natural and proper balance would be upset and, without blaming anyone unnecessarily, a political aspect might be created unnecessarily on the watch committee. That is only one of the many disadvantages which may occur.
This principle of the nomination by a small body to a body which is essentially one for elected membership cannot be pushed off easily by somewhat flippant remarks about democratic ideals. It is a system which runs through the whole of organisation in this country. We accept in our politics the fact that the man who pays the piper calls the tune, and the people who have to pay for the policing of an area are entitled, through their representatives, to have the control to which we have referred. That is why I put down Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, which I hope will receive some approval from your Lordships.
LORD DERWENT: May I first of all refer to what we may call the political hare? I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that I did in fact say so. I said that there

1183
was a case put forward that political people
perhaps were not suitable. I said that the Government disagreed with that view, as did the Royal Commission—though I did not go as far as my noble friend Lord Milverton and say that watch committees were never political.
Before I come to the main point of what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said—that I had not said why we wanted this; indeed, I had, but I shall repeat it in a moment-1 think the only separate question I particularly want to answer is the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that their functions as magistrates might affect their duty on a police authority. I gather that to be what he had in mind. We have always had magistrates on police authorities, both in the counties and in the watch committees. I have never heard that suggestion made before, and there is no reason why it should arise now.
May I repeat exactly what I said before as to the reason why we want this? My noble friend Lord Hanworth has supported it in probably better words, but I would again, for the third time, use the words of the Royal Commission, and say that the Government agree with these words. It is for this reason that we think it is right to have a minority of magistrates on police authorities. But before I actually read the words, for the third and, I hope, last time, I would say to my noble friend Lord Milverton that one of the reasons why we reduced the number of magistrates on the new police authorities in the counties was that we thought it quite absurd in this day and age for people with the same responsibilities to have two quite different set-ups. it is as simple as that. May I now, for the third and last time, use the words of the Royal Commission, and say that the Government agree with every word, and it is for this reason that we are opposing these Amendments. These are the words:
"They"—
that is, police authorities, in the counties. and watch committees—
"can be greatly assisted in their tasks … 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 people see the fruits and nature of police
1184
work. They constitute a body of publicspirited 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."
That is the case, and I do not know how I can make it clearer. I have said it for the third time. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth now understands what I mean. I still ask your Lordships not to accept these Amendments.
LORD WILLIS: May I ask the noble Lord a question? The Royal Commission mentioned a quota. Why is the quota fixed at one-third? Why not one-tenth or one-twentieth?
LORD DERWENT: Quite truthfully, we are accepting the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and I would ask the noble Lord: Why not one-third?
LORD WILLIS: Because it seems to be far too many and undemocratic. By getting one-third in, as was said by my noble friend Lord Longford, you can unbalance the democratic procedure of the watch committee. To get an outside point of view from a magistrate you do not need ten; you could do it with two.
LORD DERWENT: The Royal Commission thought that this was a suitable proportion, and we have no reason to disagree with them.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:
I have some difficulty in replying to this debate, because of the total absence of any concrete, positive arguments put forward in opposition. I think the only noble Lord who had a positive contribution to make was the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. His argument, that were magistrates not to be included on the police authority the police authority might have been deprived of his services, is one which we indeed appreciate; and it perhaps answers the question put by my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth as to what is the particular charm of magistrates. The particular charm of magistrates can be seen opposite in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we do not decide these great issues on personal questions. The problem which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, put forward, could, of

1185
course, be resolved if he were to offer himself for election to a local authority, in which case, even without superannuation, he might—
LORD RAGLAN: I was a member of a county council for twenty-one years.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Then the answer is in the noble Lord's hands. It is true that magistrates have certain special experience but not all special experience is perhaps relevant or particularly desirable. They have a close knowledge of police affairs, as the Royal Commission said, and they "see the fruits and nature of police work". But they see it from a rather specialised angle, and I think it would be unfortunate if we were to give an ex-officio recognition, up to the extent of one-third, to persons who have this particular angle on police work.
It is also true that magistrates do not always have close contact with the areas which they serve, and there are often good and cogent reasons why their contact should not be too close. It is possible, in certain areas (and all magistrates are, I think, aware of this), that they may he embarrassed by the closeness of their knowledge. This is surely an argument why their experience should be treated as being of a rather special character which may have a place when some individuals combine the functions of councillor and magistrate, but is not, in days when there are elected councils, appropriate to their being given an ex-officio position. One might as well argue that magistrates should be ex-officio members of children's committees because of what they see in the work they do in juvenile courts.
We come back to the fact that this is really a historical survival. It is a survival from days when there were no county councils and no elected local authorities, and when all the duties of local administration were conducted and discharged by magistrates. I can only say that I found the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to defend this proposal best described by words used by the Royal Commission in another context—namely that I found his arguments "more theoretical than real". I waited anxiously for him to put forward some positive argument, but none was forthcoming. It is true that we had a little discussion about the nature of democracy, and some misunderstanding. The noble Lord seemed to be a little surprised that we on this side think that a democratic appointment is an appointment which is the result of election. It is perhaps understandable that the noble Lord, speaking for the Party in office, should find that theory a little obscure, since, as recent history has perhaps shown, there are differences in practice, I think, between the Government and the Opposition in the use which they make of democratic machinery within their own organisations.
But the relevant issue is surely that here we have a historical survival: that those who used to discharge all the functions of local administration, who are now specialised in a judicial capacity, should still have carved out for them a place, though a minority place, ex officio, on what are, basically, democratically elected bodies.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hobson, L.

Stonham, L.

Amwell, L.

Latham, L.

Summerskill, B.

Burden, L. Teller.

Longford, E.

Taylor, L.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Williams, L.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williamson, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Shepherd, L.

Willis, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Silkin, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Henderson, L.

Somers, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Bossom, L.

Carrington, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Boston, L.

Conesford, L.

Auckland, L.

Bradford, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Balerno, L.

Burton, L.

Crathome, L.

Daventry, V.

Grenfell, L.

Meston, L.

Denham, L.

Guest, L.

Monsell, V.

Derwent, L.

Hanworth, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Hawke, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dudley, E.

Horsbrugh, B.

Ogmore, L.

Dundee, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Raglan, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Rathcavan, L.

Eccles, V.

Ilford, L.

Rea, L.

Egremont, L.

Jessel, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Killearn, L.

St. Just, L.

Falmouth, V.

Lambert, V.

Salisbury, M.

Ferrers, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Sandys, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Lothian, M.

Sandwich, E.

Fortescue, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swinton, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tenby, V.

Gage, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Waleran, L.

Greenway, L.

Merthyr, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "persons" and insert "members of the council". The noble Baroness said: I do not propose to repeat the arguments of principle about the wisdom or unwisdom of magistrates serving on police authorities. Amendment No. 3, however, goes rather further than Amendment No. 1, which your Lordships have rejected, and which was designed to change the status quo in the sense that it was designed to remove magistrates from a position which they already occupy. It is understandable that your Lordships' House and this Committee tend to be a little tender towards the status quo, but the arguments for not adding magistrates to a position which they do not hold are even stronger than those for removing them from a position which they already occupy.
It is a fact that there are many existing institutions in this country the abolition of which might be viewed by many with regret, but of which it is equally true to say—and the Committee must be well aware of this—that no one would suggest inventing them at the present time. Members of your Lordships' House have good reason to be aware of the truth of that proposition. This Amendment proposes to veto the Government suggestion that on the watch committees, where magistrates at present have no ex officio right to sit, they should have a right parallel to that which they will have in the county police authorities. The argument here is stronger because it is not an argument, as it were, for maintaining the
1188
status quo; it is an argument against making a definitely undemocratic change, a new change in an undemocratic direction, to add the non-elected magistrates in the borough police authorities where at present they have no official right to sit. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("persons") and insert ("members of the council").—(Baroness Wootton of A binger.)
LORD MILVERTON: I wish to say just one word in support of this Amendment, which is also one of mine. In another part of the Royal Commission Report they said that anything which tended to confuse in the public mind the duties and position of the Judiciary and the watch committees should be avoided. That confusion, among other things, is what this Amendment is trying to remedy.
LORD DERWENT: I, too, will not go into a long speech again but, really, from the Government point of view, this is much the same as the earlier Amendment, where I was very careful to talk about police authorities. I have the point which the noble Baroness raises, but, in our view, this will help all police authorities to have a little—I was almost going to say fresh air, but that would be rude, but some assistance from an outside source, who will be in a minority and will help the police authorities. Furthermore, we think, as I have already said, that the time has come when we ought not to have a variety of police authorities all over the country in so far as the authorities' composition is concerned. So I am afraid I must resist this Amendment, too.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: The Minister's argument seems to be that if you have made a mistake in the past in one respect, it is better to duplicate it rather than undo it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: May I add to that? Never let the anti-Socialists say in future that the Socialists want to make everybody alike. This Government want to make every-
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
General functions of police authorities
4.—(1) It shall be the duty of the police authority for every police area for which a police force is required to be maintained by section 1 of this Act to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force for the area, and to exercise for that purpose the powers conferred on a police authority by this Act.
(3) The police authority for any such police area may, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State, provide and maintain such
thing alike in this Bill, as they did in the London Government Bill. I think they have gone uniformity mad. They have lost their individuality altogether, which is a pity.
5.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 65.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Somers, L.

Amwell, L.

Hobson, L.

Stonham, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Williams, L.

Colwyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Williamson, L.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Willis, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gardiner, L.

Silkin, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Fortescue, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Merthyr, L.

Balerno, L.

Gage, V.

Molson, L.

Bossom, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Monsell, V.

Boston, L.

Greenway, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Bradford, E.

Grenfell, L.

Ogmore, L.

Burton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Raglan, L.

Carrington, L.

Hastings, L.

Rea, L.

Conesford, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Cowley, E.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Just, L.

Crathorne, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandwich, E.

Daventry, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sandys, L.

Derwent, L.

Ilford, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Dundee, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Strathcarron, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Long, V.

Swinton, E.

Eccles, V.

Lothian, M.

Tenby, V.

Egremont, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

McNair, L.

Twining, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mancroft, L.

Waleran, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mansfield, E.

Wolverton, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

buildings, structures and premises, and make such alterations in any buildings, structures or premises already provided, as may be required for police purposes of the area.
5.15 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force for" and to insert "efficient policing of." The noble Lord said: I should like to discuss with this Amendment, Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, to Clause 5. The Home Secretary said in the Second Reading debate in another place that the effect of Clauses 4 and 5 was to preserve largely intact the present functions of the police authority. He went on to say that he fully understood the anxiety

1191
of the local authorities that the law should not be changed in such a way as to diminish the importance of the police authorities' functions. He also said that the Bill did not give the police authority power to issue instructions to the chief constable, but that the authority had not that power now. These are statements which I submit have not the force of law behind them, though they have been widely asserted without supporting argument. One could go into a long dissertation on why, on voting legal authorities of some importance, the Home Secretary's stated view does not seem to be correct. But perhaps it is better to eschew argument about what the law is, while making it clear that the law, as understood by the Home Secretary, is not beyond dispute.
It is not suggested that the power to give instructions to chief constables on general matters of policy is ever likely to be used to any great extent. If it ever were used by an authority, the deduction to be drawn would be either that the chief constable was unfit to hold his post or that the watch committee were unfit to represent the electors of the area. But there will be occasions when, for example, policy decisions about prosecutions have to be taken; and it is surely right that, as in other matters of local concern, elected persons responsible and responsive to the public, rather than an officer acting in his own right, should make the decision.
An example which springs to mind is prosecutions policy which was recently —and may be still, for all I know—in operation at Manchester regarding importuning by men. While establishments remain unfilled, all branches of the criminal law cannot be enforced with equal vigour, especially in large towns, and if there is to be a drive against importuning, or indeed if this branch of the law is to be enforced less rigorously than others, then the decision surely should be that of, or at least subject to review by, the watch committee. The Reverend Basil Higginson, writing in the Guardian on September 5, 1963, put the matter in a nutshell in the concluding sentence of his letter when he said:
"If the Watch Committee do not control such decisions why have a Watch Committee at all?"
The Royal Commission said that it was necessary to put an end to the anomaly that a police authority appears to have responsibilities for the efficient operational policing of its area and yet has not technical competence in the matter and no adequate system of inspection. There is, in fact, no more of an anomaly here than in any other department of local government. Local authorities obtain the advice they need on technical matters in the field of public health, housing and so on, just as in the case of the police. It is not enough for the Home Secretary to say, in reply to this point of view, as he did in another place on Second Reading, that if discussions between the chief constable and the watch committee resulted in such persistent disagreement that the efficiency of the force seemed in question, then it would be the duty of the authority to set in motion machinery for requiring the chief constable to retire, subject to the Home Secretary's approval.
It is by no means certain that the police authority will be in a position to ascertain whether or not the chief constable is efficient or, indeed, whether efficiency is the sole criterion. While there is power under Clause 12 to require reports from the chief constable, if the subject matter is such that it appears to the chief constable that a report is not needed for the discharge of the functions of the police authority the chief constable may request the authority to refer the requirement to the Secretary of State, and it would be for the latter to decide whether a report should be given to the police authority.
Moreover, even though the police authority are to be responsible for maintaining an efficient police force, it seems doubtful whether the types of occasion when a police authority might properly wish to give a chief constable directions are such that refusal to follow such instructions could be held to be inefficiency on the part of the chief constable in directing and controlling the force. For example, if a watch committee formed the view that their force had acted with unnecessary violence in dealing with a political demonstration, this is not to say that the demonstration has not been dealt with efficiently—indeed, the criticism might very well be

1193
that it had been dealt with only too efficiently
Then it would be difficult to prove inefficiency if with a limited force at his disposal, and against the wishes of the authority, the chief constable decided to concentrate on one branch of the criminal law rather than on another. This is necessarily a matter for discretion, as is the manner of handling a demonstration. The basic question at issue is: in whom shall the discretion reside? As Clauses 4 and 5 stand, it clearly resides in the chief constable, and it is far from clear that, even in the last resort, the police authority will have any power of control.
The effect of these Amendments would be to remove the restriction on the police authority's oversight of operational and administrative matters, and to put the chief constable under the general direction of the police authority in this respect. The word "general" must be emphasised because there is no wish to take power obviously to enable police authorities to intervene in specific prosecutions or inquiries. That, everybody would agree, I think, would he quite wrong. Admittedly, a watch committee may use their powers mistakenly. But so may a chief constable, and it is one of the advantages, surely, of representative government that errors in matters which concern the liberty of the individual are less likely to be made, and prejudices less likely to be felt, when a number of persons acting in committee, but properly advised, are responsible for a decision rather than one individual.
And watch committees, or individual members, can be dismissed from office without any right of appeal. In the last resort, the elected representatives should have final control over all their chief officers in the carrying out of local authority functions, and this includes policing. In the ordinary way, watch committees will need to do no more than review from time to time policy, the execution of which is normally the responsibility of the chief constable. Similarly, the health committee would be unlikely to wish to do more than review, as occasion demands, the way in which, for example, the responsibility for inspecting unfit houses is discharged. It is good administrative practice that deters local authorities from using their powers to control detail as a general rule. The same situation should
1194
surely prevail in the case of the police—as it has done up to now—if the principles of accountability in representative government are to be maintained and the powers of an individual over the freedom of his fellow men are to be properly controlled. These Amendments were drafted accordingly. I beg to move the first of them.
Amendment moved
Page 3, line 30, leave out from ("the") to ("the") in line 31 and insert ("efficient policing of").—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD DERWENT: As my noble friend has said, this Amendment must be read in conjunction with Amendment No. 13 if one is to find the intention behind it. The effect of this particular Amendment would be to place a duty on a police authority to secure the efficient policing of the area. This is not a minor Amendment but one of fundamental importance. The duty laid on a police authority by subsection (1), which is
"to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force for the area",
would be deleted by the Amendment. Whatever may be said for adding to the statutory duties of a police authority in regard to the policing of the area, it will surely be rather strange to leave to implication the primary duty of securing an adequate and efficient police force. Quite apart from that, in our view this is fundamentally the wrong attitude to adopt towards this set-up.
In the Government's view, the Bill strikes the right balance—and it is a balance—on the one hand, between proper local concern for the provision of an efficient police force and, on the other hand, the need to safeguard the chief constable and members of the force from improper local interference in the duty of law enforcement. It is the chief constable who has the primary responsibility for policing the area efficiently. The responsibility of the police authority is to provide an adequate and efficient force, and if it sees—this is important, because this is fundamental to the whole balance of the Bill—that it is not being used efficiently (and this is not only its own view of the matter, but is the advice of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary who are always visiting), after informing itself by way of the reports for which it has a right to call from the chief constable, it can in the last resort also

1195
consider the use of its reserve power to tell the chief constable to go.
That is the division of responsibility. There is no question of proving that the chief constable is inefficient, but that the force is being inefficiently administered. If a formal responsibility for the efficient policing of the area is to be placed on the police authority, the authority would be encouraged—there have been authorities who have not needed much encouragement—to issue directions to the chief constable as to the disposition of the force, which is not its proper function. It is right and proper that a police authority should see to it that there continues to be an adequate and efficient police force for its area; but it would, in the Government's view, be wholly wrong to write into the Bill any suggestion that it was in some way responsible for the day-to-day operations of the police force. If the Amendment were carried, that is exactly what would result.
I did not quite understand what my noble friend was saying about Manchester and prosecution, and what a local authority might want to do about prosecutions. Let us be quite clear on this point. Parliament makes laws and local authorities make by-laws, and so on, and it is the responsibility of the chief constable to see that these laws are kept by the general public. But in no circumstances whatever is it the job of a local authority to say who should or should not be prosecuted. That is what it seemed to me my noble friend was saying. We cannot have that sort of thing creeping in.
In spite of what my noble friend says, the intention of the Bill as drafted is to leave undisturbed what we believe to be the existing relationships between police authorities and chief constables. A police authority will have a duty, as to-day, to inform itself about the policing of the area—so long as it does not seek to interfere with the day-to-day running, the operational responsibilities of the chief constable. In the Government's view—and we have taken good advice on this—a police authority has never had power to give general directions to the chief constable, and the better police authorities have never even attempted to issue such directions. It is essential to preserve the police force as a "neutral" body concerned with the impartial en
1196
forcement of the law, and it makes it inadvisable and undesirable that a police authority should have powers of direction. If these two Amendments were accepted. the local authority would have power of direction over day-to-day running and might even, as my noble friend hinted, try to influence prosecutions. I must ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: These Amendments, however well-intentioned, would wreck both the efficiency, and probably to some extent the discipline, of any police force. I can speak with some authority on this point, having been Chairman of the Police Committee of the combined counties of Perthshire and Kinross-shire for a considerable number of years. The chairman of any police committee from time to time, and now I am afraid with increasing frequency, receives requests, in some cases amounting to preremptory demands, from various local people that various things shall be done in their particular neighbourhood, or sometimes even generally, in connection with the police. Districts will ask for more police; they will ask that roads should be patrolled to prevent petty local crime; most of all they will ask for more police cars and police traps to be set up to curb the activities of the all-too-numerous inconsiderate and unscrupulous motorists.
All such questions, if not absolutely per se ridiculous, are solved by consultation with the chief constable, if there is any merit in them whatsoever. But it would put the chief constable in an absolutely impossible position if his local police authority were to say to him: "You shall move a police constable to such-and-such a place. You will patrol such-and-such a road. You will in fact carry out the efficient running of your force according to the dictates of people who very often are swayed entirely by local considerations, and often electoral ones". For these reasons, I hope your Lordships will most emphatically reject an Amendment which will do no good and in fact do a great deal of harm.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: We seem to be getting into rather a curious situation. It may be possible to explain it to the Committee or to any very sophisticated audience, but it

1197
is going to be extraordinarily difficult to explain it to anyone outside. In this Bill we are constituting police authorities. The natural question which follows is, what is a police authority for? But when it is suggested that the police authority exists to secure the efficient policing of its own area, the Minister holds up his hands in horror and says that to lay that duty on the police authority would be entirely wrong. The argument is simply that the police authority is to exist to inform itself. It seems to be a self-educative body rather than a body which is to act as an authority. If that is the situation, then it is surely gravely misnamed. Let it have some name other than "authority", since its one function is not to exercise authority in the sphere which, apparently, it exists to control. The Minister was obliged in the end to fall back on the argument that the police authority has never exercised this power, and apparently that was his concluding card—that if a thing has never happened (and we understand the point of view of the Government), then obviously it ought never to happen.
LORD DERWENT: May I speak again? I cannot let that particular speech go by. What has happened in times past is that there has been doubt in some minds, and only in certain quarters, as to the respective division of responsibility as between the standing joint committees and, in particular, the watch committees and their chief constables. Nothing is being altered by this Bill in that particular connection. It is being spelled out. For the noble Baroness at this stage to say that she does not understand that the police authority have a duty, which is laid down in the Bill, to see that they have an efficient police force, but that the day-to-day running of the force is the responsibility of the chief constable—
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: If I may interrupt the Minister—
LORD DERWENT: May I first finish what I am saying? I cannot understand how she can state that she does not understand that the responsibility for the day-to-day running belongs to the chief constable and not to the authority.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I made no reference whatsoever to the day-to-day running.
LORD DERWENT: The noble Baroness implied it. If she was not referring to day-to-day running, I am afraid I do not know to what she was referring.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.38 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved in subsection (3), to leave out "may" and insert "shall". The noble Lord said: I hope it will suit the convenience of the Committee if I discuss with this Amendment Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, which are on precisely the same point although they deal with different powers. I suppose it is the case that one rarely has a Bill of substance in which at least one Amendment is not moved during Committee stage with the object of making powers mandatory instead of permissive. I must confess that frequently I have listened to such discussions and could not see much in them. However, on the three points now raised, it is difficult to understand why the Government are leaving these powers as permissive and not making them mandatory or compulsory.
The three subsections to which I have referred state that the police authority
"may … provide and maintain such buildings, structures and premises … as may be required for police purposes …".
Then they state that it
"may … provide and maintain such vehicles, apparatus, clothing and other equipment as may be required for police purposes",
and then go on to state that it
"may … make arrangements … for the use … of the services of officers … and the making of contracts and payments".
I should have thought in regard to all these powers that it was absolutely imperative that they should be exercised by the police authority. There is no "may" about it, because if these powers are not exercised, then there will be no police force in the area, or at least it will not be housed or clothed or paid—and certainly then there would not be a police force.
What makes the choice of the word "may" in the three subsections I have quoted even more extraordinary is that the other subsections in this part of the Bill simply bristle with the use of the word "shall": for example, that it "shall" be the duty of the police authority to secure the maintenance of

1199
an adequate and efficient police force; that it "shall"be the duty of the police authority to appoint the chief constable and decide the number of persons of each rank which will constitute the establishment of the force; that the police force "shall" be under the control of the chief constable; that the chief constable "shall" retire when the police authority say so; that there "shall" be a deputy chief constable, and that police authorities "shall" give a chief constable a chance to make representations before they sack him. Even the Home Secretary is not left out. He is told that he "shall" not approve the appointment, as first chief constable of a combined force, of anyone other than the chief constable of a force which ceases to exist. There is no limit to the "shalls".
I absolutely agree with every one of those which I have read out. They are all perfectly right and proper. It therefore seems all the more extraordinary that these really important and necessary powers in subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 4 should be permissive and not mandatory. Surely, a police authority must maintain a police force, must appoint its head, must decide the size of it and the ranks. It must also provide and maintain buildings, it must clothe and equip the force, and it must pay that force. In order to make sure that all these things are done, I submit that in each of these three subsections it is necessary to delete the word "may" and insert the word "shall". I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DERWENT: Perhaps it would be better if I spoke first, before there is further discussion, because this is a highly technical subject. The speech which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was almost word for word the speech I made to my advisers at the Home Office when I first saw the clause.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord will at least make it clear that I never heard nor read that speech, and, such as it is, the speech is entirely my own.
LORD DERWENT: What I mean is that when I first looked at the clause I was entirely on the same side as the
1200
noble Lord is now. I hope I can explain the difference in this difficult problem of "shall" and "may". In brief, in dealing with this clause, subsections (1) and (2) lay down a duty, something that must be done, and subsections (3), (4) and (5) empower the doing of certain things. It is customary, I am informed by the draftsmen—and I am not a Parliamentary draftsman—in nearly all legislation to use the two words "shall" and "may" in this way. When there is a duty imposed which does not leave anything to the imagination, as it were, we use the word ' "shall" and otherwise we use the word "may". It may be (I shall come on to the other subsections in a minute) that noble Lords opposite are feeling rather worried about whether a police authority could, in fact, avoid doing its duty under these subsections. In fact, they must be read in conjunction with subsection (1), because it is its duty under subsection (1) to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force. So that is the saving clause covering the later ones where the word "may" is used, because if it carries out its duty under subsection (1) then it must use the powers that are available in the later subsections.
The difficulty is this—and I know it is difficult to explain because it is highly technical. Subsection (3), for example, is worded in this way—
"as may be required for police purposes of the area."
But if we are going to make it a duty we must for drafting purposes, apparently, itemise the exact duties and say who decides what buildings do this, that and the other. This is the normal method of drafting. Of course, when we come, to subsection (5) (I know it sounds complicated, but this is difficult for me, too) the substitution of "shall" for "may" would be quite clearly wrong. The subsection, which follows the existing law, confers a genuine discretion on combined police authorities to make arrangements for using the staff and facilities of the constituent authorities. They do not have to do it. Combined police authorities will very often have their own staff and services. So in subsection (5) "may" is correct. I do not think I have made myself clear.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD DERWENT: I can only say that I understand this is the normal practice in drafting. When there is a duty the word is "shall", and when you are giving powers with some discretion as to how they shall be used, the word is "may". I really cannot explain it any more clearly than that; that is how it is.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: The noble Lord will agree, I am sure, that although Statutes are written in Parliamentary English, it is the intention that they shall be written in English. I think the noble Lord will also agree that the word "may" is permissive, and that it therefore implies that a thing either may be done or may not be done. One of the best tests for seeing whether "may" or "shall" is the right word, is to substitute" need not" for "may". If we were to substitute "need not" for "may" in this Bill we should, indeed, get a very curious situation. We should be in the position of saying that the police authorities may, but need not, provide such buildings as are required for police purposes; a police authority may, but need not, maintain such vehicles and apparatus as are required for police purposes. It seems very odd that a permissive word is used, and the Minister rather gave the game away at the end, when he said that "may" is used when there is discretion. It seems odd that a permissive word is used for circumstances when it would be disastrous if the power were not exercised, when a police authority would not be carrying out the function which it is apparently created to perform.
LORD DERWENT: May I go one stage further—and probably get even more muddled? If the noble Lady will look at subsection (3), she will see that the point is really this. It gives authorities discretion as to what they do as regards alteration of buildings, and so on. They have a discretion as to whether they do it, if the buildings are required for police purposes, provided that they have an efficient police force. I am not a draftsman, but I am told this is correct.
5.46 p.m.
The EARL OF MANSFIELD: While agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that the word "shall" would be unsuitable in subsection (5), I must
1202
say that the reasons for its not being put in the other two subsections (3) and (4), as stated by the Parliamentary draftsmen, appear to me to come out of Alice in Wonderland. I really do not think we ought to pay too much attention to these draftsmen. After all, they are the people who provide us with the raw material for most of the work that we do here in putting their mistakes right.
I am in entire agreement with the noble Lady opposite in regard to the question of the maintenance and provision of buildings. I would point out that, if this clause goes through unchanged, a parsimonious local authority would, apparently, be able to neglect its duties in the provision and maintenance of such buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, tried to avoid that one by referring to subsection (1), and saying that they would have to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force in the area. But he omitted to state what the machinery would be for bringing them into line if they did not so do. A local authority which wanted to save money on its rates—and I can assure the noble Lord that, unfortunately, there are quite a few of them which do so where police forces are concerned—would simply sit back and say, "This is permissive. We need not provide any more new houses for policemen." I think the noble Lord would agree that police housing is one of the most burning questions at the present time, and we very seldom get enough money out of the Treasury for the purpose. At the same time, they could refuse to renew police uniforms, overcoats and boots at reasonable periods.
In regard to both of these subsections, I cannot see that there is any justification whatever for their being made permissive rather than mandatory. If a police force is to be efficient it must have efficient buildings and efficient equipment, and they are not going to be provided for if these subsections go through unchanged.
LORD RAGLAN: What is more, it is not quite clear who is to be the judge of what is required.
LORD FORSTER OF HARRABY: If we substitute the word "shall" for the word "may", will it not make rather nonsense of "subject to the consent of

1203
the Secretary of State"? I thought, in view of the words "subject to the consent of the Secretary of State", "may" was made necessary by the qualification added.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Is that point valid? In subsection (2) we have the words, "shall, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State", so that particular point hardly arises.
LORD FORSTER OF HARRABY: I agree; and the same position arises if you strike out from this subsection the words, "subject to the consent of the Secretary of State". If you are going to make it mandatory, you do not require those words to be there.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am sorry, but I did not quite follow the noble Lord. I was pointing out that in this respect subsections (2) and (3) are on the same footing: in each case the authority's action is subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. But I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, whether he is happy to come down here, as the Minister, and give us this explanation. Is it really quite good enough? After all, we are supposed to be talking English. I do not think it is enough to say that the draftsmen decree that the word "may", when used in this way, is to have a certain meaning. Are not we ourselves in charge of the use of the English language? Must we accept this dictation? Is it not rather an insult to our intelligence (I know the noble Lord would be the last person who would wish to do that) to say that we must accept this because the Parliamentary draftsmen prefer this extraordinary use of the English language?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Before the noble Lord replies, might I say one more word on the question of the consent of the Secretary of State? The consent of the Secretary of State would, of course, be withheld if any proposed building or alteration, or any provision of equipment, were held to be unreasonable or extravagant, either through this situation or per se. But there is nothing whatever in these clauses to say that the Secretary of State is in a position to compel a mean local authority to do its duty.
LORD DERWENT: May I try once more? I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his place, for he might be able to help me. I will promise to have another look at this point if the Amendment is withdrawn. I have had these arguments before. Perhaps we may put it in slightly different words, as to what is the case for the Parliamentary draftsmen, who, in my view, are right. "May" is appropriate where we are concerned with a power exercisable as the circumstances may require, which in fact is what they say. In subsections (1) and (2) we are concerned purely with a duty, and therefore the correct word is "shall"; but the other subsections are giving powers which are exercisable as circumstances may require, and it is customary then in draftsmanship to use the word "may". I will, of course, take it back, in view of what your Lordships have said, but I am told that this is how it usually works out. If the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, can give me any help in the matter, I should be most grateful.
LORD SILKIN: Since I am appealed to, and not having heard any of the arguments either way, I would not altogether accept the noble Lord's statement as to the uses of the words "may" and "shall". The word "shall", of course, is used where it is intended that it should be a direction: the word "may" is used where it is intended that there should be an option, a discretion. As I understand it, the purpose of my noble friend's Amendment is that it should be a direction rather than that it should be optional on the part of the authority. This seems to me a perfectly clear issue. I do not think my noble friends are raising a legalistic issue. They are raising a point of substance. They want it to be a duty rather than to make it discretionary; and if that is the point on which the noble Lord is going to seek further advice, I think he may get some.
LORD DERWENT: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I wanted a good legal opinion. If the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will withdraw this Amendment, I promise to take it back and have another look at it. If it needs altering, I will put down an Amendment for the next stage of the Bill. If we think it does not need altering, I

1205
will let him know why, and he can do what he thinks appropriate.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for that offer, which of course I accept with the greatest alacrity. In fact, I would have invited him to take that course, but he has relieved me of that responsibility. May I say this, however, before asking the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment on that understanding? These three Amendments positively leapt at me when I read the Bill, and my notes on them have been written while sitting on this Bench this afternoon; so it is a ready-made case. What is more, it is quite obvious from the debate that they have appealed to other noble Lords in exactly the same way.
But I think the most compelling argument of all is that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, indicated that when he read this passage he thought exactly the same as I did, but that when he walked into his office the "boys" blinded him with science: he did not quite understand what it meant, but he knew they were right. I would ask him to go back in the certainty that if he and I, and apparently most other noble Lords here, do not understand why this is right, it is a virtual certainty that the police authorities who will have to interpret it will not understand it, either. The result will be that we shall run the risk, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said, of having some police authorities using these subsections, in the way they are at present worded, as an excuse for not doing their duty properly. That is certainly a possibility, and I therefore hope the noble Lord will consider those points. With that, and with his assurance, which I gratefully accept, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Chief constables
(4) Without prejudice to any regulations under Part II of this Act or under the Police Pensions Act 1948, the police authority, acting with the approval of the Secretary of State, may call upon the chief constable to retire in the interests of efficiency.
5.58 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (4), to leave out
"in the interests of efficiency".
The noble Lord said: Although the form of this Amendment sounds rather curious, it has, I think, a very good reason behind it. Subsection (4) of Clause 5 derives from a recommendation of the Royal Commission, in paragraph 180 of their Report, that
"arrangements … be introduced to enable a police authority to retire a chief constable in whom it has lost confidence".
This recommendation derived from a suggestion made to the Commission by the Association of Municipal Corporations referred to in the previous paragraph of the Royal Commission's Report, that it was inappropriate that a chief constable should be retired under Regulation 52 of the Police Pensions Regulations, 1955 (which is now Regulation 60 of the Police Pensions Regulations, 1962), because under this regulation the authority had to pass a resolution referring, to inefficiency, which would attract undesirable publicity.
It will be seen that the subsection in its present form does not appear to meet this objection, the force of which was recognised by the Royal Commission, because it would appear that the police authority's resolution would have to refer to "the interests of efficiency". What the Association had in mind was that the police authority should have the right to invite the Secretary of State to put a chief constable on the retired list, as is done in the Armed Services, and that this should be accepted generally as a retirement with credit and distinction. If it were necessary to pass a resolution referring to the interests of efficiency, this would necessarily throw doubt on the high regard in which a chief constable had been held by the police authority.
In these circumstances, it is suggested that the words "in the interests of efficiency" should be left out altogether. The Amendment provides for just that. It is difficult to suggest an alternative form of words. The Committee may he prepared to accept that it should be left entirely to the discretion of the police authority as to the circumstances in which they can call upon a chief constable to retire, having regard to the fact that the approval of the Secretary

1207
of State is necessary before the subsection can be brought into effect and a safeguard for the chief constable is thus provided.
The matter was raised in Committee in another place and the Home Secretary said:
"It is not a question of proving that the man himself is inefficient but a question of deciding whether or not in the interests of efficiency there should be a change at the head of the force."
This is not disputed; but the Home Secretary's words apply equally to the operation of Regulation 60 of Police Pensions Regulations. What is needed is a provision for retirement which excludes altogether this reference to inefficiency. The chief constable's reputation is bound to be called in question, even though his personal efficiency is, strictly speaking, not the relevant consideration. It seems to me that the point the Home Secretary made is a little too subtle for public opinion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 4, line 25, leave out ("in the interests of efficiency").—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD DERWENT: The effect of this Amendment would be that a police authority would have a general power to retire its chief constable, subject to the Secretary of State's approval, whether the retirement was in the interests of efficiency or not. In view of the quasi-independent character of the office of chief constable, and of the functions he exercises, it is important to define closely the circumstances in which he may be retired. Compulsory retirement on the grounds of age or ill-health is dealt with in the Police Pensions Regulations. This is both in the general interest and a reasonable protection for the chief constable himself, since his independent functions make him especially liable to victimisation. Under the Bill a chief constable can be removed from office under the Disciplinary Code if he commits an offence against discipline and under this clause if his retirement is in the interests of efficiency.
We come to what my noble friend has called the Home Secretary's remarks, which he said were "a little too subtle". But are they really? I shall repeat the sense of them. It is worth noting that a
1208
chief constable has not himself to be positively inefficient before he can be retired; but he could be retired, under this clause, in the interests of efficiency; that is, the efficiency of the force. If a chief constable has neither misconducted himself nor put himself in a situation where his retirement would be in the interests of efficiency, what reasonable ground would there be for suggesting that he should be removed from office, other than on grounds of age or ill-health? It would be quite wrong if he could be removed merely because there was a degree of incompatibility between him and the police authority—something which fell short of ill-discipline or inefficiency.
The emphasis in Clause 5(4) on the retirement being in the interests of efficiency ties in with the duty of the police authority under Clause 4(1) with respect to the efficiency of the force. The police authority's concern is with the efficiency of the force. Therefore, I think it is right that it should have the power to retire, in the interests of efficiency, the officer charged with the direction and control of the force. But to give the police authority a general power to retire its chief constable on unspecified grounds would take it outside the duty conferred by Clause 4(1). The chief constable is not the servant or employee of the police authority, liable to removal in accordance with the terms of a contract of employment. If this Amendment is accepted we come near to re-enacting the 19th Century powers of summary dismissal which are specifically repealed by Schedule 10 to this Bill. I am afraid that I must resist this Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to say a word on the Amendment. I find myself largely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in rejecting the Amendment. I agree that it would be giving the local authority the great power to recommend a dismissal on no specified grounds and without necessarily having to give any reason. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, justified his Amendment on the grounds of the benefit to the chief constable; but I should have thought that, as between dismissal on the grounds of inefficiency and dismissal without any grounds at all, the chief constable would prefer the former.

1209
But I wonder whether it is right to go even as far as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, went. I can understand a chief constable being recommended for dismissal because he himself is inefficient. What seems to me to be unfair is that he should be dismissed, not because he himself is inefficient, but in the interests of the efficiency of the service itself. There may be a man who is a perfectly efficient chief constable and who is doing his job extremely well; but for some purposes of reorganisation he is recommended for dismissal. That seems to me to be quite wrong. Although the Home Secretary could refuse approval, strictly speaking, on his own interpretation of what these words meant, he would find it a little difficult if it could be shown that the service could be improved by the man's removal from office. Yet it could be grossly unfair to the chief constable. I should have hoped that it might be possible to find another form of words which would make sure that the only ground for dismissal is, in fact, the inefficiency of the chief constable himself.
LORD DERWENT: May I point out to the noble Lord that I think this should be read in conjunction with Clause 29, where he has the right of appeal. That clause reads:
"Where representations are made under this section the Secretary of State may, and in a case where he proposes to require the exercise of the power mentioned in subsection (1) of this section"—
which deals with the point we are talking about—
"shall, appoint one or more persons (one at least of whom shall be a person who is not an officer of police or of a Government Department) to hold an inquiry and report to him and shall consider any report made under this subsection."
That is an additional safeguard for the chief constable. But there is no doubt there can be circumstances where, without being able to say that a chief constable is himself inefficient, and without being able to say that he has not an efficient police force, it would be in the interests of a particular police force that he should be retired. I am informed that there has been that sort of case.
I agree with the noble Lord that in the majority of cases it could be due to inefficiency, if the chief constable goes under this clause, but not necessarily
1210
so. It might be that he would rather go under the general terms than to be thought inefficient. But I will have another look at it, although I do not think we shall get anywhere. I think that this power is necessary to the Secretary of State and to the police authority.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think that the mere fact that a chief constable can appeal really meets the case. What can he appeal against? It may be the fact that it is in the interests of efficiency, but even then it would be wrong to dismiss a chief constable who himself has done nothing to deserve dismissal. He could not appeal on that. It might well be true that in the interests of efficiency in the widest sense better service could be obtained by dismissing a chief constable, but I would be against that, and he would have no ground for appeal.
LORD DERWENT: I appreciate the noble Lord's point about appeals, but I still think that there may be cases where, quite apart from the efficiency of the chief constable or of the force, it might be advisable for the benefit of the force that the chief constable should leave the force, if the watch committee or police authority ask for it. It would not happen in these circumstances, of course, unless the Secretary of State had also gone into it, and that undoubtedly involves the Inspectors of Constabulary.
LORD MILVERTON: I do not wish to press the Amendment. I should like to say merely that the object was to enable chief constables to be retired—I prefer that word to "dismissed"—with honour, possibly in the interests of the efficiency of the force, but certainly without any reflection which the use of that word would entail if it were in a published statement. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Deputy and assistant chief constables
6.—
(4) Appointments to the office of deputy chief constable, and appointments or promotions to the rank of assistant chief constable, shall be made, in accordance with regulations under Part II of this Act, by the police authority

1211
after consultation with the chief constable and subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
6.15 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "after consultation with the chief constable and". The noble Lord said: I should like to speak on this Amendment and No. 16 at the same time. The effect of these two Amendments, taken together, would be that appointments to the office of deputy chief constable and appointments or promotions to the rank of assistant chief constable would be made by the police authority otherwise than after formal consultation with the chief constable and without the approval of the Secretary of State. However, the two Amendments have been drafted separately, as the two issues, which are separate, can be considered separately.
Paragraphs 171 and 172 of the Royal Commission's Report read as follows:
" 171. The deputy chief constable holds an appointment and not a rank. In a large force the deputy has the rank of assistant chief constable, but in a small force he may be a superintendent or even an inspector. The deputy chief constable in English and Welsh boroughs is appointed by the police authority; elsewhere he is appointed by the chief constable with the approval of the police authority. As the deputy is required to take charge of the force in the chief constable's absence, we think it is right in principle that he should he appointed by the police authority after consultation with the chief constable. We further recommend that the appointment of a person to be deputy chief constable be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
172. We recommend the same arrangements for the appointment of assistant chief constables. Most officers of this rank are, in fact, deputy chief constables; and it would be pointless to place the appointment of the deputy in the hands of the police authority while leaving the chief constable to appoint to the one post from which, in the larger forces, the deputy could be found. Moreover the post of assistant chief constable is often a stepping stone to a chief constableship in another force, and it is essential that persons appointed to these posts should be selected from the widest possible field, so as to ensure that they are filled by the best men available. In all cases, therefore, appointment should be by the police authority after consultation with the chief constable, and it should be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
The objection which the Association of Municipal Corporations offer to that provision for consultation with the chief
1212
constable does not mean, of course, that the police authority should, as a matter of practice, do other than consult their chief before making the appointment or promotion in question. Obviously, it is the proper course for the police authority to take. But the statutory provisions suggest that, whilst in all other spheres of local administration authorities can be trusted informally to consult the appropriate chief officer before making appointments to senior posts, in their guise as police authorities they cannot be trusted to act responsibly. It is true that, in the absence of a chief constable, a deputy has to assume command of the force, but for that matter a deputy town clerk has to accept the responsibility of acting as the chief executive officer of local authority in the absence of the town clerk. The fact that a chief constable has a greater degree of independence than other chief officers does not really alter the issue.
Admittedly, so far as the counties are concerned, the proposal in the Bill would give slightly greater powers to the police committee of a county council than are at present enjoyed by the standing joint committee, as will be seeen from paragraph 171 of the Report, but this is no good ground for providing for a uniform arrangement for boroughs and counties which detracts from the existing responsibilities of the borough police authority, against whom, so far as the Association is aware, there is no evidence of misuse of powers.
Nor is it necessary for these appointments and promotions to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. Though there is a provision in Statute for certain other chief officers—for example, medical officers of health—to be appointed subject to the approval of the Minister, there is no existing statutory provision with regard to deputies. Therefore, the Association of Municipal Corporations see no reason why there should he one in relation to the police. The Home Secretary, in Committee in should be one in relation to the police. have the power of approval because it was from the deputy and assistant chief constables that chief constable posts were filled. But this argument would apply equally all down the line to the appointments of lower ranks than

1213
deputy, from which deputies are filled, and does not seem to me to give very strong support to that case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 5, line 9, leave out from ("authority") to ("subject") in line]10.—(Lord Milverton.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It is greatly to be hoped that your Lordships will reject both these Amendments, particularly the first one. I can imagine nothing more likely to impair harmonious relations in the highest ranks, and consequently the efficiency of any police force, than for the chief constable to have foisted upon him a deputy whom he does not wish to have. For that reason alone, the Amendment would do a great deal more harm than good.
With regard to the other Amendment, I cannot see any reason why the Secretary of State should not have the final word. Surely, when you come to the material from which chief constables are to be chosen it is a very different thing from that from which it is merely a question of promoting inspectors and superintendents. The chief constable, after all, is the king-pin, the universal joint, of the police forces; and to say that he is to have no voice in the selection of the man he has to work with would be a great mistake. After all, it is not that the approval of the chief constable must be obtained; only that he must be consulted. But I cannot imagine that any responsible local authority would go against the advice of their chief constable and appoint as deputy a man whom the chief constable did not think was suitable for the position.
LORD DERWENT: I should like to deal with the two Amendments separately, but I will speak to them both. The first Amendment would delete the requirement that a police authority should consult the chief constable before appointing a deputy or assistant chief constable. On that, I must say that the case has been put strongly against the Amendment by my noble friend Lord Mansfield. This provision follows a recommendation of the Royal Commission. It would be clearly wrong for a deputy or assistant chief constable, the two immediate people who are going to support the chief constable—and the deputy, at any rate in his absence, will
1214
answer for him—to be appointed without any consideration of the chief constable's own views. I am sure that this must be wrong. Although my noble friend Lord Milverton says, "Of course the police authority would do it", I think it is right and, indeed, essential that we should make it statutory that the opinion of the chief constable must be taken. Indeed, when it comes to the Secretary of State's approval of a post, it would be a great help to him to know what that opinion was.
It has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Milverton that, in practice, a local authority as a rule consults its chief officers before appointing their deputies, but that in these cases it is not a statutory obligation. I agree. But it is not a true analogy with the senior officers of a police force. The chief constable has a special status in relation to the police authority. The relationship is quite different from that of an employee of a local authority. And there is the special matter about his responsibility for operational efficiency. There is also the fact that a police force is a disciplined body in which the chief officer must have confidence in his immediate subordinates. Without that, a disciplined body cannot function. I think it is absolutely right, so far as the first Amendment is concerned, that we should resist it, because the police authority should be under a statutory duty to consult the chief constable before making these appointments.
As regards the second Amendment, this would delete the requirement that appointment of deputy chief constables should be subject to the Secretary of State's approval. This provision also is based upon a recommendation of the Royal Commission. There are two main grounds for requiring the Secretary of State's approval. The first is that in the case of a deputy chief constable, as I have already said, the officer will take command of the force in the chief constable's absence, and he should enjoy the Secretary of State's confidence. Just as the chief constable's appointment is subject to the Secretary of State's approval, so also should the deputy's appointment be, because he will on occasions be dealing with the Secretary of State, in the absence of the chief constable.

1215
The second point is that both these posts are stepping stones to chief constableships, and the persons appointed should be selected from the widest possible field so as to ensure that the posts are filled by the best men available from the forces in which they are then serving. The requirement of the Secretary of State's approval will assist the police service in reaping the benefits of the higher training schemes now available, such as the Police College.
There will have to be a good deal of interchange in these senior ranks in the police forces—such changes make for efficiency. Perhaps I may add that it is intended that the Secretary of State's control in this matter should be exercised in the same manner as the corresponding control over the appointment of chief constables; that is, a short list of those considered suitable is drawn up by the police authority, which always carries out that procedure when it wants to appoint a chief constable, and the Secretary of State then says which, if any, of the names on the list he would not approve for appointment. There might be only one on the list, but that one would have to come out and the police authority would have to make the choice from the remaining names. All these posts should be advertised.
If these two Amendments were approved, the police authority would have absolute control over these posts, when it has not that sort of control under the Bill for any other police post. Even that would be anomalous. I am sure it is essential, in the interests of police efficiency and smooth working between the chief constable and his subordinates, and between the chief constable, his subordinates and the Secretary of State, that both these Amendments should be rejected.
LORD MILVERTON: I do not feel strongly enough about the principle I have enunciated to press the point further, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Other members of police forces]:
6.28 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (2), after "by" to insert "the police authority upon the recommendation of". The noble Lord said: Subsection (2) of Clause 7 provides that appointments and promotions to any rank below that of assistant chief constable shall be made subject to the Secretary of State's regulations by the chief constable. This provision brings borough police forces into line with county police forces, and follows a recommendation of the Royal Commission, who thought it inappropriate that police authorities should have powers relating to the appointment, promotion and discipline of the police.
The Commission noted that the Desborough Committee recommended as long ago as 1919 that these powers should be in the hands of the chief constable of all forces, and the Oaksey Committee, reporting in 1949, endorsed this view. They said:
"The Chief constable and the officers who advise him see the men at work, and they alone can have a sufficiently intimate knowledge of the merits of the individual candidates to decide who should be selected for promotion."
Appointment the Oaksey Committee regarded as largely a formal matter, which was, in any case, in practice, generally left to the chief constable.
In practice, conflicts between the watch committee and the chief constable rarely arise, and, as the Oaksey Committee said in paragraph 222 of their Report:
"Watch committees really do no more than confirm the recommendations of their chief constables."
The Association of Municipal Corporations do not share the conclusion that this points to the surrender of the appointment and promotion powers of watch committees. Chief constables, like watch committees, can be subject to prejudices and affected by personal considerations; and no chief constable, however capable and conscientious, should, in the opinion of the Association of Municipal Corporations, have power to promote without being answerable to someone.
The need to justify a proposal to a committee is salutary. If the chief constable is given the right to make his own

1217
promotions there will be a far greater risk of favouritism and of a tendency to promote from within the force, instead of from another force which is acknowledged to be a desirable practice. When a man has to explain his recommendations to a committee, it helps him in making his own decision, and it helps him to be fair in making that decision. Therefore, it is suggested that the risk of the wrong man being promoted by a chief constable, unanswerable to the watch committee, is a greater risk than that of a watch committee's rejecting the recommendation of the chief constable in the hope of securing the promotion of another man. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, after ("by") insert ("the police authority upon the recommendation of").—(Lord Milverton.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Once more the Association of Municipal Corporations put forward a proposal which would strike at the efficiency and discipline of police forces. Nothing is more calculated to shake the confidence of a chief constable than for him to feel that he could not promote the men whom, from his own experience, he considered to be the most suitable. I do not think the Association's claim that a watch committee is going to be more impartial and more thorough in vetting qualifications of a candidate for promotion has any validity whatever. Once more, I hope that this Amendment will be rejected.
LORD DERWENT: The effect of this Amendment would be to provide that appointments and promotions to subordinate ranks would be made by the police authority upon the recommendation of the chief constable. It would mean that a police authority could not make an appointment or promotion which was not recommended by the chief constable, but could decline to appoint or promote the man he had recommended. Even this limited opportunity for interfering with the chief constable's discretion in these matters is quite unacceptable. As the Oaksey Committee put it in 1949:
"The chief constable and the officers who advise him see the men at work and they alone can have a sufficiently intimate knowledge of the merits of the different candidates to decide who should be selected."
We feel that it is quite inappropriate that promotions and appointments—
1218
again, I stress this—in a disciplined force subject to the direction and control of the chief constable should, even nominally, be made by an outside person or body. I would add, however, that the most effective way of ensuring that the right man is promoted is by the introduction of adequate arrangements for the holding of selection boards within the force, and by ensuring that the chief constable is fully and properly advised when he makes his promotion decisions. Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary give close attention to these arrangements when they are visiting forces, and there is no suggestion that favouritism is a serious risk in county forces at present where this arrangement operates. I would add, before asking your Lordships to reject this Amendment, that the Police Federation have endorsed the provisions now in Clause 7(2).
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: May I ask the noble Lord a question, which may be rather a "fast" one? If necessary, perhaps he can answer it in some other way. I sympathise with his arguments, which seem to me very strong; but if some police constable, for example, or some other police official, felt himself aggrieved—and, after all, in this wicked world there might be a case where a man had been treated unjustly because he "got across" the chief constable—would there be any machinery for appeal? It may be difficult for the noble Lord to answer that question, and I will support him if this Amendment is pressed to a Division.
LORD DERWENT: I can answer it in this way correctly, so far as it goes. There are, of course, the ordinary methods of complaint inside the force, but that does not quite meet the case put by the noble Earl. There are also the Inspectors of Constabulary, and I think it could probably be brought to their notice —in fact, I am sure it could. There are also, and even more important, when this is a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the chief constable (I am not talking about the man who has a grouse because he has missed promotion, but if there is a real complaint). in every police force representatives of the Police Federation who function very independently, serving policemen. There is not the slightest doubt that if there is

1219
a genuine complaint it can be placed before the Federation. They have almost endless powers of bringing complaints forward. I think the point is covered.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I think that that is an excellent answer, if I may say so.
LORD SILKIN: Might I ask a question on this matter? This subsection deals with appointments and promotions. The arguments which have been put forward against the Amendment are directed to promotions: that the chief constable knows his officers, and so on; and that he is in the best position to judge. But would this apply necessarily to appointments? Appointments could be from outside, and the chief constable is in no better position to know the merits or demerits of a candidate than the committee is. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would direct his mind to the question of appointments.
LORD DERWENT: As regards appointments below the rank of assistant chief constable, that matter is fully within the power of a chief constable. What we are trying to develop in police forces generally is interchange, with a view to further promotion at the higher ranks of, perhaps, inspector and above —perhaps even down to sergeant. I would add that since the Police College has been going, and the Inspectors of Constabulary have been enlarged in number, there is a close liaison between the chief constables. Although many of the senior posts are now advertised, and interchanged between the forces, there is sometimes an arrangement for exchange direct between chief constables, with, of course, the approval of the man, with a view to accelerated promotion for very efficient men. So that appointments below the rank of assistant chief constable will come within the province of the chief constable.
LORD MILVERTON: In view of the hostile reception which this Amendment has had, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Reports by chief constables to police authorities
12.—
(3) 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, 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.
6.38 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "or is not needed for the discharge of the functions of the police authority". The noble Lord said: This, again, is a point which struck me very forcibly on reading the Bill, and I have no idea whether it has been raised at any stage of the Bill in another place. Clause 12 deals with the provisions for reports by chief constables to police authorities. Every chief constable is obliged to give a report each year, and he is also required on other occasions to submit reports when he is asked to do so by the police authority. But, as subsection (3) of Clause 12 stands at the moment, if it appears to the chief constable that a report in compliance with such requirements 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, he may request that authority to refer the requirement to the Secretary of State.
I do not think anyone would object to the chief constable having discretion not to disclose information which he thought in the public interest ought not to be disclosed. I therefore do not object to those words in the subsection at all. But it seems to me virtually insulting to the police authority if the chief constable is in a position to decide what information the police authority needs for the discharge of its functions. Surely it is the police authority who should be able to decide the types of information it needs for the discharge of its functions. I am not talking about security or about something which it is not in the public interest should be disclosed; I am talking about giving discretion to the senior police

1221
officer of a police area to be able to make up his mind and decide, when he has had a request from a police authority for a report for certain information: "No, you do not need to know that for the discharge of your functions as a police authority".
I think that is the outside edge: that we should be left with a chief constable having that discretion. It can almost bring to naught the powers of a police authority in particular circumstances where it is at loggerheads, for example, with a chief constable. If we had another Sheffield case, for example, would not that chief constable be able to say: "You do not need that information for the discharge of your functions; I am not going to give it to you."? This subsection as it now reads would leave him with that absolute discretion to say that a certain type or class of information, say a report, which had been asked for, was not needed by his employing police authority.
There may be—and no doubt the noble Lord will give it—a reasonable explanation for the inclusion of these words in the clause, but, as I look at it, the words are not only unnecessary but are offensive to the police authority, and no chief constable should be given the power to decide what types of information were needed by his own employing authority for the discharge of its proper functions as a police authority. That is my view, and unless there is a very satisfactory explanation of this, which I find difficult to believe can be forthcoming, I hope your Lordships will support this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 7, line 39, leave out from ("disclose") to ("he") in line 40.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DERWENT: This Amendment would deprive a chief constable of the opportunity to question a requirement for a report on the ground that the report was not needed for the discharge of the functions of the police authority; that is the situation. It was quite clear in the debate in another place that there were two main misunderstandings about this matter. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is still labouring under these misunderstandings, and I hope to persuade him that they are misunderstandings. He suggested, first, that Clause 12(3) placed the chief constable in the position of a final arbiter of what he would or would not report to the police authority.
1222
That is quite incorrect. A chief constable does not have the last word on that matter at all the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament as to whether or not he, the Secretary of State, upholds the action of the chief constable. If the chief constable refuses to provide the information, it is for the Secretary of State to uphold or turn down the decision. In relation to Provincial police forces, too, the Secretary of State will be answerable to Parliament.
The second misunderstanding, I think, concerned the range of subjects within which the chief constable would be expected to report to his police authority. That misunderstanding came out more in the other place than in what the noble Lord has said, but I think I ought to amplify this matter.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I have not read the Report.
LORD DERWENT: However, I think I ought to explain; it is important that the House should understand this point. Honourable members moving the Amendment in another place maintained that as the subsection stood the range of subjects would be unduly restricted. My right honourable friend then explained that a police authority would, without question, be entitled—and when I say "entitled", we must remember that if a chief constable refuses and he is not upheld, he puts his own job at risk—to ask its chief constable about such matters as (this is important, and I am repeating here what my right honourable friend said) the deployment of the force, its allocation as between crime prevention and traffic policing, and about the state of crime generally, or in particular parts of the area. It could ask about the extent of police protection provided in a certain district and call for a report and comment on it. Unless the police authority could obtain information on such matters (this is the point, of course) it could not possibly tell whether or not it was desirable in the interests of efficiency that the chief constable should be retired. It is on things of this kind that the chief constable would have to give a report. What my right honourable friend explained (and this is the reason why the clause is drawn in this way) the police authority could not do would be, for example, to bombard the chief constable with innumerable questions of detail on operational matters.

1223
It is quite clear that a police authority would be able to obtain relevant information about the deployment of the force—there has been a little misunderstanding about that; not about where police constable So-and-so goes, but about the general deployment—even though it has no power to issue directives about it. It can ask questions about it and get an answer. In many cases, certainly in matters involving expenditure, the chief constable could be expected to volunteer the information without formally being asked to do so.
LORD STONHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord before he leaves this point? So far I have listened to him very carefully and have made a note of what he has said. The only thing that his right honourable friend indicated might be regarded as something the police authority did not need for the discharge of its functions was in that it could not bombard chief constables with questions of detail. Would he please say, first, whether that is the only thing his right honourable friend said, and, second, who is to he the judge of whether or not it is a question of detail?
LORD DERWENT: People must not really be so distrustful of chief constables or, indeed, of police authorities; they are reasonable. It should be clear from the word "Go" if a chief constable is being unreasonable; but if it is not clear to a police authority that he is being reasonable in refusing a report—and chief constables are reasonable as a rule—then it goes to the Secretary of State. What it is quite clear a police authority must not do is to ask why police constable So-and-so was on duty two days running on that corner, or why were three officers there, when two would have been quite enough. It is that kind of thing the chief constables would be justified in not answering. But if the police authority were to ask, for example, why had no policeman been into such-and-such a ward, it would be perfectly within its rights and would expect an answer. If a chief constable refused it, undoubtedly he would not be upheld by the Secretary of State.
Perhaps I might elaborate a little more before I sit down as I think this matter is important. Against this background, it is reasonable that a chief
1224
constable should, when faced with a requirement which goes beyond what is needed for the discharge of the authority's functions, be able to question it under the procedure in the subsection. What the chief constable is doing in refusing a report is questioning the demand, but he is not the final arbiter as to whether or not he should answer it.
I will give certain examples where the procedure could be invoked. First of all the police authority is entitled to information which gives it a general picture of the efficiency of the police or enables it to assess the weight to be given to a complaint that, say, a particular part of the area is inadequately patrolled by beat constables; but, having got the general picture, the chief constable should not be bombarded—and I repeat the word "bombarded" for it must be remembered that councillors and others are often under great pressure from their constituents—with an unreasonable number of requests for detailed reports, which would tend to trespass on the chief constable's responsibilities.
Alternatively, the police authority should not be entitled to a report on a matter entirely within the chief constable's discretion; that is to say, the authority should not be able to question in this way the chief constable's decision about a particular promotion appointment or disciplinary case. Still less should they be entitled to ask for a report about a chief constable's decision to prosecute or not to prosecute in a particular case—and this is perhaps the most important point of all; and as a matter of fact there have been cases where this has happened, on the part not of a local authority, but of individuals. I think that gives the picture. I do not think the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, are in the least well grounded, because the final arbiter is not going to he the chief constable. I emphasise that the chief constable will not be the final arbiter.
LORD MILVERTON: May I make one comment? It seems to me that, as we have gone steadily on, the attitude of the Government has been in effect to denude local authorities more and more of any real power, and if they are to be denuded of all rights to information which they may want, it is quite impossible for them to say—which they

1225
are supposed to be able to do—whether the chief constable is efficient or not; they will not know anything about it. It seems to me that removal of the words proposed to be left out is essential to ensure that police authorities will be able to discuss with chief constables in an informed manner matters of local concern about the administration and operation of the force, and it is surely essential that those discussions should take place if the chief constable is to be responsive to public opinion and if the police authority are to be able to advise him about his duties in the way in which the Royal Commission and the Home Secretary himself has contemplated.
It seems to me that it is only if these words are left out that the watch committee, or the police committee in the county, will be able to play their proper part in the administration of policing of the area, and if necessary, in the last resort, to obtain information justifying a requirement to retire. All of these duties are placed upon the local authorities, and they must be given a position in which they can exercise that responsibility, and therefore I support this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: May I ask the noble Lord whether he could give us an assurance, now or later, that this will not involve the whittling down of the scope of the reports which chief constables have in recent years been accustomed to give? After all, chief constables make very interesting reports on the state of crime in the areas for which they are responsible. Strictly speaking, if a chief constable was slack or arrogant he could refuse to report on the state of crime under this head. May I take it that it is not the intention to narrow the scope of existing reports?
LORD DERWENT: I assure the noble Earl that we are in fact crossing the "t's" and dotting the "i's" of what is at present happening to a large extent. At this moment no watch committee ought to—and I might say very few do —try to interfere in the detailed day-to-day running of its police force. We are merely putting that into the Statute to make quite certain it does not happen. But, as regards general reports which are now available to the watch committees on the general running of the police, they will be available in exactly the same way in the future to the police
1226
authority, and questions of the kind I have described which affect the efficiency of the force will be answerable by the chief constable. It may well be that you will get an intolerant chief constable, and I say that under this Bill his job will at once be put in jeopardy. People on the whole are reasonable, and where it is a proper request he is not entitled to refuse. If he does the case goes to the Home Secretary and, should it be a very glaring case, the chief constable obviously puts himself in peril. The Secretary of State says to the police authority, "I think you had better consider whether it is in the interests of the efficiency of the force that he stays on". Unless he provides the necessary information to the police authority the force cannot be efficient because in general terms it cannot be watched over. I hope that is an answer to the noble Earl: the range of reports they will be getting will not be narrowed.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: That is the important assurance.
LORD DERWENT: I can give that assurance. I really cannot accept from my noble friend Lord Milverton the sweeping statement, after what I have said, that the police authorities will be denuded of the right of asking questions. I have explained at great length that they can ask innumerable questions, and to the vast majority they are entitled to a proper answer. I cannot see that that is taking anything away from the existing position; it is only being clarified. There have been many doubts between chief constables and watch committees as to what their respective responsibilities were. We have now laid it down and there should be no doubt in future. I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that the chief constable is not getting all these powers. All we are trying to do is to prevent him from being improperly badgered, if I may use that phrase.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord has not completely satisfied me. I concede at once that it was incorrect for me to say the chief constable is the final arbiter. The clause clearly sets out that the Secretary of State is quite properly the final arbiter and in so far as I said otherwise, I withdraw it. But the chief constable is the arbiter, as the clause stands, as to what he shall decide it is proper, for the functions of the

1227
police authority, to be disclosed, and that is what I object to. The noble Lord said that chief constables were responsible, reasonable people. So are police authorities responsible bodies. I should have thought that, at the very least, these words are unnecessary, and at worst they can be harmful. While I am not going to press this now, I must tell the noble Lord that we may raise it again, because I do not think the present position is wholly satisfactory. With that I would ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
House resumed.

EMERGENCY POWERS BILL
6.59 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that Her Majesty had (by Commission) revoked certain Letters Patent and had appointed the Chairman of Committees for the time being, the Lord Merthyr, the Earl of Listowel, the Lord Blackford, the Lord Rea, the Lord Ailwyn, the Lord Amulree, the Earl St. Aldwyn, the Lord Crook, the Lord Airedale, the Lord Jessel, the Lord Archibald, the Lord Douglas of Barloch, the Lord Strang, the Viscount Goschen, the Lord Grenfell, the Lord Shepherd and the Lord Conesford Speakers of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor: the said Commission was read.
PRESTON CORPORATION BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
  LONDON ELECTRICITY POWER FAILURES
  LONDON ELECTRICITY POWER FAILURES
  LEGAL AID IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
  LEGAL AID IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS