Sitting of 2 February 1966

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  HOVE CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  LEE VALLEY REGIONAL PARK BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.
  LEEDS CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
    OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

  SAINT MARY, EALING BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. This is a matter for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that a number of objections have been raised by hon. Members other than those from the Merseyside area to the Liverpool Corporation Bill, and in view of the fact that the Bill has the support of all three parties in the Liverpool area, plus the over-whelming majority of the people, I should like to know whether anything can be done at this stage to enable us to know precisely what these objections are.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a matter for the Chair. It is in order for an hon. Member to take objection to a Measure or to seek to have it debated.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst (Entrants)
    Mr. Rhodesasked the Secretary of State for Defence what increase has taken place in recent months in recruiting entrants for the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, from local education authority controlled schools in the north of England; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): Twenty-one such candidates were accepted last year from Northern Command, compared with 18 in 1964.
    Mr. Rhodes: Is my hon. Friend aware that this improvement, small though it is, will be widely appreciated in the North, and that the broadening of the school and social base from which future Army officers may be drawn will be good for both the schools and the Army, but that a great deal of work still needs to be done in liaison between the schools and the military authorities?
    Mr. Reynolds: Our team of lecturers in Northern Command visited 400 schools last year in the Northern Command alone, and this seems to have had an effect.

    Home Defence Force
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution he proposes that military units should make towards home defence.
    Mr. Murtonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will take steps to form a home security force for aid to civil defence; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Reynolds: I am making a statement later today.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: While appreciating that we are to have a statement, arising out of my original Question, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is confident that officers and men serving in the Territorial Army at present will be prepared to join his new organisation?
    Mr. Reynolds: I have not yet announced any new organisation.
    Mr. Murton: I appreciate that a statement is to be made, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will make clear that he will employ the Territorial Army in this rôle and so try to raise its present sagging morale?
    Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Member must wait another hour.

    Pensions
    Mr. Youngerasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will seek to revise pension arrangements for the Armed Forces to ensure that those who retire voluntarily are no worse provided for than those who are compulsorily retired.
    The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Christopher Mayhew): No, Sir. It is the normal principle with public service pensions that voluntary retirement before normal retirement age does not attract a fully proportionate pension immediately.
    Mr. Younger: Does not the Minister think that it is a little odd that at present a Serviceman whose job is threatened with redundancy and who therefore feels that he must leave the Service reasonably soon suffers a reduction in pension, whereas a similar Service man who is unsuitable for further employment and is retired suffers no reduction?
    Mr. Mayhew: If the service of the first man is needed but nevertheless he retires, it is fair that there should be a reduction in his pension.
    Mr. Royle: Why could not the Secretary of State for Defence have so arranged his programme that he could answer Questions of which there are 34 addressed to him today? Is it not a great discourtesy to the House that he is not here?
    Mr. Mayhew: The House should recognise the importance of the journey which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is making and give him the requisite leave.

    Long-Range Transport Aircraft
    Mr. McMasterasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will call for an immediate design study from the
    1058
    British aircraft industry for a heavy long-range jet transport aircraft to come into service in the 1970s.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Bruce Millan): No, Sir. We must first establish the need for such an aircraft. This will be considered further in the light of the outcome of the present Defence Review.
    Mr. McMaster: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it is not the Government's intention to rely on the United States to supply the next generation of aircraft, besides the present one, for this country?
    Mr. Millan: It is a little premature to consider the next generation of long-range transport aircraft when the Belfast and the VC10 are only now just coming into service with the R.A.F.

    Aircraft Carriers
    Mr. McMasterasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to invite tenders from suitable United Kingdom shipyards during 1966 for the construction of one or more new aircraft carriers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Defence when the new aircraft carrier is to be laid down.
    Mr. Mayhew: I suggest that the hon. Gentlemen should wait now for the White Paper which will shortly publish a progress report on the Defence Review.
    Mr. McMaster: Why cannot the hon. Gentleman deal with this matter, when he can, apparently, deal with such matters as the Territorial Army and the aircraft industry, pending the Defence White Paper? How many more postponements of the Defence Review are there to be?
    Mr. Mayhew: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question does not arise on the Question. The first part was answered in the debate on the Territorial Army, when we explained the reasons why that particular question could be settled in isolation.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will my hon. Friend appreciate that very careful consideration is required on the subject of the new aircraft carrier or carriers because it might

    1059
    lead to a great deal of opposition from this side of the House?
    Mr. Mayhew: It certainly needs careful consideration, and it has not yet been decided.
    Mr. Powell: if we have to await the Defence Review for the answer to this Question, why did the hon. Gentleman tell the country in the middle of November last that Her Majesty's Government were about to come to a decision on increasing Britain's carrier force? What has gone wrong since then?
    Mr. Mayhew: The decision will be announced in the White Paper.

    European Armament Board
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to establish a European Armament Board, as recommended by paragraph 3 on page 3 of Document 354 of the Western European Union Assembly.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he is having in order to promote the establishment of a European Armament Board as recommended by the Western European Union Assembly.
    Mr. Mayhew: This idea is under consideration by the Western European Council. Her Majesty's Government cannot take unilateral action on it.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the Government adopt a warm approach to this matter, in which we have a suggestion for practical co-operation between the members of the Six and the United Kingdom, and will they take some initiative on it?
    Mr. Mayhew: We certainly share the view of W.E.U that there should be a fairer share-out of arms orders.
    Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that the objects, at least, of this proposal are highly desirable? Surely the Government recognise that.
    Mr. Mayhew: I have said that the main object of W.E.U. is also the objective of the Government.

    F111 Aircraft
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Govern-
    1060
    ment will not take up the option to buy United States F111 fighters in order to avoid adding a further £300 million to the balance of payments deficit.
    Mr. Millan: As my right hon. Friend indicated to the House on 13th December, a decision on the Canberra replacement aircraft and thus on the need or otherwise to take up the F111A option will be taken as part of the Defence Review now in progress.
    Mr. Zilliacus: In making up his mind on this subject, will the Minister's right hon. Friend bear in mind that these planes cost £3 million each in dollars, that they are wanted only for the east of Suez rôle, and that this rôle itself is regarded as highly controversial by a great many Members not only on this side but on the other side of the House as well?
    Mr. Millan: I assure my hon. Friend that the question of the cost of the F111 and the rôle for which it would be intended if it were in fact purchased will be fully taken into account before any decision is made.
    Captain Litchfield: How much longer is this indecision to go on? Does the hon. Gentleman realise the great harm which failure to come to a decision on this question and the carriers is doing to the Services?
    Mr. Millan: As the House knows, the Defence Review is now nearing completion. If hon. Members will contain their impatience for a few weeks longer, they will have definite answers to all these questions.

    East of Suez (Defence Discussions)
    Mr. Kershawasked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand about defence policy in the Indian Ocean; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his recent talks with United States Government representatives, in general, and, in particular, on cutting British military expenditure and on Great Britain's east of Suez policies.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with members of the United States Administration.
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend has been discussing defence matters of mutual interest with the Governments of the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Any statement must await his return.
    Mr. Kershaw: One of the items on the agenda has been the stationing of British aircraft in Australia with nuclear capability. What are the Australians saying about that?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am not prepared to comment on what was or was not discussed by my right hon. Friend during the conversations.
    Mr. Allaun: First, is it not rather unfortunate that, since this is the only chance we shall have to ask these questions before the Defence Review—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite have no right to talk, because they want bigger armaments.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be no debate across the Floor; only questions to the Minister.
    Mr. Allaun: Will my hon. Friend give an understanding at least that expenditure will not go up this year but will go down?
    Mr. Mayhew: On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, which, I think, is the only question arising out of the Question on the Paper, the House would not wish decisions on the Defence Review to be taken without consultation with our allies. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They want the Secretary of State to consult our allies, and then they will have the Defence White Paper sooner.
    Mr. Blaker: Is it not a fact that the visit of the Secretary of State to the United States finished last week? Cannot the hon. Gentleman tell the House something about what happened there?
    Mr. Mayhew: What happened in the United States is a matter primarily for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but, in addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will, no doubt, inform the House on his
    1062
    return. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] On his return. He is returning on Sunday. In the meantime, the House really should face the fact that, plainly, it is not possible to reach these decisions without consultation with our allies.

    Buccaneer Mark II Aircraft
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is intended to order Buccaneer Mark II aircraft for the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Millan: The choice of further new aircraft for the Royal Air Force is one of the major questions on which decisions will be taken in the course of the Defence Review.
    Mr. Wall: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long he expects the development of the Mark II** to take, and will he comment on the Chancellor's suggestion made during the North Hull by-election campaign that these aircraft might be sold to the Americans as part of a package deal?
    Mr. Millan: The Buccaneer Mark II is being considered along with a number of other alternative aircraft in the context of the Defence Review, with particular relation to the Canberra replacement.
    Mr. James Johnson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that this is an excellent plane, the best of its kind in the world for its purpose, and can he tell us of any possible export markets for it, other than North America?
    Mr. Millan: I confirm, of course, that this is an excellent aircraft. The question is whether it is the particular aircraft we require for the rôle which we need for the Canberra replacement. This is what is being fully considered at the moment.

    Kestrel Aircraft
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has now placed a firm production order for the Kestrel vertical take-off and landing aircraft.
    Mr. Millan: No, Sir. The development programme is proceeding at the required rate and the firm already has authority for work on tooling.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the P1154, a much more

    1063
    advanced concept, was cancelled a very long time ago, and the evaluation squadron has come to the conclusion that it was a great mistake on the part of the Government to cancel the P1154? Will he now get moving on the P1127 before other countries start producing vertical take-off aircraft of their own?
    Mr. Millan: It is quite inaccurate to say that the evaluation squadron has shown that it was a mistake for the Government to cancel the P1154. It was a very sensible decision, the sense of which has been confirmed over the past year. As regards the P1127, there is a good deal of preliminary work still going on. There is no question of it being held up at the moment. There is plently of work and there are funds available for that work to be continued, but the question of a production order does not yet arise.
    Sir J. Eden: How much longer do the Government intend to take before placing a production order for this aircraft? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the firm intention of the Government to bring this aircraft into service as speedily as possible?
    Mr. Millan: I confirm that work is going on on the P1127 at the minute, in accordance with previous Government statements about it. When the appropriate time comes for the question of a production order to be considered and placed, the Government's decision will be made clear. If hon. Gentlemen will simply wait till the Defence Review statement is published, they will get answers to all these questions.

    British Forces, Far East (Armalite Rifle)
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent British forces in the Far East are now equipped with the Armalite rifle.
    Mr. Reynolds: Infantry rifle companies, Commando and Special Air Service units operating in Borneo are equipped with this rifle.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great value of this rifle, particularly in areas where much jungle fighting goes on, and can he assure us that there is no shortage whatever in these areas?
    Mr. Reynolds: There are sufficient available where its use is an advantage over the ordinary S.L.R.

    Royal Navy Surface-to-Surface Missile
    Sir J. Edenasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy with regard to the development or procurement of a surface-to-surface missile for the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Mayhew: I cannot anticipate the results of the Defence Review.
    Sir J. Eden: Can the hon. Gentleman at least confirm that it is the Government's intention to equip the Royal Navy with some form of surface-to-surface guided missile? Is not this a serious gap in our present naval armament?
    Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman will realise that this is bound up with a number of other decisions on the Defence Review, and I can make no comment on it now.
    Mr. Powell: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that his Under-Secretary of State last week indicated that one of the standing requirements of the Royal Navy for surface-to-surface weapons was for a medium-range armament at present covered by the 6-inch and 4½-inch guns? Is he saying that there are no proposals for and no consideration being given to the next generation which will replace those?
    Mr. Mayhew: All these things have been and are under study, but, on the question of future missiles, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that we already have surface-to-air missiles and at present we depend for surface-to-surface capacity on the strike aircraft, so we cannot take this decision in isolation from the Defence Review.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will my hon. Friend advise his right hon. Friend on our behalf not to make the mistake of the previous Administration in spending vast sums of money running into hundreds of millions of £s for missiles and other arms which were discovered to be of no value?

    Maritime Comet
    Sir J. Edenasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about progress in the Maritime

    1065
    Comet for Royal Air Force Coastal Command; whether a firm production order has now been placed; and when the aircraft will come into service.
    Mr. Millan: The integrated development and production programme is proceeding well and the aircraft is expected to come into service in 1969. My right hon. Friend hopes to have more to say about this project in a few weeks' time.
    Sir J. Eden: Does the answer mean that production orders have been placed for the aircraft? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important and urgent now to bring the aircraft forward into service, if possible, earlier than the date he mentioned?
    Mr. Millan: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the statement which my right hon. Friend will be making about this project, as I have said, in a few weeks' time. But work is proceeding, and the introduction date of 1969 will certainly be met.
    Lord Balniel: In view of the uncertainty about the employment position in Hatfield where it is hoped the aircraft will be manufactured, can the hon. Gentleman give any indication of the scale of the production order which is likely to be placed?
    Mr. Millan: No, Sir. It has never been the practice to give numbers with an aircraft of this sort.

    British Indian Ocean Territory (Defence Facilities)
    Mr. Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence what modification of his plan to establish defence facilities in the British Indian Ocean Territory he proposes to make following the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly of 16th December on this subject.
    Mr. Mayhew: None, Sir: the British delegate made it clear that we could not accept the references to these islands in the resolution.
    Mr. Atkins: While I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he will not pay any attention to the United Nation's resolution in this case, may I ask him whether the resolution does not make it clear that the establishment of land bases anywhere outside these shores
    1066
    is always liable to run into political difficulties, and ought we not, therefore, to be studying the alternatives?
    Mr. Mayhew: We did not think that the resolution dealt with the problem realistically. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken certain action here that we think is wise bearing in mind that we cannot foresee what the future defence needs in the area might be.
    Mr. Barnett: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be impossible to carry out any policy in the area east of Suez with borrowed money? Would he agree that in the present economic situation it is impossible to sustain the sort of defence commitments that we have at the present time?
    Mr. Mayhew: That raises much wider issues.
    Mr. Powellasked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he will give a general indication of the nature and purpose of the defence facilities to be constructed in the British Indian Ocean Territory;
    (2) what approximate estimate has been made of the total cost of the defence facilities to be constructed in the British Indian Ocean Territory.
    Mr. Mayhew: Neither Her Majesty's Government nor, I understand, the United States Government have at present any specific plans for constructing military facilities on any of these islands. There are, of course, a number of military uses to which the islands might be put in due course, as and when specific requirements arise, and this was the justification for the establishment of the British Indian Ocean Territory.
    Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman saying, then, that the establishment of this Territory—which, as the former Colonial Secretary said, was intended to be available for the construction of defence facilities by both countries—was a pure speculation when no ideas had yet been formed either as to the purpose or as to the cost?
    Mr. Mayhew: The future defence requirements of the area are extremely difficult to foresee, and I think that if we had not taken this decision we might well have laid ourselves open later to a charge

    1067
    of extreme lack of foresight of the kind we saw so often during the previous Government.
    Commander Courtney: Will the hon. Gentleman make proper use of the defence facilities of the Union of South Africa in terms of the Simonstown Agreement?
    Mr. Mayhew: That is a different question.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Defence what understanding exists between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America as to the proportion in which the cost of any defence facilities in the Indian Ocean area will be shared between them.
    Mr. Mayhew: Each country will pay for the facilities in which it has the prime interest. All facilities will be available for use by both countries without charge.
    Mr. Wall: Does that apply to both existing bases and possible future airstrips such as Diego Garcia?
    Mr. Mayhew: That would apply to all defence facilities on the island.
    Mr. Powell: Has an understanding in these terms been reached between this country and the United States without there being any idea at all what the facilities will be or what their purposes will be?
    Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. Of course, a number of ideas have been put forward—for instance, an American communications centre and a British fuelling base. I merely say that these are ideas which are not specifically decided on yet, but the facilities exist for putting them there if we want them, and that this is a sensible precaution.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Can my hon. Friend tell me to what extent this sharing of defence facilities and defence costs in the Far East means an integration of British defence policy with that of the United States? Can he, further, give an assurance that it is not the policy of this Government to fight Communism or put down revolutions in other people's countries?
    Mr. Mayhew: We have had very long and very successful experience of this
    1068
    sort of military co-operation with the United States.

    Royal Navy Ice-Breaker
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Gilesasked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to build an ice-breaker for the Royal Navy; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Captain Kerby) on 31st January.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Can the House assume from that reply that the Government have no further interest in arctic patrols or our position down there?
    Mr. Mallalieu: We have great interest in the position down there.

    H.M.S. "Centaur"
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Gilesasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a statement on the future of H.M.S. "Centaur".
    Mr. Mayhew: A decision on her future will be taken in the light of the Defence Review.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: In regard to this decision, will the hon. Gentleman urge the Government to realise a lesson which they have learned recently off the east coast of Africa, that an aircraft carrier is a handy thing to have around even in peacetime?
    Mr. Mayhew: H.M.S. "Centaur" is a rather special case, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows. It is rather smaller in size than suits our requirement.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has it not always been the practice that a Department, to save the time of the House, when it proposes to give identical answers to several Questions takes them together? We have had many Questions with the same Answers.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point for the Chair and is a waste of Question Time.

    Officers (Mess Subscriptions)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for Defence if it is the practice that officers are required to become members of their respective officers' messes and to pay the appropriate mess subscriptions.
    Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hall: Does it not mean, therefore, that the officers concerned are making these payments necessarily in the performance of their duties, and ought not the subscriptions therefore to be allowable for tax relief?
    Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. The subscriptions do not pay for the basic needs of a mess—the food and so on. They pay for the additional amenities, and that seems to be a fair charge on a man's private income.

    Army Reserves (Re-organisation)
    Sir T. Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will defer legislation to implement proposals in Command Paper No. 2855 until the Defence Review and the Review of Civil Defence are completed, and until he has decided on the contribution that military units should make to home security.
    Mr. Reynolds: No, Sir.
    Sir T. Beamish: Since the Government's one vote victory when the White Paper was debated really amounted to a technical knockout for them, and since it is clear that had a free vote been allowed on what ought to be a non-party matter the Government would have been heavily defeated, is it not clear that the Government ought to withdraw their proposals and think again?
    Mr. Reynolds: I think it was the Leader of the Opposition who, on a momentous occasion, said that one vote was enough. One vote is enough. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends have all the afternoon been criticising us for deferring things until after the Defence Review. I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should be asking us to delay this until after the Defence Review.
    Sir T. Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he
    1070
    has made of the annual cost to be carried on other votes resulting from his decision to remove from the Territorial Army the contribution to Civil Defence and the Cadet Forces, showing the figures separately; and by how much the estimated annual net saving to the taxpayer of £20 million by 1969 resulting from the reorganisation of the Reserve Forces, will therefore be reduced.
    Mr. Reynolds: The £20 million saving took into account the fact that there may be additional expenditure on the Cadet Forces of about £300,000 a year. Civil Defence expenditure is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who will be making a statement later today.

    Aden Base
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to retain the Aden base.
    Mr. Mayhew: I cannot anticipate the outcome of the Defence Review.
    Mr. Fisher: I think this is the first time that the Government have made an equivocal statement about the future of the Aden base, in great contrast to the statements made by the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend in answer to earlier Questions by myself and other hon. Members. Will the hon. Gentleman indicate when he can be more definite about this very important matter?
    Mr. Mayhew: In the Defence White Paper towards the end of next month. I am adding nothing to previous statements on this question.
    Mr. Sheldon: Will my hon. Friend go into the matter and see whether it is a question not just of transferring the base but of a positive reduction in the area?
    Mr. Mayhew: I cannot anticipate a decision on this.

    Service Men (Death Overseas)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the parents of a young soldier killed in Aden were asked to pay for his body to be flown home; what charge was proposed; and what progress he has made in his review

    1071
    of the arrangements for flying Servicemen's bodies home at public expense from places other than North-West Europe.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Merlyn Rees): It is long standing practice that Service men who die overseas should be given a military funeral there and this is done at public expense. Where practicable next-of-kin may have a body brought home if they wish by private arrangement and at their own charge. My right hon. Friend has not yet completed his review of these arrangements.
    Mr. Fisher: If there is space available in an aircraft that is coming home anyway, why is it necessary to make this large—in some cases I would think impossibly large—charge to the parents? Does it really cost the Government anything at all? If not, why should the cost be borne by the parents?
    Mr. Rees: I realise the strong feeling on this matter, but, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force said last week, there are other difficulties. There are great difficulties, all of which are being taken into account. This matter has been considered before and we hope to announce the result of the review very shortly.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend take note that there is very deep feeling in the country on this question, apart from the feeling among hon. Members? Will he see that this is speeded up? Let the Government not follow the example of the previous Administration, who did not do anything.
    Mr. Rees: There are very real problems to be solved. It is not merely a matter of the logistics of carrying the body but of health as well. We are considering the problems and will announce a decision soon.
    Mr. Tilney: Since bodies can be brought back from North-West Europe at public expense, or two members of a bereaved family can go there at public expense, could not a similar sum of money be given to a bereaved family bringing back a body from Aden?
    Mr. Rees: That is one of the things being taken into account in the review.

    Military Satellite Communications System
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for a British military satellite communications system; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend has recently signed an agreement with the United States Secretary of Defense under which British ground terminals will take part in an experimental defence communications satellite system which the Americans are to establish this year. As part of our study of long-term policy we hope to start discussions with the Americans shortly on the possibility of British participation in a subsequent operational system.
    Mr. Marten: This is only British participation in an American project. Are we not to have a national space programme with a launcher and satellite communications for our own defence purposes?
    Mr. Millan: This experiment will give us a considerable amount of technical knowledge which we require. Work on Black Arrow is also proceeding at the moment.
    Mr. Mikardo: In my hon. Friend's explanation about participation with the Americans is there any ideological content in the word "satellite"?
    Mr. Millan: None at all—neither in this nor in any other context so far as co-operation with the United States is concerned.
    Sir J. Eden: The Under-Secretary of State's original answer was not, in its essentials, any different from the answer given by his right hon. Friend on 31st July last year. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in the meantime, any programme at all has taken place in conjunction with the United States in the experimental military communications satellite system?
    Mr. Millan: My Answer demonstrates the progress that has taken place, for the agreement to which I referred was signed in November 1965, which was later than the answer given by my right hon. Friend.

    Bondi Report
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a non-classified summary of the recommendations of the Bondi Report on space matters.
    Mr. Millan: I have nothing to add to the summary which was given by my noble Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Air Force in another place on 3rd November, 1965.
    Mr. Marten: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that information was not enough? The industry wants to know what was in the Report. Will he look at this again and chuck aside some of the security?
    Mr. Millan: There is the question of security, but I would not agree that the information given was not of use. Considerable information was given about the military implications of space matters from the point of view of communications, reconnaissance and so on. If there is any further information that we can give, we shall give it.

    Reserve Forces
    Sir E. Erringtonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what employers and what employers' associations he consulted, other than the Confederation of British Industries, before arriving at the proposed conditions of training and call-out for the reorganised Reserve Forces; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Reynolds: None, Sir. Wider consultation was unnecessary.
    Sir E. Errington: Is that really the case? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the smaller firms that have been helping in regard to the Territorial Army have great difficulty in freeing men for this work? Might not the hon. Gentleman have taken a wider look at this? Will he take a wider look in future?
    Mr. Reynolds: We hope to get the cooperation of all employers in allowing employees to volunteer for the Reserve Forces. The Government are satisfied that the Confederation of British Industries provides sufficiently representative advice on these matters.

    Service Men, Zambia (Living Conditions)
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the living conditions of British Service men stationed in Zambia; and whether he will make a statement.
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the complaints about the living conditions of Royal Air Force personnel at Ndola.
    Mr. Millan: The British Servicemen recently deployed to Zambia are stationed at Lusaka, Ndola and Livingstone. As their deployment was an emergency operation, living conditions are naturally not ideal and it was not possible, except at Livingstone, to make suitable accommodation arrangements at once. The men at Lusaka and Ndola are accommodated in buildings on the local showgrounds in these towns. These buildings were not ready at the time of their arrival, but much work has been carried out subsequently. For example, the accommodation is being partitioned to make dormitories, ablutions have been constructed, and hot and cold water is now provided. Further improvements will be made in these buildings and it is hoped that more accommodation can be obtained.
    Mr. Hunt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if Press reports are correct, the men at Ndola have no chairs, no lockers and only the minimal ventilation and washing facilities? This does not say very much either for the Government's humanity or contingency planning.
    Mr. Millan: No suitable accommodation at Ndola or Lusaka was available when these R.A.F. personnel were sent there, but, as I have made clear, we are providing facilities as quickly as we can. Considerable improvements have been made within the last two or three weeks.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Was it in connection with the living conditions of British forces in Zambia that Major-General Willoughby made his recent visit to that country?
    Mr. Millan: The question of living conditions in Zambia is obviously something to which the Commander-in-Chief and everyone concerned are giving attention at the moment.

    Army Volunteer Reserve
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will safeguard recruiting to the new Army Volunteer Reserve by integrating the Regular Army reinforcement element wherever local conditions allow with that of the home defence force.
    Mr. Reynolds: I would ask the hon. Member to await the statements my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will be making after Questions today.
    Mr. Tilney: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the T.A. associations know far more about the problems of the Territorial, than the Regular Army? If the home defence forces could, to some extent, be integrated with the Regular Army, would there not be more chance of getting more recruits?
    Mr. Reynolds: If the hon. Gentleman is casting aspersions on the knowledge of the Territorial Army among Regular officers, I would remind him that a large number of them have served with it. We value the advice of the Territorial Army associations, but, like everyone else, they must await our statement.

    Aden
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons are currently employed at the British base at Aden; and what is the total annual cost of their salaries and wages.
    Mr. Mayhew: 6,630 civilians, not counting the Ministry of Public Building and Works staff and the crews of Royal Fleet Auxiliaries. The total annual cost of their wages and salaries is £2,827,000.
    Mr. Hooson: Does this not mean that, together with the salaries of other people and the capital costs, the base is costing a very large sum of money? Can he give a firm assurance that the matter is being considered in the Defence Review?
    Mr. Mayhew: I thought that hon. Members at least knew by now that this was being considered in the Defence Review.

    Nuclear Deterrent
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the defence budget is currently being spent on the nuclear deterrent; what percentage is being spent on defending deterrent bases; and what percentage is being spent on air defences.
    Mr. Mayhew: About 6 per cent. will be spent this year on nuclear strategic forces. The figure includes the costs of defending bases, in so far as defence specifically for this purpose is identifiable. The percentage attributable this year to the Royal Air Force air defence, fighter/reconnaissance, ground attack and surface-to-air missile forces world-wide, will be about five.
    Mr. Hooson: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that at the General Election it was Labour Party policy to do away with the nuclear deterrent? What steps are the Government taking to implement that pledge?
    Mr. Mayhew: Labour Party policy was to internationalise the deterrent, and that is what we are attempting to do.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the word "internationalise" did not appear in our election manifesto?
    Mr. Mayhew: I recall a considerable discussion on this point over a long period of time. "Internationalise" is shorthand for a policy which my hon. Friend well understands.
    Mr. Powell: How can the Government justify spending £120 million a year on something which the Prime Minister has repeatedly told the country is not British, nor independent, nor a deterrent?
    Mr. Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman, who has recently arrived to his task, has not studied—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—The Government's policy is not for an independent British nuclear deterrent. That has been made plain over and over again.

    Sultan of Muscat (Armed Forces)
    Sir D. Gloverasked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) why the names of Army officers seconded to

    1077
    serve with the Sultan of Muscat's armed forces were published in the Army List for 1962 but not for subsequent years;
    (2) how many officers and other ranks of each of the three services are at present seconded to serve with the Sultan of Muscat's armed forces; and what were the numbers for 1962, 1963 and 1964, respectively.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Twenty-eight Army and 10 Royal Air Force officers, and seven soldiers are at present seconded to the Sultan of Muscat's armed forces. Twenty-five Army and 10 Royal Air Force officers and five soldiers were so seconded in 1962, and 1963; and 25 Army and 10 Royal Air Force officers and seven soldiers in 1964. The names of Army Officers seconded to the Sultan's forces have always been listed in the Restricted edition of the Army List, but they are not listed in the edition on sale to the public.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is intended to retain Gibraltar as a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation base.
    Mr. Mayhew: We contemplate no changes in the N.A.T.O. tasks allotted to our military establishments in Gibraltar.
    Mr. Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Spanish Government have recently said that they refused to recognise Gibraltar as a N.A.T.O. base? Will he take the necessary steps to inform the Fascist Government of Spain that we do not intend to be kicked around?
    Mr. Mayhew: Again that would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. In the meantime, no change is planned on our side.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Do the Government intend to make representations to the Spanish Government this year not to interfere with British holiday travel in Spain?
    Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps the hon. Member would address his question to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Military Medal
    Mr. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many awards of the Military Medal were made in World War I and in World War II; and whether any monetary grants are associated with these awards.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: One hundred and twenty-one thousand, five hundred and fifty-four Medals and bars were awarded in the First World War and 17,058 in the Second. Awards made since 1939 have carried eligibility to a gratuity or an addition to pension, but before then no monetary grants were made.
    Mr. Jeger: Would my hon. Friend consider paying all the holders of the Military Medal in both wars on the same footing? Would he not agree that it is an invidious situation for those who gained the Medal in the First War to find that it carried a gratuity in the Second but not in the First? Would he bear in mind that many of those who won the Military Medal in the First War must have passed away by now and that the numbers remaining will be very small?
    Mr. Rees: When the Government of the day decided in 1945 to grant the award, it was done with effect from 3rd September, 1939, and back payment was made. If the rule were to be altered it would mean searching back, because it is considered that dependants of people who were awarded the Medal would have a right to payment. This would be a difficult task, but in view of the hon. Gentleman's latter remarks I am quite prepared to look at this again.

    T.A. Annual Camps
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are being made for annual camps for the Territorial Army this year.
    Mr. Reynolds: All Territorial Army training, including annual camps, will continue as previously planned.
    Mr. Johnson: Have the usual camps been made available for the use of the forces in the usual way? If so, is not this a little unusual if we are to abolish the Territorial Army, which is the Government's intention as we know it?
    Mr. Reynolds: It is completely usual. We want things to go on as usual this year, because it is essential that we should be able to provide, on 1st April, 1967, a sufficient number of volunteers from the Territorial Army to join the new Force which the Government propose.
    Sir T. Beamish: Does that answer imply that the Territorial Army should go to camp and train in the usual way next year?
    Mr. Reynolds: The Army Volunteer Reserve will be training next year in its usual way.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the opinion prevails in the Territorial Army that definite decisions have been taken and have statutory effect? Will he take steps to disillusion the Territorial Army and point out that all that has happened is that a White Paper has been approved?
    Mr. Reynolds: The White Paper has been approved by the House and legislation will be introduced in the near future.

    Royal Naval Armament Depot, Crossgar
    Captain Orrasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the 22 Admiralty Constabulary now stationed at the Royal Naval Armament Depot at Crossgar will be entitled to superannuation benefits if they are unwilling to accept transfer to other Navy Department establishments.
    Mr. Mallalieu: If unestablished they would get a gratuity under either the Redundancy Payments Act or the Superannuation Act, provided they had given at least two years' service. Established officers over 50 would retain accrued superannuation benefits. Established officers under 50 who rejected the offer of transfer would not normally receive superannuation benefits, but we would consider each case sympathetically on its merits.
    Captain Orrasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will state in detail his reasons for the forthcoming closure of the Royal Naval Armament Depot at Crossgar, County Down.
    Mr. Mallalieu: We now have more armament storage space than is needed to meet the demands of the Fleet. The closure of the Royal Naval Armament Depot at Crossgar will enable us to achieve the most efficient organisation, and at the same time a saving of over £75,000 a year.
    Captain Orr: Can the Minister explain why he has answered so many questions today saying that they must await the outcome of the Defence Review, yet has taken this decision, which affects the livelihood and employment of many people in an area where employment is difficult, in advance of the Defence Review?
    Mr. Mallalieu: This is an instance where an obvious saving could be made at once and where we should not delay.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this closure will be viewed with anxiety by many people employed by the Royal Navy in other parts of Ulster, and will he do his best to see that there are no further closures?
    Mr. Mallalieu: There will certainly be no unnecessary closures.
    Captain Orr: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    F111 and Mirage /Spey Aircraft
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in estimating the comparable delivery times of the F111 and the Mirage/Spey, he was allowing for the use of the Elliots nay/attack radar in the British aircraft.
    Mr. Millan: No, Sir, but there is no reason to believe that it would have any favourable effect on the delivery time for the Mirage/Spey.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Have the Minister of Aviation and the Minister of Defence for the Royal Air Force examined reports put forward by B.A.C. and Dassault jointly to produce the Mirage/Spey by late 1969, that is to say, by a date comparable with the F111? Is he aware that these planes make provision for British and French electronic equipment, which already is far advanced? Is not the forecast that this Anglo-French plane will be

    1081
    two or three years later than the F111 totally erroneous?
    Mr. Millan: Certainly all the reports of B.A.C. have been considered. We consider that the time-scale to which it says it could operate is an extremely optimistic one, particularly in view of our past experience of projects of this complexity.
    Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the Government believe the Americans because it suits their case, but that they do not believe the French and British when it does not?
    Mr. Millan: Not at all, because as I have already made clear, no final decision has been taken. I thought it would be common ground that it is extremely dangerous to take optimistic assessments of time-scale from anyone in view of our past experience over the last ten years. I should have thought that this was a lesson that we had all learned to our cost by this time.
    Mr. R. Carr: Can the hon. Gentleman give the slightest evidence to suggest that the time estimates for the Mirage/Spey are based on any more optimistic grounds than those for the F111?
    Mr. Millan: Certainly. The Mirage/Spey does not exist. At the moment it is simply a paper proposal and there is no such thing. The F111 has already flown.

    F111 and Spey-Mirage Aircraft
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has now made of the prospective merits of the F111 and the Spey-Mirage IV as successors to the TSR2, and of their respective dates of delivery and costs.
    Mr. Millan: On the comparative merits, delivery dates and costs of the F111 and the Spey-Mirage, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary told the House as Minister of Aviation on 13th December last. The assessment of the precise requirement for a successor to the TSR2 and of the extent to which it is met by the various contenders is a major factor in the Defence Review and is not yet complete.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that since that statement was made a most
    1082
    important debate took place in the House last night, in which an assessment was made of the respective capabilities of these two aircraft? Would he pay attention to that debate and particularly to the speech which I made comparing their qualities.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time is not the time to refer to previous debates of the current Session and it is perhaps immodest for a Member to refer to his own speech.

    Western Europe (Soviet Missiles)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the 735 medium range ballistic missiles that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has targeted on western continental countries are targeted on Great Britain; and if he will publish a list of these in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Mayhew: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) on 24th November.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister not agree that if the nuclear deterrent is to be a deterrent it should be credible? Would it not be more credible if we had a list of all the places likely to be destroyed in the event of a nuclear attack? If all these missiles are going to be directed on this country, what is going to happen to the four million people who are to be evacuated? Where are they to be evacuated?
    Mr. Mayhew: Thanks to the Western nuclear deterrent, it is unthinkable that any of those 735 missiles would be launched upon this country.

    Reserve Forces
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has now had with Great Britain's North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies about the shape and rôle of Great Britain's future Reserve Forces; what views they have expressed on his proposals; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Reynolds: Our N.A.T.O. allies were told of the reorganisation of the army reserves but have not expressed any views on it.
    Mr. Turton: Am I to understand that they are also proposing to reduce their reserves?
    Mr. Reynolds: Our N.A.T.O. allies are concerned with our ability to fulfil our N.A.T.O. commitments. As the reorganisation of these reserves improves our capability to meet these commitments, we can only assume that they will be satisfied.
    Mr. Powell: When the Government informed our N.A.T.O. allies of this, did they not think it strange that the Continental nations should be endeavouring to build up territorial forces at the same time as we were endeavouring to destroy our own?
    Mr. Reynolds: There may be some other nations in the N.A.T.O. Alliance which are still finding it necessary to build up forces in order to meet their commitments. We shall meet our commitments better from the A.V.R. than from the Territorial Army.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will give details of the estimated saving in pay and allowances, &c., of Regular Army personnel who would be made redundant by the proposed reorganisation of the Reserve Forces and whether this figure is included in his estimated annual saving of £20 million when the Territorial Army is finally abolished.
    Mr. Reynolds: No, Sir. Details of the premature retirements that will be entailed have not yet been worked out. My Written Reply of 25th January to the hon. and gallant Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Captain Henry Kerby) makes it clear that any possible saving resulting from a reduction in the size of the Army is not included in the £20 million figure.

  JUDGES (APPOINTMENTS)
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Attorney General in view of the statement by the Lord Chief Justice concerning the denials of justice caused by, inter alia, the shortage of appeal facilities to persons found guilty of criminal offences and by the shortage of judges, if he will now reconsider the recommendations of the Donovan Committee that solicitors as well as barristers should be eligible for
  1084
  appointment to the Bench; and if he will take steps to provide that distinguished university professors of law should also be eligible for appointment to the Bench.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The Donovan Committee made no such recommendations. The Government propose to implement the recommendations it did make as soon as possible.
  Mr. Hughes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that my Question is in no way in derogation of the excellence of the British Bench or the British Bar, or the legal profession generally, members of which are amongst the ablest, most excellent and learned in the world, but is a realisation of present circumstances? Is he further aware that knowledge, judicial qualities and humanity are to be found as well in the universities? Is he further aware that there should be available—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must learn to put his questions more concisely.
  Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that knowledge, judicial qualities and humanity are to be found in universities as well as elsewhere and that this should be available from time to time when there is a dearth—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If supplementary questions are put as long as that I shall not let them be answered. The Attorney-General.
  The Attorney-General: I assure my hon. and learned Friend that there is no lack of candidates among members of the Bar of appropriate quality to fulfil any judicial appointment to the High Court Bench that may be forthcoming. Professors who are qualified by membership of the Bar for a minimum period of ten years are, of course, eligible for appointment to the High Court Bench.
  Sir J. Hobson: Does the phrase "as soon as possible" mean this Session? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that other promised legislation was said the other day to be coming "in due course" and we do not know whether or not that means this Session?
  The Attorney-General: "As soon as possible" means as soon as possible—and that will, of course, depend upon the enthusiastic collaboration that the Government hope for from the Opposition in furthering the progress of the legislation now in the pipeline.

  RENT ACT, 1965 (POSSESSION CASES)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Attorney-General if he will state what is now the average period between the issue of a summons in the county court for possession of premises under the Rent Act, 1965, and the decision in the case; what steps have been taken to expedite the procedure; and how many such cases are now awaiting hearing.
  The Attorney-General: The latest figures available for the country as a whole relate to 8th December last, when the Rent Act came into force. On that date the average interval between the issue of a summons in the county court for possession of residential premises and the hearing of the case was 30 days, but in cases where a speedy hearing was requested on grounds of urgency, the average was 13 days. This is a reduction from the comparable figures of the previous quarter, which were 34 days and 16 days. There were 3,320 cases pending. Sample inquiries I have made concerning the present position indicate that there are now fewer cases pending and that the interval between the issue of the summons and the hearing is getting shorter. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor asked all county court judges and registrars at the beginning of December to continue their efforts to expedite the hearing of urgent possession cases when the Rent Act had become law.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether there is any difference in the periods as between town and country, with all the problems of county court circuits? Secondly, in what proportion of the total number of cases was the expedited procedure asked for?
  The Attorney-General: I have given the figures for the country as a whole. I do not think that there is any dispropor-
  1086
  tion as between the two areas which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. His own constituency of Kingston-upon-Thames is facing special difficulties, but generally speaking the picture which I have given represents the position in the country as a whole. I cannot without notice give the figures for which the right hon. Gentleman asks about the number of expedited cases.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (APPOINTMENTS)
  Mr. Cordleasked the Attorney-General what advice is given by the Lord Chancellor to his advisory committees for appointments to the Commission of the Peace to ensure that their recommendations, whilst covering all sections of the community, are made on the basis of capacity to carry out the judicial duties involved; and whether he will emphasise that nominees should not take a very active and prominent part in any political party.
  The Attorney-General: In accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1948, my noble friend the Lord Chancellor has instructed his Advisory Committees on the Justices of the Peace as follows:—

  (1) Each member of the Committee should be vigilant to prevent the recommendation of any person for appointment or the exclusion of any person from appointment as a Justice on the sole ground that he is a member of a particular party.

  (2) The paramount consideration in appointing Justices is fitness for the discharge of judicial duties.

  (3) Each Commission should include persons representative of various sections of the community; and

  (4) No Commission should include an undue proportion from any political party.

  Mr. Cordle: Is the Attorney-General aware that a letter recently written by the Lord Chancellor to the secretary of the Labour Party of Bournemouth has been interpreted by the Press as well as the public generally as a decision to inject political considerations into appointments to the Bench? This is the point I wish

  1087
  to make and again this has been contrary to his own expressions of opinion—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is getting too long. The hon. Member's first supplementary question is enough.
  Mr. Cordle: I wanted to know what steps the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to suggest to the Lord Chancellor so that this matter could be put right. How can he counteract this impression?
  The Attorney-General: I doubt whether even my noble Friend can put right misinterpretations of letters which he has written. In the letter in question, my noble Friend emphasised that the paramount consideration in the selection of persons for appointment as magistrates was their fitness for the discharge of judicial duties, and he was concerned to discover in Bournemouth an inadequate representation of magistrates from the wage-earning sections of the community. It is to put that maladjustment right that he has taken the necessary steps.

  LAW OF INTESTACY
  Mr. Abseasked the Minister without Portfolio whether he is aware that an illegitimate child has a right to succeed in intestacy to the estate of his mother only if she leaves no legitimate children; and whether he will seek to amend the law to provide that, in the event of a mother's intestacy, there should be equal distribution of the estate between all her children.
  The Minister without Portfolio (Sir Eric Fletcher): This is one of the matters which is being considered by Lord Justice Russell's Committee on the succession rights of illegitimate persons and it would not be right for me to anticipate any recommendations which that Committee may make.
  Mr. Abse: Is the Minister aware that this and many other disabilities suffered by the illegitimate have existed for so long and that committees seem to be so tardy that there is grave anxiety about whether an effective result will come from the committees or from references to the matter in other directions?
  Sir E. Fletcher: I am aware of the disabilities to which my hon. Friend refers, but I hope that his anxiety that they will not be allayed is misplaced.

  LAW OF SUCCESSION
  Mr. Abseasked the Minister without Portfolio how many meetings have taken place of the committee considering the law of succession in relation to illegitimate persons; for how long it has now been in existence; and when its recommendations will be made.
  Sir E. Fletcher: The Committee was appointed on 11th February, 1964, and has held five meetings, in addition to the meetings of the drafting sub-committees. Its report is expected to be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland very shortly.
  Mr. Abse: Do I understand that when this report is complete there is no question—or is it otherwise—of its being placed in the hands of the Law Commissioners? Are we to understand that when a report of this kind is made there needs to be a long further hiatus by the matter being dumped in the lap of the Law Commissioners?
  Sir E. Fletcher: There is no need for my hon. Friend's fears on that account. It is hoped that as soon as the report of the committee is received, which is very shortly, it will be taken into very careful consideration by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and I hope that there will be a reasonably early opportunity of introducing legislation to deal with any recommendations which the committee makes.

  WITNESS (ATTENDANCE FEE)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Minister without Portfolio if he is aware that a witness, of whose identity he has been informed, was subpoenaed, and attended court on 19th May, 1965, at considerable inconvenience to himself, and that the attendance fee, which he was informed he would receive, has still not been forwarded to him; and if he will expedite the necessary procedure.
  Sir E. Fletcher: I am aware of this case and understand that the witness has

  1089
  now been paid his attendance fee. In a civil case a witness must look to the person who subpoenaed him for payment of his fee. There is no relevant procedure that I can expedite.
  Mr. Driberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am very glad to hear that the witness has been paid, presumably since this Question appeared on the Order Paper? Is he aware that the sum involved was only £3 and that the solicitors who promised to pay it were reminded of it at least half a dozen times? Is there nothing he can do about it?
  Sir E. Fletcher: I am aware of those facts, but I do not think that there is anything. I can do, because responsibility for paying an attendance fee to a witness is the responsibility of the person who subpoenas him. It is not in any sense a Government responsibility.

  QUESTION TIME
  Mr. Speaker: May I make a brief statement from the Chair?
  Today seems an appropriate day to make it since we have done so well. Up to today we have been losing much of the pre-Christmas gain and momentum at Question Time. The margins involved are very small, but eight or nine words fewer in a supplementary question or answer means that we can achieve 50 Questions a day rather than 40. I am sure that every hon. Member wants that except at the moment of his own Question or Answer. Today has been an example of what the House can do by keen questioning and keen answering.
  Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Would it be possible to form a class for Members to teach them how to put short supplementary questions?
  Mr. Speaker: The Chair would be wise not to comment on that.

HOME DEFENCE
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on home defence.
I am now able to state in general terms the outcome of the Government's
1090
review of home defence. We have concluded that, despite the reduction in the risk of a nuclear conflict, we cannot discontinue civil defence preparations. There is always the possibility of war arising from misunderstanding or miscalculation; and we cannot be certain about the future spread of nuclear weapons.
Our studies confirm that, in the event —fortunately unlikely—of a nuclear conflict, sensible civil defence preparations could do much to save lives, to relieve suffering and to help the nation to survive as an organised entity. But there is a limit to what we can afford by way of insurance against this risk.
We have accordingly decided to restrict our preparations to those which would be likely to make a significant contribution to national survival. As a consequence, it should be possible to achieve appreciable savings. We estimate that expenditure in 1966–67 will amount to £19·7 million as against £22·7 million in 1965–66, and £24·1 million in 1964–65.
Further consultations with the local authorities and others concerned are required before we can settle the detailed application of our general conclusion. The Secretary of State for Scotland and I are undertaking these consultations forthwith. They will cover, in particular, the functions and size of the Civil Defence Corps, to see how with substantially reduced numbers the Corps might best be organised to carry out essential tasks. Concentration of the available resources on a highly trained nucleus of volunteers seems the right approach. Subsequently we shall consult representatives of industry on the implications for the Industrial Civil Defence Service. We shall also be consulting the local authority associations on proposals for shelter and dispersal.
We are adjusting the emergency system of control to provide more flexibility and a greater measure of decentralisation at the regional level. We shall maintain and continue to improve the efficiency of the Warning and Monitoring Organisation, including the Royal Observer Corps. We shall support the emergency preparations of the police and fire services, including the Auxiliary Fire Service, and the National Hospital Service Reserve. Some adjustments will be made to plans for stockpiling and the due functioning of

1091
essential utilities and services, including broadcasting.
We have also decided to establish a military Home Defence Force on which my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Army will be giving the House further information later this afternoon. This force would provide the police with valuable support in the maintenance of law and order in an emergency.
Mr. Thorneycroft: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities and civil defence officers will welcome this statement so far as it goes, for they have been clamouring for information, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) has been pressing for it since July?
Secondly, would he join me in paying a tribute to the stalwarts of civil defence who have carried on the work against a background of very great uncertainty? Would he say how his statement, in his view, affects the position of volunteers in civil defence? Are they wanted or not?
Finally, what was wrong with the support that he was getting from the Territorial Army? From a civil defence point of view, are there any arguments for the right hon. Gentleman changing to another body doing the same job; and on whose Vote will that body be carried?
Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he welcomes the approach and thinks that the local authorities will do so, too. We wanted to make this statement as early as possible, but it was also important to review the matter thoroughly and to be able to make a reasonably clear statement.
I am delighted to join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the devoted work which the volunteers have done. We certainly do not wish volunteers to withdraw from the service.
The Territorial Army question is primarily for the Minister of Defence for the Army. The main purpose was that we did not feel that it was giving adequate value for money.
Mr. Zilliacus: Does my right hon. Friend recall that at the end of the last defence debate in March last year the
1092
right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said that there would be no survivors of a nuclear war? This was endorsed by the Defence Minister, who said that within three days of the outbreak of a nuclear war human life on this island would be extinct. That being so, what is the purpose of this £20 million charade about civil defence and reviving the Territorial Army with the same job under a different name?
Mr. Jenkins: Certainly, nothing in what I said or in the preparation for civil defence means that this is a substitute for avoiding nuclear war. Of course it is not.
Mr. Zilliacus: A substitute for extinction.
Mr. Jenkins: Perhaps my hon. Friend will listen for a moment. Careful studies show that should the almost unthinkable, almost unbelievable, happen we could do something to relieve suffering and maintain a national framework by sensible and economical preparation. One must take account of that and do one's duty in this respect.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order. In view of the schizophrenic attitude of the Government Front Bench to home defence, would it not be an advantage if we heard the statement on the Territorial Army—or what is left of it—so that we might have some idea of how the matter stood as a whole?
Mr. Speaker: It would be rather confusing if we took two statements together.
Mr. Brooke: As much the greatest material risk after a nuclear attack would be uncontrolled spread of fire, could the right hon. Gentleman explain, under his new scheme, from where he will get the additional trained fire-fighting personnel who will be needed over and above the peace-time fire services?
Mr. Jenkins: The numbers in the Territorial Army, if that is what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to, who were trained in fire service work were very limited. We have the National Fire Service and the Auxiliary Fire Service, and I do not think that independently of what might be done by the Home Defence Force we shall have any significant reduction in the numbers of men available for fire fighting.
Mr. Heffer: Could my right hon. Friend give us a little more clarification on the point which he made that the new force will in no way overlap the responsibilities of the Minister of Defence for the Army? He said that its purpose would be the establishment of law and order in the event of an emergency. Would he say precisely what sort of emergency he has in mind?
Mr. Jenkins: We are thinking of the Home Defence Force in this capacity for use essentially should this desperately unfortunate event occur in what is called the survival period after a nuclear strike. It would come into use later than the Civil Defence Corps. We are not thinking of its use in this capacity in any other circumstances.
Mr. Hogg: Since the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) was good enough to refer to a speech of mine, would the right hon. Gentleman accept it from me that nothing in that speech was designed to deter recruitment for home defence, which is one of the factors which makes a nuclear war less likely?
Mr. Jenkins: I will certainly take note of what the right. hon. and learned Gentleman says and will assume that I need not now read the speech.
Mr. Driberg: Besides keeping in touch with the Secretary of State for Scotland, the remoter parts of which might escape total destruction, would my right hon. Friend also keep in touch with the noble Lord who is Minister for Disarmament, so that the balance of probabilities can be continuously reassessed?
Mr. Jenkins: Of course, I will be glad to be in touch with my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Disarmament. It would, however, be most unfortunate for any hon. Member or for the House to assume that my statement in any way means that we regard nuclear risk as acceptable—it is not; but we must, of course, take precautions against the likelihood of something going wrong.
Mr. Hooson: Can the Home Secretary tell the House what proportion of this money has been spent on research into precautions that are likely to make a significant contribution to national survival?
Mr. Jenkins: I cannot say exactly without notice, but this is one of the matters covered, although it is not a principal item, in the £19 million.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Minister tell us whether there are any plans for evacuating the civil population? What has become of the previous Government's plans for evacuating 4 million of the civilian population? In the event of an atomic bomb dropping on Glasgow, and destroying everything within a three-mile limit, where will the population of Scotland be evacuated to?
Mr. Jenkins: We consider it desirable to continue with plans for the dispersal of at least certain priority classes. Our view as a whole is that the period of notice which might be available is shorter than that which was assumed in the 1962 plans and that the area of dispersal might, therefore, need to be smaller. But we will endeavour to disperse the priority classes within an area of about 50 miles.
Sir D. Renton: Bearing in mind that the Home Secretary's statement appears to me to suggest that we shall spend £3 million less next year, a saving of 15 per cent., on civil defence compared with last year, will the right hon. Gentleman state on exactly which items the axe will fall?
Secondly, will he give an undertaking that there will not be any attempt to do away with the very important communications system which was being built up within the civil defence structure?
Thirdly, will he say exactly how the task for which the Territorial Army was designed will be performed in future?
Mr. Jenkins: The last part of the question could better be directed to my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Army after he has made his statement on the Home Defence Force. The savings have been fairly widely spread over the whole field, but I can let the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House have further details if a Question can be put down. Our intention is certainly to devote a high priority to maintaining and improving the communications.
Mr. W. Baxter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will bring no

1095
satisfaction to the people of central Scotland, in view of the fact that within a very short distance from the centre of Glasgow the whole nuclear potentiality of this Britain is sited and the dangers to central Scotland are evident for all to see? Will my right hon. Friend take immediate action with his colleagues to see that those instalments are moved to the south of England?
Mr. Jenkins: I would need to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland before making such a move. My statement, by its nature, is not intended to be, and cannot be, a statement which will give great satisfaction to any body of the population. This is a statement to show that we are taking certain measures to deal with a particularly dangerous situation should it, against our calculations, occur.
Of course, I take into account the position in Scotland, but I do not think that for that reason it is necessarily a more menacing situation than that which might, in the unlikely event of nuclear conflict, face the Metropolis or other areas.
Lady Tweedsmuir: Will the Home Secretary give the corresponding financial figures for Scotland? What will be the effect on the total number of people who are asked to come forward as volunteers in comparison with the present figure?
Mr. Jenkins: I would rather the hon. Lady put down detailed Questions about Scotland to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. There has been some substantial decline in the numbers of the Civil Defence Corps over past years. We think that this corps can probably best serve its purpose by concentrating upon a corps of highly trained volunteers. I do not think that this will involve people who are already in the corps being asked to leave.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: While we all welcome the fact that the Home Secretary is giving serious study to the problem of civil defence, which has been urgently required for a long time, may I ask whether he will publish a White Paper giving a full account for the House and the public of the kind of attack which may be expected, the kind of results which would happen in this country if an attack occurred and the principles upon which
1096
the money for civil defence is to be allocated and spent?
Mr. Jenkins: I will certainly consider my right hon. Friend's suggestion. Civil defence will, of course, be dealt with in the White Paper which will be published on defence generally, but I think that my right hon. Friend has something more detailed in view. We would, in any event, intend in due course to publish a new edition of the training publications, which will deal with at least some of the detailed points which my right hon. Friend has in mind. I will, however, consider his wider suggestion.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Reynolds, statement.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: On a point of order. As the Home Secretary's statement covers civil defence in Wales, Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for me to ask him for the figures for Wales?
Mr. Speaker: I have tried to distribute my favours impartially, but the hon. Member may put his question on Wales.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Home Secretary is responsible personally for civil defence in Wales, can he give the figures concerning Wales?
Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. The figures which I have given cover the whole area for which I am responsible. If the hon. Member puts down a Question, I will gladly give him a breakdown as far as that is possible.

HOME DEFENCE FORCE
The Minister of Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): In accordance with paragraph 4 of the White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Army Reserves, the Government have now completed their examination of the contribution that military units might best make to home defence in the event of actual or apprehended nuclear attack on the United Kingdom.
To supplement the substantial numbers of regulars and reserve forces likely to be in the United Kingdom at the time, we have decided, as my right hon. Friend has told the House, to establish a Home

1097
Defence Force. This will be a military force, based on existing Territorial Army units and forming a self-contained part of the Army Volunteer Reserve, organised separately from the independent and sponsored units described in the White Paper. It will be under military command, but its primary róle will be to assist the police in the maintenance of law and order and to act generally in support of the civil authorities in the event of a general war. It will, therefore, be closely linked with civil defence and will be widely spread throughout the United Kingdom.
The force will have an establishment of about 28,000 men with a peace-time recruiting ceiling of 22,500, representing 80 per cent. of the establishment. It will consist of lightly armed infantry type units with training and limited scales of equipment appropriate to their primary róle. The annual cost of the force should not exceed £3 million.
Subject to the necessary legislative authority, members of the force will have the same liability for call-out as the Territorial Army have now, except that they will be liable for home service only and that call-out by Queen's Order will he substituted for the existing proclamation procedure.
Discussions are now taking place between the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations on the implementation of this decision. The title of the new force will be one of the subjects to be covered by these discussions.
Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side will wish at an early stage to debate these proposals, which are some improvement on the previous ones which we had before us but are by no means good enough yet, and that that is a quite separate matter from the debates which will ensue in the general defence framework?
Meanwhile, may I put two points to the Minister? First, does he realise that by insisting upon divorcing this Home Defence Force from the Army Volunteer Reserve he is prejudicing the likelihood of being able to recruit either or the success of either in the rôles assigned to them and that this is an entirely perverse approach?
1098
Secondly, now that the Government have realised that one of the assumptions on which their proposals were based—namely, that there was no home defence rôle for the Territorial Army—was ill-founded, will they realise that many of the other assumptions were ill-founded, too, and reconsider the whole of their idea of virtually destroying the existing Territorial Army?
Mr. Reynolds: If the right hon. Gentleman wants a debate I assume we shall have it on the Second Reading of the necessary legislation in the not too far distant future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Gentlemen do not want a debate on the legislation we shall be pleased to take it on the nod.
The right hon. Gentleman did say that this was a change from the decision to destroy the Territorial Army and that there was a need for a Home Defence Force. The Government have made it perfectly clear right the way through that the home defence review was going on, but that it was not financially sound to keep an Army for home defence.
If the right hon. Gentleman is really saying that 40 regiments of artillery of 25-pounder guns from the last war, with ammunition which has to be rebuilt before firing, and 20 regiments of yeomanry with armoured cars—for none of these units are there any plans for use in warfare at all—should be specially kept for home defence, he needs to have another think about the whole matter.
In so far as the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that the A.V.R. should be integrated with the Home Defence Force, that must be the most ridiculous thing one could think of, if only because that force in the event of war—the majority of it—would have gone to Germany and not be here.
As for reorganisation and training, the two forces would be separately trained, but there will be the closest possible co-operation between them.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Labour M.P.s warmly welcomed the decision on the Territorial Army, but that many of us regard today's announcement as appeasement of the Conservative "top brass"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—particularlv as it will help them to retain their social and political influence in the localities?
Mr. Reynolds: I think that all hon. Members will welcome the proposals, which will give us a better equipped, more easily available volunteer reserve, with a considerable saving of money at the same time. I cannot accept my hon. Friends view that this is a question of appeasement. We have been looking at the need for a Home Defence Force because the type of force in the Territorial Army today is not designed for home defence. We now feel we can produce a properly designed Home Defence Force considerably cheaper than was being done in the Territorial Army.
Mr. Bessell: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that while this statement may be an improvement upon the orginal proposals it is one which, nevertheless, will be received with dismay by many thousands of men who have given untiring service to the Territorial Army?
Secondly, may I ask him whether this is a final decision of the Government, and, if so, was it taken in consultation with the Council of the Territorial Army Association?
Finally, will this force be available for peace-time use in the event of any emergency?
Mr. Reynolds: When the first announcement was made on the reorganisation of the Territorial Army an hon. Member from those benches welcomed it. Later, hon. Gentlemen voted against it. Now the hon. Gentleman has said he views this statement with dismay. I take it that he will vote in favour of it when the matter comes before the House.
The Council of the Territorial Army Association has been consulted confidentially on this matter. There will be continuing consultation with it as to what would be the best way to organise a force of this kind.
Mr. Bessell: On a point of order. The noise was such, when the hon. Gentleman was giving his reply, that I was unable to hear the first part of it. May I ask if it may be repeated?
Mr. Reynolds: Well, I should feel only too pleased—
Hon. Members: No. Slower.
Mr. Reynolds: If hon. Gentlemen find it difficult to listen they really ought not to be sitting here.
1100
The first part of the reply to the hon. Gentleman's question was that when the original announcement was made on the Territorial Army an hon. Member from that particular bench got up and welcomed it. Later, Liberal Members voted against it. Now we have an hon. Member on that bench saying he has received my announcement with dismay. I assume that in due course there will be, following precedent, a vote in favour of it.
Mr. Monslow: Is my hon. Friend aware that the statement he has made to the House this afternoon—the broad effect of it—appeared in the Daily Express yesterday? Can he say where this leak emanated from? When will Members of this House receive information before the readers of the Daily Express?
Mr. Reynolds: I read the relevant article in the Daily Express yesterday. The figures were not quite correct. I have no responsibility for them.
Mr. Turton: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there will be any Regular Army element in the Home Defence Force? Will he make it quite clear whether there will be any common training programme between the Home Defence Force and the A.V.R. in peace time?
Mr. Reynolds: The A.V.R. and Home Defence Force will have two completely separate rôles, so there would not, generally speaking, be a common training programme for them, because their rôles are completely different. So far as any number of Regular officers or other ranks are required for the running of the defence force, this is something which, within the limits of manpower and expenditure I have mentioned, we shall be discussing with the Territorial Army Association in the coming weeks.
Mr. Crawshaw: Can my hon. Friend say how many of the existing units within the Territorial Army are likely to be found a rôle either in the reorganised reserve force or this new Home Defence Force?
Mr. Reynolds: If one takes the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) it will be impossible to take any

1101
more than there are already in the A.V.R., but if one takes the view that this must be a separate force it will be possible for the vast majority of major units in the Territorial Army to have a continuing existence, at any rate at company level, either in the A.V.R. or the Home Defence Force.
Sir T. Beamish: Will this so-called Home Defence Force have a defensive rôle and not only a rôle for the maintenance of law and order in unlikely circumstances? When the hon. Gentleman said that the new Home Defence Force would be better equipped than the present Territorial Army, did he really mean a at? What sort of equipment is it going to have?
Mr. Reynolds: It will be better equipped than the Territorial Army. The Home Defence Force will be fitted out as very light infantry. Its primary rôle, as I said in my statement, would be in helping the civil powers in the maintenance of law and order if called for after a nuclear attack, but it will also be used to engage enemy forces if they were in this country.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

  Traffic Regulations (Lorries)
  Mr. Snow: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 18th February, I shall call attention to the need to amend the Traffic Regulations governing the responsibility
  1102
  of employers of road transport lorries, and move a Resolution.

  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mr. Hamling: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 18th February, I shall call attention to the needs of mentally handicapped children, and move a Resolution.
  Intensive Livestock Husbandry
  Mr. Wylie: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 18th February, I shall call attention to the Brambell Report on the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems, and move a Resolution.
BILL PRESENTED
  COMPANIES
  Bill to amend the law relating to companies, presented Mr. Douglas Jay; supported by Mr. George Brown, Mr. William Ross, Sir Eric Fletcher, Mr. Niall MacDermot, and Mr. George Darling; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [7TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  REPORT [27 th January]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1965–66
  Resolution reported,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £149,068,000. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for the services included in the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1965–66

  £

  Class II, Vote 6, Colonial Grants and Loans

  1,499,000

  Class II, Vote 9, Overseas Aid (Bilateral)

  16,749,000

  Class IV, Vote 7, Ministry of Aviation

  12,500,000

  Class IV, Vote 15, Transport Services

  3,519,000

  Class IV, Vote 16, Transport (Railways and Waterways Boards)

  20,000,000

  Class VI, Vote 7, General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

  50,700,000

  Class VI, Vote 14, National Health Service, &c. (Hospital Services, &c), England and Wales

  28,800,000

  Class VI, Vote 15, National Health Service (Executive Councils' Services), England and Wales

  11,000,000

  Class VI, Vote 18, National Health Service, &c., Scotland

  4,300,000

  Class X, Vote 4, Royal Mint

  1,000

  Total

  £149,068,000

  Resolution agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  [27 th January]
  Resolution reported,
  That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, the sum of £149,068,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. MacDermot.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND
  Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1966, presented accordingly and read the First time to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 60].

  CRIME
  4.2 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I beg to move,
  That this House notes with grave concern the mounting wave of crime together with the falling detection rate; regrets that the Government's actions and proposals in this sphere, particularly with regard to the police, appear inadequate to deal with this deteriorating situation, and rejects the Government's proposal to abolish juvenile courts and to give power to the executive to release prisoners after serving only one-third of their sentences without reference to the judiciary.
  I should like to take the opportunity of welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his first major debate as Home Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I see nothing inconsistent in that for, save in a technical sense, he has been barely responsible for home affairs during the past 18 months and he brings to the task of Home Secretary qualities of which all of us in the House of Commons are well aware. Looking at the situation which confronts us at present, I think that the whole country must wish him well. He certainly has a great opportunity to be of service to the nation.
  The right hon. Gentleman succeeds one of his own colleagues who was much respected on both sides of the House. I think that at least we can be assured that we will hear from the right hon. Gentleman none of that talk of the dreadful legacy which has been left behind. It would hardly lie in his mouth to refer to that, and I hope that he will content himself with dealing with the situation as it is and with the fuure.
  The background of the debate is a mounting crime wave. It is scarcely possible to pick up a newspaper without reading an account of some further breach of the criminal law—murder, robbery, violence, protection rackets, blackmail and every other kind of enormity. It is happening day by day and week by week, and the Opposition would be failing in their duty if they did not to some extent represent the mounting anger and indignation of the public that innocent men and women should be held to ransom by criminals of that character, and did not attempt to see that, so far as it lay within the power of anyone, steps were taken at least to
  1106
  ameliorate the situation, if it cannot be reversed.
  I suppose that there are two approaches to the problem of crime and punishment. One approach is concerned principally with the protection of the public, with the building up of the strength of the police force, with punishment and with deterrents. That is certainly an aspect which must never be neglected.
  The second approach or theme is concerned with seeking out the origins of crime, why this behaviour starts, where it originates, and what can be done at that stage to check it; with remedial treatment, with the treatment of prisoners in prison and the attempt to bring back criminals to a better realisation of their duties and responsibilities.
  Perhaps the problem which confronts any Home Secretary is how to keep public support for the second of those approaches by assuring the public that he is giving a full measure of his attention to the first; for both of them are necessary, and the greatest of Home Secretaries in this country—and hon. Members on both sides of the House would probably include someone like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, among them—have managed to draw those two threads together, the thread of toughness on the one side and compassion upon the other, in order to discharge their duties adequately.
  I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that those of us who have been following the Government's record over the past year have some doubts as to whether they have done enough in either of those directions. The highlights of their policy have been remarkably undistinguished. We have had the proposal in a White Paper to release prisoners after serving only one third of their sentences, apparently without much reference to any parole board or to any judicial authority. We have had the proposal to abolish the juvenile courts, opposed by many of the most responsible people dealing with that side of our affairs.
  We have had a remarkable circular advising people how to complain about the police. I will concede that that is one aspect of our affairs, and such a circular might be said to stem from the Report of the Royal Commission in 1962. But it was distinguished by the omission

  1107
  of a paragraph which went out of its way to call the attention of the public to the fact that the police were doing a tough and difficult job, and inviting the public to think twice before complaining. That paragraph, which had been seen by the Police Federation, had been dropped. The excuse was that it had been omitted in the process of editing as hardly relevant to the scope and context of the leaflet.
  I absolve the right hon. Gentleman absolutely from any responsibility for that. It was a matter of Government responsibility. But I am bound to tell him that that operation caused a certain consternation in public opinion. For a Government to start talking of complaining about the police, when one would have thought that the whole energy of the Government would have been directed towards enlisting support for the police was, to say the least, a little untimely, but to have omitted the tribute to the police, and to have omitted it on the grounds set forth, seems to us to be quite astonishing. However, rumours have reached me that the Home Office is considering reissuing that pamphlet with the proper paragraph reinserted in it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some statement about that in the course of his remarks.
  It seems to me that, faced with a very real emergency, the record of this Government so far has not been a remarkable one. One must think, too, of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He has been in office for a relatively short time, but he has already started to take certain actions. He has established three committees. It is never very impressive to the House when a Minister starts establishing committees.
  There is a vast range of these committees studying a whole variety of matters, but the right hon. Gentleman has established three more, to study manpower, to study equipment, and to study efficiency and management, and the distinguished members of these committees will no doubt be added to the vast number of people who already are, and have been for a long time, studying these particular matters.
  I rather agree with the able leader in The Times this morning which said that the right hon. Gentleman's instincts are
  1108
  right, but one has some doubt as to the methods. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has a little doubt himself. I notice—and it is possible that the members of these committees may have noticed—that within 24 hours of the setting up of these committees there appeared in the Evening News an article entitled, rather flamboyantly, "Whitehall's new whiz-kid", referring to the right hon. Gentleman, in which it said that he
  "loathes shelving decisions on to committees."
  I hope that the Evening News is right in that respect.
  While there is everything to be said for committees in the sense that they can keep the right hon. Gentleman in contact with the police force through roots stretching deep down into the various executive branches which will be carrying out these functions, it is vital that the right hon. Gentleman himself should be giving the directions to those committees, and it also vital that we in this House should know what those directions are, and what is the main strategy. I therefore hope that in his speech the right hon. Gentleman will deal with at least two main themes.
  First, I hope that he will make a progress report on many of the measures which were instituted and started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) when he was Home Secretary. I am thinking here about the need to improve the provision of criminal statistics. It seems astonishing that today criminal statistics should go on lagging so desperately far behind events. Is it really not possible to produce some statistics monthly or quarterly, even if they are the crude figures,—they can be corrected afterwards—so that the House will be trying to debate a situation a little nearer to the present than two years ago? How is that work proceeding?
  My right hon. Friend also instituted work on research—research in part into the origins of crime, and into the various and alternative methods of protection. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say something about that, and also, of course, about the work of the regional crime squads themselves.
  In the main, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will speak to us, as I hope

  1109
  for a few moments to speak to the House, on what I would call the main strategy of this problem, on the origins of crime, on the organisation of the police force, and on the main principles of treatment, with, of course, some reference to the recent White Papers which the Government have introduced.
  I propose now to say a few words about the origin of crime, and I make no apology for detaining the House for a few moments on this matter because I think that it goes to the root of this issue. Whatever else can be said, I do not think that anybody would really contend today that poverty was the main origin of crime. It may perhaps have been at one time, but not today.
  Nor, if I may say so, do I agree with some of the statements in the Longford Report. I do not believe that anybody thinks crime today is due to an imbalance between public and private ownership, or what people say about the nationalised industries. I do not believe that an attack on a gas board leads to a contempt for property, which leads on to burglary. One has to get a little nearer to the realities of it.
  Perhaps the realities are much nearer, and much more painful for us all, because in part they are perhaps due to the very essence of the modern State which all of us in one way or another, are trying to create. They are due in part to the goals which we set ourselves, and let there be no doubt that on both sides of the House we set very high goals of great material success. We do not differ very much in this. It does not really matter whether the pamphlet is called "Life is better under the Conservatives", or "Let's go with Labour". When it comes to the point, I warrant that there is not a political party in this House which does not hold out the hope of great material success as one of the aims of policy.
  In a world in which we lay such stress on material success, the failures will be more frequent than the successes, and even partial success may often be regarded by men as failure in fact. This struggle and the sense of frustration which we occasionally see in the schools, and stretching up into adult life, sometimes reacts on men who are determined to get their own back on society, or to demonstrate their manhood by throwing
  1110
  bricks through plate glass windows and other reprehensible forms of conduct.
  If that is part of it, there is another part in the fact that we live in an increasingly anonymous society. I am not blaming any one party. It is due to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues will be building bigger schools, and larger factories, and many of them are today arguing the advantages of monopolies in large-scale enterprises. We travel further to school, and further to work. We travel more distantly from our own families and community for holidays. We live in a world in which people no longer have to think of what the neighbours say, because there are no neighbours in that sense, and the older disciplines of a family and community, of church or chapel, are weakening all the time.
  I do not say that all that can be changed. It would be an idle dream, and it would be wrong. We cannot reverse it, but perhaps in the Home Office there ought to be men who are watchful to look after some of the older virtues and harder disciplines. Perhaps this ought to be one of the right hon. Gentleman's jobs, and perhaps at times he might restrain a little the enthusiasm of some of his colleagues in marching in what are often conflicting directions.
  Against the background of all that, there is sheer opportunity. Never has the world been more open for criminals. Because of the number of cars, of self-service stores, of goods depots, and so on, the opportunities for theft are widespread, particularly where the disciplines are weakening.
  The themes which we follow in a modern society often conflict. We want to press on. We want to have success. We want to have material success. We boast to ourselves that we have left far behind the world of poverty, of mass unemployment, and so on, and we do not want to reverse it, but in doing so we have opened up other more sombre possibilities, and we should watch them.
  Outside his own Department there are two fields in which I should be making inquiries if I were in the right hon. Gentleman's shoes. The first is the work of local authorities under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963. Before we do anything more about

  1111
  family service and the rest, what about the administration of the law as it is? Have we a sufficient number of welfare officers? Many local authorities are working under the greatest difficulty. I would refer to the tragic case which occurred in the South of England in respect of which the Home Secretary yesterday called for information. Have local authorities the resources to deal correctly with their great responsibilities?
  Very often in this field of delinquency it is men rather than marginal changes of machinery which matter; it is finding enough men and women trained and willing to do this job in welfare or, later, in the probation service. It is their pay and conditions of service which the Home Secretary ought to be watching very carefully all the time, to see whether they are adequate even for the system as it exists today, let alone as it will be with some of the new ideas that are being brought forward.
  The other Minister to whom the right hon. Gentleman might talk is the Minister of Education. We have had great debates about comprehensive schools, secondary modern schools, and the rest, but the Home Office should devote its time not merely to the question whether we have comprehensive schools or other schools, but to what is being taught in those schools—what is happening in the lower intellectual strata of those schools, whatever system may be in operation. All the advice that I have had on this subject leads me to the conclusion that in the lower C and D streams there is a fruitful source of young delinquency.
  I am not talking about all schools, but the situation exists in those streams, and in my opinion there is a pressing need for the Government to give the closest study to means and methods of education in those areas, and to the use of family welfare services at that level, bringing the parents of the children concerned into the Government's consideration of the matter. These are two practical proposals to which the right hon. Gentleman should give his mind.
  I now leave the question of the origin of crime, apologising for detaining the House for so long, and turn to the question of the protection of the public—or to the police. I am sure that we would
  1112
  all wish to pay tribute to the police, who are fighting against the most fearful odds. In my reference to the police I include the special constables. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say a word about them, because the recruiting of "specials" is very uneven throughout the country. This is a matter to which the Home Office might give a little thought. The rôle of the police is to enforce the criminal law, and one thing that the Home Secretary might do is to see that we do not constantly enlarge the area of the criminal law.
  The police have on their plate just about all they can take, and if we go on increasing the number of criminal offences we shall break the back of our police force. It will not be able to cope. Last Session we debated a Bill on race relations. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that on that occasion the House of Commons rejected the then Home Secretary's advice. He wanted to increase the area of criminal law to deal with that question. We said, "No, this is the wrong approach. You cannot have policemen taken off other duties in order to see whether there is any discrimination in the distribution of cups of tea, and all the rest of it." The Home Secretary accepted our view.
  We are in some danger of this in transport matters. I do not wish to elaborate the subject now, but I hope that the Home Secretary will make it clear to the Minister of Transport that the Home Office has a responsibility in these matters and that the ability of the police to enforce the law is a relevant factor, because to have laws which are unenforceable—as we have seen in the case of gaming—tends to bring the whole of the law into considerable disrepute. Do not let us unnecessarily enlarge the area of the criminal law.
  I now want to talk about responsibility and command in the police forces. Historically, the House has always been very jealous of any power being exerted over the police. It has always borne in mind the possibility that, one day, a Home Secretary might use the police force to seize power in this country. I am bound to say that, weighing the various risks that confront the country at present, I have not stayed awake at night worrying about the possibility of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead, the

  1113
  right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), or even the present Home Secretary using the police to seize power.
  There is something that I worry a little more about, and that is whether the police do not already virtually have the upper hand over the forces of law and order—[Laughter.]—whether the criminals do not have the upper hand over the criminals—[Laughter.] I am sorry; these things happen to all of us. This is a matter of deep concern. We are probably right to hesitate and think of every other way of doing it, but the time has come when the right hon. Gentleman must give his mind to the organisation of the police and to the question of responsibility and command.
  The present situation is a very odd one. The right hon. Gentleman is nominally in charge of the Metropolitan Police, but he is not in charge of 126 other police forces in this country. He has an inspectorate which inspects the latter, but not the Metropolitan Police. I find it very difficult to believe that this is a correct procedure. If the right hon. Gentleman is to adopt as a slogan the title of the pamphlet issued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead—"The War Against Crime"—and we are to fight a war against anything, we want somebody in charge and we want a clear chain of command.
  At the top we need a very great reinforcement inside the Home Office and on the police side. I would have thought that any Home Secretary today would need a chief of staff on the police side and the proper organisation for considering strategy and equipment, and the main lines along which the battle would be fought. In default of that I would have thought he would find his task very difficult.
  Lower down, he needs to press on with amalgamations. Far too many forces have fewer than 500 men. I am sure that I am being helpful in saying this. It would be quite possible for an Opposition to take every local authority point when amalgamations were going through. I do not seek to do that. Some of the things that I am saying about the police are controversial, but we are at a stage in this war against crime when, unless somebody says something controversial, the battle will
  1114
  go the wrong way. I say that we ought to have this organisation at the top and to press on with amalgamations lower down.
  I remember being faced with a problem not altogether dissimilar in connection with the Armed Services. There would have been a riot if we had tried to put the whole of the Army, Navy and Air Force into mud-coloured uniforms and to run the whole thing centrally—administratively, and from every other point of view—from Whitehall. Nor would it have been a good thing to do. What we did was to conduct the central responsibility for the battle from the top. We put that under a central command. We left a good deal of local loyalties to regiments, ships, and squadrons of aircraft—and we always should do in this country—but there was never any doubt who was in command, or what the chain of command ought to be.
  It is not good enough for the Home Secretary to have a system in which the initiatives come only from the bottom, upwards. The initiatives should start coming from the Home Office and spread down through all those who are responsible for these struggles. Of course, it will cost money: it ought to cost money. The detection rates are going down in just those places where the equipment is not available, and everybody knows it. The rates—high though they are—cannot bear the greater expense of some of this equipment.
  The Home Secretary and the Government must consider taking at any rate part of the responsibility for finance centrally, but they must make absolutely certain that those who are engaged in suppressing crime have the equipment with which to do it. We must not underestimate what crime costs. It is an enormous sum of money and it is proper and worth while that the central Government should provide funds to meet it.
  There is also the question of how we use the police. I ask the Home Secretary to consider seriously the possibility of an outside organisation and method study. I know that it will not be popular, but when one looks at the burden, the amount of work which is done by skilled men in writing out reports and dealing with administrative work of all kinds, one thinks of the experiment in Southern Ireland, and there may be a good deal

  1115
  to be said for trying it here. Of course, committees within the police are doing good work. I do not say that the police have not done a magnificent job. In some areas, their work is superb, but, looked at throughout, I believe that a great service could be done in using the time of police officers better if an outside study group considered just how that time is at present used and whether it could be improved.
  I will not argue a pay claim for the police: that would be wholly irresponsible. If the right hon. Gentleman is to increase their pay, as I suspect he probably will, let it be done in those areas where recruits are really needed and let it be done to repay efficiency where that is really needed. Above all, he should make it part of a package deal to ensure that the recruitment conditions for the police are so geared to attract more graduates into the police. The numbers Were given me by the Parliamentary Secretary the other day, in a letter which was wholly unsatisfactory. However, that was not his fault: it was the only one which he was allowed to write. On the subject of suggestions to attract graduates into the police, we got nowhere. The graduates are going into the criminal profession at the moment; that is the trouble. We must have some of the brains on the other side as well.
  The right hon. Gentleman should have a talk with men who know about the problem, men who are universally trusted, men like Sir Frank Lee, a great public servant now in the university world, or like Lord Butler, who has seen both sides of it, once at the Home Office and now in the university. Let him have a word with those men and see whether something cannot be done to attract some of these young men into the police force. I do not exaggerate the numbers needed, but an adequate supply of such men could make a great contribution to the work of the police.
  I turn now to the question of punishment. In my judgment, punishment is relevant to the question of crime. I do not share the views of those who do not think there is crime and barely think that there ought to be punishment. In many cases today, the punishment is wholly inadequate for some crimes which are committed. I saw the other day a report of the case of a
  1116
  policeman in Leicester who had been brutally battered by some young men, who were brought before magistrates and fined £25.
  Such treatment is trivial and irrelevant. I recognise that this is a matter primarily for the judiciary, but when I see the Lord Chancellor concerning himself with the fact that there should be more working men on the bench in Bournemouth—and I accept that this is a noble aspiration—all I ask is that he should do something more and try to see, with the assistance of the Lord Chief Justice, that the men and women on the Bench have a sense of responsibility about punishment.
  There is nothing technical about this except in the sense that one wants to understand all the range of possibilities. When there are really bad cases of assault on the police and so on, I hope that the whole House of Commons would wish for punishment in such cases to be substantial and severe.
  Reform is much in the minds of the people. Quite rightly, the right hon. Gentleman allowed the Press and television cameras to visit Durham gaol and take pictures of the train robbers. But, as the people looked at those train robbers and read about their debating their access to the prison yard and the television sets, and talking about what they would do with their social lives thereafter, some of their minds must have turned to what happened to the poor man who was battered to pieces by these thieves. We must not forget the victims of these crimes.
  Although it was absolutely right to turn publicity on these matters, I hope that it will not turn the public against prison reform. I want prison reform to be pressed on with. One of my concerns has been something about which I have heard nothing from the Government in the last year and few promises for the future. All their intentions about juvenile courts and the rest are all very well, but there is a real problem in some of our prisons, which are out of date and with which we could do more work and more opportunities for exercise in them. They are overcrowded, largely with short-term prisoners.
  If only we could somehow step up the fines very substantially, using the powers of the magistrates' courts to impose really

  1117
  swingeing monetary penalties, this would be better, in many cases, than sending men to prison. If we could study some of the methods used outside this country, we might benefit. I have in mind such examples as the attendance centres in Belgium, where men work during the week without breaking up a family and carry on with their job, but, at the weekend, instead of going to the football match, they go back into the prisons. There is much to be said for that idea in our country in some cases.
  Some originality of thought is necessary to make a dint in the prison reform problem and above all, in methods of rehabilitation and the supply of hostels. There should be more care for those men—for whom one feels some compassion—who leave prison and find the greatest difficulty in getting themselves back onto any sort of proper, decent life. If some of them could spend a little more time in hostels so as to be adjusted to the outside world, this would be a great advantage.
  The Government's proposals so far consist of two White Papers, in the light of which, I must ask, what is the future of the Royal Commission? I should like the Home Secretary to say whether he is expecting the Royal Commission to carry on and make recommendations. One White Paper, that on the juvenile courts, must deal with much the same subjects as are being studied by the Royal Commission.
  The proposal about the release of prisoners is that the Home Secretary should have power to release them after serving only a third of their sentence and without reference to a parole body or a body representative of the judiciary. There is a dilemma here. In the case of a man sentenced to life imprisonment, the Home Secretary can let him out on licence already. In the case of a life sentence—imposed, perhaps, for the most brutal murder—there there may be some anxiety among the public that, under the powers which already exist, the Home Secretary should be able to let such a man out on licence at any time or within a short time after he has begun to serve his sentence.
  In cases of determinate sentences, for a fixed term of years, the Home Secretary has virtually no such power, except the ordinary remission for good conduct.
  1118
  We may have a situation in which a Home Secretary has to leave in gaol a man whose character and physique have deteriorated to the point at which any man, whatever his view of the original act, would wish to let him out of the prison cell in order to treat him in some other way. This situation is bad on both sides. It is a matter in which both the judiciary and the Executive have a very close interest.
  I ask the Home Secretary to consider carefully the general proposal which has been put forward already by some of my hon. and right hon. Friends, namely, that he should have power to release in both types of case. The ultimate authority must be with the Executive and with the Home Secretary.
  To satisfy public opinion there would need to be a referential body, a parole body, preferably judicial and certainly with judicial representation on it, otherwise the public would never be satisfied that men would not be let out long before their sentences had been concluded, and we might have the worst of all worlds in which the judiciary, in an attempt to keep men in gaol for long enough, imposed longer and longer and longer sentences so that, even if the Home Secretary were using these powers to the full, he would have to keep men in prison for a very long time. I therefore ask the Home Secretary to apply his mind to that suggestion.
  I think that the White Paper on juvenile courts is a very great mistake. The attempt to take children and young people out of the juvenile courts and to treat them in some way which is an extension of the welfare service is a very grave error of judgment. I am not alone in thinking that. Magistrate after magistrate and probation officer after probation officer has said so. I do not say that there are no supporters for the point of view put forward in the White Paper, but there is a formidable body of informed opinion wholly against the proposals put forward in the White Paper.
  I put the arguments in this way: human liberty is a matter for a judge and not a matter for a welfare officer. The liberty of a child is just as much liberty as is the liberty of any adult. It is an infringement of liberty to send children to an approved school. Before the Government hand over children to

  1119
  have their liberty taken away in a bargain struck between welfare officers and their parents, they should think well. A man will not easily be forgiven who introduces it into the law. It is a great departure.
  Moreover, in any event it is very dangerous to say that this freedom shall be bartered away by the parent. It may affect relations between the child and the parent for the whole of the rest of his life. It is one thing for a boy who has been naughty to be sent to an approved school by a judge, but it is another thing if his own father has agreed with the local welfare officer, who may already have broken down on the case, to send him away. I assure the Home Secretary that there are the most formidable arguments against this course. I am not saying that we shall reach final conclusions in the debate, but all these matters are being studied by the Royal Commission, and I submit that if the Home Secretary tried to rush the House into a decision on the lines of that White Paper he would be failing in his duty.
  I know the arguments which lie behind this White Paper. There are those who feel that we must get away from all idea of having judges in this matter, who feel that everything ought to be by agreement, who feel that the difference between delinquency and non-delinquency ought somehow to be obliterated. This is an error. I read the other day an article in the Observer by Barbara Wootton. She criticised the White Paper from the other point of view, because she thinks that it does not go far enough. She says "In practice, everything will turn upon whether the councils"—that is, the family councils—"do or do not succeed in obliterating the division of children into sheep and goats, delinquent and non-delinquent". But we cannot utterly abolish the difference between right and wrong in this world. If we do, we shall not further the cause of the war against crime.
  The article continued:
  "Never shall I forget interviewing in the same week a parent whose child had won a place at Christ's Hospital and another whose boy was on his way to an approved school. The cheers in the one case and the tears in the other illustrated, as could nothing else, the difference between an educational and a penal decision."
  1120
  But there are Members in this House and people outside who think that there is a difference between winning a scholarship to Christ's Hospital and being sent to an approved school. If we tried absolutely to obliterate all difference, the damage which we should do by sheer muddle and woolly-mindedness would be damage which should not be permitted by any Government.
  I apologise for having spoken longer than I intended. I have criticised what I believe to be some of the sins of omission and commission of the Government so far. But the right hon. Gentleman has perhaps one of the greatest opportunities which has been offered to a Home Secretary for very many years. He is faced with a great crisis. There is a great demand among public opinion that something should be done about it. He has an Opposition which is not seeking to score cheap and easy points, but is trying to thrust the right decisions down his throat, however unpopular they may be. This is an opportunity which he should seize with both hands. I ask him to put aside the committees and the vested interests and to get on with the job.
  4.47 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I beg to move, to leave out from "of" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "crime; warmly supports the efforts of the police to combat it, and endorses the determination of Her Majesty's Government to combine effective prevention and detection with penal reform".
  For the greater part of his speech the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) was in a peculiarly agreeable mood. He started with the most friendly and much-appreciated congratulations and good wishes to me, and he went on to make a number of thoughtful and constructive points, on some of which I shall try to comment in my speech and others of which I shall be extremely happy to study at greater leisure.
  But then I looked at the Motion. I can only assume that the right hon. Gentleman was unavoidably absent from the meeting of the Shadow Cabinet which decided to put down the Motion, because the Motion is a Motion of censure, resulting in a vote in party terms, and

  1121
  I understand that we are to have a three-line Whip Division.
  I must assume either that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies) will make a remarkably ferocious speech at 9 p.m. to justify the Motion, or, alternatively, that the right hon. Member for Monmouth is dissociating himself ostentatiously from his right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath). I hope that the latter is not the case. When I was Minister of Aviation I greatly enjoyed having the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) opposite me for much of the time. I hope very much that the right hon. Member for Monmouth will not find himself in the same situation as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members must recognise that this is a Motion of censure. I am very glad that the right hon. Member for Monmouth did not choose to move it in the terms of a Motion of censure, but the House must appreciate that on the Order Paper it is a Motion of censure.
  I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman decided not to move it in those terms, because in my view crime is a most unsuited subject for strict party conflict, and as long as I am Home Secretary I hope that we can prevent it from becoming a subject for strict party conflict. It is a most unsuited subject because it is one in which, more than most, passion and emotion are very bad counsellors. We all have a duty to encourage the nation to look objectively at the facts and to see which reasoned conclusions about prevention and punishment can be drawn from them.
  I certainly agree that when he was Home Secretary Lord Butler did a great deal to encourage that approach to the problem. The right hon. Member for Monmouth suggested that I have a word with Lord Butler. I always enjoy having a word with the noble Lord and if I thought that a word from him would help me to solve the problem of crime I would be glad to have it, but I think that more than one word, even from him, is required to explain the whole position.
  It would be most unwise to introduce politics into the question of crime and to suggest that although we are faced with a most difficult situation this was the fault of this Government. From the
  1122
  statistical point of view, the bad years for crime were 1951 to 1964. I draw no conclusions from that, but I remind the House of that fact lest hon. Gentlemen opposite be tempted to try to go too far in that direction.
  When one remembers what was said in one of the most striking passages in an interesting pamphlet on crime, which the right hon. Member for Monmouth and some of his hon. Friends recently published, about one of the most baffling issues, the social causes of crime, one sees that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues discussed the relationship between crime rates and the heavy emphasis society places on individual success—but perhaps it would be better if I quoted the passage:
  "We have a situation, then, in which the fruits of achievement are continually emphasized, and even graphically displayed, but where achievement is necessarily limited by the structure of opportunity and by the fact that few can move into positions of great success.
  Where success is at a high premium, and necessarily scarce, failure must become a common experience.
  The price of living in a society which emphasised achievement, is widespread disappointment at the experience of relative failure … It appears that this general situation and response to it are part of the explanation of the increased rate of crime, in relation not only to acquisitive crime, but also to crimes of violence, vandalism, and drug addiction".
  We must all beware of dogmatism in this sphere. However, I find it difficult to imagine a neater description of the national atmosphere than what was said by certain hon. Gentlemen opposite before the 1959 election. I would not dream of pressing this point because I feel a great sense of uncertainty in this sphere. It is not a suitable field for politics, so let us have no more censure Motions but, rather, more speeches like the one the right hon. Member for Monmouth just made.
  The uncertainty which we may all feel which we should feel if we are wise—about the exact causes of crime should lead to no uncertainty about our determination to deal with its manifestations. I am in no doubt about the magnitude of the problem and about the suffering and fear, not to mention the economic loss, which it causes. Any Governement, certainly any Home Secretary, should give the highest priority to combating the frightening and mounting wave of

  1123
  robbery and violence in this country, though this applies not only to this country.
  When I took on my present office some commentators were kind enough to say that I was likely to be a libertarian Home Secretary. If by this it is meant that I approach with scepticism those who wish to stop other people from ordering their own lives as they wish, not because such conduct damages others but because the prohibitors, whether the State or individuals, wish to impose their own standards, choices, taste—or lack of inclination—on others, then I am happy to accept the libertarian label. But it would be a great mistake to believe that there is any connection between such an approach to matters of individual conduct and a soft or defeated approach to the organised criminal conspiracies or more isolated acts of brutal violence which at present disfigure our society.
  How are we to mount our attack on this? I am perfectly sure that our main emphasis should be placed on detection and conviction. Of course, punishment has its deterrent as well as its reformative aspects—although there is some substantial evidence to show that the more serious the crime the less susceptible it is to the deterrent effect of punishment.
  My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, in a notable speech in another place in July, 1964, said that he doubted if punishment had any very appreciable effect on the amount of murder, arson or incest; but if the penalties for car parking were abolished he had no doubt that virtually the whole of London's traffic would come to a standstill within 48 hours.
  There is a lot in that, but, whether or not we agree with it, there can be no doubt that detection and conviction are prior, and, therefore, more important, deterrents than punishment. If a man is contemplating whether or not to commit a robbery he is more likely to be influenced by whether his chances of being found out are one in four rather than three in four than by whether, if he is convicted, he will get two years or three years.
  The probability of detection is essentially a function of the strength and efficiency of the police and these are both subjects on which the right hon. Member for Monmouth had a great deal to say
  1124
  and which have already caused me a lot of thought and anxiety. The right hon. Gentleman somewhat under-estimated what has been done and is being done and I will deal with this matter under four heads.
  The first is police pay. It is no part of my case or approach to pretend that everything is necessarily perfect here or that we should have closed minds on this issue. This is not the spirit in which I propose to approach the negotiations which will soon begin for a new pay settlement to run from next autumn. At the same time, however, I am sure that the House would wish to approach this problem against the background of three extremely relevant considerations.
  The first is that we must proceed—and I intend to do so—through the statutory machinery which has been carefully established by successive Governments. The second is that we must have some regard to repercussive effects and to pay in largely comparable public services. It is no good thinking that the police can be considered in total isolation from, say, probation officers, other social workers, the fire services or, indeed, the teachers. The right hon. Member for Monmouth indicated that he agreed with me on this point.
  The third, perhaps most important, is to remember that the existing police pay, while it may not be generous, is not nearly as niggardly as is sometimes imagined. A Metropolitan constable in the middle of his increment scale, and taking account of his allowances, may draw about £26 a week without overtime, £6 10s. of which would be a tax-free allowance. With the regular six hours' overtime worked in the Metropolitan area he would draw about £29 10s. When the recent arbitration award is put into effect these figures will be increased by 36s. a week. A comparable detective sergeant would receive about £38 a week, with overtime.
  In Birmingham, where the force is proportionately about as much below establishment as in London and where a regular four hours a week overtime are worked, the comparable figures are about £21 per week without overtime for a constable in his middle increment scale and about £23 with overtime. The figure would be about £32 for a detective

  1125
  sergeant. In areas like this we are currently negotiating manning-up allowances.
  In a force like Cumberland—I am trying to give a picture of the whole country—where there is no significant establishment deficiency, the standard rates of pay, leaving allowances out of account, are at present about the same as in Birmingham, but in that sort of force there is less overtime and we are not negotiating manning-up allowances.
  I do not want to give a complacent impression about police pay. I wish the problem to be seen against the background of the facts. The facts lead me to believe that to say that the problem of police manpower is wholly or even perhaps primarily a matter of pay is mistaken. First, the pool of potential manpower on which we can draw is fairly limited. Second, last year was an exceptionally good year for recruitment, both gross and net. Over 7,500 officers were recruited, and the strength at the end of the year was 3,008 up on that at the beginning. This was a substantially better result from both points of view than that achieved in 1961, the year immediately following the 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. pay increase which the Royal Commission recommended and which was put into effect.
  I do not deduce from this, of course, that we do not need more police. We do, particularly in difficult areas. As the House knows, we are in England and Wales about 15,000 below the normal establishment, and probably about 18,000 below a realistic establishment. I should greatly like to be able to close as much of this gap as possible, but I stress two interlocking points on this.
  First, the most immediate contribution that we can make towards solving the problem is to make the most efficient possible use of the police manpower that we already have. Second, such an approach, in my view, is likely in itself substantially to improve the prospects of increasing police strength in the future. The interest of the job, the standard of equipment available, and the feeling that the best possible use is being made of a man's services have at least as much bearing on the problem of wastage—and wastage is the crux of the problem here—as does the question of pay.
  1126
  I am therefore very glad that at the first meeting of the Police Advisory Board, which took place on Monday of this week, there was unanimous and enthusiastic agreement for the setting up, under a steering group to be chaired by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, of three working parties, one to look at police manpower, one at the operational organisation of the police and one at equipment.
  The right hon. Member for Monmouth was rather mocking about these committees and he suggested that I did not like them and should not have them. I certainly do not want to put all problems to committees, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that there was a strong feeling among the police that an inquiry would do good. I thought that it would and I thought it quite wrong to resist it. On the contrary, I encouraged it and I believe it right. I think that it is of great importance. Those primarily composing these groups are either police officers or those who have spent a substantial part of their lives on problems connected with police service—but not exclusively so.
  I am also anxious to bring one or two outside experts into the working parties. I believe that a management consultant could help a great deal in the manpower group and I shall look at what the right hon. Member for Monmouth said about an outside O. and M. study. In the equipment group I hope to get an electronics expert, perhaps someone with experience of the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern. I am most anxious that these groups should do a searching but reasonably rapid job and come to their conclusions within about six months. No issues need be regarded as sacrosanct. I hope, for instance, that the arguments for and against the beat system, in so far as it involves patrolling on foot, can be carefully considered, but we shall not reach our objective unless those taking part in the working groups leave prejudice behind them and are prepared to accept conclusions to which the facts may lead them.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is just as important to attract the right type of recruit to the

  1127
  police force as to get recruits in sufficient numbers? Has his Department any plans in mind for attracting graduates into the police force? Unless this is done we shall be faced with a serious problem in the force.
  Mr. Jenkins: I am fully aware of what the hon. Member says and I think it of great importance that we should look at quality as well as quantity of recruits. We are appointing a number of officers to keep in touch with the universities and sixth forms in the regions who can deal precisely with this problem of quality recruitment.
  To turn to somewhat wider questions of police organisation, one of the strongest recommendations of the Royal Commission was for the amalgamation of small police forces into larger units. Since the Police Act, 1964, we have been moving ahead with that policy. I think that it is a correct policy and I propose to pursue it with vigour. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will be defending it with vigour this evening when we have before the House a Prayer against one of our Orders in this respect.
  I am glad to be able to say that we have secured the voluntary amalgamation of the police areas of Smethwick, Walsall, West Bromwich, Wolverhampton and Dudley into a new West Midlands Police Force which will operate under a unified command from 1st April. Amalgamations have been taking place at the rate of about six a year, and at this rate it would take seven years, not 20 years as the right hon. Member for Monmouth suggests in his pamphlet with what I think is a rather curious use of arithmetic, to bring the forces down from 120 to 80, which the pamphlet appears to regard as the target. In fact we have never announced a target figure and at present I am considering urgently how far and how fast we should go. If we can do a substantial part of the job in much less than seven years I shall be very pleased.
  We also attach great importance to building up the work of the regional crime squads and other joint efforts. Nor should we rule out a more drastic approach if there was clear evidence that it was necessary for police efficiency. I find, both in the pamphlet and in his
  1128
  speech, the right hon. Member for Monmouth not altogether clearly helpful in this respect. The pamphlet says:
  "The time has surely come when the police should be capable of operating in effect as the Queen's Constabulary."
  What does that mean? It sounds to me more like a phrase than a policy. Does it mean a national police force, as the right hon. Gentleman in his subsequent Press conference at first indicated that it might mean but then quickly went on to say that what he was proposing would affect only "marginally" the powers and responsibilities of chief constables?
  At this stage I became hopelessly confused, but if the right hon. Gentleman and others have clear proposals to put forward I shall listen to them with great interest. I have a very open mind on this question of police organisation. But it is not much good trying to build on such transparent attempts to get the best of both worlds.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the amalgamation of the police force in the West Midlands. Would not he agree that it is equally important that in the Manchester conurbation, as has been recommended in the special review area reports, one police force should take the place of several?
  Mr. Jenkins: I have indicated that I am in favour of pressing on with amalgamations where it can be shown that there is a clear efficiency case for doing so, but the hon. Member would not expect me to make an off-the-cuff pronouncement about the right solution in particular areas without having the detailed facts and a full report on them.
  As I have said, the third working party will be concerned with equipment and no doubt because of its composition will pay particular attention to equipment used by the ordinary police constable. Much attention has been rightly paid recently to the provision of two-way wireless for the individual policeman. I attach the greatest importance to rapid progress in this direction. Such equipment is relatively cheap—at least compared with some of the equipment I was used to in my previous job—and it greatly increases the efficiency and operational flexibility of the constable. In the past, we have faced a genuine difficulty as

  1129
  to whether to proceed with an equipment programme with sets currently available at a time when we knew that much improved versions would soon be forthcoming. To some extent, this dilemma persists, but there are always great dangers in letting the best be the enemy of the good, and I am resolved to press ahead now with a big programme of buying the best sets which are currently available to us.
  We are concerned, also, about providing the police with the backing of good forensic services and scientific advice. The Police Research and Planning Branch, jointly staffed by scientific officers and seconded police officers, has already done a good deal of work in this direction. This will be multiplied several times over in the next few years.
  In addition, we have the new Scientific Advisory Council of the Home Office, at the first meeting of which I presided a few weeks ago. We have just started a major research programme to tackle the problem of retrieval by automatic means from the main fingerprint library of a single print left at the scene of a crime. This project is being tackled from different angles by five research teams, one of which will be working at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston where our new central research establishment is to be set up. We are working hard on the possibilities of obtaining by scientific means more information from pieces of glass, blood or explosive which may be found on a suspect or at the scene of a crime. Possibilities for rapid advances in these fields are great, and we shall do everything we can to exploit them.
  There is a lot to be done, but a lot has been done already. When we talk about falling detection rates, let us remember that this has been a function of increasing crime and not of declining police efficiency. On the contrary. The number of crimes cleared up per police officer has risen significantly, from 3·3 in 1955 to 5·3 in 1964.
  I turn now from the problems of detection to those of conviction. Without detection there is no chance of conviction, but detection loses much of its force as a deterrent, at least so far as real criminals are concerned, unless there is a high chance of conviction following. The one is a matter of police strength and
  1130
  efficiency, the other of court procedure. There may be some widespread feeling today that court procedure is calculated both to waste the time of busy police officers and other witnesses and to give an almost excessive protection to the guilty as well as the innocent. The Criminal Law Revision Committee is considering the law of evidence in criminal cases. The Committee has wide terms of reference on this issue, and I await its report with great interest. If any substantial change were advocated, we should need to be convinced that individual rights and liberties were fully protected, but, subject to that, and in our wide thinking, let us remember that the war against crime is not a game—it certainly does not appear so to those engaged in it—and we ought not to defeat ourselves by archaic, elaborate and highly formalised rules which may give an undue advantage to the enemy, for it is with enemies that we are dealing.
  I move now from detection and conviction to punishment. First, I mention one form of punishment which is not referred to in the Opposition's Motion but on which, I have no doubt, We may well hear something from Opposition back-bench speakers and about which there is a Motion down on the Order Paper, that is, capital punishment. The Motion on the Order Paper asks for the return of capital punishment for certain categories of murder and, at the turn of the year, there was a good deal of speculation, mostly ill-informed, about the murder figure for 1965, coupled with some suggestion that this should cause a change of policy. This is quite out of the question.
  As I am sure every responsible Member of the House realises, in the first place, there is nothing in last year's figures to warrant a change. The initial figure was 262, but in every year many of the deaths initially recorded as murder are found later not to have been minder. In 1964, an initial figure of 236 gave a final figure of 155. In 1963, the initial figure was 225 and the final figure 133. In 1962, the figures were 238 and 142. There is no reason to think that the final figure for 1965 will be substantially out of line with the recent past. But, even if there were, this would not begin to be a reason for turning tail on a decision which both

  1131
  Houses of Parliament, after exhaustive debate and with a very full knowledge of long-term trends in both this and other countries, have taken, with full deliberation and on a free vote. The Government, of course, not that they would wish otherwise, are bound by the terms of the Statute.
  Mr. James Dance: The Motion to which the Home Secretary has referred is in my name. May I put this question to him? What sanction have we got against people like bank robbers in prison for life to prevent them shooting or bashing their way out, killing warders and police in the process, going back to their hidden money and then disappearing to South America?
  Mr. Jenkins: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this subject was debated at great length on the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill. I do not think that he adds to the orderly progress of business by intervening not to ask for information or to make a point but really to debate the issue all over again. Perhaps I should point out that we cannot, according to the Statute, make variations for particular types of murder. The House decided otherwise. In any event, a very large part of the case against the death penalty was the case for doing away completely with the whole ghoulish apparatus of the gallows, and that rules out any partial approach.
  I come now to an aspect of punishment which is mentioned in the Motion before us. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends disagree with the White Paper, "The Adult Offender", to the extent that they do not like the parole system without a parole board or without giving the judiciary at least a right to be consulted about what the Home Secretary may propose. I am a little surprised at this view.
  As the White Paper has not been debated, let me explain briefly what we propose. It is that the Home Secretary should be empowered to release on licence any prisoner who has served either one-third of his sentence or 12 months, whichever be the longer. Release would be conditional. A normal condition, though not necessarily applying in all cases, would be supervision by probation officer, and conditions as to
  1132
  residence also would, in suitable cases, be imposed. The licence and its conditions would normally continue to apply until the date on which the prisoner would have been released from prison in the normal course, that is, when he had completed two-thirds of the sentence imposed on him by the court, and during the period of release on licence he would be liable to recall to prison at any time if he was in breach of any of the conditions or if the circumstances otherwise warranted it.
  The basis of this proposal is that a considerable number of long-term and, indeed, medium-term prisoners reach a recognisable peak in their training at which they may respond to generous treatment but after which, if kept in prison, they are likely to go downhill. To give such prisoners the opportunity of supervised freedom at the right moment may be decisive in securing their return to decent citizenship. This is not a proposal based on a soft approach to punishment. It is put forward as a positive contribution to preparing suitable prisoners for a return to the community as law-abiding members, and this, surely, must be the first object of any penal policy.
  Ought this not to be done by the Home Secretary except under the control of the judiciary or a parole board? I do not think so. This does not mean, of course, that we would not consult the judiciary in a large number of cases. Perhaps I may remind the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Privy Seal started a practice, which had been followed by no previous Home Secretary, of always consulting the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge before a life-sentence prisoner was released on licence.
  But I am sure that the final responsibilities should remain with the Home Secretary responsible to Parliament and not be passed over to the judiciary or a board. The judges cannot tell how a prisoner has developed since sentence was passed. They cannot tell what are his resettlement arrangements and prospects. This can best be done by the Home Office with its full opportunity for informal and confidential consultation.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: While I accept the right hon. Gentleman's

  1133
  argument and see the strength of it, may I ask why he cannot undertake to consult—that is the word he used—on "all" cases? Why does he say that he, or his successor, is most likely to consult on "most" cases? Why not make it seem fairer, as it would if he said that the holder of his Office would always consult before making the final decision?
  Mr. Jenkins: As the hon. Gentleman will see when I come to it, I am willing to consider anything in this respect. But it is his hon. Friends who have put down an extremely formal statement of the position rejecting parole without really putting anything about consultation in its place.
  I should like to go on and say what I think are the disadvantages of trying to do it by a board with a fairly wide, or even a fairly narrow, membership. Could such a board do the job better? I doubt this, too. Would it formally interview the prisoner? If it did so and then turned him down, what tensions and unsettlements might this create?
  Furthermore, there used to be very similar boards—preventive detention advisory hoards, they were called—which decided, or tried to decide, whether a prisoner sentenced to preventive detention should be released on licence after serving to two-thirds or five-sixths of his sentence. These boards were abolished in 1963 by the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) by common consent, including their own, because they had been almost totally unsuccessful in forming reliable judgments about prisoners. I therefore think that there is very little in the Opposition's point here.
  The crucial consideration is whether or not we are in favour of the parole system. I gather from the right hon. Gentleman and from his pamphlet that the Opposition are in favour of it, and I am very glad to know that that is the case. If so, the question of how the decision is made is essentially subsidiary, with the balance of argument, in my view—I will not put it higher than this—leaning against what the right hon. Gentleman and the Motion propose.
  Finally—
  Mr. Dan Jones: If my right hon. Friend is coming to his conclusion, might I put to him a point which is in
  1134
  my mind and which he has not touched on yet? Is it beyond the wit of the Home Office that the public can co-operate more greatly in the detection and prevention of crime? I say that for this reason. The people about whom we are talking are obviously the enemies of society, and society should accept the challenge and declare war upon them.
  Mr. Jenkins: I was proposing to make a mention of that point, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning it.
  In the final section of my speech I should like to say a few words about the children's White Paper, also included in the rather compendious Opposition Motion. I say a few words partly because I have already spoken for long enough and partly because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has done so much work in this field, will deal with it more fully this evening.
  Since the publication of the White Paper, my right hon. Friend has been conducting a wide range of discussions with the interested parties. As she told the House last week, she found a very substantial volume of support for what we propose. But the White Paper was published as a basis of discussion and not, of course, as a last word. I am sure that we should seek power to move in the direction that we have suggested, but in the meantime we shall be very anxious to take into account what has been said and to produce a final scheme which, compatibly with the principles of our approach, is as acceptable as possible to informed opinion and those who work in this field.
  I therefore ask the House to reject this inappropriate and curiously put together Motion. But while I regard the Motion as inappropriate, I certainly do not regard the debate as inappropriate or the subject as unimportant. Mounting crime figures are a challenge to the nation and the Government. The record of the recent past, despite great and devoted efforts by the police and others concerned, is depressing. But there is no reason for us to be defeatist about the future. The object must be not merely to halt the rise but to turn the crime figures sharply downwards.
  This can be done. It has been done in some places, and often very difficult places, in this country. It has been

  1135
  done in some places abroad, like Chicago, with a most notorious criminal past. I am determined that the best methods at present in use at home shall be applied, where they are suitable, throughout the country, and we shall not be ashamed to accept some cross-fertilisation, from abroad—although we have much to offer as well as to receive. We shall not shrink from any measures of police reorganisation which we regard as clearly necessary to achieve a more efficient force. The police are crucial to crime detection and prevention, and they will receive from me every reasonable support which I can give them. I hope that the general public will do the same. This country can, and must, be made a safer place in which to live.
  In our approach to penal reform we intend to be swayed neither by sentimentality nor by emotional and ill-considered cries for vengeance. The object of our penal system is to combine deterrence with the rehabilitation, in the shortest possible time, of the offender who can be brought back into society. We shall work on the basis of the facts in so far as they can be ascertained and not on prejudice of any sort. Our aim will be to combine hope and reality, and not to let either be submerged by the other.
  5.28 p.m.
  Sir Peter Rawlinson: After very many years in this House, the right hon. Gentleman has now made his maiden speech in a substantial debate as the Home Secretary. I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) in welcoming him to that post.
  The right hon. Gentleman has been presiding over this great Department of State not for very many weeks, but he may already have discovered not only its very great strength but also some of its very great weakness. He may also have discovered that many of us would be alarmed if it were thought that the liberty of the subject were left in the hands of the Executive as advised by experts in the Home Office. That Office, in my view, is not so organised and the Home Secretary has not sufficient time or a sufficient position to be able to investigate each and every individual case—he has to depend upon the brief which is put before him—as to permit the
  1136
  House and the country to hand over to the Executive the right to decide on the liberty of the subject and these matters of release.
  At the beginning of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said that the Motion introduced politics into crime. I suppose that, technically, it does. But he cannot avoid the responsibility which he now has and which others have in the Government of which he is a member. He will take the credit, and he must, of course, accept the blame. But he must see that if it is introducing politics into crime, one cannot avoid the introduction of the differing attitudes of people to crime, to the criminal, to the detection of crime and to the treatment of crime. This is a matter of deep controversy—one which may be reflected in politics, so be it, but one which is a great and dividing controversy.
  No one can say that the views of Lady Wootton are the same as those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth. No one can say that the views of the Lord Chancellor are the same as those of many of my hon. and learned Friends. Of course there are differences between us all. The Home Secretary's responsibilities are limited. All he can do is to tackle the short-term problems of crime. He can be in no doubt of the deep-seated anxiety of every hon. Member of this House—an anxiety which goes far beyond the ordinary responsibilities of hon. Members.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is to tackle the short-term problems of crime, he can do so only with the full support of the people and their representatives in this House, some of whom have been notoriously lacking in the support that was given in the past to law enforcement officers. He must provide the leadership from the Home Office and see that there is sufficient allocation of resources and money.
  If the right hon. Gentleman had had any real wisdom, he would have had the Chancellor of the Exchequer or at least the Financial Secretary here for this debate to listen to the demand for sufficient allocation of resources to make these fine, noble words of the Home Secretary about fighting crime a reality.
  The attitude of the great majority of the people—not the articulate few who

  1137
  write with such skill in certain magazines—is one of real and anxious concern about the present position. There is a feeling of unease among decent, ordinary people. There is a feeling that there has been a drift in recent months into a situation of real danger to many people.
  In Washington and New York it is dangerous even in the most respectable residential districts to walk after dark. Such a drift could easily happen here. The right hon. Gentleman illustrated the difference in the situation in Chicago, speaking of the remarkable results that have been achieved there. But those results were achieved because the Chicago police were given adequate resources and strong leadership in the fight against crime.
  Our decent, ordinary people have as much compassion as the articulate few. They are concerned that, in this country, we have been tolerating crime and that society is being defied and is being seen to be defied. There is concern that the crimes known to police should total three times the figure in 1938; that there should be 100,000 cases a year of damage to telephone kiosks; that two people were killed and 15 seriously injured because an obstruction was deliberately placed on a railway line; that people should deliberately remove fog warnings on motorways; that violent crime should be 22 times as much as it was in 1938; that the detection rate in London alone has fallen from 50 per cent. in 1938 to 39·6 per cent. in 1964.
  At Cambridge, Professor Radzinowics believes that only about 15 per cent. of crimes are brought into the open. Thus, the post-war attitude towards crime and the treatment of the criminal, with the tremendous rise in the volume of crime, leads good, ordinary people to lose any feeling of confidence that they may have had that we have been moving on the right lines in these last years.
  If, in another field of national activity, we had consistently over the years pursued a certain policy and attitude and had seen that policy fail increasingly, what would happen? There would be a call for a complete change of policy. Over the past few years, there has been a great change in the criminal pattern which the police have to meet. The Commissioner of Police has written that, shortly after he
  1138
  took office, he detected a different pattern of crime. In that pattern, great crimes have been committed by organised gangs. Gangsters, as the Commissioner has said, have been seen strutting around London, envied and copied by minor criminals. The zoom in crime rates began in 1955. In 1959, the present Lord Chancellor—then Mr. Gerald Gardiner, Q.C.—said, in a letter to The Times, that there should be yet another amnesty for all those with pistols but that any one found thereafter in the possession of a pistol, should, notwithstanding any other offence involved, receive a term of imprisonment of not less than five years.
  If Lord Gardiner is of the same opinion now, why has not that suggestion been carried out? The crime position is far worse than it was then. The propensity for carrying guns continues. Why should any person, other than an authorised person such as a Service man or police officer, have a pistol in his possession? Severe penalties, although they might affect some foolish persons keeping souvenirs, are needed if we are to get rid of the great number of guns which are still carried about.
  Yet, in this situation, proposals are made that the police, already fighting against such tremendous difficulties, should take on further duties. Fortunately, we have dissuaded the Government from some of them. Do the Government think that they will get the support of the nation and the police if they require the police to stop any motorist and cause him to breathe into a bag at any time, however inconvenient? Do they think that to be psychologically sensible at this time? There must be an order of priority. The right hon. Gentleman must match deeds with words. The police must not be given so much extra to do that they lose their sense of direction. Let us put the priorities first.
  We also hear a great deal of public slop and sentiment about those who have committed crime. We hear it about the train robbers. Books have been written about them that seem to try to turn them into some kind of magic, magnificent characters—forgetting the railwayman who has suffered so much ever since the roberry. That attitude has been pandered to by many entertainment makers throughout this country.

  1139
  In public meetings, sometimes of a legal nature, that I have attended, I have seen how interested people are and how deeply they feel about the crime situation. As my right hon. Friend said, in the old days it was accepted that the poor and starving were often driven to crime because the balance was so weighted against them and in favour of property and the over fed and the privileged. That was also the time when society, because there were no police, imposed brutal punishments to try to maintain what was described as "law and order". Today, the situation is wholly different. Too much emphasis has been put on the idea of not making it clear that society condemns crime and criminals.
  The Home Secretary must have in mind two objectives. First, the youth or first offender should be prevented from developing into a recidivist. This is a subject in which I favour, as the right hon. Gentleman does and many of my hon. Friends do, penal experiment. I do not like the expression "penal reform". I never know what "reform" may mean or what "reaction" may mean. They are part of the current cant, a shibboleth, but by all means let there be experiment with these people who should be given all the advantages and opportunities which can possibly be given to them and who may have offended because of weakness, or drink, or personal grief, or despair. They are the people to whom society should give compassion and they are the people for whom society should provide to make sure that they can rehabilitate themselves. They should have probation and hostel training and everything should be devoted to them.
  Similarly for the youth, but let the youth have no doubt of the gravity with which society considers the commission of an offence and let him not doubt that society's accusation and society's condemnation must be a grave matter. It cannot just be slid over into some sort of cosy situation or some cosy arrangement among anonymous officers and the family, especially when the offence involves violence. Whatever is done with him thereafter, let him be told that he is brought before the court because of the
  1140
  gravity and seriousness of what he has done.
  It is for those reasons that one rejects the idea of a family council. I make no complaint that such an idea should be considered, for suggestions of this kind should be considered, but this idea should be rejected. It is part of the attitude which has developed, an unrealistic and sickly attitude to what is crime. But when there is a violent mentality in a youth, there should be nothing other than society's accusation and condemnation made fiercely and rigorously.
  But that is not the major problem. That does not deal with the real criminal, and if we deal with the real criminal, we remove the temptation for others to go into the profession of crime, to drift, or be attracted, or tempted into crime. If we deal with the major criminal, we deal with half the problem.
  So much pain and so much misery, as many hon. Members know, come from crime and the commission of crime, not only to the person who is accused and convicted, but to the families who are connected, quite apart from the victims. Crime is now a viable profession and it pays because, as has been pointed out, the risk is such that there is a good chance of success and the penalties are such that they do not deprive the criminal of the loot.
  The police must, therefore, receive the support which the right hon. Gentleman gave in his speech today. But he will also need the support of hon. Members opposite who sit below the Gangway and right hon. Members on this side of the House and others. There may be a very few in the police force who offend against the rigorous standards which we must insist that the police should have, but that does not mean that we as the House of Commons should condemn the whole force.
  I noted with some anxiety that not long ago, when a man was charged with criminal libel when making an accusation against a police officer about something or other, certain sections of society, some articulate people, immediately presumed that the police officer was guilty of the things of which he had been accused. But when it came to trial the prisoner did not even attempt to justify the wicked accusations which he had made against

  1141
  that police officer. What concerned me was the attitude of certain articulate sections of society who immediately presumed and assumed that the police officer was wrong, and they did not wait to hear the evidence or to see what happened.
  If the police are constantly fighting brutality and viciousness, as they have to do, it is not unreasonable that in such a body there may be some who resort to retaliation, but they are very few and it is time that the House of Commons gave the police as a whole the support to which they are entitled. We have to prove that support by giving them increased pay. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the problem of pay, but the rôle of the police cannot be compared with that of probation officers. Of course probation officers are very important, but they do not undergo the same risk of physical injury.
  Probation officers are not complained about in the House of Commons and they do not suffer from criticism and they do not run the danger of physical violence. No service is the same in those respects as the police. That is why in the immediate crisis we must put first things first and deal with the pay of the police, even over-generously. That is something which will get us considerable support in the police and I believe that the public would be prepared to pay for it.
  Thirdly, I come to equipment. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the report in the Police Review recently about the position in Lancashire and the combination of the motorised beat and the foot beat system with proper equipment, with radio. He will have seen the figures in Lancashire showing the success of this system when the patrolling officer has a radio in constant touch with the police station so that there is a constant beat through the area. This has reduced crime and thus reduced offences against property and people.
  In the pamphlet produced by the committee which he was chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth has suggested the centralisation of the police. I have always been sorry that there is not a regional system of the police, as was proposed in evidence given to the Royal Commission by a committee of which I was chairman. That proposal
  1142
  was rejected. We suggested that, as with military commands, there should be regional zones, south-east, south-west, north-east, north-west.
  What impresses me and what I draw to the attention of the House is the acute feeling among police officers who join borough police forces that they wish to remain police officers only within that borough police force, so that they join knowing that they will always have their domestic home in the area and that their children will be educated at particular schools and that they themselves do not stand the risk of being transferred to another part of the county perhaps many miles away. That feeling must be taken into account.
  But why should there not also be some centralisation, some centralised command? If there were a centralised command in regions or areas, there could also be specialist services. I am anxious to see what will be the success of the regional crime squads. Will there be conflict between those regional crime squads and the large local forces on matters of informants and so on? All kinds of different conflicts could arise. If we had regional police forces as specialist services, mobile services of C.I.D. or traffic, we would have a sort of static defence force which police officers might join if they wanted to serve in a particular borough, and, like a strategic reserve, mobile forces could move to any areas where they were needed. This would mean a much more centralised command for the police.
  In all these problems we have to make sure that the right attitude is held by those who have the direct responsibility. If, as I know he is, the right hon. Gentleman is as interested in these matters as he is in what I regard as some of the fringe problems of his Department, he will make a drive to deal with these problems. He has to show himself to be determined and strong. He has to remove from the Home Office any ideas it may have about what should be the proper liberty of the subject. It is right to believe that it knows far more than most about the effect which prison may have on a man and whether he should be allowed out of prison, but it has to take into account what the public sees and hears in court when a person has

  1143
  committed an offence. We have to remember that the public is constantly threatened, that children and families or houses may suffer from depredation on the next occasion that an offence is committed.
  If one is going to deal with this problem one has to stand by the court which, in the name of society, commits a man to serve a particular punishment. One has to see that it is only with the approval of that court, or the judiciary, that there is subsequently a release from well-deserved imprisonment.
  I have suggested that one of the real needs is to get at the booty of persons who have been convicted. At present this is a difficult task. It may be possible to achieve this if one adopts a system whereby a person, who has been sentenced to several years' imprisonment, is released before the expiry of that term but on the condition that he is entered on a register and may not acquire possessions without registering their acquisition; that he may not own a motor car or use a motor car unless he states how he got it, whether from earnings or as a gift. The whole position is illustrated by a person serving a very long sentence who knows that at the end of it he will be able to get the reward of his crime and no one can touch him. We must see that society can touch him, unless we want to permit the present position which allows such a person, absolutely and utterly, to defy society.
  I believe that one can make crime not pay by making a person, who has been convicted of say, a bullion robbery, subject to a period of supervision and allowing the length of sentence to be cut down. If such a person moved to a different house or acquired a possession he would have to give an explanation. It is not beyond the wit of our society to devise such a system.
  There is a real need for robustness. I do not mean an unthinking brutal approach to people who commit crime. There are people who fall into crime through weakness, despair and grief, and they are those to whom compassion should be extended. But there must be a firm and determined attitude toward those who are deliberately defying our society. This is a responsibility resting upon the
  1144
  right hon. Gentleman and it is one which, in the view of myself and some of my hon. and right hon. Friends, has not been exercised sufficiently robustly in the immediate past.
  5.53 p.m.
  Mrs. Freda Corbet: It would be very difficult to disagree with most of the remarks of the last speaker, the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson). My own feelings correspond very largely to the tone which has been set by previous speakers this afternoon. There have been years during which it has been necessary to campaign vigorously for penal reform. I can remember many years ago—more than I would now care to mention—joining the Howard League and being most impressed by its studies on the subject of criminology and penology. These have been very valuable contributions to the subject about which we are now talking.
  Although we want, on the one hand, to be generous, kind and humane, we must, on the other, be firm and strong. We cannot hope for any very dramatic advance under one Minister of State or another just because we talk and ask for action. The cause of crime and the measures one might take to reform criminals is a very difficult matter indeed. These are new sciences about which we can have no exactitude. I have my own feelings upon the subject, and I have clashed with many other people. I hold very strongly that there is at least as large an element of heredity in the character defects which criminals portray as there is of environment.
  The effects of the flourishing society of today are beginning to bear me out. I recall my early childhood, and a brother who was extremely troublesome among two other children who gave no trouble at all, who told the truth, who were afraid of the other child, who did not know how to tell the truth, who could not keep his hands off anything and who was so weak that he was always being led astray by companions. This was one family with the same environment and the same influences yet with one child so different from the other two.
  I can recall many children whom I have known extremely well, children who started life so badly that from the

  1145
  earliest age one could have been sure that they would grow up to be criminals. I have known such a child go that way until he reached the age of about 18, and then from 18 to 30 go through such hardships and difficulties in connection with the war that he returned a reliable citizen. I have known another child begin a gracious, beautiful childhood in which I was able to say that her parents would spoil her if they could, but I did not think that they would be able to do so, and then have seen the child at about 8 years develop the most extraordinary tendencies, of which no one would have believed she was capable. Knowing her heredity I was not too surprised when this happened.
  The incidence of recorded juvenile delinquency, though larger today than it was, is still of a very minor character. It is so much so that I doubt whether most of the kindly people who act as juvenile magistrates have ever, in their own family, had any experience of a child with real character defects, a child who is difficult to control with ordinary firmness and humanity. It is so rare an experience for a parent that he or she does not appreciate the immensity of the task of controlling and bringing up such children.
  I mention this to illustrate the difficulty of the subject, not to be controversial, because like my right hon. Friend I believe that this is a subject unworthy of controversy. It is worthy of the greatest disputation and consideration, but not of controversy. Further remarks that I shall make will be few and they will be directed mainly to the Government's White Paper on "The Child, The Family and The Young Offender", which I am very happy to welcome.
  A long association with the juvenile courts has made me unsparing of admiration for the magistrates in the London area, with their very high standards and devotion to the interests of the children who appear before them. It cannot be overestimated. Yet, during all the years that I have sat in the courts, I have been conscious of certain factors which have circumscribed their work and my work in trying to reclaim young offenders. I should like to list them.
  First, the early acquaintance with the majesty of the law, which can breed such
  1146
  familiarity with it, militates against the fear and respect for it which youngsters should have. At the same time, there is the risk of a child acquiring the stigma which is referred to in the White Paper which is not easily shifted in later life. Secondly, there are the limitations on the treatment which one can prescribe in the juvenile courts. This leads almost inevitably to knowledge among children and parents that it is not until several offences have been committed that it is likely that drastic action will be taken. I have to advise constituents when parents turn to me, as they do to my fellow Members. Magistrates find themselves in a real dilemma in deciding how to deal with cases and what action to take for the best since there are so few courses which can be taken.
  Another factor which struck me years ago and which I have always thought was very important is this. In a court there is a need to observe the rules of evidence. From my acquaintance with the way in which they work, the observation of these rules does not always arrive at the truth. I have mentioned the rule that a child can choose whether to give evidence on oath. He does not realise, and his parents do not realise, that if he elects not to give evidence this will preclude him from being carefully questioned by the magistrates, who want to get at the truth. The magistrates find themselves completely stymied if a child elects to take this course. They want to learn the truth of the matter. It is in the child's interest that the truth should come out and not that he should be in a position to avoid giving it.
  My experience tells me that the prosecution's case nearly always rests on the child's admission of his guilt. Often the prosecution does not have other evidence with which to convict the child. On a number of occasions, when half a dozen or more children have been accused of the same crime, the little ones have pleaded guilty and the older, more knowledgeable and wary ones have pleaded not guilty. It has been impossible to prove the guilt of those who pleaded not guilty because there was not sufficient evidence.
  But the court could not overlook the fact that the younger ones had pleaded guilty and, therefore, it had to treat the offenders quite differently, although the

  1147
  older ones were obviously more guilty than the younger ones. It had to release the older ones and deal with the younger ones. This gives rise to a feeling of frustration in the court. But what it must do to parents I can only guess. This is not a good thing from the point of view of the parental attitude towards the courts.
  Another disadvantage is the difficulty of getting the parents' co-operation in dealing with the child for the welfare of the child once the law has been set in operation. They are either frightened for their child or resentful, especially when they know that their child has been caught and that the others have escaped. This is particularly the case when the only communication which members of the bench can have with the parents, apart from the few minutes that they are seen in court, is through the probation officers and their written reports.
  I regard two things as pre-eminently essential for dealing with the young offender: first, to ascertain the truth both as to the commission of the offence and the offender's associates in the commission of the offence; and, secondly, to ensure that there is parental co-operation. Youngsters must know that their offences cannot be hidden and parents should feel that it is in their child's interest to face the truth and to enlist every aid possible to help the child.
  I turn to another facet of my experience which I think should encourage the Government to persevere with their plans for a family service. Since the war, the education service has developed, under powers given to it in the Education Act, 1944, a network of schools, both day and residential, for maladjusted children. These are conducted in London on completely voluntary lines. Rarely is a parent known to refuse the opportunity which such schools provide to help their children. The children in these schools have behaviour difficulties which are normally noted by the schools or reported by the parents—the very children who might come before a court. The whole object of the service for maladjusted children is to keep those children from coming before the courts.
  There has been built up a service which is gaining a great deal of experience in co-operation with the parents in getting their interest in small schools. I agree
  1148
  with the desirability of comprehensive schools in another connection. In these small schools, members of the staff are able to contact the parents. The parents visit regularly. The children go home at weekends and on holiday. In other words, they are boarding schools with very special staff. They are costly, but they are helping to prevent children from coming before the courts.
  On occasion, the courts find a way out of sending children to approved schools. When I was a member of the bench we did everything that we could to stop a child going to approved school. If we could get him deemed to be maladjusted and to send him to a small boarding school for maladjusted children we were pleased to do so because we felt that we were doing something for the child and that the child's needs would be studied. The help of psychiatric teams is enlisted and is valuable. Sensible use is made of them. Incidentally, I have felt strongly for a long time that any psychiatrist who seeks to give advice on how to treat a maladjusted child should have had a period—six months or a year—in a school and should have helped to deal with the children. This is the difficult task. Advice can be given freely, and one tries to carry it out with these children. I know many heads of the schools and I know exactly what a hard life theirs is.
  However, I am talking about this subject because I want to show the House that there is nothing wrong in the Government suggesting that children of this type should be dealt with by the ordinary local authority services and should not have to run the gauntlet of the law at an early age. I am talking about it, too, because I want to show that a great body of experience is being built up about how to handle these children, about what is in their brains, their make-up, and so on, all of which is extremely valuable and ought in my view to be brought together somehow in the kind of way suggested in the White Paper.
  The ideas thrown out in the White Paper have my thorough approval. As I have said, however, I do not hope for miracles—I know too much about it—but we have to go on the right lines, and I feel that these are the right lines.
  I am particularly pleased by the suggestion that the approved schools should

  1149
  be a part of the system which is to provide the family service to try to train decent young citizens. The approved schools suffer from certain things. Normally, a child does not go to an approved school because his parents want him to go. The right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) talked about children being free and not deprived of their liberty, but I often wonder how many of those young gentlemen who went to Eton really wanted to go. I gather from television interviews that quite a lot of them did not. I am sure that nobody can think too much about what kind of liberty a child wants for itself at a tender age.
  The idea is to dispel from the child and the parents any thought that a young and difficult child is being sent away, removed from his parents or deprived of his liberty. He is merely being sent to a boarding school, like many another middle-class young gentleman or lady. This is something which we are getting in the schools for the maladjusted, and I am certain that we will get more of it. The approved schools have always suffered from this.
  Many a time when I have come home, my husband has said to me, "What have you been doing today? How many of them have you sent to their doom?" Sometimes I could say, "Thank goodness, none." Another time, I had to say that a mother was prostrate before us in the court at hearing the decision of the magistrates, but that we had no alternative because the child had been backwards and forwards to the court and there was nothing else we could do. These are distressing things for magistrates.
  Some of the approved schools are fairly large units with quite a number of children who can contaminate others. Then, there are quite a number of decent little children who have been led astray and I do not think that they should ever have been brought before the courts at all.
  I believe very much in the general decency of people and children, but I know that children have to be trained. If parents are not careful, and if they treat their children as if they are grownups before they have had a chance of being trained, they are running the risk of their running amok later on when they find associates who are stronger than
  1150
  themselves and who do not attach the same importance as they do to the social values. Parents will have to do a great deal of pulling up their socks and a great deal of rethinking.
  I remember my mother saying to me, "You will never have the kind of treatment that we received", by which she meant the use of slippers and the like which were applied when children did not do exactly as they were told. I never felt anybody's hand upon me. When I was 10 and my mother lifted her hand to strike me, I said, "How dare you", and she always told everybody that, after that, she could not.
  We know that there has been a kind of revolution against the strict control of children. The majority of children are reasonable creatures and can be brought up accordingly, but, unfortunately, one does not know which are the right ones to treat in a reasonable way. That is a matter of difficulty for us all. Parents must, however, be sure that children take notice of them. It is better for them to be a little firmer in the interests of the children themselves and of society.
  I do not care for change for change's sake. I have shown that often enough. I did not care at all for the abolition of the London County Council. I do not believe in miracles. I have become too long in the tooth to believe in them nowadays. I do, however, believe in operations that are necessary, as I think that this one is, being very carefully timed so that the new responsibilities do not fall on overburdened shoulders. I assure my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that, much though I support her, I shall not disapprove if the Government feel that they must move fairly slowly in the direction that I feel to be so essential.
  6.17 p.m.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: Towards the end of his speech the Home Secretary referred to the mounting crime figures. All of us, on both sides, accept that not only has crime become a serious social problem, but that it is of great concern to the average person. I am told that recent Gallup polls show that it is a subject about which people feel more concerned than on any other subject.
  What we must attempt to do is to try, as the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) said at the beginning

  1151
  of her speech, to find means of eradicating the causes of crime. I think that everyone would agree, however, that of necessity that is bound to be a long programme. What the people who are concerned with the crime figures want to know is what can be done in the short term and what lead the Government are giving in the fight against crime.
  Because many hon. Members are anxious to speak in the debate, I propose to limit myself to merely two aspects of the subject: first, what can be done to assist the police at the present time, and secondly, what I still consider, with respect to the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham, to be the wholly ill-conceived and ill-thought-out proposals concerning young offenders as set out in the recent White Paper.
  As to what can be done at the moment in assisting the police, I think that everyone would accept the remark made by the Home Secretary that whether punishment is tough or soft, the real deterrent to crime is the likelihood of arrest and conviction. It is an old statement, but it is still true, that people do not commit a crime with a policeman standing at their shoulder.
  The really serious matter in the present crime figures is not only the vast increase which has occurred in recent years, but the fact, at the same time, there has been a fall in the rate of detection. I appreciate the point which the Home Secretary made on this matter, that when we talk of a percentage figure it is a percentage of an increasing overall amount, but the fact remains that today in the country as a whole the detection rate has dropped for the first time ever to below 40 per cent., and if one concentrates purely on the figures for the metropolitan area of this City alone one finds that in 1964 the figures for the rate of detection dropped to 21·6 per cent. in the Metropolitan Police area.
  Quite frankly, that means simply that four out of every five offenders are getting away undetected, and I believe that the height of this figure is in itself a grave cause of the increase in crime.
  What are we going to do about it? I suggest that the first thing we have to do is to increase the number of the police. Some people have said that we are 10,000 short, some have said we are 20,000
  1152
  short; the Home Secretary today, I think, gave the figure as 18,000. If to increase the number of police means we have to increase the pay of the police, then we must increase that pay.
  I fully accept, as the Home Secretary said, that the shortage in the police figures today is not solely a question of pay. If one looks at the figures one sees that the disturbing fact is that of people who join and then in the fairly early years depart into other work. They do not necessarily achieve better salaries than those they got in the police force. I accept that it is mainly a question of the conditions but, unfortunately, like so many things, this is really a vicious circle, because we shall not improve the condiditions, the conditions about which the police complain, which is the amount of night duty work which they have to do, the number of weekend duties which they have to do, unless we increase the numbers.
  Regrettably, we shall not increase the numbers unless we can entice more men into the police force and the most likely way of achieving that is by improving the rate of pay. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister of State, who is here, that if we are to need, as a means of increasing the number of police, to put up the pay of the police, the cost of that to the nation is minimal compared with the cost of crime at the moment.
  The second thing we have to do, I believe, is to increase the efficiency of the police and particularly the efficient use of the time of the existing members of the police force. I shall be very brief about the efficiency of the police as the Home Secretary, of course, has already dealt with this at some length, but I personally believe that the great trouble today is that we still have far too many police forces in this country.
  I interrupted the Home Secretary to point out, when he referred to the amalgamation in the West Midlands, a similar amalgamation in the Manchester area. Perhaps I should say in the Lancashire area and the Manchester conurbation, in case I may offend the susceptibilities of people living in the area surrounding Manchester either in Cheshire or Lancashire. But the recommendation which has been put forward by the Special Review Area is that there should be one

  1153
  police force for this contiguous area. What has been the attitude of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to that Review Area Report? Frankly, he is merely ditching the Report, and what worries me is that, in ditching the Report, he may be ditching also the sensible, serious suggestion of amalgamating the police forces in that area.
  If we are to do that we have to look further. If we are to amalgamate the police forces in the area of the Manchester conurbation, as has been proposed, I suggest to the Minister of State that the next thing we must do is to look at the rest of Lancashire and amalgamate the police forces in the rest of Lancashire into one Lancashire police force. We cannot, in this day and age, fight the war against crime when in Lancashire alone we have 17 separate police forces. That leads to inefficiency; it leads to additional expense; and I believe that it reduces the effectiveness of the battle against crime.
  The next point I would put to the Minister of State as a means which is essential in the short term is to improve the modern methods of detection available to the police. Again, the Home Secretary said something about this. I wish again to concentrate my remarks on what I have seen for myself happening in the Lancashire area. I would remind this House that in Liverpool, for example, the figures for 1965, I understand, will disclose not only a fairly substantial reduction in crime but at the same time a rise in the percentage detection rate.
  What has happened in Liverpool over that time? There closed circuit television has been installed as a means in the fight against crime. If we look at other parts of the north-west area we find, in the Burnley police force area, a reduction in the amount of crime and, of course, an improvement in the detection figures, because in that area—pioneered by the Lancashire county police force—they now have working a two-way personal radio system for the policeman on the beat—which I believe is the biggest breakthrough in crime detection which has been achieved.
  I believe that the Home Office at the moment is not giving adequate leadership, adequate guidance, adequate drive to other police forces to take over these
  1154
  methods of detection of crime. I asked a Question of the Home Secretary last Thursday, and the Answer I got said that at the moment 23 out of 120 police forces were using personal radio. It should not be 23. It should be as nearly as possible the whole of the 120; certainly it should be over 100, and the Home Office should be persuading chief constables to take up these schemes, and it should be providing sets, and it should be pressing on with this at the greatest possible speed.
  Mr. Bernard Braine: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that chief constables and other senior police officers are slow in wanting these new techniques and aids? The difficulty is in getting the equipment.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his interruption, in case I gave that impression. I am not suggesting that chief constables are slow in taking up these means. What I am saying is that there should be a department of the Home Office through which modern means of detection of crime and information can be disseminated throughout the police forces and encouragement given to the provision of equipment—from the Home Office itself.
  The final point I want to make on the question of the efficiency of the police was mentioned by my right hon. Friend. I ask the Minister of State to look with care and interest at the figures of the experiment at Kirby, on the outskirts of Liverpool, and the dramatic drop in crime achieved in that area, referred to by Colonel St. Johnston, the Chief Constable of Lancashire, in an article written in The Times on 26th January this year.
  But I leave that and turn to the other side of this matter, and that is the efficient use of police time. I believe that far too much time is being taken up by policemen in doing jobs which could be adequately done by other people, whether it is on secretarial work or in controlling of traffic.
  Above all, I believe that a great deal of time is being wasted by police officers in unnecessary attendance at court today. I ask the Home Secretary to look with urgency at the possibility of expanding the area in which fines or a ticket basis can be imposed for offences, rather than a policeman always having to go to court, and with all humility I invite the Minister

  1155
  of State to look at a document which may shortly be in her hands inviting her to consider the present procedure of committal proceedings, and the waste of time they impose on the police.
  What, above all, we have to do is to obtain a change in the attitude of the public to the police. We have to foster good relations, rather than foster antagonism. I notice that the Government's Amendment to the Motion speaks of our warmly supporting the efforts of the police. What expression of support has been shown during the last 12 months? The only expression that I have seen is the publication by the Home Office of a pamphlet telling people how to complain against the police. Nowhere in that pamphlet is any acknowledgment made of the difficult work done by the police, and nowhere is there any acknowledgment made of the fact that the vast majority of complaints are found to be wholly trivial and unsubstantiated. In every police force today we find that the time of senior police officers is taken up inquiring into complaints against the police made by members of the public, 85 per cent., of which are found to be wholly unsubstantiated on inquiry.
  In the Sunday Telegraph last week I saw that the Metropolitan Police are trying to appoint 22 additional detective chief inspectors whose whole time will be involved solely in inquiring into complaints by the public against the police. Nothing could have been more ill-conceived and worse timed than for the Home Office in that sort of atmosphere to bring out a pamphlet of the type that it did.
  Like the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), I believe that we have a duty in the House to set the standard and to remember that we should ourselves encourage co-operation with the police, rather than encourage criticism of the police—a thing which is very easy to do. It is easy to seek headlines and publicity in that manner.
  The proposals of the Government are in danger of antagonising and making worse the relationships between the public and the police. The unenforceable imposition of a 70 m.p.h. speed limit causes resentment among the motoring public. The intention to create random spot checking of motorists for alcohol is
  1156
  wholly undesirable and will be the greatest single cause of increasing antagonism between the public and the police at the present time. I beseech the Home Office to consider ways of improving relationships, rather than pursuing policies which exacerbate the difficulties.
  I turn now to the aspect dealt with in the White Paper, which is the intention to abolish the juvenile courts and set up a family council. I bitterly regret the proposal, because I feel that it is full of the most dangerous ideas. Last Thursday in the House, when replying to Questions, the Minister of State took exception to some of the words that I used about the document and to the comments that had been made to her about it.
  I still believe that the idea of a family council with some unhappy bargaining between welfare officers on the one side and parents on the other by which the future of children is to be decided is a real threat to the liberty of the child. The threat in the background of recourse to a family court will mean that on many occasions without any public knowledge of the fact, children will have their lives decided for them in a manner which is wholly unsatisfactory.
  Although the Minister of State tells me that it is not right to say that the White Paper has few friends and many enemies, I do not think that she will dispute that it is entirely opposed by the Magistrates' Association, by the National Association of Probation Officers and by the Residential Child Care Association. The Minister of State shakes her head, but I have a pamphlet in my possesion in which those bodies express their grave exception to the proposal in the White Paper to set up family councils.
  I hope that the hon. Lady will have had an opportunity already to look at the very thoughtful paper presented to her as being the unanimous view of all the magistrates for the City of Manchester, which is one of opposition to the proposal.
  To empower a body sitting in private to agree with the consent of parents to send a child away to what is the equivalent of a detention centre, a long-term residential training establishment or an approved school is a fundamental change

  1157
  in our legal procedure and one which the House should not accept. It is all very well for the hon. Lady to say that it is not punishment. To children sent to a detention centre or a long-term residential training school it will seem to be and will be punishment, and punishment in which their parents have concurred. On going there, children will feel that they have been rejected by their parents, as well as being sent there by an outside body.
  The unhappy bargaining between the family council and parents, with the threat of the family court in the background will mean that many of the types of parents whose children find themselves in that position will have tremendous pressure placed upon them to persuade their children first of all to agree that they did what is being suggested they did, and also to agree on what is being proposed by the welfare officer as being the best thing for their future. The parents will fear what will happen in the family court if they do not agree, and they fear that they may be the subject of publicity if they go to the family court.
  In cases of that nature, the children themselves need the safeguard of a judicial process before they are removed from their home surroundings and put into a custodial establishment.
  I noticed the Minister of State nodding during the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham. She may say, and I accept it, that if it is possible to deal with offending children without taking them to the courts, that is a good thing. I am a strong supporter of the police juvenile liaison scheme, but the Minister of State must appreciate that that scheme and the proposals in the White Paper have one fundamental difference. If the parents do not agree with the police that rather than their child being taken to court they should allow the police to supervise him, no one has any power to do anything which is punishment of the child without going through the judicial process. Under the present proposals, children can be punished by being removed from their homes without a judicial process intervening, and it is to that which I, for one, take strong exception.
  I do not believe that the Minister of State appreciates the attitude of the parents themselves. She is wholly mis-
  1158
  guiding herself if she thinks that agreements will be easily arrived at which are genuine agreements on both sides rather than because of the threat of going to the family court as the alternative.
  The White Paper will create great delay if we are to have a system whereby a child first goes to the family council where he must agree that he committed the offence and, if not, he goes to the family court, the court then decides on the guilt of the child, he is then shuffled back to the family council to see if agreement can be reached on what is to be the penalty. If agreement cannot be reached, the child is again sent to the family court where the penalty is fixed. In other words, the child goes first to the family council, then to the family court, back to the family council and then again to the family court. I believe that the delay that it will cause is again a grave objection to the White Paper.
  The advocates of the White Paper wholly underestimate the good that is done by our juvenile courts. They wholly underestimate the amount of time taken in obtaining reports from probation officers and people of that kind before deciding on the future of a child.
  One other point about the White Paper which has not yet been touched upon is its proposals with regard to children from 16 to 21. The Government propose to set up a vast new system of courts for dealing with those children. Nowhere in this White Paper is the case made for those courts. Why does one need a wholly separate type of court to deal with people of this age? My experience—and I believe the experience of many hon. Members who spend part of their time in the criminal courts—is that the courts of quarter session and magistrates' courts are as capable of, and as suitable for, dealing with young criminals of 19 or 20, as they are for dealing with people of 21 or 22, and from reading the White Paper one gets the impression that somewhere in the background there is some form of woolly sentimentality running through the thinking on this subject.
  I believe that a healthy regard for the courts is a thoroughly good thing to instil in a person of 19 or 20 who is regularly committing criminal offences. I accept, as the White Paper says, that when passing sentence on a person under

  1159
  21 the court should be required to have regard to his welfare. Any court should always have regard to the welfare of a person of any age, but that is not the only issue. There are other aims of inflicting punishment. The expression of abhorrence by society is one, the deterrent to others is another, and I think that the White Paper is mistaken when, in dealing with the principle of sentencing, it refers only to the welfare of the person concerned.
  I believe that the White Paper is ill-conceived and ill-thought-out. I was slightly disappointed by the opening remarks of the Home Secretary when he implied that in some way the Motion suggested that the opposition were attempting to say that the crime wave was the fault of the Government. I did not read the Motion in that way, nor did I take the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thomeycroft) to do so. I think that the Motion says that the matters contained in the White Paper on juvenile courts, and the matters contained in the White Paper on adult offenders, and on the release of prisoners without reference to a judicial body are matters of principle on which one is entitled to say that one strongly opposes the Government.
  I welcome the vast majority of what the Home Secretary said about the fight against crime, but on these two issues, and on what I believe is the failure by the Government to encourage good relationships between the public and the police, and, indeed, on what I believe is the effect of their policy, the Opposition are entitled to say that they oppose the Government.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. W. T. Williams: The only deplorable thing about this debate is the Motion which initiated it. I agree with the greater part of the speech of the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). Indeed, he said some of the things which I intended to say. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that the Opposition should express their strong opposition to what the Government have, and have not, done, and I suppose he is entitled to say that this can be done by way of a Motion of censure, as is the case here. But he may,
  1160
  on reflection, feel that if the best is to be obtained from a debate of this kind on an issue about which hon. Members on both sides are concerned, and about which they have strongly held, sensible, and deeply thought out views, it would have been better if the Motion had been put down in a form which invited the House generally to make its comments on the present situation, the present problems of crime, and so on, rather than to sit in judgment on what has or has not been done by a Government who, compared with the previous Government, have been in power for a relatively short time, and, whatever their faults, are making an effort to deal with the problem in a way which the previous Government did not, or at any rate did not succeed in doing.
  I said at the beginning that I found myself in almost entire agreement with the hon. Member for Runcorn, as, indeed, I have done with most of the speeches so far. I did not altogether agree with the hon. Gentleman's strictures on the White Paper on juvenile delinquency, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will not take it amiss if, having told him in private, and I repeat it in public, that we expect great things of him in his present office, and congratulating him on his appointment, I say that I think a number of hon. Members on this side of the House regard the White Paper on juvenile delinquency and the family courts as not wholly bad, as has been suggested from the benches opposite, but believe that the Government would be well advised to consider the criticisms which have been made of it, particularly by magistrates and probation officers.
  I say that because I believe that almost any form of tribunal will serve the interests of children. Whether it be a magistrates' court, or a family court, the anxiety of those who sit on it is the wellbeing of the child, and it is a pity to destroy one method before all the methods which are available have not been sufficiently tried. The existing methods of dealing with juvenile delinquency have not been exhausted, nor has the Children and Young Persons Act achieved its full capacity. This is not because of the failure of the intention behind them, but of the personnel, and if the problem arises under those Acts almost the same problem will be met by the family courts.

  1161
  There are three matters to which I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend. The first of them has been exhaustively dealt with by hon. Members who have preceded me. I am referring here to the waste of manpower. If it is true, and it is, that we are desperately short of police, it is exceedingly short-sighted of the Government deliberately to waste the police manpower that we have. Too much time and energy is spent by the police on traffic control, on prosecuting traffic offences, and on spending long periods in court dealing with traffic offences which could more easily be done by other civilians. After all, a policeman is only a civilian who has been given special training and authority. Any other civilian given proper training, and under proper authority, would be equally competent to serve as a traffic officer and thus release police officers for their proper business of dealing with crime.
  It might be of considerable advantage if the police were no longer responsible for non-criminal traffic offences and their prosecution, because my experience is that there 13 probably no greater single reason for the loss of confidence in the police on the part of ordinary citizens than the feeling that they are harried by police officers for trivial traffic offences.
  If that is so, it seems to me that one radical approach to the problem of police manpower is to appoint people as traffic police, or to retain police officers who retire too young. I think that we should retain police officers who have become too old for criminal duties and the physical exertion of pursuing criminals and use them for road control and traffic duties, and possibly also for sedentary office duties which young people resent having to do. Whether or not the increase in police manpower which would follow would make any material difference to the war on crime would then depend on the use that would be made of the men who had newly been made available.
  I underline the suggestions already made that we should have more police in fast cars equipped with two-way radios and with dogs, and that we should use closed circuit television, as used in Liverpool. That would do a great deal more to defeat criminals than having many
  1162
  more men on foot in the large towns where most crime is committed. Mobile police squads in properly organised forces, with power to act independently of the local constabulary, would do a great deal to overcome the present disability from which the police suffer, as against the criminals, who do not have to pay regard to the local police authority frontiers.
  In a speech made about a year ago I committed myself to the doctrine that the time had come if not for a national police force at least for greatly strengthened regional police forces in a few large centres, with proper and thoroughly up-to-date equipment, including, perhaps, a couple of computers. The fact that these have been greatly neglected in our fight against crime is evidence of the poverty of imagination with which the battle against crime has been fought for a long time. Nobody but the criminal finds the present police set-up profitable. In my experience, most modern criminologists find it wasteful, frustrating and inefficient.
  Catching the crook is only part of crime prevention. There are two other points on which I want to comment and which relate, first, to the conviction of criminals once caught, and, secondly, to their detention, punishment and treatment.
  For a long time we have followed the doctrine of committal proceedings. The time may have come when the investigatory system followed on the Continent will yield more profitable results in the attack against crime than our very formalised and stylised system, which gives criminals a considerable advantage. Much of my professional career has been spent in crime. I am one of the people whom crime has paid. In my experience, many people who, at committal proceedings, have absolutely no answer to the charges laid against them, have a perfectly worked-out defence by the time they appear at quarter sessions or assizes, largely on the strength of the information given at the earlier committal proceedings.
  I do not want to prejudge issues of this kind, but in my opinion the adoption of an investigatory procedure similar to that which is operated on the Continent may have many advantages over our stylised and formalised committal proceedings.
  Mr. Emlyn Hanson: I agree that we should do away with committal proceedings, except in cases where the defence requests them, but the defence must be entitled to see all the statements and all the evidence brought against the defendant. There may be good reasons for abolishing committal proceedings, but the one advanced by the hon. and learned Member is not a good one.
  Mr. Williams: The hon. and learned Member is entitled to his point of view. In my view, justice would be better served if we had an inquisitionary procedure similar to that which operates on the Continent. This would give the defence the same opportunity of knowing precisely what case was being laid against it. It often happens that the stylised process of the procedure followed in committal proceedings here affords the criminal—especially the experienced criminal—an opportunity of making up his defence.
  In many ways perhaps the most important of the disadvantages from which we suffer in dealing with criminals is that although, in theory, we are committed to the doctrine that the object of all sentences is not only to prevent crime, but also to encourage those who have been sentenced to live a good and useful life, in practice nothing has been more unsuccessful than our penal system. Too many people are sentenced to terms of imprisonment for offences which do not involve dishonesty or personal violence. It is completely illogical to commit people to prison for driving offences and for failing to observe statutory rules. The punishment appropriate to driving offences which do not involve a criminal element is not prison. In the same way the failure to observe statutory rules does not merit a prison sentence; it should be dealt with by way of a heavy fine or some other form of restitution. In the case of driving offences not including a criminal element there should he a forfeiture of the licence of a person who cannot or will not drive properly.
  The other aspect of the same matter which reveals the failure of our real social responsibility in punishing people arises when magistrates and judges commit people to prison either for very short or very long sentences. The effect of
  1164
  sending people to prison for very short sentences is, at one and the same time, to crowd our prisons and to create personal and social problems for the sentenced persons and for their families. Such sentences serve no useful purpose for society or for the persons so sentenced.
  Our prisons are so overcrowded by people who are serving short sentences that it is virtually impossible properly to deal with people who are serving long sentences. If we were to remove from our prisons those people who are serving sentences of six months or less we would discover that at any one time between 15,000 and 20,000 of our 40,000 prisoners would be released. This would enable those in charge of our prisons to deal more properly with, have more concern about, and provide more effective treatment for, those who are recidivists, who constitute our real problem.
  If this is too radical a proposal I invite the Home Secretary, nevertheless, to give it his attention. If a crime does not deserve at least six months' imprisonment it does not merit an immediate loss of a man's liberty. All sorts of alternatives could be introduced. In some cases fines would be appropriate, and in others, restitution. Short-term detention may sometimes be appropriate, in places other than prisons, where the persons concerned can be separated from long-term, professional prisoners, who can teach them a great deal about crime. Yet again, in some cases we might follow the practice, adopted in other countries, of bringing people into detention centres during the weekends, at the same time making it possible for them to make restitution.
  There is no reason why Britain should not follow the lead of most civilised countries and introduce, for people who commit crimes for the first time, or who continually commit petty crimes, a system of suspended or deferred sentences. The fact of detention, and the possibility of detention if they were ever caught again, would be much more effective than any short-term centence could be. That would remove the majority of people who are now serving short-term sentences. By removing them and the cost of their maintenance the prison service would be better able to give time and energy in attending to the long-term prisoners who

  1165
  are the hard core of our criminal population, and who constitute the real challenge to society in all senses of that word.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: I apologise for intruding myself into this debate. I shall not be long, I hope. My one title to speak is as a constituency Member. But the story I have to tell—my speech will be largely a narrative—is so illustrative of the great matters which we have been discussing and so pregnant with danger to us all that I think that I may be forgiven if I tell it.
  In his powerful peroration, the Home Secretary expressed his determination that ordinary people in this country should live safely, more safely than they do now. This narrative concerns an ordinary person. He lives not much more than a mile and a half from here, near Marble Arch, with his wife and his baby of two years old in a little flat. He seems to me to be a responsible man. He has been selected to represent the residents' association of the block of flats in which he lives, an association which he played a considerable part in forming. That association was formed because of the activities of a club which occupies the premises under the block of flats. It is called by the name of a sporting club. That is to say, it is a gambling club.
  I noted what the Joint Under-Secretary has said about gambling clubs the other day. I wish to express no judgment on this matter. All I say is that anyone with any experience of these things knows that there are special dangers associated with these clubs. They are apt to be a nuisance and to attract undesirable people in and about them. If they are to be carried on, this must be done by people with wide experience of handling such clubs and by identifiable management which acts responsibly and can be made responsible. Since I have been the hon. Member for my present constituency, a gathering number of complaints has been accumulating about the activities of this club.
  It began only with nuisance of noise extending into the early hours of the morning, violence attending motor cars and, finally, towards Christmas of last year, a more specific complaint of threats against the residents of the flats when-
  1166
  ever they managed to make a complaint about the noise and the nuisance to which they were subjected. That is what was going on. In one case, it was accepted that one of the threats of violence was by a member of the staff of the club. In other cases it was by members of the club itself. Tyre slashing took place and there were threats of violence to the person.
  In due course, when these complaints accumulated, I advised the residents of the block to oppose the management of the club when they applied to the licensing authority for the renewal of their licence for dancing and music. Two or three days before that opposition was made public and the hearing took place, the telephone bell rang in the flat of my constituent. A voice, evidently belonging to someone who knew the size of his family, said that, if he cared for the future of his wife and child—a baby of two—he would not continue his objection to the licence of this club, and that, if he did continue it, he must take the consequences. He was advised to warn his friends to take a similar line of conduct in relation to their objection to the licence.
  My constituent ignored that advice, but he has since been living in a state of siege. His wife is not strong and he himself is a coronary case and has been warned to avoid anxiety or too much exertion. He has had a coronary attack during the last three days. At the hearing, at which the renewal of the licence was refused, of the six members of the residents' association who gave evidence, four complained that they had been intimidated and, in each case, the threat related precisely to their continuing with their objection to the renewal of the licence. One said that the threat had been to throw her downstairs into the cellar and another said that it was to split his head open. There were also other complaints.
  Just before Christmas—some weeks before the events which I have described—my constituent had visited a gentleman who claimed to have something to do with the management of the club. It had been rather difficult to discover who had anything to do with the club's management. The actual licensee was not readily available and complainants were apt to be passed from hand to hand.

  1167
  This gentleman is described as an antique dealer and an American citizen. He gave my constituent to understand that he was going about with an escort armed with a firearm and that he had three other "strong-arm" people in attendance—not policemen.
  Of course, the natural effect on my constituent was to make him take very seriously indeed the possibility that violence might be used against him. After the refusal of the renewal of the music and dancing licence, the question of the liquor licence, of course, remained. The residents' association gave it to be understood that when the liquor licence came up for consideration—as it will do in a few weeks—they intended to oppose the renewal of that as well. Again, I express no opinion. This will be a matter for the licensing justices. However, what happened next was a remarkable set of events.
  Two police officers called at the flat of my constituent and were there for two and three quarter hours that is to say, from 9 p.m. to 11.45 p.m., according to the information which he has given me. They left him very far from reassured. They gave him a lot of information about the management: I do not understand the reason for this. They said that if he pursued his objection to the liquor licence, they would not guarantee his safety and advised him to change his residence.
  I must say that this is a somewhat surprising event to take place—as my constituent assures me it did—that police officers, instead of telling him to resist crime, should tell him to deal with it in that way. I do not want to speculate on their motives—I understand that their conduct is under investigation—but he was later called upon, two or three days ago, by a senior police officer. My constituent tells me that, after he made this statement, this police officer attempted to get an undertaking from him that he would not put a copy of his statement in the hands of his Member of Parliament.
  That is all very well: I told the Home Secretary this today and I understand that it is now denied, although my constituent was quite specific about this interview. It is very important indeed that the Home Secretary should tell the Metropolitan
  1168
  Police that if they want, as I am sure everyone wants, to co-operate with this House as friends and allies in the war against crime, they must not try to come between a Member of Parliament and a constituent who is making a complaint of this kind, to prevent him from supplying information.
  There is only one other piece of the story and that is that I was approached by somebody who claimed to be responsible for the management of the club. He was, perhaps not insignificantly, a minority shareholder, not one of the directors or the licensee. He was a solicitor. He was not acting professionally, but was an investor. He gave me particulars of the club when I asked. It is a £100 private company, although I understand that it controls an investment of £250,000.
  The four directors, whose names he gave me, are apparently a retired gentleman, somewhat elderly; a gentleman who has come from West Africa after having spent 30 years there, but without any other qualifications of which he could tell me; a gentleman about whom all I could ascertain was that he was a director who dealt with insurance matters; and the fourth director, the same gentleman who has gone about, or is claimed to have gone about, with an armed escort, and who is an antique dealer but who, I understand, has some previous experience in the United States in managing gambling clubs. This is a story of a little block of people living within 1½ miles of this House and subjected to threats for which nobody has so far been punished, living in genuine fear from the kind of twilight world which this kind of organisation sometimes tends to attract around it.
  This raises questions which I put to the Home Secretary. What are his powers in relation to clubs of this kind? It is not for me to criticise gambling. But it is important that the Home Secretary should be armed with powers, and should use them in relation to matters of this kind in order to see that a club of this kind is responsibly managed, that the management is experienced in handling gambling clubs—if gambling clubs are to exist—that the kind of danger and the kind of nuisance which I have been trying to describe does not

  1169
  take place and that, above all, if complaints are made about the management of the club, then the moment they start threatening members of the public and putting them in fear of personal violence in order to stop them from putting their objections before the proper tribunal, it involves something which is far more serious than nuisance or noise or hooting at night.
  Above all, I implore the Home Secretary to make it clear to the Metropolitan Police Force, for which he is responsible, that when people complain they should be reassured and not dissuaded from pursuing their complaint to its logical conclusion; and, secondly, that Members of Parliament should not be treated in a way in which, it is alleged at any rate by my constituent, I was treated in that efforts were made to try to stop a Member of Parliament from obtaining information in order to put his complaint before the House.
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. George Rogers: The House ought to thank the Opposition for putting down this Motion, not because of the aggressive terms in which it is couched but because it gives an opportunity to discuss this great national problem. During the past 14 years we have had far too few opportunities of dealing with this aspect of the situation. We are partly to blame, but the Opposition, who were then the Government, must share the responsibility, because the House has taken the whole question of the growth of crime far too lightly in the years since the war, and we have not given the time to it, as a national problem, which ought to have been given to it.
  I listened to the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) with a good deal of astonishment. Yesterday he made a plea that the aircraft industry should be dealt with on a non-political basis. I did not expect that he would claim this subject, on the following day, also to be non-political. Is the right hon. Gentleman claiming that the Conservative Party have no responsibility for the growth of crime in this country since the war? He said, for example, that both political parties had sought to raise the standard of living of a materialist kind. Is it not fair to say that the Conservative Party appeal to
  1170
  the individual to secure that extra share of wealth for himself whereas the Socialist Party appeal to people to work collectively in the common interest? The Socialist philosophy is very different from the "Get-rich-quick, I'm-all-right-Jack" philosophy which we had during the years when the Tory Party were in office.
  The example given by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) resulted from an. Act of Parliament passed by his party when they were in office. Does he imagine that that Act has had no effect upon crime? Does he not know of crimes which were committed under the banner of the 1957 Rent Act? Does he know of no assaults, no crime, no crooked lawyers, no crooked estate agents, all under the banner of that Rent Act? He claimed that the betting laws were abolished because they were unenforceable, and that this was an advantage, but many examples exist of the kind given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman of crimes resulting from the Betting, Lotteries and Gaming Act. There has been arson and robbery and there have been protection rackets, all surrounding the betting shops which were established under that Act.
  Without trying to be unfair to the Conservative Party, I suggest that the philosophy of life with which they governed the country when they were in office, together with some of the Acts of Parliament which they passed, had much to do with the growth of crime in this country. If this is not so, then one must say that philosophy is of no importance and a way of life does not matter. Aristotle said that it was the duty of a Government to create the conditions in which the citizen could lead a good life, and I take it that he did not mean a good-time life. Can one claim that the philosophy of the Government which is ruling the country and the way in which it interprets that philosophy have no relation to the way in which the people of the country behave? With all respect, I believe that there is a relationship, and I do not think it right that the principal Opposition spokesman should blind his own eyes to the responsibility which his party have in this respect.
  The causes of crime are many. There is the lack of discipline in the homes and the loss of the discipline of religion,

  1171
  which taught responsibility. Some hon. Members have rightly indicated that the criminal's principal fear is the fear of detection and punishment. Is not this one of the great teachings of Christianity—that one is responsible for one's actions, and that whatever one did had to be paid for at some time or another? This is a form of discipline and teaching which is not given to the young these days, and that must play its part in the behaviour of our youth.
  There is the loss of the discipline of patriotism, which once was a powerful factor in this country—pride in one's country. There is the loss of pride in craft which has developed with the growth of machines and with the introduction of dull, boring and repetitive jobs, as a result of which so many people have lost the pride of personality resulting from pride in a task well done. There is loss of respect for older people, which has been a great deal encouraged by commercial interests, which place so much emphasis on youth because youth is a profitable market for commercial interests to exploit. This has meant a loss of respect for older people, which has been reflected in the attitude of children to teachers and to all kinds of people who formerly had some authority over them. There is also the effect of broken homes due to divorce and to many other causes.
  Psychiatrists have even found a connection between the criminal and failure in the 11-plus examination. The young boy at a sensitive age fails in this examination and is rejected by society. He has to go to another school when his parents wanted him to go to the grammar school. Psychiatrists have found this to be a cause of juvenile delinquency, in some cases leading to a life of crime.
  It is difficult, to say the least, for any Government to try to put back the clock and teach a higher standard of morality. In the past men like Abraham Lincoln set a great example of behaviour and teaching and the leaders of the nation today, as represented in this House, can do much by example and teaching to change the philosophy of this country, a philosophy which has deteriorated very much this century.
  Many hon. Members have referred to the pay of the police. I will not say much on this subject. One of the prob-
  1172
  lems is that the pay of the police is too low at the starting rate. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to say that police pay must bear a relation to the pay of other public services. That is true, but we must not forget that the police relate their pay to that in other industries, outside public services, as a result of which many young policemen leave the force for higher pay. They can get more as labourers.
  Only last week my attention was drawn to the case of a young man in High Wycombe who was earning £22 10s. a week in a skilled job. He had a dispute with the firm, left it and, the following day, acquired other employment at a starting wage of £24 a week. Any young policeman must consider these factors when thinking of the relatively low pay which he gets, particularly in his early years in the force.
  Consider the position of teleprinter and computer operators. The police force trains these men and, immediately they are proficient, a great many of them leave the force for employment in commercial enterprises—men who have been trained by the State and who, after reaping the rewards of that training, go into commerce because the money is very much higher.
  Several hon. Members have concentrated their remarks on the problem of the police having sufficient money for the upkeep and maintenance of the force. One of the chief defects of the police force has been the extent to which it has been kept deliberately short of money, partly because the police precept is a difficult problem these days. Local authorities attempt to keep down the cost of the force and this has a serious effect on efficiency. That is why some hon. Members have said that we should transfer at least part of police expenditure to the national Exchequer.
  In many parts of the country the equipment of the police is inadequate. There are too few radio cars. I know of one police station which has only one W.T. car. Because of bad maintenance, owing to the shortage of money, that car is often out of action, resulting in the station having no radio car at all. An experiment has been carried out in Harlesden, where men on the beat have been supplied with walkie-talkie equipment. I understand that the experiment has been

  1173
  successful and that the men on the beat have done their job so well that very little work has been left for the mobile policeman to do.
  All vehicles and men in at any rate the Metropolitan Police Force should be equipped with radios, even if the range extends to the local station only. It is obvious that policemen on street duty are more likely to be keen to prevent crime if they are aware of the interesting events which are taking place near or off their beats.
  How many hon. Members know that police cars use probably the poorest grade of petrol available, so poor that decompressor units are fitted to Jaguar cars to enable them to use this poor petrol which, of course, reduces their performance? How many hon. Members know that police cars do not get new oil but reconditioned oil? This is due to the parsimonious attitude of the authorities towards the police force. It is something which the men in the force view deeply.
  Hon. Members may be amused to hear what S it Robert Peel said in 1829 when introducing the Metropolis Police Improvement Bill. He feared that one of the causes of the increase in crime was the increase in the mechanical ingenuity of the age by which perpetration of crime was aided and the means of detection lessened. In other words, the mechanical improvements—which went so far to distinguish this country and provide us with a scource of prosperity—aided the perpetrators of crime by enabling them to travel great distances in a few hours, resulting in the means of detection being lessened.
  On reading what Sir Robert said in 1829 I wondered what mechanical means of transport there were at that time, remembering that that date was eight years before Charles Dickens published the Pickwick Papers with their rollicking stories of the great days of the coaching era. Sir Robert must have known what he was talking about. If his remarks were true then, how much truer are they today? The motor car has indeed given the criminal his opportunity.
  I have a suggestion to make on the problem of manpower. Do hon. Members realise that the number of constables on the beat at some stations is so small that at school times all the men on the beat
  1174
  are engaged in looking after school crossings? This applies in some areas around London and is a dreadful waste of manpower.
  I was privileged to visit New Zealand for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's Conference. I see an hon. Gentleman opposite who also went on that occasion. While there I found that school crossings were patrolled by the school children themselves. I made inquiries and discovered that there were no accidents, that the children did the job very well and were glad to do it. The children are dressed in white coats which are easily distinguishable. Each one has a long pole, at the end of which is a circular sign. A child stands on each side of the road, on the pavement, and without going into the carriageway projects the signs across the carriageways, stopping the cars. The system works well.
  The New Zealanders said that their drivers were much less courteous than British drivers. They therefore believed that if this system worked well in Wellington it would work at least as well in London. The Home Secretary should consider the possibility of extending this idea to this country, for it would release a considerable number of men to do their proper duties, at least during several periods of the day.
  The question of excessive paper work has been mentioned, but I will not comment on it. I must, however, refer to the time wasted in courts. There are cases where policemen who have been on night duty are kept waiting in the courts for the cases with which they are concerned to come on, no doubt because solicitors persuade magistrates to let their cases come on first. They are always nagging the magistrates. Most solicitors go to bed at a reasonable hour and enter and leave court at a reasonable time. Why they should have preference over policemen who have been up all night I do not know. Stipendiary magistrates do not usually fall for this nonsense. They have more consideration for the police than have the lay magistrates. An increase in the number of stipendiary magistrates might result in night-duty policemen being called earlier, enabling them to go home at a reasonable hour. It must be borne in mind that the efficiency of the policemen available is weakened if they waste so much time in court.

  1175
  Next, the degree of co-operation between uniformed policemen and members of the C.I.D. It is by no means perfect. There is a great deal of friction between them in many stations. I know of one case where a uniformed policeman, at the scene of a burglary, carefully guarded some finger prints. The C.I.D. man came along and, the policeman having pointed out the finger prints to him, the C.I.D. man said, "I am not interested in them" and rubbed them off. One continually gets complaints, indicating a considerable lack of cooperation between the two forces.
  I say little about this new form which the Home Secretary has introduced to enable the public to make complaints about the police force. As the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said, it means that trivial complaints, which are in general the bulk of complaints against the police, formerly dealt with by the local superintendent who knew the man and was able to evaluate the complaints, are now dealt with by civilians, very often far from the scene of the incident, who have no knowledge of the policeman or, indeed, of police work.
  An important factor in preventing crime is that there should be more cooperation between the police, architects and local authorities in the design of houses. Far too many houses have been built in the past to a design which perhaps did not matter when crime was not so great, but that kind of house which is vulnerable to the petty thief or burglar is still being built in and around London. It has, for example, easily opened french windows. The burglar has merely to break a piece of glass and insert his hand and unlock the door when people are out shopping. There is a great variety of weaknesses in the design of houses which could be eliminated, to make the work of the criminal harder, if some sort of advice were given to planning authorities and to builders and architects by the police themselves. It is relatively easy in design to make the work of the burglar much harder than it is at the moment, and some steps should be taken to obtain this kind of co-operation.
  The question of a separate force for traffic offences has been exhaustively dealt with and I will not say much more about it. One of the important factors
  1176
  in this suggestion is that if the present police were able to concentrate on crime one would have in the whole force a different psychological approach. I do not see why this proposal is so bitterly opposed. It has been tried in other countries where they have separate forces, even with different kinds of uniforms, and it works very well. Why cannot we have it in this country?
  There is no reason why police engaged on the detection of crime cannot be all plain-clothes men. I cannot see any great advantage in having uniforms for men engaged in this kind of work. We know that the policeman on the beat who walks round at regular times is an easy timekeeper for the burglar. He knows when the policeman is coming and he seizes an opportunity between rounds to do his job and slip away. The fact that the policeman is in uniform makes it much easier for the criminal to see him. If the idea of having a force for traffic and other offences is adopted it is worth considering the abolition of uniforms for policemen engaged in the detection of crime.
  7.34 p.m.
  Mr. James Dance: I am extremely glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, because at the beginning of my speech I should like to clear up the genuine misunderstanding which occurred last Thursday. I want to make absolutely clear that no question of discourtesy was involved. I had tabled Question No. 43, which asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department
  "if he will make a statement on the proposals submitted by the Prison Officers' Association for a review of the existing arrangements for compensation for the dependants of prison officers killed in the course of their duty and for officers disabled as a result of assaults."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 92.]
  As the Prime Minister was answering Questions that day I realised that this Question would not be reached and I was able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and put a supplementary question to Question No. 29, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King), which I would have put to my own Question.
  Unfortunately—and this was a genuine misunderstanding—the right hon. Lady

  1177
  the Minister of State for the Home Department, in her reply, said that I must put a Question down on the subject. The whole point is that it embarrassed me a little because not only did I tell the Prison Officers' Association that I would table a Question, but I informed the Association that I had done so. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Lady will forgive me for raising this point now.
  I think that on both sides of the House we are all agreed that the one thing we need to keep down the great increase in crime, and particularly crimes of violence, are more men on the beat. I am absolutely convinced that this is so. Whereas once a crime has been committed the Z cars are extremely useful to go out and detect what has gone on, the real prevention of crime is with the man on the beat on his own feet. I am also convinced that it is the man on the beat who gives confidence to people living in the district and removes a great deal of fear which they would feel if they did not know that there was a policeman moving around in their area.
  How are we to get more men into the police force? This is what we need. Various suggestions have been made that there has been a wastage in the use of policemen, but we need more and I am convinced, as the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. George Rogers) has said, that we must have a more realistic approach to pay. I am not sniping at the moment, but had the prescription charges remained and the sum of money, I believe £46 million, involved had been devoted to increasing police pay it would have been more beneficial than what took place.
  I come back to the question of compensation. It is important that men who are doing an extremely dangerous job in certain circumstances—and this applies to prison officers who since the Death Penalty (Abolition) Act have had the protection of capital punishment removed from them—should be given a positive assurance that if they are injured in the course of their duty their income will be made up to full police pay until they reach pensionable age.
  If a prison officer or a police officer is murdered in the course of his duty his widow should receive the same pension as she would have received as a normal pensioner if he had served his
  1178
  full time and retired. This is reasonable. This is why many of us have tabled a Motion on the subject and why I hope that the right hon. Lady will consider it seriously. It is important and I believe that it would help recruitment.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I do not want to make a party point but this is an issue which we pressed on the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) when he was Home Secretary and he announced some minor concessions to the widows of policemen who had lost their lives in the course of their duty. This was strongly resisted for a long time, but in the end there was a minor compromise and improvement as a result of our deliberations.
  Mr. Dance: I appreciate the hon. Member's remarks. It is a pity that more was not done. I believe that we should go ahead with it now.
  Another form of compensation which is very important is that to people who have been injured or who have suffered loss or had their property damaged by the acts of criminals. They should receive compensation. I know that something is being done about it at the moment, but what I should like to see—I do not think that it is unreasonable—is the criminal, when he has served his time inside and come out and got a decent job, as many of them do, automatically having to pay part of that compensation weekly to the people who suffered the injury or damage.
  I am sure that it would not be too difficult a system to arrange. An alteration of his code number could do it if he paid Income Tax by P.A.Y.E. That would be a good and fair thing to do, and it would be right as well because it would remind him week after week that crime does not pay. The attitude at the moment is that crime does pay, but, if we could bring home to the criminal week by week that it does not pay, we should, I am sure, be doing something both right and practically worth while. There may be snags and difficulties in administering such a scheme, but I am certain that, in principle, it is not a bad idea.
  My final word is to urge on the Home Secretary and the right hon. Lady once again the importance of bringing more recruits into the police force and putting

  1179
  more men on the beat. By having more men on the beat, we shall keep down crime and restore confidence to the public.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I am getting old, I am getting a little bored and a little cynical and, unfortunately, I am also getting garrulous. I hope, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that when you start to tap the arm of your Chair in reprobation, I shall observe it as promptly as possible and try to be brief. I have nothing new to say on this subject, and I apologise for intruding. Except that, as many of the things which I have said in speeches 15 years ago are now being slowly and gradually accepted, I cannot help feeling that, if I keep on emphasising them, a little more may get done.
  I observe with pleasure the presence of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and who, I have noticed, has been here nearly all day and, therefore, presumably, is wondering whether the dining room may be a more attractive place at this moment than the Chamber. I had a long correspondence and series of meetings with the hon. Gentleman some time ago. They started on that bitter note with which I have always addressed nearly all Ministers, but I must say that, at the end, he came out of it very well. We were dealing with a child of six in Oldham, a child of good parents, one of several children, who was already a kleptomaniac and who, by the time she was 11, 12 or 13, had been before the magistrates time after time and had received from the local magistrates every consideration.
  I mention this only because it is one of the problems with which we have to deal, problems which cannot be dealt with by oratory, which we know in our hearts, on our present state of knowledge, are almost insoluble, problems which we are groping unhappily to try to solve. In this field, there are so many uncertainties, and, indeed, the human individual is the most incalculable of all creatures. I was very touched by the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet). How true they were. The possession of great virtue and a tendency to vice run often together. Anyone who cares to turn up the life of Voltaire will find there a man capable of
  1180
  immense generosity and tremendous meanness, running concurrently a sort of moral schizophrenia and great genius which made him do almost anything.
  Because I have reached the age when I cannot often remember what I wanted to say and when I am apt to sit down without knowing what I said, I shall try for a moment to concentrate on one or two matters which I believe to be important. I was a member of the Longford Committee, I refused to sign the Report, though I did not publicise the fact at the time, on the eve of an election—though I do not regard anything I do as important. I refused to sign it not because I disagreed with anything in it, but because I thought that there were one or two fundamental issues which we had not been able to attack at all.
  It was a brilliant and distinguished Committee, an impressive Committee—I was about the only odd lot in it—and it had some very important things to say. But I was concerned that, under pressure of time, we had to leave outside the ambit of our deliberations what happens inside the prison, which I regard as important.
  The right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) has already had so many tributes paid to his speech that they are becoming almost an insult because we have almost reached the stage of saying that it was his first really intelligent and generous speech. I should not say that for a moment. I usually listen to him with pleasure. But I certainly thought that it was his most intelligent speech, and until the last 10 minutes, when he began rather to waffle about punishment, I thought it constructive.
  The right hon. Gentleman made an important point about statistics. Many hon. Members will have read the recent book by Pauline Morris. I confess that I have not read it in detail. I skimmed through it and put it on my list for study. One tremendously attractive feature of it is the use of a skilled mind concerned with the problems of penal reform in directing statistics to things which we have not been told and the contribution of information which is important.
  The Home Office statistics have never quite solved this problem. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of

  1181
  State will say that, of course, Pauline Morris had a lot of help from the Home Office. I am sure that that is true. I have always found the Home Office helpful. Indeed, I have been almost surprised at the intelligence shown at the Home Office during the past 12 months or so, and my correspondence has been singularly happy with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my other right hon. and hon. Friends since they have been there. I have no complaints, and nor do I complain about the Home Office being cautious or conservative. This is a difficult field, perhaps one of the most difficult fields of reform, in which even the Left-wing Socialist should say, "Festina lente". One cannot dash in on these things.
  Many years ago, I made a speech here about the prison at Melun. I notice that the B.B.C'., about 10 years later, has now publicised it. I do not know what has happened there recently. It is probably full of French generals, and, in a week or two, will probably be full of French police if the investigation into the Ben Barka affair goes much further into detail. When I saw that prison, it was concerned with the problem of classification, and, in my view, the problem of classification has always been the vital issue inside prison.
  The attitude of the churches has been that those who study penal reform have been in the leadership of progress and those who study theology have been opposed to any recognition of the fact that people may be born with tendencies. Even the common thyroid gland deficiency and the operation can result in a wholesale change of personality. Buoyancy is one thing. Lethargy is another. Individuals inherit defects. It was not only Speranza's desire to have a daughter which affected Oscar Wilde; it was also the history of the Queensberrys which affected the marquess with whom he came into conflict.
  We cannot give effect to all these things—it is silly to say that we can—but at least an understanding of them is important. But the argument always put to me from theological circles is, "But you cannot abandon a human soul". That is very good theology. Unhappily, it is impractical in political terms. We have to face the doctor's dilemma. Speaking from this side, I am partly on the side
  1182
  of the Tories. We have to say, "We will save those who can be saved". We have to recognise that, if there are people put two or three in a cell, and little Lord Fauntleroy is locked up with Bill Sykes, the old view of the Victorian novelist that Bill Sykes would burst into tears and say that the dear lord and his curly locks had converted him to virtue is highly improbable. What will happen is that the lad with the curly locks will have a close hair shave and be out "snitching" handkerchiefs the moment he is released.
  We really must not create a mixed society in which some of the unfortunate victims of tendencies there for a month or two are locked up in conversation with people who are devoted enemies of society. There are devoted enemies of society. I used to know two lots of them. Indeed, I used to act for one of them. They were very entertaining fellows. They were about the only people who were influenced by punishment. They worked out what the sentences were and committed crimes which usually did not land them in for more than six months. While I was defending them, very few of them went to prison at all. They had it all worked out.
  There are also people who take the view that on the whole, provided that the stakes are big enough, a devoted enemy of society would not stop at anything. I do not think that the train robbers would have stopped at anything in pursuance of their plan. We should understand this and appreciate that such people exist. The frightening thing is that they exist rather more than they did.
  I want to say a word about the staff which was recruited under a distinguished governor at Melun. I do not want to deal with this at length. I am sure that people who see television will know something about it. I cannot afford television, neither the money nor the time. At Melun, they have recruited a staff of near university standard. I am a little doubtful about recruiting university people to the police force. The police are highly antagonistic towards the idea of an officer force recruited at high level. It would be much better to expand the excellent police training colleges and give the lads who go there a better chance of training and being taught and studying subjects which are regarded as important to them.

  1183
  There is room, however, for recruitment in the prison service of men of higher educational attainments. We had evidence of prison officers before the Longford Committee. One of the most moving pieces of evidence that we had was that those who had worked in open prisons, new prisons and even prisons which had a psychiatric service—there are too few of them—had found a new value in life. They were allowed to do something. They were given a certain amount of discretion. The evil about the prison service is that the warder is still performing the duties of a turnkey. He locks the prisoners up at a certain time and unlocks them at a certain time. He is not supposed to talk to them, because if he does so he will be accused of showing favouritism. He carries out a series of orders, much as is done in the Army. He has practically no individual discretion. It is not for him to say that this fellow is decent or that one is not.
  At Melun they devoted nine months of consideration to the first question of how to classify prisoners—of course, they made mistakes; everyone makes mistakes—and whether it could be said that certain people could be rescued and saved even if it took 10 years. They were dealing with prisoners of under 36 none of whom had less than a 10-year sentence, and most of whom were from the most violent of all the criminals of Paris.
  Classification is essential. One has to ascertain what can be done within the limits of the service available. One has to say what is said in Oldham Hospital every day, reluctantly, by every one of the brilliant people who do it, that we have not the services to be able to save everybody, that we cannot provide beds for older people who will be there for 9, 10 or 11 months, that we have at the moment to use the beds to the best public advantage. That is a hard decision, and it was the doctor's dilemma years ago. This has all to be related to the question of reclamation.
  The right hon. Member for Monmouth, rather strangely in a very progressive and thoughtful speech, came back to "Nobody worries about the train driver." If any want to worry about the disabled, I am with them. If any want to worry about those hit over the head, I am with
  1184
  them. If any want to worry about people in pain, I am with them. I am standing up in slight pain at the moment because one of my ankles has gone. It is a curious comment on our modern society. The one reinforced with aluminium screws and so on is working perfectly well, but the other, provided by Providence or my progenitors, is giving constant trouble.
  The question of provision for the disabled—one to which I have devoted a little time; even people suffering from byssinosis come within my terms of reference—is one thing, and the question of dealing with crime is another, and they are not related.
  I want to say a word—I regret it—about the Liberal Party who are assembled here tonight in much greater numbers than normally. As one who constantly calls himself a Liberal, and thinks that he is a dashed sight better Liberal than any of them, I do it more in sorrow than in anger. But the thing that worries the police at the moment is a lack of public co-operation. On the Royal Commission, we came to the conclusion—we started rather hesitantly about it—that the image of the police in the mind of the average decent citizen is just as high as ever it was—unless he is driving a car; and it is all right when he is a pedestrian again. This is the position. But people will not co-operate. People develop a Ça ne fait rien attitude, feeling that it may put them to some great trouble, that they may lose work over it, or that the case may be adjourned and they do not want to have to attend.
  I want to say something that I have been thinking over for some time. I was a little surprised round about the 'thirties when the Liberal Party announced that it had secured a legal decision to the effect that the carrying of identity cards was either statutorily ineffective or constitutionally irrelevant. I forget the arguments on which it was based. I never understood why people should not carry an identity card. I have one. I have a British Museum card, a Biblioteque Internationale card—cards galore. Why should not anyone carry an identity card? How helpful it would be! Why should it not have his fingerprints? How helpful that would be! I do not think that we yet have any counterfeiting of fingerprints,

  1185
  although we know that they can be artificially reproduced by a very skilled workman. However, why should not the average citizen say, "I want to co-operate with the police"?
  The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) said that if we asked the police to pop breathalysers into our mouths, and so on, the public image of them would not improve—at any rate, while one was wearing one. The police themselves have a very great case on this. If one is to consider pay and respect for the police, one should consider those things in relation to the duties—the difficult, courageous and extremely able duties—that they are intended to perform instead of the lousy jobs that this House puts upon them. No policeman thinks that if he goes around putting tickets on parked cars, however necessary that may be, it will improve the public's image of him, or entitle him to come to the House and say, "I am worth a lot of money."
  Before the Royal Commission Sir Ronald Howe gave evidence about a national detective force. I have dealt with the problems of a national police force, on which we made certain decisions too early which inhibited us too late. With regard to a national detective force, what is the point of having special training for detectives in various localities, special laboratories, special arrangements for photographs in small areas, special provisions so that, as I have said before, when a crime is committed in Blackpool the thieves have taken refuge in a very small county borough in Lancashire—which I will not name, though I am tempted to do so—very soon after even the Lancashire force has been alerted and before the Lancashire motor cars can reach the county borough? It is absurd.
  The argument which was put against this—a perfectly reasonable argument—was that one wanted to promote the good man to the detective force from the police force, and that if he proved not to be very good one wanted to be able to bung him back again. That is reasonable enough in its way, but not very important, because one could arrange it by any sort of cooperative arrangements all over the area, over two or three or four forces.
  I say that there should be classification of criminals and co-operation with the police. The right hon. Gentleman made
  1186
  rather heavy weather of the question of complaints about the police. We think that it is very important that there should be the opportunity of registering complaints about the police. We think that it is greatly to the advantage of the police. If hon. Members had looked at the evidence about this they would understand it. The police are open to be shot at, and badly shot at.
  Perhaps a substantial number of motorists who get picked up by police on a lonely road make unjustified complaints by way of both defence and attack. We thought that these should be put through proper channels in a way that would give protection to the police against unjustified complaints but would also give confidence to the public that complaints were directed to the right quarter. That is important.
  I conclude with a single observation. There is nothing about the White Paper with which I quarrel. Nor is there anything in it which gives rise to enthusiasm, although it is good and goes a short way. But there may be a time when we realise in relation to children that perhaps a great deal can be learnt from the study of children perhaps born with defects. There is a great deal of information that we passionately need and by co-operation between, for example, the Home Office and the Department of Education and Science, we might be able to learn more.
  I have found recently that in the North, tragically, increasing numbers of children are out of control at the ages of 4 and 5. Special provisions for special classes are being initiated to try to provide control and direction. It seems an insoluble problem. There are no certitudes and no answers, but, nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the House to try to find them.
  8.1 p.m.
  Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I know that several hon. Members wish to speak and I shall therefore confine myself to only one or two of the points I had intended to raise. I support what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said about bringing in the public. That is an aspect I wish to emphasise, although it has been mentioned by others today. I do so because it is so important and is causing so much concern among

  1187
  the bodies most professionally engaged with crime prevention and the public.
  The public and Parliament must apply themselves closely to the question of the young offender. I support wholeheartedly the emphasis and the interest which the right hon. Lady the Minister of State has taken in the investigation which led to the White Paper and in its preparation, because it is the young offender who becomes ultimately the old lag. If we could break through and reduce the number of young people who turn to crime, we could look more happily in later years to a reduction of overall crime.
  But, while I support the right hon. Lady's aims, I have the gravest reservations about the methods proposed in the White Paper. The young, from babyhood, have a natural instinct to "try it on" and see what they can get away with. A small baby rapidly discovers that if it cries someone will pick it up and pet it almost automatically. A mother or even an aunt learns not to pick it up when it starts to whimper. Similarly, a youngster may "pinch" something from the larder or pick up part of his parents' loose change. If he is not caught and rebuked or corrected it becomes an exciting chase to see how much he can get away with.
  The hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. George Rogers), in a most interesting speech, took an early opportunity, I was delighted to find, to rejoice in his new-found freedom, having given up the vow of silence imposed upon him as a Whip. With him, I believe that the greatest deterrent to descent into crime lies in the early stages, and first and foremost with the parents.
  Are we emphasising enough the responsibility of the parents and the fact that the main basis of character education—no matter how good our probation officers or teachers—starts with and continues through the most formative years and the maximum hours of the day within a home, with good parents providing an education and discipline by their own example and teaching the difference between right and wrong.
  The Home Secretary, in his only and rather vicious party political point, emphasised that the crime wave had risen
  1188
  from 1951 to 1964. I had the privilege of being at the Home Office myself for some years and I think I am right in saying that the statistics that were true then are true now and that the increase year by year in the various age groups in crime bears a close relationship to those who, at the outbreak of war, were between three and seven years of age. They suffered the upsets of evacuation or of mother working overtime in a factory, or of being looked after by "grannies" or others. They lost and missed throughout these years the authority of father, who was in the forces.
  That graph started in 1945. It showed then in very young offenders and has continued year by year up through the scale. We saw in the war a breakdown, and are still seeing a breakdown, of family discipline and cohesion. Too often we see parents ready to "pass the buck". They should be made to recognise their responsibilities. I think that it is extremely important that juvenile courts should insist on their presence. It is important that they should not "pass the buck" to teachers. I have known some parents go to the school and say, "I cannot do anything with little Willie. Will you deal with him?". Quite properly, the schoolmaster has replied that the child behaves well enough in school and that it is the parents' responsibility to see that he behaves well at home. Similarly, in court, it is the abdication of parenthood when a parent comes in with a 10-year-old child and asks the court to take him into care because "I cannot do anything with him".
  At every stage we must bring in the responsibility of the parent. To a certain extent, the Government's proposals may appear to do just that but I am very concerned about the suggestion that there should be family councils. These are neither fish, fowl nor good red herring.
  These councils are to have powers yet they will not be courts. They will engage in more than a friendly talk and I am concerned to know—it is not clear in the White Paper—what types of offence—and how serious—they will deal with. If they are to deal with the beginnings of petty thieving, that is all right. But very serious offences are committed by quite young people nowadays.
  One has only to think of the lightheartedness with which obstacles are put

  1189
  on railway lines. If that were done by adults and resulted in crashes, it would be cold-blooded murder. In my constituency, I have known farmers who have had to give up their farms, having seen their barns destroyed by fires wantonly set alight. A cow in calf and a horse in foal have been shot at with pellets so that they aborted and had to be destroyed. Are offences of this type to be dealt with in the juvenile court as previously where there will be judicial inquiry into the evidence for and against and where the child will know that this is a serious day?
  As I understand it, the family council will deal with the young up to 16 years of age. At the moment, everybody is saying how much more mature are the young and how much more freedom they should have. They get married at 16 and some of them, with parental consent, even younger. They are said to be more mature and some people are advocating that they should have the vote at 18.
  But surely we should emphasise the responsibility of that claim to maturity and not make proceedings cosier and cosier. The family council will do just that. Throughout the White Paper there appears the phrase "if the parents agree", but what happens if they do not agree? Will there not be a reaction by the parents, so that we will then have the triple process of the family council, the family court and back to the family council? Currently, the most likely recidivists have laughed at probation. They dress for the part and they look all meekness and sorrow, but the moment they are on probation, a percentage of them go out and do exactly the same again.
  I have in mind an example which emphasises why parents should be brought in. A constituent came to see me. I suppose that all hon. Members know that some constituents pitch us a yarn, but we start from the basis that they are telling the truth, unless from our experience we know at once that they are not. We take up the case with the appropriate Minister and give the alleged story.
  In this case my constituent was a weeping mother, poorly dressed and looking very miserable and unhappy. She told me that her son on a first offence,
  1190
  never having been in trouble before, had only "borrowed" the bicycle but had been sent to an approved school for three years. Because I thought that that sentence for a first offence was a bit stiff, I went to great pains to ask the mother again and again at that interview whether she was sure that her son had never been in trouble before. "Oh, no," she said.
  I was then at the Home Office and it was very stupid of her to say that, because I was able to get the details very quickly, indeed. I saw the boy's record. He had been brought before the court four times. On the first occasion, the case was dismissed; on the second, it was probation; on the third, probation; on the fourth time he was sent to an approved school.
  I was very angry about having been misled and I asked the mother to come to see me. She arrived dressed to kill, an entirely different woman and quite convinced that I had got her son out and back. That was not within my power, of course, but constituents often think that one can wave wands. I asked her why she had lied about her son's case when she must have known that I would find out. Her answer was, "Well, on those occasions he got off". To her probation did not mean that her son had been considered to he wrong and that the case had been proved against him, and that he had been given another chance by being put on probation or that he would not have been put on probation if there had not been a charge proved against him.
  It is at this young stage that we have to persuade parents to accept their responsibilities. We have to stop the future criminal who starts by stealing sweets and then a camera and then a bike and then goes on to stealing cars or something even more dangerous and, for him, even more exciting. It is the excitement to the young of getting away with it and trying something harder and more ingenious, and it is in this respect that this cosy family council is the wrong means to deal with these far more mature young people, many of them with far more to spend than their hard-worked parents.
  I believe that the family council would cause grave dissension if it was challenged by parents—and I see that the council's

  1191
  decisions must be agreed by the parents and that if the council is challenged, the case is to go to court. Because these are often acts against the public weal, against the good of the community, and some of them are highly serious and, if undertaken by adults, would bring very heavy penalties, they should be coolly, sympathetically and wisely carried through under the due process of law in family courts or juvenile courts—and I do not quibble about the name. To go as far as the White Paper suggests and have cosy discussions between various bodies, parents, the welfare officers and the members who may be chosen for these committees would be wrong. We should uphold the due process of law clear from top to bottom with all the sympathy of well-chosen magistrates experienced in juvenile cases.
  The public is sick and tired of the weak-kneed treatment of youngsters. There was never more praise than when a few magistrates put their feet down and produced some jolly heavy fines for stealing money from telephone kiosks. The reaction to that was that at last something was being done. It was not just the money which was being lost, but the reaction was that there might be a loss of life if someone could not get a doctor, or an ambulance, or a fire brigade, or whatever it was, because of the lack of a great public service.
  Equally, if some small person's property is robbed, or his animals or children are injured, it is just as important to him. It is important to keep these things under the recognised process of law, and that is why we should think again about family councils.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Carmichael: I want to say a few words about the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) as an introduction to what I have to say. It was probably true that there was a reaction and a welcome to those stiff sentences, but for a reason different from that suggested by the right hon. Lady. I think that the public does not understand the problem and that we do not understand the problem and that the reaction to fear is punishment. The problem is too deep to be solved merely
  1192
  by stiff sentences or anything of such a popular punitive nature.
  One of the things which worries me about this great issue of crime, particularly having discussed it with many of those involved in the law practically and academically, is that our statistics tell us so little about it. Our statistics on crime are almost meaningless. This is especially true when there are two groups of statistics from two parts of the country.
  For instance, taking two cities whose populations are comparable, Glasgow and Birmingham, we find that there are very different social and economic backgrounds and that the methods of recording crime are different. Birmingham records malicious mischief and Glasgow does not. There are other variations of method in police forces throughout England, Scotland and Wales. Other difficulties are found if one searches behind the bare statistics. For instance, about 60 per cent. of the crime in the country is connected with the motor vehicle in some way. Birmingham has many more vehicles than Glasgow, so that again the statistics are not strictly comparable on the same fundamental basis.
  Has Birmingham more apprentices than Glasgow? I should imagine that it has, and we know that young people in apprenticeships or about to enter them are less prone to juvenile delinquency than those who take up dead-end jobs. The availability of jobs is another factor. In some parts of the country, particularly in Glasgow and the North-East, the availability of jobs for school-leavers is much less than in the South-East and the Midlands. The first flood of juvenile delinquency usually begins in the year before leaving school. If young people had a choice of jobs when they leave school, the chances are that it would be easier for them to select a suitable job.
  Because of this first flood of delinquency before young people leave school we can look forward to an increased wave of delinquency in the 1970s when the school-leaving age goes up. In spite of all the time that is spent in discussing crime, in our newspapers and on television, the public are badly informed on fundamental points. It has become quite a game with me to ask people how many women prisoners they think there are in Scotland. I get all sorts of answers

  1193
  ranging from 500 to as high as 6,000. There are, in fact, about 40 women prisoners in Scotland, and there have seldom been many more. This was a surprise to all manner of people who consider themselves informed—and I must admit that until I was told I had thought that there were about 400 or 500 women prisoners. Somehow or other the facts are not getting through to the public as I would like them to. The mass media is tending to exaggerate rather than to inform.
  Crime baffles all of us. We do not understand it. It baffles the police too. They are not baffled by a single act of violence or a house-breaking, but by the increase in crime and what is happening in our society. I have spoken to many senior police officers and women on the beat, and they just do not know the answer. Many of them have their own ideas, but when one discusses the problem one realises that they are as uncertain as anyone. Too many people believe that the solution would be a big increase in the police force. One of the terrifying things which has emerged from my discussions with people in the force is that they are coming to the conclusion that even if it was brought up to full establishment this would not solve the problem of crime. Some of them have reached the conclusion that the only time that we can get a complete establishment in the police force is when there is a slump. Someone spoke of the good old days of the 'thirties when there were plenty of people available for the force. They were forgetting that the 'thirties was also a period when there were gangs of people in places like Sheffield, Birmingham Glasgow and Liverpool. People tend to forget that, although crime has changed in many ways, it is not new and was rampant in possibly an uglier form in the 'thirties.
  I should like to see salaries raised, because this would help to attract more policemen into the force and would cut down the extra work police have to do by way of compulsory overtime. It would also help the public to understand the problems of the police. There has been talk of the Home Office issuing a leaflet telling people how to make a complaint about the police. I went into this with my local police and, while they think that it is deplorable that such a thing
  1194
  should be necessary, they accept it. In one of my local stations a police superintendent spends all his time investigating complaints by the public.
  I am worried about this, as I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are. The police are too and are anxious to re-establish a good relationship with the public. They want to allay public disquiet and discontent. The problems of the police are not so dissimilar from the problems of many other public servants in society. Will we ever be able to give the police or the teachers or the nurses the position in society which will allow them to compete with productive industries? Up to now the public and this House have never been too keen to release the money or to impose taxes to bring this about. I believe that this is a reflection upon our society.
  The solution to crime in the 20th century cannot be found by superficial methods. Even if the police had all of the aids which they want, all the mechanisation and improved communications and chances of promotion, the problem would not be solved. The changes in our society have been so drastic over the years that we must look into the problem a great deal more deeply than this. It is fashionable for people to say that they were once juvenile delinquents. I say this probably with more cause than most because I was brought up in the East End of Glasgow and I suppose that in modern terms many of the things that I did would have been classed as delinquent.
  I think of the time when I was 14 or 15 and compare the outlets which I had with those available to young people today. The land hunger had not reached the stage which it has reached now so that there were plenty of vacant places close to one's home to play football without going through the formality of marching in formation to the local playing fields. The streets were one's playground. When I was young there were crazes, particularly in Scotland, which involved using the streets. For instance, many of us roller-skated for miles throughout Glasgow on the roads. This is impossible today. We are now almost afraid to drive on the roads. When we consider that about a third of the area of any city is made up of roads and streets, we realise that a very large part of the

  1195
  environment has been closed to young people.
  We cannot turn back the pages of History, but we should recognise that things have changed and that the changes are fundamental. Young people are demanding much more freedom but in a society which is trying to force much more conformity on them than ever before. This leads to considerable tensions.
  In considering the causes of disturbance in society we always make the negative approach. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is responsible for sport, has suggested that there should be swimming baths built outside the schools so that young people can use them after school hours. It has been suggested that in Scotland, and particularly in Glasgow, organised games should take place in the parks next year to keep young people off the streets. None of this is done to enable young people to enjoy themselves. It is not for the sake of the young people that we do this; it is for our sake. This is unfortunate.
  We should get away from the old Victorian idea about keeping off the grass, which applies to many parks, particularly in the North. We want to create a society in which people can enjoy themselves.
  I do not believe that we can get far in solving the problem of crime without carrying out some work and study on what we think crime is. One of the first things which I should like to see—I cannot understand why it was not done long ago—is the Home Office and the Secretary of State for Scotland getting together and finding out the best way of recording misdemeanours, crimes and offences so that from Land's End to John o' Groats people who commit the same crime are put into the same category. Once we have the bare statistics out of the way, instead of wasting energy trying to break them down and finding out what they mean, people are categorised and we can then get a little closer to the root of the matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. George Rogers), particularly in the initial part of his speech, spoke about the changes needed in society. He made one or two remarks about the previous Government. I will
  1196
  not blame them. The world is moving into a state of material affluence at, perhaps, too fast a rate for us to keep abreast of moral attitudes. The only way in which we can solve the problem which we have been discussing is to understand the environment in which we are living. This involves spending a great deal of money on education and turning out people who will not only enhance their value to society but whose value to themselves is such that they will not want and will not need to get excitement from an outside situation which they cannot get from within their own lines.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: It has been a significant feature of the debate that so many speakers, from both sides, have been in agreement. It is to be regretted that the Motion is virtually in the form of a Motion of censure. It would be a matter of regret if there were to be a vote tonight, because I have heard nothing in the speeches from this side of the House which have been of a tone to censure the Government.
  We had two remarkably good speeches from the Front Benches. I was particularly interested in the discursion in the early part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) on the causes of crime. It is an interesting commentary on our times that the more we believe that we know about the causes of crime, the more crime we get. We are all concerned about what is described as the wave of crime that is attacking the country, but it is important to get this matter in correct perspective. Every country, certainly in the Western world, whether Communist Russia, Socialist Sweden or the capitalist countries of the West, is still faced with this problem. At times, such a dramatic air is given to the problems of crime that we tend to forget that we have always had serious crime.
  The serious matter which is arresting our attention today is the apparent increase in the number of people who are charged with committing various crimes. What we are seeing is undoubtedly one of the symptons of the affluent society, however that affluent society is brought about. An emphasis is necessarily placed upon material benefits, and very often that emphasis is not matched by an emphasis on other values. We have had

  1197
  the erosion of old traditional values, but we have not had their replacement by other values. The force of social sanctions is being eroded.
  I happen to come from a part of the country where the force of social sanctions is very much felt. I come from a rural area where the incidence of crime in relation to the rest of the country is very low and where the detection rate is very high, because when a crime is committed the public nearly always support the police and there is close liaison between them. The main problem of crime arises in the areas of our society where we have what has been described as an anonymous society. It is to that aspect that we must give our attention.
  Whenever I think of crime, I think of the words of St. Paul, in one of his letters, when he spoke of the importance of behaviour by Christians and the importance of bearing in mind the susceptibilities of the weaker brethren. It is as well sometimes to reflect on those words.
  In our metropolitan society today we have many of what school teachers call "key" children, both of whose parents are out of work. They are provided with the keys of the flat, they can go in on their own, they watch television and their parents often return home tired. The child is, perhaps, given very little training. We have to remember that the influence of newsprint, dramatic stories of crime, sex and the rest and television programmes, often glorifying violence, is bound to have an effect upon some people who have a latent tendency in this direction. I do not say that there are not other reasons for having a censorship. All I am saying is that we must recognise that one of the symptoms of people with latent weaknesses might give way to those weaknesses under the influences that occur in their daily lives.
  Once when a man was tried for an offence and was found not guilty a witness remarked to me that some people were honest by instinct, other were honest by calculation and some were honest by training. What we have to remember is that many people keep the law not because of instinct, not because of calculation, but by training.
  Mr. Carmichael: The only study on latchkey children of which I am aware
  1198
  has proved the very reverse of the popular conception and shows that in most cases the family in which the mother goes out to work produces comparatively fewer delinquents than other families. This is simply another direction in which we need a great deal more information.
  Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member must not mistake me. I am not saying that latchkey mothers, if I may use the term, are necessarily slacker than others. I accept that responsible mothers would tend to take even greater care for additional training for their children if they themselves went out to work, but I feel that, where we are concerned with cases of delinquency, by and large we are concerned with people who have an hereditary tendency to it, or environmental reason, or they lacked the discipline which is given in the good home and family.
  It is a very difficult problem to inculcate into a child a sense of responsibility when the parents refuse to take responsibility. It has been suggested in one or two speeches from this side that we should make parents responsible, but we cannot make people take responsibility; very often they do not take it.
  It is very important to bear in mind one danger in relation to the statistics. For example, we have always had crimes of violence, horrible and vicious. One has only to read the old legal cases to learn this. We have them today, but many of the recorded cases of violence today would not formerly have been cases which would have been reported at all. In 1964 23,470 cases of violence were reported, but Mr. McClintock, the Cambridge criminologist, did some research into these figures and it appears that many typical examples were of brawl—in the home, in "pubs", in cafés, between people very well known to one another; and many of these were family quarrels, which would not have been reported to the police once upon a time, and brawls in "pubs" where, in the early years of this century, a police sergeant would have stopped them with his stick, and that would have been the end of that, and there would have been no recorded crime.
  We should keep these figures in perspective, but much more important to our society today is the emergence, which we

  1199
  all deplore, of highly organised gangsterism, organised very often by intelligent people who are honest by calculation and have made the calculation that crime pays. They very often play for high stakes, and very often get away with it. There was the narrative given to the House by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). It had many disquieting features about it, and revealed perhaps the kind of tendency which we are all aware of and which is taking place in our society.
  In this kind of case, though I entirely agree that punishment is important, it is the question of detection which is vital in the calculation which such people as this make. I think that perhaps the very long sentence passed on the train robbers was possibly passed with a view to establishing what the odds would be as a matter which ought to be taken into account by criminals who want to embark on this kind of offence—that one of the features they had to calculate was a very lengthy term of imprisonment.
  I should like to turn my attention for a short time to the police. Of course, we do have very great reason to be proud of our police force. But it is very often dangerous to generalise about it. For example, I constantly hear of the need for greater centralisation of police forces, It is worth remembering as a matter to be considered that the metropolitan detection rate in this country is 21·6 per cent. and that the county detection rate is 46·6 per cent. Certainly, there are different features in county forces compared with the metropolitan forces. That I accept, but in my experience certainly, I have found that the smaller police forces very often have a very much higher detection rate. What I think would be dangerous would be to make the police an impersonal force in our national life. However the police forces are to be organised in the future, it is very important to have the force integrated into our social life.
  If I may give another example from my part of Wales, if any strange or suspicious looking character is seen in the neighbourhood, the local police sergeant knows almost immediately. It is almost as if he has a built-in radar. Most detection by detectives in rural areas arises from gossip. We are in great
  1200
  danger of thinking that if we have every possible modern device that will necessarily assist in crime detection. If it removes the man from the beat, and takes him away from where he gets information through gossip, one will probably find less detection rather than more. I remember one chief constable of a very efficient rural force telling me that he objected to putting his officers on to scooters, because if they went scooting past the local population there would be a more impersonal relationship and that they would no longer glean information from gossip.
  A very distinguished detective once told me that most of the crimes that he had solved had been solved through information received from his "narks", which is the name given to police informers in metropolitan areas.
  It is vitally important for the country at large that the status of the police is a high one. Police officers feel very strongly that they have not a sufficiently high status in society. Pay is one of the matters that have to be investigated, and I should have thought that there was a great deal to be said for increasing considerably the pay of a new entrant into the police force in particular.
  I agree with those hon. Members who have suggested that there is a good case for relieving police officers of a number of their formal duties, and there could be considerable modification in the procedures related to such things as motoring offences which take up so much of their time.
  In our metropolitan areas I would be in favour of having a quite separate force, taking the duties of controlling traffic entirely away from police officers. There may be a case in rural areas for maintaining a single police force, but, certainly, when a police officer has to spend a great deal of time chasing motorists in our crowded cities it is not the best way to get co-operation between the irate citizen and the officer in the course of his other duties. On the other hand, I agree with the suggestion that we ought to use the two-way radio communication system between police officers on the beat and their headquarters.
  I think that our law could be changed considerably to assist the police in their investigations. The laws of evidence were

  1201
  largely evolved at a time when an accused man was not allowed to give evidence in his own defence. It is not appreciated that until the late nineteenth century an accused man at the assizes or quarter sessions was not allowed to give evidence in his own defence, and the rules of evidence were so developed as to enable a man to have the greatest possible protections. The laws of evidence were evolved to protect the innocent, but I am convinced that to a very large extent today they do not give the innocent person the protection that he ought to have and that they certainly protect the guilty man a great deal.
  The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) dealt with the committal system, which I agree, could be abolished with profit except where the defence wants committal proceedings to take place, and with trials.
  What we have to remember is that many of the most serious crimes in the country are never tried, because they are never detected. If one takes the metropolitan detection rate of just over 21 per cent., it means that 79 per cent. of the crimes are not detected at all. The detectives concerned know who have committed those crimes, but they are unable to get the information. I think that there is a good case for having a complete review of our laws of evidence in criminal cases. I think that much more evidence ought to be made admissible, with due warnings to the court that attention must be given to the weight to be given to different pieces of evidence. Under our laws of evidence today, it is important for the police to try to get a confession out of the suspected man, and the Judges Rules are calculated to ensure that the confession is obtained by proper means.
  It would be much better if, when the police have good grounds for suspecting a person of a crime, they could bring that person before an inquisitorial magistrate, an examining magistrate, and have him examined on oath before that magistrate. There is no reason why the man should not be represented, and this would be a great breakthrough.
  During this Session I have put down two Questions to the Home Office on this, and I wish that it had a proper study group on the examining magistrate's system. I should like to see
  1202
  it introduced in an area in central London, say Soho, for an experimental period. We can see how we get on during that period, and if it is a success there is no reason why it should not be extended to the rest of the country.
  Sir John Hobson: Do the Liberals desire to go back to the Star Chamber, where a man is put on oath either to tell a lie or to condemn himself?
  Mr. Hooson: I would have expected a more intelligent intervention from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Liberals have no intention of going back to the Star Chamber. Many of the most advanced legal reformers in this country who are concerned about the increase in the crime rate think that the examining magistrate system, which is applied in many civilised countries, should be investigated more by this country.
  I propose now to deal with a point about sentencing policy. There is a great deal to be said for the system of the suspended sentence. There is a good case for its introduction in this country. The experience of other countries, such as Sweden, France, and Israel, suggests that many benefits are to be obtained from it. The method is simple. A court passes a sentence of imprisonment for an offence, but suspends its execution. Thereafter, the criminal has a threat over his head, and if he commits another offence he is brought before a court and he has to serve his sentence for the first offence, subject to any discretion within the strict limits of the second court.
  There are many reasons for adopting the suspended sentence. One is that our prisons are overcrowded. An offence may merit a sentence of imprisonment, yet there may be good personal reasons why the man should not be sent to prison. It costs the State a great deal of money to maintain a prisoner, and we must have regard to our overcrowded prisons. I think that the suspended sentence reflects the view of society on the offence, and also holds a strong deterrent over the head of the man who has been so sentenced.
  I invite the attention of the Minister of State to the article entitled "The Suspended Sentence" which appeared in The Magistrate in August, 1965. It was

  1203
  written by Brian Leighton, J.P., and in the article he said:
  "The suspended sentence means that the offender—possibly for the first time in his life—is positively informed as to what will happen to him if he repeats his criminal behaviour—yet there is nothing in such treatment which is repressive or likely to breed resistance to society."
  In view of the shortage of time I shall not continue the quotation, but I think that this system merits great consideration by the Home Office. During my early days at the Bar I remember being at a court where the system of suspended sentences was practised until the Home Office stopped it. It was thought by members of the Bar to be a very efficacious system.
  I shall not, as I had hoped to do, deal with juvenile delinquency, except to say that I have no personal experience of it. I have had considerable correspondence on the subject, and magistrates who have written to me are generally in favour of a considerable reform of the prison system, taking the view that the criminal law as at present organised is far too blunt an instrument to deal with the juvenile offender.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Leo Abse: The Home Office Statistical Study "Delinquent Generation", which has been referred to, confirmed once more—if it needed confirmation—that disturbances in the social or family life, if they occur when children are passing through their fifth year, had the most marked effect on subsequent criminality. Works abound co-relating early maternal and paternal deprivation with delinquency.
  Bewilderment over the ætiology of crime may be exaggerated. Although there may be many reasons for delinquent behaviour it is undoubtedly true that a large section of the children who are born of broken or loveless unions are the children who have a particular vulnerability to delinquency. Those who, through their professional work, have been exposed daily to those who are juvenile or adult criminals know that in the end, whatever our initial optimism, we are compelled to acknowledge that once children are abandoned or seriously mishandled they and society are bound to suffer. Remedial action is likely to have very great limita-
  1204
  tions. The terrible consequences of a mutilated childhood are well-nigh irreversible.
  If a person suffers from an early physical disability—something like infantile paralysis—we might try to minimise the condition and support the individual psychologically, but we do not try to cure. We realise that if we want a preventive we use something to do that. The real effort is directed, in such a physical trouble, to discover the causative factor and to combat it through a vaccine. In my view many of the offenders who are most disconcerting to society and who are the despair of the courts have chronic handicaps which would never respond to any one decision of the courts.
  They need to be accepted as people with a permanent disability. But such a pessimistic conclusion is only justified if an effort is made to find the cause of their disability and seek to prevent it. This Motion's desire to solve crime by punishment dodges the recognition of the limitation of the effectiveness of punishment. If we visited the nearest junior approved school and examined the records of the little boys there we would see how terrifyingly high is the proportion of illegitimate children who come from broken homes and who, for years, have been tossed to and fro from a problem family to living in care, and who often have passed through the hands of half a dozen foster parents in as many years.
  So, demanding more police, demanding longer sentences and the serving of punishment may have a marginal effect, but I do not think that it will be much more than a catharsis for the more primitive sadistic urges of local Conservative associations. Those who are more concerned with preventing crime will demand that our social resources should be mobilised to give aid to the child exposed to the threats of illegitimacy, of fatherlessness, of affectionless and broken homes. An example has been mentioned in the recent case of the injuries to a foster child.
  When we are talking about delinquency how, as a community, can we expect the best from about 23,000 foster parents who are receiving niggardly maintenance payments in return for a working week of seven days, and sometimes seven

  1205
  nights, if those foster parents receive no wages for service, no health and insurance stamp, no paid holiday and not even an allowance for breakages and wear and tear in the home? Foster parents are expected to subsidise the community for the care of its children.
  Even worse than the State's parsimony is the lack of aid given to this foster parents to help deal with the problems that go with receiving someone else's rejected or handicapped child into one's home. No serious attempt has been made to provide training facilities for those engaged in this most delicate of tasks. There are little or no official efforts to bring the isolated foster parents in an area together for mutual aid and discussion and perhaps for pediatric and psychiatric advice. After the foster parents have signed a form promising to look after the child's emotional, spiritual and physical well-being, they will be fortunate in many cases if they can see the over-burdened and harassed visiting child care officer for more than 15 minutes a week.
  It is no good our being sententious about what occurs to a foster child when this is going on. It is no good, too, this House raising its hands in horror at mounting figures of crime when it turns away from recognising that about 10 per cent. of the children in care are illegitimate, and while we refuse to make the most elementary changes in our legislation to make certain that there can be some hope of that child remaining in a stable relationship with a mother.
  I have put down about a score of Questions dealing with this subject for the Home Secretary to answer tomorrow and I hope that this matter will be looked at seriously. It will be a genuine contribution to stopping the spread of juvenile delinquency if we can do what Denmark is doing by ensuring that there is a chance of these illegitimate children remaining in a stable relationship with their mothers.
  If we really mean what we say in the White Paper, "The Child, The Family and The Young Offender" that the Government
  "… will be actively concerned to make more effective the means of sustaining the family and of preventing and treating delinquency",
  perhaps we would cease to be so parsimonious in what we are doing for marriage guidance. In the figures which
  1206
  I received in the last week from the Home Office, it appears that for every £1 which we spend in aid to marriage guidance to stabilise the home, we are spending £100 or more on subsidising divorce.
  We have heard a good deal about family courts. The right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) has had much to say about liberty. But what crimes can be committed in the name of liberty! Those of us who have worked in juvenile courts have seen how often the procedures are obstacles to getting at the facts, the truth and the remedies. One of the few occasions when a solicitor can feel ashamed is when he has succeeded in quite properly defending and obtaining the acquittal of a young person with an unfortunate home life, when he knows, at the same time, that the attention which should be directed to the whole condition of the home and family as a result of the acquittal will take place.
  I hope that, whatever the prestigious factors which are prompting magistrates and probation officers to criticise the White Paper, they will be resisted. I genuinely believe that we need an inquisitorial system through a family council instead of our juvenile courts, never mind our magistrates' courts. We need to investigate the real causes of the acts of children.
  The particular criminal act is only a symptom. Our preoccupation with the offence and the ingredients of it and whether it is proved distract us from looking at what has gone wrong with the family and brought the child into the court. Therefore, I trust that, whatever the legalistic arguments of the professional lawyers, the Home Secreatry will resist some of them and be prepared to recognise that there is a good deal to be said for having an entirely different system to that of the juvenile court, which too often treats the child as if he were a young adult criminal, not as a child in serious familial trouble.
  We can also too easily assume, in our sophisticated world, that there is still no correlation between poverty and crime. That is just not true. An analysis of Home Office research shows a connection between people's age of 4 or 5 at the time of the deepest depression of the 'thirties and the terrible crime rate which followed them. This is established.

  1207
  This should warn us when we know that 2¼ million of our childen are living in poverty. This is 30 per cent. of the people in low income groups. Two-thirds of a million children are in households with an income level below the basic level at which they would receive National Assistance. Let us not be so sophisticated in talking about an affluent society. This cannot be the only place to look for the roots of crime. The poor are still with us.
  In some senses, crime can be a healthy symptom of a society, because it means that, instead of the unhappy childhoods of Victorian days, there is an acting-out instead of widespread repression. Although this can be uncomfortable for society, it shows a more permissive and freer condition out of which may be coming the development of our material life and the activity of a richer society.
  Despite the Jeremiads, we may perhaps look at our statistics with caution. If we genuinely want to get at the roots of crime, then instead of concerning ourselves excessively as tonight with the niggling censorship attempts of the Opposition, instead of raising our hands in horror at what juveniles are doing by way of vandalism, we should harness our social resources to try to heal the broken marriages, to assist in the problems of the illegitimate, to turn our attention to the problems of foster parents, to see how we can help child care officers and train many more. Then we should be doing something genuinely to fight crime. We should tackle the problem at the beginning, with understanding of the child's problem. If we were doing this we might then have the right to be more optimistic as to what would result in our fight against crime.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Sharples: The debate, and the Motion put down in the names of my right hon. Friends and myself, reflect the growing concern both of the House and of the public generally at the steeply rising rate of crime. No one listening to the speeches from both sides of the House would dispute that this has been both a useful and a constructive debate.
  In many respects there is a considerable degree of agreement on both sides of the
  1208
  House as to the nature of the problem. There is no point in exaggerating the problem, but the House and the country must face the fact that society today is losing the battle against the criminal. In his Report for 1964, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis said:
  "1964 has proved to be the worst year of the century for crime".
  If 1964 were bad, 1965 will be even worse. A difficulty with which we are faced in a debate of this kind, as was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), is the time lag between the end of the year which we are discussing and the preparation and release of statistics for crime. Unless the statistics are published very much earlier than has been the case in the past, we shall not get the figure for 1965 until well into the latter half of 1966. We are, therefore, always discussing crime figures which relate to a time well in the past.
  But The Times published on 18th October, 1965, the result of a study which it had carried out by means of an inquiry among various police forces, and this study showed that the rate of rise in crime for the first eight months of 1965 had continued almost unchecked throughout the whole of the country. Some of the results for 1965 shown by this survey are quite alarming. Looking at the figures produced for the Metropolitan area alone, we see that crimes of robbery and assault with intent to rob were up by more than 32 per cent. in the first eight months of 1965, compared with the first eight months of 1964. Robbery was up by 18 per cent. and breaking into shops and warehouses by 17·8 per cent. The number of thefts from motor cars—one of the biggest sources of crime there is—went up by 42 per cent.
  It is significant from this survey that, of the 10 areas surveyed, only Liverpool showed a significant drop in the rate of crime. It is important to realise that in Liverpool and Lancashire generally the police authorities have been at the forefront in introducing modern methods of prevention and detection.
  It is almost beyond dispute that the rate of crime largely depends on the chances of being caught. To far too many people crime is a paying proposition. The risks are comparatively small. The figures for London are probably the worst of all and in this area the criminal has a four

  1209
  to one chance of getting away with it. The gains from crime are considerable. I telephoned the British Insurance Association this morning and asked if they could give me the figure for the amount which had been stolen during 1964. I was given the figure of £34 million.
  It is no use blaming the police for what has happened and I am glad that no hon. Member on either side of the House has sought to do that. The police do an excellent job in conditions of increasing difficulty. The professional criminal has modern equipment and modern means of communication at his disposal. He has these things because he can afford to buy them. The police are handicapped by the shortage of manpower, which leads to split shifts, the failure to get rest days and excessive overtime. The Police Federation carried out a survey recently and it revealed that C.I.D. officers in many areas normally work 16 to 17 hours a week overtime. I believe that even more overtime is worked in the Metropolitan area.
  The police are also handicapped by a lack of communications equipment, modern two-way radio sets, which should be provided for policemen on foot. In his speech the Home Secretary said that he was taking urgent measures to deal with this problem and he placed great importance on the provision of these sets. His hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, answering a Question the other day, said that a further 2,000 sets would be provided in the financial year 1966–67. Does the Home Secretary really think that 2,000 sets for the whole country will provide a solution to this problem? Is that the degree of urgency he places on this? Many policemen feel that they are not getting a square deal. They feel—and I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) on this issue—that they are not getting the co-operation they should have from the public or from the Government. They are being frustrated by a lack of equipment.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, I do not want to enter into the pay dispute. One complaint of the police is the long delay there was in bringing their claim to arbitration—the months they had to wait for answers to letters addressed to the Home Office.
  They are frustrated by the ever-rising burden of duties which the House and
  1210
  the Government place upon them. Whatever may have been the reasons for publishing the pamphlet, "How to Complain Against the Police"—and I accept that this was a recommendation of the Royal Commission—it is quite certain that both the timing and the handling of that pamphlet were absolutely deplorable. The Home Secretary has inherited a difficult position. When he assumed office he was sent an open letter from the Police Federation of which I will read only a small part. The Federation said:
  "Morale in the Service is lower than it has been for a long time and there are several contributory factors. … Our members can now see little hope of ever securing a shorter working week, having more rest days, enjoying a normal family life. The domestic pressures which have forced out many good men who liked the job and wanted to make it their career, have now been renewed and our members may find it hard to resist them. If the manning situation deteriorates still further, the responsibility for such a gross betrayal of the general public must rest fairly on the shoulders of the authorities."
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will do all he can to restore that position, but let there be no doubt about the difficult position which the right hon. Gentleman has inherited.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the date of the letter and whether he thinks that the Police Federation based any advice which it thought it right to express in that letter on the experience of, say, three months or a little longer?
  Mr. Sharples: This was published in the "Police Federation News-Letter" for January, 1966.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Not February, 1965?
  Mr. Sharples: The letter is addressed, "Dear Mr. Jenkins".
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth has referred to the need for the reorganisation of the police and I do not intend to expand on that for the moment. I hope very much that the Home Secretary will press ahead with the programme of amalgamations initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) and the formation of regional crime squads also initiated by him.
  The Government have said that they are determined to fight the rising rate of

  1211
  crime. The House must ask what they have done during their 18 months of office to demonstrate their determination. They have passed the Firearms Act for which I give full credit to the right hon. Gentlemen's predecessor. They have published two White Papers, "The Adult Offender" and "The Child, The Family and The Young Offender", but it is fair to say that neither has been received with great enthusiasm.
  There are points in both of them with which I find that I can agree. In the White Paper "The Adult Offender", the abolition of corrective training and the new arrangements for persistent offenders are both logical and right. The arrangements for the abolition of preventive detention, of course, were announced originally by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead on 23rd July, 1964. I welcome the extension of the hostel system and the proposed arrangements for "drunks". Far too large a proportion of our prison population is composed of drunks and inadequates.
  I am much more doubtful about the proposed machinery for releasing prisoners on licence after they have served only a third of their sentence. I have always thought that there are many prisoners who would be most unlikely to commit another crime even if they were released within a week of being sentenced, but for the professional criminal the length of sentence is a matter of calculated risk, as his chance of getting caught and the booty with which he hopes to get away.
  It is not only the effect on the prisoner which the judge has to take into consideration when passing sentence. There is also the need to deter others from committing similar crimes. I draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention the leading article in The Times of 10th December, 1965, which discussed the problem facing the Home Secretary and asked:
  "If the trial judge believes it to be necessary, in society's interests, that a certain man should stay in prison for a given length of time, on precisely what grounds will the Home Secretary determine that that view should be set aside?"
  The Home Secretary will find it very difficult to demonstrate to the public the reasons that he adopts for setting aside the judgment of the court in a matter of this kind unless he consults, and shows
  1212
  that he is able to consult, either a parole board or some form of judicial committee.
  There is much scope for bringing our present penal system up to date. I should like to see harder work in prisons, and I believe that a great many prisoners would like to also. I have talked to men about to be released after serving long sentences, and they have said to me, "How can we go out and get a job as a labourer, which is the only form of job we can get after a sentence such as ours, and hold the job when we have been doing only 18 or 20 hours' work a week, most of it sitting down sewing mailbags?" They cannot possibly do it; there ought to be harder physical work in prisons.
  I should like to see removed from our system the degradation which there is in prison life today. One has only to visit a local prison at half-past six in the morning at "slopping-out" time to see humanity at its most degrading and lowest.
  We should look at the problem as a whole, directing our attention to the entire question of penal reform. This was the purpose of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead in setting up the Royal Commission on Penal Reform.
  We should look at the question of the suspended sentence referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). We should look into the question of the greater use of the indeterminate sentence, which I believe is probably more to be detested than anything else by the professional criminal who wishes to calculate the time he wishes to spend in prison. We ought to look at the means of compelling criminals to make restitution to the victims of their crimes. One of the greatest deterrents to the criminal that we could have would be to make certain that if he was caught he would never enjoy the fruits and proceeds of his action. I know that it is difficult to do this, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention to the very useful remarks made about this by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson).
  The other White Paper published by the Government is, I know, of particular concern to the right hon. Lady who will

  1213
  reply—that entitled "The Child, The Family and The Young Offender". The trouble with this White Paper also is that it anticipates the findings of the Royal Commission. We certainly need to find new ideas for treating the young offender, but much more important than that is ideas for preventing young people from becoming offenders at all. The broken family and the disturbed child are often the result of housing difficulties. There is a need, I believe, for the social departments, particularly at local authority level, to get together and ascertain sometimes whether these problems cannot be solved before they ever come to the courts. I believe, too, that we should look at the possibility at bringing together some part of the training of all those who have responsibility at local authority level for the welfare of children—the child care officers, the probation officers and those employed by The voluntary societies.
  But the proposals in the White Paper for abolishing the juvenile courts and putting family councils in their place have been criticised in a very great number of quarters—not least by the probation officers and the magistrates. Yesterday the Manchester magistrates published a very powerful attack upon the whole concept of the main proposals in the White Paper. The Manchester magistrates, after all, know something about these things, and this is what they said about family councils:
  "The magistrates are of opinion that these proposals are both impractical and undesirable. They are impractical because the conception of family councils completely ignores the absence of an existing service capable of constituting and administering them. … They are undesirable because the fundamental object of the proposals is to place what are essentially judicial functions into the hands of what would clearly be a non-judicial tribunal."
  The Manchester magistrates have also very strongly criticised the proposals in the White Paper for separate courts for the 16–21s:
  "The magistrates are of opinion that no useful purpose can be served by setting up special young offenders' courts. They are satisfied that there is no advantage to be gained by separating accused persons under 21 from accused persons over 21, nor by the trial and sentencing of persons under 21 in a separate court—even if it is composed of magistrates on the juvenile court panel."
  I agree that there is scope for improving the existing arrangements of our juvenile courts. We could have in certain
  1214
  cases a less formal atmosphere. We could have the separation of what are loosely called welfare cases from delinquency cases. Certainly we need to look for new methods of treatment for the juvenile delinquent.
  I agree also with what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Classification is all important in juvenile cases above all, as in adult cases, but I believe equally that the 15-year-old who breaks up telephones, who beats up old people for the joy of it or who puts obstacles on railway lines should understand and be left in no uncertainty that society should not and will not tolerate this kind of conduct.
  The rate of crime is still growing—and is growing alarmingly. The criminal is still winning the battle in spite of the efforts of an overworked, undermanned and ill-equipped police force. In spite of the speech of the Home Secretary, I believe that the Government have so far shown an inability to cope with this great problem which faces us, and for that reason I ask the House to support the Motion.
  9.31 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): This has been a varied and interesting debate, but certainly not a debate of censure according to the Motion. We on the Government side welcomed the opportunity to debate these very important matters.
  Before I come to the general points which have been raised I want to deal with one or two of the individual questions which have been asked. I fully agree with and appreciate what the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) said about his Questions last Thursday. I am sorry that there was a misunderstanding, but, as he says, he does not blame me for that.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) is not, I see, here now. I am sorry—I see that he is here. I was looking for him in the place from which he spoke. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are looking into his complaint, which is a very serious one and will be dealt with seriously. But, in complaints against the police, I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must not do what the right hon. and

  1215
  learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) condemned—believe the worst about a police officer before the investigation has been held. We will, however, certainly look into his complaint.
  The Motion mentions three things. First, it refers to the police. I am not sure what the Opposition are criticising, or what they advocate. We have not had a reply to the questions which my right hon. Friend asked about what the Opposition were advocating about the police service. In 1964, this House passed the Police Act, introduced by the last Government. It was a comprehensive Act based on the Royal Commission and rewrote the whole of our police law. Last year, 1965, was the first full year of its operation and also the first full year of this Government.
  I am not sure what it is that the Opposition want. They talk in their pamphlet about a "Queen's constabulary" and about the Home Secretary having more responsibility. We still have not heard from them throughout the debate whether or not they mean a national police force or still believe in a local authority police force. Certainly, during the passage of the Police Act—and I sat through every minute of those debates—I did not hear any of those views expressed. Many hon. Members from what is now the Opposition moved Amendments designed to stop the Home Secretary from having more power than was being given to him. Surely the Opposition cannot suggest, with all the information which my right hon. Friend gave today, that the Government have not done all they could to carry out the 1964 Act.
  The last year has seen amazing progress in our police forces. In 1965, having regard to the fact that there was a certain amount of wastage from the police forces, there was a net gain of more than 3,000 men. In 1964, there was a net gain of only 796. The year 1965 was a record year for manpower since the end of the war, with the exception of 1948.
  We have heard today about civilianisation and the up-to-date equipment which the police are having to use and about science and computers. My right hon. Friend is getting ahead with amalgamations and we have had the regional crime
  1216
  squads. All this shows that a great deal is going on in the more scientific use of manpower in the police. If we are to take full advantage in good time of new developments of value to the police, we must be able to plan ahead as far as possible.
  It is for this reason that my right hon. Friend intends to invite a small number of experts on communications to advise him on longer-term developments, but there is also much more to be done to make the most effective use of office equipment available both at headquarters and. where suitable, at stations. Some forces have done a great deal and provide dicta-phones and centralised reporting equipment, and so on, but we need to evaluate the work and see that all forces are brought up to the standards of the best.
  Three years ago, expenditure on communications equipment, such as radios, was just over £500,000. By next year we shall spend nearly twice as much as that. In the same period, 10,000 more wireless sets will be in use and an additional £300,000 worth of equipment. At present 28 police forces have personal radios and in three months an extra 60 forces will get them. This shows that the general picture is of a service which is very much alive to the problems which it has to face and we intend to see that every possible assistance is given to the men who are actually carrying on the battle with their traditional devotion to duty and, indeed, gallantry.
  The second thing which the Motion mentions is parole for prisoners. Parole is not a new idea. It has been recognised for a long time that for some prisoners it is a waste of human life and public money to keep them in prison. Therefore, the idea has been mooted for a long time that there should be a system of parole under supervision and with power to recall. Hon. Members opposite have advocated this and we have had Questions froth hon. Members opposite about when we are to do this, and I see that the Conservative Party pamphlet which has just been issued is also in favour of parole. Therefore, there is a measure of agreement on the main question whether there should be a parole system for longer-term prisoners.
  The only matter at issue seems to be the method of deciding which prisoners should be allowed on parole. On method,

  1217
  it is true to say that when as recently as last summer the House considered the procedure by which life sentence prisoners should be released on licence, it decided in favour of leaving the matter to the discretion of the Home Secretary of the day in consultation with the appropriate people. In doing so, the House implicitly rejected the idea of referring the matter to any outside body, however composed.
  However, this is a matter for argument and discussion. I do not think that the method by which we decide that our prisoners shall be released on parole is one for a critical Motion in this House. I am very pleased that the main suggestion—the need for parole—seems to be accepted by everyone on both sides of the House.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples), talked about prisons. I recognise as much as he does, the need for a good deal of prison reform. But surely he cannot blame us for some of the things which he has described. We inherited the prison system and we are doing our best with it. It is not an enviable job to be responsible for the prisons of this country. One thing I have learned is that one can never win.
  For instance, if a prisoner gets over the wall we are told that we should keep him in, and keep the prison more secure. If we keep the prisoners more secure we are then called inhuman. So we open the prison gates to let the Press in to see that we are not inhuman and we are criticised because it is said that the conditions are too good. We all recognise the need to get ahead as quickly as possible with our present programme, but it is not easy. It takes nearly twice as long to build a prison as to build a school or a hospital. Before we begin to lay the foundations there are objections from people who live in the vicinity. We have to spend time hearing the objections and holding an inquiry.
  I am pleased that Juvenile delinquency has taken up a good deal of this debate. We have to face the fact that one-third of the persons found guilty of indictable offences last year were under the age of 17. If we can divert children from crime during their early years we shall have gone a long way towards tackling the problem of crime in the years to come. Too often the juvenile delinquent of
  1218
  yesterday is the adult criminal of today. The files with which I deal every day tell their own story—supervision, approved school, borstal, prison. It is too often a progression.
  Although one-third of the persons found guilty of indictable offences are under 17, this proportion is almost exactly the same as it was before the war, so that the increase in juvenile crime has been matched by a corresponding increase in adult crime. Thus the children appear to be no worse than their seniors. In itself this should make us think carefully about the kind of society in which we live. There are sometimes inherent defects in a child, but for the individual child, as for the young delinquent as a whole, it is often difficult to point to any cause or set of causes.
  Despite the increase in the amount of research in recent years we are still a long way from understanding the factors which give rise to delinquency. In many cases the disturbance may be part of the ordinary process of growing up, and is not serious or of long standing. In other cases it may be more deeply-rooted, perhaps a sense of insecurity bred by parental neglect or inadequacy, or a sense of failure derived from backwardness at school.
  I was interested to see that the document published by the Conservative Party points to the fact that some children feel a sense of failure at school. For many years I have said that we had a system in our schools whereby four-fifths of our children were made to feel failures at the age of 11.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: is the right hon. Lady saying that a sense of failure at school is a cause or reason why a person should commit crime?
  Miss Bacon: It is often a cause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must read the document which his own party produced, because this matter is referred to in it in these terms.
  This is the background to the White Paper—a serious problem of crime, especially of crime committed by young people, which is certainly not being solved by traditional methods. What we have attempted in our White Paper on juvenile delinquency is a complete reappraisal of the problem and the way

  1219
  in which it might be tackled. We do not claim originality for all of this. For example, the idea of establishing a comprehensive family service to provide for all the needs of children in families has been discussed in professional circles for many years. The Government have accepted the need for a family service, although we recognise that its establishment will not be an easy task owing to the various and sometimes conflicting interests involved. But the matter is now being considered by an independent committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Seebohm.
  The central theme of our White Paper is the need to deal with children of school age, as far as it is possible to do so, outside the courts and to bring the parents into active co-operation with the authorities. I believe that children should be taught right from wrong at an early age and that they must be punished at an early age by depriving them of some of their small treats. But I do not believe that children of a very tender age should be regarded as criminals and branded as criminals for the rest of their lives.
  Mr. Percy Grieve Mr. Percy Grieve (Solihull) rose—
  Miss Bacon: I am sorry. I usually give way, but I have a lot of ground to cover.
  In our White Paper we are concerned not so much with an isolated act as with the general pattern of behaviour of the child. If the social services can help to put a child on the right road and can help parents with how to deal with their children it is infinitely better than taking a child of school age to court.
  There is nothing particularly new in the idea that some way should be found of dealing with delinquent children, as far as possible, without resort to the courts. In general terms, this proposal has had the support of a number of bodies, including the Kilbrandon Committee, which considered the question in relation to Scotland, and others with which I will deal later.
  The White Paper deals with many matters other than the processes of the courts. I have been a little disappointed that so much of the discussion both inside and outside Parliament has been
  1220
  concerned more with machinery than with the important changes in treatment. After all, the only purpose of the machinery is to see that the child gets the right treatment.
  I have seen during the last few weeks nearly all the organisations concerned with this matter, and there is a general measure of agreement on many of the proposals in the White Paper. Almost all agreed on the need for a family service. Almost all agreed on the proposal to establish observation centres fulfilling the present functions of remand homes and classifying centres. Nearly all agreed on our proposed treatment for children under the age of 16. Nearly everybody is agreed on the proposal to abolish the approved school order and the proposal that approved schools should cease to be a separate service and instead fit into the comprehensive range of local authority residential establishments.
  Too often the approved schools have been completely isolated and the whole of the approved school system is inflexible in the sense that local authorities cannot remove a child from an approved school to another kind of establishment most suited for it. I will talk presently about the proposals for the 16s to 21s.
  It is sometimes sheer chance whether the behaviour of children leads to preventive work by the social services before the child reaches court or whether the child reaches court before its social behaviour is detected. I have in mind a case, brought to my notice by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), of a 10-year old boy who was awaiting a place in a school for educationally subnormal children. Part of his subnormality led him into taking things from stores. While he was waiting to get into the educationally subnormal school, he was taken before the juvenile court and committed to an approved school. Because of that approved school order, there was nothing that we could do to get the boy back to where he really belonged, into a school for educationally subnormal children. That is why we want to place the approved schools at the disposal of the local authorities to use as part of their range of residential establishments.
  The proposal which has caused most comment is that to replace the juvenile

  1221
  court with family councils and family courts. The Motion refers to the abolition of the juvenile court as if we propose to put nothing in its place. Juvenile courts were established in 1908, nearly 60 years ago. Times have changed since then. Habits and the whole pattern of life have changed. If juvenile crime was decreasing, if the juvenile courts had a salutary effect, there would be no need to re-examine this problem. But that is not so.
  I am very pleased indeed that we have this opportunity today to put the matter in its proper perspective. I know that there has been opposition from some magistrates—[Hox. MEMBERS: "Some?"]—and from probation officers, but the speech today from my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), who has great experience in juvenile courts, shows that not all magistrates are opposed to the White Paper. As every hon. Member knows, those who disagree with anything are a little more vocal than those who agree. Disagreement is news, whereas agreement rarely gets into the newspapers.
  There are many other organisations which agree with our approach in the White Paper. For example, the Association of Children's Officers is in agreement with the White Paper, as is the Association of Child Care Officers. The National Union of Teachers is in agreement with replacing juvenile courts with some other system. A great deal has been quoted today from the Police Federation. The police submitted to the Royal Commission on Penal Policy their views about juvenile delinquency. They stated:
  "We can find only a very limited place for juvenile courts as such in the social system, and would wish them to be abolished. The admirable work done by these courts is not underrated, but their function as it relates to the younger age groups should form no part of the judicial system, and should be handed over to the Education Department."
  If hon. Members opposite condemn the White Paper because we wish to replace the juvenile courts by some other system, they have also to condemn the Association of Child Care Officers, the Association of Children's Officers, the National Union of Teachers, the Police Federation and many other people as well.
  I have been asked why we should have the juvenile courts for those aged 16 to 21, and is not the age of 21 too high. In
  1222
  this we are merely bringing the courts and procedures into line with what is already established practice for treatment. Those in the age group 17 to 21 are already subject to a special range of custodial sentence which distinguishes them from adults—borstal, detention centres, young prisoner centres, and so on. We thought it was sensible, since we have this special range of treatment for those up to the age of 21, to have a special court which would deal with them, and we think that this makes sense.
  This White Paper was published for discussion. As I have said, I spent hours seeing the various deputations, and I think I know the views, the sometimes conflicting views, of those concerned, on the one hand, the magistrates and probation officers with quite different views from the local authority associations, the A.M.C. and the C.C.A., and the child care and children's officers.
  As my right hon. Friend has said today, we are considering all the views which have been given to us, and we shall take into account all these opinions, but some of them are so conflicting that it will be difficult to produce proposals which will please everybody, because whereas the magistrates and the probation officers would like to retain juvenile courts there is a very big body of opinion on the other side, the local authority associations, child care officers and children's officers, who like neither juvenile courts nor the family councils, but would like the whole of this question dealt with by the various social services of the local authorities.
  We have really been getting ahead in thinking about this very important problem of juvenile delinquency. The Tory pamphlet which was published last week dismissed the whole of juvenile delinquency in fewer than 700 words. I think that this has all the marks that the Tory committee could not agree.
  Now many of the problems of the last 40 to 50 years have become less acute. We have dealt with questions of poverty, of bad housing, of ill-health, and with the problems of the elderly. There is only one social problem which has become more acute, and that is the problem of crime; because today crime is our greatest social problem. The police are in the front line of the fight against crime, but it is a responsibility for all of us, and we as a Government are determined to do

  1223
  everything in our power to help in that fight, and, if possible, to eradicate the causes.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 301.

  Division No. 19.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Allison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Emery, Peter

  Kimball, Marcus

  Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Astor, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kirk, Peter

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fair, John

  Kitson, Timothy

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fell, Anthony

  Lagden, Godffey

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lambton, viscount

  Balniel, Lord

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Barlow, Sir John

  Forrest, George

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Batsford, Brian

  Foster, Sir John

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

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

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

  Bell, Ronald

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Longbottom, Charles

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald(Gos. & Fhm)

  Gammans, Lady

  Longden, Gilbert

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Gardner, Edward

  Loveys, W. H.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Biffen, John

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  MacArthur, Ian

  Biggs-Davlson, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Bingham, R. M.

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  McMaster, Stanley

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Blaker, Peter

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maddan, W. F. M.

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maglnnis, John E.

  Box, Donald

  Gower, Raymond

  Maitland, Sir John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Grant, Anthony

  Marten, Neil

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Mathew, Robert

  Braine, Bernard

  Gresham-Cooke, R.

  Maude, Angus

  Brewis, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Brinton, sir Tatton

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mawby, Ray

  Bromiey-Davenport, U. -Col. Sir Walter

  Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Curden, Harold

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

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bryan, Paul

  Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Buck, Antony

  Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Mitchell, David

  Burden, F. A.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Monro, Hector

  Buxton, Ronald

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  More, Jasper

  Campbell, Gordon

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morgan, W. G.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Maoclesf'd)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Murton, Oscar

  Chataway, Christopher

  Hawkins, Paul

  Neave, Airey

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hay, John

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth.W.)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

  Cole, Norman

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Onslow, Craniey

  Cooke, Robert

  Hiley, Joseph

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Cooper, A. E.

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

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Cordle, John

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Corfieid, F. V.

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Hopkins, Alan

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthome)

  Hordern, Peter

  Peel, John

  Crawley, Aidan

  Hornby, Richard

  Percival, Ian

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

  Peyton, John

  Crowder, F. P.

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

  Plckthom, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Curran, Charles

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Dance, James

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Jennings, J. C.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Dean, Paul

  Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. w. P.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Jopling, Michael

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Doughty, Charles

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Walters, Dennis

  Royle, Anthony

  Teeling, Sir William

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Temple, John M.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Sharples, Richard

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Webster, David

  Shepherd, William

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Wells, John (Maldstone)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)

  Whitelaw, William

  smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chlswlok)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)

  Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

  Smith, John

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Wise, A. R.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Speir, Sir Rupert

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Stainton, Keith

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Stanley, Hn. Richard

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wylie, N. R.

  Stodart, Anthony

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Younger, Hn. George

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Walder, David (High Peak)

  Talbot, John E.

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Mr. Martin McLaren and

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

  wall, Patrick

  Mr. Francis Pym.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

  Albu, Austen

  Driberg, Tom

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Alldritt, Walter

  Dunn, James A.

  Jackson, Colin

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Edeiman, Maurice

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Atkinson, Norman

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

  Bagier, Cordon A. T,

  Ennals, David

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Barnett, Joel

  Ensor, David

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Baxter, William

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)

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

  Bence, Cyril

  Fernyhough, E.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

  Bessell, Peter

  Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Binns, John

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Bishop, E. s.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Kelley, Richard

  Blackburn, F.

  Floud, Bernard

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Foley, Maurice

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

  Boardman, H.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

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

  Boston, Terence

  Ford, Ben

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  Ledger, Ron

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

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Boyden, James

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lever Harold (Cheetham)

  Bradley, Tom

  Garrow, Alex

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Ginsburg, David

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Broughton, Dr. A. A, D.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Lipton, Marcus

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Brown, R. w. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

  Grey, Charles

  Loughlin, Charles

  Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Buchanan, Richard

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, Will (M' Chester, Exchange)

  McBride, Neil

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  McCann, J.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  MacColl, James

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hale, Leslie

  MacDermot, Niall

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell))

  McGulre, Michael

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Mclnnes, James

  Chapman, Donald

  Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Coleman, Donald

  Hannan, William

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Harper, Joseph

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

  Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hattersley, Roy

  McLeavy, Frank

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hazell, Bert

  McNamara, J. K.

  Cronin, John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

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

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

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

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Manuel, Archie

  Dalyell, Tam

  Holman, Percy

  Mapp, Charles

  Darling, George

  Hooson, H. E.

  Marsh, Richard

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Horner, John

  Mason, Roy

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Maxwell, Robert

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

  Howie, W.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hoy, James

  Millan, Bruce

  Dell, Edmund

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Dempsey, James

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Molloy, William

  Doig, Peter

  Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

  Monslow, Walter

  1226

  1227

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Richard, Ivor

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederlck (Sheffield Pk)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Murray, Albert

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

  Tinn, James

  Neal, Harold

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Tomney, Frank

  Newens, Stan

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Urwin, T. W.

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

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Varley, Eric G.

  Norwood, Christopher

  Rowland, Christopher

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Oaks, Cordon

  Sheldon, Robert

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Ogden, Eric

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Wallace, George

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

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

  Warbey, William

  Orbach, Maurice

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Watkins, Tudor

  Orme, Stanley

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Weitzman, David

  Oswald, Thomas

  Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Owen, Will

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Padley, Walter

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Whitlock, William

  Palmer, Arthur

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Small, William

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)

  Snow, Julian

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Parker, John

  Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Stonehouse, John

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Stones, William

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Prentice, R. E.

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

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Probert, Arthur

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

  Woof, Robert

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Randall, Harry

  Swain, Thomas

  Zilliacus, K.

  Rankin, John

  Swingler, Stephen

  Redhead, Edward

  Symonds, J. B.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Rees, Merlyn

  Taverne, Dick

  Mr. Sydney Irving and

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Mr. George Lawson.

  Rhodet, Geoffrey

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Proposed words there added.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes with grave concern the mounting wave of crime; warmly supports the efforts of the police to combat it, and endorses the determination of Her Majesty's Government to combine effective prevention and detection with penal reform.

  BEDFORDSHIRE AND LUTON POLICE (AMALGAMATION)
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Richard Mr. Ivor Richard (Barons Court) rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly, please?
  Mr. Richard: I beg to move,
  That the Bedfordshire and Luton Police (Amalgamation) Order, 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be not made.
  This is a Prayer in the names of myself and one of my hon. Friends and a number of other hon. Gentlemen. Perhaps I should explain to the House how it comes about that a Member of Parliament for a central London constituency should be in the unusual posture of moving a Prayer against an Order affecting a borough in the county of Bedfordshire and the county itself. It arises from the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) is unfortunately permanently silent so long as he is a Government Whip and can therefore say nothing on the Order himself. I am therefore doing this in the rôle of advocate and putting the points before the House before the Order is passed. I know that a number of other hon. Gentlemen with similar points arising in their constituencies may have something to say on the general nature of this subject.
  Perhaps, before dealing with this type of Order in general scope, I should say something about Luton and Bedfordshire especially. I do so again on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton and I will put the points as I hope that he would like them put.
  The Order is being made under Section 29(2) of the Police Act, 1964, for the amalgamation of these two police forces. It is being made consequent on a public inquiry held by Mr. Charles E. Scholefield, Q.C., in February, 1965, and his report, dated May, 1965.
  The precise Order was announced by the Home Secretary on 3rd June last year and I think that it is worth while for the House to hear the terms in which it was announced before considering the Order. The then Home Secretary said that he
  1230
  had received the report of Mr. Scholefield and laid it before Parliament. The OFFICIAL REPORT goes on:
  "Mr. Scholefield says that if there had not been such a long history of intense desire for separation he would have had no hesitation in recommending that he could see no reason for departing from the principles of the Royal Commission and that the two forces should be amalgamated, but that, in the circumstances, he has grave doubts about the timing of amalgamation. He therefore recommends that consideration should be given to an experimental period during which the separate forces should co-operate with each other in every way and that, at the end of that time, the question of amalgamation should be reconsidered."
  The then Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), went on:
  "I carefully considered this suggestion but I decided that it would not be right to adopt this suggestion, since it would prolong uncertainty and so tend to undermine the morale and efficiency of both forces. The question of amalgamation must be resolved now; and it is clear that on merits the two forces should be continued. Co-operation with them, however effective, is no substitute for unified command, and I have no doubt that once a decision is taken, the Luton Council and the members of the borough force will work as part of the combined force in the interests of police efficiency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June. 1965; Vol. 713, c. 253–4.]
  The decision was then announced to proceed with the amalgamation scheme, despite the recommendations of Mr. Charles Scholefield. The appeal is that the Order should not be proceeded with.
  The history of the force is somewhat unusual in that from 1888 to 1947 Luton had a separate, non-county force. In 1947 when the non-county borough police forces were abolished, there was an amalgamation between the Luton Police Force and the Bedfordshire Force. I am told that the amalgamation was resisted by Luton at the time.
  In 1964 Luton became a county borough and immediately demanded its own police force. The Home Office, I believe, intimated to Luton at the time that it would perhaps be unwise for Luton to set up its own police force, since the Police Act was at that stage going through the processes of this House and another place. But on 1st April, 1964, the Luton Police Force was set up with a separate identity. I believe that it is still in existence today, and it will be in existence until this Order goes through.

  1231
  What are the arguments for amalgamation? I understand that the main argument put forward in favour of amalgamation is based on Recommendation No. 53 of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Police. On page 6 of his report Mr. Scholefield sets out that paragraph and the principle upon which the Home Office seems to be basing its opinion. It is that
  "police forces numbering less than 200 suffer considerable handicaps and the retention of forces under 350 is justifiable only in special circumstances. The optimum size of a police force is at least 500."
  The establishment for the Luton Force is 239. If one looks merely at the figures and compares an establishment of 239 with the criterion of 350 laid down in the Royal Commission's Report, I suppose that one can say that it is clearly less than 350 and that, if there are no special circumstance shown, then on the face of it, at any rate, it appears desirable that the two forces should be amalgamated.
  But the argument put forward by Luton —and this is an argument which the House would consider—is that one should look at the trend of the population figures in the borough. If one does this, one sees that the population has risen from 108,000 in 1947 to 147,000 in 1964. If one projects those figures forward, one finds that by 1971 the population is expected to be 175,000 and by 1981 it is expected to be no less than 210,000. It is estimated by the Luton authority—and this was given in evidence before the inquiry—that at a ratio of one police officer to 450 inhabitants, by 1970 the population would call for about 328 police officers and by 1971 it would require over 350 police officers. If one looks at the way in which the population is at present developing, therefore, it seems that within the next four years the figure given as a criterion will not only be reached but will be exceeded.
  The second argument which was put forward for amalgamation was that there was a social affinity between the county of Bedfordshire and the town of Luton. I suppose that the argument was that if there is a county in the centre of which there is a county town which at the moment has a separate police force, then to amalgamate the force of the county with the force of a county town is a sensible suggestion.
  1232
  It is, however, right that the House should consider the argument put forward by Luton, which is that Luton is not a county town in the classic or accepted sense of the word but is a town with a higher growth rate than that of a county outside, a town with a greater industrial potential and a greater industrial complex than that of the county outside and a town with a higher crime rate than that of the county outside.
  As far as one can gather, the type of crime with which Luton is afflicted is more metropolitan in character than are the rural crimes which seem to take place in Bedfordshire. Some of the evidence given at the inquiry was that the Luton criminal tends to do most of his burglarising in the northern part of London and part of Hertfordshire rather than looking for his spoils in the outlying districts of Bedfordshire around the town. For all these reasons, the County Borough of Luton felt that it would not be proper to consider Luton as merely, so to speak, the county town of the county and to base the amalgamation on that.
  I suppose that the other argument concerns administrative convenience and efficiency. Indeed, the smallness of a police force tends against flexibility because, by and large, a small police force would not permit a sufficient number of specialist services to be provided. On the face of it, this would seem to be an attractive argument—that is, until one considers the argument which Luton presented because that showed that, in terms of specialists, Luton is extremely well equipped. In terms of services, it showed that Luton can provide what the people require and that there is no evidence that administrative convenience is being stultified and that efficiency is in some way being lessened.
  There are, I suppose, five arguments against the amalgamation. The first is that it is felt, I am told, by the people of Luton that they will not get as good a service after amalgamation as they are now getting from the existing police force. They say that, from their experience during the period of enforced amalgamation, 1947–1964, the police services with which they were then provided were not as good as those provided when they had their own separate police force.
  The second argument is that the present service is good. The third is that

  1233
  when they were amalgamated the services declined. The fourth argument is that it is estimated that it would cost the people of Luton more if amalgamation were to take place than were they to be a separate entity. The fifth argument, which would seem to be the strongest one, is that there seems to be no advantage in efficiency to be gained but that there is the possibility of a loss of efficiency if amalgamation goes through.
  It is all very well for Whitehall and the Home Office to say that, on efficiency grounds, an amalgamation of this sort should take place, but it is important—particularly when one is dealing with a police force which depends on good relations between the force and the people it serves—for the people in the locality to consider that they are getting the best policing and services that are reasonably available. As far as I can gather from reading the documents which have been sent to me, this would not be the feeling in Luton where the amalgamation is to take place. I will quote what Mr. Charles E. Scholefield said at the end of his report. After referring to all the evidence, he stated:
  "…I should have recommended without hesitation that I could see no reason for departing from the principles of the Commission's report and that the two forces should be combined "—
  He was there dealing with the county town argument which I used—
  "I have very grave doubts about the timing of an amalgamation. To force a loveless marriage at the present would, in my opinion, be to take grave risks."
  Those are strong words from an official inspector's report, words which the House would be well to consider. As to the way in which the amalgamation would finally emerge, the report of Mr. Scholefield suggested that representation on the combined authority should be equal. The plan, as it has emerged, does not have equal representation of the two local authorities of Luton and the county outside.
  It is for these reasons, which I have been able to deal with in only general terms in this sort of debate, that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, for whom I speak—almost in the rôle, so to speak, of advocate, having been briefed by my hon. Friend because he knows far more about this matter than I do—felt that
  1234
  these arguments should be placed before the House and that the Order should not be allowed to go through without hon. Members having an opportunity to debate the matter. That is why the Prayer was put down and why my hon. Friend desired the whole matter to be aired in the House.
  10.30 p.m.
  Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: I support the plea made by the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). I realise that he was speaking on behalf of the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie), although I should point out that it would have been possible for the hon. Member for Luton to speak had he decided to take a certain course as far as his present appointment with the Government is concerned.
  This matter has raised the gravest concern in Luton and it is felt very strongly by the Association of Municipal Corporations that we should not proceed with this Order. Many of us have taken an interest in this subject. I am particularly interested in it because certain steps are to be taken with regard to the police in Exeter, and we have had wide correspondence with prominent persons in Luton.
  The hon. Member for Barons Court referred to the local inquiry carried out by Mr. Charles Scholefield. In his report he said that this force should not be combined at present but that there should be a certain period for voluntary cooperation, which I thought was a very useful suggestion by the learned gentleman. He said that only at a later stage, if the period of voluntary co-operation was not successful, should compulsory amalgamation be considered.
  I do not understand why the Home Secretary has repudiated this suggestion. When the Police Act was going through the House in the last Parliament this point was stressed strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) who was Home Secretary at the time. It was felt very strongly that every care should be taken not to upset the local affiliation of the police force. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department knows full well how important it is to have this link with the local authority and that only in exceptional circumstances should it be broken. The men who

  1235
  enlist in the police force often enlist so that they should stay in the locality and not be drafted away from it. They have their houses in the area in which they serve and their children attend schools there and they would very much regret being drafted away from the area where they started. It is therefore important to see that these people's connection with the local authority is maintained.
  I do not understand why the Home Secretary has decided to ignore the recommendations of his inspector. It is only in very special circumstances that this should be done. What is the point of an inquiry into the whole question of whether police forces should be amalgamated if when the inspector says that they should not the Home Secretary is going to over-rule the inspector? This is an important point. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will deal with it when he winds up the debate.
  10.34 p.m.
  Mr. Arnold Gregory: I should like to follow up one of the points made by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir Rolf Dudley Williams) about the wide concern felt by the Association of Municipal Corporations and many local authorities throughout the country. In my own area the town clerk and all who are connected with the local authority are watching closely what the effect of the Order will be on a borough police force which is submerged in organisation with the county police. This pattern of combined operations for police administration is set out clearly in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 of this draft Order. This specifies the pattern for police management and operation on a county basis. It is clear from the terms of the Order that, henceforth, the management of the new police authority will be largely in the hands of the county, with about 12 members of the authority from the county council as against 10 from the borough, and six magistrate members from the county administration as against five from the local authority.
  Local authorities in all parts of the country are watching this development very closely, as I have already emphasised, and the question they ask is this: will it be the kind of police pattern to be imposed upon local authorities, taking away from the local areas the borough
  1236
  status which has previously set the pattern of police organisation?
  I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to take into account a number of factors which observers feel should be considered in making proposals for amalgamations. Will the sort of "loveless marriage" spoken of by Mr. Scholefield in his report be the best way of providing the best police arrangements in our urban areas? This is the point which has arrested the attention of the Town Clerk of the Borough of Stockport, and, in a letter which he wrote to me a little time ago, he had this to say:
  "In the case of the Luton police force, Mr. Charles Scholefield, Q.C., was satisfied that Luton was efficiently policed by the Luton police force, but thought that the combined area of Bedfordshire and Luton might be better policed by a merger of the two forces. He stated, however, in his report"—
  this has already been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard)—
  "that to force a loveless marriage at the present time would be to take grave risks', and recommended to the Minister that the two forces should remain separate for an experimental period, during which they would co-operate with each other in every way, and that at the end of that period the question of amalgamation should be reconsidered."
  He then went on to make the second point as regards other authorities, saying that his committee
  "also feel that, should this policy proceed, this would eventually lead to there being a small number of large forces with which there would be a real danger of these being treated as a national police force, arising from the fact that there would be a much greater degree of lack of identity with local government areas."
  This is a point which we emphasised and discussed in a previous debate on the subject.
  Would it not be better to continue with separate Luton and Bedfordshire police forces for a further trial period until my right hon. Friend has fully inquired into the desired form of police organisation? Would not this be the better course not only for Luton and Bedfordshire but also for the whole country? This is a question which should be subject to overall review, taking into account local authority reorganisation on a long-term scale and not dealing with cases piecemeal.
  It seems to me that force efficiency is no criterion in the present method of

  1237
  reorganisation and investigation, either at the inquiry stage or at the final stage of producing an Order. It seems that one has to prove that a combined force would be less efficient. The onus is upon the authority not to prove the efficiency of its own force but to prove that the building up of a county force would not be a much better system.
  The facts show that the smaller police forces—that is certainly true of Stockport —have a far better crime detection record than the larger authorities. The County Borough of Stockport police force can boast an efficiency rate of 58·1 per cent. in the detection of crime in 1964, whereas some of the larger forces are below 50 per cent. or even lower. Naturally, one would not wish to enter into a competition about this, so I shall not take the point further.
  Size is not the all-important factor. Efficiency is—the ability to establish close and effective public relations, understanding and mutual trust, to operate well-organised and quickly-operative police services, motor patrols, on-site and scene-of-crime experts, dog handlers, accident and emergency equipment, and so on. In other words, it is a question of how quickly one can get to the scene of a crime once a report goes to headquarters. To me, that is what matters—not the building up of a police service, not the getting bigger and drawing everything more and more remote.
  What must be asked is: does my hon. Friend regard the Order as a pattern for future police services and organisation for the whole country? I hope not. To me, it is not the correct solution for Luton and Bedford, and I strongly register a feeling of dissent and also the concern of my borough about the Order.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. James Allason: Mr. Scholefield reported that he would advise that there should be an experimental period when the two police forces should remain in being before there was any amalgamation, if it was practical. The former Home Secretary did not give any explanation of practicality at all in his very rapid decision on the Scholefield report. Mr. Scholefield reported in May, and on 3rd June the former Home Secretary was able to announce his decision. One cannot help feeling that his decision must have been influenced largely
  1238
  by the Report of the Royal Commission on the Police. That Report was very much a matter of opinion. It was not supported with statistics. It was just a series of arguments in favour of larger police forces. Since then the Association of Municipal Corporations has carried out investigations and made inquiries with local authorities as to exactly what are the effects on local police forces and on the size of local police forces, and these researches do not in any way agree with the point that 500 is the optimum size and that a force below 350 is in general unsatisfactory.
  There are various arguments, and I do not want to weary the House by going through them, but one is of very considerable significance—the question of training. Probably the best test of training is the results of promotion examinations. These figures are most illuminating. In 1958 and 1959 the best results were obtained in forces of 350 to 499 men; second best were forces of 200 to 349 men; and in the last of the five groups came the forces with over 1,000 men. This surely indicates that certainly as regards training the best results come from forces below 500 men.
  Then there is the argument that promotion is difficult in smaller forces. But there is a pyramid in all forces; there is a certain number of constables to sergeants and a certain number of sergeants to inspectors. To a certain degree there must be a pyramid whatever the size of force. Although promotion is quicker in the Metropolitan Police Force, that is because the force is under establishment rather than because it is a large force. It is only at the very top that there comes a difficulty. Here perhaps the most important point is the selection of chief constables, and no local authority has complained that it had any difficulty in selecting a satisfactory chief constable.
  All the investigations of the Association of Municipal Corporations indicate that the opinions offered by the Royal Commission on the Police should not be taken as the very last word, and I fear that they have been taken rather as the last word by the former Home Secretary. In the debate of 7th December, the Under-Secretary of State said that most local authorities approved of amalgamations except in their own case. I do not think this is so. The Association of

  1239
  Municipal Corporations has never put forward the view that it approves of amalgamations. I think that the hon. Gentleman was a little unjustified in what he said. Perhaps he was being his usual happy, lighthearted self, but I want to get the record straight.
  In consequence, I hope that the House will not approve this Order.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Neil McBride: The Prayer on this draft Order, taken with the report of the inquiry conducted by Mr. Charles Scholefield, is valuable in creating the opportunity to discuss this matter, because the proposal to amalgamate the Luton and Bedfordshire police forces has given rise to a great deal of apprehension in other towns at present served with great efficiency by their police forces, just as Luton is served by its own force.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory) has said, in this case efficiency does not seem to be the criterion upon which the amalgamation has been decided. The inquiry made it abundantly clear that Luton is well served by its present police force. The question is why there should be this loveless marriage, this shot-gun wedding. In many areas, it is feared that such amalgamations may produce effects the opposite of good and, indeed, the distinguished Queen's Counsel who conducted the inquiry had his doubts and expressed them.
  There is fear that gone will be local control and the intimacy and close relationships that are highly significant for a police force locally. Such conditions obtain in Luton. In today's earlier debate, we were told how the high mobility of the modern criminal necessitates an equal rapidity by the police and speed of detection. That surely requires highly specialised knowledge of local conditions and geography. It is no wonder that the Order has created a sense of unease among local authorities, including my own.
  The Town Clerk of Swansea wrote to me in December stating:
  "I have reported the circumstances of the Luton amalgamation order to the Swansea Watch Committee, who expressed concern having regard to the terms of Mr. Scholefield's report and, indeed, they are apprehensive as to the precedent which may be
  1240
  created, which could have a vital bearing upon other police forces. I was instructed by the Watch Committee to seek your support on Mr. Ivor Richard's prayer so that the whole of the arguments concerning the amalgamation of the Luton and Bedfordshire police forces could be debated on the floor of the House."
  The question arises as to whether this amalgamation will result in effective policing. Can efficiency be adduced as a reason? Luton is the largest population unit in the county, with 147,770 people out of the total county population of 262,660. It is also the highest rateable value unit in the county, in a proportion of £9 million to £11½million. These are two important factors and, allied to the efficiency of the Luton force, they suggest that the doubts expressed in Mr. Scholefield's report were well founded.
  Luton became a county borough only on 1st April, 1964, and after only a short interval it is to suffer this upheaval in its police force. In paragraph 31 of the conclusions of the report of the inquiry, Mr. Scholefield sets out his doubts and says:
  …I have very grave doubts about the timing of an amalgamation. To force a loveless marriage at the present would, in my opinion, be to take grave risks."
  There are many other strictures in the report. Suggestions 1 and 2 in pages 30 and 31 bear heavily on this. They are:
  "…the forces should not be combined for the present but allowed to continue as they now are for an experimental period."
  and
  "…If, after such an experimental period, the forces are not collaborating so as to produce efficient policing over the whole area, there should be a compulsory amalgamation."
  The report of the Inspector of Constabulary for the No. 5 District in subsection F of paragraph 29 on page 25 is:
  "Forces numbering less than 200 suffer considerable handicaps and that the retention of forces numbering less than 350 in strength is justifiable only by special circumstances, such as the distribution of the population and the geography of the area."
  That is not always true. The Chief Constable of Luton repelled that assertion when he said that the Luton Police Force, already over 200, would rise to a total of over 400 within a decade in this fast-growing town. On page 20 of the report, Mr. Scholefield said of accommodation:
  "It was quite clear to me that, with their lower rateable value per head of population, the Bedfordshire County Council had tried

  1241
  to make things do and it does not seem to me that they were wrong in doing so."
  At the end of that paragraph he said:
  "On the other hand, the Luton Corporation's policy of denying nothing to its police force and doing everything for them without waiting was having an exhiliarating effect."
  The concern expressed in Luton is therefore shared by many other areas, including Swansea, for this proposed amalgamation is regarded by my local authority and others with apprehension. It follows that we should consider these circumstances extremely carefully, since this is a matter not only of purely local interest to Luton, but of interest to areas of comparable size and, because of the ramifications of the proposed amalgamation, I support the Motion.
  10.54 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George-Thomas): My hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), in his persuasive speech, made it clear that he was speaking as an advocate. I have been brought up to try to keep out of the hands of advocates, but if ever I require the services of one, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is not available, of course, I shall know where to look.
  My hon. Friend reminded us of the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie). The hon. Gentleman the Member for Exeter (Sir Rolf Dudley Williams) was less than his usual courteous self in his reference to my hon. Friend. The House owes an enormous debt to the work of the Whip's Office. If we had not those serving us in that important office then the House would not function properly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton has, for months, been pursuing with diligence the case of his local police authority. We had reached a stage where, if I saw my hon. Friend before he saw me, then he did not see me. My hon. Friend has used every Parliamentary device open to him to advance the cause of his local police authority and I readily pay tribute to him.
  I say to the people of Luton that I certainly am not unaware of the strength of their argument. My hon. Friend has advanced it in the Home Office, when he led a deputation of distinguished citizens of Luton, in his conversations with my
  1242
  right hon. and learned Friend, the former Home Secretary, in conversations with the present Home Secretary and with myself. I only wish that such persistent campaigning for a cause could meet with success. I wish that I could say to my hon. Friend that not only has he fought a good fight, but he has won a great victory. But there are wider considerations, of which I am sure he is aware.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory) said that local authorities are concerned about this. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mr. McBride), whose Welsh lilt I like so much, also said that local authorities were disturbed. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have been receiving letters from town clerks of county boroughs, fearful that control over their police force might pass from the capable hands in which it at present rests. I received a long epistle from the learned town clerk of the capital city of Wales urging me to get up in the House and support my hon. Friend. I sent the town clerk an acknowledgment card, which I know he will appreciate.
  It is fortunate that this debate follows the debate on crime and the forthright statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples), who now sits alone on the Front Bench opposite. They made it clear that they believed that the challenge of crime today must be met by a modernised police force. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth declared in categorical terms that he is not opposed to mergers of smaller authorities with larger ones. I will seek to answer each of the serious arguments which have been advanced, but I can do it briefly.
  The hon. Member for Exeter who is faced with a similar problem in his area, expressed anxiety that police officers who joined the county borough force, and who then find their force merged with a larger force, might be shifted; their children are attending school, they have their friends in the locality and a great upheaval would follow. I am able to bring comfort to the hon. Member, because under the Police Regulations a member of a borough force which is merged into a combined force cannot be required to

  1243
  undertake duties which necessitate his moving his home outside the borough in which he joined the force. I am sure that that will be more likely to bring the hon. Gentleman's support to the case which I have to advance.
  We have heard a lot tonight about a shotgun marriage. Who am I to enforce a shotgun marriage? My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, with much more experience in these affairs than I have, has reminded me that it is remarkable how often a shotgun marriage is a success. When we look at the amalgamations where there have been protests loud and long, it is remarkable what a degree of good will is established in a short while and the efficiency of the force is so quickly revealed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North, asked me whether this was forming a pattern—
  Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not rush it too fast. This is a serious matter which is causing great concern among numbers of police forces. Before the Under-Secretary leaves the question of my speech, I wonder whether he would be kind enough to say why, when an inquiry is held which recommends that police forces should not be amalgamated, the Home Secretary has decided to go against the recommendation of his own inspector.
  Mr. Thomas: With pleasure. The hon. Member has been a Member of the House a long time, like myself, but not quite as long. He ought to know the number of times that, in the last Administration, quite rightly, Ministers, having received inspectors' reports, made up their own mind.
  We cannot give to an outside tribunal the authority of Parliament. The responsibility rests with the Minister at the end of the day. An inquiry brings forward all the arguments, and the Minister has the benefit of the advice of the inspector, but it is not advice if there is no choice for the Minister but to accept what he is given. In those circumstances it would be instructions, not advice. I am sure that that is an argument with which the House will have little patience.
  I have explained the general background to police amalgamation schemes,
  1244
  and I can tell the House that this is likely to be a pattern which will be followed. If my right hon. Friend is convinced, in any particular case, that the efficiency of the force will be improved and increased by amalgamation with a larger force, then he has an obligation—and the country will expect him to fulfil it—to proceed with the amalgamation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court outlined the case for Luton. He made it clear that when Luton formed its police force after getting county borough status it did it in the foreknowledge that the Home Secretary had warned that the question of amalgamation would be likely to come up if the Police Act went through, as it did, and the powers were given to the Home Secretary.
  It is no good hon. Members coming to this House and demanding that the Home Office shall give to the police modern means of fighting crime and then coming to oppose every step which is taken for the greater efficiency of our police force. I believe that the House will realise, without my going through all the facts I have with me here, that Luton Borough has an efficient police force. Nobody questions it. What we say is that there can be greater efficiency if it is merged with another force. It is an amalgamation in this case, and the Luton Borough authority will be well represented on the new police authority.
  My message to the people of Luton would be this. I hope and pray that when this amalgamation takes place, as I trust the House will give authority for tonight, there will be co-operation and good will between Luton and Bedfordshire, and that in the interests of the security of the people, and the efficiency of the force, this new amalgamation shall be given every chance to succeed.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will feel it possible to withdraw this Prayer, but if he does not do so, I hope the House will reject it.
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil): I did try to catch the eye of the Chair before my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) rose to his feet. Tonight, I am in complete agreement with the case which has been already made out in support of Luton in this matter. I happen to be the

  1245
  Member for a constituency which is a county borough, and I refuse to be pressed by my hon. Friend, however delighted his Welsh hwyl was tonight, that size in itself has merit and is in itself a power to deal with crime in this country.
  I am sorry to say this to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. He does not know the City of Cardiff, to which he refers so proudly, so well as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. My constituency has a population of about 60,000. For 40 years it supplied Cardiff City County Borough with its chief of its police force. For 40 years from Merthyr Tydvil they went, one after another. Not only that. The administrative county of Glamorgan—this is where the argument about size is made so idiotic—has a population of about 750,000. They had to come to Merthyr Tydvil to get their chief constable, a splendid man who was with us for 18 years. He was trained in my county borough. He became wise to most of the wiles of criminals, potential or otherwise, and Glamorgan was delighted to have him.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has not made out a case against Luton tonight. It is an illusion to think that the bigger the area, the greater the efficiency. Perhaps I might again refer to my constituency, where we supply the police force from our own community. They are the product of our own social and educational conditions. Everybody knows them. They enjoy the confidence of most of the people who live in my borough, and what greater help can the police receive than that they never have to shout more than once if they need help, and plenty of help arrives? In this well-knit county borough of only 60,000 people, a policeman's uniform is no barrier, social or otherwise, between him and the rest of the people.
  Despite all the slick and smart things which have been said about large police forces, I maintain that a small police force, which is the product of the area in which it operates, enjoys the confidence of the people there. Such a force is far more efficient in detecting crime, and, more important, in preventing it, than are the large impersonal forces in many parts of the country.
  Mr. George Thomas: My hon. Friend is also an old friend. He is putting forward a case on behalf of the County Borough
  1246
  of Merthyr Tydvil, for which I have a high regard. I am sure that, on reflection, he would not wish to talk about the police forces in the larger authorities as "slick", and another unpleasant term which I forget for the moment.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is entitled to put any construction he likes on what I am saying.
  I am speaking from personal experience of a large police force in the County of Glamorgan, and also of what I have described as the police force in a closely-knit community where everybody is known to everybody else, and I say that it is not possible to improve on the great help which is given to our police force by the slick suggestions which have been made today. If the Home Office were to decide that the County Boroughs of Merthyr Tydvil, Cardiff, and Swansea, were to be combined with the administrative County of Glamorgan, I know that my hon. Friend's Welsh hwyl would strike a totally different note, and I know what his attitude would be.
  Mr. Richard Mr. Richard rose—
  Dame Irene Ward Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth) rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Mr. Ivor Richard.
  Mr. Richard: Having heard the last two speeches, I beg to ask leave, with the permission of the House—
  Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, am I not entitled to be called?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is entitled to be called, but the only effect of her speaking now will be that it will be impossible for the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) to withdraw the Prayer.
  11.15 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman cannot withdraw the Prayer if he wants to. He has plenty of time before half-past eleven.
  I only want to put it on record that my County Borough of Tynemouth also wishes to be associated with the case which has been made against the amalgamation of the Luton Police Force with the Bedfordshire Police Force. In these

  1247
  days it is very important that the case for county boroughs should be stated, without exaggeration but with emphatic force.
  I shall not argue the general case of police forces, but we become tremendously alarmed when, because a Government decide in a certain way on one occasion, they seek to argue that that decision should apply throughout the country. The police force of the County Borough of Tynemouth is an exceedingly efficient one. I do not like these amalgamations. I hope that we shall not proceed with this one. The Government have decided that they will create one county borough for the whole of Tyneside. Heaven help us if they do.
  My county borough supports Luton's case. I do not understand why the Government want to override the argument of the Association of Municipal Corporations in this case. Apparently, if the Association speaks in favour of something advocated by the Government it is right, but if it speaks against it it is wrong. I want to put on record the fact that I oppose this amalgamation. I oppose the creation of enormous bodies of people, whether they be police forces or any other bodies in local government, covering whole areas and putting the counties into a situation in which they have no individuality or responsibility.
  Mr. Richard: I beg to ask leave to—
  Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: On a point of order. Are we not to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General in reply to the points raised so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Richard: I beg to ask leave—
  Mr. Richard Sharpies: On a point of order. I do not wish to prolong the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and if there were a vote I should vote against the Prayer—but I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) seek leave to withdraw the Motion. After that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) restarted the debate. Am I not right in thinking that once an hon. Member has sought to withdraw a
  1248
  Motion and the debate has been restarted it is not possible to withdraw it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It always raises a difficult point—but as the hon. Member did not actually finish asking leave to withdraw the Motion when the point of order was raised I think that I can allow him to ask leave to withdraw it now if he wishes.
  Mr. Richard: I beg to ask leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Question put and negatived.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
  Library Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) to have the assistance of the Librarian.—[Mr. Fitch..]

  CHATTEL MORTGAGES
  11.21 p.m.
  Dr. Reginald Bennett: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the granting of mortgages upon personal chattels; and for purposes connected therewith.
  I have enjoyed greatly the way in which the House seems to have struck hwyl tonight. A debate on Luton seems to have taken place almost entirely on Wales and almost entirely in Welsh. I have enjoyed the Joint Under-Secretary of State's virtuosity: this has been one of even his finest performances. It has given me great pleasure to see you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker in the Chair. Yon are a compatriot of his and thus your presence has been much in keeping with a debate on Welsh affairs. No doubt the Whips will say that there is no need for a Welsh debate this year, after this one.
  I wish to ask leave to bring in a Bill on quite a different subject, a Bill similar to one which I sought to introduce in the last Session. In doing so, I should like to declare an interest. I hope that this interest has given rise to an amount of study of the subject which has made me more or less competent to bring in the Bill. This is a subject of considerable complexity, and I would find it difficult indeed to discover how the Bill would affect my personal interests.

  1249
  I am very sorry for myself in one way: That I should be asking leave lo introduce the Bill, by long prearrangement, on a day when the Governor of the Bank of England has issued very stern words about credit: and my Bill would deal with credit. The last time I introduced a similar Bill was on 27th July in the last Session, and I followed immediately on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had been cutting to shreds what remaining credit was being advanced. So my attempts to improve the granting of credit seem fated to always to clash with the Government's reduction thereof.
  The Bill's intention is to introduce a new system for the obtaining of credit. We are all familiar with the system of mortgages, by which money can be advanced against the security of property—real property, that is, property which is immovable and which acts as security against the money advanced. In this country, movable property, or chattels, cannot be made a security against an advance of money, although in many other countries it can be so made.
  In this country, the advancing of credit for movable property is prevented by very old Acts of Parliament—the Bills of Sale Acts and the Moneylenders Acts, all dating from about 1878 to 1882, which were devised in the last century to protect the citizen against the need to have to sell his household goods in order to raise a loan. It was never contemplated in that legislation that solvent citizens in receipt of good incomes would need to raise credit for buying objects.
  Because of this, in 1937, the late Ellen Wilkinson, with great ingenuity, overcame this disability by bringing in the Hire Purchase Bill, which became the Hire Purchase Act, whereby she invented the convenient fiction by which hire purchase came into existence. Instead of helping the purchaser to buy the goods, the bank or finance house has to buy the goods itself and "hire" them out nominally to the person wishing to obtain them. The bank or finance house has to own the goods.
  It is a fiction—a complicated fiction, and more complicated than ever now that the latest Hire-Purchase Act has piled Pelion upon Ossa in the way of compli-
  1250
  cations and difficulties. Now banks advance on no security at all except the character of the person asking for the advance, rather than go through the great complications of advancing money for the purchase of goods through the hire-purchase system.
  I believe that the time has come for us to advance from the mid-Victorian era and to recognise that solvent, respectable people of good character and good circumstances may want to borrow money to buy goods. My Bill would seek to make that possible. The idea is new here, but it is very familiar elsewhere, notably in the United States.
  The Bill which I would like to commend to the House has this simple objective, even though the details have been surprisingly complex to draft. It would make credit simpler although no less carefully controlled than it is now. It would allow a person buying, say, a car to own it while it remains security for part of the purchase price. It would allow the principles of common law to operate and to supersede the artificialities of hire-purchase law. It would apply only to newly-purchased goods. By simple straight-forwardness of practice it would reduce costs to the customer who would be paying only for the interest—and this may be of interest in another sense in connection to his entitlement to relief of tax. The Bill would undoubtedly step up competition among banks and finance houses, and most people would consider that salutary.
  I hope that my Motion will meet with the approval of the House. I believe that the Government may be well disposed towards it. Indeed, members of the present Government were well disposed towards it in the last Parliament when our rôles were reversed. If the Government cannot support the Bill actively, I hope that they will consider it sympathetically. I therefore ask the House to give the Bill a fair wind with a good deal of weight behind it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Reginald Bennett, Sir Eric Errington, Mr. W. T. Williams, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Laurence Pavitt, Mr. Winterbottom, and Sir D. Glover.

  CHATTEL MORTGAGES
  Bill to make provision for the granting of mortgages upon personal chattels; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 25th February and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

  ROSYTH DOCKYARD (WORKMAN'S PASS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]
  11.28 p.m.
  Mr. Adam Hunter: I welcome this opportunity of raising a matter which is of great concern to one of my constituents, recognising that I should be failing in my duty were I not to submit to my hon. Friend the details of the case of Robert Bogle in the hope that there will be a complete vindication of Bogle from the implied imputations arising from the incident when his work-pass for entry into Her Majesty's Dockyard at Rosyth was withdrawn.
  I am acutely aware that a case of this kind can be extremely delicate and fraught with difficulties for it could involve such questions as the country's security, the integrity and good name of an individual and my own position regarding the correctness of raising my constituent's case on the Floor of the House of Commons.
  Robert Bogle, of 28 Melville Street, Lochgelly, was a coalminer until 27th April, 1965, when he was accepted as a building labourer with a building contractor, J. R. & A. Adams, of Lochgelly, a firm which had work going on inside Rosyth Dockyard under appointment of the Ministry of Public Building and Works. Bogle was permitted to work for this contractor until 24th August, 1965, in a section of the dockyard known as H.M.S. "Caledonia". For the whole of the four months he was in the dockyard, with the exception of two weeks, Bogle was in the H.M.S. "Caledonia" part of the dockyard.
  On 24th August he was simply told that he would no longer be granted a work-pass to enter the dockyard. His
  1252
  employer had no alternative, but to tell him that he must consider himself paid off. Bogle had no idea why this should have happened to him and he made every endeavour to find out why the work-pass had been withdrawn. His foreman could not give an explanation. Bogle went to responsible local officials of the Ministry of Public Building and Works. They had no knowledge of the withdrawal of the work-pass and referred him to the Admiralty police in the dockyard. They, too, according to Bogle, disclaimed any knowledge of the matter and suggested that he go back to the Ministry. Bogle claims that he tried for two days to find out the reason for the loss of his job.
  On 27th August he sought assistance from his Member of Parliament. I immediately telephoned the secretary to the Admiral Superintendent, who informed me that he was in no position to say why the work-pass had been stopped. I also wrote to the Admiral Superintendent that same afternoon asking for an explanation in view of Bogle's repeated assertion that he had no political affiliations, no criminal record, nor had he been a member of any peace movement.
  The following weekend I had a telephone call from the Admiral Superintendent's secretary saying that Bogle would be readmitted into the dockyard, but he still could not say why he had been refused entry in the first place. A few days later the official letter reached me stating that Bogle could restart work. The fact that Bogle was to be allowed back into the dockyard indicated that the question of security was not involved.
  My letter to the Admiral Superintendent was passed to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, who replied on 12th October. The central theme of that reply caused me considerable disquiet. My hon. Friend stated in that part of his reply to which I have referred:
  "It is part of the normal responsibility of the management of the Dockyard to determine, at their discretion, the suitability of individuals proposed for entry into the Yard, either as direct Navy Department employees or with contractors. In this matter the management must exercise their judgment and must be as free as any other employer to refuse any particular applicant. It is only to be expected that individuals admitted on a short-term basis may not be thought sufficiently good candidates for longer-term employment of a nature which would require the issue of a standing Dockyard Pass."

  1253
  I wrote again to my hon. Friend on 31st October asking for payment for loss of earnings for Bogle. The claim was rejected in a reply on 19th November, but my hon. Friend said, in the last paragraph:
  "We would be prepared to consider on its merits any further application by Mr. Bogle to enter a Navy Department establishment, having regard to the nature of the employment involved."
  Bogle did not take the opportunity of recommencing work early in September with the contractor in the dockyard but elected to go to a job in England. I feel that he was anxious to escape from his recent experience in the dockyard and found it easier to cast himself off from the dockyard environment and seek work elsewhere. He has now returned to Scotland and may apply for his former job.
  My chief concern is the position of other employees in the dockyard. I should like my hon. Friend to clarify the following points. Could the management refuse entry to any one of them without reasons being given? Was Bogle's case an isolated case? Had he not come to me and had I not intervened, what would have been his position? How many workers in the dockyard have had this treatment meted out to them and just accepted it without making any effort to gain redress?
  It would appear that a mistake was made somewhere along the line in some Department If so, why was this not admitted? Surely it would have been preferable to allowing the matter to assume the proportions of having to be ventilated in public. If, perchance, my constituent has not been scrupulously honest with me and had, indeed, some small blemish on his character which he did not think relevant to the acquiring and holding of a job in the dockyard, I submit to my hon. Friend that in view of his willingness to readmit Bogle, anything of a criminal nature could not be very serious.
  The dockyard management must feel now that he is acceptable. Why, therefore, not before? All that Bogle asks is that the doubt placed upon his character be dispelled. I concede the point that the fact that he has been offered re-employment with the contractor in the dockyard goes a long way to reassure him on that score, but all he
  1254
  wants to hear is that a mistake was made and that no stigma attached to him personally.
  This case is of particular interest to me, for in my short experience as a Member of Parliament two other cases of a similar character have been dealt with by me. Consequently, I am given to wondering how many others there are each year throughout the country. In a democracy such as ours, and with the thought that we consider ourselves part of the "free world", the rights of individuals must be upheld at all times. It is the elementary right of every person who is dismissed from his job that he ought to know why, no matter the circumstances. I await my hon. Friend's reply with interest.
  11.40 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) has raised, in the first instance, the individual case of one of his constituents, Mr. Bogle, but in the course of his speech he has somewhat widened the line of approach to this issue and thereby, I think, made it even more interesting and more important. I am grateful to him for so doing. I propose to deal with the individual case, but I shall traverse a little of the wider ground which my hon. Friend covered and, in my answer, intermingle both the individual case and the general principles involved.
  Anyone who, like my hon. Friend or myself, knows anything about naval establishments and especially about the Royal dockyards realises that, for a variety of reasons, there has to be some sort of control over the admission of people to work there. This control operates not only on the permanent staff of the establishments, but also on employees of outside contractors who from time to time may wish to enter establishments to do particular jobs. The control varies in strictness, depending on the nature of the establishment, the type of work on which a man is to be engaged, and, to some extent, on the length of time he can be expected to be working in the establishment. Normally, a contractor who is doing a job in a dockyard is asked to send in well beforehand

  1255
  a list of names of the employees he proposes to introduce into the dockyard for the particular work, The reason for this is that a check can be made on the names before they start work. So much for the general procedure.
  I turn now to the particular case of Mr. Bogle. Last year, he had been working on the swimming pool in the training establishment H.M.S. "Caledonia". My hon. Friend was wrong here. "Caledonia" is not part of the dockyard, but is a separate establishment, a training establishment, and work on the swimming pool there is not something which requires a high degree of checking. But after Mr. Bogle had been working there for some time, a matter of weeks, I think —he was off sick for a while—on 10th August last, without going through the usual procedure and without giving any warning at all, the contractor transferred Mr. Bogle and a group of others to cope with a job inside Rosyth Dockyard itself. So that work on this job should not be held up, this whole group of men were admitted on a group day-to-day pass until such time as a check could be completed.
  Subsequently, the contractor asked for permission for the whole group, including Mr. Bogle, to work in the dockyard on a long-term basis. On 24th August, when the checks had all been completed—they were quite routine checks—it was decided at departmental level that permission for Mr. Bogle to work in the dockyard should be withdrawn. Two days later, my hon. Friend, watching, as always, and rightly, the interests of his constituents, telephoned, and subsequently wrote, to the Admiral Superintendent asking for an explanation. Immediately on receipt of this call, the Admiral Superintendent sent for the necessary papers, and, having had a good look at the case, he decided that he would reverse the departmental decision. All this was done without any publicity at all, and there the matter might have rested so far as the interests of Mr. Bogle were concerned.
  Here I must say that the decision at departmental level had nothing to do with security. There has never been the slightest suggestion that there is any danger of disloyalty on Mr. Bogle's part, or of subversive activities. Nothing of
  1256
  the kind was involved. The fact is that there were events in Mr. Bogle's background which suggested that he might not be suitable for long-term work in the dockyard and it was on the basis of these events of past history that the departmental decision was taken. However, the Admiral Superintendent, reviewing the case, and while accepting that these events justified a degree of caution in the department about employing Mr. Bogle, considered that they were now sufficiently far back in his history to warrant the issue of a pass.
  I do not think that this was harsh treatment, or that Mr. Bogle has any claim for compensation. He was not employed by the dockyard, but by an outside contractor. The fact that the pass was withdrawn—as it turned out, temporarily—need not have prevented Mr. Bogle from doing other work for the contractor elsewhere. The moment the pass was restored the contractor offered Mr. Bogle his work back in the dockyard and Mr. Bogle, for reasons of his own, refused it. Even had the position been different, I would still have said that he would have no claim. His background did give rise to doubts about his suitability for dockyard employment. As soon as the decision at a lower level was queried, it was reversed on review.
  I have to say that no one has an absolute right to work in the Royal dockyards. It is essential that managements should have the right to exclude not only security risks, but people whose background suggests they may be unsuitable. Having said that, I must add that it is equally essential that managements should take the greatest care in exercising this right and that anyone who has been working in a Dockyard and is subsequently excluded should have the opportunity of referring his case to higher authority, either directly, or through his M.P., or through his trade union, and thus make certain that his case is fully reviewed. This happened in Mr. Bogle's case and I shall make it my business to see that it happens in any other cases.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve Minutes to Twelve o'clock.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Army Officers (Resignations)
  Army Officers (Resignations)
  Dockyard Workers (Pay)
  Dockyard Workers (Pay)
  Royal Navy (Briefing of Members)
  Royal Navy (Briefing of Members)
  Naval Operations (Air Support)
  Naval Operations (Air Support)
  Zambia (Oil Airlift)
  Zambia (Oil Airlift)
  Service Men (Separation Allowances)
  Service Men (Separation Allowances)
  Territorial Army Drill Halls
  Territorial Army Drill Halls
  Arms Expenditure
  Arms Expenditure
  Royal Navy (Service Widows' Pensions)
  Royal Navy (Service Widows' Pensions)
  Territorial Units (County of London)
  Territorial Units (County of London)
  Service Men (Death Overseas)
  Service Men (Death Overseas)
TRANSPORT
  Central London (Cars)
  Central London (Cars)
  Drink and Driving
  Drink and Driving
  Roundabouts ("Give Way" Experiment)
  Roundabouts ("Give Way" Experiment)
  Transport Policy
  Transport Policy
  Public Service Vehicles (Fuel Oil Tax)
  Public Service Vehicles (Fuel Oil Tax)
  Motor Insurance
  Motor Insurance
  Driving Test
  Driving Test
ROADS
  Road Junction, Collingham
  Road Junction, Collingham
  Public Expenditure (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Public Expenditure (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Road Improvement, Twickenham
  Road Improvement, Twickenham
  High Wycombe Bypass
  High Wycombe Bypass
  A.19 Road, County Durham
  A.19 Road, County Durham
  70 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  70 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  Disc Parking Schemes
  Disc Parking Schemes
  M.3 Motorway (London-Blackbushe Airport)
  M.3 Motorway (London-Blackbushe Airport)
  Oxford-Maidenhead Road (Pedestrian Crossing)
  Oxford-Maidenhead Road (Pedestrian Crossing)
  Medway (Second Bridge)
  Medway (Second Bridge)
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Pedestrian Crossings (Clacton-on-Sea)
  Pedestrian Crossings (Clacton-on-Sea)
  M.11 Road (Route)
  M.11 Road (Route)
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Esher (Bypass Road)
  Esher (Bypass Road)
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Selby Toll Bridge
  Selby Toll Bridge
  Harringay Experimental Pedestrian Scheme
  Harringay Experimental Pedestrian Scheme
RAILWAYS
  Railway Workshops
  Railway Workshops
  Passenger and Freight Services
  Passenger and Freight Services
  Railway Accidents (Western Region)
  Railway Accidents (Western Region)
  Lord Beeching
  Lord Beeching
  Oldham-Rochdale Passenger Service
  Oldham-Rochdale Passenger Service
  Glasgow-Barrhead-Kilmarnock Line
  Glasgow-Barrhead-Kilmarnock Line
  London Transport (Fares)
  London Transport (Fares)
  Docks (Availability of Goods Wagons)
  Docks (Availability of Goods Wagons)
  Railway Pensions (Supplementation)
  Railway Pensions (Supplementation)
  Hurst Green-Lewes Line
  Hurst Green-Lewes Line
  Executive Staff (Changes)
  Executive Staff (Changes)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Micro-transmitters
  Micro-transmitters
  Colour Television
  Colour Television
  I.T.A. (Audience Research)
  I.T.A. (Audience Research)
  I.T.A. (Contracts)
  I.T.A. (Contracts)
POST OFFICE
  Rhodesian Stamps
  Rhodesian Stamps
  Intercepted Letters
  Intercepted Letters
  Special Stamps
  Special Stamps
  Parcel Service
  Parcel Service
  Mail Deliveries (Scotland-Continent of Europe)
  Mail Deliveries (Scotland-Continent of Europe)
  Postal Service Improvements, Aberdeen
  Postal Service Improvements, Aberdeen
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Public Call Boxes (Stolen Equipment)
  Public Call Boxes (Stolen Equipment)
  Telephone Installations
  Telephone Installations
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Corned Beef
  Corned Beef
  Meat Research Levy
  Meat Research Levy
  Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement
  Pig Health Scheme
  Pig Health Scheme
  Bacon Pigs
  Bacon Pigs
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
SCOTLAND
  Forestry (Private Investment)
  Forestry (Private Investment)
  Housing
  Housing
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teacher Training (Mr. Michael McManus)
  Teacher Training (Mr. Michael McManus)
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Output (Growth)
  Output (Growth)
  Forestry (Research)
  Forestry (Research)
  Brambell Report
  Brambell Report
  Monkland Canal, Coatbridge
  Monkland Canal, Coatbridge
  Secondary Schools (Gaelic Courses)
  Secondary Schools (Gaelic Courses)
  Dental Decay (Zirconium)
  Dental Decay (Zirconium)
  Old People's Home, Airdrie
  Old People's Home, Airdrie
  School Leaving Age
  School Leaving Age
  Hunter Committee's Report (Representations)
  Hunter Committee's Report (Representations)
  Health Centres (North-East Scotland)
  Health Centres (North-East Scotland)
WALES
  Industrial Estates (Development)
  Industrial Estates (Development)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Investment Grants, Scotland
  Investment Grants, Scotland
  Imported Animal Furs
  Imported Animal Furs
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Aircraft (Engine Noise)
  Aircraft (Engine Noise)
  Aircraft Industry (Employment)
  Aircraft Industry (Employment)
  Aircraft Industry (Design and Research Personnel)
  Aircraft Industry (Design and Research Personnel)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  White Paper on the Arts (Implementation)
  White Paper on the Arts (Implementation)
BASUTOLAND
  Oxbow Scheme
  Oxbow Scheme
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Defence Expenditure
  Defence Expenditure
  Customs Officials, London Airport (Overtime Payments)
  Customs Officials, London Airport (Overtime Payments)
  Advertising (Government Departments)
  Advertising (Government Departments)
  Tax Allowances (Cost)
  Tax Allowances (Cost)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  N.E.D.C. (Official Secrets Act)
  N.E.D.C. (Official Secrets Act)
  Fertilisers (Price)
  Fertilisers (Price)
  EAST GERMANY (ARMAMENTS LIMITATION AND FRONTIER GUARANTEES)
  EAST GERMANY (ARMAMENTS LIMITATION AND FRONTIER GUARANTEES)
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  General Nursing Certificate Examination
  General Nursing Certificate Examination
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Home Defence
  Home Defence
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Rating System
  Rating System
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (ROYAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS)
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (ROYAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Children (Allowances)
  Children (Allowances)
TECHNOLOGY
  Fast Breeder Reactor Station (Site)
  Fast Breeder Reactor Station (Site)

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY
Geoffrey Francis, Lord Bishop of Derby—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD KING-HALL
Sir William Stephen Richard King-Hall, having been created Baron King-Hall, of Headley in the County of Southampton, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

CONTROL AND LICENSING OF DOGS
2.20 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: 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 any action has been taken in regard to certain proposals relating to the welfare, control and licensing of dogs—which formed the subject of a Motion in this House on November 25, 1959, which was accepted by Her Majesty's Government of that day; and in particular what action has been taken, or is contemplated, to deal with the very considerable incidence of evasion of tax and with the penalties accruing from such evasion.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 increased the protection given to dogs under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 by making it an offence to abandon an animal in circumstances likely to cause it unnecessary suffering. Section 37 of the Road Traffic Act 1962 made easier the procedure under which local authorities can designate roads on which dogs are not allowed, except on leads, by making
358
it unnecessary for orders to be confirmed by the Minister of Transport. To change the level of the licence fee, or the penalty for its evasion, requires legislation for which there has been no suitable opportunity; but the Government's current review of local authority finance includes examination of all licences and registrations for which local authorities are responsible and from which they retain the revenue, including the dog licence.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply and for his courtesy generally in this matter. I am bound to say that it does not seem to get us very much further. It is six years ago since a Question was asked in this House about the increase of penalties for evasion of the tax, and we were assured by the then Minister that this matter was being examined closely by the Criminal Department of the Home Office. Nothing appears to have been done in that period.
Is the noble Lord aware that it is estimated to-day that there are between 4 million and 5 million dogs in this country? I would stress the fact that this is only an estimate; it is almost impossible to get the exact number. On the other hand, the official figure according to the number of licences issued is only 2¾million. Is the noble Lord further aware of the mass of stray and unwanted dogs dealt with by the police, by the R.S.P.C.A. and by other bodies, the vast majority of which have to be destroyed, the slaughter reaching the appalling figure of over 200,000 dogs a year, or 4,000 dogs each week? Would the noble Lord not agree that, in order to discourage the thoughtless and irresponsible buying of dogs and puppies, legislation is urgently required, making it an offence for a dog to be sold unless a licence is produced at the time by the prospective buyer; and, further, that the cost of the licence, which has remained at 7s. 6d. ever since the year 1878, should be increased to at least £1, preferably £2, or even £3?
Finally, is the noble Lord aware of what I said in the beginning, that in 1959 an assurance was given (it appears in column 968 of Vol. 219 of the OFFICIAL REPORT) that the need for an increase in the penalty for keeping a dog without a licence was being reviewed by the

359
Criminal Department of the Home Office? Can he say whether any action has resulted?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I will do my best. The debate to which the noble Lord was referring took place in November or December, 1959. Since then there have been five years of Conservative Government, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was for part of that time in the Government, and he was the noble Earl who gave that promise to his noble friend. There are a great many stray dogs, and, although the figures are only approximate, the R.S.P.C.A. say that they handle approximately 75,000 stray dogs which have been reported by the police, and another 100,000 unwanted dogs. That makes a total of 175,000. In addition there are 25,000 other stray dogs dealt with by the police, and 50,000 other unwanted dogs. These figures together give a total of a quarter of a million dogs.
The noble Lord is perfectly right; such dogs are destroyed at the rate of 200,000 a year, or 4,000 dogs each week; and it is a serious matter. In the debate which he initiated in 1959, the noble Lord gave figures which were very much lower than those, so it shows that he is on to something which is serious and of which Parliament should take notice.
With regard to the noble Lord's question about making it obligatory for a person buying a dog to have a licence, of course when it is over the age of six months a licence is required for it. If the noble Lord comes to me and I sell him a dog, if he has not a licence for it when I hand the dog over to him, he is committing an offence. So the law is quite watertight in that respect at the present time. When the licence fee was fixed it was done purely as a means of getting taxation: there was no idea of making people look after their dogs better. The matter is under consideration by this Government review of local government finance and other matters. I think that is about enough.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government have made any progress since last December in regard to granting a period of grace for the renewal of dog licences? Every dog licence expires at midnight on the last day of the month. One cannot renew
360
it in advance, and if one cannot find a post office which is open at midnight one is breaking the law.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I was here when this matter was raised before Christmas, and I was not quite certain whether the Home Office was right. But I can advise the noble Lord now that if he cares to go to the post office a month before his licence expires he will be able to obtain a licence and will save 7½d.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that in that way one loses a month every year, and that in twelve years one would have to take out thirteen licences?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I realise that, but it would save the noble Lord from being a criminal.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask a question arising out of this discussion? We have been fortunate in our country in keeping rabies at a distance, and it occurs to me that, while there may be no immediate danger, with all these masterless dogs it could present a potential danger. Are Her Majesty's Government keeping an eye on the matter from that angle?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the Government enforce as strictly as ever the question of the quarantine period before a dog is allowed to run free when coming to this country from abroad.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government have given any consideration to the introduction into this country of the form of dog licensing in use in Canada? In that country the dog licence consists of a metal tae to be worn attached to the dog's collar, and differing in shape every year. Would not the introduction of that system enable a policeman to see at a glance whether or not a dog is licensed, and would this not be an improvement on our present system?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl has overlooked the fact that dog licences may be taken out in any month of the year. Therefore, the dog would be wearing the same tag, and it would be impossible for a policeman in January, 1966, to see whether or not

361
that dog was wearing a current licence. I think the noble Earl would agree that it might be rather dangerous for the policeman, or the warden, examining the dog to see whether or not the tag was up to date.
The system would also entail, as the noble Earl no doubt realises, a good deal more administrative cost. It would probably be necessary to have the name and address of the owner on the tag. Of course, if it was a dog that was straying, and there was no tag, the owner could not be traced in any case. In addition, the shape or colour of the tag would have to be changed every year so that it could not be easily copied or forged. In these circumstances, I think that the noble Earl, on giving the matter further consideration, will bear in mind the principal difficulty, that in this country dog licences are renewable in any month of the year.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord to say to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that if he chose to buy a dog licence the month before he was required to do so he would be saved 7½d., but, more importantly, he would save himself from becoming a criminal. Can the noble Lord tell us why it is necessary for Lord Airedale and other members of the public to be put to such inconvenience to prevent themselves becoming criminals?
LORD BOWLES: I do not think spending 7½d. in the month before the renewal of the licence is putting him to any considerable inconvenience.
LORD NEWTON: The noble Lord does not follow the point. The inconvenience arises in having to think, a month before the licence expires, that unless you do buy the new one a month before, you may be committing a criminal offence.
LORD BOWLES: I do not think it is very difficult to think about it a month before.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, I think dogs have had a good innings and we might move on to another lamp-post, or something like that.

SPANIARD'S INN TOLL GATE
2.30 p.m.
LORD COLWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will arrange for the removal of the obstruction at the Spaniard's Inn, Hampstead Lane.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, I presume that the noble Lord is referring to the old toll gate opposite the Spaniard's Inn. Her Majesty's Government have no powers to arrange for its removal. This is a problem essentially for the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs of Barnet and Camden, as the local authorities concerned, and I understand that they will be discussing it soon.
LORD COLWYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his Answer. May I ask whether he would get in touch with the Camden Council and the Barnet Council with a view to moving this obstruction backwards, putting it on Hampstead Heath, or putting up traffic lights? At the moment it causes a terrific traffic block.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, this is a local government matter, and Ministers have to be very careful about the susceptibilities of local authorities in regard to their own functions. But I will most certainly bring this matter to the attention of the two boroughs concerned, and of the Greater London Council, and I am certain that they will take notice. As the noble Lord probably knows, one of the problems is that this is right on the boundary of the two boroughs of Camden and Barnet, and it was on the boundary of the old boroughs of Hampstead and Finchley. But, as I have said, I will certainly call the attention of all the authorities concerned to the noble Lord's Question and to his presentation.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is not, in fact, a toll gate, but an old toll house which, while not by itself of any architectural distinction, forms an intrinsic part of a group of buildings that includes the

363
Spaniard's Inn and the historic 18th century weatherboard house adjacent to it; and that the group as a whole is of great interest and charm, and very much valued by people who live in the area and by many who live elsewhere? Is the noble Lord further aware that the Spaniards Road runs for half a mile along the ridge on Hampstead Heath in a unique rural setting, with unrivalled views over London, and that a widening of the road at that point, where it is already wide enough for two cars to pass, would destroy its character and change it into something of a racetrack? Finally, can he assure the House that when he is drawing the attention of the local authorities concerned to the Question asked by the noble Lord opposite, he will also draw the attention of the local authorities concerned to these particular aspects of it?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the greatest amenity value of this building is to the dogs which we were discussing in the previous Question. This building belongs to the brewers. The last time I passed it the roof had collapsed; and although the local lads and lasses say that Dick Turpin put Black Bess in there, to me its artistic value is nil.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, having lived in the vicinity for many years, may I suggest a practical compromise to the Minister? I can agree with the noble Lord opposite, but at the same time have sympathy for the motorist behind me. There is plenty of room to move this building back two yards. I agree that it would necessitate a little bit of work and building. Having looked at it, and examined it carefully, I think that if it were moved just two yards everyone would be happy.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, to move this building two yards would, I think, be a tremendous waste of time, effort and labour. In actual fact, the lorries going by day by day remove the brick, and if we leave it long enough it will not be there.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord forms a final conclusion, will he undertake to see the toll-bar house and refrain from taking any action suggested to him by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn? If he did take that action it would be greeted with dismay amongst the Hampstead people, and there would be a considerable sense of resentment.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, with great respect, I think we are passing away from the Question. I should not like to criticise one noble Lord on one side or another, but it seems to me that we have long since lost contact with any form of interrogation.

WASHING FACILITIES IN PUBLIC HOUSES
2.37 p.m.
LORD COLWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will enact legislation requiring the provision of lavatory basins in all public-house toilets.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, public-houses are among the kinds of premises at which local authorities can, under Section 89 of the Public Health Act 1936, require the provision of sanitary conveniences. My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is sympathetic towards the suggestion that this section should be amended to enable local authorities to require washing facilities also, and he will consider the matter further as soon as there is an opportunity for legislation.
LORD COLWYN: I thank the noble Lord very much for his Answer.

GAS SUPPLIES AND THE NATIONAL PLAN
2.38 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what information, if any, they had received from the Gas Council and the Area Gas Boards that justified (in the case of gas) the following statement on page 119 of the National Plan (Cmnd. 2764):—
"There are now adequate supplies of all fuels except for limited shortages of electrical capacity to meet peak demands in unusually cold spells, and for shortages of some types of solid smokeless fuels in certain regions."]
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, my right honourable friend was informed during 1965, in the course of his regular annual review of the gas industry's development programme, of the estimated peak demands for gas in cold weather, and of the industry's planned investment, which appeared adequate to meet those demands.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for his Answer and ask him these two questions? Is he satisfied that the evidence given to his right honourable friend by the industry justified this very optimistic statement in the National Plan; and, if so, does he still believe that these words are true?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the answer is, Yes, to both questions.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, if the Minister was satisfied that the planned investment was adequate to meet the case, what was the justification for the Prime Minister's suggestion that the failure of the gas supplies was due to faulty planning on the part of the late Conservative Government?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, all my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said was that, if there was not sufficient investment in the gas industry, and if it took five years to build a power station, and from two to two and a half years to build a gas station, that was outside the period of this Government's
366
responsibility of fifteen months. May I make this statement equally? In so far as the programme was concerned, as approved and put in hand by the previous Government, the contractors providing the plant in that programme were behind hand in the dates of handing over producing plant to the Gas Board.
LORD MOLSON: Let me be quite clear. Are we now hearing that the programme was entirely adequate and that the planning was entirely adequate, but that it was the failure on the part of the contractors to deliver the equipment on time which was responsible for the breakdown?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, there is no simple answer, Yes or No, to these problems. If in fact the weather we have had during the last ten days had been operating when this plant broke down, there would have been, perhaps, a little shedding, but no failure or withdrawal of gas. It was in fact the coincidence of the extreme cold weather, plus the failure of the plant, which brought this about.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries stated in their Report, that, with an expenditure of £31¼million, a gas grid could have been put into operation which would have linked all the Area Boards; and if that had been done the breakdown would never have happened because surplus gas would have been transported from other regions to where plants were out of order?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, to an extent my noble friend's statement is absolutely correct. But, in fairness, I would say this: there had been established a methane grid, and to their credit every other Gas Board (let us remember that there are twelve in number, and in this period of time it was only in the case of one that we had a problem) which was connected to the methane grid—eight in number—voluntarily gave up its share of the methane supply in this most difficult period of production to enable the West Midlands Gas Board to carry on a service greater than otherwise they would have been able to do.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, in view of the fact that the last few weeks have shown that the information given in the National Plan, as stated in my noble

367
friend's Question, was completely incorrect, can the noble Lord say what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to see that these failures do not occur again?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I do not know whether the word "protest" is the correct word to use, but I would say that it was not incorrect. If the noble Earl can show me where the information is incorrect, I will try to deal with it. The problem was that the capacity, in the load to be taken, was there. It was unfortunate that, coinciding with the extreme cold weather, there was a plant failure. A plant failure is not the fault of the Gas Board. I am not going to apportion blame. Equally, one may say, as I have said in reply to the previous noble Lord, that in fact if this milder weather had been operative at the time of the breakdown, they would still have got through.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord did ask me to point out where the fault was. If he would look at the Question, the quotation from the National Plan says:
"There are now adequate supplies of all fuels …"
Would he not agree that there was not an adequate supply?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, there were adequate supplies; but, unfortunately, the plant broke down and did not produce them.

HOME DEFENCE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. there will be two Statements, the first to be made by my noble friend Lord Stonham on Home Defence, and the second to be made by my noble friend Lord Shackleton, on Home Defence Forces.

THE FILM INDUSTRY
3.43 p.m.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS rose to call attention to the problems of the British film industry; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. In doing so, according to our usual custom, I should like to declare my interest. I am President of the Writers' Guild of Great Britain, which organises most of the screen-writers of this country in a professional association. I am also a director of two small independent film-producing companies which, if they are not exactly dead, are rapidly dying from malnutrition. We have progressed to this debate through dogs, lavatory basins, and gas. I do not know whether your Lordships would consider this to be a retrogression or progress. However, I think that before I go on to make what may be some critical remarks about the position in the film industry, I should like to pay tribute, from a long experience as a filmgoer, to the great entertainment that has been provided by films over the years. There can be few people in this House or outside who have not found some relaxation, stimulation and benefit from film-going and from the showing of films. I think this was brought home to me rather specially last night when I read of the death of Buster Keaton, that fabulous comedian who entertained so many of us and our fathers in the past. I remember seeing recently his marvellous film, The General, at the National Film Theatre, a film which I still regard as a classic among screen farces. On a happier note, I think perhaps one might also point to the fact that Charlie Chaplin, a man who probably has gained more honour as a British film maker and film star, is to start a film in this country. I think I can say that we have all derived tremendous relaxation and stimulation from film makers such as these.
I must say that my own particular favourites have always been Western films, and I am rather glad to see that the Western has turned up in what I think may be called the Eastern. Instead of the lone cowboy, you have the lone secret agent. Instead of a rapid gun at his hip he has a cigarette lighter that carries a flame thrower. But all

369
the ingredients are exactly the same—the goodies versus the baddies. Long may they flourish and reign!
Any discussion of the film industry immediately draws one into a great deal of complication and into complex situations. It is in fact an enormously complicated industry, largely due to the high costs involved in film production and various other factors. I have seen tough business tycoons turn milk-white with fear when discussing the economics of the film industry; it does not seem to follow any of the usual rules of business. And your Lordships, I think, will be better able to judge the serious complications involved when I tell you, quite seriously, that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who is widely respected among us all for his clarity of thought, once confessed to me that he was baffled by the film industry. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a measure of the difficulties involved.
The difficulty for the outsider arises partly from the image which the film industry has created for itself in the past. It does not recognise the existence of clear, simple and direct adjectives. Everything it says and does is accompanied by a drum-roll of superlatives. You cannot have a good film; It has to be magnificent, or colossal, or even super-colossal. Generally you cannot have a simple story you can only have an epic of world-shaking proportions. You cannot simply have a film star who happens to be a good actress; she has to be mean, moody and magnificent, the most beautiful, or the most desirable, woman in the world. It is no wonder that the film industry, having run out of adjectives, has had to create a whole new vocabulary of its own. I remember a classic in Variety, that Bible of American show business, some years ago, which ran in this way:
"Stix nix hix pix"
which, translated, meant that the provinces say "No" to films that have been made specially for their benefit.
Hollywood, which, after all, is really no more than a rather dull suburb of the sprawling industrial city of Los Angeles, is presented to us as a fairyland city, the glamour capital of the world. We read of millions of dollars being spent on a single film, of stars who collect a million dollars and more for a single role. All
370
this apparent extravagance, in my view, is relatively harmless and adds a great deal to the gaiety of nations. It is a form of showmanship which is perhaps necessary, and the public always appreciate a good circus. But, in fact, to some extent the film industry is hoist with its own petard. Having established an image of wealth and glamour, it is hard to make the man in the street believe that film producers can ever be poor, that a film can fail to make money, or that the film industry may have any problems.
There is another built-in difficulty which I think is even more important. I have referred in this Motion to the problems of the film industry. This is really an inadequate description, because film making is an art as well. In the film industry you have a unique combination of commerce and creative talent. In the present circumstances, one just cannot do without the other. Film making is such an expensive operation that the artist, the writer and the director need the resources of big business; and business in its turn cannot fill its studios or its cinemas without the work of the creative artist. This marriage is often an uneasy one, and I am quite sure that both parties would sometimes prefer to arrange a dissolution or a divorce.
In some respects the film business is rather like that prehistoric animal the dinosaur, which apparently had two brains, one in its head and one in its rear. I will not endeavour to say which is which in the arrangement in the film industry. I understand that in regard to the dinosaur Nature made this ingenious arrangement because the beast was so enormous. It would have taken too long for one brain to send a message through the nervous system. I have often wondered what happened if the two brains failed to agree and started pulling the animal in different directions. This situation is not unknown in the film industry. What is relevant to the discussion is that the dinosaur, after occupying a dominating position on earth for a long period, failed—in spite of its two brains—to adapt itself to changing conditions, and became extinct. The film industry occupied a dominating position in entertainment until as recently as fifteen or sixteen years ago, but in those sixteen years conditions have changed so rapidly that British film production, at

371
least, has often been in danger of extinction.
A few figures will indicate to your Lordships the change which has occurred in the last sixteen years. In 1950 there were 4,600 cinemas operating in this country. In that same year, something like 1,400 million tickets were sold at the box office. In the last fifteen years over 2,500 cinemas—more than half—have been closed. And the number of admissions to the cinema fell by almost three-quarters from 1,400 million to 370 million. The number of British-financed films produced in our studios has fallen from around 70, 80, or even more per year, to about a dozen. Indeed, we shall be lucky if in 1966 a dozen British first-feature films—and I mean wholly British—are produced. This is a staggering retreat. A great deal of credit must go to many people in the industry for the way in which they have faced up to a situation which in other industries would have meant absolute disaster. Though there are signs that the decline has been halted, or at least checked, it has left a legacy of problems which must be faced, and faced with urgency, if the British film, the indigenous product which has brought so much honour to this country in the past, is to survive.
Some of these problems are not new in essence, only in extent. The British film industry has always been in danger from the sheer weight and power of American competition in films, largely due to the historical accident that both peoples speak approximately the same language, and due to certain economic factors, which I will not go into at length. In the end this has resulted in the Americans having a wide open market here for British films, and we have found it increasingly difficult over the years to get our films into the American cinemas, although this position has changed to some extent in the last year or so.
Successive British Governments have enacted legislation to give British film producers some degree of protection in this situation. The annual quota Act, which insists that a percentage of all films shown in British cinemas must be of British origin, is one of them. The present Prime Minister, when he was President of the Board of Trade, was largely
372
responsible for the creation of the National Film Finance Corporation, which in its first fifteen years of existence helped to finance over half of all British quota films. Without that help from the N.F.F.C., British production would have been hard put to it to survive. And in 1957 the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who was then, Sir David Eccles, President of the Board of Trade, introduced the Cinematograph Films Act. This was based on a scheme drawn up originally by Sir Wilfrid Eady, which provides that a levy is paid on most tickets sold at cinemas. This levy is collected by Customs and Excise and paid into the British Film Fund Agency, a Government appointed body. It is still fondly known in the business as"Eady money". This money, less administrative costs and a special subsidy to the Children's Film Foundation, is divided up among eligible films in proportion to their success at the box office. There are certain exceptions, but this is the general rule.
These three measures, the quota, the setting up of the N.F.F.C., and the creation of the film levy, were all intended to help British film production, and were mainly directed to the task of preventing our own native film industry from being swallowed up and dominated by the immensely powerful American industry. Life has a habit of laughing at the efforts of legislators, and in this case it must be roaring its head off. For, by a strange paradox, most of our film legislation has had an effect which is the precise opposite of its intentions. Far from giving British film producers greater independence and finance, it has weakened them. And far from preventing American domination of the British film industry, American domination was never so complete and overwhelming as it is to-day. Variety, to which I have already referred, had this to say a week ago:
"To-day, the truly British feature film, by which is meant one wholly financed through British sources and distributed through British outlets, is something of a rarity … the American industry is moving into the British studio scene to the extent where to-day this influence dominates every aspect of British film production."
I could imagine the outcry if this were to happen in any other major British industry. I am not—and I underline this—taking an anti-American stand in

373
this matter. I would say the same if the domination came from France or Germany or anywhere else. I welcome the Americans here; I welcome the work which they have brought to our studios, and the opportunities which they have given to our technicians. But I do not welcome them if it means the complete death of the indigenous British film industry. I should like to see international co-operation of this sort extended—and the recent Anglo-French production agreement is a welcome beginning in this direction. I believe that the cinema has to think in international terms to-day. This massive American participation has enabled many of our studios to stay in operation, and has given our directors and technicians the chance to make many big and exciting films which have helped to bring audiences back to the cinema.
But let us be under no illusions about this. The Americans are hard-headed businessmen and they do not invest millions of dollars here because they feel sorry for us, or for the sake of brotherly love. They make films here because it pays them to do so. They make films here because such films qualify as British quota, and this means that the producers can qualify for a fat slice of the British Film Production Fund. Variety referred to this fund in last week's issue. It estimated that something like 80 per cent. of the fund collected in 1966 would go to major Hollywood companies. This could amount to a total of around £4 million. There is absolutely no obligation to put this money back into production here; it is a bonus without strings. I submit that it is an extraordinary situation when four-fifths of a fund created to help British producers finds its way across the Atlantic.
It may be thought that this is unimportant, since these films enjoy a great success in the world market and therefore help to swell our exports. Alas!, this is rarely the case. Where a British company invests alongside the American, some earnings come back to Britain, but in the main the money and the profits remain in America and they earn very little in exports for us. It might be considered that these films help our image abroad. I am afraid that even this is not as much as we would hope. These films fly the Union Jack for quota purposes over here, but the moment they
374
leave our territorial waters the British flag is hauled down and the Stars and Stripes is run up in its place. Perhaps the strangest example of this occurred with Lawrence of Arabia. One could not have a more British film than that. It had a British subject, a British script, a British star, a British director, and British technicians, but it was mainly financed by the Americans. But this film was entered some time ago for a film festival in South America, and was classified as the official American entry.
A side effect of the domination by Hollywood of our industry has been the fantastic increase in the costs of filmmaking. One producer told me that costs had risen by about 40 per cent. in the past five years, and a film which cost £150,000 to make in 1961 would now cost £250,000—in other words, an increase of £100,000. I myself had an example not so long ago of a star whom I approached to make a film, and who I knew had received about £15,000 for his appearance in a film a year earlier (which, to me, is not an unreasonable fee for something like two or three months work). His agent told me that his fee for my film would be £75,000. When I protested I was told that he had received this sum from an American company.
I have no complaint against the Americans for making their films here—I think that they are taking advantage of the loopholes we have created. Nor have I any complaint against the man who tries to do the best possible for himself in the way of fees for his services, but I think that the sums paid to some stars in the film industry to-day have reached the point of sheer insanity. No-one needs that amount of money. It has the effect of swelling the risks and the costs of a film to astronomical proportions, and puts the small producer in an impossible position. If the British film industry is to get back on its feet, then everyone, from stars to technicians, will have to co-operate in keeping costs within some frontiers of reality. If it can be done in France and Sweden, I am sure that it can be done here.
The point I want to make to the Government is this—and this is where I see the danger. At the moment the Americans are here, occupying our studios and bringing work to our technicians and to

375
our other film-makers; but there is no guarantee whatsoever that they will stay. If, for economic or political reasons, they were to pull out of production here, the British film industry could collapse in a month. There are certain pressures. President Johnson is having discussions about the setting up of a fund, rather like the Eady Fund here—a levy which would have the effect of making it just as attractive for Americans to produce films in their own country as here. Also, certain trade unions in America are protesting at the fact that films are not being made in Hollywood. I believe that there is a very real danger in this respect, and it is no good waiting until the crisis is here. We ought to look at the situation now and see what can be done. Quite apart from this, it is clearly bad that our own native, indigenous film industry should be squeezed out of existence.
I believe that the Government could do a lot worse than take a look at the situation in Sweden. Three years ago the Swedish Government instituted a series of reforms designed to help the Swedish cinema, which was then in the doldrums. Their concern was to ensure a continuing production of films of a high standard which would contribute to Swedish culture and prestige. Therefore, they set up a Swedish Film Institute, financed by a levy on cinema takings, rather as ours is, but distributed in a different way. These funds are used to give general support to feature films, to award prizes for outstanding merit, to help worthwhile films which may lose money, to promote Swedish films abroad and to set up a film school.
The results were remarkably quick in coming. Within eighteen months production doubled. Established directors were able to return to production, and some young ones were given a chance. Several Swedish films have been successful at international festivals and have done well in export terms. If this can be done in a country with under 8 million inhabitants, it can clearly be done here, but it would mean the reorganisation of the British Film Production Fund along similar lines to the Swedish Fund. First, I think that a ceiling should be put on the amount of money which any one film can take out of the fund. Secondly, part of the
376
fund ought to be placed in an annual account to provide pre-production loans or assistance to bona fide British producers, to enable them to purchase stories and develop scripts. And part of the money might be used, as in Sweden, to finance the new Film School, if the special committee which is now discussing this matter decides that one is necessary.
Alongside of all this, it is time that the Government considered the future of the National Film Finance Corporation. Legislation about this is due, I believe, in March of next year. The Corporation has done excellent service to British films, and I hope that the Government will decide to extend its life on a permanent basis and provide it with some of the capital it needs so badly. At present, its resources are reduced to under £1 million, and this could be swallowed up in helping two or three films. But in my view there needs to be some hard thinking about the function of the N.F.F.C. My own view is that the Corporation and the Film Production Fund might be amalgamated into one body, as we have too many bodies in the film industry. This new body might be given increased status and some experienced film-makers might be added to it. This new body could be given the funds and charged directly with the task of encouraging new, truly British production along the lines I have indicated, and its function would be comparable to that of the Academy in Sweden.
I have deliberately not touched on the question of the two major circuits, Rank and Associated-British, because, as your Lordships know, their position is currently being discussed by the Monopolies Commission. I do not want to anticipate their Report or the debate that we shall be having on this subject. But the issue is relevant to the debate that we are having to-day in one important sense. I think there is a great deal in the argument that the Rank and the Associated-British groups have provided some degree of stabilisation over the years. On the other hand, one cannot ignore the strong feeling among some independent producers, like British Lion, that their films are not getting the benefit of free competition in the industry. In fact, we seem to have here a situation which is something like the opposite of retail price maintenance, for in films it is the retailer who determines the price

377
and not the wholesaler. There is no doubt whatever that the facts of the situation are that this has created a crisis of confidence, and producers like British Lion, who are jealous of their independence, have cut back their programme of local production very seriously. I hope that the Report of the Monopolies Commission will be here soon, so that we can thresh out these matters.
Linked with this is the whole question of whether it is possible to create a new third circuit. Personally, I do not see the advantage in taking the existing two circuits and dividing them into three, because it seems to me that this would only be spreading an audience for two circuits over three circuits. But I believe that there is scope for the new type of circuit which has been proposed by the British Film Institute—the creation of a chain of merit or art cinemas. There is no doubt of the growing interest among young people in the art of the cinema. This is shown by the existence of thousands of film societies, and by the tremendous interest shown in all kinds of Continental films. It is here that I think we could make most progress. It is mainly a job for the local authorities, plus private enterprise, on the lines of the circuit that was announced some weeks ago to be promoted by the Grade-Rive organisation who are setting up a circuit of small cinemas.
One of the first essentials, if such a scheme is to get off the ground, is that the closing of cinemas must, in the main, stop. It can be argued that there is a case for closing cinemas, but I think that we have probably taken the process about as far as we can. I think that the local authorities, encouraged by the Government, should now see the local cinema as an amenity which must be protected and fostered, in the same way as the local library or the local repertory theatre. Where a site containing an old cinema is being developed, in the main the local authority ought to insist, that the new development should contain a small modern cinema. I hope that the Government will carefully consider this, and give what encouragement and aid they can to the creation of this new circuit. The Grade-Rive organisation aim at 50 art cinemas in three years. If the Film Institute and the local authorities could
378
develop a further 50, then independent producers in this country would have a positive third outlet of immense value.
I must hurry on, my Lords. I want to say only one word about the market for television films. In many respects, the production situation here is healthier than in any other field. Two companies—A.T.V. and, to a much lesser extent, A.B.C.—have broken through into the American and overseas markets in a really spectacular way, which gives hope, I think, for British film makers. A.T.V., for example, have three British-made series now running on the American networks—and I mean British-made in the sense that they are financed in the main by British money, and in fact by the company itself. Since the majority of the investment comes from the company itself, this means that this is a true export and is earning valuable dollars for Britain.
However, a television series is expensive to make, and the total cost of making a series can run in the direction of £1 million or £1¼ million. This is the amount invested when making a television film series. A.T.V., for example, I am told, have an investment of something like £5 million in four film series. But in 1965 they brought back something like 10½ million dollars or £3½ million as exports, as a result of their sales abroad, and I think that this points to a possible future market for British film making. There will, I am sure, be an increasing market for feature films, both for showing in cinemas here and perhaps for sale to television in America. I believe that the Government, if they are interested in exports, should encourage the fullest investigation of this market, and at the same time should discourage any sign of monopoly among the big television companies, so that the independent film producers can get a fair price for their products.
My final point to the Government is this. There are a number of measures dealing with the film industry which will come before Parliament in the next few months. Would it not be possible to incorporate all these measures into one imaginative and comprehensive Films Act, which would virtually give a new deal to the beleaguered film industry? I believe that if we could do this, if the Government brought in one comprehensive Bill of this kind incorporating all

379
the various parts of the legislation, it would give a tremendous fillip to the British film industry.
Film makers over here only ask the opportunity to go on making films and entertaining the public—and I use the word "entertaining" in its widest sense. At the moment, they are in grave danger that these opportunities may be denied them, and we are in grave danger that British films—wholly British films—may, in fact, be a dying thing. I hope that the Government will stop this from happening, and I look forward to their statement on this subject. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.11 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the House is indebted, as it always is, to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, speaking as he does with very great knowledge of this subject, for giving us such a clear and interesting survey of the film industry. He has stressed the background to this debate—the fact that the statutory powers of the National Film Finance Corporation will expire in March, 1967, unless renewed in some form by legislation. Secondly, there is the fact that the Monopolies Commission were invited in July, 1964, to report on the supply of films, with particular reference to the dominance of the two existing circuits—Rank and A.B.C.
It is not easy to discuss these two matters apart, and, personally, I should have preferred to study the Report of the Monopolies Commission before debating the whole of the film industry. But the noble Lord, I think, has made it clear in his remarks that what he was mainly concerned with (at least, I took it that he was mainly concerned with that) was the American dominance of the film-producing market in this country. That is a matter with which I hope the noble Lord who is going to reply will deal fully. I did not myself intend to deal with it. I recognise the difficulties inherent in this. After all, the Americans come into this country, give a great deal of employment and add to the economic welfare of this country to a considerable extent. And it has always been taken that, in so far as they do so, they are entitled to equal treatment with British industry in the various advantages that are offered, in the form of encouragement,
380
finance and the like. I hope that the noble Lord will have something to say about this.
I realise that it is a very difficult position; all the more so, because of course film production does not really establish a stake in the country, as a firm coming in to manufacture does. As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, it is very much more mobile. It can go away almost at the twinkling of an eye. Therefore, it presents a different and a very difficult problem, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us the Government's point of view in this connection.
So far as the Monopolies Commission and the N.F.F.C. are concerned, there is a time factor here. It now seems unlikely that the Commission will report in time to allow adequate consideration of the future of the N.F.F.C. before legislation is introduced, and that in consequence the Corporation's powers will have to be extended for a further limited period. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us if this is so. But if this debate does nothing else, it will at least give the Government an opportunity of indicating their intentions, and of giving us some idea of when they estimate the Monopolies Commission will be able to report. They may even be able to raise the curtain a little on their thinking about the future of the industry.
I think it is worth while recalling that the present Prime Minister, when President of the Board of Trade, introduced in another place, on December 2, 1948, the measure which set up the National Film Finance Corporation. In doing so he said this:
"I am sure that we are all agreed in this House…that we all consider it highly desirable to have a healthy and active domestic film industry in this country, able as quickly as possible to stand on its own feet financially. It is desirable for many reasons—first, perhaps, because the film industry can do much to portray the British way of life and to show our national culture and way of life to ordinary people in other countries in all parts of the world. But it is important also, of course, because of its contribution to the solution of our balance-of-payments problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 458, col. 2183.]
I do not intend to examine the first of these reasons. The fact is that the British film industry has been producing entertainment, which people abroad have been willing to pay for, to show and to see. In

381
consequence, it has been making a worthwhile contribution to what was then, and still is, our major national problem—the balance of payments. This is true, as the noble Lord has indicated, for films produced for showing on TV as well as in cinemas.
The question has always been how to finance film production, especially the so-called "end money". The Prime Minister said this quite categorically at the same time as he was introducing the Bill:
"I think it is necessary to affirm that the industry's financing must be on an entirely self-liquidating basis. There must be no question of a subsidy for film production…the special emergency arrangements proposed here should be temporary and…in a reasonable period when the industry has built itself up again and established confidence in itself, it should be able to float itself free of the special arrangements and revert to more normal methods of financing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 458, col. 2186, 2/12/48.]
My Lords, the period envisaged at that time was, I think, seven years—and that was sixteen years ago.
Since then, great changes have taken place in social habits, and in particular in regard to films. The proportion of homes with television sets has increased enormously, and for this and other reasons the number of cinema attendances has declined very considerably, as the noble Lord indicated—a really astonishing decline. The number of cinema houses has been reduced by more than half. To draw people out of their homes to the cinema, a film has to be not only exceptionally good, but different in character from the kind of film shown on television. Not that film-making as such has suffered. I am told that it is very difficult indeed to obtain a booking at a film production studio, so heavy is the demand at present. But I do not propose to discuss the economics of producing films for television. All I would say is that I am sure the film industry is grateful that it no longer has to deal with a single monopoly buyer in this country in the television field.
The immediate problem, it seems to me, is what degree of continuing State assistance should be given to the film industry. The fact is that, even with the help of the Eady Levy, now the British Film Fund Levy, it has proved difficult for ordinary films to come anywhere near
382
to breaking even. I see that Mr. John Davis stated the other day in the Financial Times that eight out of ten British films lose money, but that the two which do, do not often make a great film. If this were not so, the cinema industry could not survive. The question is, who can, and should, carry the loss? Put in another way, one might ask whether there are films of such high merit that they ought to be produced even if they are going to lose money; and if so, who is to be the judge? My Lords, this is not the test which the National Film Finance Corporation has to apply by law. It is empowered to advance money for the production of films which in its view have a reasonable prospect of being successful—which means making money; and the box office is the ultimate test. In the field of cinema entertainment it is the only test.
The National Film Finance Corporation has an accumulated deficit at the end of 1964–65 (we are approaching the end of another year now), of about £4·36 million, of which some £2 million was the net provision for losses on loans to the old British Lion. To keep up the appearance that the money is not lost, but only "gone before", the Treasury insist that the Corporation pays interest which practically equals the average loss of £161,500 over the years. One of the main reasons for the losses is that the Corporation has been putting up end money on films which were too speculative to attract other finance, what it calls, in its 1965 Report," lending end money for the less promising films which others are reluctant to finance". If the Corporation had not done this, there might not have been enough British films to fill the quota; that is to say, British films which cinemas are compelled by regulation to show.
The National Film Finance Corporation deserves full credit for seeking new ways of fulfilling its dual obligation to help the industry and to make ends meet. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us what has happened about the scheme by which the Corporation would put up the whole of the finance for films, in conjunction with other film producers—the so-called pari-passu arrangement, as contrasted with the end-money arrangement.
Under another pilot scheme the Corporation has gone in with Rank, each

383
putting up an equal amount of finance, with the Corporation choosing the films to be financed and Rank distributing them. This idea has been attacked by some since they regard it as "consorting with the devil." But the main criticism of the Rank-A.B.P.C. domination is that the chance of getting a film produced depends on the whim, so it is said, of these two Corporations. The same people can hardly complain if, under this arrangement between Rank and the N.F.F.C., the decision is left entirely with the Corporation. This would seem to be an attempt on the part of Rank to meet this criticism. The test, surely, is whether this is going to help the industry. What is perhaps more open to criticism is that the Corporation seems in this scheme to be changing its rôle and to be much more closely involved in production than it has been since its early days. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us how the Corporation has been equipping itself to fulfil this rather changed rôle which I understood the noble Lord, Lord Willis, favoured.
In the 1964 Report, the Corporation said:
"The real need is for a comprehensive study on a continuing basis."
The Monopolies Commission Report, of course, valuable as we hope that it will be, will not provide the continuing basis. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us precisely what the Corporation had in mind by this proposal. There are, of course, many questions to be answered. What is the future of pay-T.V., for example? This question seems to me very much bound up with the growing problem of financing the British Broadcasting Corporation. I wonder whether the noble Lord will touch on this point. Can we afford to wait for the result of the pay-T.V. experiment, especially in view of the fact that the experiment itself is unlikely to shed much light on the problems to be solved?
Secondly—another question: what scope is there for the merit cinema? The noble Lord, Lord Willis, mentioned that the British Film Institute has been proposing to set up a chain of merit cinemas, and I understand that Mr. Leslie Grade has also had this in mind from the private enterprise point of view. They are cinemas where films of cultural value
384
may be shown and, it is presumed, where they may actually make money. Again, with colour television not very far off, will the cinema have lost one more of its decisive advantages, or will the public appetite for the cinema be whetted by these developments? Perhaps this is the kind of problem that the Corporation envisaged should be examined. Above all—and the noble Lord did touch on this: what is being done to make the production of films less costly and more efficient? Why should there not be a "little Neddy" for film production? This is a field in which restrictive practices and other abuses flourish perhaps as much as in any other field in the whole economy. Is there any reason why any more public money should go into film production until the industry puts its own house in order? And the first step towards that may well be to set up this form of industrial "Neddy".
My Lords, these are some of the questions to which, I suggest, the noble Lord should try to give some kind of answer, or at least indicate the Government thinking about them. I cannot say that I envy him the task. As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, this is a very complicated industry. He went on to say that it is an industry of superlatives. But with the impending lapse of the Corporation's lending powers it inevitably falls to the Government of the day to find the answer. Had we been in power, we should have had to do so. At least they might use the tool of the "little Neddy" which we created. I have no intention of making a Party political speech. I say this merely to discourage the noble Lord from taking a Party line. After all, it is not often we can quote the Prime Minister with approval as I have done to-day, from this side of the Chamber.
My Lords, I would conclude by saying that I believe that there is a continuing future for cinema entertainment, provided that there is the will for survival in all concerned in the industry. But I believe it should be on the basis of an independent, self-sufficient industry capable of carrying its own losses because of its own strength and efficiency. This does not necessarily mean that there is no place for the National Film Finance Corporation: it does mean that the Corporation should be regarded as a source of finance and not of subsidy.
3.28 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I ask for the indulgence of the House as this is the first occasion on which I have had the privilege of addessing your Lordships. I earn my livelihood in this industry, and I should like to make one or two small suggestions. As I am engaged in this industry, I should perhaps declare an interest, but the points that I wish to make do not affect me personally.
I wish to propose that the present subsidy for the British film industry should be examined and, if necessary, supplemented or reallocated to give greater support to the industry as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, has touched on the question of the "Eady money". The Eady system was created to help British independent producers. It was an excellent idea; but, unfortunately, as the noble Lord has said, the idea has been thwarted. The money is not going to the British independent producers: the money is going to the Americans.
The noble Lord referred to an article which appeared this week on the front page of the "Bible" of our industry, Variety, which is an American publication, and I should like to quote from the leading paragraph of that article. It says:
"With the statutory Lady Levy running just fractionally below its ceiling target of 14,000,000 dollars a year, and the current payout for the last two months (November and December) hitting a new all-time high of 50 per cent. of distributors' gross, unofficial sources estimate that upwards of 80 per cent. of the fund coin will be paid out in the current financial year to American major companies".
Let me give some examples of this. Your Lordships may perhaps feel slightly proud of the new craze which is sweeping the world—James Bond. One might feel that James Bond is an Englishman; that these films are English films. One would, on the face of it, be right in this assumption. Unfortunately, James Bond is an American financially. Last year, 1½million dollars was paid out in "Eady money" to the producers of Goldfinger—Americans. Also last year, 1 million dollars of "Lady money" was paid to the producers of Tom Jones—a truly typical English production. The producers were Americans. Last year, 1 million dollars of "Eady money" was paid to the producers of that excellent
386
English film, The Guns of Navarone. The producers were Americans. This year, a predicted all-time record of 2,100,000 dollars of British "Eady money" is going to be paid on Thunder-ball. This also is going to the Americans.
There must be a ceiling to the amount of "Eady money" payable to a successful production. One does not want to impose a ceiling on success, but, at the same time, this is a system which was initiated to help the small producers. A film such as Thunderball, which is estimated to make a gross profit of 4,200,000 dollars, surely does not need the "Eady money".
There is no sign of this situation stopping. In the British studios to-day the following films are being made. At Pinewood, Farenheit 451 and Countess from Hong Kong. Both are Universal films; both are American. There is also one film, Kaleidoscope, in the same studio which is a Warner Brothers, American, film. At Shepperton to-day two films are being shot, Georgey Girl and Casino Royal. Both are Columbia films, and both of them are American. At Metro-British there are two M.G.M. films being shot, Eye of the Devil and 2001. Both of them are American. At Twickenham, Paramount have in production The Deadly Bees. This also is American. Meanwhile, even British Lion—and I am not standing here to defend the larger interests of the British film industry, but the smaller ones—sometimes have to wait two years to get one of their films into British cinemas; and, of course (and this is not so applicable to British Lion as to the smaller producers), there is no doubt that interest on monies borrowed from banks is building up considerably during that waiting period.
The British film industry has been through several crises. In fact, three studios have been closed down during the past three years, and at one time there was talk of Shepperton Studios being sold. But then the Government intervened, it was agreed that the land could not be used for any further type of development, and it was therefore saved. It is all very well for the Government to want to support British labour by subsidies from British taxes, but, whereas British-made productions, such as

387
Private's Progress and Doctor in the House, showed a profit from British distribution only, the majority of British films reap a bad return unless they can also derive revenue from the Continent of Europe and, in particular, from America and the Western Hemisphere.
When Britain did not enter the Common Market, British purchasers were faced with the impossible task of trying to negotiate our productions with European countries when, to qualify for British quota, they had to insist on 80 per cent. of the labour used being British. Other countries, such as Italy, France, Germany and Spain, would get together and work out reasonable terms whereby one would provide actors, the other production facilities, and so on, so that they could co-finance and co-produce films. Not only did this help them finance films, but the Governments in question were very co-operative regarding quota, so that British producers trying to get release in, say, Spain were told that they could hardly expect much cooperation if they were not prepared to share in a more equitable fashion. Obviously, Her Majesty's Government have been made aware of these problems, as a formal agreement was recently arrived at on co-production between England and France. I hope that similar arrangements with other European countries will be forthcoming in the near future. There is no doubt that, speaking generally, British film producers need a Government subsidy to keep the industry going. To whom the subsidy should be applicable, and on what basis, represents quite a problem—and this, I feel, is the chief problem facing us.
It is possible that the small-budget picture may be pushed right out of the market. This might appear to be a good thing so far as some of the run-of-the-mill British second features are concerned, but I propose that a survey be carried out to investigate the possibility of Government subsidy money being made available for the purposes of sponsoring young, up-and-coming writers, directors, artists and producers whom private finance cannot be expected to sponsor on a very large scale. Thus, basically, an appeal should be made rather on the same lines as the "Save the Repertory" movement which took
388
place in the theatre—because it is from the small theatres that the stars of tomorrow emerge. It is also practically certain that if the sponsoring of small-budget pictures could be handled in the right way, a group of these films—and the usual number is 13—would be an automatic sale to America for television, and so bring in outside revenue. The noble Lord has not, I feel, quite appreciated the fact that television is not a separate industry. When one talks of the film industry one includes all makers of films. A large percentage of programmes on television are films, and television provides a very large source of income to this industry.
In the early days, British Lion, with the help of the Government, made such films as the St. Trinian's series and Brothers in Law. Everything has changed now: the industry is now very international. It is pretty difficult for a young up-and-coming producer in this country to get a film off the ground unless he resorts to one of two things. The first is co-production with the Continent—which is, as I have just explained, apart from the recent agreement with France, practically impossible. The second is that the film should be American-backed, in which case it would cease, in essence, to be British.
I should like to draw attention in detail to something which is going on at the moment. The simplest way of raising money to make a film is to get a distribution guarantee from an American distributor with world-wide connections. This distribution guarantee is discountable at a bank. If a British producer does this and accepts the American distribution guarantee, the Americans are now forcing him to sign away his "Eady money." My Lords, this is obviously totally incorrect. The "Eady money" was produced in order to support the British and before the British can get a distribution guarantee they have to sign it away to the Americans. Could not the Eady money derived from a film which is guaranteed distribution by an American company be set aside exclusively for the British company? How this is going to be done is very difficult to decide and must be discussed; but surely this is an aim that we must have in mind.
The youth of the industry must be fostered. Let me turn now for a moment

389
to the theatre. The repertory theatre in England has survived under Government grants, the Arts Council and so on. This is excellent. The reason why this has been done is not, as perhaps one might feel, to foist the live theatre on to people in the Provinces whether they want it or not, for quite often this fails; and they prove they do not want it by not turning up. As the noble Lord said, the ultimate decision whether a film or a play is a success must be in the box office. The reason why the Government have continued to uphold the repertory theatre is because the repertory theatre is the training ground from which the great actors and producers will come.
And this is equally applicable to the film industry. If it becomes impossible for young producers to produce films, who are going to be the producers of to-morrow? I wish to state that I am in no way connected with the examples I am about to give. Mr. Sydney Furie, who is a producer in this country responsible for the great financial success, The Ipcress File, started in this business by producing a small documentary called During One Night. Who is to say, if he had not made this documentary, that he would ever have been able to make The Ipecress File? Another example is that of Mr. John Schlesinger, who gained recognition in this business with a magnificent short documentary entitled Terminus. As your Lordships know John Schlesinger is now the darling of the film industry on both sides of the Atlantic. Recently an Irish film company proposed to me that "I should align 13 countries to make 13 documentary travelogues. I was appointed recently as an adviser to the new Government of Ceylon on the development of the film industry and I was shortly able to get in writing from 13 different Governments their acceptance of this proposal. Having done so, I was informed that there is positively no market for documentaries in this country. America has the lead in this industry in the world, and we should do well to follow their example. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the productions David and Lisa and Marty. Both these productions were, in fact. set up to encourage young people in the industry, and both were remarkably successful financially.
390
We must do it here as well. There are Englishmen who know how to sell such products in the United States. What is difficult to obtain is pre-production costs. It is to this that the Eady money should, in my opinion, be diverted. There is this very week a young producer who can be seen walking up and down Charing Cross Road with, under his arm, a copy of a script which belongs to him and which is entitled Up the Junction. This script is widely sought after by no fewer than eight different American producers. But this young Englishman has had the determination to refuse very large sums of money for the rights. He is trying to launch it himself. This is the type of man who, in my opinion, is worthy of the financial support of the Government. May I close by saying that it is the small people in this industry who will produce the big film makers of to-morrow. It is not the Rank but the rank and file of the industry which needs this help.
3.45 p.m.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, it is my privilege and pleasure to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on his admirably clear and forthright maiden speech—not only as the son of a distinguished father but (and this is a great personal pleasure to me) as a working film maker whose presence within your Lordships' House is to be warmly welcomed. I am sure that your Lordships, with me, will look forward to hearing his voice more often in this House. I would also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willis, on his admirably clear and forthright exposition of the state of the film industry at the moment.
May I, in view of the two speeches that followed his, try to make some sort of explanation, which at this moment seems to be rather called for, about the question of finance and production? A great deal has been made of the dominance of American finance and American production within the film industry. This is undoubtedly true; but I think a very precise distinction must be made between production and finance. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, instanced the film Lawrence of Arabia. I agree it is alarming that it should be entered in a film festival as an American film. It was made, in terms of film making, directed, cast and crewed almost entirely from Great Britain; and

391
the production of this film may therefore legitimately be said to be British. However, its finance, and therefore a very great measure of its profits, is American.
This is an important distinction, because those concerned with making films, even including the producer himself, as opposed to the working director on the floor supervising its shooting, are paid upon the budget of that film. Whatever currency it comes in, they receive a salary. The profits of a film therefore largely go to those who provide the finance; and included among those profits, as has already been pointed out today, is a share of the "Eady money". Whether a film is entitled to receive "Eady money" in the first place depends on the percentage of money which in the course of the making of the film is paid to British personnel. It depends, in fact, upon what percentage of labour costs may legitimately may be called British. That percentage may be high. There are various and rather complicated formulae for working this out; but between 75 per cent. and 80 per cent. of all costs of a film must go to British personnel and British companies for that film to be eligible for quota and eligible for"Eady money". As has already been pointed out, in the majority of cases in British film production the money is provided from American sources and is spent largely upon British institutions and British individuals, and therefore becomes eligible for "Eady money".
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, welcomed American finance in this country as well as being alarmed by it; because I rather tend to share this slightly split view of the industry. I am myself a working film-maker and, by way of declaring an interest and almost by way of making a confession to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, I can say that I have in my time taken dollars to do it. And I have done it with little compunction, because it seems to me that, however much we may be alarmed at the prospect of our principal source of finance, American dollars, disappearing at the whim of those who at the moment put it up, and however much we are alarmed at the influence which American film makers may have indirectly upon our own films, until there is a solid and competitive alternative in British finance the film-
392
makers in Great Britain would view with the greatest alarm anything which would deter the Americans from continuing to offer the finance they offer at the moment.
It is for this reason that I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Willis, brought up the question of the National Film Finance Corporation. I confess that I am slightly alarmed to think that its future must wait upon the report of the Monopolies Commission. Like previous speakers, I am inhibited from going in any detail into the major problems of the film industry, in so far as they concern themselves with great combines, Rank and A.B.C., and all the problems that those names usually bring up in your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, if we must wait till the Monopolies Commission report appears to know the future of the N.F.F.C., this will engender very little confidence in those British producers and financiers whom the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and others would like to encourage. I cannot help feeling that some statement of intent from Her Majesty's Government with regard to the future of the N.F.F.C. would be of immense value and encouragement to the film-makers of the country.
I am also glad that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, offered a welcome to the new small circuit of cinemas to be operated by the Grade-Rive organisation, because I do not think it is generally realised how great is the gulf for the film-maker between the two alternatives he is offered. If his film is shown on one of the two great circuits, Rank or A.B.C., he is thereby almost certainly assured of a large number of showings for his film. It may be successful or unsuccessful; cinemas may be full or empty. But at least the film will be exposed to audiences over a large section of the country. But there are many films (I have made some of them myself) which the two circuits, for good reason—and I do not for one moment blame them—did not want to show, because they felt that the films were of a minority interest: a sizeable minority, I hope, but not films which would appeal to a mass audience, which is how one must regard the audiences of the Rank and A.B.C. circuits.
The alternative open to a film-maker who has made a film of this sort is depressing in the extreme. There is no alternative

393
circuit. At the moment there is no circuit even of a minute size on which he can show his film, and a fair number of showings is necessary if he is to have the slightest chance of making his money back on a film. What he can do is to negotiate with individual cinemas or a distributor can do this on his behalf. To noble Lords who live in London the situation may not seem as desperate as I am painting it, because in London there are a number of small cinemas, highly individual and enterprising cinemas, which show not only foreign films but also what are called "off-beat" English films. But there are very few others in the country, even in the large cities of the British Isles.
Therefore, the film-maker is faced with the alternatives of trying to make a film for the circuit which he knows will be acceptable or a film on which he takes a chance. He faces the distinction between film-making on a commercial scale and film-making almost on an amateur scale. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has so eloquently shown, the small-budget film, the adventurous film, the film of ideas, is squeezed out of existence, not so much, I think, by the demon power of the great moguls who will not look at it, but rather by the absence of anything else which will encourage it. It is for this reason that l give this Grade-Rive organisation such a welcome, for at least it is the beginning of a circuit on a small scale which will help to encourage filmmakers in this direction.
I had not intended to go so deeply into the problems of the industry as such, but had intended rather to take another tack. I say "industry" because, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, so cogently pointed out, the "ballyhoo" which surrounds us gives little possibility of considering the industry as an art. As he rightly pointed out, the industry depends on the artist, as the artist depends on the industry. The film industry is in a special and peculiar state in comparison with other arts. It has almost no background, no history—by which, I mean that its history is never, or rarely, visible.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, referred to Chaplin and Buster Keaton and to the classics of the past. I think that every art depends upon its classics to a certain extent. Certainly film-makers do, and if audiences are to become more excited and more interested in films, this must depend
394
on the background and the classic history of the cinema. If we take music, people who want to hear the symphonies of Beethoven or the concertos of Mozart are liberally supplied. There are libraries and bookshops throughout the land. There are art galleries in every big provincial city; and nowadays there are even books which are miniature art galleries in themselves. Classics of the drama, not only of the past but also of the present, may be seen in London and also in provincial theatres all over the country.
In the cinema, what do we find? There are few cinemas which specialise in reviving old films, with one notable exception, to which I will refer in a moment. If anyone wants to see a particular old film, the chances that he may find it at a revival cinema are infinitely small, not because the films provided are the wrong kind, but because there is such an immense number of films. Old films can be seen, but their showing is entirely haphazard, and anybody who wishes to find a particular film faces an almost insuperable problem, except in one particular place—that is, the National Film Theatre in London. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, made a point about the future of the British Film Institute, because the National Film Theatre is run by the B.F.I., and run, I think, admirably. Its programmes are immensely popular and varied. It provides numerous cycles of classic films which everybody would like to see, and also programmes of recent films, gathered together in groups, so that comparison may be made, both with the past and with current film-making.
It is on comparison that standards are based. If we want a standard of filmmaking and of film appreciation in this country, then we must look to the standards of film-makers and of audiences. We cannot have these standards without a sense of comparison. Increasing knowledge and increasing capacity to compare critically are the only ways in which standards of films can be maintained and increased. The National Film Theatre caters for this need admirably, but it is alone in this country in doing this on a permanent basis. I am not ignoring the admirable work of the film societies, which show films in great variety in numerous parts of the country. But

395
this is essentially a private, a club, membership that does it of its own accord.
It was noticeable, I thought, in the Government's first White Paper on the Arts, and indeed in the Arts Council's recent Report for the year, that an immense emphasis should be placed on the Provinces and the part they will play in artistic development. In the world of the theatre and of music, the prospects for the Provinces are more and more exciting and encouraging every day. The British Film Institute has undertaken a survey of the Provinces to see what interest there would be in starting in the Provinces similar theatres to the National Film Theatre. The results were extremely encouraging, and there are already plans under way in some large cities for the construction of cinemas like the National Film Theatre, with a permanent repertory of films of classic or historic interest. In other places cinemas will be added to existing buildings, or film programmes tailored into an artistic programme for a week, or perhaps a month. This is something which I feel we must encourage, and in particular I would urge the Government to provide the British Film Institute—which I hope they will agree amounts almost to the film section of the Arts Council—with enough funds to encourage this regional development.
The regions themselves will do much. I am told by those who undertook this survey that the reluctance which is often spoken of by many local authorities to spend anything like the sixpenny rate which they are allowed upon entertainment in the arts was not so noticeable as they had feared. There was a lot of excitement among local authorities; and it is from local authorities and local sources that the majority of this building must come. However, a certain amount of capital will be needed to be administered by the British Film Institute for this purpose.
I have one further point about the efforts of the British Film Institute in this direction. It has now acquired and built up a large archive of old films—indeed, of films of all ages—and it is largely due to the generosity of a great many film-making companies that these prints are available. Unfortunately, the
396
Institute has scarcely enough money to take copies of these and make them available for showing. If funds are not available for this purpose, we shall have a frozen archive, a kind of national museum whose doors are never opened; because films can be widely distributed only by making copies, and this is an expensive business.
On both those grounds I would urge the Government to treat with the most sympathetic consideration the British Film Institute's needs in this direction, because this is something which will affect both the public and the film-makers. And I hope that this will work for better standards in the film industry. It has been suggested that the sort of programme that I have been describing—that is to say, starting out of the National Film Theatre and the film societies—and the thought of the Grade-Rive circuit, can in some way provide a hope for the independent and, perhaps, the young British film-maker. Whether together in a commercial sense, or together and separately, I should not like to say, because I have no knowledge of how these things may turn out. But in both ways I believe that there is here a hope for the future, and it is one that I trust the Government will strongly encourage.

HOME DEFENCE
4.4 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement on the home defence review which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made in another place to-day. I will use his own words:
"I am now able to state in general terms the outcome of the Government's review of Home Defence. We have concluded that, despite the reduction in the risk of a nuclear conflict, we cannot discontinue Civil Defence preparations. There is always the possibility of war arising from misunderstanding or miscalculation; and we cannot be certain about the future spread of nuclear weapons.
"Our studies confirm that, in the event—fortunately, unlikely—of a

397
nuclear conflict, sensible civil defence preparations could do much to save lives, to relieve suffering and to help the nation to survive as an organised entity. But there is a limit to what we can afford by way of insurance against this risk.
"We have accordingly decided to restrict our preparations to those that would be likely to make a significant contribution to national survival. As a consequence, it should be possible to achieve appreciable savings. We estimate that expenditure in 1966–67 will amount to £19·7 million as against£22·7 million in 1965–66, and £24·1 million in 1964–65.
"Further consultations with the local authorities and others concerned are required before we can settle the detailed application of our general conclusion. The Secretary of State for Scotland and I are undertaking these consultations forthwith. They will cover, in particular, the functions and size of the Civil Defence Corps, to see how with substantially reduced numbers the Corps might best be organised to carry out essential tasks. Concentration of the available resources on a highly-trained nucleus of volunteers seems the right approach. Subsequently we shall consult representatives of industry on the implications for the Industrial Civil Defence Service. We shall also be consulting the local authority associations on proposals for shelter and dispersal.
"We are adjusting the emergency system of control to provide more flexibility and a greater measure of decentralisation at the regional level. We shall maintain and continue to improve the efficiency of the Warning and Monitoring Organisation, including the Royal Observer Corps. We shall support the emergency preparations of the police and fire services (including the Auxiliary Fire Service) and the National Hospital Service Reserve. Some adjustments will be made to plans for stockpiling and the due functioning of essential utilities and services, including broadcasting.
"We have also decided to establish a military Home Defence Force on which my honourable friend the Minister of Defence for the Army will be
398
giving the House further information later this afternoon. This Force would provide the police with valuable support in the maintenance of law and order in an emergency."
My noble friend Lord Shackleton will bring to your Lordships' notice particulars of the Home Defence Force.
4.8 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. I do not wish to sound unduly ungenerous, but it strikes me as very much "the mixture a5 before", albeit a bit watered down. After all we have heard about a comprehensive review of Civil Defence, and given the very long time which has elapsed while that review has been in progress, I should be less than frank in not saying that this Statement comes as rather an anti-climax. I should have thought that this fairly small mouse hardly justified the great mountain of uncertainty which the Government themselves have created among those responsible for Civil Defence throughout this country. But there is a lot in the Statement. I hope the noble Lord will be able to agree with me that there would be advantage in our debating this Statement, and, indeed, the succeeding one, at a fairly early date. Could he give me any assurance to that effect?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as the noble Earl will be well aware, the question of a debate is not a matter for me, but if there were discussions through the usual channels I can assure him that I should be glad to enlarge on what it is now impossible to say. The only other thing I would add in view of what he has said, is that the Government attach great importance to this question, and I make no apology for the length of the review. We believe that we have now arrived at the right decision, and cannot agree that the saving of millions of pounds is insignificant.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for this Statement, which will give the greatest joy, at first at any rate, to those who work for Civil Defence throughout the country, especially locally, and who have been waiting for a Statement for goodness knows how long; and passing over the platitudes which appear at intervals, of

399
course, throughout a Statement like this, we come to one or two points which are necessary to carry it forward. The platitudes are, for instance, the fact that sensible Civil Defence might save much life. That is fairly obvious to most people who think. Then we are told that:
"Further consultations with local authorities and others concerned are required before we can settle…".
For goodness sake! my Lords, let us have that "before" fairly soon. For how many years I do not know, the Civil Defence have been waiting for some sort of Statement telling them what they are to do and when they are to do it, and how they are to pay for it, the latter being particularly difficult.
Being a Scotsman I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for Scotland is to have consultations forthwith. A very interesting conjunction is the "forthwith" with the "immediate", or whatever word was used. Then there appear the words:
"the functions and the size of the Civil Defence Corps, to see how with substantially reduced numbers…".
To reduce substantially the numbers would be rather difficult in the case of wardens, at any rate; because, practically speaking, they do not exist. So I shall be glad to hear how the Government manage to reduce the number of wardens. Then we find reference to:
"concentration of the available resources on a highly trained nucleus of volunteers".
A highly trained nucleus of volunteers takes quite a lot of training. We are told by the Government:
"Subsequently"—
and note that word, my Lords, because that is another word which helps to put things off—
"we shall consult representatives of industry on the implications for the Industrial Civil Defence Service".
That has always been a question that has worried me, because, so far as I know, at any rate in my county, it has not been tied up in any proper kind of way with the local Civil Defence.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but the noble Lord seems to be debating the Statement. Usually in the case of a Statement it is possible to preface a few questions with a few explanatory remarks, but I feel
400
that in this case the noble Lord is going a little too far.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: My Lords, the statements are there and I shall be glad to have any answers to them that I can obtain. But, except for that, I shall be quite happy to have made them.
The Warning and Monitoring Organisation is, I think, as satisfactory as any part of the Organisation has been so far. The Government say:
"We have also decided to establish a military Home Defence Force on which…the Minister of Defence for the Army will be"—
making a Statement. My Lords, with those few remarks I am glad to welcome the Statement.
4.15 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful for the interest shown by the noble Lord, but I am bound to say that he did not contribute anything to the sense of urgency which he wants. I welcome the implied tribute which he paid to the members of the Civil Defence Corps. It is a tribute in which I join, and I express the hope that all of them will continue with the job which they are now doing.
With regard to consultations with local authorities, the noble Lord will be aware that this review had to take effect at Government level, because it was a question of an internal review of Government policy. We could not at that stage consult local authorities, but we are now going to do so on those matters which come within the local authority field, and we shall conduct those discussions with a sense of urgency. The noble Lord said that we have been waiting for years. The last Civil Defence review was in 1962. The results of that review have been implemented over the last three years, and the changes then decided upon have been carried out; but these things cannot remain static. Requirements change, and it is absolutely necessary to review the position periodically. I do not agree with the noble Lord that the wardens do not exist. He must be in a peculiar part of the country. We have not as many wardens as we should like, or as we should need in an emergency, but we have a strong and extremely useful force of wardens.
With regard to the noble Lord's comments on the highly trained nucleus of

401
volunteers, that is precisely what is in the Civil Defence Corps now. Out of a grand total of 210,700 in the Civil Defence Corps, including non-active reserves, only 60,900 are Class A volunteers who have taken a three-year period of training and will go on to advanced training, and that is the sort of thing we have in mind when we speak of a "highly trained nucleus". Certainly we must consult representatives of industry on the implications for Civil Defence. Industrial Civil Defence is 129,000 strong. We shall start those discussions immediately. The Warning and Monitoring system is to continue virtually unchanged, except for certain matters which we believe can be improved.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I ask for enlightenment on one point? The noble Lord paid a tribute to the members of the Civil Defence Corps which I am sure we shall all wish to echo, and he went on to express the hope that they would all continue in their jobs. Does this mean that the Government are not proposing substantially to reduce the numbers of the Corps?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I did differentiate in the total overall numbers between certain classes of volunteers, and I mentioned, in effect, that at present some 66,500 are on reserve. This is one of many matters which we shall discuss with the local authorities, in order to determine the way in which the functions will be carried out and the numbers needed. But we do not see any reason at present for either any substantial withdrawals or dismissals from the Civil Defence Corps. I said earlier—and I mean it—that I hoped that all those doing such a wonderful job would carry on doing it.

ARMY RESERVES REORGANISATION
4.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to intervene to repeat a statement which is being made by my honourable friend, the Minister of Defence for the Army, in another place on the Reorganisation of the Army Reserves. The Statement is as follows:
402
"In accordance with paragraph 4 of the White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Army Reserves the Government have now completed their examination of the contribution that military units might best make to Home Defence in the event of actual or apprehended nuclear attack on the United Kingdom.
"To supplement the substantial numbers of Regulars and Reserve Forces likely to be in the United Kingdom at the time, we have decided"—
as my noble friend Lord Stonham has told the House—
"to establish a Home Defence Force. This will be a military force, based on existing Territorial Army units and forming a self-contained part of the Army Volunteer Reserve, organised separately from the independent and sponsored units described in the White Paper. It will be under military command, but its primary rôle will be to assist the police in the maintenance of law and order and to act generally in support of the civil authorities in the event of a general war. It will therefore be closely linked with Civil Defence and will be widely spread throughout the United Kingdom.
"The force will have an establishment of about 28,000 men with a peace-time recruiting ceiling of 22,500, representing 80 per cent. of the establishment. It will consist of lightly armed infantry type units with training and limited scales of equipment appropriate to their primary role. The annual cost of the Force should not exceed £3 million.
"Subject to the necessary legislative authority, members of the Force will have the same liability for call-out as the Territorial Army have now, except that they will be liable for home service only and that call-out by Queen's Order will be substituted for the existing Proclamation procedure.
"Discussions are now taking place between the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations on the implementation of this decision. The title of the new Force will be one of the subjects to be covered by these discussions."
4.23 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord in his turn for repeating this Statement. I would say straightaway that I am glad the Government have seer, the light on this matter, at least partially and albeit at a very late hour, but I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I add that all the credit for this complete somersault on the Government's part is not entirely due to the Government. I think that those who have raised this matter in another place and, indeed, in your Lordships' House, from all Benches, not least my noble friend Lord Thurlow and the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, have also earned a good deal of gratitude for ventilating this matter so thoroughly.
May I ask the noble Lord two questions? I noted what he said about the rôle of this Force, the primary rôle being in the event of a general war. I hope he will agree with me that there may well be many eventualities short of general or nuclear war in which a Home Defence Force of this sort will be useful, and can assure us that the tasks of this force will not be too narrowly drawn. I hope that at all events members of it will be soldiers in every sense of the word. Secondly, I noted what he said about this force being a self-contained part of the A.V.R. Am I right in assuming that it will be an organic part of the A.V.R. and that, at least for the purposes of administration and recruitment, there will be a very close link between the A.V.R., as announced in the recent White Paper, and the Home Defence Force?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl prefaced his earlier remarks to my noble friend, Lord Stonham, by saying that he hoped he would not be thought to be ungenerous. I think he has been a little ungenerous. The Government are not particularly claiming the credit alone for coming to the right decision. I should have thought this was a good example of the working of democracy. The Government put their proposals forward, they are debated, and, as I told the noble Earl in this House, we have listened carefully to what was said there were discussions, and there were a number of members of the Government who also wished this particular form of solution. I would pay credit to the
404
noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I would not say it is wholly the Thurlow Plan, because others thought of it, too, but he made some useful proposals and this approximates fairly closely to them.
I do not agree with the noble Earl in hoping that there will be many eventualities in which this force will be used, but I would certainly agree with him that whereas its specific role—and this is the justification—is the Civil Defence one, we are all glad there will be a continuing force of this kind against eventualities which cannot be foreseen. I would stress that these men will be soldiers, and they will, I hope, carry on the Territorial Army traditions.
On the particularly interesting point whether it will be a self-contained force or an organic part of the other main Emergency Volunteer Reserve, the answer is that, for a number of reasons which perhaps we have not time to go into now, it will be separate; it will not only be another tier but it will be on a different level. But we look forward—and this will depend to some extent on further discussions with the Territorial Army Council—to very close co-operation. In this we hope that the Territorial Army Council and the Associations will help to provide some of the link that will come anyway from the fact that in some areas they will use the same drill halls.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I welcome the Statement from these Benches. I was one of those who was desperately afraid the Territorial Army would disappear, which I think would have been quite disastrous, and I am glad a solution on general terms has now been accepted by the Government, although we shall want some details. Apart from those who have struggled for this in Parliament, I think we ought to give a word of thanks to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and the Council of the Territorial Army Associations, all of whom have worked particularly hard behind the scenes on this plan.
There are two questions I should like to ask, both of which I regard as extremely important. The first is this: will the Territorial Army units still be linked with the Regular infantry county regiments? This link, as your Lordships know, has proved extremely valuable in

405
days gone by, both to the Territorial Army and to the Regular Army. The second question is as to the Territorial Army drill halls. Is it proposed to retain the existing drill halls or to take a few away, or to add to them? We should like to know something, if possible, about the future of the Territorial Army drill halls.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: My Lords, I should like, if I may, for one or two moments, to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for the Statement he has made and to say how grateful I am to Her Majesty's Government for realising at this somewhat late hour the importance of carrying on the future of the Territorial Army. There was one matter which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, remarked on which gave me a certain amount of alarm, and as he has made the point I am not going to stress it. But in reading the Statement, when you read "self-contained" and "organised separately" you must please realise that it is absolutely essential that there shall be a link, some form of integration, because otherwise you will not get the volunteers; and as the years go on the volunteers for this new Force can be a very great help to the recruiting of the A.V.R. I only draw your Lordships' attention to that point at this moment.
I fully appreciate that in these discussions a responsibility is being put on the shoulders of my Council, and I will give an undertaking that we will do our best to make this new Force a workable one in every sense of the word. I will if I may, record my appreciation for the constant courtesy that has been extended to me on my many visits to the Ministry of Defence by the Ministers holding responsibility in that Department. I would finally remind your Lordships that we have now, after six long and weary months, come to a solution. The details will have to be worked out; but if, after all this discussion, worry, depression and uncertainty, the spirit of the volunteers is still there, then let it be known at once that if they decide to join this new force they will be serving their country as soldiers of the Queen.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend and the Minister for having so seriously con-
406
sidered the views that were expressed in this House and in many places elsewhere? At this immediate stage, may I put two short questions to him? First, will a fairly large number of the units that were threatened now be given a new lease of life? Secondly, will the word "Territorial" be embodied in the title of the new force?
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, may I congratulate the Government on this wise decision, and say how delighted I am that the structure of the Reserve Army is to be preserved? We shall have opportunities of looking at the details when they are worked out, and I hope have a debate. I have just two questions. Can the Minister tell me whether the same assistance to the Cadets will be forthcoming from the new force? Will the T.A.W.R.A.C., for which I put in a word in my Motion in November, also be found a job?
4.32 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I will deal as quickly as I can with the various questions, and will, if I may, reserve to the end my reply to the noble Duke. First of all, one of the advantages of this proposed new force is that it will be able to give the most valuable help to the various cadets and cadet corps, and, of course, it will make available a much larger number of drill halls. To deal with that particular point of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, may I say that the number has to be worked out in detail, but undoubtedly a great number of drill halls will now be required, and of course will be required in parts of the country where the Army Volunteer Reserve, as we had previously announced, would not have been operating at all. Not the least advantage of this plan is that it will provide a national spread, particularly into such sparsely populated areas as Scotland. I am afraid I cannot answer the question in regard to the way in which women will be engaged in this particular service. I do not myself see them functioning in such a way as the armed infantry, but it may well be that there will be opportunities for service.
LORD THURLOW: On the clerical side?
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes. I do not think there will be a great deal of

407
clerical side in this organisation, but perhaps that is one of the matters that we can look at further. I fully take Lord Thurlow's point.
My noble friend Lord Leatherland asked me two questions: first, as to how many units there will be; and then, how far they would relate to existing Territorial units. There will in fact be 80 battalions of three companies of 100 men. I should have thought there was a good prospect that the great majority of those names that are now part of our history in the Territorial Army would continue to be attached to these new units. Of course, the name is a matter on which the Government will be interested to have advice—whether it should continue to be called the "Territorial Army", or whether it should be called the "Territorial Guard", or some such name. This is a matter on which we certainly should like the advice of the Territorial Army Council. In this connection I turn to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for which I am most grateful, regarding the linking with the Regular county regiments. I hope this will continue, but it is a matter which we may need to go into further, if and when we have a debate, and it seems a suitable subject for a debate in due course.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, for whose help we are most grateful, made a characteristically courteous statement. I greatly appreciate his reference to the way in which he has been received by my colleague who has been Minister for the Army. I would pay a tribute particularly to the present Minister for the Army who, like his predecessor, has been deeply interested and concerned, as any Service Minister properly should be, for the traditions of the Service for which he is responsible. On the question of whether or not these are self-contained units, I am not sure that the phrase "self-contained" is in fact a revealing one. It is intended to make clear that they are distinguishable and will have a different command structure from the rest of the Army Volunteer Reserve. But I would entirely agree that it is extremely important that there should be a close link, and in this we shall, of course, look to the Territorial Army Council and to the Associations for
408
advice and help in providing this link. It may well be, if the Territorial Army Associations will agree, that they will continue to provide some of those services, particularly in the matter of recruiting and other fields, that they have in the past provided to the Territorial Army.
The undertaking which the noble Duke gave was one which we would certainly expect from him, and I am grateful to the House for giving this plan a fair wind. I do not think this has arrived at too late an hour. "Too late an hour" rather implies that something was about to collapse overnight. I am happy to say that there are no serious signs of that happening at the moment to the Territorial Army. I think the decision has been taken in good time. When one is having to take these difficult, and sometimes agonising, decisions it is right that the considerations should be drawn out, if one is to get at the right answer; and on this occasion I think we have. I am sure that the spirit that has motivated our Volunteer and Territorial soldiers in the past will continue to motivate them in the future, and that there will be a role which, even if, as I hope, they are never called upon to discharge it in war, will still continue to be of value in the society in which we live.

THE FILM INDUSTRY
4.38 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I hope it will not seem to the House to be an anti-climax to come from the matters which have been under consideration back to the problems of the film industry: the contrast may seem to be somewhat dramatic. As it is now a number of years since I spoke in your Lordships' House on the problems of the film industry, I suppose that I had better again declare my interest. I am the Chairman of the Federation of British Film Makers. But I should like to make it quite clear that this afternoon I do not speak for the Federation: on this occasion I speak entirely for myself.
I have been for something over fifty years in the cinema and film industry, in all its different ramifications—exhibition, distribution, production and so on; and I

409
think I may say straight away that the main thing that I have learned over these fifty and more years is not to be dogmatic about the solution of the problems of the film industry. The only thing on which I would be dogmatic is that the industry has great problems facing it at the present time. We have been fortunate this afternoon that the speeches we have heard have, in the main, been free from dogmatic statements; and we have been particularly fortunate in having two notable speeches, a maiden speech from Lord Moynihan and a characteristically interesting speech from my noble friend Lord Birkett.
With all due respect to my noble friend Lord Willis, I feel that to some extent this debate is premature. The main problems of the industry are at present under consideration by the Monopolies Commission, and until we have their Report we are rather in the position of doing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. There may be a doubt as to whether the industry is, in fact, facing problems, and I was particularly disturbed some months ago when I saw a reported statement by the Minister of State at the Board of Trade.
He was reported as saying that he found the film industry "generally speaking, happy", and said that there was no need for Government intervention. I find it difficult to understand how anybody could say seriously that the film industry is happy, when cinema attendances continue to fall, week by week, when the number of cinemas in existence continues to fall, month by month—although not perhaps at as great a rate as occurred a year or so ago—and also when one notes that the majority of British films fail to recover their costs of production. I would simply mention that the latest figures I have seen, which cover the ten months from January to October, 1965, show that cinema attendances fell by 20 million. How, in such circumstances, anybody can say that the industry is generally happy is beyond my understanding.
There have been many references this afternoon to the matter of American investment in British film production, and the last Annual Report of the National Film Finance Corporation contained a number of references to this point. The N.F.F.C. said that although they welcomed, within limits, this growing involvement, the financing of British films
410
by the United States distributors, it allowed to expand unchecked, would represent a threat to the continuance of a truly British film production industry. My Lords, I join issue with that view. I do not want to see American investment in British film production checked or discouraged. We should be pleased that Britain is becoming increasingly established as an international film production centre, and we should welcome finance, whether it is from America, France, Germany, or wherever it may be, for the production of films here.
My criticism is not as to the amount of foreign investment in British film production. My criticism is as to the lack of an adequate amount of British investment in native film production. We tend to get rather off the mark when we refer generally to American investment in British films, instead of emphasising the lack of British investment in films. When we say that we should like to see more British finance in British film-making it is obvious—I think every producer would agree—that the more sources of finance available to our producers, the better his position will be. That links up with the very important question of the extremely limited resources of the National Film Finance Corporation.
At the time of their last Annual Report, in March of last year, the Corporation's uncommitted resources amounted to something under £1½ million, and I suppose that to-day their uncommitted resources are of the order of £1 million or thereabouts. Having regard to the high cost of film production to-day, the whole of that amount could be used up in the financing of one British film, which makes it obvious just how inadequate their resources are. However long we may have to wait for the Report of the Monopolies Commission, and the development of a main general programme in regard to the future of the British film industry, I hope that we shall at least have an interim measure for the continuance of the National Film Finance Corporation, even if it is only on a temporary basis. I hope that it will be accompanied by the provision of much more generous capital resources for that Corporation.
As I have been referring to the National Film Finance Corporation, I would say, in passing, how much I deplore

411
their rather slighting references, in paragraph 20, page 6, of the last Annual Report, to independent producers. I am rather surprised that a spokesman for the independent producers has not already referred to this point, for I feel that it is not the kind of statement which should appear in the Report of what is in fact a Government corporation. That paragraph says:
"There are however some producers whose talent, imagination and skill have proved inadequate to meet the demanding and not easily predictable tastes of cinema audiences, and for this reason have failed to commend themselves to sources of finance. They may call themselves independent but in their cases this epithet amounts to little more than a euphemism for unsuccessful. It certainly does not entitle them to receive from the public purse funds which they have failed to raise elsewhere."
I suggest that to your Lordships that that is a much too sweeping phrase. It seems to put far too large a number of independent producers under this blanket epithet of being "unsuccessful", when in fact these producers are the victims of a monopolistic situation from which they cannot free themselves.
I wish to refer to one other matter which was largely implicit in the good speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. He referred to the opportunities for young talent to get a start; and he mentioned people like John Slesinger and others. But I think he failed to emphasise the fact that they got their start in the production of short films. And here I would refer to the situation of that side of the industry which is concerned with the making of short films. Over the last twelve or fifteen years the number of short films registered with the Board of Trade for theatrical distribution has run between 200 and 300 a year. At first glance that would appear to be a very satisfactory situation, but when it is subjected to analysis it is by no means as satisfactory as it looks.
When the Film Production Fund was set up, it was agreed that short films should receive a higher proportion of the levy when it was distributed. To be as untechnical as possible, may I put it in this way? If in the normal way a film had receipts of £100, and the production levy was being distributed at 40 per cent., that film would get £40. But in the case
412
of a short film there is a 2½ multiplier, so that if a short film gets £100 it will get £100 from the Production Fund instead of £40. The idea was an excellent one and this 2½ multiplier was intended to encourage the production of films. As I have said, short films are probably the best training ground for new talent—writers, producers, directors, cameramen and so on.
But what in fact has happened? The hulk of the short films being shown in this country in the cinemas to-day are the films produced by the two great monopolies—Rank and A.B.C. Rank has its series"Look at Life" with 52 issues, one every week, which pretty well satisfies its requirements. A.B.C. have the Pathe Pictorial with 52 issues a year, which fairly well satisfies their requirements. In a number of cases they have cinemas which change the programme twice a week, so they need more, and if you make an analysis you find that the extra number needed are supplied by the few other short films distributed by Rank and by Warner-Pathe, on behalf of A.B.C. So that this excellent idea of the 2½ multiplier to aid the short film producers, to provide a training ground for the new talent, has in fact been channelled into another way of adding to the power and the strength of the two monopolies, which are now under consideration by the Monopolies Commission.
I hope, therefore, that when the future of the Film Finance Corporation and the future of the production levy, or the Eady Fund, are being considered, consideration will be given to the redistribution of the Production Fund, and that some attention will be paid to the methods, which are in use in other countries, of what may be generally called "merit awards", not only as in Sweden, but as in Germany and other countries.
I think a suggestion came from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, about a "Little Neddy" for the film industry. I think that what is much more necessary than an investigation by the Monopolies Commission of a certain part of the industry, is an investigation, by something in the nature of a Select Committee or Royal Commission, of the whole scope and future of the British film industry. I think that it is an industry

413
of tremendous importance. It is at present, and has been for some time, a considerable earner of overseas revenues. It is of great importance as a cultural instrument. I dislike using the phrase "Showing the British way of life"—
LORD RHODES: Why?
LORD ARCHIBALD: Because it is a very crude phrase, which can be misused in so many ways. But taking the basic idea of the phrase, I accept it and say that the British film is an important contributor in this field. But it could be much more important than it is to-day, it could be greatly expanded, and I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of some form of Commission of Inquiry into the present state of the industry, the possibilities of expansion of the industry and, in fact, its great potentiality for the future.
4.55 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, first it gives me great pleasure to be the first speaker from these Benches to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on his very forceful and interesting maiden speech. I have an especial pleasure in doing so, because his father was almost a neighbour of mine in Ashtead in Surrey where I live, and I know the great work which he did in the community, particularly for local hospitals. He was a very fine public servant, and I am sure that we all hope that his successor will address the House in his forthright and interesting tones on many occasions in the future.
This debate recalls to my mind my maiden speech, which I made on the subject of the cinema industry, in 1958. I have been reading through the report of that debate, and much of what was said then is, I think, applicable now. It was then the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who moved in his customary convincing and sincere tones the subject of the Motion. To-day it has been the noble Lord, Lord Willis, with his vast experience of the entertainment industry in many forms, who has given us such an interesting opening speech. I recall having seen on more than one occasion the film The Blue Lamp, with which his name is so unforgettably linked.
We do not have the entertainment tax now, except, I believe, for Sunday performances, but the price of admission to
414
our cinemas has increased, although I do not really think that that has affected the consumer too much. I made reference eight years ago, as did other noble Lords, to the effect of television on the cinema industry. At that time, when television was rather more in its infancy than now, I think that the cinema was rather a clinging octopus to a number of people. But now I believe it is less so, and the cinema will attract more patrons if it can produce worthwhile goods.
Most noble Lords who have taken part in this debate are themselves professionally connected in one way or another with the cinema industry. I am not; I speak only as a consumer. But seventeen years in the insurance business have taught me what very big figures are often paid out in terms of claims when actors and actresses are ill or injured and when production schedules are held up. I make no complaint about that, because the insurance business has its part to play just as the film industry itself has.
I was one of a number of noble Lords who were fortunate enough to pay an official visit recently to the Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire. It was a revealing experience to those of us who had had little insight into the cinema industry except through the local Odeon or Gaumont cinema. We saw a great deal of what went on—at least four films were being made—and we talked to a number of those taking part. It had always been a thought of mine that there were too many surplus people on a film set; that there were too many people running around in sweaters and trousers, and other forms of garb; but it took only a short time for me to realise that on a film set each person has his or her part to play. It must obviously be very tedious for some of those taking part to have the same shot filmed time and time again. But when it reaches the screen, even though one might see only a fraction of what one saw in the studio, it usually bears some quite creditable resemblance.
Reference has been made to the high fees paid to film stars, and I would agree to some extent. But it is also true to say that a teenage "pop" singer, singing for only forty minutes at the London Palladium, can himself or herself gather up in proportion an equally high fee. And a film star may have to get up very

415
early in the morning and travel some disstance in all kinds of weather to reach the studio, and, if he or she is also a television actor or appears in the theatre, may have to get back to the theatre or the television studio in the evening. That is their way of life. I am not trying to be a sympathetic spokesman on their part, but I think this does reveal one aspect of the problems which the film industry has to face, and possibly of why such high fees have to be paid—although I must say that, in some cases, when one reads of the fees that some of the better-known stars get and in fact demand (and, if you do not pay that fee, they will not come at all) it sometimes reads fantastically when one bears in mind some of the salaries that those in our social services get.
The other problem, as I see it, with regard to finance is the fact that more and more films are now shot on location. There is a public demand for spectacular films, and, quite clearly, if one goes out to Spain or to Africa the results can be far more realistic. Recently, I saw the British film The Hill, a very brutal but convincing film about an army prison during the last war. I read that the whole cast, and all those taking part in the production, moved out to a lonely desert in Spain where, under a broiling sun, they worked solidly for three months making that film. There were none of the comforts of the studio: those taking part were really put through it, almost as if they had been in the prison themselves. That may well have added to the cost of the film, but whether one liked the film or not, the fact is that a more realistic picture was made, and I regard this as a great credit to our film industry.
I think that for the future we have to face the fact that the general public like spectacular films. They do not necessarily like the sex-ridden dramas and comedies, so called, which come across our television screen all too often, but they like good, honest comedies. The Norman Wisdom type film will, I think, always be a success, whatever the critics say; and, getting back to the spectacular film, they like the Lawrence of Arabia type of film—which, of course, had its difficulties and was very costly.
There is also the documentary film. Reference has been made to Look at
416
Life. This, I think, is one of the best series of documentary films, because the subject is chosen, they are all very short films—they last ten minutes each—and they present their subject very carefully and very fully within that short period of time. A much wider showing of these films would, I think, be very much desired by the public. The fact that they are made by the Rank Organisation may well mean that only cinemas within that orbit can show them, but all credit to the cinemas concerned.
Then, reference has also been made to the old films. Of course, television has bought up a number of old films, which one can see on a Saturday or a Sunday; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, so rightly said, in a most interesting speech, the old films do have a great interest for the young—films like Rembrandt, and a lot of films of the 1930s. I feel quite certain that if the Rank and A.B.C. circuits in the provinces were to show these films from time to time, and not merely leave it to the Classic group of cinemas, they would reap quite a sound dividend from it, because these are films which really do have a lot more realism than some of the films made to-day.
Finally, I should like to make just this point. Whatever the problems of the film industry—and only those closely connected with it, whether actors, producers or distributors, can really know them—in the last analysis there is one group of people upon whom will depend the survival of the film industry and any entertainment industry, and that is the general public. I would hope that our film industry in this country, which has such an outstanding record over the years, will always bear that in mind.
5.10 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I am very much in the same position as my noble friend. I also made my maiden speech in this House on this subject—I am ashamed to say slightly further back than his maiden speech. But possibly I have one other small qualification: that for a short time I actually worked in the industry itself. However, I am not in the position of having to declare an interest, because I left it about nine years ago. At the time I made my maiden speech I remember Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Archibald as the experts on the industry. But from what

417
we have heard to-day, the professionals (if I may use the term) are now with us; and a very good thing it is! This is a highly complicated industry and it is often very difficult to know from what angle to approach the subject. When I have spoken in the past on the film industry I have approached it from the point of view of the independent producers, but to-day I am going to approach it from the other side, from the viewpoint of major companies.
Since the war, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, stated, the industry has, naturally, gone through enormous changes and. I think, it has been faced with four main problems. The first, is the decline in cinema attendances, with the consequent cinema closures; second is the shortage of good entertainment films; third is the steady rise in costs, which we have heard discussed from all sides this afternoon; and, fourth, the difficulty of raising capital for film production. We have heard figures given over the question of attendances, but the figures I have just been given (and I shall quote only a few) by the experts are that attendances have fallen from 1,600 million in 1946 to 370 million in 1964. So far as closures are concerned, in 1946 there were 4,000 cinemas; there are now only 2,000; and, of these, the Rank Organisation operate 350.
As we have heard to-day, the cost of film production has gone up and up steadily. I understand that whereas about sixteen years ago the cost of a feature film was possibly in the region of £400,000, it may now be £700,000-plus. This produces vast problems from the business angle of the industry. Let us look at that from the point of view of an organisation like the Rank Organisation. It has its own production programme at Pinewood Studios; it finances the productions of independent producers; it co-produces with American companies; and also makes additional funds available to independent producers under arrangements with the N.F.F.C. and the National Provincial Bank. It also operates a world-wide distribution system. In 1964, 94 British films were released in more than 50 countries. It also carries out major reconstruction programmes on cinemas itself, and the Rank Organisation's payments to the British Film Production Fund amount to £1½ million every year.
418
I have the deepest sympathy with all that has been said from the independent producer's point of view. I remember dealing with this problem in my opening speech in this House, and I then went into the question of the possibility of the formation of a fund for script-writers, so that they might continuously be able to carry on writing scripts for films. It had been put to me then that writers possibly had the chance of writing one or two scripts but that then, for months on end, they might not be writing anything. I do not think that a very great deal has happened in connection with that problem, but I suppose it is fair to say that nowadays script-writers have the opportunity of turning from film to television script-writing.
My Lords, I wish to harp on only one other point for a few moments—and this is a very touchy point, I know. It is the question of the unions within the film industry itself. I suppose it is only fair to say that if ever there was an industry within which it was essential for unions to be formed, it was the film industry. There is no doubt that in the old clays the working conditions and hours were appalling. As your Lordships know there are now very strong and strict unions within the industry; but I think that they, like all unions, might curb themselves in certain ways. Only someone outside the industry, perhaps, can say this. It is going to the extreme, I think, that when these union members go on location there should be "double-banking"; that they should insist, very often, on two sets of people going when one unit would be enough. There are such ridiculous things as the unions' insisting on travelling first-class in aeroplanes. This is not doing the industry itself any good, and one hopes that possibly they may see sense on these points.
In conclusion, I will say that so often people feel that any approach to the film industry is surrounded, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, by a purely glamorous outlook. But anyone who studies the problems in the film industry, especially in this country, in any detail is very soon brought up with rather a nasty jolt to realise that the complexities of the British film industry are enormous, and especially in the market connected with America. I am certain that any

419
future approach of the industry must basically be met on cold, hard facts which, through the very nature of the industry (where temperamental artists and creative directors have to be taken into account) produce really deep problems from all angles and especially for the men who have to keep a permanent balance on costs and return.
5.20 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, may I first say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, how much we all enjoyed his maiden speech? It was the speech of a man who obviously has met the problems of this industry face to face day by day. Such opinions are always worth listening to, no matter from which quarter of the House they may come. Let me say how indebted we are to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for having brought up this subject and for putting his points with such clarity and distinction, as he always does. My noble friend is very good not only with the written but with the spoken word. I felt that his comments were directed at me when he talked about the tycoon who turned milk-white with fear when confronted with the economics of the film he was making. I nearly did the same when I saw that my noble friend's Motion was getting near to the top of the list. May I also thank those other noble Lords who have spoken. I will try to answer as many of the queries which have been posed as it is possible for me to do.
This has been a first-class and interesting debate, and I can say that with sincerity. I wish to make one or two points before I come to the substantial points which I have to deal with. I would tell the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that to my knowledge there is not at the moment an E.D.C. for this industry, but I think that his suggestion might very well be looked into. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, went a little further than I would have ventured with reference to American dominance. Before the noble Lord corrected the balance of his remarks about the United States, I felt like asking whether he was prepared to take the risk of diverting what there would be of the film levy for distribution if the American interests were withdrawn. But the noble
420
Lord corrected his remarks very well as he went on, and he put the matter on a good basis. I will deal later with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, because a good deal of it rang a bell in my own experience.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, will pardon the interjection which I made when he apologised for putting over the British image. I did not mean it as a brusque kind of intervention it came involuntarily. I believe in the British image. What is the debate all about if we are not putting our backs into an effort to present an image which will (shall I say?) be an advertisement for Britain all over the world? The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, mentioned people at Pinewood running about in sweaters and trousers. I imagine that the noble Lord would have been more surprised had they not had anything on at all. I do not know what the noble Lord would have thought had he been present at the shooting of the now notorious B.B.C.3 film which showed a female in the nude jumping up and down on a trampoline. But the noble Lord was not there. Also, we are obliged to the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, for his contribution.
My Lords, I will take two subjects to start with. One is the monopoly aspect which I thought was beautifully handled by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. He spoke of its impact on the third circuit, and said that he would not say a great deal about it. Neither shall I. It is the fact that the last Government recognised the need for a thorough and impartial investigation into this alleged monopolistic practice. The Monopolies Commission is inquiring into the supply of films for exhibition in cinemas, and your Lordships will not expect me, even if I could, to anticipate the findings of the Commission. We are assured by the Commission that the Report will be prepared as soon as possible, and in a matter of such complexity it would be unreasonable to expect the Commission to announce a firm date for the conclusion of its work. I am hoping that the Report will be available long before the end of the year.
The noble Lord spoke of American dominance, American financed production, and the effect on the British film industry. As everyone has admitted,

421
many popular films have been financed from American sources. The best of them have enhanced the reputations of British producers, directors, actors and technicians. This is a schizophrenic situation and reminds me very much of the Lancashire cotton industry, which I know very well. There are people in that industry who wish to keep out the Commonwealth products and others who want them in because they may be used in a normal course of business. This is the kind of thing we are up against all the time at the Board of Trade.
We all recognise the substantial contribution to the maintenance of the present level of output made by American investment. It gives employment to British technicians and artists. We hear a lot about American dominance and perhaps not enough about American partnership. The noble Lord said that the problem which worries many British film-makers is what would happen if the Americans decided to pull out of production. I agree that there would be an immediate crisis. I am wondering what sort of budget would be required, if the Americans pulled out of the market, to enable the British film industry to cope. It is fantastic to think of it.
What I think the noble Lord had in his mind was that we ought to be preparing to do something about producing for ourselves what we can do well. I appreciate what he said. But I do not think that there will be any sudden withdrawal of American financial interests—for a variety of reasons. They are much taken with the talent of the British actors and technicians they are able to employ. They are as good as any in the world. We have some good studios. We also have a common language—though that can be a double-edged advantage. In my own opinion, we also have the fact that the Americans have now brought to a fine art investment in other countries by means of subsidiaries, so that they can create and produce the kind of market research they need. This has become big business on a gigantic scale and it is taking place throughout every industry. This is one of the problems that face us, as well as the other countries in the world.
I cannot go along with the noble Lord when he says it is virtually impossible for a British film producer to get sup-
422
port to make a film unless he has American backing, and finance. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also mentioned this and gave a graphic instance of a young producer going with his portfolio to Charing Cross Road—I hope he was doing nothing else there but trying to sell his script. There is British money available to support British film production, provided always—and this is the crunch—that a project has a reasonable chance of success. That is how the situation is.
The difficulty is not so much that a British producer with a good project cannot get backing from British money. It is rather, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, that the British producer prefers to take his project to the Americans. There are various reasons for this, not least that the Americans, with their immense home market and ready access to world markets, can hold out far greater hope of financial reward. We cannot blame him for going to the Americans. Moreover, the Americans nowadays often offer to provide 100 per cent. of the money required for the productions which they back. This makes life much easier for the producer, who formerly had to go scraping around in an attempt to raise from various sources the money that he needed. There is nothing unfair in this, if we accept the tenets of commercial practice. This is one of them. Those who control British money must be prepared to offer equally good terms, if they are to attract to themselves these projects and the services of good British producers, especially those whose proven talents are much in demand.
The noble Lord made some interesting comments about the British Film Fund. When I say that the Board of Trade are going to give sympathetic consideration to some of his suggestions, I mean it. He proposed that money from the Fund might be distributed in such a way as to afford special encouragement to the production of low-budget feature films, and that, in addition, some of the money should be used to encourage the development of a circuit of small cinemas specialising in the showing of Continental, some American and British low-budget films. In looking at these interesting suggestions, I think we must keep in mind the nature of the levy arrangements. These have

423
been mentioned this afternoon, but I had better go over them again. The levy was started in 1950 on a voluntary basis. The idea was, and still is, that part of cinema earnings should be used to support British film production. The scheme provides for the transfer within the industry of what may, in a real sense, be called the industry's money. The scheme was made statutory in 1957. Although the regulations under which the scheme operates are made by the Board of Trade, subject to Parliamentary approval, it is still very much an industry scheme, and before making any regulations governing the collection or distribution of the levy the Board are required to consult the Cinematograph Films Council, the statutory body—I stress "statutory body"—on which the various branches of the industry are represented.
The first of the noble Lord's suggestions is that more levy money should be channelled to low-budget feature films, instead of the levy being shared out in proportion to each film's earnings. The producers' associations have been considering the question of varying the basis on which the levy is distributed. They have not so far recommended any change to the Board of Trade, but if and when they do, or any other section of the industry does so, it will be given, as I have indicated, sympathetic and careful study and, of course, the views of the Cinematograph Films Council will be obtained.
The noble Lord's second suggestion, that money from the Film Fund should be used to encourage the development of a circuit of cinemas specialising in films appealing to minority audiences, raises different questions altogether. To do this would entail a large departure from the original aim of the levy. It is always tempting to think that the levy might be used for good causes, and no one grudges the grant which is made to the Children's Film Foundation and which, I may announce, has been increased from £137,500 to £.192,500. I am certain that most Members of the House will be pleased about this. But this is an exception, and it may well be that the use of the levy in the way suggested would not receive unanimous approbation. However, there is no reason whatever why the idea should not be aired, and I am glad the noble Lord has done so.
424
Finally on this subject, in his remarks about the National Film Finance Corporation the noble Lord made the suggestion that part of the Film Fund—he mentioned 5 per cent.—should be paid to the Corporation and earmarked as preproduction money for British producers. I think this suggestion was also made by one of the other speakers. Here, again, is a suggestion on which the Board of Trade would be glad to have the views of the industry. We have not had them. I shall refer later on to the consideration which the Government are giving to the question of the future of the National Film Finance Corporation, in answer to the many queries that have been raised.
I now turn to the question of films legislation. The quota provisions expire at the end of 1967, and the power to collect the levy expires in October of that year. The Government propose to review their films policies in the light of the Monopolies Commission Report. We shall look closely at the relevant legislation and consider how far it is appropriate in present conditions. Of course it would be premature to conduct a review of this kind until we have had the benefit of the outcome of the Monopolies Commission's inquiry; indeed, it would be stupid to do it. So the Government propose to continue for a period existing legislation affecting the quota and the levy, with one or two minor changes. For this purpose, a Continuance Bill will be presented to Parliament this autumn. As the noble Lord mentioned, the National Film Finance Corporation's lending powers expire in March, 1967. In its latest Annual Report the Corporation refers to this question and the need for an early decision. The Government appreciate the need for a timely decision, and I may say that there will be no undue delay about it.
The noble Lord has proposed that the Corporation's life should be extended; that more money should be available to it, and that its lending powers should be widened, so that commercial success need not be the only criterion on which it bases its financial support for British film production. I would point out that the words of the Act are that the Corporation shall make loans
"to persons who, in the judgment of the Corporation, have reasonable expectations of being

425
able to arrange for the production or distribution of cinematograph films on a commercially successful basis."
Judging a commercial risk, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, is always a tricky business, and it is, I think, true to say that the N.F.F.C. has tried to give worthwhile projects assistance and has given some applicants for loans the benefit of the doubt.
Taking such risks has been part of the Corporation's job, but it has cost it, and consequently the taxpayer, a lot of money. In many ways, over the years, the Corporation has had the "sticky" end of the stick by having to bear the 30 per cent. "end money". But it would be a radically different matter to authorise the Corporation to make loans to people who did not have reasonable expectations of being able to produce or distribute films on a commercially successful basis. We should not forget that film production is an industry, although many films (including some which achieved high box office receipts) have considerable artistic merit.
I have been interested to hear what noble Lords have said about the relationship of the artistic side with the commercial side, and, if your Lordships will bear with me, I may have a few words to say about that before I sit down. It is obvious that if you start lending the taxpayers' money to industrial undertakings on any basis other than that it will be repaid with interest, you will soon find that you are, in effect, subsidising them. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, drew attention to the fact that when the present Prime Minister, seventeen years ago, as President of the Board of Trade (and I was then one of his juniors), introduced the Bill establishing the Corporation, he said:
"There must be no question of a subsidy for film production."
That may be a long time ago, but in this case I feel that the considerations which weighed with those who framed the 1949 Act may well hold good to-day. Here may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, who advocated a wholehearted investigation, or inquiry, into the industry, that I personally think this is clue, and I hope that the powers-that-be will take due notice of what he has said.
I will now deal with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Willis,
426
in his opening speech. He asked what can be done to encourage the production of the smaller, lower-budget feature films which once were common to British film production. I would rather put a different question: what has happened to discourage the production of lower-budget features which once were so successful? I think that this question has been answered by many noble Lords who have drawn attention to the changing habits of our people. I do not want to overelaborate on this aspect, but there are one or two things that I should like to say.
The most important individual in this business is not the producer, the technician, the actor, the distributor or the exhibitor: it is the customer, the man who pays his money at the box office. In connection with the inquiry which Lord Archibald suggested, this industry, as I see it (and I am not here expressing the Government's view) is ripe for a thorough market research. I believe we are now at a time when a lot of the changing habits of the British people are clear and are there to be seen. I believe that this is the crucial time.
On the one hand, good films can be made and find an international audience (not as big as they used to be: and I am not referring now to the "blockbuster" type of film, like The Sound of Music, to which I take my grandchildren, instead of taking them to the pantomime, as I used to do), and, on the other, you get a man like John Houseman, of Hollywood, who is internationally known and whose opinions are very astute and sound, saying: "The real problem with American films to-day is who you are making them for. Most of us face the embarrassing dilemma that we are working in a mass medium that has lost its mass audience and wont admit it." This is what so many noble Lords have been trying to say this afternoon, and mostly successfully: I think that they have the problem right.
Some of the lost millions never cared what was on the screen, so long as it was changed twice a week. I suppose that nowadays they are watching Coronation Street, and what the B.B.C. or I.T.V. are prepared to dish up in the way of old films; or they may be at Bingo, in the same surroundings. But perhaps the analysis of those who are attending

427
cinemas rather belies this. I am open to be corrected, but I understand that the majority of our cinema audiences, apart from the fact that they emanate from the workers, are somewhere between the teenager and the age of 24. If that is the case, this strikes at other things quite different from the financial aspects of films. It strikes at the social aspects of the country. This is where the problem is most important, and I shall come to this in a little more detail later.
Nowadays, people do not go to the cinema as an escape or as a habit. In the twenties and thirties many people went to the cinema as an escape from their drab and dreary home surroundings. Thank heaven for the fact that our living standards have now risen so that this is no longer necessary for the vast majority of our people! Those who go to the cinema nowadays go because, out of the many forms of recreation available to them, they choose the cinema. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, was absolutely right when he said that the cinema has a unique position in the affections of the British people.
Although we have heard these attendance figures of 1,600 million in 1946 and 370 million in 1964, the fact is that there is still a worthwhile audience who have an affection for the cinema. But they will not go to see bad films. The industry must see to it that films of a consistently high standard are available, films which are attuned to current public tastes and interests. It is no good serving up the old mixtures, however popular they may once have been. The public will not put up with shabby surroundings; the cinemas must be attractive places in themselves. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me here if I omit part of my speech, some of which has been put better by other noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, said that there is scope for the development of a chain of small cinemas, showing films for what may be at present a minority audience. I agree with him completely. The only time I go to the cinema, except for the odd visit at Christmas time, is to the commercial art theatre. It may be that this will grow, and bring in a worthwhile audience. It may be that the cinema of the future will be of the big
428
"block-buster" type, with the great cities bringing in audiences in charabancs, as is being done in my district around Manchester, to see a film which runs for months. And one can see queues a quarter of a mile long.
I was interested to read the announcement last December of the formation by a private interest—I am referring to the Grade-Rive group, which has been mentioned—of a new organisation, which suggested that other people are thinking along similar lines. I wish them success. The stated aim of this company is to have a circuit of fifty cinemas showing" quality films that are commercial". But much of this stems from something else. In my opinion, much of this talk about the support of the arts and the cinema stems from grass roots. You must build up from the bottom, and you must make your growth like that of a plant, which is continuous throughout the years, to be any good at all.
Some years ago, in my locality, two or three of us, in a string of eight villages, 2,000 population in each, started what was known as a festival of the arts. Let the cynics smile! We started with the folks themselves. We had excellent choirs of schoolchildren, and the ability to pull down and reassemble musical instruments was demonstrated by a symphony orchestra. We brought in some of the best people to encourage what was in their hearts and minds. That was a long time ago. We have revived it every five years. The first time we revived it it just paid its way; the second time we made £500; and now, on the third occasion, we are going to do it with a budget of something in the region of £3,000 or £4.000. We are going to be ambitious as well. But the expectancy, the eagerness, of the community to take part in this is absolutely wonderful.
This sort of thing can be done all over the country, if there are people who are prepared to devote their time and money to it; and this, I believe, is what Miss Jennie Lee, the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, is concerned to foster and encourage. That is what can be done in this field. It is having its effect all over the place—this energy and effort to do things from grass roots by the people themselves.

429
On the 22nd of this month I am going to Oldham to open a new repertory theatre. Oldham was once part of a dismal, drab and dreary industrial area. But there has been a revolution there, because now we have a professional repertory theatre with a new theatre. This is the people's theatre. This is something they are doing themselves, and this is where you have your permanent values. It is no use spending large sums of money trying to inculcate the arts from the top by sending them the odd symphony orchestra, paying a great deal of money for its travel, services, and all the rest. This is where it begins, and I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, will agree with me that an enormous amount can be done by local authorities to make this a success.
Now I want to have a word (and I will not be long) about the growing interest which is being shown in the cinema as an art. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, as did the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, whose speech I thought was absolutely first-class, suggested to the Government and, perhaps, the Arts Council, that there should be a chain of repertory theatres throughout the country. The noble Lord mentioned the British Film Institute. May I say that I agree with every word he said. The work which is being done by the British Film Institute is absolutely first-class. He described as disastrous what would happen in the event of their not doing some of the work that is going on in creating the archives and the library. I agreed with his remarks about the historical background to this industry. This is probably one of its weaknesses, as the noble Lord suggested when he went through the whole gamut of the arts and showed how the historical significance is influencing the present.
I must say, in this connection, how much I admire—never mind the politics of it—the work of Miss Jennie Lee, who is concerned to foster and encourage this work. In the current financial year the British Film Institute is receiving grants to a total of over £180,000. The question of the provision, outside London, for the showing of the best world cinema has recently been considered in a report presented to the Institute. This report shows that there are already in existence plans for the establishment of regional film theatres on the model of the
430
National Film Theatre, and that some of these are at an advanced stage.
May I say here that the Government welcome these plans, but, as I have said before, their success must depend upon local initiative and enthusiasm. I was delighted last Saturday morning when I saw a report on what they are doing in Manchester, where plans have been passed for the Arts Centre. One of the amenities in that plan is a film theatre to seat 450 people, with all the accoutrements for cutting, dubbing, and all the rest of it, which I think is likely to be one of the fine centres of the North. I hope that it will not be long before it comes to fruition.
I am glad to be able to say that the Government are authorising the British Film Institute during the next financial year to promise grants towards the provision of new buildings, or the adaptation of existing buildings, for regional film theatres, up to a limit of £50,000 in total. That has been suggested this afternoon, and it is what is going to be done. It is not the intention of the Government to provide the complete capital for schemes involved. In fact, a precondition of a grant will be financial support from local authorities and other interested organisations; and here again it is a "must" that the local authorities and those interested locally should get behind a movement like this, and help. But I hope that this step will be a real help in encouraging the provision of "National Film Theatres" in the regions.
Much has been said in the past (and I am not going over old ground) about the need for the industry to make itself efficient so that it can make more competitive films. I do not feel like going through an harangue on this basis. But I am glad that this debate should have taken place this afternoon, and after the ideas have been digested by the Board of Trade, and by all the other interests involved, I hope that it may pave the way to perhaps a more comprehensive debate, taking in more problems, later in the year.
6.3 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I shall not detain you long. I should like to thank all the speakers who have taken part in the debate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for an outstanding maiden speech. I am grateful to him

431
for taking the plunge at this particular moment, but we professionals have to stand together. I should also like to thank all the other speakers, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for replying on behalf of the Government and for making a number of statements which seem to me at least to have a faint green hope of promise in one or two directions.
I must say that I was terrified at the suggestion that we might have a Royal Commission to look into the film industry. Over the last fifteen months people have been saying, "Do not put down a Motion; do not talk about it, because we have the Monopolies Commission and we had better wait for their report". But I believe that this debate to-day has proved that they were wrong to urge that we should wait. There are some urgent problems which need attention now, and although the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, felt that perhaps the debate was a little premature, his own speech was, in fact, an indication that such was not the case, because it was full of his usual statesmanlike utterances, information and experience, and although I would disagree with him, perhaps, on questions of emphasis, by and large we are in agreement on the broad field.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, will, as he said, consider carefully all the points made in the debate, and particularly I think it would be useful if he could have a look at the experience in Sweden, even to the extent of sending one of his young men there, because they have a quite remarkable and revolutionary scheme in relation to the cinema. Finally, may I say that if the Government are thinking of appointing a Commission on the film industry, the noble Lord need look no further than to appoint the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and myself. If only he would put us in charge for six months, we would soon put it straight.
My Lords, this has been the newsreel I will now make way for the main feature, to be presented by the noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey. I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE BRITISH TRAVEL ASSOCIATION
6.7 p.m.
LORD HAIRE OF WHITEABBEY LORD HAIRE OF WHITEABBEY rose to draw attention to the recent Annual Report of the British Travel Association; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In a way, I am sorry that I should be rising at this late hour to move the second of two Motions to-day, but because the Report of the British Travel Association is a real success story and so exciting, I am really happy to move it, even at 6 o'clock.
This debate is occurring at a time of the year when our newspapers and magazines attract advertising to the tune of some £10 million to tempt some of us abroad this summer. Some 4½ million people will succumb to its blandishments. It is not part of my intention this evening to try to wean them away. I am just happy to draw the attention of your Lordships to the other side of the coin, to the phenomenal success—and I think I use that word quite deservedly—of our own British Travel Association. As your Lordships know, the B.T.A. is the accredited agency appointed by successive Governments, charged with the responsibility to promote Great Britain as a holiday country and to attract foreign visitors. It is really a co-operative, one might say, finding the money to achieve these ends partly from the Government and partly from its own members on a pound for pound basis. Last year the Government contributed £2 million. For this reason, if for no other, I think your Lordships will be interested to know how the money was spent, and we will ask the Government, through the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, whether they are satisfied that the money was well spent. This Report should provide the answer.
British tourism has become our fourth largest export industry. From 3 million foreign tourists in 1965 it earned the sum of £360 million. This is a record. Its growth rate last year is worthy of attention: it was 14 per cent. up. All this, my Lords, in ten years—from 1 million visitors in 1955 to a total last year of 3 million visitors, and when it comes to dollar earnings this industry is away out

433
in front. The £81 million which we earned from United States' visitors in 1964 was more than the total dollar sales of motor vehicles and aircraft combined, at £68 million; more than the machinery we sold to the United States of America, at £59 million; and more than our old friend, whisky, at £46 million.
In a year or two, tourism will be our top export industry. The 1970 estimates give us 4 million visitors and more than £500 million of earnings. Yet somehow this industry seems to have escaped the real attention of the Government, or even a dynamic push. For example, in the much-applauded National Plan, out of a total of 400 pages of that remarkable document, only six lines were devoted to the tourist industry. I have no interest to declare this evening except that of hoping for a happy holiday, but I must say that this kind of figure deserves all the credit and the honour that the nation and the Government can give.
However, new trends are now appearing. The international tourist trade has become highly competitive. Other countries, some with few natural resources except the sun, sea and sand, are finding that there are real prizes to be won. Thus Spain, for example, last year increased its contribution to tourism by as much as 121 per cent.; Belgium's was up by 106 per cent.; Holland's by 97 per cent.; the contribution of the Irish Republic—and the money is spent well on some of their excellent advertisements—was up by 84 per cent.; and Italy's contribution was up by 22 per cent. Yet in this same period last year we increased our contribution by a bare 14 per cent. We shall have to do better than this. If we are going to earn the £500 million by 1970, as the estimators say, we shall have to spend more than the £2 million we spend now to get it.
At this stage I should like to ask my noble friend a question. Is the pound-for-pound method the best way of raising the necessary funds to promote this industry, especially if it is the top dollar earning industry? For example, the whole of the retail trades in this country, which must get quite considerable assistance from the millions of overseas visitors who come to us, contributed last year the sum of £2,750 to the British travel industry, and it is on this kind of contribution that the Government's contribu-
434
Lion also depends. I consider that this contribution by the retail trades is lamentable.
Again an increase of another one million visitors within the next five years will place considerable strain on our hotels, motor inns and catering establishments, our ports and airports, and our recreation facilities. Under our present arrangements, our tourist and hotel industry builds, extends and modernises from its own resources. It gets no subsidy for structural work. Compare this with the assistance given to new factories making for exports, or compare it to the contribution made by other Governments. For example, if I may quote again the Irish Republic, they contribute a total of 20 per cent. as direct grant to hotels and other accommodation being built. The industry gets no special loan assistance; it would like in certain approved cases to be given loans, for example, for a 25 year period, which could be guaranteed by the British Travel Association or by a corporation set up for the purpose. Again it gets no tax or rate reliefs. Repairs even are chargeable to the capital account and not allowed as revenue. In the Irish Republic they are allowed two-thirds exemption for a period of seven years, but not here. Yet in the new phase of accommodation building for tourism the emphasis must be on medium or low priced accommodation, and many more hotels must be built.
Nor does the White Paper recently published (Cmnd. 2874) on Investment Incentives mention hotels or tourist accommodation. The hotel industry may be in for a boom time, but if we are to spread new hotel accommodation into the Provinces and to some extent away from London there must be inducements. London has in the past been too much the magnet; it takes over 50 per cent. of our tourist spending. I think we could designate certain areas as tourist development areas and give the B.T.A. power to approve applications for subsidy especially on the tourist routes and near the ports.
I want to say a few words with regard to the new recreation areas and the contribution they can make to tourism. We all look forward to the new Countryside Commission planned by my right honourable friend the Minister of Land and

435
Natural Resources, and we await the White Paper promised by him. But it is evident to those of us who study these matters that another of the new trends which are appearing in tourism is the greatly increased and greatly increasing traffic from European countries to this country. Already the tourists from France and Germany together almost match the figure of American visitors to this country. And this is likely within the next few years to be a major breakthrough in British tourism. This development is likely to be mainly of motoring visitors. They are likely to be motoring families. They will have a far greater proportion—or so it seems on the Continent—of campers and caravanners than at present.
One of the interesting points is that this tends to abolish the language barrier. The language barrier has been overcome. That is due to a combination of the car, the caravan or tent, and the supermarket. The super-mercado, as it is called in Spain, is now everywhere on the good camping sites on the Continent. There is the same range of goods, the same packaging. You fill up your basket, pay your money, and not a word need be spoken. So it is with the launderette. It would help even more if we had a decimal coinage system.
What are we doing for these new, mobile tourists? We lag behind the Continent in the provision of caravan and camping parks equipped with the facilities and amenities the continental expects and finds in other countries. We need rapid improvement of most of our camping sites. We need the setting up of a network of transit sites. But whether it is the municipal authority or the Countryside Commission or the National Parks or the Forestry Commission or the private operator which is concerned, there will be a need for grants or loans or inducements even to produce the right kind of holiday camps. There will be a need for accelerated planning with favourable consideration of suitable applications. There will be a need for Government guidance and the issue of model standards for tourist and transit camps and layout plans, such as were produced a few years ago in connection with our Caravan Sites Development Act, in connection with residential caravans. There may be a need for exhortation or
436
guidance to petrol stations, wayside inns, such as are now produced by the brewers in increasing numbers and of such good quality, and motels to provide space suitably laid out for transient tourists, with toilet facilities, eating facilities and the rest. And there should be a directive from the appropriate Government authority to local authorities and all others outlining the assistance which they, the Government authority, can give.
I mentioned earlier the need for modernisation of ports and airports. Even London Airport, as those who use it know, is now largely overtaken by the increased traffic there. We shall need schemes for modernisation of our port facilities for the short sea routes to the Continent, and I am happy to find in this same White Paper a very high priority given to the provision for modernising equipment at the ports. We must welcome the greatly improved facilities for passenger reception, but of course more are needed. Baggage handling is still too slow. It is frustrating, after one has been on an hour's flight from Paris or Dusseldorf, or Brussels or Belfast, to arrive at London Airport and have to spend another half-an-hour waiting to reconnect with your baggage. The new Executive coaches are a welcome innovation. We should also welcome, I think, the nine new car sea ferries and two air ferries which were introduced last year, and the six by sea and five by air which are planned for this year. The B.T.A. will certainly need to work for the abolition of any further frontier formalities and tourist red tape. There is one piece of red tape that I should like to see abolished: it must be psychologically painful to foreign visitors. I refer to the division into "British" and "Foreigners" when we line up for passport control on arrival at London or other airports. I can think of no worse way to begin a holiday here.
Now I should like to ask my noble friend a series of questions on the "et ceteras" of the tourist business. First there is the question of extending the season. I know from my short experience in the holiday hotel business that the short season is the bogeyman of the business. I know, too, that some 20 million people, out of a total of 31 million, take their holidays in July and August. The result is overcrowded

437
roads, overcrowded hotels, overcrowded trains and planes—overcrowded everything. Staggered holidays are indeed the answer. But will my noble friend tell us what success has attended the lead given in the White Paper some three or four years ago? What success has followed the attempt to move school examinations to May and early June? What success has followed the attempt to move the August national holiday from the beginning to the end of the month, and the attempt to fix the Whitsun holiday? An early decision on both these points is imperative. Your Lordships will note that I prefer to drop the term "bank holiday"; I much prefer the term "national holiday". I think the term "bank holiday" is thoroughly obsolete.
I would increase the number of national holidays by at least one. Great Britain is at the bottom of the league for national holidays. Some countries have many more. The new three-week holidays, or, soon, four weeks, if taken in two periods will help to break the myth in regard to August being the only month for holidays. People will find that other months can be equally enjoyable. Certainly something must be done to spread out our holidays. It is a gross waste of our national resources to find so many of our holiday places, hotels and halls closed for eight months of the year—unproductive capital locked up, dead; and the staff problems created in the hotel business are frightening.
Now a word about the licensing laws. These are still restrictive, especially in relation to a tourist drive. So many of our old regulations must be re-examined in the context of our new tourism—our all-out "Come to Britain" drive. Some urgent improvements are needed—for example, permission for the service of drinks with meals in hotels at any reasonable time. We shall have to be on our alert to avoid the Swedish method of serving a plate of plastic peas with drinks at all times. We should aim for permission for tourists in camps to be treated as residents.
Next, a brief word about roads, although so much could be said. It is obvious that a measure of priority should be given to the construction of new roads in tourist areas. This would happen automatically if we had caught the urgent
438
fever of tourism. But my main point here is perhaps a revolutionary one—namely, drive on the right. We are almost the odd man out here in Europe. It may be all right politically to "keep to the Left", but it is not all right for our Continental motoring tourists. "Drive on the right" will come sooner or later. Why not now? For several years now I have driven a British car with the steering on the left, and I must tell your Lordships that, if anything, I have found it safer. Going down a street with a long line of parked vehicles on the left it is safer to drive a left-hand-drive car. In any case, so many of our roads and streets are now one-way, not to mention the motorways and dual carriageways. This one simple decision could be the key to an enormous break-through for British tourism for travellers from the Continent. So many of them are frightened to come here when they think that we drive on the left.
On my list of "et ceteras" is the cleaning of public buildings and floodlighting. I think my noble friend should encourage our right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works to embark on the policy to clean up all our public and historic buildings. We have had one or two notable examples lately. St. Paul's was cleaned up at the instigation of the then Lord Mayor of London. We have now seen Paris given a complete clean-up. More than ten years ago little Portugal showed the way by cleaning up all her national and public buildings. Our famous buildings, too, would shine after this clean-up treatment, especially in our new smokeless zones. Having cleaned them, we should encourage much more floodlighting and much more son et lumière. Turning to shopping, we should encourage shopkeepers to take full advantage of the 1950 Shops Act, especially in tourist areas. We should hurry on the proposed new Act, and we should expedite the introduction of decimal coinage. Above all, we should review the Sunday Observance Act.
My last "et cetera" is an important one—the need for large conference centres, in London and elsewhere. We need to provide one or more of these large international conference centres of a size equal to those found in many American centres. Their construction

439
costs would soon be paid for. Their success would be as lucrative of foreign currency as of American dollars. Incidentally, would my noble friend say what has happened to the proposed new Crystal Palace Exhibition Centre? This is a need on the export front on which I think the Government could give us much greater encouragement and assistance. Perhaps there is a lesson for us here, in the success of our gaming centres, though it is not too popular a plea to make. Britain is fast becoming an international gambling centre, with the inveterates flying over for the day, or, more likely, for the night.
It is no part of my purpose to-day to be a soothsayer. But it is fairly safe to sum up as follows: first, that holidays in Britain in the future will be holidays on the move; holidays in the motor age; holidays in an area and not a resort, with the emphasis on a few days here and a few days there. Accommodation whether in hotels, motor inns, or camps, will cease to be let on a weekly basis; so holidays will start and end on any day of the week. Secondly, they will be holidays in an age of leisure, an age of affluence. There will be the two-holiday year—perhaps a summer one and a winter one, or in the better weather of spring and autumn, or even, judging from the conditions at the moment, the better weather in February.
Affluence and leisure will mean the two-house family. Already we almost have the two-car family. We shall have the family house, near our employment or in the country, and our holiday house near the sea or by a lake, so as to have the benefit of the new water sports. This second house may be one of the new portable houses, or a large mobile home, or even a caravan. Or it may be, as with many now, a maisonette in a country block; or, as the Continentals have discovered, a flat constructed as part of a hotel and sold as a" detachable" unit, as need be, when required by the owner, but integrated with the hotel or block when not needed by the owner.
In future, it will be holidays in the new Britain, for a new Britain is growing up around us. Our new title will be "Come to the New Britain". We cannot hope to compete with the sun and sand of Europe. In the past we have countered
440
with the Beefeater, thatched cottage conception of Britain, and this has proved a magnificent magnet to Britain. Its magic has not been dissipated, even yet. But there will be so much more to see in future in Britain, with its new experiments in architecture, its exciting new housing, its new city centres, new shopping precincts, new festival halls, new recreation centres, and our own new Westminster precinct.
The future is indeed alive with imagination. Already we have the Britain of the new fashion, making Britain among the world's affluent teenagers the land of Mary Quant. We have the Britain of the new cuisine, with millions eating out and drinking their
"red" and "white"—though the restaurants must learn not to pick our packets with their prices and, equally, must learn that our new diners-out do not want their dishes sold to them in the French language. We must learn to glamorise this new Britain, this new London which we are told has now become the Mecca of Europe, and keep our tourists here for longer than a few days.
Before I conclude, I would ask your Lordships to note that this Report records the multiplicity of the efforts of the B.T.A. and its staff to search out and promote markets abroad for British tourism. Their publications last year ran to 14 million pieces; their features appeared in the newspapers and magazines of some 50 foreign countries; their films and television activities are now available in 39 foreign languages, and are seen by an estimated 400 million people a year. These are only a small part of the Association's efforts which go to produce earnings of £360 million a year.
I have said hardly a thing about the activities of the Association to develop our own home holidays. Many noble Lords who are to follow me will, I hope, fill in the gaps which I have left. We should congratulate the many men and women on the board and in the council of the British Travel Association who voluntarily give their time to making British tourism what it has become—an economic and international force in the world, and whose efforts have made this Annual Report the dynamic document it is. I am happy to see the Chairman

441
of B.T.A. in his place to-day, and to know that he is to follow me. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.35 p.m.
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, first I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey, for his courtesy in putting down this Motion and, in thanking him, it is appropriate that I should state my interest in the subject under discussion. This is not an interest in the normal sense of the phrase, which implies a financial interest, but having had the good fortune to serve as Deputy Chairman of the British Travel Association during the three years of the distinguished chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Mabane, and then to succeed him, and for the vast two years having had the honour to be Chairman of the Association, I have an intense interest in the subject and have some responsibility for the Report which is before your Lordships.
In less than two decades Britain's tourist industry has grown from practically nothing to become one of the most powerful forces in the country's economy. To-day, it is our fourth largest export industry and our biggest single dollar-earner. The noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey, has given your Lordships the figures, which I will not repeat but merely confirm. As an export, tourism has developed at three times the average rate of this country's physical export trades. The national income from tourism is equal to no less than 7 per cent. of the value of all physical exports. A measure of the growth of the British tourist industry can be gained by a comparison between figures of tourist arrivals. In 1947, the first full year for tourism after the war, they numbered 400,000. In 1955 they passed the million mark for the first time. In 1965, ten years later, the total approached three million. More Americans came to Britain in 1965 than our total tourist arrivals from all countries in 1951.
Statistics are impressive, but they do not reflect adequately what has been achieved in Britain since the war. In the late 1940s the general attitude here did little to help the development of a prosperous tourist industry. We had always thought of ourselves as tourists, but did not think of ourselves as acting as hosts to tourists from other lands. We had to create a tourist trade almost from
442
scratch. We did not do this by copying what had been done by the traditional European tourist countries. Instead, we sought out new business and created a travel movement suited to Britain's special attractions.
A measure of the difference between Britain's tourist industry and that of any other European country is that the average length of stay of visitors to Britain in 1964 was 34½ days compared, for example, to 5½ days in Italy. Sixty-five per cent. of our tourist revenue comes from English-speaking visitors from other continents, while the major part of the traffic to most other European countries is from countries within Europe. As a result, by comparison with some European countries, Britain's overseas tourist traffic is low in volume though high in value. Our earnings are higher than the travel receipts of such competitive countries as Switzerland, Austria and France, and they approach those of Italy.
Examination of our tourist revenue shows that, in spite of certain difficulties, notably the absence of a semi-tropical sun and the existence of the geographic, price and psychological barrier of the Channel, we are more than holding our own in the share of the world tourist market. But times are changing, and we are once again faced by the task of creating new business. The principal source of Britain's tourist income continues to be the United States. In 1964, for example, only about 1¼per cent. of the population of the United States travelled overseas, so that there is still a vast untapped potential there. But perhaps more important, because it is even less developed, is our potential in Europe. Britain's share of the European market in 1964 was slightly over one million visitors, with earnings of the order of £50 million. Travel by Europeans within Europe is far greater in volume than travel by peoples from other continents to Europe. Some idea of the enormous growth which has taken place in travel within Europe may be seen in the examples of Spain and Italy, which, in the past decade, have witnessed sixfold increases in visitors from Germany and France, who are now much greater in numbers than the visitors from Britain.
In the early years of the "Come To Britain" campaign, after the war, Britain benefited from the large, natural source

443
of visitor traffic which the Commonwealth represented. To-day, for the first time, we are having to fight to increase, even to maintain, our share of traffic from what used to be an almost exclusive market for us. First, there is the increased promotional effort being made not only by our competitors in Europe, but by countries in the Americas and in Asia. Secondly, we have to remember that new generations of Commonwealth citizens no longer necessarily think of Britain as the home country.
The broad picture is one of increasing international travel to Britain, but one which is changing in some directions and is affected by the growing attractions of our competitors. Britain can benefit from this vast potential by taking action. The British Travel Association, as Britain's national tourist organisation, is, as your Lordships are aware, Her Majesty's Government's chosen instrument for the purpose of promoting travel to and within Britain. What is a national tourist organisation? Its organisation and function should vary according to circumstances. It can be, and often is, a Ministry of Tourism, but while that pattern might be appropriate in some countries, and notably the less developed countries, it has not been thought to suit Britain.
As your Lordships are aware, the British Travel Association is Government-sponsored. It is at the same time a co-operative representing about 6,000 local and national bodies and owners of tourist services and plant. It exists because tourists produce income for its members, as well as for the country as a whole. Its task is to create a demand for travel to Britain. It feeds back suggestions and ideas, and indicates to its members what it considers to be profitable lines for development. The Association has a three-fold task: first, of increasing the number of overseas visitors to this country; secondly, of fostering and developing travel within Britain by the British people themselves; and, thirdly, of encouraging in every way possible the improvement and development of tourist and holiday amenities and facilities within the country.
The affairs of the Association are directed by a voluntary board, who represent
444
not only the various industries which comprise the travel trade, but a wide range of other interests. In its work, the board is assisted by a number of committees which are also composed of representatives of a broad range of activities. The Association has a staff of more than 400, 150 of whom work in its twenty overseas offices, and here I should like to pay tribute to the loyalty of that staff. I have visited them in almost every country of the world, and they are a really splendid representative body and one of which the nation should be proud, because they are doing a marvellous job for us.
The Association's primary task is to create a demand for the destination—Britain. This is done by using the various modern techniques of promotion, including paid advertising, marketing schemes and public relations in all its forms. Its task is to create an appetite for travel to Britain, and to ensure that those whose appetite has been whetted by its efforts translate those desires into action by using the services of travel agents and carriers to come to Britain.
The funds with which the Association carries out its work derive from two main sources. First is the Government grant-in-aid, which in the current financial year will amount to approximately £2 million. The rest of the Association's revenue comes from membership contributions and from its own revenue-producing activities, such as the sale of advertising space in publications and the sale of those publications themselves. This revenue now runs at an annual rate of slightly over £500,000. The Association has, therefore, little more than £2½ million with which to promote Britain's tourist attractions in those overseas countries which have been shown by research to possess the best potential for visitor traffic to this country.
It is not claimed that without the existence of the British Travel Association there would be no tourist traffic to Britain. But it is fair to say that, without the Association's efforts, the annual revenue from tourism would be substantially less than it is to-day. Britain earns well over £300 million a year from overseas visitors, and, incidentally, hidden in that figure is £10 million contributed directly to the Exchequer by

445
tourists in the form of taxes paid on liquor, tobacco and petrol—a substantial bonus for the Treasury.
The promotion of Britain's tourist attractions is based on economic and market research. En order to create a demand, to produce traffic and to make sure that those who come here are satisfied, it is essential to discover where Britain's best tourist markets are, and what the tourists themselves want to do and to see. We have to compare these demands, actual and potential, with our tourist assets. Market surveys indicate the characteristics of Britain and of British life which appeal most to visitors from other countries. The nature of the appeal varies from one country to another, and we adjust our promotions and information work accordingly. Britain possesses certain basic powerful attractions which appeal strongly to foreign visitors—tradition, pageantry, great variety of scenery, ancient towns, fine buildings, a lively artistic and cultural present, and the powerful international magnet of London. Special emphasis on these attractions encourages business visitors, convention delegates, sporting enthusiasts and students of all ages, especially those who wish to learn English, to come to Britain. The task of promoting travel to a country where attractions for the visitor are varied—in part sophisticated, in part specialist, and by no means obvious—requires careful planning and skilful operation.
At the risk of repeating a point which the noble Lord, Lord Haire of White-abbey, has already made, I want to touch briefly on the so-called "Beefeater—Thatched Cottage" image. Britain's tourist publicity has been criticised in the past for the use of this. When it has been possible to confront the critics, it is usually true that they have not seen at first-hand the wide range of publicity material used throughout the world. Of course, Beefeaters and thatched cottages exist in the promotion, just as they exist in Britain, and just as they are part of British life and are admired by millions of British people themselves when on holiday. They represent our unique tourist attractions, unlike the Mediterranean beach which has no national monopoly. Any good salesman will emphasise the unique features of his product, and that is what we do.
446
Although the length of stay in Britain remains relatively long, in the past few years there has been a marked trend towards a shortening of the time spent here, reflecting the greater mobility of the traveller. This reduction in the length of stay is especially true of visitors from the more distant countries, which include the main sources of Commonwealth traffic. While the same trend has been observed in past years in most European countries, the average length of stay in those countries is now reasonably stable. This has occurred because the reduction in length of stay in any one place by touring visitors has been offset by the increase in the more stable recreational traffic, to such places as Mediterranean beaches and the winter sports resorts.
We grumble much about our climate, but it gives us the incomparable green of our countryside, and I submit that throughout the year it is the most temperate of any in the world, and is particularly suited to active recreation. We are now seeking to encourage the development of facilities for the enjoyment of outdoor recreation. This can cover a wide range, from sailing, pony-trekking, mountaineering and skiing to archaeology, birdwatching, potholing and underwater exploration. There is enormous potential for developing recreation in Britain, and we are only at the beginning of the upsurge in the demand for recreational facilities. We believe there is a need to design a national recreational plan to guide planning authorities. It might be on the lines of the comprehensive study of outdoor recreational resources recently carried out in the United States. The American survey starts from the assumption that different people, or the same people at different times, seek different types of recreation: some gravitate towards a crowd the sole aim of others is to escape from the crowd. To cater for both impulses—or, at least, to limit the progressive overcrowding of areas which need to be comparatively deserted to be fully appreciated—a system of classification of outdoor recreational resources is proposed.
The two recent "Countryside in 1970" conferences held in London under the chairmanship of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh brought together representatives of almost every organisation in Britain involved in activities

447
affecting the countryside. It was encouraging, at these conferences, to sense the note of urgency about the need to plan and a new determination to act in cooperation. The shape which our environment takes is of supreme importance to the domestic holiday trade, which is the backbone of British tourism. We cannot hope to hold our position among the major tourist countries of the world if we do not develop our facilities to ensure the growth of a prosperous home trade upon which a successful export business is based. About £450 million is spent by British people on holidays within Britain every year. The demand for holiday services is growing at a faster rate than the demand for most other products. Haphazard development of tourist services will not provide the right solution to a basic problem of expansion. Increasing mobility is one of the main characteristics of tourism to-day. The resorts still have a vital rôle to play in the development of tourist facilities and services, but, because of the increased mobility of tourists, they now have to be regarded as the centres of recreational areas rather than as destinations in themselves.
As well as the need to develop recreational areas to a comprehensive national design, the other important requirement is to ensure an extension of the holiday season. As the noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey, has already pointed out, two-thirds—that is to say, 20 million—of all British annual holidays are taken in July and August. This means that much of the capacity of our holiday services and basic natural resources is not used during the rest of the year. The spreading of the load must continue to be tackled by such measures as altering the dates of public holidays and changing the times of school examinations. Much has been done already, both by Her Majesty's Government and by the educational authorities. The recent decision to change the Whitsun and August bank holidays to fixed spring and autumn holidays, respectively, is a valuable contribution towards the extension of the holiday season. I would urge further efforts to achieve a more flexible school holiday pattern. Such changes, even on a small scale, can have a dramatic effect on the economics of the travel and holiday industry.
448
I have spoken about some of the achievements and problems of the British tourist industry. What does the future hold for tourism? So far as Britain is concerned there is no reason why by 1970 we should not be attracting an annual inflow of at least 4 million overseas visitors, with earnings of the order of £500 million. Within a few years tourism could well become Britain's leading export trade. But this will not happen automatically. In addition to facing increased competition from other countries engaged in the job of attracting visitors to their shores, we must become competitive in catering for recreation sought by our own people. The British holiday market is to-day worth nearly £700 million per annum, of which over one-third goes abroad. This country earns approximately as much to-day from foreign tourism as our own people spend abroad. It is, however, a fine balance but the very concept of a travel balance-of-payments is misleading. If we had done nothing to develop our own tourist trade in the post-war years, British people would still be travelling abroad on holiday each year.
Greater numbers of people are travelling between countries every year. Over 100 million international visits were made in 1964—and this figure could easily double in the next decade. If Britain is to obtain her share of this vast international travel potential, we must increase our promotional efforts in existing markets, we must expand in new territories and, at the same time, we must take steps to ensure that the necessary amenities are available for visitors when they are in this country. The British Travel Association's expenditure on promotional development is in the proportion of roughly £1 per £100 of tourist revenue. My Lords, we shall need more money. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that there can hardly be a better investment for Her Majesty's Government and for the interests benefiting from tourist spending.
The main responsibility for attracting British people to British holiday areas is that of the Area Tourist Boards (such as the Scottish Tourist Board), of the local authorities and of the industry. Compared with the lavish spending on promotion to attract British people to go abroad, our

449
own interests too often carry out publicity on too small a scale. A determined effort to improve travel and holiday information should meet with a ready response. People are far more mobile and are prepared to make more trips per year if they are told what is available.
Official tourist organisations and local authorities are co-operating with the Association in the operation of nearly 150 information bureaux on a nation-wide network. We have seen continued progress in the provision of new hotels, in the modernisation of existing hotels and in the provision of motels. In fact, Britain has witnessed one of the biggest hotel development programmes in Europe in recent years. Each year more hotels and restaurants in the country's main tourist areas and resorts are offering standards of cooking and service as good as any to be found anywhere. But there is a growing need for more moderate-priced, good-standard accommodation, especially outside London, and I should like once more to urge Her Majesty's Government to assist in creating favourable conditions under which the hotel industry can expand, especially in seasonal areas.
The new investment incentives, primarily to help the manufacturing and extractive industries, which were recently announced by Her Majesty's Government seem to overlook completely the service trades. These service trades, which represent new industries, tend to be forgotten. I hope I have demonstrated that in the tourist field they are big exporters. They create employment, and they can bring prosperity to the very areas which have no industrial base because of poor natural resources. Our economy and the economics of the richer countries of the world are recognised to be changing fast. It is the consumer trades and the service trades which grow fastest of all. Of course, there are difficulties in applying the same tax benefits to the service trades, but where there is a will surely there is a way. If Her Majesty's Government want to promote their growth, ways could be found of helping them. I have mentioned one bonus—the contribution of overseas visitors to direct taxation. The trades that help to provide that money could do with some of it ploughed back. There are other bonuses. The travel movement could lead to the
450
development of ancillary services, trades and secondary industries. It is a generator of business.
There have been great improvements in Britain's internal transport services—in roads and railways particularly. But we ask those concerned with planning to bear in mind the expected growth of tourism and the need to cater for increasing development in existing holiday areas and for greater numbers of visitors, particularly those travelling by car. Some action could be taken almost immediately. The development of Britain's internal transport system has not been matched by growth and improvements in the ancillary services; for example, in the moderisalion of transport terminals, including facilities for good standard catering services at those terminals; in the provision of camping and caravan sites, roadside lavatories, car-parking facilities, picnic tables and litter disposal facilities. There is need for regulation of taxi fares beyond the six-mile limit, to deal especially with the problem of London Airport, and for improvements in the reception services and facilities at the ports of entry, for the simplification of customs and immigration formalities.
More important, in the long term, is the need to seek the enthusiastic cooperation of many Government Departments, local authorities and national organisations which are affected in the tourist industry. Too often holiday activity is a by-product of their principal activity. The word "holiday" sounds frivolous compared with the more prestigious but sometimes declining basic industries of the country. So many different interests need to do just a little more to make a very big effect.
The planning authorities, in their respective areas, need the guidance of a tourist plan, as has been done in Scotland. Authorities, national and local, could improve signposting and street marking; they could encourage the growth of camping sites. The owners of land and historic buildings could do more to improve access, to provide reception facilities, to put their treasures on show in a more up-to-date manner. We have priceless treasures in this country in our museums; but is a visit to a museum considered to be an attractive pastime?

451
Since so many authorities own or control tourist assets it cannot be unreasonable to ask them to welcome developers—indeed, to seek them out; to adopt an active rather than a passive attitude towards visitor traffic.
As we continue to attract vast numbers of tourists to this country so will the physical capacity of this country to accommodate and serve them have to be developed. Experience in the past two decades has shown that, generally speaking increases in hotel capacity and visitor reception services and facilities have not been as rapid as the growth of tourism. Easing the burdens and frustrations of travel; providing accommodation of the right kind, in the right places, at the right times; ensuring that the very attributes which motivate travel, the qualities of landscape, the very flavour of places to be visited, are intelligently preserved and made accessible to the traveller—those are some of the main tasks to be tackled.
Tourism has two great characteristics. First, it is perhaps the greatest single force for peace because, by bringing people together, it enables them to understand each other. Secondly, it is big business—in fact, it is the world's largest single item of trade. Tourism to-day is vital to Britain's economy. This fact is one that must be recognised—by Government, by industry and by the public as a whole.
7.5 p.m.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, like the previous speaker, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Haire of White-abbey, for providing the opportunity for debating this important subject. I should properly declare an interest in that I am still on the staff of British European Airways, and British European Airways is interested in tourism. I do not intend to criticise the British Travel Association, as in my travels, which are extensive in the course of my business, I have seen the great work that they are doing overseas. In fact, I think it is useful to note that in the period under review of the Report that we are debating, the revenue obtained from tourism in this country was something in the nature of £300 million, of which a great proportion was obtained through the activities of the
452
Association with an expenditure of something like, I believe, £2·7 million. So I think one can say it is not bad going.
However, the Report is now some ten months old and many facets of the subject may have come into view since it was published. A very salient point in this Report is the fact that it regards the European market as our biggest potential for tourism. It also reports for 1964 an increase of about 14 per cent. over the 1963 figures; and it goes on to aim at a target of 4 million for 1970. I imagine that one of the objectives of our drive in tourism is to close the financial gap between money spent by our nationals going abroad and that spent by the Continental nationals coming to this country. If that gap is to be closed and if, as I hope, it is to provide surplus of benefit to this country, I would suggest that 4 million for 1970 is a little too low a target.
The Report draws attention, as have the two previous speakers, to many improvements necessary to amenities in this country, notably those of hotels, catering, port facilities and so on; and on page 13 of the Report there is a full list of these. I have little to add to that list, except possibly the provision of facilities for conferences, which I believe has already been mentioned; and I would also add a plea for more concert halls. These facilities, after all, are for the foreign tourist after he has arrived in this country; so, too, are the admirable offices of the Association in Regent Street. But I submit that our task now should be to examine what may still be done in his own country and own home town to induce the potential foreign tourist to come to this country.
I think it might be useful to examine the machinery we have for bringing this about. The previous speaker made considerable reference to the number of publications, films, throwaways, and information of all sorts that have been used—all of which are admirable. But I would submit that it is the live tourist office abroad which does as much good as anything else. I think I am correct in saying that there are some thirteen foreign national tourist offices in London. Yet of the offices that we have in Europe (and I think I am right in saying we have six), only those in Paris and Frankfurt are entirely and exclusively

453
occupied by the Association; the others are shared with various activities such as airlines and other ancillary businesses. But I am wondering whether, although this may be an economical thing to do, it is good to share offices with people engaged in businesses whose interests are not always precisely in parallel with those of the Association. Air lines, travel agencies, railway companies, shipping companies, et cetera, are interested in taking travellers out of this country as well as into it, and to those points where their business indicates the best return. So I think that it is not necessarily always a sound thing to share offices with these people.
My Lords, another matter which I think has to be looked at from the point of view of the potential visitors is our national image abroad. Reference has been made to the fact that our entertainment industry—I use the word "entertainment" to mean everything that comes, from a classical concert to a rock-and-roll dance; anything you like—is hedged about very generally by restrictive laws, regulations and licences of all sorts. Reference has been made to the British Sunday, which is not encouraging to foreign tourists. One can imagine a tourist coming to this country, without a great deal of money and with no friends with whom he can stay. It is a pretty bleak prospect for such a person to come to London on a Sunday and find everything tightly shut up, until about seven o'clock in the evening when there is a slight relaxation. He is much worse off if he finds himself in Wales or in Scotland on a Sunday. It is enough to drive him to drink—if he can find any in either place.
All these things will cost a great deal of money and in this respect the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said that the Association must have more finance. I do not know whether going to the Government for further grants would be popular with the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Treasury at the present time. I do not think the travel trade would be pleased at the prospect of having to increase the generous subscriptions which are made. I am wondering whether it would be possible to convert the Association into a strong commercial corporation. A glance at the list of directors and the members of the council would reveal a splendid number of able commercial
454
people, and it would not be beyond their wit to devise a prospectus which would be attractive to the responsible interests in the City of London.
A Council so constituted and strengthened would be able to deal more comprehensively with affairs abroad, and might well provide the focus for the public opinion without which I do not think we can get, or it would be very difficult to introduce, legislation to change some of the restrictive laws and regulations and so finally to eliminate from the Continental mind the last traces of that rather baleful feature, "Mrs. Grundy". I have one other suggestion. If I remember correctly, some years before the war a very intelligent German Chancellor, I think it was Dr. Schacht, introduced a tourist Deutschmark and brought a great deal of tourist traffic to Germany. Is it not possible for us to have a tourist pound?
7.15 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, like the previous speaker, I must also declare a commercial interest in this subject. I earn my living both as a tour operator and as a travel agent. It is I who help to produce those glossy brochures which the noble Lord, Lord Haire of White-abbey, treated so tactfully and so temperately in his excellent speech. I also have another, but not commercial interest to declare, in that I am President of the London Tourist Board, which is part of Lord Geddes's family. It is, perhaps, not elegant for a member of the Council of the B.T.A. to praise the work of his colleagues, but at least I may be allowed, I hope, to say a few words in praise of my Chairman and the admirable way in which he has conducted our affairs over the past few years. My Lords, I think it is a paradox to have someone with the capabilities of Lord Geddes in this job. We asked for a professional and we got, surprisingly enough, a really professional man. We make him work like a horse. We deprive his distinguished company of his services for years. We never pay him a penny, and then we are surprised that it is going to be so difficult to find other people to take on the job. This is a situation which I do not think that we can allow to continue indefinitely. I have deliberately not mentioned it to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, beforehand. Probably he will

455
not speak to me again, although of course his successor may.
I should like to endorse very strongly the word of praise he offered to the Overseas Offices of the British Travel Association. In my tours I have, I think, visited 16 of the 20 overseas offices, and I can endorse the magnificent work which they do. It is overseas that the work of the B.T.A., to which you, my Lords, and I, contribute as taxpayers, is best to be seen. They do such a powerful amount to counteract the traditional B.T.A. image which has falsely got about—the Old Curiosity Shop, the changing of the Guard—and both noble Lords who have addressed themselves to this subject have explained how that came about.
They have another image to cope with. All the speakers have so far mentioned, naturally, grounds on which they could see improvements that could be brought about in our tourist facilities. Temperate and reasoned suggestions have been put forward by all three noble Lords. This is quite contrary to a certain type of sophisticated critic, and particularly the traveller abroad, who builds up quite a false image of our country by over-facile criticism. There is always somebody who has had that nightmare meal on British Railways; there is always someone who turned up at one minute past eight at a fashionable hotel to find the kitchen locked. We always hear far too much from them. There is always someone who is going to tell us, "Don't go to suchand-such a place; it will be ruined by tourists". They do not mind taking advantage of the facilities that tourist money has brought there, or the improvement in conditions. It is a type of criticism which the B.T.A. officer abroad will tell you that he has to counter everyday. He meets with it from our visitors abroad to an extent out of all comparison with its real weight.
The noble Lord, Lord Haire of White-abbey, referred to this operation as a co-operative one; and indeed it is. It is one thing which everyone can do. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is no room for improvement in our catering and in our hotels but, as the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, pointed out, the amount of building, particularly of moderate priced hotels, in this country since the war, has been enormous. Those
456
who tend to be critical of British catering—there are critics who are loud enough—have only to look at the astonishing number of prizes which British cooks win in international culinary exhibitions to see that there is another side to the coin. That is the trouble: bad news in the tourist world is always good news, and good news is no news at all.
Perhaps I may come nearer to my own trade, the tourist trade. We have been under criticism of late because of things like the "Fiesta" trouble and the "Omar Khayyam" trouble where, owing to faulty arrangements, tourists were stranded and, of course, made their grievances loudly heard; and rightly so. We do not hear so often from the hundreds of thousands of holiday makers who had happy and satisfactory holidays. Bad news is "news". But, my Lords, bad news must not occur too often, and this is why the travel trade is trying to put its house in order and why we have launched this "Operation Stabiliser". We should like people to realise that the 1,700 members of our Association are not all rogues and vagabonds, and that they are doing their level best to raise the standard of their trade, to increase its financial stability and its own image, and to increase the service which they can give to the customers, the holiday makers of this country. I hope that the work the Association is doing to put its house in order will meet with some success and some approval.
There are two other points that I should like to make concerning the other side of the coin. Of course, it is always the complaints that come to your desk, as any businessman—or the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, as Chairman of the B.T.A.—will bear out. It is the complaint that comes in more often than praise, and for exactly the same reason. But it is gratifying to think—and I speak here as President of the London Tourist Board—that an increasing number of congratulatory letters are coming in about the tourist trade in this country. People are bothering to write, to point out improvements and congratulate on successes, which they would not have done ten or twenty years ago.
One of the most gratifying words of praise that comes with increasing frequency is the word of thanks to the ordinary man in the street for his helpfulness towards tourists. Noble Lords may

457
remember the old joke in Punch of the two workmen, one of whom said, "Who's that over there?", and when the other replied, "Don't know—he must be a stranger," said, "Right! Heave half a brick at him." Now people almost embarrass a stranger with the desire to give him wrong directions and put him on a bus going in a completely different direction.
Another word of praise is for the fact that we have not yet fallen into the trap of graspingness. Paris is having a poor time as a tourist centre, compared with the success that she basked in after the war. People are complaining with increased vigour of the graspingness of Parisian hoteliers, shopkeeps and restaurateurs. There was rather a touching letter in one of the Paris trade papers the other day from an American who had complained in some remote French hotel about being charged the equivalent of 7s. 6d. for a boiled egg. Complaining to the hotel-keeper about the price, he asked, "Are boiled eggs rare in this part of the world?" "No, Monsieur", was the reply, "but tourists are." Do not let us have that attitude in this country.
I think we can learn two more lessons from Paris, and here I should like to have the support of the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government. In the London Tourist Board we are trying to do two things in particular. We are trying to get London established as the conference centre of the world. The London Tourist Board are, of course, firmly of the opinion that London is automatically the first tourist attraction in the world, but now we want to get the conference business on a sound footing. This is in its infancy. We have set up a convention bureau and have had great help from all of those properly concerned. It will be, we realise, a long-term business, but already we brought last year 107 conferences to London. We are overtaking Paris; indeed, we think we are well ahead of Paris this year. Those conferences in 1965 brought in £2 million on this market, which is one hitherto untapped. That is the first reason why I am asking the noble Lord's support for the work of the Board, and I hope the Government will be as generous and as helpful as they possibly can be.
458
The second point is quite different. We realise we have fallen badly behind other countries in the use of one of London's greatest attractions—London's river. I have gone abroad to Paris and to Amsterdam to see the splendid way in which they use their rivers as a tourist attraction—and their climate is not all that much better than ours, though, of course, the seasonal nature of London's weather is a handicap. We have enlisted the help of everybody concerned—the owners of launches, the riparian authorities, the Greater London Council and the brewers who have public houses down by the river. We have planned a long-term campaign to interest Londoners in their river and to provide the greatest possible number of resources for the Londoner and for his visitor. We regard the use of London's river as one of the easiest means of providing a new attraction for tourists.
I need hardly say that the moment we launched this campaign a flood of "funny stuff" came from just those people who think that London has been ruined by tourists, the sophisticated who regard any attempt to bring in tourists in any increasing number as a discomfort to them and as a handicap to their particular idea of civilisation. We have to give and take, but I think we have some claim for our case as well.
Two or three days ago, some anonymous friend with, I think, more wit than kindness, put a review in my locker outside of a book, Teach Yourself Arabic, 8s. 6d. For reasons which I need not go into, I am not likely to wish to teach myself Arabic for some time to come. I hope that the day will come in due course, but not at the moment. Guide books and phrase books have always had a fascination for me. Ever since the phrase,
"Lo, the postillion has been struck by lightening",
I have been looking for similar remarks in phrase books. This Arabic phrase book starts off splendidly with this one:
"He has some deaf black slave girls."
Further on, I read:
"A girl was paralysed for about fifteen years; she could not turn from side to side."
That would be bad enough for most of us, but not for this linguist. He goes on,

459
in case we have any glimmering of hope for the poor girl,
"Nor could anyone else turn her."
This is the one I particularly like, and it applies to the remarks I have been making:
"If you do it again, we shall again make a lampoon on you, the words of which will travel."
It is the second "again" I like. I do not know what is the opposite of a lampoon, but I hope that those who believe with me that a lot of damage is done by those who make lampoons on the British tourist industry and talk about places being ruined by tourists, will agree that we should do the opposite on them. And I hope that, as a result of this debate this evening, our words will travel, too.
7.23 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I do not propose to speak at any great length, and I do not need to declare an interest, except as a traveller and as one who enjoys holidays. But I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and the British Travel Association upon the magnificent way in which they have tackled the problems of the industry, and also on their excellent Report, which I have read with the greatest possible interest. In my new position as Chairman of the Consumer Council, I get a great deal of information from ordinary people. On the questions of travel and holidays, my Council have received many letters, some in terms of praise, some not. I hope that my contribution will not be considered too critical, but that it will bring the debate down to what is not so good, as well as what is good.
Before I get down to the points I want to raise from the consumer's point of view, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey, for his excellent speech, and also the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is one of the biggest and most successful of the spokesmen for the travel business, for his speech. I agree with everything that has been said and I have no criticism to make of the speeches made so far.
There are one or two points which I hope will be picked up by the Government or by people in the commercial side of travel. One of them is the ques-
460
tion of diversifying holidays. I am glad to say that in Scotland (the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, mentioned the Scottish Travel Association) we have made use of the snow on our mountains during the winter-time for the development of winter sports. This is now a flourishing part of the travel industry, and new centres are springing up. For example, in Aviemore, new hotels are being built.
I should like to compete with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his proposal that London should be a world conference centre: I am very keen that Edinburgh should be a great conference centre. We have had some experience with our Musical Festival, which has now been running for seventeen years and is one of the great annual European Festivals. We have plans to build a new conference hall and centre for both music and drama. I hope that we shall amicably, but nevertheless forcefully, compete with London on the question of having a conference centre. I agree, too, that we must develop diversity in travel in every way possible. Air, sea, rail, bus, motor-bike, caravan, pony—even Shank's mare—all provide improved assets for holidays. I think that we should (I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Geddes is well aware of this) develop all those various ways of spending holidays so that we need not always go to the sea or to the mountains. There are a great many ways in which we can develop holidays.
Now may I come to one or two points of complaint that we get in the Consumer Council offices. I do not want to fall into any of the pitfalls suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, by saying that what I am going to say now I look upon as news, in so far as it is not actually good news. I agree with him that one of the devastating things in life is that if you want to get into the newspapers, or to get recognition, you can be certain that if it is bad, you will get it quickly, and that if it is good, you will not get it at all. I want to bring to the attention of the experts that we have in the House this evening a number of complaints that have come to our office. I have chapter and verse, but I am not going to give names and addresses, because that would not be right in a debate of this kind.
People advertise holiday cottages, and quite often they are not what they are described to be. We have heard of quite

461
a number of them that have not been the beautiful holiday bungalows depicted, with all the amenities, but cottages that have been resurrected and have not been inspected by the health authority; that are not equipped with proper sanitation, and are not in salubrious surroundings in the countryside, but in a field which may not have been cultivated for some time and is full of stinging nettles. I hope that we may get some help from local authorities and from people who put forward suggestions of this kind, through magazines or newspapers, by their insisting that the advertisement describes the holiday cottage and that the description and the object coincide. We have had many complaints on these lines.
Then there have been a considerable number of complaints about the fact that so many brochures (and this includes the nationalised services—the noble Earl, Lord Amherst speaks for B.O.A.C.—as well as other services) have in very small print what I call the exclusion clauses for responsibilities. This happens more particularly when things go wrong, and I have three here which, if any noble Lord wishes, he can look at. This is something that we in the Consumer Council feel should be looked at carefully. We feel that travel agents should take responsibility for the services they provide and sell, in the same way as the trader has to take responsibility under the Sale of Goods Act for the goods he decides to stock and sell. Many agents hide behind exclusion clauses, of which I can give your Lordships one or two examples.
The first one is:
"All arrangements for hotel accommodation, meals and refreshments and entertainments and for the use of steamers, vehicles, trains, ferries, aircraft or other means of conveyance operated by persons or bodies other than the Company are made by the Company as agents for or on behalf of the passenger on the express condition that the Company shall not be responsible for any loss, damage, injury, delay or inconvenience caused to passengers as a result of any such arrangements for hotel accommodation, meals and refreshments and entertainments or in any such steamers, vehicles, trains, ferries, aircraft or other means of conveyance…"
That, as we all know, is something which, unless you study these things carefully, you do not see in the prospectus. I have another example of the same thing, and
462
this comes from a tour organisation, who say:
"All arrangements made for hotel accommodation, the use of other companies' vehicles, steamers, aircraft, launches, ferries, etc., are made by—Tours Ltd. as agents on the express condition that they shall not be responsible for any loss, damage, injury, accident, delay or other inconvenience caused to passengers in any such hotels, steamers, aircraft, launches, vehicles, ferries, etc."
This, situation, we believe, could be improved. For a disaster, of course people cannot be held responsible. But for the ordinary run of a tour, we feel that the responsibility taken by the travel agent should bear some relation to the kind of responsibility that people have under the Sale of Goods Act. The exclusions even extend to camps run by commercial firms. These things, I feel, should be looked at, because I believe it would add to the happiness of people who are either travelling with a travel agent or buying a tour that is arranged for them if these exclusion clauses, which so often cause great difficulty and unhappiness to the traveller, were not there.
There is one type of tour about which we have practically no complaints, and I should like to say a word about it. Mind you, I do not want to give the impression that the complaints I am telling your Lordships about are tremendously widespread, because they are not; but if we are having a debate, let us bring up the difficulties as well as the things that go well. The tours about which we have had few complaints are run by the British coach tour organisers in this country. High praise can be given to coach tour operators, because they seem to be deeply concerned about their passengers. The people who go on these coach tours do not send in anything like as many complaints (I understand from my office, which receives complaints, that there are practically none) compared with those who go on other tours.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has spoken about a scheme which the travel agents have inaugurated and which is definitely a step in the right direction, but we still feel that there are steps which might be taken and which would go further to compensate people for any disasters that may overtake them. The two bad cases mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, Fiesta Tours and Omar Khayyam Tours, as we all know,

463
have been heard in the courts. The way they operated was most unfortunate. I feel that what has been suggested is definitely a step in the right direction, but we should like some more safeguards. If I just mention them, I hope that the Government may consider them in the event of there being any suggestion for legislation with regard to travel agents and tour operators.
In the first place, we should like agents to accept liability to the holiday-maker for their own errors and for faults on the part of those directly responsible for providing facilities—that is to say, a false prospectus, or for a tour to a resort advertised as having golf courses, swimming baths and so on, which turns out to have nothing of the kind. Those things should not be encouraged or allowed. The travel agent could insure himself against a certain amount of liability which would enable him to recover damages in the event of an accident taking place or of hazards outside his control. We think there should be less of the exclusion clauses in the brochures of tours which are put out to attract tourists.
We also think that any agency which is starting up—and this does not apply to those we are discussing now, because they are well-established agencies—should possess adequate operating capital. It is easy to start up a travel agency with practically no capital at all, and we believe that that should be one of the tests. We believe that there should be some form of monetary guarantee, and that the agency should employ properly trained staff. That may be extremely difficult, because when you say "trained staff", you are at once asked "How do you get trained staff in a world in which it is very hard to come by them?" Agents who have trained staff might be encouraged still further, and I am sure that it would pay handsomely from the point of view of the agencies, because the services they gave would be much appreciated. Also, all the agencies should adhere to a code of conduct similar to that of A.B.T.A., which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, knows well.
We should like to see this vastly expanding industry encouraged in every way, but it should also be concerned with the consumers of travel. The buyers, the
464
clients, are also people whom we must consider carefully. We think that in this expanding industry it would be a good plan if the standards could be raised; that there should be registration of travel agents, and that there should be definite guarantees which protect the consumer as well as the promoter. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that we have no desire in any circumstances to suggest that the image of travel here is not first-class—I think it is. Of course, we can improve it, and I should be the first to want to help in every possible way I can. The industry has grown up very fast, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey, has said, we are hoping to have millions of visitors by 1970, which shows that it is something of great importance to the economy of this country. I hope that the interests of those who are purchasers, buyers and consumers of travel will be considered just as much as of those who run the industry. In the main, they are very efficient, but there are some black spots, and one wants to be rid of them.
7.45 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, there is one thing with which all previous speakers agree, and one with which I am sure the Government will not quarrel, and that is that tourism is very big business. We in the tourist business—and in saying that I feel that I should also declare my interest, as I am deeply involved in tourism, having nearly 600,000 visitors to my home every year—agree that one thing is clear, and that is that tourism can be built up. In 1952 we had about 80,000 visitors, and last year nearly 600,000 visitors. One thing which is clear, in whatever tourist business you may be, is that the tourist must be won. The tourist will not come naturally to this country, and one feels that in the depths of some Government Department there is still the idea that tourists will come to this country willy-nilly, which is just not true.
Last year I went round the world twice on lecture tours to encourage tourists to come to Britain. In these tours, I had tremendous help from the British Travel Association. I should like to support previous speakers in saying what a wonderful job these overseas offices of the British Travel Association do. They

465
welcome anybody concerned with tourism in this country, because by their presence they think they can use them to get publicity for travel to Britain generally. I had some special survey figures on overseas visitors to Beaulieu last year, and they bore out two interesting points, one of which the noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey, touched upon. It is that the visitors from France and Germany are rapidly overhauling those coming from the United States and Canada. The second point which gave me great personal pleasure was that there was a great increase in the number of visitors to my home from many of the countries in which I had lectured.
I should like to say that I support the fact that we must leave it to the British Travel Association and their offices abroad to present the correct image in the countries where they are situated. It is no good our trying to say what image we want England to have abroad, but it is true to say that overseas the whole Continent of Europe is considered the Continent of Antiquities. This is the home of their heritage, and this is what they come to Europe to see. Whether those antiquities are Beefeaters or thatched cottages, or the Louvre in Paris, this is what they come to see. I feel that we should leave it to the experts on the spot to put over in those countries the image which they know will draw.
One factor which seems to be holding back some of the offices abroad is a lack of money. I know that this is the usual cry, but the more money we can give for promotion overseas, the better. As your Lordships know, there are two basic points about tourism for any country. First of all, tourists want to know of places to stay at and places to see. As regards places to stay at and eat, I think we are all agreed that there has been a considerable revolution in the last ten years in the standard of hotels and food in this country. The sad thing is that it appears from the latest Government White Paper that the tourist industry has been left out so far as investment allowances are concerned. I feel they ought to think very carefully again whether the climate which has been produced for the improvement of hotels in this country is to continue or not. Unless there is consistent stimulation for better hotels and better food, it is possible that this revolution will begin to slip.
466
I was somewhat amused to see that the White Paper talks of extractive industries. I feel that perhaps one could look upon tourism as an extractive industry, but not too large a one. One of the biggest extractors are the Government themselves, because on every glass of beer or whisky, or packet of cigarettes, that I sell over my bar in my hotel maybe I get a profit, but the Government get 50 per cent. profit, so there is something to be said for this. Perhaps we can ask the Government to think again about the investment allowances which hotels desperately need in order to modernise themselves continually.
Now with regard to places to see. In this I must talk about the subject which is nearest to me, and that is the stately homes of England. As your Lordships know, in 1945 very few houses were open, and it might well have been that these houses would collapse and become great ruins or dusty mausoleums such as there are in other countries. But due to the efforts of many individuals, we are now extremely well off in the fact that many of our houses have been preserved. Indeed, there are about 500 houses open to the public in this country, attracting about 7 million visitors a year.
I think we ought to appreciate the fact that Government grants exist, and they have at times been given generously. But at the moment they are not enough to make quite sure that these houses can be preserved indefinitely. It is only a small increase that is needed to do a proper job. Owners cannot afford to spend large sums of capital on maintaining these old houses. It would be much better for us financially, and probably much more comfortable, if we went and lived in smaller houses. It would also be wrong for us to spend large sums of capital on our houses when it would be far better for the country if we spent it on agriculture and forestry. But in return for this Government help I think the Government should demand from the stately homes a slightly more professional attitude.
Looking around the Chamber at this time of the evening, I am glad to see that I have not many of my rivals here, because I want to say that many of the stately homes are very inefficiently run, without any idea of business and with a completely amateur approach. To

467
paraphrase a famous remark, they certainly need a smack of firm management. Owners of stately homes cannot have it both ways: unless they accept the fact that they are part of the tourist industry, and use modern methods of promotion and business control, they will not, I feel, keep up in the race. It is said generally that all these stately homes run at a loss. I do not accept that this is necessary. With good business management, leaving aside the question of repairs, there is no reason why a reasonable profit cannot be made from the attraction of tourists. It is perhaps right for me to say that I am not ashamed of saying that in the early years I did make a loss, but I am now making a profit. I am putting that profit back into improving and increasing the facilities for visitors who come to view. I should like to feel that my efforts will be rewarded by tax reliefs and investment incentives. The irony is that I have never asked for a grant to repair my roof, but I have had so many visitors that my floor is wearing out.
Having made those remarks, I would sum up by saying that all of us in the tourist business in this country look to the Government for help in many ways, in little details like fixing the date of Easter, in the provision of more money for promotion, and also for giving incentives for those working hard in the tourist trade, whether it be in hotels, restaurants, stately homes or museums, because every penny that we can re-invest in this industry will be of great value to the country as a whole.
7.54 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I should like to say how glad I am to have a chance of taking part in this debate, even at this late hour, because I have long been interested in the tourist industry. I must declare my interest. Apart from a small financial interest in the hotel industry, and from having represented for many years in another place a county where the tourist industry was of prime importance, I am also the President of the English Lakes Tourist Board. This Board, now 33 years old, is supported in the main by the smaller local authorities and has never sought publicity, but it has done a great deal of good work in a quiet way.
468
It is strange that until recently very few people had any knowledge of this industry or expressed much interest in it. Even the Board of Trade is a comparatively recent convert. To-day, while old-stagers realise that there is a lot more to be done in developing and strengthening the industry and its organisation, I want to strike a note of warning. We should take notice that there are too many people wanting to jump on the bandwagon because of the supposed glamour of the industry and for fear of being left out. Some of them are very respectable. In our part of the world, the county councils are even a little suspect for showing an interest so late in the day. Again, we should take warning of the danger of promotion for promotion's sake, because the "P.R." fraternity are not infallible and are likely to do harm as well as good. Our super-publicity-minded Regional Economic Planning Council's hasty utterances are causing a good deal of apprehension in the North of England.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Strang, is no longer here, because responsible reports, including those of the National Parks Commission, have included a whole series of warnings against the danger that our area (I do not speak of places like Beaulieu, but of the English Lake District) may be swamped by mere numbers. Vast numbers are coming into our district on their own along the motorway, so it is not a question of publicising the Lake District in order to increase the numbers. Our task is to try to make better use of our resources, and I imagine that this applies to other rural parts of the British Isles. We must try to extend the season. That is happening slowly in the Lake District, but we must increase that trend. And we must interest people, too, in the surrounding areas, such as the Pennines, The Solway and the Roman Wall, as well as the centre and the Lakes.
We must also accept new ideas. Traffic must be controlled on the minor roads, even if this is a reversal of the highway authority's usual policy of up-grading every country lane into a modern motor road in the interest of "traffic flow". The Germans are a long way ahead of us here.
The Lake District is small and precious, particularly to the youth of this country for the unique opportunites for adventure it offers. It can claim to be our premier

469
holiday area—leaving London out of consideration. Yet it is always at risk. Not so long ago your Lordships saved the Lake District from one of the periodical attacks from Manchester Corporation, seeking water on the cheap, and it may well be that your Lordships will be called upon in the near future to defend it again.
On page 30 of the Annual Report reference is made to a North-West Tourist Conference organised in Black-pool in December, to consider the establishment of a regional tourist organisation for the North-West. That was a mistake, and the credit should not go to those who organised the conference but to those who made sure that it did not do any harm, because resorts on the Lancashire coast and the Lake District resorts have entirely different problems and do not go well together. Then we have our planning council with their ambition and loose talk about "super resorts". Lastly, we have inconsiderate visitors, with their litter and their noise on water as well as on land, spoiling the pleasure of other people.
Noble Lords have referred to the rising standards of cooking and accommodation in our hotels and boarding houses. In the North of England we are proud of our tradition of hospitality and standards of innkeeping and cooking, and we would claim that we are far ahead of the South of England and the Midlands.
The taxation problems of the hotel industry have been mentioned more than once and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, who will reply for the Government, will press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is a strong case for treating hotels and restaurants as industrial premises, so entitling them to some writing-off of the capital spent on improvements. At the present time that is not possible, and we must be about the only country in Europe which has to carry that burden. It is only the buoyant trade of recent years which has enabled us to finance overdue improvements, and such few private bathrooms as one may find in country hotels have probably been built with taxed income, and not as in other countries.
Our affluent society is very demanding. It is becoming "scampi-minded", as somebody put it to me the other day, and as a result some few hotels are being
470
encouraged to charge too much, which is a bad mark for the industry. I deplore the ever-longer and more expensive meals to be found in country hotels and ever more characterless wine labeled "Liebfraumilch". Three well-prepared courses ought to be enough for most people on most occasions. If the quality were up and the price down, it would be, I think, an advantage to our tourist trade.
The hotel industry has a great future ahead of it in this country, and it offers to those employed in it more and better opportunities and rewards than many of them suppose. Further, there is the opportunity for many to make a start in business on their own in a small way with a reasonable chance, if they put their backs into it, of seeing their small business grow into bigger ones; and that is more than can be said about many of our industries to-day, not least the film industry, whose circumstances and affairs were being discussed in this House earlier this afternoon. I imagine there are no openings there for the small man to start in business on his own. In conclusion I should like to say that I hope the British Travel Association will accept my thanks for their very great services to the industry; I wish them well and I hope they will continue their good work, tempering their energy with discretion.
8.2 p.m.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey, for having introduced this subject? He has had it on the Order Paper for a long time, and I am glad it arrived to-day. He has made a very considered and studied speech and brought up all kinds of problems, including whether we should begin to drive on the right-hand side of the road. I think the only thing he missed out was that the metric system would be a very good thing for the tourist trade, but otherwise he seemed to go over the whole field. I will try to answer a few of the questions as they came along.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, has declared his interest—yet he did not. He gave the usual House of Lords nominal declaration, but in point of fact that really was not adequate. By his services to the British Travel Association—I will make him blush, because I know he is a sensitive

471
person, but I have no mercy—he has done a wonderful job during these last few years, and at great personal inconvenience, for it was nearly a full-time job. In some ways, the same goes for the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is the Chairman of the London Tourist Board. It really is a wonderful thing that this country has at its service such people who are prepared to give their time and energy for an object of this sort with the interest of the country at heart.
The noble Lord need not have apologised for the image of the Beefeater. Of course we need the image of the old as well as the new. In any case, I would have come in for a terrific bombardment from my noble friend Lord Bowles, who was absolutely bridling during the time that the noble Lord was apologising for the image, because he happens to be Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard. He murmured, "These are my men", and I think he was quite right. May I thank the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, for the studied views that he has expressed, knowing the subject intimately from close observation, as a practical person engaged in the travel industry and British European Airways.
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, was as usual very bright and on the ball. I could not help but chuckle when he was talking about the help that was given to tourists by people in the localities, and how people in giving directions and so on were helping the tourist trade to flourish. I remember the case of some foreign people who came into our locality a year or two ago. They asked a local how they should get to a certain place, and after a long time the local said, "I don't think I would start from here if I were you". The husband of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, went with us to Nigeria, and we had a great affection for him. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes was on the same mission, and it was interesting that we had to present a mace; I have wondered many times in recent weeks if it is in the same position as we left it. Lady Elliot of Harwood spoke about the implications of her particular field of consumer interests. I shall have something to say about that in a moment, and also about Lord Montagu of Beaulieu's speech. I wish
472
to have a word about the stately homes. Lord Inglewood has been a great champion for the Lake District and has caused the gritting of many teeth in Manchester on many occasions because of his obstinacy, as I always consider it, but I suppose he would call persistence.
LORD INGLEWOOD: There is water for all in the north-west of England. It's just a question of whether you must grab your neighbour's water, in the cheapest and easiest way, even if you damage his interests in so doing.
LORD RHODES: We will not go into the question of our neighbour's water, but will leave that for some other time.
This has been a good debate. It has been quite distinctive, in that the people who have spoken have been intimately connected with the subject and know what they are talking about. It is true to say that the growth of international tourism in the last two decades has been phenomenal. It has been, as has been said by so many people—and I will try not to go over too much of the ground—an important contribution to the credit side of our balance of payments. And when I say that Her Majesty's Government are determined that the impressive progress achieved so far shall be maintained, I would add that we are determined that it should be improved upon, because this is precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, wants; and we are out to back him as much as we possibly can.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, has quoted statistics. To save time, I will cut out a lot of the material I have, but I do not want to omit one figure that I think has not yet been mentioned. In 1964, 3 million people visited these islands, and I have no doubt that when the figures for 1965 are produced they will show that fresh records were broken. I do not know whether the noble Lord has the figures, but I shall be interested to have them as soon as they are available. I recall with pride another personal thing, because I was at the Board of Trade when the present Prime Minister was the President of the Board of Trade. Is it not astonishing and significant, as we see these things unfold, to recall the number of really imaginative projects that were introduced about that time, and before? We have been discussing earlier this evening films and art. The whole

473
Statute Book is strewn with imaginative projects. I should be willing to debate this at any time, but this is not a time for partisan or Party politics.
When my right honourable friend was President of the Board of Trade he entrusted the Association with the comprehensive mandate which is as good today as ever it was. I know, from personal knowledge, that he has watched with pride its progress since those early days. The B.T.A., as Lord Geddes has reminded us, was then charged with a three-fold task. The first was to increasing the number of visitors coming from overseas to the United Kingdom. The second was to foster and develop among residents of this country the practice of spending holidays at home—something which has been recently commented on at the Boat Show. My answer to some of the play to and fro across this House the other day, would be that that is the second principle of the British Travel Association. All that my right honourable friend was doing was just laying in front of the visitors the second object. The Association's third task was to promote in every way the improvement of the tourist and holiday accommodation, catering, transport, entertainment and a whole list of things in the United Kingdom.
My noble friend asked if we thought it would be successful. May I say that we at the Board of Trade think that the British Travel Association is succeeding, and is doing its work well. Of course we do. I again congratulate the noble Lord on his Annual Report, which has been given as the reason for this debate. With the increase in the standard of living, particularly in Western countries, I suppose that international tourism also will increase dramatically in the immediate future, and we feel that here in the British Travel Association we have the medium to cope.
In one of the most stimulating sections of the Report, the Association states its belief that a National Recreational Plan, based on surveys, should be prepared to guide recreational development. The noble Lord mentioned the Duke of Edinburgh's speech on the countryside—I think the title was "The Countryside in 1970". I must mention that at the same time the Minister of Land and Natural Resources announced his plans for a new Countryside Commission, to take over
474
the powers of the present National Parks Commission and, in addition, enlarge opportunities for the enjoyment of the countryside generally, and not only in the National Parks. I hope that at this late hour I shall not draw upon myself any fire from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on this matter.
A major proposal is that, in consultation with the Commission, local authorities should establish country parks, with facilities for car parking, picnicing, and so on. The Government are also encouraging authorities responsible for reservoirs to allow public access, and thus to help to meet the increasing demand for boating, and other water-based sports. I want to make an appeal (this is my own personal appeal) to local authorities and local councils who are at present making plans for new reservoirs, to see that their plans include provision for the use of the reservoirs in the way I have suggested. These places can be of inestimable value for scores of thousands of people who are now, and will be in future, taking up these new sports. It is a good investment, not only for travel associations and our tourist receipts, but also in the health of the country. I have one in mind, in particular. I hope that my remarks will be heard by these bodies. A survey is already being carried out by the Social Survey Division of the Central Office of Information on present and future demands for facilities for indoor and outdoor sport and recreation.
I come now to a most important part of my noble friend's introductory speech, about the extension of the holiday period. It has been said this afternoon that two-thirds of all British holidays are taken in July and August. This causes congestion on the roads, on public transport, at resorts and in holiday areas. There is no doubt that this congestion would be relieved if the summer holiday period could be spread more evenly over the months from June to September. I am sorry to have to be so platitudinous, but that is true and it cannot be said too often. What has been done? We have announced that for each of the next three years the spring and late summer bank holidays—I am using the phrase "bank holiday" in the old way—will be the Monday nearest respectively to the end of May and the end of August. More

475
important, I am glad to say, in answer to my noble friend, that most of the examining boards for the G.C.E. examinations are arranging this year for these examinations to be completed by the end of June. This will be of great help. This change will be helped by the severance of the spring bank holiday from Whitsuntide, and should enable the schools to fix their summer holidays more flexibly, so that other people can fix their holidays perhaps just outside the peak period.
Criticism has been levelled about the difficulties and changes that have taken place regarding the investment allowance. I should like to say a word on this matter. In the Report that we are discussing we are urged to assist in creating favourable conditions under which the hotel industry can expand. Some criticism has been made of the measures proposed in the recent White Paper on Investment Incentives. It is true—and I am not getting away from it—that under the terms of the proposed legislation hotels and other service establishments will in future lose the investment allowance on their equipment. This loss, however, will be cushioned in the short term by the increase of the initial allowance to 30 per cent. I know it can be argued that the initial allowance is not so good as the investment allowance, but there is this opportunity of the 30 per cent. initial allowance.
Moreover, the White Paper makes it clear that hotels and similar establishments will continue, as previously, to be eligible for assistance in the new development areas, subject to the existing condition about the creation of additional employment, which really means that the criteria about providing employment in development areas applies. I will tell your Lordships something about the assistance that can be given. It can be in the form of building grants of 25 per cent., or in special cases 35 per cent., or Board of Trade loans can be obtained for plant or for working capital.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Everywhere?
LORD RHODES: Yes, in the noble Lord's district. I am coming to that in a moment. Do not get impatient. They take in practically the whole of Scotland, Northern England, including the Lake
476
District, almost the whole of Wales, Cornwall and North Devon. I am sorry, but I have no crumb of comfort for the noble Lord who spoke so eloquently about stately homes. These, of course, are major tourist-areas, and it follows that new or extended hotels in many places which would not previously have qualified will now become eligible for the kinds of assistance I have mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, mentioned the contributions by the Government to the British Travel Association, which this year will amount to nearly £2 million. In parenthesis, may I say that this £2 million which is injected into the travel industry provides a massive indirect benefit for hotels and restaurants which cater for overseas visitors and helps to bring them in. The British Travel Association Report refers elsewhere to the need to modernise transport terminals and provide good standard catering services at these terminals. I feel very keenly about this, because I sometimes come into Euston station, and I have wondered when it is going to be finished. I have something more cheerful to say on that in a moment.
Much is being done to improve the standards. At London Airport an extensive development programme to improve landing facilities for aircraft and passengers has commenced and will continue over the next three or four years. Six piers will be built to give covered walkways between passenger buildings and aircraft. The first pier was opened in June, 1965, and a second pier is under construction. As one who uses London Airport a good deal, may I say what a boon that pier has been; there is no question about that. It is a wonderful time-and-energy saver. If six of these are going to be built, it will be of enormous benefit to many people arriving in this country. At Gatwick Airport an enlarged terminal building was completed and brought fully into use early in June, 1965. Provincial airports have also been extended or improved. Additional space has been added to the terminal buildings at Luton, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Bristol, Liverpool, Southend, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Leeds-Bradford, Belfast and Edinburgh.
There has been quite a lot of criticism, as your Lordships know, and it as well every now and again to enumerate

477
what we are doing. British Railways, for their part, have recently made improvements at the seaports of Dover and Folkestone. The last two or three years has also seen a significant increase in the car ferry services between Britain and Europe, and inland the full impact of electrification will be felt this summer on British Railways main lines between London, Manchester and Liverpool. I do not think we realise that we are near the point when some of our railway services are going to be the best in the world. When it becomes a fact that every few hours in the day one will be able to get from Manchester to London or the other way round in 2 hours and 35 minutes, it will make a lot of people sit up and take notice. But that is not all. Other services to Holyhead, Heysham, the North-West of England, and Scotland will also benefit from the accelerated timings over the route from London to Crewe. Five new routes are being added to the "Cars by train" network, making 15 services in all and giving space for 30 per cent. more cars. The routes which these trains will serve will penetrate into the heart of the main tourist areas.
A point was made about the speed of the clearance of baggage and the way in which foreign visitors are treated when they come to our ports or airports. Her Majesty's Customs have collaborated on this in a splendid way. Last summer they made a study of procedures for examining baggage in several countries on the Continent. After what had been said about the necessity for speeding up the process, they went over there to see the situation. They also made their own experiments at certain seaports and airports in this country to assess the effects of different procedures and methods. Arrangements to help passengers and customers alike are now being worked out in the light of these experiments and studies. It is a fact that different circumstances at ports call for different procedures, but at places where changes seem desirable and feasible the lessons learned will, so far as possible, be applied in good time for the increased volume of traffic that we are expecting this summer. In addition,
478
the Customs are preparing informative leaflets to distribute abroad to help visitors on their arrival here to understand any questions about their baggage which may be addressed to them.
I should like to mention a point in which I am particularly interested. During this summer the World Cup series will be played in this country. I do not know whether that gives the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, a great deal of satisfaction, when he thinks about questions of accommodation and how we are going to cope. Nevertheless, a large number of people will be coming here and will be spending a great deal of money. It is interesting to see what the Government have done about this. They have shown imagination and anticipation, and if everybody plays his part in this matter as the Government have done, then all will go well.
The Government have made available to the Football Association a sum approaching £500,000 towards the cost of facilities, so that the games can be suitably staged. I suppose that most of the money needed will be distributed by the Association to the six football clubs on whose grounds the World Cup matches are to be played. But the remainder is to be spent principally on providing for the reception of overseas visitors attending the games in London and elsewhere. Estimates of the number of overseas visitors to the games are incomplete, but there is evidence of great interest by agencies acting for such visitors. Overseas visitors will undoubtedly make a substantial addition to tourist-spending in this country as a direct result of the Cup.
What I am trying to get at is this. While we are known to be friendly and hospitable people, if folk in this country really excelled themselves this year about; the way in which they received the large numbers of visitors who come to this country it would do an enormous amount to cement relations with countries abroad. I am doing my bit. I was in Mexico in October, and I have booked a room downstairs for a hundred influential Mexican visitors. We are aware of what will be needed long before the visitors come, and I want to sound a little

479
clarion call to people to rally, because British prestige could then be increased enormously and exports of a different nature could be helped.
I have nearly spoken for long enough. I just want to say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu—I apologise if I have not answered everybody's questions because it is too late. We listened with great interest and delight to what the noble Lord said. I expected and hoped that the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, might have taken part in this debate as well, but he has not shown up. He is probably busy preparing for his summer visitors. As the owner of one of the stately homes—I suppose one of the stateliest in the land—the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, has had the satisfaction of playing a direct and enviable part in the tourist industry of this country. He is right. Our stately homes are among Britain's leading tourist attractions, and the survey carried out by the British Travel Association showed that ancient buildings and ancient homes were among those items which formed the greatest attraction to visitors from the United States. It is estimated that in 1964 our historic houses and buildings attracted more than 4 million visitors. As your Lordships—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu—may know, a Working Party has been set up to formulate plans to encourage more visitors to Britain's stately homes, and I am glad that the noble Lord is serving as a member.
I once went to Paris as a visitor to the Council of Europe at the Palais de Luxembourg. I went up the steps of that gorgeous place, with a man who was grumbling at every step. He said, "I have come through the slums of north Paris, and people have no right to put up buildings like this when they have slums in north Paris." An old German Socialist was walking up the stairs at the same time, and I shall never forget what he said as long as I live. He said, "Excuse me. This place was built long ago for £200,000. It has given pleasure to thousands of families. If you were thinking of spending money to-day, do you think you would get the same value out of
480
£200,000 worth of bomber? Would people be climbing into a bomber 200 years from now?" It was salutary for my friend, and it was salutary for me. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, success with an increased number of visitors from abroad this summer.
We must not forget the consumer, and I cannot finish without saying a word to the noble Baroness. Here, again, just as in the debate on the film industry, there is no question that it is the consumer who is the important person. As your Lordships know, I introduced the Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill in this Chamber last week, and we are starting our discussion on it next Tuesday. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to anticipate what I shall be saying then, and in any case it is getting late. But I think I can safely draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Bill will go some way to stopping deliberate or reckless false statements about holiday accommodation, about which I think the noble Baroness who was campaigning for this for a long time will be highly satisfied.
I began earlier by referring to the importance of tourism to the national economy, and the Government recognise this. They are wholeheartedly behind the British Travel Association. They are indebted to the Chairman of it; they are indebted to those who give their time to the furtherance of its aims. I should also like to say, in his absence, that the same applies to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. If I have failed to deal with any points I apologise, and I finish as I began by saying to my noble friend Lord Haire of Whiteabbey that we are indebted to him for having initiated this debate.
8.37 p.m.
LORD HAIRE OF WHITEABBEY: My Lords, at this very late hour you will not wish me to make a second speech. It may be all right for my noble friend Lord Rhodes to speak for a second, and sometimes a third, time in an afternoon; he is always good value. But may I be allowed to thank noble Lords and the noble Baroness for the contributions which they have made to this

481
debate, and for the atmosphere of sweet reasonableness which they have brought to it? And may I wish all your Lordships a happy holiday? I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (PROHIBITED EXPORTS AND IMPORTS) ORDER 1966
Fifth Report from the Special Orders Committee made; to be printed, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before nine o'clock.