Sitting of 12 December 1966

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

    Industrial Workers
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Labour what numbers and percentage of the total of those registering as unemployed since 20th July are classified under the combined Orders VI, VII, VIII, and X; and what numbers and percentage of the total have been placed in employment classified under these orders.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mrs. Shirley Williams): We do not compile statistics giving an industrial analysis of persons coming on to the unemployed registers. However, what I can give is the increase, between the July and November counts, in the number of persons registered as wholly unemployed who were last employed in the specified group of industries. The increase was 23,099, or 12·8 per cent. of the increase in the total num-
    2
    ber of wholly unemployed. Placings in this group of industries between July and November totalled 112,412, or 16·1 per cent. of all placings.
    Mr. Biffen: Is it not extraordinary that the information I have requested is not kept in that form, since one of the purposes of the policy is to redeploy towards those companies engaged in export activities, in view of the fact that the Orders referred to cover about 50 per cent. of our total exports as indicated by an Answer given by the Board of Trade?
    Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is correct in the industries he has indicated. I suggest that the figures of placings give us a fairly clear view of where unemployed labour is going.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Labour in view of the shortage of sheet metal workers, tool makers, fitters, turners, machine tool-setter operators and welders referred to in the recent report of the Economic Development Committee for Mechanical Engineering, how many in these trades have become redundant or have registered as unemployed since 20th July; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Statistics are not available of the number of workers in particular occupations becoming redundant or coming on to the unemployed registers.
    Mr. Biffen: Since the whole purposes of the measures of 20th July were, in the

    3
    words of the Lord President of the Council, to be calculated, is it not about time that statistical figures of this order were collected? How on earth can we judge whether the policy is succeeding?
    Mrs. Williams: The difficulty is the form in which the hon. Gentleman has asked his Question. I can reply in part by telling him that the pressure of demand in the six months in which he is interested has eased appreciably since July. For instance, although there are seven vacancies for every one turner unemployed and five vacancies for every machine tool operator or machine tool setter unemployed, in the other four occupations he has indicated the position has very considerably eased since July.
    Sir K. Joseph: Will not the hon. Lady agree that that is largely because the Government's measures have reduced demand rather than increased supply?
    Mrs. Williams: I think it would be fair to say that in a number of cases the demand has decreased, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but I would point to the fact that there has been, and is increasingly being, some increase in supply of skilled workers under the industrial training boards' schemes and under the Government's own schemes.
    Mr. Manuel: Would my hon. Friend agree, arising from the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), that it would be extremely difficult to give firm figures because of the number in these trades who are temporarily unemployed and because the figure alters almost weekly?
    Mrs. Williams: That is correct. Further, many vacancies are not notified to the Ministry of Labour's employment exchanges, because they go through other channels.
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady has volunteered some information. She says that more people are now available in these particular trades as a result of the Industrial Training Act. Would she be willing to give evidence of this in answer to a Question later?
    Mrs. Williams: That is a little unfair. I said that the increase in the supply of trained men would be likely to add to the supply. I point to the fact that there
    4
    has been some increase in the number of classes in these particular occupations—for example, in Government training centres.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Labour how many skilled men are still required in engineering; and what is the annual output of such skilled engineers from Government training centres.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I cannot give precise figures of unsatisfied demands for labour, but many skilled engineering occupations are still in generally short supply. Government training centres are at present capable of producing annually some 5,500 trained men in engineering trades.
    Mr. Ridley: Would not the hon. Lady agree that 5,500 skilled engineers will go nowhere towards meeting the greatest of all the shortages of employment? Surely she would agree that we must have better arrangements for training more of the people of whom we are short?
    Mrs. Williams: Yes, Sir. By the end of 1967, on current plans, the number of trained people available should jump from 5,500 to 6,900 and by the middle of 1968 or by late 1968 to 7,800. In addition, the supply of full-time first-year training places under the Engineering Industry Training Board has jumped in one year from 14,000 in 1965–66 to 24,000 in the current year. That is part of the answer to the hon. Gentleman.

    Redundancy Payments
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Labour what proposals he has to relieve firms of their share of the cost of redundancy pay where they have become seriously financially embarrassed by Government policy.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): None, Sir.
    One of the principles implicit in the Redundancy Payments Act is that the cost of statutory redundancy payments is a proper charge on industry. This principle was generally accepted by hon. Members opposite during the passage of the Bill. I can see no case for departing from it now, and certainly not by reason of present Government policies whose specific aim is to make British industry more efficient.
    Mr. Ridley: Where specifically a firm has followed the Government's lead and has increased its production and now finds itself in serious financial difficulties, would not the Minister agree that it is the Government's responsibility to help it out? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the case to which I refer and about which I have written to him?
    Mr. Gunter: Yes, indeed, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we debated this matter during the Committee stage of the Redundancy Payments Bill. In fact, it was brought to a head in a debate on a Clause, in which his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) participated. At that time the argument related to when a particular contract such as the TSRII contract was breached. It was never argued in the way in which the hon. Gentleman is arguing it now.
    Mr. Onslow: Will the Minister not confirm that a man transferred from one company to another within the same group still qualifies for redundancy payments? Is not this absurd?
    Mr. Gunter: Whether or not it is absurd, that is the law.
    Mr. Scottasked the Minister of Labour what evidence he has of collusion between employers and employees in claiming redundancy payments.
    Mr. Gunter: None, Sir.
    Mr. Scott: Did not the right hon. Gentleman raise this matter in the debate on 15th November, and was he not ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker on that occasion? Having raised it himself, is it not regrettable that he now refuses to bear out the allegation which he then made?
    Mr. Gunter: The question that I am asked is what evidence I have of collusion between employers and employees. I have no evidence at the present time of actual collusion. I am looking carefully into the case which the hon. Gentleman has submitted to me. If I may say so, there are certain aspects of this case which rather fascinate me but collusion is not one of them.
    Mr. Onslow: The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that it is inevitable that a man who is transferred from one com-
    6
    pany to another within the same group must get a redundancy payment. Does not this open up opportunities for collusion?
    Mr. Gunter: It may do. All I am being asked to say is what evidence I have of collusion. Collusion has a certain meaning. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman understands the word, it has a particular meaning. I have been asked what is the collusion between employers and employees. My reply is that at the moment I have no evidence.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Labour what has ben the total cost of redundancy payments between 1st January, 1966, and 30th June, 1966, and from 1st July to 30th November; and how much has been expended on unemployment benefits in the same two periods.
    Mr. Gunter: As the Reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, publish it in the OFFICIAL. REPORT.
    Following is the information:

    1st January to 30th June, 1966

    1st July to 31st October, 1966 (latest available date)

    £

    £

    Redundancy Payments Unemployment

    10,296,000

    9,771,000

    Benefit

    24,218,906

    16,972,529

    National Assistance payments to persons registered as unemployed

    12,558,687

    8,103,616

    Director, Edgbaston (Departmental Letter)
    Mrs. Knightasked the Minister of Labour by what authority a member of his Statistics Department in a letter dated 19th July, 1966, threatened Mr. H. S. Cave, furnishing director of Edgbaston, with fines of £50 and £200.
    Mr. Gunter: Mr. Cave was not threatened. His firm was asked to provide information about earnings and numbers employed on inquiry forms sent out under the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947, In a letter to my Department, Mr. Cave asked what penalties could be imposed for noncompliance and the reply gave him the information requested.
    Mrs. Knight: Is the Minister aware that I have this letter, which is very definitely a threatening letter, and that I shall

    7
    be glad to show it to him afterwards? Has the right hon. Gentleman any conception of the burdens which are heaped on small businesses by various Government Departments? Does he not realise that these two forms, which are obviously designed by a statistical sadist, incorporate about 100 questions and that I feel that my constituents ought not to be bludgeoned by threats into being an unpaid servant of his Department?
    Mr. Gunter: I can only say that if the hon. Lady regards this letter, which I have read carefully—I have a copy of it with me, too—as a threat, she has never been seriously threatened in her life. Her constituent asked to be told what the penalties were, and that is what we told him. On the other part of the supplementary question, if my memory serves me aright on one of these so-called "diabolical" forms all that the gentleman had to do was to fill up three lines.

    Busmen (Pay)
    Mr. Higginsasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he will make Her Majesty's Government's decision to approve an increase in busmen's pay at the end of the pay standstill conditional on the ending of the restrictive trade practice whereby standing passengers are prohibited outside rush hours;
    (2) whether he will make Her Majesty's Government's decision to approve an increase in busmen's pay at the end of the pay standstill conditional on the ending of the restrictive trade practice whereby the number of standing passengers is restricted in the rush hours and its replacement by a limit 50 per cent. higher than that at present imposed.
    Mr. Gunter: The overall limits on standing passengers in buses are laid down in regulations made by the Minister of Transport, in the interests of safety. Any amendment of these regulations would be a matter for my right hon. Friend. Within the limits imposed by the regulations, any restrictions on the number of standing passengers are settled by employers and workers. I have no power to impose conditions of the kind suggested. Meetings have already been held with both sides of the National Joint Councils which cover the operation of buses, and they have undertaken to
    8
    consider ways of improving the use of labour which have been suggested by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Mr. Higgins: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that answer cannot possibly cover the first Question, because it is concerned with no standing passengers, whereas they are allowed during the rush hours? If the number of standing passengers in the rush hours were increased, it would be possible significantly to reduce the number of buses and the number of bus crews required. This depends on the peak load which the bus service has to meet.
    Mr. Gunter: I have no doubt that the number of passengers carried would be increased if the number of standing passengers were increased, but I have no power to enforce that.

    Falmouth and Camborne-Redruth
    Dr. John Dunwoodyasked the Minister of Labour what percentages of adult male insured workers were registered as unemployed in the Falmouth and in the Camborne-Redruth areas at the latest available date.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Percentage rates are not available for adult males separately but only for all males. At 14th November, 1966, the percentage rate of unemployment for males was 8·2 at Falmouth, and 6·9 at Camborne and Redruth.
    Dr. Dunwoody: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is a disturbing picture? Would she agree that, in these difficult areas like West Cornwall, no Government has yet succeeded in providing continuous full employment? Would she, therefore, consider whether it is possible for her Ministry to institute a thoroughgoing exhaustive investigation into the employment situation in these scattered areas like West Cornwall?
    Mrs. Williams: While agreeing with what my hon. Friend says, I would point out that the unemployment percentage in Falmouth a year ago was 12·9, so that there has been a substantial improvement there. I would also point out that the Industrial Development Act, which covers Cornwall, only came into operation on 19th August, and it is hoped that it will be possible to attract

    9
    new industry with new offers of employment to Cornwall as a result of this further legislation.
    Mr. Peter Mills: It is rarely that I agree with the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody), but on this occasion I fully agree with him. Would the Parliamentary Secretary make a thorough investigation into the whole problem of unemployment in the South-West?
    Mrs. Williams: I would point out that I only recently visited the South-West and I am aware of the structural problems which exist particularly in Cornwall.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Scottasked the Minister of Labour what is the percentage increase in total numbers unemployed at the latest count over the corresponding date for 1965 for Scotland, Wales, and England, respectively.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Between 8th November, 1965, and 14th November, 1966, the increases were 26·9, 41·9 and 83·3 per cent., respectively.
    Mr. Scott: Is it not clear that those regions which suffer worst and are bearing the brunt of the shake-out are those which are least able to bear the so-called object of it, namely, that manufacturing rather than servicing industries should attract labour?
    Mrs. Williams: I think the figures that I have just given show the precise opposite.

    Advertising Agencies
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Labour how many people are at the moment employed in advertising agencies; and what steps he will take to redeploy them.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The numbers employed are not shown separately in the employment statistics. As regards the second part of the Question, my hon. Friend will be aware that one of the objectives of the Selective Employment Tax is to encourage economy in the use of labour in services.
    Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend not agree, however, that ideally redeploy-
    10
    ment should take place from unnecessary and useless occupations? Will she further agree that advertising is one of the most unnecessary services whose two major contributions to our society are the stepping up of prices and the spoiling of television programmes?
    Mrs. Williams: While deploring some of the excesses which sometimes occur in the advertising industry, I do not accept that there is no part at all for it to play.
    Mr. Ridley: Would not the hon. Lady agree that in this case, as in all cases, redeployment really means unemployment?
    Mrs. Williams: I am not sure that that question requires an answer from me, as the hon. Gentleman seems to wish merely to make a point.

    Motor Car Industry
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking to offset the effects of redundancy in the motor car industry in Scotland.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Our local officers are doing all they can to help those still unemployed to find other work and to provide re-training where appropriate.
    Mr. Campbell: Will the hon. Lady treat this as a special problem, as it takes longer in Scotland than elsewhere for a situation of this kind to be rectified?
    Mrs. Williams: Yes, Sir, and I think we have already done so. On 5th December, out of 718 workers who were formerly employed by B.M.C. and who were made redundant by that company, only 220 now remain unemployed. Further, out of 761 formerly employed by Rootes only 246 are still unemployed. This, after only six weeks, is not too bad a record.
    Mr. Dalyell: Can my hon. Friend give a progress report on the excellent off-the-job adult retraining schemes that she has introduced?
    Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend is expecting details perhaps a little quickly. I can assure him, however, that we shall do our best to keep him informed.
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Minister of Labour (1) if he will make a periodic report on the trouble shooting committee set up in the motor car industry as to its work, scale and scope of inquiry:
    (2) if he will extend the work of the trouble shooting committees to other industries.
    Mr. Gunter: On 6th May in answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes), I told the House of Mr. Scamp's report on the work of the Motor Industry Joint Labour Council. I hope to make a further report to the House on the Council's work shortly. The constitution and terms of reference of the Council take account of the special circumstances of the motor industry and any extension of arrangements of this kind to other industries would have to be most carefully considered. The Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations has received evidence about the Motor Industry Joint Labour Council and I think it is sensible to await its Report before reaching any decision on these possibilities.—[Vol. 727, c. 167–8.]
    Mr. Moonman: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I also ask him whether he does not agree that reports of this nature should also be qualitative and not simply matters of figures? Would he not also agree that it would be extremely helpful to other industries associated with industrial disputes to have information of this sort? Finally, has he had any representations from trade unions and employers in other industries about setting up similar trouble shooting committees?
    Mr. Gunter: There has certainly been considerable interest in the experiment that we have adopted in the motor car industry. However, as to the general view, I think that most of the other industries would not necessarily choose this method of seeking a solution. I have had no representations from other industries in the sense of my hon. Friend's question.

    North-East Scotland (Young Persons)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Minister of Labour what additional action he is
    12
    now taking to help young persons to find jobs in the North-East of Scotland.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Youth employment officers are always ready to give all possible assistance to young persons seeking employment.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Minister realise that the Selective Employment Tax has begun to reduce the number of jobs available in the services she mentioned just now and, since the manufacturing industry in the area is limited, will she ensure that these people do not have to move South to get work?
    Mrs. Williams: We are keeping a very close eye on the effects of the Selective Employment Tax, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that unemployment is lower in Aberdeen, which has the largest concentration of manufacturing in the area, although I agree with him that it is higher outside the Aberdeen town area. Only 12 out of the 2,370 summer school leavers are still unemployed in the whole area.

    Building Workers
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Labour what action he proposes to take against building contractors offering hourly wage rates to general building craftsmen which exceed the rates agreed under the standstill on prices and incomes.
    Mr. Gunter: An employer is acting contrary to the standstill if he pays rates higher than those paid by him for the same work before 20th July, 1966. Actual rates paid often exceed negotiated rates, and I appreciate that this can give rise to difficulties in present circumstances, I have recently discussed these matters with the leaders of the Building Trades Unions and also with the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, which has agreed to issue further guidance to its members. This will stress the importance of observing agreed rates except where genuine incentive schemes provide the opportunity for increased earnings, and will draw particular attention to the requirements of incomes policy during the severe restraint period.
    Mr. Hilton: While I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that lengthy and informative Reply, does he realise that most evening newspapers now carry straightforward offers of rates of 12s. an

    13
    hour, which is nearly 60 per cent. above the rate, and that in the construction industry, the largest single employer of male labour in the country, the incomes freeze appears to apply only to the official negotiating machinery? Others can make any offers they like and the net result will be the erosion of the status of the official negotiating machinery for the industry.
    Mr. Gunter: I am fully aware of the danger to the negotiating machinery—my friends in the trade unions have informed me about that—but, with respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that the matter is quite as simple as that. Whilst it is true that rates are being advertised daily above the negotiated rates, some of those inflated rates were being paid and offered before 20th July.
    Mr. Biffen: Does the right hon. Gentleman have any evidence that rates are being paid which are a contravention of the spirit of the prices and incomes standstill, and if so, does he propose to make an order under Part IV of the Act?
    Mr. Gunter: I have already said that the main issue revolves about single advertisements which daily appear in evening newspapers throughout the country, where one bricklayer or one plumber is required at rates much in excess of nationally negotiated rates. It is difficult to check up on possibly thousands of cases to see whether, for example, 12s. is being offered, whereas the negotiated rate in London, which might be 7s. 1d., was being paid to previous employees before 20th July. It is full of difficulties, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that if on analysis and research we can find the case we shall do what we ought to do about it.

    Unemployed Persons (Payments)
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Labour what action he proposes to take in the case of an unemployed person who refuses to take up employment because he receives more money from the State for doing nothing.
    Mr. Gunter: That must depend on the circumstances.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that his officials take up a more
    14
    realistic attitude in the public interest in cases of this kind and insist either that the individual concerned takes up suitable employment when it is offered and keeps it, or loses his insurance benefit?
    Mr. Gunter: This is the second time the hon. and gallant Gentleman has endowed me with far more power than I possess. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will know, or he ought to know, that according to a leading decision of a tribunal of National Insurance Commissioners the question whether a claimant would be worse off financially by accepting a situation is not in itself relevant to the question whether he is disqualified under Section 22 of the National Insurance Act.

    Occupational Buildings and Processes
    Mrs. McKayasked the Minister of Labour to what extent his Department is examining the relation between faulty design of occupational buildings and techniques, and health hazards to workers.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Ministry recognises the part which proper design of occupational buildings and processes plays in reducing health hazards to workers. Advice is given to industry on this subject and we envisage that the industrial hygiene laboratory service which my right hon. Friend has recently established within Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate will play an active rôle in this field.
    Mrs. McKay: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer, but does she feel that industry generally is sufficiently aware that it is much more economic in health, life and finance to take account of health risks at the design stage rather than later, when a great deal of damage has been done? Would she not feel that a greater campaign is necessary to bring this home to industry, and would she even more intensely educate and encourage it to take account of health risks at the design stage?
    Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend has a very fair point. The setting up of the industrial hygiene laboratory service and the fact that it will be possible to answer far more inquiries in this matter at the design stage should greatly assist the purpose which she and I want to serve.

    Industrial Management (Labour Relations)
    Dr. John Dunwoodyasked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to encourage the education of industrial managements in labour relations techniques.
    Mr. Gunter: The Ministry already takes steps to this end through the industrial relations service, by promoting conferences in collaboration with the British Institute of Management, the Institute of Personnel Management and other bodies, by participation in other conferences and by publications. General problems affecting labour relations are discussed on the National Joint Advisory Council. The Management Training and Development Committee of the Central Training Council will be giving guidance to industrial training boards on the general subject of management training. I shall do everything I can to develop this work.
    Dr. Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that very poor labour relations still exist in very many companies, and that that is all too often the cause of some of the disputes which damage our economy from time to time?
    Mr. Gunter: I am quite aware that there are bad industrial relations in parts of British industry, but I hope that the House will not forget that very large areas of British industry today are doing a first-class job in this respect. Many large areas of management are fully aware of the responsibilities that rest on them. But there are areas of dispute, and we are doing what we can about them.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour what information he intends to publish on the implication of the United Kingdom's joining the European Economic Community.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 6th December, 1966. If the hon. Member has any specific points in mind, perhaps he will get in touch with me.—[Vol. 737, c. 1148–51.]
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply from the Prime
    16
    Minister was very unsatisfactory and gave us no assistance whatever? Why are Government Departments so reluctant to spell out the implications for Britain of joining the E.E.C.? Is my hon. Friend aware, for instance, that the implications of the acceptance of the principle of equal pay and the migration of labour as between one country and another are exceedingly important matters that should be fully and frankly displayed by Government Departments, and by hers in particular?
    Mrs. Williams: They are indeed, Sir. I point out to my hon. Friend that the Government have already made it clear that they support the principle of equal pay and are engaged in discussions on implementing that principle. On my hon. Friend's second point, I repeat my offer that if he will specify in what aspects of migration he is interested we shall look at them.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not very important to counter the intensive propaganda indulged in, particularly by some newspapers—the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mirror and the Sun—and explain to the workers of this country the implications of the free movement of labour? Surely that is a responsibility on the Government before they are pitchforked and pushed into the Common Market?
    Mrs. Williams: Our investigations so far show that it is not very likely that there will be a great influx of workers into this country, or a very serious loss of workers from this country, as a consequence of entry into the Common Market. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that it is extremely difficult to give a precise answer when the terms of the negotiations are not themselves clear.
    Mr. Ridley: Would the hon. Lady not agree that Common Market policy for mobility of labour makes the Government's policy look absolutely pathetic in comparison?

    East Yorkshire Busmen (Dispute)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement about the East Yorkshire bus strike.
    Mr. Gunter: I am glad to say that work was resumed on 4th December.
    Mr. Wall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I kept this Question on the Order Paper to thank the hon. Lady for the part she played in settling the dispute? Would the Minister also agree that the underlying causes of the dispute have not been really settled, and will he keep the whole matter under review?
    Mr. Gunter: As the hon. Gentleman knows, negotiations and discussions are to take place very shortly on the issues.

    Prices and Incomes
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Minister of Labour how many wage and salary earners will come under the category of lowest-paid workers as laid down in the White Paper, Statement on the Prices and Incomes Standstill concerning a Period of Severe Restraint.
    Mr. Gunter: It is not possible to predict how many cases will satisfy the strict criterion laid down in paragraph 28 of Cmnd. 3150.
    Mr. Price: Will my right hon. Friend try to make an estimate because, in the terms of the White Paper, it looks as though it will be up to the Minister of Social Security to a very great extent to help these lower-paid workers and, unless she knows exactly how many she has to help, it will be very difficult to start planning and make correct predictions?
    Mr. Gunter: I can only say that one of the great difficulties in this problem is to arrive at the definition of what the lowest-paid worker is. There are great disputes raging on both sides of industry about it.

    Rubber Workers (Carcinogenic Substances)
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Minister of Labour what progress he is making with the introduction of Carcinogenic Substances Regulations which will minimise the risks to workers in the rubber and allied industries of contracting bladder and other cancers.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The statutory draft of the Carcinogenic Substances Regulations is now with the printer, and I expect it to be published on or about 21st December.
    Mrs. Butler: Is my hon. Friend aware that these Regulations have been in
    18
    draft for more than two years, during which time carcinogenic substances have continued to be used, including the Antu rat killer containing 1 per cent. of naphthylamine, which has only just been withdrawn but which would have been covered by these Regulations had they been issued earlier? Have we an assurance that we shall have the Regulations within the next few weeks?
    Mrs. Williams: Yes, Sir, I assure my hon. Friend that we shall. One of the difficulties has been that this type of legislation is unprecendented and, therefore, the pioneering work on it has been rather slow.
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Minister of Labour how many rubber workers have now been contacted for cancer screening out of the total number at risk; what proportion of the total this is; and how many have reported for screening.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The precise number who may at some time have been at risk is not known, but the total is thought to be between 60,000 and 70,000. About 43,000 have been contacted, and about 17,000 are known to have been screened.

    Bonus Schemes
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloydasked the Minister of Labour on what grounds skilled tradesmen's grading bonus schemes in industry, based on the passing of a test, have been frozen for the period of the wage standstill.
    Mr. Gunter: Where an increase depends on obtaining a specified qualification, or passing a test, under arrangements made before the operation of the standstill, it is payable. Discretionary increases are not payable.
    Mr. Lloyd: Does not the Minister consider that an increase based on passing a test of proved skill and performance is very much on all fours with an increase based on promotion, which is allowable under the White Paper?
    Mr. Gunter: As I have said—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me—where an increase depends upon specified qualification or passing a test under arrangements made before the operation of the standstill, it is payable.

    19
    If the right hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, I shall be glad to look at it.
    Mr. Julius Silverman: Where there is a definite agreement for periodic reviews of scales and passing of a periodic test under the terms of an agreement whereby a higher wage is due, would that be payable under the standstill or in the second period of severe restraint?
    Mr. Gunter: The practices vary so much that it is almost impossible to generalise in these matters. Again, if my hon. Friend has a specific case in mind, I shall gladly look at it.
    Mr. Lloyd: I bring to the right hon. Gentleman's attention the case which I have had from the shop stewards of Imperial Metals of Birmingham specifically with regard to this matter.

    Bideford
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Labour if he will now give the numbers of people from the Bideford employment area who have been found jobs in productive industries as the result of recent measures to move people from service industries to productive industries.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Between 7th July and 9th November, 1966, 158 persons—132 males and 26 females—were placed in employment by the Bideford Employment Exchange in productive industries, defined as Orders I to XVIII of the Standard Industrial Classification.
    Mr. Mills: Although the hon. Lady has given those figures, they do not give

    TOTAL NUMBERS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AT THE BIDEFORD EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE

    Men

    Boys

    Women

    Girls

    Total

    Percentage rate

    Temporarily stopped included in total

    14th November 1966

    …

    289

    4

    82

    11

    386

    4·7

    4

    8th November 1965

    …

    241

    7

    74

    8

    330

    4·0

    6

    9th November 1964

    …

    216

    6

    75

    7

    304

    3·7

    6

    11th November 1963

    …

    343

    24

    102

    21

    490

    6·2

    14

    12th November 1962

    …

    218

    7

    82

    11

    318

    3·8

    —

    13th November 1961

    …

    177

    6

    63

    8

    254

    3·3

    11

    14th November 1960

    …

    168

    3

    62

    12

    245

    3·0

    5

    Employment Agencies (Regulation) Bill
    Mr. John Pageasked the Minister of Labour what is his estimate of the cost in money and manpower of putting
    20
    a true picture of what is going on. Is she aware that it is virtually impossible to find employment in productive industry in this area?
    Mrs. Williams: Those are the latest figures we have. In the same period, 187 people were placed in service industry, so the figures are not so greatly apart.
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Labour if he will give the latest monthly unemployment figures for the Bideford area and comparable figures for the last six years.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: As the Reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Mills: I can tell the hon. Lady that the figures are rising rapidly. Will she bear in mind that what is needed is further employment in the area, the granting of licences for factories to come there and the creation of employment for these people? Will she urge the Board of Trade to do just that?
    Mrs. Williams: Yes, Sir, but I must point out that the figures for unemployment in Bideford are still quite substantially below those in 1963. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade informs me that there are some 460 jobs for men in prospect in the next four years and 370 for women, so he is undertaking what the hon. Gentleman has asked him to do.
    Following is the information:
    into force the proposals contained in the Employment Agencies (Regulation) Bill.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: As the hon. Member knows, this is a Private Member's Bill which is still at a fairly early

    21
    stage of consideration in Committee. Its final form is uncertain and I cannot, therefore, give the estimate requested.
    Mr. Page: Is the hon. Lady aware—I am sure she is, but has she told her right hon. Friend?—of the great concern felt both inside and outside the House about the extent of the controls which it is intended he should be given under the Bill, and that it appears that a huge new department will be needed in St. James's Square? Is it not up to the hon. Lady to give us some information about the potential costs?
    Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has had some information in Committee, as both he and I know. The other part of his supplementary question was, I think, related to a different subject.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that what the hon. Gentleman has said is a travesty of the facts?
    Mrs. Williams: I am aware that there is some truth in what my hon. Friend says, but I did not want to rub the point in.

    Redundant Workers
    Mr. John Pageasked the Minister of Labour what criteria he is adopting in deciding into which industries he intends to encourage redundant workers to be redeployed.
    Mr. Gunter: I would refer the hon. Member to my speech of 24th October in the debate on redeployment, in which I described the criteria used for this purpose.—[Vol. 734, c. 670–88.]
    Mr. Page: It is on that speech that we expected to have further information. Are the criteria which the Minister laid down being effective, and can he tell us of any cases of people being redeployed from what he considers to be an unworthy industry into a worthy industry?
    Mr. Gunter: I can give many examples, but, as I have said in the House before, I have no power to direct labour. What we have done in each of the regions is this. There has been established, in conjunction with the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Technology, a list of those firms with priority needs, and my officers will do the best they possibly can
    22
    to persuade men into these firms and industries. I cannot direct them.
    Mr. Biffen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the history of exports has been one of constant change? How on earth can any body of civil servants predict what are likely to be the developing exporting industries, based on past experience?
    Mr. Gunter: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the civil servants to whom he refers, particularly my own regional controllers, have direct daily and intimate contact with the firms and they have a very good idea what is going on.

    Birmingham (Training Centres)
    Mr. Eyreasked the Minister of Labour how many vacancies are available at the Government training centre in Birmingham; and what plans are being made to expand that centre and provide additional Government training centres in the city.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: On 28th November there were 25 vacancies at the Government training centre in Birmingham. During 1967–68, a further 36 places will be provided. We have at present no plans to provide additional centres in the city, but the opening of a centre at Coventry next year should relieve pressure on the Birmingham centre.
    Mr. Eyre: Is not the hon. Lady aware that, as a result of Government measures, a great number of men have moved from manufacturing and exporting industries to work in shops and similar services, and is she further aware that the inadequacy of Government retraining facilities—the provision at Coventry is of no consequence to Birmingham—makes a mockery of the words "planned redeployment"?
    Mrs. Williams: I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He will know at least as well as I do that a good many people in the Coventry area train in the Birmingham G.T.C. so that the opening of a training centre in Coventry is bound to relieve the situation in Birmingham. The present arrangements made for Government training are showing a very high rate of expansion, which was not paralleled during the hon. Gentleman's party's administration.

    Warehouses and Storage Premises (Selective Employment Tax)
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the Minister of Labour what representations he has received from wholesalers' organisations with regard to his decision that separate establishments comprising manufacturers' storage premises and warehouses should in future qualify for refund of Selective Employment Tax plus premium, regardless of its distance from the point of manufacture; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: My right hon. Friend has received representations on this question from the Federation of Wholesale Organisations, the Association of Toy and Fancy Goods Wholesalers, and the National Federation of Wholesale Grocers and Provision Merchants. He replied explaining that the separate storage establishments of a manufacturing firm are classified to the same heading of the Standard Industrial Classification as its manufacturing establishments and will therefore, provided they satisfy the conditions relating to non-qualifying activities, qualify for refund of Tax plus premium.
    Mr. Jenkin: Why did the Minister change his view from what was indicated by him in July? Is not this taxation by Ministerial dictate, and is it not grossly unfair to the firms which are left out of it?
    Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that there was no public statement to industry on the original view, and that it was not the case that the Ministry made it clear that it wished to consider in detail this problem, which is a technical one. I would stress that it now means that those warehouses which satisfy the non-qualifying condition can receive premiums.
    Sir K. Joseph: Does not this illustrate what this side of the House pointed out forcibly during the passage of the Selective Employment Act, that the bad drafting of the Measure gives the Government a totally unconstitutional power to decide the tax burden on individuals and individual enterprises by Ministerial decision?
    Mrs. Williams: No. Sir; I would not agree with that. I think it has been
    24
    fairly clearly pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there were certain anomalies in the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I think that the Ministry of Labour is acting in the correct tradition by looking very closely at representations made about the anomalies.
    Mr. G. Campbell: Does it not also illustrate the completely arbitrary nature of the division in many cases between those who have to pay the full tax and those who are paid a premium?
    Mrs. Williams: The division is based on the standard industrial classification. It is the case that certain establishments fall rather neatly between different categories in that classification.

    Ladies' Clothing Industry
    Mr. Molloyasked the Minister of Labour if he will convene a special meeting of employers' organisations and the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers of the heavy and light sectors of the ladies' clothing industries and representatives of his Department to examine the special problems, including remuneration and conditions of employment, that now afflict the making-up sectors of the ladies' clothing industry.
    Mr. Gunter: If my hon. Friend will let me have details of the particular problems he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into them and arrange any necessary discussions.
    Mr. Molloy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer and will certainly ensure that he gets the details that he has asked for.
    Mrs. Knight: Would the right hon. Gentleman not accept that, in the present climate, employers and unions can meet until they are blue in the face, but if they are talking about remuneration they will not get very far because of the strictures placed on them by the Government?
    Mr. Gunter: I rather fancy—I am only guessing—that what lies behind this is not entirely remuneration but lines of demarcation between wages councils.

    Service Industries
    Mr. Robert Daviesasked the Minister of Labour how much of the increase in unemployment during the last six months is in service industries; and how much is in manufacturing and export industries.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Between the May and November counts, the numbers registered as wholly unemployed who were previously employed in the service industries increased by 68,468. The corresponding figure for manufacturing industries was 47,587. These figures do not include those temporarily stopped. Industries cannot be divided into those which are exporting and those which are not.
    Mr. Davies: Would my hon. Friend say whether she is satisfied that these figures represent the kind of shake-out that was envisaged by the Prime Minister and effect of the July measures that was intended?
    Mrs. Williams: I would not say that my right hon. Friend and I are wholly satisfied—that would be far too complacent a position—but I would say that the shortages of labour in exporting firms are easing and there is some evidence that the effect of the Selective Employment Tax and Government policy is moving people into the industries in which they are required.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Lady aware that in the two months up to 9th November 132,000 people were found jobs in service industries and 123,000 in manufacturing? How can she claim success for her policy when she admits that more people are going into service industries than productive industries?
    Mrs. Williams: I have just given the hon. Gentleman the figures for between May and November. Those figures indicate some movement into manufacturing industry. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the figures that he has given include those temporarily stopped, and so the figures are distorted by the specific troubles of the car industry.
    Mr. Daviesasked the Minister of Labour to what extent there has been a shift in employment from service in-
    26
    dustries to manufacturing and export industries during the last six months; and if he will publish a statement giving detailed figures.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: It is provisionally estimated that, between April and October, 1966, the number of employees in employment in manufacturing industries in Great Britain fell by 17,000 to 8,865,000. Reliable estimates of short-term changes in employment in all service industries are not available because the monthly surveys do not cover all these industries. Industries cannot be divided into those which are exporting and those which are not. As the answer to the second part of the Question consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Davies: Would my hon. Friend say whether the information that she has shows effective redeployment from service to manufacturing and exporting industries?
    Mrs. Williams: I must repeat what I said to my hon. Friend, that it does not show a perfect position. I do not think that my right hon. Friend and I would for one moment claim that. But it shows that certain of the serious shortages, not least in exporting industries, are now easing.
    Mr. Biffen: Are we to understand from that Answer that, although the Ministry of Labour cannot identify exporting industries, it thinks it can identify future exporting companies?
    Mrs. Williams: I think that the hon. Gentleman appreciates, because he is very knowledgeable about these matters, that very many industries and firms export a substantial proportion of their product, but it is a question of definition as to whether one calls them "exporting firms" or not. There are very few firms which export substantially the greater part of their product, let alone the total of their product.
    Sir K. Joseph: Does not the hon. Lady agree that if the Government set themselves deliberately and publicly the task of altering the structure of industry to the benefit, rightly or wrongly, of export

    27
    and manufacture, they should equip themselves, by way of a sample survey or some other means, with statistics to show the public and the House whether they are achieving their purpose or not?
    Mrs. Williams: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has a fair point. He will be aware that we are trying to improve the statistics all the time, and he

    PROVISIONAL ESTIMATES OF EMPLOYEES IN EMPLOYMENT IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES (BY ORDERS OF THE STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION) IN GREAT BRITAIN AT APRIL AND OCTOBER 1966

    (Thousands)

    April 1966

    October 1966

    Change

    Food, drink and tobacco

    …

    …

    …

    805·5

    832·6

    +27·1

    Chemicals and allied industries

    …

    …

    …

    519·9

    522·4

    + 2·5

    Metal manufacture

    …

    …

    …

    621·8

    615·0

    - 6·8

    Engineering and electrical goods

    …

    …

    …

    2,311·9

    2,318·1

    + 6·2

    Shipbuilding and marine engineering

    …

    …

    …

    200·1

    198·7

    - 1·4

    Vehicles

    …

    …

    …

    861·0

    845·8

    -15·2

    Metal goods

    …

    …

    …

    591·0

    584·6

    - 6·4

    Textiles

    …

    …

    …

    759·8

    747·5

    -12·3

    Leather, leather goods and fur

    …

    …

    …

    59·8

    57·3

    - 2·5

    Clothing and footwear

    …

    …

    …

    534·9

    527·1

    - 7·8

    Bricks, pottery, glass, cement, etc.

    …

    …

    …

    346·1

    344·0

    - 2·1

    Timber, furniture, etc.

    …

    …

    …

    293·5

    287·7

    - 5·8

    Paper, printing and publishing

    …

    …

    …

    640·4

    645·7

    + 5·3

    Other manufacturing industries

    …

    …

    …

    336·2

    338·1

    + 1·9

    Total, all manufacturing industries

    …

    …

    …

    8,881·9

    8,864·6

    -17·3

    Mr. J. P. R. Heard (Unemployment Relief)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. J. P. R. Heard of Inkberrow, Worcestershire, Transport and General Workers Union Branch 5–528 No. 79, formerly employed as a Longbridge delivery driver, was given notice of redundancy operative 11th October, 1966, prior to the strike of delivery drivers and is now on National Assistance due to refusal of his Department to pay unemployment relief, to which Mr. Heard is entitled; and whether unemployment relief retrospective to 11th October will now be paid.
    Mr. Gunter: Mr. Heard's claim was disqualified by the independent statutory authorities under Section 22(1) of the National Insurance Act, 1965, and I have no power to alter their decision.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in equity, look into a case of this kind? Is it not a fact that this man was declared redundant first and then his colleagues and workmates struck on account of his redundancy? Why should he, in such circumstances, be
    28
    will also be aware that a situation in which one could improve statistics as rapidly as one might wish in the circumstances is one that cannot be brought about in a matter of weeks. We have already given a good deal of information to the House to show the way in which statistics are now being improved.
    Following is the table:
    reduced to pleading for National Assistance when he has all his life paid National Insurance and should, therefore, be entitled to qualify at once for unemployment benefit?
    Mr. Gunter: I am not arguing the merits of the case because the hon. Gentleman has now stated the facts as I understand them. My problem is that I have no power to do anything about it. The hon. Gentleman's constituent can now appeal to the local tribunal, which, up to the present, so far as I know, he has not done, and he has a further right of appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner. On the wider aspect of the problem I have my doubts. I doubt whether the practice that we have largely carried out for 27 years now is the right one in present circumstances, and that is why, if I may dare to say it, the Royal Commission is looking at the relation of benefits to payments.
    Mr. Dance: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I asked a similar Question to this last week? The case was exactly similar to that raised by my hon. Friend. Can the Minister say when the Royal Commission will report? What

    29
    Chance have we of getting the law changed?
    Mr. Gunter: I would hope that the spring will bring us glad tidings.

    North-East (Training Centres)
    Mr. R. W. Elliottasked the Minister of Labour what is the number of places for training and retraining in Government training centres in the North-East; and if all places are taken up.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The three Government training centres in the North-East have a total of 715 training places. On 30th November, 50 of these were unoccupied, of which 19 will be filled today and 19 more by the end of the month.
    Mr. Elliott: I thank the hon. Lady. Is she aware that the Minister of Technology said in Newcastle last week that, in his opinion, the need for industrial training in the second half of this century would equal the need for compulsory education and that, therefore, the school leaving age should be raised to 65? As there will be a constant need for retraining, will the Government step up the number of training places in the North-East?
    Mrs. Williams: The answer to the last part of that supplementary question is, "Yes, indeed". The new centre to be opened at Killingworth next year will have 172 places. In addition, a further 42 will be made available in existing centres, and later in the same year there will be a further extension at Billingham and an extension at Killingworth itself. On top of that, a new centre in Cumberland is planned for the financial year 1967–68.
    Mr. Urwin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the geographical location of training centres in the Northern Region can act as a deterrent to people who would be available and willing to be trained if centres were nearer to the areas from which they come?
    Mrs. Williams: Yes, Sir. That is why my right hon. Friend has decided to set up a centre in Cumberland, although it is not an area of high urban concentration.

    Ministry of Labour Gazette (Earnings Statistics)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Labour why he has suppressed the publication of statistics of earnings in the Ministry of Labour Gazette.
    Mr. Gunter: I have not done so. All earnings statistics have been published in the Gazette in the normal way.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for September, it is stated that, in view of the prices and incomes standstill, publication of monthly changes in rates of wages and hours of work has been suspended? Surely, however, it is in just such a period of standstill that we want to know what changes have taken place.
    Mr. Gunter: In September, my Department temporarily suspended the monthly publication on changes of rates of wages and hours of work solely because the number of changes in wage rates was too small to justify separate publication. Instead, the changes have been published each month in the Ministry of Labour Gazette.

    Wages Regulation Orders
    Mr. Milneasked the Minister of Labour if he will publish in HANSARD the wage rates laid down by the various wages council Orders affected by the Government's decision as payable in January 1967; and whether further action to raise the minimum rates in these Orders is now proposed by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Gunter: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the relevant Wages Regulation Orders, which will be available in the Library as soon as they have been printed. I have no power to make wages regulation Orders except to give effect to proposals submitted to me by wages councils.
    Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the wage council rates obtaining in the majority of industries are deplorably low and must not be taken as the definition of "lower-paid worker" when dealing with the question of wage restraint?
    Mr. Gunter: I am aware that the wages councils cover the great mass of the lowest paid workers. One of our problems, in looking at some of these earnings, is to

    Wages Regulation Order

    Wages Regulation Order No.

    Statutory Instrument No.

    The Wages Regulation (Aerated Waters) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 1966

    A (73)

    1966/1491

    The Wages Regulation (Dressmaking and Women's Light Clothing) (England and Wales) (Holidays) Order 1966

    WD (83)

    1966/1492

    The Wages Regulation (Readymade and Wholesale Bespoke Tailoring) (Holidays) Order 1966.

    RM (82)

    1966/1493

    The Wages Regulation (Wholesale Mantle and Costume) Order 1966

    WM (75)

    1966/1494

    The Wages Regulation (Wholesale Mantle and Costume) (Holidays) Order 1966

    WM (76)

    1966/1495

    The Wages Regulation (Brush and Broom) (Amendment) Order 1966

    M (103)

    1966/1501

    The Wages Regulation (Flax and Hemp) (Amendment) Order 1966

    FH(112)

    1966/1502

    The Wages Regulation (Dressmaking and Women's Light Clothing) (Scotland) Order 1966.

    WDS (85)

    1966/1503

    The Wages Regulation (Dressmaking and Women's Light Clothing) (Scotland) (Holidays) Order 1966

    WDS (86)

    1966/1504

    The Wages Regulation (Retail Bespoke Tailoring) (England and Wales) Order 1966

    RB(66)

    1966/1505

    The Wages Regulation (Retail Bespoke Tailoring) (England and Wales) (Holidays) Order 1966.

    RB(67)

    1966/1506

    The Wages Regulation (Hat, Cap and Millinery) Order 1966

    HCM (9)

    1966/1520

    The Wages Regulation (Hat, Cap and Millinery) (Holidays) Order 1966

    HCM (10)

    1966/1521

    The Wages Regulation (Retail Newsagency, Tobacco and Confectionery) (England and Wales) Order 1966

    RNT (40)

    1966/1519

    The Wages Regulation (Paper Bag) Order 1966

    P(84)

    1966/1517

    The Wages Regulation (Paper Bag) (Holidays) Order 1966.

    P(85)

    1966/1518

    The Wages Regulation (Milk Distributive) (England and Wales) Order 1966

    MD (107)

    1966/1516

    The Wages Regulation (Licensed Non-residential Establishment) (Managers and Club Stewards) (Amendment) Order 1966

    LNR (69)

    1966/1515

    Northern Region
    Mr. Urwinasked the Minister of Labour if he will give urgent consideration to current and long-term requirements for the provision of additional industrial training facilities in the northern region.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Yes. As my hon. Friend will be aware, a new Government training centre will open at Killing-worth next year. In addition, during 1967–68 we intend to start building a new centre in Cumberland, as well as substantial extensions to the Billingham and Killingworth Centres. In the shorter term, 42 additional training places will be provided at existing centres early next year.
    Mr. Urwin: Is there any possibility in these considerations of the provision of a centre in west or mid-Durham?
    Mrs. Williams: The Ministry will be considering further expansion beyond that already predicted for the next two years, and, of course, west or mid-Durham
    32
    Consider whether they really are the lowest paid—and that is a matter of dispute. A minority of them are.
    Following is the information: will be considered alone with other possibilities.
    Mr. Urwinasked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied with the estimate of growing labour demand in the northern region, as set out in the regional economic development plan; how he proposes to meet future demand; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gunter: I consider that the labour demand estimates in the Northern Economic Planning Council's study are reasonable, subject to the reservations made in the survey itself. They indicate a long-term shortage of male jobs and the Government will continue to encourage the creation of new employment opportunities in the region.

    Racial Discrimination (Foreign Firms)
    Mr. Marquandasked the Minister of Labour whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that foreign firms with subsidiaries in Great Britain are prevented from exercising any form of racial discrimination in employment.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: No, Sir. It is not right or necessary to single out foreign firms for special treatment of this kind. However, the rules governing the work of the employment exchanges apply to foreign firms just as they do to local firms.
    Mr. Marquand: Is my hon. Friend aware that a good deal of evidence suggests that foreign firms in this country are amongst the worst offenders in racial discrimination? Will she ensure that it is brought forcibly to their attention that the policy of the Government is against racial discrimination in employment in all forms?
    Mrs. Williams: This is not primarily a question for the Ministry of Labour, but I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

    Wales (Training Centre)
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to set up a Government training centre in North or Mid-Wales in the near future; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: No. The number of people from North and Mid-Wales who want and are suitable for the training in skilled trades given at Government training centres is not large enough to justify the establishment of a centre in either area. People from these areas can attend centres on Merseyside or in South Wales where, as my right hon. Friend told the House on 30th November, additional centres are to be built as part of our next expansion programme.—[Vol. 737, c. 460–72.]
    Mr. Hooson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her reply is highly unsatisfactory? It is difficult for people from North and Mid-Wales to go to South Wales or, indeed, to Merseyside, for retraining. Is not there a case for a small retraining centre in North or Mid-Wales?
    Mrs. Williams: There is a lower limit below which it becomes uneconomic to run a Government training centre because of the need to employ managers and instructors effectively. But, in the light of what is happening in one other centre, a much smaller centre than the normal level, it might be possible to consider the
    34
    hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion at a later stage.

    Scotland
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Labour what are the most recent figures of the total teenage working population in Scotland.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: It is estimated that, at mid-1965, there were in Scotland 309,000 employees under 20 years of age.

    Ship Building
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Labour (1) how many men are employed on the Clyde on naval and merchant shipbuilding, respectively;
    (2) how many men are employed in the United Kingdom on naval and merchant shipbuilding, respectively.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The latest available estimates made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology for particular areas are for August. They show that, in the main commercial shipyards on the Clyde, 2,900 men and boys were employed on new naval construction work and 12,300 on new merchant construction work. The most recent comparable estimates for the United Kingdom relate to September when the numbers were 12,600 and 49,200 respectively.
    Mr. Hughes: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that there is delay in supplying merchant shipping and that, as a result, we are falling very much behind Japan? Would it not help to expedite the delivery of merchant shipping if more men were taken off naval ship building and put on merchant ship building?
    Mrs. Williams: That is not primarily a question for my Department, but studies now going on in connection with the Geddes Report may assist in speeding up the rate of merchant ship building.
    Captain W. Elliot: Does not the hon. Lady agree that, in past years, the naval shipbuilding programmes have been instrumental in many cases in holding together the labour force in the shipyards?
    Mrs. Williams: The Government believe that it is essential to maintain a high order book for shipbuilding without making profound distinctions as to the sort of shipping involved. We believe that the Clyde could handle a much greater volume of shipping orders.

  Shrewsbury
  Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Labour why he is not able to give a figure after mid-June, 1965, for the number of people employed in manufacturing industries in Shrewsbury, in view of the fact that this information is essential in Shrewsbury and other places to judge the effectiveness of his policy; and what steps he is taking to see that these figures are available other than after a lapse of 17 months.
  Mr. Gunter: The surveys of samples of manufacturing establishments used to obtain national monthly employment estimates cannot provide estimates of short-term changes in particular local areas. Estimates for local areas are made only once a year, for June, based on counts of national insurance cards. Because many cards are exchanged belatedly, it is necessary to wait and take account of exchanges up to the beginning of December. The national and regional estimates for June, 1966, will be available by the end of January and local estimates two or three months later. It is not practicable to compile these estimates earlier or more frequently.
  Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Labour why he has not made an estimate as to the extent to which the Selective Employment Tax is achieving its object in transferring labour from service to manufacturing industries in Shrewsbury, in view of the fact that this is the main purpose of the tax; and by what other method he judges its effectiveness.
  Mr. Gunter: I have not made such an estimate because the effects of the tax cannot be distinguished from the effects of other factors at present influencing the employment situation. In the longer term it will be possible to say what changes there have been in the levels of employment in manufacturing and services, and to examine how far these changes can be related to the Selective Employment Tax.

  Vickers Limited (Scotswood Works)
  Mr. Bob Brownasked the Minister of Labour what consultations he has had with the management of Vickers Limited, Scotswood Works, in relation to redundancies there.
  Mr. Gunter: My local officers have been in close touch with the firm and have made all the necessary arrangements to assist those who have been made redundant to find alternative work.
  Mr. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend seek further consultations with this firm, particularly about the mass of unused workshop space, with a view to encouraging other industry into the establishment?
  Mr. Gunter: I would certainly be willing to consider that.

BEAGLE AIRCRAFT COMPANY
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. ALFRED MORRIS: To ask the Minister of Aviation whether he has yet concluded his negotiations about the future of the Beagle Aircraft Company; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Frederick Mulley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to answer Question No. 104.
Pressed Steel Fisher Ltd. on account of its other commitments, does not wish to retain its interest in the light aircraft field. In these circumstances, we have, as I informed the House on 30th November, been examining with the company means by which the future of its subsidiary, the Beagle Aircraft Company can be assured.
The Government have now agreed, subject to the approval of Parliament, to acquire at a price of £l million the assets of the Beagle Aircraft Co., including the work already well advanced on a range of British light aircraft. The House will be asked to approve the necessary legislation. In the meantime, the Government will continue to provide the funds necessary for day by day operation of the Beagle Aircraft Co., on whose board the

37
Government are to be suitably represented.
I am glad to add that in line with the Government's policy of co-operation with Europe in aircraft manufacture, and with the agreement of the British and French Governments, Beagle has been exploring with Sud Aviation, in France, arrangements for a joint policy between Beagle and Sud Aviation covering the development of a comprehensive range of light aircraft to compete in world markets. It is the agreed aim to develop and extend these arrangements wherever it is of mutual benefit.
Beagle represents the best opportunity for us to compete in the growing world market for light aircraft. The successful continuation of the company will make a useful contribution to our balance of payments and the company should, with full Government backing, be able to command an increasing share of the world market.
Mr. Morris: May I assure my right hon. Friend that that reply will give widespread satisfaction? Is he aware that this will be taken as evidence of the Government's readiness to do what private enterprise is apparently not prepared to do—to maintain the British light aircraft industry?
Mr. Mulley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is the Government's intention to make a success of this venture.
Mr. R. Carr: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's personal courtesy in letting me have advance notice that he was to answer this Question, but is he aware of the Opposition's growing objection to the Government's habit of making what are important announcements of policy by answering Questions rather than by making statements which, by normal convention, the Opposition have a chance to see in advance?
Secondly, is he aware that the Opposition deplore this further example of back-door nationalisation, which, we believe, is made necessary only by the general lack of confidence in British aviation created by the Government and by the capital famine caused by the Government's economic policy?
Mr. Mulley: I gave an assurance to the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the
38
Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that I would make a statement as early as possible.
Mr. Carr: A statement.
Mr. Mulley: The Question asks for a statement to be made.
I completely repudiate the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Government are in any way responsible for a failure of private enterprise. The only alternative to letting this company close, and 1,000 people become redundant, was for the Government to take over responsibility. I believe that light aviation is an industry in which we should be successful in getting a useful share of the world market. If I were to take the right hon. Gentleman's advice it would mean that, instead of saving aviation, we would let this branch of aviation perish.
Mr. A. Royle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is no intention of allowing this company to diversify its production into other things apart from light aircraft?
Mr. Mulley: The Beagle Company is exclusively concerned with aircraft work and I have no desire to change that pattern, but to ask for an assurance of that kind is quite out of keeping with reasonableness. If it should turn out that adjustments have to be made, they will be made.
Mr. Urwin: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a further clear indication of the Government's deep concern for the advance of technology, as opposed to the attitude of private enterprise in the past?
Mr. Mulley: It is an indication of the Government's concern both to foster our exports and to do what we can to assist the aviation industry.
Mr. Onslow: As it is the Government's economic policies which have driven this firm to the point where it has to be nationalised because it is in danger of failing the nation, will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us who will run the nationalised firm and what rate of profit he expects on the money invested?
Mr. Mulley: As I said, legislation will be necessary and the House will have ample opportunity to discuss the future

39
management. The steps which are arranged as an interim measure are that the Government will have representatives on the board of Beagle.
As to the profit rate, I confess that for a considerable period it will be necessary for investment to be made in the company to develop aircraft, as is always the case, whether with Concord or any other aircraft, when there has to be an expensive development period before a return can be obtained from production sales.
Therefore, there will not be a profit for some years to come, but in the long run—and we have to answer the challenge in the long run—we have either to do this, or let this valuable part of aviation die.
Mr. R. Carr: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the legislation will be in a separate Bill, or will form part of the other legislation which, in the recent aviation debate, he told the House would be forthcoming?
Mr. Mulley: It would be wholly wrong of me today to indicate the exact timing and nature of the legislation. I have informed the House as soon as possible after the agreement was settled this morning. If the House wants to be informed at the earliest opportunity, it will understand that we have not had a look at all these other matters.

BUILDING SOCIETIES (INTEREST RATES)
Mr. Raphael Tuck (by Private Notice)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the decision last Friday by the building societies to raise their interest rates to 7⅛per cent. and the investors' dividend rate by a ¼ per cent., he will as a matter of urgency institute an immediate inquiry into the matter with the aim of arresting this trend in view of its effect on the prices and incomes policy.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): Because of a falling off in the level of new deposits with the building societies, they have felt it necessary to increase the rate at which they borrow money to make it more competitive.
40
The National Board for Prices and Incomes concluded that in such circumstances an increase in the lending rate would be necessary to maintain their existing surpluses.
The Board made a further recommendation for an inquiry into reserves and liquidity. This is being put in hand at once.
Mr. Tuck: Will not this new departure intensify the upward spiral and make it much more difficult for intending house purchasers to buy their own homes? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this grave situation presents the clearest case in the world for the taking into public ownership of the building societies at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend will remember that the Government's action after the building societies' announcement last May had the effect of delaying any increase; therefore, it would not be fair to say that the building societies were inspiring an upward cycle. Interest rates really depend to a great extent on the level of world interest rates and if they are to lend money to enable people to buy their own homes the building societies must be competitive in this regard.
Therefore, I do not think that any change in their structure—at any rate as regards ownership, whatever may be the case for any internal reorganisation of the building societies' movement—would either help or hinder the attraction of more funds as such.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does not the ultimate responsibility for high mortgage interest rates rest with the Chancellor, who has followed a policy of raising interest rates in general?
Mr. Callaghan: Certainly not. The O.E.C.D. is quite clear, as is the I.M.F., that the level of interest rates is something from which no country can be insulated, certainly not a country like ours.
Mr. J. T. Price: While fully recognising the technical considerations that the Chancellor has put forward in his reply, may I ask whether he will also bear in mind that every Labour Member of the House, elected on the last election manifesto of the Labour Party, is committed to bringing about a reduction in mortgage rates? Is he aware that I am putting this

41
forward in the interest of common honesty between Members of the House?
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that I am far from happy about the present situation, that I will continue to stand by what pledges I have given, and that I will use what small influence I may have in this place towards seeing that my election pledges are realised?
Mr. Callaghan: I am glad to say that my hon. Friend is to have an opportunity on Thursday of helping to carry out his election pledges and mine, when there will be a debate on the mortgage option scheme, which will be a substantial fulfilment of those election pledges. Generally speaking, where my hon. Friend can help me, as can everyone else who is concerned in this matter, is by trying to persuade other Governments to have a proper balance between monetary policy and fiscal policy in their own countries. Then we shall find interest rates generally coming down.
Mr. Rippon: Is the Chancellor aware that the mortgage option scheme, with interest rates at their present level, will not be regarded as substantially carrying out the Chancellor's pre-election pledges? Will the Chancellor explain why, since he now says that all of this is due to the international operation of the money market, the Government ever gave the pledges in the first place?
Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that the million or so householders who will benefit under the mortgage option scheme will not agree with him and will find that it will help them and represent a very substantial reduction in their liabilities.
As regards the inter-action on domestic and international monetary rates, a country clearly has an influence on the level of its own domestic rates if its fiscal policy moves in a certain direction. In our case no one would press that our fiscal policy should move any further in the particular direction that we have gone. Therefore, to that extent there must be a general international downward movement of interest rates, which will influence our position.
Mr. Orme: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that in view of the reserves of the building societies, about which he has expressed concern, those societies should refrain from putting up their interest rates until the report of the inquiry, to which he has referred? Could he and the Government not take steps to see that this is done?
Mr. Callaghan: I was very glad that the Prices and Incomes Board supported the point that the Government put, that the level of reserves and liquidity of the building societies needed a careful reexamination. That re-examination, in the light of the report of the Board, will now go on, with the consent of the building societies.
As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we have to move very carefully because, if other interest rates are more competitive, asking the building societies to keep their rates down may well mean that they would not get any extra inflow of funds and would not, therefore, be able to lend for house purchase.
Mr. Lubbock: Does the Chancellor not think it unfair that house owners who are not able to ask for increases in their wages and salaries are now to have to pay considerably more in mortgage interest charges? I am not blaming the building societies for this, but does he not think that now is the time for a general lowering of interest rates, led by a reduction in the Bank Rate, thus affecting the general tightness of credit restrictions?
Mr. Callaghan: As a matter of principle, I have every desire to agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is time that interest rates in the world came down. I think the sooner the better. Certainly, the Government are putting all of their efforts in that direction.
On the general question of whether borrowers have to pay more, this may not necessarily be the case. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the building societies are ready to make arrangements—and they have confirmed them again—so that those who wish to spread their payments over a longer period need not have the immediate payments increased.

MR. KWESI ARMAH
Mr. Sharpies (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give an undertaking not to exercise his powers under the Fugitive Offenders Act to deport Mr. Kwesi Armah to Ghana without first having given Parliament an opportunity to consider the matter.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): Since Mr. Armah's counsel has stated that he is applying to the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords for leave to appeal, it would not be appropriate for me to make any statement about this case at the present time.
Mr. Sharpies: While I appreciate that this case may still just be sub judice, and that it would be inappropriate to discuss the merits of it, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Parliament is shortly to adjourn for the Christmas Recess? That being so, will he give an undertaking, on the lines that I have asked for, and make a statement to Parliament in adequate time for this matter to be debated, if Parliament should so wish, before the Recess?
Mr. Jenkins: I cannot agree that the case is just sub judice. Mr. Armah has 14 days, from 9th December, in which to decide whether to lodge an appeal to the House of Lords. The case is clearly sub judice, but I will bear in mind closely what the hon. Member says, and also what I have no doubt is a widespread interest of hon. Members in this case. I will also bear in mind the Christmas Recess.
Mr. Rippon: Before making a decision, will the Home Secretary bear in mind that there are many former Ministers, diplomats and Members of Parliament who have been in protective custody in Ghana for more than 10 months, without any specific charges being made against them? Is he aware that while the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association says that the Ghana Branch is in abeyance, it is in fact, in prison? What are the Government doing about this situation?
Mr. Jenkins: To comment upon that, as I believe the House will agree, would
44
be getting near to commenting upon merits of this particular case.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Thomson. Statement.

BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY (COST)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. George Thomson): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the cost of British forces in Germany.
Her Majesty's Government agreed in October to take part in tripartite talks with the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, to consider, in the light of the present strategic situation, questions of common concern to the three Governments arising out of the stationing of American and British forces in Germany and the foreign exchange cost of those forces.
At that time, Her Majesty's Government expressed the hope that the results of the tripartite talks could be ready for consideration at the Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on 14th December.
It has not in the event proved possible for the three Governments to adhere to this timetable.
Her Majesty's Government have agreed to continue the tripartite talks in the hope of reaching the earliest possible agreement on the financial and military questions at issue. They have agreed to make no changes in their troop and supply dispositions in Germany meanwhile, apart from the normal rotation of troops or savings in their personal expenditure and other administrative economies not affecting their combat capability.
If, by the end of June, 1967, agreement has not been reached in the tripartite talks, Her Majesty's Government would have to regard themselves as free to take whatever decisions seem necessary to them to cover the foreign exchange costs of their forces in Germany in 1967–68. As they have always said, they would act in concert with their allies and follow the prescribed North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Western European Union procedures.

45
The United States Government, recognising the urgency of Her Majesty's Government's need to deal with the foreign exchange cost of their forces in Germany, have offered to make further purchases in the defence field in the United Kingdom to the amount of 35 million dollars during 1967. These purchases would represent expenditures additional to those to which the United States is already committed under existing arrangements and understandings. Her Majesty's Government have accepted this offer.
The next meeting of the tripartite talks is expected to be held in January, 1967.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is becoming an endless matter. Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall hat portion of the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he said that the Government would aim to secure
"relief from the whole of the foreign exchange cost of keeping our forces in Germany"?— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 1449.]
Does not this statement, therefore, in reality represent a complete failure of the Government's policy in this respect?
The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the 35 million dollars which the Americans will use to make increased purchases in this country. He said that it was in addition to what the Americans have already done. Can he tell the House what the Americans have already done to offset the purchase of aircraft? That would be something which the House would like to know.
Mr. Thomson: There has been no change in the Government's policy. The foreign exchange costs of maintaining our forces in Germany must be covered in full by one means or another. As the right hon. Gentleman and the House know, it has been impossible for the German Government, during recent months, to take the necessary decisions in this matter. I think that in the interests of the alliance it was right to have this extension, especially in the light of the offer of the United States Government, which we very much appreciate.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second question, the arrangements for offsetting the aircraft costs are going ahead as agreed. I emphasise that the 35 million dollars which I have announced today
46
are fully additional to the existing arrangements.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We are entitled to ask how much the Americans have given towards offsetting the purchase of aircraft. It is not enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that this is going on peacefully and nicely. What is the figure? Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer first set the target date at June, 1966, and then at December, 1966. Now it is July, 1967. Does not that justify my saying that this is an endlessly drawn out affairs?
Mr. Thomson: The arrangements for offsetting the F.111 purchase are going ahead as planned. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question about the present figures, he should do so. His final remarks about the extension of the time lead me to wonder whether he and the Opposition feel that it would have been in the best interests of the alliance not to have accepted this offer and extended the time.
Mr. Michael Foot: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that many of us on this side of the House find the continued stalling of the German Government on this subject, and the utterly feeble response of the British Government to it, totally intolerable? Does not he appreciate that in the very stringent measures proposed on 20th July the Government repeated that part of those measures involved severe cuts in the amount which we spent on our forces in Germany? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that he will have a first-class row on his hands if we do not get a better statement than this?
Mr. Thomson: I said in my statement that this was limited to June next year. If, by that time, unfortunately, no agreement has been reached, then we shall regard ourselves free to take whatever decisions may be necessary. Meantime, we shall continue to go forward with any necessary plans in this country on a contingency basis to meet that eventuality, which none of us hopes will arise.
Mr. Kershaw: First, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that trying to get into Europe politically and getting out militarily makes no sense? Secondly,

47
is not the extra expenditure by the Americans only what they will spend on squadrons brought home from France? Lastly, would the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, care to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for the conceited and foolish criticisms which they made of him?
Mr. Thomson: No, certainly not. The present British Government are pursuing this matter of obtaining a full offset of the costs of British troops in Germany with much greater determination than was ever shown by the Conservative Party.
On the hon. Gentleman's first question, the extra offset coming from the changes in the disposition of American squadrons to this country is quite separate from the 35 million dollars which I have announced.
Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter has been dragging on not for the two years since this Government came to office, but for many years and that I and many others have raised this question on innumerable occasions? It is not merely a financial matter. It is a question of our having far too many troops on the Rhine. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Field Marshal Montgomery, who certainly knows as much as anybody on either Front Bench about military matters, has asserted that no more than 20,000 troops are required in Germany? Is he further aware that there is far too much waste in Germany by the British Government?
Mr. Thomson: On the question of waste in Germany, we are making very substantial administrative economies, which are going on now. They are quite independent of the announcement which I have just made. I know my right hon. Friend's constant interest in this matter over many years. One of the things which we are discussing in the tripartite talks is precisely whether, given the changed strategic situation in Europe, it is not possible now to make reductions in the number of troops there.
Mr. Hooson: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether any progress whatsoever has been made with these
48
talks? Is it not true that no offer of any kind has been made by the German Government to meet the exchange costs of our forces?
Mr. Thomson: The Government of Germany made an offer equivalent to £31½ million as a result of the talks which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had with them a month or two ago. This was an interim offer and is due to be increased. Owing to the German political situation, and the absence of a Government in Germany able to take these very difficult budgetary decisions, we have come up against that obstacle. This is the main reason for the delay which I have announced. The contribution offered by the United States Government to help to fill this gap gives us, in the interests of the alliance, a breathing space which we hope to use.
Mr. Mayhew: Is it not plain that the paragraph in the White Paper on this subject has, as was predicted, simply led to our causing misgivings among the members of the Common Market, whose good will we need in order to join, without gaining us any financial relief in return? Is it not further clear that such concession as has been made by the Americans, if it is worth anything, only underlines the fact that we cannot maintain our military rôle except with an ever-increasing degree of dependence on the United States?
Finally, should not the Government make up their mind where they want our future defence policy to be aligned, whether east or west of Suez, recognising that we cannot do both? Would my right hon. Friend study what is now the official policy of his party and decide on drastic withdrawals east of Suez?
Mr. Thomson: Her Majesty's Government believe, first, that the defence policy of this country must be within the economic resources of this country. This is why we are making economies both east and west of Suez. But, within our economic resources, we think it is important for the British Government to play a balanced rôle in keeping world peace.
Mr. Iain Macleod: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he has made this statement? Does he agree with the statement of my right hon. Friend the

49
Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made this a key part of his Budget, with a promise of a saving of up to £100 million and the hope of a successful conclusion by the autumn? As this is a failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who slipped out of the Chamber immediately before this statement was made, why does not the right hon. Gentleman leave it to the Chancellor to defend this statement in the House?
Mr. Thomson: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's last comment is worthy of him. I made the statement for the very simple reason that I have been conducting these negotiations on behalf of the Government.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the way to satisfy the majority of Members on this side of the House is to withdraw troops in proportion to the extent to which the set-off is not covered—that is to say, by two-thirds? As this is the place where we could save the bulk of the promised £100 million a year, is it not clear that we shall fail very seriously in that respect?
Mr. Thomson: It is important that the British Government continue to play a full and effective part in maintaining the N.A.T.O. Alliance, on which the balance of power and peace in the world depends. But we cannot do that in a way which allows us to have a heavy foreign exchange burden while another of our allies in the same alliance gains more foreign exchange benefits from that burden. It is against that background that I have repeated that there has been no change in the Government's policy, and by one means or another it remains our determination that the foreign exchange costs of our forces in Germany should be fully covered.
Mr. Michael Foot: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite, matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"the declaration, contrary to previous undertakings by Her Majesty's Government, that no immediate steps are to be taken to cut the insupportable burden of British defence costs
50
in Germany, thereby further curtailing the Government's ability to deal with the recession in production and growing unemployment."
As far as I know, there is no immediate or available opportunity for discussing this matter in the House. This is an entirely fresh statement which has been made on behalf of the Government and it is a step which, as I have indicated in my proposed Motion, is entirely contrary to the way in which the House has been led to believe that at last a real effort was to be made to cut the huge financial burden which is preventing this country from dealing with this problem.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) seeks to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent definite public importance, namely,
"the declaration, contrary to previous undertakings by Her Majesty's Government, that no immediate steps are to be taken to cut the insupportable burden of British defence costs in Germany, thereby further curtailing the Government's ability to deal with the recession in production and growing unemployment."
I cannot rule that this falls within Standing Order No. 9. This is a matter of continuing and future policy which can be debated on some future occasion.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Could you say, Mr. Speaker, at any time in the foreseeable future, what comes within Standing Order No. 9?
Mr. Speaker: This is a question which has agitated the mind of the House for some time, and I understand that the House is thinking about it and probably will be discussing it on some future occasion.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. I wonder whether it is always necessary to be guided by every one of the precedents of Mr. Speaker Peel when he gave his famous dictum? In your private moments, do you ever think that it would be a good idea to allow it once, just for the hell of it?
Mr. Speaker: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker has many private moments, but the last thing he dare do is to indicate any of his private thoughts to the House of Commons.

51
But, seriously, this question, as the House will know, is being discussed by the Committee on Procedure. I understand that a report will shortly be coming from the Committee, which has been grappling with this problem. Indeed, if I am not wrong, I think that there may be some reference to it in Wednesday's debate on procedure. There will be an opportunity, sooner or later, for the House to discuss the very serious question of how right it is to interfere with the day's business for something which some hon. Members think urgent enough to take precedence over the business of the day.
There are arguments both for and against, and in my own evidence to the Committee on Procedure I set out my own thoughts on the matter. I admit that it is a serious one.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State for the Home Department to open the debate, may I remind the House that there is a long list of would-be speakers? Despite the extra time, which has been somewhat eroded since 3.30 p.m., I shall not be able to call all those hon. Gentlemen who really have the right to take part in the debate, unless hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are reasonably brief in their speeches.
  4.5 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a long and complex Bill of 72 Clauses and five Schedules. Nevertheless, I hope to be able to commend it to the House in a speech which will not be unduly long or even, I trust, unusually opaque. Against a general reception which has been friendly and even generous, the Bill has attracted some criticism —apart from substantial reservations on individual points—for being too compendious and for dealing at the same time with a great number of somewhat unrelated issues.
  At one level of argument I would admit this. This is the first major piece of general legislation on criminal justice for nearly 20 years and it is natural in the circumstances that there should be a good number of miscellaneous tidying-up provisions which the Government are anxious to work in. Equally, at least one problem, that of the criminal use of shot-guns, which would not normally or ideally be dealt with in criminal justice legislation, became urgent while the Bill was in preparation and I thought it better to act upon it quickly in this Bill rather than to purchase perfect legislative neatness at the price of dangerous delay.
  Having said that, I would say very firmly indeed that, for all this, the main provisions of the Bill are infused with a common and, I think, clearly discernible purpose. Building in some case with inherited bricks, particularly those left by my immediate predecessor, now

  53
  my noble Friend Lord Stow Hill, but in most cases with newly fashioned bricks, my object has been to construct a Bill which would be consistently liberal and rational in its approach to the difficult and emotional questions of crime and punishment, while at the same time being directly relevant in all its approaches to the most menacing crime situation with which this country has recently been confronted.
  In seeking to achieve this twin purpose, I have tried to follow three main strands of policy. The first has been that of streamlining our criminal court procedure so as to enable all those concerned with law enforcement, and, certainly not least, the police, to operate within a less time-wasting framework. The second has been to give us a criminal law which is less concerned with observing the traditional rules of a stately but archaic minuet and more concerned with arriving at the truth, both for the guilty and the innocent. The third has been so to modernise our penal system that it could better perform its triple rôle of deterrence, rehabilitation and effective custody.
  I will deal first with the streamlining of court work. Here the most important provision relates to committal proceedings, dealt with in Clauses 1 to 4. In 1965 there were nearly 30,000 such proceedings before magistrates preliminary to criminal trials on indictment. At these committal proceedings all the prosecution witnesses gave evidence orally to enable justices to decide whether the case should go for trial. In nearly 29,000 of these cases the justices did so decide and the full procedure, time-consuming for all concerned, had to be gone through twice, except where there were initial pleas of guilty.
  I considered very carefully whether it would be possible to sweep away committal proceedings completely, but then I became convinced that, although it had its attractions, it would not be right. No one ought to be put on trial at assizes or quarter sessions and perhaps spend about six weeks in custody awaiting trial, without some preliminary judicial investigation.
  In certain cases, too, it is a real advantage to the defence, and in some others to the prosecution, to have the evidence sifted at this stage. Furthermore a decision has to be taken as to whether
  54
  bail should be granted. For all these reasons we cannot, I believe, get rid of committal proceedings entirely, but we can, and I think should, greatly restrict their rôle.
  What I propose in the Bill is that the prosecution will give the accused, in advance, copies of the statements of those of their witnesses whom they do not wish to call to give evidence orally. The defendant will have an absolute right to demand the appearance of all or any of these witnesses. But if he does not require a witness to be called, then that witness will not appear and his statement will be used as evidence at the committal proceedings, which will otherwise take the ordinary form. If all the prosecution evidence is in the form of written statements and the defendant is prepared to accept them as evidence, then, if he does not intend to give or to call evidence himself orally or to argue that the evidence is insufficient for committal to trial, he may be committed for trial in proceedings lasting a few minutes without the justices considering the statements.
  This is, in effect, committal by consent and is dealt with in Clause 1. We thought it right in the interests of the defendant to limit this to cases in which the defendant is legally represented so that there is no danger of his so acting without knowledge of the consequences of his action. If these proposals are put into effect, I hope that only a small proportion of witnesses would have to give evidence at the committal stage and that we should produce a substantially time-saving but equally just judicial system. The saving of the time of police witnesses would be considerable.
  I have also had to consider what should be the rule about the reporting of committal proceedings in the new circumstances. The Tucker Committee, which reported as long ago as 1958, recommended that there should be a ban somewhat similar to that which has applied for 40 years to the reporting of evidence in divorce cases. It is easy to understand some of the reasons for this. In sensational cases, such as the Moors Murder, the public are served up with the revolting details twice over. In other cases the defence might believe, and believe reasonably, that they were being harmed by the difficulty, after a well-publicised preliminary hearing, of finding

  55
  an unprejudiced jury. In other cases, substantial damage might be done to a man's reputation by the publication of an uncontested prosecution case and not substantially corrected by the less interesting news six weeks or so later of his acquittal.
  To balance these considerations there is the natural repugnance of most of us to court proceedings not being fully publicised. The new rules in relation to committal proceedings will create a new situation. In many such proceedings there will be no evidence to report. For the remainder, I think that the fairest arrangement is that the defence should always be given the right to opt for publicity, but that if they do not do so there should be a restriction on reports of more than the bare details of committal proceedings until the trial has been completed. In this way I think that the main purpose of the Tucker recommendations can be achieved without any unreasonable restrictions on the rights of Press or public.
  I should add that in Clause 5 we are restricting the rights of examining magistrates to sit in camera. In the past this has been an absolute discretion with the magistrates, although not one very widely used. In the future the magistrates will have to be positively convinced that another enactment, such as the Official Secrets Act, requires them to do so, or that the ends of justice make this necessary, and they should be prepared to give their reasons for this or otherwise always to sit in open court.
  Another time-saving provision is contained in Clauses 13 and 14. Here it is provided that magistrates' courts may try minor offences in the absence of the accused on proof that the summons was delivered or sent to his address but without proof of its acknowledgement. Apart from avoiding a great deal of tiresome police work associated with the constant attempts to serve a summons on a minor but elusive offender, this will avoid the objectionable position in which, perhaps, owing to a misunderstanding, a frustrating process culminates in the arrest of a minor offender for whom no question of a sentence of imprisonment could arise.
  The necessary safeguards are, first, that no custodial sentence may be passed in
  56
  the absence of the accused; secondly, that no disqualification may be ordered without the proceedings being adjourned and the defendant notified of the reasons for the adjournment; and thirdly, that a person dealt with in his absence, even when neither of these considerations applies, can declare that he was ignorant of the proceedings and demand their annulment and a fresh trial before a differently constituted court.
  Clauses 7 and 8 are also time-saving. Clause 7 allows facts to be proved by written statement rather than oral evidence where neither side objects. Clause 8 allows the formal admission rather than the laborious proof of facts which are not in dispute between the two sides. By this variety of means, I am convinced we shall get rid of some of the most irritating and obvious time-wasting in our legal processes.
  One most important result will be that our under-manned and overstrained police forces will be able to devote more time to their real job of preventing crime and, where they cannot do this, to catching criminals. But detection is a largely nugatory pursuit unless it leads to the conviction of the guilty.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this point about the committal proceedings, may I remind him that he paid tribute to his predecessor, Lord Stow Hill, for some of the bricks which he had left behind him and which have been used in this edifice? Does he not also feel that tribute should be paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) for his pioneer work in putting forward suggestions for streamlining the committal proceedings in his pamphlet, "A Case for Trial"?
  Mr. Jenkins: I certainly read with great interest the pamphlet which was produced by the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) in association, I think, with a former Member of the House, Mr. Edward Gardner, and I am happy to pay tribute to the work which he did. The hon. Member will agree that if I am too free with my tributes my speech will be longer than it need otherwise be.
  Following my previous point about detection being largely a nugatory pursuit

  57
  unless it leads to the conviction of the guilty, my second main set of proposals are concerned with making less haphazard but not less just the processes of conviction. The most important and no doubt the most controversial provisions, which are put forward in Clause 10, relate to majority verdicts. The principle of unanimity is, of course, a very old one in English law, although, as Lord Devlin pointed out, it arose more out of accident than out of design.
  It was also a necessary principle according to the rules and assumptions of what one might call traditional English criminal law practice. The basis of this, it appears to me, speaking very much as a layman, was that one conducted trials more as a lawyers' game than in pursuit of the truth. But if at the end of the day the defendant lost, he was subject to the most horrifying penalties, often quite disproportionate to the offence: the death penalty for petty larceny, for example.
  It was, therefore, acceptable that the rules should be somewhat "rigged" in his favour. One deterred, or attempted to deter, not by the mere certainty of conviction for the guilty, but by the enormity of the punishment. We have, I am glad to say, moved well away from the latter approach, and it follows that, in the present state of the crime wave, we can feel less equanimity about the acquittal of the guilty.
  How do majority verdicts bear on this? I have said already that I think that their effect will be qualitative rather than quantitative. They are not likely to result in different verdicts in many cases, but these few cases may well be crucial from the point of view of law enforcement and the breaking-up of big criminal conspiracies. At present, about 35 to 40 per cent. of cases which go to juries result in acquittal. The Home Office Research Unit's estimate for 1965 was 37 per cent. In about 3·5 per cent. to 4 per cent. of the cases which go to juries there is jury disagreement—disagreement, that is to say, which cannot be resolved by the ordinary process of argument and persuasion within the jury room.
  In the Central Criminal Court, which deals with about 5 per cent. of all trials on indictment, this rate amounted in 1965 to 49 cases of jury disagreement—
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Out of how many?
  Mr. Jenkins: Out of a total of just over 1,180—
  Mr. Leslie Hale: Then what is the point?
  Mr. Jenkins: I was merely endeavouring to give the House some indication of the extent of jury disagreement. My hon. Friend is perhaps better-informed about this than are some other hon. Members—
  Mr. Hale: I do not want to say anything of a personal nature, but there are some courts which have had a very large number of successful appeals. There is one court in London which is known, colloquially, as the "potting shed". The right hon. Gentleman gave me the whole figure of the number of disagreements in assize cases. So far as I remember, that figure was very small: I can get it from the Library in two minutes, if necessary.
  Mr. Jenkins: I am trying to give the House some indication of what the proportion of disagreements were in cases as a whole. The best estimate which we can make of this is that it amounts to between 3·5 per cent. and 4 per cent. of cases—
  Mr. Sydney Silverman rose—
  Mr. Jenkins: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to continue.
  This is in all courts. I have been trying to give some indication of what this means in arithmetical terms in a particular court—an important one—because I was going on to give a breakdown of those 49 cases. This rate of disagreement, which is about the same as in courts generally—a little higher, perhaps —amounted in 1965 to 49 cases.
  In 25 of those cases, a second trial resulted in agreement and conviction; in 14, in agreement and acquittal; and in nine in a second disagreement and no further proceedings. To make the total correct, one case did not go to a second trial. The split, therefore, was about 50–50. Is that not a reasonable outcome, it may be asked, even if the disagreements were by no means all honest ones? I do not think so, and for two reasons.

  59
  First—a reason of lesser importance—the consumption of time for the police and others involved in a second trial is very substantial. Second, and much more important—
  Mr. Richard Sharples: That is not an overwhelming reason.
  Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member will notice that I am saying that I do not attach great importance to that, though I cannot be entirely indifferent to the great wastage of time involved, at a time when there are the present burdens upon the police force.
  Second, and much more important, these cases are not a true cross-section of the total. They are often the big criminal conspiracy cases, affecting the real "backroom men" of crime, and men who perhaps do not commit acts of robbery or violence themselves, but—what may be still more vicious—organise others to do it for them. They are the men who are the most difficult to get into the dock, but whose conviction would be vital to break up the serious crime networks in London and other big cities.
  The disagreements undoubtedly occur in certain cases, not because the cases are borderline—quite the reverse—but because one or two jurors have been persuaded, by bribery or intimidation, to hold out against the evidence—
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: What evidence.
  Mr. Jenkins: I wish that my hon. Friend would allow me to develop the argument. I will try to deal with all the points which naturally arise, but I think that it is better to deal with them in what appears to me to be the logical order.
  The perverse juror—the man with a grudge against the police or the judicial system—we ought perhaps to take in our stride, but to allow criminal interference with juries, which is very difficult to prove except where it fails, to enable big criminals to frustrate the process of justice, is to fight crime with our hands tied behind our backs and invite a frustrated police force to be less and less anxious to go for the really big men.
  60
  Let me briefly give an example of what has been going on. In January of this year, five men were accused of conspiring to break into a bank. At the trial, one of the accused exercised his right of peremptory challenge by objecting to six of the jurors. On the two following days, two among the jurors who replaced those six were seen to be approached by associates of the accused. This was brought to the attention of the judge, who took a sufficiently serious view to discharge the jury.
  The trial had to start again a week later. This time, 15 jurors were challenged by the various accused men and had to be replaced. A few days later, the trial proceeding, one of the replacement jurors was seen talking to a man whose record was well known to the police. The police received information that he had been made a proposition and was considering it. The judge discharged him.
  On the same evening, another juror was offered £600 to bring in a verdict in favour of the accused, but he went straight to the police. Ten days later, the case still proceeding, yet another juror was offered a bribe of £100. He again reported the matter to the police and, through them, to the judge. We do not know what incidents were not reported. It is in the nature of this case that we only know where the attempts failed—we do not know what incidents were not reported.
  However, what we do know is the result of the case. Four of the five men were acquitted, and the one who was not acquitted was the bank messenger, the tool, and not one of the organisers, of the alleged conspiracy. If it was not a conspiracy, it is difficult to see how even that one man could have been found guilty.
  I could give a number of other examples, but I do not proposed to do so at this stage, though I could do so later—
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Are prosecutions pending against the men who approached the jurors? Are any such cases known outside the London area?
  Mr. Jenkins: Yes, some are known outside the London area, though the practice is considerably more prevalent

  61
  in London than outside. Where prosecutions can be made, they are made, but, as I told the House a little earlier, it is not, by its very nature, an easy matter to deal with by the criminal law, though the police do everything they can—
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman help me? He cited a particular case. Was this the case which I recollect, in which the Court of Criminal Appeal, on the appeal of the fifth man, stated it as their conviction that the four who got off had succeeded in a subsequent attempt?
  Mr. Jenkins: Yes, it was that case—
  Mr. Mark Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Jenkins: I have a great deal to say, and I should like to get on.
  I could give a number of other examples, and I should be willing to do so later, but I do not wish to weary the House at this stage. I am convinced, however, that all we have seen so far is the tip of a very nasty iceberg. Let me give one other fact to illustrate that this is not an illusory problem.
  The House knows how short the Metropolitan Police are of men at the present time, yet in these big cases, going on for days and days, they consider it essential to provide constant observation of all jurors in and out of court. In one case no fewer thatn 72 officers, mostly detectives, working in shifts, were employed on this task, and this task alone, over a period of many days—no fewer than 72 officers. This is a very serious fact indeed, and I do not think the House would believe that the Metropolitan Police would devote manpower in this way, during their present shortage, unless they thought this was a very serious problem. I say that this points to the existence of a real problem and substantial menace to our system of justice. Moreover, it is a growing problem.
  What ought I to have done in these circumstances? Some, including a number of most respected authorities, think that I should have acted, if at all, very cautiously and set up an inquiry, but that would have taken a substantial time, and, even when it was complete, who can tell that there would have been an opportunity for further criminal justice legislation?
  62
  In the meantime, I am sure that the problem would have gone on growing. Therefore, as I told the House in August, the Government decided to act, and everything that has occurred since then in this field has made me more convinced that this was the right decision.
  Now why the 10 to 2? First, because although the Scots have managed for many centuries with a simple majority of 8 to 7 in a jury of 15, and without, as far as I am aware, any allegation of more frequent miscarriages of justice than in England—
  Mr. Hooson: With different rules.
  Mr. Jenkins: With somewhat different rules, as I was going on to say, but without a very big majority, without any allegation of more frequent miscarriages of justice. Their system is in some ways different from ours, and I thought it right only to move to a very decisive majority, and I do not think anyone can deny that 10 to 2 is, of course, a very decisive majority. If it were required for political purposes very few of us would ever get to this House, and even those of us who got here would find it very difficult to take any decisions once here. At the same time, I think that before finding a man guilty we want a very decisive majority indeed.
  But can we be certain of combining this with dealing with the problem which I have described? In absolute terms, of course, the answer is "No". We have to strike a balance, but I think that 10 to 2 is about the right one. Out of 12 men, particularly with the Clause 11 provision for excluding those with criminal records from jury service, it will be very difficult to find more than one or two subject to bribery or intimidation, and I believe that the attempt to do so will substantially decline, because it will become less worth while, which will be a very good thing all round.
  I may perhaps inform the House, though I do not regard this as a decisive argument, that the Gallup Poll conducted a survey of public opinion on this matter and found that 72 per cent. on those questioned were in favour of the majority verdict by 10 to 2; that 11 per cent. were against, and that 17 per cent. did not know. I do not say that this

  63
  is a decisive argument, because we have to make up our minds. I noticed the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) nodding when I said that this is not a decisive argument but, perhaps, using the phraseology which I used earlier that it was a qualitative rather than a quantitative argument, I might remind him that his right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has come out very clearly in favour of majority verdicts; and if the Liberal view is against majority verdicts it must have been a verdict taken by a majority and not by unanimity.
  But nothing that I have said would make me wish to give the impression to the House that I underestimate the seriousness of this problem, or that I do not understand the point of view of those who may have misgivings, which we may argue out, and argue out very exhaustively, at subsequent stages of the Bill.
  I should perhaps mention two additional safeguards. First, majority verdicts will not be accepted until after a long retirement of at least two hours, and longer, in the discretion of the judge, in complicated cases. Secondly, we have made easier the machinery of criminal appeal, particularly by our acceptance of the Widgery proposals, about which I shall say more later, for providing legal assistance after conviction.
  After dealing, as I thought desirable, with majority verdicts at some length, I now mention the third of the proposals. Exclusion of criminals from jury service was the second, which I thought it right to mention for improving the chances of convicting the guilty. This is contained in Clause 9, and relates to sprung alibis. This prevents the defence, without leave of the court, which should be granted when any new fact or witness genuinely comes to light, from bringing an alibi defence without advance notice and an opportunity for the prosecution to refute, if it can be refuted.
  In all these ways what I think we have certainly done is substantially to improve the machinery of law enforcement, without damaging the position of the innocent.
  I now turn to the third of our main policy strands, that relating to penal policy. First, I deal with Clauses 20 and
  64
  21 which concern the punishment of persistent offenders. These Clauses abolish the sentences of preventive detention and corrective training, which have not been greatly used in recent years, and which involve an element of difficult and not very useful rigidity of categorisation in our prison system. At the same time, the courts are empowered to impose sentences of up to 10 years in certain circumstances, and five years in other circumstances, upon offenders whose record means that they can legitimately be regarded as persistent, even when the maximum sentence for the offence upon which they are indicted may be less than those maxima of five or ten years.
  Clause 40 abolishes corporal punishment in prison. No such punishment has been confirmed by the Home Secretary since June, 1962; in other words, neither by myself nor by either of my two predecessors, one from each party. It was used sparingly even before that. It was abolished in Scotland in 1949, and there is no evidence that this move has had any adverse effect upon prison discipline in the northern part of the United Kingdom. England, indeed, remains almost the only country in Europe—Finland, I believe, being the only and somewhat surprising exception—to retain this rather archaic form of punishment.
  Perhaps more important however is the fact that there is no approach to hard evidence that this has had any unique deterrent effect. Violence, I believe, tends to breed violence, and violence exercised under the panoply of State power is no exception to this rule. A prisoner who assaults a prison officer does, of course, present a most acute custodial problem, but I find no support in the facts for the view that this problem can be solved by corporal punishment. Those who have suffered it have in several instances again committed similar assaults. We retain the alternative punishments of forfeiture of remission, cellular confinement, dietary punishment, loss of privileges and loss of earnings. These, I believe, are at least equally effective, and more in keeping with the general penal approach of a civilised country.
  The main range of the penal provisions of the Bill revolves around the single theme, that of keeping out of prison those who need not be there. I approach this

  65
  from two separate but convergent directions. First, the overstrain upon prison resources, both of buildings and men, is at present appalling. The prison officers are bearing a very heavy burden indeed. Without a comparable increase in buildings or staff, the prison population for all establishments has increased from 11,000 in 1938 to 29,000 in 1964 and to nearly 35,000 today.
  Such numbers, many of them in for very short periods, make it extremely difficult for the essential custodial and rehabilitative task for men serving sentences of more than a few months to be performed. They militate against effective security and also against the development of properly organised prison work, with something like a full working week, a direction in which I regard it as most important for us to move quickly.
  Even if these considerations did not exist, even if—a most unlikely hypothesis—we had limitless resources of officers and buildings for use in the prison service, I would still take the view that a prison population as big as our present one defeats its own ends—and defeats it by frittering away the deterrent effect of a prison sentence.
  I want to keep this deterrent effect a sharp instrument. But by using it too freely—by getting too many people used to prison too easily—we blunt our own armoury. I am disturbed by the situation in which 10,000 fine defaulters go to prison each year, some of whom may be among the 5,000 drunks who do likewise, in which 75 per cent. of all sentenced prisoners get their acclimatisation from periods in prison ranging from a few days to four months and in which about 35,000 people are each year remanded in custody before conviction, although in only about half of those cases are prison sentences given on conviction. I have, therefore, sought means in the Bill of trying to deal with all these aspects of the problem.
  In Clause 12 we introduce considerable restrictions upon the power of magistrates' courts to refuse bail. These apply where they are dealing with cases punishable with not more than six months' imprisonment. Beyond that they retain their full discretion, and even within the six months there are certain categories; and types of circumstances
  66
  relating to the individual which limit the restriction. In Clause 12 (5,g) there is also a wider discretionary power for magistrates, which I know some people consider to be too wide. There are certain good reasons for its inclusion, but we can discuss this in Committee, as we can also cover the points put forward by "Justice", in its interesting report published this morning.
  In any event, the clear intention of Clause 12 is that magistrates should use remands in custody considerably more sparingly, particularly when a prison sentence is not likely to result, and that in all cases where bail is refused magistrates should be required to state their reasons.
  In Clauses 22 to 25 we introduce the suspended sentence into our penal system. The difference between this and probation or conditional discharge is that it is a definite sentence imposed by the court, the execution of which is suspended. In other cases it is the imposition of the sentence which is suspended. The suspended sentence is used widely in other countries and was widely supported in evidence to the Royal Commission. I believe that it should have a substantial deterrent effect of those who may be hesitating on the verge of a life of crime.
  Sentences of up to two years may be suspended at the discretion of the court and the period for which they can remain in suspense can vary from one to three years, but a sentence of six months or less must be suspended if the offender has not been in prison or borstal before and provided the offence did not involve assault, the threat of violence or indecent conduct with a person under the age of 16.
  By this means, we shall substantially avoid sending people to prison for the first time unnecessarily. Whichever way the outcome goes in an individual case, I do not believe that society can lose. If no further offence is committed, the deterrent has worked, prison space has been saved, and the offender has not been made used to prison conditions. If a further offence is committed, the offender will be punished, certainly and surely, both for the earlier and the subsequent offence. This is a sensible but by no means necessarily a lenient proposition.
  In Clauses 26 to 30, in Clauses 60 and 61 and in Schedule 2 the Bill deals with

  67
  the question of fines. At present, many maximum fines bear little relation to the current value of money or current earnings, particularly among young offenders. They therefore have little meaning as a punishment. Accordingly, we have followed a recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee and have increased the maximum fine which a magistrates' court may impose for an indictable offence tried sumarily from £100 to £400, and for a summary offence where there is no other statutory provision, from £25 to £100.
  In Schedule 2, a long Schedule, we have endeavoured to bring a whole range of maximum fines up to date and more or less into line with other maxima not there mentioned. All this will make a tough fine a somewhat more effective alternative, in some cases, to a short term of imprisonment, but we still have the problem of those who, although originally punished by a fine, find themselves in prison through non-payment. This affects more than 10,000 people a year and in 1964 of those so affected, 4,500 had no previous institutional sentences and 2,000 had no previous proved offences against them.
  Dame Joan Vickers: When we come to discuss these Clauses in Committee, will it be possible for the Payne report to be available, remembering that it will have a great effect on these provisions? If the right hon. Gentleman could have that report available before the Committee stage, it would be of great assistance to hon. Members.
  Mr. Jenkins: The Payne report was, of course, commissioned by the Lord Chancellor and not by me. It relates to civil debt, but I have endeavoured to keep in step with Mr. Justice Payne and I do not think that what I am proposing here would be out of line with his recommendations. I know that he is anxious to produce his report as soon as possible and I will remind my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor of the advantage of having it available before the Committee stage, if that is possible.
  I believe that our previous basic approach to this problem of imprisoning those who do not pay their fines, which has remained substantially unchanged since 1935, too readily accepts imprison-
  68
  ment as an alternative to payment. The sanction cannot, of course, be removed altogether, but we propose to modify it considerably.
  The cases in which time to pay may be refused are restricted. The courts must look into the means of every defaulter who has been given time to pay before committing him to prison, other methods of enforcement must always be fully explored, and there is introduced a new method of enforcing payment by attachment of earnings and other assets. The net effect of all this will be to make fines bite harder and thus serve as a more useful alternative to prison, while, at the same time, making it more possible to enforce them without resort to imprisonment.
  The next proposal to be considered against the background of this general aim of reducing the prison population is that for dealing with drunks. This is contained in Clause 59. We can probably all agree that a prison sentence is a fairly hopeless way of dealing with drunkenness. Magistrates themselves feel this, but do not know what else to do with this type of offender. Most of them need support and welfare aid rather than the normal regime of a local prison and this we are endeavouring to provide.
  We already have one hostel solely for drunks in operation and another is ready to open. In addition, some general hostels take a few drunks. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the Clause, making the offence of being drunk and disorderly no longer punishable by imprisonment, can be brought into operation until we have progressed a little further with the provision of hostels, but I hope to make it operate soon.
  Mr. Frank Tomney: My right hon. Friend will be aware of how difficult it is to obtain a conviction in a case of drunkenness, particularly if a man elects to go to trial by jury. The police are particularly concerned about this. Has he considered the possible effects of having, say, two all-night courts in London, at which people charged with drunkenness could be tried there and then, when they are drunk?
  Mr. Jenkins: I am not entirely sure that my hon. Friend's proposal for

  69
  instant justice would be wholly conducive to the dignity or the effectiveness of the law. I have a feeling that what my hon. Friend has partly in mind, certainly when he was talking about the attitude of juries, was their reluctance, it is alleged, to convict in cases of drunker driving, but not in cases of being drunk and disorderly, which is not an indictable offence.
  How much effect will all this which I have been describing recently have on the size of the prison population? Estimates at this stage are bound to be very approximate and should be treated with great caution. However, the best estimate we are able to make is that the measures I have described might reduce the annual number of prison intakes by about 18,000, or nearly 20 per cent.
  The effect on average daily population would be less, probably not much more than 10 per cent., for the obvious reason that we have been dealing, in the proposals I have put forward, with the quick turnover people rather than the medium and long sentence men. But it is the former, the quick turnover men, who cause an administrative burden on the prison service out of proportion to any beneficial effect it can have on them. It is these, too, who are in danger of being too easily acclimatised to prison life. From the point of view of the purposes I have suggested, therefore, I think that The 20 per cent. figure has more validity than the 10 per cent. figure.
  I turn, however, to a matter affecting the prison population of medium and long-term prisoners. Clauses 36 to 39 provide for the release of prisoners on licence. This is the first time that a parole system, except for very short periods—for example, when a prisoner has been bereaved—has been introduced into our penal system, though it is a feature of many foreign systems, notably in the United States. As hon. Members know, these particular Clauses stem from the White Paper on the Adult Offender, which my noble friend Lord Stow Hill presented to the House a year ago.
  At present, prisoners are normally released after completing two-thirds of their sentence, the remaining one-third being remitted for good behaviour. Thus a prisoner sentenced to six years can normally expect to serve four years. But
  70
  in a number of cases what happens is that before reaching the two-thirds point prisoners reach what the White Paper describes as
  "a recognisable peak in their training at which they may respond to generous treatment, but after which, if kept in prison, they may go downhill."
  Except for those prisoners who, because of some psychological defect it may never be safe to release, and those relatively few killers for whom a life sentence must mean what it says, everybody sent to prison must one day be released, whatever his crime and however long his sentence. It is surely in the interests of the community that our system should be flexible enough to permit the early release—though at least one-third of the sentence or one year, whichever is the longer, must be served in any case—of prisoners in whose cases there is a good chance that by being released early they may be enabled to live useful and industrious lives.
  In the case of those prisoners, it would be self-defeating to insist on their serving the full two-thirds of their sentence if, as a result of which, they come out and lapse quickly back into crime, whereas this might have been avoided by earlier release. I stress that this provision is every bit as much in the interests of society, if not more so, as it is in the interests of prisoners themselves.
  How many prisoners will be eligible for parole, and how many will be granted it? About 4,500 will be eligible as soon as the Bill is enacted, but I would not expect that more than, say, 20 per cent. will be granted parole, either as soon as they become eligible or at a later stage. Altogether, the reduction in the average daily prison population might be about 600.
  I think it important to emphasise—and I know there has been concern about this—that there is no question of parole being automatic. If criminals think that they can now rely on only having to serve only one-third of a long sentence, then they are in for a rude awakening. The chances of anyone convicted of serious violence being granted early parole, for example, are pretty slim. The system will be such that parole is granted only to those who, after careful study by those

  71
  best qualified to form a view, are believed to offer a genuine prospect of success. If at any time after release, up to the two-thirds point of his sentence, a particular prisoner disappoints the trust placed in him, his licence can be revoked under Clause 37(1).
  I come now to the machinery—
  Sir John Hobson: The Home Secretary used the phrase, "those best qualified to form a view". Who was he referring to?
  Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be glad to know that I was just coming on to that. I had, as he rose to his feet, said, "I come now to the machinery".
  Selection will be based on a continuous process of assessment within the prison organisation, under which a full record will be built up in the prison on all prisoners who are actually or potentially eligible. Each case will be considered periodically by an informal committee at the prison, consisting of the governor, a senior probation officer in the district, and a member of the board of visitors. This small committee will make recommendations to the Secretary of State, but the decision will rest with him and in difficult cases he will consult the trial judge or the Lord Chief Justice.
  I know that there is a strongly held view that this system is not the right one and that, instead, we should have an independent parole board. This is not an easy question and I do not pretend that the case against such boards is by any means cut and dried. Nevertheless—and on this I shall be glad to listen to the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House, both in this debate and in Committee—my present view is that the procedure I am supporting is, on balance, the right one.
  There is one final point I should make about parole. That is about the power to revoke a licence. This power will be exercised on the basis of reports reaching the Home Secretary about the prisoner's behaviour, and, in particular, from the supervising probation officer. That additional work will undoubtedly be an extra burden on the Probation Service. Indeed, the working of the Bill as a whole will depend very largely upon
  72
  the devoted work we get from that service and shall need even more in the future.
  I am, therefore, glad to be able to tell the House that recruitment for this service is at present going well. The net increase this year should be approaching 200. Our recruitment target over the next five years takes full account of this part of the Bill and the burdens it will impose.
  Mr. Leo Abse: Has the co-operation and full agreement of the probation officers been obtained on the adjudication of the question of parole and their acting in the rôle which has been described, of giving reports on those released?
  Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that they will object to giving reports in the least, and I am sure that they will be most anxious to co-operate. I think that they see certain difficulties about being the responsible authority for recall. They think that this may endanger their relationship with the prisoner. This is certainly a matter which we shall have to take into account.
  I turn to the last section of the Bill which, I feel, I must mention to the House. This relates to the Widgery proposals for legal aid. Part IV restates more simply the law on legal aid in criminal proceedings which is at present scattered over a number of Acts. It also gives effect to some of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Legal Aid in Criminal Proceedings, whose Report was published in March of this year.
  The most far-reaching change is in the financial basis on which legal aid may be granted. The existing system, under which a person who is unable to pay the whole cost of legal representation is granted legal aid entirely free of charge, is replaced by one in which the courts will have the power to require a legally-aided person to make a contribution to the costs according to his means. The Widgery Committee thought that the present all or nothing basis of legal aid in criminal cases could result in unfairness. I think that most people would agree that, if a person can pay something towards the cost of legal aid, it is

  73
  fair that he should do so. This is the basis of the civil scheme.
  It has been suggested, however, that the contribution scheme here may mean that fewer persons will accept legal aid if they have to pay towards it. But the contribution will not be such as to cause hardship and I do not think that large numbers of applicants will be deterred by having to pay a contribution. What the new scheme does mean is that the applicant will have to weigh the advantages of legal representation against the small financial sacrifice it will entail. The sacrifice will be relatively no more onerous and, indeed, will often be less onerous than that borne by persons of moderate means who are not eligible for legal aid.
  Another important change which will fill a serious gap in the existing scheme is the introduction of more effective arrangements for providing persons who are convicted on indictment with legal advice on the question of the grounds of appeal and assistance in giving notice of appeal or applying for leave to appeal. These are the main legal aid recommendations dealt with in the Bill.
  The Widgery Committee, to who our thanks are due for a careful study of the whole system of legal aid in criminal proceedings, made other recommendations. In particular, it gave useful guidance as to the criteria which the courts should use in judging whether, apart from the applicant's means, it is desirable in the interests of justice that he should be given legal aid. The Government agree in principle with the recommendations in this valuable Report. This does not mean, however, that the Government consider that immediate effect should be given to all the Committee's recommendations, including those which do not require legislation.
  A good legal aid scheme is an important feature in the administration of justice, but it cannot be immune from considerations of cost, particularly at the present time. It is necessary for the Government to consider to what extent the country can, at present, afford the additional cost of giving effect to these improvements. Although public expenditure on legal aid in criminal proceedings is less than that in civil proceedings, it is still very considerable and is mount
  74
  ing each year. It is estimated that the expenditure for 1966–67 will be about £2¾ million.
  The Widgery recommendations for which provision is made in the Bill, which, as I have mentioned, include the introduction of a contribution scheme, should result in a net saving to the Exchequer. If, however, all the Widgery recommendations are implemented, the rate of increase in expenditure on criminal legal aid as a whole will be accelerated and there will be not a saving, but a net increase.
  I hope that in due course full effect will be given to the Widgery proposals. Where changes depend, directly or indirectly, on the making of Statutory Instruments we intend not to introduce them until the contribution scheme is also ready to put into operation. Likewise, I do not propose to commend to the courts the adoption of the recommendations that involve the manner in which they should exercise their discretion in the grant of legal aid until that stage.
  The Widgery scheme, both the favourable and the unfavourable parts of it from the point of view of the Exchequer—the other way round, I suppose, from the point of view of the individual—should come into operation not piecemeal, but as a whole.
  Mrs. Joyce Butler: Before my right hon. Friend leaves his review of the contents of the Bill, could he say why he has not brought airguns within the firearms certificate procedure? He told me in reply to a Question on 17th November that he was considering doing this.
  Mr. Jenkins: I did not find that it would be practicable to take steps which would be workable and effective in this scheme, but I shall be glad to discuss, either directly with my hon. Friend or at a later stage, the details of the airgun position.
  I have tried, and, I think, succeeded, in just under an hour—I apologise for the length of my speech, but I am fortified in having seen that the late Lord Chuter-Ede, when he last introduced such a Measure, took an hour and a half to do so—to cover the main points of the Bill. I have not by any means been able

  75
  to deal with every point of substance, still less to say a word about each Clause. But I believed that it was better to pick out the main proposals and to try to explain not merely what they did, but the thought behind them.
  We have worked on this Bill in the Home Office for many months. I think that we have produced a Bill which we can commend with confidence to the House. But it would be extremely foolish to suggest that in a Bill as complicated and wide reaching as this the details of every proposal are beyond improvement. I believe that we can have a most rewarding and almost entirely non-partisan Committee stage. The House, in its collective wisdom, will, I am sure, have a great deal to contribute, and I can assure hon. Members that they will not find me unduly rigid. If Parliament had nothing to contribute to a Measure of this sort there would be something very wrong with Parliament.
  At the same time, I am sure that the main lines of the Bill will stand up, and that the Bill should be taken and treated as a balanced whole. I believe that it marks a major step forward in our criminal justice procedures. It will help to make them more rational, comprehensible and straightforward. It will also, I hope, help to make the country a safer place in which to live, and it will give us a penal system more able to do its proper job in accordance with civilised standards and modern criminological knowledge. It is based, as all our crime and punishment policies should be, on a mixture of hope and realism, without subordinating either to the other.
  5.6 p.m.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had no need to apologise for the length of his speech. This is a complicated and important Bill and I cannot see how he could possibly have compressed it more than he has done.
  I have a certain melancholy feeling as I address the House on this occasion. I made my maiden speech on the abortive Criminal Justice Bill of 1938 and I served on the Committee of that Bill. I also spoke and served on the Committee of the 1948 Measure. We have hardly a record of success in this matter, speaking as a
  76
  Parliament. We have passed these successive Measures in the atmosphere of hope and realism in which the right hon. Gentleman finished his oration.
  As the right hon. Gentleman told us at the beginning of his speech, we are faced with the biggest crime situation that we have ever faced. Indeed, even in the short space of my Parliamentary life which I have sought to describe, we are even now retracing our steps. This Bill, amongst its other provisions, abolishes preventive detention and corrective training which we introduced in a mixture of hope and realism in 1938 and again in 1948. Although in 1938 and in 1948 we could point to widespread unemployment and poverty as one of the contributory causes of crime, in 1966 we are faced with the worst crime situation of our history but this cannot even be suggested as one of its significant contributory causes. Therefore, it is no criticism either of the right hon. Gentleman or of his Bill that I would prefer to say how my own feeling has developed over the 28 years that I have been covering, rather than deal in detail with all the provisions which this Bill contains.
  In his broadcast on the subject, the right hon. Gentleman said that at first sight the Bill might seem a random mixture. This is unduly harsh as a description of it. It is a mixture, but it is not a random mixture. It is a potpourri of more or less intelligent suggestions, few of them new—with respect to the right hon. Gentleman's opening paragraphs—and mostly from identifiable and almost all from responsible sources. The fact that many of these suggestions are highly controversial is not necessarily an argument against them. Therefore, if what is wanted is such a mixture the Bill is good enough and I would wish it well.
  But the main burden of my song is that what is wanted is not such a mixture, because I believe that a potpourri of intelligent suggestions from high-minded and experienced men is not what is wanted at present. Indeed, it is not better in principle than what has already failed over the period of 28 years during which I have been examining the subject, in a mixture of hope and realism.
  What I believe is wanted is a new appraisal of the fundamental assumptions of our penal system, a new rational and

  77
  coherent approach to English criminal law. I say "English criminal law" because it happens to be in that branch that I have practised to some extent, but I suspect that the Scots are in a rather similar plight. That is the keynote of what I wish to say.
  One criticism which I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not find ungenerous is that to some extent he put it out of his own power and that of his immediate successors to make such an approach when he condoned what I can only describe as the sabotage of the Royal Commission on the Penal System by a minority of its members. This was among his first administrative acts on taking up office. We shall pay for many years for that ill-considered and rash termination of what was already an overdue inquiry. What we are considering today is very much a poor second best compared with what we might have had.
  I must make a second critical observation. As the right hon. Gentleman indicated in his remarks on the probation service, the Bill will not work, indeed it will do more harm than good, unless on its legislative bones there is afterwards put the flesh of solid administrative support. The probation service, undermanned and, I think, under-valued except by those who know what it does, requiring high qualifications and very highly specialised training and experience, will be heavily strained by the suspended sentence proposals and the system of licence revocation.
  The magistrates' clerks, who are also a very highly overworked section of the community, at any rate in the country, will have an additional burden put on them by the provisions for the payment of fines and stoppage of earnings. The provisions regarding shot-guns will certainly put more work on the police.
  I do not know to what extent the prison and borstal services will be affected, but the Bill will mean in practice that the right hon. Gentleman will have to ask his colleague for administrative support for the various proposals he now makes. Unless he gets it, the legislative effort we put into the Bill will be largely wasted.
  In his closing remarks the right hon. Gentleman made what I believe was a valuable prophecy of a non-partisan Committee stage for the Bill. I think
  78
  that I can promise him just that and I think that he will agree that in matters of this kind, I have not proved a partisan opponent across the Floor of the House.
  One point on which at the moment I anticipate a party division is in the Clauses introducing the parole system of release on licence. Although we welcome that in general as an experiment which must certainly be made, we do not think that either release on licence or revocation of licence once granted should be ultimately in the hands of one man, even if he is the Home Secretary. We on this side of the House think that it should be a matter of collective wisdom —the collective wisdom of a number of different viewpoints.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Could the right hon. Gentleman say why, in his opinion, this could be a matter of party division?
  Mr. Hogg: I say so only because it happens to be part of my party's policy, and not because I shall not appeal on an objective basis to hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the Home Secretary who, I was glad to notice, said he was not keeping a closed mind on this matter. At the moment, I am recording this as no more than being provisionally the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself.
  For instance, we do not think that this subject should be a matter within the day-to-day responsibilities of a political Minister. We believe that it should be not only detached from politics, as I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and any likely successor would make it, but should be seen to be detached from politics. We think that it should not be in the hands of either officials or Ministers responsible for the ordinary conditions of incarceration. We do not think that it should be in those hands administratively, and we do not think that it lends itself very easily to the day-to-day business of Parliamentary Questions, which I think would certainly follow from the present proposals. Although a parole board is not necessarily a judicial or quasi-judicial function, we think that there is a quasi-judicial element in it, especially as involving the right of the individual who is in prison or whose licence is subject to revocation to make his own representations and to

  79
  be heard by a body whom he can reasonably expect to be impartial.
  For all those reasons, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again at Part III and to fulfil his promise not only to me but, I am happy to notice, to certain quarters in other parts of the House, of an open mind, preferably by producing an alternative scheme before the Committee stage, since he has the whole resources of the Civil Service at his command, which we have not. If he will not do that, I ask him at any rate to listen to the proposals we shall make.
  As I have already indicated, the rest of the Bill is a potpourri. It is rather like the earlier books of the Bible. I went through the Bill marking the various sections with different letters. There was "P", the priestly editor—Parker, of course—who first promulgated the desirability of majority verdicts. I am with the Home Secretary about that, but he must not expect to get an easy ride in Committee on that controversy.
  The public is divided, the Press is divided, and the legal profession is deeply divided, with probably a majority against it. I explained my own view as recently as August, and therefore I shall not inflict it on the House again. I would only say that even if there were not the kind of evidence which the right hon. Gentleman brought forward today and to which I alluded in August in the House, I am not convinced that it is at all rational to give one or two persons out of twelve the right of veto, and I am not at all convinced that it always operates in favour of the accused that there is the right of veto.
  I am quite convinced that there exists the incorrigible member of a jury who stands out for a conviction as well as the perverse member of a jury who stands out for an acquittal. That is borne out by some of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave. A disagreement, whatever else it does, inflicts upon the accused a double anxiety and double strain of a second trial. Moreover, if it ultimately results in acquittal, it inflicts on an innocent man the anxiety of a second trial, and, in addition—as I think I heard the Attorney-General murmur at that point—unless he gets legal aid he has to pay his own costs in the ordinary course. Therefore, anything which tends to diminish the superstitious awe in which
  80
  some people hold absolute unanimity is probably a move in the direction of rationality and not necessarily a move against our fundamental liberties.
  I come now to the Widgery proposals. I am sorry to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am rather more heavily critical of them than he was. I quite understand that it is attractive to say that a man who is proved to have means and who, after a long trial, is convicted ought to pay something towards the costs of his own unsuccessful defence. At first sight, there would appear to be no flaw in that argument, but the answer, surely, if that if he has means he can be dealt with by being ordered to pay the whole or a substantial part of the costs of the prosecution, without any additional legislative structure, and to pay a fine in addition. If, on the other hand, he is acquitted, I see no reason why he should be asked to contribute towards the cost of his defence.
  Often, a man is ruined as a result of an unsuccessful trial, apart from undergoing the anxiety and pain which an unsuccessful trial imposes upon him. I go so far as to say that the time has come when it would be just to award costs to an unaided defendant in criminal proceedings when the result of the trial is acquittal. The reason why we do not is the very unsatisfactory conviction rate to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded in a quite different connection.
  Mr. J. T. Price: On the question of awarding costs to a defendant who succeeds against the prosecution, might that not have the effect of increasing the reluctance of prosecuting authorities to take action unless they were fairly certain of getting a conviction? I am afraid that, with that kind of sanction, there would be a great disincentive to institute prosecutions, as there is already at times for civil servants acting under the Factories Act, for example, unless there was certainty of conviction.
  Mr. Hogg: I should be very sorry to think that a prosecuting authority would take that kind of consideration into account at all.
  I come now to the Tucker proposals and other proposals relating to the preliminary hearing. I was glad that, when

  81
  pressed, the right hon. Gentleman generously admitted the Conservative authorship of the first part of those proposals. The Tucker proposals for restriction on publicity for preliminary proceedings will be controversial, and again, I am sorry to say, I myself support the right hon. Gentleman. The Scots have succeeded in carrying on with this nefarious practice, from time immemorial, I think. It has been the practice in Northern Ireland for quite a long time, and on the Continent always. I see no reason why we should not introduce it here, for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman gave, though I must tell him—I shall return to this later— that I consider that he has missed a great opportunity in this Bill, once he has accepted the proposition that the reporting of the preliminary hearing should be restricted, to recast the nature of the preliminary hearing altogether. I believe the same to be true of his, to my mind, acceptable proposals for the restriction of last-minute alibis.
  I confess myself profoundly agnostic on the subject of corporal punishment. hope that the right hon. Gentleman knows what he is doing. I do not know whether he has been wise at this juncture to abolish it in closed institutions, as we have done for many years in the courts of law. It is at first sight paradoxical that, whereas the great majority of our State schools allow it and all our public schools practise it fairly liberally, the one place where a person can be entirely immune from it is borstal, which caters to some extent for persons of the same age. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman will thrash this matter out with greater enthusiasts for corporal punishment than I am, to their satisfaction.
  Sir David Renton: What my right hon. and learned Friend says of borstal is equally true of detention centres.
  Mr. Hogg: I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend.
  All this shows that, given the abolition of the Royal Commission on the Penal System, I have rather coyly to confess that, had I been in the Home Secretary's shoes, I should probably have been driven by the innate conservatism of the British public, Parliament and the legal profession, to produce a Bill different
  82
  in detail but remarkably similar in substance to the one now before the House. However, as I am not in the right hon. Gentleman's shoes—no doubt, this cheers hon. Members opposite—I think that the best way I can use the time of the House on Second Reading is in giving some of the reasons why I say that this kind of prescription is not really good enough at the present juncture, and why I consider that one of the significant contributory causes of the lawlessness—it can be called no other—of the English-speaking societies of the world is less, perhaps, a double dose of original sin and more a failure to legislate coherently on the subject of criminal law and procedure.
  I start from the proposition that law is, or it ought to be, part of the social sciences. Historically, it was the first, and that is why it is so archaic, but in the 20th century we ought to begin to regard the subject rather more rationally than we have hitherto. Since I went to the Bar 34 years ago, all branches of the law—and among the most serious examples of this I would put the criminal law—have become steadily more complicated, less accessible and, I would say, fundamentally less rational. Looking at the forest of judicial decisions and the mass of ill-related statutes, nearly all legislating by reference and nearly all legislating ad hoc, I would say that the criminal law is something which it is impossible for a layman even to find, if he wants to.
  I believe that law should be coherent, intelligible and accessible. Both the legal profession and Parliament have a great responsibility to society for arranging that the more fundamental distinctions in English criminal law have to be left to the confusion of judicial precedent and, sometimes, even to the indecent obscurity of Norman French, surely the least respectable of dead languages, if, indeed, it can be called dead since it lives on in the Treason Act.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): And in another place.
  Mr. Hogg: But let us count our blessings. English criminal law has three great assets, great assets because they are among the things that make life worth living in this country, namely, incorruptibility, independence of political interference—let us add that among the assets

  83
  of the jury system is its remarkable independence of judicial influence—and its speed.
  Let us not underestimate the value of speed. Let one reflect on the condition of the Ruby trial, now back at square one after three years, in respect of an event witnessed probably by 20 million people; or the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti, who were executed 14—or seven—years after the event—even if they were guilty; or take the case of the Continental codes where prisoners remain month after month in prison while the juge d'instruction fumbles with his files. Speed is not a bad asset in the scheme of criminal justice as we have it.
  Having said that, I am sure that the foundations of English criminal law are far too rickety and antiquated to make the best basis of a coherent system in the twentieth century. We have to recognise—I think the right hon. Gentleman touched on this—that some of the fundamental things that the modern student of English criminal law has to study stem from the fact that felonies were for many centuries capital offences except insofar as this was mitigated for the literate by benefit of clergy, and for that reason we go into the extraordinary distinctions between murder and manslaughter, between larceny and embezzlement and fraudulent conversion and receiving, which are a nightmare to every English legal student. We have to remember that, until living memory, the accused was not allowed to give evidence on his own behalf, that there were no police, no accountants, little literacy, no effective court of criminal appeal and little enough appeal even in civil cases.
  The result has been a series of unnecessarily refined distinctions in substantive law, in procedural law the survival of a large number of outdated safeguards and the absence of modern methods of investigation in the field of commercial law. No one who has reflected on, for instance, the nature of the Cadco case or another case which may even yet come before the courts, the Savundra case, can feel satisfied with the penal arrangements of our commercial law or the law of finance.
  In spite of protests from my right hon. and learned Friend, I should like to agree
  84
  very largely with the criticism that the right hon. Gentleman made that we are sometimes in danger of forgetting the original purpose of justice, which is to ascertain the truth, to convict the guilty, and acquit the innocent, bearing in mind as we all do, that we must let a certain number of guilty men off in order to prevent the conviction of any who are innocent.
  When I look at the panoply of English criminal justice at assizes, I am sometimes reminded of a fox hunt. It is very wicked to chop one's fox in cover, shoot him with a gun, or poison him with strychnine. But provided that one pursues him ritually with a trencher-fed pack of twelve suitably bred hounds, presided over by a huntsman in a red coat blowing a horn of the ritual kind, a great number of errors in both directions are permitted to the sound of universal satisfaction.
  Supposing that instead of this sporting approach to our criminal problems we were to start from a more rational viewpoint, what should we find? The first thing, we should have found 50 years ago—and that means that it is 50 years overdue—is a penal code, like any other civilised State, except those which—God help them—imitate ourselves. Of course, a penal code would be quite difficult to frame, but that means that it is more important than ever to start now. The whole process may take five or ten years, but that, again, is a reason for starting now.
  I will tell the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues how I think they ought to start. They ought to put the matter to the Law Commissioners as a matter of extreme urgency, and the Law Commissioners ought to go first to the academic branch of the legal profession and ask it to formulate different branches of our code. I can think of an obvious example in Professor Cross for the law of evidence. But no doubt other names will occur to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have knowledge of this world. I believe that the Government ought to publish their draft code in the form of a textbook with comments and alternative suggestions, and then it could be enacted by Parliament when the profession and the public have had an opportunity of examining the proposals.

  85
  After all, we have done this in the field of the property Acts of 1925 by very similar methods. We have done it in relation to the sale of goods in 1893, when Chalmers on his own did exactly this. We did it in 1882 with the bills of exchange Act. We have done it in marine insurance, and we have done it by enacting schedules to give certain types of code in commercial law where we are driven to do so by international agreement. But we have never tackled the systematic process of turning the English criminal law into a penal code. If we did so we should find that it would be more accessible, more coherent and more intelligible and that the public and the various professions, not only that of the lawyers, would find it more acceptable and more easy to co-operate with.
  That brings me to the fact that we cannot afford to wait for a penal code in order to bring in more rational suggestions. Take the preliminary hearing, for instance. Why has not the right hon. Gentleman taken the opportunity provided by the Tucker proposals to change its character from its fundamental accusatorial basis? The accusatorial basis is rendered necessary by publicity. Of course, one gets injustice where there is publicity and the inquisitorial basis is involved But the preliminary hearing in every other rational series of judicial process is not a full-dress rehearsal for the ultimate trial.
  The right hon. Gentleman, of course, being right to restrict last-minute alibis, why has he not appreciated that the last-minute alibi is only a special example of a defence sprung at the last minute which would never escape before any jury ever constituted, honestly approaching the case, if it were not produced at a moment of time too late for the prosecution to probe it? After all, under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals or his existing system, the prosecution has to lay down its cards face upwards before it gets a trial. Is there any rational justification why the defence should not do the same? How about the silence of the accused?
  Of course, it was right in the old days, when the accused could not give evidence on his own behalf, that one should not be able to twist his words against him or compel him to answer specific ques-
  86
  tions out of context. But is it really sensible in the twentieth century to have all this elaborate charade or parlour game—the judges' rules, the admissibility of confessions, the extraordinary evidence by policemen about so-called verbal statements, always exactly corroborated by the notebooks of at least two other policemen, arrived at independently, no doubt, and made exactly at the time, and only in order to refresh their memories?
  I must not, of course, offend my colleagues by complaining of the juryolatry which generally affects British thinking on the subject of criminal trial, and so I will go straight to the question of the treatment of offenders.
  Here again, there can be no doubt that this House has failed over a period of 30 years. We take a great deal of time asking whether capital or corporal punishment are what is called a "deterrent". Have we ever asked whether prison is a deterrent? Prison is our only weapon of last resort, but it does not seem to be succeeding extraordinarily well and when we talk about the reformation and moral rehabilitation of the prisoner, why have we not tried to do that which the priest in the confessional or the lawyer in his chambers often tells the offender—that the way back to moral and social health is to try and put right what he has done wrong?
  Of course, we cannot do it because, as we know, traditional English jurisprudence does not allow such a revolutionary thought to prevail. The fox has to be hunted to its inevitable conclusion and there is a deep gulf fixed between criminal and civil proceedings, which means that the judge in one court can order repayment of money but in another is unable to do so. But other civilised societies do not find such a distinction at all fundamental or invincible.
  As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman in August, the Home Secretary must have something to say that is constructive about the problem of violence in support of professional crime. Any system of criminal law must depend ultimately upon identification of the accused, and that means that, if we rely solely on imprisonment as the weapon of last resort, there is a temptation for the professional criminal, as distinct from the individual delinquent, to use violence

  87
  to intimidate, suppress or finally to destroy evidence of identification. That evidence may consist of a policeman or a victim or simply of a bystander.
  But, at the moment, our penal system gives no adequate deterrent. I suggested in August—and I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman has not done this in the Bill, because I believe it comes also from the Law Society—that crimes of serious violence should be treated as an act of bankruptcy in order that the property of the accused should be administered by a trustee. This would at any rate remove the temptation to salt the stuff away until he comes out, and I am sure this operates in a great number of criminal minds. If we combine the practice of restitution with the stoppage of earnings and the administration of the estate by a trustee in bankruptcy, we might at least get a coherent approach to reformation and, indeed, to deterrence which the present system is not at the moment providing.
  Perhaps I may pause for a moment to make another suggestion. I do not fully understand why the right hon. Gentleman has not yielded to the perpetual warnings of the Court of Appeal on the status of criminal convictions. Anyone would think that, once a man had been convicted, ordinary citizens could rely upon his guilt for most purposes. They are not able to do so. I shall not shed many tears over Mr. Sparks in the case of Sparks v. Hinds or even over Odhams Press in the case of Goody v. Odhams. Perhaps it is as well that a new terror should be added to Sunday journalism. But how about Crippen, whose executors tried to get life insurance on his wife for the benefit of Ethel le Neve? If that had been tried now, it would have succeeded.
  How about the motor accident, involving an innocent victim, when the witnesses have died between the criminal and the civil proceedings, so that the victim is denied compensation? Such a case caused the recent alteration in the law. How about the recent case where a bank sought to recover money which had been stolen and was met, in effect, by a plea of not guilty? The right hon. Gentleman has referred this question to the wisdom of Lord Justice Diplock, than whom there is no greater authority.
  88
  But perhaps this kind of vagueness and inability to legislate about simple matters which affect Parliament is symptomatic of our national decline.
  Therefore I receive this Bill in some sort of dilemma. I promise the right hon. Gentleman my support in most of his controversial proposals. But I still reflect, with a good deal of regret, that the Bill is yet another complication to the law, a new edition of Archbold, a new series of pieces of legislation by reference and Schedule and not a coherent approach to what ought to be a valuable field of social science.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Carmichael: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) on a most remarkable speech. As a layman, however, I feel that he was being almost unfair to laymen in the Chamber in that we have been so bemused by lawyers over such a long period that we never have felt it possible to do other than criticise or add a contribution to legislation provided by lawyers for us. Over a long period now, lawyers in this Chamber have probably greatly exceeded in number any other single profession and one wonders why the pressure has not been greater and more carefully directed towards carrying out some of the worth-while suggestions and revolutionary changes which the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested.
  Like most hon. Members, and judging from the reviews and discussions I have heard and taken part in outside, I feel that the Bill is quite an advance and is in the tradition of the great Gladstone Committee of 1895 in recognising that the purpose of imprisonment is to improve morally and physically the well-being of prisoners. We are all aware that we are facing a totally new situation in the problem of crime and crime prevention and of weaning away from crime those people who err, perhaps not so much as the professional criminal but have nevertheless moved away from the "norm" of society and are, therefore, classed, for at least a short period, as criminals.
  As I listened to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I felt that this whole attitude to the Bill was the sort of attitude that I would much like to see from

  89
  many other members of the Government. he admitted that there were problems in the Bill on which he hoped that the House, in Committee, would be able to help him and that he would be very willing to listen to the criticisms that emerged in Committee, although—and this is quite reasonable, for it is his final responsibility—he would stand firm on the major proposals.
  In the House of Commons, to which we come from different parts of the country and from different social strata with different experiences, we all have a great deal to contribute—indeed, things that even criminologists and lawyers are not always able to contribute. One of the things which I have found in discussing this question of crime with police, lawyers and criminologists is that they begin to get the Idea that the world is composed of criminals. So, sometimes it is good that ordinary people with ordinary experiences should be able to face them with the reality that the vast mass of our people are law abiding. As I see it, the job of the House of Commons is in some ways to counter-balance the pressures put on the Home Secretary from the experts, the criminologists and the lawyers, by leavening attitudes and ultimate decisions with a certain reality and common sense.
  Since the Bill was published, there has been a spate of comparisons between the law in England and the law in Scotland. Some of the proposals in the Bill have obviously been influenced by the Scottish system. Much has been made of this similarity. While I believe that the Scots have, as in the past, a great deal to contribute to the rather more backward aspects of the English legal system, I also believe that the English are learning fast and that they are learning not only from our example, but also from many of the mistakes we have made.
  For this reason, I am rather pleased that preliminary hearings are to be retained, despite all the criticisms of the right hon. and learned Member. Perhaps they ought to be recast, but at least they are an advance on the system which we have in Scotland in that the prosecution has to produce evidence at such a hearing, whereas in Scotland defence lawyers often have great difficulty getting the evidence which the Crown has been able to discover.
  90
  I want to speak particularly about two aspects of the Bill. These are the suggested system of release on licence and the philosophy which my right hon. Friend has advanced today and on previous occasions that the greatest deterrent to crime is the catching of more and more criminals. With reservations about what constitutes a criminal, I entirely agree with his philosophy.
  I think that we are all anxious to find ways in which to make the licensing system work. The problem is how to decide how people are to be released on licence. I do not think that the suggested machinery is adequate. One criminologist said to me that this was a metaphysical matter, that we were trying to make arguments without having any raw material on which to work. We have inadequate knowledge about methods of releasing prisoners on licence and the best thing to do would be to try numerous methods in different parts of the country, not putting all our eggs in one basket, not using one machine from one end of the land to the other.
  I would like a fair variety of occupations and types of people to be represented on panels in different areas, with the Home Office Research Establishment or some of the universities, with much more money than they are now getting for so important a subject as criminological research, preparing a proper assessment of the results obtained from the use of different combinations of people on the panels.
  My suggested types would not be very different from those suggested by my right hon. Friend, but I would widen the range considerably. I think that there would also be needed a representative of the police, a prison officer, a probation officer, a sociologist, a magistrate and someone in the trade union world—because there would have to be someone to decide what opportunities the released prisoner would have in the world outside —a practising lawyer, perhaps not a criminal lawyer—a chaplain and a psychiatrist.
  The most controversial type which I suggest for at least some of the panels would be a released prisoner, someone who had been out of prison for five or 10 years and who had established himself as having improved his moral and

  91
  physical well-being while in prison and who had come out and shown over five or 10 years that he was able to cope with society. Such people represent a great reservoir of information and experience and we should be wrong not to give them responsibility and not to learn from their ideas. I do not suggest that all of those people should be represented on each panel, because a panel should not be too big, but there should be combinations of such types and then we would have to wait and see which combination was most consistently successful in producing the required results.
  I want also to refer to saving time, particularly the time of the police, and to the idea that the job of the police is to fight criminals and so to act as our greatest deterrent to crime. This is the basic purpose of the Bill and one of my right hon. Friend's main objectives.
  I have become convinced from numerous talks with many people on the fringe of crime—police, lawyers and even criminals themselves—that we are on the edge of, if we have not already entered, a period of highly organised crime in Britain, something not yet quite at the American level, but perilously close to it. Because of this, we must treat the police in a way which we have been dodging for a very long time. The police are having tremendous difficulty not only about getting recruits but in preventing the wastage of recruits. We must break through this difficulty and accept that crime and the crime wave are imposing an enormous burden on society which will become almost intolerable within the next 10 years if we are not able to do something revolutionary.
  Despite all the arguments about prices and incomes, one of the effects of the Bill must be a substantial increase in the pay of the police. With that increase, we shall need to demand from the police much higher standards, particularly of education, to deal with the increase in crime and the greater sophistication in crime which is now coming about.
  Although the idea failed in the 'thirties, for many reasons of prejudice and antagonism within the police, I think that ultimately we shall have to return to something like the Hendon principle and
  92
  consider the possibility of the introduction of graduates at higher levels of the police force to combat the much more highly educated criminal who is running big crime today—even more than was the case 30 years ago. My only reservation is that if graduates are encouraged to join the police in large numbers because of increased opportunities for them, policemen starting at the bottom must have every opportunity, in service training and ultimately in release, to allow them to move up the promotion ladder so that they, too, can take the most responsible jobs within the force.
  I am not thinking in terms of a minor increase in salaries, but of a very substantial increase. After great thought I have come to the firm conclusion, with which I hope all hon. Members will agree that in this situation the police must be treated as an exception to the prices and incomes freeze. I know how unpopular this may be in the part of the country that I come from, but I believe in this.
  In addition to the advances which the Bill makes in penology, and to the suggestions that I have made for streamlining and improving recruitment of officers and helping in the detection of crime, another requirement is that there must be a great deal more money spent in finding out what it is we are after, and in finding out more about what constitutes crime and the best ways of dealing with it.
  In the latter part of his speech, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone gave the impression that he, and I assume others, were doubtful whether the methods now being used were in any way correct. The only way that we can find out is by spending a lot more money to discover what makes a criminal, how they may best be treated, once caught, and how the most efficient use can be made of the manpower available for catching criminals.
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: I judge from the very thoughtful remarks that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) and even more so from the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), that this is not likely to be a highly controversial Bill. That in itself does not guarantee that it is in all respects a good Bill. After

  93
  hearing the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend, and the prospect which he offered, and after again considering the contents of the Bill, I come down strongly on the side of the "code of St. Marylebone". I believe that all hon. Members who heard my right hon. and learned Friend's speech feel that, while much that he said may remain in the realms of the future, we are not on this occasion, making the most of the opportunities offered to us.
  I know that some hon. Members have hailed the Bill as a landmark in crime reform and penology. Without disrespect to the Home Secretary I think that it is nothing of the kind. The Bill comprises a miscellany of emergency measures and some experiments. It is largely directed to plugging holes in the law, and to dealing with the chronic overcrowding in prisons, and the need to speed certain aspects of court procedure. I speak here as a layman. I have no doubt that a great many other lawyers will contribute to this debate. Some of the measures in the Bill are based on the reflections of the advisory bodies, some official and some unofficial, but quite a lot it seems, are based on very little reflection, and very little has been based on very long-term thinking.
  Here I would echo what my right hon. and learned Friend said in regretting the fact that the Royal Commission was wound up when it was and that we now have no long-term thinking to look forward to. This Bill does not compare with the Criminal Justice Act of 1947 as a far-reaching Measure. I regret that the Royal Commission was not allowed to finish its work.
  Mr. W. T. Williams: We have heard, both from the right hon. and learned Gentleman and now from the hon. Gentleman, this comment about the Royal Commission having been forced to wind up. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that anything very useful can come out of a Royal Commission which was so long at sixes and sevens with itself that its members had considerable differences and had no single mind on any subject?
  Mr. Deedes: I do not accept that. No one has suggested that the Royal Commission was forced to wind up. It should have been encouraged to continue its
  94
  work. This did not happen. I make no complaint, however, about the fact that this is an emergency Bill. As one penologist put it to me, "there is a fire on" and this is a very necessary and competent job of salvage. Of course we should stop people nobbling juries, athough in the view of many policemen with whom I have discussed this matter there is an even greater need to stop one bloody-minded juryman obstructing justice, and that is not quite the same thing.
  There is also a need to streamline court procedure to save the time of the police. We ought to check the use of shot-guns for crime, which has not yet been mentioned very much in this debate, having failed on the first round. Of course we must try to reduce the prison population, in so far as they are not doing it for themselves. All of this is very useful, but it does not stand comparison with the sort of measure offered by a Government of the same complexion in 1947. That was a landmark.
  I am less sure whether this is the right moment for the Home Secretary—and I know that this is contentious—to abolish corporal punishment in prisons. I think that he may have made a psychological mistake here. Until we can more scientifically sort out the agggressive psychopaths and characters of that nature from the rest, until we can sort out the lions from the lambs and provide the right security blocks for prisoners of a certain nature, then prison officers ought to have a safeguard. As the Home Secretary said, it has not been used for a considerable time—since 1962 I believe he said—but it ought to be accepted as having a bearing on their morale. I rgret that this moment has been chosen for a step which probably ought to come sooner or later; the timing seems to be clumsy.
  In this connection where are these security blocks? Where will they be? What is the precise state of planning of the Albany Block on the Isle of Wight? Although it is not wholly relevant to the Bill, the Home Secretary had something to say at the weekend about life sentences. We ought to know a little more about the maximum security aspects of prisons, as well as those things mentioned in the Bill.
  I am not absolutely sure whether those portions of the Bill providing for increased fines and a reduction of short

  95
  sentences have been very clearly thought through. What we have to reckon with, and what I do not believe the Bill has reckoned with sufficiently, is the habitual minor offender, the frankly inadequate individual who occupies a large part of the court's time and a great deal of prison accommodation. I hope that I am wrong, but I have a feeling that the Bill may lead to the courts having to resort to sentences of nine months to 12 months for those individuals and therefore, to an extent, we shall empty the prisons of some persons but fill them with others.
  These are not my main anxieties, and I would like now to come to my principle point of criticism of the Bill, the portions of the Bill which some regard as forward-looking and long-term—the suspended sentences in Part II and the release on licence in Part III. In so far as The White Paper outlined these, there are no surprises. Our minds have been prepared.
  I wish I felt that our administration was equally well prepared for it. I fear that this is not so. I would remind the House that we have not yet been able to invoke Section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1961 which envisaged release on licence and which was conditional upon adequate staffing before it was brought into effect. I think that I am right in saying that it has not yet been put into effect. The critical questions, as the Home Secretary and others know well, which are really exercising the administration, penologists, and those who will have to make this work are: who decides when the prisoners are to be released and on what criteria; how are they to be supervised, and in what circumstances, if necessary, will they return? Having heard the Home Secretary, I am bound to say that this still seems to me very shaky ground. The White Paper on the Adult Offender gave only the sketchiest outline answers to some of these questions, and the Bill gives no more. I listened to the Home Secretary very closely. He moved round certain of the gaps, but certainly did not fill them. These proposals seem to me to matter more than any others in the Bill, because so much will depend on their success or failure.
  As I said, I am not a lawyer. If I were a lawyer, I should sense with some misgiving the very big shift from judicial
  96
  work to administrative work—from the Judiciary to the Executive. But the leading question is: What will constitute authority in the case of the suspended sentence or release on licence? That is the question which worries me. There have been various suggestions made about this.
  I should be prepared to consider one of two proposals: either that the prison staffs, possibly assisted by people outside, should be considered the main arbiters, or there should be, as I know some of my hon. Friends would prefer to see, a parole board under a judicial president with the probation and after care services represented on it. What would be entirely wrong would be for decisions to reside ultimately with the Home Secretary, which would mean, in effect, unknown—I will not say faceless—administrators in the Home Office. That must be wrong.
  Then we come to the crucial question of supervision during what, in effect, is one-third of the man's sentence, after the first one-third and before the one-third remission. There is a critical element in the scheme. A great many figures have been canvassed. The Home Secretary indicated today that 600 out of a possible 4,500 might be eligible. But at this moment we have 2,500 probation officers who are nearly all overworked. My information is that they are dealing with about 70,000 cases, which means that everyone has a very full case-load on his book. If that figure is wrong, perhaps it could be corrected later.
  Have we in this new proposal given the administration a fair run? This is a rhetorical question, because I know that we have not. How are we to get the men we require and the administration on which this will entirely depend? For example, if we limit the scheme of release on licence to safe men whom we can reasonably be assured will succeed, we shall not give the scheme a fair run. Have we the supervisory staff outside the prisons to justify the experiment with men who represent some degree of risk? That is the essence of the scheme.
  What about the machinery for recall? Most hon. Members are aware of the anxieties of the probation officers. They would like recall to be preceded by a judicial hearing. From my very limited

  97
  experience, I think that they are right. It is important that the trust which has developed between the probation officers and the prisoners on probation and licence, which is indispensable, should not be compromised by any suggestion that probation officers should become un-uniformed policemen.
  No doubt the Home Secretary is aware, although I do not think he laid enough stress on it, that the administrative arrangements will decide the question of success or failure. I have some doubt about whether he will be able to command the means which will be needed to provide this successful administration.
  May I make a practical suggestion on which I think the Home Office should think positively? I believe that we may have to consider the appointment of assistant probation officers on the lines of nursing auxiliaries. This will not be popular with the National Association of Probation Officers, but we are chronically short of trained social workers. It seems to me that trained social workers will be indispensable to the proper working of Part II and Part III of the Bill.
  The course outlined in the Bill will be very expensive in terms of money. We may save money on the men we do not put in prison, but, in my view, there should not be any net saving. If we back these proposals as they should be backed, there will be a net loss. This will cost more than the system we are running now. For example, where will we get the hostels which I foresee we shall want in far greater numbers than we have now, because a large number of individuals are simply not able to stand alone outside prison? They will fail unless we can give them the support which a hostel can offer.
  Where is the research to evaluate the results which will flow from this? This I regard as absolutely crucial. What plans are there for increasing the amount of research being done? What will be the rôle of the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge where I think most of the criminal research is oriented? What plans are there for expansion in this respect? Research is the handmaiden of these ideas. Without it we shall not even learn from our mistakes. I am sure that the Home Secretary accepts that there
  98
  will be mistakes. It does not matter if there are mistakes provided public safety is not jeopardised. But this makes research absolutely imperative.
  The money for this will be very hard to get. The Home Secretary will have a great deal of work in getting his colleagues to provide the money which he will need. The personnel will be even harder to obtain. It is wrong to suppose that this is a cheaper approach to penology than the one we have now. It is not. If we do it properly, it will cost enormous sums of money. If we do not do it properly, it will, alas, attract an increased volume of criticism, and, worse, it may ultimately fail.
  6.17 p.m.
  Mr. W. T. Williams: I understand my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is to wind up the debate, so perhaps, situated as I am, I had better give him an immediate alibi. I have not discussed this speech with him, and all its faults and errors are my own.
  The Attorney-General: If my hon. and learned Friend is too critical of the Bill, he will be in very bad trouble with me, as he is my Parliamentary Private Secretary.
  Mr. Williams: We have listened to a remarkable speech by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I thought it remarkable, but I did not think that it was wholly relevant. It reminded me a little of the theological student who had learned with great care about the Judges of Israel and, in his examination, was asked to recount the deeds of the Kings of Israel. He said that he did not want to talk about the Kings of Israel, but that he would state what he knew about the Judges of Israel. Much of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said I found very interesting and of great value, save that it dealt wholly with a Bill of a kind not at all before the House.
  This Bill does not purport to deal with the whole circumference of criminal law, and I think that I would be right if I were to seek to tread in the middle ground between Stechford and Marylebone, for this reason. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is too

  99
  severe. The Bill has faults, but what Bill could anyone introduce which did not have faults? Nevertheless, it adds up to a most valuable reforming Measure within the compass which the Home Secretary himself has chosen. I admit that in some aspects I also am critical, but I hope that anything I say will be regarded as being constructive, and I shall try not to lose sight of the wood for the trees. It will indeed be a pity if, on Second Reading —because hon. and right hon. Gentlemen felt that there were things in the Bill about which they were critical, even things which my right hon. Friend spoke of as being most imporant—the House should divide on the Bill, because there are items in it which Members would like to see out or which they would like to see improved.
  I understand from the newspapers that the Liberal Party is proposing to divide the House, because its members are unhappy about the provisions of the Bill relating to majority verdicts. I hope that is not so. Although this is an important Committee point, it is a Committee point, and it would be a pity if the House were not to give its undivided support to a Bill which, within its compass, does advance considerably the treatment of offenders and attitude of the courts towards those before them.
  The basic aims of the Bill are clear and good. The Bill seeks to improve the practice of the criminal courts, and tackles the treatment of prisoners once they have been convicted. There will be no disagreement from any part of the House on most of the provisions. The proposals regarding committal proceedings cannot give rise to great controversy. They go a long way towards more efficient and quicker criminal trials, and they provide safeguards for the accused which are desirable developments in our criminal law.
  The provisions against springing last-minute alibis are sensible, and those which enable the courts of law to proceed quickly to main trial are, in themselves, of the greatest possible value in saving time and also wear and tear upon the nerves of those who are awaiting trial.
  There is, however, one question which I should like to ask the Home Secretary regarding this matter of springing last-minute alibis. What is proposed if, in
  100
  fact, at the last minute somebody produces a new alibi? One thinks immediately of a trial like that of Hanratty where, at the last moment, an alibi was brought forward of which no inquiry was then made. When the Bill becomes law what will happen in such cases? Is it proposed that the trial shall be adjourned in order that inquiries might be made into the alibi, or is it then said, "You have lost your chance, you have crossed the line, and now it is not possible for you to take advantage"—even of an alibi of which the defence could only find evidence at a late stage, or where the character involved in the trial is a somewhat unusual one like Hanratty.
  Of what happens when the case comes to trial, there are some questions that I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply. The most contentious, of course, is that of majority verdicts. The Home Secretary has said that he regards this as being the most important provision. I appreciate the arguments which have been advanced in favour of the change. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone properly stressed a matter that should be in the minds of those who are committed to the doctrine of the inviolability of unanimous verdicts, namely, that the position in the twentieth century is different from that in the eighteenth; that, indeed, the time has now come when the prisoner has so many opportunities for presenting his case, for telling his story, opportunities which he was denied in earlier centuries, that it would seem that we are not in any way vitiating a sacred principle in changing the situation regarding majority verdicts. It can be argued rather, that what we are doing is making a reasonable and rational approach to what has become a difficult and, some feel, an intractable problem.
  However, in this context, it is a pity that the Home Secretary, in introducing this change in our procedure, did not look at the matter a little further, to see whether the rules of procedure are not so strict or so rigid as to give the prisoner at the bar a considerable advantage which he should no longer enjoy. I have been in trials in which the prisoner has refused to answer questions by the police. He continues his refusal, and it is not possible for anyone at the trial to say that the

  101
  prisoner had refused to answer the questions or even to point out that the questions have been asked. A situation often arises that where a reasonable account should have been given, by the provisions of the Judges' Rules, no reference to the prisoner's refusal is at any time allowed to be made by any counsel engaged on the case. This is a procedure which might, with profit, be changed, because in my judgment it is right that if a man does not wish to give an answer, the fact that he has not done so should be given in evidence.
  Although I have no quarrel, on principle, with this change to majority verdicts—I think a good case can be made out for it—it is, in my submission, less important to alter than to make the provision which is now being proposed in Section 11 of the Bill, namely, that people who have been convicted of offences in recent years should not be allowed to sit upon juries. In a case in which I was involved a juryman was threatened. He was not offered a bribe, but was threatened because he had previous convictions. The matter came to light because he went to the police and told them that he had previous convictions. He said, "The people who are being charged, or their friends, know that I have previous convictions and they have threatened me in these proceedings if I do not force either an acquittal or disagreement".
  It is an exceedingly good thing that no one—if he has had a conviction, but is now an honest man—should be put in this unhappy position, or should have the opportunity of perverting the course of justice. My difficulty, however, is to understand how this laudable objective will be achieved. How can one discover who are the people who have previous convictions? It seems to me that this is a task of Sisyphus, and I should be interested to know what thought has been given to this procedure; for it seems to me that if we have some means of ensuring that only honest men are on the jury, then we can face with greater equanimity the possibility of a perverse or an obstinate man, and so need not be so concerned about the experiment of achieving a majority verdict.
  A matter on which I feel strongly concerns the provision for legal aid costs. The attempts to obtain legal aid costs
  102
  from an accused person seem to me to have in them inherently great dangers of injustice. We have been told already that it is possible in such circumstances that people who are charged may refuse to take legal aid. I stake no personal claim in this, but it may well be that people who ought to be legally represented will refuse to be legally represented and their case thereby would suffer.
  The fact that at the end of a case, and only then, are the costs to be estimated will add yet one more burden to the people—whether guilty, or even more if they are innocent—who are facing the misery, uncertainty and anxiety of a trial.
  In my submission, the powers that the court already possess are sufficient to enable it to deal with a case in which a man has abused the processes of the court in order to obtain legal aid. If a man has been found guilty and he has means, the court has power to order costs. If he has been found innocent of the charge laid against him, he should be free of cost. The parallel with the civil legal aid provisions is wholly illusory in civil cases all that is in question is money, whereas in criminal cases a man's liberty may very well be at stake for a very long time. Therefore, far from wanting to restrict the provisions of legal aid for people in peril in this way, the weight and strength of my support would be wholly laid upon the side of granting legal aid without the provision which is proposed in the Bill.
  The provisions of the Bill are clear in respect of what happens to the criminal once he has been caught and convicted. They are surely an advance on anything we have done previously. But I am not wholly in disagreement with right hon. and learned Gentlemen who have said that this is very like the experience of the much-married actress who, on marrying for the seventh time, said, "This is a triumph of hope over experience". We have tried in the House and in our criminal legislation for many years to find a way of dealing with convicted criminals which is both just to them and fair to society.
  On the matters which are related to keeping people out of gaol I have nothing but complete approval. Keeping drunks and debtors out of gaol, restricting

  103
  magistrates from putting into prison on remand, abolishing preventive detention and corrective training in my submission are wholly good, and so are the provisions for suspended sentences.
  In that context, however, I would underline the suggestion that has been made by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone—although I had this in my own notes, I add in my own defence—for I agree with him entirely that if these privileges, for privileges they are, are granted, and if a man is allowed to escape punishment, then we are entitled to look for other means of bringing home to him the heinousness and dishonesty of his crime. If we are to allow some relief from punishment, then the legislature is entitled to see what means are available to ensure retribution.
  It seems to me, that within this Bill, it would be possible to make provision for repayment—where that is possible—of monies which have been dishonestly obtained or restitution of damage which has been wilfully and maliciously done. In that context the procedure proposed as a test of means for legal aid could be pursued for this more commendable purpose of seeing what means a criminal has to ensure that, as far as those means allow, he repays the people whom he has injured.
  I meant to speak on the questions arising out of the use of parole, but I do not want to speak for too long because many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. May I, however, underline a question which we were asked by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)— and I will not elaborate the point. It is a matter of considerable concern as to who is to make the report. Many of us on this side of the House are also of the view that it would be better, whatever the disadvantages may be, to have an independent parole board rather than to exercise the responsibility for deciding when and how a man is to be released on a report from the prison. That may do a great deal to bedevil the man's relationships with the officers who have control over him.
  Another point which no one has mentioned is, that hope deferred maketh the heart sick. It may well be that the
  104
  proper way to deal with this question of release on licence is to give the man, perhaps on advice, the opportunity of making his own application for release before an independent board when he thinks the time has come. Nothing can be more harmful to morale than for him to be left with a feeling that his date of release is moving ever further and further away.
  The solution of another problem will demand a considerable sum of money—namely, that if this plan is to succeed there must be a service, either the probation service greatly expanded or some other parole service. We are told that the probation service does not want this work, and in my submission to ensure proper after care is probably one of the most difficult problems to be faced in any parole system.
  The fact that the Bill makes the attempt which is made in it, and faces the problems which it is facing, proves that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has tackled the problem with courage and faith. I hope that the Bill will succeed in doing what all previous attempts aimed at the reclamation of the criminal have so far failed to do. I wish my right hon. Friend good will in it and I will support him, as far as I am able, in the Bill. I hope that in his reply the Attorney-General will give some reassuring answers to the questions that I have asked.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: Like others who have spoken today, I thank the Home Secretary for the most lucid way in which he explained the Bill and I also thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) for his magnificently broad speech. I am afraid that I missed about three minutes of that speech when he was dealing with the archaic jungle of the criminal law. The reason for that is simple. I am a practitioner in that field, and other practitioners will know that one of the archaic principles is that we do not fix tomorrow's list until five o'clock today. It is necessary, therefore, at some hour to leave the Chamber to inquire in which court, if any, one's services are required.
  The proposals in the Bill are welcome, and the vast majority are right, although

  105
  there is considerable vagueness which will need to be probed in Committee. I welcome the proposals for suspended sentences, which will give the courts the flexibility they require and will make a considerable psychological difference to the person who is today conditionally discharged. At the moment, a man sometimes believes that, on a second conviction he will not be punished for the offence for which he was conditionally discharged, whereas, under this principle, having been given a suspended sentence, he will realise that the commission of another offence will result in his suffering the previous sentence.
  I wish to limit my speech to committal proceedings, release on licence and the question of majority verdicts. I thank the Home Secretary for the kind words he said about the pamphlet written by me and Edward Gardner, Q.C., on committal proceedings, and I will pass on what he said to Mr. Gardner. All we did was put into pamphlet form the views of many other bodies and also of the Home Office over previous years. This is probably the most welcome part of the Bill. The present system is time-consuming, largely archaic and achieves little of practical value.
  The last figures which are clearly available, which the Home Office produced in 1958, show that about 76 per cent. of people being sent for trial at that stage pleaded guilty, and that in every case statements which people had made to the police had to be repeated in court and taken down on oath, although not a word was likely to be challenged later. One can realise the frustrating and annoying waste of time for the police and others involved.
  The Home Secretary's proposals will not withdraw the safeguards of the accused. The real aims of committal proceedings—providing the accused with the knowledge of the case he has to meet and ensuring that he is not put on trial without there being a prima facie case—will be adequately safeguarded. I hope that it will be only in cases where there is a real desire to challenge at that stage that the accused will use his rights to demand committal proceedings. My experience is that even when a man pleads not guilty, in practice, no harm is done and no injustice incurred by cross-examining on statements of additional
  106
  evidence rather than on the sworn deposition of witnesses.
  I am also glad that, in implementing the proposals of the Tucker Committee, the Home Secretary has ignored its advice in one respect. The Committee specifically said that the defendant should not have the right to elect for or against the publication of committal proceedings. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has decided that such publicity should be given to the defendant if he wishes.
  I have one or two questions about the practical operation of this procedure. Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that the statements will be served on the defendant before his appearance in court or merely on his appearance? There would be great advantages in his having the statements served on him or his legal advisers two or three days before, so that they could be considered quietly and a decision made.
  In practice, also, many people who go to trial go at their own election on offences which are triable summarily or on indictment. It would be a good idea if the courts could know in advance which step was proposed. If they are not to know in advance, half the object of this procedure will be defeated, because the witnesses might be brought on the possibility of a summary trial only to find that they need not have come. We will have to discuss the practicability of this in Committee.
  My second concern is with Part III of the Bill, the Home Secretary's power to release prisoners on licence. Every hon. Member will welcome this decision in principle. I have always thought it erroneous that the Home Secretary should have power to release people serving a life sentence but none to interfere with long-term sentences, in view of the length of some sentences. I also have considerable concern at the proposals in the Bill about how this will be carried out. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he will have an open mind on this matter.
  I believe that he has made the wrong decision in leaving this in the hands of the Home Secretary of the day, rather than to rely at least on the advice of a parole board, even if it is not left to the board's own decision. The first reason

  107
  for this belief is that if this is left only to the Home Secretary and, in practice, to his advisers there is a grave danger that the principles of the Bill would be turned instead to practical expedients, and that the numbers of people discharged on licence, the rate of release and recall, would depend more on the state of crowding in prisons and the state of preparedness of the probation service rather than on a fair, judicial consideration of the individual man's case.
  A parole board on a widely drawn judicial basis would give the man far more confidence than the choice of the Home Secretary himself. I mean no disrespect to the Home Secretary, but one must face the fact that people generally trust the judges more than the Home Secretary of the day. If the system is to work, it is important that the board which releases on licence should have the overwhelming support and trust of the people.
  Finally, it is a matter of tremendous importance for the prisoner himself. If he is serving ten to 15 years, it may make a difference of four or five years in custody. He would feel the advantage of some independent board rather than another branch of the Executive. In general, the proposal that this should stay in the hands of the Home Secretary leaves too much power to the Executive. That power should be returned to the judiciary.
  I join the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) and my right hon. and learned Friend in repeating the questions asked about how this will work. The Bill in this respect is very vague. It lays down no principles on which release will be decided. The Home Secretary said that it certainly will not be automatic. I hope that, in practice, it will not be too common. If it were, there is the danger that the judiciary would deliberately increase sentences, knowing that the licence system is likely to operate after a certain period.
  Even more important than the principles of release is the question of who will supervise and, in particular, of how a licence will be revoked. The revoking of a licence to the man who has his licence revoked is the equivalent, to him, of his being committed to prison for a further period. It is clear, under the
  108
  Bill, that if he commits another offence, the system follows, but if it is done by recommendation of supervisors from outside, then I believe it is essential that there should be some formal judicial process so that the man knows he has had his licence revoked by a court, rather than through an administrative act by someone with whom he probably never comes into contact.
  Also on this part of the Bill, I urge again what was said about the situation of the probation service. The Home Secretary said that the Probation Service is growing at the rate of 200 a year. This may sound encouraging, and the Home Secretary obviously thought that was a figure of which his Ministry could be proud, but let me remind him that until very recently, at least, the proposed figure for the Probation Service was, I believe, 3,500 by 1970. Since at the moment, in 1966, we are at 2,500, then with the present rate of increase, we are not going to get the proposed figure by 1970, and that figure, of course, was decided upon before any of the proposals of the Bill or their effects on the Probation Service were considered. I believe it is essential, if the Bill is to work, that the Probation Service should be vastly increased. I would say, in passing, that I believe that pay in the Probation Service should be increased, as someone has mentioned that the pay of the police should be increased. That is in abeyance at the moment because of the prices and incomes policy, and in the higher grade of the Probation Service increases in pay were held back because of the freeze.
  I turn to the most controversial issue of all, that of majority verdicts. The Home Secretary said that going through the criminal law was rather like a stately and archaic minuet, and he talked of rules being rigged in favour of the accused. I though there was a great deal of force in that argument when he said that this arose at a time when the amount of punishment bore very little relationship to the offence with which the accused person was charged. I would however, respectively suggest to him that in looking at the rules he picked the wrong one.
  I would suggest that rules such as the silence of the accused, the refusal to give evidence, the right to oppose jurors, are probably far more rules which were made in his favour because of the penalty which

  109
  followed conviction and were certainly the ones which should be shot at before the majority verdict.
  I am not wholly opposed to what the Home Secretary said, but I must admit that since he made his announcement in August the reservations which I had have steadily grown during the ensuing period. I believe there is a danger that we are going to make a grave and fundamental change in our criminal law without any real evidence on which to base that change. Juries on the whole do an excellent job. They show patience; they show considerable care; and I believe also that in the vast majority of cases they are normally right. The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) says "No". I am only saying what my experience is.
  I concede that there is a problem about the perverse or bribed or intimidated juror, but when the Home Secretary said that there is a mounting and formidable problem, then I would say with respect that no evidence has been put forward to suggest that the problem of the bribed or intimidated juror is in any way a problem outside the boundaries of London. Looking at the jury system, the amazing thing is that juries agree so often and that there are so few disagreements. I think the amazing thing is that on retrial the rate of disagreements—taking the Central Criminal Court—is 0·8 of 1 per cent.—second disagreements on retrial. Surely one must accept that there are some disagreements which are perfectly genuine disagreements because people perfectly genuinely disagree. While I fully accept that the bribed or intimidated juror is a problem and is a problem which has to be faced, I believe that the occasional disagreement caused by the perverse juror is perhaps not a high price to pay to retain the principle of the unanimous verdict that we have today.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Would the hon. Member accept that the view which he has just expressed is rather different from the view he expressed in August—
  Mr. Carlisle: I do.
  Mr. Archer: —and that he has completely changed it?
  Mr. Carlisle: I have not entirely changed it. I said that, on balance, I could welcome it but I had reservations, and I think I specifically said that since August my reservations had been growing. This is partly due to what is, as I am sure the hon. Member must agree, the general opinion in the legal profession, and of the people one talks to in one's professional life, who tend to be, I think for fairly good reasons, against this change to the majority as distinct from the unanimous verdict. I said that I am not completely committed against it. I hope very much the Liberal Party does not divide the House tonight, because although I have reservations, I think that if that party did that I would have to vote for the Government in favour of the Bill as a whole. I do have grave reservations on the question of the majority verdict.
  Another point I would put to the Home Secretary is this. I am not sure whether the effect of this change will not be the reverse of what he expects. If we have a majority verdict of 10 to 2 on indictment I have a feeling that we shall have more disagreements than we have at the present moment—that two jurors will stand out against the others.
  I believe that if the Home Secretary wishes to look at the rules—the examples he gave proves this to the hilt—that far more important than to change the rule of unanimity is to do away with the right of the peremptory challenge. The example the Home Secretary gave is a perfect example. It proves that at the moment the defendant can challenge without giving reasons, and can succeed not only in getting people off the jury whom he does not want, but he can often succeed in getting on those he wants on. I firmly believe that if one is to have trial by a jury of 12 of one's fellow citizens one should not have the right to choose who those 12 should be. To a large extent the accused can get the sort of jury he wants. The hon. Member looks surprised but this is what happens.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: The hon. Member has just said that the accused should not have the right to choose who the jury should be, but does he not feel that the accused should have the right to choose who the jury should not be?
  Mr. Carlisle: If he has cause he should be allowed to challenge on that cause, but if he has no cause I believe we should do away with the challenge. We should thus do away with "fixed" juries and do it better than by merely removing the rule we have at the moment for a unanimous verdict.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: My hon. Friend would agree, would he not, that it might be desirable in certain circumstances not to have persons from a similar profession or similar class of trade sitting on the jury?
  Mr. Carlisle: I entirely accept this. I see no reason why there should not be challenge on a valid cause. But one knows that the case which the Home Secretary gave was the perfect example. Here we have a situation, as I understand it, where by the use of the right of peremptory challenge the accused could not only remove those jurors they did not want to go on the jury, but to get ones on whom they wanted. I believe that these are the ones who may eventually become frightened or bribed jurors. In the cases the Home Secretary mentioned I understand that there were seven peremptory challenges, and in the second 15 and that it was one of those who went on in that way who was later found to have been tackled by one of the accused.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that at the Old Bailey—and he will know the practice better than I do—members of the Bar are members of a conspiracy to get a person on to a jury because he might be subject to a bribe?
  Mr. Carlisle: I am saying nothing of the kind. The hon. Gentleman will agree that if one's instructions are to challenge, one must challenge. If the accused says —and I have known, as often happens, the accused to challenge for himself—"I want you to challenge those jurors", he has the right to challenge and one must carry out those rights.
  On the whole, I welcome the proposals in the Bill and hope that the Measure is given a Second Reading.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. William Wells: The speech of the hon. Member for
  112
  Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) disproves what is often said about speeches made in Parliament not influencing the way in which people think and vote. I confess that before he spoke I was convinced that this experiment of the majority verdict should be tried. Having heard his speech, I begin to think that perhaps the experiment should not be tried until other experiments have been tried and failed.
  None the less, the case advanced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was a formidable one in relation to the problem confronting us in parts of this country—of crime being organised as a big business. Although there has always been an element of this, it is now organised on a scale and with a width of range and scope that has never been experienced before.
  The Bill has received a general degree of welcome from both sides of the House and I share in that. I regret that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) is not in his place, because I wish to refer—and I will do so in his absence, because there is nothing personal about this—to the criticism he made of the Bill as being a potpourri. The Bill will be superseded in time, perhaps sooner than many of us think, but we are living in an era when the character of crime—in its extent and, so to speak, the capital invested in it as a business as well as its methods of execution—has changed dramatically and swiftly.
  During the years immediately after the war, when crime was increasing, we thought that it could not be poverty because people were rich. We thought that it must be because boys were not disciplined when their fathers were away at the war and that young men who were respectable before 1939 had acquired a taste for violence after the war. Now, 21 years after the end of the war in Europe, we know that any such analysis is hopelessly inadequate.
  It will necessarily be a task taking many years to accomplish the kind of revaluation of the criminal law for which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone was pleading. In my opinion, it would have been in the highest degree irresponsible of the Government to have introduced at this stage, for example, a committal procedure analogous to

  113
  the inquiries made by the juge d'instruction in France, or its equivalent in Germany. The whole scope of the inquiries of such an officer is entirely different from that of magistrates, who are essentially, in their approach, judges. The juge d'instruction, although called a judge, is, in essence, a highly qualified police inquirer. That we should change our committal procedure so fundamentally as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone suggests may be right, but it is certain that before we embark on such a change we should inquire into it far more thoroughly than anybody has done on this side of the Channel.
  I welcome the Bill and have a few comments to make about certain parts of it. I do not share the criticisms of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, echoed by other hon. Members, of the suggestion for contributions in legal aid. There may be a good case for the objectors in an absolute sense, althougt I am not convinced of that. I believe that it is a little starry-eyed, in relation to criminal proceedings in this country, to talk about the innocent and to suggest that those who are acquitted are always innocent. I should have thought that this was a matter that might well be left to a Committee stage Amendment in relation to the discretion of the courts.
  I am certain that a good many cases get far too advanced and even go to trial without legal aid having been granted. One reason for this is the objections of many magistrates to granting legal aid. If there were a system of contribution, this would mitigate these objections by many magistrates' courts to granting legal aid in cases which, time after time, have gone to the Court of Criminal Appeal, now the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.
  I welcome the suspended sentences provisions of the Bill in a general sense as an experiment. It is well worth trying, although there is one provision to which I take grave exception. That is the one which deprives magistrates' courts of any discretion in the matter where the maximum sentence that was imposed was one of six months. It is unsound to let anybody commit any offence and go to court with the idea in his mind that he has a right not to suffer any penalty for committing that offence. Many people
  114
  with clean records who come to court are surprised if they are not put on probation. It is one of the philosophies of the young delinquent that he has a divine right to probation. The conviction that everybody is entitled to one criminal offence is unsound, but it will be strengthened by this provision.
  There are many points on which I would wish to comment, but because of the pressure of time I will not do so. I will utter only one word of warning, or enter only one caveat, against the philosophy underlying part of the Bill. It may be that the country has leaned over too far in protecting the rights of accused, but it must be remembered before accepting that proposition unconditionally that the resources of the prosecution in any case are infinite and the resources of the defence, even when legal aid is granted, are generally quite narrow. If, therefore, the aesthetic sense of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is sometimes offended by the archaic minuet, the question which must be asked is not whether this is archaic, but whether, on the whole, it promotes the cause of justice.
  Although there are few specific provisions in the Bill to which I object—the one to which I strongly object I shall mention in a moment—I nevertheless have a little suspicion of a philosophy which will remove too many of the safeguards of the defence. Crime as a big business must be tackled, but I do not believe that the proper way to tackle it is by methods which will hamper the defence of people charged in magistrates courts and quarter sessions with comparatively minor offences, committed generally in isolation. Certainly not as part of any major business enterprise.
  The Clause to which I object very strongly in its present form and which I hope will be substantially amended in Committee, but I doubt whether any Amendment will make it right, is Clause 7, which provides that where a written statement is served and where certain formalities are completed, provided that no objection is given to it by a party within seven days that statement can be admissible in evidence. It is essential at least that the Clause should be limited so that a defendant shall be

  115
  advised before he agrees to such a statement being admitted in evidence, because many accused will have no idea of the relevance of a statement or otherwise.
  Further, it must be accepted that many accused have a low standard of literacy. I should not care to forecast what many of them will make of the kind of statement that will be furnished. Even where the defendant is represented, I doubt very much whether he should be bound to accept a written statement as part of the evidence against him until the papers are seen by counsel who will represent him at the trial, and that does not always mean counsel who sees the brief a week beforehand.
  This is an example of an approach I am suspicious of. Clause 7 must have been drafted either by those who know little of the actualities of what goes on in a criminal prosecution or, if they do know, have too little regard for the rights of an accused person who has all the panoply of the police, of the county that is trying him, and perhaps of the Director of Public Prosecutions, arrayed against him.
  Although I support the Bill wholeheartedly in its main provisions, I hope that this one will either disappear or be greatly modified. I trust that at the end of the day we shall emerge with a criminal system strengthened to bring the malefactor to justice but with the safeguards for an accused person before he has had an opportunity to take advice substantially maintained.
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: This is an important and reforming Bill which contains, in Clause 10, a great, historic change in what has been a tradition of the British criminal judicial system. It is a change which I view with the gravest misgivings. I shall concentrate on the one point of Clause 7 and the question of majority verdicts. It cannot be said too strongly that what we are debating is not a universal criminal question at quarter sessions and assizes. It is an Old Bailey problem alone.
  I have had some experience of legal practice in the North of England. It inevitably took me frequently to the
  116
  criminal courts. Over 10 years I never heard a word of complaint, nor any suggestion, that anything like this was needed. When I was there recently I took the trouble to speak to those who were my colleagues then and who still actively practise. Every one of them said, "This is not necessary. We do not come across this problem."
  I have tried to recall the number of occasions when I had a disagreed jury. I cannot remember whether it was three or four times. The first time I appeared at the Old Bailey I had one of the rarest of situations, apparently-0·8 per cent.—when we disagreed twice. I do not think that this was symptomatic, because it was a case in which any jury would genuinely have disagreed. It may be the type of disagreement which gives one cause to worry when one sees the changes that are being proposed in the Bill.
  As soon as the suggestions were made that we should make this change I and a number of others asked the Home Secretary what were the figures on which he based his decision. With a great deal of frankness it was said that the experience on which the decision was based amounted to a year and a half in the Old Bailey. When one has asked questions about assizes and quarter sessions at which one has practised or knows about, the answer has been, proper or otherwise—I do not intend to discuss that matter now—that it would be too difficult to find out what agreements there have been over the last five years.
  It may be technically difficult at this stage to find out what disagreements there have been in varying quarter sessions, although I think that the information could have been obtained. However, I accept the view of the Home Secretary that it would be very difficult. The generally accepted figure, and the one on which we have got to work, is that the number of disagreements is no greater than about 3 per cent. at the most.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: Does the hon. Gentleman take the view that the vital issue in this part of the Bill is the number or percentage of disagreements or rather the quality of certain of the disagreements?
  Mr. Miscampbell: I take the view that it would be best to stand by our present practice of the unanimous vote. I would

  117
  not tamper, without good cause and good evidence, with something that I think has stood us well in the past.
  As I say, the truth of the matter is that there is no evidence on which this House can make up its mind tonight. We have got 18 months of experience at the Old Bailey, and one can thereafter simply accept the view that has been expressed in all quarters that the figures are in no way excessive and that they are entirely explainable by the number of disagreements that one would expect in any case.
  One is therefore thrown back on to one's own judgment. What is one's own judgment of what happens when a jury disagrees? I think that most juries disagree not because the majority wants to acquit, but because the majority wants to convict. I think that that is a fairly safe proposition. One finds at second trials that of juries who undoubtedly wanted to convict a man and probably would have convicted, one-third or probably mere than one-third, would find it in their power to acquit the criminal.
  Mr. Hooson: Perhaps he is not a criminal.
  Mr. Miscampbell: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he may not be a criminal. Quite right. The accused is acquitted in one-third of the cases. Surely these figures should give us cause to consider. There is the certainty, or the near certainty, that a number of people who can quite genuinely convince 12 of their peers on a second trial that they are innocent would be convicted under the proposals in this Bill.
  As to the nobbled juryman—this is my second and main objection, and it is a matter on which a great deal of weight is placed by those who advocate the change —all that he can do at best is to create a disagreement. He does not get an acquittal. We know that the figures for second disagreements are practically negligible. In fact, the second time round only 0·8 per cent. come to a second disagreement and I suppose that nobody in the House would think that in criminal trials, with all the difficulties of securing proof and producing evidence, that is an excessive figure for second disagreements. No jury would be likely to end up in a series of disagreements, no matter how many times the matter was put before
  118
  them, and that is why we have the excellent tradition that when a case has been put to a jury twice and the jury disagrees on the second occasion, the case is not tried again.
  In this case, we have the fact that even though somebody may have nobbled a juryman and bribed him, even though such a person may have obtained disagreement on one occasion, there is no evidence at all that he will finally secure the man's acquittal by a second trial. One is, therefore, driven to the conclusion that what we are doing here is changing the traditions of our judicial system, changing the whole basis on which we say that men shall be deprived of their liberty, so that we shall have an administrative advantage. I do not think that these proposals amount to more than an administrative advantage of avoiding second trials, but avoiding them, I fear, with injustice to many who will appear before the courts.
  However, one cannot be absolutely negative and I suggest that this matter can easily be put to the test. It seems to me that two things have to be shown immediately if this matter is to be put to the test. We should have a year or two's pause before we introduce the system. That is not much to ask when we are giving up so much. During that period every clerk of assize and every clerk of quarter sessions should report the number of disagreements in his court. I would think that that would be the fundamental and necessary evidence that we would need to start with. But that is nothing like sufficient.
  We should also ask, in each case where there is a disagreement, jury foremen to state on a piece of paper, without any names being given, the numbers by which juries disagree. A foreman would not give any names. He would merely say, "We disagree 11 to 1", or whatever the number was. If we had these two simple facts before us—the number of disagreements and the way in which juries disagree—the House might be able to come to a sensible conclusion. Without some real basis for the change, I feel that we would be taking a step which is not justified and which, therefore, could not be taken.
  7.27 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Member for Blackpool

  119
  North (Mr. Miscampbell), in a very interesting speech, has devoted himself to one point only, namely, Clause 10. I should like to follow him on that point for one moment, although I consider that this, like a number of the other controversial parts of my right hon. Friend's Bill, is, strictly speaking, a Committee point, and I should like to deal with the more general background of the Bill.
  Speaking for myself on this point, I am entirely unconvinced by my right hon. Friend's argument. I found it singularly unconvincing. I should think that he himself found it singularly unconvincing, and I think that his unusual reluctance to be interrupted and questioned about it probably arose out of his own sense of insecurity about the validity of his proposition. He spoke as though the rule that a jury must be unanimous were some kind of accidental inadvertence that had crept by mistake into our criminal law. It is nothing of the kind.
  The rule that a jury must be sure, must be satisfied—as used to be said—beyond all reasonable doubt, would be meaningless unless there were a unanimous verdict. Any validity that a jury's verdict has depends very largely upon its unanimity. The direction which judges give when they direct juries on the grounds on which they can convict, and of what they must be satisfied before they convict, is not merely, "You must be sure", but, "Every one of you must be sure". That is the bedrock on which the sanctity of a jury's verdict depends.
  The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) wanted to make a change in the law that would be outside the scope of the Bill. He wanted to make a jury's verdict of guilty itself sacrosanct so that it was evidence that a man was guilty in all subsequent proceedings. I wonder whether he will still think that if we adopt the rule about a majority verdict. Is that also to be sacrosanct? Is a man who is convicted by a majority verdict of a jury never to be allowed to challenge it again in any other court of law? Is the verdict to be regarded as establishing the facts now and for all time? One has only to examine those questions to see how unsound is that proposal.
  120
  Before leaving the subject, there is one other thing I wish to say. Many people have talked as though when a jury disagrees it is a bad thing for the administration of justice. It is not. It would be a very poor system of criminal justice, and the public would soon lose its confidence in it, if every jury always agreed. I can illustrate that point by one very controversial case.
  There was a man called Hanratty. His trial lasted three weeks, and the jury deliberated for ten hours. During that ten hours they came back certainly once, and I believe twice, to ask the judge for further directions. At the end of those ten hours' deliberations, at the end of a three-week case, they came back and alleged, unbelievably, that all of them were satisfied that the man was guilty. Does anybody hesitate now to say that it would have been a very good thing for everybody concerned if that jury had registered the disagreement which obviously alone could explain its ten hours' deliberations?
  It is not a bad thing that a jury should disagree, nor is it true that when a jury convicts it is more likely to be right than when it acquits. On that rather eccentric dictum of the Lord Chief Justice I believe that this whole fantastic proposition has been founded. However, I have said that that is really a Committee point and it can be more adequately discussed in Committee at a later stage.
  I would now like to say something about the more general aspects of the Bill. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone was criticised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) for making what my hon. and learned Friend called an irrelevant speech, for talking about things that were not in the Bill. I think that that criticism was misconceived. This is a Second Reading not a Third Reading debate. At Third Reading we shall be entitled to talk only about what is in the Bill and not about what is not in it. On Second Reading, when we are trying to assess the Bill's value, we are perfectly entitled, and it is our duty, to see it against the background of all the problems with which it deals, to see whether any have been left out and whether a different Bill dealing with other things might not have been better.

  121
  With apologies to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I find the Bill a great disappointment. I regard my right hon. Friend as the best Home Secretary I have ever known, and for that reason I looked forward hopefully, expectantly, to a much bigger, broader, deeper Bill than that which he has produced. Like the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, and unlike my right hon. Friend, I participated in the 1937 discussions and again in the 1948 discussions.
  What are the really valuable parts of my right hon. Friend's Bill, except the repeal of the provisions we introduced in 1948? They were introduced not because they were the latest ideas in the progressive penal world in 1948, but because they were the progressive ideas of 1928—corrective training, preventive detention, They are abandoned now. They are abandoned because they were harsh, unjust, oppressive and totally ineffective. They were based on the notion that punishment, particularly by imprisonment, was a valuable thing in itself. We all know that that is not true, and we all know that no man ever came out of prison after a prison sentence a better man than he was before he went in. That is because the whole approach of our criminal system, of which we are too inordinately and patriotically proud, is a wrong approach to the whole question.
  My right hon. Friend talked about trying to keep a system in which the courts would establish the truth. Our courts have never attempted to establish the truth. There is no machinery which enables them to do so. It is a contest, not a research. It is a fight between one man who says that the accused is guilty and another who says that he is not. Then 12 men are asked to say at the end of the day—and now they will be asked to say it by a majority—whether or not a particular fact has been established, namely whether the man in the dock did or did not do the act of which he is charged.
  But that is not the important question. Of course, one has to decide it. Of course, one has to know the answer. But when one has found it out that is the beginning of a sensible judicial inquiry and not the end of it. In a system that really wanted to establish the truth one would want to know the man's background and what
  122
  sort of man he was. On the basis that he committed the act charged, one would want to know how he came to commit it, what restraints there were, what temptations he resisted and what were his difficulties. The court would make its decision on what to do with him, as would the Home Secretary at a later stage, with full knowledge of all that social background. Our courts scrupulously refrain from admitting as evidence anything of that sort.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: After conviction, whether by plea of guilty or by verdict of a jury, not only is there a full statement in writing from the police, from a probation officer and from the prison commissioners if relevant, but the man himself or his counsel can bring forward any fact he wishes, and, if any of these matters are lacking, the court will probably adjourn the case for those aspects to be gone into.
  Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Gentleman must give me credit for knowing the basic element of the practice. Of course, there are statements. Of course, the police officer in charge is called into the box to tell the judge what the police officer thinks about it. Of course, defending counsel, if he knows his duty, will make a suitable plea in mitigation. But there is no evidence. There is no inquiry. There is no research. No probation officer is called. No medical evidence is called.
  Mr. Miscampbell: With respect, the probation officer is called, and he now gives the greatest care to his report, which is before the court. It may not go as far as the hon. Gentleman wants, but all this evidence is certainly there.
  Mr. Silverman: He is sometimes called. I go further and agree that he is often called. But when?—in the few minutes that the judge has to determine sentence between the jury's verdict and the passing of sentence. No time is taken to consider anything. No test is made of any of the statements offered. No real inquiry is made into what the crime really was, and, unless we know what the crime really was, it is nonsense to pretend that we have a system of penal justice which is concerned to find out the truth. I think that I have said enough to illustrate the point and I do not want to make too long a speech, but

  123
  I wanted to show the bearing which this has on many of the other proposals in the Bill.
  There is the question of suspended sentence, but there is also the much more important question of release on licence. There has been a good deal of intelligent and informed discussion on this proposal, on the criterion which is to be applied and who is to apply it. So far, I have heard no suggestion that anyone shall hear the prisoner himself. Who is more concerned? Who is most concerned? Surely, the man himself has a right to be there. Surely, he ought to have the right to initiate an examination. But, even then, how would the examination be conducted? What ultimately would be the criterion?
  If, in the end, it is the Home Secretary who has to determine, in the light of all the evidence he can discover, whether a man is to be released on licence and, if he is, who is to look after him while on licence, how can the Home Secretary possibly do this unless, before the man is sentenced at all and before he becomes my right hon. Friend's responsibility in any way, there has been an inquiry into the question of what sort of man he is and how he came to be in the tragic position which he occupies?
  Other countries do it. France does it. Scotland does it to some extent, and some others do it. They do it at the very beginning of the case. We are arguing about whether we ought to reform our committal proceedings, whether there ought to be any committal proceedings at all. In some countries committal proceedings are themselves concerned with the background of the crime. And why not, if justice is to be done, and, a fortiori, if we are really trying to find out the truth?
  I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would be able to bring in a Bill which made a new approach, which made a new inroad on what is probably the greatest social problem of our time. This Bill does not. It makes some improvements in the present position, some of them very valuable improvements, others of doubtful validity, and others no improvement at all. I still hope to live to see the day when this country makes a genuine attempt to establish a system
  124
  of criminal justice which begins from the determination to find out what the truth was.
  7.46 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Sharpies: Like everyone else who has spoken, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) has made a thoughtful and constructive speech, and I shall later follow him in one or two of his observations. I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks.
  I am very concerned about the method which the Home Secretary proposes to adopt for the system of release on licence. I agree with what was said on this subject by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. The first person who has an interest in release on licence is the prisoner himself. We have yet to be told how the prisoner will be able to make representations and whether he will be able to put forward a case in support of being released on licence.
  One of the great defects in the solution proposed by the Home Secretary is the amount of influence which the prison governor and prison staff will have in deciding whether or not a prisoner is to be released on licence. I envisage serious difficulties arising inside the prison itself where the prison governor is to be both judge and gaoler in cases of this kind.
  I am sure that the Home Secretary is making a mistake in leaving these decisions to himself. We all know how they will be reached. They will be reached on the recommendations, very largely, of the prison governor, based on reports about how the man is behaving in prison. They will be assessed by civil servants, honestly and genuinely assessed —I make no criticism of those who will have to fulfil this very difficult task —but they will be assessed, as has been said, by "faceless" men, and the decision will in the end be the decision of a political Minister. Again, it will be given in all good faith, I am sure, but it will be a political Minister who eventually announces the decision on whether or not a prisoner should be released before he has served his full term.
  This will lead to great difficulties. The Minister responsible will be open to challenge in the House by Question

  125
  and by Adjournment debate on every decision which he reaches. I cannot believe that this is the right way to examine most difficult problems of this kind.
  After the man has been released, there is the burden which falls on the Probation Service. The service is already considerably overworked, carrying an enormous burden, and it will have this additional task placed upon it. It will fall to that service to make recommendations, presumably—they are the only people who can do so—for a man's licence to be revoked. I cannot think of anything that will make more difficult the relationship between the released prisoner and the probation officer than introducing this complication.
  I beg the Home Secretary to think again about this. Doubts have been expressed on both sides of the House. I ask him to think again and see whether he can put forward proposals for some form of parole machinery with a judicial basis—and I mean not entirely a judicial tribunal, but one advised, also, by lay people with responsibilities outside.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: But could the hon. Gentleman—he asked me whether I would think again, and I am certainly willing to do so—say how we could avoid the probation officer not perhaps having to make a decision, but perhaps having to make a recommendation if a release on licence had gone wrong?
  Mr. Sharpies: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is extremely difficult. I think that under these proposals the probation officer will certainly have to be brought in, but his task will be easier if the release on licence has already been recommended by a body outside the Home Office. However, I appreciate that there is a very real difficulty in this to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give further consideration. I do not pretend that I know the answer: I pose the problem.
  One matter to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer in his speech is Part V of the Bill—the question of firearms. We on this side, during the passage of the Firearms Bill, put forward a large number of Amendments which would have had the effect of strengthening the Bill. I am glad to say that, although the majority of them were rejected during the Committee stage of
  126
  the Bill, a large proportion were accepted when we came to Report. I think that we had a very much better Bill as a result of that.
  One of the suggestions put forward during the passage of the Firearms Bill was that there should be registration of shotguns. That was rejected very firmly on Second Reading by the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who said that the then Home Secretary, after considering the problem from every angle, had decided that the possibility of extending the firearms certificate procedure to shotguns was not practical.
  The House should now be told what has led the right hon. Gentleman to consider that it is practical. I do not object to the proposal, but we should have been told, perhaps during the Second Reading speech, what has happened during the 18 months that have passed between the Second Reading of the Firearms Bill and the present date to reverse the position put forward very strongly by the hon. Gentleman who then spoke for the Home Office.
  Have the police been consulted about it? My understanding is that the police have been consulted and that the Police Federation has expressed very strong reservations about the difficulties in administration which will arise. I understand that the suggestion is that this should be done, to some extent at least, by civilians attached to the various police forces for the purpose. My understanding is that there are between—we do not really know—2½ million and 5 million shotguns which would have to be registered. I hope that the task of registration—
  Mr. Doughty: Under this Bill it is not the registration of shotguns, but the registration of people who are allowed to carry shotguns.
  Mr. Sharples: This is something that we might have cleared up, whether or not each separate shotgun has to be registered, or whether the holders of shotguns themselves have to be registered.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) and not the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) is right.
  Mr. Sharples: I am very glad to hear that, because it makes the proposal very much more practical than it would otherwise have been. Still, I do not think that we should underestimate the very considerable additional burden, which, even so, will be placed upon the police in administering this part of the Act. I am glad that the Home Office has now reversed its earlier decision about this. I believe that this is right provided that the administrative difficulty can be overcome.
  A number of hon. Members have referred to the suspended sentence. I welcome the decision of the Home Secretary to give this at least a trial. However, I would express some concern about the limitation put upon the courts in respect of first offenders being sentenced to periods of six months' imprisonment or less. Although I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in trying to reduce the prison population by this means, I can imagine cases where a court might well feel that a short sentence of imprisonment might have the effect of preventing crime in the future. I think that it is a dangerous matter when we start to restrict the powers of the court in sentencing in matters of this kind.
  I turn briefly to the very much more controversial subject of majority verdicts. I speak as a layman in the matter. I tell the Home Secretary frankly that I was prepared to be convinced by what he had to say today. But I also read the very powerful article in the Sunday Telegraph on 4th December, by Lord Devlin, who, arguing against the change which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes, said:
  "The Home Secretary will no doubt produce the formidable evidence to be thoroughly examined as it should be."
  I was disappointed at the evidence which the right hon. Gentleman produced. It did not convince me. He put forward in some ways strong arguments against the jury system as a whole. But I certainly did not hear any convincing argument about majority verdicts in themselves. It may well be that there have been—we all know the kind of cases to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring—some cases where individual members of juries have been nobbled. But even with the small number of figures
  128
  that the right hon. Gentleman was able to give us I am still left with the impression that this relates only to a very small number of cases indeed.
  Perhaps the right method of tackling jury difficulties would have been to go much further in accepting the recommendations of Lord Morris of Borthy-y-Gest's Committee with regard to the quality of juries rather than by introducing this very radical change in the system, which comes about on very slender evidence. The right hon. Gentleman will have to put much more convincing arguments than he did today if he is to convince me on this.
  My right hon. and learned Friend described the Bill as a mixed bag. It contains many provisions with which I do not find myself in disagreement. Many have been suggested by right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House. It is, however, very largely an administrative Measure and I do not believe that, in itself, it will make any contribution to the major problem of solving the rising crime rate.
  I find myself in agreement with hon. Members who believe that prison—which is the only ultimate remedy we have now —does very little to reform. Anyone who has spent time going round our prisons will probably conclude that many prisoners will not commit a crime again in any case, because the punishment was not so much their sentence but being found out, and that, for those who will commit crime again, prison is probably the best school for learning criminal ways. One only has to see men being taught trades like brick making and decorating, which suit them admirably to take up criminal life in future.
  The time has come—and this is what disappoints me in the Bill—for a radical look at our penal system and a heaven-sent chance was thrown away when the Royal Commission on Penal Reform was disbanded. I hope that, before long, we shall have a radical new Measure of this kind and the opportunity to look at the whole question of the prevention of crime and penalties. Bankruptcy and the separation of the criminal from his ill-gotten gains are much more likely to deter criminals in future and I hope that, at some stage, we shall have another and more far-reaching Measure. I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman

  129
  has not seized his opportunity to introduce it now.
  8.4 p.m.
  Mr. Victor Yates: If it is true, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) says, that the effect of prison is to make a bigger criminal of a prisoner, that is surely a very great argument in favour of the principal recommendation of the Bill, which is to remove as many people from prison as possible. In that sense, the Bill is a very important and progressive Measure.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) spoke of our failure to solve the problem of crime and suggested that this was due to our failure to legislate coherently. I speak only as a layman, like the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, and many legal issues have been discussed today. But I am sure that it is not so much a question of legislating coherently as of this House not having an opportunity thoroughly to discuss the question of crime in a Measure of this nature for the last 18 years. Many of the propositions in the Bill will be in the form of experiments and we shall need to examine the results very carefully. It would be a tragedy if we had to wait for many years again before we can review our experiences.
  A number of hon. Members have questioned the legal issues involved, particularly that concerning majority verdicts. As a layman, I am rather worried about this proposal. I cannot bring legal arguments to bear, as some of my hon. Friends have been able to do, but I was influenced by the article in the Sunday Telegraph by Lord Devlin, a former Lord of Appeal. I think we must examine this argument very carefully. I was also much impressed by a memorandum by the National Council for Civil Liberties. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a copy. There was a unanimous view opposed to this proposal.
  Mr. Archer: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that the view in that memorandum is the unanimous view of the National Council for Civil Liberties, I assure him that that is not the case.
  Mr. Yates: I accept that, but with a memorandum of this nature one would
  130
  think that it was the view of the National Council, although, of course, it may not be an absolutely unanimous view. I am only saying that, like other hon. Members, I would like to be convinced by evidence that this new procedure is right.
  I would like to know how many of those who have been retried and subsequently acquitted would have been convicted had a majority verdict been taken from the first and disagreeing jury. We have been told by my right hon. Friend that 65 per cent. have been convicted and 37 per cent. have been acquitted but on new trial a very large number have also been acquitted. I only want to be convinced. I appreciate my right hon. Friend's argument about trying to prevent professional criminals from interfering with the course of justice, but we must examine the matter very carefully because, if we are to have decisions with which two or three members of a jury disagree, this will create an element of doubt and I have always been impressed that, in English law, we have had to have a decision which was unanimous and beyond all reasonable doubt. But I am open to conviction. I have not yet made up my mind, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to bring some more evidence that will enable us to have a clearer view of the matter.
  I welcome the Bill, especially because it is an attempt to keep out of prison many people who ought never to be there. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone asked whether anyone had raised the question of whether prison was a deterrent. I can assure him that I have raised that issue several times in the last 20 years. I once said in the House that local prisons were breeding grounds for criminals. Throughout this time I have visited several prisons and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has he will know that the conditions there produce criminality. There are 5,000 prisoners who are sleeping three to a cell. Conditions are unsatisfactory including overcrowding, and they all make for bitterness and possibly make people worse. If we cannot turn out prisoners better than when they went in, at least we have an obligation not to turn them out worse.

  131
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on some of the measures which he has introduced, for instance, the abolition of preventive detention. I have argued with several Home Secretaries about this matter and I deplore the fact that after all our experience it has taken so many years to convince the authorities that this system is both unjust and ineffective.
  I raised with the then Mr. Gwylim Lloyd-George, the then Home Secretary, the case of a prisoner who had been sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for a crime for which the sentence was normally two years. The prisoner was not likely to live for ten years and I asked him if he would write to me setting out his views about the system of preventive detention. He asked for permission to have 12 foolscap pages on which to set out his considered views about preventive detention, but the Home Secretary refused permission. He was given only five years to live and he did not live beyond that time. In one year, about 40 prisoners serving sentences of preventive detention died before they could be released. After all the arguments which were submitted against the system 12 years ago, only now have the authorities been convinced and in this respect the Bill is certainly progressive.
  Hon. Members have devoted a lot of time to the administration of the Bill. Of course that is important, but not so many hon. Members have welcomed the idea of sending men out on parole, of letting them out on licence. I welcome this decision, and there are many safeguards in the Bill in connection with men and women released on licence. I am convinced that it will not only be fair to the individual, but will give prisoners an incentive to go right, and I do not think that we will have many cases in which the opposite is true.
  The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) spoke about the cost of this proposal. However, if we adopt the system whereby men are released from prison on licence, the overall cost must be reduced. It is very expensive to keep a prisoner in a close or other prison and we have to weight the cost of the proposal in the Bill against the money saved to the system. I think that this is a good idea, although I agree that it is vitally impor-
  132
  tant that the administrative machinery should be right.
  My concern is connected with who will decide that a prisoner should be released on licence and who will decide when he should be recalled. At the moment, the Home Secretary has power to allow out on licence a prisoner serving a life sentence and he also has power to recall. This is a great power to place in the hands of the Home Secretary. One case which I have been considering for a few years and which I have put to three previous Home Secretaries concerns a woman who is still in prison for murder and who, after being released on licence after nine years, was brought back without any reason being given. I suppose that she will now have served about 14 years and she is still only about 33. I appreciate how difficult it is for a Home Secretary to decide issues of this nature and I think the Home Secretary ought to have some other authority with him before making such a decision.
  If large numbers of prisoners are to be allowed out on parole, it is vitally important that there should be some kind of board to decide whether a prisoner should be released on licence and, if necessary, whether he should be recalled. Nothing has created greater bitterness, even leading to violence in Parkhurst on more than one occasion, than the decision of a preventive detention board that additional remission could not be agreed, no reason being given. It is important for reasons to be given, not only for the release on licence, but also for recall.
  As much as anyone else, prisoners must see that justice is being done. It has been suggested that a judge ought to be on such a board because judges are trusted, although I have not met many prisoners who trust judges. Probation officers do a wonderful job, although they are certainly underpaid. They are certainly underpaid. I believe, as was said by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, that they are under-valued. They are doing a wonderful job and their experience is vital, as is the experience of the police. Surely we could reach some agreement as to who should be responsible? The Home Secretary should not be overloaded with responsibilities.
  The Criminal Justice Act, 1948, failed largely because the Government of the day made these proposals for great

  133
  changes but did not provide the machinery for the changes. This was certainly true of longer-term prisoners, for whom a community life has to be provided. We must say to the Government: if one is to be successful in the attack on crime, if one is to provide prisons which will help rehabilitate the prisoner and to turn out the prisoner at least no better than he was before he went in, then one needs new prisons to replace the antiquated Victorian structures of today.
  We need more hostels and more work for prisoners. Men in prison should be given work. It is disgusting that prisoners in most of the local prisons are given only 20 hours work. Even today they are still sewing mail bags. Our whole method of payment and working needs to be revised. I am told that the pay today is from 3s. 6d. to 11s. a week and that it cannot be increased during the period of severe restraint.
  The greatest deterrent of all is the withdrawal of liberty from the individual. If men want to escape, it is because they value their liberty. Many of the provisions of this Bill go a long way, and if we can arrange our prisons so that we relieve the overcrowding and the evil conditions existing there, we shall have done a great deal to make it possible for these people to lead a better life when they are released and return to society.
  The administrative problems are very great. There are not enough probation officers, and I doubt very much whether we can get them under present conditions. We will have to make a tremendous effort and when we have done this, I hope that we shall not allow our arrangements to go by without discussion for another 18 years and that we shall not have to live so long with the injustices perpetrated during the last 20 years.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: I begin by taking up the last words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood (Mr. Victor Yates), who spoke of the injustices of the last 20 years. In any system there must be a certain number of injustices, but I would not like it to be thought that we have been administering injustices in the last 20 years. Such a statement is wholly inaccurate.
  This is only a Bill which takes certain things out of our legal system and puts
  134
  certain things into it. That legal system—I am speaking of the criminal legal system—has been brought into being over hundreds of years. Many acts of Parliament have been passed during that time. In the leading criminal textbook, Archbold's, which is in the Library, I looked at the index this morning to see how many statutes and sections of statutes were referred to. There are 32 pages of index referring to statutes and sections of statutes.
  Apart from that there are many other aspects of criminal law brought in by the judges. There are the Judges' Rules, The M'Naghten Rule, and the Rules of the Court of Appeal, now the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), which have to be administered. It is its duty to administer the criminal law and, believe me, it is a complicated business. A clarification of this law is long overdue.
  Bills like this, when they become statutes, make the administration harder, because one has to learn the new practices and the new rules. Some of these Judges' Rules have never been debated in any House of Commons, and I for one criticise them to a considerable extent. One must not ask a man who is a suspect what he was doing the night before, when the burglary was committed. What is the answer one gets nowadays—having cautioned the man that he need not say anything—" I want to see my solicitor before I say anything."
  If one were to say to a jury that here was a man, asked to say what he was doing on the night before, when he was suspected of having broke into a house, any honest man would give a straight answer, but he refused to do so. The Court of Criminal Appeal would say that that was a misdirection and the conviction would be quashed, and another criminal loosed upon the public. It is high time that this problem was tackled, so that those who have to administer the law and those who have to live under it are more in touch with what is going on.
  Like so many things, there are criticisms to be made of the Bill and at the same time there is a certain amount of praise. On the whole, I approve of it, although there are one or two things, which I believe to be mistakes, and to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. I certainly approve of the shortening of committal proceedings.

  135
  They are very long-winded, having to be taken down in longhand or sometimes straight on to a typewriter. All the witnesses have to turn up to give evidence and that is often very inconvenient to businessmen. It takes the magistrates, or the clerks of the court—who are very difficult to get nowadays—a long time to do all this, and I am sure that the accused will suffer in no way if committal proceedings are abolished and the proposals in the Bill are followed. The proceedings will be shortened, simplified and it will be easier to get witnesses.
  There is the question of majority verdicts. Because, in the past, we have insisted upon complete unanimity, there is no ground for saying that we must always do so in the future. Rules change to a certain extent. Now, certainly in Greater London, we have the highly organised, very determined gangs with their own rules and methods of enforcing the rules against their members who break them; and they are tough and rough. They have their own methods of obtaining acquittals for their colleagues who fall into the hands of the police. One of the easiest and simplest methods is to nobble, by bribe or threat, one of the jurors. That is what they have been doing: make no mistake about it. That will spread if a stop is not put to it.
  Then there might be on the jury somebody who has a peculiar view. I should like to mention one case of which I know. I do not suggest that it is typical. Since I mention one case, it does not mean that it is a reason for changing the rules. A burglar was committed for something which he had done many times before, and no doubt many times since. He had made the mistake of leaving behind his finger prints. The police knew who he was from his finger prints. He was charged before a jury, and the jury disagreed because one man said, "I do not believe all this nonsense about finger prints, or that it is possible to read them through magnifying glasses. One finger print looks like another". There was a second trial at a cost of hundreds of pounds and he was duly convicted. We must do away not only with the juror who has been "got at", but the juror who has extraordinary views and who holds out to the end.
  136
  A point which has not been mentioned is this. When a jury disagree, why should they be told that they cannot return a verdict for another two hours? Suppose that a jury goes out at half past twelve and returns at one o'clock and says, "We cannot agree". When they ask what the division is, they may say that it is 10 to 2. When asked whether there is any chance of the two changing their view, the foreman may say, "None at all. They have made it clear that they will not". The judge may then say, "It is one o'clock. If you come back at half-past two instead of two I will accept the verdict, but I cannot do it beforehand".
  The jury are then shut up in a room again with no food or drink. They will not be a very pleasant 12 people whom one meets in an hour and a half's time.
  The Attorney-General: I hope that the generous sessions over which the hon. and learned Gentleman presides is more hospitable to the jurors than would appear from the picture which he paints.
  Mr. Doughty: There are no facilities for giving them lunch. I believe that sometimes a cup of tea and a bun is sent into them, but that is a most unsatisfactory lunch. The same applies in the evening.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I agree very much with what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about this safeguard. Would not he agree that the danger is this. The majority on a jury which is divided 10 to 2 will say to the minority, "If you agree with us we can end now, but if you do not agree with us you will have to go on for another two hours, and the result will be exactly the same."
  Mr. Doughty: I cannot say what goes on in the jury room. It may be that the 10 jurors will say to the two jurors, "We all want lunch. This fellow has obviously done it. You change your mind". But often somebody holds out and says, "I do not think that he did it. I will sit here as long as you like and I will not agree with the majority". So the jury gets angrier and angrier, and so does the person trying the case. This is not good for the administration of justice.

  137
  It may look good to say in a Clause, "You should not accept a majority verdict for two hours". But we should see how it works out in practice. However, I agree that we want majority verdicts.
  Another matter for which provision should be made in the Bill, although it is very complicated, is this. There are many cases—I do not wish to mention names: hon. Members will have them in mind—in which people are not prosecuted. They concern big frauds in which organisations or companies have got away with a lot of money. The fraud squad, which is hopelessly overworked, can deal with about one case in 50. They know that if they chase up that one case the jury, who sit in the box with no facilities for reading the documents, have a mass of figures and cross figures put before them and they have not, at the end of a case lasting three or four weeks, the faintest idea of what it is all about. How could they have?
  The jury tells them that they have to be sure before they can convict. They say, "How can we be sure when we cannot consider the papers properly because they slide on the floor, and so on", and so they acquit. If they convict, the Court of Criminal Appeal will quash the conviction. What is the good of looking through papers for days or weeks when it is not worth the trouble? Many criminals who have got away with thousands of pounds are not even prosecuted. We shall have to think of a different system of trying these people, than that of putting them before 12 ordinary people who have never before seen these columns of figures or seen where the money has been siphoned away, as it so frequently is.
  I do not like the Clause dealing with the suspended sentence. The Government have tried to find the answer to the problem, but it does not meet all the circumstances. If the person charged is a first offender, the court may take into consideration the man's character and will say, "We will suspend sentence"; but another court, which may not be aware of the full facts, might say, "There is no need to suspend sentence."
  It might decide to put the man on probation, or bind him over. If a man breaks the probation order—one of the
  138
  terms being that he must be of good behaviour—he may be sentenced at the time that he comes before the court again. This is introducing an alien idea into our criminal law, because of the difficulty of deciding under which circumstances the suspension should be removed and the sentence served.
  I will not go into detail about the Clauses concerning collection of fines in magistrates' courts. I can sum up the provisions by saying that the fines will not now be paid—except the fines of those who park their cars in the wrong place or drive their cars dangerously. They are generally people with steady jobs and steady incomes and who, reluctantly but willingly, pay their fines. But we are talking about criminals, and not about those people who drive their cars badly or leave them in the wrong places. What is the good of taking out a county court summons against those people to whom I am referring? What is the point of disclosing their incomes? Often they have been living on National Assistance for the past three months.
  What is the good of taking these steps in regard to that type of criminal, as opposed to the person who breaks the Road Traffic Act? Is there anything financially worth-while in imposing a fine on these criminals and giving them time to pay? There should be a prison sentence imposed in default, otherwise this type of criminal will snap his fingers at the court and will go out laughing. This is the sort of thing that would happen if the fines mentioned in the Bill are imposed.
  A lot has been said about the release on licence, or on parole. I hesitate to use the term "ticket of leave", because it has long since been out-dated and is not referred to nowadays. It is not an attractive proposition, except in a very few cases. It can only be done in those cases where a person has received a prison sentence of at least three years, which is not imposed for trifling offences or on trivial offenders. It would mean long sentences to start with, because the person imposing the sentence will say that if a man is found to be of good behaviour and there are prospects for that person in the future, he will be released. The sentence will be stiffer to start with.

  139
  The ordinary criminal, when sentenced, likes to know for how long he will be in prison, whether it will be for one year, two years or three years, less one-third for good behaviour. Under the provisions of the Bill he will not know what the term will be, because that will be something which the Home Secretary, or the parole board, will have to decide one day. If the board should decide against him, as it will do in a large number of cases, we shall have a much more difficult person than we had before.
  Reference has been made to prisoners on preventive detention who had been refused remission of some of their sentences and had become violent. It will be exactly the same for those refused leave on licence by the parole board or the Home Secretary. They will become very difficult prisoners. I know that the prisons are full, but this seems a weak way of trying to thin out the prison populatioin by releasing some of them in this way.
  There are, unfortunately, a great many people—one sees them in the courts throughout the country—who used to be called habitual criminals. That expression was abolished and they are now called persistent offenders. Whenever they are out of prison they commit offences. They may not be serious offences—for example, these people may be pickpockets, although that is a serious offence in some respects.
  The public must be protected from such people. That is why we have preventive detention. The idea is not to increase the sentences, not to punish a man who has committed such an offence, but to keep such a man away from the public for the protection of the public. That is what is said in the 1948 Act and that is why the sentence is imposed. Such sentences are being imposed, and will continue to be imposed, until the Bill becomes law.
  What is it proposed to do with these people in future? We shall not cease to have habitual criminals. The Bill reintroduces preventive detention under a different name and with a shorter maximum sentence—10 years instead of the 14 years in the 1948 Act. Quite simply, we must have some method of locking up the habitual criminal for the protection of the public. Nothing can change
  140
  that unless we simply permit the public to be robbed or assaulted by these people.
  For a different reason, I agree with the proposals about corrective training. Such training was not introduced for the purpose of keeping a young criminal—it applied to people under the age of 30 —away from the public. It was used for prisoners for whom it was felt there was some hope of rehabilitation. It was felt that if they learned a trade in prison they might use it when they came out of prison. But nowadays the ordinary prisoner, if suitable, can be sent for that instruction. It will be left for others to allocate prisoners in this way rather than the court first sentencing them.
  I notice that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) is back in the Chamber. May I point out to him that a court sentencing a man has very full information before it. It has written statements from the police and is given the man's antecedents and the points in his favour. The Probation Service will tell the court all about the man's antecedents, his family and his weaknesses and his reasons for committing the offence. If necessary there can be a medical report and, if appropriate, a report from the Prison Commissioners.
  The convicted man may say anything on his own behalf that he wishes to say. Either he or his counsel must see all these documents to decide whether he agrees or disagrees with them. It is not true to say that the court does not have the fullest information before it imposes a sentence upon an accused person. If it feels that it has not enough information it can adjourn the case so that the necessary information is made available.
  Among the various hotch-potch matters—that is not an unkind description—in the Bill there is the provision about shotguns. I am entirely in agreement with that. The shotgun, whether sawn-off or not, is a terrible weapon at close range—even more destructive than a high-powered rifle. It has been used far too often in the smash-and-grab raids which have taken place. Almost anybody can get a shotgun and use it. Now people will need a licence to carry one. I agree with the increased fines—the value of money has gone down and fines must go up.

  141
  On the whole, I welcome the Bill, though there are one or two reasons which make me doubt whether the Bill will work well in practice. However, we should remember that, for the first offender who makes a mistake, for the person who is likely to "go straight" in the future, the courts have great powers of leniency. But we should not forget that all criminals cannot be chided and told to reimburse those whom they have robbed. What do they do it with? It is not enough to say that, if a person is let out of prison, he must be good. Anyone who thinks that criminals can be made honest forgets the dangerous, determined and persistent criminals, who must be dealt with by the only method left—by imposing sentences which have to be long and severe.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. William Price: I had not originally intended to speak. I thought that if there was one Bill which ought to be left to the experts, this was it. I am surrounded by experts. It was not until I read the Bill that I realised that it was possible that I might have a contribution to make. It was not until I heard the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) that I got completely and utterly lost, but accept responsibility for that. I take the view of my colleagues—that it was a brilliant, technical and far-sighted speech.
  I have a great respect for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If he does nothing else in his time in the House—we all expect him to do a great deal more—he will go down in Parliamentary history. He has drawn a Bill which we can all understand—a very fine achievement. Some of us—certainly I—think that the greatest service he could pay to mankind is to let his draftsmen free on the Land Commission Bill.
  The problem with the Bill is knowing where to start. It would be a miracle if every hon. Member did not find something with which he disagreed. I do. Before I begin to criticise, however, I must say that I regard it as a bold, imaginative and long-overdue attempt to rewrite much of our legal system. There are three very important points on which I have reservations. First and foremost, is the introduction of majority verdicts.
  142
  I do not disagree with that, but I am surprised and disturbed that we are recommended to accept majorities of 10 to 2. There is something not quite logical about that. Where there are 10 jurors, majorities of nine to one are allowed and, where there are 11, of 10 to 1. The suggested majority for a full jury does not follow, and I should like to know why a majority of 11 to 1 was not more logical.
  I concede the difficulties. We have heard that little is known about jurors and the way they reach their verdicts. I have sat through many thousands of court cases. One of the reasons that I came to the House was to try to get away from lawyers—[Laughter.]—and that was perhaps the biggest mistake I ever made. However, there is a masonic-like secrecy about the way in which jurors operate. I understand my right hon. Friend's difficulties in trying to recommend anything which would get over these problems.
  We know that he is motivated by the fear of jury-nobbling. I have worked for many years in provincial courts, and I concede the view of the other side of the House that this is very much a matter for London. I have never come across a case of it. As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General would say, there is a good deal more horse nobbling going on. It is difficult enough even at the Old Bailey to bribe one juror. I suggest it is virtually impossible to bribe three.
  But this is what it means with a full jury. To get an acquittal a man has to convince three jurors that he is innocent; 10 to 2; that means he has got to get 9 to 3 before he is acquitted or before there is a retrial. I am not a mathematician, and I shall be grateful if I can be put right if I am wrong on this. It is no use the right hon. and learned Member the Member for St. Marylebone shaking his head. If the verdict is 10 to 2 he is guilty, so he has to convince not 2 but 3—
  Mr. Doughty: If there is a disagreement there is a new trial, but at the first trial he is not acquitted; there is a new trial.
  Mr. Price: I take it the hon. and learned Member is not disagreeing with me. To get a retrial a man has to convince three jurors—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What I am assuming—
  Mr. Edwin Brooks: I do not quite follow my hon. Friend's arithmetic, unless he is assuming that, like Mr. Ian Smith, he has to convince himself also.
  Mr. Price: He has to convince me as well. I am prepared to discuss this outside the Chamber. Till then, I stand by my view that to get a retrial a defendant has to convince not one juror, as now, but in future three.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—One hon. Member is shaking his head one way and another is shaking his head the other way. We cannot all be right, we cannot all be wrong. I would be grateful if the lawyers could get together to discuss this among themselves. I must say that, having raised this myself, I am now lost. I console myself with the thought that even the lawyers cannot agree among themselves.
  My other objection, and it is a strong one, is to suspended sentences. It is for the simple reason that Clause 22 is not necessary at all. Despite what my right hon. Friend said, probation already provides a very adequate and sensible form of suspended sentence. There can be no doubt about that at all. A man commits an offence; he is put on probation; he commits another offence; he goes to court for sentence—for both, eventually, one at a time. If that is not a suspended sentence it is difficult to know what it is. I suggest that that Clause is quite unnecessary. The Bill proposes suspended sentence for not more than two years. That is a very dangerous precedent indeed, because a man would have to commit a fairly severe crime to get two years. It means that if that Clause goes through we shall end up with a man serving no sentence at all—a very curious way of solving the crime wave, and I hope my right hon. Friend will have second thoughts about this one.
  I now come to the proposal—one which affects me personally as a court reporter —to prohibit reports appearing in the newspapers, on the television or on the radio, before a case is finally settled. I am glad to say that this is one issue, on which I might have been expected not to agree, on which I wholeheartedly agree with every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate so far; I do not think anyone has criticised the suggestion at all. We have one or two national newspapers,
  144
  as we expected, being critical about an attack on their powers and freedom. The trouble with those newspapers is simply this, that they spend so much time attacking everyone else that they build up a persecution complex. I am the last one in the House to want to take any powers or freedom from the newspapers, but there can be occasions, and this is one, when other considerations are as important as the newspapers.
  We have heard the argument about the influence on juries. I am concerned about the influence on defendants. A person appearing court these days is subject to a good deal of publicity indeed. He gets one lot when the offence is committed—a paragraph saying "Mr. So-and-so will appear in court tomorrow morning"—another couple of lots at the remand hearings, another lot of publicity at the committal proceedings, some more when the case goes to the sessions or assizes and yet another lot of publicity on appeal. We could manage without at least one of that collection.
  The newspapers argue that they are losing some of their freedom. That is not true. They will have their full rights eventually, when the case goes to the sessions or assizes, and, at that point, they will be able to publish the facts fully. They are merely being asked to wait a few weeks and not to inflict the same report on their readers at least twice, which is what is happening now.
  The newspapers go on to argue that publicity brings in witnesses. From experience, I know that this may be marginally true, but witnesses usually come forward long before the committal proceedings. The Shepherds Bush case was a classic example of this. Generally speaking, witnesses come forward as a result of publicity at the time when the offence is committed; so that the newspapers cannot get away with that one, because it is not true.
  I am glad of the provision which allows defendants the right to have their cases reported, although there are three questions which, while they may seem Committee points, would reassure some of my colleagues if they could be answered now. First, at what stage will the defendant ask for the full report to appear, remembering that there is a danger that if he leaves it too late there will not be

  145
  any reporters present to do the reporting? Secondly, what will be the position if editors decide not to waste having a reporter in court all day merely if he is likely to pick up one or two results? Will the bare details be available as official handouts from the clerks of courts, as is done in some parts of the country? In other parts of the country a reporter gets nothing. There is a great deal of inconsistency about this? Thirdly, what will happen to the public in open court? The whole purpose of the Clause, as I understand it, is to prevent the general public from being informed at committal proceedings. It surely follows that if members of the public go to court and sit in open court, they will get the full details, anyway. House are the two matters reconcilable?
  When one considers the question of increased fines, one must admit that at present many punishments are unrealistic and subject to considerable inconsistency. For some reason unknown to me, judges, recorders and magistrates—magistrates generally get the blame, but they are not the only blameworthy ones—are reluctant to impose anything like the maximum punishment available, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will advise them that these fines are there for the purpose of being implemented.
  I did not wish to become ideological about this, but I suggest that not enough attention is being given to ability to pay. Fines are intended as a punishment. In some cases they will be substituted for imprisonment. A £500 fine to one man need be no severe hardship at all. A £10 fine to an old-age pensioner can be a very real blow indeed. No one should get away comparatively lightly merely because he happens to have a healthy bank balance.
  Sir Eric Errington: What would the hon. Gentleman do in a case where the defendant has stolen something—I particularly have in mind shoplifting and similar cases—yet has no resources at all? That is the sort of case with which magistrates have difficulty at present.
  Mr. Price: That was the very point to which I was coming, and I had intended to deal with it by making a revolutionary suggestion. If we are prepared to have
  146
  suspended prison sentences, then let us be logical about it and have suspended fines in cases of very real hardship. I may be wrong about this, but it would meet the sort of difficulty raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington). The principle is exactly the same whether we are dealing with fines or prison sentences.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman. A fine is suspended because the accused person has not got the money to pay it; if, when he commits another crime, the suspended fine is brought into operation, there is nothing to suggest that he will have the money then. On the other hand, if a sentence is suspended in time an accused person can, if he lives long enough, still pay the sentence in time, if necessary.
  Mr. Price: The obvious answer is this. Many hundreds of people appear before magistrates and are not able to pay the fines imposed upon them. They get time. If someone has not got the available resources, he should be granted time. I have no figures on this. I have no doubt that my hon. and learned Friends will tell me that the numbers are very high. I should imagine that in some cases those concerned cannot pay the lawyer's fees. The answer is to give them time in which to pay. This has gone on for many years and has taken place in many hundreds of cases with great regularity.
  Despite the reservations I have about the Bill, I regard it as a major step forward. Its great virtue is that it sets out to safeguard the rights and privileges both of the defence and of the prosecution. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will succeed.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I cannot quite understand why the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) described his last point as an ideological one. I did not follow his argument. I have considerable sympathy with his unavailing effort to get away from lawyers. I disagree with what he said about suspended sentences. A suspended sentence is not the same as probation. Probation officers have enough to do without having additional people put under their care who might be more susceptible to suspended sentences when the sentence is passed

  147
  and then suspended so that they know exactly what term they will have to serve in respect of the trial offence if they commit another offence.
  I am in somewhat of a dilemma on the Bill, for this reason. In many ways it is a most progressive and workmanlike Bill. I agree entirely with many of its Clauses. I agree with some of them in principle, although I may have criticisms as to their detail. So far, so good. However, there is one Clause—namely, Clause 10—which changes our law fundamentally. This is a very great change in our legal system. The Home Secretary suggested, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) pointed out, that we had somehow inadvertently and by accident evolved the rule whereby juries returned unanimous verdicts.
  No theoretical basis for the jury exists. No jurist ever invented the jury. No legislator ever gave it form. The jury evolved to suit the British system. The odd thing about it—I am surprised that on this ground alone it does not have more support from the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) —is that it has worked for centuries. On principle, I am not addicted to things that have worked for centuries. In fact, I view them with great suspicion. However, when a system has worked for centuries, when it has been tried every day—there must have been hundreds of juries sitting today—and when it has been found to work, we should hesitate long before messing about with it.
  I am not averse to a reappraisal of our whole approach to criminal law and our judicial system. If this were a fundamental reform, I would view it with more sympathy than I do now. I think the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone was right in this at least, that in this Bill there are no really fundamental reforms in so far as the Bill does not present a new approach to or a new appraisal of our problems in the criminal field. In fact, I am a product of our gladiatorial system of the courts, and I am not at all convinced that that is the best way of getting at the truth. But a new doctrine is put forward here, that the purpose of a trial is to get at the truth. Truth is something quite different.
  As I understand it, the purpose of a trial in this country is to discover whether
  148
  a man is guilty or innocent of the charge brought against him. He is presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty. The guilt has to be established by the prosecution. There are three elements that seem to be very important in considering the way in which the jury system works. First, its verdict must be unanimous. Secondly, its reasoning is secret; it does not have to give its reasons for a decision. Thirdly, the verdict of a jury must be such that if it finds a man guilty, each and every member of the jury must be sure so that the accused's guilt is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
  In Clause 10 the Home Secretary is undermining not only the first principle, but the third. No one can say that a man has been found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt if two people on the jury think that he is not guilty.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: If we accept Clause 10, the judge's summing up will in future have to be fundamentally changed. Instead of saying to the jury, "You will each of you be satisfied of the accused's guilt", he will say "Ten of you must be satisfied, and so long as 10 of you are satisfied the other two do not matter."
  Mr. Hooson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. What is more, I think that not only will the approach to this subject be changed, but we shall undermine this basic principle of our law.
  I should like to quote from Lord Devlin's book, "Trial by Jury", where, on page 57 of the Hamlyn lectures, he says:
  "The sense of satisfaction obtainable from complete unanimity is itself a valuable thing and it would be sacrificed if even one dissentient were overruled. Since no one really knows how the jury works or indeed can satisfactorily explain to a theorist why it works at all, it is wise not to tamper with it until the need for alteration is shown to be overwhelming."
  Then I pose the question: has the need for change been established to our satisfaction as being overwhelming? Let us look at the evidence produced by the Home Secretary today. The Home Secretary has put forward only one reason for changing the system. He put forward only one reason today. Indeed, when he broadcast he said:
  "We decided that this change was right because of disturbing recent evidence of criminal interference with one or two jurymen in important cases."

  149
  One can see again the emphasis that he put on the "recent evidence of criminal interference with one or two jurymen in important cases." As I understand the Home Secretary's case, he is saying, "Because I know of no other way of dealing with this small number of cases, we must change this fundamental principle whereby a jury has to bring in a unanimous verdict."
  There are two things involved here. First, he is upsetting for ever more the quality of a verdict in this country. So far, we have heard a good deal about the men who ought to be convicted. Let us think for a moment about the men or women who ought to be acquitted. Because of the unanimity rule, when a man is found guilty the 12 people trying him have all agreed that he is guilty, and when a man is found not guilty they have all been satisfied that he is not guilty. The quality of the verdict is something that we must hear in mind. It will be a very different thing—
  Mr. S. C. Silkin rose—
  Mr. Hooson: I will give way in a moment. It will create very considerable difficulties if a man is to go around saying, "I am a man of perfectly good character. I was acquitted by 10 votes to 2." It was once said of a man in Wales that the only thing that could be said against him was that he was once ac-quilted by an Anglesey jury.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Surely he is quite wrong, when talking of acquittal, to say that 12 people have decided that the man is not guilty? Surely the position is that 12 people have decided that they are not satisfied that he is guilty? If the basis of acquittal is reasonable doubt, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has put it, and if 10 out of 12 members of a jury are not satisfied that the defendant is guilty, would he suggest that in those cases there is no reasonable doubt?
  Mr. Hooson: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. Under our law, when a man is charged with an offence he is presumed to be innocent, and that presumption lasts all through the trial. If the prosecution do not establish his guilt, the jury find him not guilty and
  150
  they find him so unanimously. If one juror thinks him to be guilty, and does not accommodate his view to that of his fellow jurors, they disagree. The Home Secretary has embarked upon a fundamental departure in the Bill.
  Therefore, it is right that we should deal with the second question, raised by the quotation from Lord Devlin, of what is the overwhelming need for the change. I think that the Home Secretary quoted only one case today, when he referred to five men who had been acquitted and a sixth convicted at the Old Bailey. He made a statement of the evidence that I presume is available of various people approaching some of the jurors. One of the interesting points about that case is that five men were acquitted. If it was a nobbled jury it would have been even easier to have an acquittal if all that was wanted was a 10 to 2 majority. If there had been a disagreement in that case one could understand the Home Secretary's reasoning. As I understand the Home Secretary's observation, the implication was that the five men should not have been acquitted, but should have been convicted. Therefore, I do not see that the case he put forward was any support for his proposition.
  Let me take the matter a little further. I think that it is right to say that there is very little, if any, evidence of nobbling juries outside the London area, and that almost all the cases where there is some evidence centre around the Old Bailey. I understand the Home Secretary to be saying that these cases are so serious that big criminal gangs are getting away with it, and that we do not know how to deal with the matter save by introducing that Clause.
  Can the Home Secretary tell the House, by intervening now, whether there has been any prosecution in recent times against any person for trying to interfere with a jury?
  Mr. Percy Grieve rose—
  Mr. Hooson: I shall give way in a moment.
  Presumably, if the Home Secretary does not interrupt me at this point I can assume that there has not been such a prosecution in recent times.
  Mr. Edward Lyons rose—
  Mr. Hooson: I shall give way in a moment.
  If that is so, not sufficient evidence has been brought forward for a prosecution to be launched. I would accept the Home Secretary's view that it is difficult to obtain the right evidence in that kind of case, but it is very significant that there has not been a single prosecution in recent times.
  Mr. Grieve: I am anticipating what I hope to say if I catch Mr. Speaker's eye. In my own experience during the last 12 months, in the provinces, there was an attempt at Northampton, where I sit as recorder, to interfere with jurymen, and the person guilty of it was brought to justice.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. and learned Gentleman must assume no more from my silence than that I do not wish to interrupt him.
  Mr. Edward Lyons rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has the Floor. We are getting confused with so many hon. Members rising at once.
  Mr. Hooson: The Home Secretary has brought forward no overwhelming evidence to justify this change. If there are cases, they are few, and even if these few are important there are other means of dealing with them. They do not justify making a change in this basic safeguard of our law. While we persist in the, so to call it, gladiatoral system in our criminal law, the unanimous verdict is a great protection. If the Home Secretary proposes to change a rule which has been found to work and work satisfactorily over centuries, he owes it to the House of Commons to bring forward a stronger case.
  There was evidence in the eighteenth century of gross interference with juries. The prosecution very often tried to nobble juries at that time, and many of the decisions which are now great bastions of our liberty were made in the face of attempts by the prosecution to nobble juries. If there had been a reforming Home Secretary at that time who wanted to change the system because of a temporary series of attempts to nobble juries,
  152
  what then? Would his reform have been justified in the light of our knowledge and experience today?
  Other means are open to us to deal with this problem. There is the ordinary criminal law, but there is another course, too. In any case in which an attempt was likely to be made to nobble the jury —it is reasonably foreseeable, and the number of cases is limited to big frauds and big crime involving gangs—
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: Or conspiracy.
  Mr. Hooson: —or conspiracy—why would it not be possible for application to be made to the judge in chambers, with prosecuting and defence counsel there, to have the jury segregated during the period of the trial? Such cases arise only rarely. No one should get away with the idea that these are commonplace occurrences in our courts. They are not. Why should not an application be made to the judge for the jury to be segregated? Would not this be much better, and ought we not at least to try it before making the fundamental change proposed by the Home Secretary?
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: The hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that, when it is thought that the jury might be nobbled, there should be application to have the jury segregated. If the jury were segregated, would that not be telling the jury that it was expected that the defendant was the sort of person who would try to nobble them?
  Mr. Hooson: If the jury were to assume that, then let them assume what they like. What happens at the moment, if an attempt is made to nobble a juror, is that he brings the matter to the notice of the judge, and very often in open court.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. and learned Gentleman might mention that, until comparatively recently, the jury was automatically segregated.
  Mr. Hooson: That is true, and in the United States juries are often segregated today. I see no difficulty in this matter at all.
  Mr. Hogg: It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he sees no difficulty here in, for example, a six weeks' trial. Has he ever served on

  153
  a jury, and would he not see a difficulty if he were on the jury?
  Mr. Hooson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of a six weeks' trial as though that, also, were commonplace in this country. It is not. A six weeks' trial is a rarity.
  The Home Secretary referred to the rule in Scotland. This is a wholly misleading analogy. The Scottish system is completely different. They have a simple majority verdict. But prosecutions which are brought forward in England could not be brought forward in Scotland because the evidence does not exist. I know that the Scottish conviction rate is higher than the English one, but before certain evidence can be even tendered in Scotland there has to be corroboration. Such rules do not apply here.
  If the right hon. Gentleman was saying, "We will take over the Scottish system, stock, lock and barrel" there might be something in it, but one cannot point to Scotland for one part of the system and say, "They have a majority verdict there and it works, so it will work satisfactorily in this country", where the laws of evidence are different.
  I think that the Home Secretary has approached this reform in the wrong way. I have great sympathy with those who suggest that we need to rethink our position with regard to the criminal law and the way tthat we try to get convictions in criminal cases. I would not oppose fundamental changes if they were found to be necessary. I have long advocated that we should have an experiment with an inquisitorial magistracy system. I see that Lord Kilbracken, the Chairman of the Scottish Law Commission, advocated this in a recent series of Hamlyn Trust lectures. I think it right that in certain circumstances the accused should be asked to give evidence. I see no reason any longer for the maintenance of the old rule that the accused should not be made to go into the witness box.
  I am prepared to accept this, but what I think is wrong is, on evidence as thin as that which the Home Secretary has put forward today, to change a fundamental of our jury system which has been found to work satisfactorily. Let it be hoped that the recent spate of attempts
  154
  to nobble juries is a temporary matter. The Home Secretary does not seem to have tried to deal with it in any other way. What we shall do if we pass the Bill is to take a leap in the dark, and we shall be making a fundamental change on completely unsatisfactory evidence.
  In the light of this, I would have liked to divide the House on Second Reading because I think that it is so important, but I have been persuaded that as the Home Secretary invited a non-partisan approach this matter can be considered again during the Committee stage, and we shall reserve our position on it on Third Reading. However, I am sure that the House will be making a fundamental mistake if it changes the rule on this evidence.
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) made an excellent speech but continued three minutes too long. He concluded by offering to abrogate other principles in order to have help in defending one. To suggest compelling an accused man to go into the witness box and take the oath and testify and be liable to be prosecuted for pleading not guilty seems to me a major alteration which ought not to have been introduced in a concluding sentence of what was otherwise a moderate speech.
  Had a vote been forced tonight, I should have voted for this excellent Measure because of the many things that are in it, but if it comes back with Clause 10 unaltered I shall not vote for it in any circumstances whatever.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has won very great respect for his courage and for his handling of the Home Office, but he erred twice today. One occasion was in a rather frivolous interruption of the hon. Member who asked—it was a fair question—whether there had been any prosecutions for tampering with juries, which is the only reason we are going to be given. The previous occasion was when the example of an alleged tampering with juries which had resulted in a unanimous verdict. How the production of a unanimous verdict can be regarded as an argument in favour of abrogation of this principle, I do not know. I put down some Written

  155
  Questions to my right hon. Friend, and the figures he gave today are not quite as impressive as those he gave me then. My right hon. Friend, most correctly, gave me information which was as full as I could reasonably have expected. On 25th October. I asked:
  "…how many cases of alleged crime were tried in the most recent 12 months for ease of computation, before a High Court judge or Commissioner of Assize and a jury; and in how many cases the jury have failed to reach an agreed verdict."
  The reason for that phrasing is obvious. This seemed to me the sort of thing for which figures would be most readily available. In his reply, my right hon. Friend included the Old Bailey, because the figures are collective:
  "Information in this form is not available, but, in a sample of 536 trials before a jury at Assizes and the Central Criminal Court in 1965, there were 10 trials in which the jury disagreed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 157.]
  That is a very much smaller figure than is mentioned in any of the articles we have read or in any of the speeches about the subject.
  A distinguished lawyer wrote to me and suggested that I ask my right hon. Friend what happened in these ten cases. But when I practised in the courts I was told that I should never ask a question unless I had a rough idea of the answer. So, after replying somewhat priggishly to my lawyer friend, I found out. In these ten cases, six were found guilty, three were found not guilty and in one case there was a second disagreement.
  One hon. Member opposite said today that juries do not disagree enough. That is true. Of course it is a nuisance if a jury disagree, but the whole point of unanimity is that 12 good men and true have come to an unbiased decision of guilt before a man is put down.
  The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), to whom I always listen with pleasure and often with instruction, made an excellent speech. I sat listening with delight, because I thought that it was going to get better as it went on. He postulated the right questions but did not supply any answers. Later on, he got slightly frivolous about this question of juries.
  156
  The jury system is as important a part of the constitution as any other democratic institution. Yet we are being asked to abolish the present system in Clause 10 of a mixed Measure containing an immense number of very useful provisions, with a major reform—I hope it works—in reducing the number of people unnecessarily in prison, which is perhaps one of the most important matters of penal reform, and on it I congratulate my right hon. Friend in the most generous terms. If we can stop locking up the immense number of people who should not be in prison at all we will have taken a major step to penal reform and reclamation in clearing what is too much of a mixed audience in our local prisons.
  But, in making such an alteration to the jury system like this and in this manner, one might just as well abolish the Monarchy in Clause 5 of a mixed Bill dealing with public officials. On whose authority, on whose recommendation, is this being done? It is because some one says that one jury was tampered with and that no one was ever prosecuted for it. But, in that case, the jury came to a unanimous decision anyway.
  The right hon. and learned Member made a somewhat frivolous interruption about sitting on a jury at a six-week trial. He spoke about the inconvenience of the juryman. It is very inconvenient to be in the dock at a six-week trial. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman —and if I am wrong he will correct me—will recall, I think he will find that the last of the six-week trials was one in which a large number of farmers were charged with conspiracy to obtain grants from the Ministry of Agriculture of false statements. They sat there for six weeks. They spent thousands and thousands of pounds in their defence and they were convicted. But the Court of Criminal Appeal said that there was no evidence of conspiracy at all, or that the only evidence of conspiracy was that they all happened to use the same auctioneer and, as they lived in roughly the same rural area, that was not surprising. The conviction was quashed after six weeks of standing in the dock waiting for the jury. In that case they were unanimous, but juries are not always right.

  157
  I admit that I am taking a conservative view, but it is about the preservation of a liberal institution.
  Mr. Hogg: Am I that case convicted the jury which the hon. Gentleman is now eulogizing? I am sure that the farmers would not have thought that that was so liberal.
  Mr. Hale: No one says that juries are always right. What we say is that the public trusts jury decisions. Normally speaking, as we know, the Court of Criminal Appeal will not intervene with the verdict of a jury at all, except in the historic case from Liverpool when it was said that the verdict was so wholly against the weight of the evidence that it could not possibly be sustained.
  The jury's verdict, the judgment of 12 good men and true, is virtually sacrosanct in our courts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not be frivolous about this. It is too serious a subject for frivolity. He knows perfectly well that judges make many more mistakes than juries do, and that it is trial by judge or by recorder which is nearly always responsible for producing the observation from the Court of Appeal, "What a pity that the case was put on at all" or, "What a pity that this or that section was overlooked or forgotten" and so on.
  The jury was our great instrument against tyranny, twelve good men and true. The verdict of ten to two might well lamentably mean that there are two highly intelligent men who regard the issue as having so much importance that they are not prepared to surrender their judgment even to the majority. Those two are very likely to be right, more likely than the ten rather good-natured men who have agreed together under one dominant personality. We all know that this has happened.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I can tell my hon. Friend of one case where that happened in just the numbers he has mentioned. Two intelligent men said that the accused was guilty and the other ten said that they could not understand the case and wanted to acquit. It took a long time, but in the end the jury convicted.
  Mr. Hale: What has that got to do with it? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted some cases in which he has said that something happened. We know all about this. If I wanted to quote cases, I could cite that of William Gardiner in which, on the first trial, there was disagreement by eleven to one for a conviction—in a murder case in which there was a good deal of suspicion, but nothing very conclusive—and in the second trial disagreement by eleven to one for acquittal, with a defence by the same people. Everybody knows that there are vagaries. I had a case in which my very distinguished counsel very charmingly made a blunder and asked the fatal question and got the wrong answer and the jury disagreed, and I changed counsel and had the most brilliant man on the circuit and the jury convicted us without leaving the box. Everyone knows that these things happen, and everyone knows that nobody scrutinises some of our democratic institutions through a microscope.
  If one started looking at the monarchy for death watch beetle, one would find all sorts and sizes of things which might sap one's confidence. The strength of our belief in the monarchy is looking at the alternative. Think of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone as first President of the British Republic and how can we hesitate to retain the thing which we trust, whatever its defects may be!
  This is rather more than that. I was a little sentimental about the abolition of the grand jury, which was an infernal nuisance but the powers of presentation of the grand jury were important constitutional powers. This still exists in many American States. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery raised the position on acquittal but the truth is that we are introducing the Scottish verdict of "not proven". What is the good to a respectable man, of high character, of an acquittal by nine votes to three or ten votes to two? If it is recorded in open court that two men thought that he was guilty, that at the end of a long trial that two unidentified jurymen were convinced of his guilt, what is the good of an acquittal then?
  This is the institution for which, on the trial of Throckmorton, the jury went to prison rather than give a verdict against

  159
  their conscience; the jury who acquitted William Penn were fined and imprisoned and kept in prison until heavy fines were paid because they had not complied with the direction of the Crown. I wish that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was here tonight so that we could refresh our memories about the treason trials of 1793, and 1794, about William Hone, fighting three days running for freedom of speech and freedom of publication, the jury who defied the verdict of Mr. Justice Abbott, who was replaced the next day by Ellenborough, who came to conduct the second trial and again the jury acquitted; he was tried on a third indictment and again the jury acquitted, in spite of the strongest directions from the Lord Chief Justice.
  These are landmarks in our liberty. These are the things that matter, and no one has thought about this. With great respect, the right hon. Member made a most excellent speech for 55 minutes, and one thing that was utterly convincing were the sort of arguments that he put forward in favour of this. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone can say things that I would not dare to say. He said that he put a letter "P" against it as indicative of the place where the proposals came from. [Interruption.] I have to mind my Ps and my Qs. I am unable to find any other source that this rather casual idea, that on the whole rather too few people are being convicted, and it would be rather a jolly good idea if we could get more people by abandoning constitutional principles, which have secured liberty to our fellow citizens in the past. In my view, this is quite a monstrous proposal. It is a great pity, because it places what is in general a very good Bill in jeopardy.
  There are two points that I would like to make, one because the learned Attorney-General is replying; and we do not often have the privilege of talking to him on such matters. The right hon. Gentleman said very rightly and profoundly, that our criminal law has to be looked at and has to be carried out and has to have the appearance of justice. It really has, even in these days, when all moral decisions have to be approved by the Treasury. We still ought to have regard to that, and I say that the time has come when we should ask the Director of Pub-
  160
  lic Prosecutions what he is there for and to whom he is responsible, and what he is doing about it.
  The moment that one gets a limited company then it is free. If I could only form all of my constituents into limited companies—and a number of them are—they could do almost anything they liked, with complete freedom.
  If the train robbers had had the good sense to form themselves into a limited liability company before the event, what would have happened? The Board of Trade would have said, "We see no reason for exercising our powers. This does not seem the sort of case which comes within our purview." The Director of Public Prosecutions would have said, "It is an extremely complicated matter and the question of whether notes which were going out of circulation and had gone out of circulation were money is a matter for profound and learned investigation." The right hon. and learned Member for Middle Wallop would have introduced a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule procedure to say that engine drivers must be compelled to wear protective helmets. The Scottish banks would have got together and pooled enough money to buy themselves a rubber stamp so that they could deface their notes in Edinburgh and not expose themselves to the risk of coming to the great and wicked Metropolis, like The Guardian.
  My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well the sort of cases to which I refer. I do not want to put people in prison. If the Department would rather have them yachting in the Mediterranean, I do not mind. There was an inquiry about Rolls Royce which cost a lot of money. I put down Questions about a couple of laundry companies. Arctic White was one. Both had something about Snow White, but no dwarfs. Both had a capital of £2. They got £1,000 from a very honest constituent of mine; and already Questions were being asked by a Member opposite. I sent all the particulars to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Board of Trade.
  Months later I dropped a note to them and was told that my letter had been sent to the Attorney-General. I asked the Attorney-General for a Written Answer as to why he had got it, and he said that it was because the Director

  161
  of Public Prosecutions, in accordance with the usual practice, which I had never heard of, had asked him to reply. So I waited another month and said, "If he has asked you to reply, why have you not done so?". Now I have a reply to say that the matter is in the hands of the Boa rd of Trade. [Laughter.] This is all very well, but my man was swindled and nobody doubts it. We should be capable of catching these people when they are engaged in wholesale national swindle.
  People are interested in these matters. The Cadco report is out of print. I was never recommended to buy sausages approved of by his late most gracious Majesty I was once invited to an institution in Paris which was said to have basked n his patronage at one time, but that is a long time ago. But here is another story of a colossal swindle and it was said, "It is under constant consideration. Every avenue is being explored". We know what that means. It means that it is at the bottom of the "in" box instead of having been transwerred to the "out" box.
  I should like to say in conclusion one thing which I have said before. I say it again because the right hon. and learned Gentleman was stimulating and provocative in the best sense of the word. He provoked even me to speculation. What do we send people to prison for? We do so because we have not thought of any other way of dealing with them. But is it any good sending them to prison for a long time? One of the troubles is that if we put them down for 30 years they get over the wall very quickly. There is an incentive from which most of them suffer which concentrates their minds, as Johnson would have said, wonderfully on the question of the wide open spaces.
  But every day I read in the newspapers that we have to deal with crime by "upping" the sentences. We have been doing this all my life. Lord Chief Justice Goddard was appointed Lord Chief Justice soon after the war. He was a very distinguished lawyer, a very honest man. I have great respect for his views on punishment, which were much the same as those of Lord Ellenborough. Certainly they were not mine. He made a series of public announcements saying that people should be punished and that he
  162
  was going to stop crime. He put up the sentences, and the crime rate went up. Again he put up the sentences, and the crime rate went up.
  In an Answer which I received, it was shown that the length of sentences in the cases of violent crime increased from 50 to 56 per cent. The Answer which I received from the Home Secretary a week or two ago was that they were still at least 33 per cent. higher than they were in 1938. The crime figures have gone up constantly all the time. I do not say that the one is necessarily a result of the other. I merely say that prison is the place where many criminals are made. As I have said before, it is not true that Little Lord Fauntleroy caused Bill Sykes to burst into tears and repent. He is more likely to have got him to thieve handkerchiefs and released earlier in order that he might organise a career of crime. We have to have understanding. We have to find some way of ensuring that the Home Office commands the respect that it deserves. I have no wish to direct magistrates. Only a few days ago a man of 79 in my constituency was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for a first offence. I thought that perhaps he had been sentenced because he had no home —but no. In another court a man of 33, tried for exactly the same offence, against exactly the same girls, in exactly the same circumstances, was fined £25. These disparities are matters that are rather shocking. A man of 79, spending his Christmas in prison, does not serve any purpose—and it costs us a lot of money, because a prison is an expensive place to run.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend's efforts will have the approval and even the benediction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To keep someone out of prison, it will save us £15 or £16 per week. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. I apologise that it is inevitable that one rises to criticise instead of to approve. It is for that purpose that we rise, and I hope that the Measure will go through without Clause 10.
  9.47 p.m.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: I share the welcome which has been generally expressed to the Home Secretary from both sides of the House for the greater

  163
  part of the Bill. I say that despite the fact that I have reservations about a good many of the Clauses, which probably should not be expressed on Second Reading, but during the Committee stage. In particular, have I reservations about Clause 22, on which I would like to enlarge for a short time this evening.
  I share the criticisms which were made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), about what is not in the Bill and about what, if I may put it this way, the Bill is not. Many hon. Gentlemen have said that this is a Bill in which one can see no single philosophic trend in the treatment of delinquency or crime. It is a Bill which deals with many matters that are being widely canvassed today as being proper for consideration, such as the crime wave and the importance of bringing our criminal law and procedure up to date.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend said, it is sound in regard to the very important matter of the silence of the accused, and the extent to which, if at all, we should modify the rules of caution of accused persons, the lack of the right by prosecuting counsel to comment upon the accused's not going into the witness box, and matters of that kind. It is silent about the question of restitution. There are certain minor powers of restitution in the courts. I venture to suggest that this is a topic of considerable importance, and is one which should be considered today.
  It is silent on the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone about estoppel and the rule in Hollington v. Hewthorn. I am bound to say that there is a considerable body of opinion which takes the view that when a criminal matter is decided in the criminal courts and has gone to appeal, or appeal has not been made, that ought to resolve not only the right of the accused vis-à-vis the Crown, but also the right of persons who are similarly interested in claims against the criminal.
  In Continental jurisprudence, and in civil law in criminal proceedings there is a partie civile, and when a person is convicted of a criminal offence, for example, a bank robbery, the bank be-
  164
  comes the partie civile and gets such remedies as the court can give it and such restitution as the court is able to make. Any funds in the possession of the accused can be given to the person he has robbed.
  It seems to me to be wholly wrong that in our law the bank which has been robbed has to bring a separate action against the accused for restitution, and in the course of those proceedings the accused may reopen the whole question of his criminality and put in issue matters which have already been determined by a jury. This matter is causing great concern to the courts at the moment and it ought to be dealt with in the sense that I have suggested.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), in an eloquent speech, discussing the jury system, suggested that the time had come when we might have a complete reappraisal of the whole of our system and might consider, for instance, whether it was not appropriate to have an inquisitorial procedure on the arrest of the accused so that he might be brought before an examining magistrate. I suggest to the House that we should be giving a great deal of thought to such matters. Clearly, that is not something which can be dealt with in a Bill of this kind.
  As I understand it, the Bill is designed to make reforms in the existing system, and in so far as it sets out to make those reforms and to make the existing system work better in the modern context of an appalling rise in the figure of crime in the country, then, subject to detail, it has my approval.
  I do not propose to go through every Clause, but I will turn, first, to consider the matter which, more than any other, has aroused controversy on both sides of the House, irrespective of the political allegiance of those who mentioned it—the majority verdict of the jury. Every generation faces new problems, and it is a great temptation to every generation facing the problems of that generation to cut down and undermine the liberties which may have been acquired painfully and expensively over the centuries.
  If I may give an example, I believe that the proposal before the House not long ago for the compulsory taking by police officers of breath tests of persons, irrespective of whether there was any

  165
  reason to think that those persons were under the influence of drink, was an infringement of the liberty of the subject which was quite intolerable. It was an attempt made in a world and in a country where there is appalling carnage on the roads because people drive under the influence of drink. The same problem actuated many people to suggest that jury trials should be abolished in all such cases because, they say, too many get off. I would oppose that. This is how I have considered the proposal to have a majority verdict of the jury. The Home Secretary's reasoning is right.
  I was profoundly impressed by the eloquent speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in defence of the present unanimous verdict, but we are inclined to be too influenced by the mystique of this ancient institution. During the war, we were content that people should be found guilty or not guilty by seven jurors. Why, then should we hesitate now, in the context of the matters which the Secretary of State described, to accept a finding of ten jurors—
  Mr. Hale: The seven had to be unanimous.
  Mr. Hogg: What difference does that make?
  Mr. Grieve: The ten will have to be unanimous among themselves.
  The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) said that the Clause was directed against the disagreements of juries. Nothing of the kind. It is directed against disagreements by juries which have been obtained by subornation, corruption or intimidation. The right hon. Gentleman quoted compelling examples which have happened in London in recent months. A number of my hon. Friends and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery asked, "But has this ever been known outside London?" Considering that this kind of intimidation or subornation is likely to be carried out only by the most audacious criminals working in gangs—the small people referred to by some hon. Members are most unlikely to be in this category—it would not be surprising if it had gone outside London.
  166
  To quote the name of a pamphlet published recently by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, crime knows no boundaries now, and a good deal of the big crime in the provinces is committed by gangs working either in alliance with or directly from London. This has been my experience sitting on quarter sessions for many years.
  As I said in an intervention in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, only a few months ago, I knew a case of an audacious attempt to suborn a juror. In a case which I was trying at Northampton, a man was sitting in the public gallery in the morning. The court adjourned for lunch and the jury rose with the usual warning not to discuss the case with anyone not of their number. At 2 o'clock it was reported to me that the man in the gallery had followed a juryman home in his car.
  The juryman had left his car at his house. The man who had followed him said, "How are things going at the sessions?" The juror answered, "I must not talk about this." To which the man replied, "But that chap is not guilty and there is 50 quid for you if he gets off. You can have 25 quid now if you like". The juryman, fortunately, and honestly and in public spirit, went straight in and dialled the police, and the matter was reported.
  I am glad to say that the man who attempted to bribe him, to interfere with justice in this way, in due course met his desserts—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour during a period of two hours after Ten o'clock, though opposed.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Grieve: He met his desserts at Birmingham Assizes, but had he fallen for that bribe justice might have miscarried.
  The danger of this kind of activity lies not only in its possible success with juries, but in the way it can subvert the justice of a trial. There are various courses open to a court when this happens. It can

  167
  dismiss the jury altogether and start again. It can, as I was requested to do in that case, carry on, simply dismissing that jury man. But the jury wonder what is happening, what is going on in the background.
  All this kind of thing interferes in a very grave way with the course of justice, and I believe that this simple reform is not a high price to pay—indeed, I do not believe that it is paying a price at all—to achieve a position where the criminals are most unlikely to interfere with juries, because it is unlikely, I imagine, on the face of it, that they will be able to interfere with more than one or two.
  With regard to those whom other hon. Members have mentioned, the crank, or the person who has a grudge or a chip on his shoulder, who is holding out on the jury, we could have a juryman holding out on a jury with the object of conviction, whereas the enlightened opinion of the rest of the jury is that the accused should be acquitted.
  Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Cranks and interferers with juries apart, the hon. and learned Member referred to the breathalyser and new methods of dealing with drunken driving. I think that he would agree that the Minister of Transport has brought before the House methods of seeing that more drunken drivers will be brought to justice. Perhaps he would also agree that these methods will inevitably mean—I make no objection to this—that more innocent people are, in fact, to be charged. Would he not agree, however, that this therefore means that the defences for an innocent person must be absolutely up to the hilt?
  Mr. Grieve: I do not concede for one moment that more innocent people are likely to be charged. I believe more people are likely to be charged, but that is quite another matter. As to the influence of alcohol on driving, and the degree to which people's driving may be impaired by alcohol, subject to the reservations I made, I agree with what was being done by that Bill.
  I turn now to one or two other Clauses of the Bill, and particularly Clause 22, about which I do have a submission to make to the House.
  Sir E. Errington: Would my hon. and learned Friend not think that in many cases the reason for disagreement in a jury is the inadequate summing up which sometimes happens—it happens rarely—from judges?
  Mr. Grieve: Well, having had frequently myself to sum up I confess that I have not always found my summings up adequate. I dare say that others have found that. However, that may happen sometimes, but I do not believe it really is frequently the cause of disagreement.
  One point before I come to Clause 11. I should like to deal with a point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), on the question of the time factor, which is introduced in Clause 10(3), which says:
  "A court shall not accept a majority verdict unless it appears to the court that the jury have had not less than two hours for deliberation or such longer period…"
  This is really a Committee point, but I am bound to say that I would be happier to see this Clause without this qualification. It would seem that the judge could deal with this matter when summing up to the jury, for example, by saying, "It is desirable that you should arrive at a unanimous verdict, but if you are unable to do so, then a verdict of 10 to 2 will be satisfactory". However, this is a Committee matter which we can go into at greater length at that stage.
  I congratulate the Secretary of State on Clause 11. I agree that criminals should be kept off juries. Although I wholly approve of the Clause, I foresee certain administrative difficulties. How does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it will be implemented in practice? Will clerks of the peace and of assize have lists of people, householders in the area, who have had more than five years' imprisonment? That might result in abuse. I ask this question in a helpful spirit since this matter should be gone into, perhaps at a later stage, with care.
  I do not wish to delay the House by consuming more than my fair ration of time. As a weapon in the armoury of the court in dealing with criminals, I have nothing but approbation for the suspended sentence. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) that there is no difference between a suspended sentence and probation. There is a tremendous difference,

  169
  even allowing for the let-out which the Clause gives to courts to reduce the suspended sentence if the man comes up again.
  It is a real sword of Damocles suspended over the head of someone who has erred and who knows not only that he is likely to go to prison if he offends again, but that, unless something exceptional arises, he will go to prison for the period for which he was originally sentenced. This is a powerful addition to the powers of the court and one which has been used in many Continental countries for many years with effect.
  I take issue with the Secretary of State over the restrictions which Clause 22 imposes on the general powers of the court. In recent years there has been an increasing tendency in legislation to reduce the discretion of the court in dealing with offenders and to increase the discretion of the Administration. There is a fundamental philosophical problem here about the extent to which it is right to interfere with the discretion of the court. If one thinks back to 18th century philosophic thought, to Montesquieu and the conception of the separation of powers which determined a great deal of our present constitutional system, it seems that we may be going too far in interfering with the discretion of the court.
  Clause 22(3) states:
  "A court which passes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of not more than six months for an offence shall, subject to the next following subsection, make an order…"
  In other words, a court shall not have the power to send a person to prison, when it otherwise would have done so, on a first offence. I appreciate that there is a saving clause which excludes
  "…an assault on or threat of violence to another person, or of having or possessing a firearm…"
  and so on, but I submit that this is not good enough and that it is far too drastic a limitation on the discretion of the court.
  I believe that this will inevitably mean in many cases and this will happen particularly in magistrates' courts, although there is no limitation to that effect; it applies as much to assizes and quarter sessions as to magistrates' courts, although
  170
  the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. William Wells) thought that it would apply only to magistrates' courts —a grave limitation being placed on the discretion of the courts.
  There may well be crimes of dishonesty in respect of which, because it is absolutely essential to discourage others, someone must be sent to prison for a short time. I agree with the strictures upon the short sentence which are generally made; but I agree entirely that there may be times when a short sentence, even for a crime of dishonesty, is necessary.
  I will give one example. Sitting at quarter sessions I have never, save once, sent somebody to prison for a sentence of less than six months. The exception was a woman who had never been to prison before. She was a prostitute. The crime was that of stealing from a counter in a shop where a child had deposited it a purse containing the child's pocket money with which the child had gone out shopping. I may have been wrong; I am not submitting this to the judgment of the House, but it seemed to me that that was a crime which had to be marked as a matter of public example in the sentence, and I sent somebody, for the only time in my life, to prison for three months. Such situations will occur. They will occur more frequently before magistrates than at quarter sessions or at assizes, because magistrates know the local conditions and may have to make an example of somebody. This power should not be taken away.
  I suggest, too, that the powers of legislating by order which are to be given to the Secretary of State by Clause 22(3,b) and Clause 23(5), under which the Secretary of State may extend the six-month period to 12 months, will put too much legislative power in this important matter into the hands of the Home Secretary, although I recognise such orders would have to be laid before the House and approved.
  I have dealt with the two matters with which I wanted to deal in detail. I had comments to make on other matters. For instance, parole presents a number of difficulties, though I approve of it in principle. My right hon. and hon. Friends have dealt with these other

  171
  matters in detail, so I shall not further trespass upon the time of the House but resume my seat.
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I welcome the Bill. I believe that it takes valuable steps forward in a number of directions. However, I deeply regret that it has not been possible to deal with the whole penal system in a far more radical and fundamental way than the Bill is able to do and to survey the whole concepts and purposes, in particular, of the custodial part of our system and to deal radically with them. I shall say something in elaboration of this when I deal with the question of parole.
  The Bill seems to me to be concerned primarily with two objectives—first, the streamlining of criminal procedure, and secondly, the reduction of the prison population. I am far from saying that these are not extremely valuable objectives in themselves. Indeed, I would go further and say that by streamlining the procedure, by reducing the staff necessary to deal with procedure, and by reducing the prison population, the opportunity is presented for using prisons and prison staff far more effectively than they can be used with overcrowded prisons and with the staff being used far too much on purely administrative duties.
  I deal, first, with one or two examples of streamlining. I applaud the streamlining of procedure, but it could go still further. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider possible additions. For example, I believe that a great deal of time at the higher courts could be saved if there were an exhaustive review of the procedures there adopted. Is it really necessary in these days for all pleas to be taken orally? Cannot these be taken in writing before the arraignment? Certainly in the case of a plea of guilty let the judge make sure that that is what the man wants to plead. In certain cases it can take as much as half an hour to go through the pleas if there are a number of charges and a number of defendants.
  Again, is it really necessary to take time swearing in the jurors in court? Cannot they be sworn in beforehand, the defendant being given the right to challenge them if he wants to? There are
  172
  other ways in which the procedure can be speeded up without any detriment to the rights of the defendant.
  I agree with the proposals in the Bill concerning alibis. I think these are valuable. I invite the attention of my, right hon. Friend to something with which he is no doubt very familiar—the comment in paragraph 44 of the Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, that in the view of that Committee the alibi principle could be extended a great deal further to other cases. I have in mind charges of stealing where the defence is that the goods were obtained from some other person, and no doubt many other examples will be in the minds of hon. Members. I hope that the Clause can be extended in Committee.
  Next, on procedure, I come to the majority verdict, a matter on which the House has been considerably divided. I cannot feel that a major question of principle is here involved. I cannot feel that Scottish juries can be wildly wrong in principle; I cannot feel that lay magistrates or appellate courts can be wildly wrong in principle by giving their decisions by a majority rather than unanimously.
  If it is said, as it has been said, that one needs evidence to justify this change in our system, I would reply that this is the very kind of thing about which it is very difficult to produce evidence, certainly statistical evidence. It is very difficult for a Home Secretary to say that in this case and in that case a jury was nobbled or that the decision was wrong. It is very difficult for him to produce, even in the privileged confines of Parliament, the sort of evidence that he would have to produce in order to persuade people without a risk of the national jury being divided on this subject. I say—and I might not have, said it about all predecessors of my right hon. Friend—that I am quite satisfied that a Home Secretary as liberal-minded as the present one, who would be the last person to touch upon the fundamental rights and privileges of the citizen, would not be putting forward a Measure of this kind unless he were satisfied on the evidence available to him that this Measure is justified. I hope my hon. Friends will take the same view of the matter.

  173
  However, I must say that I, like some hon. Members opposite, have grave reservations about the two-hour precaution which is contained in the Clause. Of course, precaution is necessary. There must be some safeguard. But it seems to me that this is the wrong one. I cannot believe that the feeling of a majority of the jury that the minority, owing to its intransigence, is causing the jury to be kept in for two hours, is likely to produce well-balanced discussion in the jury room.
  Other and more satisfactory precautions could be taken. I would like a provision that it would be within the trial judge's discretion whether to accept a majority decision, It should not be in his complete discretion, but I would lay down the kind of considerations he should take into account, and I hope that some of them would at least modify some of the criticisms made of that part of the Bill. For example, I suggest that he should have regard to the nature and seriousness of the case, to whether it is an original trial or a retrial after a disagreement, and if the latter, what the division was in the first trial, and which way.
  I suggest that he should have regard to the length of deliberation by the jury relative to the complexities of the case, because some cases demand far more deliberation than others. I would require him —others may disagree—to have regard to whether the majority is in favour of acquittal or conviction, because I think that there should be much greater readiness to accept a ten to two majority for acquittal than for conviction.
  Mr. Hooson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman's point that there would be a different standard for serious cases and less serious cases?
  Mr. Silkin: Certainly that is my point, and I think that it is perfectly right and valid. It should be much more difficult to convict for murder, for example, on a majority verdict than in a much less serious case which is likely to have much less serious consequences. I would certainly accept that.
  I turn from procedure to Part II of the Bill, concerning the courts' power to deal with offenders. Here the Bill, in my view, produces progress, but I would make the general criticism that that pro-
  174
  gress seems to be directed more to a reduction of the prison population than to providing the best method of treatment for people when they are within a custodial institution, and how that can be related to each case.
  I think that it is right to abolish preventive detention but that something far more far-reaching is necessary than the proposed extended sentence. We should be taking measures to deal with two specific classes of offender, the type that may be regarded as the persistent nuisance and the type that is a danger to society.
  We should be considering alternatives to our present system, and putting into effect such ideas as sheltered workshops, a vast extension of the hostel system, and perhaps even custodial colonies, where it may be necessary in the last resort to put people for a very long period, even until they are no longer with us, if that is the only method of giving them the support they need, or if it is necessary for the protection of society. If we do that, we must have regard to the conditions in which they are to live, and in those circumstances those conditions should not be the same as in our ordinary prisons.
  I reserve my judgment for the moment on suspended sentences. The Bill tries to solve the inherent dilemma in suspended sentences which is this: does the court mean what it says, or is it merely threatening something which may later be disregarded? There is some value in the provision as a kind of intensified conditional discharge. It is certainly no more than that. On the other hand, there seems to me to be a danger that some courts might regard it as a substitute for a probation order, and that could be very dangerous.
  Sir J. Hobson: Perhaps some courts will not have the courage to eat their words when they find that they should.
  Mr. Silkin: I agree that that is another possible danger. When someone comes to the end of a two-year period of suspension and commits a very minor offence, thereby possibly rendering himself liable for a very heavy sentence, it would be very difficult for the court that then deals with him to make the decision whether to impose the suspended sentence or cut it out.

  175
  As I said, I think that the real danger is that some courts may regard it as an alternative to probation, and in my view probation is one of the most valuable powers the court has. Nothing should be done which could possibly derogate from its value in any way. I myself regret that the opportunity has not been taken in the Bill to remove the restriction on combining probation with a fine, because I believe that in many cases this restriction may prevent the making of a probation order which would otherwise be desirable.
  I come now to Part VI of the Bill. Unfortunately, because I was getting practical experience in being a criminal judge, I did not have the advantage of hearing the whole debate, and I have not heard anyone deal with the provisions of Clause 59 on alcoholics. I welcome this Clause very much, but I regard it, nevertheless, as disappointingly insufficient. The prevalence of alcoholism is extremely serious in this country. It is very much more serious in the United States, but even here it destroys life, it destroys health, it destroys working capacity, it causes abseentism, and it causes crime.
  It is absolutely right that we should regard alcoholism as a disease rather than an offence, and this is what the Bill begins to do, but it does no more than take the offence of being drunk and disorderly out of the criminal calendar. The intention is to keep some people out of prison, and that is good, but, in my view, what we need is a positive policy to treat and cure alcoholism at an early stage. It must be a wide-ranging policy going much further than simply dealing with the person who is said to be drunk and disorderly.
  There are other offences which are simply offences of drunkenness, but, quite apart from them, I think that, when a court believes that a person who has committed for example, a petty crime as a result of alcoholism and that such person could be treated better in a hostel for alcoholics, it should have discretion to send him there rather than commit him to prison. There should be a wide extension of the hostel system.
  I come now to the provisions for parole. I said earlier that it seemed to
  176
  me that one could make the greatest criticism here and the greatest case for a far more fundamental review of our penal system than the Bill enshrines. I give a qualified welcome to the parole provisions. It seems to me that, preeminently, the purpose here is to reduce the prison population, and little more than that. The purpose should be far deeper. The whole purpose of parole should be to send a man out into the world, whether with supervision, with guidance, or entirely on his own feet, at the right time to enable him, if he possibly can, to learn responsibility and to learn to find his place in the world.
  If that be the object, as I believe it should be, it is vital that the parole concept should be part and parcel of a much wider concept. I believe that sentences should at least experiment with a degree of indeterminacy such as, for example, the borstal sentence has. But quite apart from the question of indeterminacy, it is vital that there should be a far more thorough system of classification procedure, such as exists in California, after a man has been committed to a custodial institution, so that it is possible, within the limits of human judgment, to foretell the kind of response a man is likely to make both while within the institution and ultimately when he is placed on parole.
  I do not believe that one can possibly accomplish this by some mathematical formula. One has to decide the right time for each individual. I believe that the right way in which to decide the right time is not the way that the Bill enshrines but by a system of permanent parole boards, which ought to include both people with experience of social welfare, prison work and so on and also lawyers, so that regard can be had both to the interests of the individual and to the interests of society. This is particularly necessary if one introduces any degree of indeterminacy into the sentencing procedure.
  Finally, on the necessary concomitants of parole, I believe that there must be a system of supervision and after care which is integrated with the whole system of parole and which enables recall by the parole board to be obtained where that is necessary, but which in the meantime gives the man who is out on parole the amount of guidance and support,

  177
  whether in hostels or sheltered workshops or on his own, that he will require to enable him to take the greatest advantage of it.
  Generally, as I have said, I regard the Bill as a major step forward in many directions, but at the same time I must criticise it on the basis of its being piecemeal and lacking a comprehensive philosophical base. I believe that that base could have been provided, though no doubt not at this moment in time, not so early as now, by the Royal Commission, which unfortunately died. The Government are not to blame for that. I have said that before, and I say it again, and I hope that no one will dispute it.
  None the less, it seems to me to be a tragedy that we now have to grope forward lacking a clear definition of the concepts and purposes of the penal system that we are operating, lacking
  178
  even, as has been mentioned, any real knowledge of the effect of different forms of supposed deterrents and without both the guidance and the support which the authority of the pronouncements of a Royal Commission could have provided.
  I do not believe it is too late. The Bill is not the last thing that will be done or said on the penal system. It will be an experiment. There are many features of it which are very valuable. But we shall all, I believe, want to go very much further. I believe that even now it would be possible for the Government to set up some new form of comprehensive inquiry which, while the experiments in the Bill are being tested out, will give for the future guidance as to the real philosophical basis and the real concepts and purposes that a penal system ought to have in the modern world.
  10.34 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Clegg: Many hours ago I thought that if I caught Mr. Speaker's eye I would make a long and powerful speech, but I am happy to tell hon. Gentlemen that most of what I would have said has been said far better than I could say it. So I shall be as brief as I can at this hour of the night.
  I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) advanced the strangest argument of the evening about juries, that the argument should rely on the personality of the Home Secretary. I do not agree with that. I refer to this because, like the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and the hon. Member for Oldham. West (Mr. Hale), I feel that this is a matter of the heart. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend says that it is a question of mistique, and that, almost, in his view, I regard it with awe and superstition. But I think there is something valuable here and what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said expresses my view strongly.
  Perhaps I can turn to the problem as I see it as one who, as a solicitor, has practised in the criminal courts for many years. Unlike some members of the Bar, we are in contact with the client after acquittal or, very often, after sentence has been passed. If he is acquitted we see him trying to reintegrate himself into the life of the community. This is where a unanimous verdict is extremely valuable.
  It even happens now that when a man has been charged some uncharitable people will say, "There is no smoke without fire." But at least a man who has been acquitted on a unanimous verdict can face the world and say, "I was acquitted", and of that there is no doubt. But if we have majority verdicts, I am afraid that when he goes into a pub or a club someone will say, "It is all very well but two of them thought he was guilty."
  One must also consider the reactions of his wife and children to a man who has been charged with an offence but acquitted. When he is acquitted by unanimous verdict he can face his family and say, "I was acquitted. I am innocent." I agree that, to a lawyer, the
  180
  verdict of a jury does not necessarily mean that, but basically it does to the man in the street—and that, basically, is the point. But if two members of the jury have said that they thought he was guilty it could leave doubt in the minds of the man's wife and children and, in a moment of disagreement, this could be thrown at him and that would be a bad thing.
  Mr. Brooks: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I am trying to follow his reasoning. Is he arguing that a person acquitted on a majority verdict would prefer instead the situation, which could arise at present, where there might be a ten-to-two vote and a hung jury and a second trial at which it would be impossible for him to prove that, at the first trial, perhaps as many as eleven thought he was not guilty?
  Mr. Clegg: Did the hon. Gentleman say a "hung jury?"
  Mr. Brooks: A jury which has disagreed.
  Mr. Clegg: I am sorry. I thought the hon. Gentleman meant a jury that had been tampered with. Where there has been a disagreement, obviously it can be said under the present circumstances that some members of the jury thought he was guilty. But, if we import a majority rule, we will get more disagreements than we are getting now. I am as certain of that as one can be in these circumstances.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon rose—
  Mr. Clegg: I am sorry, but a number of other hon. Members wish to speak and I have very little time.
  I have been considering the man who has been acquitted, but what about the man who has been convicted and is in prison, knowing that some members of the jury thought he was innocent? Is that going to make life tolerable for him in his cell with the canker eating into his mind? He will say to himself, "Two people on the jury thought I should not be here."
  Mr. Edward Lyons: Would it not be rather the case that he could say that ten people were satisfied absolutely that he was guilty and not that two thought he was innocent?
  Mr. Clegg: The hon. Gentleman may say so, but the man in the cell will not. He does not think of it in those terms, but in terms of "Two people voted for me and thought I was innocent." He feels that he is innocent. He knows that he is. This could make a vast difference to a man suffering a long term of imprisonment. According to the figures given by the Home Secretary, in some fourteen cases there was an acquittal on retrial and, therefore, we could get men who are free but who, if there had been a majority rule, would be in prison.
  I turn now to the subject of parole. I share the doubts of many hon. Members on both sides of the House who are not satisfied—and I do not think that the Home Secretary is—that we have reached the right procedure for dealing with parole. I think that it was the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) who used the phrase "hope deferred makes the heart sick". This is something which has to be avoided in our procedure.
  I say this with a little experience, because I was a prisoner, not in one of Her Majesty's prisons, but during the war, when I was a prisoner of war for three years and when we used to buoy ourselves up with the hope that the war would end by Christmas. With every allied defeat—and there were many on the way to victory—our hopes receded, and there was great bitterness—the heart was sick. If we have a parole system so that a man has his hopes buoyed up and then dashed down, we will find within the prisons that those who are kept become very bitter, men with sick hearts, and very difficult for the prison staff to deal with.
  I agree with the Home Secretary that parole would be a move forward, but in Committee we shall have to think very carefully about how it is to be done. I agree that the man concerned ought to be present at the inquiry to put his own view. There was great feeling when convicted men were not allowed to hear their case presented in the Court of Criminal Appeal, and that is a consideration which ought to be borne in mind.
  Fundamentally, the Bill does not go far enough. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone said that we ought to look again at the
  182
  whole underlying basis of our law. I thoroughly agree, but that would take a great deal of time and would probably need a Royal Commission. There are things which the Bill could do, but which it does not do. It will not increase the rate of detection of crime, and, if as the Home Secretary says and I agree, detection is the best of all deterrents, then by the test of increasing the detection rate the Bill fails.
  The Bill should contain a provision which would improve the procedure of the law not only when a man is caught but before he is tried. This relates to the silence of the accused. The hon. and learned Member for Warrington made some mild suggestions about this, and in his pamphlet "Silence of the Accused" my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) also made some suggestions which could be included and which would increase the detection rate and would have more effect in the battle against crime—and the Home Secretary described it as a war—than any other measure in the Bill. While the Bill is going through Committee, I hope that the Home Secretary will see whether something on these lines can be done.
  The use of a juge d'instruction has been suggested. There are many arguments about that, including that of time, but in Committee we could consider having an examining magistrate, not, as in France, in charge of the case, but to get away from what many people fear if the present cautions and silences are taken away—police bullying. An accused would be brought before a court and there questioned in conditions controlled by the court in that the magistrate would become an examiner—holding the ring as a referee. This would be practical without too great a change in the fundamentals underlying the Bill, and it might do a great deal of good to consider that in Committee.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. David Ensor: At this time of night, my remarks will be very short. I want to remind the House that in 1956–57 there were 21,000 people in prison in this country; in 1965–66 there were nearly 31,000 people in prison. In 1965–66 there were 60,000 people on probation, 8,000 in approved

  183
  schools and 6,000 in borstals, as opposed to a prison figure, in 1940, of 11,000.
  If these figures show anything, they show that it is about time we did something about the administration of justice. Since 1950, on both sides of the House, there has been a good deal of talk about doing something about the administration of justice. I commend this Bill to the House because it is a great attempt to do something about trying to rescue what is really a grave social problem.
  In the time at my disposal it is obvious one cannot attempt to deal with the Bill in detail. I would have liked to have talked about psychiatric treatment of prisoners generally, the allocation of boys in borstals, and so on. I propose to deal with one problem, which has exercised the House, and that is the question of majority verdicts. The House will agree that throughout the afternoon and evening we have had a most informative debate. It has been extremely interesting and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides have contributed greatly to the interest and information.
  Where some of my hon. and right hon. Friends have made a mistake—and I was particularly interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle)—is that we are not necessarily dealing only with corruption. We are dealing with incompetence, fecklessness, and irresponsibility as well. It is perfectly obvious—and I say this with some diffidence, because the whole of my professional life has been spent in prosecuting—that it is a well-known fact that a vast number of people are being acquitted who ought to be convicted.
  This does not only apply to crime but to a variety of cases, such as drunk in charge, sexual offences and offences which in some way are connected with drink, gambling and so on. It is an unfortunate fact, but it is a fact and one which we have to face. Everyone would agree that it is vitally important that the innocent should be acquitted. It is also equally important that the guilty should be convicted. That is not happening at present. It is not happening, not because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary cannot prove matters, or because there has been no one convicted of corrupting a jury. This is not a question
  184
  only of corruption. It is a question of incompetence and irresponsibility—and it must be stopped.
  This Clause is excellent. I would go further. I would do without juries altogether, because I believe that one would get a fairer and better trial, generally, and that justice would be fairly administered without a jury. There could be a trial before three judges, for example—and that takes place all over the Continent adequately and satisfactorily. I am not prepared to suggest that we in this country should go as far as that at this stage, but perhaps my right hon. Friend would consider whether ten to two is the right proportion, or whether it should be nine to three. Whatever it is, I am certain, speaking from a practical point of view, that this is a sound provision.
  It has been said that the administration of justice in Scotland cannot be compared with that in England and Wales. With that I do not agree. The administration of justice in Scotland is admirable from a great many points of view, not least in the fact that they have majority verdicts in their juries.
  It is admirable from another point of view—and I move rapidly in the last few minutes to a matter which causes considerable distress and alarm not only to hon. and learned Gentlemen on both sides of the House but to the general public. I refer to the taking of statements from persons who have been arrested and/or charged with criminal offences. In this country for many years we have had the judges' rules. They have been twisted, turned inside out and twisted back again so that it is rather difficult to recognise them in their original form.
  Where Scotland can give us a lesson in the administration of justice is in the taking of statements from persons who have been arrested and/or charged with offences. In Scotland, once a man has been arrested and/or charged with an offence, he may not be questioned. If he wants to make a statement, it must be made in the presence of a magistrate or in the presence of a police officer who has nothing whatever to do with the offence with which the man is charged.
  May I illustrate the difference between England and Scotland by giving figures for homosexual offences. In this country in the last four years, 94 per cent. of the

  185
  persons found guilty of such offences were found guilty on their own statements. In Scotland the percentage was less than 4 per cent. That illustrates the difference in the taking of statements in the two countries. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider this point when dealing with the taking of statements.
  Generally speaking, this is an excellent Bill. I regret—although probably the House does not agree—that I have not had more time to talk about it in some detail, but I commend it to the House in every possible way.
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I am glad to have a few minutes to say a word or two on the Bill. First, I welcome the Bill as a whole. In the circumstances of our present criminal knowledge and the state of development of our criminal science, this is probably the best Bill we could expect at this stage. But it is certainly not a revolutionary or radically reforming Measure, nor does it put the criminal law on a permanently satisfactory basis for the future, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said in a remarkable speech.
  The criminal law of England is a ramshackle house which has grown up over the centuries in accordance with few fixed principles and the only satisfactory solution is to pull the house down and build a new one from new foundations. A number of things are needed. We need a criminal code. We have had one in embryo for nearly a century, provided by Mr. Justice Stephen in the last century—adopted in India but ignored here. We need a new code of evidence and procedure. Above all, we need clear ideas about the purpose of sentencing.
  If we are agreed that that purpose is not mainly punishment but to protect society by rehabilitating and reforming the criminal, then we should spend much more on criminology. The Home Secretary is unfortunate because he has been born too soon. The inadequacies of his Bill are directly traceable to our rudimentary knowledge of criminological science in this country.
  I want to criticise severely one principle which I detect in the Bill, that at all costs the number of convictions
  186
  obtained should be pushed up. My first criticism concerns the provision about alibis. There has been a general mellifluous cooing of agreement about this proposal. I am sorry to interrupt with a raucous cry of dissent, but this provision is unjustified. There is, after all, a built-in regulator stopping false alibis, because if an alibi is proved a fake in the courts it is inevitably taken as an indication of guilt. Second, there is the question—not answered in the Bill—as to who will investigate the alibi.
  If it is a police officer alone, this will be gravely prejudicial to the accused. One of the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee was that the defence solicitor should be present while evidence concerning an alibi is being taken from a witness. Why has that recommendation been excluded? Furthermore, if the defence is required to give advance notice of alibis now, what is to stop future Home Secretaries demanding advance notice of other matters, other defences which are to be raised such as self-defence or provocation.
  The Attorney-General: This was the recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which thought that the matter should be dealt with by administrative arrangements.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  I press on to the second point about which I have the gravest doubts, the proposal to abolish the unanimity verdict of the jury. This is a principal fundamental to our law. We are told that it is different in Scotland. I say to that, so what? This is England, not Scotland, and here we are governed not by the rigours of the Roman Law but by the flexible processes of the Common Law, shot through with the natural law concepts of, fairness, reasonableness and equity. There is a reasonable working rule when considering for passing judgment a change in our fundamental constitutional law.
  Has the case been established beyond reasonable doubt for altering that principle? Nobody this evening can say that the Home Secretary has discharged that burden. Where is the proof that the unanimity rule needs altering? Where is his evidence? We had some evidence

  187
  which could have been used to conclude that we should alter the rules for challenging jurors, and some evidence that the police ought to be more vigilant in stopping corruption of jurors. But we had none whatever for the abolition of the unanimity verdict. The only real justification for the change in the rule is that it may give some psychological comfort to the police, particularly the Metropolitan Police, with whom the Home Secretary has been rather over-concerned.
  Yet it is precisely this argument of giving psychological reassurance which he has resisted when he has been asked to restore capital punishment and refused to do so. He has resisted that argument again, in the case of prison officers, when asked to maintain corporal punishment in prisons, and rightly so. If the confidence of the police is to be bought at the price of the confidence of the public in our system of justice, then that price is much too high to pay. I hope that on this most vital matter the Home Secretary, who has a reputation for liberality, will think again, otherwise he is liable to go down in history not as a reforming and liberalising Minister but as the Home Secretary who undermined one of the most fundamental institutions of our law, protecting the liberty and rights of the subject.
  11.1 p.m.
  Sir John Hobson: There can be little doubt that we have had a very spirited and enlivened debate upon the whole of this fascinating and important topic of criminal law and criminal procedures and upon the treatment of prisoners and penology. I particularly welcome the fact that so many hon. Members who are not lawyers have taken part. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary himself, of course, comes within the category, as do the hon. Gentlemen the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael), my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples), the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood (Mr. Victor Yates), and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price).
  188
  I am quite sure that it really is essential that this extraordinarily difficult topic of crime and punishment should be the subject of discussion, not merely by lawyers, though their presence is essential, but by ordinary intelligent citizens who take an interest in these topics, and I hope that in Committee we shall have an equal, or larger, proportion of ordinary Members of the House, mixed with lawyers, so that we can endeavour to get to the heart of these procedures.
  The Bill started out with flags flying high, but it has seemed to me that as the day has progressed it has been praised with innumerable regrets, because there has been much criticism aimed at many of its provisions. Of course, in general, it has much to commend it, and we certainly do not think that it would be right on Second Reading, in view of the good parts of the Bill, to vote against it. It is to a great extent a Bill which requires very detailed examination indeed in Committee, and that is where the major work upon it will have to be done; but almost everybody who has spoken in this debate has, I think, voiced some criticism of one or other aspect of the Bill. I think that the Government can take comfort from what people did not say—that they presumably agree with much of it, and if we analyse much of the speeches and see the limits of criticism we find a great deal of the Bill remains agreed by many speakers.
  Nevertheless, there have been substantial criticisms of many phases of the Bill. I think that the fundamental feeling of the House has been that it is a Bill which does not go really to the heart of the problem which we all face today. Certainly, it does not, for instance, affect the substance of the criminal law. It touches only procedures and sentences and the treatment of offenders, and it does not provide the many radical solutions which many Members of the House would like to see, and, as has been constantly reiterated from all benches, particularly by my right hon. and learned Friend and by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), it does not seem to proceed upon any fundamental and philosophical approach to the problems of crime and punishment

  189
  Having said that—I agree in this with the approach of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman)—there is much of it which people will welcome, there is much of it which will bring about interesting and necessary improvements, much of it which will raise many problems, and there is some of it which raises considerable doubts and requires much more detailed examination in Committee, and some of it which requires a great deal more explanation and justification before it should receive the approval of the House.
  With 96 pages and Schedules galore, this is certainly an indigestible Measure. As for eloquence, it is not the sort of document one would wish to have for bedside reading. The Home Secretary said of it on television that it would strengthen the hand of all those engaged directly in the war against crime. He did not make such a high claim today, but merely said that it was directly relevant to the prevention of crime in our society. I believe that it is too optimistic to say that the Measure will have very much effect on the problem of the level of crime, and I do not believe that the rafters of many thieves' kitchens will, in the succeeding weeks, be ringing with the anxious voices of their inmates bewailing the Bill's passing, even in its entirety.
  It is regretted on both sides of the House that the Measure does not seem to be supported by a theme, a real approach, to the problems of crime and punishment. I add my voice to the regret that has been expressed that the Home Secretary was unable to keep the Royal Commission on the Penal System together. We need a new and fundamental approach to the whole problem of what we are trying to do in dealing with not only those who have been arested and convicted, but with the prospective criminal and how he can be prevented from embarking on a life of crime.
  After all, there were so many suggestions that one hoped would come from the Royal Commission, such as the idea employed on the Continent of sending people for custodial punishment; treatment at weekends and evenings in prison. I have always favoured the idea that those involved in, for example, serious
  190
  motor accidents should be sent to work in casualty wards of hospitals, watching motor car cases being brought in on stretchers. People who commit these sort of crimes should be made to do something useful for the community, instead of merely being told that they have been found guilty and given some sort of punishment.
  The speeches of hon. Members have shown that the House appreciates that the only deterent weapon left in the criminal armoury of the courts, and the punishment of the courts, is imprisonment, apart from fines and probation orders. The only serious weapon today is imprisonment, and we have all recognised the serious limitations and defects, in many instances, of having that as the sole weapon for the protection of society. To this extent, I regret that the Royal Commission did not continue its work, even if it was fundamentally divided. Two reports provide an exceedingly interesting basis from which to see the arguments of both sides, and I have always thought it a good idea that Royal Commissions should have large minority reports, for one can thereby see the arguments and disagreements clearly and judge which courses it is possible to follow.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: It was not an argument about what should be done, but an argument for trying to find out what should be done.
  Sir J. Hobson: That may be so. However that may be, another important aspect of what we are doing is the extent to which we are going to have any research into the operation and effects of the Bill. The Home Secretary did not mention how, if at all, research would be conducted—or by whom it would be carried out—into the operation and effects of some of these proposals. I hope that the Attorney-General will give an indication of the special research that will be done on this aspect. Are any projects in hand? If so, by whom? So far we have been given virtually no information about, for example, the effects of the 1948 Act and other provisions that have been passed since then. We know insufficient about what we are doing when we pass legislation which attempts to deal with the criminal law.

  191
  If we are not to have a Royal Commission, if we are not to have a code of criminal law and if we are not to have a code of procedure and evidence—or if there is no prospect of our getting these things—could we be told how the Government, and the home Office in particular, see the part of the Law Commissioners in future in the reform of the criminal law? Is the Home Office making use of them for help and advice, or is the Home Office ignoring their existence? In the extensive programme of law reform that the Law Commissioners have undertaken, a programme of 17 parts, with some fundamental problems that they are examining in the civil law, their only concern as far as the criminal law procedure is concerned is with imputed criminal intent—the single case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Smith, which is a well-known target for Left Wing commentators and propagandists, and I think it is a difficult problem, but it is not all that important; secondly, the archaic crime of maintenance which nobody is ever charged with nowadays; and, thirdly, obsolete crimes. This is the total extent of the Law Commissioner's involvement in criminal law under their formal programme.
  It can hardly be said that they are in the forefront of any measures that may be contemplated or that ought to be taken in the reform of our criminal law and procedure. What part have they taken, if any, in the preparation of this Bill? Has this Bill been referred to them? have they had a chance to comment on it, or will they have the chance to comment on it, or is it the intention on this Bill and future Bills for the Home Office to ignore their existence? What is to be the relation in the future of the reform of criminal law procedure between the Home Office and the Law Commissioners?
  Perhaps I could now deal with some of the important elements that are contained in the Bill. Certainly, I think that one of the most important, and one which may lead to most discussion in Committee, is the power of the Secretary of State to release on licence after one-third of the sentence has been served and his power to revoke the licence or parole when it has been granted. This is the
  192
  first occasion, apart from the provisions of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill, in which a power has been given to the Executive to take a part in deciding what shall be the actual length of punishment of a person other than the formal remission for good conduct.
  I should make it clear that I am not opposed to the power to license, but I am opposed to it being placed exclusively in the hands of the Executive, exercise-able in secret by the Home Office for almost all prisoners who will find themselves in prison without any principles laid down by Parliament or by anybody else as to the way in which this power should be exercised, and with a complete discretion as far as the Home Secretary is concerned to use any machinery that he pleases or to take any advice that he pleases or that any of his officials please, subject to political questions and adjournment debates in this House if in particular instances individual Members consider that the Home Secretary ought to have exercised his power to release on licence or to revoke a licence in a different manner.
  I am even more strongly opposed to the power of the Home Secretary to revoke a licence which is a deprivation of liberty, because I have always thought, and I said so on the 1961 Measure, that it is for the courts to decide whether the conditions are fulfilled on which a man should be deprived for the second time of his liberty.
  The question of a parole board or its equivalent first arose on the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill when it was suggested from this side of the House that not only all murderers but long-term prisoners—because it would be absurd if prisoners should be detained for life—should be subject to the same system.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: It is true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, that that was suggested from his side of the House. It was also suggested from this side of the House. It was part of my own Second Reading speech.
  Sir J. Hobson: Yes, I recognise that today there is a great deal of unanimity of view in all quarters of the House on how these parole boards should be drawn up. The power to release

  193
  at discretion on licence otherwise than by way of automatic remission for good conduct must be part of the provisions and functioning of the penal system as a whole.
  That simply cannot be divorced from the sentencing policy of the courts, unless their sentences are either to become meaningless or they simply increase sentences in order to diminish discretion in general. To try to divorce it from the way in which the judiciary are exercising part of their powers must in the end lead to trouble.
  As I see it, there are three possible systems. First, that those responsible for custody should be responsible for release. I am quite sure this is wrong and I regret that the Home Secretary's proposal places too much emphasis on those who have custody of the prisoner deciding on his release. If the governor is to be chairman of the committee, the prison visitor on the committee and the police to provide the third, I would have thought that this was not a satisfactory body either to take decisions or to give advice.
  Secondly, one could have an independent board whether with or without representation from the judiciary. This I would much prefer. It is the system followed in America, and it is one which has received a great deal of support in the House.
  Finally, one can have an executive decision in private with absolute discretion. This is what the Bill really provides. Whatever may be said about advice from the prison, the decision will be by the executive and subject to political pressure. I am convinced that this is the worst possible solution.
  I am deeply grateful to the Cambridge Institute of Criminology for being good enough at short notice to provide me with a great deal of information about experience in the United States, at both Federal and State level. There is no example there where power of release on parole is done by executive administration, and none where it is done by a political Minister. It used to be done in a small number of States by the prison authorities, but that it has been abolished in every single State in the United States. In every instance now there are statutory State agencies, often employing full-time
  194
  members, and usually appointed at the highest level by the Governor and the Senate, and often with links with the judiciary because the Chief Justice or the Attorney General is entitled to appoint a proportion of the members.
  In 1964, 60 per cent. of all releases from prisons in America were on parole, so they have got a good deal of experience of working a system of this sort. Their jurisdiction to consider is often linked to a proportion of the maximum sentence and not to the actual sentence. This has some logic because if the Judge extends mercy, why should others extend greater mercy?
  I think that the fundamental decision that has to be taken on parole boards is whether or not one envisages them as normally releasing somebody at an early stage, or whether one regards it as a system where nobody will get early remission except unusual persons with particular things to be said for them.
  I find it difficult to envisage a separation of the sheep from the goats, and to say that a proportion of 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. either get out or do not get out. I do not believe that it is humanly possible for even the most qualified body to make judgments of this sort. If one does so one creates exactly that situation mentioned so often, "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick."
  I remember going when I was on the Home Secretary's Advisory Committee on the Treatment of Offenders to see a board which advised whether those sentenced to penal servitude should have one-third or one-sixth remission, a matter that can make a year or two's difference to what a man serves. I was not very impressed by the procedures by which the board arrived at its decision, but what distressed me was to see men who had gone to it thinking that they would get remission and then did not. It was very distressing to see the effect that had on men who hoped to get off a year or two in prison and had their hopes deferred.
  There are, therefore, great difficulties in the boards, unless we are clear from the first whether they are intended to release pretty well all prisoners when they become eligible, except when there are exceptional reasons, or are intended only as a safety valve to release those

  195
  few prisoners who are obviously qualified for special treatment.
  I am convinced that his conduct in prison is no indication of what a prisoner's conduct outside is likely to be. It is exactly the psychopathic inadequates who behave best in prison and worst outside. The highly intelligent criminal knows when to give the right answer to the prison governor and when to be polite to the warders, and, therefore, give a good impression in prison with not the slightest intention of being any better when he comes out.
  I am also convinced that good supervision and after-care are absolutely essential if we are to have an extensive system of releases on parole. We have had no information—I hope that the Attorney-General can give us some—about how many releases will be effected under that system. What is his estimate of the total number of men who will be on parole at any one time? What extra number of probation officers will be needed if they are to be limited to a reasonable case load, and what are the estimates that the probation service will not only have all its present requirements but will be sufficiently strengthened to undertake that heavy extra load?
  We must remember that it has never been possible for even the few releases intended to be under supervision under the 1961 Act to be brought under supervisions. The reality of the Bill, much as we welcome it, depends on the extent to which an effective after-sentence supervision can be provided and after-care can be given by some service, presumably the probation service. I have devoted most of my time to that topic because I regard it as being of very great importance, and it was one on which the Home Secretary said he kept an open mind. It is a major departure in our penal system and treatment which requires most careful thought.
  I now want to say a little about other topics that have drawn a great deal of discussion. First, on suspended sentences I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) and the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. William Wells) that one should not interfere with the discretion of magistrates' courts unless
  196
  it is really necessary. I do not believe that one in 500 offenders before magistrates' courts is now sent to prison. Magistrates probably exercise a fairly wide discretion' and if we start tying them down to rules and remove that discretion we diminish their authority.
  Secondly, the trouble with suspended sentences is that although it may be psychologically very effective on the man in the dock to threaten that if he commits another offence within the next two years he will go to prison for two years, there is a very great minus quality concerning the time when he has committed a stupid little offence and is brought back to the dock. The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich, East agreed that there is a major difficulty, because under the present provisions for a suspended sentence the court has to eat its own words. Having issued thunderous threats, it has to say that they mean nothing. That will bring the system of suspended sentence into disrepute.
  It is possible on giving a conditional discharge or making a probation order to tell a man what one was minded to give him. I often did that, making it plain that under ordinary circumstances he would go to prison. It is then not too difficult to eat one's words later, if, in view of the circumstances, it is not necessary to send him to prison after all.
  I therefore regard the provision as very marginal. It has a "plus", but it also has a big "minus" when one comes to operate it, and to that extent I am doubtful whether it is worth while.
  Now, the question of majority verdicts. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) that the unanimity principle is not something so fundamentally embedded in our constitution that it is absolutely unalterable. On the other hand, I regard it as a matter of very great importance, and, while I do not go the whole length with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I think that very much of what he said has fundamental truth in it.
  I should be very sorry to change the unanimity rule unless there was a real need and a real danger which required its change. So far as I can see at present, there is a problem confined to

  197
  London and to the Old Bailey. While I appreciate the quality of the argument in favour of a change, I am still unconvinced that it carries the necessity to alter the rule for all cases and in all parts of England and Wales. I am still willing to be convinced. I keep an open mind. I am rather in the condition of my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), who started with a leaning in favour of the provision for a change but found himself, as time went on, less and less in favour of it.
  The other matter which troubles me is whether we may be substantially increasing the risk of convicting the innocent. It is all very well to say that we want to convict more guilty people. This I appreciate. It is all very well to say that the system ought to ensure more convictions. But I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) was right when he said that one must approach the question with very great caution because one must be certain at each stage that one is not creating a situation in which those who ought to be acquitted will not be acquitted.
  We know what happens on disagreements. A high proportion of those who are retried after a first disagreement are acquitted at the second trial. We all know from our experience that many of those are people who should never have been in position of having a disagreement on the first occasion. I have grave doubts about the matter. It is a question which will require the close attention of the Committee. Undoubtedly, we shall have a spirited Committee on this point, and on the result of those proceedings I reserve my opinion.
  There are many points on which I would like to speak. We could all speak for hours on the various Clauses of the Bill, and, no doubt, we shall do so in Committee. I hope that we shall be given ample time to consider them fully in Committee. The Bill has much to welcome in it. It has much in it, however, which I regard as doubtful, and it lacks, as many hon. Members have said, a really fundamental approach to the problems of crime and punishment. We welcome parts of it, and we certainly do not regard this as a Measure on which we should divide the House, but
  198
  we have reservations about it which we shall raise in Committee.
  11.28 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I respectfully agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Learning-ton (Sir J. Hobson) said about the high quality of the debate. We have had the benefit of a great deal of informed discussion and of weighty speeches, such as the one to which we have just listened from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, on the undoubtedly difficult problems which the Bill is designed to tackle. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not only pay very careful attention to the suggestions and criticisms which have been made but will be greatly assisted by many of them. I am particularly sorry that I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who described circumstances in which my office appears to have been the ham in the sandwich between the President of the Board of Trade and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am sorry not to have heard his speech, as he has sat with us here to the very end of the debate.
  The Bill comes before the country at a time when the fact must be faced that we are just not winning the war on crime. Recorded crime is increasing annually by about 6 per cent. That is the record likely to be shown for this year. More important is that organised professional crime is on the increase, and there is some reason to believe that such offenders, when they are caught, are protected by organised groups who may threaten witnesses or bribe juries. That is the reality of the nature of the problem that we face.
  It is against that background that the Bill has been prepared. It was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates), as an important and progressive Measure. I venture to agree. I do not want to make any party point, and I hope and believe that our Committee stage on this matter, as has been the case here, will not be conducted on a party basis. I know full well that the proposals in the Bill derive from suggestions from many sources, but it is some satisfaction to us on this side of the House

  199
  to recollect that this Criminal Justice Bill introduces the most far-reaching reform of our criminal jurisdiction since 1948.
  Its provisions will, I think, help the agencies concerned in the war against crime—police, criminal courts and the prison service. But I believe that it will also end much of the fruitless waste and, indeed, the unnecessary suffering which some of our present arrangements involve. I repudiate the suggestion by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) that the Bill is inspired by the approach "Let us have a conviction at all costs." The Bill, I think, has been careful to protect the rights of accused persons at all stages.
  The debate began with a splendid and spirited speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), and, having heard it, I can only regret that the Office of Home Secretary is one of the few Offices of State that he has not filled. He called for a new appraisal of our penal system and of our criminal law, and for a new penal code, and he has given us five to ten years to do it. I am glad to say that a great deal of progress is being made, and has been made, towards the modernising and codification of the criminal law. That has been done principally with the aid of the Criminal Law Revision Committee under Lord Justice Sellers, and it is because of the specialisation of that Committee in this field that the Home Office will look primarily to it rather than to the Law Commission for guidance and assistance.
  Perhaps I might refer, first, to the Criminal Law Bill, now in another place, which abolishes felony and makes many consequential simplifications of the law. Then there is the draft Theft Bill, which has been presented by the Criminal Law Revision Committee in its report earlier this year on theft and related offences. That proposes a completely new law of theft and, I think, goes a good deal of the way to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point that there are now too many offences covering the same ground —and the realm of theft has been notorious in that respect.
  Then there is the comprehensive review which is being carried out by the Crimi-
  200
  nal Law Revision Committee on the law of criminal evidence. This will cover many of the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and by other right hon. and learned Gentlemen who have taken part in the debate; for example, on the right of silence of the accused, on the judges' rules, on the admissibility of confessions, on the absence of the right to comment on the failure of an accused person to give evidence. All these problems are now being reviewed by this high-powered Committee. The House may like to know that Professor Cross, whose expertise in this field will be of great value, has been co-opted to the Committee to deal with these problems.
  Reference has been made more than once to the termination of the Royal Commission. There was one aspect in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Marylebone which did much less than justice to the Home Secretary in that he spoke of my right hon. Friend condoning the sabotage of the Royal Commission by a minority of its members. He did nothing of the kind. He did his best to persuade them to go on but they would not. So, unhappily, the Royal Commission came to an end.
  In its place, perhaps not armed with quite so wide ranging a field of inquiry, there has been set-up the Advisory Council on the Penal System, and again in relation to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said—all or most of what he said seems to be in train—the Council has been asked to give special attention to the professional criminal and it will look in these circumstances at the Law Society's suggestion, repeated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that certain convictions should constitute an act of bankruptcy. It will also be considering the problems of restitution and reparation, which, it must be confessed, present formidable practical problems both at the court end and in particularly when it comes to enforcement.
  Accordingly, the House must not be allowed to feel that we are laggard in carrying out quite fundamental appraisals of the criminal law. Perhaps I can say something in this context about the point raised in the most helpful and searching speech of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) on the aspect of

  201
  research and, in particular, research into the effects of the Bill.
  During recent years, it has, I think, come to be accepted that any marked change in the penal system should be carefully observed where possible so that the precise effect of the changes can be objectively ascertained and checked against the intended objective. It can be accepted in principle that the effects of the Bill will be fully studied when it has started operating. Before Royal Assent, the Home Office cannot make firm plans for actual research projects, and the timing of the research will depend on the availability of staff and other pactical matters. Some of the research is likely to be done by universities, although the greater part of it would seem to be more suitable for the Home Office Research Unit to tackle. But it is a problem that my right hon. Friend has very much in mind.
  The first aim of the Bill—to streamline the procedure of the courts to ensure that the time of the courts, the police and witnesses is not wasted—has, I think, been generally approved by the House. The House is no doubt interested in the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) that we are right to maintain preliminary hearings, despite the fact that Scotland has been operating without them—operating, he thinks, with a great deal of difficulty. It is reassuring to get that evidence from him.
  The House already as a whole has approved the Bill's proposals to implement both the Byrne and the Tucker proposals, with the important difference that, under the Bill, the defendant can require full reporting of the evidence if he wishes. I was asked in this connection what the position was about the giving of written statements to the accused, whether it would be done in advance or not. The answer is "Yes, and, it is hoped, well in advance". In an emergency, they could be given to the defendant in court before the statements are placed in evidence.
  As will be seen in Clause 2 (2,c), often the prosecution will be able to forecast how the defence will be run and whether the proceedings will be by committal or summary trial. But there will be occasions when it -nay turn up with its witnesses
  202
  as if for a summary trial only to find that the defence will not consent to such a trial but wants committal proceedings. What will happen then will depend on particular circumstances. The court could adjourn to enable statements to be served on the defence, or the defence might be prepared to accept them then and there, or it might be quicker simply to call the witnesses if they are present and if there is not too much oral evidence to be given. But perhaps these are rather more in the nature of Committee points with which we can deal later.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. William Wells) suggested that Clause 7, which deals with written statements, should not be used if the accused was not legally represented. The difficulty about that is how the prosecution is to know when it serves the statements whether the accused will be legally represented. He also suggested that the Clause had been drafted by persons ignorant of prosecutions and neglectful of the rights of the defendant. I shall have to report that to Lord Justice Sellers and the Criminal Law Revision Committee who were the authors of the words. I think that my hon. and learned Friend will find that what is provided is reasonably satisfactory.
  The House has welcomed Clause 9 on the whole, with few exceptions, and the provision relating to alibis. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) asked about the position of the last-minute alibi which the defendant wished to raise. That can be raised with the leave of the court and the court would have power to adjourn the trial if the trial judge thought necessary.
  My hon. and learned Friend also asked how we could be sure of excluding jurors with previous convictions. There is no certainty of that, but it is intended that a warning notice should be sent out with the jury summons. That should be effective in dissuading disqualified persons from seeking to serve and, if they come along, there is always the possibility of an ex-prisoner being identified when he attends the court. The warning message with the jury summons, it is thought, should be a sufficiently effective deterrent in most cases.

  203
  The most controversial aspect of the Bill has undoubtedly been the proposal to introduce majority verdicts for juries. I have not been able to keep a score of the matter. The House seems to be fairly evenly divided about it and there have been eloquent speeches advocating both points of view.
  I am bound to say that my right hon. Friend is now faced with mounting and formidable evidence that in London at least attempts have been and are taking place on a considerable scale to corrupt individual jurors. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) pointed out, it is difficult to prove these matters by way of evidence. The police know of several cases and have reason to suspect that there are several others and there is ground for thinking that others which have not been exposed to the point even of suspicion might well exist.
  The result is that there have now to take place the most elaborate precautions to try to protect jurors. It usually happens in long cases where serious criminals are involved. The precautions taken by the police in one recent case required the participation of no fewer than 72 officers working in shifts and, of course, this is an appalling waste of the time of the police officers. Action is needed to make this bribery, or attempted bribery, unprofitable and it is my view and that of my right hon. Friend that the introduction of majority verdicts will tend to help in the solution of this problem, while, of course, providing no guarantee that it will be successful.
  The proposal has two main purposes. The first, as I have said, is to check the abuse of the jury system by corruption of jurors, or attempts to corrupt. The second is, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor), to reduce the frustration and waste which is caused when a jury is prevented from reaching agreement by the perversity of one or two jurors.
  The problem of corruption is admittedly largely a London problem, but it is not entirely absent from one or two areas. It has been asked: why not use the armoury of the criminal law—the crime of embracery as it is so curiously called, to deal with this phenomenon? The
  204
  trouble is that it is an offence which is very difficult to prove. Although the Commissioner has been made aware of attempts at corruption in several major cases in the Metropolitan District during the last year or two, there has not been enough evidence to justify prosecution, and in recent years there has only been one successful prosecution for embracery in England and Wales, at Birmingham Assizes in 1966, of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware.
  These are the factors which have led my right hon. Friend and the Government to the view that we should make this admittedly significant and important change in the jury system. It is thought that the majority of 10 to 2 strikes the right balance between other objects of the Clause and the necessity to preserve adequate safeguards for an accused person. There has been a great deal of criticism of the necessary incarceration of the jury for two hours. My right hon. Friend will be glad to look at this, and consider whether it may not be sufficient to leave the matter to the discretion of the trial judge.
  It has been suggested that the proposal to introduce a majority verdict, far from reducing the number of disagreements, will increase them. The House may like to know of American experience in this area. American research which has been published in the book "The American Jury", by Mr. Kalven and Mr. Zeisel.
  A study of States with majority verdicts as compared with the States where unanimous verdicts are required suggests that the 10 to 2 majority verdicts reduces the number of disagreements by about 40 per cent to 45 per cent.
  If the experience is relevant, and I appreciate the qualifications one must put on all comparative criminal statistics of that kind, it suggests that that fear is not well-founded. The other main matter, which was discussed, was the arrangement proposed for release on licence. As my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, his mind is certainly not closed about these proposals.
  As the matter will undoubtedly call for careful examination before the Committee, it might be helpful if I could tell the House now the kind of proposal that the Home Office at this stage,

  205
  has in mind, so that hon. and right hon. Members may be able to consider the matter before we reach Committee. The intention is that a prisoner should be released on licence, after consideration first, of his criminal and social history before his current sentence—including the length of periods at liberty, any conduct under supervision, or response to after-care, work record and domestic background; next, his response to treatment and training in prison during his current sentence; then the circumstances of his current offence including, in particular, any observations by the sentencing judge or the court of appeal; and, next, information about his domestic and employment situation on release.
  If, after consideration of those matters, it appears that he has co-operated in the training provided and made satisfactory response, that he has reached a point in his sentence at which further training is unlikely to improve his prospects of leading a good and useful life on release, that there appears to be no significant risk of his committing a further serious offence, that arrangements are available or can be made for accommodation and occupation outside prison, and, finally, that there are no overriding objections in the circumstances of the offence itself, having regard to such considerations as observations made by the court at the time, then he may be released on licence. These are the principles on which the scheme will be operated. As to the numbers involved when the arrangements come into operation—
  Sir J. Hobson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to the intended scheme. Will it be in statutory form or will it be in such a form as to be capable of administrative alteration at any time?
  The Attorney-General: The intention, I think, is that it should be altered administratively, but I should like to consider the point. I do not mean "scheme" in any technical sense.
  I was dealing with the numbers when the arrangements come into operation. It is estimated that 4,500 prisoners will immediately become eligible for consideration for release on licence having served one-third of their sentence or 12 months, whichever is longer. It is not possible to make any reliable estimates at this sage of the number who will be
  206
  released, but the figure is thought to be unlikely to exceed 600. I am told that the impact on the probation service is well within the plans for expanding the probation and after-care service to 3,500 by 1970—in other words, it is well within the competence of the probation service to deal with it.
  The proposed selection procedure is that selection should be based on a continuous process of assessment within the prison organisation. When the procedure is in operation a full case work dossier will be built up in the prison on all prisoners who are eligible or potentially eligible and that dossier will contain all the records and observations relevant to the question of release. Each case will be considered periodically by an informal committee at the prison. This is important, and I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman got it right. That informal committee at the prison will consist of the governor, a senior probation officer in the district and a member of the board of visitors or visiting committee approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose. The committee will have all the available information about the prisoner, and oral opinion from those in daily contact with him.
  I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne that it is not normally intended that they should interview the prisoner. That was the practice of the Preventive Detention Advisory Board and the result was that a prisoner could not understand from what had happened at the interview why a favourable decision had not been taken in his case. But I take my hon. Friend's point on the matter, and I have no doubt that it will be strongly pressed later if this selection procedure is the one which is to be adopted.
  The committee will be responsible for recommending which prisoners should and which should not be released, the final decision resting with the Secretary of State. In difficult or exceptional cases the Lord Chief Justice or the trial judge will be consulted where appropriate before a decision is taken. I appreciate that criticism has been made that this takes more into the executive field what might properly be deemed to belong to the functions of the judiciary. The Secretary of State already has substantial discretion in administering a sentence of imprisonment.

  207
  It is not true that he has had powers to license life sentence prisoners only since the abolition of the death penalty. He has had this power for many years, dating from when death sentences were commuted to penal servitude. In his discretion, the sentence can be served in open or closed prisons, with widely differing régimes; the last six months can be served in a hostel, with the prisoner going out to work each day. So the view can properly be taken that release on licence is no more than an extension of the existing flexibility.
  The licensed prisoner will be under the safety of State's control and can be recalled at any time. The proposed inclusion in the local selection committee of a member of the visiting committee or board of visitors ensures some independent element in the selection procedure and should be a safeguard against favouritism or improper influence. In the last resort, the Secretary of State will be accountable to Parliament for all his decisions which can be called into question.
  It is unlikely that he would exercise his powers in releasing a dangerous prisoner. This will ensure the protection of the public. My right hon. Friend has an open mind on this matter, but I thought that it would be reasonably useful for the House to know how his mind is operating in this respect.
  The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) was unhappy about the taking from magistrates' courts discretion about sentences for the first time. I agree that restriction—
  Mr. Grieve: It is not only from magistrates' courts, but from all courts imposing a sentence of six months, is it not?
  The Attorney-General: Yes, I think that that is right. The difficulty is that experience shows that it is essential to impose a statutory restriction if a substantial impact is to be made on the problem of shorter sentences. Experience has shown that provisions which rely on mere exhortation, like the First Offenders Act, 1958, are not sufficiently effective. That is the reason for this proposal.
  On legal aid contributions, the view of the Widgery Committee was that the
  208
  "all-or-nothing" basis of the present system leads to unfairness. A man who, under the present system, receives no legal aid because his means are judged sufficient to pay for his own defence might, under the Bill, get legal aid, subject to his having to contribute part of the costs. It has been suggested that the introduction of the contributory principle will result in a reduction in the number of those who will accept legal aid. This will not be the case. The proposals will have the valuable advantage of extending legal aid to where it has been most significantly lacking up to now—advices on criminal appeals. Its extension there will fill a very important gap in the present arrangements.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).
  [Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the proceedings of criminal courts, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment;

  (b) of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments in connection with legal aid under any of those provisions.—[Mr. Taverne.]

  12 m.
  Sir John Hobson: May I raise a point on this Resolution, because we all know that it can have a very serious effect on what Amendments can be moved in Committee on the Bill, and I do not recollect a Money Resolution in quite this form before? It seems that, if one wants to move Amendments to the Bill in Committee, and those Amendments should

  209
  involve the expenditure of money, all one can deal with is
  "any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable…under any other enactment"
  or, under this Bill, to legal aid provisions.
  I would have thought that if all that one could deal with were the legal aid provisions that would be a quite inadequate provision, because there may be many Amendments to be moved within the scope of the Bill, and one can almost think of no Bill wider in its scope than this, which has so many purposes that one could move to it almost any Amendment upon almost any matter affecting the criminal law.
  As I read it, by providing that the moneys are to be payable "under any other enactment" one can have the ridiculous position that if one wants to make a sensible Amendment to the Bill one has to make it as an amendment of the provisions of an Act—by providing a new Section to that Act, for instance—which is already covered by the Money Resolution. In that case, the Resolution covers it, whereas if one wants to put an Amendment straight into the Bill itself the Resolution will not cover it.
  I ask whoever is responsible for this Money Resolution whether my interpretation of it is correct, and whether we may, in Committee on the Bill, be driven to the absurd position of putting down Amendments not to the Bill but to other Acts, and whether the Government will tell us their attitude is that this Resolution is so drawn to tie the Committee on the Bill, or whether, whatever the Resolution says, they will provide a Resolution to enable more extensive Amendments to be moved. If I am right in thinking this Resolution is so drawn it may seriously inhibit proposals we ought to be putting into the Bill—for instance, for a parole board. Am I right in thinking that if we want to provide for a parole board we must do it not by an Amendment to the Bill, as that would not be covered by the Money Resolution, but by a mending the Prisons Act, 1952, or whatever is the relevant Act, as that would be covered?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): I think that to some extent what the right
  210
  hon. and learned Gentleman said is correct. The Money Resolution is based on Clause 68 of the Bill, paragraph (a) of which says:
  "any increase attributable to the provisions of this Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment."
  This covers most of the provisions of Clause 28 and Clauses 62 and 64 and the legal aid provisions in magistrates' courts. Paragraph (b) of Clause 68 refers to the
  "sums required…for making payments"
  which are provided for under the Bill and other Acts.
  Paragraph (b) of the Resolution is slightly more widely phrased than Clause 68 (b). In fact, it corresponds with paragraph (b) of that provision, except that the Resolution does not specify the precise purposes for which the Secretary of State might have to make payments in connection with legal aid. However, I understand that the payments that are likely to be provided for under Amendments which are covered by the Bill would be covered by the Money Resolution; and, in an exceptional case, this might have to be done in a round-about way. Generally speaking, the effect is to cover either payment under this Measure or under existing enactments.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: The specific question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend—a matter that has preoccupied hon. Members on Second Reading—is whether the parole board is preferable to the solution in Part III of the Bill, which is at present preferred by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary promised to keep an open mind about this. As we cannot afford to make a mistake about it in Committee, we must be assured that the Money Resolution will be sufficient to cover Amendments designed to create a parole board.
  Mr. Taverne: As I said, it can be done in a round-about way. We believe, I am advised, that the parole board is covered. It may be covered under Clause 64, but we can undertake that if it is not covered, there will be ample opportunity for discussing appropriate Amendments in due course.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received this day.

  DEFENCE INSTALLATIONS, FIRTH OF CLYDE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bishop.]
  12.8 a.m.
  Mr. John Brewis: I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise -the subject of the impact of defence installations on industry and navigation in the Firth of Clyde. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that this subject was substituted because it was impossible for me to raise the matter which I had orginally intended to raise on the Adjournment.
  The Firth of Clyde is one of the world's great recreational areas. Twenty miles from Glasgow there are broad streches of open water, sheltered from every direction and providing unrestricted facilities for sailing and water sports of every kind. The area also serves as the sea approach to Glasgow and contains one of Britain's two deep-water ocean terminals.
  Any proposal for restricting the use of these waters must be viewed with concern. It is essential that no restrictions are placed on commercial or pleasure boat movement without the widest possible discussion and such restrictions should be the very least necessary for the effective operation of defence installations. At this stage, the Government should make clear their intentions and an opportunity should be given for consideration of the interests of all the parties who will be affected. That is why I am raising this subject tonight.
  The Government are spending £45 million on the Polaris base at Faslane, as well as on road improvements, and other expenditure is being incurred by the Scottish Development Department and Dumbarton County Council. In November, newspaper reports indicated that the Ministry of Defence was proposing to declare some of the Firth of Clyde a "Queen's Harbour", apparently under powers conferred by the Dockyard Ports Regulations Act, 1865. That Act defines a dockyard port, but the limits of each dockyard port are decided by individual Orders in Council
  Such Orders should take into consideration special local circumstances, and the
  212
  Minister will be aware that a draft Order has been prepared. There is widespread concern that his Department has not taken local conditions into consideration, or paid due regard to the special value of the area as a source of substantial amenity for Glasgow and the West of Scotland. This impression may be unfounded, but it is important at this stage to obtain a clear picture of what will be involved.
  As operating authority for the area, the Clyde Port Authority, established in 1965, will have a concern that the passage and servicing of merchant shipping in the area is not affected. It will obviously be opposed to any interference with the normal workings of the river—a commercial port of vital interest to Scotland—and will have lodged an objection to the draft Order. Disturbances of oil, anchorage, designated channels and the normal movement of ships, could create intolerable conditions. The authority will not be opposed to the principle of designation; but it requires an assurance that its normal commercial interests are not interfered with.
  The proposed designated area is one of Britain's major centres of small boat and yacht building. "Sceptre" was built on Holy Loch, and the yards concerned have the highest traditions of yacht building with the hundreds of thousands of pounds of exports. Such firms use moorings as an essential part of their operation. A yard will require upwards of 25 moorings to hold boats being completed, or awaiting repairs. Any restrictions of moorings or the requirement to obtain licensing would act against their interests and the interests of commercial and industrial employment in the area. It should be realised that this industry employs over 200 people in an area of little alternative employment, particularly in the Holy Loch district.
  There is a large shipbreaking yard established in the old war emergency area at Faslane. It employs about 200 people, and any proposal to restrict ship movement for long periods could result in severe losses. An obsolete ship waiting to enter the area could incur heavy charges, and delays to outgoing ships carrying steel scrap, would again affect the commercial viability of the concern. Nearby is a ship-repairing yard, employing 50 people. Restrictions of ship

  213
  movement here, too, would result in commercial losses, and I can think of many other examples.
  The area of Gareloch, Loch Long and Holy Loch form a superb sailing area with the finest waters in Britain. It is well known that environment is an important factor affecting population movement, and the West of Scotland needs to make the most of its attractions for managerial and skilled staff. If these are to be encouraged to come into the area, its advantages as a recreational centre must be expanded and developed. Sailing is one of the fastest growing sports, and the proximity of the district to Glasgow makes it one of the clear attractions of the region.
  The sailing is of all kinds. The Scottish Council for Physical Recreation runs courses on Holy Loch. Dumbarton County Council has a sailing centre at Gareslochhead. Several firms have sailing clubs for their employees, and there is increasing pressure for moorings and hards for yachts and dingies of all sizes.
  If the Ministry insists on the licensing of moorings, if yachts over 40 ft. require to have a caretaker on board, if all boats have to be cleared out of large sections of the area, the effect could be catastrophic. It would be no exaggeration to foresee the eventual disappearance of sailing as a sport in the Firth of Clyde. This would only happen if those responsible took powers too wide and too tough. But if it happened, one of the main lungs of the Clydeside conurbation would have disappeared and the effect on the future of the area would be very serious.
  There are about 400 private boats on the Firth of Clyde. Only about 100 of these are kept outside the proposed area. The rest will be affected. So will countless young people who come from all over Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom to enjoy the benefits of sailing and the self-discipline and initiative that it brings. The employees of at least two large firms will find their leisure hours restricted and the many people who make a living from servicing boats will have their livelihood endangered.
  Of course, a Queen's Harbourmaster could use his discretion and judgment not to impose unbearable restrictions. But a danger exists and it is important at this stage to highlight it and suggest
  214
  alternatives. For example, if one looks at Regulation 12, Schedule 1, of the proposed Order, one finds that all merchant and other private vessels within the limits of a dockyard port shall comply with any direction of the Queen's Harbourmaster. Regulation 10 says that no firearm or airgun shall be discharged from any vessel or from the shore over the waters of a dockyard port. The first Regulation gives very wide powers indeed to the Queen's Harbourmaster, and the second Regulation would appear to prevent anyone firing a starting gun to start a yacht race.
  These are points which, I hope, the First Lord can clear up. Is it really necessary to specify such an enormous area? Of course, there are installations which should be protected and channels which should be kept open at all times, which they already are. But surely the designation of small restricted areas and the important channels giving access to them would be sufficient. Large parts of the area are of no conceivable interest to the Royal Navy. They should not take powers to control them.
  After all, a Polaris base has existed in the Firth of Clyde for over six years without tight controls. At this stage, it should be possible to consider less severe restrictions and to give them the widest possible publicity. The impression of uncertainty already created would vanish at once if the First Lord were able to do this.
  12.19 a.m.
  The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. J. P. W. Maltalieu): There are at least two reasons why I am grateful to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) for his speech tonight. The first is that he has persistently referred to me as "the First Lord". It is a wonderful title and I wish that I still had it.
  The second reason is that during the last two years I have begun to know the part of the country to which he is referring and can well understand that yachtsmen, people who are light industrialists, people who just enjoy really lovely countryside, become alarmed when they hear of a Government proposing to impose restrictions. That alarm inevitably gives rise to rumours and misconceptions.

  215
  The fact that the hon. Member for Galloway has raised the issue here tonight does give me the chance to make at least some of the obscurities a little more clear.
  The Ministry of Defence is proposing, as the hon. Member has said, to declare part of this area a Queen's Harbour under the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act of 1865. But this area does not include the Clyde proper, if I may use the term. It is not the River Clyde at all. That will still continue to be controlled by the Clyde Port Authority. There is no change whatsoever in the Clyde itself.
  The areas affected in a very limited way are the Gareloch, Loch Long and Loch Goil—not Holy Loch. It is necessary to make restrictions in those areas because of the development of a submarine base at Faslane and an armaments depot at Coulport. There will be a substantial increase in naval movement and activity generally in narrow and—as yachtsmen can well say—rather difficult waters.
  Therefore, in the interests not just of naval convenience—though it is my job to watch that—but also of public safety generally it is proposed that in certain very limited areas we shall have the power to say that there shall be no moorings and no anchoring without a licence from the Queen's Harbourmaster. We also propose to say that non-naval shipping shall keep clear of naval shipping during naval movements, which will be clearly signalled.
  What effect are those restrictions likely to have, first, on yachts, a matter on which, as the hon. Gentleman said, an increasing number of people feel passionately, including myself? In certain very limited restricted areas they will not be able to approach nearer than 500 feet to naval installations, and they will have to keep clear of naval vessels under way. Apart from those two restrictions, they will have the same freedom as now. They will be able to enter the lochs concerned, they will be able to sail the full length and, except in tiny areas, they will be able to traverse exactly as they do now.
  Larger craft, depending on the draft, will be subject to an additional limitation. It is proposed that there shall be
  216
  a channel which is free the whole time, but it will not take larger vessels. Therefore, when a signal is hoisted they may have to wait some time before proceeding up the loch. I expect that they will have to wait between 20 and 30 minutes. That applies to pleasure steamers and to ships going up to Faslane, for example, to the breaker's yard.
  I can well understand that if one is towing in something like the "War-spite", as happened a few years ago, and one had to wait for several days before one could get in, that would put up the costs. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter of 20 or 30 minutes' wait.
  Mr. Brewis: Does that not also apply to tankers going up to the oil terminal at Finnart, which are very important and very large vessels?
  Mr. Mallalieu: If it does, it would only be a matter of 20 or 30 minutes. That is the maximum delay that would occur.
  Mr. George Younger: Would the Minister confirm that this could be very awkward, with tides in mind, particularly with very large tankers or a large vessel for breaking up? Could not the 20 or 30 minutes be very crucial?
  Mr. Mallalieu: I suspect that if they ran it as narrowly as that there would be some bad seamanship. I do not think that it should make any material difference to them.
  I have mentioned the possible effect on the shipbreaking firm. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the various boat builders in the area. So far as I know, there are three. Two are completely outside the restricted zone and will not be affected at all in the matter of moorings, and the third is in an area which we are thinking of designating. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that this third builder will get his licences. There is no question of interfering with any of these three firms.
  I realise that the real effect of the Order which we propose depends on the size and the location of the restricted areas. The hon. Gentleman has said that if they were too broad or too tough, they could cause immense hardship, and I

  217
  agree. That is why, before we lay the Order, we are taking enormous trouble—and it is right that we should—to consult every possible interest. For some months now, the Captain in Charge of Clyde has been in consultation with the Clyde Port Authority. He has put to it the draft Order to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and, as a result of the preliminary representations made by the Clyde Port Authority, various changes have already been pencilled into the order.
  In addition, we have asked the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport to consult anyone who feels that his civil maritime interests may be affected. In the Ministry of Defence, we are not merely willing but eager to consult anyone who may feel that his interests are affected or that anything we are pro posing to do will do him harm. If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member receives representations containing points of substance which he feels he ought to put to the Minister of Defence, I shall be only too delighted to hear them. I guarantee with absolute assurance that they will be properly and fully considered.
  All that we are proposing to do is what has been done over the years at Portsmouth and the yachting area of the Solent, which has not been seriously affected by our regulations, and what we have done on, for example, the Medway and at Rosyth. On the whole, those regulations, over the past 50, 60 or even, perhaps, 100 years, have been shown to be for the real safety of everybody and for the real hardship of none. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Galloway for raising the matter, and I assure him that, so far as I am concerned, I shall make certain that the regulations which we lay down for this area have just the same effect and no more.
  12.28 a.m.
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: The House will be grateful to the Minister for replying with such understanding to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), to whom those of us who know the Clyde are most grateful for raising the matter. I wish to call attention to one or two further points arising from the debate.
  The Minister said, and I am grateful for it, that there had been wide consultations with authorities in the area and, in particular, with the Clyde Port
  218
  Authority. I am not sure whether that statement embraces the Clyde pilots, who have a better knowledge of these waters than anyone else. If consultations have not already taken place, I would urge on the hon. Gentleman that they should take place before the final decisions are taken. I have in mind particularly the problem of larger vessels going up the Gare Loch, which could well be adversely affected by the Order.
  A small point, but one which, I think, merits some clarification, is the position of Holy Loch under the Order. I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman but I understood him to say that Holy Loch was not within the designated area.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu indicated assent.
  Mr. MacArthur: I raise the question simply because my understanding is that part of Holy Loch is in the area, that part of the loch which lies west of the line through Hunters Quay Jetty and Strone church spire. I raise this not in any spirit of obstruction, but simply for the purpose of clarification. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is most important that in an area such as this, where Holy Loch is an important part of the pleasure area of the Clyde, there should be no possible misunderstanding.
  Finally, I would say how much I warmed to the hon. Gentleman when he referred to my hon. Friend's description of him as the first Lord. Like the hon. Gentleman, I regret bitterly the loss of those ancient dignitaries of Admiralty, but I would be the last to try to apportion any party blame in the matter.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am looking hard at the map—
  The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman needs the leave of the House to speak again.
  Mr. Mallalieu: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I would not dare to repeat the names mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but according to my map, on which a straight line runs across the mouth of Holy Loch, that is not designated. However, I will check. No areas are definitely designated yet.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to One o'clock.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Staff Workers (Trade Union Representation)
  Staff Workers (Trade Union Representation)
  Rewards for Employees (Premium Bonds)
  Rewards for Employees (Premium Bonds)
  Dock Labourers (Weekly Earnings)
  Dock Labourers (Weekly Earnings)
  Blind Workers (Remuneration)
  Blind Workers (Remuneration)
  Restrictive Practices
  Restrictive Practices
  Short-Time Working
  Short-Time Working
  National Minimum Wage
  National Minimum Wage
  Manufacturing Companies (Warehouses)
  Manufacturing Companies (Warehouses)
  Government Training Centre, Slough (Vacancies)
  Government Training Centre, Slough (Vacancies)
  Unemployment (Oxford)
  Unemployment (Oxford)
  Productivity (Stimulation)
  Productivity (Stimulation)
  Railway Salaried Staff (First-Class Travel)
  Railway Salaried Staff (First-Class Travel)
  Holiday Entitlements
  Holiday Entitlements
  Professional and Executive Register
  Professional and Executive Register
  Car Delivery Workers, Birmingham (Dispute)
  Car Delivery Workers, Birmingham (Dispute)
  Retrained Persons, Wales (Employment)
  Retrained Persons, Wales (Employment)
  Bricklayers
  Bricklayers
  Manufacturing Industries (Shift Work)
  Manufacturing Industries (Shift Work)
  Redundancy Payments Scheme
  Redundancy Payments Scheme
  Civil Servants (Unemployment)
  Civil Servants (Unemployment)
  Engineering Industry Training Board (Levy)
  Engineering Industry Training Board (Levy)
  Wages and Salaries (Standstill)
  Wages and Salaries (Standstill)
  Remploy Factory, Sheffield
  Remploy Factory, Sheffield
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Earnings (Statistics)
  Earnings (Statistics)
  Index of Retail Prices
  Index of Retail Prices
  National Trust Headquarters (Inspection)
  National Trust Headquarters (Inspection)
  Unemployment (Midlothian)
  Unemployment (Midlothian)
  Factories Act (Contravention Penalties)
  Factories Act (Contravention Penalties)
  Retrained Workers (Trade Union Co-operation)
  Retrained Workers (Trade Union Co-operation)
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY FUND
  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY FUND
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  GERMANY (UNITED NATIONS MEMBERSHIP)
  GERMANY (UNITED NATIONS MEMBERSHIP)
  CHINA (UNITED NATIONS MEMBERSHIP)
  CHINA (UNITED NATIONS MEMBERSHIP)
  MR. KOSYGIN (VISIT TO CARLISLE STATE BREWERY)
  MR. KOSYGIN (VISIT TO CARLISLE STATE BREWERY)
  EAST GERMANS (TEMPORARY TRAVEL DOCUMENT)
  EAST GERMANS (TEMPORARY TRAVEL DOCUMENT)
  ADEN (MR. BOWEN'S VISIT)
  ADEN (MR. BOWEN'S VISIT)
  GERMANY (PEACE TREATY)
  GERMANY (PEACE TREATY)
LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
  Lessees (Protection)
  Lessees (Protection)
  Land Commission Bill
  Land Commission Bill
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Construction Industry (Output)
  Construction Industry (Output)
  Cenotaph (Southern Rhodesian Service)
  Cenotaph (Southern Rhodesian Service)
  Building Materials (Northern Region)
  Building Materials (Northern Region)
  Stone (Use in Building)
  Stone (Use in Building)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
HOSPITALS
  Frenchay Hospital, Bristol (Waiting List)
  Frenchay Hospital, Bristol (Waiting List)
  Nurse Training
  Nurse Training
  Hospital Engineers
  Hospital Engineers
  Patients (Use for Teaching Purposes)
  Patients (Use for Teaching Purposes)
  Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle (Reconstruction)
  Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle (Reconstruction)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Ophthalmic Opticians
  Ophthalmic Opticians
  Epileptics (Medical Care)
  Epileptics (Medical Care)
  Invalid Transport
  Invalid Transport
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  Rootes (Association with Chrysler)
  Rootes (Association with Chrysler)
  Civil Service (Statistician and Economist Classes)
  Civil Service (Statistician and Economist Classes)
  Decimal Currency Board
  Decimal Currency Board
  Income (Classification)
  Income (Classification)
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Stamp Duty (National Trust Property)
  Stamp Duty (National Trust Property)
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  Customs Duty and Purchase Tax (Gift from South Africa)
  Customs Duty and Purchase Tax (Gift from South Africa)
  Purchase Tax (Christmas Cards)
  Purchase Tax (Christmas Cards)
  Paymaster-General's Department (Staff)
  Paymaster-General's Department (Staff)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Employment and Productivity
  Employment and Productivity
POST OFFICE
  Postal Changes (Cradley Heath)
  Postal Changes (Cradley Heath)
  Charges
  Charges
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Television Programmes (Hanging Scenes)
  Television Programmes (Hanging Scenes)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Service Land, Kidbrooke
  Service Land, Kidbrooke
  Strategic Reserve
  Strategic Reserve
  Polaris Submarine Programme
  Polaris Submarine Programme
  H.M.S. "Britannia" (Expenditure)
  H.M.S. "Britannia" (Expenditure)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Unemployment (Nelson and Colne)
  Unemployment (Nelson and Colne)
  Fishing Vessels and Crews (Safety Code)
  Fishing Vessels and Crews (Safety Code)
  Man-Made Fibre Industry (Monopolies Commission's Report)
  Man-Made Fibre Industry (Monopolies Commission's Report)
  CHARITIES (AUDITS)
  CHARITIES (AUDITS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Workers, Wales (Safety Officers)
  Agricultural Workers, Wales (Safety Officers)
  Farm Incomes (Wales)
  Farm Incomes (Wales)
  Corned Beef (Dorset)
  Corned Beef (Dorset)
  Fat and Store Cattle (Imports)
  Fat and Store Cattle (Imports)
  Sugar (Surcharge)
  Sugar (Surcharge)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Oceanographic Research
  Oceanographic Research
  Works of Art (Export)
  Works of Art (Export)
  Further Education Students (London Lodgings)
  Further Education Students (London Lodgings)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Programme (Economic Measures)
  Aid Programme (Economic Measures)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Criminal Appeal Act 1966
  Criminal Appeal Act 1966
  Telephone Tapping
  Telephone Tapping
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Services (Expenditure Per Head of Population)
  Services (Expenditure Per Head of Population)
  Town Centres (Redevelopment)
  Town Centres (Redevelopment)
  Pinewood Hospital, Nr. Wokingham
  Pinewood Hospital, Nr. Wokingham
HOUSING
  Mounfield Street, Tunstall (Inquiry)
  Mounfield Street, Tunstall (Inquiry)
  Service Land (Discussions)
  Service Land (Discussions)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
TECHNOLOGY
  Tribology
  Tribology
  Research Organisations (Contracts)
  Research Organisations (Contracts)
  Research Scientists (Transfer to Teaching)
  Research Scientists (Transfer to Teaching)
  Research Stations
  Research Stations
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
ROADS
  Mid-Wirral Road
  Mid-Wirral Road
  Motorways (Expenditure)
  Motorways (Expenditure)
  A41 (Improvements)
  A41 (Improvements)
  Chadderton Hall Road (Guard Rails)
  Chadderton Hall Road (Guard Rails)
TRANSPORT
  Price Increases
  Price Increases

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby
The Viscount Mountgarret—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

SLAUGHTER OF GREY SEAL PUPS
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lord, 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 are satisfied that the recent slaughter of Atlantic grey seal pups carried out in Orkney with the sanction of the Secretary of State for Scotland is under efficient control, and, furthermore, whether Her Majesty's Government consider the slaughter of seal pups is the most desirable method of control.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): Yes, my Lords. The cull was the fifth in a series recommended originally by a committee of the Nature Conservancy in order to control the numbers in the Orkney seal colony. Its successor, the Seals Sub-Committee of the Natural Environment Research Council, after reviewing the damage done by seals to salmon, to nets and to other fisheries, endorsed the earlier recommendation by proposing a cull of 750 grey seal pups this year. To ensure humane culling, permits were issued to experienced seal hunters only, and strict conditions were imposed as to the numbers each might take, the area and duration of the cull and the method to be used. In the event, 750 pups were taken in the cull. Officers of my Department visited the area both before and during the cull, and two of our fishery cruisers
1438
undertook patrols in the vicinity, visiting a number of the islands concerned. The local police and the representative of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were kept closely in touch with the detailed arrangements throughout and were conveyed by fishery cruiser on visits to the islands.
As to the second part of the Question, having accepted the distasteful necessity for culling, we also accept that it should be done as recommended in the report of the Nature Conservancy's committee, which discussed other methods of culling and explained the objections, of both practicality and humanity, to the killing of adult seals.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that very long reply may I ask him whether he is aware that during the first week of the cull no official set foot in the Orkneys? This is rather disturbing. For, taking the 1963 cull as a precedent, is the Minister aware that the Department then said that nearly a thousand seal pups were killed—that is, two or three hundred in excess of the number allowed by the licence?
While also thanking the Minister for his answer to the second part of my Question, might I suggest—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he does not agree that it would be far more humane to kill the cow seals when they come to the islands to have their pups? May I ask the Minister, further, whether he does not agree that killing the seal pups at four weeks old is really very cruel, because the cow seals still have a strong maternal instinct at that stage?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is perfectly true, as the noble Viscount has stated, that in 1963 an excessive number of seal pups was culled; that is to say, it was excessive in relation to the numbers intended. But since then the cull has taken place under much more close and careful supervision, so that at no time during the years 1964, 1965 or the present year have the numbers killed exceeded the numbers intended.
With regard to the suggestion that it would be more humane to kill the female

1439
adult seals, this point was considered and, as I stated in my somewhat lengthy reply—deliberately lengthy, because I thought that it might cut down the number of supplementary questions; but perhaps that was a pious hope the advice which we received was that it would be the reverse of kindness to attempt to kill the adult seals. The adult seal is extremely mobile, and the colony would have made its way into the water in circumstances which would have made it extremely difficult to ensure that the adult female seals were killed outright. Furthermore, in any dispersal into the water they would possibly have killed by crushing quite a number of the pups, which are far from mobile. Also, of course, there would have been the resulting deaths of the pups because of their abandonment by the females.
In all these circumstances, my Department is satisfied that the advice received from this completely impartial body is the best way of dealing with this regrettable necessity.

DANGEROUS TOYS
2.41 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: 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 are aware of the concern felt at the dangers inherent in certain toys imported into this country; and what steps they propose to take towards strengthening the powers of inspection of toys to ensure a high standard of safety.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary shares the concern which has been expressed about such toys and is taking steps to deal at once with particular dangers brought to his notice. Regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1961, specifying a number of general safety requirements for children's toys, will shortly be ready and will apply to all toys offered for sale, regardless of their country of origin. These Regulations will be enforced by the local authorities, who will have adequate powers of inspection for this purpose.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, may ! preface my supplementary by expressing the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is making satisfactory progress. May I ask two supplementaries, in thanking the noble Lord for that very full reply. May I first ask him whether steps will be taken for toys which are imported to be compulsorily inspected at the manufacturing source? Secondly, may I ask him whether the Consumer Council's idea of a Toy Council has been further considered by the Home Office to get safety standards improved all round?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, as regards the first question there is no power to prohibit the importation of these toys. The existing power to control imports of goods is used only for economic or commercial purposes.
As regards the second supplementary question, I might point out that the regulations will prohibit the sale of toys manufactured from celluloid, require electrical toys to be operated only by low voltage and prescribe safety requirements for transformers for use with such toys. The amount of lead and other toxic substances which may be present in paint on toys will also be controlled. As regards the further part of the noble Lord's supplementary, we are guided in this matter by the report of the Molony Committee on Consumer Protection. which recommended that there should be regulations giving statutory support to some only of the requirements set out in the British Standard Code of Safety Regulations for children's toys. These recommendations are being implemented. The Committee doubted the need for regulations dealing with the other requirements in the Code either because they thought that Regulations would be impracticable or because they regarded the risk as small.
With regard to the noble Lord's preface about my noble friend Lord Stonham, I am glad to say he is a little better to-day although I understand he is still rather seriously ill.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the Minister has mentioned that we are entitled to stop imports for economic and commercial reasons. Could he say in what circumstances?
LORD BOWLES: For instance, when we find a very serious balance-of-payments problem the Government have power to impose import controls, and that is the sort of commercial or economic purpose for which this power exists. It does not exist for the purpose of prohibiting the import of toys which might be considered by some people to be dangerous.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, may I clear up one misunderstanding? I was not proposing the banning of the import of toys; I was proposing more rigorous inspection. May I further ask whether the Minister is aware that the toy industry generally are a very responsible body; and may I further thank him for his assurances?
LORD BOWLES: I am very grateful to the noble Lord.

HIGHLAND HILL FARMERS
2.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the acute economic conditions which the Highland farmers are facing now and which will worsen during the winter, they will consider making an ex gratia payment before Christmas to farmers who are endeavoring to winter their weaned calves.]
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, my right honourable friend is aware that hill farmers, particularly in the Highlands, are having a difficult year, and it was for this reason that he recently announced that an advance payment of hill sheep subsidy of 15s. per ewe would be made. The position of hill farmers will be most carefully considered at the coming Annual Review, taking account of all the information available, including the results of the special survey which my right honourable friend is undertaking in conjunction with the National Farmers' Union of Scotland.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his
1442
reply, which basically concerns sheep. I should like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that at the Highland sales this year prices offered for weaning calves were about £15 lower than normal, which means that the farmer rearing store cattle received, if he sold, about 50 per cent. of the value he would have received in the normal year for an average calf. Further, may I ask the Minister whether he would not agree that, because of these appalling prices, a large number of farmers decided not to sell and are now faced with higher feeding costs, aggravated by the selective employment tax and also the inability of the banks to extend to them the credit which they need to buy winter feed this year, and that the position at the moment is critical?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in the first instance I cannot accept the reference to selective employment tax as having other than the most marginal effect on this position. In so far as the hill farmers with cattle rather than sheep are concerned, I would agree that they have not, of course, benefited in the same way as those who are concerned with sheep. But I would remind the noble Earl that hill farmers with cattle have now in the main received payment of the hill cattle subsidy and will also be receiving payment of the calf subsidy.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: I thank the noble Lord for his answer to my supplementary question. With great respect, I would ask him whether it is not the fact that selective employment tax adds to the cost of every service in the country, and when one is sending cattle to the market in Scotland and having to ship them back to the islands would he not agree that selective employment tax is adding to these costs?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think it would be inappropriate in reply to this question to enter into a detailed answer in connection with selective employment tax other than to reiterate what I have already said, that it has only a marginal effect on this particular problem.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, when the noble Lord mentions advance payment of 15s. per ewe, does that mean 15s. in addition to the ordinary ewe subsidy which a short time ago was agreed

1443
on for three years, or does it mean part of this normal subsidy being paid a little sooner?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, an advance payment is entirely what it is stated to be. It is an advance payment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware, surely, that two years ago the payment of 18s. per ewe was fixed for three years? If I am wrong about that I am sure he will correct me. Is this part of the 18s. which is being paid a little sooner, or is it in addition to the 18s.?
LORD HUGHES: This is an advance payment on account of the sum which will be payable in the light of what is determined at the next Price Review.

COST OF BRITISH FORCES IN GERMANY
2.51 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Walston will be making a Statement on the cost of British troops in Germany.

TORBAY ORDER 1966
2.52 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, this Order results from proposals made by the Local Government Commission in their Report on the South Western General Review Area. Its purpose is to set up a new pattern of local government, as recommended by the Commission, for the three towns around Torbay. It creates a new county borough for the area by amalgamating almost the whole of the Borough of Torquay and the Urban District of Paignton, together with the built-up part of Brixham Urban District, and some small adjoining areas in the Rural Districts of Newton Abbot and Totnes. By this means, the present arrangements under which the area is administered by several authorities will be replaced by a single administration, and local government for Torbay will thereby be strengthened and simplified.
1444
The Order is the culmination of a long process of review by the Local Government Commission, which is an independent body set up under the Local Government Act 1958, and of further inquiry by the Minister under the provisions of the 1958 Act.
The Local Government Commission began their review of the South-West in the autumn of 1959 they consulted and held discussions with the local authorities they published their draft proposals for the South-West in July, 1961, and held statutory conferences with the authorities in November, 1961. Their final report and proposals were published in February, 1963. A public inquiry into objections to the Torbay proposal was held at Torquay by an inspector appointed by the Minister in October, 1963. After he had considered the arguments for and against the Commission's proposal, the Minister decided to accept it—subject to some relatively small boundary modifications—and issued a decision letter in June, 1965. It is thus seven years since this lengthy process began and it will be another eighteen months before the new county borough would be in full operation.
The Local Government Commission were impressed by the initiative of the local authorities of Torquay, Paignton and Brixham, who were ready to combine and form a single county borough. Although it is true that the Commission were not at first convinced of the case for a new county borough, they came to the conclusion, after discussions with the authorities locally, and taking into account the increase in population revealed by the 1961 Census, that this change, which was desired by so many local organisations, could have beneficial effects on local government services and on the future prosperity of Torbay as a whole. Torbay is a growing urban area unified by the bay itself and by the attraction of the whole neighbourhood as a residential and tourist centre of national and even international importance. The population of the area which will make up the new county borough has increased by almost 12 per cent. in the last six years or so. By 1968, the population will be about 102,000, and there is no reason to believe that it will stop there. Visitors increase the population by about 60 per cent. each summer.

1445
The growth of population, and the special requirements and potentialities of the area, called in question the present administrative structure of local government. Administration is at present divided among several authorities, and there is every reason to think that there will be a real gain tothe community by introducing a structure appropriate to the growing unity of Torbay so as to encourage the future planning and development of the area as a single centre. In fact, the creation of a single county borough, under which the administrative, social, environmental and commercial services of the existing authorities can be brought together under the control of one council, is, I believe a condition of the full development of this area. It would be something of a setback locally if this Order did not go through. The Order recognises the local initiative for the idea of a unified Torbay it creates the conditions in which the three towns can work together and devote the whole of their resources to the greater benefit not only of those who live in the area but also of the many thousands who visit it each year.
The House will note that the Order does not put into the new county borough all the fringe areas proposed by the Corn-mission. The residents of Marldon and Kingskerswell, on the outskirts, expressed a strong desire to remain as part of the county. Both areas have links with Torbay, but there were no factors which made it necessary to consider going against their wishes. After consultation with the authorities locally, including the County Council, the boundary has therefore been drawn so as to exclude Kingskerswell and the village of Marldon from the new county borough. The boundary line does not entirely meet all local preferences—that would have been impossible, as it always is in these cases—but it reflects local wishes as far as it reasonably can. Some of the residents of Galmpton and Churston Ferrers would also have preferred to remain out of the county borough. But Galmpton and Churston Ferrers are in a rather different situation from the other two places. This part of the parish lies between Paignton and Brixharn, and recent development has been rapid. It has become continuous with Paignton, and because of its location it ought to become part of the county borough. The parish council of Churston
1446
Ferrers, I may say, were in favour of inclusion in the new county borough.
I come to the essence of what I think will be our discussion this afternoon. Devon County Council have argued strongly against the proposal because it reduces the county. This is understandable: the county will lose its largest urban area. We must also remember that Exeter County Borough was extended in April, 1966, and that Plymouth County Borough will, if the present intention is fulfilled, be extended in April of next year. So we must consider these objections here rather fully, just as they have been considered on so many earlier occasions.
What will be the effects of all this on the county? In terms of population Devon will be about the middle of the table of English counties, and in rate-able resources it will not compare unfavourably with other counties of a similar character. It will have a population of 419,000. It is true that its rate-able value per head will drop from about £35 to £31, but this reduction will in no way prevent it from continuing its present effective administration, or making such adjustments in its services as will be called for by the change in its boundaries.
The House will be aware that the County Council petitioned against this Order on two main grounds—first, that its effects on the county might be substantially altered by the introduction of the new system of grants to local authorities proposed by the Local Government Bill; and, secondly, that a final decision should be deferred until after the Royal Commission for Local Government had reported. The House will also be aware that after hearing the Petitioners our Special Orders Committee decided that their case was not such as to call for an inquiry by a Select Committee.
What are the county's fears about changes in the grant system, and are they such that this House ought to throw out the Order? The County Council say that they had assumed all the way through that they would suffer no financial loss because of the Torbay proposals. At the public local inquiry their witnesses agreed that under the present grant system the reorganisation at Torbay would cause no increase in the county precept. But because the precise effects of the changes in grants under the Local

1447
Government Bill cannot yet be ascertained, they are no longer confident that this will be so, and this is their case. The Council principally fear, first, a reduction, caused by the change of system, in the amount of the supplementary payment for low density, which is at present part of the general grant and will become part of the needs element of the rate support grant; and, secondly, they fear a reduction in the cash value of the weighting given in the calculation of the present rate-deficiency grant for sparsity of population, when that weighting passes to the new resources element.
As to the first, with the concurrence of the associations of local authorities, my right honourable friend the Minister proposes to prescribe a weighting which will give the new county the same percentage low-density payment under the needs element as it would have had under the present general grant. And this is not all: the percentage will be applied to a higher basic grant than it would have been under the general grant. As to the second, the Local Government Bill now in its final staves increases the weighting for sparsity. Moreover, there is another change taking place at the same time: current road mileages and populations will be used for these purposes, instead of those of 1958. This will partly offset the new county's gains from these changes. But the use of 1958 figures was always recognised as a temporary expedient and, although the 1968–69 population and road mileage figures are obviously not yet ascertainable, it seems reasonably clear that the county in its new form will on balance gain in these respects as a result of the changes.
It will be seen from what I have said that there is nothing in the changes in grant system which would justify postponing approval of this Order. And beyond this, we ought to remember that finance is not the only consideration which should govern our thoughts. Article 7 of the Local Government Commission Regulations 1958, which sets out these matters, refers to "Financial resources in relation to financial need" as only one of nine factors which ought to determine decisions on boundary changes. Among the other eight are physical features, community of interest, economic and industrial characteristics, and size and shape
1448
of areas of local government. It is rarely that any one of these can be decisive by itself; all must be weighed, one with another, and I am sure this House will be doing precisely that this afternoon.
Another objection which has been advanced against the Order is that it creates a new and not very large county borough at a time when the Royal Commission are carrying out a much more comprehensive review of the whole structure of local government, and that it would be better to await the findings of the Royal Commission. But when the decision to set up the Royal Commission was announced on February 10 this year the then Minister, Mr. Crossman, said about the old Local Government Commission, whose recommendation we are considering today:
"Most of the work it has completed will be carried through. Where decisions have already been announced on proposals by the Commission, the necessary orders will be brought before Parliament as soon as possible…".
This is precisely what is happening here. The decision to accept the Local Government Commission's proposals for Torbay was one of those that had been announced several months earlier; in fact, it was announced in June last year.
As to the size of the new county borough, there is no doubt as to its financial viability, and Section 34 of the Local Government Act 1958 states that if the constitution of a new county borough is affected by considerations of population, the Local Government Commission and the Minister shall presume that 100,000 is sufficient to discharge the functions of a county borough. Torbay will have a population of around 102,000 when it is set up, and there is every reason to believe, as I have said, that it will grow rapidly.
Nobody knows what the new Royal Commission will recommend. If it be the case that they come out in favour of far-reaching changes in the structure of local government, it is as likely to affect county council government as it is county borough government. Thus there is no reason for concluding that the setting up of a new county borough at Torbay will cause difficulties for the Royal Commission any more than leaving things as they are. And even after the Royal Commission have reported, it is bound to be some years before their recommendations

1449
could be considered, before legislation can be enacted and before consequent changes in local government structure can come into effect. Meanwhile, it seems to the Government that there is no reason for not going ahead with those proposals of the Local Government Commission which will strengthen and simplify local government over the next few years, as we are confident this proposal will.
The House might find it convenient at this point to have an outline of the main points of the Order. The new county borough will come into full operation on the day appointed by the Order—April 1, 1968. There has been a postponement from 1967 at the request of the local authorities who are to constitute the new county borough, in order to give them more time to make their own arrangements. Article 5 makes the changes in local authority areas. In addition to specifying the areas which will make up the county borough, it provides for the transfer of areas which are consequential and incidental to the main purpose of the Order. For example, the rural part of Brixham Urban District is transferred to Totnes Rural District. Articles 6, 8 and 9 make the electoral arrangements. The new wards described in the borough's charter in Schedule 2 reflect the Home Secretary's acceptance of proposals by the existing authorities for twelve wards, and a council of 36 councillors and 12 aldermen. Elections for the new county borough council are to be held on the basis of those wards in May, 1967. The new council will have almost a full year in which to complete their final arrangements for the assumption of full responsibility on April 1, 1968, when the Councils of Torquay, Brixham and Paignton and the Parish Council of Churston Ferrers will be dissolved.
Article 9 cancels the elections that would otherwise have been held in May, 1967, for one-third of the Torquay Borough Council and the Councils of Brixham and Paignton. The 1967 election of county councillors for the county electoral divisions which will be abolished in 1968 are also cancelled. These arrangements have been agreed with the local authorities. Articles 11 to 14 make the consequential changes in the administration of justice to bring the arrangements into line with the revised local government areas. Other parts of the Order facilitate
1450
the transfer of functions—for example, education, health and welfare, planning and housing—and make provision for the transfer of property, assets and liabilities. Staff affected by this reorganisation are given protection by Article 66 which follows well-precedented provisions. Superannuation rights are safeguarded in the normal way.
The House will appreciate that this is not a case where smaller authorities are being swallowed against their will. It is, in effect, a voluntary amalgamation under which the local authorities in the Torbay area are prepared to sink their separate identities in a desire to re-shape local government to fit the new needs of the area. The new authority will be a viable county borough, and Devon County will not be seriously weakened. The Torbay authorities have already done a considerable amount of work in preparation for the creation of the new county borough, and we ought now to bring the long period of uncertainty to an end. I commend the Order to the House so that the long expressed desire of the Torbay authorities to amalgamate in a single county borough can at last be satisfied.
I know that certain noble Lords will have present in their minds the objections by Devon County Council, which suffered a reduction in population owing to this Order, but I would reaffirm to them the considerations which have already been taken into account in so many different forums before this Order came to us and which lead the Government to conclude, without any doubt, that this change will, on balance, be a change which is advantageous to the people of that part of the country. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Torbay Order 1966 be approved.—(Lord Kennet.)
3.10 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE rose to move, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after "That," and insert "This House declines to approve an Order by which a major change will be made in the structure of local government in the Torbay area, having regard to the probability that the change will take effect only a short time before the Local Government Commission may be expected to make its report." The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships know, the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, was to have moved

1451
the Amendment whose terms appear on the Order Paper. Unfortunately, he is at present confined to his bed with a bad cold. He telephoned me this morning to ask whether it would be possible for me to move the Amendment in his place. This is what I propose to do. But I should like to say how extremely sorry I am that the noble Earl cannot be here himself to move the Amendment, because he knows this part of the world extremely well whereas my knowledge of it is nowhere near so profound as his.
I should like to make one or two comments about why I think the Order is rather mistimed. The first point, to which the noble Lord has already referred, is that the Order making a new County Borough of Torbay is due to come into force in the spring of 1968, which is about the time when the Royal Commission on Local Government are expected to make their report. The second point, which again has been mentioned by the noble Lord, and which I think has some validity, is that so far as one can tell, the Boundary Commission were rather doubtful at first whether the Torbay area was big enough to be a county borough. It was only when they made their final Report that the Commission decided that the population which would be there in 1968—namely, 102,000—was big enough to justify the creation of this new county borough. That seems to be running it a trifle fine, because although 100,000 was taken as the minimum size for a new county borough, I think a great many people who have seen the way in which county boroughs of that size work vis-à-vis the counties which they were part of before, feel that that figure is on the small side.
We do not know at all what figure, if any, the Royal Commission are going to suggest, but it seems to me that it would have been more sensible and preferable to wait until we see their report, because I do not think—and I believe one is justified in saying this—that the dismemberment of big local government structures is very satisfactory, although, as I say, I do not want to prejudice at all what the Royal Commission may be going to report. The noble Lord has already referred to the money and the population which are going to be taken from the County of
1452
Devon. Therefore, I do not want to go into this point at great length again. But I think the figures he quoted are sufficiently serious to make one wonder whether to remove these parts from the county council is the right course.
There is another point which I should like to mention, and that is that the new county borough is going to be a very difficult and peculiar shape. It is going to be a built-up area going all around Torbay. At present, I gather that the County Council is hoping to keep the urban districts of Paignton and Brixham separate by keeping a band of undeveloped land between them. I should have thought it was not a bad thing to prevent a piece of coastline like that around Torbay from becoming—which it is very inclined to do if it is under one great authority one great built-up area. That is something which we have been trying to stop in various parts of the world. It seems to be one of the problems which arise, and I feel that the Order ought to be postponed.
There are just one or two points which I should like to make about the effects of the Order. It says that the county council is going to retain operative control of the ambulance service, and yet the new county borough is going to retain the administrative control. I am not really sure whether that would work very well for the benefit of the patients who want to use the ambulance service. Perhaps the noble Lord, when he replies, could explain this point a little further. Then I think there may be difficulty from the education point of view because, although the new county borough is going to be of the minimum size accepted for a county borough—namely, 100,000 people—a very large proportion of the population are elderly people who have gone there to retire, because it has a nice, pleasant climate to which to retire when one grows old. So I think one can assume—and I believe I have seen it said—that the number of young children who will come into the county borough will not be as big as if there were 100,000 people of a more typical cross-section of the population.
The scheme has one or two good ideas, and one would be very sorry if they were to be dropped because the Order did not pass. If your Lordships will forgive me, I should just like to mention two of

1453
them. One is that the health department and the social service department will be joined into one functioning department. That will take shape in the new county borough if it comes along, and it seems to me a very good thing. For a long time, so far as I can, I have encouraged people to combine these two services. The second good point is that the social workers in the new county borough are to be grouped together in one department, which is to include a representative of the housing department.
These factors seem to me to make the proposed new county borough full of bright and excellent ideas, as indeed it is, but one wonders whether these developments could not have been put into force in that part of the world without the need of making this big change in the local government structure. When the Royal Commission were first appointed, I think it was said that there were certain cases where the Boundary Commission might have had difficulty in reaching a decision, or that possibly there might have been conflicts among some members of the Commission. It seems as if that might have been the case in this part of the world, as the members did not agree on their first report but only on their final report. If that is so, I feel that it might be advisable to await the Report of the Royal Commission. Torbay might very well be one of those difficult cases. I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("That,") and insert—
("This House declines to approve an Order by which a major change will be made in the structure of local government in the Torbay area, having regard to the probability that the change will take effect only a short time before the Local Government Commission may be expected to make its report.").—(Lord Amulree.)
3.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I support strongly the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has proposed, and in doing so I should like to join your Lordships in expressing our regret at the absence through ill-health
1454
of my friend and neighbour, Lord Iddesleigh, who was to propose the Amendment. I have an interest to declare, because in past days, when my faculties were rather more alert than they are at present, I was a member of the Devon County Council, while I have the honour now to be President of the County Councils Association. Having declared that interest, I do not want to offer an apology for taking part in this debate, because I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is right that anyone who has the welfare of local government at heart should express an opinion on a matter like this. I know that other noble Lords who have had wide experience of local government will be taking part in this debate, and I am glad to see that among them will be the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, who has had a long and distinguished association with a county council.
The first thing I want to say is that this Order represents a major change, and the Special Orders Committee presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, have said:
"That in their opinion the provisions of the Order raise important questions of policy and principle."
It is clearly a major change in local government in that part of the country, because if effect is given to this Order the administrative county of Devon will lose one-fifth of its population and a quarter of its rate able value. What is more, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned, this is not the only loss the administrative county will suffer. It recently suffered a loss of about 10,000 to Exeter; and if an Order to be laid later, I think, takes effect, it will lose something like 35,000 to the City of Plymouth.
I want to put before your Lordships this afternoon two main reasons why this Amendment should be supported and why the decision involved in this Order should be postponed. The first, and I think the one of dominating importance, is that it seems to me that it must be wrong, in a matter which involves a principle, to reach a decision that will take effect probably only a few months before the Royal Commission are expected to report. We do not, of course, know what will be in the Royal Commission's Report, but it is widely expected that, inter alia, they

1455
will recommend larger administrative units. Therefore, this change is quite likely at least to be out of line with their recommendations, and might well be directly contrary to them. That is the primary objection that I see to passing this Order now.
The second reason is that the wisdom of this decision seem to me to be at least dubious: indeed, I would go so far as to say that, on balance, it is a mistake. Let me say here, however, that as an old county council man I may be biased. But I do claim that at any rate it is at least dubious. So far as I know, it has never been claimed that this change will result in better services to the area concerned. There has been no complaint, I understand, of the services already provided to these local authorities by the county council. Devon, as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has already said, is a large and sparsely inhabited county. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, I think, that after this change it would fall into about the middle of the list of counties in terms of population size. But, though large in area, it is by no means excessively large in population, and I should think that after this amputation it would be too small for present needs and might be very much too small in the light of the eventual Report of the Royal Commission.
I understand it is envisaged that if this area is formed into a county borough now, a number of quite important services will be shared. In that situation that may be the best solution for them, but personally I am not much in love with shared services if one can avoid them, because I think sharing blurs responsibility. The possibility of lower rates has been held out as one of the advantages, and that is always a nice thing to have, but I think it is our task to look at this rather in a judicial way. If lower rates do result, I understand it will be due to the beneficence of the taxpayer, who will be making an additional grant, at which Lord Kennet hinted and which I think has been computed at about half a million pounds. One other point is the question whether there has been a feverish demand for working together on the part of these local authorities, and in favour of "marriage", as it were. I do not think there has been. In the past
1456
there has not been any noticeably warm or close community spirit between the authorities concerned, or any very strongly expressed wish to join together.
In brief, in view of the very cogent statement in the Report of the Special Orders Committee, I think that, short of the most urgent and pressing reasons, this action at this time cannot be justified—and, so far as I know, no urgent or pressing reasons have been advanced at all. What those who think like me are pressing for is not a reversal of the decision that the Torbay area should be a county borough, but a suspension of the decision whether it should be or not until the Royal Commission has had a chance of expressing a view on the optimum size for future administrative areas. That is so reasonable a view, I should have thought, that I am amazed that the Minister, who I think generally tries to be fair-minded in these things and who certainly has a mind of his own, has decided to press ahead. I want to suggest to your Lordships that we should do our best to save the Minister from a misjudgment at which he has arrived, I think, rather hastily, and which he may well, in his heart of hearts, regret by now.
I would remind your Lordships of what the Prime Minister said when he announced the setting up of the Royal Commission, if I am in order quoting his words, as I think I am. The Prime Minister said:
"My right honourable friend"—
that is the Minister concerned, of course—
"will be free to go on with any appropriate cases, but when it comes to the broader issues and those which involve matters of deep principle on which the Boundary Commissions have sometimes reached conflicting views we would do well to await the Report of the Royal Commission."
I should have thought that this case fell exactly into that description. As Lord Amulree has mentioned, we have the fact that the Local Government Commission, in their first Report, decided against, or did not find in favour of, setting up this county borough. In a final Report they did, but, as Lord Amulree has said, only on the ground that the population in the Torbay area was increasing rather faster than had been expected and was going to reach the minimum size which is at present regarded as appropriate for a county borough rather earlier than it was expected.

1457
It might well be that, so far as the size of these areas is concerned, that reason would not stand up, and so I suggest to your Lordships that a matter of principle is here involved. That principle is: what is the right size for these local government areas? I could not quite follow Lord Kennet when he seemed to imply that by taking no action we might be making the matter as difficult for the Royal Commission as if we did take action. I do not quite follow that argument. I should have thought that no difficulties would be involved for the Royal Commission if things were left as they are until they reported. I hope very much that the House will support the Amendment. It does not seem to me to be a matter involving Party principles or Party controversy in any way, and therefore I should personally have thought it essentially a matter of procedure on which your Lordships would be justified in expressing an opinion; and I hope you will.
3.30 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, since my noble friend Lord Kennet took over responsibility for local government affairs in this House I have grown to admire very much his versatility and knowledge in tackling a good many complicated questions. I shall do nothing and say nothing to embarrass him to-day either during the course of our speeches or afterwards; but I want to represent to him that I think that here probably the Government have made a very grave mistake, especially in the light of the proposals for future drastic local government reorganisation that are being considered by the Royal Commission.
I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. If the scheme were now being considered de novo, would the Ministry come before us and ask us to approve it? If the answer be, No, then what justification is there for asking us to pass it at all, when we know that by the time it comes into operation (in about 18 months' time) it may be out of date and the new county borough may have to be scrapped after it has been in existence for no more than a few months? If the answer be, Yes, what justification is there for wasting all the time of the Royal Commission when the Government have charged them to work out a scheme for a fundamental system of reform in
1458
local government? I believe that this proposal runs counter to the future pattern of local government with which the Royal Commission were intended to charge themselves. It certainly is diametrically opposed to the remarks made by the Ministers of the Government at the time that the Royal Commission was set up.
Unlike the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, I have never lived in Devon, but I have been approached by various organisations, various individuals and various local government bodies asking me either to support or to oppose this Order. I have told them all that I will try to acquaint myself fully with the facts and I will then make up my mind independently as to what I shall do. I have refused to bind myself one way or the other; I have been eager to speak, as it were, as a virgin. I want to look first at the Torbay scheme itself and then to see how it would fit into the framework of the future local government system that is envisaged for this country and into which the Royal Commission are inquiring. It appears to me that the scheme itself has little to commend it. It has been surrounded by confusion, uncertainty, inaccuracy and contradiction through all its stages. Its genesis was not a happy one. This was not a case of having a tightly knit homogeneous community with the ability to provide all the services it needs for itself. It was nothing of the kind; it had not even the requisite population.
This was rather a question of the promoters scampering out into the highways and byways, dragging in half a village here, half a town there, putting out one of them, putting in another, in a frantic effort to make up the criterion of 100,000 population. Originally Teignmouth was in the scheme; then it was out. Originally Paignton was out of the scheme; then it was in. One village after another was brought in, then pushed out, or cut in two so that half was in one place and half in another; and all this was done, as I have said, in a frantic effort to ensure that the necessary 100,000 population could be obtained. Then when the Commission started their inquiries they found there was a very big gap between two of the towns. The promoters got over that by saying, "Oh we shall be building new houses." That may be so, but it rather

1459
grieves me to think that large-scale building is going on along the beautiful coastline of Devon.
My Lords, I do not know whether it is generally appreciated that there have been three separate schemes put forward by the promoters of this plan. There was what they called the First Scheme; there was what they called the "A" Scheme; and there was what they called the "B" Scheme. The final picture as presented to us is not like the homogeneous built-up community which we would naturally expect from an area seeking to convert itself into a county borough. This is how it is described in the printed Order which some noble Lords may have before them.
Page 4 of the Order says:
"The new county borough … shall comprise—

(a) the area of the borough of Torquay, other than those parts thereof which are shown hatched green on the map;

(b) the area of the urban district of Paignton, other than that part thereof which is shown hatched green on the map;

(c) that part of the urban district of Brixham which is shown hatched red on the map; "—

and, of course, half of Brixham is staving out of the scheme—
"(d) those parts of the parishes of Coffinswell and Kerswells … which are shown hatched red on the map;
(e) those parts of the parishes of Churston Ferrers and Marldon in the rural district of Totnes which are shown hatched red on the map…".
That shows, as I have said, that they have gone round the highways and byways snatching part of a town here, part of a town there, in an effort to make the 100,000 population. Geographically it is nothing like the kind of big town that we associate with county borough status. It is a strip of coastline 14 miles long with a very narrow strip of hinterland.
As has been suggested, a bait was held out by the promoters of the scheme in the first place. That bait was a big reduction in rates. Originally it was to be a reduction of 3s. 3d. for the inhabitants of Torquay; then it came down to 1s. The latest statement is that probably there will not be any reduction of rates at all. We all know that public services
1460
organised on a small scale cost more than those organised on a large scale, the scale we associate with county councils. I do not know what other increased expenditure the county borough inhabitants will find necessary. They will most decidedly have to expand the town hall or provide additional municipal offices of some kind. I wonder whether the people who fell for this idea when it was first put forward by the promoters would be quite so keen on it if they knew that the bait of the 3s. 3d. reduction in rates was no longer in existence. I suppose the inhabitants of Paignton and Brixham realise that their two towns will be in a permanent minority in the seats of the new Torbay County Borough Council.
I ask myself whether this would turn out to be a real county borough or merely a sham county borough. One of the criteria applied is whether the council can provide its own services. Can Torbay provide its own police service? No. But I will not press that because we know that the idea of police amalgamation is in the air throughout the whole country. Can it provide its own fire brigade? No. There is to be a joint arrangement with the county council with some members of the county borough council sitting on the county council committee. Can it provide its own ambulance service? No. The control station is to be operated by the County Council. It is true that the South Devon Technical College and School of Art in Torquay is to be taken over, but it will be administered by a joint committee, partly of the County Council and partly of the new county borough council.
My Lords, a county borough council is supposed to be able to do its own work without having to call upon the county council as partner. It looks as though the education and children's services will also need to make some use of the County Council's high-grade specialist officers; because although Torbay will have a population approaching the 100,000, it is populated largely by old people and its school population is appropriate to a population of only 60,000. It looks as though there will be shared services for the junior training centre, for sheltered workshops and for the school meals training centre. I suggest that the County Borough of Torbay would fail to fulfil the criterion of being

1461
able to provide all its own services. Apart from these cases where it says that it will not be able to render this, that or the other service, it is taking a step in the opposite direction. It is going to set up its own motor licensing department, as any county borough naturally would, when we all know that in a few years' time motor licensing is going to be centralised in London and county and county borough licensing departments will become merely post offices for transmitting documents to Whitehall.
I think that noble Lords are all aware that the standard minimum population for a county borough is 100,000. But I think that your Lordships are also aware that that criterion is now regarded as being out of date by practically everybody engaged in local government and by a good many people in Central Government as well. It is regarded as far too small, and figures of 150,000 and 200,000 have been suggested. When the Greater London Council was originally suggested, 200,000 was to be the average population for its new boroughs, and they were most-purpose boroughs and not all-purpose boroughs, as this county borough is to be. Yet in some cases this figure was raised by the Government to nearly 400,000. We must have a big community that will be able to engage officials and technical experts of the calibre required and to provide the wide range and high standard of services that are needed in local government to-day, and some of these services must of necessity be spread over a wide geographical area.
How does Torbay measure up even to this out-of-date standard of 100,000 inhabitants? It does not measure up to it at all. No matter how they tried, the Commission could not force the population up to the required number, with all the jigsaw juggling with places on the map—a village brought in here, half a town turned out there. So the Commission rejected the idea of a county borough. They did so for three reasons: first, because the population was inadequate; secondly, because there was a discontinuous area and not a real town area, as your Lordships will see by glancing at the map; and, thirdly, because if there was to be any merger—and I can see some reason for some kind of merger or association between these three towns—it should be on the basis, not of
1462
a county borough, but of an ordinary municipal borough.
When the Commission had turned down their proposal, the promoters began to get worried over the failure to reach the population required. They thought that if they could push up their population, then they might have a chance of getting their case reconsidered. They sat down, scratched their heads and thought of another number. They had the bright idea of including in the population figure the holidaymakers who happened to be staying in the town at the time.(I saw a signal from the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. Does the Minister want to make a Statement? Tell me when he does and I will stop; I am always chivalrous.) They did that by taking the Census figures, which included everybody who happened to be staying in every house at the time, instead of taking the Registrar General's figures, which are the regulation figures for a transaction of this kind. Then they projected themselves forward into the population of future years and counted the babies who had not yet been conceived, let alone the babies not yet born. Then they realised that the district would consist largely of old people and that deaths would exceed the births so that there was a natural decrease in the population year by year. So they got over that by talking about the immigrants, the people coming into the district, and claimed that they had a lot of houses built and a lot more being built.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, we know that the noble Lord has championed the interests of expanding counties. Could he tell us whether, in reckoning how much they are going to expand, they take into account the unborn babies and immigrants?
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am not associated with an expanding county; but, as I pointed out in this House last week, in the case of a county which has been diminished and hopes to expand, we have had half of our county cut off. We will leave the maternity side of this. They said that they have a lot of new houses built and building, but omitted to say that many would be occupied by existing residents—shopkeepers who were retiring and people who had got on in the world and could afford a bigger house, and so on. And they omitted to

1463
mention that many of these immigrants were retired people of advanced age, so that their contribution to the increased population would be to raise the death rate and not the birth rate.
However, the promoters ultimately arrived at what they said was the figure of 100,000, plus 810, and claimed that this would rise to 110,000 by 1965. That forecast is on record. I should like to test the validity of that forecast. If we look at the Order, on the inside back page we find that the population in June, 1965, is given as 97,800. Fortunately, the Commission were not taken in by this figure put forward by the promoters. They decided that the population at that time was only 97,000 and that it would reach 100,000 by 1966. As 1966 is not over, we do not yet know whether that figure will be reached or not. But we do know that the official Order, which was made on August 1 of this year, said then:
"The population of about 97,800 as of June, 1965, is expected to increase to about 102,000 by 1968."
They foreshadowed an increase of just over 4,000 in three years; that is, of just over 1,300 a year. So, if we add 1½years'increase in population to the June, 1965, figure to bring it forward to the end of December of this year, we still find that the population is below the 100,000 mark. If the Commission's first figures were wrong, what real confidence can we have in the second set of figures?
However, the Commission went on to persuade themselves that the first draft of their recommendations, against the county borough, was wrong and that they could now feel comfortable in recommending the county borough. This was after several alterations on the map, two different attempts to determine the population, three versions about what the rates would be, and with two diametrically opposed decisions by the Commission themselves. I am sure that noble Lords who preside on benches of magistrates, as I do, would look with some suspicion upon a case which was put forward by any prosecutor in the manner in which this case has been put forward through its various stages by the Commission. Certainly there is no proof to-day that the population has reached 100;000. This is apart from all
1464
the other shortcomings of the case: apart from the fact that Torbay is unable to provide all its services, and apart from the underlying fact that 100,000 is not now regarded as being a high enough figure for county borough status. I believe, as the Commission thought in the first place, that there is something to be said for some kind of merger, but that this should be with the three towns combining as a municipal borough to perform as many services as they can and relying on the County Council for the remainder.
What will be the effect of this scheme on the Devon County Council? The noble Viscount has already given us some idea of that. But county councils have to plan for an extensive range of services; and services often scattered over a wide area. And they need to draw their revenue from the built-up areas, as well as the sparsely populated areas, which have little rate able value. Moreover, the provision of these widely based services requires a large-scale overhead structure. If you have set up an organisational machine which is appropriate to a population of 500,000, and if you take away 100,000 of the inhabitants it means that the overheads will have a disproportionate effect on the economic operation of the organisation with its reduced population.
The Commission admit that Devon is going to suffer. But the bait was held out that Devon would get a £500,000 donation from the Exchequer by way of consolation. That may be so, and it may be most acceptable. It is coming from the taxpayers. We all pay our taxes willingly, and we know that the Government can spend the money better than we can; but what I think the people of Devon must be thinking is this. They know that the whole question of Exchequer grants to local authorities is shortly going into the melting-pot, and they may be content to say: "Yes; this £500,000 a year is very welcome to-day. It will solve most of our financial problems. But what guarantee have we that it will continue in the future?" I say nothing more about Devon, because that has already been covered by the noble Viscount.
However, I want to say a word or two about the general question of local government reorganisation. We know

1465
that this is coming in a few years' time. The Report of the Royal Commission will come a few months after Torbay comes into existence. So there is every chance that the new county borough of Torbay, having been born, will have to be slaughtered without any delay. Nobody knows what the Commission will recommend. But most of the evidence has been in favour of much larger local government units; and even before the Royal Commission began to consider these claims for larger local government units there was a vigorous agitation throughout the greater part of the local government world that county boroughs should either be abolished or be increased from their 100,000 minimum to the 200,000 mark. Even the onetime champion of county boroughs, the Association of Municipal Corporations, has changed its outlook. In its evidence to the Commission it said that "reorganisation is not a matter of extending or enlarging existing authorities; it is a matter of creating a brand new system of local authorities." That is the body which used to champion county boroughs kicking away the stool on which they stood; and, incidentally, it kicks away the stool on which the whole case for the Torbay County Borough stands.
I should like to sum up and say that I have not much confidence in the scheme as put forward. I say this, first, because the Boundary Commission changed their figures; they changed their areas; they have changed their "No" into "Yes", and that does not inspire very much confidence. Secondly, Torbay cannot provide all its services. Thirdly, although originally a big rate reduction was suggested, that promise seems now to have disappeared into thin air, and one cannot have much confidence in that. Fourthly, there is the effect on the Devon County Council; and I think this must be to the disadvantage of local government in that part of the country. Fifthly, the date for the introduction of the new borough has already been altered from April 1, 1967, to April 1, 1968, the only factor that remains constant being April 1; and the present 1968 date, when Torbay County Borough will be flying its flag for the first time, is just about the time when the Royal Commission will be compiling or presenting their Report.
1466
I do not want to say much more. I will not quote the references that were made by the present Minister, and by his predecessor, at the time the Royal Commission were appointed and at the time when the old Local Government Commission was killed off. But I will just say this. This scheme comes to us out of the grave of a Commission that was killed because it was not effective enough to do the job for which it was established. I would plead with my noble friend to urge the Minister to think once again.

COST OF BRITISH FORCES IN GERMANY
3.55 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the cost of British Forces in Germany.
"Her Majesty's Goverment agreed in October to take part in Tripartite Talks with the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, to consider, in the light of the present strategic situation, questions of common concern to the three Governments arising out of the stationing of American and British Forces in Germany and the foreign exchange cost of those forces. At that time Her Majesty's Government expressed the hope that the results of the Tripartite Talks could be ready for consideration at the Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation starting on the 14th of December. It has not in the event proved possible for the three Governments to adhere to this timetable.
"Her Majesty's Government have agreed to continue the Tripartite Talks in the hope of reaching the earliest possible agreement on the financial and military questions at issue. They have agreed to make no changes in their troop and supply dispositions in Germany meanwhile, apart from the normal rotation of troops or savings in their personal expenditure and other administrative economies not affecting their combat capability.

1467
"If, by the end of June, 1967, agreement has not been reached in the Tripartite Talks, Her Majesty's Government would have to regard themselves as free to take whatever decisions seem necessary to them to cover the foreign exchange costs of their Forces in Germany in 1967–68. As they have always said, they would of course act in concert with their allies and follow the prescribed North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Western European Union procedures.
"The United States Government, recognising the urgency of Her Majesty's Government's need to deal with the foreign exchange cost of their Forces in Germany, have offered to make further purchases in the defence field in the United Kingdom to the amount of 35 million dollars during 1967. These purchases would represent expenditures additional to those to which the United States is already committed under existing arrangements and understandings. Her Majesty's Government have accepted this offer.
"The next meeting of the Tripartite Talks is expected to he held in January 1967."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, your Lordships will be obliged to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. I think I am right in saying that, contrary to what the Government expected, the Tripartite Talks which have just ended were regarded by the United States more in the nature of exploratory talks, and that no agreement was possible. I very much hope that there will be the possibility of a fairly speedy conclusion at the next talks, because I cannot help thinking that this uncertainty is a bad thing: it is bad for the British Army of the Rhine; I should have thought that it was bad for NATO, which is facing great difficulties in any event, and it is bad for creating the right conditions for our entry into Europe.
May I ask the noble Lord this question? At the close of the Statement he said that the United States Government had offered to make further purchases, over and above the commitments they had already, to the tune of 35 million dollars. As I understand it, the United
1468
States Government are not really committed to anything at the present time. I may be quite wrong, but I thought that all the United States Government had said was that they would allow British firms to compete without restriction for 300 million dollars' worth of export of armaments. Therefore they are not committed to anything. Does this mean that the 35 million dollars is in exactly the same category as this, or is it a firm agreement to purchase 35 million dollars' worth of equipment?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I certainly share the hopes that the noble Lord has expressed about the speedy solution of this problem. I can assure him that we are doing all we can, and I think successfully, to maintain the morale in our own Forces and to make it quite clear to our NATO allies that whatever action we take will be in full conformity with our NATO obligations. With regard to the second part of his question, as I understand it this is a firm commitment—I speak subject to correction—to spend this amount of money during the ensuing period.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, under whose correction does the noble Lord stand? Is it, or is it not?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, as I understand it, it is, but I do not want to be too categorical on that. I will write to the noble Lord and tell him if it is so. My understanding is that this is a firm commitment.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Walston, whether, as this is a matter of urgency, the British Government would consider bringing back the headquarters of the Rhine Army to this country, leaving the Corps headquarters in Germany, as is the practice adopted by Belgium? Secondly, as there can be no great amelioration of our financial problems on this score until June, 1967, would the Government expedite the homecoming of some of our Forces East of Suez?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the question of our Forces East of Suez, I think the noble Lord will agree, is an entirely different matter. With regard to the headquarters movement, all these matters are under discussion in the Tripartite Talks. As I have already said, anything we do will be in co-operation and

1469
in full discussion previously with our NATO allies, and also with the agreement of the NATO Commanders, so that there is no undue weakening of our own effective contribution to the NATO Forces.

TORBAY ORDER 1966
4.3 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I rise to express in a very few sentences my support of the three previous speeches on the question of Torbay. The fact is that between the date this Order was made by the Minister and its presentation to Parliament there has been a revolution in thinking in the Ministry. If any proof of that is needed, I would cite my own district of South-East England, where we had our own plans and had spent a great deal of time and energy on conceiving and drafting those plans, but were not able to present them because the Boundary Commission was abolished before they came to us. We have had to wait, and if Torbay had been in South-Eastern England instead of South-Western England, it would have had to wait, too.
The reasons for this change have been expressed in Ministerial speeches. Generally the theory is that this cold war between county boroughs and county councils must be superseded by something better. The case we are considering to-day is an example of a cold war. I do not know anything about Devonshire or Torbay, but I do know something about local government. If there is a big shake-out or redeployment, it is always a matter of great difficulty and, very often, some pain. This is found in other areas of political life. To have two shake-outs, two redeployments, in a matter of three years seems to me too painful, too unnecessary, and I therefore support what my noble friends Lord Amory and Lord Amulree have suggested.
4.5 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, so much has already been said on the demerits of this Order that I do not wish to repeat and go to the length my noble friend Lord Leather land has done in the detailed way in which he has destroyed the validity of this Order. I would rather rely on the Special Orders
1470
Committee, who said, in effect: "Do not pass this Order". They say that it is in order—they were bound to say that. The Committee were bound to say that the people who ought to consider it are your Lordships, which again I would consider to be quite proper. But when the Report says that, having regard to the fact that the Royal Commission are expected to report at about the time this Order will become effective, and therefore should receive the careful consideration of your Lordships, it seems to me that that is tantamount to saying that it really ought not to go through.
I should like to deal with one or two points that have been made, and I will do so very briefly. The apology of the Minister for bringing this Order to us is that the Minister announced in June, 1965, that he was proposing to accept the proposals of the Local Government Commission, subject to some minor amendments. This is an argument put forward now as being a reason why this Order must go through. But I would submit that we are not governed by Ministers. Ministers have their job to do, but if the Minister's word is to he the final word on this matter, why has the procedure been arrived at of presenting the Orders to the House for approval?
I strongly resent the idea that because a Minister has said something it must necessarily be accepted in this House, or in another place, as being a necessary reason for something going through. We are not concerned with which side Ministers come from: I am referring to Ministers in general. We know that on both sides Ministers change their minds, and do so quite frequently. Therefore, the final decision must be what your Lordships decide, or what is decided in another place. In these circumstances, the appropriate date for considering this matter in relation to the time scale is now and not June, 1965. In June, 1965, it was not proposed to abolish the Boundary Commission. It might have been in mind, because of the difficulties which the Boundary Commission faced and which everybody recognised. But certainly there was no public pronouncement on this matter until the following year.
Therefore, had we been considering the Torbay Order in June, 1965, although

1471
I think the Order itself is not a good one, we should have considered it in a different light. I should probably have accepted it as not being very good but, in the general light of what was being done by the Boundary Commission, as perhaps not too appropriate but nevertheless as something that might be permitted. But having regard to the fact that the Boundary Commission was wound up, not because it was inefficient, but because so much water had flowed under the bridge since it was appointed, or since the Act which permitted its appointment was passed, the facts that it had to consider for the purposes of local government reorganisation were no longer valid. If they were no longer valid, obviously they can be no longer valid for things which were in the pipeline. This is the basis of my case.
I need not go over the ground, but it is already accepted generally that 100,000 population is not necessarily the appropriate minimum figure for county borough status. Do not let us run away with this magic figure of 100,000. It is only one of the factors to be taken into consideration in considering whether a county borough should be created. There are all sorts of other factors which come into this matter, and here it would seem to me that the bulk of the case is against the Torbay Order.
Some reference has been made by the Minister to the question of the relief which will be available to the Devon County Council as a result of this massive transfer of rate able values from the county to the proposed new county borough. I think he might have told us the whole of the story, because by the time this transfer becomes effective we shall be under the new grant system, which provides for a total ceiling of Government grants—not with anything added to it, but a total ceiling. Below the ceiling the amounts to be paid to the varying types of authority, individually or collectively, may be varied, but the transfer of any sum of money to a particular authority, or type of authority, will need a reduction to another type of authority.
The Government are glibly talking about £500,000 being available. I would respectfully say to your Lordships that this is another £500,000 of the taxpayers' money which will be provided in a par-
1472
ticular area because of the action taken by the Government in reducing the rate able value of the County of Devon. This seems to me to be a good reason why most local authorities will not look at it in quite that way when they realise that if Devon gets another £500,000 some of them will get less.
Nor should we be led away by the idea that there will be vast new sums of money available. We know that £30 million will be made available, but this is for the relief of the domestic ratepayers and there will not be any more than £30 million. We do not even know that there will be any addition to the figures of last year. It may well be that there will not be sufficient monies available to deal with normal increases, and therefore we should be rather circumspect in suggesting that if Devon gets another £500,000 that will ease the way and we need not worry very much.
Apart from the financial aspects there is another question I wish to discuss. I was concerned in the negotiations between various associations from the early 1950's up to the time of the setting up of the Boundary Commission. The figure of 100,000 even then was never a sacrosanct figure. It was reached by a bit of Dutch auctioning as to the minimum which would be acceptable to the County Councils Association, upon which agreement could he reached between ourselves, the rural district councils and the urban district councils associations. So that figure was never very firmly based. It was accepted as a compromise. This has proved itself to be ineffective and quite out of reason in the light of present-day developments, which, my noble friend has already said, is referred to in the evidence submitted to the Royal Commission.
If it is argued that the Royal Commission are not going to report in two years, I, for one, would want to know what the Government are doing, because the Minister said that we were setting up a relatively small, high-powered Commission in order that they could report in approximately two years. The speed with which the Royal Commission have been working to get in the written evidence convinces me that they will endeavour to live up to the proposed timetable. If the Minister says that the Government will be so dilatory in dealing with the

1473
report that it will take years to frame legislation, I am sorry, but that will be no reason for not dealing with this Order, because it is fairly obvious that Torbay will not remain as a county borough. Therefore what is now being done will merely have the effect of changing the position, and by the time it becomes effective it will need to be superseded.
What shall we have done? We shall have created a new set of officers. What will be done as a result of the creation of the county borough will be that quite a number of officers in small districts will become redundant and will need to be compensated. This is happening in London at the present time. And if, within a relatively short time, it is found necessary to change the status again to fit in with a different pattern of local government over the country as a whole, there will be more redundancy. Everything that has been said by the Government on this matter convinces me that, had it not been for the fact that this proposal was in the pipe-line, it would not have been proceeded with; the fact that it is in the pipe-line ought not to preclude your Lordships from turning it down.
4.15 p.m.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I regret I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, make his opening remarks, but having listened to the last four noble Lords who have spoken in opposition I cannot believe that the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has not been completely demolished. The last four speakers all have great knowledge of local government and local government reorganisation. They have spoken as one against the proposal of the Torbay Order. The effect of this Order, even if it were carried out—which I very much hope it will not be—would be to create what perhaps is one of the weakest forms of local government; that is to say, a weak county borough. A weak county borough has so many disadvantages. It cannot afford to do what a county borough ought to do—namely, to provide the services for which it is set up. I know myself, after thirty years as a member of a county council, that a weak county borough is never able to bear the financial burden of its duties, and the
1474
result of that is that the so-called county boroughs often have to borrow and to be subsidised in order to carry out their duties.
Surely this is the last moment at which to set up this rather ramshackle new county borough which has been described by my noble friend Lord Amory and by the two noble Lords opposite. From what we have heard to-day it will not be a viable unit, and if the Government, in their wisdom, set up a Royal Commission to iron out the non-viable units what on earth is the use, at this moment, of setting up what is bound to be a non-viable unit, a few months before the Royal Commission report? I cannot believe that it makes sense at all.
I should like to refer to a most important point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, when he referred to the half a million pounds subsidy that might be found for the County of Devon by the Exchequer. No doubt that would he agreeable for the county concerned, but the noble Lord demolished that case because he pointed out that this half a million pounds will only come from other local authorities, county councils or county boroughs, which will he receiving subsidies from the central Exchequer. The other counties will be short of this half a million pounds, which is to go to Devon for the only object of relieving it from what it loses by setting up this weak, non-viable county borough of Torbay. I cannot believe your Lordships would be right in passing this Order to-day and I support as strongly as possible the Amendment that has been moved.
4.20 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I feel on this occasion more than usually like a voice crying in the wilderness. None the less, it leaves me no less convinced that I am right, and I may perhaps be able to convince your Lordships that there is another side to this picture. It has been painted all black and one-sided to-day. I rise to support this Order and to express the hope that your Lordships will give it approval. Perhaps I ought first to say that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, whose knowledge of local government and experience in it is respected on all sides of this House, very much regrets that he was unable to be present here to-day owing to important pre-engagements, and the views that I

1475
am going to try to express to you are those that he would have expressed very much better had he been able to be here.
To begin with, may I deal with one point from a previous speaker which rather shocked me. The noble Lord claimed that the Special Orders Committee had more or less recommended the rejection of this Order. They did nothing of the sort. As I understand it, the Special Orders Committee merely stated that as a question of policy and principle was involved it would be proper for your Lordships, in making a decision whether to approve or disapprove, to be cognisant of a view which was held by many people. The debate to-day seems to me, if I may say so, to have rather swamped the main question in a mass of detail, no doubt based on knowledge. I know that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing but I feel to-day that a lot of knowledge is often more dangerous, because it is liable to emerge and to swamp the point at issue.
The question is whether a major change should be made in the structure of local government in the Torbay area having regard to the probability that the change will take effect only a short time before the Royal Commission maybe expected to make its Report. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and other speakers have elaborated the reasons why in their view your Lordships should deny your approval. On the other side of this question, I would ask your Lordships to consider to what extent a general principle such as has been stated to apply should be applied so destructively in the overriding circumstances of the particular area which, after all, we are supposed to be considering. In view of some of the very derogatory remarks which have been made by one speaker about the Local Government Commission, I would say that surely their words merit some attention. In their Report they said:
"We feel that the proposed county borough of Torquay is an imaginative proposal which, with the assured goodwill of so many who arc concerned, could have far reaching effects on both the standard of services and on the future prosperity of the area as a whole whilst still leaving the County of Devon a strong and effective instrument of local government."
You cannot just sweep that aside.
The Local Government Commission has been attacked by another speaker, but that again is distorting the truth.
1476
When the announcement was made of the winding-up of the Local Government Commission and the setting-up of the Royal Commission on Local Government there was no suggestion that the reason was the incompetence of the former Commission, and the work they had done was expressly preserved. In short, the standstill pending recommendations by the Royal Commission was not back-dated; it is not to be assumed, in other words, that all the work of the former Commission was so bad that their knitting will now be unravelled. I think one should bear that in mind, too, especially as none of us knows, what the Royal Commission will report.
The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, I think, referred to the danger, which apparently will be caused by approval of this Order, of the coast of Devon being tremendously over-built. I am unable to understand how that can be deduced, how there can be any greater danger, because the local people, who will be most affected by what is done, are in charge. Would not the danger be equally great when the control was far away from that particular area? That, at any rate, is the way I personally should look at it.
After the Minister of Housing and Local Government announced his decision to approve the formation of a county borough in Torquay, the councils of Torquay, Paignton and Brixham established a joint co-ordinating committee, as I think the noble Lord introducing this Order stated—but apparently it has been disregarded by speakers—to assist in the implementation of the Minister's decision, and for this purpose it was given delegated powers. I do not want to waste the time of this House by going into details, but I must mention a few, in view of the completely false picture which I think many speakers have left of the issues here. Various sub-committees were appointed to consider all the aspects of integration—departmental structure, establishment matters, schemes for the various departments and services of the new county borough. Nothing has been neglected, from the equalisation of water rate differentials to trade union staffing, setting up of a manual workers' joint consultative council, from accounting to engineering—in fact, every question relating to the amalgamation of the

1477
services at present separately administered by the towns of Torquay, Paignton, Brixham and the parish of Churston Ferrers.
I am surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, proposing the denial of this Order, because special attention has been given to the organisation of health and social services. Administrative plans have been drafted in which an attempt has been made to break down the traditional watertight divisions so often found in the local authority health and social services and to try to provide a really integrated service reorientated to the individual or family whom it is sought to benefit, rather than on the administrative echelons of professional workers. For several years there has been enthusiastic co-operation and a real spirit of local pride which has produced a very unusual unanimity of effort. Can one seriously contemplate killing the enthusiasm of those who have worked so successfully to achieve agreement?
It may be suggested by those opposing the Order that a county borough of 100,000 population is likely to be condemned. But this is pure speculation. Indeed, it is probably more likely that the existing county council structure will be affected, and so an area such as the proposed Torquay County Borough, possibly enlarged, could be envisaged as a unit to perform the functions which, of necessity, must be administered by an authority which is local.
I have been noticing a paper, to which I have not the reference at the moment, but I can do without it. It is far more likely that the Royal Commission, when they Report, will deal with county councils as regions, and will possibly leave outside a county borough such as Torquay, because it can be left efficiently to function beneath whatever the region may be, and be left outside, as was done in the original reorientation of local government. But I would only say, with respect, that to suggest that at this stage the Order should be abandoned because of the impending Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government is not a realistic position to take up when one remembers the years that must pass before the Commission's recommendations, whatever they happen to be, are implemented.
1478
One material point which I feel sure should be emphasised is that in the formation of a county borough for Torbay there is the opportunity of gaining experience of the administration of a larger local government unit of the type and nature likely to evolve from the finding of the Royal Commission. Surely the real advantage of the unification of this area rests upon the fact that, to be a really efficient and enterprising international resort, which it is likely to become, much to the profit of this country, Torbay should be administered as one unit, with all the benefits that would derive from this sensible arrangement.
May I emphasise, too, that the coordinating committee charged with the task of the formation of the proposed county borough have worked hard, and most successfully, and I am sure that many of the aspersions cast upon them this afternoon were quite unjustified. In the minds of any listener who was not acquainted with the facts, what has been said would leave the impression of complete muddle and disorder, though any such impression would have not a vestige of truth in it. The whole of the Torbay area is united in its desire for county borough status. Surely it would be a pity to throw away all this preparatory work for the problematic and remote reasons which have been advanced this afternoon. I venture to express a hope that your Lordships will refuse to decree a paralysis of progress of indefinite duration by denying approval of this Order. I believe that the question before this House this afternoon is: Are you in favour of action, or inaction bolstered by hatred of change to a better organisation?
My Lords,
"There is a tide in the affairs of men…"
I hope that your Lordships will recognise it by approving this Order.
4.35 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I will not trespass upon your Lordships' time for too long. Listening to the most interesting debate that we have had, I felt impelled to say a few words about the Order that is before us. Unlike the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, I am not familiar geographically with the

1479
area to which this Order refers; therefore, I cannot speak about Devon with the same competence and authority that he can. Nor is it my intention this afternoon to go into the merits or otherwise, which have been reflected in the Local Government Commission proposals recommending that this County Borough of Torbay should be created.
The only point I wish to make, in the few words that I have to say, is that since the recommendations were made (we have heard quite a lot from the noble Lord, Lord Leather land, about this), and since the decision of the Minister was given in the early part of this year, circumstances have changed. May I say that this may not be the last Order of its kind that we shall have? I am advised that, in the not too distant future we shall have a similar Order so far as the proposals respecting Sheffield, the Derbyshire County Council and the Chesterfield Rural District Council are concerned, and there may be others. All that is an indication that this is not the last time we shall hear of this particular subject.
May I say, in parenthesis, that I entered local government as a local councillor more than forty years ago, and from that moment one of the topics that has been most discussed in local government circles by those who are closest to it, has been the reform of local government. On that point I have discovered that there is complete unanimity—no one objects to it. But when the various suggestions are put forward about what kind of reform it shall be, my experience has been that it immediately produces a verbal civil war. One of my hopes is that the Royal Commission set up this year will grasp this nettle, and will deal with the structure of local government and set it up more on a satisfactory basis than it is at the moment.
In the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I would say that I found that his Act of 1957 on this particular subject really lacked teeth. It is true that it provided for promotion to county borough status, for demotion from county borough status, for amalgamations of certain authorities, and that if a new authority resulting
1480
from amalgamations reached a population of 60,000, then certain delegation of services would come to it by right and not as a result of the good disposition of the county council. But there we are. All this has been going on for a long time.
What, then, are the changed circumstances which have come into operation during the past few months? The first is that the Local Government Commission, which was set up under legislation passed in 1958, has now been abandoned. Secondly, a Royal Commission has been set up to look at the structure of local government, and it is hoped that they will make their Report by not later than the middle of 1968. What a coincidence it is that this Torbay Order may come into operation almost at the same time as the Royal Commission make their Report. Nobody can anticipate what the Royal Commission may say, but, in view of the possibility of far-reaching proposals regarding the structure of local government and having regard to the evidence which has been submitted by the various local authorities, it is not an exaggeration to say that it is quite possible there may be rather larger units than is the case at present. So far as Torbay is concerned—and indeed other areas, too, such as Sheffield and Derbyshire County Council—I would suggest that, rather than run the risk of two changes in so short a time, it would be advisable to have a complete standstill until the Royal Commission on Local Government has reported.
I noted that the Special Orders Committee did one thing of significance. They rejected the petition of the Devon County Council in relation to a new inquiry, and when one reads all the evidence and sees the arguments which have been put upon more than one occasion—at the meeting with local authorities, at the statutory meetings and in the inquiry itself—one has to conclude that the matter has been threshed out quite sufficiently and that the Special Orders Committee were quite right to refuse an inquiry. But what was significant was that they went on to say (and I feel that this is most germane to our debate this afternoon) that the question of the proposal of a Torbay county borough raises a matter of policy and principle as to whether a change in the

1481
structure of local government in the Torbay area is desirable at this time.
I am against the Order, not on the basis of a consideration of the merits of the matter, but on the basis of the timing involved. I repeat that, in view of the fact that the Government have created the Royal Commission on Local Government, it would he wise to observe a standstill and let the whole thing be held in abeyance until the Royal Commission report.
4.45 p.m.
LORD NIITCHISON: My Lords, one thing is quite clear to-day, and that is that this Order, like so many others, is not a Party matter. We have had opinions from both sides of the Chamber which differ fundamentally, and, of course, in another place the same thing happens. It is always the same: the county which is going to have parts of it removed, usually into an existing county borough, in this case into a new county borough, says that it will no longer be viable and mobilises the support of the county representatives in another place. The borough, or what is to become a borough, says the opposite and argues—and there is a great deal to be said in favour of it—that it is growing and getting too large to remain a part of a county without going independent on its own. These broad points are bound to happen in a country where there is a movement, for good or for ill, to the outskirts of towns, and where existing towns in most cases aret getting larger. I remember that I had exactly the same sort of experience in regard to the position of Northampton in Northamptonshire. I do not think there is a county in the country which has not had this sort of situation in one form or another. It is certainly nothing new. Then the matter moves from that situation to vituperation. The vituperation consists in the county borough saying, "What about Rutland?", and the country replying, "What about Canterbury?" Neither Rutland nor Canterbury by any orthodox standard is viable. That, then, is the broad question which always arises.
Machinery was set out under the Local Government Act to deal with this type of question. It is quite untrue to say—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, will agree with me—that those who thought about the matter and set up the Local Government
1482
Commission did not have this type of problem in mind. It is the most frequent problem of all. What happens is that the Local Government Commission goes into the matter in detail, it hears both sides, perhaps even to excess, but it does so under the machinery of the Act. In this case the business took seven years. Its recommendations are followed by a decision one way or another by the responsible Ministers.
The case which is before us to-day is a very interesting borderline case, because the Local Government Commission changed its mind. Furthermore, it looks to me as though the county council changed its mind, too—at any rate it raised no very active opposition. It conferred delegated powers and led many people to suppose that it was not going to object, until the last moment. That does not matter very much, but this all indicates that it is a borderline case. I will not got into the merits of the matter, for I could not hope to compete with my noble friends who have long and detailed experience of local government. Indeed, I am not sure it is our duty to go into this kind of question. This is the sort of matter which the Local Government Commission and, in turn, the Minister of the day have to consider—questions such as whether they can afford a police force of their own, whether they, like Rutland, will have to borrow their books from the neighbouring county, and similar matters. It takes time. There is no question that people are not fully heard about it. There is no question that evidence is not fully available to the Local Government Commission. Then you come to the Minister's decision later as you did in this case, and then the matter has to go before both Houses of Parliament.
Those of us who have served in another place know this story very well. As a rule, most Members leave the Chamber, except the local Members, and those who have to be there on Government account or on Opposition account, sometimes. The Chamber empties a bit, and there you are. There is the county borough Member putting one case—and in this instance the Conservative Member for Torquay put it—and there are the county Members, in this instance almost all of them Conservatives, putting the other side of the matter. It is not a Party matter at all. That is the position

1483
in the Commons, and in the Commons it is quite clear that there are Members who are elected Members, and who represent the local interests in a different sense from any which your Lordships can claim to have.
I noticed—and I hope I am allowed to say it—that this particular Order was passed by a very large majority—I think I have the figures right-166 to 10. Of course, on this non-Party issue, the Member for Torquay borough voted in favour of the Order and, on the whole, the county Members did not. Some of them did not vote. One Member whom I should have expected to vote, and who spoke about it from the Conservative Front Bench, did not vote. I do not know what the feeling was, but there is no doubt about the decision. The decision was an overwhelming one in favour of the Order.
With respect to everybody, I do not think it is the function of either House of Parliament on these occasions to go too deeply into the questions that have already been considered by the Local Government Commission, unless of course there is some question of principle involved. I would say at once that there was a little discussion about the cost of a new town hall, or county hall, which had in fact been fully examined elsewhere. That sort of thing inevitably happens. But at the end of the day it seems to me that the governing principle in another place must be, "What are the wishes of the inhabitants of the area, and how are the services for which the local ratepayers are going to pay to be best provided?"
I am aware that there is a list of rather longer considerations which have to be before the Local Government Commission, but it is those two particularly which seem to me to fall to a House of Parliament to consider. With that overwhelming weight of authority behind it, not only the Local Government Commission after long deliberation, not only the Ministry who have a rather special knowledge in these cases, which I think one is bound to recognise, but also the House of Commons by an overwhelming and unusually large majority, the Order comes up here to be considered. I would merely say to your Lordships, with very
1484
deep respect, that I am not quite clear what function we are performing if we think that we are entitled to reject this on grounds which arise out of either of the two matters which I have been talking about: one is the wishes of the inhabitants, and the other is the provision of proper services.
I say quite frankly—there is no use beating about the bush; it may be King Charles's head for all I know, or it may be the obstinacy of Cato, who put off getting a classical education till he reached the age of 80, by putting into every one of his speeches, "Carthage must be destroyed", but I do not quite know where Carthage is in this connection and perhaps we had better leave it at that—that I cannot think that it is the function of this House, or indeed of either House, to raise questions here about the detail of services, or the broad general question of what is to be done with growing communities on the fringe of a borough, except in so far as the Commons has a special right to represent the wishes of the inhabitants.
I feel that your Lordships must necessarily have rather limited functions. I am not saying that your Lordships do not have power to turn this Order down. I should not deny that for a moment. I just point out to your Lordships what the result would be. Seven years of a great deal of deliberation, a great deal of evidence, the services of a large number of members of my own profession of the law, would have been for the moment wasted, and if the matter is to arise again then they would have to start from scratch, and this in spite of the decision below.
There remains the question which led the Special Orders Committee to ask us to consider the Order, and that is the connection with the Local Government Commission sitting, I think I noticed the other day, in the same offices which were occupied by the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources at one period—and very nice they were, too—for quite a time. That point, too, was answered pretty fully in another place, and no point that I can see was taken about it other than the mere point that it is too near the moment when they come to their conclusions to do anything. I should have thought that was a question which the

1485
Minister of the day must have considered; and, indeed, a point raised in another place was that he had considered it and, rightly or wrongly, was following certain principles.
Is it right for us to tell the Minister that this question of timing in relation to a Royal Commission is one of such importance that nothing ought to be done and that seven years labours should be wasted? I find great difficulty in accepting that as a reasonable proposition. I do not know how much he knows about the deliberations of the Royal Commission. A great deal of the evidence has been made public. There may be some indication—I do not have it—of what they are going to do. But I cannot believe that Ministers on either side are half-witted, and I should have thought that if he really felt this was an utterly useless Order to bring in he would not have put it forward. Surely one can trust a responsible Minister of the Crown to that extent, apart from any Party question—and I repeat, this is not a Party question.
So, for all those reasons, I feel it would be inappropriate for your Lordships to exercise your undoubted powers to turn this Order down, and to do it on any of the grounds which have been so well put forward by those interested in the fortunes of the County Councils Association. When this sort of question comes to this stage, it goes beyond the interests either of that body or of the Association of Municipal Corporations, or any other of the local authority associations concerned. They have important functions but it is the Act which, as I see it, tells us what the Local Government Commission ought to do and I think, by implication, makes it quite clear that we ought not to repeat in Parliament the deliberations which must necessarily have been before that Commission and the Ministry of the day. I am not saying that your Lordships have no power to turn this Order down—of course your Lordships have that statutory power; there is not the least doubt about it—but I am saying that I respectfully suggest it could rarely be appropriate to exercise that power and that it would not be appropriate to exercise it in a matter of this sort, which, whatever else may be said about it, has certainly had full consideration as a marginal case.
5.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think that if this matter had been under discussion a year ago to-day I would have been able to agree with almost everything the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said, at least until he came to the part where he was dealing with the Report from the Special Orders Committee. It may well be right that we in this House ought not to go into the complicated matters of the wishes of the inhabitants, or into the admirable or not so admirable carrying out of the county services, when one of these Orders gets to the very last moment before it is finally put into force. But if this House has this afternoon not given a very friendly reception to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, or to his Order, I do not believe it is because we are trying to infringe the sort of principle that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, was enunciating.
Nor do I believe for one moment that we should wish to pour any sort of scorn upon the work of the Local Government Commission, or, indeed, on the enthusiasm of the citizens and the councillors of the local authorities which it is proposed should make up the new County Borough of Torbay. The Local Government Commission, which produced this scheme, were working on the criteria set out in the Act and the regulations made under it, and I think—in fact, I am sure—they were doing the best they could in the circumstances. So far as the people in the Torbay area are concerned, they may well, of course, be disappointed if, through a change of circumstances, the conclusion of the matter for which they had hoped is not reached. But it is in no way meant to be a criticism of what they have done, or what they have hoped for, if we now suggest that the circumstances are a little different from those in which they first formed these hopes, and that we should discuss the matter upon that basis.
There are few of the detailed matters that I wish to touch upon, because other noble Lords have dealt with them already. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, dealt with the unity which was displayed among the people in Torbay. I should have thought that this was a quite obvious prerequisite for the whole matter, and that it would have been lunacy to go

1487
ahead without it. So the matter is not perhaps of particular importance, although it will be to the function of the new county borough when it is set up. So far as size is concerned, whether or not this proposed new county borough was just or right under the old criteria may not now be so important. What I think is important is that, having had this proposal to set up a new county borough, there are services which it now seems better—indeed, it may have seemed better all along—should be shared. If that is the case, it is for the same reason, I suspect, that this question is now the subject of the whole of the Royal Commission's inquiry; that is to say, that the size of local authorities with which we have been so long content is not now thought necessarily to be the right size for the future. And so Torbay, in accordance with the trend, considers that the police, fire and other services would be better administered over a wider area.
If what had to be considered was simply the local balance of advantage at the time the Minister made his decision, or when the Commission reported originally, then I would think that, the difficulties on Devon's side having been set out, as they were in paragraph 235, I think, of the Commission's Report, and discussed thereafter, it would be entirely justifiable to come to the conclusion which the Commission and the Minister reached: that, taking all balances into account, this was the right thing to do, and Torbay should become a county borough. But the difficulty was that the setting up of the Royal Commission was then announced. The situation was explained in another place, and I expect your Lordships remember what the right honourable gentleman the Minister had to say about the decisions which either had already been announced or were just about to be announced by him as a result of inquiries under the Local Government Act 1958. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, quoted half of it, but I should like to quote the whole. The Minister said:
"Where decisions have been already announced on proposals by the Commission, the necessary orders will be brought before Parliament as soon as possible. Other proposals on which decisions have not yet been taken will be considered on their merits, in the light
1488
of the decision to appoint a Royal Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 724, col. 644; 10/2/66.]
My Lords, on the latter class of decisions I do not believe that any disrespect was meant to the Local Government Commission, or that there was any intention to hurt the feelings of the people concerned, if the Government subsequently decided that at this moment it was not necessarily right to give a decision which would otherwise have been correct within the criteria. I know of twocases—that of Rotherham and that of Norwich—where after the date of the announcement of the setting up of the Royal Commission, a decision was given restricting the county borough in each case to very much the area it had before. I do not know why that was so decided, but it may well be that the Government thought that at that juncture, whatever might happen later, it would be better to leave the status quo for the moment. As I say, I do not know; but that might have been the reason, and it might have been a good reason.
That would have been a comparatively minor change, looking at it side by side with the creation of a new county borough. I believe this to be a unique occasion. There are no other new county boroughs which have been recommended for creation by the Local Government Commission whose decision was given, but not implemented, before the appointment of the Royal Commission. It is because of this situation, and because of one other consideration, to which I should like to come in a moment, that I think the House has a special duty, as our Special Orders Committee indicated, to look at this, not as a local matter, in the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, but as a matter of timing and of principle.
My Lords, the other point with which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, dealt in part (it was also dealt with in another place), and which worries me a little, is the financial side. As I understand it, the position is this. At the present moment, Devon County Council, which includes the Torbay area, is receiving a certain grant in total from the Central Government, and it is and was said—and this was the basis of the Local Government Commission's decision—that if the Torbay area was taken away and turned into a new county borough then the

1489
Devon County Council would get a higher general and rate-deficiency grant. I do not know whether the Torbay County Borough would also get a grant—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, could tell me that; hut' as I understood the noble Lord this afternoon, he was saying that the effect of the new system of grants under the Local Government Bill will be this. Whereas, if the old system had stayed, the Devon County Council would have received a higher grant after the removal of Torbay, and would thereby have remained viable, though we have a new form of grant system under the Bill, it will also receive the same sort of higher grant. I should very much like the noble Lord, if he would be so kind as to do so, to confirm in a moment whether or not that is so—and I believe that although, of course, it cannot be accurately computed, under the new system the figure will be a fairly large one.
It seems to me, therefore, that we have two matters of principle to deal with: first of all, the question of the Local Government Commission and the Royal Commission; and, secondly, this financial question. I should very much like the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to tell the House this about the Royal Commission this afternoon, because I believe that we shall be guided very much by what he says. Assuming that the time scale is something of the order of what he said. in other words, that one might possibly get implementation on the ground of what the Royal Commission has to say in something in the region of seven, eight or perhaps ten years, is the noble Lord certain that it is in the general public interest and the local interest that we should divide up the local government structure in South-West Devon for that sort of period without knowing what is going to happen at the end? Is it really necessary at this time to do something which might easily prejudice the reconsideration of that area on the basis that it might easily last for something in the region of only seven to ten years? Are the noble Lord and his colleagues in Government convinced that we must do this now in the general and the local public interests? Perhaps he could say whether this is his opinion and that of his right honourable friend.
I would agree, supposing that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, should feel like raising this point, that this is not a
1490
matter for your Lordships; but, because this matter has been clarified since the whole affair was discussed in another place, I should like the noble Lord to tell the House whether it is right that the Devon County Council will have to receive as a result of this Order more money in grants from the Exchequer than would otherwise have been the case, and, possibly, if the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, is right, more money at the expense of other local authorities elsewhere in the country. Are the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and his colleagues convinced that this is the right time to put the extra burden on the Exchequer? The noble Lord and his Party I am sure are right in saying that many local government projects must be shelved for lack of funds; yet, apparently, this is the time the Government bring forward this Order which, as I understand it, has this effect. Can the noble Lord say whether that is so?—because I believe that the House will be content to judge the Government's Order and the noble Lord's Order upon the basis of his answer to those two important principles.
If the noble Lord and his colleagues are convinced that, at this moment, this is in the public interest—both the matter of prejudice to the future local government in the area and that we should give this extra money to the county council because of this division of responsibilities at this time—then, no doubt, the noble Lord will say so. But it seems to me possible that the noble Lord would like to consider again, possibly in consultation with his right honourable friend, whether it is really the right thing to do to-day to bring forward this Order; or whether, alternatively, at any rate for a moment or for a period of time, the noble Lord might like to take it back for consideration—as I believe he could—and see whether he would not be able to give a rather fuller explanation to the House why it is that the Government consider this to be in the public interest. The local interest I think we have adequately dealt with. I hope that the noble Lord can answer me to-day, but I believe the House would be content if he were to do so on another occasion.
5.15 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, we have had a longer debate than I expected. I will try to take up a reasonable proportion of the points which have been made

1491
in the debate; then we can consider together what to do next. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, introducing his Amendment, raised the question which was to become the leading theme of our discussion; namely, the question of the time-lag between the introduction of the new Torbay county borough and the introduction of the legislation which might follow the report of the Royal Commission for Local Government. A later speaker, I think, said that this period might be that of a few months and asked what point there was in setting up this new county borough and destroying it a few months later. I think it is clear that it will not be a few months; and I shall have something more to say about that later. But let me remind the House that the Prime Minister has said that he expects the Royal Commission to report within little more than two years. It was set up in the spring of this year—it was announced in February—and we expect its Report (and at present there is no reason to revise the timetable) towards the end of 1968. As I say, I shall return to this point again.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, also qualified as serious for, I think, the Devon County Council the explanation that I gave of the kind of figures they were going to get in the form of grants in the future. I shall be sorry if anybody got the impression that the situation for the county council was to be serious. My purpose in giving that involved explanation of the new sort of grant was to show how far from serious the position would be; that in some respects the Government knew that they would gain, and in other respects the Government believe, though nobody could say with certainty, they would also gain. To this point also I shall return a little later. I should like to deal now with some of the more detailed points. The noble Lord mentioned the band of undeveloped land which comes half way along the proposed area, the gap between Churston Ferrers and Brixham which is being partly built over. I think, the rest is mainly used as a golf course and land which is kept open for other amenity purposes. If we are to reckon golf courses and amenity land in the middle of conurbations as something which ought to be left to the counties
1492
and not taken into the county boroughs, we shall find ourselves in a curious position indeed.
I have noticed a contradiction in the speeches made by two noble Lords, both of whom were opposed to the Order, and I thought I should bring it to the attention of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, welcomed the possibility of an amalgamation between the health and the social services with representation of the housing department within the proposed new county borough. My noble friend Lord Leatherland attacked the concept of the new county borough because certain services would, at least for a time, have to be run in common by the new county borough and the county. It does not seem to me to make too much difference. I think one will amalgamate services, run them separately or jointly as seems the most appropriate. I would suggest to the House that this particular issue should not count too much in either direction. If the Government were to base their case on this possibility we should not get far.
The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, whose experience in the county council field we were glad to benefit from and whose powers I certainly would not admit for an instant are declining, took me up on what I think may have been a lack of clarity in what I said. He asked: What difficulty could it cause for the Royal Commission if we leave things as they are? It would cause no difficulty to the Royal Commission whether he had a change or not. The Royal Commission, by the time it comes to decide what it wants to be done with local government in England, will face a situation in which there are a great many county councils and county boroughs, and whether or not we add slightly to the number of county boroughs and subtract a little from the population of this or that county will not make difficulties in either way. I should have said that it would be equally possible to introduce almost any imaginable pattern of local government as a result of Royal Commissions recommendations, whether or not we set up a new county borough area in Torbay. I hope that I have explained myself more clearly now. It was badly put before.

1493
I should like to answer one or two points put by my noble friend Lord Leatherland. He asked: If we were starting de novo, should we commend this Order to the House? If by "de novo"he means, if we were to imagine the former Local Government Commission still in existence and about to commence its review of the South-West area would we tell the House now that we should be likely to introduce the proposed change in seven years' time, the answer, of course, is, "No." This brings me to the crux of the question the matters which are in the pipe-line. Up to this point Orders have been made, but certain outstanding suggestions for change made by the Local Government Commission will not be embodied in Orders, and one of the difficulties the Government are facing is deciding where we stop making these Orders.
My noble friend Lord Leatherland raised the question of certain services under this proposed Order, and I should like to take the opportunity of making clear the effect that this Order will have. My noble friend said that the police will not be a separate force. Of course they would not. As the House knows well, under the Home Secretary's new proposals the trend is towards the amalgamation of existing police forces all over the country; it is far from being towards the creation of new ones. We should not regard the fact that eventually the new county borough will not have its own police force as a reason for not setting one up.
The question of the fire brigade is more complex. The fire service property is to be vested in the new county borough but, at the suggestion of the county council, it has been agreed to operate the service jointly for a period of five years, after which the position will be reviewed. It is not the position that the new county borough have said that they are too weak to run their own service, but that the county council have suggested that it should be a joint one.
The question of the ambulance service has been discussed a good deal at Torbay. The new county borough is to provide its own, but will have a joint radio movement centre with the county council, again an arrangement suggested by the county council. All these arrangements are provisional, until new elections are held for the united county borough, and
1494
largely for this reason we are giving the new county borough council a year to consider all this before they get fully into operation. If they do not like these proposed changes they can make other proposals.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Cuirass, said that there were two overriding questions. I accept his assessment of this. One relates to the Royal Commission and the other to the financial situation for the County of Devon. The noble Viscount asked me to confirm whether it would take seven or ten years from now until we had a new system of local government. I could not confirm it. I think that any member of the Government who confirmed such a proposition would be rash indeed.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I was not, of course, asking the noble Lord to confirm that. I was simply asking him to say whether he thought that that was roughly the right estimate.
LORD KENNET: I would not even agree that it was roughly the right estimate. Whatever one may think in general, we do not know what the Royal Commission are going to recommend. Nobody does. It is being pressed in different directions by different bodies, different individuals and different institutions. Most of those concerned are giving evidence which does not press them in any particular direction, but which consists of background material.
It would be wrong to say that the Government want a particular pattern to emerge. If the Government knew what they wanted they might never have bothered with a Royal Commission and might have gone straight to legislation. Still less can we assess when the Government can put through Parliament legislation based on the Royal Commission's recommendations, It would be rash for the Government to suppose that it would be in ten years' time. It is hoped that the Commission will report at the end of 1968. The Government hope to get good proposals which they can adopt and put through swiftly. But we do not feel justified in backtracking on proposals which are coming through the pipe-line from the former Local Government Commission, because of our certainty of getting a new system through rapidly after the Royal Commission report.

1495
On the financial question, the noble Viscount asked if the increased grants to Devon would put an extra burden on the Exchequer. No, they will not. The proposal under the Local Government Bill is that the aggregate of Exchequer grants to the local authorities shall remain unchanged, but because of the introduction of the new system of grants, there will be a new distribution between one recipient authority and another. It is obvious that when we are lowering the rate able value per head of the county the county is going to expect a higher grant per head than it did before. I tried to give some outline of how this is going to work in my opening speech. If we are reducing the population, at the same time we are reducing the rate able value per head for the remaining population. It may be that the aggregate sum will not be higher, but assuming that it is and that it does not come from the Exchequer, it is obvious that this is going to fall on the local authority. There are local authorities whose needs are decreasing for various reasons, just as there are others whose needs are increasing, as in the case of Devon. All have to be handled together under the Local Government Bill.
I should like to confirm what my noble friend Lord Mitchison said. I do not think that we in this House should be too confident in seeking to put this matter right. We only consider it for a few hours, though I know that some noble Lords have considered it for a much longer time. We are a body of amateurs considering this for one afternoon. This issue was raised first by local opinion in Torbay. The Order is wanted by the people who live there. Devon County Council do not want it. The matter was therefore referred to the Local Government Commission to assess. The first opinion was that it was a bad plan. The second opinion, after they had been more fully into the proposals, was that it was a good plan. They so reported. The Minister sent an inspector, who went into it all over again and reported that it was a good plan. The Minister himself then went into it on the basis of his inspector's report and decided that it was a good plan. He so informed the House
1496
of Commons, who discussed the matter under the Affirmative Resolution procedure and decided by an overwhelming vote that it was a good plan.
If my noble friend Lord Leatherland maintains that Torbay have been scampering out, trying to drag in this and that village, and monkeying with the figures as between the Census and the Registrar General's figures—and what I say was based on the Registrar General's figures—that, in short, they have been trying to pull the wool over the eyes of all those institutions whose duty it is to assess, to judge and to decide this issue, I think that he is seeing a lot of villains on one side and a lot of fools on the other in this sector of our national life. I know the House will join with me in disputing this.
Nevertheless, we must not regard all such considerations alone, and in view of the considerable weight of opinion and learning which I judge exists in the House this afternoon, and in view, frankly, of my own wish to get together again with my right honourable friend the Minister and examine what has been said in your Lordships' House, I should like to make the following suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. If he will withdraw his Amendment, I will withdraw my Motion. I would point out to the House that this does not have the effect of slaying the Order, but simply of withdrawing it from the Order Paper for this afternoon. It may be reintroduced later. On that basis, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has said, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding, of course, that I shall be able to move it, should I wish to do so, when the Order is debated again. Before I sit down, I should like to thank noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and have given me a great deal of support.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

FORESTRY BILL [H.L.]
5.31 p.m.
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

PLANT HEALTH BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

BUS FUEL GRANTS BILL
5.32 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Minister of Transport to make grants to bus operators, for their stage services, in respect of the 10 per cent. surcharge on motor fuel duties which was imposed under the regulator on July 21. The Minister is already refunding to bus operators the 6d. per gallon increase imposed in the Autumn, 1964, Budget. When the 10 per cent. surcharge was imposed, the Prime Minister promised that it, too, would be refunded. The Finance Act 1965 gave the Minister of Transport power to make grants to cover the 6d. increase. The Minister introduced a scheme of payments, after consultation with the bus industry, and that scheme is available to make the extra payments now promised. But the Minister's powers under the Finance Act 1965 are specifically limited to the 6d., and these powers must be extended before payments can begin.
The Bill will first of all extend the Minister's existing power to pay grants by raising the limit of 6d. per gallon, to which I have referred, to cover the additional amount payable by virtue of the Order which imposed the 10 per cent. surcharge (3·9d. per gallon), this power being retrospective to the date of the surcharge, July 21, 1966. It will also give the Minister a continuing permissive power, subject to the approval of the Treasury, to pay grants in respect of any surcharge imposed under any future
1498
use of the regulator. This must not be taken to suggest that the Government would in all cases accept that such grants should be paid. That would necessarily depend on circumstances at the time, and the provision implies no automatic commitment to do so. But the provision has been included so as to avoid any future difficulty of this kind which might arise.
Bus operators are already receiving grants totalling about £4½ million per year in respect of the 6d. increase. The additional payments, for the surcharge, can begin as soon as Parliament authority under this Bill has been obtained. In a full year, they will amount to nearly another £3 million if the surcharge is continued. The actual payments made in the current financial year will be just over £1 million. This takes account of the fact that the surcharge did not begin until July, and that, because claims are quarterly and some operators take a little time to submit them, many will fall to be paid in the next financial year rather than this one.
My Lords, the original grants in relief of the 6d., and the present grants, are being made to spare from these taxation increases, which have been generally imposed, the stage bus services, which are, broadly speaking, the essential local bus services in both town and country. They are a vital part of public transport which it is the Government's policy to strengthen. I commend this Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
6.36 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for commending this Bill to the House and explaining its purpose to us? As I understand it, and as she said, it implements the Prime Minister's promise on July 21 last to pay the rebate in respect of the regulator surcharge as it affects the public bus services. I may say that I follow the somewhat complicated arithmetic which results in £1·1 million being provided to implement this undertaking for the remainder of this financial year. I also understand that the repayments are made quarterly in arrears, and that, because it takes some time for bus companies to fill in the forms which they must fill in, £1·1 million will turn out to be sufficient this year.

1499
I wish to make only two brief comments on the Bill. The first is that, although this is the season of good cheer, this is no act of Santa Claus giving us a handsome Christmas present. It is really no more than an act of grace—if I may say so, rendered all the more so by the noble Baroness so charmingly commending the Bill to the House—because the Bill must be seen against the background of the total amount of taxation which the Government have imposed on the road user, both public and private, in the past two years, which is no less than an extra £280 million per annum. The annual value of this little Bill i s£2·9 million per annum. So this is giving us back roughly 1 per cent., or 2½d. in the pound, of what is being taken away. So that when I say that this Bill is no more than an act of grace, it is the act of grace of the highwayman who, having rifled your pocket, gives you back a few coppers to pay your bus fare home. I am sure that Robin Hood would have treated us rather more generously than that. However, beggers cannot be choosers, and we must be thankful for the small mercies which the noble Baroness has been gracious enough to give us. Therefore Her Majesty's Opposition welcome this small gesture to the public bus services.
With regard to timing, I have observed that some five months have now passed since the Government imposed this new tax. The bus companies, therefore, are suffering from inconvenience as a result of the delay in repayment of tax to them, and this, coming, as it does, on top of the forced loan which they now have to carry for the selective employment tax, is probably causing them some financial embarrassment. Consequently, we on this side of the House are anxious to do everything possible to help Her Majesty's Government to make amends for past delays by expediting the Bill on to the Statute Book now. I have much pleasure in commending the Bill to this noble House.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation of the noble Lord's acceptance of this Bill. He may be glad to know that in all the papers this morning my stars told me that I should receive no opposition to-day, and I am grateful that he,
1500
at any rate, has borne this out. I appreciate his feeling that this is an act of grace, though I would say that it does not flow from me personally. I am sure the noble Lord would agree that in other Acts Her Majesty's Government are giving similar rebates to other industries, and although he quoted a figure of £2 million, the total figure will probably be much greater. He will be glad to know that this Bill is retrospective. I know that he has been studying the same material as I have, and he will know also that as soon as the Bill takes effect these small operators, of whom we are very conscious, will receive this refund just as quickly as they complete the necessary forms.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
5.42 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Consideration of Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments be now considered. It may be for the convenience of the House if I move this Motion formally, so that the main discussion may take place on the next Motions which I propose to move; namely, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the first of these Motions were to cover Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 en bloc and the second to cover Amendment No. 7, that being a different subject. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill (98) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Reasons are printed in italics]
LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 1–6]
Clause 21, page 16, line 45, leave out ("three") and insert ("six")
Clause 21, page 17, leave 21, leave out ("three") and insert ("six")
Clause 21, page 17, line 30, leave out ("three") and insert ("six")
Clause 22, page 17, line 42, leave out ("three") and insert ("six")
Clause 22, page 17, line 43, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve")
Clause 22, page 17, line 45, leave out ("three") and insert ("six")
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they affect rates levied by local authorities and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 6, to which the Commons have disagreed. As the House will remember these Amendments extended the period for which unoccupied houses would be free from rates from six months to one year, for new houses, and from three months to six months, for other properties. We discussed these issues at length in Committee. Briefly, the Government believe that their proposals are already so moderate that they may do all too little towards the objective of discouraging owners from keeping properties empty for long periods. The provisions are adoptive: they cannot produce rates on any empty property before next July at the earliest; no property will be rated until it has been empty for three months, and then rates will be payable at only half the normal level. There are a number of exemptions, cast in fairly generous terms, and power for the Minister to extend the exemptions by regulations if experience shows that to be necessary.
It is a matter of judgment whether the provisions are too hard or too soft, or whether, as my right honourable friend and I believe, they strike about the right balance. The Opposition, both in this House and in the House of Commons, have contended that in this one particular, the length of the free period, they are too hard. The Government do not accept that view, and the House of Commons have rejected it. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is not an issue on which they feel it necessary to delay the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendments Nos. 1 to 6, to which the
1502
Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I have no intention of delaying the passage of this Bill. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for making a statement to the House on the merits of this case, though he and I are in disagreement as to those merits. For my part, I believe that this is a part of the Bill which will be found to work unsatisfactorily in practice, and a future Government may have to amend it.
There is one matter of some importance to which I think I should invite your Lordships' attention before we let these Amendments go. If your Lordships will read the Commons Reasons you will see that the Commons disagree to these Amendments
"Because they affect rates levied by local authorities."
I think your Lordships should know that in another place it was not argued that the Commons should disagree with these Amendments on grounds of privilege. Indeed, it is not surprising that it was not, because in fact the Commons agreed to a number of other Amendments made by your Lordships to the Local Government Bill which affect the rates levied by local authorities to no less extent than this set of Amendments do. If your Lordships will read Erskine May, you will find on page 838 this sentence:
"The Commons now generally waive their claim regarding amendments made to Bills that they have sent to the Lords dealing with municipal, county and local rates and assessments."
However, on this occasion the Commons did not waive their claim to privilege, and therefore there is no more to be said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 7]
Clause 29, page 23, line 22, leave out from ("date") to end of line 24.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it involves a charge on public funds and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on this Amendment, to which the Commons

1503
have disagreed. The House will remember that this is the Amendment about loan charges on lighting on trunk roads. If the noble Lord opposite agrees, I think perhaps there is no reason for me to go once again into the merits of the case. The case for the Government was stated fairly fully, and the case for the Opposition equally fully in Committee in this House, and we are now faced with the Commons disagreement.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 7, to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, in this case again I do not wish to delay the proceedings. The Commons have stated that they disagree with this Amendment "Because it involves a charge on public funds". Therefore, there is no more to be said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL REORGANISATION CORPORATION BILL
5.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation
1.—(l) There shall be a body to be called the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (in this Act referred to as "the Corporation") having the functions assigned to it by the following provisions of this Act.
(6) It is hereby declared that the Corporation is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown, or as exempt from any tax, duty, rate, levy or other charge whatsoever, whether general or local, and that its property is not to be regarded as the property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "to be regarded as" where it first occurs. The
1504
noble Lord said: May I suggest that we take the first four Amendments together, because I think that will be for the convenience of the Committee? The purpose of these Amendments is to draw a distinction between what is stated in the Bill, that the Corporation "is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown," and so forth, and the effect of the Amendments, which would mean that the Corporation is not to be the servant or agent of the Crown. There are four separate points here. One affects the status of servant or agent; the second the status, immunity or privilege; the third tax, duty, rate, levy or other charge, and the fourth, the question of property.
As to liability to taxation, the difference is unimportant because the only groups of people who have to do the "regarding", if I may put it that way, are those who collect the taxes and rates and duties and levies, and those to whom an appeal against the collection or assessment of such imposts lies. But there is surely a difference between the question whether a body is to be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown and the question whether it is in fact the servant or agent of the Crown. If it is to be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown it seems to be a question of law, whereas the question as to whether it is a servant or agent of the Crown is one of fact.
I take it that a servant is someone who acts on the instructions, or expectation of instructions, of another, and whose independence of action is to some extent circumscribed by those instructions or the expectation of them. To some extent it is plain in fact that the Corporation will be the servant of the Crown since it is bound to comply with directions of a general character given by the Secretary of State under Clause 2(4). The fact that the Secretary of State retains the power to make or withhold loans or payments under Clauses 4 or 5 indicates that the Secretary of State will exercise a considerable degree of control, but that might be little more than the relation between banker and client. If, however, the Corporation has to come to the Secretary of State and put each separate proposition to him before it gets any money, then the relationship will be much more intimate than that of banker and client, and if

1505
the Corporation is to be told by the Government the fields in which it is to operate, then the relationship will be still more intimate.
The purpose of this group of Amendments is to give the Government the opportunity to tell your Lordships what the relationship between the Government and the Corporation will be. Is the Corporation to he given a job and left to get on with it, or is it to be carrying out the business and behests of the Government? As Clause 2(1) stands the Corporation is in theory perfectly at liberty to decline to accede to a request made by the Secretary of State that it should establish or develop, or promote or assist the establishment or development of, any industrial enterprise. Is that liberty a reality or will the Corporation be expected to comply with such a request? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("to be regarded as").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SHEPHERD: I am very pleased that the noble Lord has moved this Amendment on the basis of a probe, because if he had proceeded with the Amendment we should have been forced to amend practically the whole of Clause 1. I think it is quite clear that the Government had in mind that the Corporation should be an independent body, and I think it is generally recognised that we have appointed a Corporation of distinguished and independent-minded men, and we wish them to operate within the terms of the Bill with the greatest possible freedom. As I understand the position, the Government have no power to instruct the Board on how it should perform its duties. Clause 2(4) is very wide. Perhaps I may explain it with this illustration. Under that clause the Secretary of State might recommend or request the Corporation to pay special attention (shall we say?) to the cotton industry as a whole, to see what amalgamations and mergers could usefully take place. But it is quite clear that the term "general character" would not permit the Secretary of State to instruct the Corporation to proceed and encourage a merger between two, or even between three or four, specific companies. It is quite clear that the term "general character" is of a very general nature.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord in terms of the use of loans,
1506
the banker and client relationship, here again I would assure the noble Lord that the Government will certainly not use the making of loans as a control over the everyday policy of the Corporation. I think I can assure the noble Lord that if the Corporation were forced to come to the Secretary of State or the Treasury when a very large merger was involved, the Government and the Secretary of State would not use that position in any way to affect the judgment and decision of the Corporation.
The words in subsection (6) have been used on numerous occasions. The noble Lord himself may be aware of the Airports Authorities Act 1965, in which the words "to be regarded" were included. Perhaps the noble Lord may be more familiar with the Sugar Act 1956, where again the words were used in the same way. With those few words, and special stress on the fact that the Government do not intend to exert in any way an influence on the everyday working of this Corporation, but wish to see it as a freely independent body working within the general terms and proposals contained in the Bill, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BARNBY: At this stage could the noble Lord expand a little in regard to the mechanics of how the procedure will develop? May I refer particularly to paragraph 6 in the White Paper, which described this? I think the noble Lord instanced the case of the cutlery industry. What I seek information on is any particular section of an industry which is different from the others and is distinguishable from them, where it would be considered by many familiar with the industry (even with many in the industry) that the situation was such that un-profitability was the result of what one might call an amount of unreasonable competition. Where will the impetus come from?
For instance, if the Inland Revenue cared to explore the aggregate results even of public companies, or companies which have to register at Somerset House, or those coming under the new proposal of the Companies Act, because there is an obvious lack of profits in a particular industry and the continuance of that must be disadvantageous to the national interest, it is difficult to see what are the mechanics whereby steps would be

1507
initiated. Would a "little Neddy" be involved in the first place? It does not seem that it can be the Corporation itself. The initiative must come from some quarter which urges that there might well be an advantage in the application of the provisions under the Bill, which, with certain reservations, would appear to many to have much merit. It is difficult to see exactly how the mechanics would function. Perhaps the noble Lord could expand on that.
LORD SHEPHERD: I should be very willing to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. I have a feeling I shall perhaps be able to answer him best when I move the first Amendment that appears under my name on the Marshalled List. If he would be content to wait until then, I think it would be convenient because the point the noble Lord has just made, while it may be very valid, hardly arises on the Amendment the noble Lord has moved. I would say, however, that the Government do not contemplate using the power in the Bill for recommending to the Board with any great frequency, and then only in very special circumstances.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If I may say so, this is a subject to which we can revert when we come to the financial aspects of the Bill later on under Clause 5. I would thank the noble Lord for his explanation, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
The Corporation's functions
2.—

(1) Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection, the Corporation may, for the purpose of promoting industrial efficiency and profitability and assisting the economy of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom,—

(a) promote or assist the reorganisation or development of any industry or section of an industry; or

(b) if requested so to do by the Secretary of State, establish or develop, or promote or assist the establishment or development of, any industrial enterprise.

(2) The Corporation shall have power to do anything whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of its functions under the foregoing subsection or is incidental or conducive to their discharge, including—
1508

(d) the acquisition and placing at the disposal of others of premises and plant, machinery and other equipment.

(6) In this section references to an industry include references to any description of commercial or financial activity and "industrial" shall be construed accordingly
6.1 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to leave outs "Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection". The noble Lord said: On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, after giving the Bill warm support, made a comment upon the drafting of the Bill. As I remember it, his main complaint was that we were giving functions to the Corporation but not laying down a duty. I explained in reply to the noble Lord that we were under some difficulties; that if you were to place a duty and make it explicit perhaps in that way you would exclude a particular point merely because you had omitted to include it in the duties so specified. After conversations with the noble Lord, and through the ingenuity of Parliamentary Counsel, I hope we have been able to provide a series of Amendments, which appear on the Order Paper, which will meet the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington.
I am now moving Amendment No. 5, and I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 10. The Amendment of substance is Amendment No. 7; No. 6 is a further paving Amendment and Nos. 8 and 10 are consequential. The new subsection has two parts. It makes it clear that the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation's first duty will be to survey British industry in order to identify the sectors where structural changes are needed. This perhaps is the point the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, was making. The Corporation will then have to select the sectors where an intervention seems most likely to have useful result sand concentrate their resources on those sectors. The new subsection makes it quite explicit that the I.R.C. will be responsible for setting their own priorities. No doubt they will look to the Government for advice and information during the first phase of their work for identification of the sectors where reorganisation is required, but they will also hope to receive advice and information from many other sources, especially from industry and the

1509
City. On the basis of a total picture which they build up they will decide which schemes they should seek to promote and assist.
The choice of the most promising possibilities from among the many that will be open to them will be one of the most important aspects of the Corporation's work and will demand all the financial and industrial skill and expertise which the Corporation's members can bring to bear on it. The success of the I.R.C. operations will depend to a large extent on whether they pick the right schemes to back. This is why the Government are so grateful to the distinguished members who have offered to serve on this Corporation. It is therefore right that the Corporation should be given full discretion to set their own priorities and be responsible for the choice they make. With these Amendments we have included now a duty to run side by side with the functions. I appreciate that it is not word for word the suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, made on Second Reading, but I think it goes very much to the heart of the point that the noble Lord made, and I hope it is now acceptable to the noble Lord and to the Committee as a whole. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 15.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD ALDINGTON: I would express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for this Amendment, and say that I join with him in congratulating the Parliamentary counsel who has found the way round a great many of the pitfalls and difficulties with which he briefed the noble Lord on Second Reading and about which he argued with me for a little while. I am very glad that, without torturing the present drafting of the Bill, it has been found possible to insert a duty.
It would be perhaps rather churlish to make the following comment, but I am going to do so. I think it is a second best, if I may say so, in drafting a Bill to put the duty after the function. It is surely unusual to appoint somebody to do something for you, and to tell him how he should do it before you tell him what he is to do; but this is, I think, forced upon us, due to the rather in-
1510
tricate drafting of the Bill. As the noble Lord says, this Amendment meets my main point, or most of my main point, that I put to your Lordships during the Second Reading debate. There is one part of my point which it does not meet, however, but on reconsideration I think it is right in not trying to meet it.
I told your Lordships that I thought it would be wise, in setting up a body whose main purpose was to increase industrial efficiency (that is, of course, the main background purpose we have in mind for this Corporation), that that body itself should be run efficiently and should seek in the long run, not in the short run, to make a profit for itself. But on further consideration I think it would be extremely difficult to give the Corporation a duty which was workable in a practical way, because of the nature of the way in which it is likely to operate in the early days, and also because it is, I think, the wish of most of your Lordships, with the Government, that the Corporation should seek to achieve its objects by giving advice and encouragement, rather than by actually participating. In those circumstances, of course, it would be difficult sometimes for it to get any income. So there is a point there which I now surrender.
There is one point, however, that has arisen since we considered this Amendment. Unless I misunderstood something the noble Lord said on the first Amendment moved by my noble friend, in view of the Secretary of State's power, under subsection (4), to give general directions, the duty of the Corporation to give effect to such directions might impinge upon this particular duty. I thought I heard him say that an example of the kind of general direction which the Secretary of State might give was a direction to have a look at the cotton industry. I must say that that would be rather a remarkable direction to give to Sir Frank Kearton. But if such a general direction were given, would it not impinge upon the clear duty now given the Corporation to use its own direction about such matters? Perhaps the noble Lord can answer that question, because I think it is quite important. There may, of course, be rules about the interpretation of Statutes, of which I am not aware, which subordinate the

1511
second duty to the first; but perhaps the noble Lord will advise us.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and my noble friend Lord Aldington on the successful outcome of their negotiations in this matter; and I congratulate my noble friend on having put up the idea that it was important that we should know what the main duty of the Corporation was to be. I must say that in putting this down as the duty of the Corporation, the Government have, possibly inadvertently, uncovered the fact that this whole Bill represents just an idea and that they have had no study in depth to see what the need for this Corporation was. They have just had a thought that it would be a good thing to have a Corporation, and now, and only now, the Corporation have to consider which industries it will be expedient to reorganise or develop. This answers some of the questions which we might have put at a later time, as to which industries the Government themselves thought should be reorganised and developed, and what were the studies that led them to this conclusion. But as I say, I believe that this Amendment improves the Bill, and I should welcome it.
LORD SHEPHERD: At this stage of the evening, and with an important Committee stage to follow, I do not wish to go into any depth as to what the Government have in mind as to which industries will need the attention of this Corporation. I think the noble Lord is quite wrong—in fact, I know that he is—in saying that this Bill is merely an idea, because all of us who have had modern experience with industry recognise that a lot is to be gained if we can have rationalisation; that if (to use a phrase that I have used many times) we had a few more lions in our industrial field and a few less cubs, we should have greater competition which no doubt would have greater effect in our export effort.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, that in the terms of this Bill my choice of the cotton industry and its chairman was perhaps ill-advised. I was merely trying to define what a direction "of a general character" would be. It is quite clear—and this is what I was trying to stress—that a "general
1512
character" is of a wide implication. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, regretted that we could not include all the words that he had in mind, particularly "on grounds of profitability". I believe it to be true that we should not judge the success of this Corporation merely in terms of the pounds, shillings and pence which they may eventually earn for the taxpayer. I think the success of this Corporation must be judged upon the quality and the success of the mergers they have encouraged. I hope that the Corporation will show a handsome return, but it will certainly be a number of years before this is possible. This is a point which we shall no doubt be able to discuss on later Amendments, when we deal with the capital position of the Corporation. With those words, I hope that the Committee will now accept the Amendments that stand in my name on the Marshalled List.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, leave out ("or section of an industry").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) In determining how to exercise its functions under paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection it shall be the duty of the Corporation to consider which industries it would be expedient to reorganise or develop for the said purpose and to seek to promote or assist the reorganisation or development of those industries which in the opinion of the Corporation it would be most expedient to reorganise or develop for that purpose.").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("provisions of this section").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.16 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (d).

1513
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, the effect of which would be to leave out the particular power that is given to the Corporation in subsection (2):
"The acquisition and placing at the disposal of others of premises and plant, machinery and other equipment."
This subsection now authorises the Corporation
"to do anything, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of its functions under the provisions of this section."
If it is entitled to do anything, presumably it would be entitled to do this, and therefore I can only conclude that the reason why this particular power was inserted is that it is a paradoxical power; it is unexpected. That is so, because if it is entitled to do anything, there is no point in specifying this in particular, unless it is unexpected, unusual, and possibly undesirable.
The real point about the Corporation is that, generally speaking, they must be a financial institution, and it is unusual for financial institutions to acquire premises and plant, machinery and other equipment and to place them at the disposal of others, unless we are thinking of hire-purchase institutions or something of the kind. This is an exploratory point, but on the face of it it is difficult to reconcile this particular power with the other powers of the Corporation, because it would be perfectly easy for them to make the money available for the purchase, or indeed for the hiring, of such plant, machinery and equipment. "The acquisition" must mean "the ownership"—you acquire and own. It is not at all clear why the Corporation should acquire and own premises, plant, machinery and other equipment. There may be something to be said for the premises, but so far as plant and machinery is concerned, that is by no means so clear. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give us further clarification on this matter, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, leave out paragraph (d).—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
6.18 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is quite correct in saying that subsection (2) will give to the Corporation power to do anything, which
1514
means that without these particular definitions or specifications it would do all these things without their being named. The reason for its insertion was merely to illustrate what the Board could do. I think I should make it perfectly clear that the Government do not believe that the Corporation should set themselves up as a sort of general leasing agent for equipment. But, as I said on Second Reading, there may be circumstances, particularly when three companies are being rationalised, when the best possible assistance that could be given to those companies would be in the field of modern machinery, computers or special forms of manufacturing equipment.
The noble Lord may be quite right in saying, as he did on Second Reading, why not give them money instead of equipment? In the end it will be the choice not only of the Corporation but, in particular, of the companies which merge, as to what form of assistance is given in bringing about the merger. I do not believe there is anything sinister in paragraph (d). It is merely to illustrate, for those who read the Act, the type of things the Corporation can do to assist in a particular merger. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the Corporation would have the power to do this particular thing, even if it were not included in the Bill. But I repeat that the Government have not in mind that the Corporation should set themselves up as a grand hire-purchase organisation or leasing agent for machinery.
LORD INGLEWOOD: May I ask the noble Lord one question? In each of his last three speeches he referred to mergers and the encouraging results which flow therefrom; in other words, he spoke of mergers as being the prime object of this Bill. May I ask whether the Government are also anxious to do what they can to help individual companies to reach new heights which, with some help from outside, might be possible? It is not just a matter of mergers, mergers, mergers, the whole time. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Brown, is wearing a tie of a remarkable firm. Is that not right?—unless my eyesight fails me.
LORD BROWN: No, it is the Melbourne Football Club.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I know that the other day the noble Lord was given a tie by a business house which he went along to see. I must declare some small interest, although my association with that business has been too short to claim any credit. One of the things which I am sure any Government wish is to help firms to achieve that sort of success, individual success as well as success by merger. Could the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, clear that point?
LORD SHEPHERD: I am well aware of what the noble Lord says, and the Government have a great deal of sympathy. We are now dealing with a Bill whose sole purpose is the rationalisation and reorganisation of industry, in relation to which is the merger of organisations into larger units. This is why I am forced to stress the word "merger". I sympathise and take the point which the noble Lord made about individual companies. I know my noble friend Lord Brown is in fact very active with the Board of Trade in bringing that about.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to thank the noble Lord for the explanation he has given. As I understand it, he has told your Lordships that this is not to be one of the major activities of the Corporation. If that is so, it is a little difficult to see why it should be set alongside three other activities which undoubtedly will be among their major activities. Although I feel that this is a little unusual and somewhat unnecessary, I cannot object to its inclusion. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, after ("to") insert ("a section of an industry and 'industry' includes").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Exchequer investments in Corporation otherwise than by way of loan
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of section 7 of this Act, the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury pay to the Corporation such sums as he thinks fit not
1516
exceeding in the aggregate £50 million or such greater sum as he may from time to time by order specify.
(7) The power to make any order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; but the Secretary of State shall not make any such order unless a draft of the order has been approved by the Commons House of Parliament.
6.23 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "£50" and insert "£25" [million]. The noble Lord said: It may be convenient if we take Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 14 together.
LORD SHEPHERD: Not 13?
LORD DRUMALBYN: That covers a rather different point, but I do not object to its being taken together with the others. We are here dealing with the financial provision for the Corporation. The Government spokesmen have said time and again that this Bill is an experiment, and I think your Lordships will be bound to raise your eyebrows and ask whether it is right, or wise, to commit the public purse to such huge sums of money on an experiment. One might ask whether it would not be much better to limit expenditure in the first instance. After all, the upper limit of expenditure of the National Research and Development Corporation is £25 million. That expenditure has been going on for quite a long time, and, by any standards, £25 million is a lot of money. Here we have £50 million as a limit to the Exchequer investment, which may be increased by order from time to time, with an overall limit of £150 million for all the money which the Corporation may obtain, whether on guarantee or by loan from the Government or by Exchequer investment.
In winding up the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord implied that there were some mergers which have already been as good as arranged, and that the Bill is urgently needed in order to ensure that they are not frustrated. I might ask him whether they would be frustrated if they were disclosed now. If they would, I should not press the noble Lord to reveal them. But on the question of finance, it seems to me to be a dubious practice for the Government to set up a Corporation before power is given by

1517
Parliament and possibly to commit Government money in connection with activities for which Parliamentary approval has not yet been obtained. It seems to me that the Government ought now to be in a position to give a clearer indication of what they have in mind in regard to finance.
What, for example, is the estimate for 1967–68 under the two heads of loan, on the one hand, and Exchequer investment on the other? The amount covered by that estimate would not necessarily be spent but, on the other hand, it would equally be possible for a supplementary estimate to obtained should the Corporation be overspent. All we know is that the upper limit of expenditure is £150 million. We do not know for how long that is to last. We know that the Government would have to come back to Parliament for anything further in that regard, but in regard to Exchequer investment the limit of £50 million, within the overall limit of £150 million, could be increased.
I have put down these Amendments to halve the sums merely in terms that such sums are very large indeed, and that the Government ought to have some idea of what their commitments are likely to be and, therefore, ought to be able to give us some idea of what they are before we part with this Bill and before such sums are voted. So far as I can see, no indication of any kind was given in another place on this matter. The Government plainly had no idea whatsoever at what rate it was expected that this money would be spent. Indeed, from time to time Government spokesmen gave the idea that they much hoped that none of it would be spent at all. If they do not spend it they cannot earn anything on it; and, further, the whole concern will not be viable. The Government are in rather a dilemma over this matter, but I think it is absolutely essential that, when legislation of this kind is introduced, the Government should have some fairly clear idea of what the money is going to be spent on and how long it is likely to last. They need not have an exact idea, but they must have some general idea. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 23, leave out ("£50") and insert ("£25").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SHEPHERD: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for taking these four Amendments together, because they really hang together. I think I should correct the noble Lord: he has taken up a point on which I sought to correct him on Second Reading. The Corporation do not exist, and therefore they are not in any position to bring enquiries to a position where one could say that a merger had been arranged. What I said on Second Reading was that a number of enquiries had been made, and I hoped that by getting an early passage of this Bill any serious enquiries about what assistance could be made available for a merger should not be lost.
The noble Lord wants to know why we have selected £150 million in the first instance as the total liability of the Corporation. We took into account the size of mergers which have taken place in recent years, and it was felt that £150 million as the total liability—not necessarily capital—was about right in the first instance. I have no reason to believe that we are either right or wrong. This is a reasonable anticipation of what is likely for—shall we say?—the next five years.
The noble Lord has asked whether we have any idea of the sums which the Corporation are likely to need from the public Exchequer during the next financial year. I will be quite frank with the noble Lord. I know, but what I do not know is whether that amount has yet been signified in any way to another place. Having heard so much recently about Commons' privilege, I am not quite sure whether it would be right for me to divulge that figure at this stage. I will ascertain whether on Report stage I can give that figure. But at the end of it, the answer must surely depend upon to what extent the board of the Corporation are able to carry out the duties which the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, was so anxious that the Corporation should have.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: May I ask the noble Lord whether he can elaborate this matter a little? There are said to be some companies which want to merge, or are thought to be wanting to merge, and they must have told the Government this—in secret, I

1519
suppose. I am not complaining of the secrecy, because until a merger eventuates it is not a good thing that the shares should be dealt in by those who know, at the expense of the wider public who do not know. So here we have some companies which wish to merge, or are imagined to be wishing to merge, and they go secretly and ask the Government; therefore the Government want to hurry the Bill along to help them. If they are worthy mergers which have merit, which are viable and commercially sound, why do they go quietly and secretly to the Government to ask for a Bill to provide capital for them? Why do they not go to the market? Is it because they are not viable, or not very respectable, or not very likely to make a profit, or because there is some crazy idea that the Government can do these things better than other people? Could the noble Lord explain how this can be? How are the Government to provide money, and for what? Is it for something which is not worth commercial money, or what?
6.34 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I must say that I am getting into some difficulties. This is the second occasion on which points of broad principle have arisen when I was arguing a point of detail. But I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, that the Bill has not been brought in because various companies have been to the Board of Trade or to the Government and have said that they wanted to merge. It has been the view of the Government that we needed to see a rationalisation within our industry; that companies should come together and make themselves more powerful production units than they are at present. The Governmentfelt—and I think there is a general understanding on this point—that the market, to which the noble Lord referred, has a very important part to play. This Corporation in no way prohibit its activities, and certainly will not, as I understand it, provide facilities which the City itself could provide. What we see here is a Corporation which will deliberately seek to create mergers, as opposed to sitting merely as a post office waiting for companies to come to it with a letter saying, "We want assistance. We want to merge." The Corporation will
1520
not in any way affect the City's function in mergers which now exists through the merchant banks.
If I may, I will now return to the question of the capital of this organisation. I believe that £150 million is as good a figure as any for this Corporation. It is not anticipated that the Corporation will receive anywhere near this sum, because in quite a number of cases there will be questions of guarantees which will have to be taken into account as regards the total liability of £150 million.
In regard to the £50 million, which one might call the equity holding of the Corporation, this is a figure which, again, is a rough estimate, because we recognise that if in the early days the Corporation were to receive funds merely by Exchequer loans, they would be involved in considerable interest payments without, perhaps, any immediate dividend. We think it would be wrong to place the Corporation in this position, and therefore we take the view that part of the general capital of the Corporation should be in the form of equity. As the noble Lord will be aware, there is power to consult between the Corporation and the Secretary of State as to the interest which the Corporation should pay the Exchequer on that equity capital. It may well be, in the first instance, that only a very small portion of the £50 million would be paid by the Exchequer, but that is a question of consultation between the board and the Secretary of State and the Treasury. I think the power of variation is very sensible, because, as the noble Lord said, this is to a certain extent an experiment. It may well be that there ought to be a larger share of the general figure in the form of equity, but this is a matter which, again, would be considered by the board and the Secretary of State.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a very large amount of money on which to have such a short debate and, of course, there are many ramifications. One could discuss for a very long time, for example, whether the Corporation are likely to be expected to make a contribution simply from the point of view that a merger is something which the Corporation want, and that, therefore, to some extent this may be bringing about cut-price mergers. At the same time, the Corporation must

1521
pay their way. I should like the noble Lord to make it clear, as I think was made clear in another place, that the Corporation will not necessarily negotiate the mergers themselves; they will be quite content, if they think a merger should take place, if it is negotiated elsewhere and in the usual way.
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, certainly.
LORD DRUMALBYN: But he will see my point that, it that is so, then the advantage of the Corporation doing it can only be that the Corporation are willing to do it more cheaply, at the public expense, than it could be done on the market in the ordinary way. So we are faced with the difficulty that the use of public money will take place to some extent in competition with the market. Having established that—I notice the noble Lord nods his assent—one goes on to the next point, which is that the Corporation have at their disposal the finance from the Exchequer; and, from what the noble Lord has said, they apparently have finance pretty well "on tap" up to the limit that is imposed. I think that has sufficiently revealed the position, and unless the noble Lord wishes to contradict me or to add anything, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: The only point I would take up with the noble Lord—and here I think he is wrong—is that I certainly did not give the impression of the Corporation going for cut-price mergers, or that they would in any way seek to undercut the normal functions of the City. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that if the Corporation can bring together two, three or four companies which are willing to merge, and if the City, the merchant banks, are willing to finance it, perhaps with the guarantee of the Corporation, then the Corporation and the Government would be very pleased to see it. The whole purpose of this Corporation is to have the most flexible way of obtaining their objective.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, will the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, forgive me if I press him a little further to make this clear? It is possible for the House, or anyone who reads what has been said, to misunderstand what I said or what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn,
1522
said. It is possible to imagine that he or I were concerned to protect merchant bankers. I want to say that I have no interest in the City or in merchant bankers, none whatever. I am not concerned whether this will compete with them or whether it will not. What I am concerned with is that there can be no purpose in this exercise that I can see unless it be to create unprofitable mergers or uncommercial mergers. If the mergers are worth producing, they will be produced. What, then, is the purpose of this Corporation, and what is this money going to be spent on?
LORD SHEPHERD: I must say that I am very sorry the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, was not here for our Second Reading debate, when we went into the purposes of this Corporation. But in view of the question which the noble Lord has put, and not wishing to delay the Committee, may I say this to him? The normal function of the City and the merchant banks is to facilitate arrangements in cases where two or three bodies voluntarily go to the bank and say, "We wish to merge. Will you help us?" Although there are some occasions, of course, when one company wishes to merge with another and they use the merchant banks to bring a merger about, in some cases there is, or there may be, a bit of dislike by one company of being taken over by the other; but this is the normal function of business. What the Government have in mind so far as this Corporation are concerned is to seek out, for the benefit of industry and of the companies concerned, the types of mergers which will be of benefit to those companies, to the industry itself and to the country as a whole. It is to seek out mergers, as opposed to merely sitting back and waiting for bodies to come to them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Reports and information]:
LORD ALDINGTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, the object of which is to include in the items that have to be reported for any accounting year any

1523
requests which may have been made by the Secretary of State under Clause 2(1)(b), where the clause says:
"…the Corporation may…if requested so to do by the Secretary of State, establish or develop, or promote or assist the establishment or development of, any industrial enterprise".
It seems to me that if requests of that kind are made, whether they are carried out or whether they are rejected by the Corporation, the public should be informed, and that is the purpose of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 16, at end insert—
("(a) shall set out any request made by the Secretary of State during that year, under section 2(l)(b) of this Act.").—(Lord Aldington.)
LORD SHEPHERD: Of course, the responsibility for making the report clearly lies with the Corporation, except that in Clause 9 we have a number of specific requirements as to what the Corporation should place in the report. The Government have always had in mind that the Corporation would place on record any request that they received by the Secretary of State. If the noble Lord wishes it to be written into the Bill, the Government are very happy to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

NATIONAL COAL BOARD (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
6.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Abolition of status of "exempt private company"]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I did not move Amendment No 1 and I should like to explain why. It is because, on consideration, it seemed clear to me that it would not fit in with the earlier part of Clause 2. If Section 129 of the Companies Act 1948 were to be repealed, reference in Section 190 to "exempt private companies" would be meaningless. Therefore there is no point in retaining Section 190. Moreover, it is the case that the Jenkins Committee, quoting the Cohen Committee, stated that there was very little support for the maintenance of the present exemptions in respect of auditors and directors. Those representations had been made to me, and in the circumstances I did not think it worth while to pursue my first Amendment. I have had the opportunity of discussing the point with the noble Lord opposite, and I am grateful to him for having given me that opportunity.
At the same time this is such an important clause that I think it would be impossible to let it go without some discussion. I am sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in his place, because he made such a very stirring speech on it on Second Reading. Jenkins (I think it easier to refer to the Jenkins Committee throughout as "Jenkins") stated in their Report that disclosure for what are now exempt private companies was right in principle, and necessary to protect those who trade with or extend credit to limited companies. I would not quarrel with that; but, of course, Jenkins himself qualified it by saying

1525
that in respect of emoluments, in respect of turnover, there was good reason for exempting private companies—and, I think he added "rents" as well.
The question which I think we shall be considering at intervals throughout our discussions on this Bill is how far one ought to exempt private companies. The Bill places further liabilities for disclosure on companies as a whole, and it is doubtful whether we ought to extend the existing liabilities—which in any case would be extended to private companies under this particular clause—still further in the rest of the Bill. It is also open to doubt (the noble Lord, Lord Milne, made this point in the course of the Second Reading debate) how far one should press upon private companies the liability for the full disclosure that applies to public companies.
Perhaps it would he right at this stage for me to see whether I have correctly understood what is involved. Under Section 124 of the Companies Act, an annual return has to he filed by the companies having a share capital. Under Section 126 it has to be filed within 42 days of the annual general meeting. Under Section 127, a certified copy of the balance sheet, together with every document required by law to be attached to it, has to be annexed to the annual return, with a certified copy of the report of the auditors and a report of the directors. Section 129, which is to be repealed by Clause 2 of this Bill, exempts private companies complying with the conditions set out in that section from the requirements of Section 127.
Under Section 156 the documents required to be annexed to the balance sheet are the profit and loss account and the group accounts to which have to be attached the auditors' report; and, under Section 157, the directors' report, which must give the dividend recommended, and the amount proposed to be carried to reserves. The report must also deal with any change in the nature of the business of the company or its subsidiaries or in the classes of business in which the company has an interest.
"so far as is material for the appreciation of the state of the company's affairs by its members and will not in the directors' opinion he harmful to the business of the company or of any of its subsidiaries".
1526
These duties are to be considerably modified in the clauses as we come to them.
In the case of a public company, in which any member of the public can take shares, it is clearly desirable not only that the accounts should be available to the public but that the directors' report also should be available. In the case of any private company whose articles prohibit the offer of any of its shares or debentures to the public, it is plain that if the principle enunciated by Jenkins is accepted the accounts should be available to the public as the price of limited liability. But it is by no means clear that the directors' report, designed as it is to enable the state of the company's affairs to be appreciated by the shareholders, should be so made available. This is a clear distinction between the accounts and the report.
I think it is right, when we are considering, as we are here, the principle of dispensing with the status of exempt private companies, that we should consider in principle whether the companies that have so far been exempt should have any alternative relief from the full necessity to disclosure. I thought that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Milne, was a good one. I am sorry not to see him in his place; but, as he is not here, perhaps I might be allowed to say that he suggested to me—and the noble Lord is a chartered accountant—that one way out of it would be through the certificate of solvency procedure. If, for example, private companies were to be obliged to give a certificate of solvency within, say, six months of the end of their financial year, this would give exactly the satisfaction that creditors are required to have. And it is, of course, mainly in favour of creditors, that Jenkins made his recommendation. These are two separate forms of qualification which could be devised to the general principle that private companies should make disclosure in the same way as public companies. I feel that this is a very important step that is being taken—we are dealing with something like 300,000 private companies; I do not know how many of them are exempt—and we ought to discuss this matter before we dispose of this particular clause.
6.59 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord who has just resumed his seat has made a speech which he might have made appropriately at this point instead of in not moving his Amendment. He covered a good deal of ground and covered it very pertinently—I think there is a good deal in what he said. But if the Committee will allow me a few minutes I want to go even wider before we part with this clause. I should like to make some observations on the whole problem of exempt private companies and the problem of the private company itself. In fact, we are celebrating the obsequies of the exempt private company.
The death warrant was deplored by a number of speakers on Second Reading, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in a powerful speech. I confess that I am rather surprised that no attempt has been made to stay this execution by the noble Lord or by some of the other noble Lords who took such a strong view in favour of the exempt private company. If I could have stayed, I should have liked to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, on Second Reading. Unforunately, as your Lordships will remember, there was a long list of speakers, and as I had an engagement which took me away it was not possible for me to discuss his valuable speech. I agree with a good deal of it, but not with the fundamental premise on which it was based. It is on this theme that I want to say a few words to your Lordships now.
I have always taken the view that the private company was a legislative mistake and a business mistake as well. It may well be thought that it is a waste of time for me to plunge a dagger into the expiring corpse of the exempt private company, but I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for making some observations of a general character because I have been a student of Company Law for a long time and it has always seemed to me that we made a mistake in 1907 when we brought the private company into existence by the Companies Act of that year. It was led up to by a most unfortunate decision in your Lordships' House—the famous case of Saloman, which I will not go into now, and which has always been a subject of controversy in the legal profession and more widely.
1528
It was suggested in the Second Reading debate that there is a basic difference between a great public company, such as I.C.I. with tens of thousands of shareholders, and the small family concern very often consisting of the manager and his wife. The public company provides an ingenious and exceedingly valuable method of obtaining the large amounts of capital which are needed in modern industry and commerce. But I can find no similar justification for the small private company which, having been granted the inestimable boon and privilege of limited liability, has become an umbrella under which the small capitalist can and does in many cases shelter himself from the obligation to pay his just debts to his creditors.
If a private trader continues his business when he knows perfectly well that he is insolvent he commits an offence under the Bankruptcy Act. But if he has thought of establishing a small private company, which he can perfectly well do, he escapes this sort of situation and may carry on what is little better than a fraudulent business. I have no doubt at all that the great majority of private companies are honourably carrying on their business and pay their debts, but a sizeable minority are really little more than vehicles of debt evasion. If your Lordships will bear with me a moment, it is interesting to see that of the compulsory winding-up petitions, which are now running at more than 10,000 per annum—in 1965 they numbered 12,062—the great majority are petitions by creditors, which means that the companies in question are not paying their debts. In 1965 some 36,000 companies were registered. Only a fraction of 1 per cent. are public companies, so the great mass of these are putting themselves into the position to use this method of evading the just payment of their debts.
This is only one aspect of it. As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack pointed out on Second Reading, the private company has been one of the main vehicles used by tax evaders over the years. There is no question about this. An enormous amount of Parliamentary time and draftsmen's skill has been put into attempts to prevent this, and no doubt to a substantial extent it has been prevented, but it is still the case that the private company can be,

1529
and is, used for the purpose of evading taxation.
Even worse, in my submission, is the fact that the private company can be, and very often is, used as an engine of oppression. It may seem strange to unknowledgeable people to be told that many widows have been caused great suffering, and even brought to something like penury, by the manipulation of these provisions in the law which restrict the transfer of shares of private companies. A shareholder dies with a large holding in a private company and leaves it to his widow. She may find it impossible to get a fair price for these shares because—and often they are members of her own family—thesurviving directors treat her in a disgraceful way and there is no satisfactory provision in the Companies Act for the protection of oppressed people in small private companies. The reports show case after case in which this provision has been used in this oppressive way.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, with whom I found myself much more in agreement than usual, in his excellent Second Reading speech two or three weeks ago, instanced another example of this, in which a wife who happened to have one more share than her husband was able to turn him out of the company—a thoroughly oppressive piece of work. If there were time, I could give more examples and expatiate on this point at great length.
I think that the old-fashioned partnership, under which after all the tremendous commercial and industrial prosperity of this country was built up in Victorian and earlier times, was an altogether fairer type of business organisation and much less unjust in its effects on business people. Unfortunately, this Bill does not abolish the private company, although the Jenkins Committee proposed in effect to do this and to have just one kind of company. This Bill leaves the 1907 Act extant and the restriction about transfer of shares can still be used. I do not think that the provisions about publication of accounts hits at the real mischief of the private company in any way. No doubt if you are going to have private companies there is a good deal in what Lord Goodman was saying, namely, that the proposals may make it more difficult to carry on a private company;
1530
for to treat a small private company as this Bill does—that is, to treat it from a number of points of view and from the point of view of accounting in particular, just as a large public company is treated—has obviously a great deal to be said against it.
What we really need as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, indicated in his speech, is some new type of organisation for a small business. I agree with what the noble Lord said or what his friend the Chancery barrister said. He thought it was fundamentally wrong to treat private companies in exactly the same way as public companies, and he said that this has been recognised in some Continental countries which had separate codes according to the type of company that was being set up. He was absolutely right about this. One of the most serious omissions in the Jenkins Report is that it shies off this important problem altogether. This is really one of the most extraordinary things about the Jenkins Report.
Professor Gower who was a member of the Jenkins Committee and whose book on Modern Company Law is a work of outstanding importance was invited some years ago by the Ghanaian Government to draft company legislation for that country. In doing so he took this very point and drafted a separate code for what he called the Incorporated Private Partnership in which he made separate provision for this type of business organisation. Indeed this is a legislative point into which we in this country might go with great advantage. It is interesting to notice that while Professor Gower's work in this way has been pretty well ignored in this country, not only by the Jenkins Committee of which he was a member, on the other hand, a great deal of attention has been paid to it in some other countries, notably Israel. This, as I say, is most interesting, and also disappointing.
As many of your Lordships will know, Professor Gower is now a member of the Law Commission. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not with us, because I should respectfully like to suggest to him that in co-operation with his colleague at the Board of Trade he should remit this problem of the proper structure of a new type of organisation for the small

1531
business to the Law Commission, who obviously, while Professor Gower is a member, are particularly well placed for drawing up a useful report which could in due course be considered by Parliament, who, after all, must take the final responsibility for seeing to it that the type or organisational structure which our business requires is provided for the business world.
It really is quite ridiculous that we should go on trying to mould these rather outworn types of organisations—organisations devised for a very different situation from that which exists now in the late twentieth century, and devised for the purpose of dealing with the sort of business requirements which existed in the nineteenth century—to meet the requirements of the modern world. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a matter of great importance and that it is perhaps legitimate for one to stray a little away from the exact terms of Clause 2 in order to bring this matter to the attention not only of your Lordships but, I hope, of a rather wider public.
7.16 p.m.
LORD COHEN: I hope I shall be forgiven if I follow to some extent the probably improper course that was followed by the last speaker—namely, to make a Second Reading speech on this Committee stage. However, I think I can justify myself in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said. I feel I have some justification in intervening, as the exempt private company owes its origin to the Report of the Committee over which I presided in 1945. I am quite unrepentant for having signed that Report. We expressed our opinion then as to the validity of the principle of the fullest information practicable about the affairs of companies being available to the shareholders and the public, and we recommended considerable extension in the information previously given in accounts. But we recommended an exception in the case of the exempt private company, because we had a good deal of evidence as to the advantage the filing of full information might give to the large concerns vis-à-vis the small concerns. And similar evidence appears to have been given before the Jenkins Committee.
1532
If your Lordships look at Paragraph 61 of the Report, you will see that they state in the first two sentences:
"We appreciate the argument that the filing of accounts may cause embarrassment or inconvenience to some exempt private companies, though the fears which have been expressed to us on this score are, we believe, exaggerated (like the fears expressed to previous Company Law Committees about the effect of the publication of full accounts by public and, later, by non-exempt private companies). We think that in general such disadvantage as there may he should he accepted, because disclosure is right in principle and necessary to protect those who trade with and extend credit to limited companies."
With that, if I may say so, I respectfully agree. But they went on to suggest that certain concessions might be made to the exempt private companies, because they did not think that that kind of information—though very important that it should be known to the shareholders and prospective shareholders—was of great importance to the creditors, who were concerned with the net figure; and they suggested that directors' emoluments, company turnover and rents should not be required to be disclosed in the file accounts of companies whose securities had not been quoted or offered to the public, but that this information should be given in the accounts of such companies circularising members and debenture holders.
What I should have said, if I had spoken on Second Reading, would have been that I regretted that this exception did not seem to be covered by the draft Bill. Amendments are proposed, such as Amendment No. 8 (I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will move it when the time comes), and I will not inflict myself upon your Lordships again if and when we come to those Amendments, which go a long way and even further than suggested by the Jenkins Report, because they suggest that private companies whose shares and debentures are not quoted on the Stock Exchange, to put it shortly, should be exempted from disclosing certain pieces of information as to emoluments and the like in the accounts which they file, though I think they should be bound to disclose that information to their shareholders. If I may say so with respect, I would approve the principle of the Bill—namely, that in the case of private companies the wide exemptions should be very much reduced. I hope that the

1533
noble Lord who presents this Bill will consider before the Report stage whether something cannot be done to give effect to the concluding sentence of paragraph 61 of the Jenkins Report which I have read to your Lordships. I will not inflict myself any longer on your Lordships, except to say, with respect, that I agree with the course the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, adopted in not moving his first Amendment.
7.21 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for his kind references to my remarks on Second Reading, which I am sure will be read with gratitude by the eminent Chancery lawyer who inspired them. As the noble Lord well knows, they were not strictly invented by me. In my 25 years in your Lordships' House I have noticed that Governments of all complexions are apt to quote Royal Commissions as Holy Writ, but I have come to the conclusion that if they do that, they should at the same time say why they have not carried out all the recommendations of Royal Commissions. One cannot have one's cake and eat it. Either Royal Commissions are not Holy Writ or else they are, and you must carry out all their recommendations.
As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said, the burden of my Second Reading speech was that a new animal should be invented, a sort of incorporated partnership. That, of course, would come forward at a time when the Government were producing fresh thoughts on Company Law in general. But if we are to amend this Bill in any way, this would be going part of the way towards that. So I should like to hear from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether the Government's predilection is towards new thought for the next legislation, or some amendment of this Bill.
I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen, with his vast experience, that to put all these burdens on the small private company will produce an intolerable degree of bureaucracy in the shape of filing accounts, and so on. Though the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, deployed a certain number of reasons why the exempt private company should be reformed, what they boiled down to was that there was a very small proportion
1534
of people who went bankrupt in running these companies. The noble Lord rather hinted that they went bankrupt on purpose. I prefer to think that in the vast majority of cases they went bankrupt because they found the pace a bit too hot for them and were not able to make a profit. Quite frankly, his complaints about tax evasion, oppression and bankruptcy—
LORD CHORLEY: May I interrupt the noble Lord? You cannot go bankrupt if you are running a company—that is the whole point of it. If you are a private trader, your goods and chattels are made available for your creditors, but not if you are running a business through a private company.
LORD HAWKE: I think perhaps I expressed myself badly. The noble Lord was talking about windings-up and so on. He hinted that in general these seemed to be the result of deliberate evasion of creditors. In the majority of cases the people concerned are not clever enough to make a profit out of running their business. The fact that they will have to file accounts, et cetera, I do not think will be of the slightest assistance to the widows who would be oppressed, or the Inland Revenue who have their tax evaded, or the creditors who will find companies going bankrupt on them. Therefore, I think it is a great pity that the Government have partially accepted the recommendations of this Committee.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I wish to intervene only briefly. I find the exempt private companies a most difficult question. If one looks at it—and I hope perhaps I may declare my interest from the point of view of a large firm; in this particular case Courtaulds is my firm—one sees there are two conflicting considerations. First of all, of course, it is absolutely true that it is very difficult to find out whether certain exempt private companies are creditworthy or not. If they are asked for their accounts—it is generally said that the bank manager does that sort of thing—in many instances their accounts are not worth the paper they are written on; they are not even audited. For a business that has a vast number of small accounts it is sometimes very difficult. Therefore, from the point of view of collecting debts and

1535
having a proper means of discovering the credit-worthiness of customers, what the Bill does is a good thing. On the other hand, there is no doubt that if the small individual company were compelled to give away all the information which it is asked to give away under this Bill the large company would be in a much stronger position. I think I ought to say that, knowing exactly how this would work.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, a large company has a number of shops in different towns. Under this Bill the individual turnover of those shops will not have to be given. It will be aggregated in the turnover of the group as a whole. But the small man in a shop alongside, whose turnover one would very much like to know—and, of course, one does not know it now—will have to give that information, and it will be of advantage to the big man.
I wonder whether the Government cannot find some way in which quite rightly to make the exempt private company that is enjoying the benefits of limited liability really pay for those benefits in telling us whether it is creditworthy or not, but at the same time so that that small man is not put in a weaker position than he is already vis-à-vis the big industrial or commercial group. There ought to be some way in which we could find a compromise between the two. I do not want to win all along the line, nor do I want the private company to continue fraudulently getting credit.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for not moving his Amendment, because I think it has given us a little more time for a broad discussion on Clause 2. I am unfamiliar with this process, and it struck me that it was very like a Second Reading debate. But I think perhaps that is justified because, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, suggested, Clause 2 brings about the demise of the exempt private company; and in so far as it does that it sets a sort of climate for the rest of the Bill. As such it is a very important clause indeed.
Perhaps it would be as well to make quite clear precisely what withdrawal of the exemption privilege is going to mean. I will make the points quite quickly. It
1536
means that companies will lose the exemption to file accounts; or, to put it positively, which I think would be better, exempt private companies will find themselves in a position where they will be required to file accounts with the Registrar of Companies for public inspection. They will be required to have qualified auditors and independent auditors. They will be unable to lend money to their directors. There is one other matter, concerning Northern Ireland, which I do not think is particularly important.
When we look at these four points as requirements to which they will now have to submit I think it is possible to overestimate the burden of these points. If one were to say to people from many other countries, "We are going to take the tremendous step of making all our limited liability companies fall in line on these points", I think some of them would say, "We are surprised to know that they have not always fallen in line in this particular way". Nevertheless, it is an important step, and it is reasonable for the question to be put as to why it was not considered possible to produce another type of institution more suitable for the smaller companies.
The noble Lord, Lord Cohen, has himself asked this question, and with great respect I would quote back from the Cohen Report itself, which tried to devise a definition for the purpose of exempting
"what can roughly be called the small family business incorporated as a company".
That Committee, however, were reluctantly driven to conclude that it was impracticable to define the companies which they had in mind by reference to the capital, the number of employees, the turnover, or even by a combination of these tests. We all know what happened: we ended up with the exempt private company defined in such a way that 70 per cent. of all limited companies become exempt private companies, and we know this means that the four points I have just made do not have to be met by something over 300,000 companies. I do not believe that any of us want to go on in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has suggested that it would be a good thing if we could put to the Law Commission for the future the idea that something more suitable should be built if possible.

1537
We are faced, however, with the fact that we have to make some change to better the existing situation. In facing this change the Government have been presented with the problem that, in their submission, to attempt to draw further lines of demarcation is not possible within the terms of reference of the 1948 Act. It is too difficult; there are so many possibilities of loopholes, and we propose, therefore, to take the extremely bold step of moving gradually towards big changes. We are taking a big jump now by having one sort of limited liability company in the country. No doubt this will mean further work and difficulty for many small companies, but we shall come to some ideas for minor amelioration of these as we go through the Amendments, and I shall try to be as helpful as I can in endeavouring to meet some of the points raised.
There is no doubt we are adding this burden. On the other hand, let us make the point that there are many very small companies in this country (and this is in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles) which have miserable sets of accounts. In one sense, people tend to be rather proud of the fact that they can run a small business on a few scraps of paper. But when one looks at some of the shops in the less well built parts of some of our towns, and sees filthy windows with sleazy-looking goods flung into the windows—and some of these places really smell—one realises that they would be very much better off as a result of a good spring cleaning and a reasonable set of well-drawn-up accounts to show them just how stupid they are in the way they run their business. These people employ many thousands of employees, and I do not think we ought to lean over too far in our sympathy for the additional trouble to which the small companies are to be put. I have some sympathy for them; on the other hand, we should not go too far in extending our sympathy in this particular way.
I should have asked the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, a question when he was speaking, but I understood him to suggest that if a Royal Commission were set up to produce a report such as the Jenkins Report, the Government ought to accept either all its recommendations or none of them. Am I wrong in that interpretation?
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord has slightly misheard me. My experience suggests that when a Government wish to take one recommendation and regard it as Holy Writ they ought to take the whole lot. Otherwise they can take a recommendation but they must not regard it as Holy Writ.
LORD BROWN: I note the distinction, but I must be a little cautious as long as the noble Lord is in the House, from standing too firmly on a particular point made by the Jenkins Committee. We are faced with a practical difficulty of expediency; and I am not ashamed of expediency. The difficulty is that if in fact we had set to work to produce a Bill which covered practically all the Jenkins Report it would not be in this House this evening. It would be doubtful whether it would be in this House a year hence, because there are the considerations of finding Parliamentary time, and of drafting.
Already this Bill, which is deliberately a limited Bill in order that it may find its place in the Parliamentary timetable, has given rise to an enormous amount of work. There are 87 Clauses, and as a newcomer I am dismayed at the amount of comment which has to be made in order to get the position clear in the minds of myself and others on this side of the Committee. I have the greatest sympathy with those who have not had the advantage of these excellent notes. If we had taken all the Jenkins recommendations into account we should have had an enormously indigestible Bill.
I was asked whether I could give some idea of the sort of shape that the next Bill would take. I think that is asking a little too much. Many wide issues are being discussed concerned with the structure of relationships between shareholders, customers and employees inside companies, but I could not commit the Government in any way.
LORD HAWKE: I think I was the one who asked the noble Lord that question and I do not think he has it quite right. He has since said that he is going to provide for some amelioration of the private company in this Bill, and I was wanting him to say whether that was his line or whether the Board of Trade would be thinking of the next legislation

1539
on the lines of producing legislation to provide a separate type of animal for the incorporated partnership.
LORD BROWN: I note the point and I confess I simply do not know whether or not the next legislation will be able to produce the animal. It requires a great deal of thought.
I have tried to deal with as many points as possible raised in this debate on Clause 2 stand part. I think the salient features are the fact that we are taking this big step and are producing the one type of limited liability company. It is acknowledged to be a bold step and we know it will entail quite a bit of trouble for many companies, but we believe that the need for further information and greater protection of creditors, the need for efficiency and the difficulty of drawing lines, are such that in toto this big step is justified. As I say, we will attempt to introduce one or two ameliorations in response to Amendments put forward to various clauses. With that, I think I can close my remarks, and I hope I have answered some of the questions put.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I make one or two observations? First of all, I would say thatI am very grateful, and I am sure all my noble friends are, for what the noble Lord has said. But I do not think, for my part, I can quite leave the matter there. The noble Lord has said that the Government have decided to take a bold step and equate the private and the public company, but he went on to say—and I think we were all glad to hear it; I am sure my noble friend Lord Eccles will be and I certainly agree with every word he said—that he would attempt to introduce one or two ameliorations, which, I take it, is one or two examples of relief for private companies, where he feels that is possible. As he knows, there are a good many Amendments down seeking to do that. My point in raising the matter at this time was simply to suggest that if we do that, we are dealing with the matter in a rather piecemeal way.
I revert to what I said before. I fully agree that all companies should have to
1540
provide accounts and that those accounts should be duly audited by independent auditors. I agree with the Jenkins recommendation about accounts. But the directors' report is not part of the accounts; it has merely to be attached to the accounts. There is a complete distinction. The suggestion I was throwing out to the Committee, and I was hoping the noble Lord would take up rather differently, was that it would be possible to deal with the whole of this question in one, if the unquoted companies were exempted from the necessity to attach the directors' report to the accounts filed with the Registrar. Of course, the directors' report would continue to be circulated to the shareholders. It seemed to me that this was one way in which this could be done. Then we should not have to go into the detail that we shall have to go into on each of these Amendments to particular clauses dealing with the directors' report, because it would not be filed with the Registrar. That would be one way of doing it. I hope that the noble Lord will at least consider it. It will not be difficult to put down an Amendment. We shall not arrive at it to-morrow, in any case, and it could be considered. It seemed to me, in considering this matter as a whole, the demise of the exempt private companies, that this was the opportunity to air the whole question.
I think this has been an extraordinarily useful debate. We had the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen, and my noble friends Lord Eccles and Lord Hawke. I think we can now leave this clause, in the knowledge that the Committee, every single person who has spoken, has agreed with the broad principle that Jenkins enunciated: that the principle of disclosure as a whole should be accepted. But Jenkins suggested that certain exemptions should be retained, and in the rest of the Bill we shall be sticking closely to Jenkins and trying to work out means of ensuring that his recommendations are carried out.
Clause 2 agreed to.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): I understand that the next Amendment is a very considerable one. In the circumstances I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

BARONY OF FRASER OF ALLANDER
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that he had received from Sir Hugh Fraser, Baronet an Instrument of Disclaimer of the Barony of Fraser of
1542
Allander, delivered in accordance with Section 1 of the Peerage Act 1963.
Leave of Absence granted to the Lord Noel-Buxton for this Session—Terminated.

LEE VALLEY REGIONAL PARK BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.