Sitting of 14 July 1965

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

    Minerals (Ownership)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to reform the existing law governing the ownership of minerals in order to ensure that all minerals are worked in the public interest.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): While the Government have no plans to reform the existing law governing the ownership of minerals, the Land Commission which we propose to set up will both ensure that land is made available for development, which could include mineral development, when the public interest requires and that the public derives the benefit from increasing land values which arise from development.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Answer does not go far enough? Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Town and Country Planning Magazine of May this year in which it was suggested that we might adopt the United States practice of having the minerals State-owned and leased to operators, in which case they could be used in the public interest instead of in the private interest? Will my right hon. Friend take account of all the suggestions that were made in that article?
    Mr. Ross: I read the article with great interest and certainly noted the suggestions that were put down. It was, I think, a reprint of a lecture which was given on the subject by an expert and it suggested that we should follow the United States pattern concerning the ownership of
    468
    minerals. The Government are not prepared to go as far as that at the present time.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Can the Secretary of State say what mineral enterprises in this country are paying dividends?
    Mr. Ross: That is not part of this Question.

    Highlands (Land Prices)
    Mr. Buchanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now introduce legislation to enable him to deal with the present inflated prices of land in the Highlands in areas where development has taken place because of public action and expenditure.
    Mr. Ross: The Bill to set up a Land Commission, which the Government propose to introduce as soon as possible, is intended to deal with this situation.
    Mr. Buchan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the situation in some parts of the Highlands—for example, at Aviemore or Fort William—where, because of the great expenditure of public money, private speculators are able to reap large harvests? Figures of several thousand £s per acres have been mentioned in each of these two districts.
    Mr. Ross: I am aware and I am very disappointed that this should take place. I do not think that it should be allowed to go on without the State itself appreciating that certain landowners who have had neither risk nor interest in respect of these developments are reaping such rich rewards.
    Mr. Carmichael: Has not the stage been reached in Scotland when it would be appropriate to start a new Domesday Book to find exactly who owns the land? I know that this question has come up before, but would it not be well worth while doing it again?
    Mr. Ross: It may well be worth doing it again, but it is not covered by Question No. 3.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Secretary of State definitely saying that it is the Government's intention that the Land Commission Bill will deal with the sort of gross exploitation which, as his hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West

    469
    (Mr. Buchan) has rightly said, is taking place in the Lochaber area in particular?
    Mr. Ross: We certainly hope that it will help to deal with this problem, but I ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the Bill for details.

    Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892
    Mr. Doigasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to rescind Section 381 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, which makes it illegal to park a car anywhere.
    Mr. Ross: No, Sir.
    Mr. Doig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many burghs in Scotland are spending considerable sums of the taxpayers' money in erecting "No Waiting" signs and that the absence of these signs elsewhere leaves motorists to imagine that they are allowed to park when these signs are not present? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, consider making the law quite clear to these motorists, who are normally law-abiding citizens, perhaps by his Department stopping local authorities from wasting money on putting up superfluous signs and encouraging them instead to put up signs where waiting is permitted?
    Mr. Ross: This is a rather difficult problem. It may be a misleading impression that many motorists have that if no sign is displayed they can wait with impunity. This simply is not the case. My hon. Friend could equally argue that, because there are parking signs in certain towns, motorists cannot park anywhere else. If we took my hon. Friend's advice concerning this power that stems from the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, we would need to put up far more signs and yet we still would not get the full position clear. The trouble, I think, is that local people tend to know where they can park their cars and that there may be difficulty for visitors who go into a town. If you want to know the fine, ask a policeman.
    Mr. G. Campbell: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the approximate figure for the number of motor cars in Scotland in 1892?
    Mr. Ross: We were very far-seeing in Scotland in 1892, because Section 381(10)
    470
    provides that any person who in any street
    "Causes any cart or carriage, with or without horses, or any beast of draught or burden, to stand longer than is necessary"
    etc. So the motor car was amply covered.

    Fish Farming (Research)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the developments and improvements in fish farming undertaken by the White Fish Authority in co-operation with the University of Strathclyde directed towards raising the temperature in the chosen experimental Scottish lochs and towards feeding the embryo fish in order to increase their size and vitamin content; and what assistance the Government is giving to these improvements and developments.
    Mr. Ross: I am aware of the work which is being carried out by the White Fish Authority in co-operation with the University of Strathclyde. This is part of the Authority's research and development programme, for which it receives a grant of 50 per cent. from the Government. The initial work on the artificial rearing of sea fish was carried out by scientists of the fisheries departments who are continuing these studies and collaborating with the White Fish Authority and others to determine the environmental conditions necessary for fish farming.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Fish Authority is to be congratulated upon its initiative in this matter, especially having regard to the invidious policy which has been carried out over many years in favour of agriculture as contrasted with—I do not say "at the expense of"—the fishing industry? Will my right hon. Friend issue a White Paper indicating what his constructive policy is for the benefit of the fishing industry in order to prevent Britain from suffering from a fish famine?
    Mr. Ross: I hope that the Answer that I have just given on the aspect of fishing about which my hon. and learned Friend is presently concerned will give him a certain amount of encouragement. Instead of asking me for a White Paper, I hope

    471
    that he will dedicate himself to making a speech in the Scottish Grand Committee tomorrow, when this subject will be discussed.
    Mr. Noble: Is the Secretary of State aware that we on the west coast of Scotland are delighted that conditions there are better for rearing fish than they are in the east?
    Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at Ardtoe, Ardnamurchan, Argyll, where the White Fish Authority is building an experimental fish rearing station, there is a bit of excitement among the rural population? Will he take steps to encourage the Authority, especially its Chairman, to carry on with the good work it has started? The Authority held a public meeting last week to carry the population of that area with it. Although it is a small experiment, will he tell the Authority that Scottish Members on both sides of the House are 100 per cent. behind the experiment?
    Mr. Ross: Yes, I think that my hon. Friend is right. There is considerable excitement about the experiment at Ardtoe, Ardnamurchan. As to the benefits of the west, let us say that these are not due to any Government of one complexion or another, but, rather, to the work of nature. It is an accident of the sea and of geography that there are more sea lochs on the west coast than on the east.

    Tenant Farmers (Security of Tenure)
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to improve security of tenure for tenant farmers.
    Mr. Ross: I am not clear in what respect the hon. Member considers that security of tenure needs to be improved and have nothing at present to add to the reply which I gave him on 23rd March.
    Mr. Johnston: Surely the Secretary of State must be aware that Labour candidates in the north of Scotland, at any rate, gave the impression that it was the intention of the present Government to extend security of tenure so that farms could be passed on to the son, or possibly to the widow, when the incumbent
    472
    died and the lease was not expired? Is he further aware that there is quite a bit of feeling among tenant farmers in the north of Scotland that certain landlords are taking the opportunity to dispossess families? They think that until a revision of this takes place there will not be stability in tenant farming in the North.
    Mr. Ross: What the hon. Gentleman is really after is not security of tenure, which is fairly firm for the tenant farmer, but a change of the law of succession, which was changed in the 1958 Act. We have received representations about this from the Scottish National Farmers' Union, on the one hand, which wants a change made for the benefit of the family of the tenant. On the other hand, we have had opinions the other way, and they are being assessed at present.

    Gin Trap
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to abolish the gin trap in Scotland.
    Mr. Ross: The use of the gin trap is permissible in Scotland for the capture of foxes and otters only. Arrangements have been made, in consultation with the National Farmers' Union, the Scottish Landowners Federation and the organisations concerned with salmon fisheries, for a survey over the next year of the extent to which the gin trap and other methods respectively are used for dealing with these species.
    Thereafter I shall consider further whether the present law should be changed.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does the Secretary of State realise that this is a very unsatisfactory and cruel device which is banned in England? Is not the law rather ridiculous, in that animals cannot distinguish; they cannot tell that it is confined to otters and foxes? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me something about the experiments which I believe are going on with the contraceptive pill and gas as more humane methods?
    Mr. Ross: There is a later Question dealing with the latter point. The reason for the different legislative procedures of Scotland and England is, once again, the facts of geography. We have far

    473
    more hills. We have far more wild hill sheeplands. We have had strong representations about the effect the banning of the gin trap would have. It would cause serious losses on these lands. We must balance these factors before we come to any conclusion.
    Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend tell me how other little animals can know that the fox has exclusive use of the gin trap?
    Sir J. Gilmour: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about the success of setting gin traps on island sites to achieve drowning after catching?
    Mr. Ross: I believe that there are experiments into this, but I have no detailed information at present.
    Mr. Stodart: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any progress report about the contraceptive methods for foxes which I believe were at least under experiment before? Has he any information from Canada on this subject?
    Mr. Ross: Not in answer to this Question.

    Non-toxic Tear Gas
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for reports from chief constables as to the extent to which they are equipped to use non-lethal gas in an emergency.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for reports from chief constables on the extent to which the police are trained in the use of tear gas.
    Mr. Ross: Arrangements are being made to supply police forces in Scotland with non-toxic tear smoke for use in the circumstances outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in replying to a Question by my hon. Friend on 20th May. Chief constables who wish to make arrangements for practical training are being advised to seek the assistance of local military commanders.
    Mr. Rankin: Could my right hon. Friend make clear whether there will be limitations on the use of this gas? Will he also say whether there will be safeguards for innocent persons who may be
    474
    in the area? Can he assure us that this non-lethal gas will carry no toxic constituents?
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is quite right to be concerned about this as affecting the public. It must be remembered that it is for the protection of the public that this substance is being introduced. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that the gas would be used for dealing with armed criminals or insane persons when failure to use it might itself endanger someone else's life. I understand that there are no lasting harmful effects from its use. Notes and guidance will be issued to chief constable about its effects and on how it should be used. I give my hon. Friend the pledge that there will be strict limitations.
    Mr. Dempsey: Although we are all very concerned to ensure that there should be adequate safeguards, this will be an effective method of dealing with the gun-toting gangsters who in true Western style are brandishing guns today in the face of Scottish policemen. Will it be equally effective with the hooligan gang warfare which is spreading fear and alarm throughout the community? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that chief constables will have full power to use this method for the effective maintenance of law in the circumstances he has mentioned?
    Mr. Ross: I have already said that chief constables will have full power to use it in the strict circumstances I have outlined. I am sure that it will be effective. It will certainly prevent the destruction of life by those against whom it is used.

    Hydro-Electric Power (Development)
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now make a statement on the Government's policy on the further development of hydro-electric power in Scotland.
    Mr. Ross: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on the 26th May by my hon. Friend, the Joint Under-Secretary of State.
    Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his continued failure to arrive at a decision in this

    475
    matter is a grave disappointment to many people? It is now nine months since the Government took office and, as he well knows, there was a long delay prior to that. Can the right hon. Gentleman at least give me some specific indication of when this decision will be made? It is vital to the whole of Scotland, and many people on both sides of the House are concerned about this continued delay.
    Mr. Ross: It would be easy to reach a decision quickly, but whether or not it would be the right decision is another matter. It is because it would have a considerable effect on the economy and life of the Highlands that we have to make sure that it is the right decision. I am sure that the hon. Member would not want me to do other than take time to ensure that the right decision is made.
    Mr. George Y. Mackie: What information does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive to help him to make up his mind? Why cannot the right decision be taken now?
    Mr. Ross: Because the factors involved are important to the life of the areas concerned and to a wider area. Many factors affecting the decision have developed over the 4½ years which have elapsed since the schemes were stopped and the hon. Gentleman knows that we have to study the generation of electricity in all its forms.

    Children, Sutherland (Education)
    Mr. George Y. Mackieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to enable children in the north and west of Sutherland to live in their own homes while receiving compulsory education.
    Mr. Ross: I am anxious that children in thinly populated areas should have as good educational opportunities as children elsewhere, and we are considering with the education authorities concerned how this can best be achieved. Difficulties of communication, however, make it impracticable for all pupils to attend school within daily travelling distance of their homes for the whole of their school career.
    Mr. Mackie: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are other serious problems connected with the problem of
    476
    schooling in that in the west of Sutherland we cannot get the fishermen who fish from Lochinver and Kinlochbervie to live in the area because their children have to go away at the age of 11 to schools on the east coast? If the fishermen are to remain there, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he must provide money to the county council to keep these schools open even if they normally would not be considered to have sufficient population to qualify for a grant?
    Mr. Ross: This is a difficult problem in the remote areas, and here we have the bitter realities of the effects of depopulation, with the younger families going away and the school population falling to the point where one cannot give the children the proper breadth of courses and provide them with the kind of teachers required because of the size of the secondary school population. We are seized of the desire of parents that their children should be able to take up secondary courses and we must see that the children are given the best opportunities for career education in the same way as children in more populous areas.
    Mr. Noble: While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a difficult problem, may I express the hope that he will look at it as part of the problem of depopulation? If no schools are provided in these areas it is comparatively irrelevant what sort of education is provided for them elsewhere, because after that education they will not be there to help those areas.
    Mr. Ross: This is why we have been giving considerable attention to the problem of depopulation in these areas. I hope that the Highland Development Authority set up by the Bill which we passed so recently will give considerable help and certain power to someone to do something about it in the area. The right hon. Gentleman knows the problem because he closed down some of these schools.

    Teachers (Recruitment)
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the 6,300 inquiries regarding the teacher training scheme received by his Department in the month of May have been followed by firm applications;

    477
    how many of these have been accepted for training; and whether he will give comparable figures for inquiries received in June.
    Mr. Ross: Since the Special Recruitment Scheme campaign was launched on 12th April, 10,392 inquiries have been received, including 5,421 in May and 3,313 in June. In the same period the Colleges of Education have received 726 applications, of which 171 have been accepted so far, 118 have been provisionally accepted pending the outcome of examinations, 151 have been deferred for further consideration until the applicants acquire certain preliminary educational qualifications and 20 have been withdrawn or rejected. The remainder have yet to be interviewed.
    It would not be possible, without undue labour, to relate these figures to initial inquiries received in particular months.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with these percentages? It would seem that they are rather disappointing. Does he think that further steps should be taken later?
    Mr. Ross: This campaign is a very much bigger one than has been mounted hitherto. The number of inquiries made and the follow-up and the number of applications received have been very heartening. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are far from dissatisfied with the position. We hope that even more inquiries will be forthcoming and that these will result in a further supply of teachers. It is very heartening to have had 10,392, bearing in mind that campaigns prior to this one had already taken people out of this field who might have been potential teachers. We hope to have a record number of teachers recruited under this scheme.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Can the right hon. Gentleman break down the figures to indicate the kind of applicants, whether women or men, and of what qualifications?
    Mr. Ross: They are of all kinds, but we are going to have a greater degree of follow-up to see what happens to applicants prevented from following through to a course and find out whether
    478
    or not with some help and advice they can fit themselves with qualifications and be able to take advantage of this recruitment scheme. I hope that the statistics will be available later.

    Farm Business Recording Scheme
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to introduce the farm business recording scheme; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ross: I hope to introduce this scheme on a pilot scale in Scotland in the autumn of this year. I propose to select for this purpose two or three counties within the area of each of the three Colleges of Agriculture. The details are still being worked out in consultation with the appropriate representative organisations. A further announcement will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Brewis: I am grateful for that reply. Will there be any restriction of acreage? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether farmers who have already been keeping business records with the various colleges will be able to obtain the benefits of this scheme?
    Mr. Ross: We must appreciate at the start that this is a pilot scheme and the requirements for the scheme are still to be fully worked out. Those farmers who are keeping records and come within the scheme should be eligible for grant. I hope soon not only to give further details but also to indicate in what areas in relation to the three colleges the pilot scheme will be operated.
    Mr. William Hamilton: When the scheme is fully operative, can we assess how much subsidy each farmer is receiving and whether he deserves it according to some kind of means test which the party opposite seems to favour in other fields?
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend should be very much in support of the scheme.
    Mr. Hamilton: I am.
    Mr. Ross: He should support it because the more we get a sense of business into agriculture the more we shall be able to reduce the cost of agriculture, which will be to the benefit of everyone concerned.

    Highland Development (Arterial Drainage)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the current proposals for Highland development will involve increased arterial drainage as a basic requirement for resettling people in the area; and what private contractors are available in the Highland area for this work as direct labour is being abandoned.
    Mr. Ross: I do not know what proposals my hon. Friend has in mind, but in any case there are a number of contracting firms which undertake or could undertake arterial drainage work in the Highland area. If, in the event, it turned out that approved work could not be done for lack of contractors, I should be ready to consider making special arrangements.
    Mr. Rankin: The important part of my Question refers to the fact that direct labour is being abandoned. Does my right hon. Friend recall that this provision was made in the Tory Land Drainage Act of 1958, which was condemned by the Opposition at that time by bell, book and candle and described as a mouse? I am certain that no one delivered more vigorous speeches against it than my right hon. Friend himself. Will he assure us that that provision is not to be put into effect and that our direct labour department will continue?
    Mr. Ross: We are dealing here with a special department of which considerable use was made during the war and thereafter, but it was, in fact, a very small department, very little call has been made upon it, and it has really become quite uneconomic. But I give my hon. Friend the assurance that, where work requires to be done, which is the important matter, we are determined to ensure that there will be facilities available, either private or public, to enable the work to be done.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that direct labour departments are usually very inefficient, and will he assure the House that in no circumstances will the Highland Development
    480
    Board have a direct labour department of its own?
    Mr. Ross: I could not agree with anything the hon. Gentleman has said on this question. Prejudice is a very poor guide in deciding on the desirability or otherwise of using direct labour departments in this field or in any other. This department was set up because we did not have private contractors. It worked well when there was work to be done. If, in the future, we do not find private contractors able to do the work which is required for the Highland Development Board, I hope that the Highland Development Board will have the power to ensure that it can do the work.

    North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Wayleave Payments)
    Mr. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board last increased its wayleave payments: what information he has as to how such payments, expressed in percentages, for the various categories, compare with payments made by electricity boards in England and Wales; and what are the total disbursements by the Board in this respect.
    Mr. Ross: The Board last increased its standard wayleave payments in 1959. These cannot be adequately compared in percentage terms with payments in England and Wales, but I shall, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the scales. In the year ended 31st March, 1965, the Board's payments in respect of wayleaves for transmission lines amounted to £4,500 and for distribution lines to £34,000.
    Mr. Baker: In view of the increased costs which farmers have to bear with the 6 per cent. rise in electricity charges in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's area, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the North of Scotland Board should raise its wayleave payments in comparison with those of the South of Scotland Board?
    Mr. Ross: This is a matter for the commercial judgment of the Board itself and for negotiation between the Board and the interests concerned with wayleaves.
    Following is the Table:

    ELECTRICITY WAYLEAVES—STANDARD RENT AND COMPENSATION PAYMENTS

    North of Scotland (From 15th May, 1959)

    England and Wales (Former Rates)

    England and Wales (New Rates)

    Non-Arable

    Arable

    Non-Arable

    Cultivated Grassland

    Arable

    Non-Arable

    Cultivated Grassland

    Arable

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    Poles

    Single

    1

    6

    6

    0

    1

    0

    3

    6

    6

    0

    2

    0

    7

    0

    12

    0

    Double

    2

    0

    9

    0

    1

    6

    5

    3

    9

    0

    3

    0

    10

    6

    18

    0

    Stay

    1

    0

    4

    6

    1

    0

    3

    6

    6

    0

    2

    0

    7

    0

    12

    0

    Towers

    Under 10′ sq.

    5

    0

    17

    6

    4

    0

    8

    0

    22

    0

    5

    0

    11

    0

    32

    0

    10′ sq. to 12½′ sq.

    4

    0

    8

    0

    26

    0

    5

    0

    11

    0

    38

    0

    12½′ sq. to 15′ sq.

    5

    0

    20

    0

    4

    0

    8

    0

    30

    0

    5

    0

    11

    0

    44

    0

    15′ sq. to 17½′ sq.

    5

    0

    25

    0

    7

    6

    15

    6

    37

    6

    9

    6

    21

    6

    54

    6

    17½′ sq. to 20′ sq.

    7

    6

    15

    6

    42

    6

    9

    6

    21

    6

    61

    6

    20′ sq. to 25′ sq.

    5

    0

    30

    0

    7

    6

    15

    6

    47

    6

    9

    6

    21

    6

    69

    6

    25′ sq. to 30′ sq.

    5

    0

    40

    0

    10

    0

    22

    0

    60

    0

    12

    6

    30

    6

    87

    6

    30′ sq. to 35′ sq.

    10

    0

    22

    0

    75

    0

    12

    6

    30

    6

    109

    6

    35′ sq. to 40′ sq.

    5

    0

    45

    0

    15

    0

    27

    0

    100

    0

    19

    0

    37

    0

    146

    0

    40′ sq. to 45′ sq.

    15

    0

    31

    0

    125

    0

    19

    0

    40

    0

    166

    0

    45′ sq. to 50′ sq.

    20

    0

    36

    0

    160

    0

    25

    0

    46

    0

    212

    0

    50′ sq. to 55′ sq.

    20

    0

    40

    0

    195

    0

    25

    0

    52

    0

    258

    0

    55′ sq. and over

    —

    —

    20

    0

    40

    0

    235

    0

    25

    0

    52

    0

    312

    0

    Probation Officers (Morison Committee's Recommendation)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in his discussions with the local authorities on the implementation of the Morison Committee recommendation that a single negotiating body for Great Britain should be set up to deal with salaries and conditions of service of probation officers; and, in view of the delay in settling this matter, whether he will give an undertaking that an early decision will be taken by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Ross: The consultations on the constitution of the employers' side of the proposed Great Britain body, referred to in the reply given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), by the Minister of State, Home Office, on 1st July, are in progress.
    Mr. Hamilton: We are all gratified, and the probation officers particularly are gratified, with the decision which has been reached, but can my right hon. Friend give an idea of the date when it will be fully implemented?
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will appreciate that much of the delay between publication of the Morison Report in
    482
    1962 and getting the bodies together was due (a) to pay negotiations and (b) to negotiations between the local authorities. As soon as we received the last letter, dated 17th June, from the local authority associations in Scotland, we called them together for a meeting by a letter dated 18th June. They began on 6th July and, as far as I know, they are making good progress, so I do not think that there will be any great delay in coming to the desirable conclusion.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recall the correspondence which I had with him on this subject? A solution to the problem has been delayed for far too long and should be expedited in the interests of probation officers.
    Mr. Ross: I never forget any correspondence with my hon. and learned Friend because, being a persistent and very persuasive questioner, he would not allow me to. I agree that there has been delay, but I appeal to my hon. Friends who know something about the subject to remember that we are dealing here with a change to a United Kingdom body, there having been two bodies hitherto, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland. We are now getting the parties together to reach agreement, and it will have been worth a little delay if we reach the desirable conclusion.

    Border Development
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give an undertaking to publish the report on Border development not later than when he announces his own plans for the future of the Borders.
    Mr. Ross: An account of the economic situation in the Borders, based on the study by the Scottish Economic Planning Board, will form part of the Government's published plans for the area.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to give us the date for publication of those plans, as he failed to give us a date yesterday when we very much wanted to hear one?
    Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will be disappointed again today, but I am quite sure that he will not be surprised. In drawing up long-term plans for Scotland, it would be very foolish to try to work against time and be governed by particular dates. The general indication I gave to him of later in the year—the autumn—is quite adequate and, I am sure, meets the hopes of the people of Scotland who want to see, at long last, some realistic proposals covering the whole of Scotland.

    Fish (Rail Transport)
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking, following his meeting with a deputation of Scottish Members, to help the fishing industry, in view of the increase in freight charges and reduction in facilities of rail transport.
    Mr. Ross: As a result of the meeting of Scottish Members with the Minister of State and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, the views then expressed were drawn to the attention of the Railways Board. I now understand that the Board has deferred changes in transport arrangements, though not in charges, for three months to enable the industry to review its transport and marketing arrangements. I understand that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has now written to the Members of the deputation.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that one of the undertakings given was that inspectors from the Scottish Department of Agriculture would help fishermen to overcome their problems? Does he know that, although the meeting took place six weeks ago, up to 11 o'clock this morning no inspectors have visited the port of Gourdon? Is he really concerned about the problems of these fishermen, particularly in the smaller places where there is great difficulty in co-ordinating facilities?
    Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department is very much concerned and has been able over the years to give considerable help to fishermen in these problems. But it is a difficult point, and the hon. Gentleman himself knows some of the reasons. There is the question of, in many cases, putting certain bulk loads on to road transport and leaving the railways with very much smaller loads to other areas. It is not an easy one to settle, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as far as possible, my Department of Agriculture will help. I do not know the reason why no one has been to the particular port the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I shall make inquiries, but I have no doubt that I shall find that my officers were in some other port with equally pressing problems.
    Mr. Noble: I agree with the Secretary of State that he does not have responsibility for charges, but as these affect the small ports, mostly with inshore fishermen, is it not rather an odd moment, when these charges have gone up so greatly, to decrease the subsidy to inshore fishing?
    Mr. Ross: That aspect of the subsidy to inshore fishing is not covered by the Question. The right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to debate in in the Scottish Grand Committee tomorrow.

    Rates
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase he anticipates will take place in local rates in Scotland in 1965–66; and when he will announce his plans on the reform of local government finance.
    Mr. Ross: So far as I am aware, only 29 local authorities have announced their rate poundages for 1965–66, and they

    485
    show an average increase of about 7 per cent. over last year. This is too small a sample to justify any general conclusions. The Government's plans for the reform of local government finance will be announced as soon as possible.
    Mr. Taylor: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the estimate in the last Scottish Question Time of an increase of about 4 per cent. has proved to be nonsense? Has he seen today's Press report that the Roxburgh County rate has gone up by 15 per cent. and the Huntly burgh rate by 18 per cent.? As the Government are themselves largely responsible for these scandalous increases, is it not time that they provided early relief?
    Mr. Ross: I hope that one day when the hon. Gentleman begins a supplementary question with the words, "Does the right hon. Gentleman agree …?" I shall be able to agree. I certainly do not agree with him on this issue. He should not jump to conclusions. There are 233 local authorities. Why did he not also tell us that the Fife rate poundage—and Fife is one of the largest authorities—has gone up by only 1½ per cent.?
    It is wrong to jump to conclusions. We all know that there is a rising trend and the Government have taken account of the increases in assessing the general grant. This year, we have put in an extra £1 million. This was promised by the last Government in 1963 but we produced it. We have also increased the general grant by £1·2 million for next year. This is quite outwith the formula for the general grant. Local authorities are better satisfied by the way in which they have been treated financially by this Government than by the last Government.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will my right hon. Friend discourage this continual depreciation of the value of the rate? Will he take steps to ask the Scottish Films Council, for instance, to produce a film showing people what they get for their rates and the tremendous value of local authority services? While it may be possible for the Government to relieve local authorities, is it not right that the public should be informed that the rates constitute one of the cheapest ways of getting services such as education, sanitation and
    486
    the rest? It is quite scandalous to talk about the rates as being a burden.
    Mr. Ross: Generally speaking, there may be some truth in what my right hon. Friend says. If people ask the local authorities to do more and more, then it costs more and more. Hon. Members are the first to ask for increased salaries for certain people in local authorities, such as the teachers, but it cannot be done without increasing the rates. They should follow through the obligations that their proposals entail. At the same time, however, there are hardships in respect of local rates and it may be that this is due to a defect within the system. These things are being examined and it is right that we should know about the situation.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We only reached Question No. 18 by 10 minutes past 3. I must invoke the aid of hon. Members on both sides to get on.
    Mr. Taylor: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Schools (Religious Instruction)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the present legislation relating to the giving of religious instruction in Scottish schools; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ross: The present legislation embodies the long-standing principle that religious instruction should be provided in accordance with local wishes for pupils whose parents do not object and that there should be no control or direction by the Secretary of State. A wide measure of agreement among the educational and religious bodies concerned and the general public would be necessary before any amendment could be considered.
    Mr. Taylor: While I appreciate that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that the nature of the law in Scotland is such that the inspectorate cannot either examine

    487
    or inspect the teaching of this subject in any way and that, in consequence, there is great variety of practice? Is it not time to look again at this, since the circumstances which caused the law in its present form have changed considerably and the Church of Scotland and other Churches are quite worried about the variations in practice?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the nature of the law in Scotland is related to a long history of education and the Church. We would be most unwise and foolish if we rushed to change it without bearing in mind the feelings of the general public. The hon. Gentleman should not make generalisations about the state of religious education in Scottish schools.
    Mr. Buchan: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the prejudice of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) in relation to rates is only equalled—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must not be used for that sort of purpose. It is out of order.

    Scottish Tourist Board
    Mr. George Y. Mackieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will decide on the Scottish Tourist Board's request for a special grant; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ross: I have been having discussions with the Chairman and other representatives of the Board on financial and other matters and am meeting them again later today. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly about the outcome of these discussions.
    Mr. Mackie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a satisfactory outcome will be welcomed? Is he further aware that it is very necessary, when there is every appearance that this has been a bad spring and early summer for the tourist trade, that the Board should have the extra ammunition to attract tourists to the Highlands?
    Mr. Ross: I sincerely hope that the outcome will be satisfactory.

    Ross and Cromarty (Traffic Signs)
    Mr. Alasdair Mackenzieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in view of the unsatisfactory delay in replying to representations made by Ross and Cromarty County Council regarding the Worboys Committee's Report on Traffic Signs, if he will ensure that the Scottish Development Department replies to the Council's letter of 24th March last without further delay.
    Mr. Ross: I regret the delay which was explained in the reply sent to the county council on 2nd July, a copy of which was sent to the hon. Member, and which makes clear that since a major principle was involved more time was needed to assess its effects.
    Mr. Mackenzie: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and for sending me a copy of the reply sent to the county council, may I ask him to ensure that an early decision is taken? Will he also bear in mind how important it is that Dingwall, capital of the county, a busy market centre and the gateway to areas of rapidly expanding tourism, should be enabled to have these primary route signs?
    Mr. Ross: I am seized of the importance of Dingwall as the capital of Ross and Cromarty. I assure the hon. Gentleman sincerely that I think my Department slipped up in this. It should have made an earlier reply to the county council. I apologise for the delay and I hope that we shall be able to come to a fairly early conclusion.

    Fish (Minimum Pricing Scheme)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he now has for the introduction of a minimum pricing scheme for the Scottish white fishing industry.
    Mr. Ross: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to the hon. Member on 19th May.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: We were led to understand from the White Fish Authority that this scheme was ready. Can

    489
    the right hon. Gentleman explain what is holding this up? Is it the Treasury or the Department of Economic Affairs?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that this is not quite so easy as his supplementary question would have us believe. This all started not a few months ago but as long ago as 1957. We have not been able to solve the problem since we received the White Fish Authority's proposals at the turn of the year, so the hon. Gentleman should not be too hard on us. This is complicated. It affects not only the fishing industry but every consumer in the country because of the price of fish and the effect on the Treasury. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are right to take our time in examining the scheme.
    Mr. Stodart: While it is understandable that the right hon. Gentleman should wish to rest on the laurels of the achievement of the last Administration, is not he aware, from the Report of the White Fish Authority, that discussions between the Authority and the trade were authorised last July, and that excellent progress had been made by the end of the year? Who has been holding up the conclusion of something on which the Authority, the trade and the producers seem to be set?
    Mr. Ross: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to me or whether he looked at the files on this while he was still at the Scottish Office during the previous Administration of which he is so proud. Had he done either, he would have realised that, between 1957 and 1964, the last Government were not able to do anything about this at all.

    School Building Programme (Bearsden and Clydebank)
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to expand the school building programme in Bearsden and Clydebank.
    Mr. Ross: Dunbartonshire Education Authority's share of the capital investment available for school building is large enough to allow it to make good progress in these areas; four schools are under construction and four more are being planned.
    Mr. Bence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of savage cuts in 1962 and 1963 by the Department in Edinburgh, the situation in Bearsden and Clydebank is that we are not keeping pace with the number of children reaching school age? Will he speed up the programme in order to overcome the serious frustrations of the last 10 years?
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend would like more to be done, and so would I. But we have to take due account of the available resources. I am satisfied that Dunbartonshire is getting its fair share of the resources available.

    New Primary School, Kirkintilloch
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to speed up the provision of the proposed primary school at Oxgangs, Kirkintilloch.
    Mr. Ross: Dunbartonshire Education Authority propose to start this school in April, 1966. Any question of starting earlier would be for the authority to consider.
    Mr. Bence: I am very disappointed with my right hon. Friend's reply. This school has been under consideration for a very long time. As Kirkintilloch has an overspill agreement with Glasgow, the number of children coming forward for primary education has made it impossible to accommodate them unless extra primary accommodation is provided in Kirkintilloch at an early date.
    Mr. Ross: I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the last to invite me to exercise tyrannical powers over the county council. Responsibility for deciding priority in schools selected for starting rests and must rest with the county council, as my hon. Friend will agree. I have no desire to interfere with that.

    National Museum of Antiquities
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that a large part of the Scottish National Museum's collections of art and treasures under the care of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Edinburgh are stored away and not accessible to the public or to scolars wishing to work on them, and that there are available for

    491
    the public exhibition of those collections space and facilities in Aberdeen; and if he will, in the public interest, transfer to Aberdeen those treasures which are now in storage.
    Mr. Ross: The disposition of articles held by the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland is a matter for the trustees whose policy, I am informed, is to keep on permanent exhibition a high proportion of their collection, including all objects which are of outstanding historical or aesthetic importance. Scholars who wish to work on items in the collections are given all necessary facilities.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Surely the Secretary of State cannot divest himself of responsibility in this matter. Is it not a national disgrace that treasures of this kind should be hidden away from scholars and others, who could study them and write about them, when in Aberdeen there are ample space and facilities for storing and exhibiting them to scholars who want to study them and write about them? Will my right hon. Friend review the policy to see that they are made available to scholars?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: In Aberdeen!
    Mr. Hector Hughes: In Aberdeen.
    Mr. Ross: I assure my hon. and learned Friend that I know of his prejudices about the accessibility of Aberdeen as against Edinburgh, but the Scottish National Museum of Antiquities in Edinburgh is readily accessible to all scholars who wish to avail themselves of the opportunity to study there. We are quite willing to make available in Aberdeen or elsewhere for temporary exhibition the treasures which my hon. and learned Friend has mentioned.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Does the Secretary of State realise that a very important question is involved and is causing a great deal of public concern throughout Scotland? Is he doing anything to reconsider the policy that the central museums in Edinburgh should have the right to store these articles and themselves to say that they are most accessible to students and scholars? Would he not agree that the St. Ninian's treasures, for example, should be permanently housed in Aberdeen where they were found—at least, by whose professors
    492
    they were found—until a suitable museum is established in Shetland? Does he not realise that, both for local history and for tourism, the policy ought to be changed?
    Mr. Ross: It is amazing how changing sides in the House changes views. The hon. Lady knows quite well that St. Ninian's treasure was not found in Aberdeen. It was found by Aberdeen archaeologists working in Shetland. But it is a national treasure. As she knows, this issue was taken to law and a legal decision about it was made. What she really wants us to do is to upset the longstanding law of treasure trove. What we have to appreciate is that if we are to have national museums, Scottish or British, they will have to contain treasures and exhibits of considerable national importance and that may well deprive local people of what they would like to have in their areas. We have said that we are ready to make these treasures available in Aberdeen and Shetland on temporary exhibition at specific times.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: I hereby give notice that I shall raise this important matter on the Adjournment when an opportunity arises.

    Scottish Law Commission
    Mr. Wylieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements have been made for the sittings of the Scottish Law Commission; how much time it is intended that the Commissioners will devote to the work of the Commission; and what salaries and remuneration are to be paid.
    Mr. Ross: The arrangements for sittings are a matter for the Commission itself, which met for the first time on 30th June; the Chairman's appointment is on a full-time basis and the other members are to devote on average about two days per week to the Commission's work; the Chairman retains his remuneration as a Court of Session Judge and the other members are being remunerated at the rate of £2,000 per annum.
    Mr. Wylie: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he and the Lord Advocate satisfied that two days a week will be adequate for this small body to cope with the volume of

    493
    law reform which we all understood we were to have? There may be some disappointment in the profession that the work of the Commission is to be confined to such a relatively short time.
    Mr. Ross: On available information, the Commission as at present organised should be adequate to its task. However, I am sure that if experience were to show otherwise, other arrangements would be made by the Commission.
    Mr. David Steel: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what correlation there will be between the work of this Commission and that of the Commission established in England by the Lord Chancellor?
    Mr. Ross: Arrangements have been made for correlation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this matter was dealt with in the discussions of the Bill.

    Law Reform Committee
    Mr. Wylieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is intended to retain the Lord Advocate's Law Reform Committee; and what remits have been made to this Committee since October, 1964.
    Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend, the Lord Advocate, attaches great value to the services which have been given by the members of the Scottish Law Reform Committee, and he is at present considering, in consultation with the Scottish Law Commission, the possibility of enabling the Committee, probably with somewhat different terms of reference, to make a continuing contribution to the work of law reform. No remits have been made to the Committee since May, 1962.
    Mr. Wylie: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is most unfortunate that the opportunity to use the services of this Committee, which was reconstituted under the last Administration, has not been taken over the last eight or nine months?
    Mr. Ross: I do not know why the hon. and learned Gentleman sticks at eight or nine months. The last remit was in 1962. Let him be fair about this and be as we know him—much more
    494
    objective as a good lawyer rather than playing the party politician.
    Mr. Wylie: The right hon. Gentleman overlooked my observation that the Committee was recently reconstituted. It was reconstituted only last summer. Would he not agree that now is the time to take full advantage of its services?
    Mr. Ross: We will take full advantage of the Committee. We ought to take full advantage of any arrangements that can be made for its further use in co-operation with the Law Commission. In all senses it will probably turn out for the better for Scottish law.

    Farms (Grain Drying Plant and Storage Bins)
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications under the Farm Improvement Scheme have been received by his Department since 1st November, 1964, for the construction of grain drying plant and storage bins; what proportion of these have now been completed; and what representations he has received about the difficulty of completing the remainder in time for the 1965 harvest on account of the shortage of cement.
    Mr. Ross: I regret that the information asked for in the first two parts of the Question cannot be given without going through some 2,000 applications for farm improvement grants on buildings of all kinds as no separate statistics are kept about grain stores. As regards the last part, I have received representations from the National Farmers' Union about a shortage in one area and I am in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works concerning this.
    Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the bad weather which we have been suffering in Scotland, and as much of the barley is already flat, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there will be a great need for every drying facility at the end of this harvest? Would it not therefore be right for him to urge his right hon. Friend to give priority to cement to finish grain drying plant?
    Mr. Ross: I have already been in touch with my right hon. Friend about this

    495
    to ensure that, where there is an indication of shortage, action will be taken.
    Mr. David Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am grateful to him for the action which he and his right hon. Friend took on the Borders N.F.U.'s application in this respect?

    Seed Potatoes
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage seed potato growers to provide a satisfactory product for the English and overseas markets.
    Mr. Ross: My Department, in collaboration with representatives of the seed potato growers and merchants, is working on a programme designed to tighten up and improve the standards of the Scottish Seed Potato Certification Scheme. Arrangements for stepping up check inspections of seed potatoes on farms under the Seed Potato Inspection Order are under consideration, and a review of inspection standards for export purposes is to be undertaken.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider running a pilot scheme financed by growers to extend the checking of potatoes to those which are not stock seed? Would he further consider extending the publicity about research into damage to potatoes so that farmers are made more aware of how they can help in this matter?
    Mr. Ross: I dealt with research when we discussed the matter in the Scottish Grand Committee. What the hon. Gentleman suggests is being done. I think that we should wait to see how the present arrangements improve the position before we go further into the kind of pilot scheme which, I know, the hon. Gentleman would like to see.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Bowden.]

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES (REGULATION)
3.31 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate fee-charging employment agencies.
I think that I should begin by declaring my interest in the subject of my proposed Bill, which seeks to regulate fee-charging employment agencies, as they are called. For many years I was the assistant general secretary of the British Actors' Equity Association and I also have served upon the Public Control Committee of the London County Council, which has among its other duties that of licensing fee-charging agents. I am at present the honorary joint secretary of a body called the Theatres Advisory Council, which is representative of a broad range of interests concerned with entertainment.
My concern in this matter is mainly with theatrical agents, but in dealing with this question I have come into contact with the matter generally, and I find that many of the things which need to be dealt with in the theatrical sphere also need to be dealt with elsewhere. In 1949, the International Labour Organisation issued its Convention No. 96, which provides for the abolition or for the regulation of what are called in it fee-charging employment agencies. Twenty-eight countries have ratified this Convention, most of them, including France and Western Germany, have ratified under Part II of the Convention, providing for abolition. Five countries, including Israel, Japan and Turkey, have ratified the Convention under Part III, which provides for regulation.
In July, 1951, the then Labour Government announced that they proposed to introduce the necessary legislation to ratify the convention. That Government fell later in 1951 and it was not until 1957 that the Conservative Government of the time issued their proposals for ratification. Here again, the Conservative Government's proposals were for ratification under Part III of the Convention, providing not for abolition but for regulation. There was, therefore, the position that both sides of the House had agreed this was a necessary piece of legislation and had decided almost precisely the form which it should take.

497
These proposals of the previous Administration were discussed with the Trades Union Congress and other interested bodies and in 1958 the Home Office said that negotiations were complete. But nothing happened. In 1960, the Home Secretary of the time said that he did not know when legislation would be introduced. He was right about this and a year later he said that pressure of parliamentary business was such that there was not room for this legislation and so it has been ever since.
The fee-charging agencies have grown and flourished and some of them are very strange weeds indeed, particularly in the world of entertainment. The 1951 Labour Government's proposals were published in Cmnd. 8286 and I would like to quote a sentence from that document. It says:
"… that it would be in the public interest to provide for such a measure of supervision and control over the activities of fee-charging employment agencies as would enable them"—
that is, the Government—
"to ratify the Convention on the alternative basis described in the preceding paragraph."
This was on the basis of regulation. It says, later:
"They propose, therefore, to introduce the necessary legislation in due course."
From time to time representations have been made, but there has never been time. When the question was put once again to the present Government, quite recently, the answer was still the same—not now, some other time, later. It is 14 years since the previous Labour Government announced their intentions to introduce legislation. It is eight years since the Conservative Government issued their proposals for legislation. I have them here and will quote one or two points.
The Conservative Administration in 1957 said that legislation would be introduced to ratify the I.L.O. Convention, as many other countries had done, but that the control would be effected through the larger local authorities. It would provide that everyone wishing to operate an employment agency should have a licence from the licensing authority, and should not charge any fee in excess of a scale submitted to and approved by that authority. There were a number of other proposals. The legislation was not actually drafted, but the broad outlines were agreed.
498
There were one or two other important provisions under discussion, such as one to prohibit an agent charging commission on the salary of his own employee. This is not so unknown as might be thought. Another proposal was one to prevent an agent acting for an employer and getting his remuneration by virtue of commission charged upon the salary of an employee. This, astonishingly, is quite frequent.
But the broad outlines were agreed and there the matter rested. I seek the permission of the House to introduce this legislation, which has been approved in principle on all sides, and which will be welcomed by the best agents as much as by almost everyone else, both employers and employees, who have experience in the matter.
During the years in which legislation has been awaited, abuses have flourished. The powers of the local authorities are at present virtually non-existent, and in the world of entertainment the practice of employers paying wages through agents instead of direct to artistes has grown up. The B.B.C. is particularly fond of this. There have been cases of agents absconding with the money. There are agents who charge huge percentages to beginners and this is quite legal at present. There are agents engaged by the B.B.C. to cast productions on the condition that they receive their remuneration, not from the Corporation, but from the artistes whom they engage.
This is particularly prevalent in the case of minor rôles, and it often results in the fee being reduced below the minimum. The artiste receives 90 per cent. of his fee, often after quite a long delay, and the agent takes 10 per cent., thereby saving the B.B.C. cost in its casting department.
There are agents who acquire the rights to engage companies on behalf of theatres abroad. For example, an agent recently engaged the Sadler's Wells Opera Company to perform in Australia. He made it a condition of the engagement that the artistes agreed to the Australian management deducting 10 per cent. of the salary of each artiste and paying it to the English agent. He thus drew 10 per cent. of all the salaries of the entire cast each week throughout the Australian engagement. Astonishing as it may seem, all these practices are entirely legal at present, and I believe that it would be widely

499
agreed, on both sides of the House, that they should be made illegal.
This is the purpose of the legislation which I hope the House will grant me leave to introduce. It was to stop such practices that the I.L.O. drafted the Convention. I therefore beg leave to introduce the necessary legislation to bring about the removal of these abuses and the long overdue ratification of this I.L.O. Convention.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. Bernard Floud, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mrs. Anne Kerr, and Mr. David Ensor.

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES (REGULATION)
Bill to regulate fee-charging employment agencies, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd July, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [21ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1965–66

    CLASS IV. VOTE 18. MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £8,761,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Technology, including certain subscriptions to international organisations. [£4,100,000 has been voted on account.]

  TECHNOLOGY
  3.41 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Marples: The Opposition have chosen the Vote of the Ministry of Technology as the subject of this debate. This gives the right hon. Gentleman the Minister his first, and, if I may say so, golden opportunity to render an account of his stewardship and of what he has accomplished during his period of office and what he proposes to do in future. The right hon. Gentleman has been nine months in a new job, which is rather unlike any position he has held before. We in the Opposition have been extremely reasonable and have given him every opportunity to settle down, which is more than the Labour Party ever gave me. When I became Minister of Transport, hon. Members opposite slapped a Motion of censure on me within five weeks of my taking office. We have given the right hon. Gentleman nine months, and I think that it is only reasonable that we should have done so.
  This debate also gives us a chance to review the position as a whole. I should like to start with the policies outlined, and the hopes raised, by the Labour Party's prospectus "Signposts For The Sixties" and speeches before the election. In "Let's Go With Labour", it pledged:
  "A New Britain—mobilising the resources of technology under a national plan …. If we

  501
  are to get a dynamic and expanding economy it is essential that new and effective ways are found of injecting modern technology into our industries".
  The phrase used by the Prime Minister was very startling. He intended to harness Socialism to science and science to Socialism.
  There is no doubt that those speeches, and especially the Prime Minister's speech at Scarborough, had a great effect on the nation. The speech at Scarborough was an extremely fine example of the way in which words could be thrown together. This afternoon we are examining not only the words, but the deeds. [Interruption.]
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) knows that the correct way of interrupting is not the way that he is adopting at the moment.
  Mr. Marples: I thought that the Prime Minister's speeches were excellent. However, as I said when we had the first debate on technology under this Government, I judge the Minister of Technology by his deeds and not by his words.
  What has the Minister done? He has had two phases in his Ministry. The first was to collect together many of the existing institutions which have been in existence for a long time, such as the Atomic Energy Authority, the N.R.D.C. and most of the D.S.I.R., including the Building Research Station. But these are not new institutions. They have been established for some time. They are going concerns and they have a record of work in progress. I therefore hope that we shall not have this afternoon from the right hon. Gentleman a catalogue of what these institutions, started a long time ago, are now doing.
  I say that because I have had some experience of receiving briefs from Government Departments. No doubt they are put before the Minister. I am sure that he would reject the idea of giving a catalogue of what has been done in the past and would concentrate on the present and the future. We should like to know what innovations he has made and what he proposes to start. That is the first part of what his Ministry has done with several Acts of Parliament.
  In the second part the right hon. Gentleman has sponsored four science-based industries. This was announced
  502
  by the Prime Minister on 26th November. The four industries are telecommunications, electronics, machine tools and computers. I should like to examine what the right hon. Gentleman has done, as distinct from the words which have been spoken, about those four industries.
  In telecommunications nothing has happened at all. On 23rd June, the Minister said that various studies were being made, but that these were part of a continuing review. On 5th July, he added to that illuminating Answer by saying that he had nothing to add. The Post Office is by far the biggest customer of telecommunications in this country. If it knew what to do, and if the right hon. Gentleman knew what to do, they could move into action at once by using the purchasing power of the Post Office. I do not know whether the Minister has been able to persuade the Postmaster-General to adopt his way of thinking. So far, in nine months, not a single thing has happened. As I have said before, the private enterprise in Whitehall between one Government Department and another is possibly the fiercest and most savage battle ever fought, because a Government Department is always reluctant to give up any of its sovereign power, and this makes it very difficult indeed for the right hon. Gentleman.
  I turn to electronics. On 23rd June, the Answer was that there were various studies being made and that these were continuing. On 5th July we had another illuminating addition to that Answer, to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to add. In two out of the four sponsored industries which the right hon. Gentleman has taken over, precisely nothing has been done in nine months. We are complaining about the Southern Railway going slow, but, so far, action on 50 per cent. of the right hon. Gentleman's sponsored industries has not even started. This is difficult to square with the Labour Party's election manifesto, in which it talks about being "poised for instant action".
  I come to the third sponsored industry, machine tools. By a stroke of luck for the harassed Minister, a "little Neddy", which had nothing whatsoever to do with his Department, produced a report on the machine tool industry. The right hon. Gentleman announced in the House that he was taking certain measures which

  503
  were based on that report. He started that announcement by saying that his Department was engaged on a full study. Of course, his Department is engaged on a full study. It ought always to be studying the problems which it is in existence to deal with, and I do not see why that should be said. Again, he went on with the phrase about the study continuing. He said this in column 183 of HANSARD for 1st June, column 42 of HANSARD for 15th June and column 230 of HANSARD for 23rd June.
  What I object to is this. This business of saying that his Department is studying the matter, and that the study is continuing, enables the Minister never to come to the House and give us the conclusions of that study. The Department is continuing to study, but we never get any conclusions, either final or interim.
  Therefore, of the first three industries that the right hon. Gentleman is sponsoring, in two he has done nothing and in the third he is making a full study which is continuing. This does not square with the election manifesto of the Socialists, in which they said that they were "poised for instant action". It is crystal clear that they had not the slightest idea what to do with the Department of the Minister of Technology.
  I come to one other point about the machine tool industry which is disturbing. I do not want to argue the merits of nationalisation and private enterprise—
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): We know the right hon. Gentleman's views.
  Mr. Marples: I agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who interrupts from his sedentary position on the second bench. I know his views, too. I do not want to argue whether he is right or whether I am right.
  It is the view of the hon. Members opposite, and they have said it repeatedly, that this industry, or part of it, should be nationalised. In their Labour Party programme—for example, in "Signposts For The Sixties"—they said:
  "In machine tools, for example, our aims will probably best be realised by means of
  504
  competitive public enterprise—the establishment of new, publicly owned plants, specialising in the types of machine tools which existing firms are not producing satisfactorily."
  The Trades Union Congress supported that, stating, in its 1957–58 Report:
  "Congress believes that the greater part of the machine tool industry should be brought under public ownership."
  As recently as a few months ago the Minister was asked whether he had abandoned the idea of a State-owned machine tool industry and he said, "Certainly not."
  Therefore, the threat of nationalisation hangs over the machine tool industry. Whether we approve of nationalisation or not, it is on the agenda that the industry could be nationalised at any moment the Government so decide. Hon. Members opposite do not realise—they may realise it more now than they did at the time of the election—that one of the ingredients, in fact the most important ingredient, for success is confidence and that one of the ingredients for failure is uncertainty.
  The machine tool industry is uncertain of its future. The question to which the Government should address themselves is whether they are nationalising it. The industry will have difficulty in raising capital. The Machine Tool Trades Association has said to some of my colleagues that the industry is being harmed, particularly overseas, by persistent rumours of nationalisation. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is hon. Members opposite who do it."] No. One of the questions which I should like the Minister clearly to answer is: does this threat of nationalisation hang over the machine tool industry or not? This afternoon, in the time of the Opposition, the Minister has an opportunity of letting the nation in general, and the machine tool industry in particular, know what the threat is. Is it there or it is not?
  So much for the first three sponsored industries. I now come to the fourth, computers. Unlike the other three industries, in which the Minister has, I think, been unwise, in this one he has certainly done something. My difficulty, however, is in assessing precisely the value of what his proposals add up to in terms of cash. It is difficult to find out from the information given in Written Answers, and so on, how much cash

  505
  annually the Treasury and the Minister are devoting to sponsoring the computer industry. If it was an enormous sum of money, the support would be immense. If, on the other hand, it is a small sum of money, it is small support.
  What I am anxious to get at, but have not been able to find, and what I should like this side of the Committee to be given—it would be unfair to expect the Minister to give the reply when he speaks immediately after I have finished, but perhaps his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can get the information before he winds up the debate—is the amount of the annual sum of money which is being devoted to promoting the computer industry.
  So far as far as I can see, in the part of the industry that is under the Minister's direct control he is reviewing the requirements of universities, colleges of advanced technology and research institutes and is to give £2 million a year. Under the right hon. Gentleman's control would be the National Computer Programme Centre, which, I calculate, amounts to £½ million a year. Thirdly, the old D.S.I.R. has the advanced computer techniques, which come to another £½ million.
  As to the cash that is given but is not under the Minister's direct control, under N.R.D.C. is the loan to the I.C.T.—a loan, not an outright grant—and something towards computer techniques. I may be wrong—that is why I ask for the information—but I calculate £5 million a year to be the maximum that is being contributed towards the computer industry. If I am right in this figure, it is a yardstick and a measure of how much cash will be spent per annum. It amounts to the cost of about 10 to 15 miles of motorway.
  I do not believe that that is an effort of great magnitude in our science-based industries, because it will not go very far. In addition, the Government have done something on the other side by devaluing investment allowances. Investment allowances were of great assistance to the computer industry in the past, when it had a 30 per cent. allowance on 51 per cent. of the tax that it paid. Now, it is to have a 30 per cent. allowance, but on only 35 to 45 per cent. of the
  506
  Corporation Tax which is paid. Therefore, the industry has the incentive of £5 million a year and the disincentive of losing quite a large proportion of the investment allowance.
  I should like to ask the Minister something else concerning computers. The information that is available to us on computers is in bits and pieces. It is extremely difficult to piece together what the Minister is doing. It is not organised methodically, it is not done comprehensively and sometimes it is downright contradictory. I will give an example of how contradictory it is and the difficulty of getting at the facts of what is happening.
  On 23rd February, the Minister of Technology was asked
  "what facilities exist in his Department for the study of restrictive practices on both sides of industry."
  The right hon. Gentleman's Answer was:
  "Restrictive practices in industry are primarily the concern of my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour. I am naturally concerned with the social impact of the adoption and efficient use of new techniques, plant and machinery and have set up a separate branch to deal with this aspect of the work of my Department."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 54.]
  Thus, on 23rd February, the Minister said that he had set up a separate branch to study and to find out about it.
  On 15th June, a few months later, we asked the Minister what progress was
  "being made by the branch of his Department concerned with the social impact of the adoption and efficient use of new techniques".
  The Answer, which I ask the Committee to note, was as follows:
  "This very important subject is carefully watched throughout my Department in the course of its work. It is not the responsibility of a single branch."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1965; Vol. 714, c. 48–49.]
  On 23rd February, the Minister said that he had set up a special branch, but on 15th June he said that it was not the responsibility of a single branch. The Committee will see from this the difficulty which faces the Opposition in getting reliable information from the Minister of Technology to judge what his deeds have been.
  Another Question was put on 30th March, when the Minister was asked

  507
  what computers the public sector had purchased. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "Statistics of public sector purchases are not at present collected in the detail asked for. I am examining whether, without a disproportionate expenditure of effort, it would be practicable to do so in future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 203.]
  If the Government themselves cannot collect the information about the numbers of computers which they have purchased, what hope is there for the Minister of Technology?
  I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what happens in the United States of America. They have an inventory every year of the automatic data processing equipment in the Federal Government. This inventory gives full information of every computer purchased, and, what is more important, of the price range it is in. One can see how effective it is, what is does, where it is situated. A whole heap of information is given.
  I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he and his Department look at this United States publication to see whether it can produce something on similar lines which, I am sure, would help the right hon. Gentleman in his studies, and would certainly help the nation as a whole in its studies. [Interruption.] I am only commending it to the right hon. Gentleman. He was appointed as Minister of Technology to do this very job, and I am only trying to assist him to do it by giving him advice and guidance on what he ought to do.
  I may point out, for example, that in 1954 the United States had 10 computers; in 1956, 90; in 1958, 250; in 1960, 531; in 1962, 1,030. They projected it forward to 1964–66. In 1964 they hoped to have 1,767 and in 1966, 2,150—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Wilkins: May I ask the Minister—
  The Chairman: Before the hon. Member intervenes I would point out that, if the Front Bench wants to intervene, there are no special rules of conduct for the Front Bench and that it must intervene in a proper way.
  Mr. Wilkins: I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman would
  508
  give us the date of the publication. That is relevant.
  Mr. Marples: Certainly. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for starting to put his question originally by saying, "May I ask the Minister?" The date of this publication is July, 1964.
  It therefore projects 1964 forward. The 1965 one will be out any moment.
  An Hon. Member: "But 1966?" This is the 1965 one.
  Mr. Wilkins: It goes back 10 years.
  Mr. Marples: It goes back to the first generation of computers, when they started.
  I would ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to concentrate on this. We want to be able to assess what our own country is doing as against what America is doing. I have tried to do some homework on this and I find, for example, that in agriculture here we have five computers; the United States has 56. In health, education and welfare the United States has 112 computers and we have—if I say two and a half let it not sound ridiculous—we have two with the half use of another one, so we have, in fact, two and a half.
  I believe that at the moment we spend £1,000 million a year on health, but we have not a computer of any sort there. Therefore, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he looks at this document, and if he likes I will lend him my copy to assist him.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: Would the right hon. Gentleman say who was responsible for failing to install these computers?
  Mr. Marples: The computer, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a comparatively new tool. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] All I am saying is this. Bright words were uttered at Scarborough and in the Labour Party's election manifesto. The nonsense talked about the Socialists' being poised for instant action is shown for what it was worth. They were not poised for anything. They were nowhere near ready to move, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
  Dr. Bray: The right hon. Gentleman has spendidly documented the utter

  509
  failure of the last Government either to understand the use of a computer or to do anything about it. Does he not realise that no computer could possibly be in action today unless it was ordered before the election?
  Mr. Marples: I would not accept that, either. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No. I would not accept that. For example, if local authorities were prepared to accept the programme—the software—which had already been done by another local authority, they could go into action straightaway. The hon. Gentleman agrees with me on this? The problem of getting a computer into action is not in buying the hardware but to get the software formulated. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get on."] I am not surprised that the hon. Member wants me to get a move on. The second interruption by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) can be demolished easily. [Interruption.] The Patronage Secretary should keep quiet. He is paid a large sum of money to keep quiet.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward Short): May I say for the second time this week that I have not lost my right to speak in this Chamber if I wish to do so: I represent a constituency, too, just as the right hon. Gentleman does.
  Mr. Marples: The Patronage Secretary has a right to speak, of course, but not from a sedentary position. He is paid to sit in a corner and keep quiet. If he wants to speak he should stand up. He must not try to help his hon. Friend because he is in a corner.
  The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the hardware is easy to deal with. The difficult part is getting the programme. He knows that where local authorities have the same task right throughout the country—collecting rates, looking at the vehicle traffic, budgetary control, and so on—the same programme will do for every local authority.
  Dr. Bray rose—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  The Chairman: If the right hon. Member does not give way the hon. Member must sit down.
  Mr. Marples: The Minister knows very well that a lot of individual local authorities, although the work on the software has been done by other local authorities, insist on doing it again by themselves, and using scarce scientific resources in the process. That is happening now. I think that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West will do well if he stays in his seat. If he keeps bobbing up and down like that he will be made Patronage Secretary before he knows where he is.
  Now I come to the reason why the United States has had a dynamic policy in its public sector. It has, of course, spent a great deal of money, and in the private sector it has expended enormous funds. For example, it has bought computers of an advanced type and insisted on people like Boeings using them. In the private sector, where any private firm tenders for a contract, where sub-contractors are involved, it insists on a computer programme showing the critical part of the construction methods employed. The United States did this with the Polaris submarine and does it for major constructional works.
  If that were brought into the Government's scheme here, then it would be an encouragement and a great inducement to private enterprise to do this sort of thing. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman will do all he can to make a success of his present job, but I believe this: I would like him to have the power of co-ordinating and maybe having control of the computers in all the Government Departments. I would like him to have that, and I would like him to see that the software, systems analysis, and so on, is done efficiently. Thus he could measure the benefits.
  Of course, he should run for civil servants top management courses in computers, because we are managing now, in Government Departments, for change, and not static conditions. One thing should be clear. Unless top management at Westminster—that is, the politicians—and in Whitehall—that is, the civil servants—understand the application of this new tool we shall never get it adopted thoroughly and efficiently in this country.
  I say this to the right hon. Gentleman. If, unfortunately, I were to be a Minister in the present Government, but in another Department than that of the right hon. Gentleman, I should be fully prepared to

  511
  give him that power from my Department—give it to the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of the country as a whole. One question I want to ask him is this. Has he got that power? I do not believe that he has. If I were asked to do his job with what I believe are his terms of reference—and I hope that he will explain those to us when he replies—I should have to think a lot about whether I could accept it on those terms, because I believe that if he has not that power of control he can never do the job—and maybe that is the reason why he has done nothing up to now.
  If the right hon. Gentleman has that power and that control, then he has been guilty of gross negligence. If he has not got it, I do not think that he should have accepted the job. As Sir Leon Bagrit said recently to Members of the House:
  "Perhaps he should be a Minister of Modernisation, equal in status to, say, the Minister of Defence, highly placed in the Cabinet, with power to co-ordinate the policies of other departments in order to reach the main objective."
  We want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has that power. I do not believe that he has, and I think that that is why he has achieved nothing in the past, and why he will achieve nothing in the future. If he has not got that power, we shall continue to scratch around like a lot of part-time British amateurs compared with the full-time American professionals.
  Mr. Robert Maxwell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Prime Minister were to give the Minister of Technology the kind of co-ordinating power which he has just mentioned the net effect would be that all other Government Departments would opt out of scientific and technological problems on the principle of saying, "Let the Minister of Technology deal with it"? Surely that would not be in the national interest?
  Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of government is like Sam Weller's knowledge of London, extensive and peculiar, and I shall tell him why I say that. The Board of Trade has a computer. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) asked the President of the Board of Trade how soon after the end of the month the Trade and
  512
  Navigation Accounts were published during the period January to April, 1964, and January to April, 1965. In 1964, the previous Government were in power, and no computer was available. In 1965 this Government were in power, and a computer was available. The answer was that on average it took 18½ days without a computer under the Conservatives, and 21 working days with a computer under a Socialist Government. That gives the Committee some idea of the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of Government Departments.
  I am not necessarily arguing for more computers. What is really wanted is the proper use of them, and the illustration which I have just given shows that they are not being used properly. Which part of the right hon. Gentleman's Department looks at them? Or is it left to the Board of Trade? If it is left to the latter, I should not like to be the Minister of Technology responsible for the efficient use of computers.
  If we are to make proper use of computers, it is clear that we must have enough trained operators—systems analysts, programmers, and so on. We have to get estimates of the future, and we have to train people to do the work. It is often asked what we have done. During the period 1950 to 1964 the number of scientists and technologists increased from 8,000 to 20,000, which shows that we did something there. It is not so much a question of training systems analysts and programmers. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that we are making efficient use of the scientists and technologists who are available? I do not believe that we are.
  I went to see a computer centre of the metropolitan boroughs in south London. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology has visited it, because his constituency is one of the metropolitan boroughs which uses it. It took the centre a long time to get off the ground, but it now has rating, pay roll, stores, vehicles, transport, costing and budgetary control, under a computer. It is working extremely well, and the centre ought to be congratulated on the progress it has made, and on the voluntary co-operation which brought it about.

  513
  The centre is also extremely generous. It has said that if any other local authority goes to it, it will give that authority its soft ware and its programmes free of charge. That is a generous offer. It took five man-years to prepare the rating programme which it fed into the computer, yet other local authorities all over the country are starting their own computers from scratch. Why are they doing this? Here are five man-years of work on rating at their disposal free of charge, and yet they are advertising for scientific people to start from scratch to deal with the problem that has already been dealt with.
  The same thing happens with the area electricity boards. I visited one of them, the Yorkshire Electricity Board. It took the board six or seven years to get off the ground, but it is metering the readings into a computer, and the readings are stored on magnetic tape. The system is working well, yet electricity boards in other areas are starting from scratch to do what this board has already done. These other boards are drawing on scarce manpower to give them the programmes that they want.
  Does this National Computer Programme Centre which the Minister announced on 1st March function? If it does, will the Minister look into those two illustrations which I have given, and, if necessary, let the Minister of Power give a direction that all area boards should use the same programme? Let us conserve scarce resources, and not waste them.
  There is another point about computers which is worrying me, and which I am sure worries the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that it is possible for any one country outside the United States or Russia to "go it alone" in the technological field nor to operate in other than an international market. It has to co-operate in ventures in other countries, and then specialise in certain chosen areas. For example, the United Kingdom should specialise in electronic data processing rather than try to offer expertise on a wide range or the whole front.
  I believe that the latest compelling reason why the whole of Europe must come together is the rapid advance of technology. The enormous rate of change in technology is opening up a
  514
  frightening gap between small European nations and the huge super Powers of the United States, Russia, and maybe China later. To meet this disparity in a spirit of old-fashioned nationalism would be suicidal. Europe must unite on this technological front or become a "lesser Orient" altogether.
  Mr. Maxwell: Is that statement really true? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we as a nation were to choose certain sectors of science and technology on which we wished to make a major effort we would have sufficient resources, brain power, and economic power to be eminent? We cannot do it across the whole front, but if we chose a certain sector, such as computers, we would be bound to succeed.
  Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman is helping me by repeating what I said. I said that we could not go on over the whole front. We in the United Kingdom have to specialise in certain areas of electronic data processing. The hon. Gentleman must listen when we are trying to educate him. We know that it is a difficult task, but we shall continue to try.
  I believe that we have to create larger and more efficient industrial units, first on the European scale, but ultimately reaching out beyond Europe to a worldwide pattern. No business which is not world wide will survive the challenge of the technological giants. Developments in the past, such as the Concord, are not enough. I should like to see a greater exchange of capital investment between British and European countries.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's argument about technological development rule out the possibility of having an independent nuclear deterrent?
  Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman must put that question to his right hon. Friend, not to me. I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to answer it.
  I believe that European co-operation is the best way of preventing the American domination of European industry, especially in computers, where I.B.M., through brillant organisation and management, is strongly entrenched. Why not have a centralised European software

  515
  centre, where the cream of those qualified experts, who are scarce, could eliminate wasteful competition. Then we could produce a range of software on which European computer hardware could be standardised, and which would be wider and more advanced than anywhere else in the world.
  In future the right hon. Gentleman will choose other industries to sponsor, and I offer him a few suggestions as to what industries he might choose.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: If the hon. Member believes in a European centre why did not his Government do a great deal more to help C.E.R.N. when that body needed help?
  Mr. Marples: I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's responsibilities. He has been in office for nine months, and if all that can be said by hon. Members opposite is, "Never mind about the future. What happened in the past?", all their talk about instant action is nonsense. They are jobbing backwards all the time. That is, apparently, all that they can do.
  I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that one industry that really ought to be taken over when he considers his next lot of sponsored industries is the building industry. I have said this before, and I shall go on saying it until he does take it over. It should be taken over quickly. It is not the fault of the building industry that it is expensive in what it does; it is the fault of the architects, in the design field.
  Mr. Maxwell: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Marples: I hope that the hon. Member will not be too enthusiastic, of he will sap my confidence.
  The building industry is one of the few where design and construction are separated into two compartments. I have asked somebody who has carried out studies in the United States and in Canada to give me the comparable statistics for those two countries and Britain. In the construction industry 1·6 million workers are employed and in the building materials industry 0·4 million, making 2 million altogether. In this country we argue about rents and interest charges, but what is important is getting down the cost of building.
  516
  In New York, the cost of building is practically the same as it is in the United Kingdom, in spite of the fact that the cost of contract labour is approximately four times greater in New York than it is in this country, apart from one or two exceptions. In New York, a labourer receives 32s. an hour and a craftsman 39s. an hour, yet they produce a hotel bedroom at the same price as that at which it can be produced here. What would happen to our costs if we paid craftsmen and labourers 39s. and 32s. an hour, respectively?
  In Canada, the position is the same. In some cases it is 25 per cent. cheaper there than it is here, although the cost of labour is twice what it is in this country. That means that there is an enormous financial drain and a drain on our resources. We should be building houses with standard kitchens. Why should an architect design one sort of kitchen in Birmingham and another in Liverpool, another in Cardiff, another in Perth—
  Mr. Anthony Fell: And another in Great Yarmouth.
  Mr. Marples: And Great Yarmouth, yes. I did not know that they had any kitchens there. I am glad to know that they have penetrated to Great Yarmouth.
  The building industry is one on which the right hon. Gentleman ought to concentrate.
  Another industry, which is the ninth in size in this country, is the paper and printing industry, which has more people working for it than the steel and motor car industries. It is a really good candidate for examination by the right hon. Gentleman, for two reasons. First, the restrictive practices in the industry are scandalous, and, secondly, technology can be swiftly applied in that industry, because it is not a heavy basic industry like the building industry. It is small in size. Electronic devices which have now been applied to printing outside London are not being permitted inside London. If we had a major drive in this industry we could save an enormous amount of labour, which could be used for other purposes.
  There is one other job which the right hon. Gentleman must forgive me for mentioning, but which is an absolute "natural" for him to deal with, namely, the modernisation of the docks. I say that for two reasons. I believe that the

  517
  right hon. Gentleman has more influence with the labour in the docks, in his own union, than any other man in this country. If he cannot deal with it I do not think that anybody else can. I sincerely suggest that this job goes down on his list, because his past history has given him enormous influence in this matter, and now that he is in charge of technology my hon. Friends and I will help him all we can.
  My last point concerns the Atomic Energy Authority. The Minister has a particular responsibility here. He must see that it is efficient. He must ensure that the Authority examines the right problems, such as marine nuclear propulsion. He must see that it sells its products at the right price, and that it has an efficient organisation in general—including the organisation of management and men.
  Pay claims are outstanding in the Atomic Energy Authority. It has a senior staff of 500 for whom there is to be an increase in pay of 4 per cent., backdated. There is a pending wage claim for 17,000 manual workers. The right hon. Gentleman, as a Cabinet Minister, has a responsibility to his colleagues. The Cabinet has a collective responsibility. The Government have pronounced what their policy is on prices and incomes.
  At the recent Transport and General Workers' Union Conference, on Friday, the right hon. Gentleman made some remarks which implied that he approved of the union's resolution rejecting an incomes policy. I do not know whether that is right or wrong—
  The Chairman: Order. Whether it is right or wrong has nothing to do with this debate.
  Mr. Marples: With due respect, Dr. King, the Atomic Energy Authority is the responsibility of the Minister. That being so, he ought to declare whether he is in favour of the Government's prices and incomes policy, out of loyalty to his colleagues if not out of deference and respect to the Committee.
  The Chairman: The prices and incomes policy is not part of the work of this Department. On this Vote the right hon. Gentleman must discuss the work of the Minister.
  Mr. Marples: I made a lot of inquiries whether or not this was in order beforehand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Why not? I did so out of respect for the Committee. I do not want to waste time on "phoney" points of order. It was only courteous to the Committee to make inquiries on this matter. Since it comes under the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility, and since the policy of the Government collectively applies to his Department individually, all I want to know is whether he accepts that policy, as a Minister.
  The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously done some research in this matter, but he must accept the Ruling of the Chair. If we applied his argument to every Vote we could take up every item of Government policy with every Minister. We must keep to the Vote that we are discussing.
  Mr. Marples: I made my inquiries because I wanted to know that the point that I was making was in order, Dr. King. If my inquiries had shown that it was out of order I can assure the Committee that I would not have raised it.
  The Chairman: Order. I have added to the right hon. Member's inquiries by giving him the information that the Chair is ruling that his question is out of order.
  Mr. Marples: I accept your Ruling, Dr. King. I will not continue on this point, but if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give the information we shall be grateful.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The right hon. Gentleman has spoilt it. He has allowed his obsession and prejudice to spoil his speech.
  Mr. Marples: There is no prejudice on this side. The prejudice is on that side of the Committee, as shown by the way things have happened.
  In certain parts of my speech I have been critical of the Minister, because I do not think that he has done sufficient. I cannot fault him on what he has done, because he has not done enough for me to fault him. I have also tried to be constructive and show that the Opposition are trying very hard to do their homework in this matter. After the next election that homework will be needed,

  519
  so that we can clear up the mess that the Socialist Government have left behind.
  4.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Technology (Mr. Frank Cousins): I shall not attempt to compete with the comedy act which has just been put on and which has been directed towards trying to establish that I have not resolved in a short time the economic mess in which we found ourselves on coming to power. Nor will I allow the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) to make my speech for me. I do this, because I happen to think that this is a serious subject.—[Interruption.] Of course most of it is already written out. In passing, I would say that I rely more on my scriptwriters than on those responsible for the speech which we have just heard.
  The questions which the right hon. Member put, in some instances, need further comment before we get down to the discussion on technology. One question was what we are doing about our position compared with that of America, where computers are 20 times as numerous as they are in this country. This information could have been extracted from a speech which I made to the House, when I drew attention to the need to take action on this, because I did not accept that our relative industrial position justified our assuming that we could remain in the forefront with a ratio of 1 to 20. I have not changed my view about that and we are pursuing every possible means of getting computerisation into British industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Dr. Bray) said, we cannot order computers today and put them in tomorrow. That just is not possible.
  A very serious situation existed when we took office, in that many of the computers already ordered—this is known to hon. and right hon. Members opposite—were already earmarked from American producers. It is said that local authorities have not co-ordinated their efforts. This is true. This was one of the functions of the Computer Unit. We are having a tussle to get them out of the atmosphere which they were in, out of the position in which they were encouraged to believe that independence and freedom to do as they wished were the
  520
  hallmarks of successful operation under the last Administration. I have said elsewhere that we cannot "go it alone". We need to make our associations with other people and co-operative efforts of value to us. They must be of value to us. Co-operative efforts have to be, in the eyes of this Government, those which bring material value and return to us, because our economic position is such that we need that kind of aid.
  It has been suggested that I might "take over"—a nice phrase, which I shall remember—other industries. The right hon. Member suggested the docks. Does he recall that, a number of years ago, I came to see him about the docks when we were both in rather different positions? I was asking for his material aid to mechanise, modernise, and develop the docks, and I put forward proposals to him as to how this could be done. The right hon. Gentleman was quite happy to continue under the provisions of the Act which enabled any surplus money to be spent on reducing port charges instead of modernising and mechanising. I do not wish to dwell on the past. I did not start this. I had assumed that we were to talk about the future.
  Mr. Marples: Surely the right hon. Gentleman remembers that it was during my term of office as Minister of Transport that we had the Rochdale Committee and an Act of Parliament especially to modernise the docks, and a large sum of Treasury money was paid for that purpose?
  Mr. Cousins: I refrained from interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. I did not think that it was necessary for us to do that.
  I recall this. I am aware that we put forward proposals to the right hon. Gentleman about the mechanisation and modernisation of the docks, and that that was not accepted as the method by which we should approach it. He will, of course, also recall that, on another occasion, addressing him in his capacity as Minister of Transport, we drew attention to the fact that they were allowed to become individualistic and private enterprise-minded and to go running off to carry out separate functions. One body was split up and made into four, and we did not think that that was good. If the right hon. Gentleman is now converted

  521
  to the idea that we should co-ordinate efforts and use local authorities and have a standard central computer system—
  Sir Douglas Glover: Is it in order to discuss the Ministry of Transport? I thought that the debate was about the Ministry of Technology.
  The Chairman: When the right hon. Gentleman departs from the subject of technology, I shall call him to order, as I did the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples).
  Mr. Cousins: In attempting to remain within order—
  The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was not calling him to order. I was reproving the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who sought to advise me to call him to order.
  Mr. Cousins: I said, "In attempting to remain within order", and you have confirmed that I was, Dr. King. I simply dealt with the relevant points raised by the right hon. Member for Wallasey. If you had ruled the other interruption by the right hon. Member in order, I should have attempted to deal with that one, too—[Laughter.] I might, even yet—
  The Chairman: I would advise the right hon. Gentleman to resist temptation.
  Mr. Cousins: May we now go back to the subject which the debate is about?
  No one can argue against the future of technology. It is now eight months since we had a serious debate on it, which I listened to but was not able to take part in. The Ministry of Technology had been set up only a few days and we had no organisation. Much of the discussion centred upon the type of organisation which was felt to be needed to do the job.
  No one can question the need for the job which my Department is setting out to deal with. I assume that this is common ground between us and that industry needs to get in the forefront of technological advance if it is to retain its place in a world which is at once highly competitive and in a state of great change.
  There was agreement on both sides of the House that the Government had a vital part to play in this. In some measure, the right hon. Member for
  522
  Wallasey has endorsed that view. There are areas in which it is felt that we should be doing more. One point was the question of the finance involved. I shall deal with that a little later. I do not think that the assumptions upon which this is based can be challenged. If they could, it would be strange, having regard to the views expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) when he was in a different position. He argued that there should be an improvement in the position of science and the efficiency and productivity of industry.
  If we look at the actual achievements in pursuit of those aims, we see that they were not met in practice. Recently, in the House, when answering a Question by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison), I said that I was not satisfied with the progress that my Department had made so far. I do not need to be reminded about this. But I am positive that it is a far better record than we had for a few years previously. That is not the issue before us. The organisation and scope of the Ministry of Technology has been criticised. Let us look at this and see how it compares with the organisation of technology outlined by the previous Government.
  I do not say this in the spirit of criticism, but simply in the form of comparison. Our organisation derives essentially from two main requirements. First, to get the Government's resources in civil industrial science, the A.E.A., the N.R.D.C. and the industrial side of the former D.S.I.R. mobilised and co-ordinated under a single Minister. Second, to put under sponsorship of the same Minister certain industries which are particularly important for technological advance by British industry. There will be others—there is no doubt about that—because the very nature of the function calls for the application of technology to a much wider range of industries than those I have mentioned.
  In comparison, the proposed organisation of the Opposition when in Government was somewhat different. It did nothing to achieve the concentration of the Government's powers and resources. Had we followed the pattern set out by the previous Government, we would have had two independent authorities—the A.E.A. and an Industrial Research and

  523
  Development Authority—under one Minister, the N.R.D.C. under another, and industrial sponsorship in certain closely related industries diversified under a series of Ministers. In the event, it was not possible to see whether this would be workable in practice, because the election overtook it, and a change of Government took place.
  So it must be a matter of conjecture whether it would have been an advantage. But I cannot think that it would have been a convenient arrangement which enabled two independent authorities under different Departments to let research and development contracts in industry. Our feeling was that, however elaborate the arrangements for that co-ordination, it could not be as effective as having them under my Ministry. Nor did we favour the idea of putting under the Secretary of State for Education and Science responsibilities that ranged through primary, secondary and tertiary education to all kinds of research, including medical and agricultural research and all Government activities in support of industrial research including hydraulics, sewage and fire and, for good measure, work on nuclear reactors. That was the proposal prior to the election. Certainly the Secretary of State for Education and Science would have been a busy man.
  Our view, on the other hand, was that the importance of guiding and stimulating the application—and I emphasise that word, because we have said it so frequently—of technology in industry was such as to require a separate department under a single Minister. You have in fact made quite clear at times during your speech this afternoon that you have also been thinking along the lines of a co-ordinated industrial Ministry.
  The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman must address the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) through the Chair.
  Mr. Cousins: I am sorry. It has been my practice to speak to some of the right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite so many times in other places. So the effort there was obviously directed towards the same kind of end. But this was in Opposition; it was not in Government. The idea of co-ordinating the efforts and making one
  524
  Ministry centrally responsible was the least and the last of the things that received attention. Substantial advantages are already flowing from the concentration of the efforts for which I am responsible, and I have illustrated them often.
  First we are taking advantage of the grouping of the A.E.A., the Government's industrial research Laboratories and the N.R.D.C. The Managing Director of the N.R.D.C. has become a member of the Board of the A.E.A. and his experience will be especially valuable in the extension of the Authority's activities outside the nuclear field, which is now possible under the Science and Technology Act.
  Second—and most important—it is only right that the Government should be able to engage the resources and expertise of these two statutory corporations in activities which are deemed to be in the national interest. There is no conflict here with the corporations' autonomy. Under our present organisation I am able to call on the unparalleled technical resources of the A.E.A., and the expertise of the N.R.D.C. in patent and commercial negotiations to assist us in areas where there is urgent need for action. I will go into this in more detail later in my speech. It is sufficient at present to mention the A.E.A.s new responsibilities for desalination work and timely assistance, on a large scale, which is being negotiated between N.R.D.C. and computer manufacturers, so that we have a joint, co-ordinated effort of the industry and the corporation, and get the value of joint effort. In both instances, these functions are in co-ordination with the work which is going on in industry and in research establishments supported by Government funds.
  In fact, the way in which we are making the fullest use of the A.E.A. and N.R.D.C. exemplifies an approach to this problem which is essentially different from that previously in existence. Contrary to the views which have been expressed, I have never made any attempt to disguise the fact that the task of my Department is a very long-term one. I have been asked a series of questions—and we have been under fire many time, with 42 Questions in all in the short period since I have been able to answer here—along the lines of, "What have you done since last week?". As has been said, there have been times

  525
  when I have answered, "I have nothing further to report." It is hardly likely that one is going to have something further to report on a major project in atomic energy, computers, or electronics seven days after being asked the last Question. We have set out to demonstrate that we regard it as a long-term and very valuable task.
  I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey that in his last position as Minister of Transport he initiated many desirable studies—some he did not initiate, but some he did—which have not yet come to fruition. Some will. Therefore I suggest to him he should not be too impatient about a matter which is deep and detailed—detailed to the extent that the right hon. Member himself is taking what he has described as a sabbatical year to learn what it is all about. I have in my hand a little box, containing two micro-miniaturised circuits. The right hon. Gentleman for Wallasey is learning whether such things are of use to British industry. Therefore, I would suggest that to pretend that my Ministry should have reached a conclusion in every direction in a few months of operation is not even being fair to the right hon. Member himself.
  The right hon. Gentleman has suggested he is going to America and to Japan to see what is going on. I wish I could. Part of my duties is to be in the House instead of being in America or Japan or elsewhere to see what they are doing. When the right hon. Member comes back, probably he will tell us. He will not have to read from a book published in 1964 about the period 1951 to 1961, but will tell us what is happening now and whether we are starting to catch them up in the way we hope we are.
  Since it is accepted that much of our work is long-term, we must not neglect the opportunities for doing short-term work.
  The Opposition claim that the Ministry of Technology has achieved nothing since it was set up. Let us examine its record, starting with the A.E.A. and N.R.D.C. Both these corporations are now in a more confident position than they have been for years. This is natural in the light of recent developments which I will cover in the course of my review. They are both excellent organisations,
  526
  and are now enjoying an opportunity to use to the full their considerable resources to stimulate technological progress in industry. The right hon. Member for Wallasey made the point that one of the major things that help to bring progress is the establishment of confidence. We have done this. We have made the N.R.D.C. see that it has the backing, I hoped of the House, I am certain of the Government, but from some of the comments that were made on the last occasion on which I was at the Despatch Box, I thought of the House.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: While the right hon. Gentleman is on the subject of the Atomic Energy Authority, is he going to say anything about his recent visit to Dounreay and the future of the fast breeder reactor?
  Mr. Cousins: It is my next point. Starting off with atomic energy, let the Committee consider the present position of the A.E.A. One of the most encouraging developments for the Authority and for the country in recent years has been the success of the tender for an advanced gas-cooled reactor submitted by Atomic Power Construction Ltd. for Dungeness B. Contract negotiations between the C.E.G.B. and the firm are expected to be concluded later this month, and a considerable amount of information on the technical and economic features of the successful design will then be issued.
  Tributes have already been paid, deservedly, to the Atomic Energy Authority for their highly successful development of the A.G.R. system and to the industrial group concerned for their design for Dungeness B. The Authority and my Ministry will lose no opportunity of advancing the claims of the A.G.R.; and the nuclear industry also must, in its own interests and that of the nation, do everything possible to seek out business abroad wherever this is, in fact, possible. This we regard as a matter of great urgency and of essential need. Competition will be very keen—there is is no doubt about that—but there is a great opportunity and a great challenge here, and it must not be missed.
  Nuclear power has turned the corner, and it has been possible to demonstrate that energy can be produced more cheaply by this means than by any other means. No other country in the world is better

  527
  placed than our country to secure a substantial share of the business in nuclear power stations and equipment which is bound to arise soon. This is something which is not generally known, but it is in our interest that it should be known: this country has more nuclear generating capacity installed than the rest of the world put together. There is too much denigrating of what we are able to do. Some of it is our own fault. But in this instance we have sent out to date about 1½ times as much electricity from nuclear reactors as the rest of the world put together. But we cannot afford to slacken. We must make progress.
  I do not wish to take any credit from the Opposition. As I have said, I did not start with the idea of having a critical debate, "You did this and you did not do that". A lot was not done. Some things were done and many things need to be done. But they need to be done together, and I hope that at the end of the debate we shall emphasise that they need to be done together.
  Fast reactor development is an important feature of the Authority's programme. These are reactors for the future, as far as one can see at this stage. They can produce electricity more cheaply than can any of the conventional stations or any other form of station, either conventional or nuclear. Moreover, they will use plutonium derived from the operations of existing types of reactor and they will be able to breed new fuel. This means greater economy and conservation in the use of uranium.
  The Dounreay Experimental Establishment has worked very satisfactorily, and the next stage is the construction of a prototype. During the next few months the authority will be submitting to me their proposals for a prototype fast reactor. When they have done so, the Government will as soon as possible announce their decision whether the project should proceed and, if so, where the prototype is to be built. This will be brought to the House as soon as possible.
  I have recently paid a visit to the Scottish area and to other parts of the Atomic Energy Authority Establishment to consider possible sites. Recently I visited Dounreay, and there was considerable pressure that the reactor should
  528
  be built in Scotland. Some would like it to be at Dounreay and some would like it to be at Chapel Cross. The fact is that I cannot yet say where the prototype ought to be put. Whatever we do about it, the claims of Dounreay, Chapel Cross and indeed anywhere else will be considered fully, having regard to what I hope the Committee will also think should be factors in the consideration. I am sure that my colleagues in the Government and on these Benches will think that we must have a great regard for the social and economic consequences of where we put the prototype.
  It is quite obvious that the creation of stations of this kind is an expensive proposition in the first instance. Much money is involved in building a huge power plant. May I make this appeal. I hope that there will be as much enthusiasm for projects of this kind when we consider the money side of it as when we consider the theory and the social factors.
  I turn to the Atomic Energy Authority's Trading Fund. The Authority's main task under the Act of 1954 was to promote research into various applications of atomic energy and to manufacture special material for use in atomic energy programmes. Production activities have grown substantially in the last few years, especially the manufacture of nuclear fuel elements for sale to the electricity generating authorities and for export. Altogether the Authority's sales of fuel elements, electricity and isotopes amount to some £30 million a year.
  Commercial operations on this scale are difficult to accommodate within the structure of annual Parliamentary grants. Those who have been in Government, some of them a great deal longer than I have, will appreciate what I am saying. If one is not a free trading entity but is subject to Parliamentary grants it is difficult to take immediate decisions on monetary matters in a commercial sense. We have therefore, with the agreement of the House, freed the Atomic Energy Authority. They now more nearly resemble the position of other public enterprises or private operation. Since 1st April they have had their commercial operations separated from the rest of their activities. These are organised in a trading fund. The fund will retain depreciation provisions and trading surpluses

  529
  to enable it to build up its own reserves, to meet contingencies and normal capital investment requirements. This will enable them to compete in the commercial markets for the type of products which they produce.
  In pursuing their commercial policy the Authority have recently concluded agreements with German and Italian companies for the manufacture of fuel elements in Europe. These agreements are intended to ensure that the Authority play a full part in fuel element business in Europe, against all competition. They have unrivalled experience and facilities for fuel element manufacture and they are determined to exploit these advantages to the full.
  The Science and Technology Act, under which the changes in the organisation of civil science were given statutory effect, contains a very important provision on which I should like to speak for a moment. Under it, the Minister of Technology has power to authorise the Authority to undertake research and development in fields other than that of atomic energy. The idea, of course, is to utilise the vast resources and experience of the Authority to further the interests of British technology. Directives have already been given to the Authority requiring steps to be taken in their research effort in the use of centrifuges for medical research, aspects of the European Space Research Organisation satellite, and desalination.
  I should like to emphasise the importance which we—and, I hope, everybody else—attach to the subject of desalination. We tend to think sometimes that the difficulties exist only in those countries where they have vast areas of unwatered sands which they hope to bring to cultivation. That is not so. In many parts of this country the water shortage is becoming one of the main problems. We hope that we shall be able to meet the problem. Every effort of improving the techniques and economics of desalination processes are being investigated.
  The Authority will work very closely with industry on the improvement of present techniques and will also press on with the development of new ones. I say "with industry" because British industry has already supplied most of the large-scale desalination plants throughout the
  530
  world. The possibilities of using nuclear power for the dual purpose of generating electricity and supplying steam to desalination plants is under active consideration. Altogether a programme is being studied which will cost £1½ million in the next three years.
  May I turn in some detail to the National Research Development Corporation? The right hon. Member for Wallasey suggested that we should not talk about the past but should talk about why we have not done things. But the Act is a framework in which we must examine what we intend to do. As the Committee knows, legislation was introduced early in the Session to raise the limit of advances to the National Research Development Corporation from £10 million to £25 million. The Development of Inventions Act, 1965, became law early last month. This increase reflects our belief that the Corporation can and will contribute significantly to our continuing need for the new techniques, processes and machinery, both for our industries at home and to sell abroad.
  In addition to raising the ceiling on advances, the new Act gives the Government Departments power to ask the Corporation to undertake development on their behalf and at their expense. This is an important change, which will enable the Government to make full use of the knowledge and experience which has been built up in the Corporation over the last 16 years and to avoid duplication of effort. The new Act also gives the Corporation additional flexibility in making arrangements to share with industry the risks of novel developments, and in negotiating terms for the recovery of its investment appropriate to the circumstances of particular cases.
  The growing volume of new proposals which has recently come forward to the Corporation is evidence that industry is becoming increasingly appreciative of the facilities offered by this unique institution. N.R.D.C. has taken on a number of new staff and is reorganising to meet the increased demands made on it by the continuing and unprecedented influx of important and interesting new projects.
  Perhaps the most important development, however, is the change of atmosphere. Under the former Administration—I say this without any offence at all—

  531
  N.R.D.C. was a slightly awkward appendage of the Board of Trade, whilst the other main instrument of Government activity in industrial research was a completely separate Department, D.S.I.R. We have brought these activities together in my Ministry. We are associating N.R.D.C. closely with our discussions at all levels. We discuss with the Corporation projects which we have in mind. The Corporation discusses with us proposals it has in mind. We do not impinge upon the Corporation's authority. Its autonomy has been protected. But there is a new attitude of self-confidence and self-respect and the Corporation feels that it has the opportunity to make a full contribution now to the modernisation of Britain.
  The Corporation has been in the news in the last few months concerning the support of one of its projects, the hovercraft. The Corporation has supported the hovercraft from 1958. It is no secret that the hovercraft is the largest of the Corporation's enterprises to date. The hovercraft has developed from an experimental model to a commercial craft in six years. There were many periods of time when there was deep criticism of the Corporation's continued support for this project. However, the Corporation pioneered this venture and it now looks as if the project is coming to a stage of real commercial exploitation. The optimism about the hovercraft is apparently now justified.
  Some ferry services using the smaller craft are already running. I understand that firm orders are in for at least 17 and possible orders for some eight more. The cross-Channel hovercraft service has been announced for next year. There is interest from all over the world in this wonderful British invention. The new product—the S.R.N.4—is working a revolution in the matter of movement over considerable and medium distances of water.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why in the culmination of this very successful enterprise foreign Powers—the Swedes and others—will be allowed to carry out the actual operation from British shores?
  Mr. Cousins: At this point in time I have no authority to make anyone do it. I would have liked to have made someone
  532
  do it, but I have not yet the authority to say to a British firm, "You go and run a hovercraft service". I have taken every opportunity recently to express my point of view, and I shall continue to do so. There is another aspect about which we must be careful. We must not give the impression that the Corporation is not producing things for export. If an industry is in fact capable of producing something which a foreign company starts up and makes a success of, it will at least help us in our export trade. However, I shall resent it if they come into our market and take all the fruits of our efforts.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I do not attach any blame to the right hon. Gentleman for what has happened. As he has referred to this subject, however, may I say that I should have thought that the Government ought to bring pressure or persuasion or coercion to bear to ensure that this is a British effort in the final organisation of it.
  Mr. Cousins: I am sure that this side of the Committee will take note of the words used by the hon. Gentleman—"pressure", "coercion", and so on. Seriously, I am very interested in trying to assist the use of this by British organisations. The new S.R.N.4—the 150 tonner—is able to move at 70 knots and tackle waves of up to 15 feet. They know that it can tackle waves to a greater depth than that, but they are prepared to give it commercial propaganda at 15 ft. It will be able to carry up to 250 passengers and about 30 cars, or a greater number of passengers without a car ferry service attached to it. This is a good thing. The more frequently we say this, the better I shall like it.
  Turning to computers, as the Committee knows, because it has been referred to today, we drew up a programme of action. We ought to consider the use of more computers by British industry. The discussion sometimes varies between it being said that I ought to stimulate the British computer industry and that I ought to stimulate British industry to use computers. I am sometimes asked to say which is my intention. I do not think that the two things are alternatives. I feel that there is a great need for the growth of the use of British computers here.

  533
  The right hon. Member for Wallasey made this point when he compared our figures with those of America. There is no doubt but that there is a need for a great growth in the use of computers. I do not think that anybody will be likely to dispute this, but the Government are themselves convinced that a flourishing British computer industry is necessary so that the techniques which this industry employs shall remain right here in the United Kingdom side by side with the other industries with which the computer industry works, because control processes are becoming a very important part of the computer industry.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman may know that B.O.A.C. is contemplating purchasing computers. There is a suggestion that it may purchase American computers, as opposed to what B.E.A. has done. B.E.A. has British computers. Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to ensure that B.O.A.C. takes British computers?
  Mr. Cousins: This is a matter which has been drawn to my attention. We are considering this. One of the great problems is that B.O.A.C. has commercial autonomy in the same way as most other organisations have. Under the last Administration it was allowed, without any opposition, to purchase American computers. It is talking of maintaining that association within the existing system. Nevertheless, we are considering what can be done about this.
  Mr. Godfrey Lagden: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Would he not agree that if in the case he has mentioned the advanced computer machinery which has been purchased is an advantage to the industry it would be well advised to continue with it, as the whole object of the exercise of the computer industry in itself is to produce for British industry the best tools to hand?
  Mr. Cousins: The situation is quite a difficult one to answer in a "Yes" or "No" way. If we were to pursue this through, we could justify the purchase from elsewhere of almost every piece of equipment we have in this country. I am sure that this would not be the wish of either side of the Committee. If we are
  534
  not producing equipment which can satisfactorily cope with the job, that is the issue which needs tackling, or we may find ourselves without any of our industries.
  The right hon. Member for Wallasey asked me whether we were giving effect to this policy and whether the Computer Advisory Unit was doing a job of work. I am sure that it is. The right hon. Gentleman then began to talk in terms of money. I am not intending today to give any money figures, for a reason which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will accept as soon as I outline it. The review of the computer requirements of universities and research councils has been completed and is about to be brought forward to me for action. It would be quite improper for me to be talking about computer costs when the report has not yet reached me. We made the proposal that our five-year programme should start off at the rate of £2 million a year, and we gave the House of Commons the impression that it would be a rising programme. It was inevitably bound to be a rising programme, but the extent to which it rises is dependent on the report and on the reactions of all the departments, both research and education, to their programme requirements. If the right hon. Member for Wallasey accepts this point of view, at a later stage, I hope not too long from now, I hope to be able to tell the House the position as to the Flowers Report.
  More important than these specific measures, however, which should be acceptable to both sides of the Committee, is the effect which our determination to stimulate the growth of computers is having on the computer industry itself I have seen ample evidence of this in my discussions with the industry and in visits I have paid to its establishments, some of which the right hon. Gentleman has also visited either at the same time or at different times. There is a new sense of confidence, both in the production of current equipment and in the development of new ranges. ICT's 1900 series, despite all the criticisms I have had about British computers, is a good computer. For example, it has been successfully launched and the company is planning a programme of production

  535
  of a computer a day, which is the kind of production we have not had so far in this country. At this rate, the company could supply all Britain's computers in about six months' production. This is the kind of approach which we have not had before.
  I turn now to the subject of machine tools. I made a statement to the House setting out proposals in connection with the machine tool industry. These included action to promote research and development through the National Research Development Corporation, an important programme of work at the National Engineering Laboratory, a new study of the cyclical pattern of machine tool ordering, a programme of work at the universities and the establishment of an expert machine tool unit in my own headquarters. The implementation of these proposals is now in progress and it is clear that they have already had a good response and have aroused a great deal of interest in the industry.
  Since I announced a month ago that we wanted to increase development contracts and place pre-production orders for new machine tools, there has been an encouraging response. My Department has received about 20 approaches from firms already, including four relating to pre-production orders, and these are now being examined. In case we have any more questions about how many times since last week we have bought a machine tool, I hope that the Committee will accept that part of my responsibility is to examine projects and to ensure that money spent on development in the industry is well spent, bringing material advantages to the economy.
  There has also been an increase in the number of projects for new machine tools submitted to the N.R.D.C. The criticism has been levelled at us that we failed to deal with this question of cyclical ordering in the machine tool industry. This is not surprising. We came to office and we examined the facts and we had a report from a Committee and we set about putting our proposals before the industry in an attempt to deal with this problem. But many experts over the last 50 years have applied themselves to this question and none has brought forward a generally acceptable and satisfactory solution which has maintained
  536
  the flow in the machine tool industry. We hope to do something about this, but certainly not in the next two or three days.
  It has been wrongly suggested that in my statement on 14th June I dismissed the possibility of Government action to deal with this problem. What I said was that I was not at present convinced that Government assistance was needed to underwrite manufacturers' building for stock. I am not opposed to the possibility of other Government action, as should have been apparent from my announcement that I was setting up a Working Party to examine the cyclical problem further. The membership of the Working Party is now complete. It includes representatives of the manufacturers, the trade unions, the users of machine tools, Government Departments and the City. I have asked the Working Party to address itself to its task with urgency, with a view to submitting an interim report as soon as possible.
  The Opposition have said quite often and have told me again today that I am holding a sword—not the Sword of Damocles this time—over the heads of the industry. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Wallasey would not prefer me to say that I intend to nationalise it so that we can have something to row about. It is not an argument with the industry. People in the industry do not believe that our proposals are designed to create an atmosphere in which we can proceed to nationalise the machine tool industry. We said in our programme that it could include the use of Government Departments. This is still so. I would not hesitate to tell the House of Commons about any measures which we thought appropriate. If we do, I will tell the House, but until we do, for the Lord's sake let us encourage the machine tool industry to go on manufacturing the kind of things needed in British industry. Let us stimulate its confidence by the Opposition's confidence and our confidence.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Are we to understand that although in the Labour Party's policy at the last election the possibility of nationalising the machine tool industry, amongst others, was visualised, at present the right hon. Gentleman has no intention whatsoever

  537
  of nationalising it but still reserves the right to do so should he change his mind?
  Mr. Cousins: In the proposals which we put in front of the industry I have suggested methods by which we think we can stimulate and aid the production of machine tools and it includes measures which have not been tried before. If the industry will not and cannot—I use "will not" because it is partly the responsibility of the industry to do this—it will be necessary to consider what other steps the Government may need to take. I do not think that I need to declare my political allegiance to the principle of public ownership in order to make the industry do it. Everyone knows that I am a believer in the principle of public ownership. It has nothing to do with my approach to this industry, and I hope that it will get on with the job.
  I should like to say something about the organisation of the Ministry because this is one of the problems with which we have been faced. Anyone who ever had to tackle the question of creating a new Department will know something about these problems. We had to set up an organisation of scientists, engineers and administrators. It embodies, in addition to the industrial elements of the former D.S.I.R. Headquarters, certain important new features. Of these I would mention in particular the special groups which have been set up to study the problems of selected industries, including the four for which the Ministry of Technology is the sponsor Department, and also the question of engineering standards, about which I shall have something to say later.
  Our build-up has been slower than I would have wished, mainly because of the difficulty of recruitment. In most of these spheres there is as much difficulty in obtaining top scientists and administrators for Government Departments as there is elsewhere and this is something which we need to consider. As for regional organisation, the previous D.S.I.R. had regional offices in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Newcastle. This organisation is being expanded to conform with the Government's regional plans under which there will be eight regional centres. Our regional offices will encourage technical development in industry and
  538
  will promote more effective co-operation between Government, academic and industrial establishments concerned with research and development.
  I stress these regional developments, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) will endorse them because he was one of the people who spoke strongly in support of regional progress particularly in association with the North-East. I do not know whether people asked him as often as they ask me how fast progress was being made.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: Whilst I share the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for all this, may I point out that he has taken over almost everything that I have done and claimed the credit for it himself?
  Mr. Cousins: I am not sure if the right hon. and learned Gentleman should join me in receiving the complaints or whether we should share the praises.
  In regional organisation we want to get down to the grass roots. We hope that as our regional organisation spreads and becomes better known it can provide a valuable point of contact and a two-way traffic both for industry and ourselves. We need this. We want to tell industry what we are about and we want industry to tell us its problems. One of the complaints recently was that there was a dissociation between various branches of Government establishments and industry. We are trying to remedy this.
  I have tried to deal with the whole problem of industrial centres. They are centred mainly on colleges of advanced technology and on regional and area technical colleges. Each sector has one, or more, industrial liaison officers who is responsible for maintaining contact with local firms and particularly with the smaller firms to promote greater use of existing scientific and technical knowledge. I believe that these arrangements will greatly improve the sources of advice available to industry and particularly to the small firms which are unable to afford an ambitious research staff of their own and which, as a result, will be brought directly into the stream of modern technology.

  539
  I have taken over from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research responsibility for administering grants to the industrial research associations. Since April, fresh grant terms have been given to six research associations and we have launched three further projects under the earmarked grants scheme. One of these deals with the computer programming of factory operations in rubber manufacture and another with in-line process control in the food industry.
  In particular, we have increased the maximum grant available to the Production Engineering Research Association from £100,000 to £195,000, and that to the Machine Tool Industry Research Association from £80,000 to £120,000. These grants should benefit a wide range of industry. We have also offered to the Scientific Instrument Research Association a special grant of 300 per cent. of industrial income devoted to industrial instrumentation and control work. We regard this as a special field in which we need great assistance, and it was pleasing to hear that some hon. Members opposite think that we should pour more money out than we have up to now. In this way, the Association will form a focal point for this type of work in the research association movement as a whole, which will be a valuable step forward and hasten the application of better process control and automation in industry. The Committee will have noted that some of the grants which I have mentioned are designed to go to research associations whose work has a widespread impact on the manufacturing side of industry.
  One special responsibility assigned to my Department relates to engineering standards. Standards are of the greatest importance to our export trade, and our aim must be to see that British standards incorporate the most modern technology and also that, so far as possible, they are aligned with internationally agreed standards. A special group within my Ministry is working with the Board of Trade and the British Standards Institution in promoting an important programme for the introduction of the new series of metric standards foreshadowed in the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26th May. We are working
  540
  also on the important fields of standards of measurement and improving arrangements for certification and approval.
  British industry itself has been pressing for a number of years that we should go over to this system. Before we made our approach for a decision to be taken on the principle of intent regarding metric standards, we had consultations with industry, and industrialists were quite clear in their opinion that it was a necessary step forward. These are not points of marginal significance, as many hon. Members associated with industry will recognise. Our ability to sustain an export trade in engineering goods will be greatly embarrassed unless we are able to do it because 50 per cent. of our trade is with countries which accept and maintain metric standards. It is necessary for us also to study the standards and certification regulations and legislation in countries with which we trade. This, too, is being undertaken by the Ministry.
  Now, manpower. The Ministry of Technology has been given an important function in connection with the status of the engineering profession. Half our exports are in the form of products of the engineering industries. These industries are vital to our future. To compete effectively with fierce competition from other countries, old and new, exploiting modern technology and modern sophisticated processes to the limit, they need an increasing share of the ablest men coming forward from our schools, technical colleges and universities. At the moment they are not getting enough. They are getting some good men—again, one wants not to belittle the men who are coming forward—but they need more.
  The sixth form boy, as we know from a recent publication of the Oxford University Department of Education, is impressed by a career in science or medicine. But the proportion of boys and girls of the highest ability who want to make engineering their career is too small. Two years ago, a valuable report was published with the Report of the Advisory Council for Scientific Policy. This covered a series of proposals designed to raise the status of engineers. We are setting up an organisation to follow up all these points. We have also commissioned a study through the Tavistock Institute on the use which

  541
  industry makes of the engineers which it gets. We are co-operating closely with the Engineering Institutions Joint Council on this subject.
  Inevitably, this is another long-term task involving changes of social attitude. It is encouraging to know that, nowadays, so many people are aware that the problem exists and are publicising the imperative need for a solution. There is a great responsibility on industry here. May I issue a word of warning to us all. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of 50 or 60 years ago when there was a huge drive to bring men of skill in the sciences into industry but many men came along only to find that industry was not ready to receive them and did not want them. Certain sections of the chemical industry and others suffered acutely over a number of years on this account. We must co-ordinate the need with the provisions we make for the supply of men. In this connection, I have, in talking to British industrialists, pointed out that the higher up the ladder of control in industry engineers come the more likely will people be to recognise what the situation demands. If a managing director is an engineer, he is more likely to recognise the value of engineers to his organisation than if he has no association whatever with engineering.
  Mr. John Page: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the result of the survey by the Tavistock Institute is likely to be published? Will it be in two or three years or one year?
  Mr. Cousins: Quicker than that. We have set one of our own people the responsibility for pushing it forward. A short time ago, I said in answer to a Question in the House that I am an impatient man and I push everyone to get on with things—even if I do not build computers every week. The task will be completed as speedily as we can because we regard it as most important. We think it important also that, in the interim period, every one of us should emphasise the need for engineers to be in industry.
  Now, the social consequences. There is an equally important point here because this is a problem affecting men and women. Our efforts in advancing technology will not succeed if we do not take into account the consequences for
  542
  those whose work may be radically altered or abolished by the changes which will come. Otherwise, the changes we need will be suspect and resisted, not being welcomed as they should be. The restrictive practice attitude, which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in passing, with an oblique effort to give it to me as a responsibility, is, in fact, the responsibility of us all. We all tend to adopt it in our own separate ways, but we notice the other man. But, unless we approach these things in the right way, looking forward to change and a new order of society and recognising the social consequences which it will bring to people, we shall fail. However cleverly we debate or reach conclusions here in the House of Commons, this aspect of the matter must be kept in the forefront of our minds.
  A few days ago, in company with the right hon. Member for Wallasey, I visited Wolvercote Mill of the Oxford University Press. It is interesting to know the details of a new mechanised and computer-controlled system which has been installed there. It is the first fully automated paper mill in the world. In the early stage there was an investigation of the human aspects of the workpeople's situation and their working environment, and the management was assisted in this by studies undertaken with financial help from the D.S.I.R. The company took pains to introduce a productivity and cost reduction sharing scheme in order to ensure that the workers would have a fair share of any benefits which would flow from the introduction of computer control. Also there was the closest collaboration between the manufacturers of the computer system, Elliott Automation Limited, and the Oxford University Press from the initial planning right through to the operational stage. People were sent from the printing company to the computer company, and vice versa, in order that each should know the other's problems. The computer firm said, "We do not know about paper making but we know about control systems", and the printing company said, "We know about paper making but not about automation and control systems". So they planned the thing together.
  The results so far have been extremely encouraging—increased output, better

  543
  quality production, higher wages and no redundancy. I understand that the whole cost of the project is expected to be recovered in less than two years. I hope that this will be noted especially by managements of small firms. They can put money in to mechanise and automate and achieve a satisfactory result. This was another of the projects backed by the N.R.D.C.
  This is part of the record of the activities which we have undertaken during our period of existence. Of course, I am aware that there are many which we have not fully dealt with. I am aware that in our examination of, for example, telecommunications and electronics, we have not a great deal of progress yet to report. I am aware also that one hon. Member opposite said that I ought not to rush into decisions about the electronics and telecommunications industries, suggesting that this was a most complicated matter, that our studies ought to be deep and detailed and that, when we came to conclusions, they should be supportable. That we intend to do.
  I do not intend to come every few weeks with a report to the House in order to prove that I am still working. I claim, I hope with justification in the light of the facts, that my Ministry has already a solid basis of achievement over a wide range of activities. I am satisfied that it has a vital and important part to play in the future development and modernisation of industry.
  It is not offensive to say that British industry in some instances needs assistance and modernisation. I am not decrying industry in saying that. We must not forget that many sections of British industry are ahead of the rest of the world. However, many others need aid to help them get there. Whether we like it or not, we are moving into a new world. Everyone in science and technology knows what can be accomplished. I hope that politicians—and for that purpose I include myself—do not regard it as simply a debating plank. It is something that we must face and I think that we should be prepared to help it rather than hinder it.
  5.31 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: If I have any castigations to deliver, I
  544
  hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Technology will not take them personally because I believe that where there has been misunderstanding in the public mind of what he was going to be able to do in his job that misunderstanding is not his fault but the fault of those who draw up the policy which visualised a Ministry of Technology and gave the impression that it would be able to do a great deal that the right hon. Gentleman himself now openly admits that he has not had time fully to decide upon or has not yet the powers to do.
  I have always thought that we should keep science and technology out of party politics as far as is reasonably possible. Obviously, if the question of ownership arises, then automatically the issue becomes one of party politics and one cannot help that. But in the work of science and in deciding on subjects of research we should always keep party politics to the minimum.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a very great danger, in dealing with this subject, of getting so fascinated by the new types of machinery and the various devices designed to help industry and provide it with new tools that we get carried away with the sophistication that it entails and forget those who have to employ the means. Unless we have the right approach in the minds of men at all levels of industry and in Government, particularly in the Civil Service, we shall not be able to use as we should all the tools that are now coming out in the most sophisticated form to help industry.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman will admit that we have not unduly pressed him so far to declare himself before he was ready to do so. I asked him before Easter to tell us a little about a certain order dealing with the Atomic Energy Authority. He then said that he would like to wait. He must expect us before the Summer Recess to question him about many of these matters.
  But all these things which are concerned with his Ministry will never be done as well as they should be done unless the Government Departments concerned are manned by people who have the right approach to life, by people who are themselves, in taking big decisions, approaching the whole question of modernisation and automation of industry

  545
  in the right way. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was right, when he took office, to try to learn what his job was to be, but I hope he will avoid the temptation to try to dazzle us with the end products of what has been a continuing process over many years. This, I think, is the great error of the policy upon which the Prime Minister has depended.
  A picture was painted before the last election of something that was rapidly grinding to a halt in industry when, on the contrary, there had been a steady increase of Government activity in science and technology. The right hon. Gentleman, like us all, is now reaping the benefit of what has been done by the D.S.I.R. over the years.
  The D.S.I.R. has now submitted its last report to the Minister, and through him to Parliament. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to congratulate those who have worked over the years in the D.S.I.R. and have achieved such amazing results. We all know how it grew up. We have read Sir Solly Zuckerman's account of how it emerged and also the Trend Report. They have told the history of this remarkable Department. We can all rejoice that many of those who have given such devoted service to it will continue under new labels in the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry and in various bodies for which he is responsible.
  Whatever we call the organisation, we all owe these men, as men, a very great debt. I hope we shall always remember that if we had not had the ability and dedication to the public wealth of these men over the years we should not have achieved the success we have, any more than we shall achieve the future success that we must get. If we ignore the fact that it is men first of all who really matter and that, if we choose the wrong men for the wrong job and do not have men who can interpret, use and encourage others to use modern tools in industry then, however brilliant and sophisticated those tools may be, we shall not get the results that otherwise we could get.
  Mr. Dalyell: Those who have debated this subject with the hon. Gentleman know how fair-minded he is. It is very well for him to talk about injecting science into the Civil Service, but what precisely has he in mind? Is he suggesting that there
  546
  should be a scientific sub-committee of the Public Accounts Committee? Is there not an onus upon him to specify rather than generalise?
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great enthusiast on this subject. I ask him to contain himself long enough to allow me to make my speech, and I will answer his question. He may recall that in October, 1961, the Labour Party Conference adopted "Signposts For The Sixties". At the time, some of my hon. Friends and I, together with some members of my party outside the House, were working on a report which we published just before the Trend Report came out. In that report, we pressed this very theme of what we thought ought to happen in Government Departments. I will quote from one of our major recommendations.
  If the Minister has not a copy of our report, perhaps I may have the privilege of sending him one. We sat for about two and a half years before the report came out and we took evidence from those dealing with the sort of departments the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for and with industry as well. Our principal conclusion was:
  "… the pace of technological progress and the pattern of research and development in Britain, which are crucial to our economic future, are already heavily influenced not only or even principally by specifically scientific policies but by almost every other aspect of Government economic and financial policy. This influence on the country's science and technology, which has so far been for the most part unconsciously exercised, is in need not so much of extension as of being recognised and deliberately directed. The Government should consider its policies not only in terms of the immediate purpose of a particular policy, but also in terms of the indirect impact of that policy in influencing the technological future of British industry. This will involve a much more detailed appraisal of the industrial repercussions of policy than the present machinery of Government can provide."
  We went on:
  "We recommend that every Government Department with industry should have a new kind of 'scientific-economic staff' to act as a forward policy planning unit and to advise the Minister on the technical and industrial implications of the Department's future policy plans, to gather economic and technical information from the relevant industries, to apply it to the specific aspects of the Department's work and generally to provide a technical intelligence service to the Department in formulating its future requirements and considering the developments of its policy."

  547
  I am sorry to have wearied the Committee with a long quotation, but I hope that that is partly the answer to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and I hope that it has conveyed to the Minister, if he was not already aware of it, the fact that we in the Conservative Party have been trying to think constructively about what is necessary in the Government machine itself to enable him, or anybody else in his office, to achieve the worthy objectives which he has set.
  In all my experience of life, whether as a soldier or in industry or elsewhere, I have always found that if one did not get one's headquarters right, one never succeeded. The right hon. Gentleman is extremely fortunate in being able to draw on the bodies which form his headquarters. But what I am worried about is whether he is getting the co-operation from other Departments which he must get if he is to succeed.
  This is where I blame the Prime Minister above all other Ministers, because if a Minister of Technology is to be given the job which the Prime Minister has outlined on more than one occasion, not least explicitly when he spoke to the annual general meeting of the Parliamentary Scientific Committee not long ago, it must be made possible for that Minister to get the co-operation from his Government colleagues which he must have if he is to succeed. This is where the Government are falling down and I have great sympathy with the Minister in his difficulties.
  There is one detailed matter on which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reply in some detail. In Sir William Penney the Minister has as the head of the Atomic Energy Authority one of the finest scientists and leaders of vital application in industry he could have. I would not wish to suggest, and nor would the Minister, that there should be any undermining of the position of the head of the Atomic Energy Authority, or that the Minister should start to interfere politically. However, in that excellent weekly journal, the New Scientist, and elsewhere, there have been recent reports indicating that there is still a certain potential commercial activity of the Authority which the Minister has not treated as he has treated commercial
  548
  activities of the Authority's research division.
  Personally, I welcome his decision over the other aspects, but why is he leaving Windscale's reactivation of spent fuel out of this commercial exercise? I understand that there is here a very big potential business building up and that there is the prospect of some very good trade with the Italian equivalent organisation. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take Sir William's advice and see whether we can develop this new commercial outlook with a possible extension to other countries? I hope that he will.
  For a very long time I have been a believer in what used to be called the Haldane system of Government and science—that the politician was not allowed to intervene too deeply in scientific matters. Over the years—certainly over the last 13 years, whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not—the amount of civil research and development sponsored by the Government and industry has rocketed. We have to ask ourselves whether we are getting full value for money. The process has now reached the point where those in charge of authorising this sort of expenditure have to be more qualified so as to know from whom to take advice on a scientific subject. This is becoming increasingly the great problem of Parliamentary control in science.
  I am certain that many people now taking these decisions are finding themselves more and more at sea, not knowing what the right answer is and not knowing to whom to turn to get it and, even when they get the answer, probably not comprehending it, simply because they do not think in that vernacular. These are the problems which the Minister should attempt. My sympathies are with him, because if the Prime Minister had meant what he said when he helped to write "Signposts For The Sixties", he would never have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to get into this position.
  5.46 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have the impression that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) was being a little unfair about the internal mechanism in Whitehall. Does not the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have an expert planning advisory group, and architects like

  549
  Richard Llewelyn Davies, the technically highest qualified people in the land? Does not the Ministry of Public Building and Works also have the highest quality of technical advice? The Department of Education and Science certainly has a formidable array of statisticians and other experts.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman about Parliamentary control. What does seem to me to be essential is that, to be effective, any Select Committee of the House of Commons must have not only the ability to call before it whom it pleases, but also an adequate staff to ensure that it is effective. It is because of this that some of us would recommend that what the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely wishes to achieve can best be effected by extending the present use of the Public Accounts Committee. There should be a small scientific unit working alongside the Comptroller and Auditor-General and his staff, directly responsible to the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, and paid on the same Vote as the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The Comptroller and Auditor-General might be an administrative primus inter pares.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: One very important Department which the hon. Gentleman left out of the list which I have particularly in mind is the Treasury.
  Mr. Dalyell: It so happens that I have with me a book by Samuel Brittan, "The Treasury Under The Tories". I got this book from the Library precisely because I had the same suspicion as the hon. Gentleman. It was my impression that the Treasury was back in a pre-Plowden sort of Gladstonian era in which it looked after candle ends. Having read this account of how the Treasury works—and I give credit to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), because it seems that he put through some very important Treasury reforms—I believe that the Treasury is very different from what it was 10 years ago.
  I think that those of us who criticise Whitehall have an obligation to be very specific in saying what we want done. What I want to see is an extension of the Public Accounts Committee and a subcommittee on civil science, armed not only with the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Department, but also with a small staff of its own which would not be
  550
  beholden to civil servants and could, perhaps, operate from private industry and the universities and C.A.T.s on the same basis as officers and members of the staff of the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst—that is, that they do not stay for more than three or five years. This will be the sort of organisation that will help to achieve the things that we both want.
  When I was on the benches opposite I never concealed that I had a very high regard for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), not as a Parliamentary performer, but from what one heard, of his capacity as an operator in Whitehall. I have said to my somewhat astonished constituents that although I had many other criticisms of the Government I always felt that the slogan "Marples Must Go" placed an emphasis in the wrong quarter.
  During the right hon. Gentleman's speech I wondered how many of his colleagues would accept what he told us this afternoon. It seemed to indicate a degree of coercion and dragooning that was considerably greater than anything that would be accepted by most of his colleagues on those benches. I am sorry that he is out of the Chamber. Perhaps I should have given him notice that I was going to take up this point, but I had no idea I would be called so soon.
  Specifically, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey said that we should extend our scientific relations with Europe, that one of the answers to our problems was to combine our efforts with those of our European partners. This, on the face of it, is an extremely attractive proposition and one to which I wholeheartedly subscribe.
  We are entitled to ask some questions, however. Why was it that the right hon. Gentleman's Government were not prepared to support the European High Energy Nuclear Physics Centre at Geneva when they were in need? I cannot forget that about 18 months ago I was the guest of the Director of the High Energy Centre at C.E.R.N. He complained bitterly that time and again, when he wanted to expand, it was, "You British who were dragging your feet". The Italians, the Germans and the French were easier than the British, who were holding back on expansion.
  It seems that if we are to talk with any idea of honesty about European

  551
  co-operation, then we must be prepared to say that we will not drag our feet. Let us give credit where it is due, in this case to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and his Department, because when a crisis was reached on the question of storage rings at C.E.R.N., the British Labour Government acted very promptly, even though it was a time of financial difficulty.
  Perhaps it lies more in our mouths rather than in the mouths of the Opposition to talk about European co-operation. I wish to follow the example of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely in that he was brief and to the point, in order to let other Members get into the debate. I would like to make one rather narrow point. Some weeks ago I was the guest, at their annual conference, of the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions. At its four and a half day conference at Whitley Bay we talked a great deal on the subject of mathematics. It was their belief that we could not have the sort of technological revolution that we are talking about today unless very many of our average pupils had some grounding in mathematics. Perhaps it is not only a question of pupils, but also a question of apprentices having a grounding in everyday mathematics.
  In paranthesis, I would wish to pay tribute to the apprentice training scheme that is operated by my right hon. Friend's Department, in its atomic energy engineering workshop at Dounreay and Chapelcross and elsewhere. I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) also knows something of this work at first hand.
  It is not very honest to talk about improved training in mathematics unless one is clear about where this instruction is coming from. Although it in no sense does away with teachers in mathematics, I believe that a great deal more use could be made in our country of programmed learning, of teaching machines and audio-visual aids, especially in training in mathematics and technical subjects. The 14 to 18-year-old, if he is to get a grounding in mathematics, needs confidence more than anything else. This often means being allowed to work at his own pace and not being made a fool of in front of other people. A person able to work at his own pace often overcomes
  552
  the blockages with which we are all familiar. Branching teaching machines can instil confidence in handling cosines and tangents in pupils.
  Perhaps one could leave it at that, and advocate teaching machines, but this would not be facing up to our present problem, because the situation at present is not at all satisfactory. When one writes to the Department of Education and Science on this subject it passes by like the Levite, on the other side of the road, and it sends a long memorandum, signed by Mr. Embling, from which I would like to quote at random.
  "The County of Oxfordshire has teaching machines being used experimentally in a rural school and the authority is planning to acquire more in 1964–65.
  Somerset: The headmaster of a day school for E.S.N. children is studying the use of programmed learning and teaching machines for remedial purposes."
  This is all very praiseworthy. I am not deriding it, but it is nothing like the co-ordinated policies we must have if teaching machines and audio-visual aids are to be used at anything like the significant rate which is required. Therefore, my call this afternoon is for co-ordination and some sort of plan. I would not wish to blame the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), or my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), for what they have apparently failed to do in the past, because until recently it was true that the programmes were not available and programming is the key to this whole situation.
  Now the time has come when the programmes are sufficiently far advanced to have a co-ordinated policy and now is the time for leadership and we look to the Government, to the Ministry of Technology and the Department of Education and Science for the leadership. The purpose of my speech is to propose one of two things, either co-ordination of a consortia of firms involved in making teaching machines, or publicly-owned industry. It is no use asking for leadership without being clear where one is to find the sort of machinery that we still need—the sort of hardware, to use the terminology of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey. It seems that the Government should get together a consortium of the firms that

  553
  have already experimented in programmed learning or else it should be the speciality of a small public enterprise, along the lines outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition.
  My right hon. Friend said:
  "We believe that research and development contracts should be placed with aircraft, electronics and other firms affected, with groups of young scientists, with Government research establishments and with the technical departments of the universities and colleges of advanced technology, to enable the research workers, the technicians and the productive workers to achieve a whole series of breaks through in the civil field. We have become accustomed to research and development contracts in the military field: it is urgent now to be working out a similar procedure in the civil field."
  That was the view of my right hon. Friend when he spoke at Preston on 19th June, 1964. Speeches of Leaders of Oppositions always repay study!
  Mr. Lubbock: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that a great deal could be done by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in drawing the attention of all local authorities to the experience of advanced authorities such as Essex which have made great use of programme learning and audio-visual aids?
  Mr. Dalyell: That is true, but my worry is that all Ministers are too concerned with what Lord Bridges called the "departmental philosophy" of leaving it to the local authorities. I believe that this problem can no longer be left to local authorities, however big and however progressive. With that qualification, I accept what the hon. Member for Orpington says.
  To return to my theme, we should consider setting up, in conjunction with colleges of advanced technology, or perhaps new universities, such as Stirling or Essex, not only research into programme learning but production units. Is it not crucial that, in order to get the right kind of teaching machines which will fit the needs of average pupils, there should be a certain feed-back between those who make them and those who use them? I should be very strongly in favour of allowing teachers who were interested to take part at the production stage. These men and women should participate; the teachers should be involved. These
  554
  matters should not be left to mechanics, however able, and engineers, however talented, to give to teachers what they think the teachers should have. This is a two-way traffic, and it is partly on these grounds that my preference would be for a publicly-owned enterprise rather than a private consortium.
  There is, however, another reason why I am swayed towards a publicly-owned enterprise. Because of the often legitimate worries of hon. Members opposite, I should go further on this point. Those of us who examined Sebastian de Ferranti and his firm, and those of us who attended the course run by Elliott Automation organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey, have learnt that these great firms, at any rate in relation to fixed price contracts, are not prepared, for reasons of their own, to allow equality of information. The Minister and his Department might care to study the evidence of Sir Richard Way to the P.A.C. on this point.
  Last Wednesday morning, the Elliott representatives made it very plain that they would not be party to fixed price contracts if it meant Government Departments or anybody else having access to all their "know-how" and commercial secrets. If we believe that teachers and technicians should have access to these secrets in order to make an optimum product, it seems that a publicly-owned unit would be better, set up in conjunction either with a college of advanced technology or a university.
  It is sensible to set up a publicly-owned unit where the products will be bought by the public purse and where there is, perhaps, an assured market. Of course, there would have to be assessors and the matter would have to be dealt with carefully, but the prize is very considerable. The prize is giving to our schools, taking advantage of the economies of scale, instruments which will give confidence in mathematics and in basic technical studies.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely spoke about engineers. Those of us who have talked to Mr. Feilden and others on his Committee—doubtless the hon. Gentleman is one of them—recognise that one of the difficulties is that a 16

  555
  to 18-year-old will not have that incentive to study engineering as he has to study pure science as science is more extensively taught in schools.
  The standard of engineering teaching which is thought a possibility at many of our schools would be immensely improved if the teachers could have at their disposal some of the excellent programmes in engineering developed partly through the Association of Mechanical Engineers with which the hon. Member for Orpington and others of us have recently been associated.
  I do not think that teaching machines are the answer to everything. Of course they are not. There is no panacea. But a serious Government policy to co-ordinate the production of teaching machines, constantly improved by feedback from teachers, developed by a university or by a college of advanced technology—and my preference would be for a new university such as Stirling or Essex, or at the National Visual-Aids Centre at Gypsy Hill—would be the sort of organisation which has been developed very effectively in New England where M.I.T. has done remarkable work. A teaching aid production unit is practical politics, it is sensible and it is a crucial factor which would take us into the new technological revolution and give a basic training to those whose working lives will extend to the year 2010 and 2015 without which it is senseless of us in this Chamber to think that we shall get the proper technological take-off that we all want.
  6.7 p.m.
  Sir Lionel Heald: When the Ministry of Technology was established I remember the Prime Minister saying that the Minister would be concerned with the practical application of science and technical skill in industry. On a later occasion he said that the Minister of Technology had the general duty of guiding and stimulating a great national effort to bring new advanced technological processes into operation.
  I wish to concern myself with only one limited aspect of that function and to emphasise the importance of a close connection between the Minister of Technology and the patents system and for him to insist, in his capacity as Minister
  556
  of Technology, that that system should be efficient and properly equipped.
  I know that this view was in the Minister's mind when he took up his position, because the point was dealt with in the debate on the Development of Inventions Bill on 18th February last. It was a joint effort: the Minister opened the debate and it was answered by the Minister of State, Board of Trade. It is sufficient for me to summarise briefly what the Minister of State said, which was that there must be the fullest co-operation between the Departments to ensure that industry and technical progress can benefit from what was done by inventors who, between them, made at least 40,000 new patent applications every year. It was, in fact, essential to have collaboration betwen the two Departments to that effect.
  As far as I know, there has never been any delineation of the respective parts to be played by the Minister and the Board of Trade. It may well be that it is not necessary or desirable that there should be any strict definition. But that statement was warmly welcomed by all those interested in various patent matters. It was assumed that the right hon. Gentleman would be ready to act as a friend and, we hoped, a champion of inventors and patentees whenever it appeared that their interests and rights were not, perhaps, being fully regarded either by the Board of Trade in its anxiety for efficient organisation or by the Treasury when it was concerned with such matters as taxation.
  I should like to bring two recent examples briefly to the notice of the Committee and thereafter to ask the Minister quite definitely to give us a clear answer about exactly how far and in what respects he is concerned in the kind of matter that I shall mention. The only Government proposal of any importance concerning our patent system since the General Election has been a proposal for the removal of the Patent Office from London. As far as I have had the opportunity of learning the views of those concerned with patents, almost without exception they regard this as a highly retrograde and undesirable move.
  My information is that the proposal was considered during the last Parliament by the previous Government, but certainly no decision was made in favour of the move.

  557
  On the contrary, it would seem to have been the other way, because it appears to have been decided in general principle at that time that at least the Patent Office library which is the hub of the whole patent system, the place to which everyone connected with patents has to resort in connection with the filling of applications, the making of final specifications and considerations of possible defences to claims of infringement of patents, all of which matters require ready access to the Patent Office, should remain in London.
  In May this year, however, the "grapevine" of the patent system, which I have always found to be a quite efficient organisation, appeared to have become aware that the proposal for removal was once again an active runner. The result was that the Federation of British Industries, the International Chamber of Commerce and other organisations on the industrial side, as well as professional organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, made strong representations against the proposal. It certainly would not be appropriate in this debate to rehearse the various arguments that were put forward; they were various and cogent. I venture briefly to mention only one, which has been the subject of considerable discussion. There have been speeches and discussion about it and there have been references to it in the Press.
  I refer to the international repercussions which those with experience of these matters believe would be created by what would appear to be a downgrading of our whole patent system at a moment when the Government have professed—as I am sure the Minister, if he were present, would agree was certainly his objective—that British technology, the application of the brains of inventors, the resources of those who develop inventions and the industrial people who make use of them, should enjoy a very high reputation for Britain in the world and that to move the Patent Office from the capital would have a deplorable effect. I have seen more than one letter or other communication from people in other countries making a strong plea that this should not be done.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Richard Marsh): Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously suggesting that the
  558
  act of moving the Patent Office or, presumably, any other office, out of London would downgrade it? Do I correctly understand him to say that offices of any sort outside London are inferior to those in London?
  Sir L. Heald: Certainly. It does not mean that the people in the office are inferior, but the view taken by those who are concerned with these matters is that the clear indication would be that it was not regarded as an essential matter to have the Patent Office in the capital city. The practical result would be that a great deal of added inconvenience, real difficulty and delay would be caused to those who were involved with the Office.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary appears to be rather surprised at that and, perhaps, does not agree. I hope that he will believe, as I am sure the Minister would if he were present, that he should be guided in these matters by those with knowledge and experience. Even though it may seem to the hon. Gentleman that what I am saying is surprising, I ask him to believe it to be possible, as someone else was once asked to do—Cromwell, I think—that he may be mistaken.
  It would not be right for me to go into it this evening, but I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should assume this attitude when it was stated by the Board of Trade representative who received the deputation—unfortunately, it was not one of the Ministers; he was a senior officer of the Board of Trade—that he fully recognised the point and regarded it as a serious one and that it would be carefully considered.
  That brings me to my next point. It would appear that at least the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has no real knowledge of the subject. All those who are engaged in this important subject—at least, I hope that the Minister of Technology regards the patent system as important; I have always assumed that he did—fear that the Minister has not taken any interest in the matter. Indeed, it is now said that although the deputation, according to my information, was received, as one would expect, with great courtesy and its arguments were listened to carefully, the members of the deputation were asked to deal with a number of detailed points because the gentlemen

  559
  at the Board of Trade who were discussing the matter with them apparently confessed that they were not familiar of the operations of the Patent Office. It was, therefore, hoped that the matter would be deferred for further consultation and discussion.
  It now appears to be generally felt that the matter is to be treated as a fait accompli and that the weighty considerations put forward by the highly representative deputation have been entirely in vain. I sincerely hope that that is not the case, but I cannot help—
  Dr. Bray: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to intervene?
  Sir L. Heald: I am in the middle of a sentence; perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to finish?
  It appears from today's OFFICIAL REPORT that in a Written Answer yesterday, the President of the Board of Trade said that
  "The present accommodation of the Patent Office is inconvenient and dispersed. I am considering the possibility of moving the Office to a place on the outskirts of the Greater London Council Area, or perhaps a little further, but with convenient access from Central London."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 58.]
  That is only one aspect of the matter which was under discussion. Those of us who are concerned with this matter and who regard it as one of the highest importance are extremely concerned to read that Answer, because it appears to be designed to close the matter and to prevent further discussion and consideration of a subject which is engaging daily attention in the correspondence columns of The Times and is also being discussed widely by people who are engaged in industry and who are very interested in patents.
  Dr. Bray: That was rather a long sentence. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaking on behalf of lawyers, or is he speaking on behalf of scientists? Has he himself observed that the Patent Office library is one of the best scientific libraries anywhere, and that it was because of the practical inconvenience in its use by scientists that the science lending library at Boston Spa had to be set up? Surely if one wants to have the resources of the Patent Office brought into industry, and to help scientists in
  560
  industry, Manchester would be a better place than the middle of London?
  Sir L. Heald: That may be so. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has quite appreciated the concern I have, which is that the matter should be considered with great care before a decision is made. I believe that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.
  I am most anxious to keep within the rules of order. This is not a debate on the Patent Office, and I appreciate that I could possibly go out of order by continuing on this point, but my concern is that the Minister of Technology ought to be greatly interested in this subject, and it appears that he has no connection with it at all.
  Those of us interested in this matter have not been able to ascertain that he has ever really addressed his mind to it, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's intervention just now made it perfectly clear that he knew nothing about it at all. Surely, it is a rather terrible thing that we should have the Minister of Technology, with his functions as laid down by the Prime Minister, not brought into this matter at all, and it should not be left to the Board of Trade.
  I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman in the very least. What I am saying is the very contrary. There is no political content whatever in what I am saying. What I am saying is that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been brought into a matter of this kind. If the Minister of Technology is to have and to perform the functions which the Prime Minister indicated, this is the very kind of subject with which he ought to be concerned, and yet, so far as I can see, he has absolutely no connection with it at all.
  I have no quarrel at all with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray); he may be perfectly right. That may be one of the things which ought to be taken into account, but we do not know what is going on, and, what is much worse, the Minister of Technology, apparently, does not know what is going on. What I am pleading for is that he should know.
  I will give another example. There is another interesting example of this very same sort which arose in connection with the Finance Bill the other day.
  Mr. Lubbock: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman finishes this part of his argument, I think that he ought to know that the Minister of Public Building and Works wrote on 4th June to me saying that the printing and sales branches of the Patent Office were to be housed in offices in my constituency, in St. Mary Cray. His letter went on to say that
  "the majority of the staff being dispersed from central London are going further afield".
  This indicates that a decision has already been made.
  Sir L. Heald: I do not know what "further afield" means. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West would like it to be Manchester, but it might be Manchester, or The Hartlepools, or anywhere. We do not know.
  But let me give this further example. In the Finance Bill provision was made for what should be included in valuations for Purchase Tax. There had been a provision dealing with patents and designs, and Clause 3 of the Bill incorporated copyright. That was apparently because authors, according to the newspapers, had brought forward the question of copyright and said that it ought to be taken into account, and the Government accepted that. The matter arose in the Schedules—
  Mr. R. W. Brown: On a point of order. I am following the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I find it very difficult to see where this fits into the debate. We have had discussion on patents and on inventors. I ask for your guidance, Dr. Broughton, where this part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech fits into our discussion on this Bill.
  The Temporary Chairman (Dr. A. D. D. Broughton): We are not discussing a Bill at the moment. We are discussing Class IV of the Civil Estimates, and so far the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks have been in order.
  Sir L. Heald: I will be very brief about this. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient just for a moment I think that he will see the point.
  The Finance Bill brought copyright into the matter where trade marks, patents, designs, had been mentioned. There was another case where provision
  562
  was made by amendment for relief from taxation in relation to copyright designs. An Amendment was put down suggesting that that ought also to apply to patents and designs, that inventors were entitled to protection. The Treasury, who, apparently, knew nothing about it at all, failed entirely to deal with the point.
  There is another example where the Minister of Technology, as I suggest, ought to have had that point brought to his attention. If it had been brought to his attention I have no doubt whatever that he would have appreciated that there should be the same type of relief given to inventors as is given to authors. At present, the position appears to be that the Minister of Technology is not supposed to have any responsibility for that kind of thing at all.
  Mr. R. W. Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not doing justice to the Finance Bill. Does he not recall that my right hon. Friend went into great detail to explain the problems of trying to establish patents and about copyright? I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing a grave injustice by arguing that these things were not taken into account.
  Sir L. Heald: I cannot argue that now, but I can say that my right hon. Friend said that he had never in his life heard an Amendment so inefficiently answered.
  I am only giving that as a practical example of this, that at present the Minister of Technology, who, I would have thought, essentially should be concerned with the interests and protection of inventors and the efficiency of the Patent Office arrangements and matters of that kind, apparently not only has no effective power to intervene but does not even have the interest to do so.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I was very interested in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and his comments about the location of the Patent Office. I think that what is rather more important is that generally the science and technological libraries of the country do need to be improved, and that where there is only one of a kind of document it needs to be duplicated and the copies more widely spread about.

  563
  This is essential because of the great number of developments. As one who has used the Manchester Library a great deal, may I say that if the Patent Office library were to go to Manchester I for one will be delighted.
  What my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology has said about research, study groups, training of technologists, and so on, has undoubtedly been valuable, but this work of education—and training—is important in so far as it is a means to an end, and it cannot remain the main work of my right hon. Friend's Ministry, because efforts taken in this direction will take time to make themselves felt. Even if they are all entirely successful there is really not enough time to educate an entire generation. This is a work which, I think, ought to be that of the Department of Education and Science and I do not conceive the Ministry of Technology being a branch of that Department.
  The research assistance given by the Ministry of Technology is of undoubted value. One of the weaknesses of our industry has been the inability to exploit some of the excellent ideas that have been put forward. I think that the Wolvercote Paper Mill, which has been given as an instance, is one type of development that we want to encourage. The weakness in technology in this country has been in the translation from the design board to production; in the development of the prototype, leading to the export consignments that should eventually follow.
  The real responsibility of the Ministry of Technology lies in the modernisation of British industry. It lies not in initiating study groups here, and giving research grants there, valuable though these are, and essential though they will be, but in modernisation, and this is why the Ministry of Technology is so important.
  The Ministry's success or failure will be determined not in 10 or 15 years, but in three, four or five years from now. It will be successful only if it is able to persuade industrial management to take certain decisions in the future which it has not taken in the past, and it is not a substitute for such action to devote the work of the Ministry entirely to education and training.
  Improvements in financial understanding, technical control, and managerial
  564
  ability are most important and vital to industry. The work of the Ministry is of some value in accelerating this understanding, but this is all very slow in working. We cannot await the new generation to train and, eventually reach the managerial positions in which they, in turn, will influence industry. We have to influence the managers that we have in industry now. It is, therefore, in providing incentives here and now that the Ministry of Technology can play its most important rôle. More important, incentives can act quickly, and the effects can be seen with greater certainty.
  Unfortunately, at present, there are very few incentives. The only really important incentives are those of the investment, initial and annual allowances provided by the taxation system. These investment allowances do not necessarily contribute to the modernisation of industry, which I consider to be the criterion for useful investment. Furthermore, the present system of investment assistance is undoubtedly haphazard, and I am not just thinking that the same investment allowances are given for computers as are given for gaming machines, scandalous though this may be. These allowances to encourage investment are indifferent to the type of investment, whether for the replacement of machinery, or modernisation, or whether the investment is beneficial to the community or not.
  The whole case for giving investment allowances is that the investment so made should be beneficial to the community. What is of benefit to the community is not only that investment should be made, but that industry should be encouraged to modernise, and the two are not necessarily the same. Annual and initial allowances, for example, are precisely the same whether the machinery or plant is new or secondhand. These are by no means actual distributions, and I think that we should understand this. Initial and annual allowances are not gifts given to industry. But there is an element of assistance in them, and it is fair to make the point that they are the same for secondhand as for new machinery and equipment. It is of importance that discrimination should be possible between blanket investment given by the present capital allowances, and modernisation, which should

  565
  be the way to try to make use of our allowances.
  There is a further element in the discrimination in investment. The Ninth American Machinist Inventory of American Working Equipment, 1963, showed that in the United States in that year 64 per cent. of machine-tools in use were more than 10 years old, of which 21 per cent. were more than 20 years old. Over the period of time which I have chosen, which is quite fair, one sees that, in 1925, 44 per cent. of the machine tools in use were more than 10 years old, that in 1953 that figure had risen to 55 per cent., and that in 1963 it had increased to 64 per cent. This rise in the number of machine tools more than 10 years old is very illuminating, and perhaps rather surprising, because it is likely that our figures—I have been unable to find comparable figures—show a similar trend.
  Mr. Lubbock: Metal Working Production carried out a study of British machine tools about a year or 18 months ago. I cannot remember the exact figures, but they are worse than those which the hon. Gentleman has quoted relating to America experience.
  Mr. Sheldon: I saw some of those figures, but they were not strictly comparable, and it is rather difficult to do the pinpointing which is possible with the American figures, and from which one is able to draw useful deductions.
  When one examines the conclusions and the reasons for those figures, one sees that they are not quite so startling as they might appear at first sight. Some machine tools, naturally, are changed rather less frequently than others, and in some cases the failure to change machine tools does not have a great effect on productivity. A bench drill in the corner is not necessarily a sign of bad management, but what is crucially important is that certain kinds of new equipment are widely used. The American Inventory to which I referred shows that there are certain categories of equipment which are extremely new and are used. What is needed is not necessarily blanket investment, even for so important an investment as machine tools. What is important is that there should be certain peaks as the American survey shows, of certain kinds of machinery and equipment.
  566
  Every new machine has latent possibilities which are undreamt of at the design stage and it is important that there should be a wide understanding of the working of certain kinds of new machines which, in their turn, will lead to the next advance in development and production. These are the crucial investments, and special treatment should be given to them and special categories created for their encouragement.
  The present method of influencing investment is by means of the capital allowances which are set off against taxation. Unfortunately, these have always been very complicated and not sufficiently or generally understood. The total cost of the capital allowances in 1964 was £1,195 million. This seems a large sum to encourage investment, but, on closer examination, one sees that that is not quite the case, because the capital allowances are split in three ways. First, there are the annual allowances which are really a kind of depreciation. They should be called depreciation allowances. In that year, they totalled £731 million.
  The system of annual allowances works, as depreciation works, by writing off a certain part of the value of the investment each year. When the investment is finally sold—when it is useless, or not longer required—if there is a profit it shows that the depreciation has been too high and, as a result, there will be a balancing charge to be set off against the profit.
  On the other hand, when the investment is sold at a loss it naturally shows that the depreciation throughout the years has been too low as compared with the annual allowances, but, there again, a balancing allowance will be added to the allowances. So there is no element of assistance by the Government, except to the extent that they are rather more generous than the actual depreciation.
  This remains a subject of speculation, because the figures are not conclusive, although their general import should be accepted. Industry in general does not depreciate quite so quickly as the annual allowances permit. It is, therefore, rather difficult to estimate the precise amount of assistance given by annual allowances. Nevertheless, if the allowances are more generous they are taken back, in effect, when the piece of plant or equipment is sold at the end of its life.

  567
  So there is no net gain or loss. What there is is something in the nature of a loan, which is given in the initial stages, when the investment is fresh. After a certain time, when the investment is written down to zero it is also worth zero and the book and the real values coincide. When the investment is sold the profit is a balancing charge on which tax is paid.
  The second form of assistance given to industry by the Government—the second form of incentive—is the initial allowance. In 1964, this totalled £142 million. Initial allowances are given only for the first year in which the piece of plant or equipment is purchased, and it is taken into account in precisely the same way as annual allowances are taken into account when the piece of equipment or machinery is sold at the end of its useful life.
  These can, therefore, be added together in one respect, because if the initial allowances plus the annual allowances—the depreciation allowances—are greater than the actual depreciation, there is a loan over that period. The real cost of the loan is difficult to assess, but it is a little easier to guess than is the effect of the annual allowances, and I hazard a guess that it amounts to about £30 million a year out of the total cost of annual allowances of £142 million.
  The third method of providing incentives to British industry by the Government is by means of investment allowances. These are given only for new investment. In 1964, they amounted to £322 million. They provide a real and positive contribution. This total amount of assistance to aid investment in industry in 1964, plus my rough guess of £30 million, representing the value of the loan interest charge, plus something else which is quite indefinable in terms of loan interest—because the annual allowances depreciate rather more quickly than some of the low depreciation rates generally accepted in parts of British industry—gives an extremely rough total of £370 million. This is an approximate estimation of the cost of the incentives provided by the Government to industry to invest not on specific items, but generally.
  The Corporation Tax, as was pointed out by the right hon. and learned Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), will effectively cut the value of all capital allowances.
  568
  These will be cut—using the same figure that I have adduced, to £240 million, so the net reduction will be about £130 million. But the encouragement to higher retentions which is given by the Corporation Tax effectually offsets this if the retentions increase by 9 per cent. I am speaking of the incentives given by the Government to industry to invest in machinery and equipment, and I am trying to point out that on this increase of retentions the investments will remain the same.
  The Corporation Tax will not hit at investment; it will promote it. But the promotion will still be inadequate, and it will still be indiscriminate. The question of discrimination in investments is of crucial importance. All civil servants and all hon. Members try to avoid categorisation, because it is liable to be shot at. The categorisation of certain items for investment, Purchase Tax or anything else, always leads to the danger of too much rigidity. Some categories can be separated only by a hair's breadth, and it is difficult to defend marginal cases.
  Nevertheless, we know that if we are to get investment in the right types of plant and machinery, categorisation of some kind will be needed. We all know that despite the derision which the former Member for Kidderminster, Sir Gerald Nabarro, used to show for categorisation in respect of Purchase Tax, and despite certain anomalies in the surcharge which was imposed last November, the categorisation of investments must come, even though, naturally, it must be rather broader than the more detailed categorisation in the examples I have cited.
  It should be remembered that this is not entirely new. Annual allowances, as at present, represent a feeble attempt at categorisation of investments. In annual allowances there is a table, starting from the highest rate, at 31¼ per cent. for combine drills used in agriculture and going down to 20 per cent. for precision machine tools. I quote this glaring anomaly not as an argument against categorisation, but to show that the Ministry of Technology can play its part in determining where assistance can most profitably be given.
  Somebody has to take a decision in this matter. No decision means the same

  569
  rate of investment allowances for fur coats as is given for computers. If the Ministry of Technology is to influence investments it must also influence initial investment and annual allowances. The rôle of the Ministry is not to stand on the sidelines of industry, providing money here and there for the study of this aspect or that. It is more than a branch of the Department of Education and Science, and it must concern itself with technological assistance to the economic wellbeing of the whole of industry.
  In the past, a knowledge of technology and an understanding of economic forces were not often found together. It is for the Ministry of Technology to develop this rôle—this joining together of technology and economic forces which can create a great and lasting improvement in our industrial structure.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I listened with great care to the speech of the Minister and felt growing disappointment with what he had to say. I hoped for the kind of clear lead which would be intelligible to the great mass of people working in industry—that clear lead which is necessary if we are to get the new atmosphere of which the Minister spoke on the shop floor as well as in the realms of higher management. I have never sneered at the speech which the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, made at Scarborough in 1963. I have always felt that when it was made that speech expressed a view which had great support outside the Labour Party and the trade union movement. The only fear I have is that the clarion call which was heard then has not been lived up to in practice.
  The phrase used in "The New Britain", "mobilising the Resources of Technology under a national plan" would, if it were put forward in a manner which roused the enthusiasm of the mass of our people, be acceptable to those of all party complexions. This afternoon, we did not hear—
  Mr. Maxwell: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths) was present when the debate began. If he had been, he would know that the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) had already opened with a Conservative Central Office brief. Is this really necessary?
  Mr. Griffiths: There is nothing to answer there. I have been here throughout the debate and probably longer than the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell).
  In his opening speech, the Minister did not justify the promises which were made at Scarborough and again last October. Nor did he justify the paraphernalia of a whole new Ministry. I represent a constituency in the West Midlands where we have special problems in this respect. Although we have very large units of production, such as the car industry, many firms in the West Midlands are small, many of them family firms, and they are the bodies which we must ensure are modernised, using the most modern equipment. However, because of their small size they are the firms which find it most difficult to introduce the most modern equipment because of its great complexity, great cost and the need that such equipment shall be used full time. The small firm may find it difficult to make full use of such equipment if it has to use it for itself.
  If I were, with all modesty, to suggest what the function of the Ministry of Technology should be, I would say that it is to arouse the enthusiasm of people within industry for the modernisation of the work they do, that they should be ready and receptive for the introduction of the most modern machinery. This is vital. It could be done, first of all, by the co-operation of other Departments of the Government, secondly, in co-operation with industry, and thirdly, by gaining the confidence of the public and private sectors, not only of industry but of administration.
  The Minister said that his Department was "guiding the application" of technology. I accept that many of the points he made are examples of the kind of advance which we should like to see. They did not arouse enthusiasm in the House, and they certainly will not arouse enthusiasm outside. They will not create the kind of atmosphere which is necessary. I was disappointed, because he appeared not to be very interested in the suggestion that he should personally draw on international experience. Perhaps I misunderstood him. I thought that he suggested that because he was tied here

  571
  it was not practicable to do this. Before his Department carries out many of its projects, it would be useful to see what has been done abroad to make sure that there is no unnecessary duplication.
  The Post Office has already been mentioned in connection with the advances in co-ordination which I have suggested, so I will not repeat what has been said. The Minister might co-operate with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in industrial training. I know that there are certain Prayers on the Order Paper which indicate that there is a certain amount of teething trouble in the application of the industrial training of young persons, but I believe that the principle is well established and accepted by industry. It could be expanded so that it took in people who were not in the early stages of their training but in the higher echelons of management.
  Co-ordination with the Minister of Housing and Local Government would be extremely fruitful. The modernisation of local government procedures will be of great importance when we have the reorganisation of local government boundaries in the West Midlands. Here is an opportunity which, if it is not seized at this moment, may not come again for many years. I hope that it will be possible for the production of modern, technical, electronic equipment to be planned ahead to meet demand and that there will be no bottlenecks when the new units of local government are set up in the West Midlands and elsewhere.
  I hope that there will be co-ordination with the Department of Education and Science. I must agree with the remarks which have been made about teaching machines. It might be possible for the Minister to co-ordinate the use of equipment in industry and commerce with that which is used in education. For example, in my constituency, calculating machines for children of 11 and 12 have been introduced, so that they do not waste their time on mere computation but are tackling the real mathematical problems. The equipment in our schools is dreadfully expensive. An attempt to standardise the equipment in industry, commerce and education would be to everyone's advantage. This is where the Ministry of Technology could use its influence to great effect.
  572
  The work of language training and the development of language laboratories goes on side by side in industry and education with the training to go abroad and carry out our export programmes and the training of youngsters in our schools. Standardisation could lead to a reduction in cost of this kind of equipment. Perhaps, with his position in the Cabinet, the Minister might find it possible to ensure that the progress in electronics made within the Armed Forces is fed back into industry, so far as the national security permits. Very often, there is a duplication of effort between the Armed Forces and industry.
  Lastly, I suggest that the Minister of Technology could take over the direct function of training senior people within industry and commerce. As a teacher, I remember the refresher courses for teachers which were run by the Ministry of Education on the Ministry's own initiative, not just for young entrants to the teaching profession but for people with many years of experience, who found great value from such courses. I wonder whether the Minister could take a leaf out of the book of the Department of Education and Science and put on such courses, not for young men entering industry, whose influence will not be felt for 20 years, but for those who are already in positions of top management. I should like to see them back in school, if only for a short time. With them, there might be some of the top officials from trade unions—[An HON. MEMBER: "And Members of Parliament."] Indeed, Members of Parliament as well, if the Minister wished.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would my hon. Friend think of recommending to the Minister that he might take a look at the British Institute of Management, which was set up to achieve many of the objectives that my hon. Friends and I first had in mind and which perhaps has fallen into disuse because there is not a close enough attachment between those interested in technology and the Board of Trade who, at the present moment, are the responsible body for it?
  Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It confirms the great need for co-ordination between people working to the same ends. That is perhaps a field where the Minister of

  573
  Technology might find that his efforts were fruitful.
  Mr. Marsh: Before the hon. Member goes too far on the side of sending businessmen and other top men back to school, he should bear in mind that they have been back to school for the last six months on courses set up under the Industrial Training Act.
  Mr. Griffiths: I agree that is a fact, but I am trying to suggest that there is a need for far greater training within small firms than within the larger units. Particularly in the West Midlands, where you have such small firms, it is essential that their managements should be given this type of opportunity.
  I was developing the point that I feel we ought not only to look at those in the managerial capacity but at those in positions of authority in the trades unions. It is their attitude that has so much influence on the decision whether or not modernisation shall be accepted. This is in many ways a partnership, and some mixed educational classes with the two groups together might produce some interesting extra-mural work, as well as value within the classroom.
  I suggest that the Ministry besides creating the atmosphere which I have called for might well continue the function which has already been outlined by the Minister and which I appreciate very greatly: to review the need for the re-equipment of industry and to continue the need for research into techniques and developments. I accept that as being extremely important, but I would impress upon the Minister the great urgency of the need for reports to be produced as soon as humanly possible. As there are so many changes, it is possible always to say that it is a continuing process and that we shall never come to the end of developments. But I think it is essential that we have interim reports, even if the same group continues its studies later. If there is co-ordination of effort between Government Departments, the Services, education and industry, we shall create the size of home market which is so essential if our producers of equipment are to find markets overseas.
  We must all make sure that we do nothing in our political discussions that could be interpreted as preventing
  574
  management from carrying out modernisation programmes and workers from accepting them. We all have a responsibility in this, because on it hangs the survival of our country, and it is far more important than temporary political advantage and the scoring of political points. I hope that if the Minister of Technology can arouse the enthusiasm within industry and commerce that I have suggested, he and his Ministry will have the full support of all sides of the House, because the function is one of vital importance. Such a lead would be positive evidence of a real intention to modernise Britain. Without it, I am sure that Parliament and the country will come to the conclusion that much that we have heard has been just talk. I hope we shall see practical evidence very soon of the kind of modernisation programmes that were forecast last year, and that we shall feel that we are getting the kind of lead that industry and commerce deserve.
  7.5 p.m.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: I think we all enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), and probably if he goes on in the same way and can overcome his persecution complex, he may yet make a good Parliamentarian. He favoured the House with some analysis of the work of the Ministry of Technology and, I was very glad to see, he passed over what seemed to me to be some of the more superficial criticisms that have been made by some of his colleagues on the benches opposite and by the Press. I suspect that there is a certain amount of feeling on the Front Bench opposite between the right hon. Member for Wallasey, on the one hand, who, if he will forgive me for saying so, is a practical man like the Minister himself, and, on the other hand, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who has been sitting like a great fleshy wet blanket on technology through practically the whole life of the Government of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I only hope that the right hon. Member for Wallasey wins.
  Some of the comments that have been made from the benches opposite were, first of all, the old theological arguments of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) that the whole

  575
  idea of the Ministry was wrong, anyway. That really seems to be past history. We can have many possible patterns of Ministries. All of us were so fed up with the arguments about it before the election that we were very glad that the pattern was settled decisively, and I trust that the Ministry will be allowed to settle down not for five years but for the 10 years that it takes to get a Department strongly established in Whitehall and in the machinery of government. I hope that other Departments will note this, and that there is no point in regarding the Ministry of Technology merely as a bird of passage.
  The other point which has been made by some people outside the House, though not, I am glad to say, in the House this afternoon, is the question of the rôle of the Minister himself. I hear a great deal from engineers and technologists, many of whom have met the Minister on previous occasions. They have found him a great contrast from the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science, because they feel he is on their side, that he is knowledgeable and quite genuinely interested in what they are doing. Nor would any of us feel in the House, though the suggestion has sometimes been made outside, that industry and public opinion are not interested in the Ministry or in the advance of technology. I think they quite genuinely are.
  The suggestions that technology cannot be made the subject of live political and public interest are entirely wrongly based and, as the influence of the Ministry develops, I am quite sure that will be the view of the country.
  In opening his speech my right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the extraordinary superficiality of blaming him for not having put all the economic ills of the country right in his first nine months of office, particularly considering the economic situation that we inherited. Even more serious than the economic situation that we inherited is the rundown state of the machinery of Government itself, within which a Ministry had to be created to galvanise Whitehall and the Government of the country into a new frame of mind about technology.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Did I understand the hon. Member to say that I had been suggesting that there should not be a Ministry? That is not what I intended to convey. What I intended to convey was that if we are going to have a Minister, the Government should give him the necessary power and backing to get on with his job.
  Dr. Bray: Yes, but it was the old argument about the demarcation between Ministries, which I think is rather sterile.
  The right hon. Member for Wallasey suggested that the range of industries for which the Ministry is responsible should be extended, and he mentioned the building industry in particular. While the Ministry of Technology is responsible for the Building Research Station, he must either take responsibility for the technology of the building industry or shed responsibility for the Building Research Station. I understand that the reason for this was that when the Building Research Station was put under the Ministry of Works, as it used to be, all scientific and technological work in the station stopped, while the station wilted in the hands of the administrators. It had to be put back under the protection of D.S.I.R. as quickly as possible.
  I am sure that that state of affairs does not apply today, with the lively directorate of research and development in the Ministry of Public Building and Works, and I hope that the Building Research Station can be persuaded to accept its rôle in the Ministry of Public Building and Works and in the industry which it ought to occupy. Alternatively, responsibility for technology in building should be transferred to the Ministry of Technology.
  Another industry in serious need of attention is the heavy plant manufacturing and chemical engineering industry. Delivery in this country for heavy steel pressure vessels from British industry is two years. One can get a better vessel, cheaper, delivered from Japan in ten months. The reason for this is not cheap labour and it is not excess capacity due to a trade cycle in Japan. It is due to proper equipment, proper management structure and complete modernisation in the Japanese heavy engineering industry. I hope that the tremendous export potential of the plant building industry in this

  577
  country will be further explored by the Minister, particularly since it is an industry which at the moment is an orphan with no Ministry taking an interest in it.
  If the range of technology needs to be expanded then the Minister needs to look at the people that he has to deal with the whole range of problems which come to his Department. There is no denying that there is an undercurrent of unease in the relationship between the technologists and the administrators in the Civil Service. I receive a continual stream of representations from people in the service and in industry on this question.
  Perhaps I may quote some of the more restrained remarks which have been made to me. One is,
  "There is a unanimous view that if the professional and similar classes were to be given managerial responsibility in the service and this were to become known, this would greatly help recruitment to the service. The divisions between the administrative and professional workers exist in the service just as they do outside. It would help if it could be shown in terms of responsibility and progress to the top posts that technical people are not at a disadvantage. The facts at present are against this."
  The Minister referred to the value of having the managing director an engineer so that the technologist could feel that it was his show, run by his kind of person. I am sure that the Minister will not take it unkindly if I ask him to look at his own Department in this respect. I will quote a remark made about the Department by an official who I do not think is known to the Minister personally and who certainly is not one that he knows I know. He said:
  "Many of us expected that the new Government would improve the standing of scientists and engineers in the Civil Service. You can perhaps imagine our feelings. The administrative class is on top, the scientists and engineers are on tap."
  Mr. Cousins: May I point out to my hon. Friend that this is not so. Obviously we have two departments. We have an administrative department in which we need administrators. We certainly have scientists in our other top posts and most of our groups are headed by scientists. We have recently recruited a well-known scientist, Dr. J. B. Adams, to be controller of our Department. What my hon. Friend said is a misunderstanding of the responsibilities of the Department.
  Dr. Bray: I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that and I hope he will clear up the feeling which has existed. All I can say is that it is a quite genuinely held feeling. The fact that the Minister has helped to clear up the position this afternoon will no doubt ease the unrest. The feeling is not confined to his Department nor is the problem of the introduction of expertise into the Civil Service, the relationship between expert and administrative staff, and the question whether this demarcation is an obsolete conception, entirely confined to his Department.
  I would go further and ask whether we can achieve many of the things which the Ministry of Technology wants to achieve while the present structure of administration exists in the public service. May I refer to my right hon. Friend's announcement about a working party on the machine tool cycle? This remark, again, is not from his Department but it relates to operational research in which he has an interest. The remark is:
  "This particular problem needs six months high-powered operational research study, an expert tells me. If Minister X would give me that job, I should run it myself full-time. What is he up to? Why it is left to Minister Y, who clearly does not understand it? Why does Minister Z lie so low? I am by now feeling exceedingly frustrated. All I have been given to do so far by those I thought intended to use me is a particularly unsavoury, if high-level one-meeting-a-month-committee job."
  Mr. Marples: Which Ministers?
  Dr. Bray: If the right hon. Gentleman presses that too far he may discover that they were Ministers in the last Government.
  The problem remains of bringing the experts together. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that the problem of the machine tool cycle is an operational research problem. By all means let us have a committee of representatives of the industry. If I know that industry, the Minister will certainly get some odd people. Let us have representatives of the trade unions and the City. No doubt these people can contribute to an analysis and review of the problem. But its solution, I am afraid, is probably better handled by people who have dealt with trade cycles and general stock problems in the operational research field.
  This brings me to the whole point of the machinery of Government. One cannot assess the effectiveness of the Ministry

  579
  of Technology and its impact on industry in isolation from other Departments in Whitehall. We have been talking about the modernisation of Government. The right hon. Member for Wallasey emphasised this. I am glad to say that he rubbed it in. I am also glad that he reminded us of the speech made by the Prime Minister at Scarborough.
  The modernisation of Government was originally and must remain the theme of this Government. But I have some misgivings about the pace at which we are advancing in this direction. We have different objectives from those of our predecessors, but we are still operating the same old rickety machinery and are making decisions in the same antiquated ways. What we had hoped to do was to modernise the way in which the decisions were taken. When we were facing a problem we wanted to ensure that the information was available which was needed to settle that problem satisfactorily. We should be able to think out the information and consider various methods by which the problem may be solved.
  Before the election we had worked out a system for the computerisation of Government statistics. As the House knows, the man in a back street firm in Birmingham sends in a return about the numbers of men he employs to the employment exchange or in some cases to the regional office of the Ministry of Labour. In the end that goes to St. James's Square. The production from that firm is reported either to the trade association or direct to the Board of Trade and it is added into the total for the industry. Any building plans which the firm has are submitted to the Minister of Public Building and Works through his Ministerial machine. But the firm itself totally disappears from statistics, and nobody in Whitehall knows anything about it. If it is necessary to inquire into a problem about it, one must start from scratch and find out what it is all about. This is true, not only of the problems of the individual firm but of the problems of any aspect of industry which suddenly crop up and which the Government want to know about urgently, only to learn that the information is not at hand to deal with them.
  Before the election we had in a working party the advice of the foremost
  580
  experts in the country in setting up a system to deal with this—for preserving the information, being able to handle it fluently, marshalling it for those who need it, whether they are in Government or in industry, either in the nationalised industries or in the private sector. This has not been followed up. These proposals have been buried beneath two layers of official committees which have considered none of the principles involved in this reorganisation and which have no appreciation of systems analysis or analysing a problem as it must be analysed in the computer world. These committees are playing noughts and crosses with a list of 100 improvements in timing, in accuracy, in coverage of the existing pattern of statistical returns, without really considering the problem from a fundamental point of view.
  No doubt many hon. Members read the article in last week's Sunday Times about Richard Stone's work at Cambridge on the computable model of the economy. That work should be done in Government. Now that it is working or reaching the development stage, it should be done in Government. Why is it not being done in Government?
  With the present way of handling information, when we talk of planning we are trying to make bricks not only without straw but without clay. What we are doing is ordering the furniture for a planning system before we have built its foundation or before we have built the structure of the house.
  I turn to another field altogether from the economic planning field, but still a vital field in the modernisation of this country. The Labour Party owes its modern outlook on pensions and social welfare to the social research into the needs of old people and the working of the social security system conducted by Professor Richard Titmuss, Peter Townsend and Brian Abel-Smith. Yet these gentlemen seem to have been kept at arm's length by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. Why? Why is there this difficulty in introducing the best analytical thought and the best research into Government Departments?
  Change is perhaps beginning to take place, but it still has a very long way to go. The most lively set of appointments made by any Minister so far were those made by my right hon. Friend the

  581
  Secretary of State for Wales, with Peter Hall, Christopher Foster and a number of other bright young men of their generation. I hope that this example set by my right hon. Friend will be widely followed by his colleagues in the future.
  The right hon. Member for Wallasey mentioned the control of computers in Government generally and spoke of the way in which he as a Minister would stake an imperialist claim for this if it were to be offered to him. The right hon. Gentleman needs to think a little further about the problem. As I understand it, the position now is that, whereas the actual responsibility for hardware and advice on the hardware of computer installations and the software that goes with them is the responsibility of the Ministry of Technology, the systems analysis, the operational research, the economic justification for machines, still rests basically with the Treasury. The Treasury claims responsibility for operational research, but it is not doing anything about it. It is just sitting on it like a dog in the manger.
  I very much hope that the Minister of Technology will do a little poaching here and suggest to the Treasury that if it does not get on with the job he will start doing it himself, as he is very well equipped to do. There is no sense of urgency in the Treasury about this matter. The Treasury seems to engender the most violent emotions in the hearts of Members of Parliament, Ministers and civil servants in other Departments. But people are a little unfair. The suggestion is that the Treasury is a heartless tyrant grinding the faces of the poor. It is not. It is much more a kindly, elderly sub-postmistress with a long queue at the counter. The problem is not solved by bringing in the dear old sub-postmistress's sister to stand behind the counter with her in the next-door department in Great George Street to work the machine by the same old methods. This is just dividing the responsibilities differently, one dealing with the National Insurance stamps and the other doing the postage and the Savings Bank. There must be a development of new methods. We must take a much more fundamental look at the system than we have yet been able to.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will thoroughly enjoy throwing his weight
  582
  around in Whitehall in this direction. He needs to bring a breath of fresh air on to the scene. If he finds the archaic traditions of the House of Commons a little difficult to adjust to—and who can blame him—I only hope that he finds the traditions of Whitehall equally difficult and that he is refusing to adapt. I wish him every luck in this campaign. I am sure that he needs to conduct this campaign if he is to pull off the results which we all hope for from himself and from his Department.
  I am sure that we shall see progress in specific projects coming through. I know that there are very interesting things in the pipeline, but I am sure that the pipeline will become much greater in diameter and that the projects will move along it much faster if a real, fundamental reconsideration is set in hand of the part played by the Government and of the whole machinery of government itself.
  7.26 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: I hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his speech, in an effort to ensure the brevity of my own. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remark about the sub-postmistress will he sufficiently amusing and new to make his speech stand out today.
  It is exactly four years and four days since we had a debate on Science in which, to my great regret, I failed to catch the eye of the Chair. In desperation, I wrote a letter to The Times the following day, condensing a 20-minute speech into about three paragraphs. The Times very kindly printed it. I think that it achieved far greater publicity than the speech would have received had I made it. I regret to say that, despite this publicity, since that day no action has been taken on the important and dramatic points I then made. It was, perhaps, too way-out in those days, but now we have a new Minister and we have my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) who is, as was reflected by his speech today, receptive to new ideas. Because I believe that my right hon. Friend will soon be occupying a seat on the Treasury Bench again, I address my remarks not only to the Minister but to my right hon. Friend.

  583
  I want to speak about people, not about plant. The Minister mentioned the use of technologists. He is particularly used to handling and dealing with people. I hope that he will find what I have to say stimulating. We must find incentives to make management and trade unions accept modernisation and change in our factories. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who, unfortunately, is not here now, made a most interesting speech on selective financial incentives. I go a very long way with the comments the hon. Gentleman made in the early part of his speech. This again, will allow me not to have to repeat any of that aspect of my own speech.
  There is one other incentive which I will not mention in detail and that is the increased competition which our industries must have in order to be forced to make needed changes. May I therefore deal with a third aspect where immediate change can be made in the improvement of the use of technology and technologists, and that is in the private sector of manufacturing industry.
  I should like to recite five groups of figures and then draw a conclusion. All these figures come from an extraordinarily interesting survey entitled, "Scientific and Technological Manpower in Great Britain, 1962". When I mention technicians I refer to the scientists and technologists whose qualifications are enumerated in that survey. First, more than half of all those employed in private manufacturing industry work for firms which employ fewer than 500 employees. Next, about half the total of the technical manpower of the country, that portion of it being 88,000, are engaged in private manufacturing industry. [Interruption.] I should like the Minister to listen to this. It has waited four years and four days to be produced and I am desperately anxious that he should take it in as well as read it in detail tomorrow, which I am sure he will.
  Of the total of 88,000 technologists engaged in private industry, two-thirds are employed in firms employing more than 500 and one-third work for firms employing under 500. Perhaps I could refer to them as the larger and the smaller firms. In the larger firms, 15 employees
  584
  in every 1,000 are technologists and in the smaller firms five in every 1,000 are technologists. Therefore, the man who works in the larger firm has three times the technical backing of a man who works in the smaller firm.
  Lastly, there is the question of how these technologists spend their time. Of the total of 88,000, 32,000 are used for research and development sponsored wholly by private industry. Of these 32,000—and here is the rub—26,000 work for the larger firms and 6,000 work for the smaller firms.
  This brings us to certain conclusions. Over half of those who work in private manufacturing industry, that is 4 million people out of 7½ million, are assisted by only one-quarter of our technologists, of whom only 6,000 back them with research and development. The remaining 3½ million who work for the larger firms are backed by the balance of 26,000 technologists who are working on research and development. It seems, therefore, that the majority of our working people are working with a very small research, development and technological backing. I believe that this is the real reason why our manufacturing industry has failed to keep up with the productive ability of our competitors overseas. This is the picture, and a picture in proportions almost completely unchanged over the last four years, except that those engaged in the smaller firms on research and development have actually gone down in number by 500.
  May I draw the conclusions and then draw to a conclusion? These figures must show that the larger firms are more conscious of the use and value of technologists. They also lead to the conclusion that only where there are large runs of a particular product is it possible most efficiently and effectively to harness modern production techniques. We therefore come to the only possible conclusion in my own mind, which was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths), but I disagree with him. He said that we must have more training of people in these smaller firms. I believe that the day of the smaller manufacturing company is over and that the smaller firms must merge into larger organisations. If this is not done, they will not have the technological backing in manufacture which

  585
  they need. The place for the small firm is in the providing of services rather than in the provision of manufacturing facilities.
  How can we arrange these mergers and how can we rapidly accelerate the use of modern technology in private industry? We have one important weapon which is available to any Government and could be instituted immediately and become effective within 12 months. This is to provide that no bulk order should be placed for any manufactured article by any national or local government department or by any nationalised corporation unless the company manufacturing the article or any components contained in it reaches certain standards in the use of modern equipment and modern techniques. Already in military purchasing quite a number of manufactured goods have to be bought from firms which are approved suppliers to the Admiralty, the War Office and so on.
  I believe that we can learn from that experience and that we should say that every article bought by any Government organisation must come from a technically qualified firm. Some of the costs may be higher initially, but eventually costs will come down and the products will be better. In the United States the Federal Purchasing Bureau adopts a scheme whereby only companies which have what is called a feasibility capability report can supply products to the Government. I have not got all the details at the moment, but if the Minister is interested and does not already know them—and I am grateful to him for listening to what I am saying—I will try to obtain them and send them to him. This is the third way by which we can quickly increase the speed of the introduction of modernisation.
  I have mentioned selective incentives, greater competition and Government action in being selective in purchasing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey suggested another way, that is, requiring that tenders for certain complicated goods should be submitted in a way which showed that computerisation had been used in working out the critical path of manufacture. This could be a beginning.
  We could take it much further.
  586
  Those of us who listened with enormous interest to the computer course upstairs—I went to the first two sessions but I failed to go this morning—could not but be impressed by the words of Sir Leon Bagrit in his opening remarks when he emphasised how anxious he was because our competitors in Europe, in the United States and elsewhere were taking advantage of techniques which were available to us in this country but which our managements were not applying. He said that it was not yet too late for us to catch up during the next year or two, but he emphasised that time was short.
  From my experience in industry and in seeing other industries at work, I am convinced that there is only a little time for us to take advantage of the application of modern techniques. I beg the Minister—I say this also to my right hon. Friend in his planning and policymaking—to take advantage of the time which is available to us and to use it to good effect for our country.
  Mr. Cousins: I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman's very interesting speech, but may I now ask him whether the statistics which he gave have been brought up to date, or were they to be related to the speech four years ago?
  Mr. Page: The figures I referred to have been brought up to date, in the 1962 statistics published in October, 1963, but the interesting point is that the proportions are almost identical all the way through.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: In a few minutes I shall join some observations of mine on technical manpower to the remarks made on that subject by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), but I wish, first, to take up a point made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), to whose speeches we always listen with great respect. The hon. Gentleman said that technology was a subject which could well be taken out of politics.
  Mr. Maxwell: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Palmer: No, I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.
  It is the sort of remark which people make from time to time on many matters, sometimes almost coming to the point

  587
  of wanting to take Parliament out of politics. Very often, it is only when subjects become a matter of controversy and argument between the parties that they receive proper attention. In my view, if there is now controversy between the parties on technology, this will probably be good, in the long run, for technology.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I agree that it should remain a political subject and that we should debate it in Parliament, but it is a subject which we ought to be able to debate without our thoughts being coloured by party considerations.
  Mr. Palmer: Just how much conflict there is depends upon our sense of reality at any given time. This was the weakness of the speech of the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). I am sorry that he has gone out of the Chamber; he has been flitting in and out all day. The subject is very much bigger and vaguer than his remarks made it out to be. The right hon. Gentleman's speech seemed to me a bit unreal, a bit unnatural, a bit unscientific. It is not proper for anyone to be quite so sure of himself as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be this afternoon. To me, at least, the right hon. Gentleman sounded noisily partisan, while my controversial right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) seemed modest and very convincing in contrast.
  It was evident from the speech of the right hon. Member for Wallasey that the attack by the Opposition is now somewhat different. At one time they argued that my right hon. Friend's Ministry was unnecessary. The argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman today was that my right hon. Friend had no power to do the things which ought to be done. Obviously, this argument does not square in logic with the argument that the Ministry is unnecessary.
  I frankly admit that at one time I had some doubt about the need for a Ministry of Technology. Obviously, everything done by this Ministry impinges at every point on the work of almost every Government Department. I thought that this was a valid point, and I regard it as the supreme task of my right hon. Friend to make his Ministry
  588
  truly viable. I am sure that he is struggling to do so, and I believe that he will succeed. But I can see that the arguments for and against having such a Ministry are, or were, fairly evenly balanced.
  I come now to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray). Criticism of organisational forms is always easy. What really matters is the spirit and the determination of the organisers. People can overcome organisations and sometimes make the most unlikely organisations do a very useful job. We now have this Ministry. It is now a thing of practice, not of theory. I feel that there is—perhaps it is just an instinct within me—a new sense of purpose in our national attitude to the urgent need for the technological modernisation of industry.
  Now, two major points arising out of the work of my right hon. Friend's Department. I take, first, the position of the Atomic Energy Authority. I rather doubt that the Atomic Energy Authority in its present form is necessary at all. It evolved in the first place from the Ministry of Supply, when it was turned into a kind of independent public corporation but not a trading corporation. Much of its work is in heavy electrical engineering research and testing, not pure research. In my view, there is much to be said for a good deal of this work being transferred to and combined with the work of the Central Electricity Generating Board, which operates in a parallel field but which is bound to be infinitely more commercial in its operations than the Atomic Energy Authority can hope to be.
  A lot of the lighter research activity done by the Authority, atomic processing, and so on, could either remain with the Authority or gradually be taken elsewhere, but I am not convinced that it is right to have in this country in the heavy power supply sector two enormous research and development organisations, one having grown out of a direct Government agency at one time and the other run by a public trading corporation. The case for reviewing the work done by both these organisations and bringing them together is very strong.
  I appreciate that this is one of the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend

  589
  and that, with his usual humility, he will not necessarily want to give it up, but I ask him to look critically at the work of the Authority in relation to the work of the Board because, in doing so, he might be rendering very useful service.
  As an engineer, I am sure that the key to everything we are doing in modernising our technological standards is an improvement in the status, qualifications, training and opportunities of technologists and associated technicians. There is still much confusion as to the nature of the rôle of the technologist and that of the technician. In these days, technical manpower is one of the greatest single weaknesses that industry has to contend with.
  I know that much progress has been made in improving the standard of training and education of engineers. The establishment of the Diploma of Technology was an enormous step forward. The colleges of advanced technology and the talk of having technological universities are also advances. Now the engineering institutions are coming together to form a joint council and that again is a step forward. The trouble is that everything is so slow. It takes so long, so much debate and argument. In addition, to be frank, there are so many vested interests. Surely one of the greatest continuing scandals is the slowness of the engineering institutions and the education system generally to establish proper standards of qualifications for technician engineers.
  I emphasise the term "technician engineer". I am not referring to the technologist engineer. To make the most effective use of a technologist, he must have working with him three or four competent technician engineers. Otherwise, to a great extent he is wasted on unnecessary tasks.
  I believe that one of the principal reasons for the slowness is that the major engineering institutions, in a laudable and proper attempt to professionalise themselves, to make certain that they are thoroughly professional, have been far too anxious to divest themselves of responsibility for the numerous technician engineers. For about a decade, the institutions have stressed the essential auxiliary rôle that the technician plays in relation to the technologist, but they have searched high and low for someone
  590
  else, or something else, to take these awkward chaps off their hands.
  Now, for the first time, a professional organisation for technician engineers has come into existence. It is rather a long title, which I will not give, and it looks after technician electrical and technician radio engineers. I wish it well, but in my view it is not the right solution because a technician engineer is as much an engineer as a technologist engineer and should be granted a special grade within the major professional body of his own profession.
  That leads me to a point which is not often discussed, but which bears on the status of engineers. Under our somewhat archaic system of government, the Privy Council grants the royal charter of a scientific body or professional engineering institution or a learned society. Surely one of the things that my right hon. Friend might look at is the method by which the standards of a professional institution are approved by the Privy Council. I have taken the trouble to get some details. The rules say:
  "In considering any specific Petition the following questions, and any others, are taken into consideration:"
  They ask if the financial position is sound, but it was the fourth point that interested me. This said:
  "Is it fully representative of the interests it purports to serve, and is its status in its own sphere generally recognised?"
  I want to stress the words
  "… fully representative of the interests it purports to serve …"
  I suggest that the great engineering institutions—and I am a member of one—have become so much part of the general structure of the education and training of engineers that they cannot go on behaving as aloof private bodies. If they ask, rightly, for a semi-official status, they cannot behave as though they have a right to be entirely independent of general public policy. If engineering as a profession is to have the status it should have, the technologist must feel a responsibility for his colleague, the technician, or else we go back to the old view that anyone can be an engineer. Royal charters should insist on a fully representative scope for any profession.
  Finally, I want to deal with a matter touched upon already by my right hon. Friend. One of the principal reasons

  591
  that so few young men and women go into engineering as a profession is that they are not sure that they will by that road necessarily rise all the way to the top in industry. I tend to have the usual bias of the engineer against accountants because they get in the way of doing something constructive, but there are far too many young men who are anxious to calculate the cash results of industry as accountants, or to advise on the administration of industry or to tackle its legal problems, and not enough young men going into industry anxious to produce the goods which make un our industrial wealth.
  Far too many top posts on the boards of directors are occupied by lawyers and accountants and not enough by engineers and technologists. While I do not necessarily want to hold up the Soviet Union as an example in these matters, it is interesting to note that one of the regulations of Soviet industry—probably far too inflexible—is that there must always be on the management board of any enterprise of any size a set proportion of engineers.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: While I agree with 90 per cent. of what the hon. Gentleman says on that point, I think that there is a danger that the engineer, chemist, or scientist considers any activity in industry outside his own to be not the done thing and likes to stay in his own laboratory or works. I agree with him, however, provided the engineers themselves could be encouraged to be a little more outward looking and to take more interest in producing things that the sales people want and at the right kind of price.
  Mr. Palmer: Of course, this is the theory which is put forward particularly by professional administrators, lawyers and accountants. I have heard it advanced on many occasions. I am not speaking of scientists. They may be somewhat introverted people, and perhaps they need to be because they have to concentrate on research in their laboratories; but engineers are largely extroverted people because they are dealing with the world of matter and with fashioning and changing it. There is nothing at all in this "unsuitable" theory when we consider that one or two of the
  592
  top people in industry are Lord Hinton and Lord Fleck who have come up on the engineering or scientific or technical side to top industrial positions.
  It is an old-fashioned view—a very convenient view for some people—that the engineer is used to his workshop and is not interested in administration. The truth is that many engineers make excellent administrators and I am arguing that until we make it quite clear that engineers can rise from the lower positions in industry to the very highest and have the same opportunities as any other grade of administrators, we will continue to find that we lack young men—and women—coming into industry to be trained as engineers.
  8.1 p.m.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) clashed about whether science and politics mixed. The debate has shown that politics has as much chance of mixing with science and technology as oil with water.
  The Government have taken their own action on the report resulting from the work of the Committee headed by Sir Burke Trend. We now have a Ministry of Technology and a clearly defined sphere for education and science. The ingredients for this operation have had the chance to settle down and it is quite obvious, to use a chemical phrase, that the emulsifying agent, namely, the creation of the Ministry of Technology, has not necessarily succeeded in bringing science and politics closer together—mixing them.
  From the discussion across the Floor of the Committee between the hon. Member for Bristol, Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) it is obvious that the challenges which still face those responsible for governing the country are almost as unresolved as they were two or three years ago.
  The Minister gave us a catalogue of the committees and advisory committees which he has under him. He told us of the studies he has implemented and how he has allocated his money. But this will achieve nothing unless the information coming back to the Minister

  593
  can result in action. I appreciate that that information must be collected scientifically so that we can make the necessary decisions, but the difference of emphasis between the two sides of the Committee is that the Government side is of the view that these decisions should be taken by Whitehall while on this side we consider that many of them should be taken by industry itself.
  A debate such as this must be wide ranging and essentially inconclusive, but I welcome the fact that we are debating the application of science in industry. It was five years ago that I managed to bring this subject to the attention of the House when I moved, an Amendment to the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  The machinery to act as a catalyst for the process of implementing technology in industry and whether that machinery is working adequately is the subject of the debate today.
  I want to make two preliminary observations. The first concerns Parliament and technology. Last night, I saw a Vicky cartoon in the Evening Standard showing placards saying:
  "Modernise Britain. Reform the Unions. Reform Parliament? How dare you!"
  I had some sympathy with that cartoon. Today, we are having a full-scale debate which is essentially a political debate when the task of the Opposition is to examine the work of the Minister of Technology and whether he has carried out the tasks he has undertaken to carry out and whether the Government are implementing their promises of a year ago. This is a legitimate case for debate.
  There was another cartoon which impressed me five or six weeks ago and it was of the Minister himself. It appeared—to the best of my recollection—in The Guardian and may have been a little unkind. There were six acts. In the first the Minister was sleeping; in the second he was sleeping; in the third he said something about computers; in the fourth he was sleeping; in the fifth he shouted, "Machine tools"; and in the sixth he was sleeping again. This gave the impression that everything was slumbering, but for two outbursts of activity. In the cartoon there were two dashes and "hitting the headlines". This can happen because politics and technology have inevitably been mixed.
  594
  I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order if I say that if the House of Commons is to grapple with technology, let alone with science, we must find a better way and better procedures for dealing with the detailed problems in science, engineering, technology and the application of technology in industry which we should be facing. The Select Committee on Procedure has made several Reports. I hope that we shall debate its first Reports before the Summer Recess, and that we shall have some information about the advice given to the Select Committee by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee on the value of a Select Committee on Science and Technology.
  The debate today has been diffuse and I am very mindful of the comment—and I wrote this before the Minister said it—that the right hon. Gentleman does not like Questions—"What are we doing about such and such a field and why are we not doing it faster?". This is excellent politics—or some people may think that it is—but those with a knowledge of the time scale for implementing decisions will agree that if the Minister does not enjoy the sympathy he should receive here he will get it from those affected by the time scale of the immense technological decision which have to be made outside this Committee and Parliament. There ought at least to be a Report of a Select Committee on the Minister's work, with the advantage of many meetings and visits behind it before subjects of this kind are debated.
  My second observation is that it is the duty of Parliament to criticise the Executive, of course, and a more general debate such as this must be a debate giving Parliament that opportunity. We have passed the Science and Technology Act and, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) said, we are discussing a decision which has been taken. There has been a discussion on where the N.R.D.C. belongs. Sir William Black, then Chairman of the N.R.D.C., said when the Trend Report came out that it would be tragic if the N.R.D.C. lost its present freedom of action and was taken away from the Board of Trade. I do not believe that he would necessarily hold to that statement now in the new circumstances.

  595
  I have always accepted the importance of pure science and basic research and the need to pursue knowledge for its own sake. I have also accepted that the pursuit of such knowledge can never be assessed or measured.
  This brings me to my third observation. Where does science end and technology begin? The problem is that the path from the nursery or primary school to the modern machine tool or piece of manufacturing equipment on the shop floor is, from an administrative and many other points of view, continuous and continuing. The modern machine tool, or a modern piece of manufacturing equipment, whether press, forge, milling machine, transfer line for machining in an automobile factory, is developed from a scientific analysis of the technological problems with which an industry is faced. There are several demands that have to be met.
  Those in charge, whether at the factory or national level should have a full appreciation of the wider issues involved. Perhaps that is background to the discussion we had on management. Therefore, we want a greater knowledge now of technological strategy rather than day-to-day tactics in the management field. We have had this discussion on making engineers and scientists the heads of industry. When one is looking for a head of industry one is looking for a person capable of "driving" the destiny of an individual firm. I use the word, driving, because it is necessary to have a knowledge not only of science but administration and have an understanding of management. I would suggest that the first consideration is the ability to manage and administer. But an essential asset today is a knowledge of the technology with which one is dealing.
  It therefore demands that those in charge of policy at the factory level can so crystallise the variables that engineers and designers know what they have to achieve and can find a practical way of doing so. The engineers and designers want to know from the management what they have to set out to do, whether the field be in, for example, aircraft or machine tools. But someone has to lay down the policy. It is the training of this type of person which is more and more important. Having made reference
  596
  to those in charge of policy and having decided the course to take, it must be the designers and engineers who must have the necessary technical qualifications whether in hydraulics, electronics or engineering.
  Going on from this there is the demand that the individual company should lay the correct emphasis on research and development and there is also the demand that the appropriate research associations which we have discussed, should have adequate direction and guidance. This extends to East Kilbride—the National Engineering Laboratory—to research in our research associations and in the colleges of advanced technology and universities. The point that I want to stress is that technology is not confined to the factory—that is directed only to the shop floor—but that it stretches right back into our universities and ultimately our schools.
  The problem facing those on the Trend Committee was the division between education, on the one hand, and technology, on the other. I think that we must accept the present division between technology and, perhaps, education and science. What I think is more important is that there should be a technological impact on the working of science in our schools and colleges of technology.
  To digress slightly, it is essential to assess the main obstacles which we have to face. The first one which we have to deal with, is that of resistance to progress on the shop floor. The second obstacle, which I think is all-important, is the lack of awareness by management of the criteria and conditions necessary for survival. So many people have worked in so small an environment and have become effective managers in that environment, that they are not aware of the wider issues.
  This may be a criticism of management, but it applies to other countries as well as our own. It is in this field of broadening the outlook of those who have to work on a very narrow front that not only the Minister and his Department has a contribution to play, but which we as a nation have to look at it in greater detail.
  I welcome the decisions which have resulted from the Franks Report and

  597
  the fact that there are schools of management being established in Manchester and London. A vitally important question I want to ask is what impact is the Minister of Technology able to make on management and management syllabuses? To give an example of an establishment now under the University Grants Council, on which some Members on this side of the House have tabled Questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Cranfield College of Aeronautics is an amazing mixture of activities. One of these is a works study school. This does valiant work in encouraging work study in various firms. Is work study a technological subject or an academic subject? At the moment it is under the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
  I do not suggest that there should be any change, but what I ask the Minister is how can we bring technology to bear in these various schools? It is too early to pursue the extending of the empire of the Minister of Technology. The influence of technology, whether or not through a Minister into the more academic fields, is something that must be pursued earnestly.
  We in Parliament and the Government have a task to encourage the application and understanding of technology in our more academic institutes to a much greater degree. For example, a person doing a university course asked me what sort of additional training he should take, having done his honours degree, to accustom himself to management and industrial problems. Where can he get it? We concede that the British Institute of Management has much information which can guide people.
  In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will take note of my plea that we should set up adequate machinery for discussing technology and science and not try to tackle the subject in a general debate of this type. Inevitably, Parliament will criticise the work of his Department. There will undoubtedly be many shortcomings, as seen from this side of the House. But this is one of the subjects which, a year ago, when I was supporting the Government of the day, I considered should be taken out of politics to a much greater extent. In this debate it has been decided that this is impossible, but we can have a Select Committee on
  598
  Science and Technology and I hope that the Select Committee on Procedure will report favourably on this subject.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Maxwell: I should like to bring to the notice of the Committee this evening four points. The first deals with the rôle of the laboratories of the Atomic Energy Authority. Secondly, I wish to urge my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology to use all his powers of negotiation and persuasion to persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet to give the Ministry of Technology the necessary resources and authority to induce the Government to use its power as a purchaser to compel British industry to modernise itself; to induce them to bring about the urgently needed increase in our exports. The third point I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee is in the nature of a plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, asking him whether it is really necessary to have adopted in the Ministry of Technology a procedure whereby the administrators are on top of the scientists instead of the long-established procedure in the Ministry of Aviation and other Ministries where scientists are used in important rôles and are involved in decisions of policy. They co-operate with their administrative colleagues. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to throw some light on the problem of whether the administrators in this new, important and vital Ministry are about to strangle it.
  Mr. Cousins: This point was raised earlier this afternoon when my hon. Friend was not present. The administrators are not on top of the scientists in the Department. The Deputy Chairman of the Ministry of Technology is probably the top scientist in this country. The Controller, Dr. Adams, is the head of the Culham Research Laboratory to whom I referred earlier. It is nonsense to talk about the administrators being on top. The administrators are doing the administrative job, and my Advisory Council has a number of scientific men attached to it.
  Mr. Maxwell: I am very obliged to my right hon. Friend. I now accept that the scientists have nothing to fear, that they co-operate with the administrators, but

  599
  that the administrators are not there to stifle their initiative and to find excuses as to why they cannot support their projects.
  The third point which I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee is the urgent need to get something done about trade associations. I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he winds up the debate, will say that he is perhaps thinking of setting up a Royal Commission to see how the trade associations can play a more positive rôle in getting known scientific and technical principles applied to increase productivity and our competitiveness.
  The last point on which I should very much like to hear from my right hon. Friend is what has happened to the plans and discussions which went on before the election when the Federation of British Industries made a proposal that £100 million should be provided for the joint financing of development projects in British industry—£50 million by private industry and £50 million by the Government. This is an important and vital suggestion. No doubt my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us something about it.
  I return to the question of the Atomic Energy Authority laboratories. There has perhaps never before been anything as dramatic as the emergence of the atom to focus the attention of the world on the relevance of science and technology to our society. A possible exception has been the development in recent years of space technology. But, as is well known, space exploration is such an expensive toy, or tool, that only the giant nations such as the U.S.S.R. and America can indulge in it. On the other hand, nuclear power is a technology in which a great many countries can and do participate.
  There are scores of atomic reactors working safely throughout the world. Indeed, even in the less industrially advanced countries nuclear research has been a useful device for stimulating support for technological and scientific endeavour. In the three countries involved in the original development of nuclear technology—Great Britain, Canada and the United States—great research laboratories were developed in which scientific research was carried forward. These laboratories provided the
  600
  fundamental scientific basis for the ultimate development and control of the atom for both warlike and peacelike purposes.
  The question now confronting all three of these countries is whether these laboratories, having fulfilled their original purposes, may not already have outlived in principle their usefulness. The productive period for the atom is now just beginning, and the requirements for its fruitful development at this stage of large scale industrial application have changed. Highly sophisticated and imaginative engineering is required rather than science. The type of facilities and the kinds of skills and attitudes required for research in the development of technology as an important economic tool for society are different from those which were required to uncover and explore the basic scientific principle of what, after all, eventually became indispensable military hardware in the form of atom and hydrogen bombs which we all hope will never be used.
  There is little reason to believe that the same organisations, people and laboratories which were capable of designing atomic and nuclear bombs would also, ipso facto, be capable of almost any other kind of industrial and technological development. I refer here to a point which I raised in my maiden speech. I said then that what we needed in this country was a tool to find out what we should do with a scientific laboratory whose mission has come to an end. What means should we use for reorientating it? I am sorry to say—and this is no complaint of my right hon. Friend's Department—that this is a very difficult tool and technique to discover. We tend to say, "We have these expensive laboratories and thousands of trained scientists and engineers. Let us find some decent jobs which we might throw to them to keep them busy". This is very dangerous and terribly harmful and the Atomic Energy Authority is well on the way to perpetuating this danger. I am very worried about this, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to throw some light on it.
  Indeed, there is every reason to believe that these laboratories cannot be converted to serve a useful purpose. There has been ample evidence of the work done in recent years by the major governmental nuclear laboratories in the United States

  601
  that their approach to industrial technology and their failure to understand technological economics have been handicaps in the effort to transfer their skill from their original purpose to new fields. Among the best illustrations of this evidence are some of the proposals for nuclear desalination which have emerged from Governmental laboratories in the United States. I fear that we are on the verge of duplicating the very mistakes that the Americans have made because, as is well known, amongst other civilian projects the Government have entrusted to the atomic energy laboratories the problem of desalination.
  The idea that science and particularly technology are universal and that developed knowledge and skills in one area can be transferred across the entire spectrum of scientific and technological problems is a highly questionable proposition. Because a particular laboratory organisation is capable of exploring nuclear fission or fusion or nuclear biology, this does not necessary indicate its competence to explore other technological problems such as desalination.
  Dr. Wyndham Davies: The point has already been made today about desalination plants. Would not the hon. Member agree that a great deal of work in this direction has taken place in private engineering companies which has put us ahead of the rest of the world? This was done by private enterprise in this country as distinct from Government action in the United States.
  Mr. Maxwell: I entirely agree that private industry has done a great deal, and I am delighted, but this work has been done in conjunction with Government laboratories.
  My point about desalination is precisely that this work ought to go back to private industry and I hope to persuade my right hon. Friend by my argument that this might well be a worthwhile proposition.
  The Atomic Energy Authority has not only been given research in desalination. Underground direct-current transmission, air pollution control, the development of technologically and economically feasible magneto hydrodynamic generating systems, a better steam turbine and improved steam boilers are other similar technological problems to which some of the
  602
  Authority's efforts have been directed in an effort to maintain its workload, to keep its people and its machines and in an effort to justify its demands on the national budget. It does not mean that despite some assertions to the contrary, there would reside in such a laboratory the ability to develop an economically meaningful desalination technology. This does not mean that there does not exist some special civilian-oriented areas of research in which these atomic energy laboratories cannot be used effectively. The areas, however, are bound to be exceedingly limited.
  Thus the problem of what to do with these laboratories remains. The point which I am making is that it is wrong and a bad gamble simply to suggest that we should throw them a few jobs to keep them quiet and put them under the carpet in exactly the same way—I hope that I will not be accused of making a political point—as was our Trade deficit of £800 million by the former Administration.
  The immediate reaction might be to do away with those laboratories, or, at lease, to curtail them. For one thing, in the light of the presumed general shortage of scientific and technical staff, curtailment of activity by these laboratories would make available such people to industry, where they are urgently needed, to reduce the time scale on which we are able to supply plant and instruments of all kinds. They would help to reduce costs and to increase our competitive power and they would assist industry in increasing our exports.
  However, the existence of these laboratories over a long period has resulted in the development of strongly entrenched vested interests so that to curtail their activities or to eliminate them entirely would not be any solution and, I fear, would not be likely to be practical. And yet it is clear that these laboratories must not be permitted to become merely work projects. The tasks assigned to them must be carefully selected and delineated within their particular competence and always to the fullest extent possible. Adjustments need to be made in their organisation and personnel in accordance with the new kinds of work they may be required to do.

  603
  Britain needs a resurgence of the kind of science and technology that for many decades not only kept us in the forefront of the world's science and technology but made us one of the world's mightiest nations, if not the mightiest. However, the requirements for a dynamic industrial technology differ markedly from those necessary for science, and the two must not be confused or mixed. It may well be that the large Government laboratories can find a useful rôle in applied science. In my view, basic science is best done at the universities. But it is likely that the technological research and development and engineering technology required for dynamic industrial growth is best performed by the industrial organisations most closely concerned.
  Thus, while Government laboratories, as exemplified by the laboratories of the Atomic Energy Authority, may be able to perform well in a very limited area, the powers for desalination research, future development of electric power, and wider desalination technology, are likely to make the best progress under the technological leadership of the manufacturers of the equipment and those responsible for the production of electric energy and water. The laboratories in turn need to adjust themselves to the more limited field or fields assigned to them. It really is quite monstrous that once we assign priority No. 1 to an important national problem somebody then ordains that we have to continue to spend money on that kind of scale. What was a priority No. 1 10 years ago may be priority No. 50 today. I think it is important that something be done about this.
  I should like to say a few words now about the nature and meaurement of technical change. What is this, really? The economically relevant notion of technical progress is reasonably well defined. A production function is a set of inputs and outputs which can be attained by some producing entity such as a firm. Technical progress consists of an enlargement of that set in the sense of permitting the production of more of at least one output with given imputs without producing less of other outputs. I took a long time to get the economists to teach me this and I hope I have not confused
  604
  the Committee, but I have not seen a better definition of it and I hope that hon. Members will compare it when they read it tomorrow in HANSARD.
  It is a classical proposition that under certain assumptions competitors' markets will lead to an optimum allocation of productive resources. In recent years considerable effort has been expended to determine the extent to which investment in new technology is an exception to that proposition. Leading experts give two reasons for believing that competitive markets will under-allocate resources to the production of new technology. This is one of the reasons why a Ministry of Technology, regardless of under what Government, becomes absolutely essential, because in a competitive economy, private enterprise—and some hon. Members have made this point this afternoon—firms do not allocate sufficient resources to research and development and these kinds of resources can only come from the general body of taxpayers, and there is no better way of having some of these resources channelled than through the Ministry of Technology. The first thing about why private industry cannot do more, or has not been investing as much as it should do, is really a question of uncertainty. Investment in new technology is uncertain as to how much the discovery of new technology will cost and as to what its uses will be. Therefore, one cannot really get an increase.
  The second reason why private enterprise on its own is handicapped is economy of scale. New technology is often only useful if the product or process is to be produced on a large scale, and thus the large capital investment required for a newly developed automated process may make the process prohibitively excessive for small outputs but very economical for large outputs. Thus economies of scale are important in both the production and use of new technology, and this is, of course, why, for instance, science and technology in the United States are progressing at this fantastic rate.
  Mr. E. S. Bishop: My hon. Friend has mentioned several times that these great projects should be handed over to private enterprise. While one appreciates the point that he is making, I believe it is true to say that 60 per cent. of all research and development

  605
  costs in this country is borne by the taxpayer, and, indeed, my hon. Friend has already suggested that recently. If he is suggesting that private enterprise will do the job better than a public authority, such as the Atomic Energy Authority, how does he suggest we can control or ensure the best use of the public money which is to be put into it? If he can suggest that the capital cost of investment can be borne by private enterprise, that is a rather different point.
  Mr. Maxwell: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. What I am suggesting is that the work done by the A.E.A., for instance relating to transmission and research and development on these nuclear stations, had best be handed over to the Central Electricity Generating Board and the people who know what is wanted. As regards desalination, we have a first-rate private industry willing and able to undertake this work, and it should do joint research and development with the Government, on the same basis as is now being done with I.C.T., and I hope that I have made that clear.
  It is worth asking why it should be necessary to subsidise the spread of new technology. The answer is that uncertainty and economies of scale cause medium and small firms to under invest in the creation of new technology, and these same firms also under invest in the adoption of new technology. It is often observed in industry between the best practices and the worse ones, which suggests that this is a very serious matter, and must be dealt with if we are to achieve the rapid and sustained economic growth that we need.
  I now turn to the trade research associations. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something about a commission which he is appointing to report on the value and function of trade research associations, and how and in what way they can be made more effective, better used, and better supported by industry. Research associations should be enabled to carry out pilot plant development, and financing should be done jointly by the Government and industry, along the lines of the suggestions made by the F.B.I., or some variation of them. Industry and trade associations should be encouraged to appoint consultants
  606
  from universities and technical colleges who will keep them in touch with the latest results in science and technology.
  The creation and application of new technology in industry is likely to take several years before the country can see some massive results and receive the benefits of it. This is why I was rather astonished that the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms. Marples), in a knockabout speech this afternoon when opening this debate, implied that my right hon. Friend had not produced all kinds of rabbits out of the hat and put everything right, which the former Administration was unable to do in the previous 13 years. The scientific and industrial community, and business men of this country who, in co-operation with the Government, are fighting a battle for our survival and trying to hold the value of sterling will not forgive the right hon. Gentleman for treating this important matter in this kind of nonsensical political way.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, but I was upset that he treated this important and significant subject in such a lighthearted manner. This may be good politics, but this is a serious matter, and it deserves better treatment. Instead of adopting their present tactics, the Opposition would do better to concentrate on discovering how this new Ministry of Technology can be made more effective, more powerful, and more incisive. They should do this in a constructive manner instead of the destructive manner in which my right hon. Friend has been treated in all matters relating to his Ministry.
  I turn now to my third point, namely, how the Government might be able to use their power as purchasers to induce industry to modernise itself and to increase its exports. Does the Committee know that the Government are spending a total of £6,000 million per annum on the acquisition of goods and services?
  At present the Government's procurement policies, with some exceptions, militate against innovation, because their contracts and specifications insist on the purchase of well-tried and old-fashioned products at the lowest prices. This, in effect, discourages industry from bidding for these orders with new and better products. For example, if a local authority decides to purchase a new water

  607
  purification plant or sewage disposal plant the engineers responsible for writing the specifications for the plant are concerned merely with answering three questions: Has the plant that it wants to purchase been operating well in some other authority for the past two or three decades? Have they bought it at the lowest price? Can they obtain this plant or service with a minimum amount of trouble and inconvenience to themselves?
  Similar considerations apply in respect of procurement officers who buy machine tools and presses for Government ordnance factories, or clothing and jerrycans for the Armed Forces. The question how to use the purchasing power of the Government to solve this problem is very difficult, but it must be tackled, because if it is successfully applied, it is likely to yield, quickly, considerable benefits to the British economy.
  For years Governments of both Parties have been telling the business community how urgent and necessary it is to increase exports. A former Member of the House went so far as to tell them that "exporting is fun". But people who are engaged in industry and exports are tired of these palliatives. When this Administration came in at least industry was given an incentive to export, but it was not enough. Our exports have been falling in the last few months, and if they do not rise during the next six months our creditors will rapidly become seriously worried about our ability to pay our way.
  Manufacturers who have been growing fat on Government contracts year in and year out, and whose names are on the list of various Ministries as approved suppliers, would take action if they were suddenly to discover that unless they increased their exports by 10 per cent. their names would be removed from that list. I submit that for the first time, and very promptly, the chairmen, managing directors and sales directors of all those companies would pull their fingers out and do something to increase their percentage of exports. They take no notice of shareholders.
  The Temporary Chairman (Dame Edith Pitt): Order. The debate is concerned with technology. The hon. Member is ranging very wide and I should be glad if he would bring himself back to order.
  Mr. Maxwell: The Government should institute an urgent study to see what changes are necessary in their procurement policies. They should instruct, as quickly as possible, all their buying officers, both at national and local level, to change their procurement policies and conditions so as to encourage and reward with orders those firms who innovate and use technology to improve their products and services.
  It would also be appropriate for the Ministry of Technology to set up a department which would provide guarantees and insurance facilities to buyers of advanced plants against their malfunctioning. Where necessary the Government should be prepared to pay a higher price for the technologically advanced product, instead of being content with the old-fashioned one. This would do exactly the same thing in assisting real innovation as the E.C.G.D. is doing in assisting exports. There is no reason why the Ministry should not set up such an insurance scheme, because if an authority is going to put down money for a plant which has not been tried out for many years, and if a failure occurs it wants to be assured that it will not have to fall back on the ratepayers to replace the plant.
  In this way British industry will quickly feel that the Government mean business and will rapidly change its outmoded and wrong attitude towards applying technology. Such a policy would have the additional advantage that British industry would begin to produce products which were well in advance of their international competitors and which would give them a considerable advantage in the world export markets. I am convinced that the Ministry of Technology should help to provide the climate and support for work in universities and colleges of technology related to the particular practical needs of our civilian economy and society, that the Minister of Technology should ensure that the Government plays its full part in the encouragement by applying the results of science and engineering to economic growth.
  Finally, we expect this new Ministry to encourage the establishment of the institutions and the environment which most effectively puts science to practical

  609
  use, diffuses the results of technology throughout society and encourages even higher levels of innovation in British industry.
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am most relieved to be able to get into the debate at last. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) signalled to me before he rose to speak that he would make a short speech. I dread to think what it would have been like if it had been a long one. I hope that "Crossbencher" has been sitting with his stopwatch in the Gallery while the hon. Member was voicing his rather heterodox opinions on the Atomic Energy Authority, with which I will disagree in a few minutes. I hope that, in the next Honours List, the hon. Gentleman will be offered a seat in another place, so that other people will have to suffer him instead of us.
  The debate has been far reaching, touching on the machinery of government, teaching machines, scientific and technological manpower, the rôle of the investment allowances and the future of the Patent Office. There are many threads which I should have liked to follow, but time allows only a few. I would follow one remark of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray). I agree with him that we should leave the Ministry of Technology alone for the time being and give it a chance to work out its place in the machinery of government, and that we should not prolong the discussions which took place on the Science and Technology Bill and at the time of the General Election.
  The hon. Member was right to say that at least five years is required before we can evaluate the results of setting up a separate Ministry of Technology and that, in the meantime, we should, whether we agree or disagree with the setting up of this separate Ministry, back the Government in what they are trying to do.
  But this does not inhibit us from discussing those extensions of the Ministry's functions which we should like to see. Many suggestions have been made—for instance, that the Minister should take an interest in industries other than those for which he is directly responsible. Of course, the Minister is not prevented from
  610
  using his powers and from increasing the application of technology in other industries merely because he is not the sponsor of those industries. I hope that, in the case of building, he is having discussions with both the Minister of Public Building and Works and the Minister of Housing and Local Government on how technology can be harnessed to the expansion of the housing drive.
  A personal wish of mine is that the Minister should take a greater interest in the shipbuilding industry, particularly after what we heard in the House last week about the industry at the conference on automation.
  I am not accusing the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) alone of this, but I think that the Tories should be very careful not to allow their personal feelings about the Minister of Technology—which I know a great many of them have—to enter into discussion of the rôle of the Ministry of Technology. I detected an undertone of this in some speeches. We must try to get away from personal feelings. I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said. We cannot take technology out of politics entirely, and we do not want to do so, but we must try to approach it with an unbiased mind and not allow personal considerations to enter into it.
  The right hon. Member for Wallasey was too hard in his criticisms. He said that no report had so far been issued on the telecommunications and electronics industries. Only the other day, one of his right hon. Friends was asking for careful consideration to be given to those industries and was urging the Minister not to get hurried into hasty decisions which might later on be regretted. That is a much more sensible attitude, though it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us roughly when he expects to be in a position to make these statements. Will it be before the Summer Recess, or shall we have to wait until next Session before we hear anything positive about his plans for those two industries?
  The second thing about which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey complained was the lack of data, which, he said, had not been published and which were never published under the previous Administration. But he expects

  611
  very many things to have happened in the short period of office of the Government which did not happen under 13 years of the previous Administration. One could apply the same reasoning to his remarks on the comparison between the number of computers employed in different fields in this country and in the United States. It is a shocking thing that in this country we only have five computers in the whole of agricultural research, whereas there are over ten times that number in the United States. He told us that in health, education and welfare there are 112 computers in the United States and only 2½ here. Surely this was the very purpose of establishing the Ministry of Technology, so that we could do something about the shortcomings of the last Administration.
  Perhaps the only sense in which these criticisms are justified is that the Labour Party, during the last election, raised the hopes of the electorate that in the field of technology, things were possible within a short space of time, which we know it is impracticable to expect. The Prime Minister himself, in his great Scarborough speech, to which I listened with much admiration on the television at the time, said some things that were rather likely to lead to extravagant expectations. One could pick out several quotations, but, if I may mention one, he talked of
  "Mobilising scientific research in this country in producing a new technologcal breakthrough."
  Later in the same speech he said:
  "I believe that we could within a measureable period of time establish new industries which would make us once again one of the foremost industrial nations of the world."
  This is just not possible if, by "a measureable period of time", we mean one or two years. We have to have very much longer to put into effect what the Minister and hon. Members on both sides would like to see done.
  I think that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West was one of those whose expectations were unreasonably aroused, because I have been looking back at a very interesting article which he wrote in Electronics Weekly before the last election. I was not surprised to hear him say this afternoon that he had some misgivings on the case, because here is what the hon. Member had to
  612
  say in that journal on 30th September, 1964:
  "The Ministry of Technology will not wait for ideas to be put to it though it must be receptive to ideas from outside. It will be pursuing a deliberate strategy of technological advance, thrashed out with industry, published in detail and backed by the financial resources of government."
  That is very fine, and just what I would like to see and what I know the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West would like to see, as well. But it is being too ambitious to expect this to happen within a few months of government, and what I would blame the Labour Party for is not their failure to do anything so far, but their undue arousing of the expectations of the people during the election. It is sometimes said that people are not on oath in lapidary inscriptions, and I think that that applies to General Election campaigns as well, because many things that are said in those circumstances cannot possibly come true.
  Mr. Marples: But those extravagant promises did get the votes.
  Mr. Lubbock: There may well have been engineers, technologists and scientists who voted for the Labour Party in the expectation that these things could come about, but the realistic ones must have realised that it was impossible for us to proceed at the pace we were led to expect.
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West, in his more sober moments—and I mean that in a figurative sense—will recognise that he would not have expected much more from the Government than they have managed to achieve so far. I am trying to make it plain that I am criticising not the Government's actions, but the high hopes which they raised in the minds of the electorate at the time of the last General Election.
  I disagree profoundly with what the hon. Member for Buckingham said about the Atomic Energy Authority. I believe that it has an important rôle to play in various fields of research other than those in which it has been traditionally engaged. I thought that at the time this matter was under discussion in the House we had an inadequate explanation of the type of work which the Government had in mind, but since we now know that desalination is one of

  613
  the most important aspects which it will explore, I would agree that it has a tremendous job to do, and I am heartily in favour of it. It is impossible to place this kind of undertaking on the shoulders of private industry, for it is far too large.
  Although I very much hope that the co-operation of private industry will be sought in the manufacture of the associated equipment, I feel that it is only the Atomic Energy Authority, or perhaps the Central Electricity Generating Board, which has the enormous sources of heat necessary for desalination on a large scale. The whole secret of this project is the larger the scale the more favourable the economics become. It is very sensible for the Atomic Energy Authority to be involved in this project.
  In fact, I think that we should consider other possible avenues of research in which large-scale sources of heat are necessary. I have sent the Minister some data which I have from the Swedish experience of the use of atomic energy plant for district heating. While they have not got beyond the experimental stage in that country, the time may come with A.G.R., or perhaps, in the next generation, the fast breeder reactor, when it is so cheap to generate heat by atomic means that we can think of the large-scale district heating plant which so far has not been economic in this country. It is a possibility which we could hear in mind for the future. Again, perhaps on a very large scale is the heat required for processing industries such as the paper industry. It uses heat on a very large scale, and nuclear generation might be suitable.
  I should like to pay my tribute to the Atomic Energy Authority for what it has done so far. The advanced gas cool reactor is a magnificent tribute to British engineering and one which we should shout from the roof-tops. I entirely agree that we do not give sufficient publicity to the wonderful achievements of British industry, of which this is an outstanding example. Another example which I should like to mention is the new station being built at Wylfa Head, in Anglesey, which, when completed, will be the largest nuclear power station in the world, generating over 1,100 mW. If this nuclear power station were in Texas how much more one would hear of it. In this country it is scarcely mentioned, and I dare say that some hon. Members
  614
  have never heard of it. We should take sufficient pride in our achievements to boast about them to the rest of the world.
  The fast breeder reactor will be a great break-through for Britain and I should like to see it pressed on with as quickly as possible. I was a little disappointed to hear the Minister say that within the next few months the Atomic Energy Authority will be submitting proposals to him for the construction of a prototype station. I urge him to get on with it as quickly as possible so that we may maintain the world lead which we undoubtedly have.
  When the right hon. Gentleman makes his decision about the siting of this prototype station I very much hope that he will bear in mind the strong claims of Dounreay. I know that he has been there for discussions with the various interests and that this point of view has been put to him most powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie).
  This is not a constituency matter. There are important considerations which should lead the Ministry to make the decision in favour of Dounreay. The technical team is assembled there. All the very expensive works involved in the fast breeder reactor and in the associated materials testing reactor are there. There must have been quite a lot of social investment as well in housing for the Atomic Energy Authority staff, and so on, which would all be lost if we could not continue to operate from that part of the world. The disastrous social consequences of failure to continue with the Atomic Energy Authority's establishment in that part of the world are incalculable. I remind the Minister that as recently as a month ago the Chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board stated that this prototype reactor should be located at Dounreay.
  I hope that the Minister, in his general programme of work, will concentrate on research which will improve our balance of payments position. This is one thing that the hon. Member for Buckingham said with which I agree. I am sorry to see that, as usual, the hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber immediately after concluding his remarks. I think that by the direction of our research work we could very greatly improve our balance of payment situation. There must be many

  615
  examples which can be quoted. There is one which I drew to the Minister's attention quite recently, concerning the application of high pressure technology to the manufacture of industrial diamonds. I am given to undersand that we import quite large quantities of industrial diamonds and that these could well be manufactured in this country.
  I was surprised to learn from the Answer to a Question I asked the President of the Board of Trade recently that these figures are not separately available. The Minister of Technology could look into the kind of research work which might have an influence on the balance of payments and he could make a point of discussing this with the President of the Board of Trade and obtaining figures where they are not already available from the Trade and Navigation Accounts.
  In the few minutes remaining to me I want to say a few words about why automation is not applied more extensively in this country. For the last three weeks we have had upstairs an extremely interesting conference on automation which has been arranged by Elliott Automation. The interest shown by hon. Members in this conference has been quite remarkable. I was surprised at how many there have been at these sessions. I am sure that we have all derived tremendous value from them. We heard at the conference of applications of automation in defence, in medicine, in the process industries, in traffic, in shipping, and so on.
  We heard some fantastic success stories. We heard about the horizons which are opening up in the application of computers. There are quite breath-taking savings in some of these fields. We have reached what I call the second revolution in the application of computers. We are now getting away from those which were employed in the obvious arithmetical processes such as wages calculation and have come more on to the application of computers to industrial processes.
  If the variables in an industrial process can be measured and fed into a computer, the process can be controlled by means of the computer. Some of the savings quoted to us were fantastic. The interesting question to me, and, I think, to many of those who attended the sessions, was why automation is being applied so slowly. If these savings are possible, why
  616
  is not there a queue of industrialists at the door of every computer manufacturer? Why, for instance, has this country no fully automated ship on order? Here I am sorry to say that I must agree, once again, with the hon. Member for Buckingham that it is a case where the Government's purchasing power could be used. The Royal Navy must always be ordering ships, yet we were told by the experts from Elliott Automation that this country has no fully-automated ship on order.
  In this country again, they said, there is only one centre where the application of automation to medicine is going on at the moment as compared with quite a number in the United States. Again and again they said that we have been so much slower than these other countries in the application of automation in spite of the fantastic advantages of the process. I do not think that this is because of fear of change on the part of workers.
  We have had reports that we shall be short of skilled labour for many years to come. The National Economic Development Council has made that clear. Nor do I think that this is because of difficulties within the automation industry itself. One expert told me that there was economic application for ten times more computers than we have installed at the moment and that firms would be ready to provide them if only industries would see the benefits which they would bring.
  It seems to me that the difficulty is that one cannot be sure of benefits until one has applied these processes. It is an act of faith. The Wolvercote Mill has been cited in this connection. One cannot measure the return on an investment until one has employed a system analyst to go through all the processes and the money has by then been practically invested. We need a religious fervour in favour of automation in industry, paralleled by a sense of urgency in the Government themselves.
  There is no doubt that the Minister could do very much more, though of course he has no influence over fiscal measures such as direct purchasing power and the influencing of local authorities. He could apply to the computer manufacturers the same ideas as he has applied to the machine tool industry, that is there could be the ordering of pre-production batches to enable manufacturers to go

  617
  ahead with a particularly promising line when they have not had orders from industry.
  Let us, for goodness' sake, not bring political acrimony into this subject of technology. We are all converts to the application of technology and automation in industry now and it should not be so difficult to secure a bipartisan approach to the subject. There is a tremendous amount still to do and we should not dissipate our energies by political quarrels across the Floor. I hope that in future we shall also demonstrate our interest in technology by appearing in these debates in rather greater strength than we are here today.
  9.12 p.m.
  Mr. John Biffen: I beg to move, That Class IV, Vote 18 (Ministry of Technology) be reduced by £1,000.
  This has been an extremely valuable Supply Day debate. I think that the Minister will agree that it has been very constructive in character and that there have been a great many contributions which have been bipartisan and uncontroversial. It is obviously true that all parts of the Committee are very much seized with the sociological problems clearly implicit in the emergence of technology and automation. The contributions particularly of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on the problems of education and industrial training were very much appreciated, and I should like to pay tribute to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) on the problems implicit for the structure of British industry in this subject.
  All politicians to some degree are frustrated business consultants, in the sense that we very much enjoy preaching on what we think to be desirable attitudes in British management and British work-people. In the short time during which I have been a Member of Parliament one thing which I have discovered worries hon. Members is that as a result of the findings of the Boundary Commission we shall be redistributed over the job. As long as we find this fear in the very heart of this place it ill behoves us to be too moral in our strictures on the world outside.
  618
  I should like to keep at least an opening spirit of bipartisanship by saying to the Minister how very much I agreed with him when he said that we must not denigrate too much what we ourselves are able to do. I am sure that this is taken to heart in all parts of the Committee because, whatever else happens as a result of our debates, it is essential that, although we must not become complacent, we do not become so neurotic that we convince ourselves that this is a nation of Luddites. Clearly, it is not.
  I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) remind the Committee that in the United States, for instance, 64 per cent. of the machine tools in use are 10 years old and 21 per cent. are 20 years old. Those figures are a healthy reminder that many of the problems which, at times, we feel must be unique to this island are, in fact, problems international in character which affect a great many of our competitor nations.
  I fear that I must now stray a little and be somewhat more controversial. We are moving a reduction in the Vote. But before I go further, I wish to try to establish a measure of bipartisanship with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). [HON. MEMBERS: "He has gone."] Yes; I see that bipartisanship is wearing a bit thin already. However, the hon. Gentleman made the point that there was, as it were, a great revolution of rising expectation generated by the Prime Minister's speech at Scarborough in 1963. A great deal of our criticism arises from the hopes which were created by the attitude of the Prime Minister and the party opposite in the run-up period to the General Election. The same point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths).
  Nevertheless, whatever scepticism there might have been on these benches—I readily concede that we were rather sceptical about it—there were one or two converts who succumbed to the Prime Minister's siren words, not least The Times. I do not normally regard The Times as an organ easily won over by the Prime Minister's words—I know that some of my hon. Friends may disagree about that, and I express only my own view—but The Times heralded the advent

  619
  of the Minister of Technology in a quite remarkable leading article on 21st October. The Committee may like to reflect on some of the hopes expressed in it. Speaking of the Minister, The Times said:
  "His voice will be heard when it comes to deciding which industries should be run down and which helped by tax incentive to expand"
  It went on to conclude—it may have been a little prophetic—
  "… his strong personality may help him in the inevitable Cabinet arguments about priorities".
  The Committee will have to judge for itself to what extent The Times was prophetic in that instance. But a great deal of our complaint, developed today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), is that the Ministry of Technology has not developed in such a way as to measure up to the expectations which might have been generated before and after the last election.
  We have tried by a number of questions, particularly from my right hon. Friend, to examine the evolution of the Ministry of Technology since last autumn and to consider its self-avowed rôle as the spear-head of the Government's programme for industrial innovation. As I said, we do not disguise that on this side we have always been a little sceptical about it. On 11th December, in the debate on the Science and Technology Bill, my right hon. Friend, as he put it, "wondered how Mr. Cousins would operate his Ministry". That language was appropriate then, of course, because the right hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the House. My right hon. Friend said:
  "I am, therefore, sorry that we do not have the advantage of listening to Mr. Cousins explaining precisely his duties, functions and objectives."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1964; Vol. 703, c. 1992.]
  We have had that advantage this afternoon, but all our doubts remain. The Minister's speech was detailed, thoughtful and lengthy, but it did nothing to remove the doubts expressed earlier by my right hon. Friend. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will seek to remedy the position.
  There remains, however, a series of unanswered questions concerning the
  620
  relationship between the Ministry of Technology and other Government Departments and it was this argument that was so particularly detailed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). I invite the Committee to look at a few of those relationships. For example, the Minister is sponsor of the telecommunications industry, but we still await a statement which will clearly show where his responsibility begins and that of the Postmaster-General ends.
  Has the Ministry of Technology any interest in the tracking or the development of space communication satellites? Perhaps an even more relevant aspect is that the Post Office spends a considerable amount on the telecommunications industry annually. Has the right hon. Gentleman any say on how that money is spent? If I may use words dear to the hearts of hon. Members opposite, is he consulted on the purposive use of the public money involved with a view to producing certain results in the industry?
  The right hon. Gentleman is also a sponsor of the electronics industry. What are his relations with the Ministry of Aviation? The Ministry of Aviation has enormous purchasing power which can and does have material consequences for the electronics industry. Has the Minister of Technology any say in how that money is to be used?
  Was the right hon. Gentleman consulted over the major decisions on the TSR2 and other changes of aviation policy which must materially have affected the electronics industry? Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some examples of the administrative liaison which, we hope, exists between the Ministry of Technology and the Ministry of Aviation. It is precisely answers to this kind of question that we feel entitled to have and it is because there have been no satisfactory answers so far that we feel justified in moving a reduction in the Vote.
  Another relationship which interest us is that between the Minister of Technology and the Department of Economic Affairs. We should be interested to know how the Ministry liaises with the industry development councils for electronics and machine tools because they are both industries that the right hon. Gentleman seeks

  621
  to sponsor. For example, did the Ministry conduct any study on its own account of the machine tool industry independent of the D.E.A., or did the right hon. Gentleman merely accept the proposals of the Machine-Tool Industry Development Council other than those that the Treasury would not allow to be accepted?
  Finally, and probably most important, we should like to know a little more about the relationship between the Ministry and the Treasury. We will long remember the description of the Treasury given by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), in a characteristic speech. I am sorry that I was taking a snack during the first half, but I came in for what I am sure was the more delightful half and which contained the references to the Treasury.
  Our concern particularly arises from the statement that the right hon. Gentleman made on the machine tool industry on 14th June. He said that he was discussing the whole question of the fiscal arrangements for capital equipment with the Treasury. Are we to understand that the proposals for any fiscal changes affecting the machine tool industry will only be announced by him after the Treasury has completed its general review? He will appreciate that this is a matter of significance if only because of the compelling speech by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Has the right hon. Gentleman any scope for independent action over the industries of which he is sponsor?
  Another major issue concerns the function of sponsorship which, we are told, is a characteristic of the Ministry of Technology. The Minister told us this afternoon that he was the sponsor for four industries—computers, machine tools, electronics and telecommunications. I would very much appreciate, and I am sure that the entire Committee would, being told more about what the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry conceive to be embraced by the terms "sponsorship". Does he hope to shape and guide these sponsored industries?
  We are entitled to interpret the functions of sponsorship against the fairly robust declarations of the Prime Minister and many others on the developing rôle of State intervention in those areas of industry which are intimately concerned with science and scientific development. I would be very interested to know quite
  622
  what the Minister himself had in mind when he said, for example, that he intended to take up the machine tools industry and shake it, rather like President Johnson and his beagles. This just will not do. It is remarks of that kind, set against the background of interventionist desires, which lead us to be very suspicious, and we merely seek information and perhaps we are now to get it.
  Mr. Cousins: It is rather regrettable that questions of this kind should be addressed to me now when, if they had been addressed to me by the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), I could have answered them in my speech. The question is now being addressed to my hon. Friend. What I meant by what I am alleged to have said—it might as well be noted that it went on record in the Press at the time and in the House subsequently—was that in different circumstances I would have said that I would take the machine tool industry and shake it, but in the circumstances in which I was now operating I had to use different words. I was prepared to continue the discussions with the machine tool industry and I reported to the House of Commons on the discussions and on the details of agreement which had been reached.
  Mr. Biffen: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and I accept his explanation, but I assure him that I have a good deal more confidence in the ability of the Parliamentary Secretary to answer the debate than the right hon. Gentleman apparently has. I am sorry if he thinks that these are unfair questions, but they seem to flow directly—and I thought might even be called repetitious—from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey.
  Mr. Bernard Conlan: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the machine tool industry leaves much to be desired and itself has recognised this to be the case, so much so that it is expending a great deal of money on research and development. [Interruption.] I am—
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. When an hon. Member gives way it is only for the purpose of a short intervention.
  Mr. Conlan: Will the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the machine tool industry itself recognises its limitations and its difficulties and is trying to put right the deficiencies of neglect over many years?
  Mr. Biffen: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having made his speech even at this late stage of the debate. I accept what he has said about the problems of the machine tool industry. Nevertheless, it is precisely the kind of statement about the machine tool industry which we had on 14th June, when there was a great deal of imprecise information about what the Government would do and a complete inability on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to give us any conception of what the actual financial amounts were, which raise the much wider issues which have been mentioned among others by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) and which have been unanswered today.
  Just what are the views of the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry about the use of the purchasing power of his Ministry and perhaps the use of that purchasing power to alter the structure of any of the sponsored industries, computers or machine tools? Because if it is the view of the Minister that he has a budget to use purposefully to this end, perhaps he can tell us what kind of a budget? Does he recall that on 30th March he was unable to tell me, in answer to one of those 40-odd Questions which apparently gave him some concern, what share of the total output of his sponsored industries was accounted for by purchases from the public sector? I would have thought that the information was of very considerable concern to his Ministry and I hope that, at the close of this debate, we may be told that the information is now available. If it is not, are we now to assume that the Minister does not intend to use public purchasing to shape the development and fortunes of the sponsored industries?
  I think that this is a matter which has aroused considerable interest on both sides of the Committee and one on which the right hon. Gentleman throughout his speech earlier this afternoon was conspicuously reluctant to deal with. I promised that I would try to keep my remarks reasonably brief, but I have been subject to one or two interventions. I have no wish to be unnecessarily controversial
  624
  and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think I am being in any sense inspired by animus if I now turn to one of the very broad points concerning the rôle of the Minister, because I do not believe that any examination of the structure of his Ministry gives one a great deal of confidence about the ability of the Ministry through its administrative structure to achieve a great deal.
  I think that there is a certain argument to be made that the personality of the Minister himself can certainly help in certain areas and certain directions. It is his personality and his reputation which invests some degree of authority in his Ministry. This is certainly claimed for the right hon. Gentleman. It has been claimed that he is well fitted to argue the benefits of automation with the trade unionists of this country, and to disarm their fears and their traditional conservatism. It has been claimed that his trade union experience gives him that advantage and I think it is a perfectly fair point. I repeat the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey—which I do not recall received a satisfactory answer—namely, whether the Minister has any plans for carrying out studies of automation in the docks?
  I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not making this comment in any narrow or personal sense. I believe it is a perfectly genuine point to make. I think that for a trading nation whose dependence upon exports is something about which we are reminded almost daily, it would be well and fitting that a first priority of his Ministry should be to concern itself about technology in the docks. Any beliefs I had in that direction would certainly be confirmed by the recent comments of Sir Arthur Kirby, Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board, when he presented his recent second Annual Report to Parliament. If I may remind the Minister of the words used by Sir Arthur at the Press Conference when he presented this Report, he said that:
  "Push-button ship-loading methods would be in use in five years' time, and in ten years in wide use."
  He concluded by saying:
  "Push-button methods are bound to come. One reason for labour troubles at the docks is the traditional loading methods which have not moved away from Carthaginian times."

  625
  Those are his words and I believe they indicate a very fruitful field for work on behalf of the Ministry of Technology. I ask the Minister to appreciate that that comment is offered purely constructively.
  Having listened to a great part of the debate, and in particular to the Minister's speech, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion, regrettable though it is, that the Minister of Technology remains primarily, if not entirely, a public relations appointment. He is a Minister who has still little semblance of executive authority. The right hon. Gentleman brought a considerable reputation for executive authority to the office which was created last autumn. All I can say is that the tasks which have been given to him in no way match his previous authority.
  We had precedent for a biblical analogy from the hon. Member for West Lothian. Therefore, I suggest that we might call the Minister a shorn Samson, except that that would invite the somewhat improbable supposition that the Prime Minister was Delilah and the even more improbable supposition that my hon. Friends were the Phillistines. But one thing is certain: there is growing disappointment and disillusionment that the Ministry of Technology has in no way lived up to the confident and fulsome promises made by the Labour Party that it uniquely understood the problems of technological change and that the advent of a Labour Government would make a major contribution to improved British economic efficiency.
  We have a Minister who is undoubtedly sincere in wishing to promote a wider use and acceptance of new techniques but with no real terms of reference and, I fear, a chronic inability successfully to prosecute his own demarcation disputes in the Whitehall shipyard. It is more in sadness than in anger that we move the reduction in the Vote.
  9.37 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Richard Marsh): A number of hon. Members have said during the debate that the whole subject of technology should be taken out of politics and that it was a non-political issue. I can understand this. I think that we all accept this approach. The definition is rather different. From
  626
  experience, I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, when hon. Members talk about taking things out of politics they mean supporting the Conservative Party and that when they talk about being non-political this is all right as long as it is directed at the Labour Party.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Reverse it.
  Mr. Marsh: I do not know where the hon. and learned Gentleman has been all day, but he has obviously drawn a lot of inspiration from somewhere.
  As I say, a number of hon. Members opposite, who clearly take a great nonparty interest in this subject, have made this point. But if hon. and right hon. Members opposite wanted to lift this subject out of politics and to have a discussion about technology on its merits, it seems to me slightly strange that they should slap on a three-line Whip and move a Motion of censure on the Minister before they knew what he had to say. [Interruption.] I always think that the right hon. Gentleman is the embodiment of the Conservative intellectual, a sort of primitive Powell.
  The right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) dispelled any doubts that we might have had about whether this was to be a non-party debate. He made a very enjoyable speech which we all enjoyed, not least the right hon. Gentleman. It was primarily focused on an American booklet which he produced which contained some very serious statistics showing just how far behind this country had dropped compared with some of its foreign competitors. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from the booklet figures which were accepted on all sides as extremely serious figures. One does not doubt this, because the ability of this country to remain a technologically advanced nation is essential to everybody's standard of living.
  The significant thing about the booklet, however, was that it was published in July 1964. When it was published the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Cabinet. It took him 12 months not only to read it but to realise its implications. Having spent 13 years with that lot opposite, he then came and said to my right hon. Friend, "What have you been doing for the last eight months?" The

  627
  right hon. Gentleman went on to describe us, I think with some justification, on the basis of his quotation, as a nation of part-time amateurs compared with the American professionals. At that time, however, our affairs were being managed by another firm. We now have a different management. At no stage did the right hon. Gentleman make any criticism of his own Government—at least, if he did, they did not take any notice of it.
  Everybody accepts that this country over a period of years, for some reason or other, found itself facing difficulties in the struggle to stay abreast technologically. For 13 years nothing was done about this, or, if something was done, on the right hon. Gentleman's own figures, it did not work. The Labour Government then took office and we decided to embark upon a number of policies designed to challenge that position to try to make the country a major technologically advanced country. Without a solitary constructive suggestion, right hon. and hon. Members opposite turn up here and then start to criticise everything we have done, saying at the same time that this is not really a party debate, just as if we had only suddenly thought about it. They cannot get away with that.
  An interesting feature of the debate is that very few hon. Members have challenged the idea of a Ministry of Technology. Indeed, no one has argued against our objectives. Some hon. Members, on either side of the Committee, have suggested that the Ministry is too constrained, that it has too narrow a front and that the empire of my right hon. Friend should be extended. I do not intend to embark upon that subject. It is not one in which a junior Minister should get involved.
  Some hon. Members have said that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology was not ruthless enough with industry. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) talked about discriminating in the public sector of industry against private companies which were not technologically advanced. If my right hon. Friend had said that the Press Gallery would have emptied in an instant to flash the message, "Cousins strikes again". We have had a pile of those suggestions.
  628
  The right hon. Member for Wallasey, who has never been regarded as the most progressive of Left-wing Members of the House of Commons, made the point that one of the things that my right hon. Friend should do would be to take over the building industry. Just imagine what would have happened if that had been said by us on this side. Perhaps, however, the most intriguing suggestion of all came from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), who complained bitterly that my right hon. Friend was not throwing his weight about enough in Whitehall and Westminster. A number of specific points and a number of serious points were raised. One was made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), who takes a detailed interest in these matters and made a specific point about reprocessing at Windscale. Let me make it quite clear that there is no conflict whatever in this matter between my right hon. Friend and Sir William Penney. The position is that the reprocessing plant at Windscale is not wholly engaged on civil work. It also deals with defence contracts, and it is only because of this, and for no other reason, that it was decided not to include it in the trading fund. I make this point to avoid any misunderstanding.
  A number of other hon. Gentlemen, and the right hon. Gentleman, raised the point that perhaps we in the Ministry of Technology were engaged in taking decisions affecting industry, and taking them without enough knowledge and without understanding British industry, as they said. They went on to say that the Ministry of Technology was getting involved in policies which it did not have the expertise and understanding properly to appreciate. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely made the point that the taxpayer could not be sure that he was getting value for money because we needed the experience of those in industry.
  Of course, we accept this. That is why my right hon. Friend set up the National Advisory Council at the Ministry of Technology, and nothing like this has existed before in this country. Who are the people on it? Lord Nelson of English Electric, Sir Arnold Hall, of Hawker Siddeley, Sir Leon Bagrit, of Elliott's, Mr. Frank Kearton, of Courtaulds, and Mr. Hugh Tett, of Esso.

  629
  Our country and this House owe those men a very real debt for all the time and effort they are giving us to help this country to become technologically advanced, and doing so regardless of any party beliefs which they may or may not have. I can only wish that we had the same sort of approach from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as that we get from British industry.
  But this is the problem which faces us and it is a very serious problem, because it is the biggest issue which faces this country and it is, simply, the question of how we can put this country technologically among the most advanced nations in the world. Whatever social policies either party prepares, whatever discussions we have about social welfare, whatever we say in terms of raising people's standards of living we on both sides of the Committee accept that the performance which, for whatever reason, this country has produced over the last few years is totally inadequate to maintain an advanced standard of living.
  There is no dispute between the two sides of the Committee on this. No single hon. Member opposite—perhaps there is at this time of night, but normally no single hon. Gentleman opposite—would stand up and argue that our economic performance, our technological performance, is sufficiently good to sustain the sort of standard of living which we need in this country. We all agree that something was wrong—I am not at the moment arguing whose fault it was—there was something wrong, and that something had to be changed and that something had to be done, and that is what this debate has been all about, whether or not the policies of this Government will tend towards making this country more competitive in the future than it has been in the past.
  This is not just a question of computers; it is not just a question of machine tools. One hon. Gentleman opposite said, I think very truly, that we, particularly the laymen amongst us, get so fascinated by these extraordinary machines, these extraordinary pieces of equipment, and the things which they can do, that we forget that, in order to be technologically advanced, we have to have not only the equipment but a sympathetic and a completely changed attitude
  630
  and atmosphere in every section of the community. There are no sacred cows in the British economy on either side of the fence. The hon. Member laughs. It is not enough to laugh, because I come back to the point that these are problems which we recognise exist and have existed for a long time, and so far no previous Government have done anything about them. The hon. Member says "Rot". Well, hon. and right hon. Members opposite were not very successful if they tried.
  What, then, is the biggest problem we face? One of the biggest problems is the use we make of our manpower and resources which we have in this country, how we can use them to the best advantage. We have to have more skilled workers in this country.
  There must be the fullest utilisation of the people whom we have working in the country, because in the years to come our labour force will grow at a considerably slower rate than the dependent population. This means that with a relatively reduced labour force we have to ensure that we use labour—not just manual labour, but technologically qualified and graduate labour, in fact all sections of the community—to the best advantage, because if we do not we cannot use it to the full whether we have the equipment or not.
  What have the Government been doing about that? First, there is the question of the Industrial Training Act. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths) said that we ought to do something about management education, and that we ought to do something more in terms of re-educating and retraining technically qualified people whose skills might have become out of date over the years. This is what we are doing. I wish that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would clear their minds of the strange prejudices which they have against us. Never in my life have I seen so many people opposed to righteousness. We as a Government are trying to meet these problems, and they criticise us without knowing what we are doing.
  Under the Industrial Training Act, in the first year alone the industrial training boards will spend a sum not far short of £100 million. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are in favour of this, because they are in favour of retraining.
  Mr. Marples: We passed the Act.
  Mr. Marsh: I agree that the right hon. Gentleman passed the Act. Perhaps he will say why his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has tabled Prayers to annul the Orders that we have made to put the Act into effect. It makes one wonder what was the intention behind the Act. It was a sort of enabling Act, by which one could do a great deal, or do very little. We decided to do something about it. The Orders were published, and at the first possible opportunity the Shadow Minister of Labour, the right hon. Member for Grantham, tabled Prayers to annul the three Orders that were made. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for raising this point. If I had known that he was going to explain it, I would have told him that this Prayer was on the Order Paper.
  Mr. John Page rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Marsh: I cannot give way because I have very little time in which to conclude my remarks. I can appreciate that hon. Gentlemen opposite would prefer this question to be dealt with by the hon. Member for Harrow, West rather than by the Leader of the Opposition, who has an unhappy knack of putting his feet in it. I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite are being so unruly when I am trying to make a series of factual comments about what we are doing.
  Under the Industrial Training Act machinery has been set up and finance will be provided to ensure that demands for skilled labour at all levels is forecast. We are raising money to pay for the training which hon. Gentlemen opposite have been saying they want. As soon as we do this they try to stop us.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Marsh: I cannot give way. [Interruption.]
  The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member does not give way hon. Members must remain seated.
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Marsh: Having dealt with—[Interruption.] It is extraordinary how
  632
  many hon. Members opposite can—[Interruption.]
  The Chairman: Order. We must get on with the debate.
  Hon. Members: Why?
  Mr. Marsh: Not only the question—[Interruption.] Not only the question—[Interruption.]
  The Chairman: Order. If the Minister has no intention of giving way it does not help if someone else tries to interrupt.
  Mr. Marsh: Not only are we dealing with training under the Industrial Training Act; it is also our intention to deal with the question of adult retraining. It is also interesting to note that two years ago—[Interruption.]
  The Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Members will allow the debate to end as it has gone on during the day, in a quite orderly fashion.
  Mr. Marsh: On the question of adult retraining—[Interruption.]
  Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) say, "You stink like stoats". Is that a Parliamentary expression?
  The Chairman: I often regret it when an hon. Member brings to the notice of the Chair words which have passed between hon. Members. Will he repeat what he alleges the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) to have said?
  Sir Knox Cunningham: He said, "You stink like stoats". Is that in order as a Parliamentary expression?
  The Chairman: It is certainly not in order. If the hon. Member said it I hope that he will withdraw it.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I had no idea of saying anything that was out of order—but there are things in the world that do stink like stoats. [Interruption.]
  The Chairman: Order. I am not interested in the hon. Member's comments on nature in general. If his remark referred to an hon. Member it is offensive and I hope that he will withdraw it.
  Mr. Silverman: I am obliged to you, Dr. King; I was simply making known my views on nature in general.
  Mr. Marsh: In view of the fact that it was impossible for hon. Members to permit the speech in—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has withdrawn his remark in his own way. He has withdrawn any implication that was made in his earlier remark.
  Mr. Marsh: It is clearly impossible for hon. Members opposite to believe in democracy at all. Surely the Government are entitled to put a case. In view of the fact that it is impossible for me to do so, I can only ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide and to carry the Vote against this cowardly attack.
  Question put, That a sum not exceeding £8,760,000 be granted for the said Service:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 273, Noes 297.

  Division No. 257.]

  AYES

  [10.00 p.m.

  Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Dance, James

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

  Dean, Paul

  Hopkins, Alan

  Astor, John

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hordern, Peter

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hornby, Richard

  Awdry, Daniel

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

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

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Doughty, Charles

  Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

  Balniel, Lord

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Barlow, Sir John

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Batsford, Brian

  Eden, Sir John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tutton

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Bell, Ronald

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

  Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Emery, Peter

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Jopling, Michael

  Biffen, John

  Farr, John

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bingham, R. M.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Blaker, Peter

  Foster, Sir John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Box, Donald

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Kirk, Peter

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Braine, Bernard

  Gammans, Lady

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Brewis, John

  Gardner, Edward

  Lambton, Viscount

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Bryan, Paul

  Glyn, Sir Richard

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

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Burden, F. A.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Longbottom, Charles

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Gower, Raymond

  Longden, Gilbert

  Campbell, Gordon

  Grant, Anthony

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Grieve, Percy

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Chataway, Christopher

  Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Gurden, Harold

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maitland, Sir John

  Cole, Norman

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Cooke, Robert

  Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

  Marten, Neil

  Cooper, A. E.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Mathew, Robert

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Maude, Angus

  Cordle, John

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Mawby, Ray

  Corfield, F. V.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Costain, A. P.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

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

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Hastings, Stephen

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Crawley, Aldan

  Hay, John

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Crowder, F. P.

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mitchell, David

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Hendry, Forbes

  Monro, Hector

  Curran, Charles

  Higgins, Terence L.

  More, Jasper

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Murton, Oscar

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Neave, Airey

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Roots, William

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

  Royle, Anthony

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Onslow, Cranley

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Walder, David (High Peak)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Sharples, Richard

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Shepherd, William

  Wall, Patrick

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Walters, Dennis

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

  Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Peel, John

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Whitelaw, William

  Percival, Ian

  Speir, Sir Rupert

  Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

  Peyton, John

  Stainton, Keith

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

  Stanley, Hn. Richard

  Wise, A. R.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Stodart, Anthony

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Pounder, Rafton

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Talbot, John E.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Pym, Francis

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Teeling, Sir William

  Younger, Hn. George

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Temple, John M.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)

  Mr. Martin McLaren and

  Mr. Ian MacArthur.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hannan, William

  Albu, Austen

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Harper, Joseph

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Alldritt, Walter

  de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hattersley, Roy

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dell, Edmund

  Hayman, F. H.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Dempsey, James

  Hazell, Bert

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Barnett, Joel

  Dodds, Norman

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Baxter, William

  Doig, Peter

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Beaney, Alan

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Driberg, Tom

  Holman, Percy

  Bence, Cyril

  Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.

  Hooson, H. E.

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Dunn, James A.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Bessell, Peter

  Edelman, Maurice

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

  Binns, John

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Howie, W.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hoy, James

  Blackburn, F.

  English, Michael

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Ennals, David

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Boston, Terence

  Ensor, David

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

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

  Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)

  Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Boyden, James

  Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Jackson, Colin

  Bradley, Tom

  Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Floud, Bernard

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Foley, Maurice

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Ford, Ben

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Garrett, W. E.

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Chapman, Donald

  Ginsburg, David

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Coleman, Donald

  Gourlay, Harry

  Kelley, Richard

  Conlan, Bernard

  Gregory, Arnold

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Grey, Charles

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Lawson, George

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cronin, John

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Ledger, Ron

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

  Hale, Leslie

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Darling, George

  Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Loughlin, Charles

  Padley, Walter

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Paget, R. T.

  Stonehouse, John

  McBride, Neil

  Palmer, Arthur

  Stones, William

  McCann, J.

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

  MacColl, James

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)

  Swain, Thomas

  McGuire, Michael

  Parker, John

  Swingler, Stephen

  McInnes, James

  Parkin, B. T.

  Symonds, J. B.

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Taverne, Dick

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Mackie, George Y. (C'ness & S'land)

  Pentland, Norman

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  MacMillan, Malcolm

  Prentice, R. E.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Probert, Arthur

  Tinn, James

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Tomney, Frank

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

  Randall, Harry

  Tuck, Raphael

  Manuel, Archie

  Rankin, John

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mapp, Charles

  Redhead, Edward

  Varley, Eric G.

  Marsh, Richard

  Rees, Merlyn

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mason, Roy

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Maxwell, Robert

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Richard, Ivor

  Wallace, George

  Mellish, Robert

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Warbey, William

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Watkins, Tudor

  Mikardo, Ian

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Weitzman, David

  Millan, Bruce

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Whitlock, William

  Molley, William

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Monslow, Walter

  Rowland, Christopher

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Murray, Albert

  Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Neal, Harold

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Newens, Stan

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Norwood, Christopher

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Oakes, Gordon

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Woof, Robert

  Ogden, Eric

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  O'Malley, Brian

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)

  Small, William

  Zilliacus, K.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Snow, Julian

  Orme, Stanley

  Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Oswald, Thomas

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Mr. Sydney Irving and

  Owen, Will

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Mr. George Rogers.

  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. Cyril Bence rose—
  It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Judges' Remuneration Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[The Attorney-General.]

  JUDGES' REMUNERATION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.15 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones)rose—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether your attention has been drawn to the Amendment standing in my name? May I ask whether it is your intention to call it?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): That is matter for Mr. Speaker and will be settled when we come to it.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As the House knows, the salaries of the higher judiciary are fixed by Statute. The last time they were increased was in 1954. Before that the High Court judges in England and Wales had not had an increase in salary for 120 years. So far as I know, the higher judiciary are the only body of servants of the State, or, indeed, almost any person in receipt of remuneration, who have had no increase in salary for 11 years. I need hardly remind the House that since the last increase in 1954 the cost of living, according to the Index of Retail Prices, has increased by 42 per cent. The judges' salaries, alone of all salaries, have stayed put.
  When the then Prime Minister, the late Sir Winston Churchill, introduced the Bill in 1954 he said that the new salaries fixed by the Bill would remain unaltered for a fairly long period, perhaps a generation. Unhappily, the erosion of the value of money has been more rapid than was foreseen in 1954 and 12 years—as the House will see from the Bill, the new salaries that are proposed will not take effect until 1st April, 1966—has proved to be too long a period for salaries to remain constant in modern conditions. Accordingly, as long ago as March, 1964, the previous Administration gave an express undertaking that legislation would be introduced in this Session to provide for increases in remuneration of the higher judiciary.
  640
  The most important Clause in the Bill is Clause 1. Clause 1(1), taken together with the First Schedule, increases the salary of the senior judiciary by 25 per cent. over that which was thought to be appropriate in 1954. The one exception is the salary of the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. In his case the increase is not designed simply to restore his salary to something like what was thought appropriate formerly, but to give belated recognition to the very heavy duties which have fallen upon him.
  The House may think that his post has been overdue for upgrading for a long time. Long since gone are the days when the President, assisted until quite recently by two other judges, was well able to despatch all the work of that Division. Today, there are, apart from him, 13 judges in his Division, and much additional work is done by county court judges and special commissioners. The President also has heavy administrative responsibilities, including the running of the Principal Probate Registry, the Admiralty Registry, and 26 district probate registries. In the circumstances, the House may readily agree that the salary of the President should be the same as that of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and the Master of the Rolls.
  I invite the House to look at the list of salaries proposed in the First Schedule for the other judges. Leaving aside the Lord Chancellor, who is dealt with in Clause 2, the Lord Chief Justice comes, quite rightly, in view of his heavy responsibilities in connection with his presidency of the Queen's Bench Division and with assizes and many other duties which fall upon him, at the top of the list with a salary of £12,500 a year, as compared with his present salary of £10,000 a year. Next comes the Master of the Rolls and the nine Lords of Appeal in Ordinary who are now, as I have said, joined by the President. They will all, under the Bill, have a salary of £11,250 a year.
  Finally, there are the largest group of the higher judiciary, namely, the Lord Justices of Appeal and the puisne judges of the High Court who have traditionally received the same remuneration, and that principle of equality remains in the Bill. They will receive under the Bill £10,000

  641
  a year. Having said that they will get £10,000 a year, the reality is that a married judge with no dependent children will get little more than a half of that amount after he has paid Income Tax and Surtax. Two-thirds of the additional £2,000 which is to be paid to the High Court judges of England and Wales will go back to the Exchequer as tax. Accordingly, the net benefit to the judges will be £779.
  The suggestion was mooted, when this problem was raised a year ago, that this should be met by a tax-free payment of £1,000 a year. Not surprisingly, the Treasury of that day thought that to be a bad tax principle, but if that principle had been embodied in this Bill the judges would have been better off with £1,000 tax-free than they are with £2,000 subject to taxation.
  Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: So would we all.
  The Attorney-General: Yes, so would we all, I think. This is why the Government have thought it proper to apply the principle of equal treatment by the tax authorities in this Bill.
  The salaries of the senior judges in Scotland and Northern Ireland are also proportionately raised. I apprehend that some hon. Members may take the view that an increase of 25 per cent. in the salary of the High Court judges is too generous. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I notice the cries of poverty coming from the other side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "And that."] Yes, and from this side, too. It may be said that the proposed increase is out of line with the Government's incomes policy in other spheres. It is accordingly right that I should deal with that immediately, because I submit that that fear is entirely without foundation.
  The proposed addition of 25 per cent. to the present salary represents a compound annual rate of increase of 1·9 per cent. compared with the norm of 3½ per cent. increase in wages and salaries. The comparison, therefore, taking the period as a whole, is that of 1·9 per cent. with the norm of 3½ per cent.
  Is it right that the House should take cognisance of what has happened in other spheres in regard to wages and salaries.
  642
  In the same period since 1954 wage rates have gone up 59 per cent. and salaries 65 per cent. If the present judge's salary of £8,000 was increased at a rate commensurate with some of the changes to which I have referred, this would be the kind of result: the £8,000 would be raised to £11,328 to allow for the increase in the cost of living. It would be £13,200 if it kept pace with the average salary increases in the country. Those are the harsh economic facts and the background of this matter.
  If the problem were looked at entirely afresh, it would not be easy for this House or for anyone to decide objectively what our community should pay for having an immensely able and independent bench of High Court judges. In 1832, they were thought to be worth £5,000 a year. That would be worth about £40,000 a year today. But, whatever figure is arrived at, I think that it is essential for their salaries to be settled at a figure which will not down-grade their status in the community. Clearly, they should remain measurably ahead of the lower judiciary, who have received three increases in salary since 1954, as have higher civil servants.
  The position now is that the higher judiciary, apart from Members of Parliament and Ministers of the Crown, are alone among people paid out of public funds in not having a regular review of their salaries. Civil servants come under the Central Pay Agreement and they receive regular increases based on the principle of fair comparison. The higher Civil Service, to which the lower judiciary has in recent years been linked, has a somewhat similar procedure with less frequent but periodic increases. The judiciary, therefore, are in an exceptional position and subject to this exceptional treatment.
  It is right that I should make this point early in the debate. The judges are recruited from the Bar, and earnings at the Bar, I am glad to say, have considerably increased in recent years. Had any one of the gifted people who are now High Court judges remained at the Bar, he would be in receipt of a considerably higher income than he has been drawing as a High Court judge, allowing for my other extras which it may be suggested the judges enjoy.
  Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: If they had carried on at the Bar, they would not have the benefit of a tax-free emolument on retirement.
  The Attorney-General: I shall come to the question of pensions in a moment. That is in accordance with the arrangements made for the Civil Service as a whole, as the hon. Gentleman, no doubt, fully appreciates.
  Mr. Leo Abse: My right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned other benefits. So that the House may have all the facts before it, will he explain exactly what are the extra emoluments which judges receive when they go on circuit and what they are for? Second, will he say—this was raised in the debate when judges' salaries were last discussed—what are the present costs of their robes, wigs and paraphernalia?
  The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has invited me to make my speech in the way he wishes, but I am sorry to have to tell him that I propose to continue in the way I had intended. I can tell him at once that, of course, allowances are paid to judges who go on assize. Those allowances were fixed in 1954, and there has been no increment since.
  If it is desired to obtain the detail of these matters, my hon. Friend can refer to HANSARD tomorrow morning where he will find the information fully set out in a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who was good enough to put down a Question on the subject today. The details are fully set out there and there is no mystery about them. It is a provision to enable judges on assize to return the hospitality they receive, on a suitably moderate basis, and it is adequate for that purpose and for no more.
  The Lord Chancellor now has reason to believe that the existing judicial salaries are insufficient to make certain of attracting the best of the Bar to the Bench. That is the position we have arrived at. Yet I am sure that no one in this House will deny the importance of maintaining the high standards of the higher judiciary.
  The work of the High Court judge has not become less arduous through the
  644
  years. Queen's Bench judges now are frequently out of London and away from their homes and families for as much as six months a year. A considerable number of judges perform important work in vacations by sitting at quarter sessions, no doubt to the great advantage of the administration of justice. Vacations have been cut down by the sittings that have been arranged in September to clear the gaols of those committed for trial too late to be dealt with at the previous assizes.
  Whenever any great problems of importance in the State call for investigation, it is to the High Court judges that we rush as soon as possible. Indeed, the pressure for their services has placed considerable burdens upon the administration of justice. They have performed their duties on various committees and there are no fewer than 20 High Court judges at present sitting on committees dealing with a wide range of subjects from law reform to security.
  Moreover, those who sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal have to get through a great deal of paper work when the day's work in court is done. As those who have experience of these matters know, a good deal of the spare time of all the judges in the evenings and at weekends is devoted to the consideration and the writing of reserved judgments.
  Subsection (1) of Clause 1 has the effect of increasing the pension payable to high judicial officers on retirement. Under the Judicial Pensions Act, 1959, the pension payable during the first five years of service is a quarter of the last annual salary. This is increased by one-fortieth of the salary for each further year of service up to a maximum of one-half the last annual salary, which is earned after 15 years on the Bench.
  Although subsection (1) has, naturally, attracted most attention, the remaining subsections of Clause 1 are also of some importance. These enable the remuneration of High Court judges to be increased in future, should this prove to be just and proper, by Order in Council, provided that a draft of the Order has been previously approved by affirmative Resolution of both Houses.
  Since the passing of the Judicial Offices (Salaries and Pensions) Act, 1957, a similar procedure has been applied to

  645
  the salaries of the lower judiciary. As I have said, in modern conditions no salaries have remained constant for very many years. They have had to be adjusted from time to time and those few people whose salaries have been fixed by Act of Parliament have necessarily been placed in an invidious position. Indeed, virtually the only other salaries in the public sector which are still fixed by Statute are those of Ministers of the Crown and Members of Parliament—and hon. Members, too, have suffered because of the existence of this requirement of change by Act of Parliament.
  Bills to deal with the salaries of Members, of Ministers and of High Court judges are unpopular—of that there is no doubt—and Governments are loath to find time for them in a congested legislative programme. The result of all this is that when, ultimately, a Bill is brought forward to bring the remuneration of these high officers of State into line with developments in the community, the Measure is usually very late and when it comes it gives a false impression that a wholly disproportionate increase is being granted.
  The procedure which is now proposed in the Bill—and I emphasise that it still requires parliamentary approval—is the affirmative Resolution procedure which, at least, takes less time than the passage of a Bill of the kind which we are now discussing, so that there is every likelihood that in so far as a judicial salary hereafter needs adjustment it will be adjustable more nearly in the same way as the remuneration of all other salary earners.
  I can deal with the remaining Clauses briefly. Clause 2 deals with the salary and pension of the Lord Chancellor. The House will remember that the Lawrence Committee on the Remuneration of Ministers and Members of Parliament, whose recommendations so far as they related to Members of Parliament were adopted and accepted by the House, recommended that the Lord Chancellor's salary should be £17,000 a year. However, since the Government decided that for other Ministers only half the increase recommended by the Lawrence Committee should be accepted—and that decision was effected in the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act earlier this year—it has seemed to the Government
  646
  to be right that the Lord Chancellor's remuneration should also be increased by only half the amount recommended. This is the effect of Clause 2.
  My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor did not want his own salary to be increased before that of his judicial brethren and the increase in his salary, therefore, will not take place until a year later than that of his ministerial colleagues, that is to say, until April, next year.
  The Lord Chancellor has been described as a sort of universal joint in the machinery of government. He links the three interlocking powers in our constitution. As a Cabinet Minister, he is a member of the Executive. As Speaker of the House of Lords, he is a legislator. Finally, not only is he a judge, but he is the very head of the judiciary. The House may like to know that, despite these vast responsibilities, the salary now proposed for him, of £14,500, is only £500 higher than that which was granted to his predecessor by Parliament 133 years ago, in 1832.
  Clause 2(2) increases the Lord Chancellor's pension from £5,000 a year to £6,250. In view of certain comments which have been made about this part of the Bill, perhaps I ought to make it clear that it is not open to a Lord Chancellor on retirement to return to practise at the Bar. A busy Queen's Counsel who accepts the Great Seal has no security of tenure and he knows that he cannot enjoy the salary attached to the post for more than a short and uncertain time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That, of course, does not apply to the present Lord Chancellor. But it is clearly right that in all the circumstances the Lord Chancellor should be able to look forward to a suitable pension in view of his sacrifice of his professional position if, as in the case of the present Lord Chancellor, he goes straight from the Bar to the Woolsack.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I think that to make a perfectly balanced statement it should be said that there are precedents for previous Lord Chancellors going to the City of London and earning high professional fees in another capacity, associated with their judicial function.
  The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is right, but perhaps in fairness to the Lord Chancellor who did this I should point out that he does not draw his pension as Lord Chancellor.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: Would my right hon. and learned Friend tell us whether Lord Birkenhead drew his pension?
  The Attorney-General: I did not ask him. I do not know. It may well be that, as in so many other things, Lord Birkenhead was an exception. Certainly, the only other instance known to me of an ex-Lord Chancellor going to business was Lord Buckmaster, who, for a short time, undertook some voluntary inquiry in the City of London. He was a remarkable man. He did so and forwent his pension. The other is Lord Kilmuir, and as I have said, he does not draw his pension as an ex-Lord Chancellor.
  Mr. Peter Kirk: Am I right in thinking that this increase in pension applies only to the present Lord Chancellor and his successors, and not his predecessors?
  The Attorney-General: It applies to Lord Chancellors who resign after 1st April, 1966. These pension increases have no retrospective effect, and, therefore, the judges or Lord Chancellors who have retired, and are now drawing pensions will not benefit from the Bill.
  Mr. Julian Snow: If a Lord Chancellor who goes to the City and forgoes his pension is awarded a pension by the company for which he has been working, is he then able to draw the pension which he has temporarily forgone?
  The Attorney-General: I should like notice of that question. I would like to think about it. I will not give a spot answer, but we will look into it during the Committee stage. My present feeling is that it is doubtful, but I would be very glad to look at it and deal with it again.
  The point which needs to be made is that Lord Chancellors who have retired and draw a pension are expected to sit judicially with the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, with the House of Lords, sitting in a judicial capacity. Although it
  648
  is right that it has been mentioned that some of them have not followed that ancient tradition, greatly respected in the administration of justice, and have perhaps rather regrettably departed from it, it is right that we should emphasise that most Lord Chancellors have faithfully adhered to the tradition. When they have retired from the Woolsack, they do the ordinary work of the House of Lords, sitting judicially.
  That is being done by ex-Lord Chancellors who are now Members of another place. The result is that those who do that—and normally that has been the procedure—find themselves enjoying merely the amount of their pension, while alongside them are Lords of Appeal in Ordinary who are, generally speaking, receiving twice as much by way of emolument from the State. That is the position, and in practice, heavy demands have been made upon the time of ex-Lord Chancellors for the performance of this most critical judicial work, normally sitting in the Supreme Court of Appeal of our country, and as members of the Judicial Committee of the Commonwealth.
  Mr. Paget: If my right hon. and learned Friend says that the pension is conditional on subsequent service, may we take it that that will later be included in the Bill?
  The Attorney-General: I did not say that it was conditional upon subsequent service. I said that it had at any rate become a convention. One doubts whether any contemporary retiring Lord Chancellor would behave in any other way.
  Mr. Paget: May we have it in the Bill?
  The Attorney-General: If my hon. and learned Friend wants to return to the matter in Committee, we will look at it.
  Clause 3 is the only part of the Bill which is designed to come into force on Royal Assent. The rest of the Bill comes into force in April next year. The effect of Clause 3 is to increase by seven the number of High Court judges who may be appointed in England and Wales. The next maximum will, therefore, be 63.

  649
  At this hour I do not propose to detain the House for very long over the Clause. No doubt we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter in detail in Committee. But, broadly speaking, there are four main reasons for increasing the present statutory maximum by seven. The first is the continuing increase in criminal business arising unhappily from the continuing increase in crime which has been the feature of life in our own community, as indeed in most of the world, since the war. Whereas only 1,467 "judge-days" were required for the despatch of criminal business at assizes in 1961, that figure had risen to 2,148 in 1964. In those three years there was that remarkable increase. Moreover, the work of the Court of Criminal Appeal has also increased very sharply. In 1949, for instance, it sat for 65 days a year. Last year, there were 195 sittings of the Court of Criminal Appeal—three times as many.
  The second reason for an increase is the increase in divorce work, which has been very sharp in recent years. In 1960, it might have appeared that the total number of divorce petitions had levelled out at between 26,000 and 30,000 a year, but for some reason—and perhaps one of these days the sociologists will explain it—the number began to increase in 1961—in 1964 the total number of proceedings started in the Divorce Division was 41,780. The result has been that the employment of Special Commissioners has still been necessary, and additional judges are needed for the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, even if the Commissioners are not entirely to be replaced—and the House will recollect that the system of employing Special Commissioners as substitutes for judges for the trial of defended divorce has been greatly criticised in post-war years.
  The third reason for an increase is the continued pressure of work in the Chancery Division. As hon. Members are probably aware, there has been a considerable increase there, in particular in wardship proceedings, which have come into the limelight recently, and, generally speaking, they require the personal attention of a judge. Delays are building up in the Chancery Division, and a further appointment there is now called for.
  The fourth reason—and this is an urgent one—is that the three judges whose
  650
  appointment was authorised by the Resale Prices Act last year are already fully occupied in the Queen's Bench and Divorce Divisions, and this at a time when the business arising from the Resale Prices Act is just beginning to come before the Restrictive Practices Court and is likely to increase the work of that court very considerably.
  Everyone regrets the necessity for a further increase in the number of High Court judges. I must emphasise that the appointments which are authorised by the Bill will not—indeed, cannot—be made unless there is clear need for them in each case and unless not only my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, but also the Treasury, are satisfied as to the necessity of a new appointment.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: How does the Attorney-General expect the numbers to be broken down between the various Divisions of the High Court?
  The Attorney-General: I should like notice of that question. It will depend upon the need.
  As I have said, it is contemplated that there shall be an early appointment to the Chancery Division and an appointment to the Divorce Division and another to the Queen's Bench Division; but I will look into the matter. If there is already an intention to make immediate increases, I will certainly let the House know. That further appointments will be necessary is undoubted. As I say, however, they will not be made unless both my noble Friend and the Treasury are satisfied of the absolute necessity for a new appointment.
  In spite of the considerable increase in the number of High Court judges, it is, I think, generally accepted, certainly at the Bar, that there has been no fall in the standard and qualities of those who have been appointed. I can think of no contemporary judge who would come within the category of a former judge of whom it was said that to appear in the Court of Appeal with a judgment of his in one's favour was like going to sea on a Friday. It was not necessarily fatal, but it was an experience that would have been better avoided. The contemporary judges, as I have ventured to say, have maintained the very high quality indeed of the High Court bench.

  651
  In regard to the number of judicial appointments to the High Court, in England and Wales there are fewer High Court judges per million of the population than in Scotland and considerably fewer than in the most nearly comparable judicial systems in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is there more crime there?"] It may be that we are more law-abiding—I do not know: but I doubt whether our Commonwealth friends would be flattered by that intervention. At least, the increase in crime in our own country does not in any case call for complacency on our part in the face of the problem.
  The remaining provisions of the Bill are of less importance than those to which I have referred, and at this stage I need trouble the House only with Clause 4. [Laughter.] A reference to Clause 4 is limited entirely to the terms of the Bill. Clause 4 makes the necessary financial provisions consequential upon the increase in the amounts of salaries and pensions and in the number of High Court judges which will be brought about by the first three Clauses of the Bill.
  Subsection (1) of Clause 4 continues to charge all salaries and pensions of the higher judiciary upon the Consolidated Fund, with the exception of that part of the Lord Chancellor's remuneration which is attributable to his being Speaker of another place. Subsection (2) extends to the whole of the higher judiciary the long-standing rule which at present applies only to the Supreme Court judges of England, Wales and Northern Ireland under which their salaries are abated by the amount of any pension they receive in respect of public offices previously held by them.
  This rule has never previously applied as I understand it, to the Scottish judiciary or to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. The only likely practical effect of this provision in present circumstances will be that any Member of this House who has served here for 10 or more years and is appointed in future to high judicial office in the United Kingdom will be entitled to draw his Member's pension, but his judicial salary will be reduced by the amount of that pension.
  652
  May I add this, in conclusion of my presentation of the Bill? A vigilant, strong and fearless Bench is one of the bulwarks of liberty in this country, but the independence and high quality of the judiciary was not achieved without a struggle and it is well known that judicial independence and judicial integrity are not enjoyed by all countries today. It would be a disaster if the quality of the Bench were to be impaired, and it is as well for Parliament and the country to remind itself from time to time of the great value of the benefits which it enjoys through the possession of the kind of judiciary we have, and it should take care to see that the conditions in which the judiciary discharges its high functions are appropriate.
  Mr. Speaker: I will say, it being a convenient moment, that the three-month Amendment—to postpone Second Reading for three months—in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), is not selected, but he may have the comfort that that in no way narrows what he may say on the Question.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I thank you very much for that information, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the fact that I must not in any way question your Ruling, but may I just say that to my knowledge, in 21 years now in the House, no such Amendment to such a Government Motion has not been called? May I ask you whether or not this is because of the Measure itself? Or is there some other reason for it?
  Mr. Speaker: Not without notice could I be statistical, but I think that I am right in saying that I have a personal recollection of refraining myself from selecting them. It is a matter of judgment in the circumstances, in which I do my best.
  10.58 p.m.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Attorney-General has made a very careful exposition of the Bill. I was amazed at his fortitude or foolhardiness in not declaring an interest—no doubt it was because of the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)—because I am quite certain that one day the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be a most distinguished

  653
  ornament of the Bench. I declare no interest at all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because although I am said to be, and indeed am, a member of the Bar, during the last 26 years, owing to the exigencies of war and politics, I have practised for only six years; and I am quite certain that no one would ever think of making me a judge. Therefore, I have no interest to declare.
  As for the timing of the Bill, I think its sudden introduction is a little odd, at a time so near the end of our summer sittings, at a time when Government spokesmen, and, in particular, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are decrying increases in personal incomes. However, the timing of the Measure is a Government responsibility, and I think we must remember that it does not come into force till April, 1966.
  The Attorney-General: In what he has just said is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that he does not think that an undertaking was given by his Administration in March last year about this, and that it was accordingly appropriate that the Bill should be introduced in this Session?
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I did not wish to introduce this controversial note. Of course, we said that within this Session a Measure would be introduced, but we had not realised what an appalling mess would be made of the economy in the meantime. But I did not want to get involved in this argument. I shall willingly discuss it at greater length if need be, but the timing of the Bill is a matter for the Government.
  Mr. Michael Foot rose—
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I shall not give way. The Attorney-General was listened to almost in silence for nearly 45 minutes and I think, therefore, that I am entitled to put my constructive and moderate comments on the Bill in reasonable silence.
  I think that the power given in Clause 1 to alter salaries in future by Order, subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure, is sensible. People talk a great deal about modernising the procedures of Parliament, and it is rather a nonsense that we should still have the whole paraphernalia
  654
  of a Bill to alter these salaries. It is sensible to streamline the procedure and to make alterations in future by means of a very much simpler procedure.
  Clause 3 provides for an increase in the number of judges. It is true, of course, that we are all the time putting increasing burdens on the judiciary. I think that three new judges were created because of the burden put on the judiciary by the passing of the Resale Prices Act, but it is very interesting to discover what happened to those three judges. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he has time to listen to what I am saying, will concede that what happened to them can be described as larceny as a bailee, or fraudulent conversion, or embezzlement, but they have been transferred from any duties connected with the Resale Prices Act, and have been dealing with the ordinary work of Her Majesty's judges.
  I do not complain about that, but I think that we shall return to this in Committee, so that we can have the case for the increase in numbers more fully made out. I do not think that my right hon. and hon. Friends are convinced that the case has been made out for this increase in the numbers, but we can discuss this later.
  The main point with which we must deal as a Second Reading point is the amount of the salaries. It is very important that the case should be clearly made so that ordinary people can understand it. The facts as I see then are that the last increase was in 1954. There had been no increase before that since the days of King William IV, when it was fixed at £5,000, but I understand that there was no Income Tax then.
  On a percentage rate, these proposals are not out of line with what we have done about our own salaries, nor are they out of line with what we have done with other scales of remuneration. I have here the latest figures paid to Permanent Secretaries. Many of them receive more than £8,000 a year. The Treasury Solicitor is paid £8,285, and I do not think it can be said that these new scales are out of line with these other scales which the House has accepted.
  Nor do I think—and this is a very practical point—that it can be said that the new scales are out of proportion to the earnings of a member of the Bar in busy

  655
  practice. It is true that the judicial pension is a great advantage, but practising barristers can now make arrangements for pensions, and in view of that I think that it must be said that this increase is not out of line with the earnings of a member of the Bar.
  The judiciary must attract the very best, and I would not have thought that that would be disputed by any Member of the House. We must show the world that we have a judiciary of the highest quality, and it must, therefore, attract our very best people.
  The financial consequences of appointment to the Bench must not be such as to deter acceptance. That is a simple and obvious point which most people will understand. The right hon. and learned Member referred to the general view that the life of a judge is a very comfortable and sheltered one. That is not true. The Attorney-General did not endorse that view; he referred to it in order to refute it. The duties of a judge on circuit are onerous, and the number of judges now required to clear the lists often over-burdens the available accommodation—and their hours may be extremely long. A wide range of other duties is put upon Her Majesty's judges.
  But the main point—the common jury point; the Second Reading point—is the question whether we are prepared to say that the salaries of judges should be fixed at a rate which will attract to the job the very best. Applying that test, the proper remuneration of judges is in the national interest, and although the Government must take responsibility for the timing of this Measure I could not ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote against it.
  11.6 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I rise to oppose the Bill. If I speak at some length I want to explain to my hon. Friends that, strange as it may seem to them, I am not one who frequently takes part in debates in the House. This is the first time that I have spoken for eight months, and I have spoken in debates on only eight occasions in the 21 years that I have spent in the House. But on this matter I feel deeply. I am sorry that I am in conflict with both my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government—and particularly with my right hon. and learned Friend,
  656
  because he is a great personal friend of mine, and has been for 21 years. He represents the constituency adjoining mine, West Ham, South, and he knows that what I shall say about my constituents applies equally to his.
  When I begin to quote, to explain to the House the feelings of my constituents, I want my right hon. and learned Friend to take it from me that I have strong reason to believe that they are also the feelings of his constituents.
  The Attorney-General: Perhaps my hon. Friend will take it from me that I shall ascertain the temper of my constituents myself.
  Mr. Lewis: I know my right hon. and learned Friend, and before the Bill goes through I have no doubt that he will find out something about it. As a matter of fact, I think that he has already had one letter.
  The Attorney-General: Yes—from my hon. Friend's constituency.
  Mr. Lewis: It is better if I get on with my major objections to the Bill. I never attempted to intervene in the Attorney-General's speech, although I might have been able to assist him in answering some of the questions put by my hon. Friends in their interjections, to which my right hon. and learned Friend replied by suggesting that they look at tomorrow's HANSARD for the information they required. Later, I shall give my right hon. and learned Friend the information which I have, and which will answer the points made in interjections.
  I am sorry to be at variance both with my right hon. and learned Friend and with the Government about the Bill. I wanted to move the rejection of the Bill, but Mr. Speaker has not called my Amendment. I intend to call for a Division and to vote myself, and if any of my hon. Friends, or hon. Members opposite, want to join me I shall be pleased to have them. If they do not, I am big enough to stand on my own two feet.
  First, I cannot for the life of me see that this was something of major and urgent importance, which had to come in the first eight months of this Government. I believe that we have quite a big legislative programme; whether or not hon. Members opposite agree does

  657
  not matter at the moment There is and was a large legislative programme based on the policy of this Government, but no mention was made of increases in judges' remuneration. No reference was made by any leader of the Labour Party—[Interruption.] When I start criticising, I wish that hon. Members would not interject, because this applies to both sides of the House and to all three parties—
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson rose—
  Mr. Lewis: No. I will not give way. There is plenty of time. The hon. and learned Member can make his speech. This is a lawyer's heyday. I do not happen to be a lawyer—
  Mr. Hooson rose—
  Mr. Lewis: There was nothing in the legislative programmes of the political parties on this subject and, to the best of my knowledge, none of the leaders of the Labour Party made any reference to it. None of the Liberals did, and certainly not the Tory Party.
  Therefore, through the campaign, if this was such a vital issue, and it was so urgent, why did not someone think of telling the electorate about it—[Interruption.] The hon. Member is quite wrong, because during the election and before it, it was publicly declared in this House and outside that the Lawrence Committee was sitting. It was appointed by this House. It was discussed by all the political parties and in the Press and the Committee made its report.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman knew that there was no report on this subject, there was no committee, there was no legislation, there was no recommendation from the House during the whole period that I have been here about judges' salaries.
  I will go further than that. The Attorney-General said that there was a agreement between the two sides in March of last year. That was the first that I had heard about it. I knew nothing about it—[AN HON. MEMBER: "They did not tell you."] I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite know. Any criticism which I make of my Front Bench is equally applicable to hon. Members opposite, because they were parties to this—
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd Mr. Selwyn Lloyd indicated dissent.
  Mr. Lewis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head—
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: There was no agreement. There was a statement by the Lord Chancellor of the day to the effect that, next Session, steps would be taken to improve the remuneration of the judge. It was a statement, not an agreement.
  Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, but the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen must settle it between them. The Attorney-General says that there was an understanding, an agreement, the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) says that there was not. Is it agreed that there was some understanding?
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd Mr. Selwyn Lloyd indicated dissent.
  Mr. Lewis: No understanding?
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It was a statement in another place by the Lord Chancellor of the day.
  Mr. Lewis: The facts are, then, that neither of the parties was committed to this. There was no committee and no investigation and no action was taken on this matter by the House.
  As we know, hon. Members on this side of the House are proud of the fact that they have association with the trade unions and the Co-operative Party and they declare that interest quite openly. They are proud to do so. Looking through the journals of the unions, I have found no trade union, no Labour Party, no Co-operative Party which, either locally, at district or branch level, or at its annual conference, has passed any resolution demanding urgent attention to increase the judges' salaries.
  I may be wrong, but the only reference which I can find to the matter was by a Mr. Jones, of the Transport and General Workers' Union—I think that he is the assistant general secretary—who was violently against it. He said at his annual conference that, as far as he was concerned—I do not know whether he was speaking for his union—he would have no truck with this Bill.
  If there was something urgent about the Bill, even if they did not see fit to

  659
  consult us at any time between last March and now, they might have had the decency to seek an opportunity of discussing it with the Trades Union Congress General Council or with the Co-operative movement. But they did not do it.
  As far as I know, having looked through Tory Party reports—I do not get verbatim reports of the Tory Party conference and I do not know what happens in their mothers' or women's guilds, or whatever they may call them—no Tory Party organisation has pressed for legislation to increase the poor judges' salaries during the first eight months of the Labour Government.
  I must not leave the Liberals out. I do not think that even they have. Certainly, I do not remember reading or hearing that they have.
  Mr. Ian Percival: As I understand, what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that we ought not to be doing this in a busy Session because none of the party leaders has said that it would be done and there has not been a public outcry that it should be done. If there is anything in the point, perhaps he will tell the House how he explains the fact that so much time has been spent in this busy Parliament on the abolition of capital punishment, of which no mention was made during the election and about which there was no public outcry?
  Mr. Lewis: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am sure that you were listening to what I said. The hon. and learned Member obviously was not. I did not say anything of the sort. That is what he said, and, if he wants to say it, he should do so in his own time and leave me to get on with my speech.
  I was going on to refer to the lack of pressure not only outside the House, but inside. I have no interest to declare. I am one of the few Members present here this evening who have no connection with the law. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, there are lawyers here. Of course, it is true. I am told there are about 100 hon. and learned Members who have some connection with the law. Some are Queen's Counsel, some are barristers-at-law and some are solicitors.
  660
  [An hon. Member: "There are more than that".] Well, I do not want to argue over a hundred or two either way. I am advised that there are some, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, who are well known by repute, but who do not practise. But I will not argue about a hundred either way. Let us call it 100.
  I have been going through the OFFICIAL REPORT. We have a wonderful Reference Library, whose staff have been helping me. I asked them if they could find me one Question from a member of the legal fraternity which has asked for the matter of judges' salaries to be considered one of urgency. There is not one hon. and learned Member who has done it. Probably, as they have not got a very good trade union—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I thought that I would not get agreement on that one. As their union was inactive on this, I thought that some of my trade union friends would have thought it right to do it. But, no; there is not an hon. and learned Member who has asked for this matter to be raised or dealt with.
  I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General would tell us that, as things are at the moment, the poor judges cannot manage and that a number of them have resigned. Again, I have no knowledge of any who has resigned, and certainly none has resigned because he cannot manage on his inadequate salary. As far as I know, over the last few years none of them has died in poverty, or without leaving a few thousand pounds.
  I mention this because it has been suggested that judges' salaries must tie up with the salaries of Members of Parliament. They have nothing to do with the salaries of Members of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members may jeer, but we know that during the last 10 or 15 years there have been many hon. Members who lived in abject poverty, who could not afford to pay their hotel bills and for the necessities for their job. Many of them died in poverty. It is true that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said that we will see all this in HANSARD tomorrow. We will. I would advise you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to study it, because it will be very interesting.
  It would appear that when the judges are on circuit they have a choice. They

  661
  may get only £8 10s. a day. But £8 10s., tax-free, is not too bad. There are plenty of hon. Members who, when they were forced to accept the sessional allowance, would have liked £8 10s. a day. I understand that not all of them draw the £8 10s.
  The Attorney-General rose—
  Mr. Lewis: I am coming to the point about the head cook and bottle washer, about the judge taking his butler and cook with him. If he wants to do that, he should pay for it. If my hon. Friends bring their butlers and cooks down from the North, they pay them themselves. I would go further and suggest that if they get £8 10s. a day for it, they can well afford to have good butlers and good cooks.
  Evidently, that was not good enough, because, to quote the Attorney-General's remarks, in recent times the Lord Chancellor set up a central pool of cooks and butlers, and they are paid from public funds. The daily allowance of these poor judges, who are served by cooks and butlers taken from the public pool—I am referring not to dock expressions, but to the public pool of cooks and butlers—is reduced when they make use of the pool. When three or four judges in the same lodgings are provided with a staff at public expense, they have to manage on a daily allowance of only £5 2s. But £5 2s., plus cook, head butler, head bottle washer, and so on, is not too bad. I hope that hon. Members will read about this in HANSARD.
  The Attorney-General rose—
  Mr. Lewis: I am sorry. I will give way to my colleague from West Ham at any other time, but not now. I am treating this matter with levity now, but I will treat it seriously when I conclude.
  This matter is a scandal. Hon. Members opposite may say, "The hon. Member has no connection with the law", but I have the Solicitors' Journal. I thought that the Attorney-General would refer to it. This is not a trade union document—or is it? I do not know. However, it supports my right hon. Friend the First Secretary's plea for wage restraint. It says:
  "Nevertheless, we wonder whether the time is not ripe for a positive gesture of good will. On just over £150 a week gross a High Court Judge can afford to be generous."
  662
  It goes on to suggest that it would be a good idea if they showed how they supported the incomes policy by not going ahead with this proposed increase.
  I have dealt with the question of the emoluments. I have adequately explained that there is no comparison, and no question of comparison, with M.P.s, who have to meet their hotel expenses themselves. Fortunately, I am not in this category, so I do not have to shout. I am a London Member. M.P.s must pay for their lunches and dinners. As a London Member I do not have to. M.P.s have to pay their travelling expenses to their constituencies and all the other things. Whether that is right or wrong, and whether M.P.s should or should not have had an increase, is not now the issue. A committee sat to consider the problem. There was an inquiry and its report was published. There was a reference to M.P.'s pay during the election. I hope we shall not have the comparison with M.P.s trotted out.
  This is completely contrary to the Government's own declared pledges. It is completely contrary to the Government's incomes policy. It is completely contrary to the pledges and pleas which hon. Members opposite have been making for everyone to show restraint. They always appeal more to the trade unions. To be fair, we appeal more to directors of companies and to shareholders. Both sides appeal to trade unions, on the one hand, and to those in receipts of income from shares, dividends and directors' fees, on the other, to try to limit it and show some regard for an incomes policy.
  Why do we not follow this policy on this matter? Why do not the Government do it? The Attorney-General went to great lengths to explain the comparison with what percentage increases have or have not been made. I am sure that there are very many thousands of people, not only of old-age pensioners, but disabled pensioners, the chronically sick, and so on, who are in much greater need and are much more deserving of a meagre increase than those who are to receive the vast increase proposed in the Bill. What about teachers? We are told that the country is very short of teachers. Why not give them a 25 per cent. increase, because we need teachers? That would be worth doing.

  663
  I do not criticise the Government for having had to do unpopular things because of what they inherited. I am not complaining at the fact that, far from reducing mortgage and interest rates, they have increased them because of what they inherited and have had to deal with. But they do not have to adopt a Measure which the Tories prepared. Why do the Government have to put into effect legislation which the Tories prepared? Because they gave a pledge? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] If they did not give a pledge, why should they do it? I do not know who is right on this. I understand that there was a pledge. It is now said that there was not a pledge.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd rose—
  Mr. Lewis: I will not give way. I heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said before. He said that a statement was made in another place to the effect that it was the former Government's intention to do this. Good luck to them. It was not my intention. It was not my hon. Friends' intention. It was the former Government's intention. I cannot see why I should support this Government in doing the former Government's work for them; and I shall not, Whips or no Whips. I will not do it.
  I go further and say that it is no criterion to say that people have or have not had increases on what they got 150 years ago. Is it to be said that, because a person gets a certain income, he is entitled to claim as of right his 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent. or 3½ per cent.? Is that to be the incomes policy? Mr. Wilfred Harvey may well say, "I have been getting £270,000 since 1954, but I have had no increase since 1954, so I want 15 years' back pay at 2½ per cent." He might well say that he also wants the increase.
  The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir Rolf Dudley Williams) always makes very good interjections and he made a good one tonight. He asked, "What about the tax-free allowances?" The Attorney-General missed the point. The hon. Member was referring to what is not only a gross anomaly, but an absolute liberty taken with Her Majesty's taxpaying subjects in that if a Queen's Counsel or barrister decides to retire from the Bar he can take his last year's income free of tax.
  Mr. F. P. Crowder: Nonsense.
  Mr. Lewis: It has been declared in the House to be the case. It is true.
  Mr. Crowder: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. and learned Member can make his own speech.
  Mr. Crowder: On a point of order. If the hon. Member makes a statement which is manifestly untrue, and for which he has no authority whatsoever, should he not at least allow somebody to intervene? He cannot deceive the House.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): That is not a point of order. The hon. and learned Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder) will have an opportunity of replying to the hon. Member's argument.
  Mr. Lewis: It has been declared in the Press and in the House and Chancellors of the Exchequer of Governments of both parties have admitted that that is the case.
  I was about to say that these hon. and learned Members, before they become judges, are invariably Q.C.s and invariably, when they resign from the Bar before becoming judges, have this tax-free income. There may or may not be an argument for this salary increase—I do not think that there is—but if ever there was an argument for that increase there certainly cannot be, by any stretch of the imagination, a claim for a 25 per cent. increase in the pension rights of the Lord Chancellor and other judges.
  An hon. and learned Member may be giving up £15,000 or £50,000 a year at the Bar to take over the Lord Chancellor's job. I do not begrudge him that income. He can have £100,000 for all I care, but if he gives up £100,000 a year to take a £15,000-a-year Lord Chancellor's job, and he knows that there is a chance that he may be turned out of that job because of the people's democratic vote, he takes that chance and if he is getting a £5,000-a-year pension that is adequate enough. I do not see why he should have another £1,250, making the pension £6,250.
  I asked Questions about this matter. I confessed earlier that I do not speak

  665
  much in the House, but I do ask a lot of Questions. I received an Answer to this Question on pensions. The Attorney-General was right to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmuir, and to say that he does not draw his pension—now that he gets a reputed £20,000 or £30,000 a year from the business world. That is true, but legally he could draw it, and legally, for a fortnight, he did, until the Press reported it and then he decided to stop drawing his pension. I am not complaining. If that is what the law says, he is entitled to claim it, and I make no objection. Why should not he have it? If the law says that, in addition to his £30,000 a year, he can have his pension, let him have it. All I say is that the law is wrong. The law should not entitle a man in that position to have £30,000 or £40,000 a year and the right to claim not only £5,000 now, but a proposed £6,250.
  Again, there is no comparison with Members of Parliament. We contribute to our pension fund. We have to do 10 years. The Lord Chancellor can do 10 months on the Woolsack and draw his pension. [Laughter.] That is not laughable. It is serious. It is a disgusting situation. The poor old-age pensioner outside who works for 40 years to build up the wealth of this country goes on to a few pounds at week, and if he stays on at work his pension is pro tanto reduced.
  Sir Rolf Dudley Williams rose—
  Mr. Lewis: No, I shall not give way. It is a crying shame that a Labour Government, of all Governments, should have the audacity to suggest that a man should have £6,250 a year if he wants to draw another £30,000 a year from business.
  My right hon. and learned Friend went on to explain that some of these chappies do judicial work. No disrespect to you, Mr. Speaker. "Chappie" is an affectionate term. Some of these chappies in the House of Lords, so we are told, do some judicial work. Do they? Here again, I have had some Answers to Questions. There appear to be three entitled to draw the pension, and, apparently, only one draws it. I assume that he is the one who is acting in a judicial capacity, and I assume, also, that he is doing it in the House of Lords. I must name him, the noble Lord, Lord Dilhorne. Is he performing
  666
  his judicial function when he is leading Tory revolts against the democratically expressed will of this House and bringing in provisions restricting the trade unions?
  I am speaking in all seriousness about this. Am I, a Labour man who objects to his politics, and who openly and frankly says so, to be expected to pay this man £5,000 a year and vote him another £1,250 a year on top to enable him to sit in the House of Lords? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All right. He will not get it. But the principle is the same. This noble Lord is now drawing £5,000 a year, and he has led a revolt against the democratically expressed will of the people as represented in this House. No one can remove him. No one can take away his pension. No one can stop him. But I am told that he is acting in a judicial capacity. If he is, let the judiciary of the Tory Party pay him. Perhaps some hon. and learned Members opposite might even club round to help.
  I started in a jocular vein, but I am very annoyed and upset about the Bill. My party sent me here—[Laughter.] Do not laugh. Every hon. Member has a party behind him, I hope. I have a very good local party and a very good national party. They sent me here to help carry out the programme and policy of the Labour Party in its election manifesto. They did not send me here to agree to increases for judges' pensions and salaries. This is true not only of me, but of all my hon. Friends. It is true of every hon. Member of the House of Commons, wherever he sits, because this was never put to the electorate by any party.
  I have not canvassed my hon. Friends for their support, and I do not do so now. But I shall vote. Some of my hon. Friends might say that such a course will cause trouble for the party and the Government, but that is not so. The Bill would not apply until next April, in any case. Why are the Government so anxious to push it through now? Why not postpone it? If my hon. Friends say that a defeat on the Bill could have a dire effect upon the Government, I remind them of the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has said that the Government will not fall on a defeat on a matter that is not a

  667
  major issue. Indeed, he has gone further.
  The Conservative Opposition—good luck to them—by manoeuvre and manipulation were able the other night to get an Amendment made to the Finance Bill and the Government accepted it. I wish that we could carry my vote, but I am afraid that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not support me. But if the vote for it were large enough there would be nothing to stop the Government saying that, in view of the feeling of the House, they would postpone the Bill at least until the next Session.
  Many of my hon. Friends have anxious eyes on Bills and Motions which they would like to introduce. The Government also have Bills ready which they could bring in in place of this Measure. We could all suggest other Bills if the Government are short of legislation. Do not let my hon. Friends be misled. If they have the courage to vote with me they will be doing what the overwhelming majority of the people would want. They would be doing what is right in all conscience in the name of the ordinary men and women in the country. They would be doing what we have said is right—giving an example to the country. I ask my hon. Friends to come with me into the Division Lobby, because that will show the country that we in the Labour Party can stand up for what is right and just.
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. Roderic Bowen: I thoroughly disagree with the attitude expressed by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer.
  Mr. Bowen: I congratulate the Government on resisting pressure based on the suggestion that this is an untimely and unpopular Measure. The hon. Member is entitled to his views, but I ask him and the House to consider whether his speech was not, in the main, a denigration of the members of our judiciary and the functions they carry out in society. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Whatever the hon. Member's basic intentions, the way in which he expressed them was certainly an attempt to poke fun at many
  668
  aspects of our judicial system. To do that in present circumstances—
  Mr. Lewis rose—
  Mr. Bowen: —is rendering a great disservice to society.
  Mr. Lewis rose—
  Mr. Bowen: I want to turn from—
  Mr. Lewis rose—
  Mr. Bowen: The hon. Member refused time and time again to give way. I am prepared to give way to any other hon. Member, but not to him.
  I want to turn to one aspect of the Bill which is of considerable importance and which is completely devoid of controversy. This is the provision to increase the number of puisne judges in the High Court from 56 to 63. [Laughter.) I do not understand the meaning of that laughter. I am trying to make a serious contribution on a matter of interest to everyone who wishes justice to be administered, and administered without delay.
  Mr. Lewis rose—
  Mr. Bowen: It has been said that justice delayed is justice denied. Circumstances at assizes at the moment are such as to give rise to anxiety in this connection. About a fortnight ago, the officers of the Welsh Association of Law Societies and the officers of the Wales and Chester Circuit met to consider this point, which applies particularly to the hearing of civil actions. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter. Perhaps hon. Members opposite think that workmen who have had accidents and who are waiting for their cases to be heard feel no anxiety and frustration when there is undue delay in the hearing of their cases.
  What is happening especially at assizes, bearing in mind the increase in criminal work, is that civil actions are constantly being put back from one assize to another. That in itself is unsatisfactory but there is another unsatisfactory aspect in that it results in cases being settled when they would not have been settled, or when the parties are not anxious to settle on the terms obtained but are forced to do so when faced with the alternative of their suits not being heard until several months ahead.

  669
  I hope that advantage will be taken of that part of the Bill which is to come into operation immediately upon the Royal Assent to increase the number of judge days to deal with civil actions. Following the recommendations of the Streatfeild Committee, I believe that conditions for dealing with criminal cases are reasonably satisfactory, but that is certainly not so with the hearing of civil actions.
  I now revert to the remuneration aspect of the Bill. One would have thought that what was proposed for Her Majesty's judges was exceptional for persons of great responsibility. However, I have had extracted in the Library information about what is happening in connection with persons holding positions of very great responsibility in other spheres, for example, in the higher Civil Service and the nationalised industries.
  If one looks at those figures and sees what is proposed in the Bill it certainly cannot be said that these proposals are in any way remarkable or extravagant. May I mention one or two examples? The last occasion on which the higher judicial salaries were reviewed was in 1954. I have a list of a number of salaries in the Civil Service and in the nationalised industries for 1954 and 1964. In 1954, a Permanent Under-Secretary of State received a salary of £4,500 and in 1964 his salary was £8,885. A Deputy Under-Secretary of State received, in 1954, a salary of £3,250, and in 1964 his salary was £5,800.
  Sir Douglas Glover: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House how long it was before 1954 that these Ministers had their salaries increased?
  Mr. Bowen: I cannot give that figure. All I can say is that the judges had to wait 120 years for the rises they obtained in 1954.
  In the nationalised industries the Chairman of the Electricity Council received a salary of £8,500 in 1954 and it is now £12,500. The comparable figures for the Gas Council are £6,000 and £11,000. The Chairman of London Transport Board received £7,000 in 1954, and now the figure is £11,000. It is difficult, in this sphere, to talk about the rate for the job, but if one compares what is proposed
  670
  in the Bill with the high responsibilities it is certainly not out of proportion to what has happened in relation to people with high responsibility in other spheres of public life. [AN. HON. MEMBER: "It depends what is meant by high responsibility."] Of course, it depends upon responsibility, but is anyone suggesting that the judiciary have not duties of very great responsibility?
  In considering this, one should have that in mind. I have a quotation which expresses far better than I could what I would suggest should be remembered in this respect. It is a quotation from what the then Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, said on the occasion of the Second Reading of the 1954 Bill. He said:
  "Parliament has to ensure that those few men who are capable of rendering this exceptional service in all its forms are attracted towards doing so, and that their circumstances when they have taken office are such as to enable their powers to be exercised in the public interest without financial anxiety or personal distraction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1063.]
  I believe that that sets out quite clearly and specifically what should be our attitude in this matter.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: In what respect is this any different from a shipyard worker, miner, teacher, or a dock worker?
  Mr. Bowen: It is no different in the sense that what we have to decide is what is a reasonable and proper remuneration. That is the test. What I am saying is that the remuneration proposed in the Bill is perfectly reasonable and proper in the circumstances. That is the acid test and I believe that the Bill stands up to that test.
  Mr. George Y. Mackie: Perhaps it would be agreed that the work done is not as great, as between a Member of Parliament and a miner or a shipyard worker?
  Mr. Bowen: I agree. If the suggestion is that everyone should be paid the same wages, then I can understand the hon. Member's point of view, but that is certainly not the Government's policy.
  I do not want to detain the House longer, although I am tempted to do so, in particular to deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for

  671
  West Ham, North. I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on having introduced it.
  11.56 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: We have first to decide, are the judges getting too little? Secondly, if they are, what about the timing? My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General talked about downgrading the judges' status. I am surprised to find that on this side of the House status is expressed in terms of cash. I hope that in this country status is not measured in that way. Some of the jobs which carry the greatest status are not paid at all. I think, for example, for example, of lord lieutenants.
  We are told that the increase is necessary to maintain the judges' independence and integrity. It seems to me to be something of a reflection upon the legal profession that we can maintain their integrity only by paying very large salaries. A Member of Parliament requires independence and integrity, and if he is to do his job well he needs qualities about as good as the average judge. Many hon. Members have become judges, and I think they have been a good average as Members of Parliament—probably not much above or much below the average.
  Can we find the men to do this job at the money? It is said that we must attract the best advocates. I do not agree with that at all. An advocate needs a power to assert himself over a court, a passionate belief in his own words, a tremendous interest in what he says and little interest in what anyone else says. These are just the qualities which do not make a good judge, and many of the best advocates do not make good judges.
  What are the qualities which we need in a judge? They are men of the highest character, of course. They are careful, they are courteous, they probably have second or good third-class degrees. That is about the level that we require. One or two on the Chancery side have good first-class degrees and are outstanding, but for the ordinary type of judge we want good common sense with a certain amount of experience and not very much more.
  Can we get that sort of man, who makes a good judge, for this money? Of course we can. It comes at an age when
  672
  he wants to cut down his work, and when he becomes a judge he cuts down to an enormous degee the work which he was doing as a barrister. This is a nice, gentle job which one can step into at that age. He gets a big bonus, tax-free, to start with, because it is not merely a year's salary; by postponing payment it can add up to a good deal more than that. He gets a pension earned more quickly than in any other job—and quite a good pension. It is nonsense to say that we cannot get the judges we want—and good judges—at the present money.
  The trouble is that in the old days judges were paid vastly too much. When ones goes back a couple of centuries, and looks at what £5,000 a year meant, it would be the equivalent of £50,000 or more now. Why were judges paid at that level? It was to make certain that they were on the side of the rich. It was to commit the judiciary to property, and that was the sole reason why it was made certain that the judges saw things from the rich man's point of view.
  If one looks at judicial law as it has developed, it has always been the development of the rights of property as against the rights of the individual. It is that judicial law which we in Parliament have constantly had to cut back to save the rights of individual people as against the rights of property. The idea that judges should be vastly highly-paid people is, I believe, socially wrong.
  Having said that as to the level of payment, I now turn to the question of title. We are told that a pledge was given by the last Government. The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) did not think so; he said that there was an expression of intention in another place. Some very definite pledges were given by my party, and some of those pledges are before us. One of those pledges was to bring public service pensions up to the purchasing power which they used to possess, to save them from inflation and to apply the principle of parity to public service pensioners.
  That was a pledge which I was authorised to give and gave on behalf of this party. It has not been implemented, and it was our pledge and not that of the party opposite. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It is not the only one,

  673
  either."] Why is there this priority here?
  We are told about the salaries of Members of Parliament. I do not think that the timing of the increase in the salaries of Members of Parliament was right. What happened in that case was that Members' salaries and the removal of prescription charges came in right away before we had run into the economic difficulties—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which have prevented our other pledges being fulfilled. That is why this one came out of its priority. However, we know the situation now. We know that those pledges which were made to the public service pensioners are not being carried out. We know that they are not being carried out because of the economic situation.
  At this point we take over a Tory pledge and say that we have to fulfil it. All this is a question of priorities. This is a Tory priority which we are accepting. We have been doing this far too much. We are told, "Ah, but you must support the Government". A critical point comes: at what point do we go on supporting Conservative policy because it comes from a Labour Government? We have had Conservative defence policy and ours was scrapped. We have had Conservative nuclear policy and ours was scrapped, and we have had Conservative foreign policy.
  In economic matters, we have seen the handling of our economy through the acceptance, again, of a Tory priority, the first priority being the maintenance of sterling at a certain level as an international exchange currency. We have seen the handing over of the economy, broadly, to a consortium of bankers who dictate what sort of a Budget we have and as to what kind of payment we have. How long does one go on supporting that—a Labour Government in their conduct of a Tory policy? This is the problem which we had to face in 1931, and we are coming near to facing it again. As far as I am concerned, I shall not support the Bill. This is the point where I rebel.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I rise to ask my hon. and learned Friend, for putting the record straight—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I was asking my hon. and learned Friend a question.
  Mr. Paget: I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams).
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Lady. I thought that the hon. and learned Member had finished his speech.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend, for the sake of putting the record straight, whether he would not, on reconsideration, agree that the economic difficulties which face the Government are part of the Government's heritage, which is entirely the result of the Tory Government?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. and learned Member answers that question he will be out of order. Mr. Howe.
  Mr. Paget: With great respect, I was dealing with the point as to the various priorities. It is—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. and learned Member, in his peroration, to range rather wide of the Question, which is on Second Reading of the Bill. Mr. Howe.
  Mr. Paget: I was concluding, but I had given way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought that the hon. and learned Member had concluded. I apologise.
  Mr. Paget: I shall certainly conclude in a moment, because I do not want to be long, but I do feel that the point has come at which the Government have got to face up not only to the difficulties which were created for us by the other side—of course, they were—but to whether or not to use the other side's remedies. They have been accepted. We cannot go on doing that.
  12.7 a.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Howe: I intended to begin by saying that it was not for me to try to resolve the domestic conflicts between the Attorney-General and his colleague, the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), but that conflict has now paled into insignificance beside the almost Freudian revelations by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), because we see now all the seething

  675
  frustrations which have been brewing all along on the Government's back benches during many months rise suddenly to the surface and breaking out on this issue and at the expense of Her Majesty's judges.
  It is curious to see the Attorney-General in the rôle of catalyst in such a demonstration, but, so be it, that is the rôle in which he is cast. The way in which this demonstration has presented itself should, I think, be a cause of some concern, because it suggests, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) pointed out, a lack of awareness of the importance, in a democratic society such as ours, of the quality of judge, which is manifestly high, independent and effective.
  The hon. Gentleman opposite is making observations while sitting down—[An HON. MEMBER: "On his side they want people's courts."]—but he has promised us a speech and no doubt we shall have it later.
  Mr. Stanley Orme rose—
  Mr. Paul B. Rose rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe) must decide to whom he will give way.
  Mr. Howe: I am giving way to the more articulate Member.
  Mr. Orme: I put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman that judges are in many cases divorced from the people. That is why the trade union movement is suspicious of these people who are removed from society and are protected in a far over-protected way in our present society. I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that these salaries, based on the remuneration they are asking, is not excessive, and that perhaps dedication to service would be much more useful from judges than asking for more money.
  Mr. Howe: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting intervention—
  Mr. Rose: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. When the hon. and learned Gentleman is answering an intervention, it is unreasonable to intervene during the course of it.
  Mr. Howe: If the implication of the suggestion that Her Majesty's judges are divorced from the people were taken as far as it could be, it would lead in the direction of the creation of a system of people's courts, which, in my submission, is not the kind of society that we would like to create. I take the hon. Gentleman's first point to some extent, and I shall come back to it later.
  The hon. Gentleman should not underrate the importance of the judicial system and its working today. Judges are called on to make decisions on claims by injured workmen, and it is important that the highest quality of legal mind—their training is a different question—should be directed to these disputes. It is a fact that within recent years members of the Bar, people of high quality, have been attracted to other non-judicial activities with substantial fringe benefits, far beyond those to which the hon. Member for West Ham, North referred.
  At all levels of society we are living in a competitive world in which the labour market is at work and where the rate for the job has to be paid to get the quality of man that is required. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I understand that hon. Members who have spoken have been listened to. I hope that they will not interrupt from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it was spontaneous, because I have a great deal of sympathy for nurses.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman but even if it is spontaneous it is still outside the rules of order.
  Mr. Kirk: Has my hon. Friend any evidence that the labour market is not working in this case? His argument must postulate that people are not becoming judges because they cannot afford to. Has he any evidence of that?
  Mr. Howe: I do not want to dwell for too long on that, but I am prepared

  677
  to deal with it. There is evidence that a number of members of the Bar are being attracted at various stages—
  Mr. Kirk: Are they becoming judges?
  Mr. Howe: People who would have made good judges have been attracted to other jobs.
  Mr. Kirk: From the Bench?
  Mr. Howe: Not from the Bench, because it is inconceivable that they would be. I am saying that potential recruits of high quality are being diverted from the Bar. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) bears me out on that.
  The argument being presented from the benches opposite suggests the existence of a malaise and disquiet about the working of our legal system which is spreading and is not without foundation. It is important that Her Majesty's judges and all those responsible for the working of the law and the legal system should take account of this. Her Majesty's judges have the rôle not only of administering the law in our courts, but also of setting the framework within which it operates. Their influence as a body and as individuals is substantial on the substance of the law, on the machinery and management of the courts, on the organisation, and on the education of the legal profession.
  Their rôle and influence on all these things is substantial, as the leaders of the profession. They have a direct influence over the machinery and operation of their own courts, and they can express a corporate view on any shortcomings of the way in which the courts as a whole are working. On the substance of the law, their corporate view can make itself felt, and on the profession they can exert substantial influence.
  The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) mentioned the mounting difficulty arising from cases awaiting trial on circuit, in the courts of Her Majesty's judges. This is a real problem, which is causing growing inconvenience that has been tolerated for too long in the running of the courts. If any member of either branch of the profession makes personal representations to Her Majesty's judges about the working of a
  678
  certain court he will be received with courtesy and attention.
  Sir D. Glover: Is there any evidence at all that if Clause 3 of the Bill were implemented there would be any difficulty in increasing the number of judges from 56 to 63 on the present remuneration?
  Mr. Howe: My hon. Friend is taking me away from my main argument. I should have no difficulty in answering the point, but I should be grateful if hon. Members would be patient and listen to my argument, which is important.
  The point is that our courts, both in and outside London, are so overloaded with work that case after case is often put into a court's list and not reached. This involves inconvenience not only for the legal profession—we are paid to be inconvenienced—but for witnesses, including medical and expert witnesses, members of juries, and parties. It also involves loss of valuable time.
  I know of an occasion on which a dozen steel workers, immobilising half a plant, were put on parade for three days in respect of a case that was not reached. Leaving aside the question of the time of medical and expert witnesses, that is one manifestation of the ineffective working of the machinery.
  Mr. Abse: Would not it be fair to say that many of the difficulties of which the hon. Member is speaking come not from a shortage of judges, but from the rigidity of the Bar, which often refuses to alter judges' arrangements? The inconveniences that arise are due not to the causes that the hon. Member is emphasising, but to the attitude adopted by both sections of the Bar. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Howe: Some of my hon. and learned Friends heartily disagree with the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I would not disagree with him as fiercely as that. I suspect that many of the shortcomings in our legal system are due to the conservatism of both sides of the profession and the reluctance of both sides to do what is necessary to make the system more efficient. It is in that respect that I regard the responsibility of the Bench as important. The overloading of lists is one matter and the way in which the lists are made up hopelessly late in

  679
  the day, so that litigants are called from the other end of the country at short notice—
  The Chairman: Order. Second Reading debates do go rather wide, but the hon. Member is getting a little too wide now—unless he can relate his argument either to the question whether judges should be paid more or whether their number should be increased.
  Mr. Howe: I was aware that there are limits to the territories that we can cover in this debate, but my argument is related, first, to the question of additional judges, and, secondly, to the reason why increases in judges' remuneration are more and more resented. Judges are regarded as being responsible for these shortcomings. I suggest that they should be taking a lead, at the head of the profession, in putting these shortcomings right. The Lord Chief Justice has recently arranged for divorce cases to be heard on a fixed day, and has done a great deal to improve the arrangements for circuits. We have more fixed cases in London. But the system still remains a nightmare for many of those who work in it, let alone the litigants whom we are trying to serve.
  This is because we have a system in which cases are often regarded as a kind of fodder, to be wheeled in front of the judges who, because of the pressure upon them, are obliged to take the fodder as it is fed to them. It may be inevitable in the present system. Yet the Evershed Committee said 12 years ago that this is the only civilised country in the world where cases were not fixed, where a litigant did not know well in advance the date on which his case would be tried. I do not know whether, in the framework of the existing system, it is possible for the judges to achieve efficiency of that kind, which we should like to have.
  To the extent that we do not achieve it, their image and reputation is tarnished, because they are regarded as the "head man" of the legal system. I believe that it is wrong that public respect for our judges should be diminished by shortcomings of that kind in the working of the courts. I hope that the judges will try to meet criticism
  680
  of the kind which we have had by themselves pressing for the rapid implementation, as a matter of interest to them and to the legal system as a whole, of the kind of reforms which have for so long been canvassed.
  Another feature which may make them less respected and less deserving of these higher salaries is the fact that they may no longer be doing the kind of work which is most important. So much of their time is spent on cases of traffic accidents and industrial injuries. I recollect one case in which three counsel, together with full supporting cast, detained one of Her Majesty's judges for three days in determining whether a railway wagon was the property of one nationalised corporation or another, so as to decide which should compensate an admittedly innocent workman. So much judicial time is taken up with that sort of thing that many of the important issues are being diverted to non-judicial tribunals.
  The real rôle of Her Majesty's judges is tending to decline and the important decisions are moving away from them. It is important for them to take the lead in restoring the courts to the central areas of dispute in our society, and to do it not only on the basis of providing the "Rolls-Royce" justice of the highest possible standards which we have at the moment, but on the basis that our legal system needs at one and the same time its Henry Ford and its Professor Buchanan to enable it to give public service of the kind which is needed.
  I turn now to the organisation and integration of the legal profession—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is still a little wide. We cannot reform the legal profession in this debate. We are deciding whether to pay Her Majesty's judges more money and whether to increase their numbers. All his arguments should be addressed to the Bill.
  Mr. Howe: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I can make this point quite shortly, if I may—
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: If it is out of order, it does not matter how short it is.
  Mr. Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I do not need him to tell me that.
  The judges play a major rôle in the education of the legal profession. They make up well over half of the membership of bodies like the Council for Legal Education. I believe that the long-proposed reforms of the educational system of both halves of the profession and the long-proposed integration in the educational system would enhance the reputation of the legal system and of the judges. It is something for which the judges ought to press if they are to go on appearing to deserve the increased remuneration proposed in the Bill.
  It is over 100 years since a Royal Commission last considered this subject, and since then, in the 1870s and 1880s, many judges took the lead in introducing legislation in another place to implement the reforms suggested by that Commission, but they fell by the way. I hope that the present generation of Her Majesty's judges, to uphold the high reputation they have, will again take the lead in that respect. If medical education deserved consideration by the Robbins Committee and the appointment of a Royal Commission to look at it as a whole, then it would be splendid if Her Majesty's judges were to take the lead in proposing the establishment of a Royal Commission to consider the whole of legal education.
  I have covered the main points that I wanted to make. They seem to me to be important. The attitude, understandable in many ways, of hon. Members opposite and some of my own hon. Friends on this side to the proposed salary increases appears to be symptomatic of the feeling that Her Majesty's judges could be giving a more powerful lead in the preservation of those aspects of our legal system that we believe to be important. I believe that it is important that they should give the lead in the pursuit and preservation of the substance of the rule of law, rather than the shadow, and of the substance of the real virtues of our legal and judicial system.
  If they are able to do that, then the next time a Measure of this kind comes before the House, I have no doubt that it will be received with warm and enthusiastic cheers from both sides.
  12.26 a.m.
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: If I do not comment on the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman for Bebington (Mr. Howe), that is not the result of any intended discourtesy towards him; it is merely because I want to say something about the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman has clearly expressed views to which he has given much thought. I am sure that he has given highly skilled thought to the need for reform in certain parts of the legal profession. I expect that, one day, he will give that lecture to the Bow Group, but I cannot think why he wanted to rehearse it in the House.
  Mr. Howe: I am so glad, as I am sure the whole House will be, that the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is as proud of the Bow Group, which was born in his own constituency, as he appears to be. We are grateful that he should acknowledge his parentage.
  Mr. Mikardo: I acknowledge my debt to it very freely indeed. It is my main source of amusement.
  Before I turn to the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on the Bill, there are two matters that were mentioned by Members opposite to which I would refer. There seemed to be some confusion about a statement of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and the reported views of my right hon. and learned Friend about what took place in March of last year. The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral said that all that happened was that the then Lord Chancellor made a statement in another place. But I have heard it said that, before that statement was made, it was shown to the then shadow Cabinet, who agreed it. If that is so—[Interruption.] The Opposition Chief Whip is telling you to shut up, so you had better shut up.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is more than the Chief Whip dare do to ask the Chair to shut up.
  Mr. Mikardo: My apologies to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It was nice to watch the hon. Gentleman opposite being publicly disciplined for once.
  Sir D. Glover: All that the Chief Whip was doing was inquiring whether the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) was referring to the then shadow Cabinet. I

  683
  thought that he meant the present shadow Cabinet, which was then in government. I understand, however, that the hon. Gentleman was referring to his own party's shadow Cabinet when in Opposition.
  Mr. Mikardo: I said it with absolute clarity, and the Chief Whip understood me. I will say it again now in monosyllables, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman. I have heard it said that these words of the then Lord Chan-cell-or were agreed in ad-vance with the then sha-dow Cab-in-et. [Laughter.] I trust that the hon. Gentleman now has the point.
  The question which arises—I cannot put it to the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral, because he is not here, but perhaps one of his hon. Friends will answer it on his behalf—is this: was he arguing that because the then Lord Chancellor made that statement it bound any future Government? If so, this is a very strange doctrine. If that is not being argued, why do we have the Bill now?
  Is it not because the Government feel bound by a statement of the Lord Chancellor of another Government, but because they gave their assent at that time to the Bill? If so, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is absolutely right in saying that this Government are being much more meticulous in honouring the pledges of the previous Government than they are in honouring the pledges made when they were in opposition and when they went into the General Election. We should have this cleared up.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral says that there is no more in it than something which took place in March, 1964, and which, in the jargon of 1965, would be called a declaration of intent. There is a declaration of intent that there would be wage restraint. There would be a different wage policy for judges from other people. If so, it is a different situation from what some of us have been led to believe. I hope that before the night is out we shall have clarification on this point either from hon. Members opposite or from the Government Front Bench.
  684
  I should like to refer to one observation of the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), who, also, is not here now. He talked about people with responsible jobs and gave some examples. We can all choose our own examples. I do not know many jobs more responsible than the job of a man who drives a 3,500 horse-power electric or diesel-electric engine along a main line at 80 miles an hour with 600 people behind him and their lives in his hands. Such men have been negotiating for more than a year an increase in wages less than one-thirteenth of the increase we are proposing to give to the judges.
  In an overcrowded legislative programme which is taking us right into August, and in which it has been impossible to deal with Measures which the Leader of the House has admitted are desirable, but for which, unhappily, he has not time, I wonder by what yardstick or criteria of responsibility the hon. and learned Gentleman would assert that we have to give priority to legislating an increase post-dated till next April for judges more than 13 times as great as the increase which locomotive drivers have failed to get in a year of negotiation?
  Sir Tatton Brinton: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, if he knows it, what increase those men to whom he has referred have received since 1954?
  Mr. Mikardo: I do know, but I think that I should be out of order in quoting it. I am not saying that their case is on all fours; of course it is not. They have had increases over the years, and I will turn to that question in a moment. But that is not germane to my point. The question is one of urgency. We are squeezing in this Bill after 10 o'clock at night and at the fag-end of a Session which is overcrowded and this part of which will overrun by a fortnight because, we are told, the Bill is desperately urgent.
  I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Without wishing to make any direct comparison between locomotive drivers and judges, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would still be here at 12.35 a.m. if the Bill concerned locomotive drivers?
  Sir T. Brinton: My attendance has been rather more frequent and longer than that

  685
  of the hon. Member since I have been a Member of the House, only nine month. Perhaps I shall learn better when I am an older Member, like he is.
  Mr. Mikardo: If I had known that there was to be a silly intervention like that, I should not have been so ready to give way. That is a deliberate distortion of the point I was making. I will not measure my attendance by comparison with that of the hon. Gentleman's. We can do that in the morning without bothering the House.
  I was not complaining about the hon. Gentleman's attendance. I was trying to make the serious point that the hon. Gentleman would not be here, and many other hon. Members would not be here, and perhaps I would not be here, if the Bill concerned the wages of locomotive drivers. We would not have a Bill for their wages. The only point I am trying to argue is that we are getting our proportions all wrong.
  The Attorney-General made a speech which I have heard in different contexts many times. I was the speech of a trade union organiser putting forward a wage claim on behalf of his members. It was very well done. If my right hon. and learned Friend were not such a distinguished lawyer, he could get a job in any trade union. His speech had all the characteristics of the conventional speech of the trade union organiser in support of a wage claim—"My members have not had a rise for a long time. They have been overtaken. They have been leapfrogged by other people who have had more rises in the same time. We are not sure that the wages are high enough to attract suitable applicants for the job."
  The Attorney-General made this speech in circumstances in which one of his right hon. Friends, with the support of the whole Government and of many of us who are not in the Government, is trying to get an incomes policy accepted. My right hon. and learned Friend argued that this is a special case for an exception to the incomes policy. He may be right about that. What he is doing is encouraging the putting forward of many more special cases. If we are to be practical, what is breaking the incomes policy and what led to
  686
  that cri de coeur from my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is not that people are not accepting the incomes policy—my right hon. Friend got an overwhelming majority for that—but that far too many people are treating themselves as exceptions to it.
  I, as one who has tried to get the planning of wages accepted within the trade union movement, who argued for it and wrote about it 15 years ago, before the First Secretary had it as a glint in his eye, tell my right hon. and learned Friend that he is giving great encouragement to those who are eroding his right hon. Friend's incomes policy by accepting the incomes policy for everybody else's income but their own. That is what is eroding the incomes policy—the tendency of too many groups of people to treat themselves as a special case.
  There is great weight in what my right hon. and learned Friend said. It is true that it is 11 years since the judges had an increase in salary. It is true that if this 25 per cent. is divided by 11 it works out at about 2 per cent. and is well below the guiding light. There is force in the logic of the Attorney-General's case. He should bear in mind, however, that reactions are not always based on logic and that in commerce and industry atmosphere and psychological factors play a very large part.
  I do not know what the National Coal Board will say to miners who ask for 30s a week more for five shifts of eight hours a day or seven and a half hours a day. The miners will say, "But the judges were given another £40 a week." How many weeks of the year do they work? Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General can tell me that. How many hours a week do they work in the weeks of the year that they work? What is the length of their working week and their working year? All my right hon. and learned Friend's advocacy and logic will not help Lord Robens to face a wage claim for 30s. a week for underground workers when they ask, "Why do you say you cannot afford it when you give the judges £40 a week rise?" This is a serious and important situation.
  I sympathise with my right hon. and learned Friend when he makes the powerful and valid point that in the case

  687
  of the small number of people whose remuneration is fixed by legislation it is always the wrong time. We all have had experience of this. He said that Members of Parliament and Ministers have suffered from it at various times. It is a bit cheap to say, "It is the right thing to do but, this is the wrong time," and if that were all that we were saying my right hon. and learned Friend would be within his rights to "take a crack" at us and say that that was not fair. But we are saying more than that.
  It has been said that the increases are not to come into force before next April and that a Bill could be introduced next Session and in good time. It is the rush of it that will affect the workers in the factories. This is what they cannot understand. They will say, "When you conduct trade union negotiations you are lucky to have a settlement a year after the claim is made. These 'bods' are getting a settlement eight months beforehand." The men in the railway shops and the mines and the dockyards will not begin to understand why—
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: Will the hon. Member accept two points? The first is that judges are asked to deal with cases which as to 80 per cent. of civil actions are concerned with people on the factory floor and their compensation. Secondly, it is well known that people of the highest calibre at the Bar are leaving for competitive industries. On that basis, is it possible to put forward the hon. Member's present argument?
  Mr. Mikardo: The answer to the only real point in what the hon. Member has said has been given several times, and mostly from his side of the House, which is that one does not have to advertise situations vacant for judges for 10 weeks on end before one has an application, which is sometimes the case with engineers. There are more candidates than there are vacancies on the Bench.
  Mr. Rose: The Bar Council, in its annual report, states that the number of persons in the legal profession has increased and that far fewer leave the profession now than did a few years ago.
  Mr. Mikardo: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I do not know all that much
  688
  about the legal profession, but I know that although I see advertisements on the back pages of the Sunday papers for weeks on end for certain jobs in industry I have never seen one appear there for weeks on end advertising for a judge.
  I apologise for having detained the House for so long and I make a last point. I am sure that many of us were moved by the latter part of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton. I do not think that there is any Member of the House who is held in greater respect for his sincerity than is my hon. and learned Friend. We all know that he would not have made a statement of such gravity unless it came from deep feeling and from his heart. I understand—and I think that it was a bit silly of one hon. Member opposite to try to sneer at it—the sense of frustration which my hon. and learned Friend felt. He is, of course, not alone in it. He is not alone in resenting—if I may steal his words—having to support Tory policies merely because they are implemented by a Labour Government.
  My hon. and learned Friend said that this was his last ditch. I understand him. But I must tell him that it is not mine. I shall vote for the Bill, though with reluctance. I do not think that the Bill is necessary at this time, but I do not regard this as an issue of sufficient weight and importance to justify hon. Members on this side of the House causing embarrassment to the Government, who have got so much on their plate. If one is to use one's vote, as I suspect I shall have to do one day, to register in tangible form objection to Tory policies carried out by a Labour Government, there are worse Tory policies to vote against—and I have a horrid fear that there will be opportunities of voting against them.
  While I appreciate the depth of feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, I hope that there will not be many of my hon. Friends who follow them into the Lobby on this occasion. I think it right that those who feel as we do should make their protest. I hope that there will be no curtailment of this debate, because

  689
  all those who feel in this way should say so, and the louder the better. But, in the end, I do not regard this as an issue which ought to be treated as a last ditch.
  I shall vote with the Government, but I want them to understand—they may not care twopence one way or the other—that it will be the most reluctant vote I shall have cast since I voted in the Division on Seretse Khama.
  12.47 a.m.
  Mr. N. R. Wylie: I shall not discuss judges' salaries except to say that I consider that the Government are acting thoroughly properly and responsibly in introducing the Bill in the way they have. I wish to raise a purely Scottish point. Of course, from the nature of things, we have heard little about Scotland in the debate so far.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: Before he delves into Scottish matters, will the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was one of the Law Officers in the previous Administration, kindly answer this simple question? Was there an agreement between that side of the House and this that the Bill had to be introduced? If there was such an agreement or an understanding, a great deal of this argument would cease and, I am sure, a lot of my hon. Friends below the Gangway would understand and appreciate why the Bill is being introduced tonight. If there was not such an agreement, please let us know. This we must have.
  Mr. Wylie: I understand that the reference was to March last year, and I became a Law Officer only in April. If there was such an agreement, I know nothing about it.
  Mr. Richard: Was it on the hon. and learned Gentleman's desk when he arrived at his Department?
  Mr. Wylie: I personally know nothing about it, if there was one.
  I want the Minister of State to answer this question. Why has the opportunity not been taken to increase the establishment of the Scottish Bench? The hon. Gentleman will have expected me to raise
  690
  this question. He knows as well as I do that, in the last 17 years, the establishment of the Scottish Bench has been raised by only three. Since 1948, three additional judges have been appointed, one under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, one under the Criminal Justice Act, 1963, and one under the Resale Prices Act, 1964. This brings the Scottish establishment at present up to 18.
  On each of these occasions, the legislation imposed further duties and obligations on the courts. Since last year, of course, we have had the Law Commissions Act which has abstracted for all practical purposes one of the judges. Thus not only do we have a situation in which we are one judge short. I understand that tomorrow the Solicitor-General for Scotland is to be made a judge, which will bring the number of judges up to 17 and not, as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, to 16. Be that as it may, the position is that there is only one reserve, as it were, if it becomes necessary to increase the number of judges on the Scottish Bench.
  In the last few months, as I know from my own experience, the volume of work in the Scottish courts, particularly the High Court, has gone up substantially. This was the foreseen result of the recent introduction of legal aid in criminal cases, and the sittings of the court on circuit are taking longer and longer.
  I understand that, for several months, the Second Division of the Appeal Court in Scotland has not been able to sit because there have not been enough judges available to cope with the work of the Appeal Court and, at the same time, the work of the Outer House and on circuit. A very sound explanation should be given as to why there is no provision in the Bill to increase the establishment of the Scottish Bench. I suggest that it should be increased by two.
  This is not a party political matter. I ask the Minister of State if the Government consulted the head of the judiciary in Scotland as to the need and desirability of increasing the establishment of the Scottish Bench, because I heartily believe that if the Lord President had been consulted his advice would have been for an increase.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Rhodes.
  Mr. Rose: After the remarkable speeches from this side of the House, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman, but I called Mr. Rhodes.
  12.54 a.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: That error occurred on another occasion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) was seeking to move a Motion relating to Northern Ireland and I was under the threat of having my house blown up instead of his, which would have been most regrettable.
  I have given a great deal of thought to this issue during the last few days, since my hon. Friends drew my attention to the problem that it poses. While I understand and appreciate the sentiment of my hon. Friends, I think that they are wrong. The sentiment they have been expressing is basically one of having a more egalitarian view in relation to salaries, to try to close the gap between—shall we say?—the very high salaries which go to members of certain professions and the remuneration of the workers. I do not believe that this kind of problem can be dealt with in isolation in relation to this Bill.
  Indeed, I would argue that, in the kind of society which exists in this country, we can only get this kind of egalitarian approach by fiscal and taxation policy. I do not care whether the Government take 19s. 6d. of every £1 increase in judges' salaries. That would be perfectly within my conception of an egalitarian approach to income. But I do not believe we can deal with this kind of problem by voting against the Bill.
  Many false arguments have been raised. Hon. Members have compared the hard work of judges with the hard work of shipyard workers, but that is useless because we do not get paid, under our existing system, on the basis of how much hard work we put in. Let us view this with reality. It has nothing to do with
  692
  the kind of physical, or, in some cases, mental effort required. Comparisons have been made between engine drivers and judges. Again—and the two responsibilities are hardly comparable anyway—the fact is that we do not remunerate people on the basis of responsibility. In the society in which we live today we remunerate people basically on the basis of their scarcity value, on the basis of the laws of supply and demand.
  Some of my hon. Friends may not like that. As a Socialist, I find a great deal of fault with it, but we have to live in the real world and, as Socialists living in the real world, many of us have pressed to get greater equality of post-taxation income, which is the correct way to tackle the problem. If there is a scarcity of higher legal skills, bearing in mind the competition for these legal skills both at the Bar, on the one hand, and the judicial Bench, on the other, the case for the Bill is substantial.
  It is argued that the remuneration should be on the basis of need. In terms of need it is arguable that a young barrister with the early responsibility of setting up a home and a family for the first time should start on a judge's salary and should get less as his responsibilities become less. The same argument could be used for teachers' salaries, but that is not a realistic assessment of the kind of society in which we live. The main basis for remuneration in this society must relate to the professional responsibilities and the scarcity of the skills involved.
  I do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that salaries and status are not connected. They are. The status of the profession of judges will be judged by many people on the basis of the remuneration for the job.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) argued that the Government were faced with a heavy legislative programme and had got their priorities wrong. That is a false argument, because the time required to pass this simple Bill will not in any way impede the great social legislation which the Government will pass in the coming months of this Parliament.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North asked why this 25 per cent.

  693
  increase should not go to the teachers. I was a teacher for 10 years. I remind my hon. Friend that if every extra penny to be spent on the salaries of judges under the Bill were to be paid to teachers, it would not make a penny difference to individual salaries. The issue of public service pensions was also raised. That, too, is an irrelevant argument. The amount of money involved does not in any way affect other negotiations which are now going on. As a teacher may I say, in passing, that the remuneration of teachers has rightly been increased during the last 10 years and that there is now under arbitration a salary claim for approximately a 12½ per cent. increase.
  There has been a great lack of logic in some of the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends. It might be said that some of us can afford the luxury of exercising our consciences this evening and voting against the Government on the assumption that hon. Members opposite will not vote against the Government. I want to warn my hon. Friends not to trust hon. Members opposite. There is a distinct danger this evening that if my hon. Friends, for whatever good motives they have, vote against the Government on a matter which I would have thought to be one of some confidence in the Government's policies, we may find ourselves in the very odd position of a very unholy alliance, not necessarily intended, of the Left wing of the Labour Party, on the one hand, and the Tory Party, on the other.
  Mr. Mikardo: Teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
  Mr. Rhodes: I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, but I have as much right to speak in this House as my hon. Friend.
  I do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton that the Government are to be condemned in such an outright manner as conducting Tory policies. I do not believe that the Tory Party would have introduced the National Insurance Bill to increase pensions in the face of an economic crisis, or the Rent Bill, or a Finance Bill which was fought through against the bitter opposition of hon.
  694
  Members opposite. I do not believe that this Bill is of sufficient merit for my hon. Friends to seek to bring down the Government.
  1.0 a.m.
  Sir Douglas Glover: I find myself in a very strange position tonight. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), because it was only towards the end of his speech that I realised we were still divided across the Floor of the House. At one stage of his speech I was prepared to say, when I got up, that if he wished to divide the House, I was willing to be a Teller with him. Towards the end of his speech he said that discretion was the better part of valour and that he intended to support the Government. I agree with every word of his argument.
  I oppose the Bill, with the exception of Clause 3, which increases the maximum number of judges to the High Court of England from 56 to 63, because I believe that the Bill is being presented at the wrong time and in the wrong circumstances. I am not in any way going along with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who, I thought, was very unfair to the legal profession in his remarks about judges.
  I believe that it is right that the country should be the envy of the world in the standard of its judiciary and that we should do everything to maintain that standard. There have been speeches from both sides of the House, and if I may say so without giving offence, from the strongest trade union lobby in the House, making a powerful case why there should be a 25 per cent. increase in judges' pay.
  We are not debating whether the legal profession should maintain its high position in the national opinion, or whether there should be a wage freeze on judges for the next 100 years. What we are debating is whether it is wise of the Government to bring forward this Bill for Second Reading today, 14th July, 1965, in the middle of a financial crisis, largely brought about by their own methods and lack of judgment. I do not want to enter into this subject, but it is at a time when the First Secretary of State is doing his utmost to try to bring about an incomes and wages policy.

  695
  I have a great deal of sympathy with the judges. I am sure that most of them are lining up outside the National Assistance offices getting remuneration for blankets to keep the cold off their beds, or for coal. The picture which has been created is that here is a community which is very badly treated.
  We know that this is not so. What is to be the result of the Bill at this time, when there is a crisis in the nation's affairs, when we are trying to get responsibility in income, and to get coal miners and engine drivers and signalmen to moderate their demands for increased pay because it is creating an inflationary bubble? The coal miner will say to Lord Robens, "My condition is desperate, yet you say that you cannot do anything about it. But the judges are able to get a 25 per cent. increase."
  I know that the amount of money involved in this infinitesimal. If the amount involved in the Bill were put on teachers' salaries or miners' wages, it would probably not make a penny difference to each one of them. But that is not the point. The point is the psychological reaction of people. If we say that the judges are in a special category, who is not in a special category? For centuries the judges have been the leaders and formers of public thought. It is surprising that, when they heard of the intention to introduce the Bill, they did not say, "Please do not bring it in at the moment. We shall pay the bulk of the increase away in taxation, but we realise what a deplorable effect the increase would have on wages negotiations over the next 12 months."
  The hon. Member for Poplar said that this was not a big enough issue on which to divide the House. It is a scandal to bring in a Bill of this importance after 10 p.m. I believe that this little Bill could easily go down in history as the final wrecking Measure of the present Administration. What will the First Secretary, or Mr. Aubrey Jones, Chairman of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, say to any argument put to them after this? The amount of money involved may be minute but the psychological effect will be great.
  The Conservative Government, when they tried to damp down remuneration, were told that they were being unfair,
  696
  but when they were conducting a campaign to moderate the demand for increased salaries they did not choose that time to introduce this sort of Measure, which would have made their arguments nonsensical. The Government have shown than they have no clear assessment of how ordinary men and women think. I am not at all hostile to the judges. With my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe), I think that a review of the whole legal structure is probably called for. The bulk of the British people have great regard for the integrity of the judges and the legal profession. In normal circumstances the Bill would have been thoroughly justified. I am criticising the Bill not on its intrinsic merits, but on its timing.
  If hon. Members opposite feel that the issue is sufficiently important for them to vote against the Bill, I will vote with them. I cannot completely set aside political considerations, but my basic objection will be to the psychological approach of the Bill to our economic problems. It will do the nation a great disservice and probably double the problems which we have to overcome.
  1.10 a.m.
  Mr. Paul B. Rose: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) for having risen when his name was called. I am sorry that as a result of the similarity of our names he should have been threatened with having his house burned down, although after listening to his speech I am not so sure.
  It is not possible to discuss the question of an increase in judges' salaries without referring to the whole context in which this matter is brought forward, and that is the context of a wages policy and a guiding light. I am more than a little concerned, therefore, at the timing of the Bill, quite apart from any question of principle in it.
  I am not unduly impressed with the argument that the judges have had to wait for a number of years before having this increase, because part of the wages policy is not merely to provide a 3½ per cent. increase per annum or the equivalent, but is also a policy of social justice in trying to rectify past discrepancies.

  697
  That is why we justify an increase greater than 3½ per cent. in the case of, say, postmen, nurses and other public servants whose wages have been depressed in the past.
  It is not on this basis that we can justify the kind of increase that is proposed at this time for members of the judiciary. We are dealing with figures which, to the average man in the street, are staggering. To a man who takes home, say, £15 a week, the figure of £8,000 is quite outside his normal experience. If we are asking people, as we will be, to limit themselves and to accept restraint, we cannot at one and the same time ask the nation to stomach this sort of thing.
  I should like to take up one or two of the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. He referred, for example, to the fact that there was a great deal more to be done in the divorce courts. Then, he demolished his argument by stating that special commissioners are brought in to do this work. If special commissioners are brought in who are not High Court judges but very often are county court judges, what is the justification for saying that High Court judges must do the work and that this is a reason for higher salaries?
  The Attorney-General: Has not my hon. Friend met a great deal if dissatisfaction and criticism at the use of commissioners who, able as they are, are often regarded as second-class judges and give the impression, at least, of the litigant receiving second-class justice? I am not saying that this is true, but surely my hon. Friend must have met this time and again as a complaint at the Bar.
  Mr. Rose: I am not prepared to accept that argument in relation to the average undefended divorce case. I am not prepared to defend a vested interest merely because it is in my own personal interest. That is one sphere where, I am sure, the present special commissioners are doing very well. I have had no cause for any dissatisfaction with any special commissioner before whom I have appeared.
  Surely, the basis of the argument is not one which would justify an increase in salaries although it justifies an increase
  698
  in the number of judges. Nothing that my right hon. and learned Friend has said or that I have heard in the debate leads me to believe that anything is needed other than an increase in the number of judges. We have had no evidence to show that we cannot get those judges if we do not increase the salary by 25 per cent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who made a remarkable and entertaining speech, said that in taking the view that we do, we on this side were denigrating the judiciary. It is far more denigrating to say that the only way in which we can preserve the strength, independence and integrity of the judiciary is to pay them £2,000 more. The integrity, strength and independence of our judiciary is, however, beyond question and nobody would question it, although some of the things which have been said are putting it in issue.
  I regard the Bill as one of the least important items in a programme of a Government who are intent on radical reform. Many of us cannot understand why, so late in the Session, when so many other vital and urgent matters are being awaited with eagerness by hon. Members on this side, we should have been forced at the last minute to sanction a Bill which can have a very damaging effect upon the whole basis of our economic programme. Last week or the week before we were asked to give landlords permission to ask 15 per cent. more per annum from their tenants. Now we are being asked to give 25 per cent. more to the judges, but the average worker, on the factory floor, is to be restricted to 31 per cent. I do not think that we should underestimate the psychological impact of all this.
  I do not believe that this issue is important enough, and because I do not I would not advise my hon. Friends to divide the House. We have a Government who are intent, we hope, on the kinds of reforms so much needed in other spheres, and it would be a great shame if we were to give the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) the satisfaction of dividing the House on this issue and thereby, as he says, wrecking the Labour Government. For that reason my hon. Friends, I hope, will not follow him into the Division Lobby, but I think we must make it very clear, at the

  699
  same time, that we are registering a protest, that we are not satisfied with this, and that the Bill ought to be lost in Committee somewhere: it ought not to be proceeded with.
  It seems a great shame that at this late hour the Bill should have been brought before the House. On this basis, I would ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench not to resent the fact that some of us have stayed up late and kept other hon. Members late to register a protest. This place is the place where protests must be registered, but, other than that, I would not advise my hon. Friends to divide the House.
  1.17 a.m.
  Mr. Forbes Hendry: Like the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) I think that the Bill is completely and utterly ill timed. We have waited for a great many years, about 11 years, for the question of judges' salaries to be brought before the House, and it seems to me that, in the economic condition of the country at the moment, this is not the time to introduce a Bill of this sort.
  It seems to me, also, that no thought whatever has been given to the level of salaries being proposed for the judges. A judge has a very responsible position, and ought to be paid a proper salary for the job, but no thought seems to have been given, in preparing the Bill, as to what is a proper salary for a judge. In the Bill there is a great variety of salaries for various judges whose duties are not defined in the Bill, and we have had not explanation from the Attorney-General about the relative merits of these judges.
  We find that the Lord Chancellor is to receive a very large salary indeed. He is, as has been said, a sort of universal joint in the machinery of Government, and he has a great deal of responsibility, and he ought to be paid in accordance with that, but whether £14,500 is the correct salary for him I do not know. However, when we compare his salary with that of other judges mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill it seems to me that his salary is at an extraordinary figure.
  700
  The first I would mention is the Lord President of the Court of Session. He is, in Scotland, in exactly the same way as is the Lord Chancellor in England, a sort of universal joint; not head of the judiciary in Scotland, but having very important administrative duties in Scotland, not only in the law but in many other ways as well. It seems completely illogical that the Lord Chancellor should have the salary proposed, £14,500, when the Lord President, who occupies very much the same position in Scotland as that the Lord Chancellor does in England, is proposed to be paid only £10,000. I should like the Minister of State to explain why this tremendous discrepancy should occur.
  Not only do we find this discrepancy between the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chancellor, but we find that certain English judges whose duties are certainly not comparable with those of the Lord President of the Court of Session are to receive very much higher salaries than the Lord President. There is the Lord Chief Justice. He may be a very important man, but he is simply a judge. He is not an administrator in the same way as is the Lord President of the Court of Session. Then there is the Master of the Rolls. I do not know what he is: I am a Scots lawyer. He is to receive a bigger salary than the Lord President.
  I want to know why that is. We Scots Members are entitled to know, and I hope that the Minister of State will tell us. I would have liked the Lord Advocate to be here to tell us, but we are denied that privilege because the party opposite has been unable to find a seat for him in Parliament. It is possible that some day we will have the learned Lord Advocate here to tell us these things, but I cannot say that we will ever have a learned Solicitor-General for Scotland, because he seems to be rather difficult to get.
  There may be a scarcity of judges in Scotland. It may be difficult to get people to accept the duties of a judge in Scotland, but I understand that the learned Solicitor-General has been appointed a judge and is to take up his post tomorrow. If it is difficult to get suitable counsel to become judges in Scotland, why are judges there to get a salary of only £8,250 compared with the £10,000 which a puisne

  701
  judge in England is to receive? Why should there be this difference?
  It is no answer to say that traditionally there is a difference in the salaries of English and Scottish judges. I think that these salaries were fixed in the reign of King William IV, and what may have been a mistake then should not be perpetuated now. If judges' salaries are to be adjusted, this anomaly ought to be removed, and the Lord Ordinary of the Court of Session in Scotland ought to be given his proper place alongside a puisne judge in England. He is doing the same job as his English counterpart. His dignity and his responsibility are the same as those of English judges. Indeed, in the case of some Lords Ordinary, it is greater, and I cannot see why this discrepancy should be continued. I hope that in Committee the Minister of State will move an Amendment to ensure that Lords Ordinary of the Court of Session are paid the same rate as puisne judges in England.
  I do not know whether the Minister of State knows it, but certain of the Lords Ordinary of the Court of Session have an appellate jurisdiction, and are not in the same position as puisne judges. I am not sure what the position is in England, but I know that here they have Lord Justices of Appeal. As far as I can make out, these Lord Justices are in the same position as judges of the Inner House in the Court of Session who act as appellate judges and who have a much greater responsibility than has a puisne judge in England.
  I am sorry that none of the Northern Ireland Members is here.
  Mr. Richard: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He started by saying that he thought that the Bill was ill-timed and that we should not pay judges more. He is now arguing that we ought to pay Scottish judges more than is paid to the English ones. What is the hon. Gentleman's argument? Is it right or wrong to do what is proposed in the Bill?
  Mr. Hendry: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument, he will find that I argue in a complete circle and then come to my logical conclusion. I should like to consider this
  702
  in a roundabout manner and come to my conclusion in a logical way.
  The discrepancy between Scottish and English judges is indefensible, and, speaking on behalf of Irish judges, for whom I have no brief, it seems even more indefensible that there should be an even greater difference between the salaries of a puisne judge in Ireland and a puisne judge in England than there is between the salaries of a puisne judge in England and a Lord Ordinary in the Court of Session.
  These differences are indefensible, and that brings me back to where I started, that the Bill has not been thought out. It is characteristic of the legislation introduced by the party opposite. Since the election the Government have introduced a number of Bills which have not been properly thought out, and which have had to be altered radically in Committee.
  The hon. Member will be glad to hear that I am now right back where I started. This Bill has not been properly thought out. Arbitrary figures have been taken. There is to be an arbitrary increase of 25 per cent. on the old salaries of judges. I suggest that the Attorney-General takes the Bill away and thinks about it again. I suggest that he gives proper consideration to the question of what should be the proper salaries for judges, and makes sure that we have a Bill which contains at least a germ of common sense, so that judges of equal rank in the three countries are paid the same salary.
  If the salary is properly £10,000 a year—or whatever it is—we should be told why it is that, and why it should not be applicable universally. The thing is nonsensical as it stands. A puisne judge in England at the moment gets £8,000 a year, and the salary proposed for a Scottish judge is £8,250 a year. If £8,250 is right for a Scottish judge, why should an English judge get £10,000? That is obviously wrong. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk that the Bill should not be proceeded with any further.
  1.26 a.m.
  Mr. Leo Abse: The most interesting exchanges that took place in the course of this debate were those that took place between the Attorney-General

  703
  and the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) concerning the origin of the Bill. This is the matter to which many of us are now directing our attention. When this matter is cleared up—which I do not doubt it will be—it will determine my attitude and that of many other hon. Members.
  What concerns us is that we heard two speeches that were indistinguishable one from the other—one given by an able, learned lawyer and the other by an extinct lawyer. Both had the same tone and the same content. They were speeches belonging to the Establishment. What we have witnessed tonight is not an eruption against the Government, but an eruption against an Establishment that is beginning to creak.
  So much is it beginning to creak that even the facade normally presented when the Establishment gets moving is beginning to show signs of stresses and strains. For example, the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral made it abundantly clear that his Government, when in office, were committed, through their Lord Chancellor, to bring in a Bill of this character. Of that there was no doubt. The one difference between the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was that my right hon. and learned Friend appears to have scruples whereas the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral has none.
  The right hon. and learned Member made it abundantly clear that he thought this was an ill-timed Measure. He attributed this belief to the fact that our economic circumstances were different now, and made it clear that he would not have brought in the Bill. Therefore, we are asking why the Bill which is being so badly received by the House as a whole has been brought in.
  I believe that judges have a right to be well paid. Becoming a judge usually means a considerable immediate financial sacrifice. It means a peripatetic life, which could cause groans to many a commercial traveller. It means a retreat into loneliness that would drive a gregarious Member, such as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), into melancholia.
  704
  But the burden of the judges must not be exaggerated. When hon. Members who are attached to the legal profession begin to embark upon a eulogy of their work and exaggerate their burdens they do a disservice to their profession, and certainly to the dignity of our courts.
  The salaries of judges are not inconsiderable. Their security of employment is almost limitless. Not for them any fear of redundancy payments. It would require an Address from both Houses of Parliament to dismiss them. Their persons are attractive, their holidays are long and the respect which is usually and rightly accorded to them and is always demanded by them from the community is immense. I would say to the hon. Member who introduced some ingenious argument about the wage structure that the judges are not "pop" stars; they are not tycoons collecting companies, they are not film stars. Sophisticated men perhaps sometimes have some transient envy when they see these people earning large sums, but they do not respect them, they do not hold them in awe. I am appalled by what I thought was an extraordinarily vulgar assessment of the status needs that should be accorded to judges, which came from the Attorney-General and one or two other hon. Members.
  We do not respect the judges because we measure their salaries. This type of petty bourgeois vulgarity ill becomes this country and I hope that it is not the sort of yardstick we will ever use in judging whether we have good or bad judges. It is true that the nation gives boundless respect to the judges, and that is because of their disinterestedness, because the nation wishes to believe that they are on Olympian heights and distinguished from those mere mortals down below who are possessed of frailty. It is clear from the debate that the judges need to look at their charisma. They do themselves no good by pressing—as they must have pressed—for claims of this kind in this context. They have clearly provoked in the House tonight a needless and destructive enmity.
  We are all aware that, after an ill-timed pay award to Members of Parliament—however justified it may have been—how damaging it may be to be suspected of preaching and not practising—
  Sir T. Brinton: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the judges have been pressing for increased salaries. Has he any proof of that?
  Mr. Abse: That is just the point I want to come to.
  When I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) describe the Attorney-General as having given the classical trade union argument for an increase, he provoked and aroused still further my suspicions, for few hon. Members sense a classical trade union argument more rightly and quickly than my hon. Friend. There is, in fact, a history to the wage claims of judges which this demand is bound to evoke. We must recall what occurred in 1931. That, too, was a time of national crisis, a time when people felt very keenly about the economic situation of the country. We recall the refusal of the judges in 1931 to accept the cut of 20 per cent. in official salaries which was authorised by the National Economy Act of 1931.
  To answer the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton), I should like him and the House to recall that the pressures which were then placed by the judges on Lord Sankey—then Lord Chancellor—were quite extraordinary. Lord Sankey has recorded that while nearly all the humble sections of the community were accepting what were—as those of us who are old enough to recall will recall—heavy burdens, the judges were, to use Lord Sankey's phrase of the time, like the men of Invergordon: mutinous.
  Nearly all the judges protested individually to him. He has recorded all this. Many of them had private interviews, and there were repeated deputations representing the King's Bench Division, the Appeal Court, the Admiralty Division and the Chancery Division. When they had finished with that, the judges, who had all the skill of any trade unionist, challenged the legality of the authority of the Act itself.
  As if that were not enough, in their determination not to have any reduction in what was then £5,000 a year, for good measure they threatened to draw up and present a petition of rights to the Crown. If any trade union official wants an object lesson on how to extinguish the income guiding light, all he needs to do,
  706
  I am sorry to say, is to read the history of the judges' trade union activities in the national economic crisis of 1931.
  That is one of the many reasons why I am on inquiry. I am on inquiry still further because I recall what Winston Churchill said in 1954, when the last award was given to the judges. He was speaking at a time when, for 120 years, there had been no interference in any form with the salaries of judges. Those salaries had been fixed, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has rightly said, for reasons which are founded in the social structure and facts of that time. On that occasion, Winston Churchill said this:
  "It is not likely that another 120 years will pass without some alteration, but there should at any rate be a fairly long period, perhaps a generation, before what we now decide shall be altered, except by tax reduction, so that those discharging these high functions, who have their whole lives to live within strict and rigid limits, should have a reasonable basis on which to work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1954; Vol. 525, cc. 1060–61.]
  Certainly, the judges have benefited by the tax reduction since 1954, because quite clearly, in view of the different Surtax range which has come into existence, the judges have had the benefit which Winston Churchill at the time anticipated.
  It is really no use for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in the light of that categorical statement of Winston Churchill, to attempt to adduce the argument that they have not had the types of increases that other people have had. It was never intended at that time that they should have. What was intended was that as far as possible there should be a degree of finality, and it is clear that that type of finality was a finality of something like a generation ahead.
  Therefore, when we are thinking of these vast vistas of time envisaged in 1954 of course we are suspicious when, suddenly, once again there is this demand. I do not speak about this because I have any churlish resentment about judges having any more money. I accept as much as any other hon. Member the need for an independent judiciary, and one which is genuinely independent. I am as jealous about that as I am about the need for us to have an independent Legislature.

  707
  The one Motion standing in the House at the moment criticising the judges is because I and 100 other hon. Members have considered on the question of the damages for personal injuries judges have sought to usurp the rôle of the House. I certainly do not flinch from saying that it is necessary that the independence of the judiciary and the independence of the Legislature should be absolute and should be safeguarded.
  Of course, the test that must be made at this moment of time when a demand is being made for an increase of salary is a test that is being made at a time when I am bound to wonder whether our Lord Chancellor has been receiving some of the clandestine buffeting which went on with Lord Sankey in 1931. At the same time, the test applied must be the same us that which is applied in any factory or workshop. I do not think that there is a right to any distinction. Before any wage increase is coming forward, I want to ask what efficiency is being offered and what degree of productivity in the courts is there which would justify an increase of this kind? Goodness knows, there is a need for it.
  I was dismayed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has repeatedly today been emphasising that one of the needs for the Bill to increase the number of judges is because of the awkward situation that men who are not High Court judges are being created commissioners to take divorce cases.
  I take an interest in divorce matters, as the House knows. I asked the last Administration, and I have asked this Administration, when undefended divorce cases would be taken in the county courts. This is a widespread demand, not only within the solicitors' profession, but outside it. If this were to come about, it would be unnecessary to appoint the additional judges provided for in this Bill. Why is it that this matter which was to be considered by the last Administration is still being considered? Why is it that discussions are still going on with the Bar Council and the Law Society?
  Why has this proposal not been implemented? The only argument used was certainly not the argument which I suspected would be used by the Attorney-General today, namely, whether the
  708
  quality of the county court judge metamorphosised into a commissioner was sufficient. The argument which has been used is that if it were implemented all the majesty which should attend the severance of marriages would go and marriage contracts would not receive the respect which they deserve. This is a little more of the humbug which it is well known surrounds so much of the divorce law of this country.
  My suspicion is that again the vested interests are at work which believe that if the doors of the county courts were flung open in this way members of the Bar would not have to attend and that there would be a reduction in the number of High Court judges needed. It is for reasons of this sort that the issues are being clouded.
  I can speak with clinical knowledge and from professional experience about divorce matters. I say categorically, having seen lay magistrates dealing with complicated, sophisticated problems of law with great efficiency, that there is no need to create more divorce judges to deal with matters which are and can be dealt with even by lay magistrates and certainly by county court judges.
  As has been mentioned by the hon. Member who drew attention to the need for streamlining the administration of justice, there is no reason for suggesting that this would fling so much more work on to the county court judges. I have asked before, and I ask again, how much longer county court judges must spend one week in four acting as agents for hire-purchase companies which manipulate and use them so that they can have judgment summonses? This work could easily be swept away to registrars. If county court judges took on divorce cases, we should not be asked to make provision for more judges.
  If the Attorney-General had come to the House and indicated such a reforming zeal that we could see that there was the prospect of greater efficiency and productivity in the courts, we should look more kindly on this proposal to create more judges. The Government readily conceded to me earlier this Session that it was their considered view that the law and practice relating to damages was unsatisfactory. We have heard from the Attorney-General and other Members

  709
  how burdened High Court judges are as a consequence of cases involving industrial accidents. They concern all of those of us who have any connection with the trade union movement. Yet, although, belatedly, we have had a half-hearted suggestion that there will be a reference of this matter to the Law Commissioners, we do not know whether they will direct their attention to it.
  Is it not wrong that we should be asked to create more judges at a time when we do not know what changes may come about in the law and practice relating to damages? I hope that more actuaries will be available and that something will be done about the miserable damages now being awarded in courts to men who have received industrial injuries. I am not encouraged by the idea that if judges are made more remote by higher salaries they will have a deeper appreciation of the need for men to be awarded proper damages for the quality of life which they have lost as a consequence of serious industrial accidents.
  I suggest that there is a failure in presenting in this wretched sort of way a Bill at this late hour, a Bill at the end of the Session, a Bill of which one suspects everybody is slightly ashamed. One suspects that this is why it is being introduced in this way. It is unfortunate that it is being introduced without any indication that, parallel with it, there will be the same changes and alterations as to the administration of justice as would be expected to take place on the workshop floor if a group of men were asking for a rise.
  If we are to pay judges this increased salary, and there are to be more judges, is it not time we asked ourselves from what section of the community judges are likely to be drawn and what sort of training they are likely to have? It is not a comforting thought that at present a man can become a judge perhaps as a consequence of taking indifferent food in an Inn. The lack of sociological understanding in their training programme makes me wonder whether we are at this stage justified in talking about increases. After all, as we know from many of the interventions which were made in the debate on the abolition of capital punishment, barristers-at-law may know a great deal about the criminal law, but they are
  710
  not trained to know anything about the aetiology of crime. They are trained to know how to sever marriages, but they have no training in how to deal with them.
  If we are to have judges who have regard and respect for the community, before we think about increasing their salaries we should think how we can be sure that they have a broader appreciation and a greater understanding of the needs and problems of the wider community. For most people unversed in law, their certainty that justice will be found in the courts rests not upon legal systems, not upon carefully built up precedents, not upon bills of right, not upon Magna Cartas. It rests upon the deservedly high reputation of our judges.
  At this time, when every loyal trade union member and every loyal member of the Labour Party is attempting to educate and tutor the nation to understand the need for an incomes policy, it is most unfortunate that the judges should be so remote from understanding the psychology of the nation that they should be pressing this demand. The fact that those who administer justice to others put themselves in a position, as they are clearly doing as a result of this debate, in which it should even be thought that private gain is more in their minds than the national interest is chastening to all of us who take pride in our legal system.
  I deeply regret that the Bill should be before the House at this time. I think that the judges would be wise to take the action referred to in the Solicitors' Journal and voluntarily recognise that this comes at a bad moment from a group who are expected, as we are expected, to give clear leadership to the nation at a time of economic crisis. If this Bill goes through in its present form, it can only be a triumph for the Establishment over wisdom and common sense. I hope that it will be the desire of the House to bury the Bill in Committee.
  1.49 a.m.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: We have begun to make rather heavy weather of the Bill. I do not think that there is any need to make long speeches at this time of night. It is high time somebody on this side of the House who does not make his living in practice at the Bar said something in favour of the Bill.

  711
  Although I am a member of the Bar, I only once had a brief. I lost the case and cost my client 10s. I decided that I would leave the law alone.
  I took the advice of the Lord Chancellor, who had accepted 100 guineas from me a little earlier to be his pupil. As I had been elected to this House, he said to me, "You cannot do the two things together from the beginning. You had better chuck this and go to the other". I do not know whether I did the right thing, but I do know that the judges—
  Mr. Buchan: Did the hon. Member get the 100 guineas back?
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: Yes, I did. I meant to emphasise that fact and I reminded the learned Lord Chancellor of it only a few days ago.
  Sir D. Glover: It only shows that my hon. Friend would have been a great success at the Bar.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: I do not know about that. The thing is to say a word here when one gets the chance and one feels that one ought to speak.
  I should like to say a few words on behalf of the judges who I think are a very popular institution in the country, much more popular than this House is with at least half the country all the time. There is no time when this place is not extremely unpopular with somebody whereas the judges are, except with the criminals, a popular institution. If we are to continue to get the best men that can be found in the profession to serve on the Bench they must be paid properly. The country believes this.
  The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), whose sincerity I respect, is utterly wrong and inconsistent in opposing the Bill tonight, because no one has fought more than he has for the proper payment of Members of the House. It ill becomes him to say that the other part of our constitutional system, the judges, should not be given the same advantage in these days of inflation. I hope sincerely that the House will support the Bill.
  I also think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) is wrong tonight. If a thing is right to
  712
  do, it does not matter about the time. It ought to be done. The judges are so important, such a popular institution, so respected and so deserving of our attention that we should see that they are properly paid. I hope that as many hon. and right hon. Members as think that will be here to go into the Lobby in support of the Bill tonight, whether they are paired or not.
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  1.53 a.m.
  Mr. William Molloy: Many of my fundamental objections to the Bill have already been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and, therefore, I will not try to reiterate their observations.
  I was shocked and surprised when the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) said that it seemed almost a disgraceful thing for us to criticise judges at all. I find that not merely a simpering, syncophantic attitude, but a very dangerous one. When it is necessary anyone should be severely examined and criticised by the House. No one should be put on a special pedestal to avoid examination and criticism here.
  A feature to which I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench is this incredible argument of percentage increases. Do they believe that we can say to the rank and file or officers of the trade union movement, "Over a number of years you chaps have had an increase of 50 per cent. Your wages have gone up from £10 to £15 while the poor judges have scraped up from roughly about £4,000 to £4,500", or whatever it may be? Do they really believe that this sort of argument will go down on the workshop floor, in the factories, in the great estates of this nation which are the docks, the airports, the coal mines and where the great machines turn? They are absurdly and dangerously mistaken if they do believe it.
  It is putting those trade union officials who are doing their level best to give support to this Government and the First Secretary of State in the terrific job that he has done in a most difficult position, and, more than that, it will give a lot

  713
  of grist to the mill of other people in industry who do not want the First Secretary's policy to succeed. I hope that some of my hon. and right hon. Friends will take this point into account as well.
  If we believe in justice in the House of Commons, it is ironic that in a Bill dealing with judges there is, in the view of many of us on this side, so much injustice to working people. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider the proposal that this matter be delayed. It will be extraordinarily difficult for all of us, on either side of the House, whether we are trade union officials, company directors or anything else, to go back to our constituencies and tell people who work in the mines, in the docks, on the railways and in transport that they must be prepared to hold back their demands while, on the other hand, a small minority are allowed to leap forward.
  We could well set in motion tonight a chain reaction of feeling which could be extremely dangerous not for the Conservative Party, not for the Labour Party, but for our entire nation.
  1.57 a.m.
  Mr. Michael Noble: I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris), particularly as he is, I believe, the only Member not a practising lawyer who has spoken in favour of the Bill, but I oppose the Bill for three reasons.
  The first is quite simple. Speaking as a Scotsman and knowing a little about Scots law, I know that what we now need in Scotland is more judges, not more pay. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) said, we are short of judges to deal with the number of cases which are arising, and it is perfectly clear that there is no difficulty in obtaining judges in Scotland. The Minister of State will be able to confirm that tomorrow an hon. and learned Gentleman, not a Member of this House, is to be made a judge.
  The Attorney-General talked with some passion and a good deal of special pleading about the difficulty of obtaining judges from among men who have been earning £20,000, £30,000, or £40,000 a year at the Bar because they will have to come down to the miserable pittance offered on the
  714
  Bench. But I doubt whether the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who is to be made a judge tomorrow, has ever earned £1,000 a year—probably not £500—at the Bar. Yet this makes it perfectly possible for him to become a judge. I am not in the least impressed by the argument, at least in Scotland, that one cannot get men to be judges, and good judges, because of the enormous fees they can otherwise earn at the Bar.
  The second reason why I disapprove of the Bill at this time is its timing. I need not make a long speech about this; the point has been made time and again. I would merely add that, as far as I am aware, no undertaking has ever been given by this side of the House that a Bill of this sort would be produced at a time of this sort. I do not believe—and I have had some experience of judges and have a great many friends among them—that judges regard their status as coming from the salary they get.
  It is true that many people called to the Bar, and who are making good salaries, are attracted out into industry because there are perhaps greater salaries to be made there or because of other reasons. But I have never met—although that does not mean that none exist—people who have refused to become judges because the salaries and conditions offered are not sufficient.
  This is quite a different point and it is one which the Attorney-General, in a long speech, seemed to skirt most cleverly around. It was a speech that I would have expected from the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who has spent a great deal of his time learning the legal profession, judging by the number of questions I have heard him address to the Lord Advocate at one time and another. If there is cause to bring in this Bill today, then someone on the Government Front Bench must seriously address himself to these three questions, for so far that has not been done.
  2.4 a.m.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: I am obliged for the opportunity to intervene. I do so as a lawyer, but I hope that I will try to speak as a non-lawyer. The Bill is ill-timed, it runs counter to a number of the Government's economic policies and it would have been better had it not been introduced. Having said

  715
  that, it seems to me that there is only one justification for the Bill being introduced at this time. It can be summed up in a question.
  Do the Government consider themselves in any way bound as a result either of a pledge given when in opposition, or as a result of a pledge given by the last Administration, or as a result of an undertaking, agreement, arrangement—call it what you will—reached between them and the last Government? If such an arrangement was made, if there was such an agreement at the suggestion of the last Government which was accepted by the Labour Party in opposition whereby the Government now feel honour bound to introduce legislation, then I, like a number of my hon. Friends will feel that I must support the Bill. We have heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) that the Bill arises, apparently, as the result of an undertaking given in another place by a member of the last Administration. We were told by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral that someone—I assume the then Lord Chancellor—gave an undertaking that judges' salaries would be raised by the last Administration, and that that undertaking was given in March of last year.
  Let us have none of the humbug from the other side of the House about the economic results of the Bill. If there is any humbug and hypocrisy in the House tonight, it is from those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who, having given a pledge themselves to introduce a Bill to raise judges' salaries, are now attacking this Administration for doing so at a time of great economic difficulty what they themselves pledged themselves to do at a time when, on all the evidence, they must have known that economic difficulties were looming up.
  Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and he heard my speech and I have heard him ask several other hon. Members, and in no case has he been told that there was a pledge to introduce a Bill of this sort at this time.
  Mr. Richard: I entirely accept that there was never any specific undertaking that a Bill of this sort in these terms would
  716
  be introduced, but is it not also true—and this can be confirmed by the ex-Attorney-General—that there was a clear understanding between the parties that judges' salaries would be dealt with in this Session of Parliament?
  Sir John Hobson: No.
  Mr. Richard: I have heard other hon. Members, although not in the course of debate, say "Yes".
  If because of that sort of pledge the Government are in honour bound, regrettable though it is, the Bill has to be introduced, but it does not lie in the mouths of right hon. Gentleman opposite to criticise the Government for introducing a Bill which they would have introduced had they been in power.
  Regrettably, this is the second such example we have had in this Parliament. I remember the War Damage Bill and the long and furious debates in this Chamber and another place. That Bill was not even the result of an undertaking or arrangement between the parties, but was a specific Bill prepared by right hon. Gentlemen opposite and left on the Table for the present Government to introduce when they came to office. When that Bill was introduced, we had this spectacle of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral repudiating the specific pledge given by his Administration when he was in office.
  Sir J. Hobson: It is not right to say that the previous Administration gave any pledge of any sort to introduce the War Damage Bill. It is true that that Administration prepared a Bill, but it took no decision as to whether it would introduce it.
  Mr. Richard: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that helpful intervention. One thing which I distinctly remember about the Burmah Oil affair was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government—although at that time he was not a member of it—wrote to the Burmah Oil Company warning it that it was proposed to bring forward that precise legislation. At one stage the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral took responsibility for that Bill and said at the Dispatch Box that he could not in honour vote against it. Yet

  717
  he voted against it on Third Reading. With this Bill we have exactly the same position—an arrangement made between the parties, an arrangement on which the Tory Party has ratted.
  I say to my hon. Friends below the Gangway, "Beware the Greeks bearing gifts in this debate". We had a remarkable speech from the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) who, almost with tears running down his face, said how much he appreciated the efforts of the First Secretary, how much he agreed with the Government's attempts to introduce an incomes policy and, with his hand on his heart, how devastating it was, that the Bill would somehow wreck the whole fabric of the Government's economic policy, and that, therefore, he called upon hon. Members to follow him into the Division Lobby against the Bill.
  Is it honestly to be believed by hon. Members opposite, and by the hon. Member for Ormskirk in particular, that my hon. Friends are so gullible as to fall for the oldest trick in the political game? When there is a genuine difference of opinion within the ranks of this great party, of which I am proud to be a member, the hon. Gentleman then attempts to divide it and draw half of them into the Lobby with him. That is a very old gag and I am happy to say that it will not work tonight.
  I must mention some of the speeches made from this side of the House, in opposition to the Bill. I find myself in a great deal of agreement with most of the speeches which have been made. As I said, it is only with the greatest reluctance, and only because the Government feel themselves in honour bound because the Tory Party ratted on an obligation, that I feel I can support the Government in the Lobby tonight. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), when he talked about the difficulties of relating the Bill to an incomes policy and I would agree with a large part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I can entirely understand the motives that were behind these speeches and appreciate that they were sincere.
  Regrettably, I heard the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I say regrettably, because, having heard that speech,
  718
  it is necessary that certain things should be said. For a large part of his speech he took the line which has been taken by a large number of other Members on this side of the Committee, that the Bill was ill-timed. I have said that this is an argument with which I find myself in a great deal of sympathy. But in the last five minutes of his speech he proceeded to attack the Government for breaking their pledges on nuclear policy, on defence policy and on foreign policy. He even succeeded in lumbering us with the present economic crisis.
  I have been in the House for only eight months, but I have listened carefully, and how anyone, on either side of the House, or in the country, can persuade themselves that the Labour Government are responsible for the present economic crisis which the country finds itself in is almost beyond belief.
  My hon. and learned Friend even went so far as to say that the Government had sold out to an international consortium of bankers. That was the phrase he used. With the greatest respect, this sort of thing, in this debate, is almost beyond belief. The idea that the Government, with all the great tasks in front of them, with all the great things that they have set their hands to, will be brought down because of an increase in the Lord Chancellor's pension of £1,250 per annum is absolutely absurd.
  As I listened to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, a quotation came into my mind, which I believe was addressed by Lord Birkenhead to Lord Carson in another place, at the conclusion of an Irish debate, in the course of which Lord Carson had violently attacked him. The noble Lord concluded by saying that "as a piece of constructive Statecraft it would have sounded immature upon the lips of a hysterical schoolgirl."
  I regret having to say that, particularly having been a Member of the House for only eight months, and particularly having regard to the fact that my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Northampton is a member of my Chambers, but I could not leave the House tonight without at least registering one protest against the last few moments of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend, and saying, quite frankly, that

  719
  it does not help the cause of the Government, or the cause of his opposition to the Bill, to indulge in this sort of attack.
  Mr. Paget: I did not say that we were responsible for the economic circumstances. Of course we cannot be, any more than Ramsay MacDonald was responsible for the economic circumstances of 1931. What we are responsible for is the manner in which we have dealt with them. It has been the Conservative manner. When one says that the £ shall be one's first priority and one goes to the banks to help one, then one is making them the master of one's economy.
  2.15 a.m.
  Sir Tatton Brinton: I have remained here long into the night, and I am keeping the House for a few moments longer, but I am one of the only two Members who have no connection with the law who are, nevertheless, prepared to defend the judges.
  We have listened to many speeches, nearly all of them heavily attacking the proposed increases for the judges, who have been defended by a few Members, most of whom have been or are in the legal profession. It is time that somebody from the general mass of the population, as it were, spoke up for the judges and against some of the remarkable things which have been said. It seems to me that the Attorney-General needs some assistance, particularly against his own side of the House.
  Hon. Members have rambled over many subjects, including parliamentary tactics and differences of opinion about the Labour Party's general policy. Could we come back to the case in point? My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) said something with which I entirely agree—and perhaps I am in a better position to say it than he is because of his previous connection with the legal profession. By the great majority of the people the judges are highly respected as representing an institution of great antiquity in which they have great confidence.
  I have been surprised to find that so many hon. Members, not only opposite, but, I am sorry to say, on this side of the House, value this institution so little. One
  720
  hon. Member compared the task of the judges with that of people working on the shop floor. Another said that we have such respect for them that they must be above the general run of us and yet thought it petty bourgeois vulgarity that they should expect to receive a salary commensurate with their position
  Many hon. Members seem to have no idea of the salaries which able and dedicated men can command in our society—or the incomes which can be made even by some hon. Members who have been talking about the Bill. A lot of nonsense has been talked about levelling down. Some hon. Members must in the past have admired that great Socialist State, Russia, but Russia has had to expand the differences between incomes in order to get its society run on the lines which are necessary.
  Through this Parliament hon. Members opposite have talked about modernisation. Do they think that they will get modernisation and ability in any walk of life, including the legal profession, if they do not pay properly, especially in view of the fact that progressive taxation reduces the value of the increased reward which highly paid men receive? The right hon. and learned Gentleman made this very valid point in opening the debate. We are talking about an increase for most judges of from £8,000 to £10,000 a year. This means a total increase in spendable income of £779 a year. This shows the bite of taxation into increased incomes over a certain figure
  Surely we are the last people to fail to realise that if we want the finest judges and the most dedicated judges we must see that they are set above the rest of us ordinary mortals not only in status but also to a reasonable extent in salary. To suggest that £10,000 a year in this day and age, especially in relation to what they have received in the past, is unreasonable is the most arrant prejudice. I defend the judges absolutely on this point, and I am sure that most people will.
  There has been an attack on judges, not only on this but on other occasions, particularly by hon. Members opposite but even from this side of the House. The attack has been because the judges represent an independent and independently minded authority. This is our greatest

  721
  safeguard in this country and I uphold it 100 per cent. I am prepared to go into the Lobby and vote with the Attorney-General, even if nobody else is.
  2.20 a.m.
  Mr Michael Foot: I agree largely with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), and I certainly will not delay the House at this hour in repeating what they have said.
  I hope, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, if he replies to the debate or after the debate, will consider that a new situation has arisen in the House of Commons since he made his first speech. That new situation has arisen, first, because of the statement by the spokesman for the Opposition, confirmed by a member of the last Government, that in their understanding of the situation no commitment was made that a Measure of this kind should be introduced this Session. I think that I have correctly interpreted what the former Attorney-General said in an intervention.
  Sir J. Hobson: No.
  Mr. Foot: I should like to get it clear. I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that there was no commitment to introduce a Bill.
  Sir J. Hobson: I am sorry if I did not make it clear that in my last intervention I was speaking only of the War Damage Bill concerning the Burmah Oil Company. I said that no pledge had been given in that respect that any legislation would be introduced by the previous Government. I am sorry that I cannot assist the House, although I can, perhaps, assist the hon. Member. Of course, the office of Attorney-General has nothing whatever to do with judicial salaries. I was not a member of the previous Cabinet. I do not know whether there was an agreement. I certainly know that there were discussions, but I was not a party to them. If there is any information about this, I am prepared to accept what is said by the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Foot: It cannot have been a firm commitment, because the former Attorney-General does not know whether
  722
  there was such a commitment, the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), says that there was no commitment and the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) was not clear when he said that there was a statement in another place. The right hon. and learned Gentleman certainly did not say that there was a commitment to introduce a Bill this Session, because he also protested against the timing of the introduction of the Bill.
  It may well be—I acquit the former Attorney-General, who says that he does not know—that the other two right hon. Gentlemen opposite are misleading the House, but they have let out the Government. They have said that they did not think there was any commitment, certainly for this Session. So why do not we say "Done" right away? If that is the recollection of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, why should we be more loyal than the king?
  There is, however, another sense in which the situation has changed. If it was the understanding of the present Government that there had been a firm commitment and it was the understanding of those on the benches opposite who formerly were responsible for these matters that there was no firm commitment, and if we who are listening to the debate, who are hearing for the first time whether there was a commitment and who are being invited to cast our votes on the claim that there was a commitment, subsequently discover that there was not a commitment in the understanding of the former Government, a new situation is created.
  There are second grounds on which there is a new situation. Many hon. Members thought that this Measure—and, indeed, at the time of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral it was thought that this Measure—was at least supported by all hon. Members opposite. We have, however discovered during the debate that quite a number of hon. Members opposite disagree strongly with the Bill. Nobody would dispute that the whole of this side of the House, despite the speech of one of my hon. Friends, is strongly critical of the Bill. Not one speech from this side has given full support to the

  723
  Bill. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar, who came nearest to that position, had some criticisms. All other hon. Members who have spoken from this side of the House are opposed to the Bill in different degrees of strength. That is an extremely serious situation, and it is one of which the Government should take note. They should be guided by what has occurred.
  Sir D. Glover: And the hon. Member?
  Mr. Foot: I am coming to that.
  I am a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, as I have been at pains to remind one or two hon. Members on previous occasions. One of the changes in procedure I have always advocated and which I continue to advocate is that Governments ought to listen to what is said on the Floor of the House of Commons. This is one of the ways in which I think we can restore the authority of the House of Commons. Many of the measures advocated by some of my hon. Friends for restoring the authority of the House I disagree with, because I think they would have exactly the opposite effect.
  I do not think it is dishonourable—indeed, I think it would be highly creditable—in a Minister who has introduced a Measure in good faith to listen to the debate upon it, to listen in particular to his hon. Friend who had difficulties about it, and at the end to say, "I take full note of all that has been said and I propose to report it to the other members of the Government to see if their views are altered because of the representations made on the Floor of the House of Commons". There is nothing wrong in that. That is what the House of Commons is for.
  Sir D. Glover: The Leader of the House.
  Mr. Foot: The Attorney-General is perfectly capable of doing it. He could come to the Dispatch Box now and say that, in view of the very strong representations which have been made, and in view of the fact that there appears to be a difference of interpretation—I put it no stronger than that—between the two sides as to what was the commitment, he proposes to report the matter back to the Government. He should do that before
  724
  he presses the matter to a Division. He could do that. I know it has not been frequently done in recent times, but it has been done by Governments previously, and that is the way the House of Commons should operate. The House ought to have the capacity to make an impact on Administrations.
  If the Attorney-General does not feel he is able to do that he can at any rate say that he is altering his view about the urgency of this Measure's going through in this Session. There is no necessity which has been described to us for its going through in this Session, except the commitment, which is a commitment questioned by the other side of the House. In any case, there are no grounds on which it can be argued that it is urgent in that sense, since it does not come into operation till April. There is plenty of time to reconsider it.
  We have had in connection with other Bills, introduced in this Session, White Papers first, and we have discussed the White Papers instead of taking the Bills. There could have been a White Paper about this Bill, and I do not think we should have had the Bill had we had a White Paper about it first. We have also had the postponement of certain Measures which were mentioned in the Queen's Speech—very important Measures, such as the one about leasehold reform. I gather that that has been postponed to another Session or that it may be postponed to another Session; I am not sure; but it was in the Queen's Speech. There are other Measures which have been postponed. I am not complaining. I know that Governments get into legislative jams. But this Bill has been inserted in the midst of a legislative jam.
  So I say, for all these reasons, that there are good grounds, in the proper conduct of the House of Commons, why the Attorney-General should take very serious note of what has been said. I do not think he can be under any misapprehension of how profound and strong is the feeling of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House against the Bill—very strong indeed. So I hope he will take that into account in the reply he makes now, or in the recommendations which he makes to the Cabinet following this debate, or in deciding

  725
  whether to proceed with the Bill in Committee in this Session or not. He has three different courses open to him by which he can recognise the strength of feeling on this side.
  I say to him, and to other members of the Government who are present, that it is not only a question of this Bill. If they show recognition of the feelings of the House, genuinely represented to them, and of the feelings of this side of the House, genuinely represented to them, it will assist them greatly in all their future plans and in the difficulties which they may have with the House. But if they adopt a rigid attitude and say, "Once we have put down a Measure for Second Reading we are going to take no notice whatever of the most powerful feelings put forward from these back benches", they will be heading for difficulties.
  The Government should consider very carefully what has been said, and if they find, as I hope they will, that there are different ways in which they can postpone this matter to another Session so that we can examine it much more carefully, if they find it a bit awkward that they have to go to the judges and say, "You have to wait a little longer", I have another solution which I recommend to them. They can say to the judges, "In the meantime, your lordships, we propose that your wage claims should be referred to Mr. Aubrey Jones' Prices and Incomes Committee, and we will see if that Committee can report as quickly as it has done in some other cases. We are sure that the Committee will look into your claims as eagerly as it has done into some others".
  The Government cannot say that I have not made a whole series of constructive suggestions. I have pointed to a whole series of ways in which they can escape from the dilemma into which they should never have got themselves.
  2.31 a.m.
  The Attorney-General: I should like first to deal—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must ask for the leave of the House before he speaks again.
  The Attorney-General: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw
  726
  Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to think that the leave of the House is granted in anticipation, and I ask leave to speak again.
  Mr. David Steel: On a point of order. I have been waiting to speak and have been hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If we give the Attorney-General leave to speak again, I hope that it will not preclude us from continuing the debate.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It does not affect the position at all.
  The Attorney-General: I should like, first, to deal with what I can only designate as squalid inconsistency on the part of the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) who, shortly after making his speech, left the House. The squalid inconsistency to which I am referring is the inconsistency between the quite clear and specific undertaking and commitment which the then Government—and they were Members of the Cabinet of that Government—gave in regard to this matter, and what has been argued tonight.
  I should like the House to know in what terms this undertaking was expressed. It arose in another place on 24th March of last year in the following circumstances: The noble Lord, Lord Alport asked the then Lord Chancellor to ask Her Majesty's Government
  "whether they are aware that the Supreme Court Judges in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland have had no increase in their salaries since 1954, while those of the lower judiciary have been increased on three, and in some cases four, occasions since that date; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take the necessary action to increase these salaries."
  In reply, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Dilhorne, said:
  "My Lords, the answer is, Yes. It is the Government's intention to introduce next Session legislation to provide for increases in the remuneration of the Superior Judiciary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 24th March, 1964; Vol. 256, c. 1130.]
  That commitment was clear and express, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman: Was not he then a Member of the Cabinet? Was not this a Cabinet decision? Are we to understand that it was not intended; that this was a sheer piece of deception and delay because the previous

  727
  Administration was afraid to introduce an unpopular Measure? I charge the right hon. Gentleman with gross and sordid inconsistency in this matter.
  Mr. Noble: It is possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to charge me with anything that he likes, but his own Government have on many occasions in the last six or nine months announced their intention to do something and then have not done it.
  The Attorney-General: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has no sense of honour in these matters—no sense of the moral and political meaning of a commitment of this kind? The judges in the higher judiciary were most expressly told this in the answer of the Lord Chancellor. There was a clear commitment on the part of the then Government to the judiciary in March 1964. Now this Government are honouring that comment at the latest point of time. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman finds this so laughable a matter. His good faith is directly involved in this, in the way in which he and his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral have repeated the kind of performance to which we were subjected in relation to the War Damage Bill, when that same right hon. and learned Gentleman was the Member of a Government which sent a letter to the Burmah Oil Company at the beginning of the litigation saying, "If you go on we shall bring in a Bill to stop you recovering any damages in the litigation." In spite of that dramatic and highly criticised intervention, when the time came for putting this Measure through the House once again there was a ratting and running away from a clear political commitment.
  Sir J. Hobson: There must be a misunderstanding in relation to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I understood him to say—and I am supporting the Bill; I have waited here in order to vote for it—that the Lord Chancellor had given an undertaking to the House of Lords in March. He mentioned it expressly, and never went away from it. I understood that the point of dispute was a matter on which I am not informed
  728
  —whether there was an agreement between the two sides of the House, or a pledge on behalf of both parties, which is different from the pledge actually given by the previous Lord Chancellor.
  I hope that the Attorney-General is not misunderstanding the position in making this attack upon my right hon. and learned Friend. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the former Lord Chancellor had given that undertaking in the Lords on 24th March. I agree that there was an express undertaking by the previous Government to introduce legislation in the next Session, but that is a different question from the question whether the present Government were bound by the pledge then given by the House of Lords, and a different question, again, from the question whether there was any agreement between the previous Government and the Opposition, as it then was, as to this Measure. These are three different questions, and we should make it clear that the attack made by the Attorney-General upon my right hon. and learned Friend is not warranted, because he did speak about the pledge.
  The Attorney-General: I was criticised about the length of my opening speech, but if the interventions in the speech that I am now making are as long as that just made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman this speech will be interminable.
  I will remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of what the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral said. He attacked the timing of this Measure. What does that mean? This is the very end of the Session in which his Government undertook, if they had been in power—which, thank Heaven, they are not—to introduce a Bill. I have not gathered that the quantum of the increase either in pay or in numbers is challenged. The right hon. and learned Gentleman attacked the Government for the timing of this Measure. What is the timing of it? This is almost the last moment when the Bill could be introduced in order for it to be passed this Session. In attacking the Government in that way the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I am sorry to make this attack in his absence, but it is not my fault that he is not here—was seeking to gain political advantage, and once more demonstrating the fact that we have

  729
  met so many times since this Government came to office, namely, that we have had to do some of the dirty work that the party opposite should have done. Agreeing that the position of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral was slightly different, I repeat that the right hon. Member for Argyll certainly attacked the timing and the contents of the Bill, a Measure which his own Government had undertaken to introduce.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
  The Attorney-General: Perhaps I ought to get on—
  Mr. Lewis: Was there an agreement between the two sides?
  The Attorney-General: I will, very shortly, deal with—
  Dame Irene Ward: Answer the question.
  Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves this crucial point—he has clearly explained that there was an announcement by the previous Administration which could be regarded as binding on that Administration. What he has not yet explained, and what is far more important for me and my hon. Friends on this side of the House, is this: what is the commitment he believes binds his Administration to carry out what he called the "dirty work" of the previous Government?
  The Attorney-General: I was not a member of the shadow cabinet at the time. It is true that an undertaking by the Government of the day to the judges is a highly relevant consideration, to which any successive Government has to give immense and important weight. That is a factor which must, clearly, operate in the minds of any successive Government if they are to have any reputation for decency. Apart from the background of that specific undertaking, the Government take the view that, upon the merits of this matter, this Bill is justified in present circumstances.
  I have said, and I repeat it without apology or reservation, that the Bill does not constitute, in any sense, an infringement of the Government's incomes policy. Of course, I understand my hon. Friends' anxieties about the difficult conditions
  730
  and circumstances of those receiving still inadequate wages and pensions in spite of the efforts of the Government. But I hope that those who have been critical will point out that what is involved in the Bill, which, on the face of it, looks like a dramatic advance of 25 per cent., has arisen only by reason of the special circumstances of this group of salary earners, the judges. I know, because they are hon. Friends of mine, that they will honestly tell their constituents—as I shall tell mine—that what is involved here is an increase of slightly less than two per cent.—1·9 per cent.—in the course of the last twelve years, that and no more.
  That constitutes no infringement of the guiding light principle of 3½ per cent. This impression of a major rise has been created only because, in this class of salary earners alone, increments from time to time—as has happened with county court judges, and civil servants—have not taken place merely because of this constitutional machinery, because up till now, judges' salaries have been controlled by Act of Parliament. If these increments had been made one at a time over the past eleven years, we should have heard absolutely nothing about it. The reason that this unhappy situation has come to pass is, as I said in opening the debate, that the special position of the judges has resulted in them alone of all salary earners in the country not getting a penny of increment between 1954 and today.
  The fact must be faced that, if we are to maintain an independent judiciary, it is, under the present arrangements, essential that the best of the Bar should be recruited for the Bench. All I can say is that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who perhaps has even more knowledge of these matters by reason of the fact that he has to deal with them in making judicial appointments, has told me, and I have little doubt that he will say so in another place, that we have reached a situation where the present emoluments of £8,000 a year are not ensuring that the best of the Bar are interested any longer in going on the High Court Bench.
  That is the fact. A lot of this debate has been about equality, and I am passionately concerned about equality, because socialism is about equality. One of the things that Labour have done, in

  731
  every administration, is to make major advances towards equality, and we shall continue to do so. But it will take time, and we have only been in office for eight months.
  Then my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) made a passionate speech. I much admire his reforming zeal, but does he think that the Lord Chancellor has lost all of his? For the first time this country has a permanent Law Commission in existence whose sole task is to keep the law under review, to reform it and bring it up to date. It is the greatest advance in law reform for hundreds of years, and the Government have accomplished it within nine months of taking office. I do ask my hon. Friends to give us credit for something in their zeal for reform. Turning to the other matters that my hon. Friend raised, he must know that the questions he has referred to me and my hon. Friends are being actively investigated and considered.
  The suggestions that have been made in this debate by the hon. and learned Members for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) and Bebington (Mr. Howe) and others about the law's delays will be looked into. But it is not long ago since we had the Streatfeild Committee Report. As a result of that, there was a major overhaul of the administrative arrangements for the courts, and the consequence has been that the period between a man being charged and being tried is today less than it has ever been in our history over the country as a whole. We have made considerable progress in reducing the law's delays. It is true that in the civil field there is beginning to be a build-up. That is why we want more judges, and that is the justification for Clause 3 of the Bill.
  In the view of the Government, the Bill is an essential measure. We deem it to be necessary for the proper administration of our justice that the Bill shall be introduced, and we are not afraid of introducing a measure which, although on the face of it it will be an unpopular and perhaps unpalatable one, when the true facts are known I am confident that the people will understand. They must realise that a price has to be paid for an independent judiciary attracting the best legal skills, and we are in danger of paying some lip service to a Bench of high quality but
  732
  failing to provide with it the means to maintain its standards.
  2.48 a.m.
  Mr. David Steel: I am certainly convinced of the merits of the Bill and, because of those merits, I shall vote for it. What I am not convinced of is that a pledge given by a different Administration in different economic circumstances is in some way binding in the circumstances of today. Nevertheless, the Bill is before the House and, on this occasion, I shall vote for it. But I should not lose any sleep at all if it never got any further in this Session.
  Government is surely about priorities and, like many other hon. Members, I hold clinics regularly in my constituency. The greatest number of cases I had are those of public servants and old age pensioners. I have judges living in my constituency, but I have never had a judge come to see me about an increase in salary. While I do not doubt the merits of the Bill, and although I accept all the cogent arguments advanced in its support, I think that perhaps this is not a priority in the Government's legislative programme.
  I wish primarily to raise a quite different matter which has not been discussed. I should, in passing, say that I hope that a reply will be given to the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentland (Mr. Wylie) about why there is no increase proposed in the number of Scottish judges.
  The Attorney-General: I always hesitate to deal with matters regarding the administration of the law in Scotland. But there is already a spare judge in the Scottish legal arrangements. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not expressing myself very clearly. There is an establishment for one more judge under the Scottish provisions, and it is thought that that is adequate to meet with the reasonably foreseeable needs in Scotland.
  Mr. Steel: There is a log jam in litigation in Scotland, and I hope that if there is a spare judge he will be brought into use.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) asked why there was a wide discrepancy between the remuneration for judges in England and Scotland.

  733
  I thought that the Labour Party believed in equal pay for equal work. I find this differentiation rather strange.
  The main point which I wish to raise is this. We are being asked to vote for an increase in salary for, among others, the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk and the other ordinary judges of the Court of Session. It is right that in considering an increase in salary for these judges we should consider who they are and how they are appointed. I am not satisfied with the way in which they are appointed now and have been appointed in the past. Hon. Members who do not represent Scottish constituencies would, perhaps, like to know about this matter very briefly.
  The Lord Advocate in Scotland is a Minister of the Crown and is appointed by the Prime Minister. He, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, then appoints the judges, and among those whom he appoints is invariably himself. More important, he can wait until one of the two top offices in the Court of Session falls vacant and then appoint himself to it. At present both offices are occupied by former Members of Parliament, former Lords Advocate. The result is that it is not often easy for people in the legal profession in Scotland who have not gone through the political ladder to reach the top jobs, however great their merit.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: It is not correct to say that the Lord Advocate can appoint himself. The Lord Advocate does not appoint the judges in Scotland. They are appointed by the Prime Minister on the advice of the Secretary of State for Scotland and by the Crown.
  Mr. Steel: I accept that what the right hon. Gentleman says is technically correct. We all know that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland do not themselves make the decision. The decision is obviously made on the recommendation of the Lord Advocate. I was cutting short the story. Nevertheless, it is true, and the right hon. Gentleman will accept, that Lords Advocate invariably hold these positions. The system of political appointments to judicial positions has been used consistently by both parties when in government, and it is bad and should be
  734
  changed. When we are taking the opportunity to provide for increases in salary, I hope that we can have some assurance that the system of appointment may be changed.
  When Lord Cockburn's Memorials were reviewed in the Edinburgh Review it was said that they were
  "an illuminated catalogue of past abuses too preposterous to be believed if they had not been almost too inveterate to be conquered".
  Among the abuses attacked by Lord Cockburn was political appointments to judicial positions. The political bias in judicial appointments is still preposterous and even more inveterate, and I hope that this Government will conquer it.
  2.54 a.m.
  Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The debate which we are about to conclude has shown two important things which should not be lost upon the Government. The first is that it would be much wiser in future, when Bills involving important principles are about to be introduced, to have consultations at an early stage at which the principles of such legislation can be fully discussed.
  The second conclusion is that it is good to listen to the House of Commons. The Government are now in the position where they have put themselves in disagreement with considerable numbers of their supporters. They know that the views which have been expressed by many Members on this side tonight are representative of the views which are held by thousands and thousands and supporters of the Labour movement outside the House. They know the sincerity with which many Members who have advocated the Government's general incomes policy all over the country have put forward their views.
  The Attorney-General's answer has left major points unanswered. There has been no real clearing up of the essential point about the commitment, which was one of the major parts of his case. There has been no answer about the necessity of going on with a Measure which the other side might have announced in their own way in a half-hearted fashion. There is no possibility of going any further on this important matter tonight, but the Government would be mistaking the temper of many of their own supporters and that of many people who have

  735
  watched these events in the country, and in the trade union movement in particular, if they were to make light of the views which have been expressed tonight.
  I myself believe that the purpose both of Parliament and of the work of the Government and the work of the Labour movement and the Labour Party in the House would be best served if no Division whatsoever in a formal sense were recorded tonight. It would represent the point of view of those who send us here and I believe that it would be the most dignified and effective way of concluding this discussion.
  I make this final appeal to the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has indicated, even after tonight, when there might have been particular reasons why the Attorney-General could not give a commitment to do something about the Bill, there are further constitutional opportunities at the Government's disposal and they ought to interpret the temper of this debate in the way my hon. Friend has urged. With that in mind, I would like to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends who are particularly concerned with this to take note of this debate, and I repeat my suggestion that the best way to conclude the debate is to have no Division.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Howie.]
  Committee this day.

  JUDGES' REMUNERATION [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees.)
  [Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to increase the salaries attached to certain high judicial offices, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of—

  (a) the salaries payable under that Act to the Lord Chancellor and the holders of other high judicial offices; and

  (b) any increase in the sums payable out of that Fund under any other enactment which is attributable to provisions of that Act relating to such salaries, increasing the rate of the Lord Chancellor's pension or providing for the appointment of additional judges of the High Court in England.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received this day.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SEVERN BRIDGE TOLLS BILL)
  Ordered,
  That the Third Reading of the Severn Bridge Tolls Bill may be taken immediately after the consideration of the Bill, as amended, notwithstanding the practice of this House as to the interval between the stages of such a Bill.—[Mr. Howie.]

  ARMED FORCES PENSIONERS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Howie.]
  3.1 a.m.
  Mr. Dennis Hobden: It was my original intention to speak on the need for an early increase in Public Service pensions but, owing to the rules of procedure governing the subject, I am unable to speak on the general question of increasing public service pensions as it would be ruled out of order because it involves legislation. I understand that I can speak on the question of increasing the pensions of ex-members of the Armed Forces because that can be carried out by Royal Warrant and does not involve legislation. In these circumstances I shall confine my remarks to that category, and I am sorry to say that this has meant a disappointment to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) who had asked me to raise the question of teachers' pensions.
  Whilst in the course of my remarks I may make quotations from statements made about public service pensions as a whole, I shall do so only to show their relevance and application to Armed Forces pensioners. In other words, I am forced to mention the general question in order to arrive at the particular.
  The undertaking which we gave at the General Election was that
  "Pensions will be linked to earnings. This link will mean that pensioners are not only compensated for rising prices but also receive their full and fair share in rising national prosperity."
  At the same time, when various pensioners' organisations inquired about our proposals on pensions, we informed them that we were
  "favourably disposed towards the principle of parity"
  that is to say, the same pensions for the same service regardless of the date of retirement. We promised that we would open negotiations with interested bodies to see how reforms along these lines could be introduced.
  The Prime Minister is on record as saying that
  "Pensions will be reviewed so that they will keep their full purchasing power instead of
  738
  being eroded as they have been in recent years."
  When we are considering the pensions of Armed Forces pensioners we are also considering a category of pensioner who normally retired at an earlier age than the majority of other pensioners. They have therefore suffered from the effects of inflation for many more years than have the ordinary pensioners who normally cannot retire before the age of 60 years.
  An examination of the statistics governing retired officers shows that 16 per cent. were retired on 1919 rates of retirement pay and a further 45 per cent. were retired on rates fixed in 1945 or earlier. Ratings and other ranks are in a similar position and many of them are receiving less than half the pensions paid to those who retire today.
  We must not forget also that their widows' pensions are based on the same obsolete rates, and many are in receipt of National Assistance and are among the poorest in the land. In the journal of the Officers' Pension Society there is a table giving comparative information about widows' pensions, and it is shown that eight countries have better widows' pensions than we do and in most cases the pension is nearly double what we pay to the widows of our Forces pensioners. Only Finland is below our level. Moreover, the widows of other ranks, other than warrant officers Class I, who were discharged before September, 1950, receive no pension at all
  The present pensions increase system, which has remained practically unchanged for 45 years, has resulted in all Forces pensioners having continually to lower their standard of life, and those who live in retirement the longest receive the least upon which to live when they are old and least able to help themselves. As is said in an appendix on Armed Forces pensions in the book, "Public Sector Pensions", by Gerald Rhodes, Service pensions differ from the normal pattern of civilian public sector schemes in not being directly related to pay at the time of retirement. Thus, increases in pay do not automatically lead to increases in prospective pension, as happens in terminal salary schemes. When, therefore, because of inflation or for some other cause, a change in pension rates is thought desirable, a new scale or code is drawn up in place of the existing one. Hence, at

  739
  any one time there may be several codes in existence and the pension received by any individual pensioner will depend on the code in force at the time he retired. In this connection, it should not be forgotten that members of the women's Services are paid less and receive smaller pensions than men.
  A pension, like a salary or wage, is income. Since the last increase under the Royal Warrant, incomes have risen inside and outside the Armed Forces, but Armed Forces pensioners have remained pegged to the position determined by that last Royal Warrant in, I think, 1962. Therefore, those whose pensions have been based on out of date wage and salary scales have no means of combating increases in rents, rates, taxes, food prices, fares and other necessities of life, let alone in the cost of small luxuries which make life easier.
  A pension for a member of the Armed Forces is an income based upon service. Those still serving in the Armed Forces have their incomes related to the present value of the £, and those who retire now at least have the advantage of a pension based upon current standards. Why, then, should former members of the Armed Forces, with length and level of service similar to those who retire today, be restricted to a pension related to out of date salary and wage rates? The most recent Royal Warrant improving Armed Forces pensions still gave in cash, though higher in percentage, the smallest increases to the oldest and least well provided for. In the last 12 months, the Index of Retail Prices has moved up over 8 points.
  Other countries are aware of the need for urgent action. In the United States, retired pay is increased automatically with increases in active pay, while in France, Belgium, West Germany, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Spain retired pay goes up with the cost of living. It appears from this that there is now wider recognition of the need to eliminate the suffering caused by a system which freezes pensions at their original paper value plus any percentage increases that may from time to time be made. Pensions should in all justice be increased in proportion year by year. Even if one retired on the 1960 Code it would be necessary to increase the award by no
  740
  less than 10·5 per cent. in order for it to be comparable with the 1964 Code.
  I know from the volume of mail I receive on the subject that the question of Forces pensions and public service pensions is uppermost in the minds of many of my constituents. The position throughout the country is rather bleak, but Brighton has a high percentage of retired people. They live in an area of abnormally high rates and they have also been affected by increases in mortgage rates and the price of food. So far they have not been able to benefit from any concession by way of cheap bus fares, although many live in the suburbs.
  Behind the respectable front room curtains of many smart homes there is a story of suffering and hardship. It is no answer to say that many can qualify for National Assistance. Rightly or wrongly, these are people to whom that proposition is repugnant. They are not asking for charity and in any case if the money is there for National Assistance it must be made available for an increase in pensions. They are asking for compensation to which they are entitled.
  Since last October many hon. Members on both sides have been concerned about this position. Numerous Questions have been put down and we are informed that we must await the outcome of a review which is independent of the review of social security benefits generally. I am aware that the country has many acute financial problems and that if the principle of parity were conceded for all public service pensioners it would cost £100 million a year. Nevertheless the time is running out for these people. They are in the evening of their lives. Time is not on their side and in all conscience, I believe that within eight months we should at least be able to state our proposals about these pensions.
  The time is coming when the public will make an outcry because a considerable section of the population is not getting a fair crack of the whip, and that outcry will transcend party politics. I would like the Government to concede the principle of parity even if it may mean introducing it in stages over a number of years.
  I said at the outset that I would be speaking purely on the question of increased pensions for ex-members of the

  741
  Forces. Nothing I have said can hide the fact—and over 160 signatures to Early Day Motion No. 220 supports it—that the remarks I have made about Forces pensions apply equally to all public service pensions and the Government should do all in their power to look at the question as a whole, particularly having regard to the urgency of the situation.
  3.13 a.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: I support the case put by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden). As I am sure he is aware, for a very long time I have tried to do all in my power in Parliament to forward the cause not only of Forces pensioners but of all public service pensioners as well. Quite apart from the need to make some very real improvement in the pensions payable at present, I want to register in particular my view that the whole system operating in relation to these groups of people really does require overhauling and a more modern approach made.
  It is completely right, as the hon. Gentleman said, that those who retired years ago, and especially their widows, are worse off.
  I fully recognise that the arrangements for pensions and retired pay were improved by the Government which I supported before the General Election, but much of the improvement was to attract men and women into the Services, in itself a satisfactory objective. But it is not right that this country, which has been devotedly served by public servants and members of the Armed Forces, should leave those who did valiant and reliable service in the condition in which many now find themselves.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I represent a constituency with a higher than average proportion of retired people, and I know how strongly they feel. I think that it was the last occasion of a Pensions (Increase) Act when a higher percentage increase was given to those who had retired earlier: but a 12½ per cent. increase to someone getting a low basic amount makes for a smaller increase than a lower percentage increase of a greater basic pension. Therefore, although the new scheme had a very good objective, it failed badly.
  742
  I hope that the Minister will tell us that we can look forward to a redemption of the pledge made by his party at the General Election and that, with the full agreement of the House, we are to have legislation so that there will no longer be long delays before we have modern pensions increases legislation, which is vitally important.
  I wish the hon. Gentleman well. I am delighted that he has thought of bringing forward this subject. I read the pledge given to the Officers' Pension Society about officers, their dependants and those of other ranks, but I do not recollect anything being said about waiting for a review. I understand about the other review, but although I was naturally questioned about this subject, as was my Labour opponent, I do not remember my opponent saying that the redemption of the pledge would have to await a review. I hope that we shall be told about the pensions for the Armed Forces and especially about widows' pensions and that we shall not be told that we have to await a review. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, and I am delighted to be associated with him and hope that we are to hear good news for all pensioners, but especially for those who have served in the Armed Forces.
  3.19 a.m.
  The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Christopher Mayhew): Public service pensioners should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) for raising their case in this debate and for doing so so persuasively. I am sure that they will not be surprised that at this debate, even at this unusual hour, the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) should be at her station again to carry out the task which she has performed before and also stating her strongly held views on this subject.
  At the same time I think that neither of the two hon. Members who remain in their seats now seriously expects from me a far-reaching statement on Government policy on this extremely important subject. I noticed with a particular personal interest that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown referred to the unusually large number of public service pensioners he counts among his constituents in Brighton. As it happens,

  743
  some of these constituents are well known to my wife and myself. He may not know that during the election, by helping with postal votes and transport, we claim to have contributed at least five pensioner's votes to my hon. Friend's slender majority of seven. I hope, therefore, that he will recognise that I, like him, understand that many of his constituents and many people throughout the country regard this as a vitally important subject.
  I have the greatest sympathy with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said. He has chosen a subject of very great concern to a very large number of people, not only in the Armed Forces but throughout the country. I can only regret that his Motion has come at a time when the Government's general review on public service pensions, which includes the Armed Forces pensions, which I distinguish from the long term review on the social security measures, which is also under way, is still in progress. I will not be able to tell him tonight anything which can be regarded as news.
  Pensions today are paid under a number of codes, dating from 1919, and running to 1945, 1950, 1956, 1959, 1960, 1962 and 1964. The basic rates paid under these codes partly reflect increases in real terms in active service pay, and the increases in successive codes provide some measure of the improvements which have been made in Service pay in recent years to match the rate of increase in wages and salaries in civilian life. The years since 1945 and even more since 1919 have seen a steady fall in the purchasing power of money, as well as increases in the real value of wages and salaries. The rates of pension paid under the earlier codes have been adjusted at intervals on this account. There have been pensions increase measures for public service pensioners generally in 1944, 1947, 1952 and 1956, 1959 and 1962.
  The increases applied in general to those over 60 or the incapacitated, or widows. The object of these measures was to alleviate hardship caused by progressive increases in the cost of living, and the measures do not all work in the same fashion. The measures of 1944, 1947 and 1956 gave larger proportionate increases to those with smaller pensions
  744
  than to those with larger pensions. The later acts of 1959 and 1962 gave uniform percentage increases, but distinguished between different codes. For instance, the broad basis of the 1962 measure was to give 12 per cent. to those on the 1956 and earlier codes, 6 per cent. to ratings and other ranks on the 1959 code and 4 per cent. to those on the 1960 code.
  May I take up a point which my hon. Friend made? He reminded me of statements made during the General Election about the relation of pensions to the cost of living. I do not think that he meant to suggest that the Government had fallen down on their undertaking or were likely to do so. This, with respect, would be to jump to conclusions against the evidence. Ever since they came to office, the Government have shown that they have a very lively sense of obligation towards pensioners in general, as witnessed by the increase in the National Insurance pension, which applies to the great mass of pensioners, including most of those drawing Armed Forces pensions.
  My hon. Friend asked about the maintenance of the real value of Armed Service pensions. Our review is still in progress, and it is too soon for anyone to draw conclusions about the outcome. As a result of past pensions increase Measures, the basic rates of pension have been increased, but some relativities have been disturbed in the process. We have to consider two large general questions. First, is there a case for another pensions increase; and, secondly, if so, is there any means of ironing out the disparities which have crept in?
  The case for pensions increases in the past depended on a substantial movement in the retail price index. Hon. Members need no reminding from me that there has been a pretty sizeable increase since the introduction of the last Measure in January, 1963.
  But this is not the whole story. Over 85 per cent. of the Armed Service pensioners are or will become eligible for the National Insurance retirement pension as well as their Service pension, and one of the Government's first acts was to raise these National Insurance benefits. Since January 1963 the cost of living has gone up by just over 10 per cent. but during the same period there have been two increases in National Insurance pensions—of 10s., which is 17½ per cent.,

  745
  on 27th May, 1963, and of 12s. 6d., which is 18½ per cent., on 28th March, 1965. These increases are for single persons, and the increases in the married rate have been bigger. The increases in March this year were the largest ever.
  If we take the increase in the total pension income of those who get the Armed Forces pension and the National Insurance pension combined and compare it with the cost of living since the pensions were awarded, the comparison shows up in better light for the pensioner.
  My hon. Friend said that in the United States retired pay goes up with active pay and that in France and most other Western European countries, there are similar benefits for Armed Service pensioners. It is only right to point out that in one way or another none of those countries allows Armed Forces pensioners to draw the old age pension in addition to the Service pension.
  Although I cannot accept all my hon. Friend's arguments, I do not want to give the wrong impression. The case which he has presented for an increase in the Armed Forces pensions is strong, and nothing that I have said should be taken to imply that the Government deny that such a case exists. Supposing, then, that we find as a result of our review that a case is made out for a pensions increase. The second main question which arises is whether we ought not to try to iron out some of the disparities which have arisen. The alternative to trying to iron out the disparities in a number of rather elaborate ways is one which has often been canvassed—the principle of parity, the granting of pensions to all who retired under earlier codes on an equal basis, rank for rank and service for service, with those retiring under the current code.
  As I have said on previous occasions in the House, parity has big advantages but it also suffers from several important disadvantages, not the least being the cost. The immediate cost of parity on the modern code for Armed Forces pensioners would be something like £25 million. The cost of parity for the whole
  746
  public service would, as my hon. Friend has said, be over £100 million. It could, of course, be introduced in stages, but the national economy would soon feel the weight of the ultimate commitment. In the private sector and nationalised industries, a commitment to parity might involve a cost of £1,000 million.
  I am sorry not to have been able tonight to give my hon. Friend any positive statement on future Government policy in this matter, but I hope that, at least, he will draw one or two conclusions from what I have said. The first is that we fully realise and respect the importance of the subject and the strength of the views of all those, including the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, who have constantly pressed the case of the Armed Forces pensioner.
  The second conclusion which, I hope, my hon. Friend has drawn is that the subject is a difficult one, both in complexity and in the cost of possible improvements and that, therefore, we have not yet been able to come to conclusions on it. Thirdly, we have, nevertheless, given it detailed consideration so that when a decision is reached, all those concerned will know that it has been taken with full knowledge and full appreciation of everything that is involved.
  Dame Irene Ward: In thanking the Minister for what he has said, may I ask whether he can give the number of Armed Forces pensioners who are not able to qualify for and draw National Insurance pensions? This makes an important distinction between the two sections.
  Mr. Mayhew: Most Armed Service pensioners who retire fairly early get work and thus become insured—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Four o'clock a.m.

SCOTLAND
  Smallholders, West Kilbride (Rents)
  Smallholders, West Kilbride (Rents)
  Milk Vending Machines
  Milk Vending Machines
  Rents, Glasgow
  Rents, Glasgow
  Disabled Persons (Housing)
  Disabled Persons (Housing)
  Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act, 1964
  Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act, 1964
  House Building
  House Building
  Gin Traps
  Gin Traps
  Scientific and Technological Information (Library)
  Scientific and Technological Information (Library)
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Hovercraft (Noise)
  Hovercraft (Noise)
  Scottish Law Commissioners
  Scottish Law Commissioners
  Raw Material and New Industries
  Raw Material and New Industries
  Highland Area Fund (Tourist Grant)
  Highland Area Fund (Tourist Grant)
  National Health Service Prescriptions
  National Health Service Prescriptions
  Highland Development Board
  Highland Development Board
  LEGISLATION
  LEGISLATION
  JUDGES (ALLOWANCES)
  JUDGES (ALLOWANCES)
  LORD CHANCELLORS (PENSIONS)
  LORD CHANCELLORS (PENSIONS)
  Detective-Sergeant Challenor (Report)
  Detective-Sergeant Challenor (Report)
  GENETIC STUDY UNIT
  GENETIC STUDY UNIT
  PRISONERS, WANDSWORTH (ESCAPE)
  PRISONERS, WANDSWORTH (ESCAPE)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Phantom Aircraft
  Phantom Aircraft
  Service Pensions
  Service Pensions
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Royal Hospital School, Holbrook
  Royal Hospital School, Holbrook
ROADS
  Parking Places (Coloured Marking)
  Parking Places (Coloured Marking)
  M.20
  M.20
  A.30 (Bodmin Moor)
  A.30 (Bodmin Moor)
  50 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  50 m.p.h. Speed Limit
RAILWAYS
  Summer Timetable
  Summer Timetable
TRANSPORT
  Safety Belts
  Safety Belts
  Driving Tests (Swansea, Bridgend and Cardiff)
  Driving Tests (Swansea, Bridgend and Cardiff)
  Concrete Works, Hillsmoor
  Concrete Works, Hillsmoor
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Charter Aircraft (Safety Regulations)
  Charter Aircraft (Safety Regulations)
POST OFFICE
  Global Communications Satellite System
  Global Communications Satellite System
  Post Office Users' Council (Scottish Interests)
  Post Office Users' Council (Scottish Interests)
  Envelopes (Metric Measurements)
  Envelopes (Metric Measurements)
  Battle of Britain Stamp (Issue Date)
  Battle of Britain Stamp (Issue Date)
  Postmen, London and Greater London
  Postmen, London and Greater London
  Postmen, Brentford and Chiswick
  Postmen, Brentford and Chiswick
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Cement Supplies (Scotland)
  Cement Supplies (Scotland)
  Martin and Buchanan Reports
  Martin and Buchanan Reports
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Independent Television Companies (Advertising Revenue)
  Independent Television Companies (Advertising Revenue)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Producers, Dorset
  Milk Producers, Dorset
  Livestock Breeding
  Livestock Breeding
  Food Standards (Labels and Advertisements)
  Food Standards (Labels and Advertisements)
  Anthrax
  Anthrax
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Comprehensive Education, Liverpool (Minister's Letter)
  Comprehensive Education, Liverpool (Minister's Letter)
  New Primary School, Albrighton
  New Primary School, Albrighton
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Redundancy Payments (Income Tax Exemption)
  Redundancy Payments (Income Tax Exemption)
  GERMANY (BOHEMIA AND MORAVIA)
  GERMANY (BOHEMIA AND MORAVIA)
  CONGO (BRITISH CASUALTIES)
  CONGO (BRITISH CASUALTIES)
HOSPITALS
  Accommodation, Kirkby Stephen
  Accommodation, Kirkby Stephen
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Anthrax in Humans (Notified Cases)
  Anthrax in Humans (Notified Cases)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Traffic Wardens (Extension of Functions)
  Traffic Wardens (Extension of Functions)
  Prison Welfare Service
  Prison Welfare Service
BOARD OF TRADE
  Blackcurrant
  Blackcurrant
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Planning Appeal APP/2392/A/66683
  Planning Appeal APP/2392/A/66683
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Pottery Industry
  Pottery Industry
  LAW COMMISSIONERS
  LAW COMMISSIONERS
  BASIS FOR PENSION ARRANGEMENTS FOR CERTAIN COMMISSIONERS
  BASIS FOR PENSION ARRANGEMENTS FOR CERTAIN COMMISSIONERS

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester

LORD BEECHING
Richard Beeching, Esquire, having been created Baron Beeching, of East Grinstead in the County of Sussex, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

SCOTTISH LICENSING LAW
2.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take with regard to the recommendations of the Second Report of the Scottish Licensing Law Committee dated April 5, 1963 (Cmnd. 2021) and presented to Parliament in June, 1963.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement about the possibility of implementing the recommendations of this Report. Government legislation on the subject is not contemplated at present.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for a not very informative Answer, not entirely to my surprise. But might I tell him, to quote once again the words of a great man, Sir Winston Churchill, that while there may be an interval of time we trust there will be no delay.

THE SOUTH-EAST STUDY
2.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: 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 when a Statement can be expected relating to their review of the South-East Study; and whether, before being required to submit evidence to the Local Government Boundary Commission, local authorities in South-East England will be given adequate time to consider the implications of this review.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, this review is making very good progress, but it is a difficult and complex matter and it is not yet possible to say when a Statement can be made. A large part of South-East England, as defined for the purposes of the Study, has of course already been reviewed by the Local Government Boundary Commission. In so far as the Commission have still to examine this area, the procedure laid down in the Local Government Act, 1958, should give local authorities ample opportunity to put forward their views in the light of the review of the South-East Study.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Am I to assume that there will in fact be a Statement, as has been hinted in numerous speeches; that the Statement will not be long delayed, and that we shall be given ample opportunity of considering the implications of the report?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, a Statement will most certainly be made; just exactly when, I cannot give the noble Lord any indication now. It is quite clear that we recognise the difficulties some local authorities in this area must be suffering under as a result of this little delay, and we shall try to speed up the matter as quickly as is humanly possible having regard to the fact that a plan must fit into the national plan as a whole.
LORD COHEN OF BRIGHTON: My Lords, so far as this Study is concerned,

151
is it possible to expedite the hearing before the Boundary Commission, which is very relevant to the Question of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, because the delay is holding up any possibility of making a plan for the future of our towns in the South-East?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, of course this is a matter very largely for the Commission itself. It has had a considerable job, a big undertaking. So far as the counties immediately surrounding London are concerned—Essex, Hertfordshire, Surrey, West Sussex, East Sussex, Kent—the Boundary Commission will be starting to review this area, I would think, something around about six months from to-day. I am not quite sure of the date, of course; it is up to the Commission. But this will give ample opportunity for all the authorities in that area to consider the Government's Statement on it and then prepare their plans and proposals for the Commission.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, is my noble friend in a position to confirm the recently published statements in the Press, that the trend from the North to the South-East shows signs of being arrested?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this is an entirely different question. If my noble friend would care to put down a Question on the Order Paper, I should be happy to reply to it.

PROPOSED NEWMARKET BY-PASS
2.50 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: 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 when they are going to issue the Draft Order for the proposed Newmarket By-Pass, which is now a matter of great urgency, in view of the great build-up of traffic owing to the convergence, through the High Street of the town, of the two major roads A.11 and A.45.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, a draft Order under Section 7 of the Highways
152
Act, 1959, will be published as soon as the preparatory work has been completed. But priority must be given to other, more urgent needs.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him at about what time this draft Order will be laid?—because we were given to understand last year that it would be laid in the spring of this year. Until it is laid the weight of objections to the branch route cannot be fully ascertained, and until that is done we cannot, of course, get in the queue for the money required.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the ground survey is nearly completed. The soil mechanics are about to start on the soil survey. The draft Order will be published at about the end of the year or early in 1966. But even the publication date of the Order might be misleading because it might lead people to believe that this scheme has a higher priority, and I am afraid its priority is rather low.

SUPERSONIC FLIGHT: TRAINING OF CIVIL PILOTS
2.52 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what opportunities are available in the United Kingdom for civil pilots to gain experience in supersonic flight.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord has in mind the training of airline pilots to fly the Concord supersonic airliner. This aircraft will provide new experiences for these pilots—namely, handling during supersonic flight and, what is just as important, handling during the take off, approach and landing. The only directly relevant training that can be given is on the Concord itself and every opportunity will be taken to provide experience for the civil aviation pilots concerned. In the main, this will occur during the development flying of the prototypes and pre-production aircraft and, of course, during the route-proving

153
flights before the aircraft comes into public service. This will be backed, as with all new aircraft, by intensive training on simulators in accordance with well-proven techniques.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that full and informative reply. But does he not think that some valuable experience might be obtained by civil pilots, other than test pilots, flying military supersonic aircraft in order to get experience in supersonic flight prior to undergoing the kind of flying experience which the noble Lord described in his Answer? Is it not desirable that some selected civil pilots should be able to have this experience of supersonic flight as soon as possible?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's concern, but, frankly, I am afraid I do not agree with him on these points. The handling characteristics of modern aircraft during supersonic flights are not significantly different from the high-speed subsonic characteristics with which civil pilots are already familiar, and this minor expansion of their experience can be adequately obtained in the modern type of flight simulator with which the noble Lord is no doubt familiar. Of much greater importance is to provide experience on aircraft with characteristics similar to those expected from the Concord during take-off and landing. The only supersonic aircraft we have available in this country is the Lightning, which really would not be suitable for this. I can assure the noble Lord that going through the sound barrier in a Lightning is something that you do not notice except on the dials.

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, passed, and referred to the Commons.
MURDER (ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

THE INCREASE IN SERIOUS CRIME
2.56 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT rose to call attention to the grave disquiet felt throughout the country at the increase in serious crime; to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are contemplating in the near future to combat this increase; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was almost exactly a year ago to-day that we last discussed crime in general. It was on a Motion by the noble and learned Lord who now sits on the Woolsack, but at that time he was speaking from these Benches. The subject of that debate was crime and penal reform. On looking back afterwards on that most interesting debate, I came to the conclusion that it covered far too wide a field for a single debate. If your Lordships want proof of that, I would remind you that in winding-up for the Government on that occasion I had to make the longest speech that I have ever made in your Lordships' House.
I am quite aware that these two subjects, crime and penal reform, are intermingled, but it is perfectly possible, in discussion and in other ways, to separate them. Indeed, in my view it is most important that in the public mind they are separated. If they think about crime, the public consider the committing of crime, the daily fight against crime, what immediate steps are being taken to prevent crime, the catching of criminals and, of course, prison security. About that I shall have some more to say later. When it comes to penal reform they think of things like prisons, prison routines, borstals, the types of punishment and general reform of criminals. I think that the public are quite right in separating these two subjects in their mind, because, as your Lordships know, the solutions to crime in that sense are in the main, though not entirely, short-term solutions, because over the years the pattern of crime changes fairly rapidly; whereas of course, the solutions of potential reform questions are invariably a long-term matter.
I have chosen to deal with crime as the first part of this whole subject to-day, and I am quite certain that at some time

155
in the autumn we shall need to have a debate on penal reform. I have chosen crime for two reasons. The first is that crime affects directly all citizens—and I emphasise the word "directly"—whereas penal reform affects directly criminals and potential criminals. The second reason for choosing to deal with crime is that I am a little concerned to know how great is the Government's interest in this matter. It was quite noticeable in the last Parliament that week after week—I know, because I had to answer them—Questions were put to me on matters of penal reform. One seldom had a Question dealing with the increase of crime, as such, or with crime, as such. Occasionally, one got a question from the noble Lord, Lord Willis, purely on police matters; but apart from that, the then Opposition did not seem to take an enormous personal interest in the matter. Therefore, I thought that it would be better to deal with crime now and penal reform later, and perhaps today we can find out what the Government think on these matters.
So far, we have heard little or nothing from this Government about either prevention of crime or penal reform. It is true that we have recently passed through your Lordships' House the Firearms Bill which deals with one small, important aspect of crime, and I hope that that is going to be effective. But that is about all we have heard about crime from this Government, and it is about time we heard a little more.
The first part of my Motion refers to the grave disquiet—and I should have added the word "fear"—felt by the public at the increase in crime. I do not need to argue with your Lordships whether anxiety and fear exist on these matters, for we all know that they do exist; but perhaps I could spend a moment or two discussing whether the anxiety and fear are justified. On this particular aspect of the matter, I should like to quote the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who spoke in the debate on crime and penal reform, on July 15, 1964. One or two of his phrases will perhaps illustrate the situation. I refer to col. 247, and the following cols. of the OFFICIAL REPORT [Vol. 260.] Quite early in his speech he made this remark, about which I shall have some-
156
thing further to say later, with which I entirely agree:
"I think that crime does much more harm to the community than most people realise."
A little further on he went on to illustrate the financial aspect of it. He said:
"… the value of the property stolen in London in 1962 was £12½ million, of which only £2½ million worth was recovered." [Ibid.]
A little later on he said [col. 248]:
"The Director of the Institute of Criminology has recently hazarded the opinion (though I do not think he expressed it as more than a guess) that probably the crime known to the police represents only about 15 per cent. of the crime which exists …".
And later, in column 249, he said:
"Therefore, the first point I venture to make is that the amount of evil which crime does to a community tends to be underestimated …".
That pinpointed the anxiety and fear which was felt a year ago, but your Lordships know, from various Government statements, and in particular from various reports of chief constables all over the country, that this position has got very much worse, particularly as regards those types of crime which cause most anxiety to the citizen.
I am not going to quote a mass of figures to your Lordships. I want to refer to just two pages of the Criminal Statistics, 1963, which are the most recent statistics issued by the Home Office. As I am on that point, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to say when he comes to reply whether we are likely to get this year's Criminal Statistics a little earlier than we got last year's? The Home Office have now had a whole year to get used to their computer, and perhaps we can get back to as early a date as that on which the Home Office used to bring out the statistics before they had a computer.
I would refer your Lordships to the graphs in the pamphlet on pages xli and xlii. Those statistics deal with crime from 1938 to 1963 inclusive. I am not going to talk about the earlier statistics, because I do not think they are particularly important to us to-day. I will deal only with the statistics of the four years 1960 to 1963, because they relate to what is happening at the present time. The first graph deals with all indictable offences known to the police. In those four years, 1960 to 1963, the number of indictable offences rose from 750,000 to 970,000. The rise during

157
those four years was steeper than it had been at any period back to 1938. Dividing up that figure, the next graph deals with violence against the person. This crime causes enormous anxiety to the public in certain areas, but, as I hope to explain to your Lordships, I do not believe it is the type of crime which causes the most widespread anxiety. Crimes of violence against the person in those four years rose from 17,000 to 20,000. By far the steepest rise in that kind of crime occurred in the last two years of the period, 1962 and 1963. That type of crime appears to be increasing just as fast at present. On the same page there is a graph dealing with sexual offences. They run at the very high figure of 20,000 a year, but they do not appear to have increased ever since 1957. I can offer no explanation for that, and I am going to leave the matter.
I now come to the two offences which I believe cause more anxiety to the public than any others. The first is larceny, and the second, about which I shall have a great deal more to say later, is breaking and entering. The figures for the last four years in regard to larceny increased from 500,000 to 650,000, which is a quite astonishing rise. The figures for breaking and entering rose from 140,000 to 220,000. Breaking and entering and burglary are the crimes which I believe cause the most anxiety to the general public. I speak with some experience in this matter, because on that disastrous night which many of us regret, General Election night, while my wife and I were in Yorkshire, my house in London was burgled. It is a most unpleasant experience, to say the least of it, to come back to find one's house broken into—and my house is fairly well fortified against burglaries—and a tremendous amount of damage, doors smashed up, desks broken open, and a certain amount stolen, though not a great deal, as I do not keep much in the house. It gives one an unpleasant feeling to return home and find all one's things messed about like that. My wife is not a particularly nervous person, but until we had our fortifications strengthened she did not much like to be left alone in the house after dark, which happened occasionally.
This is a crime which I believe is one of the most difficult for the police, because it is so widespread, and is some-
158
times done by amateurs rather than by professional criminals. This is a matter about which the country will have to take some very urgent steps. The public are not going to stand this situation much longer. I would remind the House that only a few years ago most of us who lived in the country commonly left our front doors unlocked during the day. Nobody does it nowadays; and anybody who does is a fool. It has got as bad as that. It is not only in the towns where crime is increasing; it is happening all over the country.
I then come to the second part of my Motion, which is by far the most important part. It asks what Her Majesty's Government are thinking of doing about all this. I repeat that, so far, we have heard very little, or even nothing, about it. The Government have now been in office a considerable time, and it is time that we and the public found out what is in their minds.
I have two sets of questions to ask and I think the first batch will probably be answered by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, because they are essentially Home Office matters. I should like to know, first of all, how the Police Act is working. I shall have something more to say about the Police Act presently. It takes some time to implement, I know, but we should like to know how it is going on. It was probably the first measure in our life times which really tried to help the police to modernise; and, after all, dealing with this matter all comes down to the police. So I shall hope for a fairly full report from the noble Lord as to how this Act is working, and whether the Home Office have any further plans to assist the implementation of this Act.
I should also like to know from the noble Lord how police forces are getting on with switching police from jobs they need not do and putting those jobs on to civilians. There is far too much adherence to the old custom of "Police officers do this", when it is quite unnecessary, and I hope the noble Lord will have a good deal to say about that. I hope that he will also have something to say about the new probation and after-care service, particularly on the probation side which is part of the fight against crime.
I hope the noble Lord will have a great deal to say about the C.I.D. When one is burgled, and one talks to a detective or detective sergeant or somebody of that kind afterwards, one realises that unless the police are darned lucky, or it is a very big robbery which probably leads to one of several gangs, they have not got a hope of finding the burglar. One of the reasons is, of course, that the C.I.D. are too thin on the ground. I want to know from the noble Lord what is being done about the C.I.D. I believe it is functioning as it was meant to function about forty years ago. I do not say anything against the C.I.D. in this connection. There is not enough money for it—we know about that—but, on the other hand, if we spend money to catch the people who are breaking and entering or burgling, the country will save money in the long run.
I think there are various things that happen in police forces which are completely out of date. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the Home Office has yet considered the question of the promotion of detective officers. Many of these men—not all of them—are grossly overworked at the moment. If a man has been a very successful detective and has worked many hours' overtime, he probably has not had time to do much book work apart from his day-to-day job. Is it really necessary in this branch of the police service for a detective to take an exam, when his superior officers have probably seen him working for years at his particular job? They must know whether he is worth promotion. I agree that in the ordinary way exams are necessary, and they probably are in the uniformed branch, but I do not think it is fair to ask detectives to do a lot of book work when all their other work is fully known. I should like the noble Lord to say something on that subject.
The last of my questions to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is this. What are the Home Office doing about prison security? I do not think it is generally realised that the general system of security in secure prisons—those are the ones in which one keeps the really "bad hats"—was evolved not only in the horse-and-buggy age, but in the age when the régime for prisoners inside the prison was much
160
more severe and much more controlled. Owing to many prison reforms—and I am not arguing against those reforms as such—there is much more intermingling of prisoners, and there is much more visiting by outside people. Again I am not at this moment arguing whether that is a good or a bad thing, but it follows that if these reforms are in force prisons which were previously secure are no longer secure. In my view, it is not necessarily the system that is wrong but the actual prisons that are wrong.
When I was at the Home Office I went to visit a secure prison in the country. The buildings themselves were secure, and I think it would have been very difficult to get out of them. But the area around was the work area, and there had been one or two escapes through a wire fence. I am getting on now in age; I am not unduly fit; I am not so desperate as some of those men may have suddenly become; but I could have got over that wire in five minutes, and with another bit of wire which I could have twisted I could have got out in a shorter time by breaking the wire fence. That is not security.
Really, my Lords, what are the Home Office doing about security? I know that this has been a long-term problem, but it has been highlighted. Have any additional security measures been taken between the time Wilson escaped and the escape the other day? When I say "security measures", I do not mean sending a man from prison to prison. What I mean is, is any watch kept outside the prison? Is any watch kept from the top of the walls? In many American secure prisons there are watchtowers on the walls. I am told that this was considered a bad thing by certain reformers, because it gave people the impression that they were inside prison when they were inside prison. I should have thought that that was difficult to avoid. But the effect in America, I am informed, is that the prison officer who is not doing his turn on the wall, watching outside and in, can then get on with his proper job of looking after prisoners, either in the workshops or in other places.
In this country nothing seems to have been done in that direction, and it is in the last two years (I know that discussions were going on inside the Home Office)

161
that these escapes have become profoundly disturbing, not only because of the two train robbers, but because there have been far too many escapes. One must expect occasional escapes from open prisons, when a faulty judgment is made about the men sent there, but on the whole the system works very well. But these men have been escaping from secure prisons, and these prisons are no longer secure. They were built for an old-time criminal element, with different crafts at their disposal, and I think the country will want to know a good deal about them from the noble Lord to-day.
The only other thing I have to do, is to ask certain questions which I imagine will be answered by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I would refer, first of all, to the speech which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner made at the close of the debate a year ago. He was complaining that he thought there was not enough urgency at the Home Office. He said:
"What happens in this field depends not merely on good intentions but on how much drive there is in the House Office."
Then a little later he went on to say:
"On the other hand, at present, as we well understand, when a Government is at ten minutes to twelve "—
and I suppose that he was referring to the late Government—
"it would be unnatural to expect any particular drive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, VOI. 260, cots. 365–6, July 15, 1964.]
May I just for one moment remind the House of what happened when the last Government was "at ten minutes to twelve"—or even slightly later? There was a series of small Bills dealing with particular aspects of crime, either for enforcement officers or for the police. Your Lordships will remember that they dealt with purple hearts, clip-joints and so on, and I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, was rather scathing about the fact that they were small Bills. The fact remains that I am told that they had the desired effects. Also at "ten minutes to twelve", we passed through Parliament, against great opposition from noble Lords opposite, a major Bill which I believe to be the most important Bill in the fight against crime that has been passed in our life-time. That was the Police Act. It was the first serious effort to enable the police to modernise themselves, apart from other things, and it will take some time to implement that Act.
What I want to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House is: what are the Government now intending to do in view of the crime situation that I have described? Are there any administrative steps that they intend to take? Have they any legislation, large or small, in mind? We have had the Firearms Bill—that is a good beginning—but have they anything else? I think that we and the public are entitled to know. I wonder how much the noble Earl will be able to tell us. It will be interesting to hear. What we want to know is: what are the Government's plans? Or am I perhaps being a little unfair in asking what the Government's plans are? It may be that the Government believe what I think most of the country now hopes: that the Government are themselves at "five minutes to twelve". My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am sure we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for having given us the opportunity to debate this very serious matter this afternoon. I feel quite sure that all noble Lords will agree that Lord Derwent is quite right when, in the wording of his Motion, he says that grave disquiet is felt throughout the country at the increase in serious crime. I shall not be able even to attempt to deal with this large subject comprehensively, because I feel very much that I am speaking in the shadow of yesterday's debate, and I want to try to impose upon myself that ten-minute rule of which I think your Lordships seemed strongly in favour yesterday. Incidentally, I do not know whether it is cumulative; so that if you took only one minute yesterday you are entitled to 19 minutes this afternoon, but I shall not take the risk.
I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dement, in many things, but in one thing I shall not follow him, because I do not propose to attack the Government this afternoon. What I propose to do is to say a few words about one crime—that is, the crime of stealing in its many forms, which I believe to be the great scourge. I think that all the other crimes in the calendar added up together are not responsible for half the amount of human misery that stealing in its various forms creates. If I could begin with one of the more serious forms, robbery with violence, I would venture to suggest that

163
some Trevelyan of a future age, writing his Social History of England in the Twentieth Century, will say something like this:
"They still carried vast sums of money through the streets in banknotes and in coin of the realm for the purpose of paying factory workers on pay days."
I feel quite sure that this is a ludicrous practice, really; that we have got to overcome it in some way, and that we shall overcome it. I cannot pretend to be able to prophesy in quite what way we are going to overcome it.
I am sorry that the banks do not seem very helpful in this regard. The banks do not give the impression that they are particularly anxious to have the current accounts of factory workers. I remember reading in the Financial Times some time ago a Metter written by a carpenter who was working in a factory, who said that the only time he ever saw a bank with its doors open was during his fortnight's summer holiday. And we are told now that the banks are going to restrict their opening hours still further. In that way they are going still further to discourage working people from opening bank accounts and acquiring the banking habit, and I think this is very much to be regretted. We are sometimes told that most people can get to a hank during their lunch hour, but I always fail to see why they should. I thought that the purpose of the lunch hour was to have lunch. Why should people be expected to bolt their lunch in order to rush to the bank, and have hiccoughs for the rest of the afternoon? I think this is quite wrong.
To turn to the householder and the shopkeeper, and their battle against theft, I should like to say first of all that I think we cannot in the immediate future expect very much more help from the police, who we all realise are understaffed and overworked to a very great extent at the present time. But this is the age of "Do-it-yourself", and householders and shopkeepers can do for themselves a great deal more than they are doing at the present time to win the battle against theft. Take, first of all, the householder. There are, of course, the obvious precautions of which I think most people are now aware, largely thanks to the B.B.C., who are constantly putting out warnings over the radio to people who
164
are about to go away on holiday—such as not letting the newspapers and the milk pile up on the doorstep. But there are two other points I should like to mention—although I am sorry to think that possibly neither of these matters would have helped the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, on General Election night, which, of course, was a double disaster to the noble Lord.
The first of them is something which has been advocated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, for a great many years, and it is this. If only people would remember to lock the doors of the rooms which they do not use, that would tend to contain the housebreaker within the one room into which he breaks. If he breaks in by a window, then, unless he is a very determined character, he is going to be contained within the one room. Furthermore, he is going to have to leave by that same window, which I understand housebreakers do not like doing; they much prefer to slip out unobtrusively by the back door. The second matter is this: I wish we followed the excellent practice of our ancestors and fitted shutters to the windows of our houses. Shutters make an excellent burglar protection, and they have one other great advantage, too. In these days, when we are so conscious of heat insulation, thermal insulation, the first thing we do is to insulate the ceiling over the top floor, but the next thing we ought to attend to is the heat lost through the windows. I believe that if shutters were fitted to modern houses the cost of the shutters would very quickly he retrieved by savings in fuel hills for domestic heating; and, for the rest of the lifetime of that house, there would be an excellent, free burglar protection in the form of shutters over the windows.
Finally, my Lords, a word about the shopkeeper and his battle against the shoplifter. I know that this is a problem for shopkeepers nowadays in this age of self-service. That is an excellent system, but it much increases the chances of the shoplifter. I have seen grotesque examples of ill-attention to this matter on the part of shopkeepers, and I should like to give one instance. About 50 yards from Piccadilly Circus, on the South side of Piccadilly, is a catering establishment run by one of the largest catering establishments in England. It consists of a shop in the front and a tea-shop and a

165
Café at the back. The shop is run on the self-service system. It sells cakes of all kinds and confectionery, and these things are set out upon open shelves. The customers select from the shelves what they like and take them to the counter and pay for them.
When the shop in the front closes at about 6 o'clock in the evening, one might suppose that the shop assistants, before they went home, would either clear the merchandise off the shelves or else would erect some form of screening in front of the shelves—but not at all. The cakes, chocolates and sweets lie on the shelves for the next four hours, during which time the café at the back is open and there is a constant stream of customers of the caféouring in and out of the shop past the things on the open shelves.
I do not know whether if you helped yourself to a few things off those shelves you would be noticed by one of the customers sitting at the nearest table, or whether that customer would do something about it. What is certain is that no member of the staff would notice, because the focal point of the café is right at the far end of the shop. I suppose that such petty pilfering as I refer to is hardly within the terms of this debate, but I have a nasty feeling that the petty pilfering of to-day which goes unchecked may turn into the serious crime of to-morrow. I should have thought that a great organisation which almost goes out of its way to throw temptation in front of shoplifters was doing itself no good service and was doing the community no good service. I wish that great organisation which runs that excellent catering establishment would not pursue this practice in the way it does.
3.31 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the House is greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for this opportunity to discuss the extremely serious and constant increase in crime. We are faced with the unhappy fact that, judged by the figures, 1964 was the worst year for crime on record: a total of 1,066,467 indictable offences known to the police—9 per cent. more than in 1963. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, asked me about the publication of the
166
figures for 1964. I would remind him that the figures for indictable offences were published on May 24, and it is planned to publish the full volume in November, one month earlier than last year. It would have been earlier but for the teething troubles we experienced with the computer when it was in the inexperienced hands of the noble Lord last year.
LORD DERWENT: I hope that the noble Lord has himself taken a course.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is now part of common practice in the Home Office.
The noble Lord also said that the public are not going to stand for this state of affairs much longer. I can very much sympathise with that point of view, for we are all members of the public; but I would mention to the noble Lord, as gently as I possibly can, that all the figures, the deplorable figures, that he quoted were for the period when his own Party were in office. I do not wish to make a Party point about this because we are all in this together. There is great public concern and anxiety about this problem, and it is on that basis that I propose to discuss it.
I do not intend to analyse the figures, but because of a point that I shall be making later I would emphasise now, as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, with whose speech I was wholly in agreement (it will be studied with the greatest interest, and I shall be dealing in full with it later) that nine out of every ten offences in this one million-plus total were crimes of larceny or breaking and entering, and that a big proportion of them were preventable. Nor do I intend to discuss the related subject of the causes of crime, supremely important though that is. But my noble friend the Leader of the House will have something to say on this and other related subjects, such as the probation and after-care service, because these cannot be divorced from consideration of the subject of the incidence of crime. But I believe that, within the terms of the Motion before the House and of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, your Lordships would wish me to concentrate on the steps which we are taking to aid the police—our front-line troops in the war against crime—in their efforts to deflate,

167
defeat and, if possible, destroy this ugly, vicious monster which waxes in our midst.
But before looking at what is being done I will answer Lord Derwent's question about the implementation of the Police Act 1964. I very much regretted to hear the noble Lord say that this was passed in the teeth of vigorous opposition from my Party. When a Party allows a major Bill to go through without dividing on the Second Reading one can hardly call that vicious opposition. It is true that we tried, not altogether successfully, to improve the Bill during the Committee and other stages; but there was a great deal about it that we welcomed. Your Lordships will recall that last November, in the debate on the Address, I gave an assurance, and I am now glad to be able to tell your Lordships that the whole task of implementation of the 1964 Act was completed on June 1 last. This was a major task, although an unspectacular one.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, forgive me for interrupting. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. The implementation of the mechanics were finished, as I think the noble Lord means. But, of course, the implementation of the Act does not rest entirely with the Government: it rests to some extent with the police forces themselves.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I did not think it necessary to tell such an erudite gathering as your Lordships that obviously some of the effects of the Police Act will not be realised for a decade or so. What I meant was that in the administrative sense, in so far as Acts of Parliament can change things, the whole of the Act has been implemented.
The Act has provided a framework against which measures of modernisation and expansion can take place. It is, of course, in its own right an important consolidating measure; but it has made many real advances of substance, of which I have time to mention only a few. It has strengthened the powers of the Secretary of State to make compulsory amalgamations when he is satisfied that this is justified in the interests of police efficiency; it makes important changes in the procedure for dealing with com-
168
plaints against the police—and I would mention that, under the enabling powers in the Act, a complete new code of discipline for our police has been instituted with the agreement of all the interested associations. We have introduced an entirely new consolidated set of police regulations, and police authorities have been reconstituted on the lines recommended by the Royal Commission in accordance with Part I of the Act. I would extend on behalf of the Government grateful thanks to the local authority and service associations for the way they have helped us in the implementation of the Act. You cannot expect everyone to agree about everything where the field is so large, and I know that there was a good deal of dissatisfaction with the requirement that magistrates should comprise one third of the new watch committees. But over the whole field I am glad to say that there has been really heartening co-operation between all concerned.
I now come to the work and disposition of the police forces, and it may be convenient if I consider this under the five heads: (1) manpower; (2) the efficiency of their deployment and organisation; (3) fuller employment of police officers on strictly police duty, about which the noble Lord asked me particularly; (4) the use of scientific aids and modern methods; and, (5) the vitally important subject of crime prevention.
First, the subject of manpower. The stark fact is that we have not nearly enough men for the job, and we have to solve the problem, in a world of very full employment and rising living standards, of recruiting enough men of the requisite physical and educational standards who are willing to tackle and stay in a demanding, disciplined, often dangerous job, which calls for inconvenient and often long hours, shift work, working week-ends and holidays, and the likelihood of a report if you talk straight to a motorist who has dined over-well. It is not easy, especially as the increasing population, great growth of motor traffic, the incidence of crime, and the unceasing activity of Parliament in creating new offences, make more work for the police than ever before. Nevertheless we are making progress. Our recruitment campaign this year is showing encouraging results: 3,576 recruits during the first five

169
months of this year. After allowing for those who left, the net increase in strength was 1,207 in five months. That is almost four times as many as last year in the same period.
Part of our appeal has been aimed at the better-educated young man. We have recently taken special steps to keep in touch with universities and schools to ensure that full information about the opportunities and rewards of a police career is available to careers advisers, parents, undergraduates and senior schoolboys. Success in the fight against crime requires not only enough policemen, but also enough young officers of high ability to be the future leaders of a police service which looks to its own ranks to provide the top men. In the modern police service no young man, however able, need fear that his abilities will not be fully stretched, or that his efforts will not receive the recognition they deserve. We are taking steps to break down the mistaken belief that if a sixth-former or a graduate joins the police, he will not be making full use of his education. But building up the strength of the police is a relatively gradual process, and it is particularly difficult in the big cities where the shortage of men is most severe, especially in the detective departments as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, mentioned.
When my right honourable friend addressed the annual conference of the Police Federation this year, he drew special attention to the fact that the Metropolitan Police have to-day 500 fewer men than in 1920, whereas in the rest of England and Wales the strength had increased in the same period from 35,284 to 60,541, which is getting on towards double the number. It is for this reason that the Police Council, the national negotiating body for the police service, has been giving close attention to the needs of undermanned forces, with special reference to the Metropolitan Police. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will agree that it does not help the negotiators if we comment while they are still discussing the issues, and I can only tell your Lordships that at the last meeting the Official Side made an offer to increase the present small London allowance and to institute an additional undermanning allowance for those larger forces with very substantial deficiencies.
170
The Staff Side regard this offer as inadequate, and the matter will be further considered at next week's meeting of the Council, when I hope that we shall make some progress.
My Lords, the British public, fed on a consistent diet of "Z Cars" and "No Hiding Place", is accustomed to a 100 per cent. detection rate with every crime solved in 55 minutes flat—47 minutes if you allow for the advertisements. But there is a great difference between dealing with one crime a week on T.V., and a single detective, using the same methods, and even some new ones not yet shown on the screens, but dealing with an annual case-load of hundreds of real life criminals who show an unfortunate and un-T.V.-like reluctance to co-operate. We have long been conscious of the over-loading of the C.I.D. In Birmingham, for example, the detective force, has been increased by 50 per cent. since 1953; but this has been overmatched by a 200 per cent. increase in the number of crimes committed during the same period. Under these conditions the surprise is not that the unsatisfactory 39·6 per cent. detection rate in 1964 was so low but that it was as high as it was, and that the number of arrests has acutally gone up very substantially—from 80,000 in 1953 to 148,000 in 1963—and it is still increasing. We owe these results to an inadequate force of overworked officers to whom I send a message of appreciation and support, in which I know your Lordships will join.
I come to the vitally important question of the efficient deployment and organisation of the police forces as a whole, in the national sense. At present we are dealing in England and Wales with 122 separate police forces, some large, some quite small. Under the 1964 Act the Home Secretary has power to promote the amalgamation of police areas when he is satisfied that this will be in the interests of efficiency, and we welcome the voluntary amalgamation of five police areas in East Anglia, the first amalgamation under the Act. Others are on the way. No doubt your Lordships will know the extent of the opposition, the tooth and nail opposition, which arises in and out of Parliament whenever we propose amalgamation. We are making progress, but we shall still be left with a large number of separate

171
forces, and this heavily underlines the importance of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in the organisation of the whole force. With the recent increase in inspectors and staff the inspectorate are in a far better position to perform the tasks which the Royal Commission on the Police visualised for them—and not only to assess the efficiency of the police forces, but also to act as a channel between the central organisation of research and development and the separate forces, paying particular attention to the need for co-operation between forces and dissemination of knowledge of the most successful methods.
Vigorous measures are being taken, both centrally and by individual forces, to improve efficiency, particularly in the field of crime detection. One of these is the Home Office Police Research and Planning Branch, which is giving close attention to the study of new techniques to enable the police to deal promptly and effectively with changes in the pattern of crime and in the behaviour of criminals. The Branch is staffed with police officers and scientists, working side by side, and a recent increase in their numbers will enable the branch to make a still more effective contribution. The noble Lord asked what we are doing. All these are recent changes. Already the fruits of their labours are apparent.
Another thing we did only three-months ago was to form the regional crime squads. It was a bold and imaginative conception. There are nine squads, covering the nine police districts of England and Wales, and we have seconded to them a total of 600 experienced detectives. These regional crime squads have no case-load, and with them it is the criminal rather than the crime that is investigated. The supreme advantage of the regional crime squads is that their activities are not confined to police boundaries. They can, and do, cross the frontiers. Already they are chalking up an impressive record, and success has been achieved by using those assets peculiar to them.
I can illustrate this best by giving an example of their work. A criminal escaped from prison, and members of a regional crime squad kept observation on the home of his relatives. They noticed that a man using various makes of car
172
was visiting the house, and identified him as a man who had served a sentence with the escaped criminal. They suspected that the two men were responsible for a series of safe blowing offences, and information regarding the men and particulars of vehicles they used were circulated to various police districts. As a result, a uniformed officer, from a quite different area, reported that the men had rented a cottage and were spending large sums of money. The crime squad identified them. The cottage was entered and both men arrested. One of them proved to be the escaped prisoner, although he had grown a beard and dyed his hair. They were both found guilty of a number of safe blowing exploits in two counties and were sentenced to substantial terms of imprisonment.
When I mention one case of the recapture of a criminal escaping from prison your Lordships will think at once of a more spectacular case fresh in all our minds, about which I will, as asked, say a few words. There is in my experience no single subject which causes prison governors and their staffs more constant concern, or demands more unceasing vigilance, than the possible escape of their charges. It is true that we are dealing with a totally new and unprecedented situation in this country and that we are housing our men, in the most part, in prisons built up to a hundred years ago; but I would not have it thought for one moment that we are not adjusting to this new situation. Let us, please, have an understanding of what we mean when we talk about escapes. The noble Lord referred to the increase in the number of escapes. He is quite right. In 1963 it was about 40 per cent. up on 1962, and the 1964 figures will show a similar increase. It is quite a serious matter.
From most open prisons, of course, escapes are virtually walk-outs, and even a man in a closed prison, if he waits long enough, may eventually get away from an outside working party, if he is prepared to pay the penalties that follow almost inevitable recapture. This, however, most certainly does not apply to the train robbers, who are not merely "A" Class men, but extra "A" in terms of the surveillance imposed on them. No two train robbers are in the same prison. Their cells are changed frequently. At night they are deprived of clothing and

173
the interior of their lighted cells is under observation. We have not got the sentence of death on these men. There are limits to what we can do, because prisons are communities where men have to live, work, eat, walk and sometimes talk. Although they are under constant supervision, this must apply even to the train robbers. They are allowed, under prison Rules, to write and receive censored letters. They receive visits, always with a prison officer present and in hearing. It is virtually impossible for an outsider to make direct communication with them, without the knowledge of prison officials, Equally, it is virtually impossible completely to prevent any form of communication with other prisoners and, through them, with ex-prisoners. And this doubtless was the channel used by the escape pang to warn Biggs that he was to be "sprung". A thorough review has been made and we are taking all additional safeguards, which experience shows to be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, asked me what has been done and mentioned the American system. I understand that the American system is the all-electric system, as compared with our custodial system, depending on prison officers.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, with great respect. I do not think that the noble Lord is quite right on that. It concerns in part the actual buildings, not electrical devices.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am just coming to that point. I want to emphasise that we place major reliance—and a not misplaced reliance—on our prison officers, but as your Lordships know, a special security block is to be built on the Isle of Wight adjoining the new prison at Albany in order to cater for men, including such men as the train robbers, who will have to be kept in prison for very long periods of time. This accommodation will not only be of an exceptionally secure kind, but there will be a much higher staffing ratio than is considered necessary even in present-day recidivist security prisons. In addition to the new block at Albany, special units are being prepared in three other prisons, two of which are now ready for occupation, to deal with men who are high escape risks, whatever the length of their sentence. These special self-contained units within a prison involve the use of modern
174
technical devices and close collaboration with the police.
Once a man is over the wall, it is a job for the police. With Biggs, the elaborately planned get-away succeeded—at least for the moment. It is now a case of watching ports and air terminals, and working overtime with the under and above ground sources of information open to the police, and looking for anything unusual, as they did in Somerset, where at Taunton the other day they picked up clothing, which is being investigated and on which I cannot yet give your Lord-ships the forensic report, although the matter is being pressed forward. We have had a lot of suggestions made to us, some in the newspapers, some elsewhere, and constructive suggestions are always welcome. Nothing would be more profitable from the Parliamentary point of view than for me to go through the suggestions that have been made, to say which of them are already in operation, which are impracticable for this or that reason, or which are being taken up. Unfortunately, it is the enemies of society who would profit most from such an exercise. I am sure, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that it would be wholly wrong if I were to disclose what is being done in this difficult task of apprehending Biggs and those who escaped with him. It is certainly a top priority job and one into which every ounce of ingenuity and effort is being put.
I come to my third point—namely, the steps we are taking to ensure the employment of police officers on police duties and not as typists, telephonists and tea boys. The introduction of traffic wardens, not only to police parking meters but on traffic duties, is an example of the relief we are giving to the police on outside duties. The number of wardens has been almost doubled in the last two years. Civilian mechanics for vehicle maintenance is another example. Their use is growing, though handicapped by the fact that we have to compete with industry for scarce labour. The same applies to civilian clerks and typists, but we are encouraging civilian recruitment and transfer of appropriate functions as far as possible. Every civilian who takes over a station job now done by a police officer is putting another man on the beat. Office equipment has in the past often been grossly inadequate and we have been trying to remedy this and encouraging

175
the use of such equipment as dictaphones. This is hardly demonstrable by statistics, but H.M. Inspectors of Constabulary are constantly urging the introduction of new office equipment on a big scale. It is unpardonable waste if the lack of efficient tools halves the effectiveness of an experienced officer whose full effort is needed in the war against crime.
With regard to the use of scientific aids to crime detection, the Police Research and Planning Branch is urgently considering the use of computers for police purposes. A separate specialised unit, the Home Office and Metropolitan Police Joint A.D.P. Planning Unit, is studying the feasibility of using computers for police and aliens records work. Earlier this year, members of the Unit visited the U.S.A. and Canada to study the use made of computers by their police forces. This team is being expanded from 5 members to 17. We are also investigating the possibility of applying computers to the identification of fingerprints. If we are successful, the aids to detection will be very great. What we need is a method of classifying a single fingerprint so that it can be automatically scanned and searched in the main ten-finger collection at New Scotland Yard. I do not wish to suggest that we are on the eve of finding a solution, but we are hopeful.
Indeed, over the whole scientific field, from electronics to radio, we are looking for machines and methods which will speed and aid the work of detection and, when we find them, we shall employ them. For example, we have 1,700 walkie-talkie radio sets. We want a pocket-size set. We have not got it yet, though we have had extended field trials for it; but because of our impatiences in this matter we have ordered 1,000 sets of the three standard types, which will all be delivered by the autumn and distributed according to police strengths in the districts. But we shall find what we want through our field trials, and order it and get it, and it will be of enormous assistance to the ordinary police constable in the efficient performance of his duties. We have also had the assistance of the scientists at Aldermaston, where scientists are carrying out a full-scale investigation into the identification of suspects by minute hairs from the head. These are just some of the things that are being done.
176
Finally, I come to the fifth theme I put before the House, the very important question of the co-operation of the police and the people in crime prevention. I mentioned earlier that in 1964 some nine-tenths of the indictable offences known to the police came under the headings of larceny or breaking and entering. To be precise, the figure was 937,784—a great slice out of our million-plus. Beyond question a large proportion of these crimes would never have been committed if people had taken reasonable care of their property. For example, there were 171,088 thefts from vehicles last year, well over 3,000 a week, simply because in the large majority of cases people just did not bother to lock their cars. And few thieves go to the trouble of breaking into a car anyway unless valuables are left in full view.
The moral is clear. Both police and public have a vital part to play in preventing crime. The Home Office attaches the greatest importance to this work and the Government have to-day decided to launch, this autumn, a national publicity campaign to impress upon the public how necessary their co-operation is, and to show them the ways in which they can best help the police and themselves by safeguarding their property. A great amount of police time is taken up by the investigation of crimes which could be prevented by sensible public action, and if the public could be induced to help itself more than it does, this would really be of the greatest importance from the point of view of liberating police-men to do their proper job.
In view of the gravity of the situation, it has been decided that the sum of £150,000 should be made available for his special campaign now. This is the largest campaign of the kind ever projected. It will be directed to all sections of the community, and Press, radio and television publicity will be used to supplement posters and other materials. I do not doubt that the help of police authorities and forces throughout the country will be readily offered to us, and we shall be saying more about this to them very soon.
Already there is a network of specialists in crime prevention throughout the country who will be able to help onward this national publicity; many forces now

177
have a senior officer devoting all his time to it, and in the larger forces there is a specialist officer in every division. But there is only so much the police can do. We, the general public, so far as the bulk of crimes are concerned, are the people concerned who can do most to solve the problem of rising crime in this country—and we are not doing nearly enough. And I mean every member of the public, rich and poor, child or adult. To take just one example, if children can be taught to padlock their bicycles they will save many hours of police time, and prevent much heartache for themselves. And this one example could be multiplied a thousand times over the whole field of crime. If everyone in this country took as a matter of habit a few simple precautions, such as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, mentioned, it would be a great help, because the average criminal is not particularly clever or persistent; but he knows how to exploit weakness, and it is very often we ourselves who show him a weak spot that he takes advantage of. It is true that there are the much smaller number of skilled professional criminals whose exploits fill the headlines. It is against this type that the more sophisticated and modern methods, some of which I have mentioned, are being deployed and they are likely to be increasingly successful.
My Lords, I have examined the main lines we are pursuing in the prevention and detection of crime. But we must all realise that this is a critical time so far as the police service of this country is concerned. The Royal Commission, the 1964 Act, and the comprehensive follow-up action that has been taken have given us a new structure. We now have to make efficient and imaginative use of it in meeting problems of crime which are overwhelming in scale, as it is in all the great industrialised countries. No one looking at the problem, which is very largely that of coming to terms with our complicated and demanding civilisation, will feel that the solution can be an easy one. It is a campaign that we have to fight on many fronts, of which the police front is only one, although it is the hottest front of all. The policeman, almost alone, is expected to overpower a brutal criminal one moment, and to act as an understanding social worker the next. He is expected to combine patience and
178
ingenuity to a quite extraordinary extent. And he does, and must, depend fundamentally on the support of the public in this matter.
The Government's attitude—and here I am answering the noble Lord's direct question—is neither apologetic nor complacent, but deadly earnest and determined. The police are at the receiving end of everything and striving gallantly and ceaselessly to cope. This House and the nation has the right to express criticism and concern, but even more this House and the nation has the duty to co-operate with and support the police in their heavy task. If this debate helps to achieve the fulfilment of that duty it will have been supremely worthwhile.
4.6 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I crave your Lordships' indulgence in addressing you for the first time. I have not previously addressed such an august assembly, my main speeches so far having been made to councils of the rural district in which I lived in the past. I address your Lord-ships in no contentious manner, but merely as a quite humble person exercising his right, like all citizens, to be worried. I have been most reassured to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, telling us of so much of what the Government are doing, which in many ways is a continuation of what the late Government were doing.
We are, I think, living in an age of moral decline. At the same time, speaking simply, I am still amazed at how much honesty there is all around one, in any place to which one goes. Often, if you leave behind a cigarette case or something in a wayside café or somewhere else, someone will run after you and say: "You have left this behind". Then there is the loyalty which criminals display to each other, which in itself is a good thing; and this loyalty must be harnessed to education. Prevention and punishment come into this, too.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention quite briefly to a few points on prevention, which I hope you will agree is the most important aspect, because it will enable the police to concentrate on their real duties of catching the criminals, and will enable costs to be cut down. In this day and age, children are being educated better and

179
faster. We know about their I.Q.s, and they are encouraged. The Army, the Air Force, the Navy and industry are educating people to all sorts of technical possibilities which would have amazed past generations. At the same time, we are living in an age where luxury and comforts exist to a degree where they can be enjoyed by all. We know that the Jones family has to be kept up with, and it is, indeed, an unhappy man who cannot give his wife and his children what he thinks they want. This leads, in certain cases, to a desire to get something for nothing, if the man is not able to do it by the sweat of his brow and by honest work.
This is a state that is hard to deal with, and education is the obvious answer. The noble Lord opposite, speaking on another subject recently, talked about "being with it"; and he said he was not over-impressed by this epithet and was not taken by the idea. "Being with it" has come to have many meanings, and in many people's eyes it seems to be a general debunking of standards which have been upheld in the past—namely, the standards of religion and of morals: everything in authority is something to be laughed at. Intellectuals on television and on the wireless pamper to this, and we all listen with amusement. Yet, at the same time, it must have a very warping influence on young people, listening to this continual debunking of all which has been, and ought to be, respected. Therefore, one has to ask that all people in authority should encourage the television companies to do their best to discourage the worst form of this debunking. The lack of control by parents, and the control of children in school are points with which your Lordships are all familiar, and I do not intend to deal with those.
That leads me, on the question of prevention, to the aspect concerning the security of premises. Here I must declare an interest. I have been concerned, for many years, and am still, with a large security organisation. While on this subject, I would mention that these security organisations never think of themselves, and do not like the idea of being thought of, as in any way taking the place of the police. They are simply auxiliaries doing things for individuals and com-
180
panies which they would, or should, otherwise do for themselves. I say this very feelingly, because often one has heard: "Oh, yes, you think of yourselves as police" But no security company I have known does this. They are helping people to guard their organisations, and I think the police are grateful to know that so many people, who have been screened, are doing a job of work, making their job easier.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who raised the point that banks were not being particularly co-operative in helping the workers of this country with wage packets to open bank accounts. This is due to the state of mind of the individuals. All the unions have given consent, and the banks have in principle, to payment by cheque, money order, or in any other way in which it can be done. One big concern in Oxfordshire tried for a fortnight, with every sort of educational film and "gimmick" which your Lordships can imagine, to persuade the workers to open bank accounts. The banks were willing to open a bank on the premises. After two weeks hard, intensive application of this sort, only 5 per cent. of the factory workers opted for it; and after two more months all but a mere handful had asked to go back to being paid in cash. The solution to this problem depends on the individual man. If he will take his money by cheque, everyone will be happy.
The co-operation of the public and industry is essential. When you get the public helping each other, all is well. The public must be taught to help the police; and industry must put its house in order. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to some recommendations which have been made in a place called Oakdale in California. I must apologise to your Lordships, because I do not know exactly how large this community is, but I expect that, being out there, it will be quite a considerable size. An interesting recommendation has been made by the authorities there to empower the police to go into premises and make suggestions which have to be carried out. This has cut down the incidence of crime in Oakdale. Perhaps there is scope here for examining the feasibility of a study group to go into this sort of problem.

181
Some things are already being done. I think I am right in saying that the Chief Constable of Hampshire, for instance, said, in May of this year that his force, by voluntary arrangement with people and firms, had carried out over 2,000 inspections of premises in the Isle of Wight. His report was rather interesting. He said that 70 per cent. had adopted the police suggestions, 20 per cent. had partially adopted them, and 10 per cent. had totally disregarded them—they were too mean, too short-sighted. Now there you have direct inducement to crime. That is what should be discouraged by all Parties. Thinking about this, I wonder whether it would be possible for the Government to give some sort of aid to property owners, merchants and shopkeepers, to bring their security arrangements up to standard. This could lead to economy, in that the police forces would not be needed so much; because, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, prevention by making your premises secure is really the ideal answer.
Penal reform has done nothing to prevent the creation of criminality in the first place; therefore the Government must seek to identify and eliminate the conditions which breed this criminality. This will take time. Therefore it is the short-term solution which we are after. Responsible organisations, such as the Press and Television, which I have mentioned already, and education in schools, must be used to protect the police from continual sniping. Is enough being done? Are the leaders of our great Parties really protecting the police enough? When I was small, the policeman was still a friendly figure to all people. Is he still? An interesting little book has been published recently called Nick of Notting Hill, written by Antony Richardson, about P.C. Nixon of the Metropolitan Police and what he did to help in that area. Many of the things he did were outside his official working time. He became friendly with the children in Notting Hill, and this did a great deal of good. When the children regard the police as their friends, you are halfway to winning this war—and it is a war.
I would mention one difficulty now, with some slight anxiety, because I do not want my remarks to be taken wrong. I got this information from friends of mine who have been in the police force.
182
They told me that they are very worried by difficulties which are put in the way of the police force by illegal procedures. They feel that the changes of Judges' Rules—I do not deem to judge whether they are right or wrong—have made their task more difficult. They consider that their task is to get at the truth. It is now hard to do this. One eminent ex-policeman said to me. "We must all support the letter of the law, but in my experience it has always been essential to bend that letter a little bit. "In the last war, which most of your Lordships went through, this was often found to be true—that "bending the letter a little bit" is sometimes essential. If it gets bent too much, we must accept that fact and do our best to stop it, but not have a howl against the whole of the police force. These are exceptions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, said recently that we cling to a sentimental and sporting attitude of liberty before the promotion of justice. Safeguards must be necessary for the innocent, and the police at the same time should have the right to demand that the path they tread must be clearly defined to lead to a just result for the community. At the moment, suspected people can refuse all information, even their names, before they are cautioned and warned that they may have their solicitors and advisers present. This makes it very hard for the police. I do not know whether this is in itself essential. I merely say that these policemen feel that it is hard on them. In the same way witnesses can almost refuse to give any information at all. Again, this makes it hard for the police.
Turning to recruitment of the police, I was pleased to see that the Home Secretary had said that in 1964 6,000 recruits had been taken on, and I think he said that this year we are doing better. This is good news, and what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said was good news as well. As to better educated police, last November what is known as a reputable Sunday newspaper stated that of the 75,000 policemen serving only 28 had attended university and not all of those had graduated. We hope that in the next few decades the picture will be quite different. One point I have noted in regard to the police is that the great wastage that occurs is chiefly due to the

183
policemen's wives disliking the enormous amount of night work that has to be done. Here, again, we come back to the point of greater security of premises leading to fewer break-ins, and therefore fewer police would be needed. It all goes round in a circle.
One matter concerning the police which has not been mentioned is that they now face greater dangers. May I give a few more figures? In 1964 in the London area there were 172 indictable offences committed with firearms, and outside London there were 559 such indictable offences. These are terrifying figures. The control of firearms is obviously essential. The police must be made happy, and I hope the Government will be able to give a lead in encouragement to the public for the better securing of premises.
4.23 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, it is my pleasure to express, on behalf of your Lordships, my congratulations to the noble Lord who has just spoken, on a really remarkable maiden speech. It showed that in this complex subject he has drawn a great deal on personal experience, and he has given us a most interesting review of the situation. I think that the noble Lord was present yesterday afternoon, and he has obviously learned one of the lessons of this House which we are still learning ourselves; namely, how to compress a great deal of information into a small number of words. I hope that we shall hear from him on many occasions in the future.
I realise that the importance of this subject ought to be balanced, at least by us on the Side-Benches, by a recognition of the self-denying ordinance which the House passed upon itself yesterday afternoon. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for initiating this debate. The public disquiet, to which he refers in his Motion, is indeed widespread. On the other hand, I think it fair to say that the disquiet varies according to the quarter from which it comes. I do not think the public always respond entirely logically to this kind of situation. They are apt to pick on certain figures which are quoted without examining the full statistics. Moreover, the public are often swayed by incidents reported in the Press. A successful bank robbery, or a bout of
184
hooliganism at a seaside resort, is likely to build up a picture in the public mind which is quite unbalanced. I fear at present that the whole attitude of the younger generation has been unduly coloured by certain aspects which appear in the statistics under consideration.
I suppose also that the public, in their disquiet, tend to react in an emotional way. People are apt to think that the immediate answer to any rise in crime is to apply more and heavier repressive measures, and we all know how tempting it is for people to find some satisfaction for their own fears or frustrations by imposing more savage penalties upon those who may happen to come within their reach. The figures are, indeed, most disquieting, particularly the rise in the number of crimes of violence to the person, which more directly threaten the safety of the citizen and suggest an open defiance of the law; and the incidence of crime among young people augurs ill not only for the present but for the future. On the other hand, I hope that the public disquiet in regard to these facts will not suggest any kind of panic reaction to them. In the first place, we do not want to set back the slow but encouraging process of reforming the penal system and the new insights that we have into the care and cure, and causes, of crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, is not here this afternoon, but I have no doubt that he will speak to us on a later occasion when this wider side of the subject is developed. I, for one, should like to acknowledge the tremendous debt we owe to him for his leadership in this whole field. An unemotional approach to crime, however grave the crime, seems to be an aspect of our culture of which we ought to be proud. It is one of the fruits of our Christian tradition, with its emphasis on the value of the individual and our mutual responsibility in society. I fancy that the public are apt to worry their head more about the ways in which crime can be kept under control, or at least out of sight, than about the causes of crime. I notice that the noble Lord said, rightly, that in the public mind there is a real distinction between the crimes that happen and are reported in the papers and what happens behind closed doors. This may be true, but it is quite unjust; for the public

185
have as much responsibility, not only for the keeping of the law outside but for those who, under the power of the law, they put behind bars. However, I do not want to dwell on this side of the question. The matter has been much more ably dealt with already.
May I underline three aspects of this matter which have already been mentioned? On the preventive side, if an ordinary member of the public were to look at the criminal statistics for 1963 (and they have been borne out in increasing measure in such figures as we have for last year) he would be inclined to fasten not only on a particular type of crime but even more on the fact that such a large proportion—more than half, in fact—have not been detected or brought to book. This seems to be the most disquieting aspect of the whole affair. I am sure that Macbeth was quite right:
"How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds makes ill deeds done!"
People are more likely to be deterred, not by the size of the penalty but by the lively expectation that whatever they do, they will be brought to book for it.
We have listened with great interest to the steps outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, as to what the Government arc hoping to do to implement the Police Act and to step up the forces of law and order. To me the most gravely disquieting thing of all is not just the rise in figures, but the fact that we are not in a position to cope with them because of a shortage of police. There are many measures which will take a long time to bear fruit. Unfortunately I was not able to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, but he referred to the relationship of the public to the police. I think that the public have an ambivalent attitude towards the police, in spite of the popularity of "Z Cars". We want their protection, but we tend to resent their attentions; and all too often the police, I suspect, rather like the parson, form a section of the community whose proper discharge of duty goes without notice and is taken for granted, but whose occasional lapses from duty receive more than proportionate prominence.
If this is the case, a new image or a new relationship must be built up between the police and the public. I
186
am interested to hear of the autumn campaign that has been outlined. I hope very much that the campaign will not deal primarily with posters and things in print. I believe that confrontation, face to face, as it were, of police and public, so that they can see them, hear them, realise that they are human beings, is a very important point here. Too often, through the particular requirements of their duties, the police have to live a life quite separate from the ordinary community, which tends to breed ignorance or suspicion and may militate against proper recruitment.
Much has been said about the desperate need for further recruitment and any steps, in terms of money or otherwise, required for it. May I mention, briefly, two other points? The first is that, even though this debate does so, I hope that we shall not wholly separate the question of deterrent from the question of the reformatory aspect of this problem. For in my view they cannot be separated. We hope that there will be more police and that they will deter more, but also that they will detect more. There will be more people to be looked after and dealt with by the courts, and to receive some punishment, whether inside prison or outside. That will mean a good deal of further outlay, not only on the police but on buildings, perhaps, on probation officers, and all the ancillary services.
Moreover, many of these offenders, if the present trend continues, will be young offenders. All this means that we cannot delay our concern for the proper treatment that will not only do justice to them and to the public but ensure, so far as possible, that they do not return to their crimes. I hope that the Government will assure us that they will not be tempted to do anything that would get in the way of any steps which may be proposed by the present Royal Commission on the Penal System, and I hope that we shall soon know how soon that Commission will be reporting.
There are a number of matters on which the Government should take action but which will not bear immediate fruit. Therefore, I wonder how far they come into the "near future" phrase. I take, for instance, what seems to me a very valuable piece of legislation, for which the present Government, I think, cannot

187
claim credit, the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, which prescribes new duties in the area of preventing children from developing tendencies that might later become criminal, and lays those duties upon the local authority. No doubt it is too early to estimate what kind of result that will have, or how far local authorities will need encouragement or stimulus from the Government in order to carry those out. But if we can deal with children when they are very young, this seems one of the preventive steps which, though it will not produce immediate results, may, in the long run, have great importance.
There is one further aspect to which I would refer. The action which the Government might contemplate in relation to crime cannot, I think, be confined only to specifically criminal measures. I believe that we must examine a great deal of our social legislation in the light of this need. All social legislation which is designed to improve human standards of living, education and so on, is no doubt, in a way, a step to diminish crime. But it does not necessary follow that it is. A surprising fact is that this rise in crime to-day is not clearly confined to this country; it is to some extent a world phenomenon. I know that it is no satisfaction to a victim in London to think that his counterpart in New York or Tokyo is equally exposed to the same danger. But here is something that is part of our modern world; even further, it seems to be a fact that crime rises most in countries where there is greater affluence.
This is a strange and perplexing fact. It would seem as if modern society, in the very process of removing some of the curses of the past, in the process of getting more affluent, (contains within itself certain definite flaws. I think that the acquisitive society may encourage dissatisfaction, discontent and envy. I suppose that the general result which we are witnessing is a decline in personal responsibility and a feeling that the individual in modern society is just one of the masses who does not matter very much to anybody except himself and is under no obligation to anyone except himself. If people, especially young people, are tempted to feel like this, they are inclined to seek their satisfactions in
188
lawless ways. I hope (this is obviously not the time to develop this aspect) that the Government will be sensitive not only to possible legislation immediately related to the crime situation and its prevention, but also to the effects of other social legislation upon the human person and his own growth in personal responsibility.
How far, for instance does education teach not only knowledge but personal relations—how to live together? How far do welfare services not only administer to our needs, generally our very real material needs, but also strengthen self-respect? How far, for instance, does new housing, so desperately needed, aim not only at housing people but at making new communities, even though they may be slow to grow—for in some places it is the decline of community life with which we are faced? Some of the best things that society is attempting to do to-day may have this repercussion; they may be doing something to diminish the sense of human responsibility and human personality. I hope, therefore, that the Government will have this aspect in mind, and perhaps encourage study and discussion of this field, in order that we may, in the long term, begin to find some answer to what seems to be a curse spreading over the world.
4.39 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it was about this time a week ago to-day that I rose to crave your Lordships' indulgence for my maiden speech. I had been led to believe that, having made one's maiden speech, one's second speech was always much easier, but having regard to the debate which took place yesterday I am not so sure. If the noble Lord, Lord Denham, saw me in the library today working hard it was because I was trying to reduce the length of my speech in the light of yesterday's discussion. Whether I have succeeded the clock, of course, will show. As I reminded your Lordships last week, I am used to speaking for 45 minutes, but I assure you I will not be nearly as long as that to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, obviously enjoyed himself twisting the tail of the Government. I wonder if he will mind if I pull his a little. As a new-comer to your Lordships' House, I could have been forgiven if, in listening to Lord Derwent's opening speech, I had come

189
to the conclusion that most of our problems in the field of crime have occurred since last October. I would remind the noble Lord that criminal statistics rose pretty steeply year by year in the last thirteen years during the last Administration, and that the problems which he has referred to to-day have been with us for a considerable time. We have, however, to remember that crime attracts the attention of the Press, and it of course helps the circulation of a good many newspapers. But it results in certain types of crime receiving undue attention, emphasis which is often out of all proportion to the facts.
I should like to emphasise what the right reverend Prelate said a moment or two ago that crime is increasing throughout the whole world. All the developing countries are experiencing an increase in crime, and not just this country, although that fact can be of little comfort to any of us. But it is paradoxical that in countries where general progress is more rapid there is a greater increase in crime. I think we have to face the fact that it is difficult to gauge just how serious the situation is in this country. Statistics are available in full measure, but they reveal only that part of the iceberg which we can see. For various reasons, it is not possible to get a complete record of the number of crimes committed, because of the growing tendency on the part of employers not to prosecute employees, and the fact that the police themselves are simply cautioning more and more offenders. At this stage I should like to say this: whether this action of the police is good is debatable, but I view with some concern the growing tendency of the police to act in the double rôle of judge and prosecutor.
The Cambridge Institute of Criminology, which has made, and continues to make, a most valuable contribution to the study of crime, has, in a recent study, found in industry an unwillingness on the part of employers to prosecute employees for stealing from their firm, from its customers or from one another, and this means that the crime statistics do not give a true picture. But, having said that, I think we are in danger of overstating the criminal situation. Again, I should like to refer to what the right reverend Prelate said with regard to detection. The disturbing fact—and we have to face it—is in relation to those who are able to avoid detection. Before the war the
190
police were able to solve about 50 per cent. of all offences; to-day the percentage is less. This means that the offender has at least a 50–50 chance, as he knows, of "getting away with it"
In considering the volume of crime, we have to recognise that new laws can add to or reduce the statistics. The Street Offences Act, which has swept prostitutes off the streets, has not solved the problem of prostitution; but we have no, or very few, convictions for prostitution. The Gaming Act has made it unnecessary for us to have street bookmakers, so we get no convictions in that particular field. But there is a growing tendency to bring more and more people before the courts. I want to say quite seriously that some offences of violence involving domestic disputes, neighbourhood disputes, public-house and cafe brawls, which formerly would have ended quite happily (I say this advisedly) without police intervention, arc now brought before the courts and shown as part of the crime picture. I think we can overdo this.
Those who are familiar with the problem stemming from the criminal situation will realise that there is, as I admit, no quick solution to this grave social problem. No doubt more offenders would be apprehended if we had a much larger police force. But, let us face it, our society could not exist from an economic point of view if a substantially higher percentage of its male population were in blue.
I wanted to make one or two suggestions, but the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has forestalled me. I wanted to recommend that we introduce automation into the fingerprint department of Scotland Yard, but he has got there before me. The many problems which criminality presents cannot be solved solely by changing the penal system. We should be living in a fool's paradise if we felt that by changing the penal system a great deal of change in crime would result. We know that our penal institutions are not so very successful when it comes to reforming the criminal, and I think we have to face the unpleasant fact that their rates of success are declining. Two out of three borstal boys are reconvicted. Nor do I think that position would he greatly improved by merely strengthening the police, or imposing longer or more severe prison sentences. The real thing that

191
we have to do is to find out more about the offender and what makes him the anti-social being that he is. Dr. Glover, the eminent psychiatrist, once said—and I quote:
"The problem of society is to tame a half-wild animal—namely, man."
He was not far wrong.
In spite of all that has been done to date, we know little about the criminal—whether he is born or bred, whether it is solely a question of heredity or of environment, or a combination of both. I want to say to your Lordships to-day that we may have to accept the fact that some people are born with a possible biological predisposition to become a criminal. The gaps in our knowledge of criminal behaviour are such that more research is needed—is, in fact, essential. What is being done is, in some measure, haphazard, unco-ordinated, insufficient and inadequate.
The Cambridge Institute of Criminology has proved an outstanding success, and its researches into the field of criminality and the publications which have come from the Institute have proved a valuable contribution to the understanding of this complicated subject. The apparent weakness is that we need several more such institutes, and I hope the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will be able to say that that will be possible. Criminal activity is not solely socio-economically determined, and this means that the criminologist and the psychiatrist must work closer together. While we cannot ignore the importance of psycho-pathology, I do not think that the scientific study of delinquency is primarily a matter for the medical profession. We have to bring together all the experts in the different fields if we are to make any headway whatsoever in the understanding of the criminal. Also, we must assess the role that illiteracy plays in criminality.
I was interested to learn that the Home Office have recently approved a pilot scheme in one of the borstal institutions for the introduction of the initial teaching alphabet owing to illiteracy among the borstal inmates. Illiteracy may have a much closer identification with crime than many people at present realise. For a person to be law-abiding he must be amenable to conditioning. It is essen-
192
tial that society should provide the right kind of climate for such conditioning. This means—and I want to emphasise this—that we have to see in advance the possible outcome of any new legislation. Some of our recent legislation has not been helpful, and we must ask ourselves whether such Acts as the Gaming Act 1960 have created the right kind of conditioning for the good behaviour and personal responsibility to which the right reverent Prelate referred.
Britain now has more gambling facilities than any other country in the world. We can now boast, if it is a matter for boasting, that we have more betting shops in this country than we have banks—over 15,000 of them. Our betting bill is more than twice our education budget. Bingo clubs have over 14 million members. Casino members now exceed the one million mark. Social clubs feed over £14 million in sixpences every year into "one-armed bandits". As a result of betting shops more people than ever before in our history bet on horses and greyhounds. At least half the population of this country bets at some time during the year. The Church Commission on Gambling estimates that we spend over £1,000 million annually on gambling. This has been made possible by the Gaming Act 1960 and, together with premium bonds and the resulting philosophy of getrich-quick and getting something for nothing, this is not conducive to responsible behaviour within the community. I want to go so far as to ask the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, this: whether the Administration of which he was part is proud of such an Act?
As a former probation officer, I am concerned with the treatment of delinquency and of delinquents. I should like to refer to the probation service, which since 1907 has played, and will continue to play, an important part in the treatment of deliquency. About 40,000 delinquents are placed on probation annually in this country, 10 per cent. of them, 4,000, in the London area. From the moment the probation order is made the probation officer assumes the role of guide, philosopher and friend to the probationer. He supervises the delinquent for a period not exceeding three years. The probation officer has been described as the general practitioner in the field of delinquency. He is a case-worker who

193
is concerned with the wants and needs, and all that that implies, and the thoughts and feelings of the probationer. The probation officer is very lucky, indeed he is very fortunate, if he only has a case load of 60 probationers, for case loads generally speaking are not light. But, in addition to all this, he is required to do matrimonial work to assist people in distress, to be responsible for money payments of persons who have been fined and placed under his supervision until the money is paid; and also he is responsible for the general social work of the courts.
But it does not stop there. In addition, the probation officer is required to undertake after-care and supervision of persons discharged from approved schools, borstals and prisons. It means that, having regard to all the work he has to do, the amount of time he has to give to each individual delinquent is precious little. It has been calculated by people who are in a position to make such a calculation that, on the average, it is probably not much more than an hour or so per month for each delinquent. In that hour or so the probation officer has to try to help the delinquent to understand himself, to cope with his feelings of aggression, to come to terms with society and to accept his own limitations. I think your Lordships will agree that this is an impossible task in the time available. The success of the Probation Service is due not only to the skill and competence of the probation officer but to his devotion and dedication. The Probation Service has, I think, pride of place in our treatment of delinquents.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I have the honour of being the first Member of the House to interrupt the noble Lord? I should like to put this question to the noble Lord, who I know is such a tremendous expert on the Probation Service. Is it really the fact that the average would work out at only one hour per month per delinquent, taking a case load of 60 or 70?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I am obliged to the noble Earl for giving me an opportunity of emphasising what I have already said. I was saying that, taking into account all the work he has to do, apart from his probation work, it is doubtful, if he has a case load of 60,
194
whether he can give much more than one hour per month to each delinquent.
The Probation Service has pride of place in our treatment of delinquents, and I believe that any approved treatment system in the future must rely more and more on the Probation Service. Yet its members are among the worst paid of our social workers. Some local authorities, in order to get child care officers and workers, are offering a very attractive salary scale, plus £100 for late work. This is a very nice phrase. It means overtime; but if you are a professionally trained social worker you do not do overtime, but "late work". Probation officers work unlimited hours, as I can tell your Lordships from my personal experience, and cannot make any overtime claim. I would urge the noble Earl, Lord Longford—and I say this with great respect—to give immediate attention to the needs of the Probation Service and to examine the work and responsibilities of probation officers, so that some arrangement of their responsibilities can be made in order that they can devote more time to each individual delinquent.
I am a member of the Inner London Probation Committee, which is responsible for the appointment of probation officers and the supervision of the Probation Service. In that area at the moment ten probation officers have handed in their resignations from the Inner London service; they leave in September. This represents about 4 per cent. of the Inner London probation staff. They have resigned, in the main, because they cannot afford to live in the London area where rents, fares and general living expenses are considerably higher than in any other city. Only two of the ten are remaining in the Probation Service, and they are going to probation services in other counties. The remaining eight are leaving the Probation Service, two in order to do further study. But this situation means that the majority of these officers, who have been specially selected and carefully trained for probation work, will be lost to the Probation Service. This situation could have been avoided if only the Home Secretary had used his powers to give probation officers an increase in the London weighting, to help them meet the additional cost of living and working in the London area.

195
For your Lordships' information the London weighting at present is £40 a year, if the probation officer is under 29 years of age, and £45 a year if he is over 29 years of age. The position, as I understand it, is that the Home Secretary can himself order an increase in the amount of the London weighting, but I am informed that he prefers to leave the question of any increase to the joint negotiating committee. If there were a substantial increase in the London weighting—and I mean substantial—I am sure that it would prevent an exodus from the Inner London Probation Service. Before the end of the year there are likely to be more probation officers leaving the Inner London Probation Service, either to leave the service altogether or to remain in the Probation Service, but somewhere else in the country. And I would remind your Lordships that 10 per cent. of the probation orders that are made in this country—namely, 4,000—are made in the London area.
While there is no single cause of crime, I believe that we need to look at what is happening to family life at the present moment, because I think we all realise and agree that the bad family is a liability to society and that the good family is an asset. I suggest that the supreme cause of had family life is the broken marriage, where the husband-wife relationship has ceased and where neither partner is able to exercise any influence for good in the family. I am not suggesting for one moment that all delinquents stem from the broken marriage, but I am saying that a substantial percentage do. I do not think anyone knowing the situation would deny that the breakdown of family life provides both delinquent and deprived children—two of the grave social problems of the present time. We are all too familiar with the growing problems of juvenile delinquency, so there is no need for me to make reference to them; but we have over 65,000 children in care— not all of them, I agree, from broken homes—costing society over £26 million a year. It costs us £26 million a year to maintain the children's services in this country.
The recent report of the Lord Chancellor's Committee on the operation of the Legal Aid Scheme points out that
196
between £4 and £5 million is spent every year on providing legal aid to people seeking divorce or separation. In comparison, we spend very little on helping couples who want assistance to overcome their marriage problems, so that their marriage can be preserved. The civil judicial statistics for the last year, 1964, show that the number of matrimonial petitions filed that year exceeded 41,000—an increase of over 4,000 on the previous year. The number of decrees granted was in excess of 35,000.
That means, my Lords, that every year thousands of children are being orphaned by divorce, uprooted at a time in their lives when they should feel loved, wanted and secure. These things are so very important in the development of a child, and often determine whether that child is going to be a good citizen or whether he or she is to become a delinquent. There is no one in your Lordships' House who can stand up and honestly say that he does not care whether he is wanted or loved. The desire to be wanted, to be loved, is with us from the cradle to the grave: it never leaves us; and if it is so important at our age, how much more important is it to a child? How many of us know what happens to a child, or children, when a marriage terminates in separation or divorce? It is no good saying, as so many people do, "Well children are resilient. They can stand anything" Those of us who have worked in the field, and who have to deal with them, know that many of them cannot stand the outcome of a broken marriage.
I am not opposed to divorce, but let us be quite frank about it. The Divorce Court has become a mortuary for dead marriages; and while it puts to an end a number of thoroughly bad marriages every year—and I concede that point—it also terminates a large number of potentially good ones. A progressive, developing society does not need a mortuary for dead marriages; it needs a hospital service.
LORD GREENWAY: "Egremont!"—you are 25 minutes, as a Back-Bencher.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, the noble Lord may or may not be right in intervening along those lines, but he must not address the noble Lord directly.

197
He must refer to him in the third person if he wants to be a stickler.
LORD GREENWAY: I did say, "the noble".
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I am sorry; perhaps somebody would give me guidance. Am I limited to 25 minutes?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I do not understand the noble Lord's point.
LORD GREENWAY: If the noble Lord had been present in the debate yesterday he would have known about it.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: So far as I know, no decision was arrived at yesterday as to what length speeches should be in future. There was no Motion before your Lordships' House.
LORD STRANGE: I think that 25 minutes is a "yellow light" courtesy sign.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Carry on !
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: No.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I would appeal to the noble Lord to finish his speech. I think the interventions were entirely good-humoured, and I think many of us felt that after years in the Probation Service the noble Lord was at liberty to speak at some little length about the vital work those people are doing.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: If it is your Lordships' wish, I will do so. I was saying that a progressive, developing society needs a hospital service for sick marriages. Happily, I believe that we have this in the work which is being done in the marriage guidance councils throughout the country, which I think are making quite a contribution to a solution of this problem of delinquency. It is a new form of social service, and perhaps I ought to disclose at this point that I have an interest, as I am one of the founders of the national Marriage Guidance Council. But I think I ought to point out to your Lordships that there are three organisations working in this field: the national Marriage Guidance Council, the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council and the Family Discussion Bureau, and between them—and I stress "between them"—they receive £46,000 a year by way of Government grant. In other words, for
198
every £100 that we spend on providing Legal Aid for divorce and separation to help terminate marriages, we spend £1 on trying to save marriages.
We spend millions of pounds every year, dealing with the social and personal problems stemming from broken marriages, but we give what amounts to only a pittance to those organisations which are trying to strengthen and preserve family life. I suggest that we have got our values all wrong—seriously wrong—when we can provide £100 to help terminate marriages but can provide only £1 to help to preserve marriages. Again, I ask the noble Lord whether something more can be done to help these three organisations which are doing, I think, a piece of work which is designed to help us in the prevention of delinquency. If we are going to come to grips with delinquency, we must fight it on several fronts, and one of them is to do everything that we can to preserve family life.
5.11 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Derwent has performed a great service in introducing this debate this afternoon. If I might, I should like to pay tribute to the particular wording of his Motion, for he has called attention not merely to crime, to the severity of crime or to the frequency of crime, but to the increase in it, and it is this increase that is so alarming. If one wished for any evidence with regard to the increase in crime, one could refer to the answers which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, gave to two Parliamentary questions which I asked him at the end of April and the beginning of May, in which he stated that the figures, for England and Wales, for crimes of violence in which firearms were used, for the four years beginning 1961 were, respectively, 552 in 1961, 588 in 1962, 578 in 1963 and 731 in 1964.
In the Metropolitan Police District, for the three months beginning November 1 in each of the same years, the figures for crimes of violence in which firearms were used were, respectively, 27, 28, 10 and 52. In those 52 cases, proceedings have been taken against only 18 people—not even 18 cases. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said, I think, that the criminal has a 50 per cent. chance of getting away with it; but according to those particular figures he has two chances out of three of getting away

199
with it. Of course, those figures refer only to crimes where firearms were used, which are presumably the worst types of crime. I realise that statistics, particularly where crime is concerned, must be taken with a great deal of care, but I think one can fairly say that the trend which they indicate is definitely for the worse.
The one thing about which I believe we should all agree is the fact that the public have the right to be reasonably and adequately protected from crime, and the fact that the situation is deteriorating must give cause for great anxiety, for it shows that the preventive system which we have at the moment is not working adequately. The question, of course, is: why is it not? If there were an easy answer to that question, then, of course, there would be no problem. At the outset, I must confess that I have certain views as to why the system is not working, and they would differ markedly from those expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester. He said that he very much hoped that penalties for crimes would not be increased, and he stated in his argument that, as crimes were on the increase in all civilised countries, this was almost a fact with which we had to live.
I believe that in certain instances the penalties for crimes should be markedly increased. The noble Earl the Leader of the House may well say that the most effective deterrent to crime is certainty of detection, and I would go a very long way in agreement with him; and if certainty of detection is the most effective deterrent, then the police forces should be strengthened and encouraged. This, of course, is perfectly true; but one must openly admit that the chances of the police forces being increased to anything like the extent necessary to combat this rise in crime are extremely small. Severity of punishment, I believe, is equally an effective deterrent, and in this worsening situation all measures possible should be taken to protect the public. I urgently ask Her Majesty's Government to look at this problem afresh with a view to increasing substantially the penalties applicable to crime, especially crimes against the person.
I am aware how invidious it is to try to categorise crimes or criminals, because
200
there is no clear demarcation line in crime; there is no black or white, but merely various shades of grey. It is therefore a trifle invidious to try to categorise, but I wish to do so on this occasion in order to simplify the issue and to make my point. Basically, crimes nowadays can be put into two categories. The first is made up of those which are committed by the man who has entered or is about to enter a life of crime. There may be all sorts of circumstances which promote him to do this: his home, his background, his upbringing, his friends, his emotional set-up and so forth.
The other category is made up of those which are committed by the fundamentally normal person who has decided to disregard or to flout the law for the fun of it or for his own self-gratification. This is not so much crime in the normal sense of the word as lawlessness, and it is usually, but not always, I admit, committed by people between the ages of 16 and 26. It is this type of person whose presence in society is so much on the increase and who commits crimes which are totally unnecessary and yet which can be vicious and malicious in the extreme. It is the type of person who will kick and punch people, knife them, beat them up, throw bottles at them or kick them in the face—the type of person who will do this for no other reason, apparently, than the purpose of inflating his own ego in the sight of his friends, saying that he does not worry about the law as he can pay any fines which are imposed upon him, who takes pride in doing so and who is not worried by a prison sentence.
It is this type of person against whom I wish to see society protected, and who is, I respectfully suggest, dealt with inadequately at present. These people do not require, and I do not believe it is correct for them to receive, the more remedial forms of treatment which are sometimes offered to people who commit crimes. Here I should like to explain quite emphatically that I am in favour of these forms of remedial treatment. I am in favour of them when they are directed aright, but I do not think that they are necessarily the correct answer to all cases.
I believe that there is a strong argument for the courts to be given the power, where they consider it necessary, to order the use of corporal punishment for these

201
types of cases. One can read examples of these cases in the papers almost any day. I would direct your Lordships' attention to an article in The Times only last Wednesday, and I would trespass upon your Lordships' time for a few minutes to read a few excerpts from it:
"Two youths who 'shot up' 22 people with a high-powered 0.22 air rifle from a moving car were alleged by the police … to have said: 'We did it for a lark'. Fifteen of the injured were hit on a Sunday afternoon drive through north Staffordshire on June 20, and seven after a drinking session the night before. The two youths, both sheet-metal workers, … were sent to a detention centre for three months."
The person who was driving the car on that Sunday afternoon when the fifteen people were injured asked for fourteen offences to be taken into consideration. He was fined £30 and put on probation for two years. The driver of the car on the evening before was given two years probation and fined £10. I would merely ask: how long are we to be expected to tolerate this form of treatment of the public by people who admittedly go out and do it "for a lark"? Why should 22 members of the public be not only endangered but actually injured because four youths wish to go out "for a lark" at their expense?
The newspaper report continues:
"Detective-inspector R. Hughes said that among the victims were the school boy son of a policeman, a teenage girl who needed an operation to remove a slug from her leg, and a woman aged 73"
I am aware of the danger of criticising sentences when one has not heard the whole of the case, but I would say merely that this type of sentence for this type of crime is totally inadequate in itself and also totally inadequate to afford the protection of the public or their confidence in the fact that the public should be protected.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while we would all share the noble Earl's abhorrence of the kind of crime that he is describing, I would point out, as he himself implied, that it is a matter for the courts, having heard the whole circumstances of the case, to decide the punishment. In most of the cases that the noble Earl mentioned the punishments were not the maximum that could have been awarded.
EARL FERRERS: The noble Lord is, of course, right. Had he contained himself a little longer, I was about to say that I know that the argument is put forward that it is for Parliament to make the laws and for the courts to carry them out. With that view I am in agreement. My point is that I should like to see the courts given stronger powers and, for certain cases, alternative powers; because in the cases that I have quoted the certainty of detection prevailed but the severity of punishment did not.
I would ask Her Majesty's Government what are their views, or their intentions, about protecting the public, for instance, from vandalism on the railways, where people are prepared to put bricks, sleepers or lumps of concrete on the lines for the sole purpose of derailing trains in circumstances where not only are the lives of the public endangered but in some cases have actually been lost. It is this type of crime that needs to be considered most carefully in the future.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting again. He is aware, as I know, because he raised the matter with me, that crimes of vandalism on railway lines have, in fact, shown a decrease and that they are committed mainly by quite young children. With regard to the steps that the Government are taking, the noble Earl is aware of the considerable penalties in the Firearms Act of up to ten years or, at the least, of twelve months for the kind of offences he has described.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am well aware that crimes on the railways have not increased; but that does not mean to say that the methods for preventing these crimes are adequate. Because clearly they are not. Otherwise, these instances about which we have been reading during the last three or four months would not have occurred. With great respect to the noble Lord, it is not sufficient to say that these crimes have not increased, and that therefore the status quo is adequate. I submit that it is not.
LORD STONHAM: I had said that the crimes had decreased. The noble Earl is aware of this, because I gave him the figures this week. Perhaps he would like to quote them. From my recollection,

203
the last available figures show that they are now about one-third what they were about three years ago.
EARL FERRERS: I would refer the noble Lord—and this is only fair—to the remark I made at the beginning of my speech, when I quoted some fairly pungent statistics. I said that when quoting statistics they should be taken with a grain of salt. The mere fact that the crimes have decreased should not provide a sense of satisfaction for the powers that be. The fact is that certain acts are done on railway lines, and may cause very great danger to life—and in fact some people have been killed.
The point I wish to make is: what do the Government intend to do? What measures do the Government intend to take to try to prevent these acts? The right reverent prelate the Bishop of Chichester said that the penalties should not be increased, and that we ought to have more research into trying to find the causes of crime. That is true. But that is a long-term point of view: I wish to see something done in the short term to counteract what is a very grave increase in crime. I should be the first to agree that this is no simple problem. Of course, it is not. I realise that the views which I have expressed may not travel in complete harmony with those of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, or with those of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. Nevertheless I hope that they realise that I have given my views, which I hold with sincerity. This is a problem with which we should all be concerned. It is a problem which I suggest, with respect, should not be surrounded too much by statistics.
5.27 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I too, should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for putting down this Motion and for giving us the opportunity to discuss it. I should like to concentrate my few remarks on the question of the police force itself. The fact that I do so in no way detracts from my full agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said about research into the motivation of crime, which I think is vital and important. May I say that I shall try to be as brief as possible and I shall be perfectly happy if noble
204
Lords are good enough to shout "Egremont" at me if I speak for too long. I should like to mention briefly two items from the front page of the Police Review of last week which seem to pinpoint the problem.
The first deals with an item of police news which was broadcast on the 8 o'clock bulletin of the B.B.C. on Wednesday of the week before. This item reported the conviction of a 27-year-old constable on a charge of conspiracy to steal. The newspapers generally followed the B.B.C. in reporting the case. Yet they had other news available on the same day for, the night before, the London Gazette had announced the award of eleven British Empire Medals and of ten Queen's Commendations to police officers for gallantry in the execution of their duty. And there was not one word of this either on the B.B.C. or in the Press.
What underlines this is that some of the constables who had been awarded the British Empire Medals had earned them in the following circumstances. The Police Review said that some prominence might have been given to
"the treatment received by the Constables clinging to a ring bolt in the wall of the River Mersey with a struggling woman they had rescued from drowning."
While holding on to the ring bolt and to the struggling woman the report states that
"Hooligans … jeered at the Constables, threw cups and other missiles at them and poured hot tea over them".
There was not one word of this in the Press.
The other item, again from the front page of the Police Review mentioned the serious increase in Glasgow of assaults on constables, crimes of violence and convictions for serious assaults. I am summarising the report and I will try to be brief. One of the basic reasons, according to the Chief Constable, is that the Force is still 300 below strength. It seems to me that these facts pin-point the problem we are facing with the police.
It has been established time and time again—I do not think that anyone in your Lordships' House would disagree—that in all crime, especially in serious crime, the only real and effective deterrent is the likelihood of detection and conviction. That has been said in this

205
debate; I do not think that anyone would disagree with it. The only instrument with which we can operate this deterrent is the police force. What appals, puzzles and angers me is the basic neglect which still continues so far as elementary police needs are concerned.
My Lords, it is not a bit of good for us to talk in grandiose terms about a "war on crime", because it is no more than a pipeful of hot air. To-day we are discussing police needs and conditions. Year by year the crime figures rise. Year by year the wastage of policemen goes on—not one word about that have we heard to-day. From an average of 6,000 young policemen who join each year, one-third leave. Year by year we expect the police to stumble into this so-called war on crime under-manned, under-equipped, over-worked and over-strained. Year by year the criminals win their victories and prove that crime does pay. Yet we mumble and grumble about the police. We make a reform here and a change there; but the roof is leaking; the gale has blown half the tiles away. We are patching up cracks with Sellotape, and we are running round like mad with pails to catch the water which is coming in.
As I listened earlier to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent—I missed only the opening phrases; I was tucked at the back of our crowded Labour Benches—and to the speech of my noble friend Lord Stonham, I closed my eyes and it seemed that the position of a year, or even 18 months, ago might have been reversed. The voice at one point was the voice of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, but the lyric was the lyric of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. In reply, the voice was that of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the music was the music of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. Each was replying in the same ilk. It is true, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that there was a flurry of legislation in the last few months of the last Government—at "ten minutes to twelve". Above all, there was the very important and vital Police Act. In fact, in thirteen years the last Government gave birth to a medium-sized elephant with a few warts, and some mice.
I grieve to say this. I do not want to say it, but I am afraid that I have to.
206
There must be some magic power, either in the Home Office building or in the Permanent Secretaries at the Home Office, because it seems to me that Ministers go there shouting different slogans and come out all saying the same thing. I grieve to say this, but though the new regime at the Home Office has done many good and fine things, I do not see any sign that its policy in respect of the police is any better than that of its predecessors. I say that with great grief. This has been a bitter disappointment to the police forces. The police feel—in many cases I think that they are right—that they have to make do with a mixed diet of patronising protestations about what good chaps they are and lightly-veiled hostility and open neglect.
We do not need a genius to see the answer so far as the police are concerned. This is proved by the fact that many successive Home Secretaries have pointed to the answer. We need more police, more equipment, and more modernisation of police methods and organisation. Why, for example, do we have this constant drain on manpower? The reasons stand out a mile. It is the conditions of work. We heard a bit about the caseloads of C.I.D. men. It has been estimated that a reasonable case-load is 125 cases a year. My Lords, the average is double that. In some cases, in areas like West End Central, for example, it can rise to as high as 750 to 800 case-loads a year. If is added to this the constant emergency calls—as with the Biggs escape—shift work, week-end work and working on public holidays, a man in the police force does not know from one day to the next what he will be doing. He cannot build up any kind of family life. That may have been all right ten, fifteen or twenty years ago; it will not do for the young, modern policeman, and it certainly will not do for his wife. That is why, with all the desperate measures we are taking to recruit, we are losing half of the people whom we do recruit.
What is the effect on the man himself and on his job? The fact is that he is tempted to take short cuts in his job and to break the rules. He does this, and every superior police officer knows that it is done. It is all right while it works, but when a policeman unfortunately slips up, his superiors, who have

207
turned a blind eye, come down like a horde of avenging Furies and offer him up as a sacrifice to the good name of the police. It is not good enough. There is great disgust among many sections of the police about the fact that there has been no improvement.
I said last year, either in a Question or during a debate (I do not remember which) that some police officers were like something out of Dickens. My Lords, a great deal of the thinking concerning the police has not altered since the time of Dickens. A constable—this has been pointed out by the Police Federation and I sympathise with it 100 per cent.—that paragon of police recruiting literature, that strong, upstanding young man we see on the police posters urging young men to join the force, is in fact still a number. He is referred to as a number. He is addressed by a number and written to as a number. He shares that doubtful privilege with the inmates of Her Majesty's prisons.
The Metropolitan Police, the most undermanned force with the biggest wastage in the whole country, has not changed its number of off-duty days since 1910. Can your Lordships tell me of any other body of men who would put up with that?
EARL FERRERS: The farmers.
LORD WILLIS: Yes, perhaps the farmers. On the other hand, I think it true to point out that probably farmers take more home at the end of the week.
The total net expenditure by the Treasury on transport, and scientific, radio and other equipment is approximately 5 per cent. of the total police budget, and this is inclusive of maintenance. Any industrialist will tell you that a firm which spent only 5 per cent. of its budget on this side of its business would soon be out of business. We have been told to-day about 1,000 two-way radios which are to be introduced. There are 18,000 men on the beat. How far will 1,000 two-way radios go? How much longer are we to go on experimenting? We have been told that we are to introduce computers into the police force. As a measure of success, we are told that a committee has been increased by six or seven people. It seems to me that sometimes we suffer from an acute dose of "committee-itis".
208
We set up a committee and imagine that we have achieved the job. Why is it that computers were not introduced into our police forces five or ten years ago, as they were in other police forces in other countries?
Last year I raised the question of office equipment. I was told that this was proceeding apace, that the supply of typewriters and tape recorders was being increased. I could still take your Lordships to a police station, probably to more than one, where members of the C.I.D. queue up to use a typewriter, and this in the twentieth century, 1965. This is attacking the citadel with a peashooter.
What can be done in the war against crime? I speak from the narrow point of the police: they are our front line regiment in the battle. First, I think that we should cut out wastage by reorganising conditions. No policeman would expect us to introduce the five-day week to-day, but cannot we go to the police now and give them a firm promise that in two years' time, by stages, we will introduce a five-day week? It seems to me that this should be possible and would cut some of the wastage. Cannot we organise a special blitz on equipment and modernise it? Instead of talking about 1,000 two-way radios, cannot we talk about every man having one? Cannot we talk about—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, I made it perfectly clear that this order for two-way radios, pocket-size radios, had been kept to 1,000 because we had to take—in view of the need—standard types. The number which will be ordered, when the necessary adjustments have been made, will be very much larger and sufficient for the whole forces. Surely it would have been folly to buy a set now which we know is unsatisfactory. I have been extremely interested in what my noble friend has had to say and I agree with a great deal of it, but some of his figures are extremely wide of the mark. He mentioned case-loads of 700 or 800 as an average at West Central police station. The average last year (it has not been published yet) was 362, compared with the average in the Metropolitan C.I.D. as a whole of 337. I agree with the "music" (as the noble Lord put it) of what he is saying, but he is certainly off-key with some of his words.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I am afraid I must beg to differ with my noble friend so far as case-loads are concerned. I believe I could produce evidence to prove that in the West Central district so far as two or three offices are concerned their case-load was between 700 and 800. In any case, the figures that the noble Lord has quoted of 337 are so far in excess of what is regarded as reasonable that in themselves they should give cause for alarm.
I was talking about the reorganisation of the police and the blitz in equipment and modernisation. Yes, we are making experiments with two-way radios, but those experiments have been going on in other countries for up to ten years. What worries me is the way we always take a long time to get round to these answers.
Finally what I now say will not be popular, but it seems to me to be important. We must find ways and means of raising police pay, in order to attract some of the better educated and more knowledgeable young men of the community into the police force. If we are told that we cannot afford it, it seems to me that the figures which have been mentioned in this debate indicate that we can. If crime, apart from traffic offences, costs us £225 million a year, and I estimate that we could do most of the changes I have indicated at a cost of some £40 million a year, that seems to me to be a reasonable economy. But we cannot any longer get up in your Lordships' House, as we do year after year, and pat the police on the back and talk platitudes to them. We ought really to say that they are seriously strained, that they are in danger of a major breakdown in some areas, that we rely far too much on their loyalty and that we ought, in all conscience, to stop talking platitudes and come practically to their rescue.
5.43 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I wish to speak to your Lordships about birching in relation to juvenile delinquency in the Isle of Man. But before I start, I would congratulate my old friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton on his excellent speech. I am not sure whether, before I start, I had better not say that I have been birched myself, because I think that
210
I can say that I do understand the position of people who have been birched.
I was brought up in the days in which the cane was considered necessary to bring up all children. I went to private schools in 1909 and was met by a fusillade of canes and other weapons—lines, Swedish drill, Rudyard Kipling and all that. When I went to a public school, I went to a school which was famous for birching. That had been introduced very strongly in the last century by Dr. Keats, who was determined to cure boys by flogging or birching. It was said that he birched 75 boys, giving them "10 up", on the bare behind, before breakfast. It is said that the mother of one of the boys remonstrated with him and he told her, "Madam, Eton is not a girls' school". When I went to Eton, birching was in full swing, and I ran into it. In the summer of 1914—it was a glorious summer, a wonderful summer—I did not do some work that I should have done. I let it pile up, while I went into the Thames, still a chalk stream in those days, and into the fields and meadows which were a delight and not covered with cigarette packets. So, of course, I got a yellow ticket and a white ticket and then a note to the block; trousers down and the shirt pulled up, and I was birched.
I am telling this story to bring before your Lordships the effect of this birching. When I got back to my room and peeled oft my shirt, which was stuck to my behind with the congealed blood, my first feeling was one of great relief that it was all over. Then I felt this sensation: I had done wrong; I had flouted authority, but I had paid for it. It was all finished. They did not owe me anything and I did not owe them anything. I was glad that I had said to the usher who thrashed me, "Thank you, Sir", which was traditional to the school. The other sensation I got was a most extraordinary one—I never expected it. I can remember standing there in my room, all those years ago, a little boy of 14, with my cut behind, and I thought, "I will always face up to everything again". I had been nervous about the birching. I had faced up to it and fought it through. My feeling was, "I will face up to everything. I will face up to life". And, curiously enough, though I have come through many troubles and difficulties, I

211
have always faced up to them, to see what was going to happen next. That I owed to birching. And I mention this as a person who has been birched.
The position in the Isle of Man is that crime is very low. I think that I must disentangle it a little for your Lordships: it is not all entirely due to the birching. They are very charming people, living in a charming island, isolated in winter, and have a great many family ties. The children are well brought up—it is an Arcady of a place. If crime existed there, it would be extraordinary. The police force is very good and gets on very well with the population. Then we come to the tourist trade. I think that I should also mention this in fairness to a section of the community. We get thousands and thousands of motorcyclists coming over for the Tourist Trophy races. They behave extremely well. They are intelligent and courteous. We also get people who come to the island every year and whose children, and probably grandchildren, too, come there every year. If they have children, they tell them not to behave badly and they do not do any harm. In addition to that, we get hundreds of thousands of tourists from all over the British Isles.
Your Lordships will know what has been happening at other seaside resorts and the chaos that has been occasioned by juveniles having, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, "a bit of fun". And in America the problem is much worse, and is getting very serious. In the Isle of Man, there has been nothing like this, and I will try to tell your Lordships the reason. I will tell you our deterrents. We have hanging, the "cat", the birch and imprisonment. There has not been a man hanged in the Isle of Man for well over 100 years. The "cat" is not used, but the birch is put in its place and prison is often nominal. It is made pretty strict. About five years ago, one magistrate told a prisoner who asked for a smoke, "This is not a holiday". The effect is good. Incidentally, cigarettes are now allowed.
I think that the present trouble caused by people breaking up or mobbing up seaside resorts started in the middle of the lackadaisical '50s, or just before the vicious '60s, with the epidemic of water-pistol shooting. Boys went round with water pistols loaded with tomato ketchup
212
and shot at people. It was fairly mild in the first stage, if annoying to women wearing dainty dresses to be sprayed with tomato ketchup. But it was also dangerous. A water pistol can hold H2O. It can also hold H2SO4 and become a lethal weapon. This sort of thing went on all over the holiday resorts, but when it reached the Isle of Man it was stopped dead. Subsequently there was a debate in the House of Keys about whether or not birching should be continued. It was the unanimous decision that birching, as a deterrent, should remain. I have the figures for birching. They show that over the last thirteen years an average of 6·068 boys were birched a year. The highest figures were in the tomato ketchup year, when 14 boys were birched; and the lowest were in one year when only one boy was birched.
These figures are very interesting, but they mean nothing. We cannot gather from them whether birching is a deterrent or not, because we do not know the number of crimes committed and not discovered. It is just the same with hanging. We shall never know whether hanging is or is not a deterrent, because we shall never know the number of perfect murders. But though we do not know from the figures, we can often find out from public opinion. Before I came to speak in your Lordships' House, I talked to an enormous number of people, of all classes, from all over the country. I talked to them and asked them frankly what they thought about it. I talked to just over 30 people. I will try to give your Lordships a few of their views, which I think are interesting, because this juvenile delinquency is a problem. The highest legal authority in the Isle of Man said to me: "I think it is a deterrent". There was a boy who was "had up" on two cases of rape against the same girl. He came into court: he was insolent to the police; he shouted and yelled and stamped about in the box; and finally he called the judiciary "an old buffer"—although actually the word was not "buffer"; it was a word I have acquired since listening to the debates in your Lordships' House. Anyway, after three strokes of the birch, he returned: he called the police officer "sir"; he stood to attention in the box; and he called the "old buffer", "Your honour".

213
I have talked to many doctors, both ladies and gentlemen, and they are of opinion that birching should stay. One doctor said: "Of course, we have a doctor in charge. There was a birching the other day. The boy started to howl, and we stopped it after three strokes. He had had enough of it." There was a very interesting comment indeed, which was made not only by one person, but by several, but the person who made it particularly well was a student in a modern concrete university. I should like, if I can (I have not a very good memory) to repeat it verbatim. He said: "Deterrents are necessary, because the general public must be protected. The intellectuals think that because deterrents are very old-fashioned and have been in use for a long time they must necessarily be out of date; but no new deterrents have been found to take their place". That is pretty well what he said, and it was a rather interesting comment from a boy.
Another man, a café proprietor, told me about two boys who came into his café and just wrecked the place: they tore it up, they smashed all his cups, and they kicked in the side of his counter. The police got hold of them, and they were birched. He told me that one of them did very well afterwards. The other boy is a roundsman. He calls at his house; he is a very nice boy, and popular with the customers, and he has made a great friend of him. This boy admitted that the birch did him good.
The only slight doubt came from a doctor who told me that he was a bit worried about certain boys, as to whether the magistrate was the right person to know the right boy to be birched. Another doctor told me of the case of a boy he knew well, and a girl he knew well, and the boy got birched for interfering with the girl. He said it was entirely the girl's fault. This doctor added that he thought magistrates who knew more about the character of the boy should decide whether he should be birched or not. That, too, was an interesting comment.
Your Lordships will be glad to hear that I am not going on, but I am coming to the end of my speech. I think I should give my own opinion about the matter. First of all, I am sorry that although many of your Lordships must have been at
214
school at the time when I was there, you were all very good boys in those days, or you would not have grown into the great men you have now; therefore you cannot get up and give your experiences of being birched, which would be interesting, and your reactions, and what effect they had on your later life. In my view, birching in the Isle of Man works well; but I do not think it would be a good thing over here. The reason is this. In the Isle of Man, in spite of what this doctor said, everybody knows everybody else, and everybody knows the boys: the magistrate knows who is right and who is wrong, and he knows what to do with them. As regards the tourists, if they have a crime record they give them the birch and chuck them out; if they have not a record, they throw them on a boat and send them back. That seems to cure the trouble all right.
There are three sorts of boys who could have reactions. There is a boy like me—a boy, you might say, with spirit. It had a good effect on me; and it had a good effect on the boys I have mentioned. Then there is the boy who perhaps has a bad family background and who is a bit morose. I think it might turn him sour and turn him into a criminal. Then there is the naturally shy boy, who might be ashamed of being held down and having his trousers taken down. It might give him a complex which would last him for the rest of his life; and it might ruin his life.
My youngest daughter always says that I look round, but I am really "square"; and this is quite true. I am talking in some ways about things which happened fifty years ago when I was at school. My beating was a long time ago. I know it is a cliché, but I cannot help saying that, although the world has changed out of all recognition, I do not think human nature has changed.
5.57 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat has been advocating the use of corporal punishment, but at the end he said that he did not think it would be appropriate in this country, so there is really hardly any need to reply to him. I would, however, remind him that we had the Cadogan Committee, a very strong Committee, some years before the

215
war, which went into this matter thoroughly and recommended that corporal punishment, which then existed in this country, should be abolished. It was abolished, I think, in the years soon after the war, and that abolition was not followed by any increase in the sort of crimes for which it had previously been used. I think that was the end of the matter, so far as corporal punishment was concerned in this country.
I should like to add my tribute to those which have been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for initiating this debate. As one of the few survivors of what was at one time called the "Crime Club" in this House (I think the noble Earl the Leader of the House is the only other survivor whose name is on the list of speakers to-day), I felt that I should like to take part in the session this afternoon. I was a little doubtful about it, because I had two engagements. One of them I succeeded in getting rid of; but, unfortunately, I could not avoid the other, and, therefore, I should like to apologise to the noble Earl if I have to leave before he comes to reply.
I remember well the debate we had a year ago, to which reference has been made more than once to-day and which was initiated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. His speech, which provided a notable survey of the whole of this distressing social phenomenon, was most interesting and it led to a valuable debate. The analysis of the problem is, I think, now in broad outline pretty well complete. In these debates, which have been going on for nearly twenty years, we have continually called for research; and it has been called for again this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. A great deal of research is now going on. The noble Lord referred, in particular, to the valuable work which has been done at Cambridge by the Institute of Criminology there, which was one of the outstanding contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, when he was Home Secretary.
I think it is a great pity that we have not had the advantage of a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, this afternoon, because his holding of the Office of Home Secretary was quite a landmark in dealing with these
216
problems of crime, and I am sure that a speech from the noble Lord would have added great value to our discussions.
I believe that the research which has already taken place has revealed many, if not most, of the basic factors which are involved in this problem. There are, no doubt, still differences of opinion among the experts on a number of these matters, but, broadly, I think the main outlines are now reasonably clear for a programme of action. What we really want to do is to put the programme into effect. What seems to me to be clear is that, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has said about the distress and feeling in the community, the other speeches, or many of them, which have been made this afternoon show that as a community we are not yet sufficiently emotionally engaged to get rid of this terrible problem. We are not, as a community, sufficiently concerned, and speech after speech this afternoon has brought that out.
The maiden speech—one which was full of interesting ideas—of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, I thought was very good evidence of that, as was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. If the community was really as distressed as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, thinks, it would see to it that steps were taken in order that people who were not prepared to co-operate with the police were made to do so. The 10 per cent. of people who would not cooperate with the police said, "It does not matter; we are insured. If we are burgled we shall get the money back from the insurance company". The insurance companies make no real effort by putting up premiums in bad cases or by inspections. That is typical of the businessmen to whom the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred—which was the subject-matter of this interesting Cambridge survey; Dr. Martin, I think, carried it through—who prosecute in only a small percentage of cases when crimes occur in their works and in their offices. In many cases they do their best to prevent the police from prosecuting because they think it would interfere with their works, and would give them a bad name with their customers.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned insurance companies. He is not quite accurate. In

217
many cases premiums have gone up, and if the public, and particularly businesses, do not take notice of what has been said here to-day, a great many of them will have a considerable shock quite shortly.
LORD CHORLEY: I hope to goodness they will. It has always been my experience that insurance companies were not sufficiently elastic in their handling, not only of this matter but in other problems of this kind—in the way of assessing the risk of the particular insured and adjusting the premium to the needs of the situation. These instances show that the community as a whole is not sufficiently engaged in the solution of this problem. There is a lot of talk on this subject in the newspapers and there is, no doubt, a lot of talk in public houses over glasses of beer. But from the point of view of assisting the police the situation is in many respects deplorable.
These debates are not political, although the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, did his best to give a political cut to his speech this afternoon. I should say, rather, that they are not Party political debates, because in the real sense of politics they are very political indeed. The maintenance of order in a community is the basis on which all political institutions are built, and it is beginning to look as though we are reaching a stage where we cannot preserve law and order effectively in our country. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will forgive me if I dwell for a few minutes on what seem to me to be some of the matters which are basic to the whole of this problem, and which will inevitably lead me to observations which may be considered as having some Party political flavour.
The more I have studied the problems of crime in our community (and I have been studying them for many years) the more I have been convinced that criminality is to a large extent due to the very structure of our society as it exists at the present time—not only our society here, but our society in what are called capitalistically organised communities. Western Europe and America, of course, are the most outstanding examples of this —a society which is based on private profit, and is largely uncontrolled, which when it knows it needs a strong police force cannot take the necessary steps to get it. You cannot do many of the other
218
things which to-day's debate has shown to be absolutely essential, and which ought to be done in a society which is well-knit and knows how to control itself, in a society in which many of the least desirable proclivities of the human animal are encouraged. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred to gaming in particular, which is an outstanding example of this, and which is titillated all the time by an enormous advertising system, one of the greatest economic systems in the country, and by a daily Press in which the moral standard is not, at any rate, very obvious in many cases. This sort of thing is bound to produce criminality, and a great deal of it.
It is not only noteworthy but, in my submission, significant—and I think it was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester who drew attention to this fact—that the country in which this sort of society is the most highly organised, or the most completely unorganised, the United States of America, is the one which is worst off in this way, and in which crime statistics make ours look pale by comparison; in which the galloping increase every year is a much faster gallop than anything which we have so far experienced in this country. I think this is bound to be so, because where this type of life is magnified to the greatest extent, criminality, which is an ineradicable part of it, is bound to be magnified at the same time. I do not think this is in any way an accident. I think there is obviously a close relationship between these two phenomena. This type of laissez-faire, private profit, private enterprise country has many deplorable features, of which an excess of criminality, it seems to me, is only one. I dislike it intensely, and that is the reason why I am Socialist, and proud to say so. I do not, of course, suggest that there is no crime in Socialist countries, but certainly there is nothing like the amount which we are experiencing in the capitalist countries of Western Europe and America at the present time.
It will obviously be some time before we get a Socialist society in this country. Meanwhile we must do our best with what we have, and I am afraid that all we can hope for is to effect a certain amount of improvement. The researches which have been referred to, and which I have mentioned, show that criminality

219
is a hydra-headed problem. Some of the heads can be chopped off, and in some of the other cases some of the teeth can be drawn out of the heads; but it will not be got rid of completely, or anything like completely, in my view. 'This is obviously not altogether satisfactory, but it is the best that we can do in the circumstances.
It is the same to a large extent with the nation's health, where we are devoting the greater part of our energy to curing diseases and illnesses which we make no real effort to prevent by a proper system of preventive medicine. We are so much engaged in trying to cure the people who are ill that we do not seem to have any time, money, or doctors left to go in for real preventive medicine.
On the last occasion, I devoted most of my speech to the problems of juvenile delinquency, and in particular to the probation side of it, which has been so well looked after by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, this afternoon. I must say that the figures he gave about the London region are very alarming indeed. I hope that the Government will be able to see some way of dealing with the problem, because if what he suggested is likely to happen, unless action is taken, does happen, it will be serious; for London is much the worst of all these areas where criminality is so rampant. However, I do not want to go over that ground again, because it has been well traversed this afternoon.
It seems to me that a great deal of the pilfering and destruction—indeed, in the early stages I think practically all of it—caused by the young people about whom we have been talking is due to sheer exuberance and thoughtlessness; and in fact most of these boys become quite decent and law-abiding citizens later on. The real difficulty in a society such as I have been describing is to make these lads realise what their actions really mean; to bring them up against the reality of the situation. Most of them have practically no capacity to realise this. I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that most of them are illiterate; that they have no capacity to realise that they are injuring their own community. They do not understand the community in which they live, and I believe that a much better approach is
220
through their feelings and through the fact that they know among themselves how individuals can be hurt and injured. Few of them seem to have any realisation of this to begin with, but it can be brought home to them.
One of the ways in which consciousness of this important fact can be induced in them is to make them contribute towards the indemnification of their victims—the people who have been injured or deprived of their property by their activities. This requires a much more flexible system of fining, combined with probation, than we have at present, and I hope that the Home Office will pay some attention to a revision of the provisions which at present exist, under which one cannot adequately fine and put on probation at the same time. This can be applied only to the older boys when they are detained in approved schools or borstal institutions, and it means, of course, that they will have to do some work for which they can earn money. There must be a system of remunerated employment. The importance of this to persons who are detained in gaols, borstal institutions or elsewhere has been underlined on many occasions in these debates, and I think this shows how closely many of these things are bound up with each other.
I do not want to go into the question of employment at present, except to say that the progress which has been made is distressingly slow, in spite of the valuable Reports which we have had from Sir Wilfred Anson and his Committee. I repeat that this is, perhaps, the most important aspect of all. It is important, as part of the reason for providing prisoners with work, and remunerating that work, that one should be in a position to take part of that remuneration for the purpose of indemnifying the victims of the crimes and bringing it home to the man in question, so that he appreciates the situation. I think that can be done, and it is certainly a view held by some prison officers who have recently given a good deal of consideration to this problem. I am sure that it will have a rehabilitating effect.
I hope that the scheme introduced not long ago for indemnifying the victims of criminal injuries will not be allowed to interfere with the adoption of the suggestion that I have made. As I understand it, that scheme has made quite good progress and would appear to be working

221
reasonably well. The various objections which were put forward by the last Administration for fending it off for quite a long time—and I think the noble Earl is entitled to a great deal of the credit for the fact that the scheme finally went through—have, in fact, proved, as this sort of difficulty so often does prove, to be quite easily surmountable. If I may say so, however, far too little is known about the working of this scheme. The monthly releases of notes to the Press on the cases have no more than a journalistic interest. They are of little value to the serious student of these problems, or to the lawyers who are required to consider them in connection with helping the victims to put forward claims. In particular, the reasons for the decisions, particularly in cases where there are appeals, which are quite a vital part of building up a jurisprudence on this sort of thing, are altogether insufficient.
I appreciate that there must be some degree of anonymity in this sort of work, but I suggest that it has been carried to the stage where it is impossible to discover what, if any, are the substantive principles which are being developed. To a large extent, the releases are intended for the guidance of applicants, but the details given are of such a sketchy character that they cannot be of any real assistance. This is especially so in the case of the unsuccessful applications, in which, so far as I know, no information is given at all. This makes it quite impossible for a lawyer to advise a would-be applicant as to whether he should put in a claim, and, if so, how he should prosecute it. The Board has to make an annual report to Parliament, and I hope that the Government will take steps to ensure that this gives a much fuller account of the Board's work than has appeared in the monthly releases, so that the lawyers who handle these cases, as well as the sociologists and criminologists who are concerned with the wider aspects of the working of this scheme, may have the material on which to form judgments and reach decisions.
My Lords, I realise that I am getting near the 25-minute limit. Therefore I will not make any other point, except to ask the Government to take note of this particular matter, which although I appreciate that it is rather peripheral to the main topic of discussion this afternoon, is, nevertheless, one of substantial
222
importance, and one which I am sure your Lordships will agree requires to be properly looked into. If the Government will look into it, it will be of the greatest value to my colleagues at the London School of Economics and also to my colleagues in the legal profession who are concerned to advise their clients.
6.19 p.m.
LORD SIMEY: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that the community is insufficiently involved in the questions we have been discussing, but I ask myself whether it would be desirable to involve the community without careful consideration as to how it can be done. We have in front of us the rising crime statistics, and I am sure that we do not want the community to be emotionally involved, in the sense that panic measures which are not of themselves well conceived are taken under general pressure. The involvement of the community needs to be a rational involvement, and the measures to be taken in the future need to be carefully thought out and based upon considered opinion. There is among the people who are responsible for research a tendency for discussion to concentrate now more and more on the curious problem why it is that more people do not commit crime than do so at the moment. That may sound very strange indeed to your Lordships, but it really is a problem to understand why, with all the reasons for which we now understand people commit crime, all the people exposed to those influences do not commit crimes. We have many people who have come from drunken homes, who live in inadequate circumstances in the slums, who suffer from matrimonial disputes, and so on, but in fact the vast majority of them do not commit crime.
We are now coming to the conclusion that what we need is to study the sorts of strains to which the people who commit crime are exposed. The problem is to understand how circumstances of this kind, plus something else, do lead to crime. The obvious fact about the situation is that what seems to lie at the back of crime is change. The more rapid social change becomes, the more crime is committed. The more rapid social change, the more affluence there is in society; hence you get this extraordinary paradox of affluence leading to crime.

223
Social change has a direct impact upon the norms of behaviour that people are brought up in their childhood to accept. It is one thing accepting the norm when this is what you have learned is right and proper, which may require you to endure certain circumstances and you therefore endure them; and it is quite another thing to grow up in a society in which those norms themselves are under challenge and people discover that other sorts of social life altogether are possible for them.
In other words, people find that though they may have been taught in their early childhood to endure adverse circumstances in the slum, the slum is not necessary; one can get out of it. And though it is, of course, possible for many people to get out of the slum by hard endeavour, by learning how to improve their position in society, it is also possible to get out of the slum by crime. In an unfortunate number of cases, crime does pay. We are now in a position when, as the right reverend Prelate will doubtless agree, it is no longer possible to teach Sunday School children that:
"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly
And ordered their estate."
It does not work. Though I have seen Sunday School children being taught that to-day, I am sure the right reverend Prelate will agree it is quite time all that stopped and the Church had another and very deep think indeed about these things.
Therefore, the concept of crime is not solely a sociological one. It is not solely a matter of science. Science can tell us a lot about crime, but it cannot tell us anything like everything. My colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, came to the conclusion after a long study of crime from the scientific point of view that, "It seems time that we recognised that delinquency or criminality is not a rational field of discourse". I am sure we should all recognise the element of truth in that statement, but we should also recognise that it is a matter for rationality in so far as the morality in human behaviour is itself a rational subject of discourse.
The facts are extremely worrying. I happen to live on the edges of a slum area, and my colleagues have been conducting researches in that area concerning
224
the spread of crime there. They have come to the conclusion, as Professor Mays has said in his book Growing Up in the City, that at one stage in the life of growing boys—not in girls, and that in itself is a highly significant fact—particularly adolescent boys, every boy is delinquent. He goes through a phase in his life when the society in which he lives requires that he becomes delinquent in order to establish his position in that society. Of course, we cannot leave that as it is, because though most of the boys go through that phase, the process of maturation brings them back into the law-abiding community. However, it does stick to some of the boys; some of the boys become lifelong criminals as a result, and we have to do something about it. It is no good just regretting things: that leads to panic.
We must develop an understanding of how we can move forward, and we can move forward on one of two lines. We can move forward tactically, which means we strengthen the police force, provide them with more facilities, and endeavour to amend the rates of pay, and so forth, to attract more young men to the police. That must be done; there is no doubt about that. We have endeavoured to be more inventive in our police services in Liverpool than some speeches would suggest. We have introduced closed circuit television, which has led to a sudden jump in the number of arrests and convictions for theft from cars, for instance. Moreover, the police force in Liverpool has shown an awareness of the social component of crime among young people, in so far as we have developed a juvenile liaison scheme, again with considerable success. The scene which we face is not by any means a wholly black one. Much can be done in the immediate future. I am delighted to hear of the installation of a computer in New Scotland Yard in London, and all I can do is to plead for a land line teleprinter line from Liverpool to New Scotland Yard.
The other line of advance is strategic. We must learn more about the sorts of influences, the kinds of strains, which lead to one person in ten becoming a lifelong criminal. I suggest that there are a number of obvious lines which we need to adopt now. We need, for instance, to understand that the educational system

225
is an extraordinarily patchy one as it exists at the moment. Up to school-leaving age, we are working might and main to make this really effective and efficient, and a great deal of success has arisen from that effort. But, on the other hand, as soon as the child leaves school, what happens? We discover that the influence of the school over the child tapers off very quickly. At the school-leaving age, the child is no longer under the continuing influence of teachers. He is pitched out into employment and a big gap develops.
On the Crowther Committee on education for children and young people between the ages of 16 and 18, we discovered that there was a lamentable gap between young people and the educational system. Further education extending after school-leaving age tends to be, except for a minority, a mockery. We must go ahead with that. We are only reaping the result of the seeds we have sown ourselves, if we expect our young adult population to go perfectly straight, when virtually no effort is being made at the moment to induce them to do so. As far as the Crowther Committee was concerned, much emphasis was placed on the importance of developing the services of youth. We want all our young people who are not under the direct influence of the Education Service to be members of the Youth Service, and there is a tremendous harvest which could be reaped in that field. The Committee itself said:
"In no field of education can the expenditure of public money accomplish so much and so readily".
That is the first positive suggestion under the heading of a strategic approach.
Secondly, there is the whole problem of young people in employment. Lamentably little is done for them now, even by way of giving them training to occupy higher positions in industry. They are left to sink or swim. Although they have some assistance directed to them by technical schools, through the apprenticeship system, that applies to only a small minority. To quote the Report of the Crowther Committee again:
"Surely society ought not to withdraw from the young worker the help that it gave to the schoolboy".
I was most interested to see in a leading article in the Guardian yesterday a statement that a long section of the Crowther
226
Report was devoted to county colleges, and the further statement that it was high time that we had another look at that section. We in Liverpool have one county college. This operates on a voluntary basis—voluntary as between the educational authority and employing firms. I know its operations well and, in my opinion, they are quite magnificent.
So far as the operation of the delinquency services are concerned, there are certain specific things that can be done. Again, in my opinion, this to some extent should come under the heading of "tactical", but it is really a mixture of tactical and strategic. I was for a number of years an adviser on welfare in the Caribbean for the Colonial Office, and delinquency services fell within my ambit. It became necessary for me to take a look at, rather than to inspect, the prison services of all the Colonies in that region, and also to some extent the police services. It became plain to me as I went round—this point forced itself on my attention—that crime is, to far too great an extent, punished by short sentences. There are still, despite all the reforms that have been put through in the last few years, too many people in prison for a matter of weeks or the odd month. In that case, time and time again in the Caribbean I found that the point was proved that the prison is nothing more than a college of crime. It is where many young people may be sent, where young adults may be sent, who in this country at the moment are forced into far too close proximity with people who have learned hardened ways of crime, not necessarily by repeated convictions. It may indeed be for their first conviction. But they know about it. That should no longer be possible.
I personally should certainly like to abolish now all sentences of up to six months. If we are really going to be adventurous in this, and are going to try to do something which is effective in a short time, I should like us to abolish all sentences of up to a year. How, then, would I deal with the offenders? I assure your Lordships that I do not speak in any sense as a sentimentalist. In fact, when I addressed the Judiciary in several of the Colonies in the West Indies, they started by criticising me as a sentimentalist but on some occasions they ended by saying that I was a hardhearted man. Having abolished short

227
prison sentences, I would substitute for them, first, the expedient of an attendance centre for the young adult. I would put up the ages. My own view of the behaviour of the young criminal is such that I would not object to seeing quite an amount of activity required of young men at attendance centres. They would go on to a barrack square and march smartly about to learn the elements of drill. When they have learned that really effectively they might assimilate from the people concerned the elements of self-respect. They know that they can do one thing at least well.
Again, I would attach much more importance to fines. That point has been made by one noble Lord in this debate. I would require the payment of much higher fines. I would associate fines with probation and with compensation, and I would regard—this is a point I established in the West Indies—the nonpayment of fines and non-attendance at the compulsory centre as serious offences. I would regard the non-payment of a fine as a serious offence if it were in the capacity of the offender to pay.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord in his most interesting argument, but it would help me if I knew whether he was making his suggestions in relation to offenders of all ages, or whether he was speaking exclusively of the young delinquent.
LORD SIMEY: I would certainly start with the young adult delinquent. You cannot undertake to look after groups of people of miscellaneous ages in this way, otherwise you start facing again the problem of contamination; and that has got to be avoided at all costs. So far as I was concerned, the only mixed age groups which I consented to, and indeed encouraged, were those on a farm prison we started in Jamaica where the older offenders proved to he those people who had the normal attributes of the society more embedded in their personality than anybody else. They were extremely well behaved people, and they objected strongly to the bad behaviour of the young people. In fact the older inhabitants of the farm prison were as strong an influence for discipline as we had. It worked extremely well. I would regard the short prison sentence, in other words,
228
as an utter folly which we must get away from.
May I say, in conclusion, that I welcome all the pronouncements made by the Government for advance alone this broad front which we have established in the last eight months or so. But I would recognise that the path of reform is troubled. Nothing that we can do can halt or even retard change. It must continue if we are to maintain our place in the world. We are, indeed, on the economic front encouraging change as rapidly as we can. We cannot be in favour of change in one phase of life and not in favour of it in another. There are going to be many and serious problems to encounter. We are going to face the fact that many men, particularly young men with disturbed minds, are going to seek to extract by force from the community that which they do not see fit to endeavour to earn, and the prisons are going to be institutions with a continuity in this society. I greatly regret that, but I regard it, nevertheless, as inevitable.
I suggest that we must have regard to priorities in this matter. I have had instilled in my own heart the idea of mercy, the idea of love, by my Christian teachers. But this to me is, to some extent, a matter of degree. I have a keen sympathy for young people growing up in really adverse circumstances, seemingly with no chance at all.
Their position has always touched my emotions deeply. I have seen people like that in boys' clubs that I know, fighting back against the adverse circumstances to which they are exposed and making a good thing of life in the end. In my area—I am assured that no other area in Great Britain has a higher rate of crime—I see people who have been described in this debate. I have watched people whose conduct is violent, who assault others physically and who are, for instance, prepared to kick them when they are down. Those people will go to prison in the end, so devoutly trust. But if I had the spending of another £1 million, I would spend it on the young people I know rather than on, shall I say, train robbers.
6.40 p.m.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, I was not in your Lordships' House yesterday when Lord Egremont's Motion was debated, but I am going to follow him by making a short speech. I should

229
first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, very much for bringing forward this Motion. As usual, we have had a most interesting debate, ranging all over England, and even over to the Isle of Man. Before I say anything about the debate or my own views, I should like warmly to congratulate my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton on his maiden speech. He spoke—I will not say with great experience of crime, but certainly from his experience in the prevention of it; and it was a very good maiden speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, mentioned that the deterrent is the certainty of detection and conviction. I should like to add the words "and appropriate punishment after conviction". On that subject I feel that many of our young people are so much better off nowadays than they were some years ago that the fines imposed upon them are quite worthless as a deterrent. I know of a young people's club in my area into which they pay so much a week, and when a conviction is met with they are able to take their fines out of the club. Whether the amount is five shillings or so for a crime of vandalism or some other sum for smashing up railway carriages, they regard it as quite a joke. I feel that fines should be in the same ratio as the inflation from which we suffer. The pound is worth roughly one-quarter of what it was worth in 1938, and I think that fines ought to be quadrupled to equate with that situation.
I want to come now to the question of the encouragement of crime. The situation in regard to the discouragement of crime has been put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Strange. I congratulate him on the fact that the birching he got at Eton (which, alas!, I did not undergo) was an incentive to him, in that he was able to make a speech lasting a quarter of an hour without the aid of a single note. I have a note or two, but perhaps if I had been birched like Lord Strange I should not have needed a note in my hand at all. I congratulate him on his speech. I wish that the birching which takes place in the Isle of Man (which the noble Lord himself has not experienced), where he now lives, could be extended to other parts of the country generally. I feel that it would act as much more of a deterrent to young people than the
230
imposition of a small fine or a short term of detention.
One point that I want to make is about the influence of the B.B.C. on young people. I am sorry to have to say that the B.B.C. has deteriorated very much since the days when Lord Reith looked after it. We now have television, of course, which we did not have in those early days, and I know that many young people spend their evenings when they come back from school looking at television. The parents hardly switch it off. They regard television as a kind of nanny to keep the young children employed, while they themselves go off to do their cooking, or have their evening meal, or to do some work outside. The children see murder films, immoral films—in fact every sort of film—on television, and I am sure that young people take notice of what they see. Very often in the films the murderer or person who commits crimes comes out best, and I feel that this is an encouragement to young people to commit crimes when they are older. That point should be looked into, either by some Government Committee or by a Commission of a responsible nature. I feel that this deterioration in the material shown on television is to some extent coincident with the increase in crime. The noble Lord, Lord Simey, said that all young boys pass through a period of wishing to be delinquent.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, if the noble Lord has finished with the B.B.C., would it not be fair to make this comment; that unfortunately Her Majesty's Government will not abolish the "pirate" radio stations, and, so far as sound radio is concerned, the B.B.C. have to live in the world which they find around them; and it makes life for them very difficult in trying to uphold standards in sound radio?
LORD BROCKET: I believe that Radio Caroline is stationed near the Isle of Man, where there is less crime than anywhere else. I do not see why there should be an auction to get more and more of these things on B.B.C. I believe that the B.B.C. should have its own high standards and not pay attention to Radio Caroline, especially as Radio Caroline does not seem to have much effect on the Isle of Man. That is all I wish to say. I certainly hope that

231
Her Majesty's Government will take into account the question of the B.B.C.'s influence.
6.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, one point seems not to have been referred to, and it is a point which I think could be considered. The rule which prescribes anonymity among security workers in the Defence services would seem to be essential if detection is to be facilitated in civil life. How do Press headlines, advertising by name the police officers concerned in a case, help the police or the C.I.D. in their task? How frequently do we ourselves and the criminal world see who is detailed to solve the crime? Such slogans as "The Big Five" or an individual officer's name may give the show away if the criminal world can assess the reputation of a policeman as being as cunning as themselves, or, on the other hand, frequently unsuccessful in his efforts. May I ask the noble Earl, the Leader of the House the question? Whose responsibility, is it, if it is not that of the Home Office, to lay down anonymity for the sleuths who are trying to protect the public by apprehending perpetrators of crime? Are the Press on the side of the public when advertising individuals as being on the job? What success would MI5 have if their efforts were publicised so that the enemy were given something to go on? "The Big Five" are not in the same position as a winning football team. I should have thought that similar publicity was against the public interest.
6.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl who has just spoken, and who is such an acceptable speaker, will allow me to think over his last point a little more carefully. I feel that there is a great deal of force in what he has said; but how one could give effect to it without interfering with the much treasured freedom of the Press is a matter that I should like to think over and refer to my colleagues. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, will also allow me to pass over in relative silence his remarks, which again need more careful thought outside the confines of our precise debate to-night.
232
I rise under the burden of two considerations, in particular. One is the revelation that I usually take 33 minutes to wind up a debate, where the Lord Chancellor takes 17. The only occasion on which we spoke at equal length was in the debate on crime last year, when we each spoke for 36 minutes; and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, as he himself said, spoke for even longer. We have all made good resolutions since that time. My resolution to-night is to speak for 17 minutes, but if that proves too short I shall know better in future. The other sobering reflection is that for the ten years during which I have been initiating these debates on prisons and crime, with the collaboration of many noble Lords, and particularly in recent years the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I have been denouncing inadequacies in our prison and after-care system. It now falls to my lot, I suppose, in some sense, to be their champion. That again places me in a slightly embarrassing position.
I know that we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for initiating this debate, and, if I may respectfully say so, for the generous attitude which he has displayed. He did not whip round on us and try, so to speak, to pay off any old scores. He was thoroughly statesmanlike, and we are very grateful to him. I must agree with the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords in making distinction between the attack on crime and the question of penal reform. I agree entirely with what fell from the right reverend Prelate, and also from the noble Lord, Lord Simey, who is one of the leading authorities in the country on this question and who refused to draw any sharp distinction between the tactical and the strategic approach.
I do not want to pin the noble Lord down too hard on this, and I realise that he is hoping to inaugurate a debate on penal reform before we are all very much older. I agree that for the purpose of these debates, we have to draw a line somewhere but I would certainly dissent, as would all who would possibly call themselves penal reformers, from any idea that it is possible to separate the attempt to reduce crime in our community from the attempt to treat delinquents in the right way or to help those who, when they are quite young, are potential delinquents. That applies, perhaps, to a large

233
proportion of the population. In other words, while we cannot fundamentally draw any distinction between the treatment and the prevention of crime, that does not prevent us in these discussions from concentrating on one part more than another, just as we have a Foreign Affairs debate and a Defence debate, although we know that in these days one can hardly separate Foreign Affairs from Defence.
But this point I am making is not by any means—and I am sure that neither the right reverend Prelate nor anyone else would think it was—a minor point or a matter of words, because there is a fundamental distinction here—I will not say between the political Parties, because this is not, or should not be, a Party issue, but between what I would call the ancient and modern approach to crime. I think the fundamental distinction is that in the modern approach you try to understand the delinquent, and the man who is very nearly delinquent or is a potential delinquent, before, and it may be after, denouncing him. And when I say that I do not mean for a moment that you have to set out to overthrow ancient values. Take the family which we all concentrate on, and which is now, if you like, quite fashionable in the most advanced circles. It seems to me that here what is particularly interesting to-day is the coming together of traditional Christian wisdom, and the latest insights of the sociologists and the psychiatrists, for whom the noble Lords, Lord Simey, Lord Chorley and Lord Wells-Pestell could speak; and no doubt they also speak as Christians. This is, in my opinion, so important that I felt it right to say that at the very beginning.
Then we had a very interesting maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton. He raised a number of issues which I cannot pursue now, but I should like to assure him that we would often hope to hear him again. He raised one issue, in particular, on which a lot more could be said: the question of whether we are bringing people up to-day with a weakened respect for authority. I suppose that that has been said from ancient times. I imagine that the older generation, to which the noble Lord hardly belongs yet, but of which I am certainly a member, have always thought that the young have not
234
a proper respect for their elders. You will find that in the wisdom of the Greeks and Romans. So I do not think there is anything very new about that. But what I do regard as particularly important in this age, whether we take the family or take society generally, is to combine the new-found liberties which we all applaud, I think, as a sign of progress, with the maintenance of this adequate respect for authority which has been proved throughout the centuries to be essential to a good society. So I feel that the problem is once again to bring together the ancient and the modern values.
Then we had some fairly definite remarks from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers (though with many apologies I must admit that I did not hear them) on the subject of corporal punishment. I will not say more, particularly as I had to be absent during his remarks, except to remind him that this issue was debated in this House, which is still regarded as a fairly conservative place of discussion, not so long ago, and the overwhelming sense of the House was opposed to the reintroduction of corporal punishment.
The noble Lord, Lord Strange, delighted us, as always, and for a time, almost, you might say, till the last stride of his race, I thought that he was running on the same side as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. But then he seemed to turn round and say that he did not wish to see corporal punishment reintroduced in this country. I was going to argue with him more strongly, if he had not seemed, so to speak, to join us as he neared the tape. But may I put one point to him which was passing through my mind as he spoke? Apparently, after this beating, or birching, that he received—and it occasionally fell to my lot at Eton, I am bound to say, to see other boys beaten; by that time I had passed the stage of being beaten, but I have in fact been bended over and received punishment from the schoolmaster in my time, although I cannot say that it did me any good, and I do not think the House will think that my character is very beautiful as a result—the noble Lord, Lord Strange, feared nothing. I think that that raises the question of whether the ordinary boy is going to fear another beating. Is it, in fact, a deterrent? I think one must raise that question. But

235
whether we look at it from that point of view or from another point of view, it was very striking that when this Government advisory Committee went into the matter some time ago—and, so far as I know, they were far from unanimous when they first came together in opposing corporal punishment—they came down unanimously against it; and, certainly, the House of Lords pronounced very strongly against it not so long ago.
There were some very important speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Wells-Pestell, Lord Simey and Lord Chorley, which certainly cannot be replied to in any way that would be worthy. Lord Wells-Pestell and Lord Simey, I think, both agreed on the necessity for what I might call a combined approach to crime: we need all the different disciplines, all the different forms of human wisdom, and, indeed, human goodness, in this combined attempt to prevent people from committing crime, or to treat them in the right way when they have committed crime so that they do not commit crime again.
I do not know whether Lord Wells-Pestell will be particularly encouraged, but at any rate he can be assured that the amount of money spent on criminological research, though it is impossible to become wildly enthusiastic about it yet, is steadily increasing. It has increased from rather more than £50,000 in the financial year 1963–64, to nearly £100,000 in the current financial year. I tell him that to give him just a little encouragement, but I cannot pretend that he, or perhaps most of those who work with him, are going to throw their hat into the air.
He raised a number of detailed points about the Probation Service. With the exception of the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, who was a so greatly loved Member of this House, I do not think that we have ever had in this House an active former probation officer. Of course, the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, had been President of the Probation Service for many years, but he had not had the long experience in the field which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has. It is worth pointing out that the situation in the London Probation Service is perhaps not quite so bad as the noble Lord's speech might lead
236
us to suppose. He probably knows the inner situation there better than I do, so I am not going to try to correct him with any vehemence. But the position is that five men and five women have given notice to leave by the end of September. However, seventeen men and seven women are expected to take up appointments by early October, and the complement of the service should then be up to its full establishment. The noble Lord may be aware of these facts, but I think the public should be aware of them when they read the noble Lord's speech.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord will not disagree with me that the majority of the ten were going for the reasons which I gave.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think that would carry me into territory which I should be unwise to embark on. But, in fact, I have been given reasons which may or may not—when I show them to the noble Lord—satisfy him on that particular point.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, how do you embark on territory?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I thought that in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I should be permitted to use a loose expression. But, of course, I gladly apologise to the noble Lord, who I see is setting himself up as a second purist. However, it is no good now trying to correct it in Hansard. I see that, at any rate.
The noble Lord, Lord Simey, made one or two fundamental suggestions. The fact that they have not been adopted, of course, does not mean that they never could be adopted. I think the simplest thing is to make sure that they are studied once again. He knows that, in fact, those suggestions have been pressed on the Home Office and the various authorities, and, if I may say so, he had better continue to press them and continue to try to demonstrate that the case is as strong as he says.
I will not reply—in any case, he has left us—to the noble Lord, Lord Willis; but, since his remarks may possibly be published widely, I hope that anyone who is anxious to obtain the full facts will study with at least equal care the speech of my noble friend Lord Stonham—which,

237
of course, was deliberate, with the full authority of the Home Office, and which I know can be accepted as completely accurate.
The question is naturally raised—and it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent: what are we doing, apart from this short-term attack? I think that, in his friendly way, he is well aware that important statements of policy may be expected before very long. I cannot be more precise, but important statements of policy on one or two points are expected before very long. In particular, if we take the question of the treatment of young offenders, he is aware that a White Paper is now being worked on, and I am as anxious as he is to see it appear. It would be an affectation not to remind the House that last year I was chairman of a committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, was perhaps the most distinguished member, which considered the whole question of prevention and treatment of crime, and which made far-reaching suggestions for what might be called a new family approach, including a recommendation of a family service. All that is now being worked on, and it goes without saying that those, such as myself, who produced those plans last year, must hope that the White Paper will come as close as possible to giving effect to them. But more than that it would be improper for me to say.
Again, there are important plans being made for the future of adult prisoners. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was harried in his time by questions about preventive detention; and, therefore, I think he has been quite lenient to-day in not returning to that matter with any special vehemence. But the truth is that, during the past few months, the Home Secretary has been giving a great deal of consideration, not only to how to deal with the classes of offender eligible for preventive detention and corrective training, but also to other questions relating to imprisonment and the transition from imprisonment to life in the outside world. These other questions may well include developments of the hostels scheme and the possibility of new arrangements for paroling prisoners.
It is obvious, from the fact that I am at liberty even to mention such subjects, that fundamental investigations are afoot,
238
and I can only say that I hope—I had better not begin to put any dates as to the production of these documents—it will not be very long before, in regard to both young people and adults, there will be proposals which, at any rate in their magnitude and imagination, will make a good impression on the noble Lord and others present.
The last topic on which I should like to say just one word is the question of after-care—a matter to which, of course, my noble friend Lord Stonham has dedicated so much effort in the past and which he was kind enough to leave to me to-day, at a time when he was, naturally, dealing with many other vital issues. I hope that everybody in this House realises just how hard my noble friend Lord Stonham has worked for individual prisoners in years past. I met one lady—this was before my noble friend became a Minister, but I know he has not changed—whose husband was in prison and who told me (my noble friend Lord Stonham never told me) that she had received 16 letters from Lord Stonham. That is what he would do for the wife of one prisoner, and I think we can take it that he is working as hard as any man can for prisoners, for ex-prisoners and for all in distress: his brief stay in office has already proved that. But he left this question of after-care to me. In all these matters, as the noble Lords, Lord Simey and Lord Wells-Pestell, know so well—and we all, in our different ways, realise it—there is the question of reorganisation. We have to get that straight. But there is also the provision of those who are actually going to do the job—what might be called the social servants. It may be that these will be probation officers or others working in the social field. In my opinion, it has been a pitiful commentary on our society that we have had so few probation officers. I have said this many times in the past, and, having said it so often and talked about the over-work of probation officers, I am afraid it needed the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to tell me to-day that the shortage was so great that, even now, with an increased staff of probation officers, an average probation officer—I suppose that meant in London—would, on average, see an ex-prisoner only once a month. I am bound to say

239
that that was, even for me, a disquieting piece of intelligence.
At any rate, at the time of the Morrison Report in October, 1961, the strength of the Probation Service was 1,826; at the time of the Ado Report, it was 2,129; the present size is 2,446; and it is intended to bring the service up to a strength of 3,500 by 1970. On that calculation, the service would have roughly doubled between 1960 and 1970. I ought to place those plans in front of the House, not concealing the fact that, under the reorganisation, with which I think all in this House agree, the Probation Service is undertaking—I must not say "embarking on"—new and strenuous tasks in the form of after-care. There, they will be supplemented by those who were working in the field before. But we must realise that, even by 1970, this country will not be overburdened by probation officers in view of the colossal duties falling to them.
I should just like to say—and this is, I suppose, in the nature of a small announcement—that the Home Secretary, in consultation with his Advisory Panel for Probation and After-care and various interested organisations, has been giving careful consideration to the best means of giving effect to the intentions of ACTO with regard to prison welfare work, the work inside prisons, and has reached the conclusion that the Quality of the welfare service, and interchange and collaboration between it (that is, the welfare service and the after-care service) will best be ensured by filling prison welfare posts by the secondment of probation officers. This will be done rather than to perpetuate a separate prison welfare service. Work remains to be done on the details of a scheme to give effect to this decision, but we can hope to see a scheme in operation by the end of the year. That is a small announcement, but it will be of considerable interest to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and to those who are most directly concerned.
I must repeat finally—and it is really a general moral, I think, in the minds of all of us, however we divide these subjects for the purpose of discussion—that the reintegration of the offender into the community requires the active interest and support of all members of the community. That has been said by various speakers
240
this afternoon, including the right reverend Prelate. My right honourable friend has been giving much thought to the best and most appropriate methods of maintaining and stimulating the involvement of the whole community in this important social problem. Your Lordships will be aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, who has played such a distinguished part in other debates of this kind but who I imagine has been prevented from being with us to-day, is chairman of a Working Party which has been appointed by my right honourable friend to consider the role of voluntary help in the field of after-care and ways in which financial help from public sources might be given to its endeavours. The point there that I want to stress is that, as the State assumes these responsibilities, we believe more and more that they cannot be shirked by the community as a whole acting through the State; at the same time, the community, acting through voluntary efforts, is called upon for very great exertions, and these we are anxious to encourage in any possible way. I know the House will feel—and we can say it more easily in the absence of the noble Baroness—that no one could be found better than, or as good as, the noble Baroness to organise this voluntary work.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. I regard this as an interim debate. We cannot separate ultimately the attack on crime from the attempt to bring the delinquent into the community and to save young persons before they fall into delinquency. In the last resort it seems to me that the Christian message is clear and can be shared by many who would not describe themselves as dogmatic Christians. We must maintain our standards of condemning crime, of condemning the evil that exists in practically all crimes; but, at the same time, we must somehow find a way of loving the sinner. I myself believe that unless we show ourselves more capable of loving the sinner we shall show ourselves prodigious hypocrites. There is a cynical element in all of us. While I do not believe in what is called being soft, and a great deal less in being hard, I believe in caring much more, in taking more trouble, in being much more constructive and in never, on any account, at any moment, taking

241
up the position that we cannot be bothered with the delinquent. That is one of the unforgivable offences.
7.11 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I shall not keep the House for more than a minute or two. May I first of all thank the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, for proving that it is possible for a Minister to wind up on a fairly wide subject in a short space of time? I hope that all the other Ministers and all the Opposition speakers will learn the lesson. May I congratulate my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton on his maiden speech, which was not only excellent but, if he will forgive my saying so—and I am not being patronising—very well delivered. We shall always be glad to see him here. The House realises fully that it always gains a particular added strength when another Yorkshireman comes to it. I should like to thank both the Ministers who have done their best to answer the questions I have put. The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, dealt to some extent with the subject of my next debate. I agree that we cannot separate the two subjects, except for the purposes of debate; though I still think it was wise to try to do so.
As regards the answers of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I am in one way satisfied and in another disappointed. I am satisfied that the present Government are running along the lines that we laid down in the Home Office and are continuing our policy in a satisfactory manner. But I am a little disappointed in that when we were in office we were always producing new thinking on certain subjects; but there does not appear to be any new thinking since we left office, although I dare say our line of progress has been furthered. I hope when we come to the Autumn debate that new and modern thinking on this question by speakers on the other side, such as was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Simey, will be much more in evidence
242
than it has been to-day. I am a little disappointed that there were no new ideas put forward on how to help the police. I know it is largely a question of money; but I had hoped to hear a good deal more about it. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was not able to say anything about whether we can have different rules for promotion, and so on, in the C.I.D.; but I hope he has taken that point.
I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. I think, having been in the Home Office, that it will help the Department to take hold of ideas that may be new, or may be newly-put. I hope the debate has been useful, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
ABERDARE MARKETS AND TOWN HALL COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment; the said Amendment considered and agreed to.

FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCILM (HIGHER FERRY SALTNEY FOOT- BRIDGE) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.