Sitting of 18 March 1965

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL
  Message of Condolence
  Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that I have received a copy of a resolution passed by the General Assembly of Maryland expressing sympathy on the death of Sir Winston Churchill. I will have the text placed in the Library where it can be seen by hon. Members.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    New Schools (Design)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps have been taken in respect of the design of new school buildings to facilitate outside use.
    Mr. Solomonsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what new building methods and designs for schools are being introduced to facilitate greater use of the buildings and grounds by outside bodies.
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in school design to increase and facilitate the use of schools and their grounds by adult and youth organisations.
    The Minister of State for Education and Science (Mr. R. E. Prentice): The advice of the Department's Architects and Building Branch is always available to education authorities who wish to design schools with wider purposes in mind, such as the incorporation of an
    1446
    evening institute, youth club or adult education centre.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is this really good enough? Is not there a reluctance on the part of local authorities to design these dual-purpose schools, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for bad? In view of the high cost of this capital asset, ought not more effort be made to see that schools are built so that they can be used more advantageously?
    Mr. Prentice: A circular was issued jointly by the Department and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in August last year encouraging greater use of projects of this kind and offering the co-operation of the Department in organising this, and also on the architectural side. We think that an improvement is taking place. In the next two years, 160 secondary school projects are included in the building programmes, which will incorporate other features for further education, youth centres, and so on. This is something that my right hon. Friend will be wanting to stimulate in every way.
    Mr. John Hall: Is it not the case that in some areas, where there is a need for swimming pools, the need could sometimes be met by making available swimming pools in the grounds of schools? Would this be a possibility?
    Mr. Prentice: I have this matter under consideration at present. There is a great deal in the point made by the hon. Member.

    Post-graduate Students
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the annual cost of treating post-graduate students as independent, so relieving their parents of the need to contribute to the cost of their courses.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): About £400,000.
    Mr. Jenkin: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but does he agree that it is a considerable disincentive in cases where parents are having to make a contribution and discourages people from going on to take

    1447
    post-graduate courses? Will not he undertake to look at the matter and see whether there is some way of removing this disincentive?
    Mr. Crosland: I am reluctant to look at this question by itself, because it raises the wider question of parental contributions to all student awards, and that point comes up in a later Question on the Order Paper. I am also reluctant to make any particular decision about post-graduate student awards until I have the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Grants to Students which, as I told the House last week, will be presented to me before Easter.

    London Business School
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made towards finding a permanent site for the location of the new London Business School.
    Mr. Crosland: I understand that the governing body of the London Graduate School of Business Studies is considering this matter, but no recommendation has yet been made.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister bring to the notice of the governing body the desirability of not confining its attentions to the immediate centre of London, bearing in mind that although, in the early stages, it may well be dependent on the two sponsoring bodies, as the years go by it will become more independent and able to stand on its own feet?
    Mr. Crosland: It occurs to me that the hon. Member may have been very interested in the site of the Royal Wanstead School at Snaresbrook in this connection. I understand that this site has been drawn to the attention of the governing body and that it is considering it with other sites. I have no desire or intention to direct it as to what it may ultimately decide to be the most convenient and admirable site.

    Language Laboratories
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to encourage an
    1448
    increase in the number of language laboratories.
    Mr. Prentice: My Department organises a large number of courses in which the importance of language laboratories is emphasised and encourages the use of the laboratories by teachers and local education authorities.
    Mr. Gilmour: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it would give a considerable boost to the export drive to have a language laboratory in every commercial centre? Would he encourage the use in them of such devices as face masks instead of microphones and amplifiers, which would make it easier and cheaper to run them than it is at present?
    Mr. Prentice: The number of language laboratories is spreading rapidly, and I should like to pay a tribute to the schools and colleges introducing them and to the teachers organising their work. There are about 500 in operation at the moment and a further 300 in the course of being installed. I take note of the additional points made by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Solomons: Would the Minister endeavour to see that the increased number of language schools are run and controlled by the local education authorities rather than by private, profit-making, so-called educational establishments which have started to cash in on them?
    Mr. Prentice: The 500 schools to which I referred are language schools and colleges almost entirely under the control of local education authorities.

    Comprehensive Education
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether in his circular inviting local authorities to put forward schemes for the reorganisation of secondary education on comprehensive lines, he will deal with the issue of compulsion.
    Mr. Bostonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in asking local education authorities to submit schemes for the reorganisation of secondary education, he will deal with the issue of compulsion.
    Mr. Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science

    1449
    whether, in inviting local education authorities to submit schemes for reorganising secondary education on cornprehensive lines, he will state his policy on compulsion.
    Mr. Crosland: I propose to settle the terms of the circular after consultation with the local authority, teacher and other appropriate associations to whom I hope shortly to send a draft.
    Mr. Lloyd: Since the right hon. Gentleman seems to have a more conciliatory tone on secondary education than his predecessor, does he recollect that Mr. Gaitskell gave his approval to inter-working between the grammar schools and what one might call the new generation of secondary modern schools where O-level courses are taken and suitable children have the opportunity to proceed to the higher forms of the grammar schools? Would he bear in mind that this might prove a healing formula if he would accept it as one form of the comprehensive principle in suitable cases?
    Mr. Crosland: I cannot detect any change in tone between my predecessor and myself. I regard the question of compulsion as an academic question at the moment. We have to remember that, despite the discouragement of the previous Government, the movement towards comprehensive reorganisation is already very strong. I am perfectly confident that local authorities will respond voluntarily and co-operatively to our request to submit plans.
    Sir E. Boyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, first, that his remarks about active discouragement go too far in a number of cases, and secondly, that the crucial question is whether all children, on transferring from primary to secondary schools, should go to a school which covers the whole range of normal ability? The question is, should authorities be compelled to adopt some school pattern of this kind? There is no burking that issue.
    Mr. Crosland: On the question of active discouragement, I would willingly say that the right hon. Member gave more encouragement to comprehensive reorganisation. I think, than any other Conservative Minister of Education. Certainly, one or two of his predecessors acted in a way to which I do not think it is unfair
    1450
    to apply the description "active discouragement". On the second point, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, I would ask him, if he would, to await the terms of the circular. I do not think he will find that this represents any attempt to compress this reorganisation into one mould. Far from it.
    Mr. Park: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the principle of compulsion, to which hon. Members opposite are now objecting, was adopted by them on a number of occasions in the past, when Conservative Ministers of Education refused to allow local education authorities to implement agreed schemes of comprehensive education?
    Mr. Crosland: It is true, as my hon. Friend says, that Conservative Ministers of Education never took the view that they would allow local authorities to do exactly what they liked in this matter.
    Mr. Fellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in considering schemes for the introduction of comprehensive education, he will have particular regard to the details of each scheme and its likely effect on the resulting standard of education in the area concerned.
    Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Fell: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he realises that Great Yarmouth has a very high educational standard? Will he examine very carefully the scheme put to him by Great Yarmouth, and does he agree that it is better to wait for a good comprehensive system of education than to try to push something which is a sham system?
    Mr. Crosland: I am very aware that Great Yarmouth has a very high educational standard, which is reflected in the alacrity with which it put forward a scheme for the comprehensive reorganisation of its secondary schools. I have written to Great Yarmouth saying that I welcome its decision to go comprehensive, but there are two particular implications of the scheme which I want to examine before taking a final decision. One concerns any possible report of the Local Government Boundary Commission, and the other concerns what the Norfolk authority will do in respect of

    1451
    the places which it now takes up in the selective schools in Yarmouth.
    Mr. Boston: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great advantages of the comprehensive system is its flexibility and adaptability to suit local conditions and that much more could be done to publicise the various systems which can be used?
    Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir. I absolutely agree that that is an advantage. As to the publicising of the different methods, this will be done as soon as we issue the circular to local education authorities, which I shall issue in draft form very shortly.
    Mr. R. W. Elliott: Would the Secretary of State use the maximum influence he can on local authorities in order that they might take the teaching profession in each local education authority area into full consultation before they introduce comprehensive schemes? Is he aware that the headmaster of a famous grammar school in Newcastle-upon-Tyne has described a recently proposed scheme there as purely social engineering without a single good educational reason underlying it?
    Mr. Crosland: If the hon. Gentleman would put a Question on the Order Paper regarding that Newcastle point, I would be happy to answer it. On the general point, I think that consultation with the teachers is of the greatest possible importance. I have personally emphasised this many times in speeches. It will be strongly emphasised in the circular which will be issued to local authorities, so I am in no disagreement with the hon. Gentleman on this.
    Sir E. Boyle: When the right hon. Gentleman talks of the circular being issued very shortly, does he mean, as he said in another context, before Easter?
    Mr. Crosland: I hope that well before Easter the draft of the circular will go to the teachers' organisation, local authority associations and so on for consultation.

    Secondary Modern Schools
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy towards the strengthening of secondary modern schools by preferential allocation of funds and staff.
    Mr. Snowasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state his policy on strengthening secondary modern schools by preferential allocation of funds and staff.
    Mr. Ensorasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has for improving the staffing and other conditions in secondary modern schools.
    Mr. Crosland: It is no part of my policy to give preferential treatment to any one kind of school. My aim is to secure that available resources of money and teachers are fairly shared between all children in whatever kind of school they may be.
    Mr. Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Warwickshire Education Authority, which was a pioneer, with Birmingham and other authorities in their high schools, in developing the modern generation of secondary moderns, gave preference to the secondary moderns for development into high schools to give them a lift, and that when they brought them to the proper standard they established a parity of provision for all types of secondary education?
    Mr. Crosland: I take that point, but I think the situation has been changed by the fact that it is now the Government's policy that secondary education should be reorganised on comprehensive lines. Given this basic decision of policy by the Government, it would be quite inappropriate if, in the interim period, I were to encourage local authorities to give preferential treatment to any one type of school.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend explain the new-found interest of members opposite in secondary education?
    Mr. Speaker: It is no part of his job to explain the interest of hon. Members opposite to him.
    Sir E. Boyle: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to his hon. Friend that the interest dates back as far as 1944, and was strongly expressed in the White Paper of 1958?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Too much education is getting into the question.

    Secondary Education
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to set up committees and commissions to inquire into secondary education.
    Mr. Crosland: None, Sir.
    Mr. Morrison: Would not the right hon. Gentleman think that there could well be a case for setting up some sort of commission on secondary education, similar to Robbins on universities, and Newsom? If he does not think that there is a case, why not?
    Mr. Crosland: The hon. Member should be aware that, in the last few years, we have had the benefit of two reports on secondary education by the Central Advisory Council, one of them the Crowther Report and the other the Newsom Report. What he is asking for has been done not once but twice in the last few years.
    Mr. Morrison: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree, though, that in both those Reports it was pointed out that there was no evidence which would be exact enough to lay down that any one type of secondary school reorganisation was better than any other?
    Mr. Crosland: It will be in the recollection of the House that an essay in textual criticism of the Newsom Report took place in a recent debate on comprehensive reorganisation, when my right hon. Friend, now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, took a very different point of view from that of the hon. Member. On comprehensive reorganisation, I am clear that the Government do not need and should not have the views of an outside commission on this question. In our view—this is supported by the trend which I mentioned earlier amongst local education authorities—the social and educational arguments for this change are overwelming. I know that it is a matter of controversy, and partly for that reason I can see no reason why any outside commission ought necessarily to come to a unanimous conclusion. This is the kind of question on which a responsible Government must make up their mind and give a lead.

    School Building Programme
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will increase the 1965–68 school building programme.
    Mr. Hazellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for increasing the school building programme in the next three years.
    Mr. Stonesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to increase the school building programme in the next three years.
    Mr. Crosland: The programmes for 1965–66 and 1966–67 have already been announced. The total size of the 1967–68 programme has not yet been determined.
    Mr. Morrison: With respect, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite answered my question. I was asking whether he intended to increase the programme in those years, while appreciating that the Conservative Government allocated a big increase for 1965–66.[HON. MEMBERS: "Election."] Would he not agree that by increasing still further the major building programmes he would overcome in some small way some of the damage he has done by cutting so severely the minor school programmes?
    Mr. Crosland: If we take the major programmes and the minor programmes together, we find that from 1964–65 to 1965–66 the total increase will be £86 million to £101 million. On the claim that this programme was announced by the previous Government, it is quite true that this was done—as one or two of my hon. Friends have hinted—in an election year. I have looked up the figures for the last ten years and I find two sets of years in which, after a comparatively high programme, there were cuts in the next three or four years. I have no doubts whatsoever, particularly in the present balance of payments situation, that these cuts would have occurred again.
    Sir E. Boyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me, and also inform his hon. Friend the Minister of

    1455
    State, that the major programme for 1965–66 was not announced in an election year but was firmly committed in October 1963?
    Mr. Crosland: The right hon. Gentleman is an historian and also has a very good memory. He may remember that in October, 1963, everyone on both sides of the House was expecting an election either that autumn or the following autumn.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Would not the right hon. Gentleman admit that he has taken away from local authorities the freedom to spend their own funds on small projects up to £2,000, thereby causing grave difficulty, and will he think of restoring that?
    Mr. Crosland: There are about seven Questions on this subject later on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Deanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, when the Somerset school building programme for 1967–68 will be announced.
    Mr. Prentice: I cannot add to the answer my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member on 1st February.
    Mr. Dean: Is the Minister of State aware that that information takes us no further than we are at the present moment? Can he give an assurance, first, that there will be no cuts in the major building projects already announced for the next three years, and secondly, that lie will take fully into account in deciding future programmes that the increase in the school population in Somerset, particularly in North Somerset, is growing very much faster than the national average?
    Mr. Prentice: The hon. Member will be aware that we have kept to the major programmes already announced, despite the economic crisis we inherited, in a way in which we do not think that hon. Members opposite would have done. Regarding the period 1968 and beyond, I cannot add to the original answer, but all our plans take account of moves in the population and increases in the school population.
    Sir E. Boyle: In view of the fact that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have twice during Question Time taken
    1456
    credit for keeping to programmes announced, may I ask whether it is not the fact that no Government since the war have ever gone back on projects announced and approved to local authorities, which all took place in March and April of last year?
    Mr. Prentice: We were considering projects which are partly allocated in the total major building programme for 1965–68. The first year has been allocated, the second partially but not completely, and the third year hardly at all.
    Mr. John Wellsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the Kent school building programme for 1967–68 will be announced.
    Mr. Prentice: The full school building programme for 1967–68 will be announced for Kent, as for all authorities, after the Government have considered future levels of public expenditure. Meanwhile a first instalment of the 1967–68 programme has already been announced for some authorities and my right hon. Friend proposes to make a similar announcement for Kent shortly.
    Mr. Wells: When this matter is attended to, will the disgraceful cuts in the minor works building programme for Kent be restored, bearing in mind the fact that, although the administrative County of Kent is now slightly smaller, the number of children in school at the period to which my Question refers will be back to about the figure that it was last year? Will the Minister, when he considers this, pay particular attention to Vinters Boys Secondary School?
    Mr. Prentice: I should like notice of the individual school. On the general point about minor works, the allocation for the next financial year is £21 million, which is £3 million more than in the current year, and the share of every local authority, of course, took account of its school population, as well as other relevant factors.

    Teacher Recruitment
    Mr. Peter Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the crash programme for teacher recruitment.
    Mr. Shoreasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will

    1457
    make a statement on his plans for a rapid increase in teacher recruitment.
    Mr. Bostonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his new plans to increase teaching recruitment rapidly.
    Mr. Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how he intends to obtain a rapid increase in teacher recruitment.
    Mr. Stonesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his further plans for teacher recruitment.
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further plans he has for a rapid increase of teacher recruitment.
    Mr. Ogdenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his further plans for teacher recruitment.
    Mr. Dunnasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on his plans for teacher recruitment.
    Mr. Waldenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for a rapid increase in teacher recruitment.
    Mr. Leadbitterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further proposals he has for increasing the recruitment of teachers.
    Mr. Crosland: I hope to be able to make a statement before Easter.
    Mr. Walker: I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman's "Easter offering". In the recent statement the right hon. Gentleman made on the subject of higher education, he said that he was hoping to increase the number of places and double it in 10 years, compared with the previous plan to treble it in 12 years. Can he say what he expects to achieve in the 12-year period?
    Mr. Crosland: I made no statement about a 12-year period at all, and nor did the previous Government. Their target for teacher-training places and the higher one I announced went up only to the year 1973–74. The purpose of the statement which I hope to make
    1458
    before Easter is quite different and far more urgent—to try to get some extra teachers before 1970. That is the crux of the matter.
    Mr. Park: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there are many people in their twenties and thirties at present in other occupations who would be pleased to join the teaching profession were it possible for added financial security to be given to them and their families during their period of training? Will my right hon. Friend look very carefully at these points and consider making proposals to help in the solution of this problem?
    Mr. Crosland: This is one of the questions very much in my mind.
    Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when considering this statement, especially with reference to the question put to him, that this is probably an election year?

    Initial Teaching Alphabet
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent the Curriculum Study Group of the Schools Council will be able to help teachers take advantage of the new medium of teaching, presented by the initial teaching alphabet.
    Mr. Prentice: This is for the Council itself to decide.
    Mr Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the merits of the initial teaching alphabet as a medium for the teaching of reading, well suited to a young child; and when his inspectors will be able to report.
    Mr. Prentice: The early results of the experiment being conducted by the Institute of Education of the University of London appear very encouraging. It will be several years before the experiment is complete. Further results will no doubt be published from time to time.

    Training Colleges (Social Anthropology Studies)
    Mr. Freesonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teacher-training colleges in Great Britain provide studies in social anthropology; what is the proportion of time

    1459
    in various curricula programmes devoted to such studies in the three-year training periods; and which are the colleges making such provision.
    Mr. Prentice: Main courses in social anthropology are not provided at colleges in Great Britain, but there will generally be some study in this field within a student's course in the theory and practice of education. The importance of sociological studies generally as an element in the teacher training courses is being increasingly recognised.
    Mr. Freeson: Does not the Minister agree that it is regrettable that so many people should go from colleges as accredited teachers without having sufficient training in the scientific aspects of this matter? Would he agree that it is important to introduce instruction in the current racial factors involved in race relations and that this would be a positive contribution to the kind of approach stated to the House by the Prime Minister only a few days ago?
    Mr. Prentice: I note the point made by my hon. Friend. He will probably agree that most courses in the colleges are more likely to be on subjects which are directly related to teaching in schools, and this is the aspect referred to in my main answer which will be drawn to his attention.

    Classrooms and School Buildings (Heating)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what he regards as a reasonable minimum temperature for school classrooms and school buildings; and if he has recommended, or will recommend, any standard to local education authorities.
    Mr. Prentice: The school building regulations lay down standard temperatures appropriate to different parts of a school; a temperature of 62 degree F. is required in teaching rooms.
    Mr. Allaun: Is my hon. Friend aware that despite this there are schools in which children are being taught in completely unheated or barely heated classrooms even on the coldest days? Will he see that the regulations are carried out?
    Mr. Prentice: If that is so, it is contrary to the regulations and I shall be glad to have details from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the Minister recognise that some rural schools, particularly where these conditions apply, had intended to make improvements under the minor capital works programme and that the cuts that the Minister has made have disabled them from doing this?
    Mr. Prentice: I shall be going into detail on this later, and that is one reason why I was glad to be able to announce a higher minor works programme than had been decided on by the former Government.

    G.C.E. Examinations (Pass Standards)
    Mr. Harold Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to introduce greater uniformity in pass standards in the General Certificate of Education examinations.
    Mr. Prentice: I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's reply on 11th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees).
    Mr. Walker: Did that reply include consideration of the anomalous state of affairs revealed by the West Riding Chief Education Officer, who showed that 28 pupils had been submitted to take examinations set by two different bodies with widely contrasting consequences?
    Mr. Prentice: This is a disturbing situation which worries us in the Department and worries the Schools Council. The Council has been given the task by the Secretary of State of a central coordinating authority for the work of the examination boards. It is examining the whole question, including the incident to which my hon. Friend refers.

    Children (Schools)
    Mr. Peter Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking to see that all children are educated in schools compatible with the prosperity of their homes and the social status of their friends.
    Crosland: None, Sir.
    Mr. Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be general relief that he has completely repudiated the attitude of his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology? Will he assure the House that when he considers the future of education in technology he will not in any way be influenced by the Parliamentary Secretary to that Ministry?
    Mr. Crosland: I welcome that supplementary question very much. So far as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology is concerned he was expressing a purely personal view as a parent. This is a free country and he is fully entitled to do so, but it was a purely personal view. I may add that I am surprised to hear the hon. Member's strong interest and that of other hon. Members opposite in parents sending their children to State schools. If one takes the State and direct grant schools together, one finds that some 17 per cent. of Conservative Members of Parliament send their children there; some 78 per cent. of Labour Members of Parliament, and 0 per cent. of Liberal Members of Parliament. [Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Various things are happening of which I am not entirely seized. What happened was that I called No. 18 and heard the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) ask it. The Minister was making noises as though he had answered it. If so, I missed it. I beg his pardon.
    Mr. Crosland: I did not hear what was said in the confusion, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping that a Liberal hon. Member would have an opportunity to put a supplementary question.
    Later—
    Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. I understand that the Secretary of State has just alleged that none of the children of Liberal hon. Members—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no good the House treating me like this if it wants me to get on with supplementary questions. To be quite frank with the House, I thought that those personal matters were best passed on from. I
    1462
    would have allowed a Liberal supplementary question at the time, but the individual hon. Members concerned—the hon. Member was not here—were a little slow off the mark.
    Hon. Members: Hear, Hear.
    Mr. Lubbock: Further to that point of order, is it not out of order to make allegations which are totally incorrect in my absence and should the Secretary of State not now withdraw them?
    Mr. Speaker: I want the House to understand that hon. Members sometimes make, or are said to make, horrible misstatements as to fact. I cannot, on points of order, make requests for them to be corrected. I was making no assumption about the fact one way or the other.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.

    Teachers (Pensions)
    Mr. Pounderasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will review the existing regulation whereby a teacher's pension is based on the average salary for the last five years of service; and if he will take the basis for such pensions to be the average of the last three years of service.
    Mr. Crosland: The basis is already the last three years of service.
    Mr. Jennings: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friends in the Treasury are already undertaking a review of public service pensions, including teachers' pensions? How far would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to advocate to his right hon. Friends some compensatory measure for teachers who retired many years ago on salaries which were lower than what teachers leaving the service are getting now?
    Mr. Crosland: We have been responsible for this matter for only a very short number of months. I must point out that this is, in effect, a plea for the principle of retrospection in superannuation administration. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not the normal principle. As he said, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is considering the question of public and Armed Forces pensions, but I would

    1463
    rather not prejudge anything which he announces as a result of that review.
    Mr. Pounderasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will amend the regulation whereby teachers who retired prior to 1956 had their service based on a maximum of 40 years regardless of whether actual service exceeded that period; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir.
    Mr. Pounder: Does the Secretary of State not appreciate that this 1956 decision was anomalous, that teachers' salaries were even worse then than they are now and that it would not be too costly to bring them into line to ensure that retired teachers have something reasonable on which to live?
    Mr. Crosland: Like other hon. Members, I am very sympathetic on this issue, but there are three objections to this retrospective recalculation. One is the point which I just made—that it is not a generally accepted principle of superannuation schemes—the second is the obvious financial one, that it would add to the already substantial deficit of £274 million on the teachers' superannuation account which the former Government undertook to meet under the terms of the 1956 Act, and the third is that if one looks, as I have, at the matter in detail, one sees that the majority of older pensioners who had less than 40 years service would not stand to gain a great deal. If one looks at the facts and figures one sees that the gain to the people the hon. Gentleman has in mind would be very small.

    Research Ship "Discovery"
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will give an undertaking that the Research Ship "Discovery" will be fully employed during the coming year, in view of the takeover of the National Institute of Oceanography by the Natural Environment Research Council.
    Mr. Prentice: The Estimates for the Natural Environment Research Services include provision for a programme which will keep "Discovery" fully employed throughout the coming year
    1464
    except for normal maintenance periods. An undertaking by my right hon. Friend of the kind asked for would infringe the future responsibility of the Natural Environment Research Council for administering its programme.
    Mr. Digby: Will the hon. Gentleman continue to watch this programme, since it is extremely important to carry on ocean research with this new ship and since the Institute is no longer in such close touch with the Admiralty, which provided a certain amount of work, as it used to be?
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. The programme for the coming year is an exciting one. It will be carried out around the world in co-operation with many other countries and we are watching the matter with great interest. The estimate for the Council is up on the current year and will enable a very full programme to be carried out. We will certainly keep a close interest in this ship.

    College of Further Education (Bletchley)
    Mr. Maxwellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is aware that with the proposed large-scale development in the Bletchley area a college of further education has become necessary; and if he will now authorise the building of a college of further education at Bletchley.
    Mr. Crosland: The Buckinghamshire Local Education Authority has proposed a new College of Further Education at Bletchley for inclusion in the 1966–67 building programme. I have almost completed my examination of the large number of proposals made by authorities for that programme and I hope to announce decisions on them before the end of the month.
    Mr. Maxwell: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that Bletchley is a town which is taking a great deal of population from London and that it has just been authorised to expand to 40,000? Will he further bear in mind that a new town is being settled in North Buckinghamshire and that a technical college is most urgently needed in the interests of export and employment in the area?
    Mr. Crosland: I am aware that Bletchley is a thrusting and enterprising community. Nevertheless, I must point out that there already is a technical college at Wolverton, 10 miles from Bletchley, which provides for most of its present needs. As to the future of the new town in North Buckinghamshire, I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that even the site has not yet been finally decided there. It would, therefore, be rather premature, to put it mildly, to say what effect that will have on this question.

    New School, Pudsey (Road Safety)
    Mr. Hileyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is a ware of the danger to schoolchildren at the Priesthorpe School, Farsley, Pudsey, who need to approach the school from the other side of the ring road, with its heavy traffic; and if he will take steps to ensure greater safety for these children by the erection of a footbridge.
    Mr. Prentice: I understand that the question of safe access for those pupils of the new school who will need to cross the ring road is at present being studied by the local education authority in consultation with the local highway authority. The provision of a footbridge is not thought to be justified, but a school crossing patrol and additional footpaths, lighting and school signs are under consideration.
    Mr. Hiley: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he realise that we are principally concerned with the safety of the children rather than with the method by which it should be obtained? Is he prepared to co-operate with the Minister of Transport to ensure that this rather dangerous road is controlled or very carefully watched between now and the opening of the school in September?
    Mr. Prentice: This is primarily a matter for the local education authority, but my Department will give whatever help is needed in this connection.

    Minor Works
    Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is aware of the concern felt by local education authorities in the South-West by
    1466
    his recent decision to cease to give them discretion as to minor works; and what action he will take.
    Mr. Prentice: The minor works programme in the South-West as a whole next year is at the 1963–64 level and slightly below the 1965–65 level. The arrangements have been revised in order to ensure a fair national distribution of the limited resources available.
    Mr. Peyton: Is the Minister of State aware that this proposal is regarded by many local authorities as a quite gratuitous fettering of their discretion by the bureaucratic apron strings of his Department?
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. A number of local authorities are disappointed because they will be allowed to spend less in the coming year than they have been this year. A number of others are very grateful because they will be spending more. I think that the discrepancy arises from the fact that the former Government put the so-called "mini-minor" works, those costing less than £2,000, off the ration for local authorities but had to keep them on the ration nationally and had to take out of the total minor works programme an amount to cover those mini-minor works. They got their sums wrong. In the current year they estimated some £3 million, but approximately £7 million will have been spent by the end of the financial year. This was a situation which was getting out of hand. Any Government had to ensure that control of capital expenditure was real control. This is why we have had to take away a freedom which, I quite appreciate, was something the local authorities would have preferred to keep.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Does the Minister of State realise that he has taken away in the City of Bristol the freedom of the local education authority to spend its own money, and this practice is condemned by every Member representing a Bristol constituency, from whichever side of the House?
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir, but the position is that, having brought the system under a more rational control than the late Government had it, it has now been possible out of the £21 million to which I have referred to allocate to the local

    1467
    authorities in England and Wales £17 million for their minor works programme. There are certain other deductions for voluntary schools, and the like. If we had not made this unpopular change, the amount left this year would have been only £7 million, instead of £17 million, and there would have been practically nothing for the bulk of the minor works programme—projects between £2,000 and £20,000—which are so important throughout the country.
    Sir E. Boyle: Is it not a fact that decontrol of mini-minor works was greatly appreciated by education authorities, as my hon. Friends have said, and that the decision of the former Secretary of State that the limit should be raised to £2,500 was very widely welcomed at last year's conference of the Association of Education Committees? Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that we would, had we remained in power, have adopted a realistic figure for "mini-minor" works? [Laughter.] Certainly we would, and in reaching a final decision on the total of minor works we would have borne this in mind and would certainly not have been committed to the £7 million which the hon. Gentleman has stated?
    Mr. Prentice: I am glad to have some clarification of just what would have been done by hon. Members opposite. They would, therefore, have allowed the situation to have become distorted in two respects. On the one hand, far more would have been spent on projects costing less than £2,000 than on the whole range from £2,000 to £20,000, which would have meant that many very important improvements would have been postponed for years and years, improvements which will take place this year. Further, there would have been distortion between authorities, between those which had been using the "mini-minor" concession up to the hilt and those who had not. A number of enterprising authorities—I put it on record that I admire their enterprise—have been for a number of years taking a disproportionate share of the limited sum available. This is something which the right hon. Gentleman has made clear he would have carried on. This would be a great disadvantage in relation, particularly, to the north of England.

    DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
    Ql. Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to draw the attention of all Government Departments and agencies to the provisions of the Declaration of Human Rights, in view of the declared support which is given to its principles by Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): In December 1963, copies of a Central Office of Information pamphlet on Human Rights in the United Kingdom were distributed to all Government Departments concerned.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the Articles of the Declaration says that no one may be compelled to join an association? Is he further aware that he is now proposing to give to trade unions the right to force a man out of employment if he does not join such an association? How does the Prime Minister reconcile such a contradiction?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may have seen the statement made by my noble Friend, Lord Lindgren, in another place on 23rd February, in which he said that the Government accept the principle laid down in Article 20 of the Universal Declaration, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred; but he will understand that this will have to go very wide indeed. That covers most of the professional bodies.
    Mr. Godber: Of course, we saw what Lord Lindgren said on this matter. However, is not the Prime Minister aware—he must be aware—that he himself is putting legislation through the House at the present time which will take away from the individual rights which he at present has?
    Mr. Speaker: Unless I am wrong, there is a difficulty about this. Is not that Bill in Standing Committee at the moment? If so, I think that we must keep away from it.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Have the difficulties the Government have encountered in ratifying the optional Clauses of the European Convention of Human Rights been overcome yet? When will ratification take place?
    The Prime MinisterNo, I cannot make a further statement on that. I have dealt with it at Question Time very recently. I am not in a position to say anything about it today.

    GOVERNMENT SURPLUS STOCKS AND SUPPLIES
    Mr. Doddsasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the effect of the proposals set out in the eight-page circular, about which his predecessor told the House on 16th May, 1956, designed to ensure greater care in ordering supplies by Government Departments and the setting up of suitable administrative machinery to ensure that Departments and public bodies made the best possible use of Government surplus stocks before they were offered at public auctions; and what proposals he has to make to give the maximum protection to the taxpayers' interests in this connection.
    The Prime Minister: Following the 1956 statement to which my hon. Friend refers, these matters have been kept under review, and the provisioning and procurement arrangements of Government Departments have been continuously and substantially improved.
    Mr. Dodds: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has just said. Is he aware that what now appears to be happening indicates that we have not learned any real lessons from the scandals of surplus goods following the war? Is not he aware that it seems as if the only beneficiaries then, as now, are the ringers and that the loser is the nation, which certainly is not getting the deal it should expect? Will he have another look at this?
    The Prime Minister: There are two problems to which my hon. Friend refers. One is the one referred to in his Question, namely, the problem of identifying surplus spares and surplus stores in the hands of Government Departments, seeing that they are not excessive, and seeing that they are offered to other Departments. I think that the fact that this has been put on to a computer basis and is progressively being further done in that way will help to stop the excessive stock holding which is perhaps inevitable in any large organisation,
    1470
    especially in relation to the Services, on which I think the Comptroller and Auditor-General has just reported to the House. With regard to the method of disposal, I have answered Questions from my hon. Friend and other hon. Members and, as he knows, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is discussing this with the trade in order to get some reform in a situation where reform is urgently needed.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are still 100,000 balaclava helmets in stock? What does he propose to do about them?
    The Prime Minister: I am always prepared to consider applications. I think that hon. Members who have studied the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee over recent years will be able to draw on those Reports for even more striking examples of some of the stocks which have accumulated in Service Departments.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. Longdenasked the Prime Minister if he will now seek to negotiate the United Kingdom's entry, and in collaboration with them, that of the United Kingdom's partners in the European Free Trade Association into the European Economic Community on terms which will not cause this country to discriminate against other Commonwealth countries.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answers I have recently given to the House upon this point.
    Mr. Longden: Would the Prime Minister agree with the wise dictum of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when Foreign Secretary, that "Insularity is a luxury which this island can no longer afford"? Secondly, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that if we were to be within the European Economic Community we would be better able to lead and aid the Commonwealth of Nations than if we were to remain outside it?
    The Prime Minister: That statement, like so many by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, is

    1471
    interesting but of rather general application and does not carry us very far. As regards the hon. Member's particular proposal, he will recognise the difficulty here that to propose the accession of E.F.T.A. as such or the E.F.T.A. countries into the Common Market would mean that every one of them accepted the Treaty of Rome, and, of course, as we know from previous negotiations, there were many difficulties, for example, about our E.F.T.A. partners who were neutral even being allowed to have rights of association. What we are doing at the moment is to pursue the possibilities of a closer link between E.F.T.A. as a whole and E.E.C. as a whole. I do not think that the hon. Member's proposal is the way to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Bellenger: In the meantime, has my right hon. Friend noted that certain E.F.T.A. countries are seeking to negotiate direct with the Six? If they are successful, can my right hon. Friend say what effect that will have on the present E.F.T.A. arrangements?
    The Prime Minister: The second part of my right hon. Friend's supplementary question is a little hypothetical, but it is true that Austria, for example, has been involved in negotiations and it would be wrong for me to express a view on how those negotiations are likely to go. A number of ideas are being considered now—they are being discussed in all parts of the House—about measures which we all agree are urgently needed for breaking down barriers between E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C.

    MINISTRY OF AVIATION
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister what proposals he has for the future of the Ministry of Aviation.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no new proposals for the future of the Ministry of Aviation. For the time being, it will continue to fulfil the functions which it has fulfilled in the past. In the long run its military procurement functions should probably pass to the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Marten: Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that he has no intention of abolishing the Ministry? Would he remember when studying the question
    1472
    the great benefits which I think flowed from continuing an independent supply Department?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give such an assurance. I have always considered that when the Ministry of Defence was set up by the late Government in its present form it was unfortunate that no proper consideration was given to embodying the military procurement functions—and I stress those separately—of the Ministry of Aviation in the Defence Department. It may come to this, and I think that it is the right answer. The whole House will feel, I am sure, that one of our aims should be as quickly as possible to redeploy some of the resources at present controlled by the Ministry of Aviation, in the civil sense rather than the military sense, and, of course, this would mean a transfer to other Departments. I do not agree with the hon. Member about what he thinks has been the success of the Ministry of Aviation in recent years, certainly not as far as the taxpayer is concerned.
    Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend remember that when civil aviation was associated with Transport we found that it did not work very successfully. Will he keep that point in mind?
    The Prime Minister: I did not say anything about the civil aviation side, meaning the running of airlines. I was dealing with the procurement side, both military and civil. If it became desirable, as it may, though not immediately, to transfer the procurement functions to the Secretary of State for Defence we would have to give consideration to where the civilian airline functions should be. There is an obvious answer, but at the moment this is hypothetical.
    Mr. Maude: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that there are considerable objections to the merging into the Ministry of Defence of all the procurement functions at present carried out by the Ministry of Aviation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are very considerable dangers in the merging of the procurement agency into a Department which is itself a major customer for the goods being procured?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, But what we cannot get into the minds of

    1473
    hon. Gentlemen opposite, even those on the Front Bench, is that under the administration of the Ministry of Aviation in recent years there has been a colossal imposition placed on the taxpayers with relatively little military consequences in terms of what the Forces need, and the whole history of the Ministry of Aviation, at any rate under the operation of the hon. Member's two right hon. Friends, has been deplorable. Certainly the answer cannot be sought in that direction.

    MINISTER OF POWER (SPEECH)
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Prime' Minister if the public speech of the Minister of Power on the steel industry in Westminster on 16th February, 1965, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Prime Minister if the public speech on the steel industry by the Minister of Power at Westminster on 16th February, 1965, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Would centralised selling by a nationalised industry increase exports?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend dealt in his speech with the relative failure of the steel industry in the matter of exports over those years. The indictment which he presented on that occasion was justified, and this was very fully debated in the House when the House last debated steel. All I would say is that our success in exports has not been dependent so much on methods of selling but on the capacity of the industry and the extent to which it has been willing to introduce new and more competitive methods of production.
    Mr. Mendelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the speech made by the Minister of Power has the support of hon. Members on this side of the House elected on a programme of the public ownership of the steel industry? Is he aware that the speech was encouraging, particularly to all of those in constituencies where there are steel-
    1474
    works and where hon. Members on this side of the House were returned with largely increased majorities, fighting on this policy of public ownership? Will my right hon. Friend continue to stand fast on this policy which we on this side support?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has put the situation extremely well. I very much agree with the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, for exactly those reasons and others as well.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), might it not be for the convenience of the House to know when he will introduce the steel Bill?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman responding so quickly to the Evening Standard. In order to put the right hon. Gentleman out of his misery, perhaps he would like to know that the Government intend to table a White Paper in the near future setting out the main provisions of the Bill which we shall ask Parliament to pass into law this Session.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rowland.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend explain to the House—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the next Question.

    AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY (CLOSURES AND REDUNDANCIES)
    Mr. Rowlandasked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek a further meeting with the chairmen and managing directors of the aircraft companies to ensure that factory closures and redundancies take place in areas where alternative work is available.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation will continue to keep in touch with those concerned.
    Mr. Rowland: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government bear in mind that even in areas of full employment like Coventry there are

    1475
    categories of employees who will find difficulty in finding work and that their case demands particular attention from employers and Government?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government set up a Committee to deal urgently with the question of the redeployment of those whose livelihood and jobs will be affected by changes in the aircraft procurement programme, and this has already had a major effect in the areas concerned. While what my hon. Friend says is true, I do not think that the situation requires any changes in our present practice—the work of the Committee to which I referred and of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and the fact that the Minister of Aviation is keeping in close touch with the employers concerned.

    MR. KOSYGIN (VISIT)
    Mr. Benceasked the Prime Minister if he will now announce the date of the visit of the Soviet leaders to this country.
    The Prime Minister: As I told the House on 16th December, Mr. Kosygin has accepted my invitation to visit this country. We are in touch with the Soviet Government about a date for this visit. I have nothing further to add for the present.
    Mr. Bence: Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that there is tremendous understanding in this country of the great leadership he is giving in initiating disarmament talks and giving a lead to a general solution of European and world problems? This country is now better led than it has been for ten years.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is having important talks with the Soviet Foreign Minister this week, and I shall be seeing Mr. Gromyko this afternoon. I am not sure how encouraging I would regard the progress of the talks to date, but we are attempting to get the best progress we can out of what is at present, as the House will realise, for a number of reasons, an extremely difficult situation.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the Labour Party be giving the distinguished visitors a dinner party downstairs, and will the First Secretary of State be there?
    The Prime Minister: These jokes are becoming very repetitive. We had the same sort of thing about three weeks ago. Mr. Gromyko is here as the guest of Her Majesty's Government, and I shall be very happy to give an assurance that we do not intend any of the means by which he travelled to be affected by frogmen.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 22ND MARCH—Supply [13th Allotted Day]: Report which, subject to the agreement of the House, will be taken formally to allow a debate on the Report of the Milner Holland Committee (Command No. 2605) on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Law Commissions Bill.
TUESDAY, 23RDMARCH—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, which, if the House agrees, it is proposed to take formally.
Debate on Immigration, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Lords Amendments to the Superannuation (Amendment) Bill.
Motion on the Civil Defence Regulations.
WEDNESDAY, 24TH MARCH—A debate on the privilege question Motion relating to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey).
I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means proposes to put down the Covent Garden Market Bill for consideration at seven o'clock.
Motion on the Agriculture Order.
THURSDAY, 25TH MARCH—Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
There will be a debate on Higher Education, which it is thought may last

1477
for half a day, followed by subjects which hon. Members may wish to raise.
FRIDAY, 26TH MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 29TH MARCH—The proposed business will be: Second Reading of the Monopolies and Mergers Bill.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: First, will the Leader of the House say when he intends to provide time for a foreign affairs debate, with special reference to the situation in Vietnam? Secondly, is he aware that, in view of the dismay with which the Agricultural Price Review has been received in the country, we shall ask for an early opportunity to debate the matter?
Mr. Bowden: I have already said that we could, perhaps, have a foreign affairs debate before we rise for the Easter Recess. But I think that we had better await the conclusion of the discussions which are now taking place and the return of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary from Washington.
As regards the Agricultural Price Review, we shall endeavour to make a Supply day available, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes.
Mr. Grimond: Has the Leader of the House seen the two Motions, Nos. 153 and 154, relating to the Highland Development (Scotland) Bill which stand in the names of my hon. Friends and myself?
[That this House regrets that only one Liberal Member was called on the Second Reading of the Highland Development (Scotland) Bill, a Bill which affects only six constituencies, of which four are represented by Liberals.]
[That this House deplores that only one Liberal has been chosen to serve on the Committee which will consider the Highland Development (Scotland) Bill.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put these Motions on the Order Paper with great reluctance, because I am well aware of the difficulties which arise in the handling of membership of Standing Committees and the selection of speakers in the House, but it seems to be the only way by which we can draw attention to what is, surely, a gross injustice? The Bill affects only six constituencies, four
1478
of which are held by Liberals, but we shall have only one member on the committee.
I should have thought that it would be permissible under the Standing Order to appoint more, but what I do say is that the House owes its first obligation to the people and not to any of its own procedures or party arrangements. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Yes, and it is an important matter.
Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I heard the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) say quite definitely that he was making a speech.
Mr. Lubbock: And a very good one, too.
Mr. Emery: Is that in order at this time in the House?
Mr. Speaker: What is in order on questions supplementary to the business question is to urge, no doubt not to excess, the importance of the matter which the particular right hon. or hon. Member wishes to have discussed. But, fair to say, we were, perhaps, wandering a little far from that.
Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to you for that, Mr. Speaker, and, if I may say so, I am grateful to you also for the trouble you have taken over these matters throughout, but may I ask the Leader of the House whether he can make a further effort to see either that another Liberal is put on the Standing Committee or that the Bill is referred to the whole Scottish Grand Committee or a Committee of the whole House?
Mr. Bowden: I have noted the three early day Motions Nos. 152, 153 and 154 in the names of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, and I was glad to hear him say that he put them down with reluctance, because I should doubt whether there is very much sympathy in the House for Motions of this sort.
Nevertheless, on the third one, relating to the action of the Committee of Selection, the right hon. Gentleman may recall that, in the business exchanges last week, I promised to take the matter up with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. This is not an easy thing to do. I should not wish to be thought,

1479
as Leader of the House, to be interfering in any way with the Committee of Selection. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the whole House will appreciate that the Committee of Selection must take Standing Order No. 61 into consideration when appointing Committees.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend impress on the Select Committee on Procedure the urgency of examining the problem of Questions in the House in view of Mr. Speaker's Ruling yesterday? Secondly, can he provide time for a debate on the findings of public opinion polls, in view of the recent expression of opinion in the Daily Telegraph?
Mr. Bowden: On two or three occasions recently, once in reply to a question from the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport), I have dealt with this matter of Questions in the House. I have said quite frankly that I am disturbed about it. I have drawn the exchanges in the House to the attention of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. He needs no new terms of reference, and I am sure that the Committee will consider this point.
I think that, if the second matter to which my hon. Friend referred is raised at all, it ought, perhaps, to be in private Members' time.
Sir H. Butcher: With reference to Wednesday's business, will the Leader of the House say what is likely to happen in the event of the matter of privilege not being concluded by seven o'clock and a Motion being put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means? Can the Leader of the House make provision for the matter to be taken to a conclusion?
Mr. Bowden: We are always in this difficulty when the Chairman of Ways and Means intervenes at seven o'clock on any day. If the Covent Garden Market Bill does not take the whole of the three hours, we can return to the earlier Motion on privilege.
Mr. Peyton: As the Prime Minister has today expressed his expectation that the Steel Bill will be passed during the
1480
present Session, will the Leader of the House be good enough to say in what year he expects the present Session to end?
Mr. Bowden: Not without notice.
Mr. Strauss: Can my right hon. Friend say what are the prospects for a debate on the White Paper on the Arts?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise anything before Easter. If right hon. and hon. Members look at the programme between now and Easter, they will see that almost the whole is taken up by financial business.
Sir D. Renton: It would seem that the Law Commissions Bill, Report stage and Third Reading, will not be started until a late hour on Monday. Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this? Presumably, the Government consider it to be quite an important Bill. We have a good many Amendments that we wish to put down and it does not seem very suitable that, on this Government Bill, we should start the remaining stages so late at night.
Mr. Bowden: I am prepared to look at this. I think that we had better discuss it through the usual channels.
Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there does seem to be a feeling of injustice in Scotland that the Liberal Party, which represents so many Highland constituencies, should not have a fuller opportunity of taking part in the Standing Committee on the Highland Development (Scotland) Bill? Could we have an assurance that the Liberals will not be unduly restricted when the Bill returns to the House on Report, and that they will have full opportunity to make any contributions that they desire to make then?
Mr. Bowden: The House will adopt its normal procedure when the Bill comes back to the Floor of the House. It is not for me to decide who is selected to speak and who is not.
Mr. George Y. Mackie: With reference to the Motion concerning representation on the Standing Committee, the Leader of the House mentioned Standing Order No. 61, which says—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is the right hon.

1481
Gentleman aware that Standing Order No. 61 says:
"In nominating members the Committee of Selection shall have regard to their qualifications and the composition of the House"?
Surely there can be no better qualification than that of being elected by the people of Scotland?
Mr. Bowden: I think that we really must leave this to the Committee of Selection. I would not wish to interfere in any way.
Mr. H. Hynd: My right hon. Friend said that on Thursday there might be opportunity for hon. Members to raise other subjects on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Would it be in order for me to raise the question of the plight of railway superannuitants?
Mr. Bowden: Yes, Sir, if my hon. Friend should catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
Mr. John Wells: As it is a long time since horticulture was debated, and as the Covent Garden Market Bill might not run for more than an hour or so on Wednesday evening, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of a short debate on horticulture next Wednesday or, failing that, including horticulture in any debate that may be held on the Annual Price Review, although this is normally not done?
Mr. Bowden: If the Covent Garden Market Bill does not run the full three hours next Wednesday, it may be desired to the return to the privilege Motion. If not, it might be possible, by arrangement with the Chair, to have an early Adjournment. But other than an early Adjournment, or a private Members' day, I see little hope of a debate on horticulture this side of Easter.
Mr. Dodds: Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to bringing in much-needed legislation for consumer protection? Is he aware that the urgent need for this will be underlined in the next few hours when the information is made public that Mrs. Bowman-Shaw has fled these shores in a daylight flit, leaving behind tens of thousands of members who have lost their money, many creditors and also unpaid Income Tax, as well as a bewildered "stooge" who is "holding the baby"?
Mr. Bowden: I think that the House will excuse me if I simply say that there is no immediate intention of introducing a Bill on consumer protection, although such a Measure is part of the Government's programme. I think that I had better leave the remainder of my hon. Friend's question at this stage until I have looked at the information which he obviously has in his possession.
Sir G. Nicholson: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that yesterday one of his Ministerial colleagues wandered into the Division Lobby not knowing what he was doing? Was not this due to loss of power? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the Government as a whole have some sense of direction?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can put up direction signs during business questions.
Mr. Mendelson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is urgently necessary to have the foreign affairs debate, with particular reference to the dangerous situation in Vietnam, at the earliest possible moment, preferably before my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary goes to Washington? Is it not equally clear that the situation in Asia is having a very bad effect upon all sorts of important international negotiations which are being retarded and made more difficult? Should not the House have an early opportunity to express an opinion upon the situation?
Mr. Bowden: I appreciate the urgency, but I think that we would be well advised to wait until my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is back from Washington. He is going there on Sunday.
Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great numbers of hon. Members on this side would like to see the Highland Development Bill discussed on the Floor of the House? If the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) does not know how to get it here I will, if he sees me afterwards, give him a tip on how to do it.
Mr. Bowden: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me when I say that I had not appreciated that Exeter had moved to the Highlands.
Mr. Heffer: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the Motion, standing in my name and in the names of other hon. Members, relating to the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition?
That this House deplores the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition in describing in a speech on 6th March those hon. Members who signed the Motion calling for an end to American bombings in North Vietnam as a craven core of the Parliamentary Labour Party; and calls for an early debate to discuss this unwarrantable slight on loyalty and integrity of hon. Members concerned.]
Will my right hon. Friend enable us to discuss this rather important matter, which arises from what we consider to be a slur on hon. Members on this side of the House?
Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. I cannot find time. It is obviously a matter for a Private Member's Motion.
Mr. Jennings: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give time—even half a day—for a debate on the present position of the public service pensioners?
Mr. Bowden: No, Sir, not this side of the Easter Recess.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: May I revert to the representations made to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about Liberal representation on the Standing Committee considering the Highland Development Bill? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of sympathy among Scottish hon. Members for the Liberals on this matter? Will he have a word, through the usual channels, with representatives of the Conservative Party to try to get them to exercise a little restraint? Is he aware that, during the Second Reading debate the other day, no fewer than three Front Bench speakers from the Tory Party were called up by them? Was this not wholly unreasonable?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow, as a supplementary to a business question, any criticism of who is selected to speak. The selection of speakers in a debate is a painful responsibility that I have to bear. No one would want to share it.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I thought that I had phrased my remarks in the most courteous way possible, Mr. Speaker, and without reference to the Chair. I have not criticised you at any time and would not presume to do so. I was addressing my question to the Leader of the House.
I suggested that, in the course of his consultations with the Conservative Party, through the usual channels, he might make representations—such things are normally done during such negotiations—to right hon. Members opposite to restrain themselves from putting up, on the basis of the priority which they can assert as Front Benchers, three speakers of this kind in a debate.
I am not blaming you, Sir, for calling the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen involved who spoke for the Tory Party in that debate, because I am aware that when a Front Bench speaker gets up it is recognised that he—like Privy Councillors, who do not display themselves so often, and ex-junior Ministers —receives priority.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot get on with business questions if hon. Members will make Second Reading, Third Reading and almost Fourth Reading speeches instead.
Mr. Warbey: The Leader of the House will recall, in connection with the privilege Motion, that he originally said that he would allow a short time for this debate, but that some right hon. Gentlemen opposite objected that the terms of the Motion were such that a long debate might be required, and that, in deference to the views then expressed, the form of the Motion was changed so as to make clear that the purpose of the Motion was simply to discuss the reference of the matter to the Committee of Privileges, so that there need not be a long debate.
As it has now been indicated by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they still seek a long debate on this matter, will my right hon. Friend say how the House will be able to proceed to reach a conclusion on this matter in the event of the Covent Garden Market Bill occupying the full time until ten o'clock?
Mr. Bowden: I have already said that the House is always in this difficulty

1485
when the Chairman of Ways and Means intervenes on a particular day, as he has a right to do. It will be a matter for the House to decide. It is a matter for the House and not for parties, for the Government or the Opposition. There will be no Whips on and, if there is a Division at all, it will be a free vote. Therefore, the House will have to decide whether it wishes to come to a conclusion at seven o'clock, or to take the risk of returning to it with a view to coming to a conclusion at ten o'clock.
Mr. Bessell: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about the Highland Development Bill, as it is now quite obvious that there is a great deal of sympathy on both sides of the House for the view taken by the Liberal Party?
Mr. Bowden: I am not unsympathetic myself, as I indicated last week when I said that I would speak to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection about it. But he himself is in difficulty and I do not think that the House can instruct the Chairman of the Committee what to do in this matter.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is the Government's intention to find time for a debate on the interesting, if possibly controversial, White Paper on the Arts, at any rate after Easter, if not before?
Mr. Bowden: I have said earlier that we should have a short debate at some point on the White Paper on the Arts.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I appeal to the House. We have spent rather a lot of time on business questions and the time has come when we ought to bring them to an end and get on to the business of the day.

MURDER (ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY) BILL (COMMITTEE STAGE)
3.53 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): I beg to move,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), on any Wednesday on which the order for Committee on the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill stands as the first Order of the day—

(1) the House shall meet at half-past Ten o'clock, and after Prayers, proceed with the Bill;

(2) at One o'clock the proceedings on the Business under consideration shall be interrupted by Mr. Speaker, or if the House be in Committee, the Chairman shall leave the Chair and report Progress and ask leave to sit again, and further consideration of the Business shall be deferred until such day as the Member in charge of the Bill shall appoint; provided that if proceedings under Standing Order No. 31 (Closure of debate) be in progress at that hour Mr. Speaker shall not interrupt the Business, or if the House be in Committee, the Chairman shall not leave the Chair, until the Question or Questions consequent thereon and on any further Motion as provided in that Standing Order, have been decided;

(3) as soon as the Business under consideration has been disposed of Mr. Speaker shall suspend the sitting until half-past Two o'clock, and at that hour the House shall proceed with Business as provided in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), as if the House had met at that hour;

(4) if, during any proceedings on the Bill as provided in this Resolution it appears, on the H ruse being counted, that forty Members are not present, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith suspend the sitting until half-past Two o'clock, and the provisions of paragraph (3) of this Resolution shall then apply.

The House will recall that on Friday, 5th April, the House decided to discharge the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill from Standing Committee upstairs and return it to the Floor of the House.
Dr. Reginald Bennett: On a point of order. Did not the right hon. Gentleman mean 5th March?
Mr. Bowden: I am sorry, 5th March. This Motion is in the response to the decision of the House on that occasion and restores the Bill to the Floor of the House.
I ought to take the House back a little and remind hon. Members of what was

1487
said in the Queen's Speech, when we promised that facilities would be provided for a free decision by Parliament on the issue of capital punishment. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) introduced his Private Member's Bill, the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill, and the Government provided, as soon as possible after the date of introduction, a full day for a debate on the subject on the Floor of the House.
On a free vote of the House, the Second Reading of my hon. Friend's Bill was approved by 357 votes to 172, 98 Members of the House not going into either Lobby for one reason or another, wishing to abstain, or for illness, and so on. But no undertaking was given at any time by myself as Leader of the House, or by my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, that the Committee stage of the Bill would be taken on the Floor of the House. Consequently, no move was made by anyone on the Government Front Bench to bring the Bill to the Floor of the House for its Committee stage.
I accept at once that there are right hon. and hon. Gentleman, perhaps on both sides of the House, who might have expected and might have hoped that the Committee stage would be taken on the Floor, but I repeat that no such promise was given at any time. However, the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) moved that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House and this was resisted by the Government immediately after the Second Reading purely on the grounds of lack of Parliamentary time. There was no possibility at that stage of giving three or four days on the Floor to the Committee stage and there is no possibility now. We have just had exchanges on business when requests for—I was about to say dozens, but certainly many—debates of all sorts were made, and the House will appreciate that it is quite impossible to grant every application out of Government time.
The Government must be in absolute control of the time allocation for business, and it was for that reason and for that reason only that official Tellers were put into the Division which was called by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who
1488
sought to bring the Bill to the Floor of the House for its Committee stage. Official Tellers operated on this side of the House, as they will if there is a Division later today. The simple reason is that any Government must retain in their own hands the right to decide how business is taken.
When the Bill went to a Standing Committee, there were five sittings. Contrary to what has been said—and I have looked at this point on two occasions—reasonable progress was made. So far as I can see, only one major item of decision had still to be taken, and that might have taken three or four days—one does not know. Certainly, good and reasonable progress was made. Another point which seems to have been overlooked is that the Committee itself could have decided to sit not only Wednesday mornings, but Wednesday afternoons and, if it so wished, Tuesdays and Thursdays. Apparently, however, it was not the view of the Committee that it should have additional sittings.
On Friday, 5th March, the right hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West—
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): He is not a right hon. There is nothing right about him.
Mr. Bowden: —the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) introduced a Private Member's Motion to bring the Bill from Committee upstairs to the Floor of the House. I said when we discussed that Motion that there was nothing improper about this, although it was certainly unusual. There cannot be many occasions when Private Members' Motions have been used for this sort of purpose.
After five hours' debate and one or two long speeches with a great deal of detail, the Motion was carried. Having reread the debate—and I sat here through the whole of it—I think that the only argument carrying any weight in favour of bringing the Bill to the House is that repeated on a number of occasions by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West himself and the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom—that on a Bill of this sort there should be an opportunity for more hon. Members to take part in the Committee stage. This seems to be the only valid

1489
argument put forward during the whole of that day. If I may say so with respect to the Chair, we seem to have got out of order on many occasions and were debating the content of the Bill.
The fact that certain Members are excluded from debating a Bill in Committee happens with every Bill which goes upstairs to Standing Committee, and it could be an argument that no Bill should ever go upstairs but that they should all be taken on the Floor of the House. This is an argument which anyone who has had anything to do with government on either side of the House knows is completely impossible because no Government could get their business through.
We were told by hon. Members who spoke that Members were muzzled if the Bill remained upstairs. I cannot see the validity of that argument. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West said that
"the fresh air of democracy"
could be
"brought into the matter,"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 1722.]
only if it were taken on the Floor of the House. It is a strange doctrine, particularly coming from the former Chief Whip, that the Standing Committee procedure of Parliament is undemocratic. We have to accept and appreciate that much of our procedure will have to undergo some change at least and many things will have to be discussed in Committees upstairs.
The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom said that the sending of this Bill upstairs to Committee was a "shabby political manoeuvre" on the part of the Government. Apparently, his argument was that the Government sent the Bill upstairs with the object of hiding it. If the Government wished to hide it, we need not have given any time whatever for it. Not only did we provide time for the Second Reading, but we are providing time on the Floor of the House for the Report stage, however long that may take—and I hope that it will not be too long—and for the Third Reading. Therefore, the argument that we sent it upstairs simply with the object of hiding it is absolute nonsense, and I am surprised that hon. and learned Gentlemen of the calibre of the right hon. And
1490
learned Member for Epsom used such an argument.
After the decision on 5th March, the Government could have taken a number of courses. First of all, we could have dropped the Bill altogether [Holy. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] Now we see the real objective. I thought that this was the case the whole way through. The object of the exercise of 5th March was not to bring the Bill to the Floor of the House, but to destroy it once and for all. But the House may do well to remember that the abolitionists are not all on one side. The Second Reading of the Bill was carried by a very large majority. It is clear from what happened on 5th March and the cheers which we have just heard that the object of some right hon. and hon. Members was to kill the Bill rather than to deal with it at all.
As I say, we could have dropped the Bill. The Government decided not to do so. We could, by decision of the House, which we might have got, despite a small majority, have put it back in Standing Committee at the point where it left off. But the view of my right hon. Friends and myself was that the House had taken a decision, and that was to bring it to the Floor of the House. The question then arose of how we should do this. In view of the Parliamentary time-table, and of the loss of three or four days which the Bill may take in Committee on the Floor of the House, the only possibility was to adopt the procedure which we are proposing in this Motion of bringing it to the Floor of the House on the same day and at the same times as it would have been taken upstairs in Committee.
I should like, as an aside, as it were, to remind the House of certain facts which every Government face. Under our present procedures, there are 50 to 60 days only of legislative time for any Government in a full Parliamentary Session. The Opposition have 32, and no one would wish to alter that. Therefore, to take three or four days out of Government time on the Floor of the House becomes a possible course. I do not dispute that there may be occasions in the dying months of a Government—we had this last year—when they are anxious to play out time and to prevent the sword from falling upon their head. Then they may

1491
be prepared to give time for debates applications for which they would normally have resisted had they been made in earlier Sessions.
That is not the position with this Government now, nor is it likely to be within the next five years, because we have a large enough legislative programme to last us for five years. Therefore, we must resist, and continue to resist, attempts of this sort to bring to the Floor of the House the Committee stages of Bills which can be taken upstairs.
The only way that we could honour our promise in the Gracious Speech, of providing time and, at the same time, noting the decision of the House on 5th March was to introduce the Motion to which I am speaking. Despite the fears which, I understand, are abroad, the Motion is straightforward. There is nothing sinister about it. It has no ulterior motive whatsoever. It is a proposal to bring the Murder (Abolition of Capital Punishment) Bill to the Floor of the House for the Committee stage, and the Committee stage only, and on the same day of the week and at the same time as it would have been taken in Committee upstairs.
It is not the first time that sittings have taken place in the morning, and I doubt whether it will be the last. This has happened before, and it may happen again. I would remind the House that in a very few weeks I, or someone from this Box, will be moving a Motion that the House will sit at eleven o'clock and take Questions until twelve o'clock and continue whatever the business may be until five o'clock that day purely for the convenience of Members on the day before we rise for the Easter Recess. There is nothing unusual in Motions to the effect that we adjust the times of sittings of the House to conform with the views and wishes of Members.
Therefore, this Motion is—and I repeat this—for this purpose and this purpose only and is without prejudice to any recommendations, if there are any recommendations, which may be made to the Select Committee on Procedure.
Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman say when the House last sat in the morning and then carried on for the normal day?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot possibly say that. I should think that there are probably precedents, but I have not looked into the matter.
This ad hoc procedure, if I may so describe it, will, I think, meet the convenience of the majority of hon. Members who want to make progress with the Bill. If the abolitionists who voted in great numbers in favour of the Bill really want to see it on the Statute Book, they will think that there is nothing unusual about this procedure. It meets a very difficult circumstance. It conforms to the wish of the House that it should be taken on the Floor of the House. If it had not been taken on the Floor, hon. Member would have had a legitimate grouse that a decision of the House had been reversed by the Government using their weight.
I am sure that this is the best course, and I hope that the House will accept it. I ask hon. Members to realise that in accepting it they will be acting in deference to the wishes of the whole House. While the Division tonight, if there is a Division, will be, on this side of the House, with official Tellers on, every stage of the Bill will be open to a free vote. If I may forecast, as I did on 5th March, as long as there is a liberal-minded Government at Westminster there may be many occasions when we shall have legislation of this sort on which party Whips do not function, but on which the free vote of hon. Members will operate.
I commend the Motion to the House. I hope that it will not be necessary to divide against it; but if so, so be it. I hope later, at some point during the day, to reply myself to any points that are made from either side of the House.
Mr. Speaker: For the information of hon. Members, I inform the House that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is not selected.
Mr. William Baxter: On a point of order. That appears to be a strange Ruling, if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is the only Amendment on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: For the hon. Member's instruction, the word "select" in this context includes avoiding selecting even one only. The burden is upon me.
4.11 p.m.
Sir Martin Redmayne: I should like to take up right away, while it is fresh in my mind, one point which the Lord President of the Council has made. He said that the only way in which those who wished to see the Bill through the House could hope to get it through would be by the procedure of taking the Bill in the mornings, and he said that if it were taken on the Floor of the House in the ordinary way it would take three or four days.
The right hon. Gentleman is as well aware as I am that the equivalent of three or four days on the Floor of the House, without even allowing for any extensions of time, is between 10 and 12 or more sittings of a Standing Committee, and, of course, the sittings of the Committee of the House in this instance will be even shorter than sittings of a Committee upstairs, because for seven minutes—and seven minutes is precious—there will be Prayers to start the proceedings. Therefore, those who are considering this procedure at very best cannot hope to see the Bill through the Committee stage in less than nine or 12 weeks. This is a consideration which must be borne in mind.
I will return later to the question whether the Government ought or ought not to give time in the proper manner, but I should like, first, to revert to the question of the Select Committee on Procedure, which was set up by the House on 22nd December
"to consider the Procedure in the Public Business of the House; and to report what alterations, if any"—
I ask the House to note "if any"—
"are desirable for the more efficient despatch of such Business".
That was a Government Motion and it was passed by the House without debate.
The House gave the Committee
"Power to report from time to time"
and it was an
"Instruct on to the Committee to report first on"
three matters. Two, which I will put briefly, concerned Committees for Second Readings and the Ten Minute Rule Bill
1494
procedure. The third matter, which is the most important for the purpose of our debate today, was
"the times of sittings of the House".
I have the honour to be a member of that Select Committee, and it could be that my trade in this House during these last 13 years makes me to some extent suitable to be a member, but in the course of that trade I have learnt many things, good and bad. Among the first is that impatience with our procedures is often in all our breasts, whoever we may be, whether Chief Whips of the Government, Chief Whips of the Opposition, Privy Councillors, old Members or new Members. All have their separate impatiences. This is one of the things which one learns. The second thing, which is much more important, is that practically every proposition that arises out of those impatiences has as many effective and well-reasoned arguments against it for maintaining the established custom.
I say this to those hon. Members—and I think that they are mostly new hon. Members—who have been pressing for morning sittings because they fondly imagine that they will then get home to their wives at 7.30 or 8.30, or whatever the case may be: that the Government Chief Whip, who normally sits in his corner of the Government Front Bench, will always see that there are pressing and urgent reasons why they should support their party sitting on in the House to get the Government's programme through. The right hon. Gentleman himself has rather given the game away by stressing how much business the Government have yet to do, although, I must say, we have so far seen precious little sign of it.
When I was Chief Whip, I liked this House and enjoyed it and even loved it at times. I certainly hated it at times; that is understandable. But at all times it earns my profoundest respect in all its institutions. I want to see reform just as much as anybody else, although, perhaps, some of us see the difficulties more clearly than others. I want to see, and all of us want to see, that the reforms which we make are wise, and wise particularly in the nice balance between the Executive and the

1495
rights of the House, which are the true virtue, the keystone, the ark of the covenant of parliamentary democracy.
If I want reform, I also want to safeguard the conventions by which we work. For example, it is a convention that the proceedings of a Select Committee are not divulged until that Committee itself reports. In anything I say, I certainly will not divulge anything of the proceedings of that Committee.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman is not inviting the House, is he, to say that because the Select Committee may some day report in favour of, or report against, a change in the normal hours of sitting, in the meantime, while the Committee is considering what it may ultimately report, the right of the House to control its own sittings is in any way in abeyance?
Sir M. Redmayne: The hon. Member is one of the most acute amongst us, and that is precisely the point which I was going to make. It is, surely, also a convention of this House that if a matter is remitted to a Select Committee —and Select Committees of the House are bodies of great dignity and importance, regardless of their membership—the House contents itself to await the recommendation of that Committee before taking any action in the matter remitted.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the point of my question. As I understand, the House has asked the Select Committee on procedure, among other things, to recommend or not recommend, as it may ultimately decide, a change in the normal practice. What I am inviting the right hon. Gentleman to agree with me about is that until the Select Committee has come to a conclusion on that matter the House remains in full possession of its authority to exercise its existing power.
Sir M. Redmayne: I give the hon. Member his point entirely if his interpretation of what "the House" means is the same as mine. What I am saying is that the Government have no right to take decisions in anticipation of
1496
what may be decided by the Select Committee. The Members of this House have absolute power at any time to conduct their business in any way they please. The two things are very different.
Mr. Bowden: Is the right hon. Member saying that no procedural changes ever take place without recommendations from the Select Committee on Procedure?
Sir M. Redmayne: I have looked for precedents of any sort of importance and I can find no precedent of the sort of importance of this change which is proposed by the Government. I make no secret of the fact—and this does not disclose anything about the Select Committee—that I think that the House gave the Committee a very difficult task that it should first report on the times of the sittings when its main remit was to consider the procedure in public business as a whole. The first task is difficult enough, the second is immense, and I doubted from the first whether the first task was possible of achievement until the second task had been concluded.
Be that as it may, what we now find, as I have suggested, is that the Government, impatient of the difficulties which have been brought on them by a free decision of the House that the Bill should be brought to the Floor of the House, now choose, regardless of the responsibility given to the Select Committee, and regardless of the difficulties which they acknowledge by remitting the subject to this Select Committee, to "jump the gun" and set up a morning Committee on the Bill. I said that the Government were impatient of this matter. If I were not by nature polite, I would use a phrase often used by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were on these Benches and say that the Government were arrogant. As a member of that Committee I resent very much this cavalier treatment of a Select Committee of the House.
I will not discuss the merits of the Bill, but I should like to make my position clear. I voted against the Bill. I think that it is untimely. I am a moderate man. I do not doubt that abolition will come, but I hope not yet. That is all that I shall say on that subject now.
I want to discuss the procedure, and the tangle of procedure, in which the Government have become involved. The right

1497
hon. Gentleman quoted the phrase in the Queen's Speech:
"Facilities will be provided for a free decision by Parliament on the issue of capital punishment."
Sufficient was said on 5th March about sending the Bill upstairs, and the method by which it was achieved, and the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this. I doubt whether a Standing Committee, which is, after all, only an agency of the House, however carefully composed— and I do not quarrel with the way in which it was composed—is "Parliament" in the terms of the Queen's Speech in respect of a subject of this importance. I would support that by reminding hon. Gentlemen opposite of what the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth said on this subject. He ruled that Bills of constitutional importance should always be kept on the Floor of the House.
We have had many arguments—and the right hon. Gentleman will recollect this—in the usual channels as to what was meant by a Bill of constitutional importance, yet there can be few Bills which come closer to the meaning of the phrase than a Bill which is concerned, in one way or another, with the exercise of the prerogative in respect of the life or death of a subject of the Queen. This seems to be almost a perfect example of such a Bill.
That point has been properly decided, and the Bill is to be taken here. What we now have to decide is whether the Government should accept the will of the House and permit the Bill to be debated in Parliament as we know it, and at the times which, by custom, are accepted, or whether they should be allowed to change those customs for their convenience and for the inconvenience, as I shall seek to show, of the House as a whole.
I propose to deal now with another point to which the right hon. Gentleman referred on 5th March. He said:
"… it ought to be made absolutely clear that the Government must have control—any Government must—of their own time on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 1787.]
There spake an ex-Chief Whip, and I do not doubt that if I were Chief Whip, or if I were Leader of the House, or if I were a member of the Executive, I would think the same, and would hope
1498
to achieve it, but I doubt very much whether, in circumstances of this sort, I would say it in this House.
I claim no greater wisdom than the right hon. Gentleman. I suspect that I might have said it, but I would, at the same time, not have been surprised if the heavens had fallen on my head —and this relates back to the point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman)—because this is the House of Commons, and any Government can survive only by the grace and favour of Members of the House, regardless of party.
What is this talk of Government time? What, for that matter, is this talk of Opposition time, or private Members' time? These conventions exist because the House, not the Government, wills them, and the House must be jealous of its power in this respect. I should like to refer Members to what Erskine May says on page 311. This is in the chapter which deals with exceptional methods of economising time. I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has studied this carefully, either now or earlier in his career. There are four headings under which exceptional methods are set out.
First, there is the application of time limits to the discussion of Bills, which is a crime sometimes committed by Governments. Secondly, there is prolongation of the sittings, which happens all too often. Thirdly, there are abnormal sitting days, and may I say that the only abnormal sitting days are the rare occasions on which the House, for good reason or bad, has sat on Saturday or Sunday. Fourthly, there is the appropriation of private Members' days, something which Members will remember was done without conscience by the Labour Government of 1945, but has not been done by a Conservative Government at any time except in time of war.
I want to read the concluding paragraph of this section. After referring to the four methods which I have quoted, it says:
"The conclusion which emerges from the facts, collected in this chapter from the whole range of procedure, is that, while a Government is placed by standing order"—
that is by will of the House—
"in effective control of the time of the House, and while it can and sometimes does use its

1499
influence over the majority of the House to remove any and every impediment to the full exercise of this control, yet reasonably adequate safeguards exist for the rights of the minority and of private Members as individuals; for these rights are inextricably embedded in the procedure by which Ministers secure the passage of indispensable portions of national business, and no Government could go far in withholding these rights without bringing the machinery of Parliament to a standstill."
Perhaps it could be said that I am using a sledgehammer to crack a nut in this matter, but those are important words, and words which should be borne in mind by hon. Members in this connection.
I am concerned to hear from the Lord President of the Council that he has a whip on this Motion tonight. This is essentially a House of Commons matter, a matter of our own procedures, a serious matter—it is a big change which is contemplated by the Government—and I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, every hon. Gentleman opposite, whether in the House or not, that there is no whip on this side of the House in this matter. I hope very much that those, like the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, who have learned to love the House—and I say that in all sincerity—will set aside their allegiance to the Government and vote as free Members on this occasion.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Naturally, I am personally gratified with what the right hon. Gentleman said, but to assist me in applying it to my action today, will he bear in mind that he himself was the Chief Patronage Secretary, the Chief Government Whip, for many years? Can he tell us of any occasion, when he was Chief Whip for the Government, on which he allowed a free vote of the House on the disposal of Government time?
Sir M. Redmayne: I have no recollection of any precedents on that, but I have a mind that I can find them, and if I can I will see that they are reported to the House. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is a fair one, and, whether it is true or not, perhaps I might say that when there was a Conservative Government I heard many appeals from this side of the House to Members oppo-
1500
site to take the same attitude, and Members on that side, followed that advice on many occasions, which only proves what a bad Chief Whip I was.
The phrase in the Queen's Speech was
"a free decision by Parliament",
and I ask whether Parliament is properly represented by morning sittings, hastily contrived to suit the Government's convenience, and whether they are any better than the proceedings of a Standing Committee. We ought to study how complete the representation of the House will be. Ministers will inevitably be poor attenders, because the machinery of government will grind to a halt if Ministers are kept in the House on these occasions. Many Members must find attendance difficult because, for all the talk that we have from time to time from Members opposite, the opportunity to do useful work outside, in the professions, or in industry, or in commerce, is not confined to this side of the House alone. Indeed, Members of Parliament would be far less capable of doing their duty if they did not undertake these other occupations.
Therefore, on many days—and this applies particularly to the law—many Members will not be able to come at all. On other days many will miss the earlier hours of these short debates. I am thinking of those who have been engaged in their constituencies or elsewhere the night before, and are travelling back. Others will have to forsake the House at a critical moment during the debate to leave for a perfectly proper and useful function at lunchtime. They may have to leave at a time when the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill may greatly need their help and presence here.
I do not believe that these morning sittings will produce anything but scrappy and inconstant attendance in a matter which is of the most lively interest to every Member of the House. I say quite seriously that these morning sittings will not be Parliament in the sense of Parliament assembled because the difficulties which will face Members in attending will be too great. Nor do I think that the proposition is particularly good management by the Lord President of the Council, for another reason. It has been said —I believe that it was said on 5th March —that Wednesday was a convenient day

1501
for this operation because Wednesday is free from sittings of other Standing Committees except in respect of Standing Committee C, dealing with Private Member's Bills.
But I wish to put to the Lord President of the Council, who has equal experience with me in these matters, this question: when members of Standing Committees sitting on Tuesdays and Thursdays are asked to sit more often, do they ever choose a Wednesday morning for the extra sitting? The right hon. Gentleman knows that they never do. They will sit on Tuesday afternoon and, if necessary, all night, or on Thursday afternoon, but they say, "Pray leave us Wednesday to ourselves." The right hon. Gentleman smiles, but he knows how very true that is. Those hon. Members always ask, "Please leave us Wednesday so that we can look after our own affairs".
Then, what of the staff of the House and others who serve us here: the police who have to come in all day when the House sits; the refreshment rooms will need to be more fully manned; there are the Clerks of the House, whose mornings are already full, will have to be in attendance. Then there is the Press. We pretend not to observe them, but we are well aware of their presence here and they will have to work extra shifts in order to report us. [Laughter.] I do not see that these are laughing matters.
All these people will have to be here. So, too, will the staff of the OFFICIAL REPORT, the engineers, the boiler-room men, and others. I think that some hon. Members, particularly if they have not been about the House so much as some of us who have worked here long and late do not realise how many men and women are needed to keep this place going. Even the ladies who clean up the mess after we leave every day—and we leave a good deal of mess from time to time—must be extra nippy on these Wednesdays if they are to have the place neat and tidy before hon. Members arrive in the afternoon.
Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I woulc ask the right hon. Gentleman to take his memory back to 1945 to 1951 when, due to the tactics and antics of hon. Gentlemen then in opposition, we were here day and night—Ministers and all.
Sir M. Redmayne: Hon. Gentlemen always make a great deal of that point, but it was not so arduous, although that happened on occasion and might happen again.
One last point—and these are all perfectly good and practical points: how many hon. Members make a point of having visiting parties here on Wednesdays because that is the best day to do so? It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to brush these points aside, but, none the less, for many hon. Members Wednesday is the best day for that. That particular part of the ordinary pattern of the House, too, is to be interfered with. If some of these points seem small in themselves, none the less some are of considerable importance. And we have to put up with this simply because Her Majesty's Government cannot face the inevitable and give time, at a proper and acceptable time.
After all, other Governments have faced this situation. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he recollects that he forced us, against our will, to take the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill on the Floor of the House—and much good it did him! But we got the programme for the Session, as we do in every Session despite accidents which intervene; and, despite the right hon. Gentleman's slighting remark about the last Session of Parliament, the legislation that went through in that Session was very nearly a record. and in the year before the amount was a record. We always get it.
How can the Government claim to be short of time? If they are, then is it anyone's fault but their own? All that this Parliament has had to consider has been a "pudding" of legislation left over from the pipeline of the previous Administration— with an exception. Why, therefore, should Parliament now be deprived of time which it has willed because the Government apparently cannot reach agreement behind the scenes on policy on their major Bills? It is really most extraordinary that Parliament is five months gone and we have hardly had a major Bill yet. What a way to run a Session! Sometimes our friends in the country complain that our opposition lack punch, but so far we have had very little but pudding to

1503
punch. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman quite seriously that if the Government are late with their Bills it is their worry. In the meantime, the House wants to take this Bill in Committee on the Floor, in the proper hours, and the Government should pay heed to the House.
I wish now to deal with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council when he referred to the deep suspicions excited by this Motion. Of course, I accept that his intention that only the Committee stage should be taken in the mornings. Indeed, that is clear from the preamble of the Motion, but if that is clear why is the Motion worded, in paragraph 2, in such a peculiar way, and why are we given the alternatives, whether Mr. Speaker should be in the Chair or if the House be in Committee? And in lines 11 and 12 it is stated that
" provided that if proceedings under Standing Order No. 31 (Closure of debate) be in progress at that hour Mr. Speaker shall not interrupt the Business, or, if the House be in Committee, the Chairman shall not leave the Chair,"
We are told that the House will be in Committee, and I accept the right hon. Gentleman's word on that, but if the House is in Committee the Chairman is fully competent to meet both provisions. Therefore, why is it necessary to include in the Motion the proposition that the House may not be in Committee? I would like to know the truth of this matter. Was it the Government's original intention that all stages of the Bill be taken in the mornings, or were they preparing a Motion which would come in handy on another occasion? Or is it just sloppy drafting and sloppy amendment?
It would be more respectful to the House if Motions put before the House were more precise in their intention. I am poacher-turned-gamekeeper and I know how such procedural Motions are drafted and the care and expertise with which words are chosen to give precisely the effect that the Government wish to achieve. Therefore, 1 believe that certain instructions were given to the draftsmen to achieve one objective and that they were not told that the Government had changed their mind, nor were they asked to approve amendments which were made.
1504
There is another point on this Motion which is of some importance. There may be a trap for the unwary in line 10, which says:
"further consideration of the Business shall be deferred until such day as the Member in charge of the Bill shall appoint."
This is a common phrase in our procedure and means commonly that any Minister or Whip on the Front Bench may say that business shall be deferred "until tomorrow, Sir," or "This day, Sir," or "Monday next," or, on very good occasions, perhaps, "until 20th October." But here we are in different circumstances. This Bill, though taken in Government time—or time at least produced by the Government from thin air like a conjuror producing an egg—and conjurors can frequently produce more than one egg, once they have learned the facility—still masquerades as a Private Member's Bill and the Government are not in charge except, as the Lord President of the Council explains, when it suits them.
The hon. Member in charge of the Bill will be the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. He—if he will forgive me for saying so—is a downy bind; an old hand in Parliament. He is also a little short in Parliamentary temper. If he became dissatisfied with progress, being authorised by this Motion to name the day might not he fail to say, dutifully, "Wednesday next", and name Monday, or Tuesday, or Thursday?
I know that the Lord President of the Council will say that the Government would not place the Bill on the Order Paper until the following Wednesday, and that all would be well, but would the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne be satisfied? He could claim with justice that the powers given to him in paragraph (2) are every bit as strong as the intention to take the Bill on Wednesday, as is expressed in the preamble. If I know the hon. Member he would make that claim, and if I know the Government they might easily accept it.
Mr. Sydney Silverman Mr. Sydney Silverman rose—
Sir M. Redmayne: Is the point worth pursuing?
Mr. Silverman: If the right hon. Gentleman is greatly concerned at this moment to know what I would be satisfied with, perhaps it may help him and relieve him from the exercise of any

1505
strain on his imagination if I tell him that my intention is gratefully to accept whatever time the Government feel able to afford for the passage of the Bill. I would be very foolish, and much shorter of temper than he accused me of being, if I quarrelled with the Government on such a point.
Sir M. Redmayne: I must confess that there have been occasions when I have known the hon. Member to be less docile. At one time I enlisted myself as his unofficial Whip—not with his acknowledgement. I will not make too much of this. Nevertheless, it seems to me that if any care had been taken about the drafting of the Motion it would have stated simply that further consideration of this business would be deferred till the following Wednesday. Then we would have been clear what was meant.
I have said that these morning sittings cannot be considered to be a full repretation of the House. I wonder whether they are to be regarded as a glorified Standing Committee, and whether there would be considerable advantages if they were so regarded. The Lord President of the Council referred to the Report stage of the Bill, with apparent confidence that there would be a Report stage. If the Committee stage is taken on the Floor of the House there can be no Report stage, unless the Bill is amended. I hope that it will be. But if it can be accepted that these mornings sittings will be complete sittings of the House it may be reasonable—since this is a new procedure, and we are concerned that it should work smoothly if it is forced upon us—to suppose that there would inevitably be a Report stage to follow the rather sparse Committee stage.
Secondly, in respect of the closure of any debate in the Committee, I hope that the Chair will not be persuaded to be any more generous to the hon. Member in charge of the Bill than it would be in respect of any Committee of the House—as opposed to a Standing Committee upstairs, where the closure is often accepted earlier. The Standing Order sets out that the rights of minorities will be observed. I therefore hope that the Chair will not be influenced by the fact that this Committee will inevitably proceed in short sharp bursts of about 2 hours and 20 minutes
1506
—and a very uncomfortable procedure it will be for many hon. Members—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not making reflections on the Chair in anticipation.
Sir M. Redmayne: Most certainly not, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I feel sure that in your official capacity you will appreciate that we are puzzled and worried about this new procedure. These suggestions are entirely for the consideration or rejection by the Chair, at its pleasure.
That is all that I have to say. I think that this idea is a thoroughly bad egg, and that, unlike most bad eggs, it was bad when it was laid. In all honesty I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who is a very good Parliamentarian, to think again about the matter and, if he can, to withdraw the Motion. Let him take courage and example from other Governments, now lamentably departed, who got their programmes through with far worse difficulties than this. I assure him —and I ask him to assure his right hon. and learned Friend, who is not so experienced—that it can be done if he has the will to do it. If he is not prepared to withdraw the Motion I ask hon. Members to act as Members of Parliament in their own right, and to defeat it.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. F. Blackburn: We have had the very interesting spectacle this afternoon of two former gamekeepers opposing each other. The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) used some strange arguments in his speech. During the years that I have been here I have never known this Chamber not to be ready for action by half-past ten in the morning. If we have these Wednesday morning sittings there will be no difficulty in the staffs preparing the Chamber for the purpose.
I have been wondering which eel the Leader of the Opposition thinks has been caught in which noose by this exercise in gamesmanship. The House cannot be very proud of anything that has happened since the vote on the Second Reading debate. It has not added anything to the prestige of the House. The debate on 5th March had little relevance

1507
to the way in which the Bill should be debated. It might have had some relevance to a possible Steel Bill, or a possible Lands Commission Bill, but it had little relevance to a discussion of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill.
I consider that the exercise on 5th March was an episode in the Parliamentary struggle—not so much a desire that we should have the Committee stage on the Floor of the House as that there should be an opportunity of upsetting the Government's programme to some extent. Apart from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to object to our even considering a Motion of this kind to have sittings on Wednesday mornings, he seemed to think it relevant that the Select Committee on Procedure was considering the question of the times of sittings of the House. I take it that the Select Committee on Procedure is also considering Questions, but yesterday Mr. Speaker himself suggested a new procedure with regard to Questions. I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman was very serious in arguing that we could not have an alteration in our procedure because, at some future date, the Select Committee on Procedure was going to report upon it.
The complaints made during the debate on 5th March brought out two points—first, that most people who were on the Committee thought that they were not getting enough publicity and that a number of hon. Members who were not on the Committee thought that they were not having an opportunity of getting any publicity. I do not know whether we are supposed to take it that publicity is more important than doing the job properly.
The second point was that the Government Whips had been on when it was decided that the Bill should go to a Standing Committee.
Sir Rolf Dudley Williams Sir Rolf Dudley Williams rose—
Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Gentleman is always wanting to interrupt. Perhaps if he will let me make my speech—
Sir Rolf Dudley Williams Sir Rolf Dudley Williams rose—
Mr. Blackburn: —I can possibly answer the things he wants to say. He is such a regular interrupter—[An HON.
1508
MEMBER: "Particularly on a Friday."]—that I am not disposed to give way to him at the moment. There is no telling what might happen before I have reached the end of my speech.
I cannot believe that there is anyone in the House so naïve as to think that a Government would not retain control over their programme. I am sure that hon. Members know what the Standing Order is. I would refer them to Section 1 of the relevant Standing Order, which says:
"When a public Bill (other than a Bill for imposing taxes or a Consolidated Fund or an Appropriation Bill, or a Bill for confirming a provisional order) has been read a Second time it shall stand committed to a Standing Committee unless the House otherwise orders."
Therefore, it was surely a natural expectation of everyone that the Bill would be committed to a Standing Committee. Of course, it is quite competent for any hon. Member of the House to move that the Committee stage be taken on the Floor of the House, but it is equally competent for the Government of the day to decide whether they want it on the Floor of the House or in a Standing Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have decided?"] I did not say that the Government had decided, but that they were competent to decide whether they would want to have the Bill on the Floor of the House or to send it to a Standing Committee.
I am sure that, whatever the Government, they must maintain control over their programme. The argument which the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe used—to the effect that some of the debates which have taken place on the Floor of the House during this Parliament were of a secondary nature—is no argument as to what is now in the pipeline. I think that it is inevitable when there is a change of Government that, in the first Session, in the early days, there are matters of secondary importance to be debated. I remember that one of the first things which the then Conservative Government did in 1951 was bring in a Bill about public houses in new towns. One would not consider that that was a world-shattering Bill of great importance, but it gave them an opportunity to fill in the gap while legislation which they considered more important was being prepared.
Of course, the fact that we have not yet had what the right hon. Gentleman

1509
says are a number of major Bills does not mean that those major Bills are not coming. That is why I said earlier that I thought that possibly one of the reasons for the exercise on 5th March was great concern with some of these major Bills which might possibly be coming, rather than with the way in which the debate should take place on the Committee stage of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill. I think that on 5th March there was a good deal of synthetic indignation about what had taken place. It was evident, and anyone who rereads the OFFICIAL REPORT of what took place on that day will agree with me. I am certain that there was more concern in the exercise to embarrass the Government than to gain whatever it was they said they wanted.
This Motion is a very clever Motion, I think. It meets exactly what it was that the House wanted. The House asked that the Bill should be committed to a Committee of the whole House. Without upsetting any future Government timetable, it does exactly that. It makes it possible for all hon. Members of the House to get the publicity they want and gives an opportunity for every hon. Member who wants to make his contribution to the Bill to do so, but it has to be on a Wednesday morning.
I might say that it is also a good example of an opportunity to try out something new in procedure. [HON. MEMBERS:"Ah."] It fits in very well with an Amendment which I moved to the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in the Parliament of 1955–59. I moved that meetings should be held, for a trial period, on Wednesday mornings, to give the House an opportunity to judge whether such sittings were suitable, whether they would be of any great value, and to discover whether the House wished to proceed with them. I did not get my way then. Now there will be an opportunity, because when this Motion is passed tonight, as it will be—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not think that there is any doubt about it. When it is passed there will be an opportunity—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. The Whips are on, quite rightly, too. I do not think that there is any doubt that it will De carried, and that it will give the House an opportunity to try out this idea.
1510
Having said, that I must add that I should have preferred something else. I would have preferred a straight vote to restore the Bill to a Standing Committee. I do not believe that the Floor of the House is the place to discuss the details of the Committee stage of a Bill. I do not think that 630 people wandering and and out are a competent body to discuss the details of the Committee stage of a Bill. Therefore, my view, which, I think, is generally known in the House, is that the Committee stage of every Bill—including the Finance Bill—should be sent to a Standing Committee, in order to give more time on the Floor of the House for many of the debates which at present we are not able to have.
I hope that none of those 128 hon. Members who voted for the Bill coming to the Floor of the House will begin talking about the need to "streamline procedure" and to have some alteration in procedure. The first thing which can be done to improve the procedure of the House and to find more time on the Floor of the House for many of the debates which hon. Members want is to take the Committee stage of all Bills in a Standing Committee.
I believe that every Report of the Estimates Committee, every Report of the Public Accounts Committee, every Report of a Royal Commission, should be debated in this House within a month off their publication. But we have no time, generally, for most of these things; there is so much time spent on the Second Reading, Report stage and Third Reading of Bills, and other matters which have to be dealt with. As my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council mentioned, from now until Easter most of the Session will be filled with finance matters. As I say, I should have preferred a simple reversal of the vote which took place on 5th March, so that the Bill would have been sent to a Standing Committee. I think that that is where details should be hammered out—in a smaller Committee and not by 630 Members, but that is not the Motion before the House.
I shall accept the second best, and with great pleasure vote for the Motion. Now that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had their say, and I think that honour has been served, I hope

1511
that hon. Members will give to this important Bill the consideration which it both needs and deserves.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. W. F. Deedes: I shall be touching on some of the things which were said by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) but first I must take him to task for the suggestion that some hon. Members on this side of the House who took part in the debate on 5th March were particularly concerned to disrupt the Government programme. That is simply not true. I do not think that the hon. Member was present during the debate, but if he rereads some of the remarks which were made on that occasion—I do not think that the Leader of the House will dispute this—he will see that some of us had quite different motives in mind from that. As for the hon. Member's wider observations about the proper use of the Floor of the House, that is more a matter for the Leader of the House than for me and I will leave others to answer the hon. Gentleman. When the Select Committee reports on the subject, we shall look forward to hearing more from the hon. Gentleman.
This Motion and the need for it is one more chapter in the most unhappy history of the Government's handling of this Bill. It is a history of miscalculation, and that is putting it very moderately. Having started on the wrong road, as I believe they did from the night of the Second Reading of the Bill, the Government have been consistently taking wrong turnings, and getting no nearer to the ultimate destination of the Bill. As a result of the decision we shall take finally tonight, the Bill is back where it was on the night of 21st December. The Leader of the House has acted in a manner in which, on occasions, we all act when travelling along a road, when we ask the way and, having been clearly informed that we should go back a mile or two and then turn right, we consider that the better way is to go on and take as many turnings as we can find in the belief that ultimately we shall get back on the right road. That never happens. The positive refusal to take the course which some of us recommended from the start has been largely responsible for
1512
the difficulties which the Leader of the House referred to today.
I am not affected by the decision to have morning sittings in this Chamber on Wednesdays. For me, with my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite who are members of the Standing Committee, this decision will mean, in effect, that we shall conduct our business in this Chamber instead of in a Committee Room on the Committee corridor between 10.30 a.m. and 1 o'clock on Wednesdays. It will make no difference in terms of time or conditions. I make no complaint, but I would point out to those hon. Members who have been taking part in the Standing Committee discussions that one effect of this decision will be to nullify five full days and 121 hours of work in the Standing Committee, and that we shall have to start again from the beginning.
The people who will be affected by this decision will be the Ministers. I cannot believe that, in resorting to what I think some hon. Members opposite regard as a clever manoeuvre, the consequences have been sufficiently considered in their effect on Departmental Ministers. It is an illusion to think that this will hurt hon. Members on this side of the House more than the Ministers. Nothing could be further from the truth. It may well aggravate some of my hon. and right hon. Friends, but it will positively embarrass a great number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench. Every hon. Member knows that a large number of Ministers are called on to work throughout Wednesday mornings at some distance from this House and, however the Divisions may be contrived during the Committee stage discussions, those Ministers will have to be on call. Anyone who knows the routine of a Ministry knows that it will seriously disrupt a great deal of routine business.
It is fair that I should add now, in this context, that a number of hon. Members on this side of the House support the Bill and abolition and, frankly, it will not be so easy for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to arrange pairs and to absent themselves on official duties. I hope that we shall not be told later, if difficulties do arise for Ministers, that hon. Members on this side of the House

1513
are deliberately trying to make life difficult for them. There are some circumstances here which I hope will be noted now and not later.
Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are allowing a free vote on the matter, so that it may not affect Ministers.
Mr. Deedes: This is not a point for me to argue. It remains to be seen how the Division list works out. It may be that this decision will not seriously impinge on the work of the Paymaster-General, with whose fertile brain some of us—perhaps wrongly—associate this idea. We cannot tell whether it will or not, because we do not know what work the right hon. Gentleman does, but we know that some of the Ministers will find it exceedingly tiresome. No one knows that better than the Leader of the House.
Moreover, this debate concerns a Bill in connection with which members of the legal profession emphatically have their uses. Obviously the Committee will have to consider their contributions to the debate and I should like to think that hon. Members who are members of the legal profession but were not members of the Standing Committee will have opportunities to take part, particularly in the later stages when we consider the alternatives and where I think a legal mind may have something to offer which a layman cannot contribute.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I understand the concern of the right hon. Gentleman regarding Ministers, but is he really suggesting that lawyers who are employed in the mornings should be given special consideration?
Mr. Deedes: The hon. Gentleman has missed my point. I am sure that on a Measure of this kind the House should be able to bring to bear the best minds and experience that we can find. But in denying ourselves—not denying the lawyers—advice which some hon. Members who are members of the legal profession may be able to give, we should be doing ourselves less than justice. That is my point.
Mr. Peter Bessell: Will the right hen. Gentleman make himself
1514
clearer? I cannot understand why the House would be denied the advantage of the experience of lawyers at a morning sitting. Lawyers are available in the morning—unless the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that their professional activities prevent them from being present.
Mr. Deedes: I am making no bones about this. Obviously hon. Members know perfectly well what are the commitments of members of the legal profession. I make no bones about that. I know and the hon. Gentleman knows the practical effects of this will be that this debate—
Mr. Richard Crawshaw: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Deedes: No, I cannot give way—oh, very well.
Mr. Crawshaw: I referred to the right hon. Gentleman as "my hon. Friend" in order that I might be able to get in. I am somewhat at a loss over his argument about being deprived of the advantage of the presence of members of the legal profession. One would think that if hon. Members who are lawyers were members of the Standing Committee they would be present in any case. The only advantage which I see that would accrue from this arrangement is that other hon. Members like myself, who are members of the legal profession, and who would like to have been on the Standing Committee will have an opportunity to make contributions during the discussion. Therefore, from what I can see, we shall have more legal brains brought to bear on this subject.
Mr. Deedesz: The hon. Gentleman will have to secure his place among the galaxy of talent which he anticipates will be present. We had better get on to a further point. I believe I said that those most affected will be Ministers, and I referred to lawyers afterwards. There is one other aspect, a more serious one, of this proposal which it is right to mention. I think that it betrays, no doubt unwittingly, a rather intolerant attitude on the part of the Government towards

1515
on a wholly legitimate point. I do not believe that the Opposition should be treated like schoolboys over this.
The move to get the Bill back on the Floor of the House was not entirely frivolous, whatever some hon. Members say about it. The Times, I thought fairly and fully, weighed up all the arguments advanced and came down in favour of, on the whole, accepting the views which had been expressed. I am prepared to take the opinion of The Times as being a neutral opinion in this matter, and hon. Gentlemen who argue otherwise should see the arguments adduced in The Times leading article I have in mind. That article stated that there was a case for and against, and it decided that a case had been made out.
A serious proposition was put to the Government on 5th March. It was argued and won, both on the argument and in the Division. Now we have this reaction and I find it disquieting. This intolerant response should not pass without notice. I say to the Leader of the House, in all fairness, that the Front Bench opposite does not like successful Opposition. Certain right hon. Gentlemen on it are apt to regard it as impertinent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) persistently lapses in that view and as a result those who oppose his policies are apt to be castigated as being irresponsible and outrageous.
I do not believe that the House should be treated like schoolboys. I remind the Government that they are not dealing with the Opposition but with the House as a whole. There is a distinction between what the Government may sometimes do to persuade the Opposition to take a certain line and what they should do when they should be considering the position of the whole House.
Mr. Archie Manuel: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is treating this matter seriously, so would he not agree that the vote on 5th March was a much smaller one to bring the Committee stage back to the Floor of the House than the much larger and more democratic vote which sent it upstairs in the first place? Should he not weigh these two things in the balance?
Mr. Deedes: I do not think that any of us has ever taken the numerical results achieved in the House as being an indication of the strength of will, decision or anything else of the House. I dare say that certain hon. Members took the precaution of being paired on that Friday—some did not—and that some of them held views as strongly as those who voted.
Some of my hon. Friends think that the Motion may be used as a precedent. Speaking for myself, I am inclined to accept the word of the Leader of the House that this is a straightforward Motion and I think that, for reasons I have mentioned—and I must not anticipate a report which may be made on this subject—there may be obstacles to further moves of this kind.
I would not be surprised, however, if it were not held forward if not as a prospect then perhaps sometimes as a threat. It would not surprise me if the prospect of morning sittings were occasionally held over the heads of the Opposition as a means of achieving certain ends. "If we spend more time on this Measure or that, morning sittings are within our grasp," is something that could be said, without actually having morning sittings, thereby bringing Ministers into difficulty.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House. It was as a result of his persuasiveness that the House decided to bring the Bill back from its Committee stage in Standing Committee on to the Floor of the House. What does he think the Government should have done to give effect to that decision, bearing in mind the point of view of those who wished to see the Bill carried?
Mr. Deedes: That is an absolutely fair point and I will come to it later. As far as I recollect, we got through our 13 years of administration without any gambit of this kind. It may be that we managed things better or that we were a little more tolerant. At least, during those 13 years we never sought to manoeuvre a Bill quite in the way this one has been manoeuvred. It is manoeuvreing that lies at the root of the trouble.
"O what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"

1517
The Government wanted the best of both worlds, a Private Member's Bill mentioned in the Gracious Speech which would have Government backing as and when required. The fact that we are dealing with it today once again is proof that this has been disastrous. It has led to the Committee stage—as some of us think—being treated as somewhat of a formality; it has led to the fiasco of 5th March; and it has led to this Motion today.
The Leader of the House said that it was quite impossible to find time before the Committee stage of the Bill to take it on the Floor of the House during our normal hours. Quite appealingly in his speech he said that in the 50 to 60 days available for Government business and so on, time could not be found. However, we are now at 18th March. The Bill received its Second Reading on 21st December. We all know, roughly speaking, what the Government's programme has been between 21st December and today. Therefore—and I now answer the last intervention of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne—had the decision been taken in the first place that the Bill, as emphatically a Bill of a constitutional character, should and would receive three or four days in Committee on the Floor of the House, this difficulty would never have arisen and a right decision would have been taken. No one can really say that the Government's programme since Second Reading has persuaded many of us that, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition, it was "quite impossible" to find time. The facts unfortunately have proved otherwise.
Perhaps some of us would be doing the Government a service if we used this occasion to impress one thing absolutely firmly on their mind, something which they have so far failed to recognise; that many hon. Members on this side of the House—and retentionists at that—consider that the Bill is a subject to be taken most seriously. In saying that I know that I reflect a great deal of opinion represented by both abolitionists and retentionists. It is indeed a subject of the utmost seriousness and if hon. Gentlemen opposite accuse some of us who take the Bill seriously of simply playing with Government time when we make speeches like this, they should reflect that
1518
some of us feel very strongly about the matter.
The Leader of the House suggested that the real motive behind this was to lose the Bill. I do want to lose the Bill and I am not ashamed of saying that I wish to do so. If that is to be regarded by hon. Members opposite as an ignoble motive, then they will have to learn more about opposition, even after their 13 years in Opposition.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I have not myself made this charge, but the charge has been made not that people are entitled to be against the Bill—of course they are; those who are against it spoke against it and those who want it voted for it—but that the question is whether their being against the Bill provides a good reason, there being no other reason, for opposing this Motion.
Mr. Deedes: I do not want to repeat all the arguments which have been made and which I put on 5th March on the motives some of us have in wishing to have the fullest discussion on the Bill. I have said that this is not regarded by some of us as a subject for any kind of Parliamentary manoeuvre. I am sure that the police do not think it a subject for Parliamentary manoeuvre, nor the prison officers, nor many members of the public. I simply decline to feel ashamed of the attitude I have adopted to the Bill and reject the accusation that this proves that I am simply hostile to the Government's programme.
There are, and there have been from the start, overwhelming reasons for giving the Bill the status accorded to the most important Measures. It has not been given that status. It is not even now receiving that status. If the Government will the end of a Bill of this kind, they must will the means. So far, they have refused to do so. I consider that their attitude is indefensible, and for that reason I at least shall vote against the Motion tonight.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: I want to apply myself directly to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) in his speech from the Opposition Front Bench at the beginning of the debate. First, I want to reply to what I suppose

1519
are the two main arguments presented by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). He said that there was something impertinent or intolerant about the way the Government have behaved in this matter. I think he said that partly because of the way the Government had behaved on the original Motion as to where the Bill should be committed and partly because of their subsequent action.
Taking, first, the question of how the Government behaved immediately after the Bill was accorded a Second Reading, I must say that I do not think that the Opposition have presented a very powerful argument. They have claimed—the right hon. Gentleman himself claimed—that this was indisputably a constitutional Bill. Herbert Morrison's hook was quoted to substantiate the case that constitutional Bills should nearly always be taken on the Floor of the House. Anyone who has been in the House for any length of time knows that there has always been discussion, often between Opposition and Governments, as to what constitutes constitutional Bills. I have heard the late Herbert Morrison himself arguing on that point. Therefore, it is no good right hon. Members opposite being so dogmatic on the subject and saying that, because they say so, because they put their imprimatur upon the Bill as a constitutional Bill, therefore it is one.
One of the examples which slipped out in the course of the debates illustrates my point very well, because the right hon. Gentleman told us that in the last Session when the Government of the day introduced the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill they sought to have that Bill dealt with by a Standing Committee but were thwarted by the House of Commons, which did not agree with them. As between the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, which deprived Commonwealth citizens of rights which they have held ever since there has been a British Commonwealth, and the Bill which is under discussion now, I should have thought that the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was incomparably more certainly a constitutional Bill than is this Bill.
After all, important though this Bill is—I do not diminish its importance; my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) has every
1520
right, more perhaps than many hon. Members, to stress its importance—it is also the fact that the consequences of the Bill for large numbers of people are not so great as were the consequences of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. I know that hon. Members have different views on the matter. There are hon. Members opposite, who are bitterly opposed to the Bill anyhow, who say very strongly that in their view this is a constitutional Bill.
My opinion and, I am glad to say, the opinion of many of us who were in the House of Commons at the time was that the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was a constitutional Bill. We have been told by the spokesman for the Opposition today that, in his opinion, the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was not a constitutional Bill. I say that to illustrate the fact that it is not easy for anybody to determine what are constitutional Bills and what are not. There is a powerful argument at least for saying that a Bill which is to decide that two or three people who would be hanged if the Bill were not passed will not be hanged is not a great constitutional Bill, important though the Bill may be. That is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Member for Ashford got himself into great difficulty when he was trying to describe, in answer to an intervention, what other course he would recommend. It must be remembered that the accusation of the right hon. Gentleman against the Government was that they have acted in an intolerant manner. He argued that the intolerance of the Government is such that they are inviting the House of Commons to agree that the proposition passed by the House on Friday, 5th March, should be carried out. That is the measure of their intolerance.
There have been much more intolerant Leaders of the House in days gone by. I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Member for Ashford was in the House during the war. In the latter years of the war there was a vote against the Coalition Government which Sir Winston Churchill, the then Prime Minister, found awkward and irritating. The remedy which was adopted by the Government at that time was not to tell the House, "We will allow this Measure to go through" or "We will allow further

1521
time for its discussion". The attitude of the Government of the day was to say, "We require that the House of Commons shall turn a somersault and that many of those who voted for the original proposition should go into the Lobbies and vote against".
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Within 24 hours.
Mr. Foot: That was how previous Leaders of the House and Chief Whips have behaved, without any protest from right hon. Members opposite, who, indeed, were members of the Administration at the time. So, compared with that measure of intolerance, this Government have behaved with the utmost lack of arrogance. They have gone out of their way to accommodate hon. Members. Hon. Members should be more gracious and grateful for having their wishes so carefully respected by the Government. This lack of gratitude on the part of hon. Members opposite shocks me.
I hope that I am not taken to say this in any patronising sense, but the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe put his implausible case in a most agreeable manner. He put his ridiculous proposition with all the power which we have come to recognise from him. It used to be said in the House, "Once a Chief Whip, always a Chief Whip". We have seen today from both sides of the House that this does not apply. The two of them have survived and have come out almost as human beings. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman put his case pretty well.
However, it did not come very well from the right hon. Gentleman when at the end of his speech he appealed to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, to myself and to others not to obey our Whips but to act as House of Commons men and not take any party consideration into this matter. If I am to be seduced from my allegiance, it will have to be by a more ravishing siren than the right hon. Gentleman. I can find it comparatively easy to keep my chastity intact on this occasion. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman must understand that some of us, however much we respect the way in which he put his case—there was not much passion about it—take the view that there was an element of humbug in it. I do not want to put it too high. I should like to prove the point
1522
later. I want to deal now with his other arguments.
The right hon. Gentleman said, first, that it is improper for the Government to make this proposition because it is inhibiting the Select Committee on Procedure in its work; or that, because the Select Committee on Procedure is sitting and examining the exact question of when the House should most conveniently sit, the Motion should not have been put forward. If this proposition were correct, it would give enormous temptations for filibustering to the Select Committee on Procedure. I, like the right hon. Gentleman, am a member of the Select Committee on Procedure. It would be improper for me, as it was improper for him, to say what was going on there, but, like him, I can give a few hints.
Sir M. Redmayne: I gave no sort of hint as to what was going on there; nor will the hon. Gentleman, I hope.
Mr. Foot: I was only following the right hon. Gentleman's example. If I stray any further, I am sure that he will pull me up. Shall I refer to Select Committees on Procedure in general and none in particular? I studied them when I allowed myself to be appointed to a Select Committee on Procedure, one of the most foolish actions that I have taken in my whole career. I have wondered ever since whether the best course that the House could take would be to appoint a Select Committee on Procedure to examine the procedure of the Select Committee on Procedure. If only that were done, perhaps the whole procedure of the House could be speeded up.
The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe must be generous in these matters. It is perfectly possible to filibuster in the Select Committee on Procedure and for the proceedings there to be extended almost indefinitely and for no decision to be reached. Therefore, if the House accepted the proposition that no alterations in Government business or in the business of the House should be made while the Select Committee on Procedure is examining the question, it would give all power over the business of the House into the hands of the Select Committee. This follows absolutely.
I am not a member of the Committee which has been examining this Bill but

1523
I am told by those whose opinion I respect—and I am not referring to the right hon. Gentleman—that there has been filibustering there. Hon. Members opposite must not imagine that we are so innnocent as to think that they would not in any circumstances filibuster, and if the proposition put forward by the right hon. Gentleman were accepted by the House it would be an invitation to hold up the business of the House not only on the Floor and in Committees but in the Select Committee itself. Therefore, we need not take that argument from the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman's second and most astonishing proposition is that Committees of this House examining Bills are not really Parliament. I do not know what right he has to say this. He said that it is not really Parliament if we have something in Committee. I do not see how he is allowed to say it. This is a procedure which has been accepted year after year and, as one of my hon. Friends has said, it is a procedure which more and more people are coming to believe must be followed. More and more people are coming to believe that if the House of Commons is to function successfully more and more matters must be referred to Committees. Yet the right hon. Gentleman says that this is Committee and not part of Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman read out extracts from Erskine May and tried to apply them to the position, but business conducted in Committees is as much business conducted in Parliament as is business conducted on the Floor of the House itself. We can argue among ourselves which Bills and which parts of Bills should be taken on the Floor, but it is not merely wrong but reprehensible for the right hon. Gentleman to arrogate to himself the right to say which parts of business are being properly conducted and should properly be dignified with the description of the business of Parliament.
Part of the right hon. Gentleman's objection to sitting in the morning is that it would not be Parliament if we sat in the morning—that it would not be quite the right thing, not the done thing. That is an old public school slogan, not an argument. The House of Commons sat through a number of
1524
years in the mornings. There happened to be a war on at the same time. Some of us think that we might win the peace better if we sat in the mornings. One of the troubles with right hon. Members opposite is that they know so little of the history of their country. If they applied their minds to it they would discover that not only in the last war but in previous wars won by this country the House of Commons has sat in the morning.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said that the House used to sit at 8 o'clock in the morning, not for the reason that he would have wanted the House to sit but for other reasons. It is quite wrong historically to say that Governments would not be able to conduct their business while the House was sitting in the morning. It was done throughout the war. The House met on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays at 10.30 or 11 o'clock in the morning and the Government's business was transacted.
Sir Herbert Butcher: The hon. Member will recollect that in those days we met at 11 o'clock and it was because of the air raids. Perhaps he will commend to his right hon. Friend the same rising hour, which, if my recollection is right, was 5 o'clock.
Mr. Foot: It sounds a very enticing proposition. We might put it up to the Select Committee on Procedure.
I am trying to repudiate one of the principal arguments put from the benches opposite that it is impossible to carry on government if Parliament is sitting in the morning. All I say in reply to that is that Parliament conducted its most important business and the Government conducted their most successful business in this century when Parliament sat in the morning.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that when England was at war with Scotland this House met at 6 o'clock in the morning?
Mr. Foot: And what is more, we did not have any Scots here interfering with business.
It is a serious proposition for the House to understand that hon. and right hon. Members opposite stated, as if it was an unarguable dogma, that it is

1525
impossible for Government business to be transacted when Parliament is sitting earlier, but this is not borne out by the facts. I never like to overstate an argument.
The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe said that his last argument concerned the whole question of Government time and he tried to look as shocked as possible by the claim of the Leader of the House that the Government must have control over the time of the House of Commons. I am in favour of protecting private Members' time in the House, although I think that private Members often make a great mistake in thinking that the way for private Members to use their time is in private Members' time. Some of the worst Governments we have had in recent years—and I will not go into any controversial matters on this—have been very eager to restore private Members' time. The more time that is wasted on private Members' time the less time there is to gel through important business.
The right hon. Gentleman sneered at the Government of 1945 because they had taken away or failed to restore some of the private Members' time that existed before the war. The reason was very proper. The Government had a series of very important Government Measures to get through. It would not be a denial of the rights of private Members for the Government to take more time to get important business through the House. It is a denial of the proper function of a private Member to say that the only time during which he can be effective is in private Members' time. The laziest Governments would like to give as much time as possible to be squandered on such matters as cattle grids, though I would not wish to diminish their importance—I have had a few established in my constituency recently. They like to see time squandered. The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe was extremely good at it in his day. It was easy to give time when there was plenty of time to waste and the situation was quite different from that which the present Government have to face. I say that the right hon. Gentleman is guilty of humbug when he talks as if the question of allocation of time was one which had nothing to do with party considerations, and it was quite improper for the
1526
Government to have asserted their right to influence the time at their disposal in connection with this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman knows, as everyone in the House who is engaged in these activities knows, that on questions of time every Bill, of whatever nature, is important. I remember when some of us were engaged in seeking to prevent the Government of 1950 from carrying out some very wicked Measures. We decided to examine in the closest detail a whole series of other Measures. We gave exhaustive scrutiny to the Isle of Man Customs Bill. The knowledge has never left me since. I have never set foot on the Isle of Man again without a sentimental feeling aroused by my recollection of the part which I played on that Bill. What we did by our detailed and deep application to our Parliamentary duties at that time was to manage to hold up several other even worse Measures.
The right hon. Gentleman must not talk as though the proposal made by the Opposition that the Bill be taken on the Floor of the House came solely from a concern that its examination should be taken here, and there were no ulterior considerations. If some of his hon. Friends on the back benches were sufficiently blockheaded not to understand the implications, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understood them. He knows perfectly well that the best thing for him to do, particularly in the present situation when many of the Government's most important Bills are necessarily crammed into the later part of the Session, is to hold up as much business as he can at the beginning. The more he can do that, the better it will be for him later on. Therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that all such ulterior considerations were out of his mind is just a piece of humbug.
It would have been perfectly proper for the Government to have responded to the manoeuvre—we have to talk of manoeuvre on this Bill and there was manoeuvring on the Friday before last—by saying, "Do not behave like schoolboys any more. We are sending the Bill back to the Standing Committee to be taken up again at the point which it had reached, and we are perfectly satisfied that full consideration will be given

1527
to it on that basis. We do not intend to follow what the Opposition have done, that is, denigrate the status of Committees of the House of Commons". That would have been perfectly proper.
Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: I do not think that the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman makes now as to what the Government could have done is correct. They could not have sent the Bill back to the Committee to be continued with at the place where it had been left because, after the Resolution of Friday, 5th March, the Committee was discharged.
Mr. Foot: It could have been done. The hon. Gentleman must not underrate the ingenuity of Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, if he tempts us too far, if the anger and fury which he and his hon. Friends express against the Motion is too great, they may press the Government to take just that course. I advise them not to press us too hard. In my opinion—and I am no great legal expert, as everyone knows—it would have been possible for the Government to take that course.
Mr. R. T. Paget: The method would have been to reappoint the Committee and to give it a direction to proceed with the Bill from the point which had been reached. Perfectly simple.
Mr. Foot: I am sure that that course could have been taken, and I congratulate the Government on having resisted the temptation. I only wonder whether the squeals would have been even louder from the Opposition if they had done it. But they decided to behave in a most generous and open-handed fashion, saying that, within the limits of the Parliamentary time available to them, they would do everything in their power to carry out the wish expressed by the House on Friday, 5th March.
The debates on the Bill will now be taken on the Floor of the House of Commons. No one will be able to say that it is done in the secrecy of a Standing Committee, not that there is any validity in that charge in any case, and there can be full and open debate about it. It will take a bit of time, but who is to complain about that?
1528
What we are really concerned to do in this debate is to discover why the Opposition are so testy when they have been given so much of what they wanted. Why are they so bitter? Is there some motive which they do not like to explain? It might be explained or illustrated partly by their suggestion that this is a precedent. I thought that the Tory Party loved precedent. If we find that this system works well, it will greatly assist the Select Committee on Procedure, will it not? We shall be able to have reports before the Select Committee showing how successfully it has worked on Wednesdays, and the matter could be referred to the Select Committee on that basis.
From whichever angle one views it, the Opposition's case has no validity. The Government are behaving with great fairness and consideration towards the House. The fact is that the opposition to this Measure has nothing very much to do with the opposition of right hon. and hon. Members opposite to the Bill itself. It is more due to an irritation which they cannot suppress at what happened at the last General Election. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite just cannot take a licking. They were defeated at the election and they do not like the fact that the time of the House of Commons is controlled by a new Government, though controlled far more fairly than by the old Government. This is what smarts. This is the reason for their activity on this Bill. I ask them to reconsider their attitude and to remember that the country can judge what has occurred. When the country sees that what the Government have agreed to do is to have the Committee stage of the Bill debated in the mornings on the Floor of the House, when everyone can be here and our proceedings can all be reported, and when the country understands that this is what the Opposition do not like, it will wonder what can be the justification for the charge which they level against the Government.
5.46 p.m.
Mr. R. H. Turton: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) gave us the "Saying of the Week" when he said, "I never like to overstate an argument". I have never known any hon. Member

1529
use more skill and apparent plausibility in leading the House away from the correct argument under debate. The hon. Gentleman and I are both in the difficulty that we are gagged in one respect and cannot say anything about what has happened in the Select Committee on Procedure beyond what is recorded in the Journal, that the Committee has been summoned to meet six times already.
The Government's proposal is a complete innovation in our procedure. It is no good the Lord President of the Council saying that the House has met before in the mornings. Never in our history have we had the hours for sitting from 10.30 in the morning until 10.30 at night. Not on Fridays, not on the days we adjourn, and not during our wartime sittings did this happen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) reminded us a few minutes ago, we rose at five o'clock during wartime. It is proposed to do something completely new and something which will have great repercussions on those who serve the House and on hon. Members themselves.
It was for this reason, I thought, that the Government remitted the matter to a Select Committee to make inquiries and see what would be the implications of such a recommendation. If the Lord President of the Council had strong views on it, they should have been communicated in due course to the Select Committee, and not kept away from the Select Committee to be ventilated this afternoon on the Floor of the House.
So far as I am aware—I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—on no occasion in the history of the House has a matter of procedure been remitted to a Select Committee and then, while the Select Committee was in process of considering it, taken away again and put down by Motion of the Government on the Floor of the House. This is my charge against the Government today. It is an unconstitutional way of dealing with Parliament's affairs. I do not raise the matter from the point of view of being for or against the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman). In fact, I purposely avoided voting on Second Reading, because I thought that the 1957 Act had been highly unsatisfactory and
1530
wanted the matter discussed—preferably on the Floor of the House.
I suggest to the Leader of the House that the course he is adopting is doing grave damage and is an affront to the Select Committee on Procedure. In future, hon. Members will not be keen to serve on a Select Committee on Procedure when they know that the Government will anticipate their decisions by bringing in a Motion such as this on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Victor Yates: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that yesterday Mr. Speaker himself made an important decision that anticipated some discussion or arrangement by the Select Committee. Surely that is rather fundamental.
Mr. Turton: The hon. Member has just made a grave reflection on Mr. Speaker. I stand to be corrected, but I understood that, yesterday, Mr. Speaker noted that the matter of Questions was being examined by the Select Committee and stated that, pending its decision, he would ask hon. Members to accept his Ruling, leaving it subject to the recommendations of the Select Committee.
Do I understand, from the interruption of the hon. Member, that the Leader of the House will withdraw or curtail this Motion in the light of what the Select Committee reports? That seems to me to be the logical consequence of the interruption. But what the right hon. Gentleman is, in fact, doing is riding roughshod over the whole Select Committee procedure.
I have two specific questions for the right hon. Gentleman. Before he put down this Motion and decided on this procedure, had he consulted the Press Gallery? I think that it is very important. Whatever views one may have on the Bill, quite clearly the whole country is very interested and there must be ample opportunity for our debates to be fully reported. A system under which those debates will not get such full reporting as they will get if they are held at the normal time during the afternoon sittings is clearly a matter of great moment to the House and the country.
Mr. Paget: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has been following what has been happening upstairs. But one thing that certainly has happened

1531
is that there has been very full reporting of the proceedings. I do not see that it is any more difficult for the Press to report us when we sit here than when we are sitting in Committee upstairs.
Mr. Turton: One of the purposes of the Motion on 5th March was to give the fullest opportunity for reporting. Quite clearly, as is well known to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), there is more opportunity for reporting debates when those debates are on the Floor of the House than when they are upstairs—one of the reasons being that the amount of space available for the Press in any Committee room is insufficient when there is a debate of importance.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: The Committee stage will now be on the Floor of the House, so the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making has been met. On the point of convenience of reporting, does not the right hon. Gentleman attach importance to the fact that, if he House debates this matter in Committee on Wednesday mornings, this will give the papers the opportunity to report the proceedings fully on the same day, whereas, if we held our discussions late at night, which might be the only alternative, we would probably get no reports at all?
Mr. Turton: I am asking the Leader of the House whether, before he put down this Motion, he consulted the Press Gallery. He should have done so.
Mr. Emrys Hughes Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—
Mr. Turton: I will not give way to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I gave way to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) because he is in charge of the Bill and because it is right that he should put any point to me.
Secondly, have the Government considered what should be the changes in Standing Orders of the House when we have an all-night sitting preceding the Wednesday? We are coming to the time of year when the House is in Committee on the Finance Bill and for many years we have had very late sittings on it.
For the convenience of the staff of the House, we always have the rule that, if the sitting goes later than a certain hour, the following day is lost. This enables
1532
the staff of the House and others who serve the House to have a proper rest. It looks as if there will now have to be some alteration in the Standing Order so that we do not have the House sitting round the clock without any intermission. These occasions are a very great strain on those who serve the House. It is unfortunate that this course has been adopted at the period of the year when we are coming into financial business.
It is a great pity to force this Motion through when there is a great deal of good will for the Bill on both sides of the House, when the supporters are not entirely drawn from the Government benches and when, as I have found—and I can say this without breach of confidence—on the Select Committee on Procedure no real partisan attitude is apparent at the moment. Whatever their views as individuals, members of the Committee are trying to improve the procedure of the House. To introduce such a Motion at this time, to inject a partisan spirit into the Select Committee and to destroy a measure of support for the Bill on this side of the House, is a very great mistake.
I do not know why it has been done. I would have thought that there was plenty of opportunity for the Bill to be taken in the normal time on the Floor of the House. Today, would have been a good opportunity. But, on the contrary, we are to spend a full day's sitting in discussing the Motion. Had the Government instead used today for the Committee stage of the Bill, good progress could have been made and I think that the Leader of the House would have found that probably another two days would have enabled the Committee stage to finish.
I can only feel that this is an attempt by the Government to placate the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. It is the sop to Cerberus. If I remember my Greek mythology correctly, Cerberus commanded 50 heads. It is because the Government are rather worried about foreign affairs and the influence of the hon. Member that the Prime Minister wants to get past Cerberus into his own peculiar Hades and is giving this sop to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, if there should ever come a time when any

1533
Government wished, for any reason, to placate me, on this occasion they would have pleased me equally well, whatever decision they came to—whether for this Motion, for the course the right hon. Gentleman would have preferred, or for sending the Bill back to Committee upstairs. All I wanted from the Government was that they should provide time in any way they thought fit and appropriate in order to complete the remaining stages of the Bill. Any question of placating me is not affected by the method chosen.
Mr. Turton: I feel sure that, when Hercules offered a similar sop to Cerberus, he made equal protestations of innocence.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) spoke of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) as being Cerberus and of the Government throwing a sop to Cerberus. My knowledge of the classics is not very great, but as far as I can remember Cerberus had three heads. What a terrible calamity it would be for the House of Commons if my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne had three heads. With one head he can completely discomfort the Opposition. If he had three the position of the Opposition would be impossible.
Mr. Turton: Cerberus had 50 heads and a very brazen voice.
Mr. Hughes: That only makes it worse.
The right hon. Gentleman has the Conservative instinct of objecting to doing something new, but the House of Commons ought not to hesitate to do something new if that is necessary. Hon. and right hon. Members who have been on the Standing Committee have wanted full freedom of expression to put the views of their constituents. The Government have now agreed to give the critics of the Bill time to express their views. For instance, the Liberals will now have every opportunity to express their view.
But I believe that the critics would have even more opportunity if the House met earlier than 10.30 a.m. My criticism of the Motion is that it will not give sufficient opportunity to give the Bill the
1534
consideration it deserves, and I ask the House not to be too conservative. The House has been accustomed during its long history to meeting much earlier than 10.30. I have done some research and I have found that for many years the House met at eight o'clock in the morning. I do not suggest that this should be a Standing Order, but I do not see why the House should not meet at eight o'clock in the morning to meet this emergency situation.
However, this does not appeal to the Leader of the Opposition, who views meeting at 10.30 without enthusiasm. Why do we take the view that 10.30 is the only time in the morning when the House should meet to discuss important business? The Standing Orders of the House are very important, but they are not the laws of nature. The fact is that the great majority of people start work much earlier than that. I see nothing undignified in the House meeting to discuss these important matters not at the time when lawyers or stockbrokers or others who work in the city of London work, but at the time when the great majority of people work. I would have no objection to coming here at eight o'clock in the morning in order to get the full benefit of the wisdom of the critics of the Bill.
I have undergone a certain amount of suffering. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on a Bill and I have attended four sittings. I have listened carefully to every argument and I know exactly what arguments I shall have to hear for probably the next six weeks. If the critics want more time to consider whether hanging should be continued, and they want free speech, why do we not start the proceedings of the House at eight o'clock?
Let us consider what is done in other legislatures. The Parliament of Switzerland meets in the summer at eight o'clock in the morning and I do not see why we should not follow that example.
Mr. Robert Cooke: What time does the Swiss Legislature finish?
Mr. Hughes: Whenever its business is finished. If the hon. Gentleman wants to do a little patient research into this matter, he should go to the Library and

1535
look up the proceedings of the Swiss Parliament and then return here to give us the benefit of his research.
The West German Parliament meets regularly at nine o'clock, and I can give the hon. Gentleman a whole list of Commonwealth Parliaments, if those instances do not satisfy him, which do not regard 10.30 as the only hour in the day at which proceedings can begin. One example which will appeal to him is that if he were a member of the Parliament of Western Samoa—I doubt whether he would ever get in there—he would get a "Whip" to appear at eight o'clock in the morning.
However, we do not need to travel so far, for we have our own precedents and in the House of Commons precedents are nearly as important, but not quite as valuable, as grievances. As a Scottish Member, I am not sure whether it is better to have a precedent or a grievance. However, there are many precedents which should appeal to Conservative Members. For many hundreds of years, the House of Commons met at eight o'clock in the morning and even at six o'clock, and I have discovered times when it met on Saturdays, Sundays and Christmas days. Let me quote a few of those precedents.
In 1660, the House met to consider a very important piece of legislation. It passed a Bill for attainting Oliver Cromwell and divers other actors in the horrid murder of the late King's Majesty. It was the Regicide Bill.
Mr. Archie Manuel: It was the Tories who did that.
Mr. Hughes: It was the Tories who did the murder.
There was a very large number of atrocious hangings in the City of London as a result of the Bill. There was a meeting in the early hours of the morning and the resolution of the House was that the carcase of Oliver Cromwell and others should be taken up, drawn upon a hurdle to Tyburn and, after being hanged, buried under the gallows. The Members of those days were pioneers. Even the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport does not suggest that people should be hanged twice.
Mr. Robert Cooke: Who does the hon. Gentleman mean?
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows who I mean. I am referring to the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke), who deliberately left the proceedings of the Committee upstairs to go to the Leipzig Fair to trade with the Communist countries. I know that because I paired with him and helped him to go. When I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) whether I should agree to pair with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he said that I should be doing a public service in keeping the hon. and gallant Gentleman away from the Committee. But even the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with his very bloodthirsty views on almost every question which comes before the House, would not agree to hanging people twice.
I mention these Bills because, in some respect, they are similar to the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill. I want to see the end of the proceedings on the Bill. I do not want them to go on for many more mornings, because as a member of the Committee and of the House I think that I will suffer enough before they are finished. I therefore want to concentrate all the suffering into one or two mornings. Let us have a good "go" from eight o'clock to one o'clock. The sooner we get the Bill on the Statute Book the better.
The House of Commons met in the time of Walpole and for years in the eighteenth century in the early hours of the morning. There is, therefore, ample precedent for the House doing something radical about changing its procedure, because this is an emergency situation and a constitutional crisis. It would give the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry)—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—an opportunity of explaining to the House some of the extraordinary statements which he made in his speech on 5th March. He criticised the Standing Committee and said that there was only one Scottish Member there. When it was pointed out to him that there were two, he said that there were two Scottish Ministers. Then, when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that the

1537
hon. Member for South Ayrshire was there, he said that I should not count because I had a Welsh name.
There are, however, other things which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West should explain. One of them is the amazing private-enterprise public-opinion poll which he carried out and with which he tried to persuade the House to carry his Motion.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because his excellent suggestion could avoid the worst threat of all which was advanced by Strephon:
"You shall sit, if he sees reason,
Through the grouse and salmon season:…
Peers shall teem in Christendom,
And a Duke's exalted station
Be attainable by Com-Petitive Examination!"
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I think that mythology and history have been in order. But to bring in Gilbert and Sullivan is going too far.
Mr. Hughes: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for that quotation. I will study it in HANSARD, so that I may use it when the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West condescends to attend the House.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West led the House to believe that there was enormous public pressure on him to have the Bill brought to the Floor of the House. In the poll which he conducted, he went to 382 of his constituents—
Mr. Manuel: Households.
Mr. Hughes:—households, and apparently, they were all in favour of hanging—
Mr. Sydney Silverman Mr. Sydney Silverman rose—
Mr. Hughes: I am coming to the point.
We are told that when the constitutional position was put to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and they were asked whether the Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House or upstairs, 382 out of the 382 were of the opinion that it should come to the Floor of the House. What great knowledge the citizens of West Aberdeenshire have of the procedures of this House!
1538
I should like to hear further details about this extraordinary census taken in West Aberdeenshire, and to be told exactly who was consulted, what were the questions and precisely what kind of people they were. If I went to 382 houses in my constituency, the people in them would think that I had come to sell them something. I would soon have some doors slammed in my face. They would probably say, "I see enough of you at election time".
Here we have this extraordinary phenomenon, this poll used to impress the House of Commons that in Aberdeenshire, West there was tremendous public opinion to the effect that the Bill should be discussed on the Floor of the House and not in Committee upstairs. When we try to get to grips with the position in Aberdeenshire, West where is the hon. Gentleman, the missing link? Very reluctantly, I will be forced to drag myself through the Division Lobby this evening hoping that the Government will adopt my proposal for eight o'clock sittings instead of 10.30 a.m. sittings.
I want to say one thing in conclusion to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. He says that the proceedings on the Bill deserve the maximum publicity and that if we meet at 10.30 in the morning they will not get it. I make a challenge to him. There is another Committee which meets regularly in the House at 10.30—the Scottish Grand Committee. I want the right hon. Gentleman to become a member of the Scottish Grand Committee, to test out his theories. He will discover that speeches made by Scottish Members in the Scottish Grand Committee receive far more publicity and attention in the evening Press and daily Press of Scotland because the proceedings are conducted at such a time in the morning as to enable the mechanics of journalism and printing to get going. If the right hon. Gentleman were a member of the Scottish Grand Committee, he would not only get his speeches reported in the evening Press; he would be twice on the B.B.C. as well.
I do not think that the arguments which we have heard have been advanced out of consideration for the members of the Press. If there is anything interesting in the proceedings on the Floor of the House, the Press will be there. If there is anything sensational or exciting in the

1539
debates, the Press will be there. I know from experience of the Standing Committee that the Press disappeared after the first two days because there was no sensation in it.
So I say to the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not prepared to accept that proposition and to learn from first-hand experience, let him consult any Press men in the Gallery. I find myself having to go into the Lobby for the Motion, having to endure day after day of this interminable Committee from which I have suffered so much.
6.21 p.m.
Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I hesitate to follow the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), as I have never been a member of the Scottish Grand Committee. Even after his invitation, I do not think that I should be very willing to accept it. The Motion touches the very basis of our Constitution. I am not referring to the particular subject matter of the Motion, the Bill for the abolition of the death penalty. I mean that the procedure that the Motion proposes is of great constitutional importance.
I voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, but I am strongly opposed to this Motion. I assure the sponsors of the Bill that I have no intention of doing as I did when a similar Bill came before the House, moving Amendments which nearly divided the House. Indeed, in Committee one of them was carried. Even if such Amendments are moved when the Bill comes again to Committee, it would be my intention not to support them.
Let me say at once, however, that I do not regard the Bill as a popular one. Therefore, there is certainly no particular advantage for those who support the Bill in wishing to have more discussion about it or, indeed, that that discussion should receive more publicity. It is probably true to say—and this will be generally agreed in all parts of the House—that it is, on the whole, embarrassing to us to support the Bill. That is not least so among some of my hon. Friends who have somewhat narrow majorities.
For my part, I want to see the Bill passed, and passed quickly. I hope that nobody will be so silly as to vote for the
1540
Motion on the ground that it is necessary to do so to get the Bill. The Bill can be passed whether or not the Motion is passed. Even if we reject it today, the Government will certainly have to find other means of getting the Bill through.
I shall vote against the Motion for two reasons. First, I wish to protest against the Government's attitude to the Bill. However much I wish the Bill to be passed, I regard the attitude of the Government as both cowardly and unseemly. I think that it was Pope who said of Addison that he was
"Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike".
The Government's attitude is even lower: they are willing to spare, and yet afraid to act. It is quite improper for the Government, on such a Measure as the Bill involved in the Motion, to seek to hide behind the hon Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman).
The Bill does not involve any party issues. It has great moral content. I think that it was right for the Government, in considering their attitude to such a Measure as this, to be guided by opinion both inside and outside this House. I made no complaint, and I make no complaint now, that the Government allowed a free vote on their side on the Second Reading of the Bill—that seems to me to be quite right; but once they have done that, they should take their responsibility.
The Government of the day are responsible for law and order. That is the very first responsibility of the Government. The Bill in question touches at the very heart and centre of law and order. It is a matter of which the Government have washed their hands. But it having been decided that a Measure of this sort should be passed, the Government should have made themselves responsible. I believe that they know that that is true. They know that they are responsible in this matter.
One of the most urgent questions that will arise as a result of the abolition of the death penalty is what is to be done by those who are not executed as a result of the passing of the Bill. Whatever their views on the merits of the Measure, hon. Members will, I think, agree that that is an extremely important question.

1541
It is not a question which the Government can leave to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne or to anyone else.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Government to deal with this matter on their own responsibility. Their actions now a7e the worst piece of back-seat driving I have even seen. It is the failure of the Government to take proper responsibility for the Bill that has brought about t le need for the Motion now. They have only themselves to thank for the position in which we find ourselves. The pretence that a Measure such as this can be a Private Member's Bill is nothing more nor less than a scandal.
Having said that and made my protest, I want to give another reason why I think that the Motion should be rejected. To my mind, it violates constitutional propriety. It is said commonly that we have an unwritten Constitution, and, indeed, most of us take pride in this. That statement is not simply an empty quirk. It is not a peculiarity of which we boast, but it contains a principle on which rests our whole democratic system.
When we say that we have no written Constitution, that does not mean that we have no set of basic rules governing the way that we make and alter our law, nor does it mean that we have a set of rules but that they are not written down. We have a set of rules, and they are to be found in writing in various books and elsewhere.
What the saying means is that the essence of our Constitution is not to be found in Statutes, but that Parliament, and, in particular, the House of Commons, can change the rules for making and altering our laws by a simple majority of this House and that that majority can be carried by one single vote. The rules of procedure of this House are the only thing which protects our freedom as subjects in this country. It is this principle which is the special character of our Constitution and the very basis of our system. It is a system which I will defend to the limit, even when my political opponents are on the benches opposite and even when they have a mere majority of four. It is right that it should be so. It is right that we in this House should be able to decide by simple resolution the way in which our
1542
laws are to be dealt with. It would be intolerable if we were to restrict that right in any way.
If, however, our Constitution is to be free in that sense, it is of vital importance that that freedom should not be abused. For many years, our procedure in this House has been respected by all hon. Members and by the two main political parties.
Of course, our procedure has been changed, and is constantly in need of revision and modernisation. If it were not so, it would be dead and useless, but the changes which have been made so far have all been made after full and fair discussion between the parties. I challenge any hon. Member to point to any change in our procedure which has been made without full and proper discussion. I am not saying for a moment that the changes have always been made after agreement between the parties. That is not always possible, but there should at least be proper discussion, and it is not until such discussion has taken place that changes should be made.
Today, we have a Motion which has been put down by the Government relating to an aspect of procedure which is so important that, by Resolution, it has been referred to a Select Committee. The Motion was put down by the Government without any discussion between the parties, and at extremely short notice—I think two days ago. It is entirely novel in spirit.
Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman is talking about constitutional procedure. Is it not a fact that the Bill was sent upstairs under our constitutional procedure? The Motion which brought it back to the Floor of the House a week ago last Friday was not discussed between the parties. It was sprung on the House to defeat the normal processes of the House. The hon. Gentleman always tries to be fair. On this occasion he is not being fair according to the standards which he has set for himself.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Both the first and the second Motion were tabled strictly in accordance with the procedure of the House, a procedure which has been used on many occasions, and with full opportunity for debate.

1543
This matter has already been referred to a Select Committee. The Motion has been put forward before the Select Committee has reported, and before it has had an opportunity to report. No suggestion has been made that it has been dragging its feet, or been overlong in coming to a decision. I cannot say more than that, because I am a Member of the Select Committee.
Whether the proposal to sit in the mornings is a good one or a bad one, or whether it is a necessary or an unnecessary one, is not a matter which I wish to discuss now. What I am saying is that for the Government to table a Motion of this kind in these circumstances is wholly unconstitutional and wrong, and can do nothing but violate our constitution.
Mr. Robert Maxwell: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this Motion is as constitutional as the Motion tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) to bring the Bill back to the Floor of the House? What evidence is he willing and able to produce that this is an unconstitutional Motion?
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is unconstitutional because it seeks to change the procedure of the House without discussion, or any opportunity for discussion, between the parties. My hon. Friend's Motion was tabled strictly in accordance with precedent. It was tabled by a back bencher, and not by the Government of the day. There are always irresponsible back bench Members, but we do expect the Government to behave responsibly.
Mr. Maxwell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, is not this really a reflection on you, to imply that the Motion put down by the Government is unconstitutional?
Mr. Speaker: No, I do not think so.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is clear from the hon. Gentleman's interruption that the Motion, if carried, will produce a precedent. It is no good saying that this is not intended to be a precedent. What is done in the House is a precedent, and it will always weigh with those who come after. What I am complaining about is that a precedent should be created without any discussion between
1544
the parties. I think that that is entirely wrong. This is a thoroughly bad Motion, and I hope that it will be thrown out.
6.35 p.m.
Mr. Charles Mapp: I think that the Opposition are making very heavy weather of what is obviously a sensible compromise by a Leader of the House who was faced with difficult circumstances.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: With whom has he compromised?
Mr. Mapp: I am suggesting that my right hon. Friend has put before the House a sensible compromise which he has developed having regard to his threefold obligation to the House, to which I shall refer in a moment.
I thought that my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon, which I very much appreciated, was broad and constructive in approach. I listened with care to the speech of the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne). It was, in brief—and this can be said of most of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite—a speech for the maintenance of the status quo, and an attempt to find every conceivable reason, detailed and otherwise, why change is undesirable.
In the last few words of his speech the right hon. Gentleman was so forthcoming as to appeal to the Leader of the House to take the Motion back, and, in effect, to rely on the good will of the House. That appeal might well be responded to in certain circumstances, but, having been here on the Friday in question, and having listened to most of the debate today, I see no evidence at all of any good will on that side of the House. I see no evidence of anything other than a desire to embarrass the Government. Surely an appeal in that direction is one that cannot fairly be made.
I believe that this is an experiment in compromise. It is a typical decision of our race and country. I think that we should change places with my right hon. Friend and ask how we, as normal people, and without a party bias, would have responded to the contradiction with which the House was faced. As Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend has an overriding obligation to deal with Government business. In this case, he has an even greater difficulty in that the Government are given to change, which

1545
means more and more legislation. Had we had a Government of the Right the problem in that direction would have been less marked.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend has an obligation to the Opposition, who have the right to initiate discussions and debates. He must bear that obligation in mind. Thirdly, he is the custodian of the rights of us all as Members of the House. We, too, have the right to initiate debates and Bills.
Faced with that threefold responsibility, my right hon. Friend has had to try to deal with what I think was a contradictory decision a week or two ago, and to present the House with a compromise. I think that he has done his job in a workmanlike manner. I cannot discuss the merits of the Bill in question, but there was a substantial majority in favour of its principle. We must, of course, recognise that the decision that it should go upstairs was taken with a less noticeable majority, but it was not a majority of merely three or half a dozen. There was a clear direction from the House, and at that point—and not until that point—the matter became one for the Leader of the House.
The House having expressed its will, I believe that at that stage it became a matter for the Leader of the House; and the decision of the House was that the Bill should go upstairs. The main complaint from the other side on the Friday in question was, first, that upstairs there was a lack of publicity and, secondly, that in many cases individual Members were unable to participate. Let us look at the application of the Motion before us in relation to those two complaints. Those who wanted the Bill on the Floor of the House, with the publicity which they felt went with it, have succeeded in obtaining that.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was quite unfair in alluding this afternoon to the conditions of the Press and to the conditions of other staff, for those should not be determining factors in the decisions of this House. Those should be recognised as consequential but certainly not determining factors. Secondly, in regard to the other point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) each and all of us will have the opportunity on a Wednesday morning
1546
to put down Amendments and, subject to the Chair calling them, the right to debate them.
Has the hon. Gentleman achieved very much? I do not think that he has. I should have thought that those rights would have accrued to me as an individual Member and to others, on the Report stage provided each of us recognised that at that stage only vital matters should be brought up. What, then, have we lost? I cannot see that we have lost anything at all. Rather, the Leader of of the House has done the right thing.
The decision taken on that Friday brought my right hon. Friend to an awkward situation. He wanted to recognise the supreme decision of the House and yet perhaps his inclination might have been to resist it. What were the alternatives available to him? I suppose that he could have attempted to "kill" the Bill, but would that have been right in the light of the expressed desire of the House as a whole? Would it have been honourable? The Leader of the House would have been regarded as a dictator if he had attempted in any indirect way to "kill" the Bill though he might have spoken of pressure of Government business, and so on.
The Leader of the House might have taken a second course. He might have said, "I want to accommodate the House and will recommend that the Bill be dealt with by the House on Friday in private Members' time." That course would have been understandable but it might have been resisted on both sides of the House, and properly so; so in his capacity of Leader of the House he resisted it. Then, presumably, his mind worked in a direction in which mine might have done and he asked, "Is it possible that the House might sit on precisely the same day and at the same time as the Committee has been sitting upstairs?" I believe that because that appeared to be a workmanlike compromise he has been straightforward and has acted without any subtlety at all or any other purpose in bringing this Motion before the House.
I would remind the House that since we met in October last the Leader of the House has carried out his functions admirably. There has not been from either side of the House the slightest hint that he has misunderstood his rôle as

1547
Leader, as distinct from the other rôle he has. I feel that that compliment at least should be paid to him. That fact should be noticed and if there is any doubt in other people's minds, then we should give him the benefit of accepting that he has sought to think his way through this problem without subtleties of the kind that have been implied.
I wish to develop my personal reactions to this change, which might give some comfort to those on the other side of the House who feel that there have been some subtleties. I am delighted that this compromise has been reached and that the mind of the House is travelling in a direction which I and many others want to see the procedure of this House moving. Many of us feel that we are tied to Victorian procedure. I feel that that statement is justified in the light of what has been said on the other side of the House this afternoon and time and time again—that change is bad and is liable to cause dangers and difficulties.
Speaking for myself and, I believe, for a number of hon. Members on this side of the House, and without putting any pressure on our Front Bench, I say that I hope that this experiment will be very successful, successful for both sides of the House and for all shades of opinion and without prejudice to the Committees upstairs which have been sitting on this kind of problem. Since I came here five and half years ago, the constant problem has been that of modernising the House. Left to that side of the House, or at least to many hon. Members on that side, we should not have modernised anything. I am not suggesting that the Leader of the House has reached a decision by this Motion to modernise our procedure, for I have argued that he has reached his decision in this Motion on the basis of sheer compromise. I acknowledge and appreciate that, but I hope that we shall be able to look forward to successful morning meetings. Doubtless, the Select Committee will be influenced by the success which I am certain is around the corner for this innovation.
In conclusion, and possibly in the light of what I am saying, we are touching on the question of whether membership of this House should be full-time
1548
or part-time. I will not enter into any discussion of that matter. I believe that each Member has to make up his mind whether or not membership of this House is his primary task. It is for the Member to decide in his own conscience whether being a Member of Parliament is an overriding responsibility and all other considerations are secondary.
If that is the case, if there are meetings on Wednesday mornings and other great developments, it would seem that Members must decide whether there could be morning meetings of the House—as I hope there will be—and whether attendance will be a basic responsibility. We must move with the times. I welcome this as a sensible compromise. The House should not infer from what I am saying personally that these are anything more than the views of a number of back benchers on this side, but we are quite convinced that, come what may, the existing arrangements for the business of the House must in due course be changed. We welcome the fact that on this occasion, born out of necessity, a change is here.
6.50 p.m.
Mr. Peter Bessell: There are three points which I should like to make clear at the outset. First, I do not give place to anyone in this House, not even to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), in my desire to see an end of capital punishment. Secondly, on Second Reading I voted in favour of the Bill and in favour of its consideration by a Standing Committee upstairs. Thirdly, I also voted on 5th March for the Bill to be restored to a Committee of the whole House. That may seem a somewhat contradictory piece of behaviour, but my reasons were logical, at least to me.
In the light of the representations which f have received, not only from my constituency but from others, I do not think that this issue can he properly considered by a Committee upstairs. That is why I thought it right and proper to vote for the Motion put before the House on 5th March. That is why I am delighted at the decision which the Government have taken to abide by the majority opinion of the House as expressed on that day.

1549
I now come to the question of the present proposal. I confess that I do not like it. At the same time, I recognise the considerable difficulty with which the Leader of the House is confronted, and I have not been impressed by the arguments put up from the Conservative benches this afternoon, suggesting that there can be anything other than a real difficulty confronting the right hon. Gentleman. For that reason, even though I would have preferred to see the Bill dealt with in Committee in the normal manner, and in the way in which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne expected it to be dealt with, I believe that this is the only possible compromise in the circumstances. For that reason, I am prepared to support it.
We have to consider whether there are any objections to this decision by the Leader of the House. A number of arguments have been advanced. It has been suggested that a dangerous precedent is being set. I shall not attempt to compete with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Ernrys Hughes) in going back into history and discovering the peculiar hours at which this House has sat in the past. It is sufficient to say that during the war—certainly from 1940 until 1945 —the House sat from eleven o'clock in the morning as a regular procedure. Those Members who attended the House during that period did so because they believed that it was their first duty to the nation to be present in the Chamber.
I suggest with humility that that position has not changed simply because the country happens to be at peace instead of war. If we are elected by the people to represent their interests, and to guard and protect them in relation to legislative measures, our first duty is to attend the House whenever it is in session. I am not impressed by the suggestion that the quality of debate in Committee will suffer because of the absence of legal experts or others who find it difficult to be here.
Let us not beat about the bush; if any lawyers are unable to be present it will only be because they have not been prepared to hand over their lucrative briefs to other members of their profession who are not Members of the House. I see no reason why the legal profession should regard it as an imposition that they should be asked to attend the House
1550
once a week, on Wednesday morning, to discharge the duties which they have undertaken to their constituents.
Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the hon. Member deal with the case of a learned Member who is sitting as a recorder, or chairman of a court? Does he suggest that that court should be adjourned?
Mr. Bessell: I am not a lawyer, and I am open to correction on the point, but if an hon. or right hon. Member sits as a recorder or judge there is a procedure by which he can give way to a deputy. If that is not the case, I am willing to accept correction.
Mr. Quintin Hogg: The hon. Member must accept correction at least in respect of cases which are part heard, or whose length is not predictable, as is nearly always the case.
Mr. Bessell: I accept correction from the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who is an expert in these matters, but even if that is so—
Mr. Sydney Silverman: In the rare cases where the position which has just been mentioned arises it is always possible to arrange a pair, especially on a Private Member's Bill.
Mr. Bessell: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Nelson arid Colne. My point is not dissimilar.
Although there may be instances of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), the vast majority of legal opinion in this Chamber is not likely to be seriously affected by cases of this kind. If a Q.C. is defending a case, or appearing for the prosecution, there is no question but that he can hand over his brief. It may not be convenient to him; it may be difficult for him to do so, but I suggest that if hon. and right hon. Members are genuinely concerned about the passage of the Bill, and about the Amendments which will be put down and considered in Committee, there can be no doubt that their first duty is to be here, however inconvenient or difficult it may be.
I am sure that those hon. and right hon. Members who, on 5th March, voted to have the Bill considered by a Committee of the whole House—and I include

1551
myself among their number—will be here on Wednesday mornings when the Committee meets and there is a counting of heads. I believe that they will be here in great strength. I think that we shall have a fine turnout every Wednesday morning at 10.30. I am looking forward to the quality of debate because we shall have the benefit, throughout the Committee stage, of the attendance of the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition. He was one of those who voted for the Bill to be brought back to the Floor of the House, and I am sure that he will make many valuable contributions to our deliberations.
The question whether the intention of those hon. Members—including myself—who voted to bring the Bill back to the House was to destroy the Bill by their vote on 5th March will be clearly decided. If it was their intention merely to destroy the Bill the Members concerned are under no obligation to attend the Committee. If, on the other hand, their intention was genuine, and they really believed that it was important for the question to be debated by a Committee of the whole House, they will be here. We shall look forward to their contributions.
Some degree of weight should be placed upon the argument that this could be a dangerous precedent, not because it would be bad for the House to meet at 10.30 in the morning each day—because in this matter I go as far as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and say that we could even meet at eight o'clock, although I do not promise to attend at that hour—but because the Select Committee on Procedure is now considering the activity of the House, the means by which it should meet, when it should meet, and the hours when it should sit.
I hope that this will not be regarded as a precedent, but I am prepared to accept the word of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that this is a perfectly straightforward Motion which has been desigied to deal with a particular and a peculiar situation. I do not think for one moment that it will be abused, or that the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne would abuse the terms of reference of this Motion in the way which was suggested by the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe
1552
(Sir M. Redmayne). I think that this will be dealt with in a straightforward manner.
I shall be rather surprised and disappointed if there is a Division tonight, but if there is I can assure the Government that I shall have no difficulty whatsoever in walking into their Lobby and supporting them on this Motion.
7.1 p.m.
Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), with whose observations I am in almost complete agreement. I am glad that he has had the courage to face the major issues in this matter in the bold way which he did. He said that he did not consider it right that a Bill of this importance should be discussed in Standing Committee. Many people would probably share his view. He said that as the request that the Bill should be brought back to the Floor of the House had come from the House itself, he realised the difficulty which the Government were in—the fact that if time were to be found in some way other than by normal sittings of the House it was necessary to have the Motion before the House.
We have heard hon. Members pleading that they must earn a living outside. We used to hear this a good deal when they said, and I think rightly, that we, as Members of Parliament, were poorly paid. But this can no longer be claimed as a reason for an hon. Member having to have a dual appointment. If an hon. Member is not happy to come here and do a normal day's work—or even an abnormal day's work, which is the lot of most Members of Parliament for most of the time—he has the remedy in his own hands. No one compels him to stand for election as a Member of Parliament. In any case, there is the pairing system, which goes back through the centuries and was a means adopted by the then Liberal and Tory business and professional men, and grew up as the means of permitting them to be absent from this place so that they could conduct their business or profession.
This system still remains. I am not particularly enamoured of the pairing system, but it remains, and it is, of course, still open for any hon. Member who does not want to come here in the

1553
morning to arrange to pair with another hon. Member.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: If the other hon. Member keeps his word.
Mr. Wilkins: I intended to deal with this point a little later. As my hon. Friend points out, the system only works so long as the other hon. Member concerned keeps his word. I think that we might—
Mr. Robert Cooke: I hope that the hon. Member will concede that he and I have paired almost every week during the whole of our joint careers in the House and that there has never been any breaking of words.
Mr. Wilkins: The only time I normally pair is on a Friday, as, like most hon. Members in the House, I have commitments in my constituency. My hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench will advise my colleague from Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) that I have rigidly opposed the pairing system in the House, and that I should like to see it abolished. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh."] I do not believe in it. I should like to see it wiped out, but it is a system which has grown up as one of the traditions of the House. It is a matter of honour between two hon. Members, and we are not certain that honour has always been satisfied.
May I come back to the hon. Member for Bodmin? He said that he thought that some people would regard this as a dangerous precedent. All precedents which have, in the course of time, become accepted tradition in the House were, of course, precedents at some time or another. Precedents have to be established somewhere along the line and they are established, as in this case, by the will of the House of Commons if it wants to make changes in the procedure which it follows.
I do not want to take up too much time. I should like to refer for a moment to one or two things said to the House by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). He said that the Government Front Bench were hiding behind my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman). He went on to say why the Motion should be
1554
rejected. The first and principal reason which he offered to the House was that it was a change in our procedure and/or in our tradition. The only change is that we will accept the desire of the Opposition, because it was the Opposition who were responsible for the defeat of the Government last Friday, with the result that the Bill is to be taken on the Floor of the House instead of in Standing Committee. The time of sitting will he precisely the same as if the Bill were still in Standing Committee.
What does it matter what time it is, so long as all hon. Members who wish to take part can take part? They are not obligated, but if they wish to take part in some way, they will be here at half past ten o'clock in the morning on the Wednesday if this Motion is carried. I admit that I certainly have an interest in the proposal which is now before us. I hope and believe that I have a Motion now before the Select Committee on Procedure, which, I suggested, might agree that we should change our hours in the House so as to sit at least three mornings a week, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, leaving the Monday and the Friday as they are at present. I declare that I am interested in this proposal.
I can understand that the Opposition are apprehensive about this. Indeed, some of them, I fancy, are even perhaps fearful lest this run of morning sittings should prove to be a resounding success. I welcome this as the test of a pilot scheme. I hope that we shall see such attendance at the morning sittings which are proposed that it will be shown beyond any doubt that they are popular with hon. Members.
After all, why should we not work civilised hours in this place? I believe that the public regard us as being stupid rather than clever in the way in which we martyr ourselves in the House until the early hours of the morning, upon occasions. It is about time that we had some sort of civilised arrangement for carrying out our work.
Mr. Anthony Buck: Would not the hon. Member concede at once that this is a matter for consideration by the Select Committee on Procedure, and that this Motion is an attempt to short-circuit this time-honoured

1555
procedure? Should he not therefore dispose of this point, which is exactly contrary to what was said from his Front Bench at an earlier stage?
Mr. Wilkins: I said that I hope that I have a motion before the Select Committee on Procedure. I am rather concerned because I have not had an opportunity to see the Committee about the proposal.
I say this because, like the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne), who, I believe, is now the shadow Minister of Agriculture, I spent a long time—12 years—in the Whips' Office. Some would say that it was too long, but it was certainly long enough to know how the procedure of the House works. I am absolutely certain that these arguments are simply, as the right hon. Gentleman stated them, a series of Aunt Sallies, which they are putting up only to knock down. Much of the opposition to this Motion will not stand up to any sort of detailed examination.
When we say that this House could not function if hon. Members worked here in the mornings, that is a lot of rubbish. This House has worked in the morning, and on one occasion I remember that we worked for 57 hours without rising. We have worked here in the mornings, in the mornings, afternoons, nights and all night. Why is there this suggestion that if we had morning sittings all the Ministers would be in difficulties? That is not so. Ministers have rooms in this place and they did their work from those rooms day in and day out in the Parliament of 1945 to 1951. What is all the fuss about? The present proposal is not that we should sit in the mornings day after day. This relates to one day a week. If the Opposition "create" about this one day, what will they do if the Select Committee on Procedure decided that this should become the normal sitting time of Parliament?
I welcome the opportunity to experiment in this way. I do not understand the ingratitude of the Opposition in this matter. Let us be frank. Anyone with any experience at all knew instinctively that when the Motion of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) was carried, and the Govern-
1556
ment were defeated, the Government were bound to be in difficulty in honouring the will of the House unless they took some extraordinary measures. Hon. Members must have known that before they went into the Division Lobbies. Why did they go into the Lobbies? It was not because they were desperately anxious to get the Committee stage of the Bill on to the Floor of the House. They wanted to embarrass the Government, and now the Government have embarrassed them.
Mr. Bessell: May I ask the hon. Member whether he thinks it is fair to tar all hon. Members with the same brush? There were some hon. Members who felt it necessary to have a full debate on this matter on the Floor of the House because then hon. Members would be able to vote on Amendments, some of which might be very important indeed.
Mr. Wilkins: I should be most sorry if the hon. Member for Bodmin thought that I was including him among those hon. Members, and I certainly apologise to him—[HON. MEMBERS: "And others."]—and any others who share his view.
Here we have an Opposition who are—the words which come to my mind most readily are—basely ungrateful. There has been base ingratitude on the part of hon. Members opposite for the gesture by the Government. It is a very generous gesture to offer time for this matter to be debated on the Floor of the House for as long as hon. Members wish to discuss it within any bounds bounds of reason, and without affecting any other stage except the Committee stage. We are spending a whole day, which I think is being wasted, debating whether we should have the opportunity to fulfil the requirement of the House.
I think it rather unfortunate that the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) should have made the observation that he did—I think that on reflection he will agree—when he appealed to the Chair not to be influenced into curtailing the debate. It seemed to me a clear indication that what hon. Members opposite were anxious to do was to delay our proceedings for as long as they possibly could.

1557
That is the inference which I drew and if I am wrong, I am willing to be corrected.
Sir M. Redmayne: I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is quite wrong.
Mr. Wilkins: If I am quite wrong, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will tell the House what he actually did mean? What did he mean by offering the suggestion to the Chair that it should not curtail the debate—in other words trying to tell the Chair what it ought to do about the business?
Sir M. Redmayne: I thought that it was perfectly clear. I made my speech wholly Ls a student of the procedures of the House. Anyone who understands those procedures knows that in Standing Committee the procedure is slightly different from that on the Floor of the House. I fully agreed with the decision of the House to bring the Committee stage of the Bill on to the Floor of the House. I simply asked that the judgment of the Chair should take into account that since the Bill was to be discussed on the Floor of the House it should be ruled by the rules which govern procedure on the Floor of the House. That seems quite simple, and certainly I had no malice or intent.
Mr. Wilkins: I still do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should have brought Mr. Speaker into it. Surely it is improper to make any suggestions to the Chair about how to deal with the debate. I think it at least unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should have made that suggestion.
There have been references to the Press and, by the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe, to the servants of the House, and so on. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to do the same as did his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West, take a "Gallup poll" of the opinions of servants of this House, and, if he wishes, of the officials, and of a good many other people in the House. He will be very surprised at the response which he will get, if he uses the same tactics as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West said that he used in trying to discover what was in the minds of his constituents.
I welcome this opportunity to see whether this is a workable proposition for the conduct of the business of the House.
1558
It is my personal hope that as a result of this proposal, which I regard as a pilot scheme which will give us an indication, we shall at some time have some proper hours of work.
7.17 p.m.
Mr. Humphry Berkeley: I speak as one of the two promoters of the Bill on this side of the House and, therefore, hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that I am anxious to get the Bill through.
I have two observations which I wish to make. The first is that the Government have behaved with quite grotesque discourtesy to the promoters of the Bill. The second is that the chief culprit for the muddle in which we find ourselves, the chief culprit for the delay we are experiencing over this Measure is the Chief Patronage Secretary, who is sitting now on the Government Front Bench in, I hope, at least a faintly penitential mood.
The plain facts are these. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) and I, the two sponsors of the Bill from this side of the House, were always under the impression—I think that I may speak for my hon. Friend—that the Committee stage of the Bill would be taken on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) was always under the impression that the Committee stage of the Bill would be taken on the Floor of the House.
I do not know a single sponsor of the Bill who had the slightest idea that the Committee stage might be taken in a Standing Committee. I therefore believe that both the Leader of the House and the Chief Patronage Secretary were well aware of the impression of the sponsors of the Bill about what would be the future conduct of the Bill. Therefore, it seems to me that we are justified—does the Government Chief Whip wish to say anything? He should be aware that, if he does, he should stand up.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward Short): What the hon. Member is saying is quite untrue.
Mr. Berkeley: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must make a comment on that somewhat terse observation, that courtly, graceful observation from the

1559
Chief Whip. He says what he cannot possibly know—that what I have said is untrue. Does he say that it is untrue that I believed that the Committee stage would take place on the Floor of the House? Does he say it is untrue that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne believed that the Committee stage would be on the Floor of this House?
Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Gentleman must not confuse the issue. I certainly thought, as he rightly says, that the Committee stage would be taken on the Floor of the House. I did not say that I preferred it. I expected it because it had happened before and, perhaps carelessly, I came to the conclusion that it would happen again. When the hon. Gentleman says that he believes that the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip knew of that expectation, then if he says that he believes it I suppose that he believes it. I would not question that. But if he says that I believed it he would be quite mistaken. I did not believe it. I had no reason whatever to think that they knew that the expectation was that it would be taken on the Floor of the House. Certainly, I had not told them.
Mr. Berkeley: The point I made was that the hon. Gentleman expected it to be taken on the Floor of the House. He told me that. I believe that the Leader of the House and the Chief Patronage Secretary knew that he expected that because any intelligent person would have believed that to be the case. [Interruption.] It may be that the Chief Patronage Secretary is casting some doubt on who is or who is not intelligent. [Interruption.] I believe, as I said, that any intelligent person would have surmised it.
Mr. John Wells: On a point of order. It is almost intolerable to have the Patronage Secretary muttering remarks under his breath.
Mr. Speaker: I have the advantage of not hearing them, but it is highly desirable that conversation should not be of a character which detracts from the attraction of the current speech.
Mr. Berkeley: I think that the Chief Patronage Secretary is a little overcome
1560
with the sense of the occasion. The extent of his histrionics will be shown by the many entries under his name in tomorrow's HANSARD.
When we debated this on 5th March I had a discussion with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne at 8.45 p.m., before the ten o'clock vote took place. I have told the House that it was my recollection of that conversation that the hon. Gentleman said that he believed that the Committee stage would be taken on the Floor of the House, that, secondly, he said that he would be prepared to move a Motion to that effect and that, thirdly, he said that he thought that it was essential that this should take place. The hon. Gentleman repudiated that last statement and I can only say that, having told the House my recollection and he having told his recollection, the House must decide which of the two is the more accurate.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is proving a little difficult. The House may or may not have to decide that, but I do not see why the House must decide it on the Question before it. It would help if the hon. Gentleman would explain how this relates to the question aye or no we should adopt this Motion.
Mr. Berkeley: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, it occurred to me that the Motion is the result of a considerable degree of incompetence and, I think, a certain degree of bad faith on the part of the Government in their dealings with myself and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I thought that I would be in order in chronicling the events which took place leading up to our very parlous situation now. It was for that reason that I hoped that I would not be trespassing beyond the bounds of order.
To proceed from there, it seems that we who are the promoters of the Bill, and who wish to get it through, have a perfectly legitimate right to query what the Government are asking the House to do today. The Government and the Chief Patronage Secretary have behaved with extraordinary discourtesy to the promoters of the Bill on this side of this House and with astonishing discourtesy to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne because the hon. Gentleman did not know at 8.45 p.m. on the day on which this matter was first debated that at 10 p.m.

1561
—[Interruption.] I should say 11 p.m.—Government tellers were to be put on and that there was to be a whipped vote.
Two and a quarter hours before this decision was taken the main promoter, for whom the Government were finding time, did not know what decision the Chief Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House had taken. That is, by any standards, a most extraordinary situation and one which I should have thought showed a maximum lack of consideration and a lack of thought for their hon. Friends who were the promoters on the benches opposite and to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North and myself, the promoters on this side of the House.
Whether the Chief Patronage Secretary thought that if he told his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne a little earlier what his intentions were his hon. Friend would, quite naturally, have resented it and objected to it, I do not know. But the fact remains that lie chose to keep the promoters of the Bill, in particular the hon. Member for Nelson and Cone, in complete ignorance as to what his intentions were until the very last minute. I fully understand the dilemma in which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne found himself. He explained to the House that he was dependent on the Government for Lime. He was told—I imagine very abruptly and at short notice—that what he supposed would happen was not to happen. Had he not accepted then and there a shotgun ultimatum he would have lost any chance of time for his Bill.
Being keen on his Bill, the hon. Member had to surrender to the ultimatum. Had I been treated to similar peremptoriness I might have chosen the same course of action. In any case, I am not suggesting that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is blameworthy. The person who is blamworthy is the Government Chief Whip, who has been responsible throughout for the muddle in which we now find ourselves.
Hon. Members an this side of the House who are, first, anxious to get the Bill through and are, secondly, not in this instance anxious to make a great party issue of this are resentful of what I believe to have been the arrogant behaviour of the Government in refusing to see that they would not, through
1562
their actions, get us into the trouble in which we find ourselves.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) was right in saying that if we could have four days on the Floor of the House we could dispose of the Bill. The alternative, as he equally rightly said, is to have up to perhaps 12 morning sittings from 12.30 p.m. to 1 p.m., which will delay the passing of the Bill by three or four months.
I find it extremely difficult to understand what has been the motive of the Government Chief Whip. It may be muddleheadedness or inexperience. I do not know. The plain facts of the situation are that between December and now we could have finished the Committee stage of the Bill and not sacrificed a single valuable day of parliamentary time. The fact that he finds himself in this difficult position now is entirely due to his ineptitude and is not in any way the responsibility of those who were either for or against the principle of the Bill.
I begin to wonder, as the Government majority dwindles away, whether they will ever be able to get a Parliamentary majority now for the Second Reading of the Steel Bill. If we have any more happenings like Leyton, the Chief Whip may find that he has time on his hands.
Mr. Ron Lewis: What about the Gallup poll today?
Mr. Berkeley: What about the Gallup poll at Leyton? That showed a Government majority of 20 per cent.
It seems that those who support the Bill have every right to be aggrieved. We ask the Government to treat the House of Commons as a responsible body, not as a pack of school children. We know that the Government Chief Whip imposes a discipline on hon. Members opposite which very few of my hon. Friends would find tolerable. We have seen the slips of paper which they have to sign if they want to pair. The last time I had to get a signed pass to leave a building was at my preparatory school. The fact is that the Government Chief Whip cannot treat us as though we are kindergarten children, even if he can get the whole of his side marshalled behind him in the Lobby tonight.

1563
I hope that the Government will realise that this is genuinely a House of Commons matter. I hope that the Government will recognise that there are abolitionists who are as angry with the Government's ineptitude as there are retentionists. I hope that we can shame them into re-thinking their attitude and behaviour on the whole of this issue.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Victor Yates: I did not intend to intervene in this debate, although I was a member of the Standing Committee which was examining the Bill. However, in view of certain remarks which have been made, I felt that I should intervene. I have very great sympathy with the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley), who feels a sense of considerable disappointment that it was not considered that the Bill of which he is a sponsor should be discussed on the Floor of the House. I do not know what happened. I think it was a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman to make an attack on my right hon. Friend for something that he thinks happened in private. I do not, and cannot, believe that that is a reasonable criticism to make of the proposal now before us.
I have listened to all the speeches so far. As to the suggestion of constitutional impropriety, I cannot think what the Government could do in face of an overwhelming vote in the House. I personally have always been greatly in favour of private Members' time and have always rather resented any attempt to interfere with private Members.I applauded the Government on this occasion for having decided to give some weight to a Private Member's Bill. I have been in the House for 20 years. So far, I have drawn only one Bill, and that took thirteenth place in the Ballot. It could not reach the light of day, although it was partly discussed.
I believe that it was a very good action on the part of the Government to decide to give time to a Private Member's Bill. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said that it was a scandal that the Government should have permitted a Private Members' Bill to be dealt with in this way. Every private Member who has been in the House for some years will feel that any Government who are willing to give
1564
respect to a private Member are to be congratulated. I do not believe that we have enough private Members' time. I am all out to support the private Member, as I am one myself. I cannot think that the word "scandal" is justifiable.
On the issue of constitutional propriety, I ask the House to consider this. If the Government, in face of a Resolution passed by the House, had said, "We do not accept it. We now move to remit the Bill back to the Standing Committee", there would have been an outcry from hon. Members opposite, who would have said "The Government have ignored the will of the people. They have ignored the decision of the House". How many times have you, Mr. Speaker, reminded us that a Motion carried in the House expresses the, view of the House and that the House is supreme? Therefore, the Government had to decide what to do.
I personally do not very much like the method of discussing a Bill of this kind on the Floor of the House. It is a Bill which 1 wholly support. I feel deeply and strongly about it. The Standing Committee spent many hours discussing the Bill. We did not get anywhere near reaching the Question that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. I cannot believe that it is a good thing to discuss such a Measure at times when, according to the mood of the House, the sittings can be extended into the early hours of the morning. I certainly do not think that the Press can take much notice of discussions between 12 o'clock at night and 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the morning. Apart from that, I have always been of the opinion, after all the experience I have had in the House, that long sittings and protracted discussions are a bad thing and that we do not get the best results from them.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) made some remarks which caused me to feel that I must speak. Bearing on the question of constitutional propriety, his argument was that, because the question had been referred to a Select Committee of the House, it was wrong that we should have attempted to make a decision, even if it was a temporary one, on a matter which the Select Committee was bound to discuss. I intervened to refer to the statement you, Mr. Speaker, made yesterday. The right hon.

1565
Gentleman thought that I was casting a reflection upon you, Sir. I should like to remove any such impression. My view was that you, Mr. Speaker, had made a statement in anticipation of a discussion in the House of Commons, but nevertheless it was some kind of change in our procedure. In a situation in which the House by a Resolution decided that the Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House, I could not think that there was anything wrong in the matter being discussed in the manner in which the Government proposed.
Mr. Turton: The hon. Gentleman will remember that you, Mr. Speaker, said this yesterday:
"I am, however, anxious to take that course which is least likely to prejudice the issue to be determined by the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 1281.]
The point I was making and which other hon. Members had been making was that the course taken by the Lord President of the Council is not less likely to prejudice the findings of the Committee.
Mr. Yates: I appreciate the words you used, Mr. Speaker. I cannot believe, in any case, that the decision we are asked to make now would prejudice a Select Committee which is examining the general question of procedure. For that reason, I think that it is wrong to raise that argument. Surely it is the House which makes a decision. That decision I personally do not think was the best decision. As a Member of the Standing Committee, I believe that it would have been wise for the Standing Committee to have completed the Committee stage of the Bill and then for the whole House to consider on Report the Amendments that hon. Members wished to make.
I do not say that all matters ought to be considered in Standing Committee. I do not go as far as one of my hon. Friends who thought that all Bills and all questions ought to be discussed in Committee upstairs. We should be careful before we take away the right of the House to discuss on the Floor matters like the Finance Bill and questions of a wide variety affecting the whole of the population.
The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) made one or two remarks which we should consider carefully. He said, for example, that for
1566
the House to meet in the morning would interfere with hon. Members who wished to follow their professions. I have felt for some years that when we have had Committees appointed to consider Bills upstairs quite a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have not pulled their weight. The argument applied against morning sittings of the House that hon. Members might have to attend the courts applies just as much to Committees. I was absent from Standing Committee C on only one occasion when I agreed to pair with a lawyer. I have no doubt that this happens in all the Committees upstairs and on the Floor of the House where we have now to consider these matters.
The argument about the convenience of hon. Members should not have precedence. I take the view, which I know is not entirely popular, that membership of the House is a full-time job. I argued this 20 years ago on a Motion which I supported against my own Labour Government at that time. I believe that, especially now, hon. Members must realise that the general public are watching us carefully. They say that hon. Members are being paid £3,250 a year. They, at any rate, work it out at £60 a week, though we know what arguments we can put in reply. But I do not think that we can plead that hon. Members ought to be able to put their professions before their duties to the House. This applies not only to lawyers and doctors but also to company directors.
One argument put forward against morning sittings is that they would make the Government's position difficult by forcing Ministers to be here. As I understand it, hon. Members would not be so willing to pair with members of the Government to relieve them of attendance. I have no doubt that we shall find in practice, however, that large numbers of hon. Members opposite will wish to follow professions and lucrative positions of responsibility outside.
Although I greatly wish the Bill to remain in Committee upstairs, I must either agree that the Bill shall be discussed on the Floor of the House during our normal hours or that we shall meet as a House in the mornings to discuss it. I have come to the conclusion that, in all the circumstances, it is

1567
better on this occasion—though I do not say that this would apply to all occasions—that we should discuss the Bill on the Floor by starting our proceedings in the morning. This seems to me a sensible arrangement and I do not believe that it has political complexities.
The only alternative would be to discuss the Bill on the Floor during the present normal hours of sitting. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton spoke about the Finance Bill coming along and the difficulties of going through all-night sittings. He was in an earlier Government, and he will remember how my colleagues and I were kept up night after night. I remember one night when we were kept here until 4 o'clock in the morning discussing porridge when Scottish oatmeal was put on points and all the Scottish Members rose as a body and we had four hours to consider the protein and vitamin value of Scottish oatmeal. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is not now present, but heaven preserve us if Scottish Members put forward proposals which came up for discussion at 6 o'clock or 8 o'clock in the morning.
I do not see how a matter of this kind can be discussed properly in the early hours of the morning of an all-night sitting. There should be proper and adequate time for discussion and I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friends on their decision to take the only course open to them. If my right hon. Friends had decided that they would refuse to accept a decision made in the House, even on a private Members' Motion it would have been a serious constitutional question. I do not believe that they have been wrong constitutionally or discourteous in what they have done. I hope therefore that this Motion will be carried.
7.49 p.m.
Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) will forgive me if I do not take up some of his remarks for a minute or two, but I want at the outset to say to the House that I do not think that the Motion which we are discussing has very much to do with the merits or otherwise of the Private Member's Bill which was introduced
1568
by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman). This is a Motion on procedure. It involves a complete departure from procedures which we have known hitherto. It affects abolitionists and retentionists and a whole lot of hon. Members who do not take a rigid view either way.
As has been said several times, a Select Committee on Procedure is now sitting and has been sitting for some months. Presumably, it is discussing quite a number of proposals which have been put to it. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), who, I am sorry to see, is not now in the Chamber, told us that one of the proposals which he put to the Select Committee was that the House should sit in the morning and rise earlier in the evening. But the Committee has not yet reported and we do not know what view it will take. Hon. and right hon. Members on both sides who are members of the Select Committee are, of course, "in baulk"; they are, quite rightly, inhibited and cannot disclose what the proceedings in the Committee have been.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South said that he hoped that the arrangement now proposed would be a pilot scheme. This is a most interesting suggestion. To be fair, it was not the line taken by the Lord President of the Council. The right hon. Gentleman went almost out of his way in his speech to convey the impression that in no circumstances would what he was proposing be a pilot scheme. Those who want the House to sit in the mornings and afternoons as well, in the hope that it might rise rather earlier at night than we sometimes do, overlook several grave objections. In the first place, no matter what the hon. Member for Ladywood and others may say, morning sittings of the House not only on this Bill but on other business as well would make the task of Ministers very difficult. It is part of a Minister's duty to be in his Department and to administer it. One cannot administer a great Department of State from rooms in this building. In the second place, it would be impossible or, at least, very difficult for hon. Members to fulfil any outside commitments, business or otherwise.
I may be in a minority in this, but I should not like the House of Commons

1569
to become a legislative body composed of 630 wholetime professional legislators with absolutely no stake outside, no interest outside and very little contacts outside, never feeling the effects of their legislation at the receiving end. I should not like to sit in that sort of House. One of the remarkable characteristics of the House of Commons, as all hon. Members who have been here any time know, is the extraordinary breadth of view and variety of experience possessed by hon. Members on both sides. This is its great strength. No matter what subject is being discussed on any day, however technical or however obscure, one can always find an hon. Member who brings to bear upon that subject a whole wealth of experience acquired, perhaps, from a lifelong interest in the subject. I should be very sorry to eliminate that breadth of view and experience which can come only from contacts outside the House.
The proposal now before us offers the worst of both worlds, of course. It is not a proposal to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House in the morning, and, then, as the hon. Member for Ladywood would like, for the House to rise earlier in the evenings. It is the worst of both worlds. The House is still to sit just as late as ever to get through Government business. Moreover, this proposal has been foisted upon the House in a somewhat peculiar way due entirely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) said, to the absolute jam the Government have got into with their legislative programme. Their business has got clogged up in the pipeline and this is one of their ways to try to overcome the difficulty.
The Patronage Secretary is not here at the moment, but I feel that I must say this, even in his absence. The right hon. Gentleman did indulge in a little sharp practice.
Mr. S. C. Silkin (Dulwich)Mr. S. C. Silkin (Dulwich) rose—
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: No. I put this to hon. Members who have been in the House any length of time. It must have been absolutely obvious that the Committee stage of a Bill of this kind, carrying with it very wide social and other implications, ought to have been taken on the Floor of the House. I should be astonished if 90 per cent. of hon. Mem-
1570
bers, whether abolitionists, retentionists or in between the two, did not assume automatically that its Committee stage would be taken on the Floor of the House. I am certain that quite a number of hon. Members who abstained from voting on the Second Reading assumed that they would be able to put particular points which either they or their constituents felt strongly about on the grounds that the Committee stage would be taken on the Floor of the House and they would then have their opportunity.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman used the expression "sharp practice" in the absence of the Patronage Secretary. I should like to know, and I am sure that the House would, what he means by that. I understand the expression "sharp practice" to mean that people are led to do things which they would not otherwise do by being deceived. Who was led to do what by what deception?
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: The hon. and learned Gentleman need not be so simple. The expression "sharp practice" has been used already several times in the debate. By "sharp practice" I mean that a large number of hon. Members on both sides, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster who was a supporter of the Bill, were led to assume automatically that the Committee stage would be taken on the Floor of the House. As my hon. Friend said just now, it was not until a quarter to nine that evening that he had any idea that this was not to be.
Mr. S. C. Silkin Mr. S. C. Silkin rose—
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I shall not give way any more. I invite the House to listen to the answer which the Lord President gave on 5th March when he was—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We who have been in the House for some years realise that the expression that the Government have been guilty of sharp practice or that the Tory Party or the Labour Party has been guilty of sharp practice may be in order. But is it in order to name a right hon. Member and say that he personally has been guilty of sharp practice? Is it not right that, if one speaks in the plural of a party or an

1571
organisation, that is permissible, but it is not permissible to accuse a right hon. or hon. Member of sharp practice?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): It depends on the way the term is used. As the hon. Gentleman has explained it, it is not out of order.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I invite the House to listen to the explanation which the Lord President gave on 5th March. He was interrupted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) who asked:
"Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when it was decided that, after the Second Reading—if the Bill were given a Second Reading—it would be committed to a Standing Committee and not to a Committee of the whole House When was that?"
We hoped that we should get an answer, because the Second Reading was in December. This was the right hon. Gentleman's answer:
"The Government assumed that there would be no objection to the Bill going to a Standing Committee." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 1787.]
What a reply from the Leader of the House. It does not hold water.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me—
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: No, I shall not give way again. As I have said, that reply does not hold water. Moreover, the result of it will not, I suspect, save very much time. I am a little afraid that this is the thin end of a very ill-conceived and ill-fitting wedge, and I hope that the House will reject the Motion.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) was quite within his Parliamentary rights in accusing a right hon. Gentleman of sharp practice and in refusing to give way, more especially if he knew that he had no justification whatever for what he was saying. I should have thought that if anything shows sharp practice it is to accuse without justification a right hon. Gentleman of sharp practice and then impede any hon. Member who wishes to come to the defence of that right hon. Gentleman. It is quite disgraceful
1572
behaviour. The hon. Member for Windsor should know better—and probably did know better.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe rose—
Mr. Silverman: No. I shall not give way. I shall follow the hon. Gentleman's example, at least in that respect.
I have not sought, until a very short time ago, to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or that of Mr. Speaker, to take part in the debate and probably would not have done so had it not been for the speech made by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley), who is a cosponsor with me of the Bill. I am not complaining that the hon. Member is not here. I know that he had to go out and I understand that he will come back when he has the opportunity to do so. I think it right to say that at once.
I had no intention of taking part in the debate, because it seemed to me to be on a very narrow point. I thought that it was at least doubtful whether it was possible to take up the whole of a Parliamentary day to decide whether, it having been conceded that the Committee stage of the Bill must be brought back to the Floor of the House, it should be taken at one hour of the day rather than another.
It is quite clear, however, that there are considerations—some of them important—in deciding that we should or that we should not take the Committee stage on the Floor at 10.30 in the morning instead of at some hour in the evening. But for the evidence of what has taken place, I would have doubted whether it was possible to prolong such a discussion realistically for a whole Parliamentary day.
For my part, I have never regarded it as of the slightest importance whether the Committee stage was taken in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House. It has never seemed to me to be a point of principle at all.
Sir Peter Rawlinson: If that is so, why was it that when the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill received a Second Reading in 1956, the hon. Gentleman himself moved that the Committee stage should be taken in Committee of the whole House? Why was it so important in that case but not so important in this case?
Mr. Silverman: I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) will apply his mind to the points made so as not to make false points. Of course, one may think it better that the Committee stage should be taken on the Floor of the House rather than in Standing Committee. But it does not necessarily follow that in every case it is a point of principle. What I am saying—and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he will make an effort, will be capable enough of following it—is that it is riot, in my opinion, in the case of this Bill a matter of principle.
Sir P. Rawlinson Sir P. Rawlinson rose—
Mr. Silverman: I am not refusing to give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman but perhaps he will allow me to finish the point I am making, then I will give way again.
There is a very great difference between the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill of 1956 or the Homicide Act, 1957, and this Bill. In the 1956 Bill and the 1957 Act, we were changing the law of the country fundamentally. In this Bill we are not. We are making a mere consequential amendment to the general principle adopted by Statute in 1957 and which has, therefore, been the law of this country for eight years.
That principle could have been questioned or discussed in two General Elections since then and it never has been questioned or debated. Nor has there ever been any attempt in the House, nor is there any attempt now, nor was there on Second Reading of this Bill, to interfere with the principle, adopted first in 1956 without exceptions and in 1957 with exceptions.
I suggest to the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom that he is quite capable of seeing why other people might think—I concede that he may not agree with them that there is all the difference in the world between the present Bill and the 1956 Bill and the 1957 Act, which were taken on the Floor of the House. Nevertheless, I concede, as I have always conceded, that I expected this Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House and thought that it would be. But I say now that I never attached very much importance to it and do not do so now.
1574
Does the right hon. and learned Gentle. man wish to interrupt now?
Sir P. Rawlinson: I do not think that it is really profitable to intervene. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not think that anyone else can understand anything. I was interested to hear what he had to say as to why there was a difference between the circumstances of the 1956 Bill and the 1957 Act and this Bill. I have listened to his explanation. I do not think that it is a very valid one, but I have at least heard it.
Mr. Silverman: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not find it profitable to discuss the point with me, perhaps I need not waste further the time of the House by paying any more attention to what he has to say on the subject.
I can concede that many hon. Members—certainly the hon. Member for Lancaster, for he has said so and I have no reason to doubt him—expected that the Bill would be taken on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member for Lancaster says that he has a real sense of grievance about the fact that it was sent upstairs. I understand this. Had I thought that it was a question of principle, I would have voted for the proposition that it should be taken on the Floor of the House on 21st December. What I cannot understand about the attitude of the hon. Member for Lancaster is his subsequent behaviour. I take it for granted that, on 21st December, he wanted the Bill to be carried as far as the House of Commons can carry it. I take it that that is still his desire.
When the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) spoke, he defended his vote of 5th March and sought to reconcile it with his desire to see the Bill become law. The hon. Member for Bodmin resented, as he was entitled to do, the innuendo that seemed implicit, in at any rate one speech from this side of the House, that the vote of 5th March was intended to obstruct that result, and I accept from the hon. Gentleman that this was not in his mind, and that if it had been in his mind his action might have been different.
The hon. Member for Bodmin will forgive me saying, I hope, that this may be the result of his limited experience

1575
as a Member of the House. But the hon. Member for Lancaster is not an inexperienced Member. He has been here a lona time. I acquit both the hon. Member for Lancaster and the hon. Member for Bodmin of any obstructive intention. But what I cannot understand is why the hon. Member for Bodmin does not see that the question whether the Bill should go to Standing Committee or remain on the Floor of the House was a very different question on 5th March from what it was on 21st December.
Mr. Bessell: The hon. Member suggests that the reason for my vote on 5th March was my inexperience of the House. I reject that suggestion. The reason for my vote on 5th March, as 1 made clear, was the representations which I had received from many people who genuinely believed that this matter was of such importance that all Amendments should be considered by the whole House and not by a Standing Committee.
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman said that in his speech. I understood it then and I accepted it then and I accept it now.
What I am saying is that if his experience of the House had been a little longer, he would have known that to bring the Bill back from Standing Committee would inevitably cause immense difficulties for the Government and immense embarrassments in the future progress of the Bill. I accept that the hon. Gentleman may not accept it from me, and there is no reason why he should, but I say it in good faith—that anyone who had had that fact present in his mind, whatever he thought about this question on 21st December, must have come to a different conclusion on 5th March.
Mr. Bessell: I recognised the difficulties. I knew that if the Motion on 5th March were carried it was bound to be an embarrassment for the Government, but I felt that an issue of this importance, when two-thirds of the House had expressed the desire that a certain law should come into being, could not be ignored by the Government irrespective of the difficulties, and that is why I have accepted the solution which the Leader of the House has provided.
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman repeats the point and I still accept it. I am sure that that was in his mind. What I am saying is that it is one thing to appreciate that a course may embarrass the Government. One might tolerate that. I have embarrassed Governments in my time, even my own Governments, and it does not seem to be a capital offence. But there is something else besides the embarrassment to the Government. What I am saying to the hon. Gentleman is that to do what the House did on 5th March was not merely to embarrass the Government, which is no doubt a venial offence in any case, but to embarrass the future progress of the Bill.
Mr. Bessell Mr. Bessell indicated dissent.
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman does not think so. I have caught Mr. Speaker's eye in order to express my opinion and I think that it was a serious embarrassment to the progress of the Bill. That brings me to the next point which I want to make.
I have dealt with the hon. Member for Windsor, who talked about sharp practice, but I would now like to deal with the suggestion of bad faith on the part of the Government. The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom talked about the Government embarking on "a shabby political manoeuvre". If ever there has been a shabby political manoeuvre in my experience in the House, it is the charge against the Government on this occasion of bad faith. What bad faith?
In the Gracious Speech, they pledged themselves to give time for the discussion on a free vote of the present Bill. They did that. When the Second Reading was passed, by a more than two to one majority, they did not move that the Bill should be kept on the Floor of the House. There was no need to ask my right hon. Friend when he decided to send it to a Committee upstairs, because everybody knows that all Bills go to Committees upstairs, unless the exceptional step is taken of moving immediately after Second Reading that they should stay on the Floor.
If there was any fault in our not knowing that they preferred that it should not remain on the Floor, the fault was mine in that I never told them of the Motion which I intended to move. I

1577
have no doubt that if I had told them, they would have said, "We would rather that you did not move it. We would prefer the Bill to go to a Standing Committee", just as they told me that very thing when I told them that I was about to move that it should be kept on the Floor.
If there was any fault, it was my fault in not telling them of that intention earlier. En view of everything which has been said since, I regret that I did not do so, but to call the decision to send the Bill to a Standing Committee an element in a course of conduct showing bad faith is utterly ridiculous.
So the Bill went to a Standing Committee, which debated it, Amendment by Amendment, for 121 hours in five sittings of two and a half hours each. Then it came to the House again by sheer accident, the sheer accident being that art hon. Member opposite happened to be lucky in the Ballot for Private Members' Motions and drew No. 1 and chose to move the Motion which we debated and carried on 5th March. If he had not been lucky in the Ballot, the whole business of 5th March would never have occurred—it could not have occurred. That is why I say that it was a mere chance. I suppose that it would be fair to say, although I shall not take the time of the House by defending the proposition, that it was mere chance that the Motion was ulimately carried.
If the Government had decided to do what Sir Winston Churchill did in the middle of the war, and had asked the House to rescind its decision, there would have been a very sound Parliamentary case for doing so, a much sounder Parliamentary case for doing so than Sir Winston Churchill had at the time when he did it. They did not do that. They accepted the snap Division arrived at by accident on a Friday on a Motion which was there purely by chance. They took no advantage of that and said that this was the decision of the House and that, however it was reached, they would give effect to it.
Bad faith? What would hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have said of a Government which did not do that? It is a great shame to bedevil arguments on an important Measure, going through the House without Whips on either side and on which hon. and right hon. Mem-
1578
bers are left to exercise their own independent and conscientious judgments, serious arguments conducted on both sides with a high sense of responsibility. with cheap tricks of this kind. I am perfectly certain that the charge of bad faith was not made in good faith and ought not to have been made.
Mr. Christopher Chataway: The hon. Member knows that I am in the same position as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley). If he argues that the charge of bad faith does not apply, does he not concede that the only alternative excuse is gross incompetence because the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House did not take the trouble to find out what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) before moving that the Bill should be taken in Standing Committee? This was surely gross incompetence. The hon. Gentleman must allow that one or other of the charges lies.
Mr. Silverman: I quite understand that there can be differences of opinion as to whether the Government should have kept the Bill on the Floor of the House or sent it upstairs. I quite understand that there can be differences of opinion as to the exact stage and moment when the Government should have told me, as the mover of the Second Reading, what they had decided. Of course, there can be legitimate differences of opinion about that, and I do not complain about it. What I think there can be no legitimate difference of opinion about is my proposition that to accuse my right hon. Friends of bad faith is itself an act of bad faith, because nobody can really believe it.
Having decided to accept the decision of the House with all the difficulties which necessarily flowed from it, the Government decided to ask the House of Commons to deal with it in Committee on the Floor of the House but on Wednesday mornings. Is that bad faith? Is that one of the factors in building up this artificial shabby political trick? There is no point of principle involved in whether the Bill is dealt with at 10.30, 2.30, 3.30 or 9.30.
This whole debate seems to me to have been highly artificial and unreal.

1579
A number of points have been put forward, which, no doubt, were put forward in good faith, about whether the Bill would have better or worse publicity in the Press if it is dealt with at one time or another. This is not a point of principle. There have been arguments about whether lawyers would be better employed earning brief fees in the courts than attending to their duty in the House of Commons on an occasion which they had insisted on having.
It was not the Government's decision to bring the Bill to the Floor of the House. It was the decision of the House of Commons on an Opposition Motion inspired by oppositional influences and supported, in the main, but not entirely—I accept that—by Opposition votes. When the Government accept that decision and give the Members who supported it exactly what they wanted, they make this a cause of complaint and found on it a charge of bad faith. This is Alice in Wonderland. It has nothing to do with genuine, serious, legitimate Parliamentary debate.
I wish particularly to ask the hon. Member for Lancaster a question. I would ask it of others, too, but I put it to the hon. Gentleman because he has enough experience of Parliament to know what is involved. What will he do tonight? Will he vote for this Motion?
Mr. Berkeley Mr. Berkeley indicated dissent.
Mr. Silverman: Will he vote against it? The hon. Gentleman has answered the first question. Will he vote against the Motion?
Mr. Berkeley: Yes.
Mr. Silverman: And still put himself forward as seriously believing in the abolition of the death penalty in this Session as a sponsor of the Bill? In his speech, the hon. Gentleman did not say what he thought the Government should do.
Mr. Berkeley: The Government have a duty to find time for the Bill. I hope that we will beat the Government in the Division tonight and that they will find time for the Bill in conformity with the normal procedure of the House.
Mr. Silverman: I beg to assure the hon. Gentleman that, as far as I know—
1580
I have been here only 30 years—there is nothing which conflicts with the normal procedure of the House in the Motion which my right hon. Friend moved this afternoon. If I were to interpret uncharitably what the hon. Gentleman has said, I would withdraw my statement that, perhaps, he was not seriously interested in getting the Bill through and substitute for it the proposition that he would very much like to get it through provided that it is done at the expense of some other Bill which the Government wish to introduce and which he is not in favour of, because otherwise there is absolutely no reason in principle—and the hon. Gentleman did not suggest in his speech that there was any reason in principle—why the House of Commons should not sit in Committee at 10.30 on Wednesday mornings.
Mr. Berkeley: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is not the normal procedure of the House for the House to meet in full Committee at 10.30 in the morning. He also knows that the question of morning sittings has been referred to the Select Committee. It is, I think, a quite definite breach of principle for the Chief Patronage Secretary and the Government to get themselves out of a difficulty of their own making by agreeing on an alteration in the normal procedure of the House before it has been adequately ventilated before the Committee concerned.
Mr. Silverman: I can only say that, in my opinion, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I think that, in the end, the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne), when I intervened in his speech when he made this exact point, accepted that there was nothing in it at all. He accepted that the fact that the question whether the procedure of the House should be changed was being considered by the Select Committee was no reason why the House of Commons should abdicate control over its own procedure and its own affairs.
The logical consequence of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that, since the Select Committee on Procedure is considering all matters of Parliamentary procedure—both those which we have and those which we might have—the House should go into permanent recess until the Select Committee reports. This

1581
is the consequence, because if we cannot change our procedure as it is being considered by a Select Committee, neither can we keep our procedure because it is being; considered by a Select Committee.
Of course, we must look after our affairs and deal with the practical questions as they arise as far as we can without prejudice to anything which the Select Committee may ultimately decide. That is why the Motion appears on the Order Paper in these severely restrictive terms—only Wednesday morning and not any other morning, only this Bill and not any other Bill. It is done precisely to avoid embarrassment to anything which the Select Committee might be considering
It seems to me that any hon. Member who really wants to do everything in his power to prevent the Bill from completing its House of Commons stages quickly should vote against the Motion. Anyone who thinks that the House of Commons majority rather than the minority should have its way will vote for the Motion on the good old principle that there is no reason why the tail should wag the dog.
8.28 p.m.
Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: I hope that I am as little tempted as any man to bandy charges of sharp practice, and so forth, and I am under no such temptation this evening. We are entitled to ask—if I might have the attention of the lion. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), who is in charge of the Bill. I listened to 10 interventions from the hon. Gentleman and a speech, and to all the other speeches today except one and a half, and I beg now that I may have the attention of those persons who are most interested in the Bill: I do the hon. Member the honour of supposing that he comes first in that list.
I have always taken it for granted that when we address each other as "honourable Gentlemen", this implies, without prejudice to the definition of the word "sincerity", that each one of us feels himself to be sincere enough to think it proper, at least publicly, to assume the sincerity of others.
There has been a good deal of conscience about the Bill and its predecessors. I have no wish whatever to ques-
1582
tion the sovereignty of conscience nor the sincerity of those who have been rather, I will not say ostentatiously, but at least noticeably, aware of it. They must pay us the compliment of making the same assumption and I resent very much the continuous talk today about the artificial nature of the objections either to this Motion or to all or any part of the Government's conduct with regard to the Bill.
I approach the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), whom I seem to have lost—and I am sorry for that—I will not say with timidity, but with shyness and deprecation, because on the last occasion on which he spoke he rebuked me for garrulity. Conscious as I am of the sins of most hon. Members of this House, including myself, I must own that the fact that Jemmy Twitcher should peach me did a little surprise me. I want, if I may, to make some references to the hon. Member even in his absence.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne told us that the Bill is not a matter of principle, that the Motion today is still less a matter of principle, that the principle has all been settled and that that has all happened. Today's proceeding, he told us, is a mere consequential Amendment. I almost could wish that the hon. Member were a Minister in charge of a Bill on his side of the House. What fun it would be when he used the expression "a mere consequential Amendment" about something of the importance either of the Bill in question or even of today's Motion.
It is not a mere consequential Amendment. It is a completion meant to be, as near as anything human may, irreversible, of the principle that in this country the State has no duty and no right ever to kill judicially. That is an important matter. It ought not to be completed without full discussion.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale had some constitutional learning, I thought partly mistaken, about immigration, but I may be wrong about that. Where, however, I am sure that the hon. Member was wrong was that he argued that because the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was constitutional, although some people thought it was not, therefore, although he did not deny that the present Bill is constitutional, yet he said that

1583
having demonstrated that it is difficult to draw a line or make a definition between constitutional and non-constitutional, therefore he wiped that argument away. I am sure that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne had no patience with that logic.
The poet Housman admitted that he did not know how to define the difference between a small dog and a big dog, but that he seldom found difficulty in knowing which was confronting him. It may be difficult to define so that one is sure that everything on one side of the line will be constitutional and everything on the other side of the line not constitutional.
What is the most constitutional thing there can be about human society? It is whether the governing organ in a trade union, a party whips' office, a nation, an empire, a world government or whatever else has what rights and duties as the governing organ in exercising force, especially in exercising the decisive force of execution; and much the most respectable argument used for this and similar Bills has been that when that last is done, it is irreversible. It is not an unanswerable argument, but, still, that is a fair and good argument. It is an argument which it cannot be denied is constitutional, whatever else can be denied to be constitutional.
Incidentally, I hope that I am not boasting falsely. Earlier in the debate somebody quoted Mr. Herbert Morrison's pledge that the Socialist Government of that time would not send any constitutional Bills upstairs. That was in answer to a challenge from me, and I have always been glad that it was made. I was never sure that it was fully kept, though I am not making any charges of sharp practice there—there were difficulties of definition.
These matters are difficult to define, but this tonight is a constitutional matter. It is a constitutional matter, the primary one, and the ultimate one, and many of the most important in between. It involves an action irreversible in a unique sense, and the whole case against capital punishment has been put on those assumptions.
I would not dare to accuse any hon. Gentleman opposite of insincerity or
1584
sharp practice; but, that being so, to turn round at this stage and tell us that this is a mere consequential Amendment and then—I do not grumble at this; no doubt enough of me is enough—pop out of the Chamber, seems to me to be if not sharp practice, at any rate rather slight toying with a great subject. I hope that nobody on this side again, and certainly not I, will be accused of not being serious about this, or of not meaning what we say about it.
Incidentally, I do not want to attack the Leader of the House. If it is not patronising or treacherous to say so, I think that of a rotten lot he is about the best. He seems to be pretty competent, and almost always to have polite language even if his intentions are wicked. It is all very well for his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne to leap chivalrously to his defence when "sharp practice" dropped from some indiscreet lips, but one or other, or both of them, he and the right hon. Gentleman must have been conscious, before the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour, that it was at least arguable that this was a matter of high constitutional importance, and that the normal practice of the House, and the invariable claim on the Opposition side, is that where a Bill is beyond question, constitutional, it is taken for granted that it will be left on the Floor of the House; and I for one took it for granted.
When I asked one or two of my hon. Friends and was told that that was so, I went off to bed, All that perhaps is of no great importance, but it may perhaps have cleared some memories—[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh at my saying that I am not very important, but I am not less skilled in derision than most of them, and I am prepared to laugh at them on similar ground tomorrow.
That is the first thing that ought to be said in commenting on some of the earlier speeches. The second thing is this: we have been accused that what we are really doing and meaning is killing the Bill. I am against the Bill. If the Bill is killed, I shall be pleased, but that is not what I am after, and it is not what I have been after throughout the discussion since that Division. Hon and right hon. Gentlemen have got ulterior motives, but

1585
to do the Lord President of the Council justice once more, if I may do him justice twice in an evening, he in his speech, only rather cautiously and slightly, admitted—but he did admit, and he can read it tomorrow in HANSARD, and he will surely agree with me that he did admit—that there was one silver lining to the cloud of this small imbroglio, and that was that it formed—mixing my metaphors a bit—a kind of snow plough or ballon d'essai, for something which he had always wanted, to turn the House into a highly paid set of professionals spending all their time here and therefore under the Chief Whip.
Every other speaker on the other side—the Lord President of the Council did it only by indirection, I admit, by innuendo, but I would undertake to show in any court of law that it was in his words—every other speaker who spoke on the other side, I think I am right in saying, but I did not hear one—certainly practically every other Member on the other side—said the same thing but plainer and louder.
But the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne just said, "Pouf! What a misuse of the word 'principle'. It does not matter in the least whether we have a vote at 2.30 or 3.30 or 11.30. It is not important. It is a matter of the convenience of a timetable." Right ho. He warns about the thick other end of this wedge. Why cannot any Government who can rely on a majority of two—the present Government so far have had a majority rather greater, but cannot rely on more than two—why should not any Government who can really rely on a majority of two, say, "We will not have Divisions any more ever, except that the Clerk will register the end of each debate and what propositions are then under discussion, and all the Divisions on all such debates so registered shall all happen at 3 o'clock in the morning 10 days later"? That is a slight absurdity, but it is no more an absurdity than the talk of hon. Members opposite would have seemed to their grandfathers, and than consequentially have been thought an absurdity.
It is a gross absurdity. That is the second thing I thought ought to be said at this stage.
Now I come to the third thing I want to say about it. This is the primary, fun-
1586
damental constitutional question: on what authority who may be killed for having done what? I do not apologise for repeating that. How do we expect, in a mature Parliamentary country, this question to be settled? How do we expect it to be settled? Do we expect it to be settled by a Private Member's Bill? That seems to me grossly improper.
I am bound to say that, to me, it seems grossly improper also it should be settled without Whips. I have never ceased from blaming the Government, that of my own party, for taking the Whips off on the first hanging Bill, because it seems to me that if there is one thing the Government are entitled to know about, and if there is one thing everybody else is entitled to refuse to admit except on the advice of the Government, it is this question: what is the necessary amount of human execution, without which the odds are government would be even worse carried on than it is at present? For that question I think the Whips should always be on all the time. That may leave people with consciences, like the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, like me, for that matter, in some difficulty, since because of our consciences we might be compelled to vote against the Whips, and be damned to them. In my judgment the Whips should have been on from the first.
Should it have been done by way of a Private Member's Bill? No. That is grossly and sillily unconstitutional. If it should not be done by a Private Member's Bill, should it have been done by a Government Bill? That is not what the Government are doing. They put a note in the Queen's Speech—I do not know whether it is unprecedented, but it was quite odd, if not quite unique—saying, "There will be an unpredictable Bill on this topic, and we shall give time for it." But when the occasion came they did not give time for it; they gave time for the Second Reading, and beyond that they said, "This is now a matter of Government time, and since Government time is what Government omnipotence depends on, we must have our own way about this. We must not listen to you."
Should it have been done with the Whips on or off? It was done neither way. It was done with the Whips sometimes on and sometimes off. Should it have been done by a Private Member's Bill or by a Government Bill? I am sure

1587
that if it should have been done by either it should have been done by a Government Bill—but it was not; it was done half by one and half by the other, and with the Whips off and on.
Now it is being done avowedly and with boastings from the other side in the hope and with the intention that it will go a considerable way towards altering the effective composition and the normal habits of the House of Commons. That is grossly unconstitutional. If such a thing should be done it should be done after the most careful discussion between parties, and individuals of any party or no party, and especially between poor little beasts like me who are faithful Members of their party but who seldom agree with it. The last thing that it should ever be is a by-product of an impropriety—a bastard of a bastard—of this silly muddle which the Government have got into and which they do not like being called sharp practice.
I warn hon. and right hon. Members opposite that this is a matter of the utmost importance. It is not a funny matter at all. Perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, largely by accident, the British constitution as it existed not so long ago—and as it could still be thought to exist when I was a boy—has gradually been whittled away. There is nothing of it left now except, perhaps, the law of evidence and certainly the procedure and custom of this House. All the other checks and balances are gone. "We are the masters now", "How many Ministers there are depends on what the Prime Minister thinks will be convenient"—and all that. These things have gone beyond all checking and balancing. They are matters of one-time "Yes" or "No".
I warn hon. and right hon. Members opposite of another thing: the world is divided. We are now fighting as our ancestors did from 1791 to 1815—[Laughter.]that was not funny either. I do not know which hon. Members opposite took part—[HON. MEMBERS:"1815?"]—yes, 1815. I know quite well what I said. If any of them did take part, either directly or ancestrally, they will know very well that 16 years —25 years nearly—is far more than five times five. We did it in five years and know how far more that was than four. It was a very long time. This war
1588
against an armed doctrine now is not, as is generally assumed in the House, a war for and against democracy. It is a war for and against constitutionalism, which is an older and deeper thing, without which democracy will be, in a short time, a fraud and then a corpse. It is a war against an armed doctrine, for nearly six years in the last war and which, if we are not fighting, we are at any rate enduring now. In this war, that this House should, with whatever noble motives and in whatever consciousness of superior sincerity, permit itself to legislate in this matter by a series of unconsitutional tricks, is a great defeat in this war which we are now enduring.
8.52 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: It must be very hard for hon. Members, on both sides of the House, I think, and surely for members of the general public reading reports of our debates, to conceive that we are debating whether we should, on certain occasional Wednesdays, discuss the further procedure of a particular Bill which had been remitted to a Standing Committee of the House. We have been treated to a tirade of language, arid language very largely—
Sir K. Pickthorn: Airy or arid?
Mr. Blenkinsop: Arid and rasping language, to which we have, in the past, become accustomed from the right hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn).
I feel that it is necessary that the House should be brought to some realisation of the kind of issues which we are discussing. I am quite sure that hon. Members opposite will do nothing to restore the general public's faith in them as a fighting Opposition, if they use matters of this kind as their subjects for major discussion.
It will be realised all the more fully by the public how completely out of date their views and ideas are when this issue is considered. I am sure that the general public would wish us to discuss these matters fully at proper times. Proper times, in the general public's view, would surely include times when it is generally thought that the general public and hon. Members are most competent to give clear views. It is now, I am sure, the

1589
view of many people outside the House, as well as inside, that the House would be far better employed using its time more fully in the mornings than it has in the past.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Procedure. It was because of that and because of suggestions which have been made that there might be a slight to that Committee, that I thought it right, as other members of that Committee have done, to say a word at this stage. While, obviously, as a member of that Committee, I would not wish to reveal any matters which have been discussed, it is surely no discourtesy to the Committee—I should take the view that it is almost a courtesy—to provide it with some evidence which the Committee would welcome of how this kind of procedure can most efficiently operate.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the hon. Member arguing that it would be a good thing to "jump the gun", so that the Committee will be guided Dy something which has been done and, therefore, helped to come to a final assessment of the situation?
Mr. Blenkinsop: I should think that the Committee would welcome further evidence from all quarters. I am far from thinking the members of that Committee are so supine as to accept any prejudgment on a matter of this sort, but I certainly think that the Committee would welcome evidence which has not been available up to now. I think that this would be extremely valuable evidence which could be provided for the Committee and which would meet many questions that have been raised on matters which earlier Committees have had the opportunity to discuss, but which have been left unresolved. Therefore, without any prejudice to the way in which the Committee may decide, or make its recommendations, it seems to me that this is a perfectly valid form of action for the House to take, if it so desires.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: I wish to ask my hon. Friend whether, assuming that we were looking at this matter as a sort of experiment. though that is admittedly not the principal object, he can think of any better form of experiment than a Private Member's Bill, subject to a free vote of the House?
Mr. Blenkinsop: I think that my hon. and learned Friend has made a fair comment. I am amazed at some of the charges which have been levelled at my right hon. Friends about sharp practice and the rest. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite seem to be trying to seize on this to make a major party issue which does not exist and to make a case which certainly would collapse under any investigation conducted in calm thought outside the House.
One matter which strikes me clearly in sharp contradistinction to the principle adopted by my right hon. Friends is the memories that I have of occasions when the present Opposition occupied the Government benches and Private Members' Motions were passed without Divisions and apparently accepted, but no action was taken to implement them. This was treating the House with very slight courtesy. Here we have the opposite case. The Government, although clearly pressed for time, as every hon. Member will understand, have made it possible for this Measure to be debated, as the House apparently desires, fully on the Floor of the House.
Whatever right hon. and hon. Members opposite may say about the constitutional importance of whether the House meets in the morning or in the afternoon, this will be found an extremely curious doctrine, I am sure, by everyone outside the House, if not by all hon. Members. I suggest strongly that it is about time hon. Members opposite woke up to the circumstances and realised that quite a lot of our business is carried out by hon. Members, or at least some hon. Members, in the mornings. So far, that has not been regarded as at all objectionable.
Mr. Turton: Can the hon. Gentleman give any precedent of an occasion when a matter has been remitted to a Select Committee on Procedure and the Government of the day put down a Motion that prejudges the issue on which members of the Select Committee are precluded from mentioning evidence given to them on that very matter?
Mr. Blenkinsop: With all consideration to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not take the view that this precludes the decision, or in any way invalidates any view of the Committee of which we are both members. Far from this being

1591
the case, it is completely open to the Committee to take whatever view it wishes, but it will have the benefit of further knowledge of the effects of morning sittings on hon. Members, Ministers, Officers of the House and others. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, like myself, would welcome this information becoming available, as distinct from the information we have in relation to more unusual times when the House sat in the mornings during the war.
As a member of the Select Committee on Estimates I welcome the added information that this will provide. The procedure which my right hon. Friends have adopted should meet the reasonable wishes of the House and I cannot help feeling that the Government have been extremely courteous to the House in the procedure they have adopted, particularly when we consider the procedures which they might have found necessary.
I find the attitude of some hon. Member opposite peculiar, particularly those who have announced their support for the Bill. They should realise that in practical terms it is the only way in which the Measure can be as fully debated as they apparently wish it to be. I hope, therefore, that the attitude taken by many hon. Members opposite will be seen for what it is; nothing more than a bit of political activity, an attempt to get some support which they have so noticeably lacked in the past.
9.2 p.m.
Mr. Charles Curran: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) supposes that we who take a different view from him are simply playing politics. I can only speak for myself. I voted against the Bill to abolish the death penalty because I am flatly opposed to that action. I voted against sending the Measure to Committee upstairs because I thought that it was a subject which should be discussed on the Floor of the House so that, and this was my primary reason, the full pressure of public opinion could be brought to bear on hon. Members during our debates on the Bill.
There is no doubt but that the Bill to abolish the death penalty is profoundly repugnant to the great mass of the people
1592
who have sent us here to represent them. Whether I am speaking to abolitionists or retentionists I say that if Parliament passes the Bill it will be doing something which the British people do not want.
The main reason why I objected to the Measure having its Committee stage upstairs was that by taking that action we were limiting the amount of publicity which our discussions would receive, thereby limiting the opportunities for public opinion to put pressure on hon. Members. I am, therefore, in favour of the Bill coming to the Floor of the House.
I do not wish to use the expression "sharp practice". I will not impute any motives but simply state the facts as I see them. When we voted—and I was one who did—to bring the Bill back to the Floor of the House we meant a Committee of the whole House sitting at the usual time, in the afternoon. [Interruption.] I think I understand what lies behind that interruption from the benches opposite and I will deal with it later. As I said, we assumed that a Committee of the whole House would mean in future what it has meant in the past; a Committee sitting in the afternoon.
The Government's proposal that the Bill be dealt with by a Committee of the whole House which meets in the morning is not a matter simply of the difference between ten o'clock and two o'clock. In fact—we all know it; the Government know it as well as anybody—if we send the Bill to a Committee of the whole House meeting in the mornings, we shall exclude from the discussions of the Bill a considerable number of Members of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am delighted with that interruption. That is exactly the information I wanted. If the Committee of the whole House meets in the morning, a large proportion of hon. Members will not be able to take part in the discussions.
Hon. Members: Why not?
Mr. Manuel: Making money outside.
Mr. Curran: The question "Why not?" is an interesting one. I will make hon. Members opposite a present of this. It may be that some of them

1593
are busy making money outside. It may be that some of them are directors of companies. It may be that some of them are earning money in the courts. It may even be that some of them are earning money in Fleet Street. We are not concerned with why they will not be here.
Hon. Members: Yes, we are.
Mr. Curran: The Government should be concerned with the results of what they are doing. It may be, in view of the results which may be arrived at, that their decision should be changed. As the Government know full well, by sending the Bill to a Committee of the whole House meeting in the mornings the Government will in fact ensure that the Bill is debated in Committee by only a small proportion of Members of the House.
Mr. Ivor Richard: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree with this fact, at any rate. If the debate takes place at 10.30 in the morning on Wednesday, even accepting the argument advanced by the other side it will be debated by more hon. Members than would have been able to debate it in Standing Committee. As I understand it, this is the basis of the argument advanced by hon. Members opposite.
Mr. Curran: I quite agree with that. I should have thought, with all respect to the hon. Gentleman, that it pretty well goes without saying. The Standing Committee, which is limited to 50 members, necessarily involves a smaller number of people taking part than will take part if the Bill is debated here. Since I have agreed with the hon. Gentleman, will he not now do me the justice of agreeing with me?
Mr. Richard: It depends what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Curran: The hon. Gentleman might listen to what I say before he says that he will not agree with me. Will he not agree with me that, if we debate the Bill in a Committee of the whole House meeting in the mornings, we shall in fact —whether this is a good or a bad fact is beside the point—exclude from the debate most of the lawyers in the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Will not the hon. Gentleman agree with me that the
1594
practical consequence of the Bill being dealt with by a Committee of the whole House meeting in the mornings is that a considerable number of practising lawyers in the House will not be here to take part in this discussion? Does he disagree with that?
Mr. Richard: Speaking as a practising lawyer and not as a Fleet Street journalist, I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Dame Irene Ward: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not any briefs.
Mr. Curran: I should have made it plain that when speaking about lawyers I was not talking about the briefless lawyers. I was talking about the busy lawyers. They are to be found on both sides of the House. I am talking about those lawyers whose abilities are valued so highly that people are prepared to pay money to have the use of them.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am not sure in which category I myself come, but as one who was a member of the Standing Committee—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was; at least, I do not recall having seen him there—I can assure him that lawyers were probably the most regular attenders on both sides of the Committee.
Mr. Curran: I quite agree. I am not disputing that. I am asserting that, if the Bill is dealt with by a Committee of the whole House meeting in the mornings, we know as a fact that there are here, not on the Standing Committee but as Members of the House, a number of lawyers who will be too busy to come here.
It may be that we ought to alter the composition of the House. It may be that it can be argued, though I do not think that this is the place to argue it, that the House ought to change its character and become a place inhabited entirely by full-time professional politicians working factory hours, clocking in at ten o'clock and going on all day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I quite agree that it can be argued that the House ought to become that kind of assembly, but it is not that kind of assembly now. It may be that hon. Members opposite who think it ought to become that kind of assembly are

1595
entitled to say that we should transform it, but if we are to transform it let us do it with our eyes open and not by a subterfuge, as we are doing now. This is an attempt to have a pilot experiment for the purpose of making by subterfuge a radical change in the constitution of the House of Commons.
Obviously, one day a week is a pilot test, but I suggest that if we are to make that sort of change and turn the House of Commons from what it is now to something quite different we ought to do that only after careful and detailed discussion. Hitherto, for all the centuries that the House of Commons has existed it has been a place which did not expect to run itself entirely on full-time professional politicians.
Sir John Hobson: My hon. Friend will recall that it was Lord Attlee who said that one of the great strengths of the House of Commons was that at least 50 per cent. of its Members had to be part-time because they lived in the great world outside.
Mr. Curran: Exactly. There is an enormously powerful case which could be supported by quotations from Lord Attlee and a great many other people for the view that the strength of this institution to which we are all proud to belong derives from the fact that most of its Members are not full-time politicians.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Member is talking about lawyers, company directors and so on who would be active in the morning. Has he ever considered the point that some of us on this side of the House were building trade operatives and operatives in factories before we came here? Has he considered how strange it would be if we put in four-hour shifts in the morning and came to the House direct from our jobs in our Wellington boots and our overalls? Has he considered that the following morning people like myself in that position would have to get up at 6.30 to start work at 7.30? Would the hon. Member not consider that the time has come—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This intervention is becoming too long.
Mr. Curran: It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) has said, that some people, and he gives himself as an example, might work at plumbing or bricklaying and then come there afterwards. I do not know that that is a hardship. As things are now a good many professional people work three or four hours at their profession before coming here in the morning. I see nothing wrong in that, and, equally, I see nothing wrong in the people of whom the hon. Gentleman was speaking doing the same thing.
But I ask hon. Members to consider this. We have recently raised the salaries which we pay ourselves. Why have we done so? We have done it on the plea that, by raising Members' salaries, we widen the catchment area from which Members of Parliament are drawn. Yet, having done that, we are now urged to make changes in the composition of the House which would narrow the catchment area far more closely than ever before in our history.
We must make up our minds whether we want to preserve the House of Commons which we have or whether we want to make it something quite different. But, whatever may be the arguments for the one or the other, they should be deployed in the open. They should not be deployed as subterfuge on this Bill.
I repeat that the primary reason why I at least am resisting the Bill and the Motion before us is not some sort of political gamesmanship. I am doing it because I am honestly and firmly opposed to the abolition of the death penalty. I believe that if the House votes for it it will be doing something which the British people do not want, and I hope that, by bringing the Committee stage to the Floor of the House, a House which meets in the afternoon when hon. Members of all kinds can take part, we shall be able to promote such a blast of public opinion against it that it will prevent the Bill from being carried.
9.17 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: I wish to intervene only briefly, and, as a new Member, I do so with some trepidation because new Members are often told that they cannot understand procedure until they have been here for donkeys' years.

1597
The crux of the debate is not the merits of the Bill itself. It is not even the question of Principle as to whether it should be brought for its Committee stage to the Floor of the House. The simple question is, the House having decided that it will be brought to the Floor of the House, should the Committee meet in the morning rather than at some other time? In attacking the Motion, the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) made the point, which has been followed by several speakers opposite, that meeting in the morning will deprive the House of the services of those who have a broadening of interest as a result of their activities in the City, in Fleet Street, or in the courts of law.
I think that I can speak here with the full support of practically every new Member on this side—[An HON. MEMBER: "And some old ones."]—and perhaps some old ones, too—when I say that, if one wants a broadening of experience and interest, if one wants, as the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. MottRadclyffe) said, to know something about the impact of our legislative activities upon ordinary people, one can get it not in the courts of law or in Fleet Street, but by coming with me each Friday night on a tour round the clubs, the "pubs" arid the townswomen's guilds of east Newcastle, or on Saturday mornings when I meet my constituents.
I make this observation on the question of full-time membership. There are now in the House, particularly as a result of the last General Election, a substantial number of Members who have come here determined to devote their full time and energies to serving the people they have been elected to represent. To most of us, meeting in the House in the morning will make no difference, because we are here at ten o'clock anyway. As for the argument raised by the Opposition Front Bench, that it will inconvenience Ministers, I can only say that it will not inconvenience the Ministers in this Government, because the vast majority of them are quite capable of dealing with their business here, where they have rooms, and of meeting their responsibilities to the House, whether it meets in the mornings or not.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds) rose—
Mr. Rhodes: I am quite prepared to give way if the time which I use in doing so is taken from the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), but I know that he wishes to rise in a moment or two and I do not wish to delay him.
Members who make their membership of the House of Commons a full-time occupation are determined to make use of the facility now being granted to meet on Wednesday mornings. I would urge hon. Members who say that they need to do remunerative work outside the House in the mornings so as to enrich their experience to realise that this is something that their constituents should know. We should meet in the mornings —that is what the public expect us to do. We should make this a full-time job—that is what the public expect it to be.
9.20 p.m.
Sir Peter Rawlinson: The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) started with an apology to the House for being a new Member, but he brought the debate back to the real issues and I should like to thank him for his courtesy in sitting down when he did and cutting short his speech.
I understand that the Lord President of the Council is to reply to the debate. He has complained about the phrase that I used that this has been a shabby political manoeuvre and I propose to refer to that again. I believe that this Motion is the culmination of a wretched story of Government ineptitude in regard to this matter, which is one that affects the business and procedure of the House and which also concerns something of the greatest importance to everyone outside the House. Not only has it been a matter of Government ineptitude. According to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley), there has been what he called a breach of faith—and he, of all persons, should know, for his name stood second among the sponsors of the Bill.
Abolition is an issue of constitutional importance, and in the past has always been treated as a House of Commons matter, a case for individual conscience and one on which every hon. Member should be able to vote, speak and act as he thought proper and right. Yet there is to be a three-line Whip on the Government side tonight.

1599
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) wondered why the debate should have lasted so long. He said that the issue was so narrow. I understand that he thought that the matter had been, as it were, decided already. But the feelings on this side of the House have been deeply moved by the conduct of the Government, and whether the hon. Gentleman accepts it or not, all hon. Members on this side of the House who have spoken today, whether they be abolitionist or retentionist, feel that the Government and the Patronage Secretary in particular have shown a breach of faith to the whole House, and it is for that that we indict the Government.
It is easy to take a superficial view of the question of when the House should sit and how it should carry out its business. I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite will be obedient to the cracking of the whips tonight, but this is a matter which started when the House of Commons reached a decision in December after a debate in which hon. Members spoke on the merits of the Bill with complete sincerity and complete good faith and voted accordingly. There was no doubt whatever about the feeling of the House then.
There then happened the incident which has really led us into the situation the House is in today and, in particular, the position in which hon. Members opposite find themselves—of having to obey a Whip on a matter such as this.
Mr. J. J. Mendelson (Penistone)Mr. J. J. Mendelson (Penistone) rose—
Sir P. Rawlinson: I will—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will have to think about the possibility of its being thought that there was too much noise for speeches to be heard.
Sir P. Rawlinson: I will give way—[Interruption.]
Mr. Mendelson Mr. Mendelson rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House has to think about this and I propose to secure that it does. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is speaking does not give way, the hon.
1600
Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) must not persist.
An Hon. Member: Craven core.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. I distinctly heard an hon. Member opposite use the term "craven core". I understand the words "craven core" to mean "cowardly centre". This phrase has been used in another context. I should like to know whether we on this side of the House are to receive an apology from the hon. Gentleman who made that statement.
Mr. Speaker: First, I do not know who it was. Secondly, I do not know who the target was, but it appears to be of a group character and I think we should not interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Sir P. Rawlinson: I will give way to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who has not been here during much of the debate, but I will finish the sentence which I was in the middle of uttering when he interrupted.
I was saying that my criticism of the Government is connected with their promise to give facilities for a free decision on this issue. Anybody who read the Queen's Speech and read therein these words knew what they meant, having regard to the history and tradition of the House in this matter. They knew, that the words meant that the Government had decided that the Bill would be given priority and that there would be Divisions according to the consciences of hon. Members and that the Bill would be dealt with, as previous Bills have been dealt with, in the House through all its stages.
Mr. Mendelson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should appreciate that I have been here for most of the debate, that I heard the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) throughout his speech and that I have heard most other speeches. I have risen only because the right hon. and learned Gentleman made the accusation that after the Second Reading decision this was turned into a political manoeuvre. That is quite untrue. The Bill was proceeding in Standing Committee. On Friday, 5th March, there was a combination of hon. Members opposite who

1601
wanted to kill the Bill and, equally important, certainly to embarrass the Government's legislative programme, and they got together and produced this situation.
Sir P. Rawlinson: That is totally false. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong and I say that specifically to him. There are deep feelings about this matter among hon. Members on this side of the House and the constant accusations of hon. Members opposite, such as we have had during the course of the afternoon, have only increased that resentment. The Government promised to give these facilities and everybody knew that that meant that the Bill would be part of their programme in so far as they would give free votes on all the issues brought before the House—and there is more than one issue.
The Bill having been drafted by Government draftsmen, it was handed to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, not an unusual course when a Government support the principle of a Bill. Why not? But let us at least do away with any hypocrisy or cant about it. This is what the Government were doing and the Government therefore were not being neutral but were leading on the issue.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman mistaken in thinking that when a Government provide time for a Private Member's Bill they are necessarily supporting the principle? The Conservative Government in 1956 did that very thing, and it must be to their credit that they did so because they were known to be against the principle. The fact that one Government or another find time is without prejudice to their view about the matter.
Sir P. Rawlinson: The hon. Gentleman must forgive us if we look with a little scepticism upon that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not suggest that it is not a perfectly honourable attitude for the Government to adopt to say, "This is a matter of consultation. We will get the Parliamentary draftsmen to draft the Bill and we will have a free vote on it". That is a perfectly sensible and honourable attitude for the Government to adopt.
That is what happened until such time as it was decided—nobody
1602
seems to know when it was—that the Government would not do what previous Governments have done, and that is to take the Bill through all its stages on the Floor of the House. They permitted my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to believe and anticipate that it would be taken on the Floor of the House. They must have known the precedents. Why should this occasion be different? It is reasonable to assume that the Patronage Secretary would treat the matter as similar matters had been treated before.
But the Leader of the House, on Friday, 5th March, said that the Government assumed that there would be no objection to the Bill going to a Standing Committee. Why should there be such an assumption, which is completely contrary to what had happened in the past and certainly contrary to all the precedents. There was not a word to the promoters—we have heard that—and no consultation at all with anybody as to what they intended to do. This is the shabby political manoeuvre. They hoped to slip in this Bill—and the right hon. Gentleman must know it—and send it to a Committee upstairs without bringing before the House the issue of whether it should go to a Committee of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary could very easily, if he had so wished, have advised either the opponents of the Bill or the promoters that this was what, in his judgment, should be done. But he did not do that. It was only when I moved the Motion after the Division that the House was able to take a vote on it. The whole resentment begins from the time when he took the tellers off and put the Government Whips on. As we thought that the matter had been ill judged, a Motion was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and myself before the Committee stage started upstairs suggesting that the Bill should come back to the Floor of the House and be debated on the Floor of the House. No notice was taken of that. That was before the Committee stage started and before my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir Rolf Dudley Williams) put down his Motion. We therefore started the Committee stage amid the protests taken up in the Committee that the Bill should proceed there at all.

1603
Then it was the good fortune of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) to win in the ballot the right to put the Motion before the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] It was a valid expression of the opinion of the House on Friday, 5th March, that it should come back to the Floor of the House. That is our condemnation of the Government's conduct.
Now we have the procedure Motion to try to salvage something from the difficulties into which the Patronage Secretary got the Government. Either it is a serious and considered experiment to see whether or not the House should sit in Committee at 10.30 on Wednesday mornings or merely an expedient. If it is a serious experiment, why was there not consultation before it was suggested? Why was it not discussed? Is it not customary in the House that when charges of this kind are made discussions should take place? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that if this is a serious experiment this has been the right atmosphere in which to debate it?
This is a House of Commons matter and should be treated as such. If it is a House of Commons matter, why are the Whips on? If it is a serious experiment, why have the Government put the Whips on? Is the alternative—the truth—that this was a slick and rather petulant attempt to punish the House for daring on Friday, 5th March, to have reversed the earlier decision? The decision taken that day was taken after debate, whereas on 21st December, when the Division followed the moving of the Motion, there was no debate whatever.
Does not the Lord President of the Council, who tonight will be having to reply to the House on this procedural matter, think that this is a matter of constitutional importance? If he does, does he think that this has been the hest kind of atmosphere in which to have such a debate? Will he tell us how long the question whether there were to be sittings of the House at 10.30 in the morning has been considered? If he considers that the Select Committee on Procedure is important, as it is, it should be allowed to examine this matter and consider whether these mat-
1604
ters should be taken by the House sitting at 10.30 a.m. in full Committee. How is the Select Committee to be treated if it is not to have close examination of people from all quarters of the House, so that they can give their opinion, and then report back to the House, so that the House can discuss it as a House of Commons matter?
There are few occasions, I suggest—and there ought, some people think, to be more—when the House of Commons can speak and vote as individuals and without the pressure of party politics playing upon it the whole time. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite who are shouting do so from guilty consciences at the way they have treated the House of Commons in this matter. Of course, they will go off to vote as they voted for the Bill, which was a Government Bill. With one exception, they voted for it, whereas on this side of the House there was a division, and a division according to judgment and conscience.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite will go into the Lobby at the behest of the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House, but the Leader of the House knows perfectly well that this is a matter and issue which needs much more careful consideration than has been given to it. I can only repeat, as I said before, that I believe that the Government have been guilty of a shabby political manoeuvre.
9.38 p.m.
Mr. Bowden: We have spent almost six hours today, following upon five hours on Friday, 5th March, discussing this subject. It is true that the Motion which we are now discussing came before us only today. I have listened to almost all the speeches on both occasions. This debate has been pitched rather high.
Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. Is it not customary, Mr. Speaker, for a Member who speaks twice to ask the leave of the House?
Mr. Speaker: This is a case of the right hon. Gentleman being the mover of a substantive Motion. The hon. Gentleman is on a point of order but it is a had one.
Mr. Bowden: I was saying that this debate has been pitched rather high.

1605
Charges and words have been thrown about which, I am sure, on reflection in calmer moments, hon. Members opposite will regret. My right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and myself have been accused of breach of faith. We have been accused of being slick and of petulance and arrogance—all these things. The hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) was the only Member on the apposite side of the House who has had a kind word to say about me.
I would remind the House that it does not really matter. After all, this is the House of Commons, and we all understand each other. What is said out of kindness, or of a derogatory character, does not matter very much. I am not in the least concerned about what Members say about me personally in the House, and I am concerned outside only if they are worth suing. In defence of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and myself, it might interest hon. Gentlemen opposite to know that we are referred to as "Merry" and "Bright" on this side of the House. I would not like to have to differentiate.
The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) dealt with one or two procedural points which I should like to take up. 1 have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge in this field. I am sure that no one has a greater knowledge of procedure than he has, but one or two of the things that he said were somewhat "off beam".
First, he said that in his view this was a complete break with precedent in that the House of Commons was considering a new procedure introduced by the Government which had not previously at least been considered by the Select Committee on Procedure. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that there are about 117 Standing Orders, that 89 of them have been changed in some way or other since the war, and that most of them have been changed without any reference whatsoever to the Select Committee on Procedure.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what action we on this side felt we could take about referring this particular matter to the Select Committee on Procedure. I think that it was his view that it ought to have gone there before we brought it here today as a Motion.
1606
I do not think that this is the point at all. This is a very simple, narrow, point. This is a point which deals with one, simple, plain issue, and it has been built up to mean all sorts of things.
It was the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) who said that "this specific matter has not been referred to the Select Committee". Of course it has not. Nor can we refer many others. I might be asked what examples there are of occasions on which the House has approved matters of procedure and adopted new procedures which have never been before a Select Committee on Procedure. There are many examples.
Older Members will recall that in the days of the "Boothby harriers" we used to be kept up all night discussing Prayers. The Prayer procedure was altered so that we no longer discussed them beyond half-past eleven. I am not certain on this point, but I have done some research, and I think that it was the Government of that side who ended that procedure and brought the discussion on Prayers to an end at half-past eleven without any reference to the Select Committee on Procedure. I am not disputing this. This is the sort of thing that should be done.
Mr. Turton: I said that this specific matter had been referred, but I and other members of the Select Committee were gagged because we could not explain the evidence which had been given to the Select Committee on this specific matter.
Mr. Bowden: I dispute that. This specific matter as to whether the House should sit for three hours on one morning of the week to consider the Committee stage of a Private Member's Bill has not been referred to the Select Committee.
A further example of this will arise on Monday of next week, and I give it for what it is worth. Then, we shall adopt a procedure which has never been adopted before in this House. On the Report stage of the Estimates we shall be moving that the Estimates be taken formally on a Guillotine day to enable a debate to take place at the request of the Opposition on the Milner Holland Report. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a good thing to do, but it is a precedent.
Sir Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)Sir Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham) rose—
Mr. Bowden: I cannot give way. The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) and I have cut our time to the minimum to allow other hon. Members to take part in the debate.
It is a misunderstanding in the speeches of a number of Members on that side of the House to assume that any action is necessary, after a Second Reading of a Bill, to send it upstairs. It was not necessary for us to take any action. As I said on 5th March, I assumed that the Bill would follow the normal procedure of Private Members' Bills and go upstairs. That is precisely what I meant and what I assumed. It was the right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved that it be taken on the Floor of the House, and a Division took place and he was defeated.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe has referred to the question of Government time. He says that we have got plenty of time. He says there is no need, so early in the Session, or now, to economise on time. Let me remind him that although the Session started only in November 41 Public Bills have already been introduced. I accept his point that some of them are hangovers. One such was the War Damage Bill. That was the child of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they turned that child out and left it to us, and we are carrying it—though it is hardly a baby, for the baby is growing up.
The point was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton and others about the inconvenience to the House of sitting in the mornings. I accept that it is an inconvenience to sit in the mornings. It is an inconvenience to those who have something else to do, and it may not be as convenient for Ministers who have apointments, and so on. It may not be as convenient to Members who have to be in court in the mornings. It may not be as convenient to doctors who are in their surgeries in the mornings. But, surely, in all these things Parliament must come first. If we really argue that the hours of the Sittings of Parliament must be adjusted to suit the convenience of all Members at all times, we should be sitting some peculiar hours. Parliament
1608
must come first, and Members must adjust their lives and their interests outside to suit the hours of Parliament.
I was asked why, in the view of the Government, it was thought necessary to have free votes on the Bill, and why we are not to adopt it as a Government Bill. The answer is simple. The answer is that on this side of the House we are of the opinion that there are many measures —I am thinking particularly of Sunday observance, measures of that sort—which are not party political measures at all. There is a great deal which ought to be done. The Government could introduce a Bill; a private Member could introduce a Bill; the decision on the issue must be by a free vote of the House. That is our view, and that is what we shall do on a number of occasions as legislation comes along.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe talked about the Motion on the Paper.
Mr. David Gibson-Watt (Hereford)Mr. David Gibson-Watt (Hereford) rose—
Mr. Bowden: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I have only 12 minutes.
I am not quite sure, but I think that I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman said it was a sloppy Motion, sloppy and doubtful.
Sir M. Redmayne: Sloppily drafted.
Mr. Bowden: A sloppily drafted Motion? I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have said that, because it was drafted by the distinguished gentlemen who drafted Measures when he was a member of a Government.
Sir M. Redmayne: I cannot let the right hon. Gentleman get away with that. Draftsmen work on instructions given by the Front Bench. These instructions were not in accordance with the Government's intentions as stated.
Mr. Bowden: These instructions are in complete accordance with Government instructions. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will read the Motion carefully they will find that it is absolutely watertight, and is precisely what we said.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a specific point. He referred to the words
"shall be deferred until such day as the Member in charge of the Bill shall appoint".

1609
He thought that there was something sinister in that. This is the normal procedure in Committee, whether on the Floor of the House or upstairs. At the end of the day—at one o'clock—when Progress is reported, the Member in charge—whether he be a Minister, or, in the case of a Private Member's Bill a private Member—moves, "Tomorrow." The right hon. Gentleman suggested that he should move, "Next Wednesday." That is not necessary; next Wednesday is contained within the Motion.
Why does he move, "Tomorrow"? It is because—and the right hon. Member knows this as well as I do—that it is to get it on the Order Paper for the next day, below the line, to leave sufficient leeway in case of business changes, so that it can be altered very easily.
Sir M. Redmayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the more important point? Why does the alternative remain, that the House may be in Committee or sitting as a House?
Mr. Bowden: That is a fair point.
If the House should be counted out it is necessary to report Progress earlier, and the Member in charge of the Bill would have to report it earlier. Under the terms of the Motion, as drafted, it is not possible for the Committee to sit other than on the Floor of the House from half-past ten in the morning until one o'clock. It is not possible for it to sit on any day other than Wednesday. That is what the Motion says, and it is absolutely watertight. If it were the wish of any Member of the House in the Committee on Wednesday morning that the Committee should sit on another day, it could be done only by a decision of the House. The Motion is specific.
The right hon. Gentleman referred a little earlier in his speech to a draft Motion. I can tell him that there was an earlier draft Motion, but that it was tightened because we felt that there was a possibility, under it, of something other than the Committee stage being taken on the Floor of the House in the morning. ft was altered in accordance with my view and my promise that only the Committee stage shall be taken on the Floor of the House in the morning, and that we will find time for Report and Third Reading.
1610
The point has been made about the Whips being on. I said on 5th March, and I repeat, that the reason why the Whips were on then, as they are on today, was that the Motion refers to Government time. The Government must be responsible for their own time. When we go into the Lobby tonight I understand that there will be no Whip on for hon. Members opposite. There is a Whip on this side. I am glad to see that the Opposition Chief Whip laughs. I understand that there was no Opposition Whip on on Friday, 5th March. It was an interesting coincidence that at about twenty minutes to four on that day the Chamber suddenly became crowded with Members. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says that there was no Whip on, and that it was a pure coincidence that so many Members came in at twenty minutes to four.
The House may be interested to hear a newspaper report concerning that debate. I will read it because it is brief. It is from the Sunderland Echo of 6th March. [Laughter.] I hope that the House will listen, because it is worth listening to.
"The Government's defeat in the 'No Hanging' Bill vote yesterday was the Conservatives' first major success in opposition, Mr. G. P. Davidson, prospective Conservative candidate for Sunderland, North said last night."—
[Laughter.] Listen.
"Mr. Davidson was deputising for Mr. R. W. Elliott, Conservative M.P. for Newcastle. North, who missed his plane from London because he was detained in the House of Commons by the three-line Whip for the vote"—[Interruption.]
Mr. R. W. Elliott: I presume that the report from which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted arose from a message which I sent to Mr. G. P. Davidson on the afternoon of Friday, 5th March, when I apologised for being unable to reach the meeting in Sunderland because I wished to take part, on my own account—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in a Division in the late afternoon.
Could I say this to the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am quite sure that Mr. G. P. Davidson and others may be surprised, and will certainly be pleased, to know that we did not need a three-line Whip or any sort of Whip to defeat the Government.
Mr. Bowden: I am not sure what that does. I simply read the quotation from the paper.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Bowden: There is nothing to withdraw. So much for the three-line Whip. So much for the question of there being no Whip.
Finally, may I remind the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—that when I posed, in my opening speech, the question whether or not the real object here was to defeat the Bill or not, there were Opposition cheers. There is nothing wrong with this. If hon. Members want to defeat the Bill that way, then by all means let them do it. It is part of our procedure and it is a legitimate thing to do, but they should not pretend [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—they should not get "all het up" and in a state of excitement and throw words like "breach of faith" around the Chamber, when, in fact, the object of a considerable number of hon. Members on that side is simply to defeat the Bill.
When the Bill was discussed on Second Reading, there were 357 or 355 hon. Members who voted for it. Those hon. Members voted for the Bill because they believed in it. They wanted to see the Bill go through. I hope that those Members will tonight rethink their position. If they want the Bill to go through, they should go in the Lobby on this side of the House and make quite sure that the Committee stage proceeds. This is much ado about nothing. What the Govern-
ment have done, sincerely and honestly, is try to meet the decision of the House of 5th March, by bringing the Bill on to the Floor of the House. Neither the country nor the House will ever be convinced that the constitution of this country is severely shaken by Members of Parliament, for one Private Member's Bill, sitting for three hours on Wednesday mornings for something like five, six or seven mornings. I hope that, as there is no Whip on that side—and this should prove it—[An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman will see."]—some dozens of hon. Members on that side will come into the Lobby and vote with the Government.
Sir Knox Cunningham Sir Knox Cunningham rose—
Mr. Short Mr. Short rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Sir Knox Cunningham Sir Knox Cunningham rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I am being addressed on a point of order, but I cannot hear what it is.
Sir Knox Cunningham: No, Mr. Speaker. What I was saying was that the real reason why the Government are trying—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I accept the Motion.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly:—
The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 229.

Division No. 75.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Boyden, James

Dalyell, Tam

Aildritt, W. H.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Darling, George

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Armstrong, Ernest

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Atkinson, Norman

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

Bag er, Gordon A. T.

Brown, R.W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

Delargy, Hugh

Barnett, Joel

Buchanan, Richard

Dell, Edmund

Baxter, William

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Dempsey, James

Beaney, Alan

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Diamond, John

Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Dodds, Norman

Bence, Cyril

Carmichael, Neil

Doig, Peter

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Donnelly, Desmond

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Driberg, Tom

Bessell, Peter

Chapman, Donald

Duffy, A. E. P.

Binns, John

Coleman, Donald

Dunn, James A.

Bishop, E. S.

Conlan, Bernard

Dunnett, Jack

Blackburn, F.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Bienkinsop, Arthur

Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

English, Michael

Boardman, H.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Ennals, David

Boston, T. G.

Crawshaw, Richard

Ensor, David

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Crosland, Anthony

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

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

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

Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)

Ferayhough, E.

Leadbitter, Ted

Rankin, John

Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

Ledger, Ron

Redhead, Edward

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Rees, Merlyn

Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Reynolds, G. W.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Richard, Ivor

Floud, Bernard

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Foley, Maurice

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Lomas, Kenneth

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

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Yale)

Loughlin, Charles

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Ford, Ben

Lubbock, Eric

Rose, Paul B.

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Freeson, Reginald

McBride, Neil

Rowland, Christopher

Galpern, Sir Myer

McCann, J.

Sheldon, Robert

Garrett, W. E.

MacColl, James

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Garrow, A.

MacDermot, Niall

Shore, Peter (Stepney)

George, Lady Megan Lloyd

McGuire, Michael

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

Ginsburg, David

McInnes, James

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

Gourlay, Harry

Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

Silkin, John (Deptford)

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

Gregory, Arnold

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

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Grey, Charles

Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

MacMillan, Malcolm

Skeffington, Arthur

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

MacPherson, Malcolm

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Griffiths, Will (M'chester Exchange)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Small, William

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Hale, Leslie

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

Snow, Julian

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Manuel, Archie

Solomons, Henry

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Mapp, Charles

Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

Marsh, Richard

Spriggs, Leslie

Hannan, William

Mason, Roy

Steele, Thomas

Harper, Joseph

Maxwell, Robert

Stewart Rt. Hn. Michael

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mayhew, Christopher

Storehouse, John

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Mellish, Robert

Stones, William

Hattersley, Roy

Mendelson, J. J.

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

Hayman, F. H.

Mikardo, Ian

Summerskill, Dr. Shirley

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Millan, Bruce

Swain, Thomas

Heffer, Eric S.

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Swingler, Stephen

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Symonds, J. B.

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Molloy, William

Taverne, Dick

Hobden, Dennis

Monslow, Walter

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Holman, Percy

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Horner, John

Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Murray, Albert

Thornton, Ernest

Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

Neal, Harold

Tinn, James

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Newens, Stan

Tomney, Frank

Howie, W.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Tuck, Raphael

Hoy, James

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

Urwin, T. W.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Norwood, Christopher

Varley, Eric G.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Oakes, Gordon

Wainwright, Edwin

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

O'Malley, Brian

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

Orme, Stanley

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

Oswald, Thomas

Wallace, George

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Owen, Will

Warbey, William

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Padley, Walter

Watkins, Tudor

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Weitzman, David

Jackson, Colin

Paget, R. T.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Janner, Sir Barnett

Palmer, Arthur

Whitlock, William

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

Jeger, George (Goole)

Pargiter, G. A.

Wilkins, W. A.

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&st.P'cras, S.)

Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Parker, John

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Parkin, B. T.

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Pavitt, Laurence

Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

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

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Winterbottom, R. E.

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Pentland, Norman

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

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

Perry, Ernest G.

Woof, Robert

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Popplewell, Ernest

Wyatt, Woodrow

Kelley, Richard

Prentice, R. E.

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Kenyon, Clifford

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Zilliacus, K.

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

Probert, Arthur

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

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Lawson, George

Randall, Harry

Mr. Sydney Irving and

Mr. George Rogers.

NOES

Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Atkins, Humphrey

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

Awdry, Daniel

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Astor, John

Baker, W. H. K.

1614

1615

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Grant, Anthony

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Barlow, Sir John

Grant-Ferris, R.

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Batsford, Brian

Gresham-Cooke, R.

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Grieve, Percy

Murton, Oscar

Bell, Ronald

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Neave, Airey

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Gurden, Harold

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

Biffen, John

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Onslow, Cranley

Biggs-Davison, John

Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Black, Sir Cyril

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

Blaker, Peter

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Bossom, Hn. Clive

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Peel, John

Box, Donald

Harvey, John (Walthantstow, E.)

Percival, Ian

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Peyton, John

Braine, Bernard

Hastings, Stephen

Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

Brewis, John

Hay, John

Pitt, Dame Edith

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Pounder, Rafton

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

Hendry, Forbes

Prior, J. M. L.

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Higgins, Terence L.

Pym, Francis

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Hiley, Joseph

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Bryan, Paul

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

Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

Buck, Antony

Hirst, Geoffrey

Rees-Davies, W.R.

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Buxton, R. C.

Hopkins, Alan

Ridsdale, Julian

Campbell, Gordon

Hordern, Peter

Roots, William

Carlisle, Mark

Hornby, Richard

Royle, Anthony

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

Russell, Sir Ronald

Gary, Sir Robert

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

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Channon, H. P. G.

Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Sharpies, Richard

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Sinclair, Sir George

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Iremonger, T. L.

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

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

Cooke, Robert

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Cooper, A. E.

Johnson Smith, G.

Stanley, Hn. Richard

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Stodart, J. A.

Corfield, F. V.

Jopling, Michael

Studholme, Sir Henry

Costain, A. P.

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Summers, Sir Spencer

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Craddock, Sir Beretford (Spelthorne)

Kershaw, Anthony

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

Crowder, F. P.

Kilfedder, James A.

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Kimball, Marcus

Teeling, Sir William

Curran, Charles

Lagden, Godfrey

Temple, John M.

Currie, G. B. H.

Lambton, Viscount

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Dance, James

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Dean, Paul

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Litchfield, Capt. John

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

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

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Doughty, Charles

Longbottom, Charles

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Loveys, Walter H.

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Drayson, G. B.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Vickers, Dame Joan

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Walder, David (High Peak)

Eden, Sir John

MacArthur, Ian

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

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

McLaren, Martin

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Emery, Peter

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Walters, Dennis

Errington, Sir Eric

McNair-Wilson, Patrick

Ward, Dame Irene

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

Maitland, Sir John

Weatherill, Bernard

Foster, Sir John

Marten, Neil

Webster, David

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

Mathew, Robert

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Maude, Angus

Whitelaw, William

Gardner, Edward

Mawby, Ray

Wiliams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

Gibson-Watt, David

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

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

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Wise, A. R.

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Woodnutt, Mark

Glover, Sir Douglas

Miscampbell, Norman

Wylie, N. R.

Glyn, Sir Richard

Mitchell, David

Younger, Hn. George

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Monro, Hector

Goodhew, Victor

More, Jasper

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Chataway and Mr. Berkeley.

CENSUS
Mr. Speaker: I have to consult the views of the House about the next Business and so have to require a high degree of silence. There is a Motion by a Minister and a Prayer in the name of the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood). The Statute under which the Minister's Motion and the Prayer have been tabled tonight places the House and the Chair in some difficulty. The draft Order in Council under the Census Act, 1920, Section 1(2), has to lie on the Table for 40 days, during which either House of Parliament may resolve that the draft be not submitted to Her Majesty. The Prayer, therefore, being against the whole of the draft Order in Council, allows the House to debate the whole of the Order. On the other hand, the affirmative Resolution which the Minister seeks to move is limited to certain words in the Schedule, and for the Chair to restrict debate to those words only would impose a highly artificial restriction on Members' speeches.
I therefore propose to follow the only recent precedent—it was of 4th May, 1960—and to suggest that both Motions should be discussed together and that the scope of debate should cover the whole the draft Order in Council. If necessary, I would be prepared to allow the House to divide on each Motion separately, but if the hour of 11.30 is passed and debate is still continuing then I would put the Motion for an affirmative Resolution only and the Prayer would fall and would not be called again on any subsequent day. I hope that this course will be acceptable to the House. It is, I believe, the only one which will preserve the rights of both sides of the House in this peculiar position.
10.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): I beg to move,
That the words "or other person by whom the return is made, or position in establishment" in article 2, article 7, the words "and if there is a kitchen or scullery, whether it is used for meals" in article 9 (a), article 9 (b), (c), (d) and (e), article 10 (c) (iv) and article 11 of the Second Schedule to the draft of the Order in Council, entitled the Census Order
1618
1965, which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.
The draft Order, which provides for the taking of a sample census of the population in 1966, has been laid before both Houses of Parliament, in accordance with the Census Act, 1920. The Act requires us to adopt this unusual procedure by which, although the whole Order is subject to negative Resolution, certain parts must be dealt with by affirmative Resolution of both Houses. These are the items of information which are wanted in the census returns but which are not specified in the Act. On this occasion there are nine such items. However, the Motion in the names of the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) and the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe) gives the opportunity of debating the Order in full and, as it is convenient to take both Motions together, I should like to make some general remarks about the census proposals before turning to the particulars that are subject to affirmative Resolution.
Parliament has made it possible to hold a quinquennial census, but this is the first occasion on which the Government have taken advantage of this provision in the 1920 Act. Hitherto, Governments have been content with the traditional 10-yearly stock-taking. Today population changes are taking place so rapidly that the 10-year period leaves too wide a gap. About 10 per cent. of the whole population move every year to a new address, and with migration on this scale figures quickly lose their relevance to the problems of the day. There is therefore a pressing need for mid-decade statistics so that plans for social and economic developments for land use and for housing, for schools and for hospitals can be made on the basis of firm up-to-date statistics.
The strength of the case for a mid-decade census was recognised by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, and proposals for the sample census were announced at the end of 1963. We have had no hesitation in endorsing those proposals and allowing the project to go forward, for we accept that the census is vital to the formulation of sound social and economic policies.
The sample census has one enormous advantage over a full census—it is much

1619
cheaper. Although the saving cannot be proportionate to the size of the sample, because of irreducible overheads, the 10 per cent. sample proposed for 1966 will cost some £2 million as against £5 million for a full census. There is also the advantage of quicker results made possible by the reduction in the mass of data to be processed. The limits to the usefulness of a sample census are governed by the size of the sample and the consequential sampling errors, but these errors can be measured by the statisticians.
The proposed 10 per cent. sample will give reliable figures for the country as a whole and for the larger areas where the major problems of social and economic development are likely to arise before the results of the next decennial census could become available. For areas with less than 50,000 inhabitants —places smaller than, say, Guildford or Rugby or Clydebank, the figures will be of varying reliability, but they will still have value for many small towns. The census reports will explain how figures for these areas should be interpreted. It is also worth remembering that, even in the 1961 census, important questions on occupation, education, and migration were put to only 10 per cent. of the population.
While sample figures will meet the urgent planning needs which I have mentioned, there are some special areas in Scotland for which sampling would be unsatisfactory. There are six small areas with a population of less than 250,000 which are the subject of special economic and planning studies. The population in these areas will have to be counted in full. The sampling method cannot be used for them.
The sampling methods which are to be used in 1966 are designed to ensure that everyone stands an equal chance of inclusion—no more and no less. There will be no deliberate selection of particular individuals. In England and Wales, most of the sample is being taken from the 1961 census records supplemented by valuation records for houses built since the last census. In Scotland, the whole range of the sample will come from the valuation rolls.
A random starting point is taken in each block of records and from that
1620
point onwards addresses are picked on a strictly one-in-ten basis. Census enumerators will deliver forms of return to the selected addresses before census day. In private households, the head of the household will be responsible for filling in the form. In institutional premises—hotels, hospitals, barracks and so on—and in ships, the people in these institutions and the ships will themselves be responsible for filling in separate personal forms which they will receive from the manager of the institution, the skipper of the ship or whoever is in charge. Generally speaking, one tenth of the people in all such institutions will fill in a form, but in hotels, where sampling has proved troublesome in the past, everyone will have to take part.
There is one important proviso to these arrangements in England and Wales, where only one tenth of institutions expected to have less than 15 people staying in them will be visited. These small institutions will be treated like private households and the person in charge will make the return for everyone in the establishment.
The complexity of these sampling arrangements account for the fact, that while the draft Order before the House is similar in outline to the 1960 order, it is longer. It was because of the novelty and complexity of a sample census that the Registrars General found it necessary, in the spring of 1964, to hold a census test. This showed that the proposed sampling arrangements were satisfactory and that a sample census of the required accuracy was in practice feasible.
To give effect to these arrangements, the Order prescribes the persons by whom returns for the purposes of the census are to be made. The Order prescribes also the date on which the census is to be taken and the particulars to be stated in the returns. In addition, it lists the special areas in Scotland where there will be a full enumeration and, since the Order applies to Great Britain, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland joins with my right hon. Friend the Minister in submitting it to the House.
The date proposed for the census is Sunday, 24th April, 1966. A Sunday in April is the usual date for the population census. Sunday is the night in the week when virtually everyone is at home, and April comes just before the main holiday

1621
period. We feel that this is the correct date and we are carrying on the normal practice in the past.
The particulars which are to be asked for in tie census are listed in the Second Schedule to the draft Order. They will appear as actual questions in the forms of return which will be laid before the House by Regulation later this year. Many of the particulars are similar to those asked in 1961, but a few of the 1961 questions have been omitted, others have been amended, and some new items have been added. Generally speaking, however, the public is being asked to answer very much the same number of questions as were answered by 10 per cent. of the population in 1961.
Primarily, the questions are intended to meet the pressing need for mid-decade statistics showing the size and structure of the population by areas, the quantity and standard of housing and the composition and distribution of the working population. But they will also yield information about migration, transport and education. I should explain to the House that the list of particulars is the product of an extensive consultation with all the Government Departments involved, that is, all those which regularly use census statistics. There have also been full discussions with the local authorities, the universities and many other interested people.
So many suggestions were received that it would have been impossible to make room for all of them in the census. Nevertheless, the proposed list has gone a long way towards meeting the suggestions and it is fair to say that no field of census inquiry for which there was wide support has been neglected.
The first of the items subject to affirmative Resolution is that relating to people's position in an establishment. The Schedule to the 1920 Act includes a person's relationship to the head of the family but it is also necessary, in premises other than private households. to ask about people's relationship to the head of the establishment—whether, for example, they are staff or guests. This information is essential for the interpretation o analysis of the census returns and we think that no exception can be taken to it.
The next item deals with migration. The extent of population movement,
1622
both within the country and from without, is one of the factors that has made a quinquennial census necessary and there has never been any doubt that migration would have to be covered by the census in some form or other.
In 1961, people were asked to give their address of a year before census day. We have added a little bit here because we felt, after consultation with the various Departments, that that information would not be quite sufficient. So it is proposed to ask people not only for their address of a year before but also for their address of five years before
I make it clear that this does not mean that we want all the addresses if a person has moved five times in six years We simply want the address for one year before the date of census and for five years before. These questions will give, we believe, invaluable information about the extent and characteristics of population movement over the five years preceding the census and will help us assess, to some degree at least, any likely future trends.
The third item is about the use of kitchens. This is not included because of some curious interest of Government in the social habits of the population but because of the difficulties in deciding what should be counted as rooms in the census. Statistics about the number of rooms occupied by families are an important measure of housing standards.
As kitchens take many shapes and sizes, some rule must be evolved for their inclusion or exclusion from the count. In 1961, the criterion was whether the family used the kitchen for meals. If they did, the kitchen counted as a room. However, the information obtained was not altogether satisfactory because the decision was often governed by family habit rather than the size of the kitchen. It is proposed to overcome this problem in 1966 by counting a kitchen or scullery as a room if it is used for cooking, but comparison with the 1961 statistics will still be necessary and this can be obtained only by finding out whether kitchens are used for meals.
Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the question of whether a kitchen is used for meals include whether it is generally used for meals or only partly used for meals? Some people have

1623
breakfast in the kitchen but other meals in other rooms.
Mr. Loughlin: We shall use a fair amount of discretion in this. What we want to find out is whether the room or kitchen is used regularly for meals rather than for having snack meals at any given time.
The questions about tenure were asked in almost exactly the same form in 1961. They seek to establish whether people are owner-occupiers, or are renting accommodation from councils or private landlords, or are occupying it on some other basis. The questions about household amenities are also subject to affirmative Resolution. These are simply questions on the lines of those asked in 1961. In this census it is not proposed to ask about cold water taps and the questions are confined to sinks, cookers, lavatories, baths or showers and running hot water. The information, together with that about rooms and tenure, will illustrate progress in housing and supply analyses for use in formulating national housing policy.
The growing concern with traffic and transport problems and their implications for town planning explains the next two items. It is proposed to ask about ownership and use of private cars and whether they are garaged or parked at night, whether they are on or off the road, in a garage or in the open.
I come next to the questions about employment and economic activity. Only one item in this instance is subject to affirmative Resolution and that is the completely new question about means of transport on the journey to work. This question, of course, is related to other transport questions and should be particularly helpful in considering measures to deal with the ever-growing commuter traffic. The rest of the employment questions are not subject to affirmative Resolution, as I have said, and for the most part are similar to those asked in 1961.
However, they contain a novel question about people with more than one job. This is a factor of increasing importance in the country's economic life and the 1966 census for the first time will measure the extent of this factor on a national basis.
1624
I come finally to the particulars about higher education. A question about scientific and technological qualifications was asked in 1961, but it was soon apparent that its mere repetition would not give us anything like the information now required for a study of manpower problems. There was a strong and wide demand by interested Departments and outside authorities for as much statistical information about educational qualifications as could be managed in the census. With many other urgent facts about the population, about jobs and about housing to be gathered, some limit had to be set to the questions about the numerous types of educational qualifications. What it has been found possible to include is a question on higher educational qualifications obtained since the age of 18. People will be asked to give details of their academic, professional and vocational qualifications, including teacher-training qualifications. From this mass of information statistics can be produced about people with higher educational qualifications in the field reviewed by the Robbins Committee, for scientists and technologists on a basis broadly comparable with the 1961 census, for people with higher degrees and for people with teacher-training qualifications.
I am very conscious of the need that the information yielded by these various questions should be available for use as soon as possible after the census. The sample should help to make this easier and it is the avowed aim of Her Majesty's Government to complete the publication of the main results within two years of the census day. I am glad to say that for this purpose the General Register Office will have the exclusive use of its own computer at its census office, and as this is the type of machine with which it is already familiar, it should be placed in far happier position than it was for the 1961 census. The 1966 results will, of course, be published in a series of reports, starting with county volumes and ending with national reports on the various census subjects—employment, housing migration, education, transport and so on. A short preliminary report will also be published within two to three months of the census, giving populations for the country as a whole, the regions and the largest cities.

1625
Before I end, I should like to give the House and the public at large an assurance that the census returns are treated at all stages as absolutely and completely confidential. The names, which are essential for the interpretation of the returns, are lost in the very early stages of the processing, so that there is no question of the names going on and on and revealing themselves at the end. Information about particular individuals is not available to other Departments or, indeed, to anyone in the community.
We know that some people are worried about disclosing their personal affairs to the head of the household with whom they are staying, and because of this we provide in the Order for personal returns. This means that where people should be included on a return made by someone else, it is open to them to make a separate personal return should they so wish and the census officers and enumerators will be told how to arrange this. So that there will be no question of embarrassment to anyone who wants to make a personal return as distinct from being included in a return by the head of the household.
Similarly, in premises where people will in any case be making separate returns, we will arrange for people tow make their returns without the head of the establishment seeing them, if they are at all worried about this. I may add that never in recent censuses has it been necessary for anyone to complain of or to be prosecuted for a breach of confidence. The people can take it that any information which they give us will be treated with complete confidence, as has been the case in the past.
This sample census will be taken under the compulsory powers of the Census Act. There are penalties for people refusing to make returns or wilfully making false returns. It is not, however, my intention to lay stress on these compulsory aspects. Rather is it our policy to enlist the public's willing cooperation in this necessary and vital project.
The census figures, dry and formidable, have a vital part to play in determining the social and economic policies of the Government. This, I think, was one of the reasons why this proposal came from the party opposite as long
1626
ago as 1963. It will be a principal object of our census publicity to explain as imaginatively and helpfully as we can so that the man in the street will have an idea of the value of the census. By using all possible means of publicity, we look forward to winning the ready participation of the people who are selected in the sample. I am confident that the census plans are well founded and I trust that everyone will do his best to make this first sample census a great success.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase "the man in the street". As a matter of interest, how is that expression interpreted? Is it the man on the Embankment, for example?
Mr. Loughlin: I am sorry that the hon. Member came in at a late stage of my explanation. I explained the proposal fully in detail. I said that we would take one Person in 10 of the population. It will be done solely on the basis of lists, valuation lists in particular. After the first person is chosen, every subsequent tenth person will be visited by an enumerator and handed a form. The procedure is clear and simple. There is no deliberate attempt to choose people. They will be taken purely at random. I hope that in the light of what I have said, the House will accept the Motion.
10.40 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Howe: I should like, first, to convey to the House the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) for his inability to be here tonight, and perhaps my own apology for my inadequate presence in his place.
The House is grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which he has explained in such detail the provisions of the Order which we are debating tonight. One cannot help observing that the representatives of the Liberal Party, who have seen fit to table critical Motions about the lack of attention paid to them on previous days, are not gracing us with their attendance to pay attention to the debate on this matter which affects the whole population.
Mr. Edward Heath: Not one in ten.
Mr. Howe: As my right hon. Friend points out, it is not possible to take a 10 per cent. sample of that party, and we do not have even an 11 per cent. sample of the party in the House tonight.
We on this side of the House are glad that the Government are implementing the plans laid before the House in December, 1963, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber). It was acknowledged then, on both sides of the House, that there was a real need for greater frequency of information about the population, of the kind which the census is designed to obtain.
The House will be glad also that the Parliamentary Secretary has been able to give an assurance that the information from this census will be available within two years, as was promised in 1963, because among those who have to deal professionally and day by day with this information there is a great deal of anxiety at the delay, which has not yet ended, in the publication of the 10 per cent. sample results of the 1961 Census.
It may be that the hon. Lady, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who I gather is to reply to the debate, will be able to tell us—and I am sure that we shall be glad if she can—when the rest of the 10 per cent. sample results will be published, because there is no doubt that in the whole of this statistical field speed is of the essence. It was Harold Macmillan who talked about the difficulties of working with last year's Bradshaw, and it is even more difficult if one is dealing with last decade's Bradshaw, which is what sometimes tends to happen.
We were grateful for the attention which the hon. Gentleman paid to the part that will be played in giving publicity to this census by all possible means available. I feel that it would be easy for this census to underestimate the misunderstanding, and even unpopularity, to which it might give rise. There is a certain biblical simplicity about a 100 per cent. census, when people understand that occasionally they have to stand up and be counted in the aggregate, but this census makes two changes.
It speeds up the frequency, so that it comes every five years, and it introduces an element of sampling, and when a
1628
man is asked "Do you eat your breakfast in the kitchen, or in the scullery", he is inclined to wonder why the other nine chaps next door are not being asked the same question. I hope that this matter will be borne in mind when the publicity is considered.
Mr. Loughlin: I think it is only fair and right that the hon. Gentleman should make it clear from his side of the House that he supports the need for the 5-year census. I know that he does support it, but he ought to make it clear.
Mr. Howe: I had hoped that 1 had made that clear, but I do so now quite gladly. After all, it was initially announced by this side when we were the Government, and we recognise the need for it entirely.
The point I am trying to make is that the public at large may not recognise the need for it as readily as they recognise the need for a decennial census. At the time of the 1961 census a pamphlet was produced, at a rather extravagant price, I thought, of 1s., called "Why a census?" This time another pamphlet, possibly two pamphlets, will probably have to be produced in rather more cogent terms answering the questions, "Why another census?" and "Why me?" to justify the sampling element and the increased frequency of it.
I was glad, too, that the hon. Gentleman emphasised, because it is important to the work of the census, the complete confidentiality of the information once it is received, but I wonder whether the whole exercise of Governmental census-taking need be, or need appear to be, so far as its documents are concerned, quite as fierce and forbidding as it is. The document itself with which one was confronted at the last census—I do not know what changes will be proposed this time—at first sight resembled a tax document or a summons. It had got in prominent type the fact that a £10 penalty was attached to failure to answer. Hon. Members will probably recollect the exercise carried out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) when he was at the Post Office, when, I believe, he examined every document produced by the Post Office to try to reduce it into simple, attractive, persuasive English.

1629
This is not in any sense a false point, or a point which is critical for the sake of being critical. I believe it may be of some importance that a market research questionnaire is couched in rather more attractive language and is generally more welcome to the average householder. Indeed, it is ironical, if we make this contrast, that those door-to-door salesmen hon. Members on both sides sometimes condemn find market research such a useful and apparently acceptable way of getting their feet in the doorway. It is a useful introduction to say that one is engaged in market research.
Mr. Derek Page: Will the hon. Member not admit that this is often an abuse of market research rather than genuine market research?
Mr. Howe: Certainly. I do not challenge that at all, but the fact remains that the housewife does not run away from a man who turns up on the doorstep and says, "I am doing some market research." He is welcomed, for the most part. There is this contrast. Why is it that market research in that sense is acceptable while the census is regarded as being to some extent an alarming manifestation of officialdom?
What I am suggesting is that it may be possible, though it is probably too late for this census, to diminish the official tone of it. If one looks at the language used on the form, one sees it is headed "Notice" in this rather fierce way. Even the paragraph about confidentiality is rather forbidding:
"The person who is obliged in the prescribed manner to make a separate confidential return will not be liable to give information to the head …"
a rather schoolmasterly touch about that—
"… and in such case the person responsible for making the return will only be liable Lo interview in this respect"
and so on. I should have thought one could look at the style of it to see if it could be put in a rather different way.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Judith Hart): There is a great difference between a questionnaire which is designed to be presented by a market research interviewer who can make sure that the questions get clear answers, because the is himself able to present the questions in a clear way, and the kind
1630
of form to be filled in by a person by himself. In that form every word must be precise and mean precisely what it says and with no possibility of its meaning anything else. That is the essential difference between the technique of the interviewer and the technique of these forms.
Mr. Howe: I quite accept what the hon. Lady says, but it still seems to me to be no justification for not making the wording as intelligible and attractive to the householder as it is to the interviewer. If we compare the layout and the wording of the census form with that adopted, say, by the Social Survey, we find a great difference. The questionnaire in the Milner Holland Report was an interviewer questionnaire. It seems odd that the interviewer should be able to ask questions of the householder in this form:
"Do you have your own fixed bath or shower? Have you hot water at your sink?"
which are direct, crisp and intelligible questions, while the census form uses the words:
"Has this household the use of the following in the building?"
and so on. It seems to me that this could be looked at.
In the same connection, I wonder whether the samples which I gather have already been carried out, and are yet to be carried out in the future, extend to pilot tests of the wording and layout of the census form. I say, with the greatest respect for the expertise of the Registrar-General's Office, that something which has been running for a long time—like the forms used in the Courts of Justice—may be regarded as good and as not requiring a pilot sample survey simply because they have worked in the past. I know that the Registrar-General acknowledges the difficulties involved in some of the questions asked in the past. Would it not be worth considering—if it has not already been proposed—pilot testing the wording and the layout in a rather more intelligible form?
I want to say a word about the scope of the census. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, it contains very much the same questions as those that were asked in 1961. It is obviously desirable—and a welcome innovation—that we are to have questions about transport, in the

1631
light of the Buchanan Report on the growth of traffic, but I wonder whether a question confined to the main means of transport to one's place of work might not produce some misleading answers. In my constituency many people travel by bus to a ferry and then go by ferry across the Mersey. I would hesitate to say which was the main means of transport, because the bus may go longer in distance, but the Mersey Ferry may take a longer time. I would not like either the ferry or the bus to be overlooked because everyone opted for one rather than the other. I know that any change in this question would make it less simple to work.
It is obviously desirable to embark upon a survey of vocational qualifications in the general sense, because one of the things that we want to know is the precise number of teachers, nurses and other qualified people who are on the market, and about whom we have no certain knowledge. Since this is an extra census, and since the 10 per cent. sampling method makes it easier to get the results quickly, I wonder whether we might not be hanged for a sheep as well as a lamb and he willing to ask more questions, possibly over limited and selected areas.
The experiment is being made of 100 per cent. census in certain areas of Scotland. Would it not be possible or desiable, so long as it did not affect the object of tabulation at the end, to conduct a rather more exhaustive survey, in areas with large numbers of immigrants, as to language as well as country of birth which we shall get in the census?
Mr. Loughlin: We will get to know about this question of language. Where there are large concentrations of immigrants we intend to have forms printed in the languages peculiar to the countries of origin of the immigrants and to have interpreters. We will even let our Welsh people have a form in the Welsh language. We are dealing specifically with the question of immigration and are ensuring that we get the fullest information. We will employ interpreters in these areas and get full particulars of the country of origin and the language, and language difficulties as well.
Mr. Howe: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for that intervene-
1632
tion I became a little sensitive when he said that we shall deal "even" with the Welshmen. As an English-speaking Welshman, I may say that we have had our language inquiry in Wales, just as the Scots have had one in Scotland.
Mr. Loughlin: Not the Scots.
Mr. Howe: In the 1951 census, but not in 1961, I believe.
At all events, one can see that there is scope for being more adventurous in the number of questions which can be asked. Once this, to some extent, experimental quinquennial 10 per cent. census has been done, we can learn from it. I am sure that it will be borne in mind as a possibility for the future.
There is one last point which I should like to make. I know that, in considering the shape of the census, the Registrar General's office take advice not only from all the Departments of State, but from private interests outside—bodies such as the Market Research Society and the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising. One wonders whether, at some point in the near future, it might not be appropriate—because there are differences between the classification of social and economic classes used in the census and those used by private bodies—to set up a wide-ranging inquiry like that taken by the Government's inter-departmental committee on Government statistics, bringing in representatives of private market research, commercial and sociological, to survey the question of whether, as a nation, we are getting the right statistics at the right time, found in the right way and presented in the right way.
Certainly, to a layman, the book produced by the United States Bureau of Census for their 1960 census—a 700-page volume giving virtually a snapshot of every community in the United States —is an achievement which we have not yet matched up to. Nothing which 1 say should detract from the House's respect for the efficiency and integrity with which the census has been conducted in the past, and with which this one will be conducted by the Registrar General's office. We welcome this census as an essential and modernised tool of modern Government. We are grateful for the assurance that the results will be forthcoming with speed.

1633
I hope that the Government will be able to take some notice of the points which 1 have tried to put about the way in which it should be presented to the public. On that basis, we welcome this Order.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. Derek Page: The census is certainly a fine and vital tool for social policy, as my hon. Friend has pointed out. The proposed form of the new census, I believe, represents an improvement over its predecessors. The 10 per cent. sample is certainly very welcome. It is, as has been pointed out, cheaper and quicker, and we can get extra information because of this. We are already getting information through the census on cars, methods of transport and migration, but I feel that there are regions where we are possibly not getting enough information. We could get more if the census sample were smaller still. 1 believe that, on scientific grounds, we have good reason to believe that it can be considerably smaller than 10 per cent. and, therefore, even quicker and cheaper. If it were reduced to, say, 1 per cent., we could use professional interviewers and get, I believe, more accurate and more detailed information than we get by the present do-it-yourself forms.
I do not want to detain the House with a dissertation on the various sociological tools used by the demographers, such as the net reproduction rates and specific fertilities, but if we are to have really accurate projections of our future population, I think that we need much more accurate information about specifically how many children women are having, and the ages of the mothers when those children were born.
There was a great increase in the number of births in 1956–57, and I think that we tended to assume that this was due to a reduction in the age at which people were getting married. This may partly have been true, but one would have expected the increase in births at about that time to be levelling off, which does not appear to be happening. We seem to be getting an increase in the number of children per family, and it is generally reckoned that the average family now has 2·5 children compared with 2·3. This will have a tremendous impact on the number of school places, hospitals, jobs needed and so on in, say, 20 years' time.
1634
I therefore appeal to my hon. Friend to consider this point carefully and to bear in mind that in America evidence has been forthcoming showing a close correlation between the intentions of married couples regarding the size of their families and the actual final size. If this is so, it provides us with means of projecting even further ahead our population estimates, and this would be invaluable.
If we adopted a much smaller census and had professional interviewers we would be able to investigate the intentions of married couples, obtain a correlation between their intentions and achievements and, if we may tread into this delicate matter, obtain a correlation between the methods used to achieve those ends and the efficiency of the results. Plainly, people cannot be made to answer such questions compulsorily, but in the vast majority of cases people are only too willing to answer if they know that their answers will be kept secret, as they always are.
I realise that these modifications cannot be introduced into the present census, but I urge my hon. Friend to bear in mind the importance of them and I hope that she will undertake to consider them and consult with the Registrar General on the possibility of such modifications in future censuses.
11.2 p.m.
Mr. J. A. Stodart:I must say, first, how pleased I was to hear the Parliamentary Secretary moving the Order because I seem to recall that the first occasion on which I met him was on his return from a visit to Scotland, having much more colour in his face than have those who live in the southern part of this Island.
Perhaps my only complaint with his remarks is that I doubted if he paid quite enough attention to the census being taken in Scotland, considering the 100 per cent. nature of it in certain districts there. Perhaps he laboured the claims of the 10 per cent. census in England a little, although I am sure that the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary will, when she replies, redress the balance.
It would be churlish of me not lo welcome the 100 per cent. census being taken in these districts because it is within my recollection—in what I might

1635
describe as those dear, dim days beyond recall when I was the predecessor of the hon. Lady—that certain papers to do with this matter came before me. Perhaps the hon. Lady will explain, for my benefit, if not for the benefit of all hon. Members, some of the reasons for the selective nature of the districts involved.
It seems perfectly clear that the list of towns within the County of West Midlothian will be involved in the development of Livingston. When mentioning Fort William the pulp mill immediately springs to mind. Then there is the development of the tourist industry in Kingussie and Badenoch. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that this all stems from the actions of the previous Government in securing development in these areas. No doubt that is the reason why she is anxious to have censuses taken in them.
Something which the Parliamentary Secretary said gave me a slight start and I hope that the hon. Lady will side with me on this issue, if on none other. I was surprised to hear him say that people living in Wales will have census forms printed in Welsh. Now, if this is so, and remembering the fact that Scotland suffered defeat at Murrayfield only three weeks ago solely because of the fact that the Welsh were allowed to sing "Land of My Fathers" before the match started, I hope that the hon. Lady will insist that in such places as Armadale and North Lorn, mentioned in Schedule 3, as well as the County District of Lewes, where there are numerous speakers of the Gaelic, we are on level terms with the Welsh.
It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to come from the West Country of England and to put in this claim for the Welsh, to try to slip this one in, but I do hope the hon. Lady will make it quite clear that there will be an opportunity for those who prefer the ancient tongue of their ancestors to be able to have these forms in their own language.
Mr. Loughlin: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the ancient tongue of my ancestors, who were around these shores 200 years B.C., is very much the same tongue as those of the hon. Gentleman sitting in that corner.
Mr. Stodart: I am not absolutely certain what that means, but I will do my best to surmise it. My recollection is, and perhaps the hon. Lady will remind me, that when it comes to the borderline area the original idea was that there should be a 100 per cent. census taken only around the area of St. Boswells, where there has been some speculation that there might be a new town. I now notice under Schedule 3 that it is to apply to the whole of the County of Roxburgh. If there has been a change, it leads me to suggest that if depopulation is the reason rather than development in the other areas, why not go for the whole County of Peebles next door, where depopulation is a very much greater problem than in Roxburgh.
Are the premises in which workers, let us say, in a hydro-electric scheme in Scotland stay covered by Schedule 1? I imagine that the lodgings provided for them by the Board would not be covered by Group 1, which is:
"Any dwelling (including a caravan)… separately occupied by a private household."
If they were to lodge altogether they presumably would not qualify as a private household. Are they covered by Group 2:
"Any hotel, boarding-house or common or other lodging house."?
Where premises are provided by employers, do these come into the category of a lodging house? In Schedule 2, paragraph 9, it seems to me that there is a tremendous complication for the occupier here when he is asked to make a return, when sub-paragraph (i) says:
"occupied by virtue of employment"
and sub-paragraph (ii) says:
"rented as part of, or together with, other premises…"
Sub-paragraph (iii) says:
"rented from a local authority or… the Scottish Special Housing Association otherwise than as described in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii)."
I can see people scratching their heads and trying to work out whether they are "otherwise than" in (i) or (ii). Finally, in paragraph 9(e) there is a question about how many vehicles are owned and where such vehicles are usually kept at night. I suspect that the hon. Lady will get in ninety-nine answers out of a hundred the reply, "On the road", because as long as it is her policy and

1637
that of her hon. and right hon. Friends to have the rents of garages in Scotland about three times those of the houses it is almost certain that the answer will be not the garage but on the road.
11.11 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Judith Hart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) on bringing so many political points into discussion of a census Order. I am sorry that I shall not be able to satisfy him by following him into the by-ways and into the traps which he has laid for me in some of the answers which no doubt he would like me to give him. No doubt I shall disappoint him.
We are very glad that the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe) so warmly welcomed the Order and are grateful to him for his constructive comments on what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health had to say about its contents. I shall try to deal with all of the great many and rather detailed points raised. I think that the best thing for me to do is to take them almost chronologically.
The hon. Member for Bebington asked when the rest of the reports were likely to come forward to us from the 1961 census. He will know of the ones which have been issued and, therefore, there is no need for me to go over them. Before the middle of this year we hope that reports will be published concerning usual residence, age, marital condition and general tables, and on housing, and before the end of the year the rest, including a miscellany of highly interesting ones. We are all looking forward to receiving reports on migration and on fertility, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) before the end of 1965.
The hon. Member for Bebington also asked about public reaction to the one-in-ten sample idea. He asked whether the public would take happily to the idea that "I, Mr. Brown, am selected for this inquiry. Why is not Mr. Smith next door also selected?" The hon. Member has his psychology rather wrong. In my experience of observing the way in which social research and market research are conducted it seems to me that the public reaction is much more that of slight annoyance not to be the one in ten selected.
Mr. Howe: Will the hon. Lady recognise that she fortifies my point nine times? I visualised only one disgruntled customer. She visualises nine. Does not that increase the need for explaining the census to the public?
Mrs. Hart: From a slightly different point of view, one is not trying to justify something one is imposing upon them, so one is encouraged in the whole process of educating the public in the use of inquiries of this kind and if one has an unsatisfied demand, one can use the emotion that unsatisfied demand has created quite confidently to go forward with further inquiries, if one wishes to do so, which is a very satisfactory position to be in.
The hon. Member, quite rightly, called attention to the nature of the document and the possible improvements that could be made in it. He quoted, for example, the phrase "head of household" and said that it was rather forbidding and cold. But it is very difficult to think of an alternative which would mean precisely what "head of the household" means. One cannot say parent, father, mother, grandparent, or substitute parent. None of these has quite the same meaning.
Mr. Howe: I do not criticise that term. I criticise the other phrases around it. I recognise the need for precision, but it is the somewhat legalistic style of the phraseology surrounding it that I am not happy about.
Mrs. Hart: I recognise that, but the point is that, whatever term one examines, one usually finds that it is very difficult to find an equivalent which is not exposed to possible alternative interpretations. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been an effort made on the actual wording of the form. A pilot inquiry into the wording has been conducted.
On the question of the layout, I assure the hon. Gentleman that what he said will be borne carefully in mind. It would be excellent if we could move, even in a census form, towards a more attractive layout. If it can be done, it will be done.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was possible to ask even more questions, putting more questions, perhaps, over

1639
limited areas. The cost of a more extensive inquiry even in other limited areas tends to be very high. There is the cost of processing and dealing with the results one collects, apart from anything else. I suggest that, if one were wishing to go further into some of the specialised kinds of question he suggests, probably the better way of doing it would be by special inquiry among a special sample in a particular area or a selective sample of some kind rather than by seeking to obtain the information in respect of everybody. There is a strong argument for moving in the direction of more specialised inquiries rather than trying to contain everything in the census.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked about the general use of statistics. It is, as he knows, a matter which my party gave a good deal of thought to over the last year or two from the standpoint of the need to collect information effectively so that it could be used effectively in the whole process of government. He will remember that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State, in reply to a Question on 8th December, said:
"They"—
that is, the Departments—
"are examining statistics to identify any important gaps in the data available and considering means by which they might be filled".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th December, 1964; Vol. 703, c. 1319.]
This review is covering both economic and social statistics. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an important prerequisite of good planning and decision making to know what is relevant, to know in what form one wants the facts, and just as important to know what facts one does not want, and to provide for an even flow of information. This is essential in any field where rapid social change means that new situations and new needs may be emerging almost without one recognising them. The work depends also on having enough professional "know-how" for guidance and advice. We are very much looking forward to the results of the review now going on. Clearly, it is a most valuable aspect of government.
My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn asked about smaller samples,
1640
possibly with the use of interviewers, which he thought might be quicker and cheaper. He spoke of the possibility of 1 per cent. samples, using interviewers. One has to be very careful here about the avoidance of bias, as my hon. Friend will recognise. The moment one lets any substantial bias creep in, one might as well not do it at all. Generally speaking,, the bigger the number of observations in the sample, the less chance there is of the grossed-up figures being subject to a large margin of error. If one were to use only a 1 per cent. sample in limited areas, there would be a great danger that the bias involved would be so considerable as to distort the results completely.
Mr. Derek Page: If my hon. Friend will consult the statisticians, she will find a difference of opinion on that. Indeed, the balance of opinion is to the effect that, if professional interviewers are used, there is great advantage in accuracy.
Mrs. Hart: I agree that there is a difference of opinion. I know of no subject which absorbs the statisticians more than the study of bias, exactly what constitutes it and how to avoid it. I was about to say that, rather than the 1 per cent. inquiry of the census type, my hon. Friend is thinking more, I suggest, of special inquiries, using the interviewer. He is not really talking of modifications of this or any census as such. I agree entirely on that, and I think that for certain special purposes it would be very good to have a special inquiry using interviewers, in which case one could have much more elaborate information collected because it could be asked for and one could be sure that the interviewers were highly trained and knew what they were about.
My hon. Friend asked particularly for information about fertility, and I think that something ought to be said about this. As he knows, there are the annual statistics in the Registrar-General's Report, and the Annual Statistics of the Registrar-General for Scotland, and other statistics, but a closer analysis is only possible of attainment by way of the kind of questions—the block of questions—such as those included in the 1961 census; that is, fertility according to educational attainments, or social class, which are subjects of the greatest

1641
interest to social scientists, and there must be more information.
For example, there are such questions as the age at which the woman married; the age at which she bore a child, and the birth intervals for women of particular ages, and particular marriage durations. This information, as I have said, is at present based on the 1961 census, and the 1961 fertility report is due before the end of this year, and it is intended to consider the repeating of these questions in the 1971 census so that there will be a 10-year gap. But these questions take up a tremendous amount of space in the census form; large families have to be catered for, and something might have to be sacrificed in order not to make the form too unwieldy.
Obtaining this kind of information regularly is very necessary, particularly at a time of rapid social change, and one looks at the fertility statistics with great interest in order to see, for example, if there are differences in the new housing areas from other areas, irrespective of social class. Incidentally, I would say in passing that I know of no more fascinating source-book for the social scientist than the Report on the Family Census of 1946 on "The Trend and Pattern of Fertility in Great Britain".
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) asked some provocative questions, including the production of a Gaelic form, and whether one was not entitled to presume that, since the Welsh people had a Welsh form, there should be a Gaelic form in Scotland. The answer to that, probably, is that of the 80,000 Gaelic speaking people, only 1,000 in 1961 were not bilingual. Where they are not bilingual, there is the need for a translated form, but the total of 1,000 is not sufficiently substantial to justify a Gaelic form. Nor has there been one for many, many years. It would be turning back the pages of history if we were to issue a Gaelic form. I understand that the reason why there is a Welsh form in Wales is because a higher proportion of Welsh people is not bilingual.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the 100 per cent. districts in Scotland, as they are termed, and the basis on which they were considered. The answer is, not because of the introduction of more
1642
people because of the arrival of, for example, new industry, but because they are areas of depopulation. It is not growth, but depopulation, and we want to know about depopulation, and what it can show about internal migration within Britain. It is one of the aspects of statistical information about which least knowledge is established.
Mr. Stodart: Does the hon. Lady say that there is depopulation in the area around Livingston?
Mrs. Hart: The Livingston area is an exception to these areas of depopulation. The Livingston area is selected because there is a new town development and because around it is a very sparsely populated area.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the particular part of the Borders which has been selected. Roxburgh County was selected as representing a sufficiently large border area for special study. But, broadly, the answer is that all these areas are areas of which special studies are being carried out and we could not, unless we had 100 per cent. enumeration, get reliable enough information. The population would be so small that there would be too much bias arising from 10 per cent. sampling. Workers living in lodgings as described will be included in Group 2.
I do not want to seem condescending, but I think that the enlightened interest shown tonight shows that the need for information has been accepted in these mid-1960s. Hon. Members have sought simply to improve the methods by which we gather this information. Questions have not concerned the impropriety of asking people for details that are necessary, but whether we should not ask for more information and improve the methods of gathering it.
This is an excellent indication of the trend of the times, when more and more people are recognising that a factual basis for social action is absolutely necessary if wisdom is to prevail. I am certain that the population as a whole will respond to the census in as enlightened a way as has the House. I think that the public likes learning about itself and enjoys the opportunity to give information which will allow the country to know more about its own people. That is the whole point of the census and it is on this basis that we make our

1643
decisions in this country. It is the correct basis and I am grateful to the House for the interest and support it has shown.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the words "or other person by whom the return is made, or position in establishment" in article 2, article 7, the words "and it there is a kitchen or scullery, whether it is used for meals" in article 9 (a), article 9 (b), (c), (d) and (e), article 10 (c) (iv) and article 11 of the Second Schedule to the draft of the Order in Council, entitled the Census Order 1965, which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: May I consult the situation? It would appear, as a corollary
1644
of the Resolution, that the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe) does not wish to move the Prayer.
Mr. Howe: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. If I have moved it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it, and not to move it if I have not done so.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not moved it. I am grateful for his help so that we get it right.

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Universities (Engineering Students)
  Universities (Engineering Students)
  School Building Programme, Devon
  School Building Programme, Devon
  National Lending Library for Science and Technology
  National Lending Library for Science and Technology
  Awards to Students
  Awards to Students
  Minor Works
  Minor Works
  Holsworthy (Comprehensive School)
  Holsworthy (Comprehensive School)
  East Sussex (Minor Works Allocation)
  East Sussex (Minor Works Allocation)
  Teachers (Information about Pupils)
  Teachers (Information about Pupils)
  Cheltenham (Minor Works)
  Cheltenham (Minor Works)
  Grammar Schools, Fareham and Purbrook
  Grammar Schools, Fareham and Purbrook
  Minor Works, Chester
  Minor Works, Chester
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Public Schools
  Public Schools
  Universities (Admission Requirements)
  Universities (Admission Requirements)
  Comprehensive Education
  Comprehensive Education
  Primary Schools (Nursery Classes)
  Primary Schools (Nursery Classes)
  North-Eastern Association for Arts (Grant)
  North-Eastern Association for Arts (Grant)
  Undergraduates (Uncompleted Courses)
  Undergraduates (Uncompleted Courses)
  Examinations (Marking Standards)
  Examinations (Marking Standards)
  Medical Schools
  Medical Schools
  Space Research
  Space Research
  Careers Masters
  Careers Masters
  Primary School, Doddinghurst (Building Work)
  Primary School, Doddinghurst (Building Work)
  Women Scientists (Employment)
  Women Scientists (Employment)
  University Places
  University Places
  Industrialised Building Systems
  Industrialised Building Systems
  St. Francis Xavier School, Oldbury
  St. Francis Xavier School, Oldbury
  Agriculture (Further Education)
  Agriculture (Further Education)
  Teacher Training College (Croydon)
  Teacher Training College (Croydon)
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Married Women Teachers
  Married Women Teachers
  Portuguese Language
  Portuguese Language
  International Understanding
  International Understanding
  Commonwealth Citizens
  Commonwealth Citizens
  Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (Staff)
  Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (Staff)
  Higher Education, South Wales and Monmouthshire
  Higher Education, South Wales and Monmouthshire
  Latin-American Studies (Committee's Report)
  Latin-American Studies (Committee's Report)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Forces
  Police Forces
  Racial Discrimination
  Racial Discrimination
  Jury Service (Committee's Report)
  Jury Service (Committee's Report)
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Offences of Violence
  Offences of Violence
  Radar Speed-Testing Equipment
  Radar Speed-Testing Equipment
  Parked Van (Road Fund Licence)
  Parked Van (Road Fund Licence)
  Abandoned Vehicles
  Abandoned Vehicles
BRITISH GUIANA
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
BOARD OF TRADE
  Office Building, Scotland
  Office Building, Scotland
  U.S.A. (Balance of Payments)
  U.S.A. (Balance of Payments)
  Universal Health Studios Limited
  Universal Health Studios Limited
  Exports
  Exports
  Cadco Group (Investigation)
  Cadco Group (Investigation)
  North-East Development Districts (Financial Assistance)
  North-East Development Districts (Financial Assistance)
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Experimental Husbandry Farm (Location)
  Experimental Husbandry Farm (Location)
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Bristol County Borough (Local Government Commission's Report)
  Bristol County Borough (Local Government Commission's Report)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  National Lottery
  National Lottery
  Mantaro Project
  Mantaro Project
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION (NATIONAL COMMISSION)
  UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION (NATIONAL COMMISSION)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Royal Naval College, Dartmouth
  Royal Naval College, Dartmouth
  Surplus Stores (Disposal)
  Surplus Stores (Disposal)
  s.s. "Richard Montgomery"
  s.s. "Richard Montgomery"
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  British United Airways
  British United Airways
  INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (DOCUMENT)
  INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (DOCUMENT)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Cervical Cancer, Coventry
  Cervical Cancer, Coventry
  Nurses and Midwives
  Nurses and Midwives
EMPLOYMENT
  Wales
  Wales
  School Leavers, Wales (Apprenticeships)
  School Leavers, Wales (Apprenticeships)
  Boys and Girls, The Hartlepools
  Boys and Girls, The Hartlepools
  Employees, Longbridge Works (Unemployment Benefit)
  Employees, Longbridge Works (Unemployment Benefit)
ROADS
  M.4 Motorway (Tormarton-Liddington)
  M.4 Motorway (Tormarton-Liddington)
  By-pass, Doncaster (Emergency Telephones)
  By-pass, Doncaster (Emergency Telephones)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (National Commission)
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (National Commission)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Employees, Longbridge Works (Unemployment Benefit)
  Employees, Longbridge Works (Unemployment Benefit)
ELECTRICITY
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln),The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

NORFOLK RAIL CLOSURES AND COMPENSATION TO BUS COMPANY
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether an estimate can be given as to the amount of the annual compensation, if any, which may fall to be paid to the Eastern Counties Bus Company by reason of the alteration of their road services due to the closing of railway stations and lines in Norfolk by the British Railways Board.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, payments by the Board to another party come within the sphere of management matters, and I am not therefore in a position to give an estimate.
LORD WISE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask, if compensation should be paid, whether he can state the basis of such compensation? Will it be present-day figures or figures which were given before the rail closures? Is it not possible to give some idea of what the compensation is likely to be?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I am afraid that I could not give the basis for the compensation. That is a matter of negotiation between the Railways Board and the bus company. But the Railways Board stated in their 1963 Report that the total amount of compensation they paid during 1963 to bus companies was £92,600. As to the particular lines in which my noble friend appears to be interested, for Dereham—Wells-next-the-
418
Sea the compensation is £6,000 per annum, and for North Walsham—Mundesly-on-Sea it is £2,200 per annum.

RAIL FARE INCREASES IN NORFOLK
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they were consulted before the recent increase of day rail fares in mid-Norfolk was imposed by the British Railways Board; and, if not, whether strong representation will be made to the Board that increasing fares by amounts up to 40 per cent. and more in the case of a Saturday excursion train is not in accordance with national policy and should be revised as it makes such rail travelling prohibitive to many potential passengers in this country area.]
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the Railways Board consult my right honourable friend before making major changes in fares. The increases to which the noble Lord refers are in excursion and other concessionary fares, and we were not consulted about them. The Board are responsible for fixing fares, and it would be inappropriate for my right honourable friend to intervene.
LORD WISE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, I would ask whether I am to understand that in some areas the Government are consulted in regard to proposals to increase fares, but that in country areas no such consultation takes place? If that is so, is it not apparent that the railway passengers in country areas are at a disadvantage compared to those in the Metropolis and elsewhere; and if such consultation does not take place, is it not possible to devise means whereby it should?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, so far as the London area is concerned, of course, there is the Transport Tribunal, to whom application must be made by the Railways Board or by London Transport when it is proposed to increase fares within the London area. But under the Transport Act, 1962, the rest of the

419
country was completely freed from any requirement on the Railways Board to go to arbitration or to any tribunal, and the Board are completely free to assess their fares in the way they think necessary.
LORD WISE: My Lords, should I be right in saying that here is a national monopoly, which is inflicting hardship upon one section of the community? And should that not be put right?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, unfortunately—though perhaps I ought not to say "unfortunately"—this is not a monopoly, and competition from buses is causing the problem of falling railway revenue. The Board have a difficult job. They have to face a £30 million annual increase in their costs, arising from a wages award. They are meeting two-thirds of this cost by increased efficiency and productivity, and only one-third falls to be met by increased fares and freight charges.

SOUTH AFRICA: UNITED NATIONS REPORT
3.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will publish, in a form obtainable by Members of this House from the Printed Paper Office, the impending report of the Expert Committee of the Security Council of the United Nations appointed to consider measures against the Republic of South Africa, and whether Her Majesty's Government have yet been informed of the contents of this report.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, before answering this Question, may I be allowed to say how pleased we are to see the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition back in his place, and to say how much we look forward to having before long the benefit of all he has learned in his travels in foreign parts?
In answer to the Question of the noble Earl, it is true that the Report has not
420
yet been received by Her Majesty's Government from the United Nations. Copies will be made available in the Library of this House in the normal way as soon as it has been received. Her Majesty's Government participated fully in the work of the expert Committee and are therefore aware of the contents of the Report.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Is he aware that it is always rather difficult for ordinary people to get hold of United Nations documents? And I wonder if he could say how many copies will be put in the Library, because, although it is unnecessary to print all publications of this kind, in this particular question of sanctions against South Africa, it is specially important that Members of Parliament should be thoroughly informed of what is happening and of what is being said by all the different delegates in the United Nations, so that we may not be confronted later on with some situation without being thoroughly familiar with the background?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am glad to say that I could not agree more with the noble Earl when he said that it was important for Members of Parliament in both Houses to be fully informed on all these matters, and I shall certainly see that there are enough copies put in the Library to satisfy all reasonable needs.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are two sides to every question in this world and that it will be greatly welcome if the best possible publicity is given to this Report, so that both Houses of Parliament may be well informed by the time they come to debate this matter?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is perhaps being over-optimistic when he speaks of their being two sides to this question. I think there are many more than two sides to this. But I repeat the assurance I have given to the noble Earl, that, so far as the Government are concerned in making the Report available, there will be ample copies.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his courteous remarks about myself, and may

421
I ask him whether the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, was our representative on this Committee, or whether it was someone else?
LORD WALSTON: No, my Lords, it was an expert Committee, and while I am not suggesting that my noble friend is not an expert in many spheres, he was not, in fact, the expert on this Committee.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—I am sure he is—that there was, in advance of this Report, a Press communiqué about a fortnight ago giving two resolutions which were rejected and one which was accepted by the Committee. While not wishing to draw any conclusion before the Report is published, it appears from this Press communiqué that some countries recognise that the burden of sanctions would fall almost wholly, or at least very largely, on the United Kingdom, but that no specific proposals at all were made with a view to sharing the burden with other countries, who were pressing most strongly for sanctions but whose economies would not be adversely affected at all by their application.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the noble Earl is even more aware than I am of the weight that should be given to Press reports and the dangers of making up one's mind simply from Press reports. Therefore, I would urge upon him, before he makes up his mind, to adhere to the good resolution he just tells me he has made, to await the publication of the Report.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say when this document may become available?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it is available at the moment in the United Nations, but Her Majesty's Government have not yet received it.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Is it a public document?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it is a United Nations document, and, so far as I know, it is freely available to anybody who wishes to get it from the United Nations.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend Section 20 of the Justice of the Peace Act, 1949, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Silkin.)
On Quesion, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (COLLIERY WORKERS SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEME) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1965
3.12 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, this draft Order, increasing certain benefits and contributions under the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme, follows on from the higher rates of industrial injuries benefit enacted in the National Insurance Act, 1964. Under Section 83 of the Industrial Injuries Act, any group of employers and employees can apply to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to set up a supplementary scheme of benefits on top of those provided by the Industrial Injuries Act. Under this provision, the supplementary scheme can be given statutory cover, and the machinery of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance can be used in administering and paying out benefits.
The only scheme made under the Act is that for colliery workers, which was established in 1948. It is run by a National Committee representing the National Coal Board and the mineworkers unions. Under the scheme, the rates of supplement payable to injured workmen are linked with the rates of industrial injuries benefit themselves, so that the supplements will go up as a result of the higher State benefits under the 1964 Act. An amending Order is, however, needed to increase the supplementary benefits for widows and the contributions under the scheme; the draft Order now before the House would make these changes which have been asked for by the National Committee of the scheme, and is similar to amending Orders which have been brought

423
forward after previous Acts increasing industrial injuries benefits—for example, in 1961 and 1963.
Under the draft Order, the rates of supplements to widows' benefits will go up, in the same proportion as the increases in supplements for injured workmen, from the end of March when the industrial injuries benefits for widows are increased. These supplements are paid to rather more than 7,000 widows of colliery workers who died as a result of an industrial accident or industrial disease. The vast majority of the supplements are payable at the rate of 41s. a week, which will be increased under the Order to 47s. 6d. a week.
The draft Order will also increase the contributions under the scheme. These are at present 5½d. a week for men (with lower rates for women and juveniles), with the National Coal Board paying 5½d. per ton of deep-mined coal. Under the Order these contributions would become 6¼d. a side. The Government Actuary, who advises the National Committee on the scheme and the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance on its finances, has advised that this new rate of contributions should be sufficient to maintain the finances of the scheme in proper balance. I should emphasise that no part of the cost of the supplementary scheme falls on the Exchequer; the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, who undertake part of the administrative arrangements for the scheme in conjunction with their work on industrial injuries benefits, are reimbursed by the scheme for their administration costs.
The opportunity is also taken to propose two technical changes in the scheme. One is to bring its accounting periods into line with the new accounting periods of the National Coal Board; the other will enable the scheme, which already has power to invest in leasehold property, to issue bonds for the due performance of obligations entered into under such leases. I beg to move that the draft Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order, 1965, laid before the House on 24th February, be approved.—(Lord Bowles.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I should like
424
to thank the noble Lord for his explanation of this scheme. May I ask him just one question? The contributions are calculated on a different basis, I understand, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, for the employees and for the employers, the employees' contribution being per head and that of the employers being calculated per ton of deep-mined coal. I would ask the noble Lord whether the resulting effect is that the increase in payments, in revenue, and also, indeed, the cost of the scheme, is shared approximately equally between the Coal Board and the colliery workers.
LORD BOWLES: No, my Lords. The position is that originally about one-fifth was paid by the colliers and the other four-fifths by the National Coal Board. The rate of contribution at the moment, as the noble Lord has said, is 5½d. each side; and it is going up to 61¼. With the increased efficiency of the coal industry—because more coal is being produced by fewer miners, and more machinery is being used—about 88 per cent. (I have not the exact figures with me at the moment) of that cost will be borne by the National Coal Board and the other private colliery owners, and about 12 per cent. will be paid by the colliers.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that explanation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THAMES CONSERVANCY (NEW FUNCTIONS OF RIVER AUTHORITIES IN THAMES CATCHMENT AREA) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1965
3.18 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, as your Lordships will remember, the Water Resources Act, 1963, was one of those noncontroversial measures that are fought long, hard, and in detail. It comes fully into operation on April 1 this year. The interval since the passing of the Act has been occupied by the setting up of river authorities who take over on April 1 the land drainage, prevention of pollution and fisheries work of the river boards,

425
and will also be charged with the water conservation work that was the purpose of the Act. The Order that is before the House is a modest part in the establishment of the new system. In the Thames catchment, as in the Lee catchment, there is no actual river board, and the existing functions are carried out by the Thames Conservancy, established long before the river boards, and with rather different powers and duties.
The Act itself did not apply the water resources work to the Thames area: it provided that the application could be made by Order, and this was done last July by the Order that is being amended to-day. That Order also reconstituted the Conservancy on the lines of the constitutions provided in the Act for river authorities. A bare majority of the Conservators were to be appointed by the local authorities—county councils, county borough and London borough councils—on which the Conservancy precepts. The other members were to be appointed by the Ministers of Housing, Agriculture and Transport for their knowledge of public water supply, industry, agriculture, land drainage, navigation, and the recreational use of the Thames. There is also a member appointed by the Port of London Authority.
This constitution did not altogether satisfy the London County Council and the Greater London Council. They argued forcibly, when the original Order was introduced, that the Greater London Council ought to be represented on a body that would have so much effect on the work of the Council and the interests of Londoners. The London County Council have always had a representative—and, after all, many Londoners use the Thames for recreation. The Greater London Council, of course, will be responsible for the prevention of pollution on those splendidly named tributaries of the Thames—the Crane, the Ravensbourne, the Duke of Northumberland's River, and others. All this the Greater London Council argued, and all this the then Minister accepted. He gave an undertaking, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, informed this House, that the Greater London Council should be given membership of the Conservancy. My right honourable friend fully agrees that this is the right thing to do, and the Order before the House secures it.
426
At the same time it is desirable to keep to the principle that local authorities should have a majority of only one on the Conservancy, as on river authorities, and the amending Order provides for a member with experience in fisheries. The Conservancy have no statutory fisheries duties, but fishing is closely bound up with their other interests. The fisheries member will complement the experience of the other specialist apointments and will, I am sure, be generally welcomed.
One final point about the Order. Section 128 of the Water Resources Act exempts from the general restriction on taking water any abstraction under an order made by the Minister under the Water Act, 1958. These are orders that allow water undertakers, when there is an exceptional shortage of rain, to extract more water than they normally have power to take. They are commonly known as drought orders. But they do not apply to the Metropolitan Water Board's abstractions from the Thames, where the equivalent is an emergency order under Section 167 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932. It was an omission from the original Order that these orders were not given the same saving as the ordinary drought orders. The amending Order puts this right. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Thames Conservancy (New Functions of River Authorities in Thames Catchment Area) (Amendment) Order, 1965, be approved.—(Lord Mitchison.)
3.22 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary for bringing this amending Order forward. As he said, one of its main purposes is to honour an undertaking which I gave on behalf of my right honourable friend the then Minister in respect of an additional member to be given to the Greater London Council, which in fact was simply carrying over a responsibility already held by the London County Council for matters of pollution. As he said, it is a non-controversial matter in which all Parties were agreed, and I am glad it has been done.
Of course, when I gave that undertaking I did not point out (although I think it was implicit) that it would be

427
necessary to appoint another member among the ministerial appointments so that the local authorities would not have an overall majority of more than one on the Thames Conservancy. That extra member has been appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture for the purpose of representing fisheries. I would just remind the noble Lord—I am sure he knows this very well—that among the ministerial appointments, that is to say, the appointments by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, one member was to be appointed—and I quote the words:
"after consultation with such persons or bodies representative of persons concerned in the use of the Thames as a place of recreation as the Minister considers appropriate."
I think I am right in believing that that was intended as a reference to boating interests on the Thames, and not to fisheries interests. I wanted to clear up that point, otherwise it would not have been necessary to appoint a member to represent fisheries. But I think I am right in saying that it was not found possible to award a member to fisheries interests, and the member was to represent boating interests. I am glad that this omission has been discovered. Having read the Memorandum supplied by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, I think it is clearly essential that this power of reservation from restrictions should be inserted.
There is only one other small point, which the noble Lord did not mention: I can see that he may hardly have thought it necessary. In the amending Order, Article 3(e) says:
"in article 13, after the words 'the Minister of Transport' there shall be inserted the words 'the Greater London Council'".
I am not sure that those words are necessary, because as a result of this amending Order the Greater London Council is, of course, already inserted in Articles 2(1) and 9(1) of the original July Order; and I should have thought, turning to Article 13 of that Order, in which reference is made to the necessity for the Conservators' to send their annual report and accounts to each of the constituent councils, that those words would have included the Greater London Council.
However, that is not the real point I wish to make. The fact that the reference
428
to the London Council has been specifically inserted in Article 13—whether it is necessary or not—brought to my attention the fact that there is no mention in that Article of the Port of London Authority. They are listed, of course, in Article 9, but it seems to me that they are not actually a constituent council. Perhaps the noble Lord might look at that to see whether or not it might be advisable to insert the Port of London Authority, as well as the Greater London Council in Article 13.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I will gladly look at the interesting point raised by the noble Lord—his second point. As to the first point, that the member was already on the Board to represent recreational interests, that member was appointed after consultation with both what I may call the boating side and the fishery people. What is happening now is that he is left to represent boating, and fishing has an extra representative. I think that is in accordance with the general intentions of the Act.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

COMMONS REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
3.29 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Commons Registration Bill, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. On this Motion I should like to say, if I may, that I gave an undertaking on the Report stage to make an Amendment on lines I indicated in some detail at the time, and that undertaking will, I am afraid, as I foresaw at the time, have to be carried out in another place. I need hardly assure your Lordships that it will be carried out. A question was put by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in connection with that undertaking with the following effect. The undertaking was that during the period after the final registration of common land and pending the ascertainment of an owner where no owner had been registered, the registration authorities should be given power to stand in the shoes (if I may use the phrase) of the true owner in order to institute or carry on criminal proceedings, in effect for the preservation of the common land and common rights over it.
Lord Molson's request was that it should also be considered whether in those circumstances the registration authorities should not have power to carry on civil proceedings of a similar character. Your Lordships are well aware that the common notice "Trespassers will be prosecuted" is a little misconceived; they are in fact amenable to civil remedies but not as a rule to criminal ones. That matter has been considered, but the provision is difficult to draft. It is still under consideration and we hope to be able to do something to meet the views of the noble Lord, Lord Molson.
We are also considering whether it may be possible to give this power and duty not merely to the registration authorities but, in certain circumstances, to other local authorities, too. Registration authorities, as your Lordships will remember, are the county councils and the councils of county boroughs; and the question that we are considering is whether something can be done to assist the county district councils in this respect. This is very much a matter in which it is desirable to have agreement—cordial, I hope—between the local authorities concerned. There is
430
some prospect of getting it, but I can say no more. Your Lordships will appreciate that in all those circumstances it has taken time to try to reach a solution satisfactory to all concerned, and the undertaking I gave will therefore have to be carried out in another place.
My Lords, may I make one final observation, at the risk of repeating what I said at an earlier stage of the Bill? I have seen a good deal of this Bill, both before it came here and during its passage here, and I am quite certain that the commons of this country and the large areas of ground that they represent are a matter of general concern to Members of this House, as they are to the public at large. It is up to all of us in this particular matter to do what we can to remove a considerable degree of confusion and resulting misuse or lack of use of part of our common heritage in this country. Therefore, this Bill seems to me, at the end of the day so far as we are concerned here, and I hope it will seem to your Lordships too, to be something which properly calls for the cordial co-operation of the elected local government bodies who will have to play a considerable part in putting it into effect.
It will, I believe, stand or fall by the degrees to which it gets that co-operation, from county councils and county borough councils as registration authorities, and from those who can help them in the researches they will have to make and the work they will have to do. If that is the common view of Members of this House, as I think it is, I feel sure that all of us will do what we can, in the areas where we are particularly interested, perhaps those where we live, to see that that co-operation is given and supplemented by the individual co-operation that from your Lordships may indeed be valuable.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I think it would be ungracious if I did not say a few words of thanks to the Government on the attitude they have adopted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I might interrupt the noble Lord, before your Lordships can pass the Bill there is the question of the privilege Amendment to be dealt with.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I owe the House an apology, as I do also the

431
noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as I ought to have moved that the privilege Amendment be agreed to. I do so now. I beg to move.
Amendment (privilege) moved—
Page 12, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge.").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will now move his Motion that the Bill do now pass.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mitchison.)
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, as I was saying, I think it would be ungracious if I did not say a few words of thanks to the Government for the way in which they have responded to the numerous Amendments that I moved on the Committee stage. I feel that, as a result of what the Government have done in the way of putting down Amendments, most of the points I raised on Second Reading have been to a greater or less extent met, and I hope that, as a result, this registration Bill will result in the rights of commoners and the owners of commons being, registered and ascertained for all time, and that with the co-operation of the local authorities, upon whom so much depends, it will not result, as is of course always possible under a registration Bill, in the extinction of some rights which are valuable and which will be of increasing value to the ever-growing population of this country.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BILL [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Baroness Summerskill.).
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before the Question is put, I think that we ought perhaps at some stage or another to have some comment from the Government. May I say, first of all—and I hope your Lordships will agree—that I think this is a better Bill now than it was when it was discussed on Second Reading. Of course, I am biased in that matter, as the noble Lady has been good enough to accept some of my Amendments, as well as incorporating many of her own. I think it is perhaps too much to expect that in its present form this is, in the classic words, a "good and perfect Bill", for the very good reason that we have not since Second Reading had the benefit of the advice and counsel of the Government. But I suggest that the Bill in its present form is at least worthy of further consideration in another place.
I think it is unfortunate that, apart from one intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, on the Committee stage, when he said that he was not going to intervene, but intervened as a matter of courtesy, the Government have abstained from giving their advice. They have not contributed at all to the remaining stages of the Bill. I feel that I am reminded very much of the well-known cartoon, and if I might parody that I would say this to the noble Lord: "Say something, my Lord, even if it is only 'Goodbye'".
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, nobody could resist an invitation in those terms. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is perfectly right in saying that very considerable changes have been made in this Bill during its passage through this House. I developed my objections to it (at great length, I am afraid, and I am sorry that the noble Lord has forgotten them all) on the Second Reading of the Bill, and those objections to the Bill in

433
its original form are still there. The changes it has now undergone seem to me to be a matter for comment in another place, and not on Third Reading in your Lordships' House.
It is indeed a very different Bill from what it was to start with. This was a case where the Government took the view—and I expressed it—that the Bill was misconceived. We had—and still have—the greatest respect for the experience of my noble friend Lady Summerskill—and, for that matter, for that of the noble Lord himself, not to mention the noble Lord, a former Chairman of the National Assistance Board, who addressed the House on this subject. But the noble Lord will have to reconcile himself, as I have to, to the fact that on Second Reading his views and mine were overruled by a majority of the House. In those circumstances, I think, it would be singularly inappropriate if the Government were called upon to follow the bewildering changes the Bill has undergone subsequently. I think they will have to be considered carefully when it goes to another place and considered as it now is, not as it started. I was charged with sulking, like Achilles, in my tent. This Bill is Proteus.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, this is a very simple Amendment. I have been advised by the House authorities that this form of words should be added to the Long Title. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 2, at end insert ("and for purposes connected therewith").—(Baroness Summerskill.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps this Amendment gives us on this side an opportunity of congratulating the noble Baroness on her success on getting this Bill through this place. She has worked very hard on it and I think she deserves the support of the whole House.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I be allowed to add my personal congratulations to the noble Baroness? We have known one another a long time. I have always found her a most energetic and, if she does not mind my saying so, a most sympathetic character, and in this case she has shown her sympathy for people who have considerable need of the help
434
she can give them. These are my personal congratulations.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I beg to move that the Privilege Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That the Privilege Amendment be made.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. It is very kind of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, to say what he has, and also the noble Lord opposite, but they were a little premature, because this is the moment when they should make their little speeches, and so they have another opportunity. I should like to express my appreciation of all who have helped me to improve the Bill in the various stages.
I must confess I do not quite follow my noble friend. I was not going to mention him, but he has intervened, although he said at an earlier stage, when he was sitting at the corner of the Bench, that he had no intention of saying any more. I think he cannot have read the Bill. If he reads the Bill, he will find that everything in the Bill can be related to everything I said on Second Reading. I carefully read the Second Reading debate this morning and I found that every point I made is reflected in the Bill before your Lordships. I would ask my noble friend, who curiously enough has had second thoughts, to read the Bill again, and he will find that, far from being altered, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said it has been strengthened. After all, that is the whole purpose of having various stages of a Bill; we discussed it on Committee stage and on Report stage and now we discuss it at this stage. I think we can say that this is as good as we can make it. And although it is a measure limited to certain functions of the National Assistance Board and the court, nevertheless I believe it marks another stage in doing more for the fatherless child and its mother.
I want to mention two Amendments that have been made in the course of the passage of the Bill. I think it has been improved by my Amendment which makes it the duty of the court to bring proceedings pending to the notice of the

435
Board, thereby giving the mother protection in the initial stages of the order. I think the House agreed on Second Reading that she should be protected in the early stages, but this Amendment ensures that the Board is alerted immediately the order is made. I am grateful to the House for its acceptance also of the new clause, which enables the Board to give assistance to a child, irrespective of whether the mother is in full-time employment or not. This is certainly a departure, but I emphasise that I was asking for this concession only for the child and not for the mother.
Promoting a Private Member's Bill is not easy unless one has the assistance of knowledgeable friends, and preferably people with a legal training. Sometimes this is withheld. I should like to express my deep appreciation of the excellent advice and courtesy which I have always received from the Clerks at the Table. I would also thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who as a former Minister of National Insurance recognised the hardships which exist, as I did, having served in that Department for some years. Although the noble Lord opposed this Bill on the Second Reading, nevertheless he bore me no ill-will and has co-operated in trying to improve the Bill on the Committee and Report stages.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords may I intervene to say that I did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I thought he did. I thought he had been very noble thinking he voted against the Bill, and I should like to thank him for his help. He has given his time and knowledge to the consideration of the proposals embodied in the Bill and I am very grateful for it. I would also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who has also been of great help to me. Last, but not least, may I thank noble Lords from all parts of the House who supported me on Second Reading? Now I propose to consign this Bill to the care of my daughter in another place, where I hope she will successfully pilot it to the Statute Book.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Baroness Summerskill.)
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
SUPERANNUATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL
3.50 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee (on Re-commitment).
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 14 agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause:
Grants towards cost of sound-proofing dwellings
"—(1) If it appears to the Minister that dwellings near an aerodrome owned or managed by the Authority require further protection from noise and vibration attributable to the use of the aerodrome than can be given by measures taken or to be taken in pursuance of section 14 of this Act he may by statutory instrument make a scheme requiring the Authority to make grants towards the cost of insulating such dwellings or parts of such dwellings against noise.
(2)A scheme under this section shall specify the area or areas in which dwellings must be situated for the grants to be payable, and the persons to whom, the expenditure in respect of which and the rate at which the grants are to be paid, and may make the payment of any grant dependent upon compliance with such conditions as may be specified in the scheme.
(3)A scheme under this section may require the Authority in any case where an application for a grant is refused, to give the applicant at his request a written statement of its reasons for the refusal.
(4) A scheme under this section may authorise or require local authorities to act as agents of the Authority in dealing with applicaions for and payments of grants and may provide for the making by the Authority of payments to local authorities in respect of anything done by them as such agents.
(5) A scheme under this section may make different provision with respect to different areas or different circumstances and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent scheme under this section.
(6) Before making a scheme under this section the Minister shall consult the Authority.
(7) Any statutory instrument made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment gives effect to the Government's intention which I announced in the House on March 10, that the British Airports Authority should be enabled to make grants for soundproofing dwellings near to Heathrow. As noble Lords will see, this is an enabling provision. The details will be set out in a scheme made by the Minister after consulting the Authority—this means after the Authority comes into existence—in a Statutory Instrument which will be subject to Negative Resolution of either House. When noble Lords examine the form of the Amendment, they will see that the Government hope that local authorities will collaborate in the administration of the scheme. The new clause gives the necessary statutory basis for this—this is subsection (4) of the clause. We have also thought it right that if the Authority refuses an application for a grant it should give the applicant its reasons. The clause will enable this right to be established.
I should point out that the clause as drafted enables the Minister to make a scheme for any of the four airports which are being transferred to the Authority. The Government feel that it is right for general powers to be obtained in this way. But it is our impression, and our considered opinion, that it will be a long time before any airport other than Heathrow will qualify for sound-proofing provisions. The criterion which the Government have adopted as the basis of the Statement which was made the other day presupposes that many thousands of night movements, and night jet movements, per annum will take place, but it will be a long while before there exists elsewhere anything
438
like the sort of combination of noise and frequency that exists at Heathrow. This view of the Government was shared by the Wilson Committee, who regarded Heathrow as unique and recommended payments of grants in respect of only dwellings around this one airport.
There are one or two further observations that I would make. First of all, I appreciate that this is a fairly major Amendment, and it is for this reason that we thought it right to recommit the Bill so that the Committee had a full opportunity to discuss it, and no doubt, if they wished, to make any further observations or Amendments—I hope there will not be any—when we come to the Report stage. Of course, as I have already indicated, it springs from the Report of the Wilson Committee, which accepted, as we accept that the noise at London Airport, at Heathrow, was making life intolerable for many people; and it is right that some steps should be taken to rectify this. These steps are being taken under this new clause, and the responsibility for paying for this is being put upon the agency which is most concerned with causing the noise—namely, the Airports Authority. It is our view that the airlines, or the Airports Authority who are the agency concerned, are the right people to finance this scheme. It is estimated that over a period of years it will cost in total about £2½ million.
EARL JELLICOE: I am sorry to intervene, but may I ask the noble Lord whether the £2½ million is the estimated total cost, or, on the Government's basis, that part of the cost which will fall on the Authority?
LORD SHACKLETON: This is the part which will represent the Authority's contribution. Perhaps I should add that it has been estimated that the cost per house, on a three-room basis, will be something of the order of £200, of which £100 will be paid by the Authority. This is based on a close examination of the cost of carrying out the necessary soundproofing which, it is suggested—the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, was interested in this—should be done by double glazing, with additional ventilation. These costs, which I agree are not the same as are suggested in the Wilson Report, have none the less been arrived at by the

439
Building Research Station after a rather closer examination. The Wilson Report suggested that it would very likely be an average of £300 per house; but the figure of £200 has now been carefully arrived at.
The other point I should like to make on the financial side relates to the concern that some noble Lords have expressed with regard to the ability of the Authority to finance this scheme. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was particularly interested in this subject at an early stage on Committee, and it may well be that on the Report stage there will be an opportunity to go rather more fully into the whole of the financial arrangements of the Authority. I am quite prepared to do that, and to explain how the cash flow is made up, and perhaps even to give the noble Earl some of the figures which I have.
In broad terms, for the basis of this particular operation, I would say that in the estimates which the Government have made as to the likely needs of the Authority over the first five years, there is a substantial margin. The capital expenditure of the Authority has been estimated over this period at £34 million. When we add in the cash which we think will be available from the trading operations of the Authority, and the borrowing which is open to the Authority under this Bill, we reckon that over the next five years the Authority ought not to have to spend, or ought not to employ capital of, an amount greater than £65 million; and we are providing a total limit—so to speak, an authorised limit—of £70 million. So there is ample margin for this particular matter, even if the Airports Authority were not to recoup either by improved revenue through increased utilisation of the airport or through higher charges, if that be thought right. I am not advocating any of these; I am merely explaining why it is well within the capacity of the Authority who finance this scheme.
May I again mention briefly what I said when I repeated the Statement of my right honourable friend, that the area is related to the N.N.I. (the Noise and Number Indicator contours) which was the measure used by the Wilson Committee. I made available to the House, in the Library, a copy of the map which
440
showed how these contours appeared over this particular area. For the sake of administrative convenience, however, the eligibility for grants does not follow strictly along the N.N.I. line, but along local authority and ward lines. This clearly is much more convenient and there will be people who are living beyond the 55 N.N.I. line who will still benefit. This is obviously essential, and it is right to base these on ward boundaries. They will in all cases extend beyond the 1970 estimated 55 N.N.I. contour.
I appreciate that this is a complicated and difficult issue and that there are powerful arguments against doing anything at all. Indeed, the previous Administration decided that this was so difficult—and I do not blame them for coming to this decision—that it was better not to embark in this particular sphere. But the Government have accepted that this noise is an intolerable nuisance, and it must be right for the Government to recognise that the community has a responsibility to those who suffer from the increase of noise. I do not see any immediate consequences in other directions flowing from the acceptance of this principle in the matter of aircraft noise. There is no likelihood, judging from the investigations which I have made, that any military, Navy, or Royal Air Force airports will be affected, but we must face the consequence that this is a new principle. In accepting it, the Committee must also realise that it may carry consequences for the future, but I think it is unlikely to do so for quite a number of years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shackleton.)
4.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: had given Notice of his intention to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new clause, to leave out "aerodrome" and to insert "airport". The noble Viscount said: It will probably be for the convenience of the Committee if I refrain from moving my first Amendment at this stage and concentrate on the later Amendments to Schedule 2 which appear on the Order Paper. For, if the Government should be so gracious as to accept those Amendments, then on Report I could

441
move to make this first Amendment in my name without interrupting the debate on the noise proposition. If I might say one word on that aspect, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the nuisance created is certainly an intolerable nuuisance to those who live in or near an airport.
EARL JELLICOE: I am not certain whether I am in order in speaking to the first Amendment. I should like, if I may, to say a word about it. I would preface my remarks by saying that I am grateful to the noble Lord for the clear way in which he has unveiled this new clause—this foundling which the Government have adopted, rather at the eleventh hour.
I do not know what my noble friends may feel about this Amendment, but let me, for one, say straight away that I do not wish to dispute the main principle behind the clause. The Wilson Committee (and I have recently had a chance of refreshing my memory of that Committee, to whose remarkable, indeed fascinating, Report I should like to add my tribute) rightly said that Heathrow provides one of the most difficult aircraft noise problems in the world. I agree; and, that being so, I think it right that special measures should be taken to help those who live near Heathrow to shut themselves out, at least to some extent, from this far from heavenly music which assails their ears. But while I welcome the principle behind this clause, I have a number of doubts and reservations about the proposals which the noble Lord has produced "out of the hat", as I have said, rather at the last minute.
In the first place, the clause itself is a masterpiece of vagueness. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and his right honourable friend the Minister had a good deal to say last Wednesday about the Government's intentions, but we find precious little about these intentions—good, bad or indifferent—in the clause itself, which is merely, as the noble Lord has fairly remarked, an enabling measure. I would not wish to argue that all the details which were spelt out last Wednesday should necessarily have been spelt out in this clause. But I feel that some of the main principles might well have been included in it.
442
For instance, should not the size of the sums at least have been specified? And should it not at least have been made clear who is responsible for paying them? On all this we are given absolutely nothing to bite on at this stage. For all this, we—and, what is more important, the people who live round Heathrow—have only the Minister's statement and what the noble Lord has said this afternoon (and I do not wish to decry its importance) to go on, and we have to await the promise of the statutory instrument. When, incidentally, will the promise be redeemed? When may we expect to have the Statutory Instrument laid. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give us some indication of the Government's intentions in that regard.
Then we were told last Wednesday, as we have been told again today, that it would be the new authority, not the Government, which would be required to meet the bill for these grants. I should like to explore this aspect of the matter a little further. Last Wednesday we were told that the Government had decided to accept the principle of the Wilson Committee's recommendation about the sound-proofing of houses. That was a shade disingenuous, because in recommending these grants the Wilson Committee specifically recommended that they might appropriately come from the Government. We were not told this last Wednesday, nor have we been told it to-day. On the contrary, in answer to Lord Airedale's intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said on Wednesday:
"I should have thought that Her Majesty's Treasury were the last people who should bear the cost."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 264 (No. 49), col. 77, March 10, 1965.]
I am sorry that the noble Lord opposite and the Government have been "nobbled" by the Treasury at so early a stage in their career.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord, because it may save time? When the Wilson Committee reported there was no Airports Authority; indeed, the Airports Authority Bill was sitting in the archives of the previous Government. Therefore, there was nobody, other than the Government and the Ministry, who could be responsible

443
for paying. But, as the noble Lord must surely recall, it was always the policy of the previous Government that airports should pay their way. I should have assumed that if the then Government had accepted this proposal, it would equally have been their intention that this money should be provided out of the revenues of the airports. I am not trying to be difficult on this, or to split hairs, but I want the noble Earl to understand the situation in relation to which the Wilson Committee reported.
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, but, in a way, I do not think he has helped me particularly on this aspect. I realise that when the Wilson Committee reported there was no Airports Authodity in existence, although one was contemplated. But that does not advance the argument much further, because in his statement the Minister went a great deal further than that. He stated that:
"The Government consider that the cost of these grants should fall on those whose activities cause the disturbance, or those who benefit from such activities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 708 (No. 74), col. 413, March 10, 1965.]
That was precisely the point to which the Wilson Committee addressed themselves, and I think it is a pity that on the face of it—I wish to explore this—the Government have decided to reject the more generous Alan Wilson line, and to accept the less generous Callaghan line on this particular point.
In the first place, my reasons for saying this are the same as those adduced by the Wilson Committee themselves. They argued that
"Heathrow is a national asset, encouraging tourists and trade to Britain."
They went on to say:
"It is, then, only fair that the nation should help to mitigate the undoubted nuisance that is caused by the noise."
That is, I would submit, an argument which cannot very easily be shrugged off. After all, it was the Government of the time, and not this as yet unborn Authority, who put the airport where it is. The Wilson Committee, I again wish to remind your Lordships, also went on to point out in the next paragraph of their Report, paragraph 326, that since Parliament has specifically exempted aircraft
444
operators from civil action or proceedings, and since the onus of protecting people from the nuisance caused by aircraft noises falls on the Minister, it is logical for the Government to help those exposed to intolerable or barely tolerable noise to protect themselves from it. Again, there seems a powerful logic in this argument.
After all, it is the Minister himself who, as a result of Clause 14 in this very Bill, will be ultimately responsible in this sphere of noise, and since he and the Government are calling the tune, should they not also be prepared to pay the piper? After all—and here, again, I am merely taking up a point made by the Wilson Committee themselves—this grant will be very closely akin to a house improvement grant, and the Government, as your Lordships well know, make a contribution to approved house improvement schemes.
There is one final reason why I am a little worried about the proposal to lay this burden on the new Authority. As the noble Lord mentioned just now, I have already voiced my doubts whether the Government are providing this body with really adequate financial resources. Now we learn that they will have to "cough up" another £2½, million, on the basis of a calculation that some 40 per cent. of the eligible householders will take advantage of this grant. I should like to know, incidentally, how this 40 per cent. calculation is arrived at. We know that Mr. Jenkins is a very clever Minister, but how he can possibly know that four out of ten rather than, say, eight out of ten of those eligible for this grant will avail themselves of it, I do not, I must confess, know.
But, be that as it may, this will certainly add to the drain on the Authority's funds, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, recognised, and there are only two ways by which, as I see it, they can make up for that drain. One way is through higher landing fees, and we all know that those at Heathrow are already pretty high by international standards; and the other is by cutting back on capital expenditure. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has again said—and I should like to study very carefully what he said in this respect—that the Authority's financial resources and borrowing powers are really adequate and have been arrived at on the basis

445
of very careful calculations. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether those calculations included this £2½ million, because if they did not include this £2½ million, and if they were as carefully calculated as all that, then I should have thought there was at least a case for increasing their borrowing ceiling by that amount.
I certainly do not wish to prejudge this particular aspect of the matter in any way, and I shall listen very carefully to what the noble Lord who is replying has to say in this respect, but it seems to me that, if one is going to go for grant—and I admit that the previous Government rejected this in the first instance—then there is a strong case, on the basis of the Wilson recommendations themselves, on the basis of precedent and on the basis of financial common sense, for laying this particular onus on the Government rather than on this fledgling Authority. That said, I hope that the noble Lord can give me some enlightenment on the following supplementary points.
In the first place, could he tell us what is being done for people other than householders who are affected by noise in this area? I have in mind, particularly, patients in hospitals, children in schools and, not least, teachers in schools. The Committee emphasised in paragraphs 257 to 259 of their Report the importance of tackling this aspect of the matter. Can the noble Lord tell us anything about what has been done, or is being done, on this aspect of the matter, and is the possible cost of any such improvements included in the £2½ million figure?
Secondly, there is the area affected. I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for making available in the Library the map showing the wards and the parishes and the 55 NNI contour line, but may I ask him a couple of questions about the area? I notice that, as one would expect, there has already been pressure in another place for the area to be extended. The area which the Government have hit upon may be the right one, or it may be the wrong one. I would mention, in passing, that the Wilson Committee stressed that their contours were essentially approximate. But the question I wish to ask the noble Lord is how those who feel that the area should be changed—enlarged, presumably—will
446
be able to represent their views; and how, if we are tied to the Statutory Instrument procedure, will the changes be made? Presumably, it will be only by a new Statutory Instrument, but am I right in that assumption?
There are two further points on which I should like some enlightenment from noble Lords, if this is the right occasion for it. In his statement the Minister of Aviation said that Heathrow was unique and that similar arrangements were not required elsewhere; and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has reflected that view in his remarks this afternoon. That may very well be so at present, but whether it will remain so in the future is another matter. Again, I would refer noble Lords opposite to what the Wilson Committee themselves have said about Ringway and Prestwick; and, not least, about the possible noise effect of "city centre operations", as they are called, by helicopters and even by V.T.O. and S.T.O. aircraft. Can the noble Lord assure us that the Government have not closed their minds to similar schemes elsewhere, should the need for them become manifest?
Finally, can the noble Lord tell us anything about the Government's, or the Minister's own, general intentions in this very important field of aircraft noise? How is the significant research on aircraft noise reduction, to which the Wilson Committee drew attention, proceeding? Can he assure us that, desirable though noise reduction certainly is, the Minister has no intention of imposing such restrictions on aircraft operations as could conceivably impair their safety? I know that this is a point which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye had in mind when he made his intervention last Wednesday.
Finally, and not least important, can the noble Lord tell us what the Government feel about the recommendation in paragraph 649 of the Wilson Report? Perhaps I should very briefly quote it:
"This country should take the initiative in attempting to secure greater international recognition of the urgent need to reduce aircraft noise".
Do the Government accept this; and, if so, can the noble Lord tell us what they are doing about this particular recommendation? That is all I have to say at this stage on this particular

447
Amendment. In conclusion, I merely wish to repeat that my personal view is that the principle of it is perfectly acceptable, but I have quite serious reservations as to whether the Government are right in wishing to lay this additional burden on the new Authority. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to persuade me that they are right, but I wish to reserve judgment on that point.
4.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to join my noble friend Lord Jellicoe in welcoming the principle behind this Bill, but I must say that I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said. This is a major step. This is a very important and extremely far-reaching Amendment which we are examining at the present time. Indeed, it brings about a very big change in this Bill itself. We were told earlier that the Airports Authority were to have responsibility for everything except navigation and noise, which were matters to be reserved for the Minister. Now the problem of noise is put squarely back on to the Airports Authority and in rather a peculiar way.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has referred to the fact that this is a different recommendation from that made in the Wilson Report. The Wilson Report examined who should pay for this—whether it should be the Government, the local authority or the airlines—and came out specifically, for reasons which were given, with the view that the Government should be responsible. I think we ought to hear why it is that that course has been changed. The Wilson Report specifically said that the airlines should make their contributions indirectly, in other ways; that they have already incurred considerable financial penalties; and that it is not really their business to pay for past mistakes, whereas the Government have quite specifically undertaken overall responsibility. What is happening now is quite a change from that. I am not going to say that it is necessarily wrong, but I think we should hear a little more of the reasons why this alteration has been made.
448
I think this matter is far-reaching because the noble Lord talked about more night movements. Your Lordships are, I believe, aware that aviation starts coming into London Airport at about six o'clock in the morning. Many people living in the centre of London are not unaware of that noise, although they are a long way away from the airport itself. If this is to go on all night, it will have a very much wider repercussion than simply in the immediate vicinity of Heathrow. I am a little doubtful how this arrangement is going to work. This is clearly making the Airports Authority very much of an agency for doing something which I can understand the Ministry of Civil Aviation is reluctant to do itself. First of all, the Minister sets up the standard, whatever that may be—we have very little idea, although I shall be asking one or two questions about that—and then, secondly, payment will be made by the Airports Authority on the standard which the Minister has already decided.
I do not know whether we can get any information about what that standard is to be and what sort of limits are to be set to it, but I should have thought that if you are going to have double windows, or whatever the arrangement is, it would have to include air-conditioning—and that, of course, can be quite expensive. The estimate of 25,000 houses which may require to be done may well prove to be a considerable underestimate. I should also like to know whether it is envisaged that there should be any appeals against what is decided. I see it is stated that there should be a written statement of reasons for refusal. The normal purpose of a written statement is so that somebody can protest against those reasons in certain circumstances. In any case, I am fairly certain some protests will be made, or an endeavour to protest will be made in Parliament. I know not on what authority, but I think it almost certainly will be made.
One other question is: what about maintenance? Is this a once-and-for-all grant, or are these improvements to be maintained in future? There may be better means of insulating houses in the future. Are these to be undertaken? I am asking these questions because I think this is a very big departure, and we ought to ask the noble Lord to go as far as

449
he can, even before we come to the stage of a Statutory Instrument, to give us as much information as possible about the Government's intentions.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I have only one small point to make. I should like first of all to join my two noble friends in welcoming this courageous decision, if I may put it that way, though I, too, can see many snags for the future. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in answer to an intervention by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, said, quite rightly, that the airports should pay their way. But in this case they are to be responsible for expenditure on items over which they have absolutely no control whatsoever—by which I mean the number of houses being built in their area. They cannot say, "We cannot afford to pay for having this item put into any more houses", because the local authority will merely say, "We are going to build more houses". Therefore, that is something over which they have no control at all. And to my mind that makes it imperative that, if the airports are to pay their way, the Government themselves, and not the Airports Authority, must pay for this work.
LORD HAWKE: Although on humanitarian grounds I greatly welcome this Amendment, on grounds of public policy I am inclined to think that in future years it is going to land the Government in very deep waters. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe wishes, I think, that the whole of the cost should fall on the Government—and as the Government may well be the only people who have any money to pay for it, that may be the only practical solution.
EARL JELLICOE: I wonder whether I may correct my noble friend there. I was not suggesting that the whole of the cost should fall on the Government. It seems to me quite right that a percentage—say, 50 per cent.—of the anticipated cost should be borne by the householders themselves. That would stop frivolous use of this facility. But I was suggesting that the other 50 per cent. should be borne by the Government, rather than by the Airports Authority.
LORD HAWKE: I think I still differ slightly from my noble friend, because he wants half to fall on the Government and half to fall on the householder. I
450
agree that a proportion must fall on the householder to stop frivolous use of the facility, but I also believe that some proportion must fall on this Airports Authority. After all, they are the only people who have any influence on the amount of noise created. If the cost of remedying the noise and the general nuisance created by aircraft is going to be imposed on a completely outside body, the Government, there will be no stimulus at all for the Authority to research into stopping noise and to draw up regulations, and so on, within the safety limits, to mitigate the noise of take-off.
I notice that all my noble friends talk about Heathrow, as if that is the only place that is likely to be involved; but there is Gatwick, as well. Up till fairly recently, Gatwick was a less noisy airport, because it was largely used by turboprops; but now the jets are creeping in, and certain people—though admittedly, the country under the immediate, rising path of these aircraft is not very populated—are going to suffer just as big a dose of noise as those people at the business end of the same thing at Heathrow. Therefore we must regard the unfortunate inhabitants near Gatwick as possible recipients. That makes me wonder whether my noble friend is not entirely right in thinking that the burden of the expense created by this Amendment is going to be very much greater than the Government imagine. I should like to support the other point made by my noble friend, that these facilities should definitely not be available in respect of houses not yet erected. Anybody who builds a house in what is known to be an aircraft path should remember the maxim, Caveat emptor, and should not be eligible for these facilities.
4.32 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: I shall do my best to answer the points that have been raised. I should have to make a very considerable speech if I were to answer all the details, but if I do miss any point I undertake to supplement what I say by explanation in writing. I think that the Government can be satisfied with the general welcome that has been given to this clause and I am sure that my right honourable friend in another place will be extremely pleased to hear the words that have been said in support of it.

451
The first criticism made of the clause was that it was vague; but I think the principle we are discussing is clearly set out, and, of course, the details of this scheme will follow in the Statutory Instrument. I do not think the criticism now being made about vagueness will be valid when we have the Statutory Instrument. The principle criticism, as I understand it, is on the point that the Airports Authority should be made responsible for the payment of the grant. Who will pay? I must say that on this point I was a little surprised to hear noble Lords opposite make the criticism they did, because over the years previous Governments which they supported, and of which, in many cases, they have been members, have laid down quite clearly that civil aviation and air transport in this country should pay its way; that there should not be a hidden subsidy.
In the discussion that we had a year or so ago about the charges for en route information and navigation services, the Government of the day laid it down quite clearly that the obligation to provide these services should be placed on the airlines. I should have thought that this is exactly what we are now doing. We are placing on the airlines indirectly the cost of meeting this sound-proofing, this endeavour to go some way, at any rate, to meet the inconvenience we are placing on the citizens around London Airport.
There is another point here. It was said that the Wilson Committee had laid down that the Treasury should pay. But I think that if the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, refreshes him memory, and reads again the relevant paragraphs, he will see that the Wilson Report by no means emphasises the obligation of the Treasury in this matter. The Committee talk about a balance of consideration; they discuss the arguments in favour of placing the burden on the local authorities, or on the Treasury or on the airlines. While it is true that they came down in favour of placing the burden on the Government, the wording they use does not suggest that they felt strongly about this. The Report says:
"The grant to help to ameliorate the present situation might appropriately come from the Government."
With that certainly lukewarm recommendation, plus the policy of the previous Governments, I should have
452
thought that the present Government were justified in saying that the Authority and the airlines which they serve, and who will benefit from this provision, ought to make a contribution towards the cost. In fact, of course, the cost will be shared. The householder or tenant will make a contribution; the authority will be making a contribution; and the local authority, too, it is expected, or hoped, will be making a contribution, because upon them will be the responsibility for the administration of this scheme.
The other question I was asked was when the Statutory Instrument would be laid. It is expected that it will be laid some time in the autumn, after the Authority has been established; it could not be laid before it was established. Then we had discussion about the area within which these grants will be paid and I was asked whether the area could be varied. The fact is that the Statutory Instrument which will define the area cannot be varied. No doubt there will be great discussion as to whether it is right to have the area drawn in the way it is proposed; but, as I say, the Instrument itself will not be capable of variation. But if a case is made for extending the area it will be perfectly possible for the Government to lay another Instrument, and thus meet the wish of Parliament if there is a majority in favour of different boundary lines.
I ought to emphasise here that the boundaries now proposed are rather more generous than the proposals made by the Wilson Committee. The local government boundaries, of course, do not coincide with the line drawn based on this NNI figure, but the doubt in all cases, or the considerable majority, has been in favour of the new boundary line so that more people will be brought into the scheme than was originally proposed.
I was asked whether the establishments such as hospitals and schools would come into this scheme. The answer is, No. There is no provision in this Amendment, and there will be no provision in the proposed Statutory Instrument for making grants towards the cost of sound-proofing schools or hospitals. But, of course, the hospital management committees themselves have the power to sound-proof buildings, and so have the education committees; and in at least one

453
case, so far, a school building in the area has been sound-proofed.
There was also the question whether the mind of the Government was completely closed so far as the reference to Heathrow only is concerned, and whether it will be possible in the future to extend this provision to other airports. So far as the present Amendment is concerned (though it is open to the Government in the future to extend the provisions) this is not, as my noble friend said, the intention now, or in the foreseeable future. Heathrow is undoubtedly a special case; the difference between the nuisance at Heathrow and elsewhere is considerable, and it is not expected that this margin of difference will be closed in the foreseeable future; although the power will be there for extending the area of the grant in future if it were thought necessary. I think my answer is that the mind of the Government, though not closed finally, is unlikely to be much more widely opened.
LORD HAWKE: May I interrupt the noble Lord?—this is very important for the people living around Gatwick. The noble Lord says that power exists in the Bill to extend the provision at Gatwick, but that the Government have no intention of doing so at the moment. Surely he can go no further than saying "at the moment". We do not know what the situation may be in five years' time.
LORD BESWICK: I think that I said "in the foreseeable future". This boundary line and this recommendation from the Wilson Committee and from a further study of the problem are based upon the fact that the problem around Heathrow is immeasurably worse than that to be found around Prestwick or Gatwick or, so far as we know, around the third London airport.
I was asked some questions about the costs involved. I must say that I accept the anxiety expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and other noble Lords, about this apparent placing of an additional financial burden upon the Authority. It will he an additional financial burden but, looked at in perspective, it is not a crushing burden. The amount involved is £2½ million, amortised, it is suggested, over a period
454
of twenty years, making an annual liability of £220,000. Although one may have reservations about the accuracy of the estimates that have been placed before the House of the revenue of the Authority and the surplus that is expected, all I can say on that point is that, although the noble Earl may have his ideas and I may have my ideas, the figures that have been placed before the House are based on estimates of the experts who examined this question, and I think that we have to accept that the likelihood would be that there would be a surplus as calculated and within the surplus it will be possible to absorb this £220,000.
I was going to give a breakdown of the financial situation. In the first five years, the Authority's capital expenditure, as estimated at the moment, will amount to £34 million, exclusive of these payments for sound-proofing grants. In this period, the cash available to the Authority, it is estimated, will be £23 million and the difference of £11 million will have to be found by borrowing from the Minister. If we add to this £11 million the initial capital debt of £54 million, the total borrowing will be £65 million. This leaves a margin of £5 million as between this estimate and the £70 million for which we are making provision, and I would have thought it reasonable to suggest that this £2½ million can be absorbed within the margin for which we are making provision.
EARL JELLICOE: I am really puzzled on this point. As the noble Lord knows, we went into this carefully on Committee stage and I voiced my doubts about whether the borrowing ceiling, although fixed at £70 million, was adequate, given other possible commitments. I was told then, and have been told again, that all these calculations have been most carefully made by the Government. What I should like to know is, when those calculations were made, did they include this extra £2½ million?
LORD BESWICK: The answer to the question is, no, it is not included, but what was provided was a margin for contingency.
EARL JELLICOE: Surely, if £70 million was the right ceiling then and

455
another £2½ million burden is placed on the Authority, £72½ million is now the right ceiling—is that not so?
4.44 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: The provision is for a margin of £5 million for contingencies, and this is a contingency which will cost £2½ million. But I think that I should remind the noble Earl that we are not here laying down a definite and final figure. If, before the end of the five years, the Authority is able to make out a case for an additional loan, it will be possible for it to come to Parliament to get permission for an additional amount to be raised. We are not placing any final limit upon borrowing powers. We have said that, on the basis of the best calculations available, the £70 million should last it for four or five years. It may well be a good thing that, after three or four years, the Authority, if it has had additional responsibilities placed upon it, may want to make its case, may want Parliament to know what is happening, may want Parliament to know the details and discuss them in the course of making an application for additional loan. Therefore, although in the event it may well be that within five years the provision which has been made will be found inadequate, no real damage is done to the Authority. It will simply mean that it will come to the Treasury and then to Parliament for additional borrowing power.
The question was raised of what was being done in connection with reducing noise at source. To some extent the answer was given in the exchanges during the Committee stage in this House. This is a matter in which I know a number of noble Lords, and certainly I myself, have been greatly interested over recent years. I am certain that the only really satisfactory solution is to get a reduction in noise at source. We are assured that there is no financial limit upon the research which is now being done into various possibilities of damping the noise at the engine's source. I think that I can claim, however, now that there is this financial obligation to provide sound-proofing if the noise level remains as it is or if it increases, that this probably will be an additional stimulus to research. The Government have taken part in discussions at international level and I
456
would have thought that, as a result of this additional obligation, there will be an additional attempt to get some sort of co-operation in research or exchange of research at international level in order to find some solution to the engine problem.
I was asked whether a householder, having made an application for grant and having been turned down, would have any posibility of appeal. Of course, this would depend upon the reason for the grant's being turned down. If the householder was outside the geographical area delineated by the Statutory Instrument, then, of course, there would be no appeal. But if the application was refused because the grant was based upon a sound-proofing scheme not up to the standards required, there is an obligation upon the Authority to state in writing why they have rejected the claim, and it would be perfectly possible for the householder to make an objection and put in another claim. There is no provision for any other appeal procedure.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord means that the agreement will terminate between the householder, on the one hand, and the Airports Authority, on the other?
LORD BESWICK: Yes; excepting that in between we shall have the local authority. It will be the representatives of the local authority who inspect the property and decide whether the sound-proofing is in accordance with the standards required. I have no doubt that over the area the representatives of the local authority will not only be inspectors in this matter, but will also be advisers; and I should have thought that there would be a lot of exchanges as between the local authority and the owner or occupier of the property.
I think I have answered the greater part of the questions which have been put to me. We are dealing with an extremely complicated problem. It is a problem which will have additional repercussions. Having had some little experience myself of the householders in the area, I can say that, taken by and large, they are a very tenacious body of citizens, and I can well see that there will be many of them not provided for in this Amendment who will want to put their case.

457
I would hope that noble Lords on both sides of the House and Members of another place would accept some responsibility in this matter. Earlier today, if I may be allowed to say so to your Lordships, I thought the contributions made were on a most restrained and responsible level. It would be possible to inflame or exaggerate all the difficulties, and it would be possible to stimulate arguments and controversy in this area around Heathrow. But we are dealing with a serious social problem. It is not, in any sense, I should have thought, a Party political problem. It should be possible to put over to the people concerned, those who come within the area and those who are just outside it, the point which I think was well made by my right honourable friend in another place—namely, that if we are invited to do everything we shall end up doing nothing. We are endeavouring to go as far as is reasonable, and to the extent that we have been supported in this by noble Lords in this House, I am sure the Government will be greatly obliged.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: Before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned that one of the reasons why the Airports Authority should pay this money, and not the Government, was the question of hidden subsidy. As I understand a subsidy, hidden or otherwise, it must be of financial benefit to an organisation and help it in its operation. I cannot see that the sound-proofing of housing outside an airfield can in any way help either the aircraft companies or the airport itself in their operations, unless, of course, the present limitations on take-off, for instance, and on the numbers of flights in 24 hours, will eventually be completely removed when all houses which need it have been sound-proofed.
I should like to mention one other point to which I did not get an answer—and it is my fault really, because I did not put the question properly—and which I think was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. If houses are to be built in future, will the Airports Authority pay £100 towards each house erected in future if it has sound-proofing in it?
LORD BESWICK: With regard to the last point, I am sorry I did not answer the question, but it was made clear in
458
the original Statement made in this House by my noble friend Lord Shackleton, and also made in another place, that these grants will be payable in respect of existing private dwellings and those completed by January 1, 1966, and confined to owners or residents in the defined area by that date. The work must be completed by December 31, 1970, when the scheme will come to an end.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: Could that not go into the Bill? That would, at least, tie it up.
LORD BESWICK: It could go into the Bill; but then I should have thought you would be restricting activity in the future. I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, if the mind of the Government was completely closed, and if that went into the Bill, one's mind would be completely closed in that respect.
There was then the other question about the responsibility being placed on the Authority. There is here, I think, an additional argument. There is no similar obligation on, for example, the airport authority of New York. But I did go round the area of New York earlier this week, and as we went over some of the buildings my pilot said, "From this community we have a lawsuit, and from that community over there we are expecting a lawsuit, in respect of noise." They are very concerned. What the outcome of these legal proceedings will be they do not know. But in the case of London, or in the case of the Airports Authority, there is no possibility of bringing a Common Law action. Parliament has by Act of Parliament removed this possibility, and because citizens have not that right in Common Law to bring a case, it is felt that there is this additional moral obligation to try to ameliorate the inconvenience and suffering that is caused.
4.56 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I put to the noble Lord a question that has been rather troubling me? I think a great deal of the discussion we have had this afternoon has been on the point of who should bear that part of the cost which is not to fall on the householder. I should have thought it was a general principle that you pass on a charge to an authority only if they can in turn recover that charge in some reasonable

459
manner, so that the method of distribution of that charge is rational. Logically, if you are putting a charge on the Authority in respect of noise, the charge should be recovered in relation to the noise made—there is no other fair means that I can see of doing it—because, otherwise, you will not achieve the object that my noble friend Lord Hawke had in mind, that the charge should help the suppression of noise. I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. I think he would agree that it would be unreasonable and unfair that owners of aircraft in which noise had been successfully reduced should pay the same charge as owners of comparable aircraft in which it had not been reduced. Can the noble Lord say, as a matter of expert judgment, whether a decibel rating is practicable? Can this charge be passed on on a fair basis? I think this would influence the opinion of noble Lords on this side of the Committee. If the charge cannot be passed on on a fair basis, that would be a good reason why the Government should bear the charge. This, I think, is one of the points that have been worrying us on this side of the Committee.
LORD BESWICK: In the first place, we are setting up an Airports Authority. The point has been made strongly from the Benches opposite that this Authority should have a degree of independence. On that principle, I stand. I do not think we should tell the Authority exactly how they should recover this £220,000 a year. I should have thought it was obvious that if it is impossible to absorb the liability within the surplus about which we were speaking earlier, then the Authority naturally would have to think about the possibility of increasing, for example, landing fees on aircraft landing at night.
I was asked whether it was possible to differentiate as between one aircraft and another in respect of noise level. The answer is that it is so possible, and in fact there is now a known rating of all aircraft relating to the noise they generate. That technically would be possible. I cannot commit the Airports Authority to saying that they will do anything along those lines. I should add that the air transport operators and the airline industry generally have taken to a fine art this
460
question of promotional fares or promotional charges. They want to encourage flights at a given time of the day or night, and they make a charge or a fare in accordance with their desire to promote traffic. I should have thought it would be technically possible to devise a system of landing fees in accordance with the nuisance the aircraft generate. I am only putting this forward as a technical possibility. I have no authority for saying this will be done.
EARL JELLICOE: I do not wish to detain your Lordships much longer on this matter, but, as several noble Lords have said, this is a complicated and important matter, and it is one in which the Government are breaking new ground; and I am quite certain we have been right to give it detailed attention this afternoon. The noble Lord said that the Government could feel satisfied with the reception his Amendment has received. I am glad he feels that, and I should like to thank him for the explanation which he has given of this Amendment, but I should add that I am not entirely satisfied in two respects with his explanation, and perhaps I may briefly mention them. The first is that he will recall that I referred to the vagueness of this enabling measure, and, following the noble Lord, I made suggestions about the amount of this grant (to which my noble friend Lord Selkirk drew attention) and as to who would be responsible for paying the non-householders' share. Both those principles, which are important matters, should be spelled out in the enabling measure itself.
The noble Lord said, if I recall him correctly—and I am paraphrasing—that we need not worry about this, and that it will be gone into in great detail in the Statutory Instrument. That is so, no doubt. But, surely, he is missing the point, because the difficulty is that with a Statutory Instrument we can only accept or reject it. We all like the principle behind this Bill. We should not wish to reject a Statutory Instrument giving effect to it. Therefore, I submit that in these important respects it would be wise to include the main principles in the enabling measure itself, and I hope that the noble Lord, between now and Report stage, will be prepared at least to give consideration to that point of view.

461
The second matter about which I am far from satisfied is his statement about the Government's not bearing a share of this new financial burden. He asked me to refresh my memory about the Wilson Committee. It was not really necessary, because I had refreshed my memory and, indeed, was quoting from it, or sticking very closely to its words in my remarks. The noble Lord said that the Wilson Committee was lukewarm in its recommendation. That may or may not be so—it depends on how one interprets the English language. He said there was a balance of argument. Of course, in a matter like this there is a balance of considerations, and it is not surprising that the Wilson Committee should have given the pros and cons. But they came down quite specifically for the Government's bearing this extra burden, rightly or wrongly.
They were far from lukewarm in what they said about those whom the noble Lord suggested should bear this burden, who must be either the airline operators or the passengers. So far as the airline operators are concerned, the Wilson Committee said:
"… but the subsequent attempts to restrict the nuisance have placed considerable financial penalities on the airlines, who might well be thought to have made their financial contribution to the lessening of the nuisance."
As for the passengers, they said:
"Nor can present airline passengers be expected to pay for past mistakes."
That seems perfectly clear-cut. The noble Lord also referred to a possible contribution—I presume he did not mean financial contribution—by the local authorities. On that the Wilson Committee said:
"There seems to be little to be said for requiring a contribution from the local authorities."
I do not think these are lukewarm statements. I think they are perfectly clear cut, and as for the burden falling on the Government, I have quoted what the Wilson Committee themselves said.
Perhaps we can leave this particular aspect of the matter to a later occasion. On this occasion, I feel it would be wrong of me to say that I have been convinced by what the noble Lord has said on these two points. I hope he can give some further consideration to them, and I should like to reserve the right to come back to them if necessary on Report stage.
LORD BESWICK: Of course, it would be less than gracious if I did not say that we will look at what has been said, and I am sure that the Government generally will acknowledge that in this matter the last word has not been spoken. I cannot undertake that there will be any change. I ought to make it clear about the local authority contribution. I said that that would be in kind. It was hoped that their administration of the scheme would be carried out without payment. It was that that I was construing as a contribution.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Transfer of the four aerodromes]:
5.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN moved, in the Title, to leave out "Aerodromes" and insert "Airports". The noble Viscount said: I do not want to strain the intelligence of your Lordships too much. If you read my first Amendment you need not bother to read the following Amendments, because they are identical, and I hope it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I move the four together. I have already deliberately omitted to move the Amendment on the new clause which we have just been discussing because I did not wish to interrupt an interesting and important debate on this problem of noise nuisance.
I think that the objects I have in mind are perfectly simple. The maddening thing is that, having sat here listening for the last couple of hours, I have now been reading backwards and find that I should have moved many Amendments on Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. So I suppose the Government's answer to me may be, "You let them go, and we suppose you approve of the use of the word 'aerodrome'". The truth of the matter is, as I want to make clear, that I do not approve, and I will briefly give my reasons.
This Bill is entitled "Airports Authority Bill," so, in the fewest of words, my real object is to ask the Government why, having named the Bill "Airports Authority Bill," they then revert to the use of the word "aerodrome" in Schedule 2 and, as I now

463
find, in other parts of the Bill. The late lamented Sir Winston Churchill said to me some years ago, when I once used the word "aerodrome" in his presence, "You must on no account use that word; it is a foreign word. You may say 'airport' or 'airfield'." Here we have "airport". Why do we now go back to "aerodrome"? I admit that I have not the latest edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, but I have the two-volume edition dated 1933, and I cannot find any reference to the word "aerodrome", which I think must be a modern foreign importation.
LORD SNOW: It is very old—all but obsolete.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I shall have to get a new dictionary. At any rate, I am quite prepared to be corrected on that point. I only wish to say that I think it is worth while preserving and using the English language, and "airport" is a good English word. That is in the Title of the Bill, and I hope that the Government will consider the Amendment of the Bill wherever the word "aerodrome" appears and will substitute for it the word "airport." That is really all I need say. I do not wish to delay the progress of the Bill in the least, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 10, leave out ("aerodromes") and insert ("airports").—(Viscount Stuart of Findhorn.)
EARL JELLICOE: I should like very briefly to support what my noble friend has said. In so doing I should like to hazard a guess that his Oxford Dictionary is not old enough, because I looked up the Shorter Oxford Dictionary in your Lordships' Library, and under "Aerodrome, 1901," was given:
"A course for the use of flying machines."
And in 1902:
"a tract of level ground from which aeroplanes or airships can start."
The definiton of "airport" was
"A place containing an aerodrome at which flying machines start on or land from their voyages."
It is that second definition on which I should like to rest in support of my
464
noble friend, because it seems to me that the airports which we have in mind in this Bill are not merely just courses or tracts of land. They are places containing courses or tracts of land from which aeroplanes and those in them depart, or at which they arrive. It seems to me that "airport" is the larger conception, embracing possibly these much-maligned aerodromes, and that "airport" is the proper term to be applied to the sort of institutions we are talking about in this Bill.
LORD BESWICK: I must say that one of the most agreeable features of this Bill we have discussed is the argument we have had about the use of words. In exactly the same way as I myself prefer the words "initial", "start" or "begin" to the word "commence", I personally feel that we ought to use the word "airport" instead of "aerodrome". Having said that, however, I am sorry to have to add that I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment. I assure him that I am not being awkward about this simply because he did not raise the question earlier in the course of our proceedings. I agree with him on two points that "airport" is the better word: it is more compact, and more English; and I should have thought that it expressed much more precisely what people mean when they are talking about the facility we are discussing in this Bill.
I would also agree with the noble Viscount that if we are asking Parliament to consider an Airports Authority Bill, for the purpose of setting up a British Airports Authority, it would be natural, reasonable and sensible in the context to refer to an "airport" rather than to an "aerodrome". But I am afraid that on this point we move beyond what is natural, reasonable and sensible, and into the field of law and legal matters; and when we get into that field I am assured that "aerodrome" has a special meaning—though not the meaning put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. In fact, it is the more comprehensive of the two terms. The term "aerodrome" is defined in the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, and in the Air Navigation Order, 1960. The definition is widened in Clause 22 of this Bill to include a roof-top heliport. But the original definition, despite what the Oxford Dictionary may say, is: any area of land or water designed, equipped, set

465
apart or commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft. It is that meaning which it is intended to imply in this Bill. The legal authorities say that it would be difficult and would lead to confusion if we had the term "aerodrome" in some of the earlier Statutes and now reverted to "airport".
There is just one other point. As I have said, the term "aerodrome" is more comprehensive than "airport". In the Chicago Convention, "airport" is used to describe an aerodrome which handles international traffic and has Customs facilities. It is just possible that this Authority will be required, or will wish, to acquire or to set up an establishment which is not used for international traffic and probably does not have Customs facilities. Therefore, although I have the utmost sympathy with the noble Viscount, and should very much like to accept his Amendment, I am afraid that I must ask him to withdraw it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, speak, I must say that I am convinced that my noble friend is right. The simplest way of getting round the legal problem is to put an additional phrase in the Interpretation Clause. That presents absolutely no difficulty. If I may say so, the description of an aerodrome in Clause 22 seems to me rather inadequate. It deals simply with the landing and taking off of aircraft, whereas we know that there are a great many other things, such as car parks, passenger facilities, and so on, which I, in my ignorance, may regard as incorporated in the word "airport", though not in the word "aerodrome". The simplest thing is to put in the word "airport", say that "airport" means "aerodrome" and then define it. The noble Lord, of course, wants to be natural and sensible in this matter and not legal. I appreciate his point. But, frankly, "airport" is the much more normal word to be used in present-day English.
LORD AIREDALE: On reflection, does not the Minister think that he has given his whole case away when he mentioned that two earlier Statutes used the word "aerodrome", and that the term is now being used in this Bill in a different and, as he told us, widened sense? There is something to be said
466
for saying that the same word shall be used in all Acts of Parliament, that it means the same thing; and there is a great deal to be said for the idea that if you look up the word "aerodrome" in one Act of Parliament you have its meaning for every Act of Parliament in which the word is used. But if you are going to use in this Bill the word "aerodrome" as meaning something different from the word "aerodrome" used in two other Statutes which the noble Lord mentioned to us just now, surely here is an opportunity for getting on to a different word and introducing the word "airport", which is obviously the appropriate word to use in an Airports Authority Bill.
LORD LEATHERLAND: May I make the shortest speech your Lordships have ever heard? Could we not get over this difficulty by calling the Bill the Airports and Aerodromes Authority Bill?
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Jellicoe and Lord Selkirk for their support and also to the Minister for his reply, which enlightened me, but only up to a point, as to why he cannot accept my Amendment. I do not know whether I agree with the last speaker. I applaud the brevity of his speech, but it would be making the title of the Bill very much longer and complicated. And I recall that another of the late Sir Winston Churchill's remarks, in the course of his education of me as regards the English language, is that one should never use a long word where a shorter word will convey the meaning. The word "airport" is shorter than "aerodrome", and I therefore adhere to "airport".
I feel that our legal friends and the draftsmen might object to admitting that they were wrong—because nobody likes to admit he is wrong. But I hope that at least this short debate may draw their attention to this point, so that perhaps in future Bills, if not in further stages of this Bill, attention may be paid to the views I have expressed. That will save the trouble of going, say, to the Ministry of Transport and asking them to alter all the signposts out to Heathrow from "London Airport" to "London Aerodrome", and the very

467
considerable—and quite unnecessary—expense and great nuisance. But in view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Schedule 2 agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
On Question, Whether the Title shall be agreed to?
LORD HAWKE: I regret that the Government did not take any notice of my suggestion that they should reverse the initials of this body, because I still think it is very unfortunate to create a new organisation with the initials B.A.A. From time to time we shall have complaints about the quality of our airports, their efficiency and the like, and we shall find the newspapers printing the reply "B.A.A. Bleats again". It would be much better to reverse it and call it A.A.B.
LORD BESWICK: I am sure there will be no harm done in saying that we will have another look at this. I do not quite know what the pronunication of the initials would be if we did reverse them. They would not look any more dignified, I would suggest. I agree that B.A.A. is an awkward contraction. "B. double-A." is probably the reference we shall make to this body. On the other hand, I do assure him that, both in the other place and here, very careful attention was given to the various alternative names, and when one saw them all lined up the balance of advantage was for British Airports Authority. Nevertheless, having said that, I say that we can have another look at what has been said.
Title agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported with Amendments.

WORLD SUPPLIES OF TIN
5.22 p.m.
LORD ARWYN LORD ARWYN asked Her Majejsty's Government: What steps they are taking to provide for the situation that will arise as a result of the rapid depletion of world sources of tin? The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I claim your Lordships' indulgence for the courtesy which is the tradition of your Lordships' House on these occasions? We now come down from the problems of aviation to mining from the blue heavens to the darkest depths; but it is another problem caused by the advancement in our standards of living. I am asking what steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to provide for the situation that will arise as a result of the rapid decline of world supplies of tin? A programme on B.B.C. Television on Monday last, and an article in the Financial Times on March 4 last, also drew attention to this subject.
The increase in demand is, of course, compatible with the rising standards of living. The world shortfall is already getting near 25,000 tons a year. The gap has been bridged by releases from United States disposable strategic stockpiles. Our old international buffer stocks were exhausted before 1961, and the price per ton of tin has since jumped from £900 to £1,300. Since September, 1962, releases from the United States stockpile have totalled some 51,000 tons, leaving a disposable surplus of only 98,000 tons. Even assuming there is no further leap in consumption, all remaining disposable stocks will be completely exhausted within four to five years. We shall then be faced with this serious and increasing gap between production and consumption, which will cause serious disruption to all tin-consuming industries throughout the world, and particularly in this country.
The International Tin Council, who are a very responsible body, also consider the situation to be very serious and have decided to set up two working parties to study production problems, administrative as well as technical. There is a definite danger of international allocations of tin rationing in the near future, and we in this country are in a highly vulnerable position. We produce about 1,200 tons a year and we consume 21,000 tons. This gap of 20,000 tons costs us

469
at present over £25 million a year to import.
May I again draw your Lordships' attention to another of the Financial Times statements? It is that 75 per cent. of world tin supplies come from countries which must be regarded at present as politically unstable. I would also point out that there is a rapid depletion of the once rich alluvial deposits of Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, which together are at present contributing 63 per cent. of world production. And the progress of industrialisation in all producing countries could eventually lead to the consumption of much of their own tin production.
In Cornwall for the 30 years between 1860 and 1890 our average annual production was over 9,000 tons. To-day, I would remind your Lordships, it is only 1,200 tons. We were at that time exporters of tin, producing more than we consumed. The reason for the gradual, and later the rapid, decline in production in Cornwall was not the exhaustion of our resources: it was competition from the very low cost overseas alluvial deposits. In the circumstances, it was not possible for any but the well-managed mines, those with ample reserves of payable ore, to survive. In spite of this disastrous competition, Cornish tin mining has survived without the kind of Government support and encouragement given in other countries.
As far back as 1937, as President of the Institute of Cornish Mining Engineers, I drew attention in my Presidential address to the need for a thorough appraisal of our long-term productive capacity. In view of the imminent peril of war it was also necessary to plan for higher production at short notice, in case we suffered from shipping losses, as we did in the First War. In April, 1938, the Institute sent a delegation to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, supported by all the Cornish Members from the other place. All we asked for was Government support to peg the price of tin, in order that we could budget for the increased output which would he required of us, as in the First War. We were shocked by the failure of the Minister concerned to grasp the position. That Minister's record, as many noble Lords will remember, was far from brilliant. He told us, rather curtly, that our
470
total production for three years could be exceeded in one single shipment from Nigeria. Submarines did not exist, apparently, in his pattern of thinking.
My Lords, to-day we are worried about the loss of production, not the loss of cargoes; but we are still up against the same attitude and, I suggest, another time limit. Back in 1946, the Labour Government, realising the importance of assessing our own mineral resources, set up the Minerals Development Committee, under the chairmanship of the late Lord Westwood. I had the honour to serve under him. We put in some three years hard work on a detailed survey, which of course included tin as one major item. Our Report of July, 1949, included certain recommendations. If these had been adopted they would have encouraged the production of the tin we now need. But in 1951, there was a change of Government, and we soon realised that we were back to square one. We were most disappointed.
The Minerals Development Committee in 1949 had reported favourably on our pleas for tax relief, on our problems in regard to the complexities of mineral rights, and on the need for an intensive geological survey. Their Report also confirmed our conclusions on the danger of the increasing rate of depletion in world tin reserves. This was sixteen years ago. We can assume that in Cornwall most of the good-grade lodes detectable on the surface have been worked out, so that we have to drill for deep-lode formations which do not outcrop on the surface.
To start a new modern tin mine of moderate output at least £1 million must be available. But before this sum is spent, a long and costly period of geological exploration is necessary, with drilling on a large scale, followed by the sinking of an exploratory shaft and driving to prove the lodes. All this will cost between £200,000 and £250,000 before spending the £1 million or entering into a long-term lease. Assuming that an attractive yield of ore is revealed, the next problem is to consider the effects of taxation. Even a proved and attractive mineral deposit would have to be abandoned if the tax burden were too heavy. Make no mistake about that. Mining companies are not philanthropists.
From 1951 onwards we have continued our appeals to Conservative Governments. They were made by the Cornish Mining and Development Association, supported jointly by the Cornish Institute of Mining Engineers and the Cornish Chamber of Mines. These are all non-political bodies. They wanted the Government to revise taxation incentives in order to compete on equal terms with the mineral producing countries overseas. The standard reply has always been, with suitable variations, that we were seeking preferential treatment for tin mining which could encourage similar requests by other industries, and that the tax allowance available to the prospector and the mining operator provided all the inducements which the mining industry could reasonably expect.
On June 20, 1961, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who was at that time Shadow Chancellor, moved an Amendment to the Finance Bill (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 642, col. 1513) to exempt from the profits tax the profits of a non-ferrous metal mine for 36 months from the day on which the mine was brought into commercial operation. I would recommend noble Lords to read this comprehensive speech. It covers the whole question minutely, with all the relevant details, and it was supported by all the Cornish Members and at least one Devon Member. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed impressed, but it all ended as before, and so the industry has had to continue its fight.
A serious reappraisal of the deeper tin lodes of Cornwall by the large international deep mining corporations is now being carried out on selected sites. The head of one of these corporations wrote an article in the Tin International in August, 1964, entitled "The Disincentive of Mining Taxation in the U.K." In it he described Cornwall, not as a depressed worked-out area—a description used by those who know nothing about mining—but as a well-endowed and underdeveloped area that invites intensive and imaginative exploration if the investment climate competes with conditions elsewhere. He quotes Ireland, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Ghana, Iran and Canada as examples of countries employing these sensible tax-holiday incentives. He also states.
472
'You people in Britain still live in the potato age. Even Ireland has shown you the way to dig deeper for the riches which lie below."
This is what we in Cornwall have been saying for thirty years.
In spite of our taxation obstacles, the big mining corporations are pushing ahead with exploration, hoping that Britain will, before it is too late, see the wisdom of a tax-holiday incentive in mining and equal inducements with other Commonwealth countries. Altogether they have already spent over £500,000 in deep drilling in the tin-bearing rocks of Cornwall. But exploration, in mining terms, is like research in other industries—it is only the prelude to production, financed from a fund expendable anywhere. The results, as I have mentioned earlier, have to be considered with other factors. One of the essential factors is examination of the tax incentives in the country being explored.
Another important step to regain lost time is to establish the rightful ownership of mineral rights. The present difficulties in establishing ownership lead inevitably to endless negotiations before capital can be invested, even for the initial exploratory programme. Failure to identify the ownership of minerals means that under the present laws a considerable portion of the mineral wealth of the country is sterilised. A simple piece of legislation is required making it compulsory for every mineral owner, within an advertised time, to establish and define his ownership, and to declare his intentions as to development. We should consider most seriously a suggestion made in a memorandum written for the Cornish Chamber of Mines, that a tribunal be set up, roughly on the same lines as the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. I have no experience of that Tribunal, but I am putting this forward as a suggestion. This might not only accelerate the investment of the necessary capital to operate in the revival of our mining industry but also ensure that the rightful owners receive their just rewards. Appeals made to the tribunal would be in cases where the ownership could not be established or when an owner refused to grant a lease on reasonable terms. Noble Lords will know that this takes a long time, and it is most cumbersome. Unless our own production is attended to quickly, I think we are going to be in a jam.
As a final summary, world demand exceeds production, and the United States disposable strategic stockpile, the last reserves, will be exhausted in less than five years. Unless our own production increases we are therefore bound to suffer. Cornwall can produce many times the present output, but it takes five to eight years to develop a mine from exploration to production, and we shall need several mines using the latest techniques now available to us, plus the expertise of those big international mining corporations which are experienced in deep-scale mining all over the world. Our mines are shallow.
I must declare my interests, and they are as follows. I have spent many years in Cornwall, and, although I am a mining engineer, I hold no office or any investment in tin or in any tin-mining company, but I am familiar with the problems of the country. I think that your Lordships are entitled to have that declaration before I finish.
My Lords, you are now, I hope, impregnated with the key words "tax incentives", "registration of mineral rights", and "equality with other countries"—not the usual "too little and too late" palliatives. There is one other important factor—the revival of tin mining as a basic industry with its ancillaries. Cornwall can be an international metallurgical and geological centre. This is very important in our technological age. This small area has one of the highest concentrations in the world in its range of minerals. The word "toot" has always interested me. It means a short blast. I am more familiar with blasting, but I hope that my first toot on this tin trumpet will sound the alarm, and that Her Majesty's Government will respond by taking early action. I assure your Lordships that we have for a long time been sitting on a tin time-bomb.
5.42 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I must declare an interest, as I am the chairman of a company which refines and smelts tin in the United Kingdom in a substantial way. When I was in the House of Commons, on many occasions in the last twenty years I joined with other Members on all sides of the House in attempting to persuade successive Governments to do exactly
474
what my noble friend opposite has been asking them to do to-day. We were not wholly unsuccessful, though usually we were disappointed.
It cannot be gainsaid that it would be of great advantage to the economy of Britain if we could get some of our own indigenous tin into use instead of allowing it to remain in the depths of the earth. Probably the present high price of tin is the most important factor for bringing out local tin, but if a tax holiday and the legislation which the noble Lord opposite asks for could be facilitated, it would make it even easier still. I think that I am right in saying that only about 100,000 tons of tin is used in the whole world in one year; therefore not a great deal of tin is required to redress the balance. There is new tin now being found in South-West Africa which may prove to be very considerable; and there is some tin being found in Canada. I do not think the situation is quite as bleak as the noble Lord suggests, or that we shall find ourselves without any tin should the American stockpile, or that part of it which they are prepared to release, run out. Nevertheless, it is a serious matter, and British industry needs this tin. No motor car or aeroplane can be made without a little tin. Tin is required for the canning of foods—some foods cannot otherwise be canned than with the use of tin. And so far no very effective substitute for tin has been found.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, in pleading with the Government to do these two simple things. The first is to give a tax holiday. The Treasury are always anxious not to lose money, and it will not lose money this time but will gain it. A new sort of wealth will be brought back to these Islands—a source of wealth upon which we relied in earlier times, but which we have not been able to use recently, except to a very limited extent. Therefore I thank the noble Lord very much for raising this subject and should like to express my appreciation of an eloquent maiden speech. I have known the noble Lord in the other place, but one would think from his manner that he had been here long enough to learn our ways. It will be a pleasure to all of us to hear him again on this and on other subjects.
5.46 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, thought of making his maiden speech on this particular subject, and I am glad that I follow him, because I have always had the greatest respect for mining engineers. Therefore, to be able to congratulate a mining engineer on his maiden speech in this House gives me great pleasure. I trust that on the subject of other metals and minerals the noble Lord will on other occasions give us the benefit of his great experience.
This subject is of considerable national importance, though I agree with my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, painted the position in rather too sombre tones. After all, although tin is required for many purposes, a number of other substitutes would soon be found if there were no tin. Nevertheless, it is much more convenient to deal with material one knows all about and to which one's machines are adapted than to allow oneself to run out of tin. When one surveys the fields over which the tin is mined, I think the noble Lord is perhaps a little optimistic in saying that only 75 per cent. of them are politically unstable.
I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale say that there was tin in South West Africa (I had not heard of that), and also in Canada. I had always regarded the great hope for the future as possibly Siberia, because we do not know a great deal about that area. If Canada and South West Africa can come to our rescue, so much the better, but we know that Cornwall is stuffed full of metals. They are just not being mined because of the out-of-date taxation system of this country. This applies not only to tin but to copper, arsenic and all sorts of other minerals. They would all be mined on a much greater scale if we could bring our taxation into line with that of other countries which are more enlightened in this respect. Lode-mining in Cornwall is not going to be so easy as dredging up tin in Malaya. Nevertheless, it is within our sterling guarantee area, and therefore is that much more welcome. The Chancellor of the Exchequer a year or two ago made some slight concessions, as a result
476
of which two more mines are being worked in Cornwall than was the case five or six years ago; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, said, there could be more.
I join in exhorting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at this matter a great deal more carefully than Chancellors have done in the past. I would add something further which nobody has mentioned so far. Mining companies based on the United Kingdom investing in subsidiary mining companies all over the world have been the means of developing and bringing into the world's markets a great many of the minerals of the world. At the moment a heavy cloud hangs over them, because they do not know the intentions of the Chancellor and his economic advisers, intentions which are to be disclosed in two or three weeks' time. But if he wants minerals to be produced all over the world, he had better be certain that he is not dealing some death blow to them in the next Budget.
5.50 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I should like to join in the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, on his maiden speech. I think it is very important that the House should have an opportunity of debating in this way issues such as he has presented to us to-day. Nobody can suggest that tin mining in Cornwall has the opportunity of being a large industry, relatively, in this country; yet it might be a very important one strategically. So we would express our gratitude to the noble Lord for bringing this subject before us. I would also add that I welcome very much his presence on this side of the House, swelling the number of those who have experience of the kind he has exhibited to us this afternoon.
May I preface my short contribution to this debate, by saying that I am chairman of a company which is a very large user of tin. We use about 700 tons of tin each year in the manufacture, largely, of bearings, and I well remember the difficulties in which we found ourselves during the last war when it became necessary very severely to restrict the use of tin in this way. Were this situation to come upon us again, I think it is true that modern technology, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has reminded

477
us, can always provide a substitute; but substitutes can be, at times, extremely bothering and extremely expensive. So I regard the suggestion that has been made as essentially a sound one.
In addition to what has been said already, the production of an increased quantity of tin in Cornwall would certainly help our balance of trade. It seems likely—although I do not know the local circumstances—that if tin mines were opened up there we should find that a certain number of people in Cornwall were contributing to our unfortunate balance-of-trade position and to our economy, whereas if these mines were not opened up, they would not. But certainly every small piece of help that can be given to this long-standing and pressing problem is well worth our support.
It is likely that in the past the necessary attention has not been given to this subject because it is not a large industry, or one that can exert large pressures. There is a school of thought which one finds in various quarters in this country—and sometimes in very unexpected quarters—which always takes the standpoint that any artificial support to a particular industry is a bad thing. These are the people who are living in the past, and who, incidentally, still fall back on the basic argument associated with the international division of labour, deriving from the idea that one should always buy everything from its cheapest source. I think it is necessary for us, as an absolute principle, to stop thinking in that way.
I am never tired of pointing out to people who decry any form of preferential taxation treatment, or decry any form of import duty, that some of our most successful industries in this country would probably not be in the position they are to-day, had there not been supports of this sort; for example, the motor industry, which still benefits from a 33⅓ per cent. import duty. I have been to Australia once or twice, and I am sometimes amazed at the contradiction of these old economic ideas which is exhibited by an economy that has succeeded in growing a very successful series of second industries behind enormous tariff barriers.
478
I think the argument for this sort of support for the production of tin in this country, for the use of a national asset which has lain waste for many years, the use of which could benefit our balance of trade, is a very strong one indeed. That is particularly so if, as seems probable, the sort of concession on profits tax which has been suggested (and I do not know whether this would be adequate or practicable) is given. And, of course, the consequence to the Exchequer of such a concession would be beneficial, rather than costly, if these companies started making a profit on which income tax could be claimed.
The other suggestion which the noble Lord has made, concerned with the necessity of registering ownership of these mineral assets, seems to be one based on such clear common-sense as to make me wonder why attention has not been given to it before. My Lords, having made this contribution, I should like to sit down with a ringing assent and support for the proposals put forward, and, again, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, on a very useful contribution to our debate.
5.56 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, for raising this subject. It was the noble Lord's maiden speech, and it was a good maiden speech. His is a voice that is rugged, and he is also knowledgeable, but it seemed to me to be a voice that was (shall I say?) across the Bristol Channel from the place that he was really talking about. I hope that he has the opportunity of speaking often in this House, because his type of voice is one which I am perfectly certain this House welcomes.
His Question and his speech were appropriate to the present time, in view of the United Nations Conference on Tin which opens next Monday in New York to draft the Third International Tin Agreement. While it is right that we, as a major tin consuming country, should be concerned about world supplies of tin, I think it is important that we should keep the problem in its proper perspective. No one would deny that at

479
present world demand for tin is outstripping mine production. Of course it is. We must not forget, however, that this situation has not obtained for long. As recently as 1958 the tin producing countries within the framework of the First International Tin Agreement, imposed controls on the exports of tin in an effort to stimulate prices, and those quotas were removed only in the third quarter of 1960—less than five years ago. Since the removal of export quotas the world production of tin has failed to increase significantly, and in all probability is currently almost 30,000 tons a year below the level of production some ten years ago. So we cannot minimise that, either.
So what are we to think? The reasons for this short-fall in production are almost wholly political, and I think that we must recognise that the essence of the problem which we face lies less in the depletion of world sources of tin than in maintaining and increasing production to satisfy demand. Although it is certainly true that the world's richest known alluvial deposits are being fully worked, I do not think we need be too apprehensive. Authoritative opinion maintains that reserves of tin are adequate to meet, under the right conditions, world demand in the foreseeable future.
The noble Lord has referred to the releases of surplus tin from the United States strategic stockpile. He rightly points out that these releases at present bridge the gap between production and consumption. Tin consumers—and, I believe, the producers also, if they have regard to longer-term considerations—must be grateful that the American Government can make surplus tin available for disposal. The American programme for releases gives consumer and producer countries alike a breathing space, and we must concentrate our efforts on seeing that during the next few years a better balance is achieved between production and consumption.
The noble Lord also referred to the work of the International Tin Council, and he is, I know, aware that the United Kingdom is a member of the Second International Tin Agreement, as she was of the First. In discussions in the International Tin Council the producing countries have pressed for increases in the
480
floor and ceiling prices as a means of encouraging investment in tin production. The United Kingdom accepted the decision (I do not suppose we could do much more about it) which was taken last November by the International Tin Council to raise the price range for tin under the International Tin Agreement from £850 to £1,000 per ton to £1,000 to £1,200 per ton. Her Majesty's Government believe that the present price range under the International Tin Agreement should provide a considerable stimulus for increasing world tin production.
Price, of course, is not the only factor to be taken into account in considering steps to increase tin production, and it is for this reason that Her Majesty's Government has especially welcomed the creation by the International Tin Council of the Standing Committee for Production, to the two Working Parties of which the noble Lord referred in his speech and of which the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, also made mention. It is our hope that this Committee will help identify those administrative and economic factors which will encourage investment in the main tin-producing countries and lead to a wise and balanced exploitation of the world's tin resources.
I have made several references to the importance of the price of tin in the world supply position, and I feel that I must stress that all the problems of tin producers will not be solved by price increases alone. The high price of tin has already led to a search, not only for ways of using less tin but for ways of not using tin at all. I referred earlier to the fact that the world consumption of tin has not grown as rapidly as was at one time expected. This is due largely to the failure of the consumption of tin for tinplate to expand as strongly as had been predicted, and I would remind your Lordships that over 40 per cent. of the world's tin metal is used for tinplating. On the one hand, new electrolytic processes of tinplate production have reduced by over five times the thickness of the coating of tin used in the older production methods, and, on the other hand, new materials, such as aluminium, glass and plastics, are taking over in many of the fields which were once traditionally dominated by tin. Fortunately, I believe that many tin producers are alive to the danger that if

481
we do not succeed in keeping prices at a realistic level the high price of tin will, to borrow a metaphor from another metal, "kill the goose which lays the golden egg".
The noble Lord has made an eloquent plea for the Cornish tin industry. May I say that in the last century Cornwall, with an annual production of tin approaching 10,000 tons from some 200 mines, accounted for about a quarter of the world's tin supplies, and Cornishmen are quite rightly proud of that record. Today, it is true that Cornwall produces only a fraction of the output achieved in the 19th century, but the two mines in operation have enjoyed heightened prosperity as a result of the current price of tin; and, with an annual output which has continued at a level of some 1,200 tons a year, make a useful marginal contribution to our total consumption of tin. With the increase in price that I have mentioned, their position is possibly even stronger.
Now the noble Lord has argued about a tax holiday. I have been hearing about this tax holiday for mines ever since I came to Parliament in 1945; and we in the Labour Party have, in successive Budgets, Finance Bills, put up our Amendments on this subject. But may I say to the noble Lord: do not expect us to do in six months what the other side did not do in thirteen years. We must have a little time to think round this subject, but we shall be thinking round it. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that our own resources are invaluable, and I agree with him that we should be thinking about this matter very seriously indeed. The noble Lord mentioned a tax holiday, and I know he will not expect me to commit myself this afternoon. I hope that his advocacy of this particular form of tax relief will not obscure from mining interests the very substantial incentives which exist already for mining in Cornwall—and they are quite considerable. They are even bigger under the 1963 financial provisions. It is a Development Area; it has the opportunity to take the benefit of the grants and the loans.
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are following with very close interest the activities of the several mining companies which are investigating the possibilities of an extension of tin mining operations
482
in Cornwall. If those activities are successful—and we hope they are—we shall welcome an expansion of the output of tin from our domestic mines. I believe, however, that it would be entirely unrealistic to suppose that Cornish tin can ever make more than a very limited contribution to total home supplies. We must bear in mind that it is only by international co-operation that we can meet the dangers which the noble Lord foresees. It is the hope of Her Majesty's Government that producing countries and consuming countries alike will approach the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Tin in a practical and realistic frame of mind, and that the outcome will be a New Agreement which will ensure adequate supplies of tin at reasonable prices, both in the long and the short term. I hope that my speech this afternoon has gone at any rate some way towards reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, that we are thinking seriously about this problem and hope that a satisfactory outcome can be achieved.

CONVERSION OF BRANCH LINES0 TO LIGHT RAILWAYS
6.12 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would not agree that in certain cases branch lines could be usefully and economically converted to light railways; and whether they will give favourable consideration to suitable applications received for such a type of operation, made after a branch-line closure application has been submitted or approved; finally, whether they would agree that an effective start could be made by authorising the use of the existing track of the Havant—Hayling Island branch line for a modern light railway. The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the outset I would say that I have no financial interest in any of the proposals that I shall be bringing to your Lordships' attention this afternoon. My interest could lie only in the fact that I am a vice-president of the Light Railways Transport League and President of the Railway Development Association.
May I stress, too, that I recognise that some railway lines that have been closed down, or are being closed down, can never be made to pay? On the other

483
hand, there are many that can be made viable, and I certainly deprecate the fact that so many assets are being allowed to go to waste. The object of my Question this afternoon is to endeavour to show that in certain cases it is feasible to convert our branch lines into an economic proposition by operating them on the light railway principle. I would add, also, that I am not pressing for any particular type of traction unit or power unit; I am not pressing for diesel or electric traction but purely for light railway systems, using modern rail cars.
Let us consider what is being done abroad. In West Germany, for instance, undertakings operating light railways have retained considerable importance. They are members of the V.D.N.E. (Verband Deutsches Nichtbundeseigenen Eisenbahn), and according to the latest information that I have these 225 light railways, operating public or private transport, form a system 3,456 miles in length, which is a not inconsiderable length of light railway. Recently examples of conversion to light railway operations took place at Karlsruhe, on the line to Ittersbach, and also between Nürnberg and Fürth. In Switzerland the V.S.T. (I will not mention the German words) members operate a total network of standard and narrow gauge "private railways", as they are called, amounting to 1,380 miles in length.
These "private railways" are of great importance, particularly in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, mainly, I am advised, due to Government assistance given in the form of their Railways Act dated December 20, 1957. There, everything possible is done to ensure that the light railways can continue to maintain, and even extend, the service they render to the community. In certain regions, in fact, the "private railways" represent the backbone of the public transport services. I am sure that many noble Lords are well aware of the rapid-transit light railway facilities to be found in the United States of America.
To turn to this country, it is interesting to note the unanimity of opinion on the part of consultants who have been brought in by outside bodies or organisations to consider and report on the economic feasibility of operating on a
484
different basis certain branch lines that are being closed. To quote a few specific examples, there is, for instance, Kinord Associates, who, in their report on the Deeside railway from Aberdeen to Ballater, confirm that scope exists for improving the operation of this railway to a point in excess of a break-even on operating costs. Martech Consultants, in their report, entitled An Approach to the Problem of Branch Lines, take a similar view. They give as an example the line from Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh—though I recognise (I say this in case the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, should mention it), that this line has been kept open for social and general economic reasons. But I understand that the Ministry of Transport have said that the net cost of keeping this line open is £120,000 a year.
But I am advised by Martech Consultants (who advised British Railways on their liner-trains) that by a completely fresh approach the line could be made into a commercial proposition. In the main, this approach is based on the use of lightweight twin-car trains only and unmanned stations, except at the two terminals at Dingwall and Achnasheen, while providing an extra stop between Inverness and Dingwall. The level crossings would be controlled by traffic lights, and the staff would amount to one-fifth of the present number but would be paid an average of 40 per cent. more. On these premises I am advised that the cost of operating the proposed service, including interest on capital, would be £70,000 a year, against a revenue of £85,000 a year. These figures are based on a capital outlay of £183,000, including £100,000 for the permanent way. For this to be achieved the complete line would have to be transferred to an independent operating organisation and the line reclassified as a light railway.
The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, is well aware of the existence of numerous small bodies interested in the less important railway lines that are being closed down. I will mention but a few: the Deeside Railway Preservation Committee, the East Sussex Travellers' Association, the Forest Row Link Line Association, the Hayling Light Railway Society, and so on. I would therefore strongly urge the

485
Minister to believe that such organisations need some sponsoring and co-ordinating authority to look after their interests, as well as to assist and sympathise with their efforts in a practical way.
If something is not done fairly quickly, the lines which have already been closed, or are to be closed, will soon become derelict, so that any later takeover or conversion would certainly be most costly, due to the rehabilitation that would be necessary. Therefore, I sincerely ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the setting up of some sponsoring and co-ordinating authority, such as a light railways board, so that the assets and advantages of these branch lines are not wasted and may be used to provide an efficient, effective and economic transport system.
On the advice of Mr. J. P. Cunliffe, a consulting engineer with railway experience dating back to before the last war, the Heathfield line, between Eridge and Hailsham, which is due to close down on June 14 of this year, could be put on to an economic footing. In the main this could be achieved fairly simply by installing new signalling apparatus, the mechanisation of track maintenance, the long welding of rails, the conversion of the majority of stations to unattended halts, and the adoption of diesel units. Equally, the Three Bridges to Ashurst line, on which I understand the T.U.C.C. will be reporting next week to the Minister, could be run at a profit.
Regarding the Havant-Hayling branch line, on which the last train ran on November 3, 1963, the Havant and Waterloo Urban District Council have now submitted to the Minister a compulsory purchase order for part of this railway land. I think that the objections to this would be as follows. First, a single line railway track is unsuitable, and too narrow, for conversion to a highway; secondly, any extension of roadway facilities between these two points would, in the main, be of use during only four months of the year; thirdly, the ratepayers should not be saddled with the cost of an extra road mainly of use to people residing outside the area; and, fourthly, consideration should be given to the needs of the population of the urban district who have not motor cars in which to go to the seaside. I
486
understand that the total population is around 85,000. According to a resident of Hayling Island, on Saturday there are no buses between 8.30 in the morning and 4.10 p.m. Finally, greater attention should be paid to the needs of the residents of the Hayling Island-Havant area, who might have luggage, prams, babies and so forth. Even during the summer congestion periods, a light railway could operate a half-hourly service, while there would be a bottleneck at the road bridge.
If I may, I would mention the Lang-stone Viaduct, as not so long ago the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, expressed interest in the cost of repairing this viaduct, in view of the high figure which was quoted to him. I am advised authoritatively by a consulting civil engineer in Victoria Street that the cost of renewing the central swing span would be in the region of £3,500 and, extra to that, there would be required an annual expenditure of £1,600 for the other parts of the bridge for the next ten years—a total expenditure of only £19,500.
In conclusion, I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the fact that under certain conditions there are effective economic advantages in modern light railway services and that many of the branch line systems which have, or are being, closed down were Victorian in concept and operation. I would further ask Her Majesty's Government to consider setting up some sponsoring and co-ordinating authority for the purpose of developing such a form of transport, within the overall context of the objective planning of transport systems, each method of transport being assessed on its true potential.
6.25 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, as I have to keep an engagement in a few minutes' time, my noble friend Lord Somers has kindly allowed me to speak at once. I have very little to say. I am not at all averse to a close look at the possibility of operating some of these lines under light railway conditions, but I am bound to say that a long experience of the operation of light railways leaves me in a mood not very sanguine as to their probable success. What I would urge upon the Government is not to commit public money to ventures of

487
this sort in the first place, because, as we found so often in the past, grants and grants in aid have been sunk in light railways which have not become profitable undertakings.
Another point which I think is important, and which I am sure is not in the mind of the noble Lord who has asked this Question, is that no pressure should be put upon the Railways Board to shoulder a burden of this kind. The only other point I should like to make is that, though I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, that a great many economies could be made in operation and maintenance, the important thing is a realistic study of the traffic potential. That is one of the great services that Dr. Beeching has brought to bear on the railway system, and it is here that promoters or enthusiasts or those who genuinely want to see the facilities maintained are only too apt to take an unduly sanguine view.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am not trying to bring pressure on the Railways Board in any way whatsoever. What I am saying is, if they do away with certain branch lines, why do they not let some other organisation use them?
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I agree with that, but too often in the past it has come back on the public authority. I very well remember that when, a great many years ago, Sir Eric Geddes was amalgamating the railways, against the advice of most of his experts—which was very much on the lines of that which the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has quoted, that all these things ought to be taken into the main line railway system—he said that they were going to be "white elephants" and it was better to leave them out. We do not want to stable any more "white elephants" in transport, upon either the taxpayer or the ratepayer. If private enterprise is willing to do it without any kind of subsidisation, that is another question.
6.30 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that my noble friend Lord Hurcomb is unduly pessimistic over this, though I quite agree with him that we do not want to risk the taxpayers' money.
488
I think that under a modern system these railways could be made paying propositions. It has been a very hard thing for the residents, who live in the areas where these lines have been closed down, to see their means of transport going, and I think that if they can be operated on an economic system, they are well worth preserving. I believe there is every evidence to prove that they can be.
To most people, a light railway means a narrow gauge one, but I am not suggesting that the gauge should be altered at all. The permanent way can remain just as it is, except for the renewal and, I hope, long welding of the track. I have here details of the Heathfield Line mentioned by my noble friend Lord Merrivale, which I think could be a very workable scheme. It is a single track throughout, with passing loops at each station, but under a new system of signalling, known as the tokenless block system, the whole length of line can be operated by one man with a push-button control and coloured lights for the actual signals.
I quote from the description given here:
"It is fundamental to this system that only one train can enter a single line block section at any one time, and until this train has been proved complete and clear of that section a second train cannot enter. Essential safety is therefore assured."
It goes on to give a summary of the various advantages of the system.
"There is push-button control for all signalling work on the single line. The time for trains to cross or to enter their respective single line sections can be reduced from minutes to seconds. Effective control by telephone from a distant control office such as Croydon is easily possible."
If we were to reduce the manpower on these lines, and class them under an entirely different heading as light railways, I cannot help feeling that they would pay. The stations need not be manned at all. If we were going to run, say, single diesel cars, it could be done by one man who would act as driver and conductor, and there could be a standard average fare of, say, 2s. or something like that, which the passenger would pay whatever the distance he travelled, and, therefore, would save the bother of various fares for which change would have to be given. If you are going to have a trailer, you would obviously need to have a second man in the trailer.

489
Then there would be needed automated rail repair services in the way of rail cars and a rail loader equipped for various tasks, a motorised inspection vehicle, a controller weave control apparatus and so on. All that would involve a considerable preliminary capital expenditure. I see that the estimate given by the East Sussex Travellers Association for this line is £44,000. That is a heavy expenditure, and if they are going to be owned by private bodes it would be practically impossible. Therefore, I think the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Merrivale of having a parent body who would control all light railways is a very good one, since they would be able to give financial as well as technical help.
So far as safety devices are concerned, it is obvious that these railways would be open to any official railway inspector if he wanted to see that everything was working efficiently. I cannot help feeling that these light railways would be a very workable project. One has to realise that if the branch happens to be a double track one, the problem is easier still, because there could be just the automatic self-cancelling signal such as is used on the underground, except at the terminals. Again, there could be unmanned stations and a single-manned car for the driver and conductor. I hope that the Government will think over this proposition and see whether it cannot be worked to save these valuable branch lines.
6.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I rise to speak quite briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Merrivale. As a member of the National Council of Inland Transport I have seen many letters throughout the country showing the hardship felt from branch line closures. I believe that, to a certain extent, the Ministry of Transport appear to have forgotten the powers that they have under the old 1896 Light Railways Act. This is a most useful Act, because, in one sense, it is vague in character and allows the Minister wide discretion to run branch lines as economically as possible.
I should like to cite a recent example of where successful use has been made of the Light Railways Act. This was the case of the Central Wales Line running between Swansea and Shrewsbury. This was, I understand, to be closed down in 1962. However, after much local and
490
national opposition, the former Minister of Transport decided to reprieve this line, and instructed British Railways to work out a scheme for operating the line under the Light Railways Act. The interesting point of this is that the Railways Board later announced that they hoped to reduce the existing annual loss on this line of some £176,000 down to a figure of £30,000. This, I would submit, gigantic saving is of itself proof of how useful the old Act can be. I believe there are many other examples of branch lines that could be saved under the powers of this Act by reducing their running costs.
This Act, as I have said, has the advantage of allowing the Minister wide discretion as to the conditions he may impose. It has an added advantage of not defining exactly what a light railway is, and thus allows the Minister, as I see it, to consider using his powers for any branch line under this Act. I feel that we are fortunate in this House to have the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, a man who has a wealth of practical experience of railway matters. I believe he started his, if I may so describe it, brilliant career in the old L.N.E.R.
LORD LINDGREN: The Great Northern.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Later he was Deputy Regional Commissioner of the Midland Region. He has the further advantage that up to last October he had no political commitment directly involved with the railways. He is therefore, I suggest, uncommitted with preconceived ideas, except for one fact, and that is that the Labour Party at the last Election gave a clear commitment as regards branch lines. I am hopeful that when he comes to reply a satisfactory answer will be forthcoming from the noble Lord, and that he will undertake to make more use of the powers under this Act.
6.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I think we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, for raising this matter, and I should like to offer support to him. It is perhaps a little unfair to refer to "the dead hand of Beeching", because, after all, the poor man was only doing what he was appointed to do within the terms of reference, and he has received, so far as I know, nothing but praise for his work. But one

491
sees examples up and down the countryside of semi-derelict or derelict lines, and it must be remembered that every time a branch railway line is closed down, especially one going to a seaside place like Hayling Island, it merely adds to the congestion on the already overcrowded road, fills up the car park at Hayling Island, and makes it almost impossible for people to go to and fro.
These examples can be multiplied many times throughout the country especially in the West Country. I remember the railway line which in the old days ran from Plymouth to Princetown on Dartmoor, one of the most beautiful railway lines on which I have ever travelled. Now, of course, it is derelict and has been pulled up. If that line existed to-day, as a holiday attraction with a light rail car running up and down, I am quite sure it would be a viable proposition. There was another case many years before the war of a light railway between Chichester and Selsey, which was taken over by a bus company and closed down, I think I am right in saying, in 1935. There, again, the crowded road between Chichester and Selsey makes it almost impossible to travel from place to place. If that little light railway existed today, I am sure it would be a great attraction, and there is no earthly reason why it should not be a viable proposition.
I could not understand why it was that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, was so reluctant to bring pressure to bear upon the Railways Board. It seems to me that we should direct pressure on them to provide a decent public service as well as looking at the exact cost of small sections of branch railway lines which happen not to pay under certain statistical methods of approach. But I think the whole subject is one which should receive encouragement from the Government, and I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, will feel able to support it, or at any rate let us feel encouraged that some measure of activity may be allowed to take place. I hope that where the Railway Boards are not willing themselves to undertake to run services, private enterprise will be allowed to step in and will be encouraged as much as possible, wherever it can be done.
6.42 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, for introducing this debate to-night, and also for his usual courtesy in letting me know beforehand the general line on which he was going to approach this subject. Of course, his general approach has been supported by every other noble Lord who has taken part in the debate so far.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): With the exception of Lord Hurcomb.
LORD LINDGREN: My noble friend Lord Champion, in more than a whisper, reminds me that it was not complete unanimity, because the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, entered a caveat in regard to it. Of course, there may be some significance in that, because the noble Lord has had responsibility in operating transport services.
At the start, I should like to make it clear that my right honourable friend is always ready to consider favourably an application for a Light Railway Order. In order to put the matter in perspective, I think I should first of all set out the various ways in which my right honourable friend, as Minister of Transport, is concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, referred to cases where a closure proposal for a branch railway line has been submitted or approved. My right honourable friend's position in relation to railway passenger closure proposals is, I think, well known to your Lordships, and I need do no more than summarise it briefly. When such a proposal is published and opposed, the Minister has to consider the report of the Transport Users Consultative Committee. He also considers all the other factors which may be relevant. He then either consents to the proposal, with or without conditions, or he refuses his consent.
Let us take first the case where he refuses his consent. When that happens the Railways Board must maintain a passenger service, and they will naturally consider the most economical means of doing so. One such instance was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. What I want to make quite clear is that this consideration of the method of operation where a consent has been refused is entirely a matter for the

493
Railways Board. Where conditions are suitable they may decide, for example, to leave stations without staff, as has been suggested by a number of noble Lords during the course of this short debate. If they thought it appropriate, they could ask my right honourable friend for his authorisation to operate the line as a light railway. But, I repeat, it is essentially for the Board—not my right honourable friend—to decide whether or not this is the right course to adopt. The consideration of the Board's application—like any other application for authorisation of light railway operation—would be a matter for my right honourable friend, as I shall explain in a moment.
If, on the other hand, consent to the closure is granted, the Board will probably wish to dispose of the line—that is, assuming that it is not required for freight. But some other body may be interested in running the line as a light railway, and may make an approach to the Board with a view to taking it over. In such circumstances, the usual procedure is for the Board first to apply to my right honourable friend for an order to enable the line to be operated as a light railway. The other body then applies for a further order to authorise them to take over the line. This may seem a roundabout method, but it has been found convenient in the past. It does, for instance, enable the light railway interests to know that a Light Railway Order will be granted before they commit themselves too far. This was, in fact, the procedure followed in the case of the famous "Bluebell Line".
My right honourable friend has specific functions in relation to the operation of light railways. No light railway may be operated without the statutory authorisation of a Light Railway Order. When he is considering an application for such an Order the Minister must satisfy himself that the applicants are a body which can properly be authorised to provide a light railway service. To this end he will wish to be satisfied on the technical aspects of the proposals for operating the service, and on the applicants' technical resources to maintain the appropriate safety standards. He will also wish to be satisfied about the financial resources of the applicants to meet
494
any demands which might possibly fall upon them.
He must also take into account any objections duly made to the application when it is advertised in accordance with the statutory procedure. In all these matters he has the benefit of the advice of the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways and his staff, whose reputation in matters of rail safety is well known to your Lordships. If the Minister is satisfied that the proposals are sound, he then authorises the service by means of a Light Railway Order.
Now what is my right honourable friend's policy in such matters? I can give an unequivocal assurance that he is very ready to consider applications for Light Railway Orders. He will give such applications every consideration. In the preparation of proposals his Department will be ready to give any advice they can. Whether individual applications for Orders or for the transfer of a line can be granted, however, must obviously depend, as I have said already, on my right honourable friend's being fully satisfied that he can authorise the interests concerned to undertake the operation of what is of course a public service. Every application must be carefully examined, and my right honourable friend must be fully satisfied about the technical soundness of the proposals and about the technical and financial soundness of the undertaking to operate the service. His first care must be for the safety of the travelling public.
I come now to the question of the Havant-Hayling Island line. The Hayling Island Light Railway Society have been in touch for some time with the Ministry about their proposals. They have been given technical information on various aspects. So far, however, no application has been made for a Light Railway Order. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, quite rightly suggested that my right honourable friend should give favourable consideration to the Society's proposals, because a light railway would provide a better alternative service than the buses can. Again quite rightly, he referred to women concerned with youngsters and carrying push-chairs, prams, parcels and that sort of thing. I appreciate his desire to see the best possible service available,

495
but, as I have already said, in considering light railway operation the overriding consideration must be the safety of the public.
Meantime, the Havant and Waterloo Urban District Council have prepared a scheme for using the line for a new road and have sought the necessary planning permission. I should like to make it quite clear here that that planning permission is not a permission from the Ministry of Transport: it is the normal planning permission from the Hampshire County Council. And should there be any dispute in regard to that, it would be a matter to be dealt with by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and not by the Minister of Transport. The Havant and Waterloo Urban District Council have advertised a compulsory purchase order for the acquisition of the line. This order will require the confirmation of my right honourable friend, and if objections are received from any of the owners or owner-occupiers of any of the land covered by the order, and are not withdrawn, my right honourable friend must arrange for a public inquiry or for a hearing of such objections; and these objections, of course, are those referred to as statutory objections.
Objections from other sources will be considered by my right honourable friend, and he may, if he thinks fit, hold a public inquiry into them. For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, I would say (although perhaps he already knows) that such an objection has already been lodged by the Havant and Hayling Rapid Transit Company.
If I may sum up my right honourable friend's position, it is this. He is always ready to consider applications from any body to run a line as a light railway. Before he can authorise light railway operation, however, he must be fully satisfied about the relevant aspects of the proposal, and, in particular, those affecting public safety.
In the particular case of the Hayling Island line, noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, will not, I
496
am sure, expect me to commit my right honourable friend in any way as to the decision he would take on an application for a Light Railway Order, bearing in mind that first of all no such application is before him at present and that, on the other hand, the Urban District Council's compulsory purchase order has come to him for confirmation. Therefore, too, I am sure the noble Lord would not expect me to make any comments on his observations with regard to the practicability of the road scheme, because that is a matter which would have to be dealt with by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport when he is called upon to confirm the order.
Again, my Lords, I would express appreciation for the opportunity for this debate. I think I have made it quite clear that so far as the Minister is concerned he is happy to use his powers to issue Light Railway Orders to the full. He is concerned, of course, that those who undertake operations under them should be of a standing and status, both technically and financially, to enable them to do the job as a public service, and that public safety should be assured as well.

  SKID TRAINING FOR DRIVERS
  SKID TRAINING FOR DRIVERS