Sitting of 23 November 1966

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

    Freightliner Terminals
    Mr. Peter Walkerasked the Minister of Transport when her negotiations with the National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport and General Workers' Union about making the liner train terminals open to private hauliers will be completed.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Transport what progress she has made in her talks with the National Union of Railwaymen on the question of open access for private hauliers to liner train terminals.
    Mr. Huntasked the Minister of Transport if the Transport and General Workers' Union is now no longer frustrating efforts to have open freight-liner terminals; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Transport what priority she gives to the British Railways freightliner train terminals being open without discrimination to all private hauliers.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Minister of Transport if she will give the three most recent dates on which she made representations to the National Union of Railwaymen urging them to comply with the Government's policy that the freightliner train service should go ahead on the basis of open terminals.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Transport if she is still having negotiations with the Transport and General Workers' Union on the question
    1366
    of its members' participation in the operation of open freightliner terminals.
    The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle): It is my policy to encourage the wider availability of freightliner terminals and I have on several occasions pressed my views upon both the National Union of Railwaymen, the Transport and General Workers' Union and the other road transport unions concerned; most recently in my address to the Labour Party Conference. I shall continue to do this.
    Mr. Walker: Is the Minister aware that it is now 12 months since the Prime Minister stated that we had successfully tackled the opposition to the liner trains? Can she explain why for 12 months she has been unsuccessful in her efforts?
    Mrs. Castle: I do not for one moment accept that we have been unsuccessful in our efforts. The growth in the use of liner trains is most heartening for their future development. There are now 1,000 containers being carried per week compared with 30 in the first week of operation. Six routes are in use compared with one at the start of the scheme. The remaining nine routes of stage one of the network are expected to be introduced next year.
    Mr. Bagier: What has been the effect of the decision of the National Union of Railwaymen to allow access to the freightliner terminals by private hauliers' vehicles on hire to the Railways Board?
    Mrs. Castle: I cannot give the figures, but undoubtedly this decision by the N.U.R. has meant that a large number of additional loads have been carried by the freightliners which would otherwise have gone on our overcrowded roads.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the continuing drift and complacency in this matter is one of the major scandals of her Ministry? When will she speak up strongly for the nation rather than the vested interest of one particular union?
    Mrs. Castle: It is not a question of the vested interest of one particular union. We are proceeding to expand the use of these freightliner terminals. British Road Services are now using the Glasgow route and hope to use the Aberdeen

    1367
    route shortly. The service is expanding all the time. If hon. Members would stop trying to wreck it, we would make even better progress.
    Mr. Ron Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend's reply indicate that the trade unions as a whole accept the establishment of freightliner terminals, not just for the benefit of railwaymen only, but also for the benefit of nationalised road haulage?
    Mrs. Castle: It is true that the unions have accepted the principle of the freightliner train and that its benefits are increasingly being brought home to them, and the success of the use by British Road Services of the Glasgow route is paving the way for further expansion of the scheme.
    Mr. Walker: Is the Minister aware that her complacent attitude that the liner trains are doing well in spite of this restrictive practice will do a great deal to encourage the continuance of the restrictive practice?
    Mrs. Castle: I do not accept that. We would have been a great deal further on than we are if my political predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), had not delayed the introduction of the scheme for a year.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the present growth of freightliner traffic? What further steps does she intend to take to expand it? Has British Rail enough vehicles to service the terminals?
    Mrs. Castle: I have already told the House that expansion is continuing all the time, and we shall continue to ensure that.
    British Railways have had to hire some privately-owned vehicles, and the N.U.R. agreed to that last May. I have just authorised another £1 million of investment in British Railways road vehicles which will be needed for the scheme.
    Mr. Walker: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    British Railways Workshops
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Transport how many British Railways workshops are now disused; and whether she will give a general direction, in the public interest, to British Railways to bring them into productive use.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): Twenty-two workshops of various sizes have been closed since 1962, because they were surplus to the current needs of British Railways. Their policy is to sell them or adapt them to a new railway use. A general direction is unnecessary.
    Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that the railway workshop in my constituency was one of the first to be closed by the party opposite when in office? It is now standing empty and derelict, and it is ugly. Is it not time that some productive use was made of the building in the national interest? Will my hon. Friend look at the matter again?
    Mr. Morris: I know of the workshop to which my hon. Friend refers. It was closed on 30th June, 1964, and there has been a two-year delay in selling it, because the developer had to get planning consent, and there were difficulties about access, because part of his plan was to let it in sections. However, I understand that he has now exchanged contracts of sale with B.R.B.
    Mr. Harold Walker: In the light of the economic situation, will my hon. Friend consider having consultations with the British Railways Board, in anticipation of the legislation which the Minister has promised, to ensure that the existing capacity of the workshops is utilised fully in manufacturing for their own internal needs, thus releasing private manufacturing resources for production elsewhere?
    Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend's aim is to ensure that British Railways make the best use of an important and valuable asset. In giving her approval to British Railways investment projects, my right hon. Friend will do her best to ensure a steady flow of work for the railway workshops.

    Heathrow Airport-Central London (Rail Link)
    Sir Clive Bossomasked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement about the proposed £25 million rail link for London Airport.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): The Interchanges Group of the Transport Co-ordinating Council for London is now considering how and when access between central London and Heathrow airport should be improved.
    Sir Give Bossom: Have the surveys of the tube, the rail and the monorail now been completed? What progress has the Minister been able to make in choosing one of the six schemes which were put before the Ministry? Can the Minister give any indication where the London terminal is to be located?
    Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. These surveys have not been completed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are several schemes involving many millions of £s, and they are still being evaluated by the Interchanges Group. But I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Minister has informed British Railways and the London Transport Board that they may seek Parliamentary powers within this Session in preparation for the adoption of any scheme.

    Liner Trains
    Mr. Websterasked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement about the safety record of goods carried by liner trains as opposed to the safety record of goods carried in other ways by British Railways.
    Mr. John Morris: Total claims paid in respect of damage and loss on freightliner services amount to approximately ⅓d. per ton on traffic carried. Though I cannot give a precise figure this is a very small fraction of the payments made in respect of comparable general merchandise carried on conventional services.
    Mr. Webster: May I welcome the figure given by the Parliamentary Secretary, while regretting that this excellent service is not given greater availability because of the supine negative approach
    1370
    of the Ministry in allowing the unions to abrogate the functions of management by not allowing free access to liner train terminals?
    Mr. Morris: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend accept for one moment anything that the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Blaker: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's original reply, does he not think that it would be useful if he could persuade the Minister to make it clear that she is determined, as the Prime Minister said he was on 20th July, that liner train terminals should be open to all hauliers?
    Mr. Morris: My right hon. Friend has stated that repeatedly.
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Minister of Transport what is the reason for the delay in bringing fully into operation the liner train system.
    Mrs. Castle: Development of the freightliner system is making good progress. Five terminals are now in operation. The British Road Services are already using the London-Glasgow route and they hope to start on London-Aberdeen shortly. Two thousand four hundred and sixty containers were carried in August, 3,358 in September, and 3,908 in October.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is the right hon. Lady aware that she simply has not answered my Question? I asked her to tell the House the reason for the delay in bringing the liner train system fully into operation. All that she has done is read out a lot of figures, really repeating an answer given to one of my hon. Friends earlier on. Why is there this delay, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister said on 20th July that this was going to go ahead on the basis of—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of Questions on the Order Paper.
    Mrs. Castle: One reason for the delay is that when the freightliner project was approved by the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) he imposed restrictions on investment before agreement with the unions on open terminals and therefore the scheme did not start until a year ago. If the right hon. Gentleman had had the sense to get it going, and to let it spread by example, instead

    1371
    of trying to make an ideological fight out of it, we should have got somewhere.
    Mr. Alexander M. Lyon: Is one reason for the delay that relationships with the N.U.R. have been exacerbated by party political sniping by hon. Gentlemen opposite?
    Mrs. Castle: I say in all seriousness to the House that, if we are all united in wanting to make a success of these freightliners and to proceed to their expanding use by industry as a whole, it would be wise to allow the agreements to proceed as they are doing step by step. As the Prime Minister said, we prefer to do this by voluntary agreement, and we are proceeding to do it. I suggest that we allow the voluntary agreements to work as they are doing successfully.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Transport what action she is taking to ensure that the activities of the British Transport Docks and the British Railways Freightliner Depot, situated within a few hundred yards of each other at Garston, are co-ordinated, in order to further her liner train policy.
    Mr. John Morris: The Railways Board consult the appropriate Harbour Authorities about the siting and use of freight-liner terminals near ports. They are in close touch with the British Transport Docks Board and I am sure that full advantage will be taken of the opportunities offered at Garston.
    Mr. Fortescue: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a daily containerised service between Garston Docks and Belfast, that every container passes within one hundred yards of the entrance to the freightliner depot into and out of the docks and that absolutely no contact has been made between the two managers of the two nationalised undertakings to attract this traffic to the freightliners?
    Mr. Morris: I am not aware of the lack of co-ordination to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I will certainly look into the question, but I understand that a relatively small percentage of traffic at present passing through Garston Docks is suitable for transfer to freight-finer trains. I will certainly bear in mind what he had to say.

  TRANSPORT

    National Freight Organisation
    Mr. Peter Walkerasked the Minister of Transport when she expects to have completed working on details of the new National Freight Organsisation referred to in her White Paper on Transport Policy, Command Paper No. 3057.
    Mrs. Castle: In good time for the presentation of the necessary legislation early in the next Session of Parliament.
    Mr. Walker: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the uncertainty about the details of her suggestions is causing difficulty in the investment programmes of some parts of the transport industry? Can she give details as soon as possible?
    Mrs. Castle: My answer to the first part of that supplementary question must be "No". I am not aware that it is having the effect to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am in the process of working out the details of the scheme, and I am widening my consultations for that purpose. All users will be brought into those consultations as soon as possible.

    Inland Waterways
    Mr. Carol Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with the discussions envisaged in paragraph 126 of the White Paper on Transport Policy, Command Paper No. 3057, with regard to the future of inland waterways; and with what bodies discussions have taken place.
    Mr. John Morris: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells—[Vol. 736, c. 115]—on 16th November and to my remarks in the debate on 18th November—[Vol. 736, c. 879–85].
    Mr. Johnson: Am I to understand from that reply and from the White Paper generally that the Minister has closed her mind completely to the creation of a separate waterways trust on the lines submitted to her by responsible bodies, including the Parliamentary Inland Waterways Group? If so, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the extent of the network to be retained by the

    1373
    Board or its successor and the security of tenure to be granted will be considered carefully before final decisions are made?
    Mr. Morris: As regards the trust referred to by my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend has set out her intentions fairly clearly in the White Paper. It is not her intention to have a separate trust. There are very good reasons for having the management of both the commercial and the amenity sides of the network under one roof.
    The size of the network and the security of tenure are matters, obviously, which will be raised in the course of the consultations.

    Public Transport Services
    Sir Clive Bossomasked the Minister of Transport when she expects to conclude the investigation she is making, with the help of local authorities, into the costs of providing an adequate public transport service as part of a comprehensive local transport plan; and when she will make a statement on what these costs will be and what proportion she proposes should come from the reserves, from the local community and from central Government.
    Mrs. Castle: The investigation is a continuing one but by the middle of next year I hope to have an assessment of the costs of alternative public transport systems.
    The need for external financial support, will vary from place to place. As stated in the White Paper on Transport Policy (Cmnd. 3057), central Government financial help will be available for certain major capital projects.
    Sir Clive Bossom: Will the Minister be a little more precise? It is a little vague to say "the middle of next year". So far, we have had only paper plans, and we want to know when she will be able to spell out the method in detail.
    Mrs. Castle: Economic research is going on in my Department under the Economic Planning Unit, and some local authorities are helping. That research will enable us to ascertain the costs of alternative public transport systems. The policy set out in the White Paper will be translated into legislation at the earliest possible moment in the next Session.

    Regional Economic Planning Councils (Recommendations)
    Mr. Websterasked the Minister of Transport when she expects to receive the transport recommendations from the regional economic planning councils.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Transport on what date she expects to receive the transport recommendations from economic planning councils in the regions.
    Mrs. Castle: I have already received advice from the economic planning councils on some aspects of transport and I shall continue to keep closely in touch with them on the planning of transport in the regions.
    Mr. Webster: In view of the refusal to accept Portbury after consultation with the Regional Development Council, does that mean that the reference to consultation in the White Paper is complete eyewash if it does not fit in with the Minister's preconceived notions?
    Mrs. Castle: Of course it is not eyewash. Equally, I cannot delegate complete responsibility to the regional planning councils. They are supposed to be advisory planning bodies. Their advice on a number of things has been considered by me, including railway closures, road plans for the 1970s and so on. However, in the end, I must bear the responsibility of making a decision, and I shall not shirk it.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give special sympathetic consideration to the recommendation which she has received from Scottish sources for a direct air link between Edinburgh and Glasgow and the continent of Europe?
    Mrs. Castle: Air links are not a matter for me, but I am in close touch with the Scottish Economic Planning Council on all the questions which are within my responsibility.

    Privately-owned Car Parks (Control)
    Mr. Huntasked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement outlining her policy on the public control of privately-owned car parks.
    Mrs. Castle: The Government's policy towards the control of privately-owned car parks is contained in Joint Planning Bulletin No. 7 on "Parking in Town Centres". In brief, we encourage local authorities to ensure that such car parks are properly related to parking needs, highway capacity and general planning.
    Mr. Hunt: Does the right hon. Lady still stand by the statement which she is reported to have made in Washington? If so, does she agree that statements of this kind can only reinforce the suspicion that so long as she is Minister the tackling of the real transport problems will be subordinated to the irrelevant dogmas of Left-wing Socialism?
    Mrs. Castle: Certainly I stand by my statement in Washington, where I was referring specifically to the American problem and where there is no planning control comparable to the British system.
    Mr. Ashley: Will my right hon. Friend consider, as a general policy, the erection of car parks above the platforms, buildings, and railway tracks of commuter railway stations?
    Mrs. Castle: Oh, yes, certainly. This is an essential part of an integrated transport policy, and it is a matter in which I am very much interested.

    Motor Cars, London (Road Pricing and Taxing Meters)
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Minister of Transport what is her policy regarding a system of road pricing and taxing meters for motor cars in London.
    Mrs. Castle: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 9th November to a Question by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell.)—[Vol. 735, c. 296.]
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: How does the right hon. Lady reconcile that pussy-footing Answer with her dogmatic utterances made before the entire New York Press on 15th October, when she and I were both in New York—[Interruption.]—when the right hon. Lady and I were both on business in New York—and reported verbatim in the New York Times that high fees were about to be imposed on cars entering the congested areas of London?
    Mrs. Castle: I did not make any such statement in New York. I said, and I stand by it, and indeed I have said it in other places repeatedly, that it is essential for us to consider whether we need to go further than the parking controls which were introduced by the previous Conservative Administration. In this connection, I said that we were studying the feasibility and desirability of introducing road pricing systems, but I have always made it clear that this will involve at least another two years of research before any decision can possibly be taken.
    Mr. Whitaker: Will my right hon. Friend flatly renounce the principle of licensing by wealth and any such suggestion as this which discriminates in transport in favour of the rich at the expense of those who are less wealthy? Will she fully develop public transport, and also consider licensing cars by size, so that large cars which take up three times as much road space as smaller cars pay their fair share of taxes?
    Mrs. Castle: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I would point out that parking fees are a form of licensing by wealth. The alternative to control by that kind of pricing is administrative control. I would prefer this—and I agree with my hon. Friend—but it raises enormous practical difficulties. How does one decide which is an essential car, and which is not? This is the simple problem which we have to face. In the meantime, every extension of priced parking control is a form of road pricing.
    With regard to public transport, I have made it clear time and again that we are going to encourage it. For the first time the Government are going to give a capital grant for it.
    The question of the size of cars in cities is too big a one to enter into in reply to this question.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Would the right hon. Lady agree that the grant for the Victoria Line was a grant by the Government?
    Mrs. Castle: It is a good indication of how right are the policies in the White Paper, which will supersede those of the 1962 Transport Act.

    Motor Vehicle Tests (Fee)
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Minister of Transport whether she will revise the fee payable to garages for carrying out of the Ministry of Transport test on cars of 10 years of age.
    Mr. Swingler: We are at present in consultation with organisations representing the motor garage industry on the extent to which revision of the fee would be justified.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I hope that the Ministry now intends to cease to rely on a sense of public duty by garage proprietors, and to allow them a reasonable remuneration for this service.
    Mr. Swingler: I must point out that the original fee was fixed in consultation with the trade, and agreed by it. I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that any revision of fees in relation to the service demanded should also be a matter for consultation and agreement between the Ministry and the organisations.

    Regional Transport Co-ordinating Committees
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Minister of Transport when the regional transport co-ordinating committees will be set up; and what will be their powers.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Transport when the regional transport coordinating committees will be set up; and whether she will state their terms of reference.
    Mrs. Castle: As soon as I have received the necessary nominations from all the various bodies I have approached.
    The terms of reference of the Committees are: to study the transport arrangements in the region, advise on, and where possible arrange for, the implementation of the steps necessary to get a more effective and co-ordinated service by public passenger transport and secure its greater use by the travelling public.
    Mr. Galbraith: Am I right in thinking that they have no powers except persuasive powers?
    Mrs. Castle: It is true that they are purely persuasive bodies, but a lot can be done by joint discussion and by persuasion, as we have found as a result of setting up the Transport Co-ordinating Council for London.
    Mr. Dalyell: Do the terms of reference cover the problems of containerisation in ships?
    Mrs. Castle: No. They are designed to improve facilities in passenger transport.

    Traffic Congestion, Central London
    Mr. Winnickasked the Minister of Transport what proposals she has to relieve the congestion of traffic in central London.
    Mr. Swingler: It is for the Greater London Council, as traffic authority, to initiate such proposals. My right hon. Friend's job is to create the conditions which will help make possible the provision of better transport.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister of Transport aware that if action were taken to relieve central London of trucks and lorries, although a few people would grumble she would receive the blessings of many people in the capital city?
    Mr. Swingler: I am sure that the Greater London Council is wide open to any proposals and suggestions that my hon. Friend or any other Member may make for a higher standard of traffic management in London. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend, by establishing for the first time a Transport Co-ordinating Council for London, has enabled the authorities to consider these matters together.
    Sir R. Cary: Might not a licence plate for private cars be the best method to deal with this extremely difficult problem—a plate similar to that displayed by public service passenger vehicles?
    Mr. Swingler: I am prepared to consider any suggestions that the hon. Member may care to make. As he may know, we have under consideration some new regulations which will affect that very matter.

    Bus Services, Greater London
    Mr. Winnickasked the Minister of Transport whether she will give a general direction, in the public interest, to London Transport to improve the bus service in the Greater London area.
    Mrs. Castle: No, Sir. I do not think this a practical way of achieving the improvements my hon. Friend wants.
    Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tremendous hardship and inconvenience that has been suffered by so many Londoners in the last few years? Will she try to do something about bus services in outer London, especially over the weekends?
    Mrs. Castle: I am aware that there is a need for improvements in bus services in London. The London Transport Board has been under difficulties under current legislation, but we are bringing every effort we can to bear through the Transport Co-ordinating Council for London and elsewhere to improve bus facilities. I think that progress is being made.

    Rural Bus Operators (Representations)
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Transport what representations her Department has had from rural bus operators concerning the difficulties created by recent Government measures.
    Mrs. Castle: Certain representations have been made by the national associations of bus operators about the method of refund to bus operators of the increase in fuel duty and of Selective Employment Tax.
    Mr. Mills: Does the Minister realise the appalling difficulties under which these bus operators are trying to work, as a direct result of this Government's methods—increased taxation, the cost of licences, fuel tax, investment allowances and many other things? Will she take steps to deal with this problem? Otherwise many of these operators will go out of business.
    Mrs. Castle: I cannot accept that Government action has added to the difficulties. S.E.T. is refunded to bus operators, and so is the increase in fuel duties. It was on the previous occasion. We are
    1380
    the first Government to put forward some practical proposals to help bus operators.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Minister aware that the fuel duty, put on in July, is causing difficulties? So far the legislation to rebate it has not been passed. We on this side will do everything we can to facilitate such business going through the House.
    Mrs. Castle: There is a later Question about legislation.
    Mr. Mapp: Apart from the question referred to by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), can my right hon. Friend state whether the deep-rooted cause is one that might be cured by fiscal measures? Will she make representations to the Chancellor in regard to fiscal measures which might to some extent relieve bus operators of the burden imposed by oil duties?
    Mrs. Castle: A complete refund of the duty would be very costly—about £25 million. We have outlined in the White Paper our comprehensive plans for helping public transport financially.

    Rural Bus Services
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Transport what plans her Department now has to take powers to maintain and increase rural bus services, particularly in the South-West.
    Mrs. Castle: My proposals for helping rural transport are stated in paragraphs 78 and 79 of the White Paper on Transport Policy (Cmnd. 3057). They are now being considered by the local authority associations.
    Mr. Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that what is needed is immediate action to save these operators before they go out of business? Will she take steps to get a rebate scheme going quickly? Otherwise we shall see a further depopulation in our rural areas, because of lack of transport.
    Mrs. Castle: It is because we realise that public transport in rural areas has been running into increasing difficulties that we made proposals in the White Paper, which, for the first time, said that we would seek powers to enable local authorities to give financial assistance and for my Ministry to contribute

    1381
    to the cost. The details of these proposals are now being discussed with the associations.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Does the Minister appreciate that this matter has been under discussion for many years now? Is it not about time that some action was taken? Otherwise we shall be in serious difficulties.
    Mrs. Castle: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Complaints have been heard in this House for years about the state of public transport in rural areas. The Conservative Government did nothing about it. Nothing will be done to solve this problem unless and until powers are given to me by the House to carry out the proposals contained in the White Paper.
    Mr. McNamara: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the logic of her argument is to take all forms of public transport into public ownership?
    Mrs. Castle: Certainly there are publicly-owned vehicles among those which we are going to help.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Lady aware that one thing which a Conservative Government did was give investment allowances to buses, which this Government have taken away?
    Mrs. Castle: That did not make any difference to the plight of the bus industry or of rural transport, which hon. Gentlemen from rural areas voiced in this House for years. The Conservative Government were not willing to take the key decision, without which nothing could be done, namely, that there must be financial help from public funds.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. John Leeasked the Minister of Transport if she will now make a statement on the prospects for the making of the Channel Tunnel.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Transport if she proposes that the United Kingdom share in the construction of the Channel Tunnel shall be partly, mainly or exclusively financed by private capital; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement
    1382
    on the construction of the Channel Tunnel.
    Mr. Murrayasked the Minister of Transport whether she will make a statement on her recent discussions with the French Government on the proposed Channel Tunnel.
    Mrs. Castle: I would refer to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) on 2nd November.—[Vol. 735, c. 119–1919320.]
    Mr. Lee: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even some of us who are hostile to the entry of Britain into the Common Market regard this as extremely important? Is she aware that there have been deliberations about the Channel Tunnel for nearly a hundred years?
    Mrs. Castle: Yes, I am, and I am glad that at last this Government, as on other fronts, are taking some action.
    Mr. Biffen: In view of the many claims on public expenditure which will arise from socially desirable projects over the next few years, will not the right hon. Lady take this occasion to assert that she will regard favourably the proposition that this form of expenditure shall be primarily financed by private capital?
    Mrs. Castle: I stated in my reply of 2nd November that it is very much for the reasons which the hon. Gentleman has advanced that we have agreed with the French Government that, although the Channel Tunnel shall be operated by a public authority, its construction shall be largely financed by private capital.
    Mr. Murray: Would my right hon. Friend take note that some of us are a little disturbed that this will be private investment and not public investment, in view of Britain's possible entry to the Common Market? Would she also consider the County of Kent's special claims for extra finance for roads because of the heavy traffic problem which the tunnel will create?
    Mrs. Castle: Any entry to the Common Market would not affect the method of finance. I agree with my hon. Friend: I would have preferred it to have been financed by public money, but there are so many competing claims upon our resources that it is legitimate to use

    1383
    private capital for this purpose. With regard to traffic resulting in the southeast of England, I would point out that cross-Channel traffic is increasing anyway and that what we shall have here is rather a diversion of traffic to the tunnel. We are, of course, carefully considering the road consequences.

  PORTS

    Traffic Flows (Study)
    Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Minister of Transport by what date the study done by Martech Consultants Limited in 1964 on traffic flows for all Great Britain's ports will cease to be relevant to the planning of those ports.
    Mr. Swingler: This study was completed in March, 1966. Its analysis of traffic flows in 1964 will continue to be relevant until superseded by later studies.
    Mr. Cooke: When the later studies take place, will the Minister reconsider the Portbury scheme, because this lot of studies has been used to kill the Portbury scheme at the present time?
    Mr. Swingler: These studies are continuing all the time. The National Ports Council and its staff have the job of analysing statistical data made available by any of the port authorities or their consultants. Therefore, it will be a continuing work to establish a national survey.
    Mr. Ellis: Will my hon. Friend confirm that any evidence about the Portbury scheme will be considered, that any decision will be taken in the light of that, and that a decision in favour of Portbury will not be ruled out until all the available evidence has been studied?
    Mr. Swingler: In the White Paper, we say that the case for a third major liner terminal at Portbury or anywhere else has not yet been made out. We are always prepared to consider further evidence.

  ROADS

    M6 Road (Blackpool Link)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Minister of Transport when she will announce the date for inclusion in the road building
    1384
    programme of the link between Blackpool and the M6 at Broughton.
    Mr. Miscampbellasked the Minister of Transport when she will announce the date for inclusion in the road building programme of the link between Blackpool and the M6 at Broughton.
    Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend hopes to announce before long a list of additional trunk road schemes to be prepared for inclusion in the programme for the early 1970s. The Blackpool Link Road is being considered for this list.
    Mr. Blaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is he aware of the great concern felt in the area about this road, and also that all the local authorities concerned regard this project as of the greatest priority? Will he assure us that he will consider it in that light?
    Mr. Swingler: We recognise the need, which was stated by my right hon. Friend's predecessor last year. It is a question now of deciding what schemes and designs should definitely be prepared. My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement within the next couple of months.
    Mr. Heffer: Can my hon. Friend say whether, included in this list, will be the road from the M6 to Liverpool?
    Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. Until the list has been agreed by my right hon. Friend, I think that I had better not say what might be in it.

    A1 Road, North Riding (Roundabouts)
    Mr. Kitsonasked the Minister of Transport when it is intended to remove the roundabouts on the Al in the North Riding of Yorkshire.
    Mr. Swingler: Work is expected to start on the replacement of the Scotch Corner roundabout in 1968. Schemes to replace the remaining roundabouts have not yet gained a place in the roads programme.
    Mr. Kitson: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that in conditions of poor visibility on fast stretches of dual carriageway roundabouts are major road hazards, and many accidents occur on them? Will he consider introducing flashing lights similar to the ones on the motorways for bad weather conditions?
    Mr. Swingler: We will consider that. We recognise the need that exists. We have recognised it for some time. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that these schemes are extremely expensive. The Scotch Corner replacement scheme will cost £500,000. We will consider this further replacement in the next roll forward of the programme, and in the meantime we are willing to consider any proposals for increasing road safety.

    Wokingham Road, Reading (Pedestrian Crossing Signals)
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Minister of Transport when she expects the X-ways pedestrian crossing signals to be installed in the Wokingham road at Reading.
    Mr. John Morris: I am not yet able to give the hon. Member any firmer indication than I did in my letter of 10th October.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Surely the Minister realises that I have been in communication with the hon. Gentleman's Ministry for three years. I have the whole of the blooming correspondence in my hand! Cannot the hon. Gentleman improve on what he has said and make sure that by the turn of the year these lights are: in operation?
    Mr. Morris: I am well aware that the hon. Member has been in communication with the Ministry of Transport for years. He has been most assiduous. When he first applied for a crossing he was turned down by the previous Government. What we have told him, as set out in the letter of 10th October, is that as soon as possible one of these crossings will be set up in the road he has in mind.

    A3095 Road (Speed Limit)
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Minister of Transport when the order will be made imposing a 40 miles per hour speed limit on the A3095 Bracknell to Warfield road.
    Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend gave her consent to Berkshire County Council on 13th October, 1966.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am obliged to the Minister. Is he aware that by a strange coincidence the signs were put up two days ago?
    Mr. Swingler: This is a matter for the Berkshire County Council. My right hon. Friend dealt with it with the utmost speed.

    Dovercourt By-Pass
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Transport when work on the Dovercourt by-pass to Harwich will begin.
    Mr. Swingler: Essex County Council, as highway and planning authority, is considering the line for a Dovercourt bypass. Until proposals are received from it we cannot judge when work might begin.
    Mr. Ridsdale: As Harwich is one of the terminals of the liner trains, who is guilty of restrictive practices—the Government or the Essex County Council?
    Mr. Swingler: I have just told the hon. Member that the Essex County Council is both the highway authority and the planning authority in this respect. It is therefore not for my right hon. Friend to initiate proposals. As the hon. Gentleman knows, many improvements down the A12 and from Colchester to Harwich are being made for just the purpose he mentioned.

    Motorway Construction (Compensation Payments)
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Transport what plans she has to amend existing legislation so that householders whose property borders new urban motorways and who suffer a consequent loss of amenity can claim proper compensation, even though the construction of such motorways may not actually involve the acquisition of any part of their property.
    Mrs. Castle: I have no such plans. It seems to me to be reasonable to apply the general law on compensation to the effects of road schemes and I am satisfied that special legislation for highways would not be justified.
    Mr. Barnes: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in London, in view of the G.L.C.'s outline plans for a new primary road network, this is very pressing? Would she also agree that the onus is very much on the G.L.C. and her Ministry to make the case to the public for the routes which are proposed?
    Mrs. Castle: I understand that my hon. Friend is now complaining about the choice of routes rather than methods of compensation. I am not quite clear from his supplementary question, but as far as compensation is concerned, obviously any changes would, first of all, be very far reaching and would have to affect other than road schemes, and, second, would create as many anomalies as exist at present.
    Mr. Galbraith: But does not this illustrate one of the great weaknesses in the whole of the Government's outlook, in that, when the community increases the value of somebody's property, the Government proceed to tax it, but when the community damages somebody's property, the Government do not make proper compensation?
    Mrs. Castle: I do not accept that for a moment. In the case of the present law about compensation for the effects of road schemes, it is very difficult to establish the extent to which amenity has been damaged and whether there are not offsetting factors. Various Administrations have looked at this and have found it difficult to solve this problem, however much sympathy one may have with those on whom this kind of disturbance has been inflicted.

    Pedestrian Crossings
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Transport whether she will take steps to speed up the way in which applications for pedestrian crossings are dealt with.
    Mr. John Morris: Applications are dealt with as quickly as possible. But delays sometimes arise in obtaining the necessary detailed information about accidents and traffic volumes at the proposed site.
    Mr. Barnes: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the complicated negotiations which have to take place among the local authorities, the Ministry and the police often have a disillusioning effect on members of the public who have to petition because they feel that these problems are urgent? Is it not possible to streamline this machine?
    Mr. Morris: I will bear the hon. Gentleman's remarks in mind, but there are of course the difficulties of ensuring
    1388
    that there is not an undue proliferation of these crossings. In 1951, two-thirds had to be done away with because they were not properly regarded. In the meantime, we have to take proper consultations. Divisional road engineers have to have a proper census. Consultations with the police and, in London, with the G.L.C., have to take place, and this may take from time to time a little longer than usual.

    M4 Road (Extension)
    Mr. John Leeasked the Minister of Transport when the construction of the extension of the M4 from Maidenhead westwards beyond Reading will be commenced.
    Mr. Swingler: As soon as possible, but the exact date must depend upon progress made in dealing with objections to the proposed route, especially those lodged by local authorities.
    Mr. Lee: Is my hon. Friend aware that this problem is becoming more and more serious, and that the opening of the South Wales motorway and the further extension from Southampton mean a confluence of a large amount of traffic which is at the moment clogging up many roads?
    Mr. Swingler: We know that it is serious; that is the importance of trying to adhere to this programme. As my hon. Friend is aware, three local authorities have raised objections to the proposed route—Berkshire, Reading and Cookham. If these objections are sustained, we are bound by Statute to have a public inquiry. If we can resolve them, we have the opportunity of getting on with the programme.

    Kingston-upon-Hull
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement about the improvement of east-west communications to the city of Kingston-upon-Hull.
    Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to do so soon.
    Mr. Wall: Before the Minister makes her statement, would the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that all the local authorities in the East Riding wish to see this new link cross the A1 at Ledsham rather than at Ferrybridge? This is,

    1389
    I believe, the unanimous view of the authorities.
    Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend and the Minister of Housing and Local Government met the local authorities concerned. Some very complicated suggestions were made, which have taken some time to evaluate. I promise the hon. Gentleman and the House that my right hon. Friend will make a statement very soon, which they will be able to consider.
    Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend not convinced that the communications in and out of Hull are scandalously inadequate for this the third largest port in the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that there is now talk of closing the Hull-Scarborough line? Will he use his good offices to scotch any rumour of that type at the earliest possible opportunity, since any attempt to close this line would be extremely detrimental?
    Mr. Swingler: There is a procedure—although I will look into that point—covering these matters. I recall that my right hon. Friend's predecessor approved an extremely expensive scheme for the improvement of communications in and out of Hull.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Private Rooms
    Mr. Ellisasked the Lord President of the Council how many private rooms are now available in the Palace of Westminster for the use of back-bench Members.
    Sir G. Wills: I have been asked to reply.
    Twenty-nine single rooms and 8 double rooms.
    Mr. Ellis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware, having regard to the fact that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) are together in this matter—I believe that that causes the imagination to boggle—that many of us are concerned about the present position? If a lot of changes are taking
    1390
    place in the allocation of the rooms, will he inform us—we believe that it is impossible—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have brief questions. Will the hon. Gentleman put his question quickly?
    Mr. Ellis: Would the hon. Gentleman inform us how the existing procedure works in the allocation of rooms in these buildings?
    Sir G. Wills: That is another question, but I can give the hon. Gentleman some encouragement by telling him that, when the new Star Court building is completed, there will be about 50 more places, both double and single, for hon. Members as a result of the reshuffle which will take place then.
    Mr. Ellisasked the Lord President of the Council on what principles, and by whom, private rooms in the Palace of Westminster were allocated to Members.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Private rooms are allocated to back-bench Members by the Accommodation and Housekeeping Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services).
    Mr. Ellis: How does the existing system work? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members are becoming increasingly concerned about this matter? If it is a question of accommodation being allocated by a lottery, will my right hon. Friend take steps to let hon. Members know exactly how the system works, because, as I said, some of us are very disquieted about it?
    Mr. Crossman: I do not think that there has been any attempt to conceal the way in which the system works. Rooms are allocated in equal proportions to back-bench hon. Members on both sides of the House, more than 100 Members of the Labour Party having rooms in their capacity as Ministers. The method of allocation is now being reviewed.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that, from the point of view of the share of rooms for Conservative hon. Members, they are allocated strictly on the ground of seniority?
    Mr. Grossman: That is not within my purview. The Accommodation and Housekeeping Sub-Committee is responsible for the allocation and has given the detailed job to a Member of each side of the House, who does it according to his wisdom.

    Lobby Correspondents
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Lord President of the Council when it is proposed to re-establish Annie's Bar, or a similar institution, for the joint use of Members of the House and members of the Lobby.
    Mr. Crossman: The accommodation and servicing of such a room raises difficult problems, but this proposal is under consideration by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), which fully recognises the importance of the matter to both sides.
    Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present conditions for members of the Lobby and hon. Members of the House are terribly old-fashioned and undignified, and ought not the proposal to be speeded up?
    Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir. There is a genuine need on both sides, and we are hoping that something will be found which will enable us to service both sides.

    Members' Wives (Facilities)
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Lord President of the Council whether he will now take steps to provide facilities in the House for the wives of Members.
    Sir G. Wills: I have been asked to reply.
    The provision of facilities for the wives and husbands of Members is under consideration by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) which hopes to present a Report to the House on this subject very shortly.

    Refreshment Department (Salaries)
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Lord President of the Council when the investigation by the Catering Sub-Committee into the salary scale of employees will be completed; and whether the wages of the staff of the Refreshment Department will be increased on 20th January, 1967.
    Mr. Crossman: I am not yet able to say when the Catering Sub-Committee will complete its investigations into the salary scales of staff of the Refreshment Department because the investigations are part of the more general review which is being conducted into the finances of the Department. In keeping under constant review the level of the salaries and wages of all members of the staff, the Sub-Committee must take into account the Government's prices and incomes policy.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the Lord President ask the Sub-Committee to speed up this investigation? Would he not agree that this House should give an increase in remuneration to its staff, who are serving the Members extremely devotedly?
    Mr. Crossman: I answered the second part of that supplementary question by explaining that the Sub-Committee is bound to take into account the Government's prices and incomes policy. I assure the hon. Gentleman, in answer to the first part, that the investigation will certainly be accelerated.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only last Monday a new manager, Mr. Mitchell, took control of the Catering Department, that the Committee would very much like to have a short period at any rate while the new manager gets familiar with the position and that we would prefer not to be bombarded with Questions, which, particularly at this stage, only make his position very much more awkward?
    Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that. I am sure that we all wish the new manager success in his work.

  ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS
  Mr. Cleggasked the Attorney-General whether he will refer to the Law Commission the question of setting up administrative courts to deal with matters arising from the relationship of the citizen to the Crown and Government Departments.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The Law Commission is already very fully committed by its First Programme, and the subject of administrative

  1393
  law and administrative courts is a very big one. However, I will bring the hon. Member's, suggestion to the notice of the Law Commission.

  PERSONAL INJURIES (ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES)
  Mr. Whitakerasked the Attorney-General whether he will ask the Law Commission to report on whether suing for damages for personal injuries should accrue interest from the date of the injury to the date of payment.
  The Attorney-General: This is a problem which the Law Commission is examining as part of the broad study which it already has in hand of the assessment of damages in personal injury litigation. The procedural aspects are also being considered by the Winn Committee.
  Mr. Whitaker: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that such a change in the law would be an inducement to the speedy settlement of cases, whereas the present anomalous position entails a direct financial incentive for insurance companies to spin out legal cases, to the detriment of needy workmen plaintiffs?
  The Attorney-General: I have no doubt that those considerations will be very much in the minds of the high-powered bodies dealing with the problem.

  CONSOLIDATION OF ENACTMENTS (PROCEDURE) ACT, 1949
  Mr. Edward Lyonasked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in order to make it possible in one Act both to consolidate and to enact substantive changes in any aspect of the law.
  The Attorney-General: I do not think it would be appropriate to amend the Act of 1949 as proposed. Consolidation procedure, which eliminates debate on the Floor of either House and in Standing Committee, would not, in my view, be appropriate for enacting substantive changes in the law.
  Mr. Lyons: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a woeful failing in the procedures of this House that one cannot revise or consolidate a particular aspect of the law in one Bill? Would it not be comparatively simple to devise a procedure whereby the present Consolidation Committee of the House simply approved certain passages of a combined Bill and said that they did not involve any improvement or change in the law, so that the House could deal with real changes in the law in that subject?
  The Attorney-General: The problem is to balance the necessity for Parliamentary scrutiny over substantive changes in the law with speed and efficiency in proceedings. The Second Reading procedure, which the House has already approved, is being helpful in this matter, but I do not think that I could go quite as far as my hon. Friend has indicated, although I assure him that the matter is kept under review.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the fact that such a change as advocated by his hon. Friend would impose on the Joint Select Committee a quite intolerable burden of scrutiny?
  The Attorney-General: I think that that may well be so.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT, 1920
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Attorney-General if he will refer to the Law Reform Commission the need to revise and bring up to date the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
  The Attorney-General: The Commission will be at liberty to include in any future draft programme whatever branches of the law it thinks calls for review. However, I should add that much of the law embodied in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, is outside the Commission's scope.
  Mr. Hamilton: Would my right hon. and learned Friend say why that is so? Will he not call to the attention of the Commission the anomalous situation in which we find ourselves, in which hon.

  1395
  Members who represent Northern Ireland in this House can ask Questions and can can speak and vote on every subject concerning the United Kingdom, while we are precluded from asking Questions or from voting on any matter relating to malpractices in Northern Ireland?
  The Attorney-General: The explanation of my Answer is that Section 1(5) of the Law Commissions Act, 1965, excludes from their consideration any law of Northern Ireland which the Parliament of Northern Ireland has power to amend. That Act was passed by Parliament and the Law Commission is circumscribed by it. Accordingly, I fear that the anomaly to which my hon. Friend refers does not come within the competence of the Law Commission to consider.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: In the event of my right hon. and learned Friend adopting the suggestion, will he, as a condition precedent, seek the advice and act on the views of the Government of the Republic of Eire?
  The Attorney-General: I think that that question strays a little far from the functions and duties of the Law Commission. I do not think that I could pursue my hon. and learned Friend's interesting suggestion.

ROADS (CONSTRUCTION UNITS)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. STRAUSS: To ask the Minister of Transport what progress she has made in her discussions for the establishment of road construction units; and whether she will make a statement.
The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 118.
I am glad to say that as a result of my discussions with the County Councils Association on my proposal for the establishment of road construction units to strengthen the organisation for the design and construction of major trunk road and motorway schemes, I have agreed with the Association the broad lines on which these units will be set up.
1396
I am grateful for the constructive way they have approached the discussions. The respective staff Associations have also been consulted and have indicated that they accept the broad principles of what we are proposing. There will, of course, be further discussions with them on the detailed arrangements affecting their members.
At present, trunk road and motorway schemes are carried out either by local authorities acting as my agents or by consulting engineers. This system has been able to handle the road programme so far, but its size and rate of growth are now such that it has become essential to make a better use of the scarce engineer resources available, and to streamline the administrative processes involved. At the same time, I am sure that it is important to preserve, although in a new form, the fruitful partnership between my Department and the county councils that has existed for nearly 30 years.
Under the new arrangements now agreed I hope eventually to set up six large-scale units to cover between them the whole of England. Within its area each unit will be responsible to me for the preparation, design and supervision of construction on the bulk of the larger trunk road and motorway schemes; questions of planning in the wider sense—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult for hon. Members who wish to hear this statement if other hon. Members will talk.
Mrs. Castle: Questions of planning in the wider sense, and programming, will remain the responsibility of Ministry headquarters and on these issues county councils as such will continue to participate as appropriate. The units will be jointly manned by Ministry and county council officers.
Staff allocated by the county councils to the units will work in or from their county offices and will remain for purposes of pay and career prospects members of the county council's staff. They will be under the supervision of the county surveyor, who in this respect, will himself be a part time member of the unit acting under the direction of the head of the unit. I do not expect there to be more

1397
than about three participating counties in each unit area.
The head of each unit, whether he is appointed from the Ministry or county fields, will become an officer of my Department and will be responsible to me for all the work undertaken by the unit. He will be in full overall control of this work and be the engineer for all contracts: the staff allocated by the county councils will, therefore, work under his direction on all the unit schemes. Ministry engineers will serve within the units both at the working level and in the unit headquarters.
Because the powers of county councils to allocate staff in this way were open to doubt, the necessary provision is being made in the Local Government Bill, at present in another place.
All county councils, whether or not they participate in these arrangements, will continue to act as my agents for the smaller trunk road schemes, as well as dealing with their own county roads. Non-participating counties will also be able to keep in close touch with the operation of the units through the membership of an advisory committee—
Sir S. McAdden: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for the House to be subjected to this recitation, which could quite easily be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point or order, but a long Answer like this might be summarised by a Minister and a fuller account published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Mrs. Castle: As this new arrangement alters profoundly the present structure in the construction of major road schemes Mr. Speaker, I thought that hon. Members would like to have the details and to have an opportunity of putting questions on them.
If the maximum benefit is to be derived from the new system it will be essential to place on the head of the unit prime responsibility for progressing schemes quickly and efficiently and to this end I intend that he should be given a high degree of delegated authority. I intend, also, that there shall be a streamlining of existing procedures and, consequently, a saving both in staff and time.
1398
The system now proposed represents a major change both for my Department and for the county councils. I shall very shortly enter into discussions with the county councils concerned on the setting up of a first unit which, I hope, will be in operation in the early part of next year. As the new system may well need modification in the light of the experience that we gain, I have agreed with the County Councils Association that we will keep its operation under close review.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: On a point of order. In answer to a Question, is it in order for a Minister to make a statement which is five or six times longer than the usual Answer to a Question?
Mr. Speaker: I have already dealt with that point of order. No point of order arises on that.
Mr. Strauss: In congratulating my right hon. Friend on bringing the discussions on this most important subject to a successful conclusion, and giving us the details of the results of these discussions, may I ask whether she is aware that the changes she has suggested should bring about quite revolutionary improvements in the methods of road construction compared with what have existed in the past?
May I also ask—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—whether the salaries of the staff of county councils who will be working with these units in county council offices will be entirely paid by county councils, or whether any of the cost will fall on the Ministry of Transport?
Mrs. Castle: I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks. I believe that this will lead to a more economical and rapid construction of major trunk roads and motorways. The question of salary details will be for further negotiation.
Mr. Peter Walker: If, in future, the right hon. Lady has a detailed and complicated statement to make, may I ask her to do it as a statement, so that we shall have the details, or, alternatively, that she should issue a White Paper?
Mrs. Castle: I will certainly bear the hon. Member's point in mind. There was no intention to keep him in the dark about this.
Mr. Dance: On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. As

1399
there were about 120 Questions to the Minister of Transport today which have been interfered with by Questions to the Lord President of the Council and to the Attorney-General, in what way can we see that the Minister of Transport answers these vitally important Questions?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question whether one set of Questions interferes with another set is a matter of opinion. Hon. Members who put down Questions to Ministers other than the Minister of Transport regard them as important too. The question of allocation of space in the Question timetable is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Lubbock: May I ask the right hon. Lady two questions? Do these new road construction units cover the same areas as the economic planning regions? Secondly, can she say that administrative machinery additional to that announced will be established for Scotland?
Mrs. Castle: The answer to the first question is, "No". The six units will cover the south-eastern area, the south-western area, the eastern area, the Midland area, the north-eastern area and the northwestern area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been kept informed of the progress of my discussions with the County Councils Association and is now considering whether a similar change would be appropriate in his area.
Mr. Ron Lewis: Can my right hon. Friend say on what basis the county councils will be allowed to allocate staff?
Mrs. Castle: It is one of the purposes of the scheme that the county councils should allocate staff which they have been employing on these major motorway and trunk road schemes to the units so that we can have a greater rationalisation and concentration of essential manpower.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: In a word, how fundamentally does the new system vary from the old system?
Mrs. Castle: It varies in the sense that in the past either the county councils or the consulting engineers acted as my agents. Some of them had only small
1400
stretches of a scheme to deal with. Now, by concentrating the county councils into these six major regional units and pooling their staff and the staff of my Ministry into the units, we can get a saving of scarce engineers and a better follow-through of schemes.
Mr. English: Referring back to the answer given to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many objections to these regions being different from the standard regions and that, in particular, the East Midlands has a strong objection to being lumped in with the West Midlands?
Mrs. Castle: My anxiety was to get units of a sufficient size to enable delegation to take place, procedures to be speeded up, and manpower savings to be made. I think that after consideration with the County Councils Association we have chosen areas for these units which will give us those results.
Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that it is very difficult to digest such a complicated statement at short notice? As she has not stated many advantages for this proposal, will she tell the House in more detail what criteria she has adopted in assessing the area for the regions?
Mrs. Castle: This matter has been discussed with great care with the County Councils Association. We are satisfied that this particular grouping will give us the best continuity of work. It can always be reviewed in the light of experience.
Mr. Leadbitter: In view of the special interests of the staffs who are to work in these construction units, will my right hon. Friend say whether those allocated to a unit will be allowed to take work in unit schemes outside their county areas?
Mrs. Castle: I should think that the staff allocated to a unit will be allocated simply because that unit needs their services in that particular area.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot to do.

RHODESIA
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on Rhodesia.
We have now studied Mr. Smith's reply to the terms for a settlement put forward by the British Government. In spite of some further elucidatory exchanges, I have to tell the House that there remains a very wide gap of principle which would have to be bridged before there could be any settlement which we could honourably commend to Parliament.
However, the Governor has made an earnest appeal to my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary to pay a further visit to Salisbury to discuss with him the present critical position. In view of the Governor's courageous stand over the past 12 months, my right hon. Friend has decided that this is right. Accordingly, he proposes to leave tomorrow for a short visit to Salisbury. Should Mr. Smith wish to take the opportunity while my right hon. Friend is in Salisbury to convey any further views to Her Majesty's Government, my right hon. Friend will, of course, again make himself available for a meeting under the Governor's aegis.
I hope to make a further statement to the House early next week, after my right hon. Friend's visit.
Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that we welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs is to pay a further visit to Salisbury? We believe it right that he should have further talks with the Governor, who has requested them, and with Mr. Smith. We very much hope that this will be a further stage towards a negotiated settlement.
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I feel it right that my right hon. Friend should meet the Governor. All of us hope that it will still, even at this late hour, be possible to bridge this gap. But it is, as I have said, a gap of principle; and, if this gap is not bridged, we would not be prepared to commend to the House a settlement which fails to meet the principles which this Government and our predecessors have insisted on as a basis for a settlement.
Mr. Thorpe: Would the Prime Minister agree that the loyalty to the Crown and
1402
the sense of duty and courage which the Governor has shown in very difficult circumstances should, and probably do, commend themselves in every part of the House and that, therefore, any request from him should be met, if possible?
Would the Prime Minister further agree that, in view of the six principles which are agreed in every part of the House, and which have never been opposed in the Division Lobbies, and as, for the past six months, Her Majesty's Government have tried to negotiate on the basis of those six principles, if the present talks do not meet with success that will indicate that Mr. Smith is not prepared to call off his rebellion and return to constitutional rule?
The Prime Minister: I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Governor. I am sure that the whole House agrees with him. When I review what the Governor has had to put up with over the last year in his own country, I am sometimes a little ashamed of the way some Members of the House have shown their support for Mr. Dupont.
It is quite true that the principles have been accepted by practically the whole of the House, by all parties, and, certainly, I would not be prepared to commend a settlement which was in conflict with those principles, or which failed to give copper-bottomed guarantees that those principles will be carried through. It is true that these principles have never been contested in any Division in the House and I am perfectly confident that they never will be.
Mr. Manuel: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House quite clearly how much longer we are to have the continued experience of Ministers trotting off to see the Governor and Mr. Smith while all the time all that is happening is that Mr. Smith and his régime are digging themselves more firmly in? We shall need to call a halt to this sooner or later, and the sooner the better.
The Prime Minister: The answer to that question was set out in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference communiqué, which was agreed to by all the members of the Commonwealth. My hon. Friend had his answer when that communiqué was published.

1403
It is not true that Ministers have been trotting off in the way he suggests. My right hon. Friend—this was understood by the whole of the Commonwealth at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference—went to Salisbury to discuss with all sections of Rhodesian opinion the decisions which the Commonwealth had reached. I think that it is absolutely right, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, that my right hon. Friend should accede to this request from the Governor.
If Mr. Smith seeks the opportunity of my right hon. Friend's visit to put new proposals to him which show that he is, even at this late stage, prepared to accept the six principles, and to convert them into reality, no one will be happier than my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Wall: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs will carry with him the good wishes of both sides of the House? Could the Prime Minister say that, if progress is made in Salisbury, this will lead to a meeting between himself and Mr. Smith?
The Prime Minister: I shall be very happy to meet Mr. Smith or any other Prime Minister of Rhodesia when Rhodesia has returned to constitutional rule. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for conveying at this late stage his good wishes to my right hon. Friend, because on his last visit my right hon. Friend was made painfully aware of the extent to which Mr. Smith has been encouraged in the view he has taken and in his doubts about the resolution of this Government and this House by some of the remarks addressed to him by unofficial visitors from this House who claim to speak for more than themselves.
Mr. Driberg: Since Mr. Smith does hold these views, and since he is an unrepentant racialist, what is the use of this continual dickering with him? Is it not obvious that no Government of which Mr. Smith forms part can possibly be trusted to advance towards majority rule within the foreseeable future?
The Prime Minister: I am not going to describe Mr. Smith or anyone else as an unrepentant racialist. I am totally opposed, as all of us are in this House, to racialism in any form. [HON. MEMBERS:
1404
"Not all."] Well, I hope that we are, and I hope that those who take a different view will register their decision in the Lobby when the time comes. That applies whether to white racialism, or, as I have occasionally had to say in Commonwealth conferences, to another, danger, that of African racialism.
Certainly, I do not believe that this problem will be solved by statements of the kind my hon. Friend has made. It is not a question of dickering. We have made clear for two years our position on the future of Rhodesia, and in so doing have followed our predecessors in what they at that time also made clear. We made clear, also, this year, from January onwards, our willingness, without negotiating with or recognising an illegal régime, to talk about the future. This was from January onwards; it was not taken up till April.
As to trusting any particular group in Rhodesia, the fact that they declared an illegal régime rather than accept the honourable terms we had offered a year ago does cast doubt, and this is why we have insisted on certain things in the present Constitution being entrenched and guaranteed beyond all doubt. The gap still remains about that.
Mr. Ronald Bell: In view of the immense importance of achieving a negotiated settlement of this unhappy fratricidal conflict, will the Prime Minister ensure that the Secretary of State goes to Rhodesia not only in a receptive frame of mind, as I am sure he will, and as the Prime Minister said he will, but also in a constructive frame of mind, and willing to make suggestions, as a compromise involves initiatives from both sides?
The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have taken repeated initiatives here. As regards the mood in which he goes, my right hon. Friend will go in accordance with the principles laid down by this House and never challenged by any hon. Members within the House. It is on that that he must stand. As to his being receptive and constructive, this he has always been.
The hon. and learned Gentleman used the word "fratricidal". I do not think that kith and kin arguments are to be based on colour. The whole world is

1405
our kith and kin, and the sooner this is recognised by all hon. Members the sooner we can reach the right solution on Rhodesia.
Mr. James Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend define his words "copper-bottomed guarantees"? He must know that many on the benches behind him are extremely sceptical of the words of Mr. Smith.
The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government, on my own visit to Salisbury in October, 1965, put forward proposals which many of my hon. Friends might have been doubtful about, I know, but which we felt provided an honourable settlement. The fact that this was turned down and recourse to illegal methods was taken by the then Government in Salisbury underlines the need to secure something more than words from those who would have to operate any constitutional settlement. This is what I mean by copper-bottomed guarantees. At the end of the day, when, either as a result of an agreement we are able to publish our proposals, or if, as may be the case, as a result of disagreement, we have to publish our proposals, my hon. Friend will see the type of guarantees on which we have insisted.
Mr. Goodhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Secretary of State will consult the Governor on any mechanics he may be proposing for the actual means of return to constitutional rule?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. He did that. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman thinks my right hon. Friend did on his visit. There were the fullest consultations with the Governor. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Governor has put up with an awful lot in the past year both from his own fellow-countrymen and from some of ours as well. As regards a return to constitutional rule, this must be quite unequivocal. There cannot be any argument about this, and my right hon. Friend is fully seized of the Governor's point of view.
Mr. Maxwell: While continuing to hope against hope that Mr. Smith will accept the six principles, could my right hon. Friend tell the House, U.D.I. having survived a year and South Africa having
1406
declared formally and firmly that she will not allow the Rhodesian régime to fail, what is the use of continuing these negotiations, and, if they fail, what will be the consequences to Rhodesia and to the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: On two counts my hon. Friend's question is hypothetical. In the first place, the South African Government have said nothing of the kind. In the second place, as my right hon. Friend is about to go out there, and it is up to Mr. Smith to put forward proposals for bridging the gap, I think that it would be premature for me to start talking about the situation which will arise if the gap is not bridged.
Mr. Hastings: Will the Prime Minister confirm that we may still expect a full debate on this matter in the early future so that some of us may have a chance to point out what we perfectly sincerely believe to be the appalling dangers to this country of a failure to reach agreement?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, as soon as the position becomes clarified a debate ought to be held. Whatever differences we may have, I think that the House has shown the greatest patience over the past few months in not pressing for detailed information. I recognised that before and after the Summer Recess. At the earliest possible moment, the earliest moment compatible with trying to reach a solution, a statement must be made and it must then be debated.
Mr. Faulds: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many of us on this side believe that he has given the rebel Smith quite enough chances to come to heel? Will he make a categorical reaffirmation of the Government's intention that, when law and order breaks down in Rhodesia, as it will under the Smith régime, they will adopt the customary colonial fashion for imposing order?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is dealing with a hypothetical situation. To take the point which I think he has in mind, I have repeatedly stated Her Majesty's Government's position. I have nothing to add to it and nothing to subtract from it.
Sir S. McAdden: Will the Prime Minister, in an effort to solve the differences which exist on this matter, tell

1407
us how many of these principles are at present causing difficulty and which are the points outstanding?
The Prime Minister: That is a perfectly fair question and I should like to answer it. The real issues, when I said that there was a wide gap to bridge, relate to the six principles, and there is also the very important principle of the mechanism of return to constitutional rule. But I do not think that it would be helpful in the job which my right hon. Friend has to do in the next few days for me to go into that now.
If we do reach an agreement—I have expressed my doubts about the possibility of it, though I have said that I hope we can—what differences there have been up to now will not matter very much because the House will have to judge on the terms of the agreement; though I repeat that the agreement will be 100 per cent. within the six principles, or we shall not commend it to the House. If we do not reach agreement, the House will be fully informed of those of the principles on which agreement could not be reached.
Mr. Hale: Will my right hon. Friend bear again in mind what I know he has had in mind, that it is now nearly 60 years since South Africa was granted self-government after a debate in which, on both sides of the House, the most solemn assurances were given that the Africans of South Africa would advance to participation in governing their country? Will he bear in mind—I know he will—the great difficulty of accepting assurances on this which come from someone who has already broken certain solemn assurances? It is not easy to see what guarantees can be given for the future if any measure of self-government is now given.
The Prime Minister: I have stated that the fact that our offers in October and November, 1965, right up to my final telephone call with Mr. Smith on the morning of U.D.I. were refused and recourse to illegality was taken instead must
1408
be taken into account both in a return to constitutional rule and in connection with any underwriting of guarantees for the future. There must not only be words, but guarantees going beyond words in the agreement.
Mr. Frederic Harris: Is there any association between the cancellation of the visit of the Minister of State to President Kenyatta and to Uganda and the right hon. Gentleman's statement?
The Prime Minister: No connection at all. The House will be aware of the circumstances of the Minister of State's visit. It has nothing to do with this. It is right to tell the House that after my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had decided that it was appropriate for him to respond to the Governor's request, our Commonwealth colleagues were informed. But in terms of chronological time, that could not have affected the Minister of State's visit.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: I appreciate the great patience shown by the Government, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Smith régime will be unable to use these talks as a subterfuge for further delay, which would be more beneficial to it than to the ends we may attain?
The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have been prepared to discuss this matter from the moment I authorised the previous Commonwealth Secretary to visit Salisbury last January. This was rejected by Mr. Smith, or was associated with intolerable terms of recognition and entry. The Government have shown their patience over many months. The timetable was set out in the communiqué issued by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, following our own proposal. There is now a real sense of urgency on which we and not just our Commonwealth colleagues are insisting, but this House will want to know the final position by next week.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Long Cancer
  Dr. John Dunwoody: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 9th December, I shall call attention to the enormous increase in the number of deaths from lung cancer, and move a Resolution.
  Young Offenders (Treatment)
  Mr. Hiley: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 9th December, I shall call attention to the treatment of young offenders in the Northorpe Hall Experimental Camp, and move a Resolution.
  Slum Clearance (Compensation)
  Mr. Forrester: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 9th December, I shall call attention to slum clearance compensation, and move a Resolution.

  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
  4.4 p.m.
  Mr. Duncan Sandys: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restore capital punishment for the murder of police or prison officers.
  It is said that Parliament should not allow itself to be influenced by a passing wave of emotion following the murder of three policemen last August. It should not be assumed that those who are asking for this change in the law are inspired by a temporary feeling of anger and indignation and that they are likely very soon to change their minds.
  The majority of the British people have all along believed in capital punishment and since it was abolished last year public anxiety has expressed itself in massive petitions all over the country. The effect of the callous murders at Shepherd's Bush has been to focus attention on the increased dangers to which the police are now exposed as a result of the withdrawal of the death penalty.
  People are disturbed by the thought that policemen who risk their lives to protect the community are themselves being denied the full protection of the law for which they ask and which, they believe, would increase their safety. This
  1410
  is not just an emotional reaction. The strength of public feeling on this question is the measure of the nation's sense of responsibility for the safety of its servants.
  It is said that there is no conclusive evidence that capital punishment deters. That may be so. Nevertheless, I think it worth mentioning that, during the two years since executions were stopped, as many policemen have been murdered as during the whole of the previous 13 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] It is also worth mentioning that the number of indictable offences involving firearms this year is just about double what it was two years ago. I am sure that all hon. Members, whatever their views on capital punishment, will feel that this shows a very disturbing trend.
  Some people believe that capital punishment would make no difference. Its deterrent effect is, of course, questionable in the case of a murderer who is confident that he will not be found out. But criminals who shoot policemen when trying to avoid arrest have already been found out and in many cases they know that, if they submit to arrest, they will go to prison for terms which will be just as long as the average duration of a life sentence. They have, therefore, little or nothing to lose by trying to shoot their way out. If, on the other hand, they knew that they were risking the death penalty, I am sure that some of them, at any rate, would think twice before taking out a gun and pulling the trigger.
  Similar considerations apply in prisons, where the number of violent criminals is increasing all the time. The Prison Officers' Association has pointed out that since the abolition of the death penalty there has been nothing to deter convicts who are serving long sentences from killing warders when attempting to escape.
  The police and the prison staff look to Parliament to do all in its power to protect those who are fighting the war against crime. They firmly believe that capital punishment will reduce the risk they have to run. If there are any doubts about this, they feel that the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to them rather than to the murderer.
  It has been pointed out that, in any case, the law will come up for review in 1970. But many people regard this matter as very urgent and I am sure that

  1411
  hon. Members will not wish to take the line that this question if not discussible for another four years.
  The arguments on both sides cannot be adequately presented in the scope of two ten-minute speeches. I therefore hope that the House will allow the Bill to be presented so that this important issue can be further considered.
  4.11 p.m.
  Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I hope that the House will not give the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) leave to bring in the Bill. The police, Parliament and the public are deeply shocked by the three brutal murders which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and, of course, the other murder of a policeman in the North. As they have followed the abolition of capital punishment last year, some people have sought to connect the two facts. But however great the personal and the public tragedy of these terrible murders, the fact is that, statistically, no inference can legitimately be drawn.
  There is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention, but with which I should like to deal before coming to the three murders to which he referred. This is a matter which, judging by my correspondence, has worried many people. There have been four brutal murders, one of them by a boy of 14 who is now charged with that murder. But since 1831 we have not hanged boys of 14, so that recent changes in the law could not have any effect whatsoever.
  That leaves the three murders which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. They were terrible murders and very significant, it is argued, but certainly not more significant than the figures for the years 1951. I remember them well. I was the junior Minister at the Home Office. In 1951, the number of murders of policemen suddenly went up to three, and that was two or three years after Parliament had refused to abolish the death penalty. I do not see any way in which to draw any positive conclusions from any of those figures and I merely submit that there is just enough statistical evidence to show the danger of drawing positive conclusions from groups of figures.
  1412
  The Bill would restore the anomalies of the 1957 Act with the distinction between capital murder and non-capital murder. Under the proposed Bill, the deliberate poisoner, or the man who tortured a child to death, or the man who battered to death an old postmistress, would not be hanged, but the petty thief who shot the policeman who happened to come on the scene would be hanged. Is anything more likely to bring the law into disrepute?
  Of course, the public is horrified by the murder of these policemen, but is there any evidence that the public is willing to make this distinction between capital and non-capital murder? The House passed the Third Reading of last year's Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill by considerably more than two to one. Many hon. Members voted for it because they knew that the law would be reconsidered in five years. The Act cannot continue beyond July, 1970, unless both Houses of Parliament separately pass Resolutions asking for the Act to continue. This is a sensible safeguard against legislation prompted by emotion or based on insufficient data. Let us accept the Act and try it for five years and not panic after 12 months.
  I have mentioned insufficient data. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the figures for the carrying of firearms. We have had those figures for only the last very few years, when they were established in our criminal statistics, but I must not chase that too far, because the essential point is that we are discussing a Bill about homicide, and we have statistics for homicide going back for years and years. We know that homicides have increased since the war, but they have not increased in proportion to the growth of indictable crime generally. There is no evidence yet that they have been in any way affected by changes in the law relating to capital punishment.
  But the root of the argument for the Bill is deterrence related to the murder of policemen. The right hon. Gentleman stated as a fact that the abolition of capital punishment increased the dangers to policemen. We have very little to go on in our criminal statistics, but I have the result of a survey made by the University of Pennsylvania showing the figures for 266 American cities over 35 years. It was found that in States where

  1413
  there was no capital punishment, fatal attacks on policemen were 1·2 per 100,000, while in cities with capital punishment the rate was almost exactly the same, although slightly higher at 1·3.
  Professor Sellin, who conducted the survey, does not make any point of the small fraction of a decimal point, but concludes after this wide study
  "it is impossible to conclude that the States which had no death penalty had thereby made the policemen's lot more hazardous".
  On this side of the Atlantic, in Western Europe only France and Spain find capital punishment necessary. All our other 13 Western European neighbours, from Iceland to Italy and from Portugal to Finland, get along without capital punishment. The Scandinavians, the Dutch and the Belgians, who are not very different in outlook and institutions from us—and the social conditions in Belgium are even worse than ours in the sense of industrialisation and overcrowding
  —all get along without capital punishment.
  In our long European history it is only recently that Europeans have begun to realise the power of the State not only to destroy its enemies, but to destroy its own citizens. We should, therefore, demand that the State do everything to foster any instinct or belief that human life is the most important thing there is. Above all, we should demand that the State set an example and not itself take human life. I have no time to argue as I would like the possibility of conviction in error and the consequences, but I have time to ask one question: would not many of us sleep more easily if Evans were alive?
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
  The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 292.

  Division No. 208.]

  AYES

  [4.20 p.m.

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Batsford, Brian

  Eden, Sir John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Baxter, William

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

  Longden, Gilbert

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Ensor, David

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. A Fhm)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Cromarty)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maginnis, John E.

  Blaker, Peter

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Marten, Neil

  Boardman, H.

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Mathew, Robert

  Booth, Albert

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

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

  Braine, Bernard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Brewis, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.Col.Sir Walter

  Gower, Raymond

  Monro, Hector

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  More, Jasper

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Bryan, Paul

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Murton, Oscar

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Burden, F. A.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Neave, Airey

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Harvey, sir Arthur Vere

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Onslow, Cranley

  Clegg, Walker

  Hastings, Stephen

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Hiley, Joseph

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Crawley, Aidan

  Holland, Philip

  Peel, John

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

  Hordern, Peter

  Percival, Ian

  Crouch, David

  Hunt, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Crowder, F. P.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pym, Francis

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Dance, James

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Renton Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kitson, Timothy

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Doig, Peter

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Doughty, Charles

  Lambton, Viscount

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Talbot, John E.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Roots, William

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

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

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Teeling, Sir William

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Temple, John M.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Sharples, Richard

  Tilney, John

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)

  Tomney, Frank

  Woof, Robert

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Wylie, N. R.

  Smith, John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Younger, Hn. George

  Stainton, Keith

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Stodart, Anthony

  Wall, Patrick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Webster, David

  Mr. Robert Cooke and

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mr. Albert Roberts.

  NOES

  Abse Leo

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Finch, Harold

  Judd, Frank

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Kelley, Richard

  Alldritt, Walter

  Fletcher, Raymond (IIkeston)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Allen, Scholefield

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

  Anderson, Donald

  Floud, Bernard

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Archer, Peter

  Foley, Maurice

  Lawson, George

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ashley, Jack

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Ford, Ben

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Forrester, John

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

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

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Balniel, Lord

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Barnes, Michael

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Barnett, Joel

  Freeson, Reginald

  Loveys, W. H.

  Bell, Ronald

  Gardner, Tony

  Luard, Evan

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  G arrow, Alex

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Binns, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Ginsburg, David

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Blackburn, F.

  Cordon-Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  McBride, Neil

  Boston, Terence

  Gourlay, Harry

  McCann, John

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  MacColl, James

  Boyden, James

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  MacDermot, Niall

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Gregory, Arnold

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Bradley, Tom

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Mackie, John

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Brooks, Edwin

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Ian

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Hamling, William

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hannan, William

  Maddan, Martin

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Cant, R. B.

  Haseldine, Norman

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hattersley, Roy

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

  Chanmon, H. P. G.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mapp, Charles

  Chapman, Donald

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marquand, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Henig, Stanley

  Mason, Roy

  Conlan, Bernard

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Maxwell, Robert

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Heseltine, Michael

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Hooley, Frank

  Millan, Bruce

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Horner, John

  Molloy, William

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

  Howie, W.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Moyle, Roland

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Dell, Edmund

  Hunter, Adam

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Hynd, John

  Murray, Albert

  Dickens, James

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Dobson, Ray

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Nott, John

  Driberg, Tom

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Oakes, Gordon

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Ogden, Eric

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)

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

  O'Malley, Brian

  Eadie, Alex

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Orme, Stanley

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Ellis, John

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  English, Michael

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

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Ennals, David

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Owen Will (Morpeth)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Padley, Walter

  Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Paget, R. T.

  Faulds, Andrew

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

  Palmer, Arthur

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  St. John-stevas, Norman

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Pardoe, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wallace, George

  Park, Trevor

  Shaw, Arnold (IIford, S.)

  Walters, Dennis

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N 'c' tle-u-Tyne)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Weitzman, David

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Peart, Rt. Hon. Fred

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Whitaker, Ben

  Pentland, Norman

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Whitlock, William

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Slater, Joseph

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Snow, Julian

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Probert, Arthur

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Randall, Harry

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Redhead, Edward

  Stonehouse, John

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Swingler, Stephen

  Winnick, David

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

  Taverne, Dick

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Worsley, Marcus

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Yates, Victor

  Rose, Paul

  Varley, Eric G.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Mr. Eric Lubbock and

  Royle, Anthony

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Mr. Stan Newens.

  Ryan, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TERMINATION OF REVIEWS) BELL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.31 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill deals with two kinds of reviews. First, these are reviews under Part II of the Local Government Act, 1958, dealing with changes in local government organisation, and, secondly, the reviews provided for in section 30(6) of the London Government Act, 1963, of the administration of education in inner London and in Section 34(4) of the Youth Employment Service. I will deal with each kind in turn, starting with the local government reviews.
  Under Part II of the 1958 Act, Local Government Commissions were set up to review the organisation of local government in all parts of England and Wales, apart from the metropolitan area, and to make proposals for changes which seemed desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. Except in areas known as "special review areas", which were the main conurbations, like West Yorkshire and the West Midlands, the Commissions were not called upon to propose changes for county districts; that was a job for the county councils. The Bill winds up the Local Government Commissions and frees county councils from their obligation to carry out county reviews.
  Before I give the broad background to this part of the Bill, I should mention briefly the position of the Local Government Commission for Wales. The Commission finished its work in December, 1962, and its members went out of office when their warrants expired on 5th January, 1964. The dissolution of the Welsh Commission is, therefore, purely a formality. What I have to say from now on about the Local Government Commission will refer solely to the Commission for England.
  The reason why the Local Government Commission for England is being wound up is that the Government have set up
  1420
  a new body to carry out a radical review of local government, the Royal Commission on Local Government in England, under the chairmanship of Sir John Maud. I think that I should say briefly why we thought that a new review was necessary.
  Under the 1958 Act, the Local Government Commission was required to suggest changes within the existing structure of local government. It could not propose major changes in the structure and go thoroughly into the question of functions. This was a major weakness in the reviews under the Act. After all, the present pattern of local government has been in existence for over 70 years, and there is a limit to the adaptability of the old to fit the new.
  The last 20 years have seen particularly rapid changes in the responsibilities of local authorities. Although, after the Second World War, some of their functions passed to other agencies—and how well I remember the heated debates we had 20 years ago on the subject—local authorities have had to cope with a spectacular growth of duties and problems—in town and country planning, housing and education, and the motor car alone has made much of our 70-year-old local government organisation and thinking out of date.
  Let me say at this point that I believe that local authorities have coped well with massive tasks for which they were not originally designed. But there is a limit to what can reasonably be expected from a pattern devised when circumstances were quite different, and I am sure that it is in the interests both of local government itself and of the people it serves to consider afresh what form would be best suited to present conditions and to the even greater tasks that lie ahead.
  That is why we set up the Royal Commission, which, unlike the Local Government Commission, can review both the basic structure functions of local government and its functions as well. The House will know that the main associations of local authorities all welcomed the new review. This, in itself, is a clear indication of the increasingly forward-looking approach to be found in local government circles today. The whole climate of thinking, in fact, has changed quite remarkably over the past few years.

  1421
  Within the limitations of their terms of reference, the Local Government Commission did a fine job and I should like to add my voice to the tribute which my predecessor paid to the Commission on a previous occasion. The Commissioners produced reports covering about two-thirds of the country, and orders have been made or will be made to put into effect many of their proposals. We intend in fact to extract as much benefit as possible from all the work which the Commission did.
  The Government, however, did not think that it was worth asking the Commission to carry on with reviews of the remaining areas; the procedure under Part II of the 1958 Act is very long drawn-out and no changes under it could have been put into effect in those areas for many years—indeed, until well after the time when the Royal Commission will have reported.
  A similar view was taken on the reviews of county districts by county councils. Where a county review had been completed, my predecessor decided that all the work put into it should not just be put on one side, but that it should be considered on its merits. Where, however, a county review had a fair way to go towards completion, or had not been started, so that early changes under the Act of 1958 would not be feasible, it seemed best to leave the area concerned for review by the Royal Commission. Local authorities were told in June, 1966, that, after consulting the local authority associations, my right hon. Friend had decided to confine consideration of further county review reports to those submitted by 31st August, 1966.
  Before I turn to the provisions of the Bill which deal with the 1958 Act, I should mention the position of the members of the Local Government Commission, of whom there were four remaining when we decided to suspend its activities. All four held individual royal warrants of appointment expiring on 30th October, 1967. Although, in view of the nature of their employment, my predecessor was advised that there was no right enforceable at law to salary or remuneration at any particular rate or for any particular period, we felt that there was a clear moral obligation on the Government to provide compensation in some form because of the financial loss they sustained.
  1422
  Compensation has now been paid to all four members; and in calculating we four members; and in calculating it we would apply if there were a claim for damages in respect of wrongful dismissal or breach of contract of employment. I know that the House will feel that we were right to do so.
  I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. Part II of the Act of 1958 is dealt with in the Bill in one operative Clause and a Schedule. In Clause 1, subsection (1) provides for the immediate dissolution of both the Local Government Commissions and deems that the duty of the Commission for England to carry out reviews ceased on 10th February, 1966. That was the date when the Prime Minister announced the decision to set up the Royal Commission.
  Subsection (2) provides that the duty of county councils to carry out county reviews shall be deemed to have ceased on 31st August, 1966, the date which I mentioned earlier. Subsection (3), repeals various provisions in Part II of the Act of 1958 because they will be made obsolete, now or later, by subsections (1) and (2).
  Part I of the Schedule contains provisions which can be repealed outright, but the provisions in Part II of the Schedule may still be needed for matters arising from former proposals of the Commissions and from county review proposals put forward by 31st August; these provisions continue in operation for these purposes. Subsection (4) of Clause 1 is simply a technical provision for preserving the effect of the definition in the London Government Act, 1963, of the expression "county review area", which is relevant to a number of provisions in that Act.
  Clause 2 of the Bill repeals Sections 30(6) and 34(4) of the London Government Act, 1963, in implementation of the undertaking given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on 17th November last year. The London Government Act transferred to the newly-established Inner London Education Authority responsibility for education and the Youth Employment Service in the inner London area on a provisional basis.
  The Act imposed on the Secretary of State for Education and Science an obligation to carry out a review of the arrangements for education, and to lay a

  1423
  report before Parliament not later than 31st March, 1970, with the object of determining whether, and if so to what extent, all or any of the functions of the I.L.E.A. should be transferred to the inner London boroughs or the City.
  Section 34(4) of the London Government Act also imposed on the Minister of Labour the obliglation to carry out, in conjunction with this review, a review of the administration of the Youth Employment Service in the inner London area.
  The educational service built up by the old L.C.C. was admirable, and won world-wide respect, and my hon. Friends always felt that the inclusion of the review provisions in Sections 30 and 34 of the London Government Act were both unnecessary and undesirable. We opposed these provisions when the Bill was considered in Committee.
  We expressed very forcefully the view that they introduced an element of uncertainty into the future of the I.L.E.A. which would give rise to a great deal of anxiety in the minds of teachers and parents; and that, having taken the decision that there should be a unified education service in the inner London area, the Government should have been prepared to implement that decision completely.
  We believed that it was highly undesirable that the air of uncertainty over the future of this most important service which had existed between the publication of the Herbert Commission's Report and the introduction of the then Government's proposals should be prolonged. To have persisted with the statutory review would have continued the period of uncertainty. Meanwhile, the staff of the I.L.E.A. would have been unsettled, and the authority itself might well have been inhibited from embarking on long-term planning.
  This uncertainty might have been acceptable if anything in the nature of positive gain to the education service was likely to emerge from the review. But there is general agreement in the educational world that a unified educational service for the inner London area is clearly desirable, and, I believe, essential to progressive administration and development of the education service.
  Sir Edward Boyle: In view of what the Minister has just said, can he provide evidence that the existence of that subsection in the Act caused staff to leave the Inner London Education Authority; and examples of how long-term planning has been held up or prevented?
  Mr. Greenwood: The erosion of staff and the reluctance to plan have been avoided by the very clear and specific pledges given by the Labour Party that the I.L.E.A. would be continued in existence, but, had we weakened in our resolve to remove the need for this review, I believe that a new element of uncertainty would have been introduced in the service. It was the very strongly held view of the I.L.E.A. and of the Greater London Council itself that the service should continue as it is at present.
  Both the education and Youth Employment services of the I.L.E.A. are highly organised and efficiently administered and any disruption or fragmentation of their well-balanced service could only lead in our view to a lowering of standards. In the interests of sound local administration, the Government therefore propose to confirm the position of the I.L.E.A. and to preserve the long-established unified service in the inner London area by repealing the review Sections of the London Government Act.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: This Bill is a further chapter in the long story of Government ineptitude, vaccilation and dissimulation. The Minister has done his best to explain it—or rather to explain it away—but it was, perhaps, inevitable that he would not arouse much enthusiasm on either side of the House. I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman—we all have. He has had a dismal inheritance from his predecessor. This is not merely a wholly negative. Measure. It is retrospective as well.
  The Local Government Commissions for England and Wales have already been killed, together with any hope of early progress towards local government reorganisation. Today, we are having only the legal burial service. As the Bill says, the English Commission is

  1425
  deemed to have been dead since 10th February, 1966, and the Local Government Commission for Wales finished its work in December, 1962. Therefore, as the Minister says, we are really most concerned now with the English Commission, and the effect of the Bill on English local government.
  The publication of the Bill—which is, perhaps, significant—came just 13 unlucky months after the Minister's predecessor, the present Leader of the House and then Minister for Housing and Local Government, told the Conference of the Association of Municipal Corporations on 22nd September, 1965, quite categorically that he was determined that the work of the Commission should go on. On that: occasion, he said:
  "I must admit I was tempted at one point to do a Bevan and hoist the Commission on a Ministerial petard; hut not for long. Interminable though the proceedings had often been, the results of the Commission's work mark a real advance, particularly in some of the special review areas. I am convinced that in the North-West there is still time for a real job of work to be done in reorganising Merseyside and the Manchester conurbation. So I take this opportunity of scotching all rumours that the Commission is to be wound up."
  Not merely did the right hon. Gentleman say that he was determined that the work of the Commission should go on; he added, for good measure, that its work would be accelerated, and that whenever it made proposals there would be a quick decision at his level. It was the purposive, gritty action that the Government have always offered the British people. In fact, the only decision the Government have made is to do nothing—and to do it, of course, for as long as possible. In this context, that is what the Leader of the House had in mind when he talked of "doing a Bevan."
  The House will recall that when the Local Government Boundary Commission set up by the wartime Coalition Government, reported in 1947 that it required wider powers to propose changes in functions which were inseparable from major alterations in areas, it got short shrift from the late Mr. Bevan, who was then Minister of Health and responsible for local government. The previous Labour Government wound up that Commission, which met under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, now Lord Silsoe. They did so after Mr. Bevan had told the House:
  1426
  "… legislation on this particular matter will be highly contentious, highly involved, and unlikely to produce any very great unanimity among the local authorities concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April. 1948; Vol. 449, c. 337.]
  What is certain, therefore, is that Mr. Bevan killed the Trustram Eve Commission, not because it came up with some serious and carefully-worded suggestions that contravened its terms of reference, but because its recommendations involved changes that would be highly controversial. Of course, the Minister now says, "We look forward to, and do not mind, controversy, and welcome change, but we do not want it yet, and certainly not in this Parliament."
  The Leader of the House, in effect, in spite of all his assurances to the Association of Municipal Corporations, mortally wounded its successor when, on 14th December last year, he rejected the Tyne-side proposals. Such was his legal right. No one complains about that, but one may doubt the wisdom of his action, particularly as three months earlier he had claimed that time- and money-wasting procedures had been deliberately exploited to frustrate change. The right hon. Gentleman said, "I will not do that. I will make decisions rapidly when the Commission comes forward with its proposals."
  The only difference—it is a significant one—between Mr. Bevan and the present Government is that Mr. Bevan at least had the courage to say that he wanted to dodge unpopular and contentious decisions. It would be unfair, therefore, to say that the Government have "done a Bevan". They have "done a Wilson" once again, and that is much worse. The trouble has arisen because the credibility gap between what the Government say and what they do is always so wide.
  In the end, it proved too much for the Local Government Commission. Therefore, on 21st December last year, the Commission wrote to the Minister of Housing and Local Government throwing in the sponge and asking local authorities not to bother preparing new material for submission. It is, therefore, a little disingenuous for the Minister this afternoon to say that the Government came to the conclusion that in the circumstances it would be wise not to ask the Commission to do more.

  1427
  Who can blame the Commission for the action it took? As The Guardian commented on 22nd December:
  "This is an unprecedented step which reflects the mounting concern, and, indeed, resentment, created for the Commission by Mr. Crossman."
  Thus, so far from speeding up the reorganisation of local government, Socialist Ministers have seriously retarded it and, I suggest, have done so deliberately. Yet as the Leader of the House himself acknowledged, the results of the Local Government Commission's work marked a real advance. The whole House would wish to associate itself with the tribute paid by the Minister to the Commission's work, although it is a bit of a backhanded tribute from him in all the circumstances. We should pay tribute to the Commission for what it has done in contributing to providing effective and convenient local government.
  The House—and, indeed, the Government—should be aware of the danger of establishing commissions, seeking the help of distinguished public figures and then throwing them overboard for the sake of political expediency. The New Towns Commission is another body which is also extremely worried that it is now under what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) called suspended sentence of death, a comment which he made recently on Second Reading of the New Towns Bill. We simply will not get people to give up their energy and their time for public service if they are to be treated in such a cavalier fashion.
  The dissolution of the Local Government Commission for England came at the very moment when a flood of recommendations for Parliamentary approval was pouring from the Commission. Of course, every recommendation and resolution would have ben controversial and would have annoyed some local interest. That must be expected in reforming measures. No change, not even for the better, is accomplished without difficulty.
  The Conservative Government faced these decisions, many of which were extremely difficult and controversial. We made it clear that by April, 1965, we would have completed the West Midlands reorganisation, made a decision on Tyne-side, settled West Yorkshire and have had Merseyside and West Lancashire well
  1428
  on the way. That would have covered the six conurbations by April, 1965. In addition, Tees-side would have been settled. In short, by April, 1965, we would have settled most of the business of reorganisation and we would have got much of it into operation. That was made clear in the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) on 4th December, 1963.
  The fact is that the party opposite have no policy for local government and they have very litle sympathy for it. They pursued the most bigoted opposition to the reform of London government, as the Minister has today reminded us. They have already buried their pledges to reorganise the finances of local government. For example, the return to percentage grant has gone by the board, and so also has the promise to transfer to the Exchequer the major part of the cost of teachers' salaries. For the rest, as the Minister has explained, the Government have passed the buck to Sir John Maud and his fellow Royal Commissioners. No doubt the Government will try to bury the report when they get it.
  When the Prime Minister announced the names, I commented that it was an exercise—and it is an exercise, in kicking the ball into the long grass. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) wrote in the Local Government Chronicle on 19th March this year:
  "There is no need for a Royal Commission on local government. All the evidence required is available. What we want now is action, not words."
  Many of us who are interested in local government know that we need that action urgently.
  We on this side have made our policy quite clear. We have said that we want more regional administration with strong and modernised local government. But if, as we accept, larger authorities are needed to handle certain functions over a wider area, we must also see that they are subject to proper democratic control. We say here and now that the economic planning councils and ad hoc bodies appointed by Whitehall and which are at present operating are no substitute for effective regional local government.
  The Conservative Government made a start with the London Government Act,

  1429
  1963, which was so bitterly opposed at every stage by the party opposite. If there has been a complaint against the Conservative Government, it was that we acted too fast. As the Association of Municipal Corporations said in its memorandum of evidence to the Royal Commission, published last month, at paragraph 280:
  "Experience of the reorganisation of local government in London emphasises the need for plenty of time to be allowed between the enactment of legislation giving effect to changes in the system of local government and the date of the assumption of responsibilities by the new authorities. The time allowed in London was insufficient".
  The A.M.C. added that
  "in consequence, well-nigh intolerable strains were imposed on members and, even more so. on senior officers. In some cases health was seriously impaired. It must also be possible for further change to be made in the areas of the new authorities and in regard to their functions without undue complexity."
  It may be that we tried to get ahead too fast with this important work of reorganisation. I understand the pressures that these changes put upon staff. We accepted, however, the contention of the Association of Municipal Corporations that it must be possible for further change to be made in the areas of the new authorities and in regard to their functions without undue complexity. That was the purpose of the provisions in the 1963 Act for transitional arrangements for housing and certain other functions and, in particular, for a review of the working of the Inner London Education Authority, which, in the horrible jargon of today, we call ILEA.
  The Minister said that it is proposed by Clause 2 of the Bill that that review should not now take place. None of us on this side need be surprised that the Government have decided to relieve the Secretary of State for Education and Science of his responsibilities, cast upon him by Statute under Section 30(6) of the 1963 Act, to review the administration of education in inner London. Understandably, the Government have no desire to have any report to Parliament on the workings of the Inner London Education Authority.
  The activities of that body is one of the chief reasons for their gerrymandering tactics in seeking to postpone next year's London borough elections. On the other hand, it is obvious that, if the Government
  1430
  undertook a review in present circumstances, it would be simply a whitewashing exercise, so naturally the Minister says, and perhaps we ourselves can agree, that we might as well abandon it.
  Since Parliament cast this clear duty upon the Government of the day, and it was well understood, at any rate for a period of time, that it would be fulfilled—and it must be assumed that it will be fulfilled until the Bill goes on to the Statute Book—in our view, they are guilty of a dereliction of duty in not carrying out the review. It is a disservice to local government, to education and, above all, to parents who are very concerned about what is going on in the London area at present.
  For our part, I will make our position clear. We reserve the right in due course to review the activities of the Inner London Education Authority, either to dissolve it altogether or to make such changes in its composition, structure and functions as seem to us to be necessary.
  What is needed now is for the Government not just to produce a negative Bill of this kind, nor another Royal Commission. What is needed is a Minister who will say to his advisers, "Our policy for the reform of local government should take place on these lines. Let me know the options—regional authorities, city regions, continuous counties, provincial authorities, and the rest." Let us hope that we have such a Minister now. We did not have one before.
  If he had the necessary will, within six months, he could consult the local authority associations. In the light of the work which has been done already by the Local Government Commission, he would be in a position to announce the Government's decisions.
  It is the Government who must decide what to recommend to Parliament. That is what they are elected for. There is no need for a Royal Commission, taking minutes and wasting years, to use a phrase of the old days. What we want is action, not words. Sooner or later—and, as far as we are concerned, the sooner the better—these decisions have to be made. As they are unlikely to be made by a Labour Government, I will undertake that they will be made by a Conservative Government.

  1431
  We have had frozen production and frozen wages. With this Bill, we have what is, in effect, frozen local government. So far from being able to shape the future, the Government cannot even keep up with yesterday.
  5.2 p.m.
  Mr. Stan Newens: While I welcome the Bill as a whole, I intend to devote the majority of my remarks to Clause 2, which relieves the Secretary of State of the duty to review Section 30(6) of the London Government Act, 1963.
  This Clause will receive the full support and approbation of the London Teachers' Association, which represents the vast majority of the teachers who serve in the I.L.E.A. area. Many of them will recognise it as the culmination of a campaign which they began when the Royal Commission's proposals for the break up of the old L.C.C. were first announced some years ago.
  Hon. Members will not need reminding that the original proposals of the last Conservative Government were forthwith to transfer all educational functions in the G.L.C. area, including those functions carried out by the old L.C.C. to the new London boroughs. That proposal produced an enormous wave of protest at the time that it was first mooted among teachers, parents and many people who had not normally been active in organisations of any sort.
  As a London teacher in the service of the old L.C.C. at the time, I shudder now to think of the volume of letters, deputations and communications to which hon. Members must have been subjected. But it was made clear that, irrespective of party affiliations, most teachers and parents voiced very strong objections to the break up of the L.C.C. educational service. I remember that in the lobbying of hon. Members of the House which took place many teachers who participated were doing so for the first time in their lives, and probably the last time. I must warn right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that if there is any attempt to go back on the decision that we are making at present and to break up the I.L.E.A. that will meet with very strong opposition from the same people who opposed it in the past.
  1432
  It may be asked why there was that enormous wave of popular feeling against the break-up of the old L.C.C. educational service. It was because teachers, parents and education authorities everywhere recognised the superb education service which had been established for many years by the L.C.C. They recognised the enormous obstacles which would be placed in the way of continuing the service at that very high level if it were broken up and its powers transferred to the new Greater London boroughs and to the City.
  The reasons which prevailed when the campaign against the break up began are as strong today as they were then. Failure to come to a firm decision on the matter and putting off the review once and for all would only do considerable harm to the educational service in London. As 1970 approaches, the I.L.E.A. and officers and employees of the service would not be sure what was going to happen to them after the review had taken place. It is in that spirit in particular that I welcome Clause 2.
  Let us look for a moment at the arguments which have been advanced for the retention of the I.L.E.A. I remember that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), in the course of the Second Reading of the London Government Bill which changed government in London, stated drastically:
  … as one gets towards the centre of London so the pattern of schools and technical colleges becomes less and less related to borough boundaries. Furthermore … the transport system gets more and more closely integrated so that parents in inner London now take it for granted that their children can travel quite long distances to school."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 238.]
  At the primary stage, that is true. At the secondary stage, it is even more true, and a very large number of children attend schools outside the boroughs in which they happen to reside.
  To base any educational pattern on the borough divisions would be quite unrealistic. Some boroughs have more school accommodation than they require for their own children and young people. Others have not got enough. It would be ridiculous to promote arguments about the need for building additional schools in a borough which had not sufficient

  1433
  schools to cater for its own child population. That is particularly true in London, where there is a tremendous shortage of land for all purposes. In any case, under present arrangements, we have much greater parental choice available to members of the population.
  It may be argued that free trade in education would still be possible if the I.L.E.A. were broken up eventually. But one must ask, why break down the existing system if it would be necessary to recreate a system more cumbersome than the one which exists at present; because the present one has worked very well. Whatever its faults, it would be nothing like as awkward to manage as a system consisting of a large number of boroughs.
  Each London borough would require its own staff. New directors and assistants would have to be appointed, and I maintain that the ratepayers no more want to pay for this than do other people in the educational service. It is possible that over the years standards might gradually vary. So would terms of service, and this would be extremely undesirable. The teacher shortage at the present time is difficult enough in all cities, but it is much easier to tackle the shortages which tend to arise in the less attractive areas covered by the I.L.E.A. than it would be if individual boroughs covering those areas had to deal with this task.
  I do not believe that any borough could sustain the excellent central services maintained by the I.L.E.A., and which were maintained in the past by the L.C.C. I am thinking of things like the equipment centre, the education library, and the special courses which are run by the I.L.E.A. Few individual boroughs—in fact, I would prefer to say none—would be able to embark on the provision of experiments like the closed circuit schools television service, or the provision of training centres for inspectors, teachers and others, as at Stoke D'Abernon.
  The question has also been raised of comprehensive school reorganisation. I know that many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are not particularly happy about this development, but a dreadful state of affairs would be produced if all these proposals for reorganisation within the I.L.E.A. area suddenly went into the melting pot after 1970, where they were
  1434
  already being developed, by individual boroughs being forced to tackle the problem.
  There is, too, the question of special schools for the educationally sub-normal and other handicapped children. It is necessary to have a large area to carry out the economies of scale. The distribution of special schools is such that it would be utterly pointless, one might almost say criminal, to break up the I.L.E.A. and then try to find some means of vesting these schools in individual boroughs. Why break down something to replace it with another system which will probably be much worse? I therefore welcome very much the Government's decision on this question.
  I believe that it might be fruitful for us to look in the future at whether or not it is better to have educational authorities on the scale of the I.L.E.A. within the rest of the Greater London area. I know that when the London Government Bill was before the House some of my hon. Friends—one of whom is no longer with us, George Pargiter—moved an Amendment to it to provide for similar authorities to be set up in the north-east, north-west, south-east and south-west of the Outer London area. I recognise the great work which has been done by individual boroughs to set up their own educational services, but I believe that it might have been possible to do it very much more effectively and efficiently if it had been possible in these areas to plan over a wider area than that covered by any of the Greater London boroughs.
  Sir E. Boyle: I do not altogether quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's view that there is a strong case for looking at the Outer London tier and considering whether fewer authorities might not be a good idea, but surely the experience of the I.L.E.A. could be relevant to this case. I do not want to make an unfair debating point, but the hon. Gentleman has made an argument for a review of the I.L.E.A. and seeing how it works, rather than the reverse.
  Mr. Newens: I think that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be desirable to look at the experience gained within the I.L.E.A. and see how far it was applicable in the Outer London area, but the purpose of the

  1435
  suggested review is not to enable that sort of comparison to be made but to break up the I.L.E.A. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said that the Opposition reserved the right to dissolve the I.L.E.A. if necessary, and all the emphasis has been placed on this use of the review. As I said, originally it was made clear that the L.C.C. was to be completely broken up and no I.L.E.A. was to be brought into existence. I am not opposed to the suggestion which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle) has just made.
  I thought that the 1963 Act was, in many respects, a disaster, because it broke up many services, apart from education, which would have been much better carried on by an authority covering an area of the same scale as the I.L.E.A. covers, or maybe the whole G.L.C. area. I do not accept the argument advanced at the time that this would have resulted in less local democracy, because many of the Greater London borough authorities are now more remote from the electors because the members of these authorities represent larger areas than did the old authorities which they replaced.
  The ratepayers in the outer Metropolitan ring who have been subjected to enormous rate increases certainly do not think very much of the 1963 Act. I can say this with great feeling in respect of my electors in Chingford, many of whom were Conservatives, who have been shocked by the effect on the rates of the Greater London reorganisation which took place as a result of the action taken by the previous Administration.
  I believe that the destruction of the I.L.E.A., if it eventually takes place, could produce the same sort of results in central London on a smaller scale. We might find each borough having to appoint its own staff. This would have to be paid for, and it would result in increased rates for a poorer service.
  It is a great pity that local government reform was tackled in the way that it was in the London area. It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham to refer to gerrymandering activities on the part of the Government in postponing the Greater London Borough elections for a year. Do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite not
  1436
  remember the purpose behind the creation of the G.L.C.? Do they not remember that many people thought that the political motive behind it was to wrest London from the control of the Labour Party? The ending by this Measure of the uncertainty which has hung over teachers, parents and officers of the I.L.E.A. since the passing of the original Bill is something which we all welcome, and I think that the Government are to be congratulated on introducing this Measure.
  As I have said, I am sorry that more of the dismembered services of the old L.C.C. cannot be reconstituted at this stage, but the permanent reprieve of those which are still in existence is something which we should all heartily welcome. By taking this action the Government will win the applause not only of Labour supporters but of all those within the London area, including Conservatives, who recognise the great educational work done by both the L.C.C. and the I.L.E.A. I welcome the Bill, and I hope that it will pass speedily through the House.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) asked if we did not remember the real purpose of the London Government Act. He made it quite clear that he did not remember. He implied that it was a political racket to take control from the London County Council. I should have thought that that would have been a public service. If he remembered the Bill properly he would recall that the then Minister of Housing left out of the proposed area of the Greater London Council large Conservative-held areas which wished to stay out. If the proposal had been a political racket the Minister would have insisted on their coming in. The hon. Member's allegation was an absurd and unworthy one, which I hope that he is now going to withdraw.
  Mr. Newens: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that there was tremendous opposition from those Conservative areas—in particular from Surrey—and that it was in response to that pressure on the Conservative side as well that the Government of the day decided to change some of their proposals?
  Mr. Gilmour: I am sorry that the hon. Member did not seek to withdraw

  1437
  his allegation. Of course there was pressure, but if the purpose had been what he alleged it would have been withstood, and those areas would have been brought into the Greater London area. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said that we now had a local government freeze. I welcome that local government freeze in a minor way. I welcome the winding up of the previous Local Government Commission; indeed, I introduced a Bill in the last Parliament which would have had that effect, and the year before I moved a lengthy Motion on the same lines. I am glad that the Government have now come round to the same view.
  My constituency was closely affected by one set of proposals of the Local Government Commission, which was to extend the City of Norwich into the fringe parishes, which were in my constituency. Those constituents of mine who were affected were almost unanimous in their opposition. There was a great amount of public feeling; associations were set up and meetings were held. It was very agreeable to address full houses in large schools One parish even created a newspaper. As a result of this great public enthusiasm they won their fight.
  The point is that my constituents, in their opposition, were not merely seeking to defend the past; they felt strongly that the proposals were not relevant either to Norfolk or to Norwich in the twentieth century; they felt that the proposals were interim and would not fit the requirements of East Anglia for the next ten years. Therefore, they were waiting for exciting and imaginative proposals. That, unfortunately, is just what the Government have not provided; they have produced no proposals at all.
  I would have thought that there had been more than enough Royal Commissions and Committees set up on local government over the years and that it was time the Government stopped shuffling its own responsibility on to Royal Commissions, Committees and departmental bodies and all that sort of paraphernalia and acted themselves—because the matter is urgent. Local government is the sick man of England. That is a high claim to make at present, because there are many sick men about—but local government is the most sick. It does not always understand its own
  1438
  illness, and sometimes protests its health, but its illness is well known and is plain for all to see. We know the symptoms. Local authorities are the wrong size. There are far too many of them, they have lost power to Whitehall, and they are far too dependent, financially, on Whitehall. The whole system and manner of local government are obsolete. The Government should realise this. It is no good putting off reform.
  I need not diagnose the illness; I am sure that the Minister is aware of it. Indeed, he touched upon it in his speech. Faced with this situation, however, the Government should have acted. To abolish one Commission and set up another does not come under the heading of action. The Government should have decided that the case for larger authorities is proved. They must know that to be so. There is an unanswerable case for regional government. We already have it, to some extent. The choice is between elected and non-elected regional government—between representative government and government by the appointees of the First Secretary for the time being. That is not a happy prospect, at any rate to hon. Members on this side of the House.
  The Government should have set up regional authorities. Even if by doing so they had rationalised the structure of local government, nevertheless, the manner of local government would have remained, and that is what needs changing even more than the structure and the system. The sort of reforms that are needed are those which would bring some public interest to local government. The great purpose of local government is that it involves many people in the Government of the country. Under the present manner of local government, a great deal of the time of these people is wasted.
  It will stop being wasted only when the manner of local government has been drastically altered. The recent by-elections in the greater London Area showed this to be true. As a result of the 1963 Act, Local Government in London is much less obsolete than it is elsewhere. It is not right, yet, but it is still better than in most other places. In the by-election in the borough of Brent there was a turnout of 12 per cent. It is true that that turn-out embodied a swing of 17 per cent. to this side, but even though

  1439
  that massive and mammoth swing means that the result was a good deal better from the point of view of those on this side of the House than of those on the other side, nobody can derive satisfaction from it because it shows the incredible apathy which exists about local government under the present system.
  Even when the boundaries and functions of local government have to some extent been rationalised people still do not care and do not turn up to vote. The undergrowth of committees, subcommittees, aldermen, indirect elections and all the traditional mumbo-jumbo of local government cuts it off from those who elect local government members and cuts it off even more effectively from the much larger body of people who do not elect them. In order to get rid of this barrier, which is the only way that local government can be revived, something drastic must be done, namely, the abolition of the present collective anonymity of local government, together with the committee system.
  The way to do that is to institute direct elections of the chief executives of the regions and the second tier authorities, which in my view should be continuous counties. At present the mayor is a purely honorific figure. He is nobody. He is purely ceremonial. He has nothing to lose but his chains.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: The mayor has a casting vote.
  Mr. Gilmour: That is true, and Mr. Deputy Speaker also has a casting vote, but I would not like to compare him too closely with a mayor. The mayor has that function, but it is not enough. The way to revive public interest in local government is to make the mayor a paid executive, a functional executive, and a powerful executive. The same could happen regionally, where there should be a directly elected governor. Election contests between well known or even powerful and famous characters for the post of governor or mayor would create considerable public interest. One can imagine who those people might be. It is probable that in this country we would not have quite the same enthusiasm for gubernatorial or mayoral elections that they do in America, but some of the public interest engendered there would
  1440
  be excellent in this country. We are a long way from that situation.
  I do not believe that local government can be preserved in its present form. If we try to do so, local government will just die and we shall have government by civil servants. Therefore, the way to preserve local democracy is to have more of it, not less and to have direct elections. That is the only way to revive local government. Although I welcome the very small step of abolishing the previous Commission which the Government have taken, I regret that they have done absoluetly nothing else to bring in a properly reformed system of local government.
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. Arnold Shaw: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens), I am particularly interested in Clause 2 which, in effect, relieves the citizens of London of the implicit threat in the London Government Act of 1963 to wind up what were then the educational functions of the London County Council subsequently transferred to the Inner London Education Authority. Whatever right hon. and hon. Members opposite may say, we are all well aware of the object of the 1963 London Government Act. The Conservatives at that time, in their anxiety to scrap the London County Council, were also prepared to scrap its educational functions and in that way completely to fragment the service which had so well served the citizens of London for so many years.
  However, as my hon. Friend said, in the face of overwhelming public opposition, the Government of the day gave way and instead inserted this review Clause in the Act. The present Government—I think rightly—have decided that the present system of education in inner London has proved its worth, that it should stay and that no review is now necessary. I had, however, hoped that the Government would go further and perhaps make reference to some of the recommendations on education by the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London. Many of these recommendations were completely side-stepped by the Conservative Government of that time in their haste to dismantle the London County Council.
  One of the main recommendations of the Commission was that the Greater

  1441
  London Council should be the education authority for the whole of London, having certain well-defined powers, responsibility particularly—this is most important—for the statutory standard of education over the whole of London, together with certain other controls, particularly budgetary controls. The boroughs also, according to the recommendations, were to have the discharge of many important executive powers. Here there would be absolutely no suspicion of any idea of major and minor authorities, as the functions of both types of authority would be very well-defined. There would be co-operation on that basis.
  Therefore, in that way it would maintain the intimate nature of the service—education is an intimate service—as between the parent and the school and between the parent and the authority. The Commission strongly recommended that any development plan for the Greater London area should be the responsibility of the Greater London Council. Such a recommendation, if implemented, would have the advantage of coherent reorganisation of education over the whole area instead of the piecemeal development taking place at present.
  It has been suggested in the debate that we should look at the experience of the Inner London Education Authority and tie it to the possibility of similar organisation of the outer London authorities. It appears to me to be the other way round, that one should look at the experiences of the authorities in the outer fringe of the London area, see the mistakes being made there, and thus appreciate that, in the workings of the Inner London Education Authority, there is a model of how the educational system should be worked out in the whole Greater London area.
  I would give an example from my own borough of Redbridge, of which my constituency forms part. Here we have a Tory council, which, bound by narrow party considerations, upholds selection at 11-plus and generally opposes the reorganisation of its secondary schools on comprehensive lines. Meanwhile, the neighbouring boroughs are proceeding apace with their plans for reorganisation, leaving Redbridge as a backwater in the stream of educational progress.
  1442
  At the same time, there is in Red-bridge a lack of provision of grammar school places. At present, the borough is exporting about 2,000 children to neighbouring authorities. These places, in time, will be less readily available, with the result that the percentage of children from Redbridge to be granted grammar school accommodation will be drastically reduced. This will come as a blow to many of those parents who have a great anxiety for the future of their children. I might also add that the fragmentation of education in the Metropolitan Essex region has resulted in a further shortage of accommodation for educationally subnormal children in the Borough of Redbridge.
  I welcome Clause 2, but hope that the Government, perhaps at some future time, will see fit to introduce a Measure for the greater co-ordination of education throughout the whole of the Greater London area.
  5.39 p.m.
  Mr. Oscar Murton: It is true of many things, but particularly of local government, that Labour has a grievous disposition when in power for dismantling the half-finished work of previous Administrations. There was in existence a Local Government Commission which the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan wound up in 1949, but it was his own Government who had set it up in 1947. The Conservative Government formed a new Commission in England under the Local Government Act of 1958. One would have hoped and expected it would have been given time to be left alone to complete its work.
  The right hon. Gentleman who is now the Lord President of the Council said, when he was the Minister responsible for these matters—he said this on 22nd September, 1965—that he would not dissolve the Commission. Then, in December—and not for the first time—he rejected a recommendation made by the Commission. Meanwhile, rumours were rife that the right hon. Gentleman was becoming impatient with this body. This was confirmed by the statements he made later about the relationship between the current work of the Commission and other proposals he had in mind for a committee to consider the long-term reform of local government.
  This led the Local Government Commission to advise local authorities not to

  1443
  devote special effort to preparing new material for submission, as it was argued that work could not proceed in that climate. Then, on 10th February, 1966, the Prime Minister announced the setting up of a Royal Commission for England, and another for Scotland, and, within an hour, the discontinuance of the Local Government Commission was announced in Parliament.
  Much time, money and effort had been expended throughout England by local authorities who found their efforts utterly wasted. This led to much frustration and, to illustrate this, I cite the case concerning the Borough of Poole, the Dorset County Council and the County Borough of Bournemouth. They had each provided what I can only describe as massive evidence—albeit somewhat conflicting and controversial—about their views on what would be the best structure for the area. The Commissioners were about to begin work on this problem when the then Minister stepped in and finished it.
  My constituency of Poole had a particular grouse in this case because it was promised, as long ago as 1947, that it would receive consideration about becoming a county borough. Those assurances were repeated in 1955, but, when I asked the then Minister in March last, when the axe had fallen, what would happen, he replied that while he had great sympathy with Poole
  "… I would point out that the time that it would take under our present procedure would mean that Poole could not hope to get any change of status until well into the '70s if I had left the Boundary Commission still functioning."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 1080.]
  I regret that the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Lord President of the Council is not in his place because I would like him to hear my comments on this important subject.
  The right hon. Gentleman stated on 10th February last that the work of the Royal Commission would not take much more than two years. I find his reasoning strange indeed because, having pointed out that the Commission would not take more than two years to report, he embarked on a much more interesting point, when he said that the Commission would deal with a radical reconstruction and that there would be "a really radical overhaul."
  1444
  One wonders how, if there is to be a really radical overhaul, it can be effected and how the Commission can report in the short space of two years. I recall the Prime Minister saying on 7th September, 1964, in a different connection, that Royal Commissions "take minutes and waste time." I appreciate that he was not altogether serious in that epigram, but the right hon. Gentleman said on 24th May, when giving the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, that the review body would probably be the biggest review of local government this century and that "we must not underrate the importance or thoroughness with which the job must me done." That did not strike me as a simple task to be accomplished in two years.
  Already one senses that the climate is changing. One has only to read Press reports summarising the evidence of various bodies being sent to the Royal Commission to comprehend that there may be some remarkable and far-reaching changes recommended in the local government structure when the Royal Commission reports.
  In this connection—and one need only listen to the comments of hon. Members like my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) to realise there are strong views on this matter—one can foresee the possibility of an end to county boroughs and county councils as we know them and, with their departure, the last chance of Poole becoming a county borough. That applies also to the other large non-county boroughs which have pursued this ambition for so long. One can see the emergence of much larger units and possibly even some form of regionalism. The Prime Minister said in this respect on 24th May that the Royal Commission would be able to consider this within its terms of reference and—
  Mr. Albert Evans: On a point of order. I am reluctant to intervene, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but has it not been the custom of this House for hon. Members to deprecate the reading of speeches? I may be mistaken, but it seems that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) is reading most of his speech.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The hon. Member is perfectly

  1445
  right in saying that the reading of speeches is to be deprecated. It is contrary to the traditions of the House. Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to refer to notes, but it would destroy the reality of debates if the practice of reading speeches were to develop.
  Mr. Murton: Perhaps I may say, in my own defence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have notes rather than a fully written speech. I have had to paraphrase a number of quotations and give several dates. I would find it difficult to remember them without referring to notes. I ask you to bear with me, Dr. Deputy Speaker, because I shortly wish to refer to a document and I am not able to read parts of it without referring to my notes.
  I was about to say that there is also the question of local government finance which the Royal Commission must consider. There is another point. The Association of Municipal Corporations feels strongly about the subject of amalgamating certain police areas. It believes that the recent decision of the Government, through the Home Office, to amalgamate police authorities is, in certain instances, misconceived and it has several ideas which it believes should be introduced to make provision whereby one police authority could assume responsibility for the policing of part of an area of another police authority, as is possible under Section 12 of the Fire Services Act, 1947.
  I do not wish to risk the chance of getting out of order by raising something which is not within the Bill, but I ask the Minister to consider—following the representations he has received about the amalgamation of police areas—incorporating a provision in the Bill to achieve what the Association of Municipal Corporations suggests. This would permit agreements to be made similar to those applying to fire services and would enable authorities to cope with difficulties in some urban areas where there is a population spillage into rural areas.
  This is a complex measure. The Royal Commission has much work to do and its terms of reference are extremely wide. I doubt very much whether it can achieve its object in two years. I deprecate the fact that many local authorities which have done much work should have their work discontinued and should be frustrated.
  1446
  Do the Government want radical reconstruction? If they receive radical proposals will they have the courage to put them into effect? Will they bring them before the House as a basis for legislation and not as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said, "Kick the ball once more into the long grass"? That is a good expression because when a ball is kicked into the long grass it is lost. If this "ball" is lost it will mean that more time and money will be wasted and there will be more frustration. Then we shall be back where we started.
  5.51 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Mapp: To my surprise the debate so far has been one without any great illumination. I usually think that there are two subjects which amongst local government groups, Labour or Tory, generates dissension. One is local government boundaries and the other is water fluoridation, but this proposal for amending local government boundaries has been received quite amicably.
  So far, so good. I part company with the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) if—and I do not know whether he was quite serious—he was contemplating that mayors should be paid officials, paid executives. I do not look forward to the day when we shall approach that in this country.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: I meant paid politicians in the sense of their being elected; not in the sense of being civil servants, but paid, yes.
  Mr. Mapp: I stand to be corrected, but I think the hon. Member used the word "official". I have often said that there are three kinds of uniform for which I have tremendous respect, possibly exceeding the respect I have for any other. One is the uniform of the mayor, which is acquired for selfless service which is unpaid and, regardless of his party, I have great admiration for the mayor's robes of office. The second uniform is that of the mortar board of the schoolmaster. Here is the achievement of dedication to the pursuit of truth. The third is undoubtedly the nurses' uniform. I hope that the mayors of our cities and chairmen of urban district councils will remain as we have them now as elected persons. I have noticed that legislation

  1447
  has been proposed suggesting that they need not necessarily sit on the bench in future.
  Coming to the subject before us, I suppose that this is a sort of funeral of Caesar. It is the end of a clumsy process which in the past has been used for the purpose of modernising local government. I think the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central described local government as a very sick man. In many ways I agree. Reviews have taken place concerning local government all over Britain, some with advantage and some with disadvantage. These have been made under different Governments, but the reports did not get very far. It was unfortunate that the most populous parts of Britain, Lancashire, London and the South-East comprising two areas most ripe for consideration in local government reform were the last to be considered. In fact the proposals for them were not considered at all. Because of that, I shall try to express some of the thoughts which have been communicated to me and to other hon. Members representing county boroughs in Lancashire where the shoe pinches most.
  The Leader of the House, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, said in the debate on 10th February that he had been asked how long it would be before the Royal Commission reported. He said:
  "I would say the Royal Commission can do its work in not much more than two years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 645.]
  I should like to hold him to that. While most of the rest of the country has been considered by reports on local government in the past, in the great area of Lancashire one can hardly discern which parts are in an urban district and which are in the district of a county borough. This applies right across from Oldham to Liverpool. Without some local knowledge one can hardly determine in which local authority one is. Yet this is an area where the problem of local government boundaries is overwhelmingly important. I therefore regret that, clumsy as was the old machinery, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government decided rather suddenly to cut its throat. My complaint is that he did not give adequate thought to the problem of the
  1448
  interim period before the new machinery begins to operate.
  What is the interim period likely to be in Lancashire? I do not wish to get out of order. The Home Secretary is righly concerned with the problem of crime, and so are all hon. Members. I shall not debate that question except to say that the problem of dealing with crime involves the question of police forces as related to local government boundaries. Because of the Act of 1964 for which the whole House must carry responsibility, we cannot now deal with parts of police areas. The Home Secretary is committed and compelled because of the problem of local government in Lancashire, in particular, to pay regard to this in his amalgamation proposals. There will be three authorities in Lancashire, the two great cities and the county council at Preston.
  This is pushing local government and local democracy back 30 or 40 years. Great conurbations which have populations of a quarter of a million people are to go back to the old county council structure, however suitable or unsuitable that may be. If the Minister of Housing and Local Government presses on with the work of the Royal Commission to be completed in two years from last February—which will be February, 1968—and as the Home Secretary says he would like to have the implements with which to combat crime put to the House in the next two or three years, then these two objects could be harmonised. This touches on local government or regional government. Not only in Lancashire, but I have every reason to believe, from special knowledge coming to me, in Yorkshire and South Wales, there is this problem of local government automony and democracy regarding police areas. If they cannot maintain police forces of adequate size they have to go back to the old county basis.
  I therefore hope that the Minister, having entire responsibility for the shaping of local government and its powers, will see there is an urgent need to consider the problems of the Home Secretary in relation to local government boundaries. I hope he will see whether during the next two or three years, through legislation if necessary, we can enable local authorities in a revised form to maintain adequate police forces. It is an amazing fact that about 13 county

  1449
  boroughs of Lancashire are likely before long to come to this House for consideration of this problem as I gather they have reached a measure of agreement on revised areas. We welcome this. I ask the Minister to bear this in mind. If we are burying a clumsy and old-fashioned instrument which worked so slowly, for how long will the new high-powered body sit? How long will it take the Executive to decide? The case may be strong in Norfolk, but it is ten times as strong in great conurbations such as those in the North-West and I have reason to think the situation is similar in Yorkshire.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. John Biffen: The very title of the Bill—the Local Government (Termination of Reviews) Bill—suggests that there is something in the nature of a wake about this occasion. So it is. For all that, Clause 1(2) has implications which are considerable and far-reaching for one part of the countryside, namely, Shropshire, but which, in turn, have much wider implications for local government as a whole. Therefore, it is not a neat job of disposal which we are being asked to conduct. It may prove to be a much messier operation than that.
  This turns very much on the power in Clause 1(2) to terminate the county reviews. This power is not clean cut. It is not to set aside the whole function of county reviews. It is merely to set aside that function in as much as it has not already been carried out. There are three county reviews which are in a process of gestation. There is the Shropshire County Review, which I think is by far the most advanced. In this, as in so much else—for example, being the cradle of the industrial revolution—Shropshire is a pioneer, but I am not here to make a constituency speech.
  Some fairly solemn implications can be gleaned from the experience of the Shropshire County Review, and particularly from the experience of the Cornwall and Worcestershire County Reviews. I am delighted and fortified by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mt. Nott). I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) were not incarcerated in the Committee which is considering the Iron and Steel Bill he, too, would be here. I regret the total
  1450
  absence of the Liberal Party on this occasion, because Liberal Members represent rural areas which have exactly the type of problem to which I shall refer. I notice particularly the absence of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe).
  The Shropshire County Review proposes that the borough of Oswestry should be merged with the Oswestry Rural District Council. I would not for one moment suggest that I have any conception of what should be a future desirable pattern of local government in Shropshire or in rural areas generally, because it would be gross impertinence for me to make such propositions in advance of the report of the Royal Commission.
  However, a county review has been conducted in Shropshire which has decided that Oswestry Borough shall be merged with the adjacent rural district and shall become what is known as a rural borough. When the Leader of the House was in opposition, he was very contemptuous of the rôle and prospective future of the rural borough. Indeed, one might be forgiven for thinking that it was partly this doubt and scepticism which prodded him into establishing the Royal Commission.
  This afternoon we are asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, among other things, by virtue of the content of the Shropshire County Review, will establish a rural borough in Oswestry. I wish to raise three points. First—there is nothing unique about this—this proposal has created a great deal of local hostility. Almost every hon. Member who has spoken has conceded that all measures of local government reform excite hostility, but the hostility between a developing industrial community and a surrounding rural community can have considerable implications if it is in the context of wider plans for industrialisation.
  The second, and I think by far the most important, point is that, by assenting to the establishment of a rural borough in Oswestry, the Minister must imply that he sees no future for the continued independent existence of any urban district or borough with a population of below 12,000 or with a rateable value of just below £½ million. This is a serious judgment to imply in advance of the recommendations, whatever they be, of the Royal Commission.

  1451
  Since the conclusion of the County Review was made known, the West Midlands Review has been published and the regional economic planning boards and councils have been established. I am not a great enthusiast for those bodies. I am not a great enthusiast for some of their proposals, but that is neither here nor there. The point is that these bodies have been established and, much more to the point, the Government have given a firm commitment to the establishment of Dawley New Town in the eastern extremity of the County of Shropshire. This must have considerable consequences upon the balance of population and the balance of industrial prospects throughout the rest of the county.
  There is a pretty good case to be made—it is certainly made in the West Midlands Review—that Shrewsbury itself will expand as an industrial base It already contains some well-known manufacturing concerns, such as branches of Rolls Royce and also Hall Engineering. If Shrewsbury and Dawley New Town develop as an industrial core running from east to west through the centre of Shropshire, there will be the chance of a population increase in some of the market towns, both to the north and to the south. In the south, the future of Bridgnorth is of intimate concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More). In all these considerations, one is taking a considerable step if one assents to legislation which asserts that an urban area with a population of up to 12,000 has no independent future as an area of local government.
  There is a good deal of evidence of Oswestry's success in attracting certain types of light industry, success gained without the advantages, if advantages they be, of various industrial development inducements. Oswestry does not lie in a development area but it is still, mercifully, successful in standing on its own feet and in attracting industry in its own way. But all this could be put at risk if that urban area were placed alongside a larger rural district which did not necessarily share the same views about the desirability of industrial development.
  These are matters which rightly concern some of my constituents and they certainly concern me. I hope that I
  1452
  shall be excused if, in putting it to the House, I say that this is genuinely not just another constituency speech. These are matters of principle, perhaps only modest in significance but of principle nevertheless. They are matters which have exercised some of the local government associations also. I have in my hand a statement issued by the Non-County Boroughs' Committee for England and Wales entitled, "County reviews of local government in relation to smaller towns", the first paragraph of which comments that there is
  "an urgent need for stating the case for the smaller towns which arises from the apparent intention of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to proceed with the implementation of county reviews of Shropshire, Cornwall and Worcestershire".
  My fear is that there may be a stubborn determination to put Oswestry through the mill. This would be both arbitrary and unfair, and I suspect that it would also prove to be, in terms of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money, an expensive piece of obstinacy on the part of Whitehall. Perhaps it is still not too late for the Minister to relent, and I hope that he will today tell us that he has.
  6.14 p.m.
  Mr. Albert Murray: I welcome Clause 2 of the Bill. The Government's intentions in this matter will be widely welcomed by the people of London, including those who administer the education service in the inner London area, the teachers and, not least, the parents of children attending London schools.
  The salient factor in the long argument we have had about London government and, particularly, London education, must be what the Herbert Commission concluded in paragraph 516 of its Report:
  "We also have it very much in mind that the educational system of the London County Council has won a high reputation for itself not only in Greater London and the country as a whole but also in countries abroad."
  Since the Herbert Commission reported, most of us connected with London government, particularly in the Labour Party, have considered that the introduction of the London Government Bill in 1963 was the Conservatives' attempt to

  1453
  break Labour's hold on London. Fortunately, the efforts which they put into it did not bear fruit when the elections for the Greater London Council came. But what is more interesting is that not only the Herbert Commission found that there was nothing wrong—in fact, it praised it—with education in London but the Conservative Government supported that view at the lime. The White Paper said that where schools and institutions had been provided without regard to borough boundaries, and where there had been free movement of pupils across these boundaries, this had been
  "one of the strengths of London's educational system".
  At no time did the Conservative Party adduce any real arguments against the situation in London, and it never once argued against the educational merit of the London County Council's system.
  I had the privilege of being a member of the London County Council during some of the, perhaps, stormiest years when the arguments were raging about the change-over and whether the whole of London's services ought to be interfered with. The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) spoke earlier of the apathy of the electorate in local government elections. When the London Government Bill was going through and the changes for London were proposed, we had meetings all over London, not meetings arranged by the Labour Party or by the Conservative Party but meetings of parents of children in ordinary schools and comprehensive schools asking the Government not to go forward with their changes for London's education. I only wish that as many people had felt as outraged about what would happen to the children's health and welfare services as they were about education.
  The Government should now remove the uncertainty hanging over the future of education in London. If they wish to have reviews on the education structure, there are; plenty of places where they can start. I only wish that they would institute a review of the education services in such places as Surrey and Bournemouth. This is where there should be reviews, if there are to be reviews, but not in London, which has proved its
  1454
  worth not only in terms of education but in terms of people's votes and continued faith in London government throughout the years since 1934.
  The Conservative Party when in office never gave any good grounds for saying that London's education service was inefficient or inadequate. We in the Labour Party were not alone in our protests against the 1963 Bill. The London Teachers' Association, a body drawing its membership from all political parties and from none, resolved at its annual conference in February this year,
  "That this Conference welcomes the announcement of the Secretary of State for Education and Science that he intends to introduce legislation to repeal the Education Review Clauses of the London Government Act and calls upon the Government to introduce such legislation at the earliest possible moment".
  Without doubt, as stated by the President of the London Teachers' Association, this has been having some effect on the recruitment of teachers for London education. It has also been having an effect on the forward planning of the I.L.E.A. in terms of obtaining sites for future school buildings and of knowing whose responsibility it is to be to rehouse families from those sites. I am certain that the people of London will welcome this Bill.
  Sir E. Boyle: What is the hon. Gentleman's evidence for the assertion that the fact that the review was on the Statute Book has affected the recruitment of teachers? I have been told on good authority that, but for the quota, London would have too many teachers. In this respect, London is in a quite different position from a big city like Birmingham.
  Mr. Murray: I will quote my authority. Mr. Roy Porter, President of the London Teachers' Association, wrote in London Teacher in July, 1965:
  "We already have evidence that some teachers are leaving the London Service because of uncertainty about the future and this situation will get progressively worse as time goes on."
  Not only the teachers are affected. We have had one upheaval in London and the nearer we get to the review date, the more it creates uncertainty in people's minds. The I.L.E.A. must be given an opportunity to move forward without this hanging over its head. Many of us

  1455
  fought bitterly against the London Government Act—and that included some of my old colleagues on the I.L.E.A. But now we are saying, "We have a new authority and must make it work, not because we want to score a political point but for the sake of the children of London and their future."
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: I hope that the hon. Member for Graves-end (Mr. Murray) will forgive me if I do not follow him in to his arguments about the I.L.E.A. and the question of review of the organisation. I am unqualified to speak on that aspect of the Bill and want to restrict my remarks to issues arising from Clause 1. Before doing so I want to touch on the rather unorthodox suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour).
  I have seen reports of similar suggestions he has made elsewhere and I would ask him to consider local government in terms of its remarkable success in administration over a long period and in rapidly changing circumstances. There is a great deal to be said for a system of committee procedures, with the chairman being elected by the committee members who will serve under him agreeably.
  This also applies to the position of the mayoralty, with mayors being elected to preside over councils by members of those councils. If mayors were to be imposed, as it were, as a result of an electoral decision, it might well do great damage to the system of local government as we know it today. It is one mat has served us so well. In my experience, those who serve in local government get the authority which their abilities deserve and one does not feel that people of ability in local government are restricted in any way under our present system.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) referred to the remarks made by the Leader of the House at the A.M.C. conference last year in the context of his expressed intention at that time to maintain the Boundary Commission. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would not agree that this is not the only occasion
  1456
  on which the Leader of the House has had to change his mind on local government questions.
  The other outstanding change was his remark about doing away with the rates. Subsequently, he has had to tread very warily. He has searched for an alternative system to that of rating which again has served local government well over many years. These are two of the lessons the Government have learned about local government and they would be wise to hesitate with many of their proposals for it.
  Local Government is an extremely complicated and involved procedure. There is an infinite variety of places and circumstances throughout England and Wales and to generalise is unwise in any context. The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) referred to the great conurbations. I think it unfortunate that it should have been found necessary, but I am in the position of having to accept the necessity for a complete review of the reorganisation of local government.
  We know that the Boundary Commission, during no less than seven years of plentiful work, covered about two-thirds of the country and had to contend, naturally, with the proper parochialism that one finds. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has gone to some length to show how the issues with which he is concerned are raised in this type of reorganisation.
  The practical proposals the Commission brought forward, and which both Governments to some extent made effective, have led to a substantial amount of new thinking in terms of local government administrative units and services. This has led, in turn, to a greater recognition on the part of all those serving in local government, whether elected or employed, to have a fresh look at the great problems with which local government is faced.
  There is an indication of this in the many submissions to the Royal Commission from many local authorities and from organisations which have not in the past concerned themselves greatly with local government questions. This is a very hopeful aspect of the review that the Government have undertaken.
  The task facing Sir John Maude and his colleagues is exciting and essential. But

  1457
  it will be laborious. It is bound to be, with all the mass of evidence that his been submitted. It will be an enormous task to sort it all out. One wonders how the wheat will be sifted from the tremendous amount of chaff that is bound to lie in the submissions. I hope that the two-year period for the work will be found possible. I understand that the Royal Commission intends, if possible, to get its work completed in that time and I am sure that we all hope that it will.
  There is a growing opinion throughout the whole of local government that what people wish to see is democratically elected regional or provincial administration. It is thought that many of the economic planning regions are unsuitable as a base for local government administration, and I believe that the essence of local government lies in elected representation. If those two facets can be acknowledged, we might see provincial authorities responsible for example, for trunk roads, fuel and power, fire, police and ambulance services—and I would like to see hospitals reverting to the authority of local government—for technical and further education, main drainage and water—and we have often discussed the great importance of those last two to new towns and overspill; they are not local problems, but have much wider implications. National parks and rural conservancy and tourism, which might be an interesting feature for provincial administrations to look after, could also be included.
  Surely, what we want is a lessening of the concentration of power in Westminster and the Ministries. I am sure that much of our planning appeal procedure is held up because there is no way in which to devolve it within the Ministries. Underneath the provincial administration, I think that it is generally recognised that there should be, most-purpose authorities, on the basis of a city region. Here, we come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, East, in that in the great conurbations it is impossible to link the urban area of the cities with any part of the rural countryside. But when there is an urban area in the countryside with country districts around, I am sure that there is much to be said for marrying town and city with the countryside, provided that there is an adequate community of interests to form local units of administration.
  1458
  My concern is that of those who have spoken of the delay which may be involved, perhaps not in the Report, but in the implementation of the proposals which may issue from the Royal Commission. I quote from the Local Government Chronicle of 29th October, in which the Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers), is quoted as saying, in an interview:
  "The present regional machinery was an interim arrangement. What followed would be partly dependent on the non-central government structure that emerged. He estimated that it would be from seven to 10 years before any changes recommended by the Royal Commission could be carried out."
  If that is a reflection of Government opinion, we are in for a very long period of the uncertainty which has been created by the Bill.
  I hope that we shall have an undertaking from the Government that they recognise the sense of urgency involved in this question and are prepared to bring to it a definite purpose in the interests of local government, from both an electoral and an administrative point of view. Two Boundary Commissions, as it happens, have been dissolved by Socialist Administrations, for quite different reasons, but now we have a Royal Commission. I welcome the fact that it has been set up, but I hope that we shall now be able to look to the Government for constructive determination in local government reform.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. William Hunting: May I, first, apologise to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and to my right hon. Friend for not having been present at the beginning of the debate. I was engaged in a Select Committee upstairs.
  The debate is somewhat unusual in as much as two rather diverse threads seem to be running through some of the speeches. The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) has been concentrating more on Clause 1 than on Clause 2, but I am convinced that these two Clauses can be read together in the context of education.
  One of the things which has emerged from local government during the last 40 years is the need for viable areas

  1459
  of local government, and this has often meant advocating the creation of larger units of government, for specific services, or as all-purpose authorities. I can remember writing more than 30 years ago, a paper on the necessity for setting up a county council of Merseyside.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) has just left the Chamber. Perhaps he expected that I would say that, for there is no question but that the creation of authorities such as a Merseyside county council or Manchester county council would impinge on the status of the surrounding areas and their economic viability. Perhaps it was for this reason as much as anything else that the Surrey Tories objected so strongly to being caught up in the creation of a Greater London Council, because by that they were robbed of rateable value and so impoverished. Perhaps Clauses 1 and 2 are not as diverse as might be thought.
  In certain branches of education it is obvious that larger areas of administration are required. It is so obvious that it seems incredible to me that the Conservative Government were so bent on splitting up the London education service, obvious even on their own argument. By advocating the splitting of the education service, they were running counter to historical trends.
  I ought to declare my own interests. I am a member of the London Teachers' Association, already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray). As a teacher, I was formerly in the service of the London County Council and later the Inner London Education Authority and, of course, in the grand old days I was in the service of the Liverpool City Council, famous for many things other than education.
  Over recent years, there has been constant pressure from the London Teachers' Association and parents and other educationists in London for a declaration by the Government of their determination to introduce the provisions outlined in Clause 2. There was constant opposition at the time of the Royal Commission and the introduction of the London Government Bill by the Conservative Government to the provision to split up London's
  1460
  education services. Ultimately, the Government of the day bowed to the storm and set up the Inner London Education Authority.
  I am told that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham has announced to the House that the Conservative Party reserves the right to look again at the position of the Inner London Education Authority. I wonder why. Do the Opposition think that about the boroughs which were created by the 1963 Act? If the I.L.E.A. should be reviewed in 1970 and the Conservative Party feels that that should be the policy, why does it not include the boroughs?
  The only educational authority to be reviewed under the London Government Act was the Inner London Education Authority. We have never been told why there should be one law for the rich, in this case the I.L.E.A., and another for the poor, in this case the outer London boroughs. There is no question that in educational matters the wealth of provision is in the Inner London Education Authority area and the poverty of provision is very often in the borough authorities outside.
  If any areas were to be reviewed one would suppose them to be the areas which, educationally, appeared to be less viable as all-purpose educational authorities, rather than the Inner London Education Authority. What would happen if the Conservative view were to prevail is that the uncertainty, to which reference has already been made, might be renewed. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) who is, I understand, to wind up for the Opposition, is the last person ever to want to bring uncertainty into educational matters.
  My hon. Friends have referred to the opinion of the President of the London Teachers' Association that this uncertainty in the past caused difficulty in recruiting teachers for the London service. The right hon. Gentleman begged to question this statement of opinion on the grounds that London has always been a magnet and that, if it was not for the quota, more teachers would come to London. There is no contradiction in these two arguments. London has always been a magnet, but it was the opinion

  1461
  of the President of the L.T.A. that as a result of this uncertainty, the London service was less favourably regarded by some people outside of London than it had been previously.
  London was and is a magnet because it is such an excellent educational authority. It always has been, not only because of its size and the wealth of opporturity offered to teachers and students, but because of the wide diversity of opportunities for education, administration and many other matters. There is no educational authority in the world possessing the same degree of wealth of opportunilty as the I.L.E.A.
  If this review were to take place in 1970, if London education were to be split, it would create grave difficulties for London's education. The plan for the reorganisation of secondary education, announced by the I.L.E.A. recently, would go into the melting-pot. This plan provides for secondary reorganisation to be over a broad area and not on a borough basis. A review in 1970 and the splitting up of the service could wreck this planned reorganisation. Inheriting the traditions of the old L.C.C., the I.L.E.A. has set up many common services, such as advisory panels on new subjects, and on all aspects of education, as well as many other services, including library and television services.
  There are also courses for teachers. All of this is only possible when one has an authority of such magnitude. There are other benefits to be gained from the present scheme and one is that the I.L.E.A. can divert teachers into areas of special difficulty. I speak as a teacher who taught in one of these areas for a long time, quite a long way from my home. It would be quite impossible to transfer teachers to deal with specific problems in this way if the education system were to be based on the boroughs.
  Another provision made by the I.L.E.A. concerns special education. A borough cannot provide the diversity of special education which is provided by the I.L.E.A. and which has been built up over the years, regardless of borough boundaries. Residential schools are operated by the Authority in the country and there is a boarding school in East Anglia. There are about 23 per cent. of the secondary school population crossing
  1462
  borough boundaries to go to school and an even greater figure in connection with further education.
  The last educational institution in which I served in the Inner London area was the London College of Printing, a very large college, of a very specialist character. I would regard it more in the nature of a national college rather than a regional college, providing for thousands of students, some full and others part-time, and situated in the Borough of Lambeth, but having a catchment area from Brighton in the south to Hertford in the north, Reading in the west, and Southend in the east.
  What borough could afford to maintain institutions of this sort, which are not to be counted in single figures in London? This is the heritage from the old L.C.C., which is being built up by the Inner London Education Authority. No borough could stand the financial strain of operating institutions such as this. I have been told of one borough, outside London, which has a very large technical college, accounting for the biggest item in the rate demand of that borough. This has made some parochially-minded councillors, attempting to cut the rates, to look first at the technical college and to ask what can be cut out there? This is the parochialism from which London has never suffered, and will not suffer if the Bill is brought into being.
  We have had experience of the splitting up of other London local government services. Nursing and midwifery were split for three or four years but this scheme was abandoned after pressure from the doctors. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend has already mentioned child services. In my view, London has suffered since the children's service was split. We now have a situation in which welfare is the responsibility of the local borough and housing, in large measure, the responsibility of the G.L.C. This is absurd, because any London Member knows that so often a housing problem is a welfare problem, and, to tackle the housing problem satisfactorily, he has to take it first to the welfare officer. We are hamstrung because of the split responsibility. If education were to be split we would have many other similar difficulties.
  I said earlier that this break-up was opposed by parents and teachers. We have, of course, a very large labour

  1463
  majority in the area covered by the Inner London Education Authority. I do not believe that that is any accident. I believe that it is based largely upon Labour's record in education in London, and on the quality of service provided by the Authority. I have said before that I have fought every General Election since 1955 on successful comprehensive schools.
  That has been an issue at every election I have worked on in London since I came here way back in 1950, and certainly, where we have fought the inner London elections on education, we have won them all—at least, so far as I am concerned. There are only one or two of the more benighted boroughs where Labour's majority rule does not hold sway, but on the Inner London Education Authority Labour has a big majority.
  This, I consider, reflects the confidence of most of the electors in the inner London area, most of whom are parents. It reflects their confidence in the education provided by the I.L.E.A. London education is recognised by the Royal Commission as embodying the highest standards. The case for splitting up London's education was certainly never made by the Royal Commission, and it was certainly never made by the last Conservative Government, when they introduced the London Government Bill. It has never been made by the Conservative Party at any election I have seen in London, and this Bill embodies what I think is a very reasonable proposition, that the Inner London Education Authority is a good authority and that it should be confirmed as such, for good and all.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. Jasper More: I should like to apologise to the House and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) for being unable to be present for the opening of the debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Handing) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his observations, for, without implying any disrespect to hon. Members who have participated in the debate, it has been a somewhat inconsequential one for the remarkable reason that all the areas affected by the Bill are affected in two different ways.
  1464
  I think that I can claim that it affects my constituency perhaps more acutely than any other, and that is why I wish to say a few brief words. We had in the Ludlow division four small and ancient boroughs, names famous in Shropshire, in England and in history—the Boroughs of Much Wenlock, Bishop's Castle, Bridgnorth and Ludlow. Those boroughs have had to go through what might be called the traumatic experience of a county review under the Local Government Act, 1958. As a member of the Salop County Council, I witnessed that rather agonising process—and long-drawn-out it was—at uncomfortably close quarters. We in Shropshire had the feeling that a job, which, in many respects, was painful to do, had been done and that we had achieved some measure of finality.
  It would be too much to say that the conclusions of the county council had been completely accepted by the boroughs which I have mentioned, but I think that the local authorities' staffs, who, in particular, were affected, had probably resigned themselves to a new future in local government, although difficulties and unhappy individual cases have arisen. What must have been our feelings, and their feelings, when, suddenly, by the announcement that the Government, through the mouthpiece of the present Minister's predecessor, we find in Shropshire that far from having achieved any kind of finality everything apparently may once more be in the melting pot.
  The present Government have apparently decided to take half a bite at one of the four principal cherries which have to be devoured. They introduced a Salop review order with the object of constituting an urban district council for what was then visualised as Dawley New Town. That review order passed this Chamber, but even that has now been thrown into doubt by the report which has been produced on the area of Wellington, Oakengates and Dawley. Therefore, even that small achievement is now once again a subject of doubt and discussion.
  What we in Shropshire want to know is what faces us in the future. Not to put too fine a point upon it—if it is, indeed, a Parliamentary phrase—we in Shropshire feel that we are being

  1465
  "proper messed up". Are we to expect that the Government will, in fact, now produce another Salop order to deal with the other areas which have not been dealt with by the previous order? Are we to have any guarantee that when the new Royal Commission reports, that we shall not once again be subjected to complete reorganisation?
  I should like the Minister, who bears no personal responsibility for the mess which has been achieved in Shropshire, to give his personal attention to our problem, and try to give us, this evening, some kind of assurance which can at least give some prospect of certainty and assurance to all of those in my constituency who in their different ways have done their best to carry through the previous organisation, and whose only desire, indeed, is to get on with their proper job, which is that of proper local government in Shropshire.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Manon: I speak as a local government man who is now a Member of Parliament. I was 34 years in local government, and I have been a Member of Parliament for two years. It is said at times, with a degree of truth, that comparisons are supposed to be odious, but for my preference I come down on the side of local government. I have been a member and a chairman of local government committees during the past 34 years. Down through those years I have been a member of every local government committee: education, finance, fire brigade, watch, health, housing—Uncle Tom Cobley and all. Without being pharasaical, I can say that I have had a unique experience.
  Our local government, with all its faults and failings, is the envy of the world, and if one is disposed to be unfriendly or unkind to local government, it cannot be gainsaid that it has served our country well. In its long experience, local government in this country has sustained many shocks. Today, we are considering the Local Government (Termination of Reviews) Bill. Terminations appear to be the order of the day in Parliament. Indeed, the penchant for terminating things is becoming all too pronounced. I have been tempted to become a little heretical since becoming
  1466
  a Member of Parliament. At times I have found myself wondering whether the Sword of Damocles would fall, and whether my experience in Parliament would be a lot more salutary than my experience in local government has ever been.
  The Boundary Commission goes, and what is pertinent is: what takes its place? I was very closely in touch with the Commission, and I know that its work was monumental and went on for years. It showed great application to a very awkward task. The work of local authorities to produce the requisite evidence on which the Commission could be expected to make wise decisions was prodigious. Now, once again, everything is in the melting pot.
  I gave evidence to the Boundary Commission on behalf of my own local authority in pursuance of our laudable ambitions to expand our boundaries and I was immensely impressed by the members' wisdom and knowledge, and their desire to make the right decisions. The question now to be asked is: will the remedies for many imagined defects in local government be more devastating than those alleged defects themselves?
  What are the faults? I think that they are parochialism, little-mindedness and, perhaps, a lack of the dedication one could expect from men and women who have to work for their daily bread and who afterwards seek to serve their fellow men and women as members of local councils. When people work like that—unwept, unhonoured and unsung—there are bound to be defects and deficiencies, as has to a large extent been evident. But what is the alternative? Is it regionalisation? Is that to be the panacea of all ills?
  In all sincerity, and without being supercritical or sceptical in any way, I want local government to succeed, because a great deal depends on it in the future. I am very anxious about its future, because I know that great good can accrue from it. Parliament has been lagging behind local government in its desire to get on with the work that is necessary. Would we have had our beautiful schools, our homes, our social services and all the things that go to make life bearable for people without the great co-operation of local government with

  1467
  the Mother of Parliaments? It is true to say that many times local government has worked at a tremendous disadvantage. We have had to pursue our social aims when the purse-strings have been tightly drown. That has meant going to the moneylenders, to the Stock Exchange, and then asking our people to repay the loans at very high rates of interest. We may not had made the progress we have always wanted to make, but that can be explained and justified.
  The shock of the recent decision was, to say the least, profound, and the question now being asked by official and by by councillor alike is: is anything worth while? The hopes and aspirations of many people in these communities have once again been dashed to the ground, but I say fervently and sincerely that even should we make an adverse decision in the future—and a decision can be a nine-days' wonder—people can still do a lot of good work. Whatever decision is worked out, however, let us hope that in 10 or 15 years' time we shall not once again be trying to undo the work that has been done in the meantime.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) became a little nostalgic about conditions on Merseyside years ago. The position was not resolved then, and a lot of water has since gone under the bridge—
  Mr. Hamling: And down the Mersey.
  Mr. Manon: Another Daniel must come to judgment before the position is resolved on Merseyside, and many other parts of the country. I wonder at times how we shall ever get over our difficulties, and whether it is wise continually to be changing horses when crossing the stream.
  The House should be in no doubt that the winding-up of the Boundary Commission was a bitter disappointment to all and sundry. Councillors, local government officers, chief constables, medical officers of health, were all genuinely disappointed by it because they saw in the Boundary Commission the way to a wider vista. It is unfortunate that the work has been ended, because it would not have meant the end of all ideas of larger areas of local government and control. It could have led the way towards regionalisation.
  1468
  I am glad that I have not to explain to my people the facts of the tortuous minds of Ministers. I think that there will be a more beneficent outlook, and I will leave it there—when I become heretical, I sometimes fall foul of my best friends. I am glad that the Minister asked, "Will you help?" I thought it a nice touch of humility. Of course I will help. It is necessary that those with experience of local government should help. Those now engaged day by day in local government can help.
  It is imperative in the interests of the country that we should make changes, and I hope that the changes envisaged for the future will be successful and will enhance and enrich the lives of the people. I wish the Minister well. I am glad that he was not responsible for this decision.
  7.9 p.m.
  Sir Edward Boyle: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon), who hails from Bootle, not least because I believe that one of the projects prevented by more recent events was a possible junction of the boroughs of Bootle and Crosby. Not even the union of Hampstead and St. Pancras would have been more interesting than that union.
  Mr. Mahon: I will only say that I was very sorry that Crosby was not "Bootled up".
  Sir E. Boyle: I had better not proceed too far on that road.
  This has been an interesting debate in one or two ways. The subjects in Clauses 1 and 2 no doubt are linked, but at times I thought that the debate had been rather like a recording of carols by the Elizabethan Singers, whom hon. Members may have heard—one eventually realises that the tune and the accompaniment are connected, but it takes a little time. Further, I have never listened to a debate in which more hon. Members opposite have spoken and done a turn of work on the second bench above the Gangway.
  I have two comments to make on Clause 1. First, I was very interested in the serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) when he suggested that local government was the sick man

  1469
  of England and suggested that we needed to dramatise local government rather more. I have a lot of sympathy with him about this, bearing in mind the very great responsibilities of local education authorities nowadays. Even despite the rather frightening remarks of the Minister of State from time to time, they are still very considerable responsibilities under the Act. When considering the large resources of which they dispose, I am always bothered by the gap between the reality of the responsibility of local government and the esteem in which local government is generally held.
  In a sense, my hon. Friend's reference to dramatising local government was surely not out of place, because one of the reasons why we do not take local government more seriously is that councillors so seldom appear on television, except occasionally to make stupid remarks about expenditure on the arts or the like. It is very seldom that we hear a serious contribution on television from a local councillor who has major responsibilities for a local government service.
  In commenting on Clause 1 of the Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said that we will not get people to give up energy and time to work on commissions if they are to be treated in a cavalier fashion. I cannot help at times being struck by the gap between the work and attention that a commission gives to a subject and the outturn in terms of action taken.
  That, of course, is not always true. To be frank, there have been moments when I felt that Lord Robbins has underrated the amount of his report that has been accepted both by successive Governments and by public opinion. At times, however, members of commissions must surely feel a little of the melancholy satisfaction of the Cambridge philosopher, Professor Broad, when, having finished his five-volume work on Mc-Taggart, said: "At least, I have the satisfaction of knowing more than anyone else on this one subject, save God if he exists or McTaggart if he still survives." Occasionally, that must be the melancholy satisfaction of a member of a commission. We should not make it a
  1470
  habit to treat these commissions in too cavalier a fashion.
  I come now to Clause 2 of the Bill. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) was not correct in suggesting that the decision of the previous Government to have a review in 1970 meant, in effect, a decision to split up the inner London service in 1970. At one or two points in his speech, the hon. Member used the phrase, "if the review were to take place and if London education were to be split", suggesting automatically that the one would follow the other. I contradict that straight away.
  Mr. Hamling: I am well aware that these were two successive events and that one might follow upon the other. I am not suggesting that it might happen, but it was the feeling that it might happen which lay behind the teachers' agitation.
  Sir E. Boyle: I appreciate that and I shall, therefore, deal with the point.
  The hon. Member also went, I thought, too far in talking about the previous Government bowing to the storm over inner London. There was never any doubt in the mind of the Ministry of Education and of successive Ministers about the undesirability of splitting up inner London education. Both Lord Eccles and I at one time or another put forward arguments on this subject. The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) quoted a paragraph of my speech on 11th December, 1962, showing how I pointed out that as one gets towards the centre of London, so the pattern of schools and technical colleges becomes less and less related to borough boundaries, and the transport system gets more closely integrated, so that parents in inner London take it for granted that their children can travel quite long distances to school.
  I was glad that in that context the hon. Member for Epping talked about parental choice. I have myself quoted the figure which shows that a very high proportion—85 per cent.—of those in inner London were able last autumn to go to the school of their first choice. In view of the fact that hon. Members opposite have referred during the debate to comprehensive schools, I feel I should briefly reply. That figure suggests that in an authority the size of inner London it

  1471
  is not impossible to have a growing number of comprehensive schools and a certain number of selective schools side by side and also to achieve a very high rate of parental choice. I certainly recognise the advantage in London of the considerably greater degree of parental choice that the larger authority brings about. The advantages within the I.L.E.A. area of boroughs being able to do things together, and of being able to use a number of common services, are also of great importance.
  When I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill in 1962, I was careful to stress that when the review took place the decision following the review would be taken strictly on educational grounds. I have looked through my speech again and I cannot discover one of the sentences which the hon. Member for Epping ascribed to me about the Government having the right to break up I.L.E.A. I did, however, say, and it seems to me to be the crux of the matter, that in 1970 it would be open to the Government to give whatever advice to Parliament they liked when they had considered where the balance of advantage lay from an educational point of view.
  Mr. Newens: If I may correct my words, I meant that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said it in his speech today. I suggest that we check HANSARD to see what I actually said. The right hon. and learned Member said that the Opposition reserved the right to dissolve the I.L.E.A. after the review. That was the objection that I was making. I was certainly making no reference to any statement of that sort in the speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) on Second Reading of the London Government Bill.
  Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham supports me in emphasising that the point of his remark was that the decision should depend upon where the balance of educational advantage lay after the review had taken place.
  Why did we want the review? In reply I should like to remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said in winding up the debate in
  1472
  December, 1962, because he put the point precisely. He said that:
  "It would be wrong … that we should at this stage close our minds entirely to the possibility that we can find some effective way of bringing the boroughs, which will be administering all the other human and personal services, still more closely into contact with the administration of education."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 355.]
  In other words, while the final decision was to be taken on educational grounds, we felt that it was wrong in 1962 to close our minds entirely to the possibility of the boroughs becoming more directly associated with the education service.
  There were three reasons for feeling as we did, and I should like to mention them. First, it is worth remembering that the decision to keep the London boroughs right out of education, so to speak, was a decision which many of them regretted, and to some extent this cut across party lines. That is to say, certainly there were some Labour-controlled authorities outside Inner London which regretted that they could not be in a larger scheme.
  Mr. Ernest G. Perry: Did the right hon. Gentleman say outside the inner London area?
  Sir E. Boyle: Yes. Equally, some boroughs in London, including some that were Labour-controlled regretted the notion that they should be excluded from any direct participation in the education service. In that connection, one had to remember the financial situation that under the 1963 Act I.L.E.A's demands had to be accepted by the Greater London Council and added to the precept on the London boroughs. The House should remember the very large sums of money involved.
  Taking, for example, next year's budget figures for the I.L.E.A. area—
  Mr. Hamling: £93 million.
  Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member will find that in 1966–67 the figures are higher still. The total of the estimate for next year is £102 million. Even in real terms, it means that I.L.E.A.'s estimates for next year will be approximately 50 per cent. of the total expenditure on education in England and Wales for 1946–47. Again, since it would be unreal to keep politics out of this, last year the

  1473
  boroughs which were not controlled by the majority party in I.L.E.A. paid for over 50 per cent. of I.L.E.A.'s budget. In those circumstances, it was only natural that the boroughs felt strongly on the issue of being excluded from direct participation, and therefore it was right not to close our minds to the possibility of participation in some form.
  But this was not the only argument in favour of the review. One point which particularly strikes me is that I.L.E.A. is the only ad hoc local education authority in the country. Its members are not directly elected like the members of other local education authorities.
  I have always believed that there were many attractions in the idea of ad hoc L.E.A.'s. Before 1944, we had 316 education authorities in the country whose basic job was elementary education only. After the 1944 Act, we had 146 authorities, now increased to 166 and, over the twenty years since 1944, local administration has stretched out into further and higher education, and the whole service of education is beginning to loom very large in the local authority administrative structure. That is one side of the argument. On the other hand, if one takes education right out of general local government, it would be the last big service gone. What is left would be hardly worth creating new machinery for.
  All those are important questions which are very relevant to the work of the present Royal Commission. With the whole of local government in a state of flux, and with London specifically excluded from the Royal Commission's terms of reference, surely the case for a review of I.L.E.A. is strengthened rather than weakened.
  My own inclinations are on the side of a considerably smaller number of all-purpose authorties. I start with an inclination towards the sort of pattern proposed in the A.E.C's evidence to the Royal Commission which was published last week. I am speaking very much for myself on this matter, but, at a time when we are considering the whole pattern of local education administration, and when the issue of ad hoc local education authorities must come into question—and when, as the hon. Member for Epping pointed out, there have been those who have
  1474
  proposed an I.L.E.A. type solution for the outer boroughs—the case for an inquiry into the workings of I.L.E.A. becomes strengthened.
  Mr. Handing: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, in that case, the review should not be of I.L.E.A. but of the outer London boroughs?
  Sir E. Boyle: The experience of I.L.E.A. is surely the unique experience here. After all, the outer London boroughs are not all that differently placed from many other smaller boroughs—and not only the smaller ones because, as I pointed out in 1962, a good many of the outer London ring are considerably larger boroughs than a number of county boroughs in the country as a whole.
  The third argument for the review is that in another respect, also, I.L.E.A. is in a peculiar position. The whole rationale of I.L.E.A. is that all its members should be interested in education. If one is a member of an ordinary county council or county borough, one has to specialise in one's local government responsibilities. But the logic of the 1962 Act was that all I.L.E.A. members should be interested in education. Yet one knows that a number of them, while they are compelled to serve because they are G.L.C. members, are primarily interested in other subjects. In practice I.L.E.A. has become increasingly yet another committee of the G.L.C. in a manner not envisaged when the London Government Act was passed.
  These are some of the reasons why we believed that the review was right in 1962, and why we still think it should be retained. I would make the last point that I do not think that there are only two alternatives here; namely, either to scrap the review or to split up and Balkanise inner London education. I do not think that those are the only two possible alternatives.
  Even if one holds the view that, on balance, as we have believed hitherto, the unified service in inner London should be kept, there are alternative methods of organising education in inner London. As the House will know, the membership of I.L.E.A. consists partly of all members of the G.L.C. elected from the inner area constituencies, partly of one member sent up from each inner

  1475
  London borough, and partly of 16 additional members appointed on a party basis—
  Mr. Handing: Is it not true that it is the Education Committee which is so constituted, and not the I.L.E.A.?
  Sir E. Boyle: No. I think that I am giving the correct analysis of the membership of I.L.E.A. itself—the members of the G.L.C. elected from the inner area, then one member from each borough, and 16 members appointed on a party basis. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister will correct me.
  Mr. Greenwood: My impression is that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong, but this is something into which we must conduct further researches. I think that he has given the membership of the Education Committee and not that of the Authority.
  Sir E. Boyle: If I am wrong, I apologise. But I am not sure this is a point of great substance, since in any case the Education Committee is the important body. I understand that the meetings of I.L.E.A. are fairly short and formal.
  My point is that the constitution of the body to administer education in inner London is not something which we should look upon as immutable. For example, it would be possible to increase the numbers sent up as educational specialists from the inner London boroughs. It would be possible to go even further, and have the whole of education run by some kind of joint committee of the inner boroughs. In other words, the point which I make is that, without fragmenting the education of inner London and whilst retaining the old L.C.C. boundaries, there are a number of patterns in which it would be possible to identify the boroughs more directly with the education service. We can discuss the matter at greater length and, if I have misinformed the House, I will take the opportunity of apologising when we reach the Committee stage and deal with Clause 2.
  For these reasons we are not convinced that it is right to dispense with the review which we put into the London Government Act. While I feel as strongly
  1476
  as ever that the case for maintaining the Inner London Education area intact in 1962 was an overwhelming one, and while I re-emphasise that the result of any review should be based entirely on educational grounds and no others, none the less, there is a strong case for having an inquiry into the workings of I.L.E.A. and considering what is the best pattern of educational administration for the area.
  It is for those reasons that, when we get to the Committee stage, we shall vote against Clause 2.
  7.29 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Edward Redhead): I sympathise with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle) in as much as Clauses 1 and 2, while linked in a sense, nevertheless have a detached and separate purpose, as he has rightly said. It has been a little difficult to keep track of the debate as, quite properly, different hon. Members have made their divers contributions on the various aspects in which they are interested.
  Before I come to Clause 2, which is my principal responsibility, I should like to take up some of the points which have been raised in connection with Clause 1, dealing with the dissolution of the local government commissions and the discontinuance of the county reviews.
  It is obvious that one has no need to explain further the position in regard to the Local Government Commission for Wales, because it has finished its labours and, as my right hon. Friend said, its discharge through this Clause is a mere formality.
  Clause 1 is a direct, and necessary, and I think desirable, consequence of the appointment of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England, a Commission which has been charged to undertake a completely comprehensive review of local government, with terms of reference wide enough to take account of the linked, and in my view inseparable, aspects of structure, function, and finance. I think that it must be clear to anyone who has studied the results of the labours of the Local Government Commissions, that the terms of reference have been too limited really to produce wholly satisfactory results in a field of such complexity,

  1477
  where it is under pressure from rapidly changing circumstances in the modern world.
  Clearly, once having appointed a Royal Commission for this purpose, it would be an unnecessary duplication to perpetuate the Local Government Commissions. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has made it clear that the recommendations made to date by those Commissions, and by the county reviews, will not be ignored, and I think that it was a little misleading for the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) to suggest that this decision represented a decision to do nothing.
  Mr. Rippon: Perhaps we can be told which of these recommendations will be implemented?
  Mr. Redhead: I think that the right hon. Gentleman should already be aware of quite a number of cases where decisions have been reached by the Minister consequent on recommendations made by the Local Government Commissions. I shall not weary the House with a list of them, though I have it here, and I think that it would be permissible to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the information which he desires and which I am sure will convince him that he was not correct in saying that this decision represents doing nothing.
  Mr. Rippon: It is the future with which I am concerned.
  Mr. Redhead: My right hon. Friend has made it clear, likewise, that in so far as any decisions have not become operative where firm recommendations have been made, these will be considered on their merits, and will be the subject of Orders placed before the House. I think that it has to be borne in mind, before too much is made of the suggestion that the work of the Local Government Commissions has been wasted, that the results of that work will clearly be available, from within the more limited terms of reference under which they have laboured, to the Royal Commission in considering these wider issues under these wider terms of reference.
  During the debate on this Clause I thought that I detected a divergence of view among hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. and learned Member for
  1478
  Hexham seemed to dismiss the concept of the Royal Commission and the discharge of the Local Government Commissions as the evasion of Ministerial responsibility. One could not be other than impressed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's plea about the need for a quick decision, and indeed he represented his party as virtually ready to jump in with well thought out solutions to these problems.
  I thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) rather upset his plea in this regard when he begged the Government to be hesitant in their approaches to this problem, underlining the complexity of it, and telling us that it was of a varied character throughout the country, an argument which I should have thought justified a comprehensive review by the Royal Commission.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: I made the comment in the context of the thinking aloud process in which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House exercised himself in his capacity as Minister of Housing and Local Government. This is where the caution should have been.
  Mr. Redhead: I appreciated what the hon. Gentleman was getting at, but I think that he was quite right to underline the fact that, contrary to the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham, one cannot dash into local government and pretend—and it is a pretence—that one knows all the answers to this complex problem. I think that we have all to come to the conclusion, looking at the picture as a whole, that what is necessary is a comprehensive review of the character of the problem, which is now possible under the terms of reference of the Royal Commission.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham made some play of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, when he was Minister in charge of the responsible Department, when he addressed the conference of the A.M.C. in 1965. He quoted my right hon. Friend as saying that he had rejected the idea of discharging the Local Government Commissions. If my right hon. Friend did modify his decision, or his view, on this

  1479
  matter as a result of considerable discussions with local authority associations and others, perhaps I might point out that he is not the first Minister, on either side, to change his mind. Indeed, this was demonstrated to be very much the case in relation to the subject on which I shall touch in a moment, and which falls under Clause 2. All Ministers, on both sides, changed their views on that subject when they were in office.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) welcomed the discharge of the Local Government Commissions. He did so very cheerfully, I thought, and made a number of interesting suggestions in connection with local government reform, many of which will, I am sure, come within the review of the Royal Commission, as they deservedly should. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's reference to what I thought was a somewhat exaggerated view of local government as "sick" taken up by his hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South, and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon), and I join in paying tribute to those engaged in local government.
  I do not pretend that local government does not have its problems. Of course it does. It has very serious problems, but I agree with what the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham said about the need perhaps to dramatise local government a little more. Those who are engaged in local government give their services voluntarily, as members of all political parties. They do so with a deep sense of public duty. Often they fail to realise that they are not making an impact on the general electorate, and to realise the importance of the job they are doing, and I join in the tributes which have been paid to them. Local government has been one of the most socially beneficial forces in this country, and we should not exaggerate its problems to the point of suggesting that it is sick to the degree which I thought the hon. Gentleman was implying.
  We all realise that one of the major difficulties confronting local government today is the problem of the rapid change in the modern world, changes in population, developments in industry, and so on. The structure and finance of local government
  1480
  have clearly not kept pace with these changes, and I suggest that it is not possible to find an adequate solution except by means of a comprehensive review.
  One of the besetting difficulties in the past—and it is a difficulty which has faced not only this Government, but the previous Conservative Administration—is that of securing agreement between the local authority associations themselves. To carry the local authority associations with one, it is clearly necessary to do so by conviction. It is significant in this context that the decision to set up a Royal Commission has received a general welcome from the main local authority associations. I think that this is of the greatest significance. Many of the current difficulties to which reference has been made, and the local problems into which I am sure the House would not expect me to be drawn in detail this afternoon, are demonstrations of the need for a review of the kind which the Royal Commission will make possible.
  The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton)—and I think that it may have found expression elsewhere—took up the suggestion made by the former Minister that the Royal Commission might be expected to finish its labours within two years. I am asked whether I can reaffirm that kind of assurance. No Minister can dictate to a Royal Commission and say precisely by what time it should finish its labours and prepare its report. This was a firm declaration, hope and expectation on the part of the Minister of the day. The Commission has already got down to its task very energetically, and we have the utmost confidence in its chairman and members, who well recognise the urgency of the problems with which they will have to deal.
  I now turn to Clause 2, which is designed to remove the uncertainty hanging over the London education service—an uncertainty which has been hanging over it for the past six years. As the Secretary of State for Education and Science said when he made his announcement last November of the intention to introduce legislation to this effect,
  "This uncertainty … must be removed, and the Authority itself must be given confidence to embark on long-term plans without the threat of further upheaval."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 1347.]

  1481
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham suggests, without very great definition, that it was the activities of the I.L.E.A. which were responsible for the alleged gerrymandering by the Government with the elections next year. It ill becomes hon. Members opposite to talk about political gerrymandering when we recall the London Government Act, 1963. The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central is naïve in the extreme if he imagines that he can persuade us that that Measure was entirely devoid of any consideration of party political advantage.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman says emphatically that his party reserves the right to review and dissolve the I.L.E.A. if again it should have such an opportunity. I am sure that those concerned with the administration of the service, and all those who have protested so vigorously against the threat hanging over the I.L.E.A. for six years, will take careful note of the significance of his remarks.
  Mr. Rippon: It is important that the hon. Gentleman should not misquote what I said. I said that we reserved the right to review the operation of the Inner London Education Authority, and either to dissolve it or to amend its composition or structure in a way that seemed necessary to us. As my right hon. Friend explained, those decisions would be taken on educational grounds. We have in mind a wide review, and it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to give the impression that we have any intention to dissolve the I.L.E.A. We have given a pledge to review its activities.
  Mr. Redhead: I am sure that the purport of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said in further explanation of his point of view will be evaluated in the light of experience by those concerned with the administration of the I.L.E.A.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman complains that the action to be taken in the Bill is virtually to freeze local government. I am entitled to point out that, on the contrary, the relevant Clause thaws the freeze of uncertainty imposed by the review provisions of the Act.
  It is worth reminding the House of the origins of this period of uncertainty. They were to be found in the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government in London—the Herbert Report
  1482
  —when the Royal Commission recommended the division of functions respecting education between the Greater London Council and the 52 proposed new London boroughs. The recommendations were imprecise and left many important issues concerning the division of functions between the varying authorities to be settled by discussion and agreement, itself a process which would have been productive of a great deal of delay and uncertainty.
  It is pertinent to recall that the Royal Commission did not challenge the efficiency or adequacy of the then existing service in the L.C.C. area, which it recognised had developed as a unit with conspicuous success. Indeed, in its Report it paid tribute, in words which were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray). It said:
  "We also have it very much in mind that the educational system of the L.C.C. has won a high reputation for itself not only in Greater London and the country as a whole but also in countries abroad."
  I would have thought that that was an incontrovertible conclusion on the part of anyone who took a really objective view of the educational system in the L.C.C. area. I want to add my tribute to the magnificent job that this body has done throughout its existence, both in its present form and previously as the London County Council.
  It is not surprising that the recommendations of the Royal Commission were described as a "leap in the dark" for which no valid reason was given in the Report. They aroused widespread apprehension which was not confined to the L.C.C. or to political parties, for 7,500 teachers within the London area responded immediately by sending a petition to the L.C.C. urging that authority to resist the recommendations of the Commission, while the London Group of Parent-Teacher Associations indicated that not only teachers, but also parents were concerned by passing a resolution
  "That the London Group of Parent-Teacher Associations seeks the co-operation of the National Federation in its efforts to oppose the findings of the Royal Commission on Local Government in so far as it seeks to set up a radically different body as the education authority for London."
  There is no question that the point and purpose of the Royal Commission's recommendations were widely resisted by

  1483
  all those who had a deep and passionate interest in education in London.
  In November, 1961, the Government of the day published a White Paper rejecting the Royal Commission's recommendations in the form presented in the Report, proposing instead the establishment of borough education authorities, and a smaller number of larger boroughs for the whole of the Greater London area, except for an inner ring for which there should be a central area authority comprising a population of about 2 million.
  That proposal—it is interesting to note at this stage—involved the cutting off of one-third or more of the existing L.C.C. education service. Bearing in mind the words of the right hon. Member for Handsworth this afternoon and his disavowal of any definite intention to split up the service, I am entitled to remind him that this alternative action, proposed by the Government of the day, to the recommendations of the Royal Commission was a measure of fragmentation of that service.
  The alternative proposal did nothing to mollify those who opposed the original Royal Commission recommendations. The London Group of Parent-Teacher Associations mounted a campaign which it carried to Parliament, and it was not without significance that six teacher organisations in London banded together in united opposition to the Government's proposals as laid down in the White Paper. When six main teacher organisations band together in complete unity we can believe that they are concerned with a matter of some importance. Many other local manifestations were apparent at that time. Parents, teachers, managers, and governors throughout the London area protested vigorously about the then Government's proposals.
  The reasons for this opposition, and the apprehensions that existed and were so widely expressed, are not far to seek. They will remain—and this is why I mention them now—in the minds of those concerned so long as uncertainty about the future persists. The L.C.C. service was built up as a unit and was planned for the area as a whole, with a degree of flexibility to which several hon. Members have referred, allowing for mobility across metropolitan borough boundaries
  1484
  of teachers, specialists and pupils, to permit the exercise of a fair and reasonable degree of parental choice, whereas fragmentation would have brought its inevitable problems in special education, where the provision is obviously best made in the large area.
  It would have left us in the difficulties to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) referred, that fragmentation of this character would have resulted in some areas being possessed of more provision than they required, while others were being denuded of it. This is true of playing fields, school meals, and technical education, to mention only a few.
  Many of the centralised services of the I.L.E.A., built up as a result of the resources available to an authority of this size and character, could not possibly have been sustained by the multiplicity of boroughs which would have come into the picture even under the Government's recommendations and proposals of that time.
  The upshot of all this was, of course, that the Government bowed partly to the opposition. They decided that the L.C.C. education service should be taken over as it stood and administered by a committee of the G.L.C. This was embraced ultimately in the London Government Act of 1963, which provided for the establishment of the present day I.L.E.A. But the Government's surrender to the opposition was only partial and the respite for the authority only temporary, for it was conditioned by the review Clauses, which we now seek to repeal.
  When the announcement of this decision was made, the Education Committee of the G.L.C. recorded this view, which it is still appropriate to quote today:
  "The Government's decision to transfer the education service as it stands to a committee of the Greater London Council is an implicit acceptance of the arguments consistently advanced by the Council that the service is one and indivisible and to that extent is to be welcomed. It is, however, a matter for regret that it appears from the wording of the Minister's statement, that the education service has not been given a permanent release from the threat overhanging it. As a result there is likely to be a period of uncertainty and anxiety during which the education service will suffer, with the possibility that at the end of or during the five year period the service might still be broken up. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the final word has not been said. If uncertainties about the future are not to impede the

  1485
  progressive development of the London education service, its continued existence should be unequivocally confirmed."
  We on this side persistently opposed these review Clauses, as the record shows, at every stage—both in this House and in another place.
  The London Teachers' Association, having formed a liaison committee with their fellow associations, mounted a Parliamentary campaign of a vigorous character such as will be long remembered by those who were in the House at the time. Our opposition to the review Clauses, we made clear, was on the grounds that the review was unnecessary, that it perpetuated an undesirable degree of uncertainty, with the possibly deleterious effects which might follow.
  That all these deleterious effects may not have followed and that apprehensions might perhaps have been a little greater than has proved to be justified in recent years is perhaps not unconnected with the fact that this Party made its opposition clear in this matter and its intentions clear for the future and, furthermore, that it won the General Elections of 1964 and 1966 and was, therefore, able to give a measure of encouragement to those who might otherwise still have felt that the threat was very severe.
  The right hon. Member for Hands-worth gave his reasons for feeling that the review was a desirable thing to provide for and even canvassed alternative possibilities to either the review or a split-up. He is very beguiling in references of this character and I am prepared to accept his own good faith and an expression of his personal point of view. However, although I would be very happy in many respects to accept what the right hon. Gentleman's intentions are, the future does not necessarily lie with him exclusively. I would prefer
  1486
  to have something much firmer in the way of removing the threat than the assurances blandly, but sincerely, given by the right hon. Gentleman.
  For that reason, I look for the removal of these review Clauses. Nothing which has happened since has changed our view in the slightest, nor has it changed that of informed opinion. Following my right hon. Friend's announcement of 17th November, 1965, of the intention to introduce legislation of this kind, the London Teachers' Association passed the resolution quoted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend and today my right hon. Friend received a letter from the same organisation, which says:
  "You will remember that my colleagues and I have discussed with you from time to time the possibility of deleting the Review Clauses from the London Government Act. I write now to inform you that the London Teachers' Association, representing the majority of teachers in the area of the Inner London Education authority, welcomes the London Government (Review Clauses) Bill and regards it as a just outcome of the struggle against the effort to break up the excellent educational service established and maintained by the London County Council for so many years.
  We are very glad that you have at last been able to find Parliamentary time to take this amending Bill, and we hope that it is passed with the minimum of trouble".
  It is signed by the General Secretary of the Association.
  I think that this makes it clear where those who are so vitally concerned with London's education stand on this matter. I invite the House to endorse that view by according the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  ARBITRATION (INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT DISPUTES) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.57 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mrs. Eirene White): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of the Bill, which has come to this House from another place, is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Convention for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, a Convention which was negotiated and agreed under the auspices of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The background to the Convention is described in the report of the Executive Directors of the Bank, issued in Washington on 18th March, 1965, and published in this country as Command 2745 of August, 1965.
  The Governors of the International Bank turned their attention to the desirability of sponsoring institutional facilities for the settlement of investment disputes between States and foreign investors in 1962, and, at their request, the Executive Directors of the Bank conducted a very full programme of consultation leading to the drawing up of the Convention, which is now included as the Schedule to the Bill.
  Consultative meetings were held on a regional basis in Addis Ababa, Santiago in Chile, Geneva and Bangkok. Legal experts from no fewer than 86 countries took part, so no one can complain that the ground was not thoroughly prepared—
  Lord Balniel Lord Balniel (Hertford) indicated assent.
  Mrs. White: —which I am sure is a very comforting thought for the noble Lord and myself, neither of whom, I think, is very learned in the law.
  The authorities of the Bank have made it clear that they consider that the proposed arrangements under their aegis will be a major step towards promoting an atmosphere of mutual confidence between States and foreign investors, thus stimulating a larger flow of private international capital into those countries which wish
  1488
  to approve it. The United Kingdom played a prominent part in the negotiation of the Convention and was the second country to sign it. In all, about 50 countries have now signed, of which 22 have completed ratification. Provision was made that, after the 20th ratification, the Convention should come into force, so that has now been achieved.
  The Convention provides for the establishment, under the auspices of the International Bank, of a Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, to which disputes between States and nationals of other States arising out of investment may be submitted. For a dispute to be within the jurisdiction of the centre, it must satisfy two criteria. It must be a legal dispute raising directly out of an investment and it must be between a State and a national of another State.
  The Centre will not itself engage in conciliation or arbitration activities. This will be the task of the conciliation negotiators and arbitral tribunals constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. The organs of the Centre will be the Administrative Council, which will be composed of representatives of the contracting States and the Secretariat.
  Recourse to the settlement procedures laid down in the Convention is voluntary in that it is subject to the consent of both parties, but Her Majesty's Government believe that the existence of this new Convention is a significant new step forward and that it offers an important additional safeguard for British investors overseas.
  The settlement provisions of the Convention applying to disputes between States and foreign private investors—including, of course, companies—differ from the provisions of the International Court of Justice, before which only States may appear. An important international need is thus fulfilled by the Convention.
  As a country with massive overseas investments, totalling not far short of £10,000 million, the United Kingdom has a particular interest in participating in drawing up the rules of procedure for conciliation and arbitration proceedings under the Convention. In order to participate in the drawing up of these rules, we must ratify the Convention as soon as possible and thus obtain membership

  1489
  of the Administrative Council, which will perform this task.
  There are three main aspects of the Convention which require legislation in the United Kingdom. First, we must provide for the enforcement in this country of arbitral awards made under the Convention. The Arbitration Act, 1950, cannot appropriately be applied to proceedings under the Convention. The procedure of the registration of awards has, therefore, been adopted. They will be registered in the High Court in England and Wales, in the High Court in Northern Ireland and in the Court of Session in Scotland. They will then have the same force and effect for the performance of execution as the judgments of these courts. The procedure is, in some respects analogous to that provided by the Foreign Judgments Reciprocal Enforcement Act, 1933.
  This is the main requirement for legislation, but we must, of course, give legal effect in this country to the provisions of Articles 18 to 24 of the Convention—set out in the Schedule to the Bill—concerning the status, immunities and privileges of the Centre, of members of its Administrative Council and Secretariat and of persons taking part in conciliation or arbitration proceedings under the Convention. I should, perhaps, point out, since the House is always very much concerned with the matter of immunities and privileges, that no person is granted immunity from legal process extending beyond the exercise of his functions under the Convention, and no person is given any Customs privileges.
  As I made clear, the Centre will be in Washington. The Administrative Council and Secretariat will also be established there. Proceedings Under the Convention will normally take place at the Centre and although there is provision for them to be held elsewhere, if necessary, there is no reason to expect that proceedings in this country will take place in other than the most exceptional cases. There is, therefore, no question of adding to the number of diplomatic privileged persons permanently resident in this country.
  We must also make provision to enable the Treasury to meet any financial obligations in the United Kingdom arising out of Article 17 of the Convention. I
  1490
  am happy to inform the House that it is our belief that the costs of the Centre will be relatively small. Fees will be charged for the use of its facilities and the International Bank has agreed, under the Convention, to provide premises and various services. The contingency liability of the United Kingdom is, therefore, only to contribute to any deficit which might remain after the charges and other receipts have been taken into account.
  Clauses 1 and 2 deal with the enforcement of awards given under the Convention by the procedure of the registration of awards. An arbitral award may be registered in the High Court in so far as the pecuniary obligations under the award have not already been satisfied; and they are, naturally, subject to compliance with the rules of court. There is a provision for making rules for a stay of execution of an award in certain circumstances, in accordance with the Convention.
  Clause 3 will enable the Lord Chancellor to make the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1950, and the Foreign Tribunals Evidence Act, 1856, apply for the securing of evidence for the purposes of conciliation or arbitration proceedings under the Convention. There is a special provision concerning Scotland, for which, under Clause 7, an alternative form of Clause 3 is provided.
  Clause 4 gives legal effect, so far as this is necessary, to the provisions of the Convention concerning status, immunities and privileges. With one exception, the provisions of this Clause do not extend the immunities and privileges which may be accorded by Order in Council under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, in respect of an international organisation to which that Act applies. That Act provides for the grant of immunities and privileges for agents, counsel and advocates of suitors to the International Court. It does not, however, apply to persons—including parties, agents, counsel, witnesses or experts—in proceedings under the Convention and who are required to be accorded limited immunities and privileges under Article 22 of the Convention. It is therefore necessary under this Act to extend to those persons the limited privileges which are required.

  1491
  I have already dealt with the financial position, which is referred to in Clause 5. Clause 6 is the normal extension of the Act to dependent territories, if required, and then, as I have said, Clause 7 makes reference to the application of the Act to Scotland and provides for the necessary substitutions to meet the legal traditions North of the Border. Similarly, Clause 8 extends its application to Northern Ireland and makes the necessary provisions for that.
  The Schedule, which, in effect, contains the main substance of the matter, is the Convention itself. We are asking the House to accept the Convention, with the necessary provisions, in the main portion of the Bill, putting it into effect in this country.
  This is a short and somewhat technical Measure, but we believe that it is a very useful piece of international machinery. It should do something to assist the flow of investment between the developed and developing countries. It is interesting to note that of the signatories who have already acceded to the Convention, a very large number are Commonwealth countries in Africa and Asia. I am glad to say that we have an opportunity tonight to make it clear that we in the United Kingdom support the Convention and are anxious to put it into effect at the earliest possible moment.
  8.10 p.m.
  Lord Balniel: The hon. Lady, in her concluding remarks, said that the Bill is a rather technical one. The House is indebted to her for the careful explanation of the Bill, and also, although we appreciate that it is not open to amendment in the House, for her explanation of the main articles of the Convention appended to the Bill.
  I think we all accept that it is desirable, both in the interests of investing countries such as ours and of recipient countries, often under-developed countries, that gradually there should be established an international system of protecting foreign investment. The sense of insecurity which exists in many parts of the world is one of the major impediments standing in the way of investing in under-developed countries. Any Bill which goes some way towards diminishing that sense of insecurity which investors must inevitably feel is worthy of support.
  1492
  As the hon. Lady explained, this Bill deals with one aspect of setting up an international system. It deals with the need to set up international machinery for conciliation and arbitration. We certainly welcome the Bill, but I think the hon. Lady would be the first to recognise with me that it is no more than a fairly limited step forward in a field where a great deal of work has still to be done. In her introduction of the Bill, she said that as long ago as 1962 the Executive Directors of the World Bank were asked to prepare the draft Convention which we are discussing.
  The period of time which has elapsed since then is an indication of how difficult it is to make progress in this field, but, although this is a fairly limited Bill, it is only right that we should look at it in the light of other advances which we realise are being planned. Attention is being given, not only to the setting up of an international system for conciliation and arbitration covered by this Bill, but of other aspects of an international system. The O.E.C.D. has before it a draft charter of an international-governmental guarantee scheme and has also prepared a draft convention on the protection of foreign property.
  The Convention appended to this Bill, which sets up an international centre for the settlement of investment disputes, is an essential part of this process of establishing a more widespread system of international machinery which will help to create conditions of confidence, but its jurisdiction is very limited in scope. Its jurisdiction is confined to disputes of a legal nature, I think rightly, excluding disputes of a political nature, but also excluding economic and commercial disputes. Its jurisdiction is also confined to disputes between contracting States and the nationals of other contracting States. I understand that it would not be open to an individual in a dispute over a legal matter concerning investments with a company in another State to refer the matter to the arbitration tribunal.
  The most important limitation which we must recognise is that disputes can be referred to the arbitration tribunal only if both parties to the dispute agree, if the investor who feels aggrieved or the contracting State which is the recipient of the investment both agree that the matter should be referred to the arbitration

  1493
  tribunal. It is not possible for an aggrieved individual to refer his dispute unless the assent of the contracting State has already been obtained.
  Although in many respects the powers given to the International Centre and the arbitration tribunal under the Convention are very limited, we welcome Article 25 in particular. That ensures that when the parties have referred their disputes to the arbitration tribunal it is not open to them unilaterally to withdraw from the discretion of the tribunal.
  We also welcome the Bill because we believe it is in our country's interests that legislation of this kind should be passed. Any move towards setting up an international system to protect investments must be valuable to a country such as ours which depends overwhelmingly, or in very large degree, for its economic health on our overseas investments. The hon. Lady mentioned that our private long-term investments overseas amount to close on £10,000 million. She will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that no other country in the world has as high an investment overseas per head of the population. As a major investing country overseas, we have a special interest in setting up an international system for conciliation and arbitration.
  It seems that the value of this legislation is not confined to investing countries such as ours. The greater beneficiaries will be the under-developed countries. Many of them are desperately in need of investment, but they are surrounded by conditions of insecurity which are enough to frighten off investors who, given conditions of greater security, would happily have invested in them.
  In general terms, the Bill is welcome to us. However, I wish to ask the hon. Lady one or two questions with a view to obtaining some information. She rightly pointed out that the Convention has now been signed by a considerable number of countries and a considerable number have ratified it. When reading the list of signatures, one notices that European countries, Asiatic countries and, as she said, many countries in Africa have appended their signatures. It is noticeable that no Latin-American signatures are appended to the Convention. One would have thought that the
  1494
  Latin-American countries would have benefited considerably from such machinery as is being established under the Convention. Would the hon. Lady explain why the Latin-American countries have not signed or ratified the Convention?
  My next question concerns the nature of the law on which arbitration tribunals will base their decisions. I speak as a layman, but it seems that the kind of issues which will be taken to the tribunal will be issues where the international law is uncertain or where national laws conflict—where the national law of the investor conflicts with the national law of the contracting State. If there is a dispute of this nature where the parties disagree as to which law should be applied, which law will be used by the arbitration tribunal in coming to its decision? If the hon. Lady could enlighten me on this, I shall much appreciate it.
  Lastly, I turn to that part of the Convention which defines the status, immunities and privileges of the International Centre. This is contained in Articles 18 to 24. I accept that this International Centre will be established in Washington.
  I am happy to accept her assurance that the number of persons in this country who under the Bill and Convention will be granted diplomatic immunity will be very limited. Presumably they will be confined solely to officials of the International Centre who visit this country on official business.
  None the less, the privileges and immunities granted to the centre and to its officials are extensive. Article 20 reads:
  "The Centre, its property and assets shall enjoy immunity from all legal process, except when the Centre waives this immunity."
  My query arises because the World Bank enjoys only limited legal immunity. From my reading of Articles 18 and 20, the Centre is given full legal immunity and personality. Under Article 18, the Centre can enter into contracts and initiate legal proceedings. Article 18 reads:
  "The Centre shall have full international legal personality. The legal capacity of the Centre shall include the capacity

  (a) to contract;

  (b) to acquire and dispose of movable and immovable property;

  (c) to institute legal proceedings."

  1495
  I am sure that there are good reasons why such extensive legal immunity should be given to the Centre, but as a layman I do not quite see why the Centre should have the power to enter into contracts with individuals and also institute legal proceedings, even against people in this country, whilst, on the other hand, an individual or State has not the right to institute legal proceedings against the Centre. I am sure that a lawyer would find a simple explanation, but it would be valuable if ordinary Members could be given some explanation of the apparently very extensive powers which the Centre is given.
  I do not wish to delay the House, because the Bill has our support. It is a rather technical Bill and, I should have, thought, more suited to discussion by lawyers or financiers than by ordinary Members. None the less, in international terms the Bill is a step in the right direction. It establishes machinery for the international settlement of legal disputes involving investments and, as such, it will help to create a climate in which investment overseas can flourish and trade between developed and underdeveloped countries expand.
  If the Convention achieves this, it will be a minor but worth-while advance towards bridging the gap between the richer countries and the poorer ones, a gap which we know all too well is steadily widening at present. The Convention has already been ratified by many other Parliaments and the International Centre is already being established in Washington. So we are happy to help the Bill forward on to the Statute Book as soon as possible.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. John Brewis: I, too, am glad that we are to ratify the Convention, in which I have taken a certain amount of interest at the Council of Europe. The Convention has an even longer history than that mentioned by the hon. Lady the Minister of State, in that attempts have been made in many international organisations to get such a Convention. O.E.C.D. was mentioned by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). The United Nations have tried. So has the Council of Europe.
  At first sight, it might seem rather strange that an organisation such as the
  1496
  World Bank should have succeeded where the efforts of other international organisations have foundered. It has been a long job. As the hon. Lady said, there has been consultation in such far away places as Bangkok, Santiago and Addis Ababa. Another interesting fact is that the legal representatives of no fewer than 61 countries have taken a part in the drafting of the Convention. So there is no fear of the Convention being imposed by the rich investing countries on the poorer countries.
  The Convention has one or two interesting points. My noble Friend said that it is possible for a system of law which is foreign to both the disputants to be the law which is applied in their dispute. Another curious fact is that I think that this is the first occasion on which a national of a particular State can summon a State itself before a tribunal. I think that this is a new departure in international law.
  As with all these Conventions where so many countries are involved, to get agreement there has had to be a considerable consensus and a glossing over of difficulties. It is a pity that there is no provision for compulsory arbitration. As a result, the Convention is undoubtedly weakened.
  I want to call attention to one or two other weaknesses. Article 25(4) states:
  "Any Contracting State may, at the time of ratification, acceptance or approval of this Convention or at any time thereafter, notify the Centre of the class or classes of disputes which it would or would not consider submitting to the jurisdiction of the Centre."
  Therefore, even after ratification, a State can still back out of the provisions of the Convention if it finds it inconvenient to apply them in a dispute with a private individual. This is a considerable weakness.
  Another weakness is contained in Article 26, which states:
  "A Contracting State may require the exhaustion of local administrative or judicial remedies as a condition of its consent to arbitration under this Convention."
  By this means a person with a legal grievance might be held up for years in the courts of the State where the investment took place—we have seen something similar to this in many Latin American countries—before he could go to arbitration; and he might then well

  1497
  experience difficulties and have res judicata raised against him when he did.
  Another weakness is that there is no definition in the Convention of what is an investment. I suppose we all know what "investment" is. A long-term loan would undoubtedly be investment. Is a short-term loan an investment; and, if so, how short must it be? It is a pity that in this respect also it was not possible to get any consensus on a possible definition of "investment".
  I entirely agree that ratification of the Convention will improve the investment climate. The private investor will be more inclined to invest in a country which has ratified the Convention, and it will, therefore, be a good thing. It is a pity, as my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) said, that the Latin-American countries have not seen fit to ratify, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the association of the Centre with Washington may to some slight extent be a reason why the Latin American countries do not want to ratify the Convention. I wonder whether Washington is necessarily the best place for the Centre or whether it should be divided between, say, three regional sub-centres, so that there would be no feeling that it was something run by the United States.
  As I said, I am glad that we are to ratify the Convention. We have quite a good record in ratifying conventions. I believe that we are one of the first of the so-called developed nations to do so, but there are still many conventions which we have not ratified. For people like my noble Friend and myself who take part in the work of organisations such as the Council of Europe and who spend a lot of time thinking about how we can improve international arrangements by harmonising laws, it is very annoying when a convention is drafted and we cannot then persuade our own country to ratify it. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady, while she is at the Foreign Office, will look at some of these conventions and protocols which have been agreed but not ratified.
  Mrs. White: With permission, I should like to reply to the debate.
  We are extremely grateful to the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and his hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) for the welcome
  1498
  which they have given to the Bill. We are all at one in wishing to further its purposes. Both hon. Members pointed out that this is not the only proposition which has been made at one time or another for international measures to safeguard investment or property in other countries. One thinks in this connection of the O.E.C.D. draft, which owed a good deal, I think, to a former Member of the House, Lord Shawcross. The very limitations of the Convention to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention are, I think, the reasons why it is possible to go ahead with a less ambitious Convention than the more ambitious, more complex and more wide-reaching ones which are covered in the O.E.C.D. draft. We should be thankful that, at least, we have an opportunity to put something into effect here, although it has, in certain respects, limited application.
  The hon. Member for Galloway was quite right to point out that there are certain loopholes under, for example, Articles 25 and 26, but had those loopholes not been provided one might not have had the measure of international agreement which has been obtained. One has to take one's choice. The best can sometimes be the enemy of the good, and I suggest that we should be reasonably content with what has emerged from the wide consultations which preceded this Convention.
  It is not quite true that the Convention makes legal history in providing, for the first time, that an individual may bring a State to judgment. Under the European Convention on Human Rights, for instance, it is open to an individual to bring a State to judgment. This, therefore, is an extension of a principle which has already been accepted in international jurisprudence.
  The noble Lord asked about the nature of the law to be applied and the hon. Member for Galloway referred to the fact that law which was not the law of either country might be invoked in certain circumstances. I am advised that under Article 42 of the Convention a tribunal is required to apply the law agreed by the parties. Failing such agreement, the tribunal must apply the law of the State party to the dispute—unless that law itself calls for the application of some other law—as well as such rules of international law as may be applicable.

  1499
  I hope that that makes the matter perfectly clear.
  The noble Lord raised an interesting question about the extent of the privileges and suggested that the privileges of the proposed Centre would in some respect be wider than those enjoyed by the World Bank. I am advised that the Centre will have the same legal capacities and personality as the International Bank and the other organisations connected with it such as the International Monetary Fund, but those organisations associated with the Bank which carry out financial operations such as borrowing and investment of funds or the issuing or guaranteeing of securities—in other words, which are in effect competing with or working alongside private financial institutions—have to be in a position where actions could be brought against them, otherwise they would have an unfair advantage as compared with the private institutions. This does not apply to the Centre, which does not carry out operations of that kind. It is for that reason that the Centre has a wider immunity than the commercial institutions associated with the World Bank.
  Both hon. Members opposite have raised the question of the absence of signatories from Latin-America, but the lists are still open. There is nothing to prevent any Latin-American country from signing or ratifying the Convention, and we hope very much that they will do so. It would perhaps be undesirable of us to comment on any reasons which might be affecting the Latin-American Governments in this matter. It is for them to take their own decision as to whether or not they accede to the Convention.
  All I can say is that the Government hope very much that they will accede. In many ways, Latin-America is attractive
  1500
  to overseas investment, and, indeed, one would suppose that it is in a position to desire such investment. I hope that those countries which have so far not felt it right to accede will reconsider their position and take part in this system of international jurisprudence.
  The system has its limitations, and we recognise them, but I think we all agree that it is a step forward, one stage more at least in an international system of law extended to commerce and investment. I hope very much, therefore, that, with the United Kingdom as one of the major countries concerned and playing its full part, the Convention will soon come into full operation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  ARBITRATION (INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT DISPUTES) [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).
  [Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to implement an international Convention on the settlement of investment disputes between States and nationals of other States, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required to meet obligations of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom arising under that Convention.—[The Attorney-General.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  LAND REGISTRATION BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  LAND REGISTRATION BILL [Lords]

    Clause 1.—(AMENDMENTS OF LAND REGISTRATION ACT 1925.)
    8.40 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, after '(2)', to insert:
    'For a period of five years from the commencement of this Act'.
    Subsection (2), to which this is an Amendment, seeks to abolish the present freedom to register land which is outside a compulsory registration area and to limit such registration to cases in which the Chief Land Registrar specifies that there is some particular reason for the registration to be accepted. That suspension of voluntary registration except by permission of the Registrar is to be permanent. There is no limitation on the period during which the Clause is to apply and it will therefore apply until Parliament sees fit to repeal the provision. The Amendment seeks to make it temporary and to return after a period of five years to the present very valuable service which Her Majesty's Land Registry performs in accepting the voluntary registration of land.
    Perhaps I should explain, for the purposes of the record if not to remind hon. Members, that the compulsory areas do not cover anything like the whole country. Almost all Greater London is registered land, as are the counties of Berkshire, Kent and Surrey, most of Sussex, with the coastal county boroughs of that county, in the Midlands, a large part of Warwickshire with Coventry and Oxford and Reading, 10 county boroughs and 11 county districts in Lancashire and, of course, the City of Manchester, three county boroughs in Cheshire, Huddersfield and, the latest addition, Durham. That may sound a fairly formidable list of compulsory registration areas, but it still leaves a great deal of the country not subject to compulsory registration.
    Perhaps I should explain what I mean by compulsory registration. In the areas which I have mentioned as being areas of compulsory registration, every con-
    1502
    veyance of the sale of freehold property, every lease for 40 years or more and every assignment of a lease which has 40 years or more to run, must be registered By that gradual process of registering the first of those transactions to occur after the date upon which an area is declared to be a compulsory registration area, all of the land in the area eventually receives a registered title and a land certificate behind which no purchaser or lessee need investigate, one document instead of at least 30 years of documents, as have to be investigated when the land is unregistered land.
    Under the existing law, anyone anywhere in the country other than in a compulsory registration area can obtain the same benefits as those who are in a compulsory registration area by voluntarily submitting his documents of title to the Land Registry and asking that they be accepted as a registered title and that his land be registered and that a land certificate be issued to him in place of his other documents of title.
    8.45 p.m.
    There will be substantial advantages in such registration. Not the least is a reduction in the costs of future transactions with that property—not, I admit, a very substantial reduction, but at least some saving for those dealing with the property. There should be and can be a saving in time in transactions with registered property, and those of us who practise know that there are a lot of improvements which could be made, but even as registration stands it is a very great benefit to the public.
    One sees no other way of reducing the cost and time of conveyancing than to extend and improve registration of land. The popularity for registration was clearly shown by figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) on the Second Reading. He said, quoting figures given in a Written Answer to a Question put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General:
    "… in 1955 in such areas—"
    that is, in areas of voluntary registration—
    "there were 3,202 applications for voluntary registration of title. In 1960 there were 9,050 and in 1965, the last year for which records are available, there were 16,879."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Second Reading Committee, 27th July, 1966; c. 13.]

    1503
    Those figures show a popularity and phenomenal increase in the number of applications for voluntary registration and acceptances of those applications. By Clause 1(2) of the Bill those will be very substantially reduced. Even if the Chief Land Registrar accepts a number of applications in exceptional circumstances, there will still be a very considerable curtailment of this benefit which the public is receiving.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General explained, in Committee, in what cases and under what circumstances the Chief Land Registrar intended to allow voluntary registration under the power given to him by Clause 1(2) of the Bill. He said:
    "The Chief Land Registrar intends to allow voluntary registration of estates comprising at least 20 houses, flats, plots or maisonettes."
    That is a substantial concession and is the sort of case in which voluntary registration is of great benefit.
    The Solicitor-General hedged this round with a lot of special considerations which must apply to such applications. Four special considerations were that before the Chief Land Registrar would accept any such application there must be planning permission, the applicant must intend to sell the freehold at once to individual purchasers, he must provide a layout plan, and he must give an undertaking that all of his transfers or leases of the properties would be in an approved standard form.
    That was one type of case in which the Chief Land Registrar would accept an application. The second type of case—and I quote now from column 18 of the Committee's sitting of 16th November—was that the Chief Land Registrar
    "… proposes to accept applicants in respect of property the title deeds of which were destroyed by enemy action during the Second World War. Should any other national disaster occur he will accept applications in precisely the same way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 16th November, 1966; c. 17–18.]
    So we know of only two occasions on which the Chief Land Registrar is likely to exercise his discretion under subsection (2) of Clause 1—the case of the 20 plots or more, and the case of the lost title deeds by reason of some national disaster.
    1504
    These do not take into account the sort of case in which voluntary registration has been so beneficial to the person who is dealing with land. I think particularly of what we know as the sick titles, where one finds a defect in the title. It may be a defect which has little practical importance but which may cause grave difficulty in dealing with the land in future. A submission of a sick title to the Land Registrar, the investigation of that title by the officials of the Land Registry, and issue of the land certificate, if they are satisfied that the defect is immaterial or it is proved not to be of great importance, is of great benefit in future.
    The cases mentioned by the Solicitor-General do not cover local authority development. Indeed, many local authorities have urged upon hon. Members on this side of the House—and, I am sure, upon the Government—the need to obtain some assurance that the Chief Land Registrar will accept voluntary applications for registration from local authorities who are in the course of collecting a number of titles together in order to make an area of development.
    The cases given by the Solicitor-General do not cover the very common type of application of the addition of an unregistered title to registered land where it would make a single property—the registered dwelling-house, for example, where the owner buys a bit more added on to his garden, or perhaps a little bit to build a garage, or something of that sort, and he often finds he has bought unregistered land where the dwelling-house is registered land. It is convenient that all should be in the one title. This would be accepted in future by the Registrar; so Clause 1, subsection (2), is depriving the public of a service.
    The reason given is that it is desired to proceed as rapidly as possible with compulsory registration of all built-up areas, and it is hoped that compulsory registration of built-up areas in the country will be achieved by 1973. It is said that this cannot be done if the staff of the Land Registrar is diverted to consider voluntary applications in areas which are not compulsory areas.
    In 1964, the then Conservative Government announced this programme of extending compulsory registration to all built-up areas by 1973, and, at that time,

    1505
    the then Government saw no reason to restrict any of the existing services by the Land Registrar—certainly not to restrict the applications for voluntary registration. I think that I am right in saying that since that announcement in 1964, the programme has been going faster than scheduled. There is no lag in the sort of schedule laid out for compulsory registration of all built-up areas by 1973. Therefore, at this moment there can be no reason, from the past history of this programme, to restrict the services offered by the Land Registrar.
    The only reason I can see is that the present Government's rather grandiose schemes, such as the Land Commission, and the very substantial increase in the number of professional men in the ordinary Government Department, will prevent recruitment to the Land Registry to enable the extension of its work. This absorption of the professional man—particularly the man concerned with property, whether the lawyer, the valuer, or the surveyor—in new Government appointments is a very serious development. There is a sort of brain drain from private practice and the established services of proved worth, such as the Land Registry, into new and, in many cases, not such beneficial service.
    If the service of voluntary registration is to be suspended, I most sincerely and earnestly urge that it should be a temporary suspension; that the position should be investigated after a period of years—and a generous period is five years—to see whether the service can be fully restored. The provision of subsection (2) of Clause 1 should be limited to five years.
    Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: First, I express my appreciation—and, I am sure, that of all hon. Members—of the very clear and concise description of the system of land registration which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has given us. We all and particularly all those concerned with this matter professionally, welcome the intention to extend the compulsory registration system throughout the country as rapidly as possible.
    I appreciate the views of the hon. Member for Crosby on the inhibition of individual applications for registration, but we must weigh in the balance what
    1506
    is likely to be to the best advantage, and it is generally recognised that the Land Registry will have a blitz in this respect so as to effect compulsory registration as quickly as possible. That being so, I think that the work of the Land Registry would be likely to be hampered if individual applications had to be dealt with piecemeal.
    I wonder to what extent undue hardship will be caused by the prohibition of individual applications? Are there any statistics available of the number of individual applications for registration that are outside the classes which the Chief Land Registrar is likely to approve in any event? I hope, in particular, that the Chief Land Registrar will not be too restrictive in his decision as to the classes of cases that will be dealt with; and that there will be close consultation with the professions, through the Law Society or other appropriate organisation, on the limitations on making applications.
    The main task must be more predominantly in the interests of the public, and if, as the hon. Member said, this work is ahead of, or is likely to be ahead of schedule there might even be a danger in putting on a time limit. I am sure that the Chief Land Registrar and the Land Registry will not desire to inhibit individual applications when the need for doing so no longer exists. I am confident that if the work were progressing in such a way that it could be said that the end was in sight, the Chief Land Registrar would indicate to the Government that it was possible once again to relax the restriction. It is far better that we should give the green light to go ahead with compulsory registration rather than dealing with individual applications, particularly when, I think it unlikely that considerable hardship might be inflicted in any large number of cases.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Oscar Murton: I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) has just said. It was very constructive. I should, however, draw attention to the fact that it is somewhat frustrating to the profession, of which, I am sorry to say, I am not a member, that its members should find themselves inhibited and unable to deal with voluntary registration where it has previously been undertaken.

    1507
    I said in Committee that this problem did not arise in the area which I had the honour to represent because most of the land had devolved from one family, who were great landowners, and they had the prescience to register voluntarily at the time when the land was sold. There are, however, other areas where that is not the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) mentioned this to me before the debate began and I have had experience of it myself.
    Solicitors have come to me in my constituency and said, "This is most extraordinary. The Conservative Government, in 1964, announced a programme. Now, the present Government are going back on it. They have produced all manner of excuses and reasons concerned with shortage of staff and difficulty with Ordnance Survey about why the programme cannot be put into effect."
    The proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby in his Amendment would go some way towards trying to force open the door a little so that if the Government find that the restrictions which they are rather pessimistically imposing are onerous, they might relent; whereas the matter in which the Bill is drafted there is apparently no means of relenting.
    I must also draw attention to the great problem which will be faced by local authorities, particularly in urban areas, where they have to acquire land for housing programmes and where they may in the course of events offer the land again for resale. They will have the frightful burden of deducting separate titles in many cases where the history of the land may well go back 30 years or more.
    On 24th May, in another place, the Lord Chancellor set out the problem concerning voluntary registration from the viewpoint of dealing with local authorities who might ask for it. In listing the categories of voluntary registration, he said that 39 per cent. were single-owner-owner-occupied houses, for which he could not give any undertaking that the Chief Land Registrar would be able to accept voluntary registration. He went on to say, however, that 17½ per cent. was building land for development and a further 16 per cent. was land acquired for investment and redevelopment. Going
    1508
    down the scale, he said that 10 per cent. was single plots and 6 per cent. was land owned for commercial or industrial purposes.
    The two principal figures which I have mentioned—17½ per cent. in respect of building land for development and 16 per cent. for land acquired for investment and redevelopment—add up to a little over 33⅓ per cent. Had the Government been a little more flexible, there might have been cause for relaxation in this case. I hope that at a later stage it will be possible to draw attention again to some of the shortcomings which, we feel, have caused this rather distressing circumstance to arise.
    Meanwhile, I commend the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and I hope that the House will support what I consider to be an eminently suitable arrangement.
    Mr. Gordon Oakes: Although the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and I found much in common in the Second Reading Committee on the Bill, it was material in common relating to the exceptions that the Chief Land Registrar should grant irrespective of subsection (2) of Clause 1.
    I am surprised that the hon. Member and his hon. Friends have put down this limitation of time to five years. The hon. Member well knows that the purpose of Clause 1(2) is not wilfully to deprive people in compulsory areas of the right to register their titles. The reason was given by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General in Committee. It was because we wished to keep to the timetable of extending compulsory registration to all urban areas by 1973, and to rural areas as well by 1980. To continue voluntary registration in areas outside compulsory areas may well impede that progress considerably.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, and this is its main Clause. I would remind them that, on their estimate of time taken over from their Government by our own, 1973 is the target year for urban areas. If the Amendment were accepted, the Bill would come to an end in 1971. In the middle of the very first phase of introducing compulsory registration, either another Bill would have to be passed by

    1509
    the House, or the Chief Land Registrar once again would be faced with the problem of having his time impeded by applications coming from voluntary areas. That would only be in the first phase. After 1973, there is the second phase to 1980 which takes in the rural and less densely populated areas.
    To bring in this time limit goes to the very root of the purpose of Clause 1(2); indeed, it goes to the root of the Act, which hon. Gentlemen opposite voted for on Second Reading. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will resist the Amendment, which would cause nothing but difficulty for the Chief Land Registrar and his staff in 1971.
    The hon. Member for Crosby has raised before the difficulty which is caused, he says, by the Land Commission Bill. I am certain that he and his hon. Friends realise that one of the biggest problems is that, before we introduce compulsory registration of title to an area, there must be an up-to-date Ordnance Survey of the area. It is upon the Ordnance Survey that much of the work of the Land Registry depends. That is one of the principal difficulties of bringing in voluntary titles in areas where an up-to-date Ordnance Survey very often has not taken place, and that is what is taking up the time of the Land Registry.
    I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will resist this somewhat surprising Amendment from the hon. Member for Crosby.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) were pushing at an open door when they addressed the House on the advantages of voluntary registration to the individuals concerned. No one doubts it, and no one doubts that, in itself, voluntary registration is a beneficial process for all concerned.
    As has been explained fully in the debate on Second Reading and in Committee two days ago, we are dealing here with priorities. As my hon. Friends the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) and Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) have both made very clear, and as has been stated again and again, the aim of this Bill is to make universal the system of compulsory registration, and that is an aim which commands the assent
    1510
    of hon. Members of all political parties in the House.
    What we aim to do is to extend compulsory registration of title to land to all built up areas in England and Wales by mid-1973, and to the remaining urban and rural areas by 1980. What is entirely clear to us, and what we must ask the House to accept, is that if that is to be accomplished, without putting a quite insupportable burden on the Land Registry and on the Ordnance Survey staff, it cannot be done unless there is some limitation on voluntary registrations. We have not cut out voluntary registrations. I described in some detail—and the hon. Member for Crosby has repeated what I said—the circumstances in which the Chief Land Registrar will be ready to accept applications for voluntary registration.
    If the Amendment were accepted, it would mean that from 1971 or 1972 until 1980 the Land Registry and the Ordnance Survey would get no relief from voluntary applications. We would in effect be defeating the main purpose of the Bill, and therefore, in spite of the persuasive way in which the case has been presented by both hon. Gentlemen opposite, I must ask the House to resist the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in line 12, to leave out 'and 8' and to insert '8 and 81'.
    We have discussed the effect of subsection (2) of Clause 1, that it is to restrict the applications in connection with voluntary registrations, that is to say, application for registration in areas which are not compulsory registration areas. The short point of the Amendment is that it offers to the Solicitor-General another application which usually seems to me to be quite purposeless which might be restricted if he is obliged to restrict application for registration.
    Section 81 of the Land Registration Act, 1925, makes provision for an application for removal of land from the register. This of course can only happen in an area which is not an area of compulsory registration. One cannot remove land from the register in such a case but where there is no compulsion on registration, when land has been registered it can, under Section 81 of the 1925 Act, be removed.

    1511
    I cannot understand why anyone should want to remove a property from the register. Why should he take up the time of the registry in that way, when the staff can be much better employed on accepting applications for registration of property? I think that we can do without this Clause if we are really trying to economise on the time of the staff.
    The Solicitor-General: I have rather more sympathy with this Amendment than I had with the last one, but I do not really think that it is necessary to the Bill. Section 81 of the 1925 Act is a rather peculiar provision, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, and I share his bewilderment that anyone should want, so to speak, to remove property from registration once it has been established. Indeed, applications under Section 81 are now becoming exceedingly rare, but this Section was introduced in 1925 when people were still suspicious of registration, and it was at that time that we had had to hedge compulsory registration about with various safeguards.
    We had to get the consent of the county council. If it were called for, there had to be a public inquiry. Experience has shown those safeguards to be unnecessary, and by general consent we are getting rid of them in the Bill. Section 81 applications are almost unknown and they will come to an end completely when we have universal compulsory registration, but so long as we keep areas of voluntary registration we do not see any particular reason to remove this option if any one wants to exercise it.
    Therefore, although I do not feel particularly strongly about the Amendment, on balance my advice to the House would be to reject it.
    Amendment negatived.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 14, to leave out from 'shall' to end of line 19 and to insert:
    'be accompanied by—

    (a) a draft land certificate or charge certificate (as the case may be) prepared by the solicitor, representing the applicant, in duplicate in the prescribed form and setting out the estate or interest of the applicant in the property which is the subject of the application and all matters relevant thereto which would be set out in a certificate issued under section 63 of the said Act; and

    1512

    (b) a statutory declaration by the said solicitor in the prescribed form certifying that the said draft truly sets out the estate or interest of the applicant in the said property and all matters relevant as aforesaid;

    and the registrar shall insert one of the duplicates of the said draft in an appropriate register without the obligation of examining it or investigating the title to the said property and one of the duplicates of the said draft marked with the date of receipt thereof and of the said statutory declaration in the registry and on and from date the land shall be registered land as defined in the said Act provided that at any time the registrar may issue a certificate under section 63 aforesaid in respect of the said land '.
    We have already fully discussed the purposes of subsection (2), namely, the restriction of voluntary applications for registration. The Amendment proposes not exactly an alternative but a supplement. If it were accepted the subsection would read: "Applications under sections 4 and 8 of the said Act (first registration of title) as respects land outside an area of compulsory registration shall be accompanied by"—and then the Amendment sets out two documents which should accompany it, namely, a draft land certificate and a statutory declaration, and goes on to say what would be the effect of the lodgment of those documents with the Registry, namely, that they will have the same effect as a land certificate. They would cause the land to become registered land for a period until the land certificate was issued by the Land Registry under Section 63 of the Act.
    The reason we have been given for the restriction of voluntary applications for registration is that there is insufficient staff to carry out both parts, namely, the extension of compulsory registration areas and the maintenance of the present system of voluntary registration. Therefore, the present system of voluntary registration has to some extent to be sacrificed. The Amendment proposes that a certificate given by a solicitor concerned in the transaction which it is sought to register shall temporarily take the place of a land certificate.
    What happens now to an application for first registration is that the solicitor for the grantee—whether the purchaser, the lessee or the mortgagee—submits documents of title to the property and is obliged, in doing so, to disclose to the Land Registry a full and proper title,

    1513
    so that he has a proper land certificate, and the Registry is satisfied that his client has such a title as that which he applies to be registered. At the Land Registry, those documents are examined by officials and, eventually, the certificate is issued, setting out the property, the name of the proprietor, the nature of his interest in the land and any charges, restrictive covenants, easements or any other encumbrances on the property.
    That document becomes the one document of title, with all the advantages which flow from that. In the Amendment, the proposal is a "do-it-yourself" registration—[Laughter.]—not a "do-it-yourself" conveyancing, but the solicitor would prepare the certificate in the form in which the Land Registry would normally issue a certificate and would make a statutory declaration that his draft certificate correctly shows the title to the property which he is asking should be accepted as registered.
    Having made a statutory declaration of this sort, he would, of course, be criminally liable for any untruth in it. It is not unusual, in the administration of the law, for reliance to be placed upon the integrity of the solicitor. After all, his full title is that he is "a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Justice" and he owes a duty to the State in the administration of law and certainly in any transactions, whether litigation or other transactions, as well as to his client.
    If he acts wrongly, his clients are insured, to a great extent, by the indemnity fund maintained by the Law Society. At present, of course, when he submits his client's document of title and applies for a land certificate and for the land to be treated as registered, his application is checked with great care by the officials of the Land Registry, but one would expect that, if there were any great faults in applications, they would occasionally be reflected in the land certificate which is issued.
    If the solicitor failed to disclose certain defects in the title, the land certificate might still be issued without showing those defects and showing a clean title. One would expect that, if that had been happening over the years, there would have been a fairly substantial claim on the indemnity fund held by the Land
    1514
    Registry. The indemnity fund, I think, was instituted as long ago as 1897 under the Land Transfer Act, and pays compensation to any person whose title has to be rectified because of some error in the issue of the land certificate which causes damage to the proprietor of the land.
    Claims against the Land Registry indemnity fund since 1897 total the small sum of £30,000. Under the present system, therefore, very little goes wrong. However, it could and would go wrong if the solicitor submitting the documents of title were to do so carelessly or if he were deliberately to fail to disclose matters; and it is on the integrity of the solicitor in submitting his documents of title that the Land Registry has been made to work so satisfactorily over the years.
    The solicitors' profession has in the last two or three years been considering most seriously a form of log book conveyancing which would substitute a log book, rather like the log book for one's car, for the 30 years' documents of title which must now be produced. The Amendment would, as it were, marry those ideas with the Land Registry.
    The land certificate is itself a form of log book to the property, but it has the endorsement by the Land Registry as having correct entries in it. If, to extend the benefits of registration to all built-up areas and if, by extending registration to those areas, it is necessary to contract the service of voluntary registration, I submit that something should be put in its place, and I therefore suggest this certification by the solicitor concerned in the transaction, but only so long as it is necessary ot restrict voluntary registration. As hon. Members will note, the Amendment provides that at any time the registrar can issue a proper land or charge certificate under Section 63, and not rely any further on the certificate from the solicitor.
    I believe that, on the one hand, there would be a minimal risk to the public from such a form of temporary registration—relying on the certificate of the solicitor—while, on the other, we would have the great advantage of retaining the benefits of voluntary registration for a period of time, until the Land Registry has the staff to deal with them fully.
    Mr. Oakes: To introduce a horticultural matter into what is a very dry legal debate, I suggest that we are in the process of pruning the Land Registry so that it may rapidly blossom forth in future. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), in the middle of this pruning operation, is attempting a grafting operation—grafting on to the Land Registry tree a plant of a very dissimilar nature.
    As the hon. Member for Crosby knows, the log book scheme is not entirely accepted by the profession or by the Law Society, although he and I may find considerable merit in a scheme for cheapening the process of conveyancing. However, to take that scheme and try to impose it in this type of Measure—remembering that it would deal only with those areas of voluntary registration—would give a bad start in life to what I believe is fundamentally a good scheme of conveyancing unregistered, as distinct from registered, land.
    This Amendment also conflicts with the objects of the Bill. The hon. Member for Crosby referred to another register. That other register would have to be set up at the Land Registry to deal with part of the documents when a solicitor sent a draft certificate with the statutory declarations. This would mean even more work for the Land Registry instead of less.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: I obviously have not explained sufficiently. There is no obligation to examine or investigate the title. What is meant by another register is merely slipping the certificate in some sort of folder and sending an acknowledgment for it.
    Mr. Oakes: I accept that, but later the Amendment says:
    "from date"
    I presume that means, "from that date"—
    "the land shall be registered land as defined in the said Act."
    We come up against a series of difficulties. If it is registered land, a State guarantee will have to be given to that title under the terms of the 1925 Land Registration Act.
    1516
    Even if this Amendment were accepted, under the principal Act the Land Registry will still have to examine the title. We would have achieved nothing at all but have merely burdened the Registrar with a new form of conveyancing to which he is not used to and which the profession is not used to in a Bill designed to speed things up at the Registry. I hope, indeed I am sure, that my hon. and learned Friend will reject this Amendment.
    Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: I was intrigued and very interested by what I am sure was intended to be a helpful suggestion made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). Those of us in the profession immediately recognised the similarity between this Amendment and what the hon. Member described as the log book scheme. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) said about the scheme being viewed with mixed feelings. This proposal would make confusion worse confounded.
    One of the values of the land registration scheme is that there is a State guarantee of title. I accept that if the title were examined and a certificate issued by a solicitor that could be relied upon to an extent, but it would not be, and could not be, a State-guaranteed title. If the Amendment were accepted we would have three types of conveyancing, the registered land scheme as existing, unregistered conveyancing, and a mixture of both—what one could describe as solicitor's registered land. This would not help in the major problem of leading to the complete registration which we all desire.
    I am also interested in the mechanics of the arrangement. I understand that the solicitor would send to the Registry two copies of a draft land certificate, but at no time would it become anything but a draft. What sort of conveyancing would go on after the first transaction on a draft certificate? If we submit an application to the Land Registry, we get a land certificate which we present when there is a subsequent transaction, but in this case there would be two drafts, one in the file, as the hon. Member said, and one in the Registry. There would be no power to make the Registry return any document to any solicitor which he could produce.
    Mr. Graham Page: I obviously have not made it clear. Duplicates would he provided, one of which would be placed in the register at the Land Registry and the other of which would be returned to the solicitor endorsed with an acknowledgement of receipt by the Land Registry.
    Mr. Robinson: As I read it, the Amendment does not say that. It says:
    'the registrar shall insert one of the duplicates … in an appropriate register … and one of the duplicates of the said draft marked with the date of receipt thereof and of the said statutory declaration in the registry … '
    It does not say that a copy is to be returned to the solicitor. According to the Amendment, both are to be retained in the Registry. The solicitor must have in his possession something which is authenticated by the Land Registry as having been accepted.
    When this draft transfer is put in the Registry, what happens if the property is sold a month later? What sort of documents do we use? Do we use a conveyance in the unregistered way or do we use a transfer form? If we submit that transfer to the Land Registry, what does the Registry do? Does it examine the draft certificate? Does it convert it into an official ordinary land certificate as we know it? Or what does the Registry do? The confusion existing at Lincoln's Inn and other district registeries would have to be seen to be believed.
    I have studied the Amendment. The hon. Member for Crosby has spoiled the case he argued. If the Amendment were accepted, we should omit from the Clause as at present drafted any right to submit an application to the Registrar for normal registration even in the special classes which are in the Clause. If the Amendment were accepted, it would not be possible for a solicitor in any event in a voluntary registration area to submit any application for registration. He could only adopt this mvsterious, and I think untidy, draft certificate.
    Mr. Graham Page: May I make it quite clear to the hon. Gentleman. I regret that something has been missed out of the Amendment. I do not know whether it is because of my bad writing. The intention was that one of these duplicates should be returned to the solicitor who submits it so that he has a land certificate, in just the same way as he
    1518
    would have a land certificate from the Registry.
    Mr. Robinson: I accept that, but I can only take the Amendment as it is printed. My point at the end was the rather different one that, if the Amendment were accepted, it would not then be possible for any application for the registration of land in a non-compulsory area to be accepted by the Registrar, because the words which at present permit of applications within the limited class would be omitted. If that is what the hon. Gentleman wants, so be it.
    Mr. Murton: I never cease to admire the talent of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), nor his great ingenuity in dealing with these problems. Those on the Government Front Bench should be grateful to my hon. Friend for attempting to get them out of a difficulty. I would neither presume nor dare to involve myself in technical arguments on the Amendment, because considerable heat of a friendly nature has already been generated, partly because there are words missing. It would not have made much difference to me if the words had been there, because of my lack of knowledge of the Clause from a professional point of view.
    As a layman, possibly a simple one, may I point out that the system as proposed by my hon. Friend could be of great value if only it could be accepted by the Solicitor-General. As I understand it, the problem is in the Ordnance Survey. If that problem could be put on one side, I do not think that the same problem would exist in the office of the Chief Land Registrar. In another place the question of staff was raised. The Lord Chancellor admitted that there was the possibility that women could be recruited and used in the Chief Land Registrar's office.
    If we put on one side the problems of the Ordance Survey, the shortage of skilled staff, the difficulty of drawing large-scale plans, and all the problems giving rise to the troubles we are now discussing and we concentrate on the Land Registrar and on getting him the staff he needs, I cannot see why this helpful Amendment should not commend itself to the Government. For what it is worth, I, as a pure—I hope—unprofessional Member, support it.
    Mr. James Allason: My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) has put his finger on the spot. He speaks with great knowledge of the Ordance Survey. No doubt, it is under pressure, and this useful and imaginative proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) would avoid the difficulties of the Ordnance Survey.
    In thinking of the difficulty for officials in the Land Registry, we should direct our minds to the consumer's needs. Speaking as a layman and as a possible, though very occasional, consumer, I think it necessary that one should be able to register a house if one wants to do so. If this gives trouble to solicitors and to the Land Registry, that is just too bad. They really ought to try to meet the convenience of the customer.
    There is a real need for voluntary registration to continue. My hon. Friend has made a proposal which would allow it to continue right through the years until we have full compulsory registration. If the Solicitor-General is so worried about the 1970s, he need not trouble too much about that because he will not have responsibility then.
    The Solicitor-General: I am sorry that for the third time this evening, I must disappoint hon. Members opposite. I could not possibly advise the House to accept the Amendment. The reasons for rejecting it have been very forcibly put by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) and for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson), and I adopt their arguments.
    The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) referred to log-book conveyancing. As he said, a proposal of this kind has been widely canvassed in the solicitor's profession. It is rather similar to a scheme propounded by the Law Society in June, 1965, which, I think, was called the Title Certificate Scheme, under which solicitors were to certify that the applicant had a title to the property subject to certain party rights as stated. That scheme was circulated for comment to all solicitors. I am informed that the profession appeared to be considerably divided on its merits, but, before the Law Society was in a position fully to assess the reaction of the whole profession, the Lord Chancellor
    1520
    informed the president of the Law Society, in December 1965, that the Government had decided not to adopt any scheme of this kind because they were convinced that it would not meet their main objective of reducing the cost of house purchase.
    The Law Society's scheme had considerable advantages over the scheme proposed in the Amendment because it required both solicitor for vendor and solicitor for purchaser to certify the title. Under the Amendment, on the other hand, it is only the solicitor for the applicant who is to certify. Moreover, realising that the scheme would depend upon the reliability of the certificate, the Law Society in its proposal envisaged a global insurance scheme to insure future owners against inaccurate certificates. It does not appear that any such insurance is contemplated in the Amendment.
    9.45 p.m.
    If the Amendment were adopted, it would have a similar effect to the two others discussed tonight. It would defeat one of the principal objectives of the Bill, which, for reasons explained at every stage of the Bill, is to restrict the right to register land in non-compulsory areas. I have already said that we have to consider our priorities in this matter.
    In addition, the general effect would be to render nugatory most or all of the land registration system. Under that system, the Land Registry makes one final and authoritative examination of title in place of the constantly repeated and relatively expensive and sometimes inconclusive investigation of a large number of title deeds every time a transaction takes place. As a result of this examination, the Land Registry forms a simple register containing the name of the owner, short particulars in standard form of such mortgages, restrictive covenants, third party rights and other burdens which affect the land.
    The land itself is identified by reference to a plan of scientific accuracy based on the ordnance map. During this process of examination by the Land Registry, many existing defects of title which, in unregistered conveyances, are the subject of tiresome recurrences are permanently cured. But the accuracy of the register is backed by an insurance fund of a nominal value of £100,000, so

    1521
    that any person suffering loss owing to a mistake in the register is entitled to be indemnified.
    It follows that the Land Registry is, in effect, an insurer of deeds and, once title to land has been registered, any purchaser can at once safely accept the title and the risks which exist in unregistered titles being imperfect are removed. At present, owing to the defects which exist in unregistered titles, the Chief Land Registrar is obliged to make a wide variety of inquiries of the solicitors applying for first registration in about 25 per cent. of all applications. Even so, numerous technical defects of title are deliberately ignored by him.
    In addition, the identifying of the land is uncertain in many instances because some 12 per cent. of all plans of unregistered deeds are seriously defective. If these defects were not cured at the time of first registration, they would necessarily lead to disputes. The proposal in the Amendment completely ignores the question of what kind of draft certificate a solicitor would provide in those cases where he knew a title to be a defective one and makes no provision for identification of the land nor for the provision of a plan. Even if a plan is contemplated here, the experience of the Land Registry suggests that a significant percentage of plans will be inaccurate or misleading, for the simple reason that there are no mapping draftsmen in solicitors' offices.
    Mr. Graham Page: This is a most peculiar argument. What on earth does the hon. and learned Gentleman think is done with ordinary deeds in solicitors' offices? Plans have to be prepared every day—dozens of them—in these offices and have to be relied on in future by people dealing with property.
    The Solicitor-General: Certainly, when one has a system of registration it is vital that one should accurately identify the land. That is something that is done in the Land Registry and which would not be done in any other way, at any rate in a very large number of cases. This is one of the objections to the Amendment.
    The Amendment goes on to propose that a certificate should be inserted in an
    1522
    appropriate register without the obligation of examining it or investigating the title to the property concerned. If land and charge certificates were issued without such investigation, previous experience shows that a large proportion of them would contain errors and would thus be valueless, leading to numerous claims upon the Land Registry Insurance Fund. The Registrar would then feel obliged to investigate all titles submitted to him, as hitherto, not only to safeguard the insurance fund but also to ensure that the owner received a land or charge certificate which accurately described his plan and the obligations to which he was subject.
    I hope that I have said enough to show that this proposal, ingenious as it is, is open to great practical objections. It would lead to confusion in many cases and, like the other Amendments, would largely defeat the purpose of the Bill, and I therefore ask the House to reject it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
    9.51 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: I do not think that we can let the Bill go without a short debate on Third Reading. We have had at any rate some interesting discussion in Committee and on Report, and although I regret that the Bill does not contain what we proposed at those stages it does contain one or two useful provisions.
    Clause I makes a reasonable reform in land registry law. The procedure whereby one ensured the concurrence of the county council to registration in its area is now quite out of date. Originally, when the 1925 Act first came into operation, one had to educate and persuade local authorities and local law societies to accept registration in their areas. As the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) said, at present 15 counties and 28 county boroughs are queuing up for registration, so there is no need for any procedure to encourage local authorities or local law societies to want registration in their areas. Plenty of areas are crying out for it and Clause 1(1) is undoubtedly a useful tidying up and speeding up of land registration procedure.

    1523
    Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 1 relate to the indemnity fund. They, too, are useful tidying-up provisions which have not caused any great concern either to the Registry or to the public. The indemnity has not been called on to any great extent and it is most interesting that only such a small sum has been paid out of the indemnity fund over a period of nearly 70 years, only £30,000. I do not know that these changes will make any alteration in that, but they make the situation tidier.
    It is to Clause 1(2) that we have objected throughout the stages of the Bill. However one argues it, this is undoubtedly a retrogressive step which takes away a service which the Land Registry is at present providing and which is very popular with those who have to deal with land. It will increase the cost of conveyancing in many cases where voluntary registration would have been, but cannot now be, used. I would have thought that the extension of compulsory registration could have proceeded according to the programme which was laid down by the Conservative Government in
    1524
    1964 and that the Registry could also have continued to maintain its service of voluntary registration. To that extent we regret the inclusion of this provision, although the Bill contains other and beneficial measures.
    9.55 p.m.
    Mr. Murton: I do not wish to delay the House unduly over this matter which has been thoroughly ventilated. I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to convey to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources my belief that something should be done in the way of practical mechanics to obtain the necessary staff in the Ordnance Survey. Work previously done by hand could be done by machines. I cannot believe that the manpower does not exist for this work, even though there is rapid development of building. Much as we deplore this present curtailment of voluntary registration, if a recruitment programme was carried out the job could be done without all the difficulties about which we have heard.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.

  DEVELOPMENT AREAS
  9.56 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Wood: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Development Areas Order 1966 (S.I., 1966. No. 1032, dated 12th August 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th August, be annulled.
  I want to make clear that the Prayer tonight has no sinister intent. It is certainly not my purpose, in a fit of pique, to ask for the removal of privileges accorded by this Order to the constituencies of many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, including incidentally, a large part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) and a part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan). Both of my hon. Friends have joined me in putting this Prayer on the Order Paper.
  I should explain that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby was particularly anxious to take part in this debate and would certainly have done so had it not been for the arrogance of the Minister of Power in compelling Standing Committee D to sit night after night in an attempt to force through the Iron and Steel Bill. It is, therefore, impossible for my hon. Friend to be with us and to put the important interests of his constituents. My purpose is to complain, once again, of the exclusion of Bridlington from these privileges and to beg the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Order, and immediately replace it with another including the Bridlington area in its Schedule.
  The right hon. Gentleman will understand that under our procedure it is only by apparently attacking the more fortunate that I can attempt to win justice for Bridlington. During my last attempt to do this, on the Report stage of the Industrial Development Bill on 19th July, I said:
  "The question that my constituents are justifiably asking is: why discriminate against Bridlington."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th July. 1966; Vol. 732, c. 538.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he cannot amend this Order. He can discuss areas specified in it but he cannot ask for others to be inserted.
  Mr. Wood: I appreciate that. I was suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman powerful reasons, in my opinion, for withdrawing this Order and bringing forward another in its place including Bridlington, whose claim I urged on 19th July, and whose claim, I think, I would be in order in urging again tonight. I do not know whether you found any fault in my quoting from an earlier speech, Sir.
  Mr. Speaker: With all due respect, I am finding fault with the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's argument at the moment. We cannot, on an Order, discuss things that are not in the Order. The right hon. Gentleman can talk about development areas which are in the Order, but he cannot suggest those that ought to be in.
  Mr. Wood: The point I have been trying to make, which, I think, is a perfectly good one, is that this Order should not be approved by the House because of certain deficiencies which it has. It includes some areas and not others. I hope that I will be in order in continuing my argument on that basis. I think that the Order is deficient because the places mentioned in the Schedule to the Order are not the right places that should be mentioned.
  Mr. Speaker: This is extraordinarily difficult. The right hon. Gentleman must know that I grieve to have to call him to order again and again, but we are praying against a Statutory Instrument. The right hon. Gentleman can object against a Statutory Instrument, but he cannot suggest amendments to it.
  Mr. Wood: I will not suggest any amendment, Sir. I will merely point out my reasons for thinking that this Statutory Instrument is the wrong instrument for the right hon. Gentleman to have introduced.
  The boundary situation which has been created by the Order which we are now discussing is, I now realise, more illogical and apparently indefensible than it seemed at the time of the debate on the Industrial Development Bill.
  In my opinion—and I hope that I can manage to keep in order—it might have made sense if the whole of the East Riding of Yorkshire, which is part of

  1527
  the Yorkshire and Humberside region, had been excluded from the Northern development area, and if all the land north of the East Riding boundary, which is part of the Northern region, had been included in the Northern development area.
  This, in fact, as the right hon. Gentleman would admit, is not the case under the Order which we are now discussing, because the whole of the Norton Rural District, which is part of the East Riding of Yorkshire and part of the Yorkshire and Humberside region, has been included in the Northern development area. At the same time, a few square miles on the very edge of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who is so unfortunately prevented from being present with us, which comprises certain villages and is part of the Northern area, has been left out of the Schedule which we are now discussing.
  The reason for this—as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will explain—is that the boundaries of employment exchanges have been preferred as guides to the boundaries either of counties or of planning regions; but, as employment exchange boundaries have been chosen, there seems—and here I must see that I tread carefully—a very strong case for including in the Schedule, as it ought to be, certain employment exchanges which are not there. I myself cannot believe that it would be beyond the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman, or, in fact, would establish any awkward precedent to include the employment exchanges which I have in mind, as well as including a small area in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby which is at present excluded from the development area.
  During our last discussion on this matter, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade made the hearts of my constituents beat a good deal faster, when he said, in c. 540:
  "There is no subject on which I have meditated more during the past six months than Bridlington."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 540.]
  I ask the House to note the magnificent generosity of those words. It was not
  1528
  exports or imports, or the problem of E.F.T.A., or entry into the Common Market, or tariffs, that was mainly exercising the mind of the right hon. Gentleman—it was the problems of Bridlington. This made my constituents feel even more important than ever, and I greatly appreciate the solicitude of the right hon. Gentleman.
  I entirely agree that Bridlington is an eminently suitable subject for meditation, and I hope that his long contemplation of the town did not end on 19th July because, apart from the effects of what might more properly be called the un-selective employment tax—that seems a more suitable name for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's abomination last spring—and apart from the removal of the investment grants, which has been bad for my constituents, I mentioned my fears of unemployment and my conviction that Bridlington would increasingly need industrial incentives if the significant progress of the last decade—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I can understand his attachment to Bridlington, but there is nothing about Bridlington in the Order.
  Mr. Wood: No, but I was pointing out that the places that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to include in the Order are in more fortunate circumstances than is Bridlington, and I should have thought that, as I am praying for annulment of the Order, it was a significant fact for the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to continue, as it is very relevant to whether this is the right Schedule to have produced with the Order. My humble opinion is that it is seriously lacking in certain respects.
  The President of the Board of Trade was also kind enough to say on 19th July that if he was wrong and
  "… if the unemployment percentage does not continue to fall … it is possible under the Bill to alter the boundaries further in the future."
  He went on to say:
  "If … unemployment starts markedly to rise again, it will certainly be my intention to review the possibility of including Bridlington."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1966: Vol. 732, c. 541–2.]
  That statement shows—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do regret having to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but I am obliged to enforce the rules of order. It really is out of order in discussing this Statutory Instrument to discuss the affairs of Bridlington, because they do not arise on the Order at all.
  Mr. Wood: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I have said enough to make my point very clear to the Minister. I had probably said enough before the debate to make it clear. The right hon. Gentleman knows how strongly I feel. I have been able to mention Bridlington once or twice so far. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give a satisfactory reply and tell us why he has chosen this wholly unsuitable Schedule and not one that would have given me much more pleasure.
  10.9 p.m.
  Earl of Dalkeith: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) for providing this opportunity to discuss such a very important subject, which is of great concern to very many of my hon. Friends in Scotland. I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend's difficulties in keeping within the rules of order, and perhaps I shall be in a slightly more advantageous position, because in the Schedule I read:
  "The Scottish Development Area, consists of the employment exchange areas of Scotland, except those of Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello."
  I assume, or I hope, that as those words appear in the Order, I am allowed to discuss that phrase.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Since the noble Lord has referred to me, I must point out that Edinburgh is in precisely the same position as Bridlington. It is true that Edinburgh is mentioned in the first paragraph of the Schedule, but only by way of reference to exclude it from the rest of Scotland. Edinburgh is just as much outside the scope of the Order as is Bridlington. Therefore, it would not be in order to refer to the merits of Edinburgh any more than it would be to refer to the merits of Bridlington.
  Earl of Dalkeith: I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps, therefore,
  1530
  I can talk about a little area around Edinburgh and the effect that the Order will have upon a vacuum within it. I should, of course, declare an interest, because I am connected with a company which has development interests in a small part of Edinburgh. I do not apologise for this, because it qualifies me, perhaps, to speak about the subject with some practical experience.
  It is not in my nature ever to be aggressive unless I am provoked, but I come very near to being sorely provoked on this occasion. The Government's decision about the formulation of their development areas in Scotland is very strange. It is crazily illogical, monstrously unjust and disgracefully authoritarian. I would like to substantiate all those points. First it is crazily illogical because where is the logic to be found in a scheme whereby, in a huge area of 30,000 square miles stretching from John o'Groats practically to York, there is just one little vacuum or pocket in the middle of it which does not appear to be getting the same treatment?
  I know the old old arguments, which I have heard over and over again, about how under a Tory Government we had much more limited development areas. That argument has been thrashed out again and again and we now have to accept the situation that we have this much more greatly extended development area. The fact that the amount of money which is being poured into this bigger area does not appear to be any greater than the amount previously concentrated in a smaller area is beside the point. This, however, has to be the basis of our argument.
  It is on that basis that the extreme illogicality of the Government's decision is so glaringly apparent. It is all the more so when one considers the future of Scotland in relation to the Common Market and when one considers the parts in Scotland which will clearly be the most obvious springboards for our access not only to Common Market countries, but also to the E.F.T.A. countries.
  There are certain parts of Scotland which come to the minds of all of us in this connection, but which the Order does not cover. No doubt, it was partly with this in view that the previous Tory administration embarked upon a massive

  1531
  exercise in developing a well-known port on the east coast of Scotland. If this sort of development involving vast sums of the taxpayers' money is to be carried to a logical conclusion, I suggest strongly that everything should be done to try to attract private investment in all ancillary operations such as processing plants, factories and warehouses of various kinds.
  The effect of the Order will be precisely the opposite. It will drive them away. These companies will set themselves up in a different area from that which some of us have in mind and in which we should like to see them develop. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had chosen to listen to the various people whom he has consulted in Scotland, he would have realised that there are very sound arguments for making his development area that much more extensive than it is.
  The logical type of development which we should all like to see, particularly in our capital city, is the sort of growth industry demanding high capital intensivity and low labour intensivity, and that brings me to my point about it being monstrously unjust, because the trouble which we shall get into is that there are certain parts of the country where development areas will be able to set up similar types of factories as rivals which will syphon off trained labour from areas which do not have the advantage of investment incentives in future.
  Only last week, the Secretary of State for Scotland opened a new factory at Glenrothes, in Fife, which is only a few minutes across the Forth Road Bridge from an area where there are other factories whose position will be placed in jeopardy. They have a magnificent record in the face of overseas competition, and now they will be undermined by rival factories only a few miles away from them.
  I wish to substantiate my other charge that the decision has been disgracefully authoritarian. Numerous meetings have taken place between the Minister and his officials and various representatives of areas of Scotland who thought that they ought to be included. There has been nothing but obstinate defiance on the
  1532
  part of the Government to all the reasoning which has been put forward by people of all political complexions.
  Why is it that the steamroller of the Government machine is flatly ignoring all the reasons which have been advanced? I think that the population of Scotland would like to know. No reasons of any consequence have been given at all. Speculation is rife, and I would suggest that it is in the Government's own interest to try and clear it up. Is it in order to act as a sop to some other parts of the country where exclusions have been made the order of the day? Is it the action of "Big Brother", who does not like to see the last remaining citadel of anti-Socialism and is trying to take it out on its inhabitants? I wonder what other activities we shall see from the Government in the way of victimising this last bastion of freedom.
  Unless the Minister tells us the truth and, better still, reverses his decision, as a London-bound Minister he must recognise that there will be a surge of nationalistic rage at his ill-considered action about the forming of this Order. I must warn him that this is the sort of thing which tends to drive Scots into a kind of U.D.I. frame of mind—[Laughter.] It is all very well for the Minister of State to laugh. We know that he comes from Norfolk—
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis) rose—
  Earl of Dalkeith: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He comes from Norfolk, and possibly does not appreciate the feeling of nationalism which we all have in our hearts.
  Mr. Willis: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that this was one of the issues at the General Election? It came up at every meeting in Edinburgh, but the Tory vote and his party's majorities went down in Edinburgh.
  Earl of Dalkeith: The hon. Gentleman has great skill in persuading people that he will achieve great things. I think that the Government were elected on the basis that they would achieve all kinds of great things, but now people are beginning to find out, and I hope that they will not forget in a hurry.

  1533
  I wanted to ask what action my various colleagues in Edinburgh have been taking, but Edinburgh, I believe, is a dirty word in this debate.
  Mr. Dan Jones: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the House is now in genuine bewilderment. The right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) was asked to sit down on a number of occasions because he mentioned Bridlington, yet the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) has mentioned Edinburgh several times. He has talked about the capital city, which is another name for precisely the same place. Are we conceding to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North a privilege which we were not prepared to concede to the right hon. Member for Bridlington?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I have been very lenient with the noble Lord. He has endeavoured to skate round the Ruling, so far very successfully, but I think that he has transgressed the bounds of order, and that he ought not to pursue his speech in the way that he has been doing.
  Earl of Dalkeith: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being so long-suffering.
  Many people in Scotland will be profoundly dissatisfied and angry unless they are given some good reasons tonight why the Minister has taken the decision that he has done in drawing up this Order. I assure him that this feeling is genuine. There is nothing synthetic about it. I feel for one very strongly about it.
  10.22 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I, too, wish to address my remarks to paragraph 1 of the Order, which refers to Scotland.
  Under the previous system, which this is to replace, the benefits of grants and loans were available in what were called development districts, which were much smaller areas, but they were the special areas—I speak for Scotland in particular, but I am sure that it was the same in the rest of the United Kingdom—where there was unemployment to a large degree, and where assistance of this kind was specially required. For example, the Highlands and Islands formed a development
  1534
  district, and so did parts of the north-east of Scotland, which, unfortunately, had high percentages of unemployment from time to time.
  Under this new system a very much larger part of the United Kingdom as a whole is to become development area. Indeed, it has been reported, though I have not done the geographical calculations myself, that no less than 55 per cent. of the area of the United Kingdom, more than half, is now to be development area, the technical term "area" having taken the place of the previous technical term "district". Therefore, the financial assistance which is to be available now will be spread more thinly over a much wider area. I believe that it was far more beneficial for Scotland when the benefits were concentrated in the areas where they were most needed.
  May I say straight away that this is not a constituency point. I have mentioned the north-east of Scotland, but my constituency was not a development district, being an area which did not suffer high unemployment. It now falls within the new areas, so I say straight away that I am being entirely altruistic in my remarks. This is not a constituency point. I am concerned about Scotland as a whole, and particularly about areas like the Highlands and Islands defined as the seven crofting counties, and those areas in the northeast of Scotland where my constituency is, but which are not so fortunate as my constituency, and, therefore, need the special benefits. But now the Bill has been passed, and has become an Act, and the House has therefore, accepted the widening of the area into a huge development area under the new terminology.
  The Order states that almost the whole of Scotland is to become a development area, but there is an incredible small gap in the middle. It is so inexplicable that it can only be some form of deliberate discrimination against the area concerned. I do not know whether you have examined a map showing the United Kingdom with the new development areas marked on it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in an area covering almost the whole of Scotland and the north-east and north-west of England there suddenly appears a small hole, or gap, in the middle.

  1535
  Why are these areas set out in this extraordinary shape? Is it that Ministers have been studying the sculptures of Henry Moore and decided that a shape is not complete unless it has a hole in the middle? That is the only explanation I can give for this extraordinary shape in the middle of the development areas in the northern part of the United Kingdom. Perhaps Ministers have been influenced by the avant garde painting in the Harcourt Room? Perhaps they have decided that throwing paint at a map or a wall is one way of marking out development areas. I can think of no other explanation.
  I am sure that the earlier system of concentrating financial assistance where it was really needed in the special areas was best, but if the new policy has to be accepted, making about 55 per cent. of the United Kingdom into development areas, I cannot understand why this gap should be left. As my noble Friend has said, no explanation has been given by the Government. I am sure that other Scottish Members will continue to press the Government to explain why they have described this extraordinary shape in the north of the United Kingdom. We appeal to the Minister of State, who has a constituency interest in this matter—
  Mr. Willis: I can defend it.
  Mr. Campbell: Instead of defending it the Minister should educate some of his colleagues on the Front Bench about the affairs of Scotland and the needs of industry and development there. He might also be able to educate them on the geography and economy of Scotland.
  Mr. Willis: If the hon. Member will refer to what happened at the General Election he will find that I defended this policy then and had a record vote and record majority in Edinburgh.
  Mr. Campbell: I congratulate the Minister on what he achieved. All I can say is that I respect him personally as a candidate. He obviously did very well, because he defended something utterly illogical. When he was in opposition he made quite a reputation—as I am sure many of my hon. Friends from Scottish constituencies will agree—for presenting logical arguments which
  1536
  at times, when there was a shortage, almost qualified him as a Law Officer. It was merely the lack of the necessary training and qualifications that prevented this.
  The hon. Gentleman's arguments have always been very logical. That is why I appeal to him to try to influence his hon. Friends, despite his success in defending an illogical policy during the General Election. I appeal to him to stop thinking about what happened eight months ago and to start thinking about what will be necessary in the coming months, when the squeeze will bite even more deeply into Scotland and when the area covered by the gap in the map will feel the squeeze as much as any other area.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: I do not know whether a Member representing a constituency in the north of England is permitted to participate in this debate, which so far has concentrated on affairs a little to the north of that area. I am provoked to join in the discussion by some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell).
  The hon. Gentleman said that, because of the Order, more than half the United Kingdom will be in a development area and that this might mean that the special help to those areas might be diffused too thinly. Half the United Kingdom may be within these areas, but by no means half the population will be. The population and employment factors are essential here. It is essential to remember that Merseyside, the north of England and at least the greater part of Scotland, in spite of having a relatively small proportion of the population, a disproportionately high percentage of unemployment.
  The hon. Member also said that we should concentrate the special help which is always available under industrial development orders on those areas within the development areas which are particularly in need. We on this side have always taken the view that, in the north of England, pockets of heavy unemployment within the Northern region should not be isolated, because the nature of the integrated industrial and commercial blocks there made it

  1537
  impossible to plan the economy effectively en that basis. Therefore, the idea of making the whole of the northern region a development area, which is what the Order will do was always the view which we took on this side of the House about how that area should be developed—
  Mr. G. Campbell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but if the whole of Newcastle had been excluded from that area, it would have been exactly the opposite of that argument.
  Mr. Rhodes: But I see from the Order that the whole of Newcastle and Walker, which is in the centre of my constituency, is left in, so I am not complaining, but the industrial and economic circumstances in Newcastle and Walker, as the very centre of the Tyneside industrial development, may have justified its being left in, although its unemployment figures were not as high as those of other parts of the region. The parallel argument may not apply to Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello. I do not know, and would not venture an opinion on the matter, as hon. Members opposite will tell me that I do not know what I am talking about. But I do know what I am talking about in relation to Tyneside and particularly in relation to Walker.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) said that perhaps these areas had been left out because they are the last citadels and last bastions of anti-Socialism in Scotland. If he had read the Order, he would have noticed that, in the northern development area, are included areas which are the last bastions of anti-Socialism in the north of England—Berwick-upon-Tweed, for example, and Hexham, Kendal, Keswick, Malton, Scarborough, Richmond, Thirsk and Windermere. I believe that all these places are represented by Conservative Members of Parliament.
  It would, therefore, be illogical, if the hon. Member's point were followed, for this Government to have been so disgraceful as to leave out Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello if they failed also to leave out Berwick-upon-Tweed and Hexham. There may have been particular reasons in the northern region why these last bastions of anti-Socialism were included in the development area, while, for other
  1538
  reasons, Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello were not included in Scotland.
  I would like to hear my right hon. Friend's reason why these were left out; I am sure that it is a very good one.
  I think it excellent that the areas in the northern region and the whole of Scotland which I have mentioned have been included in this development area. In that region we have had for many years twice the national average of unemployment. This persisted during the many years when hon. Members opposite were in office, but I am pleased to be able to repeat tonight that the relativity gap between our region and the rest of the country is rapidly closing. Unemployment is increasing all over the country, but it is worth bearing in mind that in the Northern Region while it is hovering around 40,000—which is still too high—it is less than half what it was during 1962 and 1963 when hon. Members opposite were in power.
  I suggest that is because the region has been given priority as a complete and comprehensive development area with the lion's share of new factory space since this Government came into power. It is significant that the last time that the northern region and central Scotland had the lion's share of new factory space was precisely between 1945 and 1951 when, again, a Labour Government were in power. Right smack in the middle of this development area, I contested my constituency at the last election supporting the Government's policy of declaring that the whole region should be a development area. I say with all humility that my constituency had the fourth highest swing to the Government in the whole United Kingdom. So this policy was certainly popular.
  Earl of Dalkeith: Has the hon. Member ever worked out how long it takes for a factory to be in operation from the moment that it is on the drawing board? If he did so he would find that the great majority of factories in the North-East were started under Conservative Government.
  Mr. Rhodes: I would be willing to give way to the noble Lord if he were to inform me about something taking place in Scotland, but I think it a little presumptuous of him to tell me about what is going on on Tyneside.

  1539
  What I said is correct, that the lion's share of new factory space being allocated for the first time, where work has not yet begun, has been allocated by this Government to this area. It is higher than ever before and the last time that this happened was between 1945 and 1951. I do not know the position over new factory building in Scotland, but I can assure the hon. Member that this concerns not only new buildings being completed, but brand new factory space which my right hon. Friends have said should go to the region because they are interested in the region.
  Some of the arguments suggesting why these areas were left out are completely illogical. They did not refer to the region to which I have referred.
  10.38 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Stodart: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will share my view that it is always distressing to see one who, although he is on the other side of the House, is a personal friend and who shares one's views on many subjects, in considerable difficulty and distress. I confess that my heart goes out to the Minister of State, Board of Trade, tonight. So desperate is he that he has had to call to his assistance no less a personage than the Minister of State, Scotland, who is looking even more lugubrious than we often think he does.
  I was unhappy when in a certain city in Scotland some months ago I was asked to comment on whether it would be correct to parody a well-known song and to say "The Darling is a Charlie". I must not, I gather, refer to the exclusion of certain areas. All I would say in this connection is that the Minister of State, Board of Trade, must feel slightly disturbed in that behind him is sitting the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) who, on 9th March 1966, gave certain specific assurances, more or less on behalf of the Board of Trade, that certain incentives would be given to a certain area. It must make it rather uncomfortable for the Minister of State to have to explain why those assurances have not been fulfilled.
  I ask the Minister of State why he gives his incentives in the development area to
  1540
  Musselburgh? Is it because Musselburgh happens to be in the constituency of the Minister of State, Scottish Office? That does not appear to be the reason. Why give them not only to Musselburgh but to Dalkeith, Ratho and Newbridge? The Secretary of State for Scotland gave as the reason for the exclusion of certain areas a persistently low level of unemployment and reduced population growth. Why does that bring in Musselburgh, Dalkeith, Ratho and Newbridge? What is there peculiar about the needs of Balerno, lying, as it does, just over the line? What is there, in this instance, different as between one side of the line and the other? Is the unemployment rate higher? The answer is that it is not. and well does the Minister of State know it.
  Surely the main objective in doing what the Government are doing is to get greater efficiency in the export trade, which is vital to the economy, and therefore to do away with things like double handling. But, of course, by going back into the hinterland it is inevitable that double handling will have to take place and costs are therefore bound to rise. This is no way to get the necessary competition which is essential if we are to get into the markets of the world.
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: It is fair that I should have the opportunity to reply to the unfair charges levelled at me in his usual unfair way by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), who masqueraded as a Minister at one time but did very little for Scotland.
  I am interested in this Motion, but I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) takes the onus on his broad shoulders of putting it down and allowing it to be used as a vehicle for certain Scottish hon. Members who, having lost power, are playing at politics tonight in order to try to wring a meagre benefit for their party.
  What does this Prayer say? We have had all of this talk from Scottish Members opposite, yet there is not a Scottish name in support of the Prayer. Why are you breenging in here, tramping on ground that you did not prepare?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will please address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. Manuel: I certainly did not include the Chair in my remarks. I was meaning the Scottish Members opposite.
  Mr. G. Campbell: I distinctly heard the hon. Member use the word "you" followed by some remarks which were certainly uncomplimentary to the Chair.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understood that the hon. Member withdrew those remarks.
  Mr. Manuel: Unreservedly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Stodart: I distinctly heard the hon. Gentleman use the word "breenging," and that is surely a most un-Parliamentary expression.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it is an undesirable remark.
  Mr. Manuel: It is a very Scottish word. I do not know if you know what it means—it means barging in. This is what has happened tonight. The hon. Members have not had the courage to put their names to the Prayer. Why do they disagree with the Order? Is it to go out from this House that they are against Scotland being declared a development area and do not want it to receive the 40 per cent. investment grant? They may not want it for Scotland, but we do.
  The Prayer asks:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Development Areas Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1032), dated 12th August, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th August, be annulled.
  Mr. G. Campbell Mr. G. Campbell rose—
  Mr. Manuel: No, you have had your turn. I do not have to depend upon the meagre resources of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let us go further afield—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman please address his remarks to the Chair?
  Mr. Manuel: I have been speaking to the Chair, most effectively, I thought. I want to point out, through the Chair, some facts to the hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  1542
  I have here the Midland Bank Review for November. Do hon. Gentlemen read the publications sent to them? What does it say about Scotland.
  Mr. G. Campbell: I read a number of such reviews, but I do not read them all.
  Mr. Manuel: When it concerns Scotland, as does this review, it would be advantageous for Scottish Members to read it. I do not want to quote all the help that it will give to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and his constituency and how much per head of the population it involves. The review says, under the heading of "Scotland Takes the Strain.":
  "On balance, over the past two years the Scottish economy has made good progress. Output and exports have risen faster than in the United Kingdom as a whole, and more new industries have been attracted to Scotland."
  Do hon. Gentlemen who have tried to attack my hon. and right hon. Friends for attempting to bring succour and relief to Scotland wish to query this? I want to repudiate the attack that has been made upon them. I call to my aid the review of the Midland Bank. On the centre pages, under the heading "Scotland takes the Strain", it portrays the size of the problem which the Government have undertaken. It talks about the bad housing, the old industry passing away, and about having to start from scratch. These problems have been gone into. Then there is the tribute on the front page: "Scotland Takes the Strain," and she is riding triumphantly ahead under the present Government, and will not be held back by backwoodsmen from Tory areas who do not want industry.
  Mr. G. Campbell: What the hon. Gentleman has been saying about the last two years is what has been happening under the existing system of investment allowances. The new system has not yet come into action. What has been happening so far is the result of the four and five years of the past system, not the new system.
  Mr. Manuel: That is the point. All of us know, if we are sincere, that these deep-seated problems have to be cured, and we cannot cure them in the space

  1543
  of two years. Many things have to be accomplished, including the change-over of heavy industries into light industries. I would have thought that in an order that is securing for Scotland the whole of its area being a development area, which will secure new investment grants, that hon. Members opposite would have supported it and not have repudiated it in the way they have done tonight.
  10.52 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) began this debate, I do not think that he or I expected it to develop as it has done. I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his perseverance in pursuing, in rather more difficult circumstances than usual, the point he has made so frequently about the way the development areas have been drawn under the new Industrial Development Act. I should also like to congratulate him on the moderation with which he pursues this deep constituency problem. I can assure him that the contemplation of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on this matter did not come to an end in July. In fact, we have given considerable thought to the issue which he has raised, and we shall continue to give thought to it.
  I hope I can keep in order by drawing attention to a district that is in the Schedule—namely, Scarborough. The reason why Scarborough is in and a place not far away has been left out is that in Scarborough, unlike the other place which I have not mentioned, the population has been declining. Industrial development has been practically nil for the last six or seven years. Only seven industrial development certificates have been approved in the last six years in Scarborough, and, as far as we can discover, these have produced only about 230 new jobs. The situation in Scarborough under the new criteria that are laid down is not just a matter of unemployment, but also concerns the course of employment, whether or not it is rising rapidly, migration, population trends, regional problems, and so on. Because of this situation, we are quite right, in our view, in putting Scarborough in.
  1544
  One can argue, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has argued in relation to certain areas in Scotland, that certain parts of a district around Scarborough come into the development area and certain parts are left out. Without a map I could not follow exactly which places the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, was referring to, but the principle involved is the same. Some parts have come in or have been left out because, after a great deal of consideration, we thought it right to draw our boundary lines round the employment exchange areas. We said during the passage of the Bill that that was to be the present arrangement; that we thought that it was the best way of drawing the boundaries, but that if experience showed that we were wrong we could change this method, the Board of Trade having discretion to alter boundaries by bringing Orders before this House for that purpose.
  The value to be attached to this debate lies in the fact that there is not one member of the Opposition on the Front Bench opposite to support the Prayer, and I will certainly treat the right hon. Gentleman with a great deal more courtesy than his own Front Bench seems to have shown. Hoping still to keep within the rules of order, I will try to say why we have drawn the Schedule in this way.
  We have taken into consideration other facts besides unemployment. We have tried to look at industrial development not only for the purpose of dealing with unemployment but in order to get a far better distribution of industry than we have hitherto had. We have, therefore, so designated the development areas as to bring within our wider policies of regional development industrial development on a better national scale.
  We have given careful consideration to the choice of areas. These were reviewed during the passage of the Bill. We have listened to representations, and if, for example, we had given to Bridlington the concession that has been asked for, we would have had to give the same sort of concession to a large number of other seaside resorts which are outside the development areas but where equally strong representations have been made and where the situation is similar to that in Bridlington in terms of

  1545
  unemployment, population trend, and so on.
  The answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith), who said that we were treating the matter in an authoritarian manner because we have not, so to speak, given way to the representations made to us by Edinburgh, is that we have had put to us stronger cases than the case presented by Edinburgh. If we had given way to all those representations, the whole plan of industrial development laid down in the Act would have been completely vitiated—
  Earl of Dalkeith: Can the Minister give reasons or explanations? That is what we are asking for.
  Mr. Darling: If the hon. Member will only allow me to develop my speech, I will deal with that matter. I did not interrupt him.
  We are asked why there is a hole, so to speak, in the Scottish development area, but there is another place that is not included, and that is the capital of Wales. These two capital cities are very attractive. They are magnets. They attract employment on a very big scale. We have left both of them out for the very good reason that if we were to attract more and more employment into either or both places, we would not give a fair chance to other parts of Scotland and Wales where industrial development is far more urgent and is needed on a much greater scale.
  It has been suggested that a Minister who is home-based in London does not know a great deal about what goes on in Scotland. I have paid two visits recently to development areas in Scotland where industrial development is needed as a result of coal mine closures and all the other problems which have to be dealt with. I did not find anybody outside the capital city who objected to what we have done about Edinburgh. In fact, many representatives of local authorities and industrialists thought we had done the right thing, because they wanted to attract industry to their own areas where there was unemployment and where there was a rundown of old-fashioned industries such as coal mining. I do not think, apart from the special constituency cases put
  1546
  forward by the representatives on one side of the political set-up of the city of Edinburgh, that many people in Scotland dissent from that point of view at all, except for the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). If the hon. Member would logically examine his arguments, I think he would agree that it is better that we should concentrate our efforts on the places in Scotland which really need these efforts rather than bring in a magnet we do not want to be used, certainly at the present time.
  Mr. Stodart: When the hon. Gentleman says that I represent only one particular side of the Edinburgh political scene, is not he aware that the representations made to me were made by every section and every political view?
  Mr. Darling: I am talking about the representations made here tonight in this House. But if the hon. Member on another occasion—I cannot do it here—would like me to describe to him what went on when we received that deputation from the city of Edinburgh, I would be glad to enlighten him. It was a most rewarding experience.
  To come back to Bridlington—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister, like all other hon. Members, must observe the rules of order. We really cannot discuss any more either Bridlington or Edinburgh.
  Mr. Darling: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think you will agree that I was rather led astray, but I am certainly in a little difficulty now in trying to reply to the right hon. Gentleman. However, I think the point I have made will explain why we drew the boundary line where we did.
  As for the rest of the development areas, we have had very little criticism except on an issue—I do not know whether this is in order or not—which certainly has got to be looked at in the future, and that is the problem first of all of certain seaside places which have an entirely different employment problem to deal with than the general run of industrial areas where unemployment still persists.
  In seaside resorts one has a very high proportion of older people, many of whom have retired there at below the

  1547
  normal retiring age, who are still available for work and therefore sign on at the employment exchange and are counted as unemployed if they do not get a job. One has also the difficult problem of seasonal unemployment, which means that the industrialist one is trying to attract to an area of this kind in order to provide industrial development may wonder whether he will get the type of work people he wants all the year round or whether they will be attracted to other jobs during the summer season.
  These are problems which apply not just to one seaside resort, but all the way round the coast. I am sure that we have to consider this problem and think very carefully of the types of industry which would be best suited to go into areas of this kind.
  Later on, when we have got the unemployment problem generally throughout the country under control by getting this better spread of industry, we shall have to come back to one or two of the issues which were raised during the passage of the Bill, particularly the very interesting discussion that we had in Committee about what we then called the "grey" areas, where there is no noticeable unemployment, but where there is no expansion, where industry is standing still, and where the social life of the towns is stagnating—I think that is the right word. These grey areas have to be dealt with not merely in terms of finding employment and industrial development, but in terms of social regeneration as well.
  The immediate problem—and this is the problem with which we are trying to deal by bringing forward the Schedule for the development areas in the way that we have--- is still that of unemployment, the under-development of industry, and of getting the right kind of industrial development in the right places.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the question of unemployment, and indeed the "grey" areas, would my right hon. Friend accept that there is great urgency in the need for him to contact his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour about the off the job adult retraining scheme, which was first mooted on the 31st October by the Minister of Labour?
  Mr. Darling: I am sure that this is germane to the general problem, but I am not sure that it is germane to the Order which we are discussing.
  I think that I have said enough to show that we have these matters under review. We have to work to priorities. First, we must deal with the problem of unemployment where it appears. Secondly, we have to deal with the places which are stagnating, and particularly the peculiar employment problems of seaside resorts, but these are matters which can come along after we have made a great deal more progress in dealing with the problems of unemployment, but I take into consideration all the representations which the right hon. Member for Bridlington has made again on behalf of his constituency.
  Question put and negatived.

  COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (ASTLEY ABBOTTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. Jasper More: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising in the House a matter which has left the inhabitants of the village of Astley Abbotts with a great sense of grievance and injustice.
  This village is a scattered one of about 300 inhabitants. Like other such villages, it had a village school which, as happens in these times, was recently closed by the local education authority. The school had been provided by a private family. It has trustees and has a trust deed. The trust deed provides that, in the event of the closing of the school, it shall be sold and the proceeds devoted to the benefit of the village.
  Such provisions are not always put into practice, but in fact after a lengthy period of negotiations a scheme was agreed between the trustees, the Ministry of Education, the Hereford diocesan council, the education council, the parish council, the parochial church council, and such of the descendants of the original donor as it had been possible to trace.

  1549
  The scheme provided for the investment of the proceeds of the sale of the school and for the application of the income for the provision of facilities for the religious, educational, social, moral and physical well being of the young people resident in that parish. All that remained was to sell the school.
  That is one side of the story. The other side concerns the local council, namely, the Bridgnorth Rural District Council. This council had been attempting for about four years to solve the problem of housing a large family for which it had responsibility and for whom it required a site and housing accommodation outside the immediate confines or a village. The council had experienced many frustrations, having made attempts with a number of sites, all of which had failed to secure planning permission.
  The matter appeared to become urgent in July 1965, when the family in question was burnt out by fire from its existing accommodation. The school of which I have spoken was outside the confines of Astley Abbotts village, and the council took the view that if it could be adapted and converted into living accommodation it might solve the problem of housing this family. The council therefore approached the trustees of the school. It asked, in July, 1965, that the district valuer should inspect and report. The reply by the trustees' agents was that they had no permission from the Ministry of Education for such an inspection to be made.
  The council was concerned that the school premises should be made habitable before the winter. Accordingly, in August it made a further approach. The trustees were informed by the clerk that the council had given authority for compulsory acquisition but would be willing to negotiate for private sale. The council was informed in reply, on behalf of the trustees, that the Minister of Education had asked for a valuation and report by an independent valuer; that he had required the valuer to make a recommendation as to the method of sale; that the valuer had definitly advised a sale by public auction: that the trustees were awaiting the Minister's instructions, and that in the meantime they could not advise the trustees to negotiate a private sale to the council or anyone
  1550
  else without the Minister's authority. Fourteen days later the council served a compulsory purchase notice.
  The trustees, not unnaturally, protested at this proceeding. The situation became known in the village and much criticism was expressed. The council scheme was criticised on the ground that the proposed conversion could not possibly be economic. It has also been asserted that the scheme was opposed because the villagers objected to a scheme for housing this family, but I am informed that this was never a principal cause of criticism. What was criticised was the proposal to spend public money on housing in the village a family from outside when no money had been spent on providing houses in the village for the inhabitants themselves. But the main object of criticism throughout was the compulsory purchase.
  In October, 1965, a parish meeting was held. More than 70 people attended. This is a remarkable number for a Shropshire village meeting—certainly more than a Member of Parliament would hope to draw for a political meeting. Since this may appear to be undue self-criticism, I should point out that within the last month a political meeting in a much larger village in my constituency, addressed by a Minister of the Crown, drew an audience of less than 25 people.
  The result of the meeting was a unanimous resolution that an objection should be lodged by the trustees. The trustees accordingly lodged an objection with the Minister. I am informed that about six months elapsed before any action was taken by the Minister, and I invite the Minister specifically to explain this delay. One inevitable result was to render nugatory the main purpose of the compulsory purchase order, namely, to get the school premises into habitable condition before the winter of 1965.
  A public inquiry was eventually held by one of the Minister's inspectors on 21st June, 1966, and the inspector made a detailed report of the contents, of which the Minister will be aware. The inspector treated the issue of the compulsory purchase order as the principal ground of objection. He recorded his opinion that, despite the lack of merit in this principal ground of objection, the council had failed to substantiate its case for the

  1551
  compulsory acquisition of the property. He considered its proposals to be generally unsatisfactory and uneconomic.
  On 13th October, a letter was sent by the Ministry. It stated that the Minister accepted the inspector's view that there was little merit in the principal ground of objection concerning compensation, but declared his view that the council had proved its need to acquire the property, and stated that he had, therefore, decided to confirm the order. In so doing, of course, he overruled his inspector.
  What is the position now in this sorry story? The position must surely be that two winters have now been lost. The trustees are still willing, as they have throughout been, to sell the property at public auction. But the Minister, first, by his inaction held up any solution of the problem, and, finally, by his action in confirming the compulsory purchase order, he has decided it in a way that must give the greatest possible dissatisfaction both to the trustees and to the local inhabitants.
  The important thing in a case of this kind is surely not only that justice should be done but also that justice should be seen to be done. Nobody in Astley Abbotts will be persuaded that the district valuer's valuation will be as much as the price that could have been secured by public auction in 1965. Thanks to the Government's economic policy and to its effect on land values, there is now no prospect that either the district valuer's valuation or a public auction held now could result in as large a price as would have been realised by public auction in 1965. In fact, we now face the position, thanks to the Ministry, that full justice never can be done, and it will for ever be seen that justice has not been done.
  We shall probably shortly be hearing from the Minister the stock reply that there is no injustice in a compulsory purchase order since the district valuer's duty is to value at a public auction price. But if it is true—certainly no one in Astley Abbotts would agree with it—that the compulsory value is the same as the auction value, it must be equally true that the auction value is the same as the compulsory value. Why not, then, have the public auction?
  1552
  The inspector found that on this issue the objectors' case was "devoid of merit". This finding alone should have alerted the Minister. While the inspector was clearly entitled to decide in favour of the compulsory purchase, his funding that the contrary argument was "devoid of merit" was contradicted by every circumstance of the case, both by the fact that public auction had been recommended by the Ministry of Education's own valuers and by the consideration of public feeling so cogently expressed by the inspector himself in paragraphs 28–34 of his report.
  What has happened will always be regarded by local opinion as a wrong—a wrong of arbitrary decision, arrived at for mistaken reasons, to achieve an object which now can never be completely achieved. Surely now a second winter must already have been lost. The unfortunate family on whose behalf this quarrel began cannot, one would think, benefit from the scheme before the spring. There could have been no objection to a public auction except for the few weeks' delay involved, and that delay would surely have been a consideration of little relevance in the case. What is and will always be relevant is the local feelings and the principle at stake.
  The Minister's action on his inspector's report is hard to comprehend. He overruled his inspector on the technical and economic question which the inspector had investigated in detail on the spot, but declined to over-rule him on the matter of principle which was crystal-clear from a reading of the report. There may be nothing which the Minister can do now to redeem the errors perpetrated in this case. I can only hope that this Astley Abbotts case will be remembered by him as an example of how not to deal with cases of this kind.
  11.21 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) for raising this case, because it is an unusual one and because he has given me the opportunity to make it clear that neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any doubts about the sincerity of purpose of the Bridgnorth Rural

  1553
  District Council, which made the compulsory purchase order, or of the objectors who opposed it.
  The council, in common with every housing authority, has a duty imposed upon it by Section 91 of the Housing Act, 1957, to provide housing accommodation to meet the needs of its district. Under Section 92 of the same Act it may provide that accommodation by erecting houses, converting any buildings into houses, acquiring houses, or by altering, enlarging or improving any houses or buildings.
  These powers should be read in conjunction with those in Section 96, which set out the purposes for which housing authorities may buy land and the buildings upon it. They may, for example, acquire houses or buildings which may be made suitable as houses, together with any lands occupied with the houses or buildings. To complete the picture, I must explain that a housing authority may, under Section 97 of the Act of 1957, acquire by agreement, or it may be authorised to purchase compulsorily by the Minister.
  This then is the context in which the Bridgnorth Rural District Council acted, and, if the case is an unusual one, the purposes it had in mind, the powers it used and the procedures it followed are those generally available to housing authorities and are, indeed, the day-to-day tools that enable them to do their job.
  I turn now to the case itself—the case of the Bridgnorth Rural (Astley Abbotts) Compulsory Purchase Order (No. 3), 1965. It is a pleasing feature that nobody disputes that the council was faced with a particular housing need which it alone seemed to be in a position to satisfy. There were in the district six families who, in the council's opinion, would best benefit from a gradual introduction to the full standards of local authority accommodation. The needs of one family were particularly urgent.
  Another part of the council's case that is generally accepted is that over a period of years it had tried to no avail to purchase vacant properties capable of renovation that could be made suitable for one or more of these famalies. But where the premises were suitable negotiations had broken down when the council's purpose became clear.
  1554
  The council turned its attention to the former school and school house on a site of rather more than one third of an acre at Astley Abbotts. The land had originally been given to the Parish of Astley Abbotts by Sir Henry Tyrwhitt in January, 1873, but in July, 1962, the school was closed by the Shropshire Education Committee. The school house and the school accordingly fell vacant and were vacant when, nearly three years later in 1965—I give no undue emphasis to the period—the council sought to negotiate their acquisition. These negotiations, which extended over three months, proved unsuccessful. Accordingly, on 30th July, 1965, the council made an order for the compulsory acquisition of the property.
  The owners were the churchwardens of the parish, as the surviving trustees. They were anxious to dispose of the property and would have been quite ready to sell it to the council, provided the sale was by public auction and, of course, provided that the council was the highest bidder. The trustees did, I believe, seek the necessary approval of the Department of Education and Science to this course, but their application was submitted early in August 1965 after the council had made a compulsory purchase order.
  In September 1965, the Department of Education and Science informed the trustees that the Secretary of State would be willing to authorise a sale by public auction, if that was a course in which the council was agreeable to co-operate. In a nutshell, therefore, the question was whether the council would decide not to proceed with its compulsory purchase order and be prepared to bid at a public auction or whether it would go ahead and seek confirmation of the order by the Minister: the decision was for the council to take. The council went ahead with the order.
  As I understand, the trustees' view was that they stood to get a better price at a public auction. This was the essence of the case they developed at the public inquiry into the order, held by one of the Minister's inspectors. The hon. Member asked a fair question, why was there delay? He must understand that there is tremendous pressure on my Department when compulsory purchase orders are made, because we have only a certain number of inspectors. I am sorry that it

  1555
  took so long, but that was the best we could do. The parish council objection was in fact based on the amount of compensation it thought it would receive, but questions of compensation are quite outside the scope of the Minister's jurisdiction when coming to a decision upon a compulsory purchase order. It is not surprising, therefore, that the inspector in his report referred to the lack of merit in the principal ground of objection to the order.
  The basis of compensation payable and the procedure to be followed are laid down by Statute. In the case of the Astley Abbotts, compulsory purchase order compensation is payable at full market value; no account may be taken on account of the acquisition being compulsory; and the value is to be taken essentially to be the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise. Appeal against the amount of compensation offered lies not to the Minister but to the Lands Tribunal.
  The owner trustees might well prefer the quick realisation of market value by means of a public auction but they should not, I submit, quarrel with the basis laid down for the compensation.
  The owners also protested at the inquiry at the length of time, which the hon. Member mentioned, that had elapsed since the making of the compulsory purchase order. The inquiry was held on 21st June this year, and accordingly it was implied that the council's wish to rehouse the family in greatest need before the winter had been frustrated by the making of the order. Much of this argument could have been resolved if the trustees had consulted the council. I make little of the possibility that the property could have been sold to the council by agreement at any time. Rather I regret the fact that it was not possible to hold the inquiry until nearly 11 months after the order was made, but there were good reasons for the apparent delay.
  As I said at the outset, this was an unusual case and necessarily a number of technical questions relating to ownership and interests in the property had to be cleared up before an inquiry could be held. But a point of more substance was that planning permission for the
  1556
  change of use of the school, as opposed to the school house, was not available before the middle of March 1966. This is a fact of some relevance also to the trustees who must, I should have thought, have welcomed this approval.
  I turn in more detail to the public inquiry and to the inspector's report. The owners were supported in their objections by the parish council and other local bodies. Some 250 parishioners had also signed a petition opposing the compulsory purchase order.
  Apart from those matters that I have already mentioned, there were two main and related points at issue. These were the suitability of the premises for their intended housing use and the economics of the conversion of the existing buildings. The inspector found that the property was physically capable of conversion and that main water and electricity services were available within a reasonable distance. The site is isolated from any existing community and, on that account, would appear suitable for the purposes that the council had in mind. The hon. Member knows all about that.
  Yet the Inspector recommended that the order be not confirmed despite, as I have already remarked, lack of merit in the principal ground of objection. He came to this view because he considered the council's proposals to be generally unsatisfactory and uneconomic.
  The Minister naturally gave the inspector's report and his recommendations the most serious consideration, but he did not share the inspector's view that the council had failed to substantiate its case for acquisition. Its housing need is not disputed, nor did the owners object to the proposed use of the property.
  It is accepted that the works which the council will need to undertake will prove expensive and that the buildings may have only a limited life. But the Housing Acts do not say that a local authority should make a profit or break even on every scheme they undertake. Indeed, the chances of profit or of avoiding a loss are usually least where the social need is greatest. Whether social needs outweigh straight economics in any particular circumstances is a question of judgment. The council came to the conclusion in this case that the expenses that it was likely to incur were justified

  1557
  by the housing need it sought to satisfy. The Minister, in confirming the compulsory purchase order on 13th October, has upheld that view. Now that he has issued his decision he has no further authority to intervene.
  Nevertheless, I can hope—and I am sure that the hon. Member will join me in
  1558
  this—that the necessary work will now go ahead to provide accommodation as quickly as possible, at least for the family with the most urgent need.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.

RAILWAYS
  Freight and Passenger Traffic (Volume)
  Freight and Passenger Traffic (Volume)
  Regional Economic Planning Councils
  Regional Economic Planning Councils
  Private Crossings
  Private Crossings
  Wagons and Freight Stock (Age)
  Wagons and Freight Stock (Age)
  Northallerton-Ripon-Harrogate Line (Closure)
  Northallerton-Ripon-Harrogate Line (Closure)
  Marplan Survey
  Marplan Survey
  Basic Network
  Basic Network
  Major Terminals
  Major Terminals
  Future Traffic
  Future Traffic
  Lost, Stolen or Damaged Goods (Claims)
  Lost, Stolen or Damaged Goods (Claims)
  Liner Trains
  Liner Trains
  Railway Land (Car Parks)
  Railway Land (Car Parks)
  Season Tickets
  Season Tickets
  Aberystwyth-Pont Llanio Line (Bridges)
  Aberystwyth-Pont Llanio Line (Bridges)
  Romsey-Andover Line
  Romsey-Andover Line
  Capital Investment
  Capital Investment
  Derailment, Sittingbourne (Inquiry)
  Derailment, Sittingbourne (Inquiry)
  Lansdown Station, Cheltenham
  Lansdown Station, Cheltenham
  Edinburgh-Carlisle Line
  Edinburgh-Carlisle Line
  Stanley Junction-Kinnaber Line (Passenger Services)
  Stanley Junction-Kinnaber Line (Passenger Services)
  Eastern and North-Eastern Regions (Merger)
  Eastern and North-Eastern Regions (Merger)
  Barmouth-Ruabon Line
  Barmouth-Ruabon Line
  Hull-Scarborough Line (Closure)
  Hull-Scarborough Line (Closure)
  British Transport Hotels Ltd. (Capital Value)
  British Transport Hotels Ltd. (Capital Value)
PORTS
  Dock Dues (Goole)
  Dock Dues (Goole)
  New Dock, Portbury
  New Dock, Portbury
  Tees and Hartlepools Port Authority (Appointment)
  Tees and Hartlepools Port Authority (Appointment)
  Capital Investment
  Capital Investment
ROADS
  A1 (Fly-Over)
  A1 (Fly-Over)
  A47 (Walpole Highway)
  A47 (Walpole Highway)
  M4
  M4
  Parking Meters, Greater London Area (Revenue)
  Parking Meters, Greater London Area (Revenue)
  Urban Roads (Controls of Use)
  Urban Roads (Controls of Use)
  Worboys Signs, Dorset
  Worboys Signs, Dorset
  A6 (Preston-Carnforth Section)
  A6 (Preston-Carnforth Section)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  M1
  M1
  M5 (Land)
  M5 (Land)
  Classified Road Schemes, Suffolk
  Classified Road Schemes, Suffolk
  Road Building (Finance)
  Road Building (Finance)
  Channel Tunnel (Share Profits)
  Channel Tunnel (Share Profits)
  Barnes Motorway Link
  Barnes Motorway Link
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  Motorway Service Areas
  Motorway Service Areas
  Motorways (Fog)
  Motorways (Fog)
  A1 (Lavatories)
  A1 (Lavatories)
  Parking Meters (Testing)
  Parking Meters (Testing)
  Rural Roads (Kerbing)
  Rural Roads (Kerbing)
  M6 (Accidents)
  M6 (Accidents)
TRANSPORT
  Rail and Road Transport (Comparative Costs)
  Rail and Road Transport (Comparative Costs)
  Dangerous Driving (Definition)
  Dangerous Driving (Definition)
  Wide Loads (Special Charge)
  Wide Loads (Special Charge)
  Passenger Services (Financial Responsibility)
  Passenger Services (Financial Responsibility)
  Bus Operators (Motor Fuel Duty)
  Bus Operators (Motor Fuel Duty)
  Victoria Line (Extension)
  Victoria Line (Extension)
  Road Pricing
  Road Pricing
  Conurbation Transport Authorities
  Conurbation Transport Authorities
  Cmnd. No. 3057
  Cmnd. No. 3057
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  American Methods
  American Methods
  Drinking and Driving (Publicity)
  Drinking and Driving (Publicity)
  Private Bus Services (Public Ownership)
  Private Bus Services (Public Ownership)
  Motor Vehicles (Exhaust Fumes)
  Motor Vehicles (Exhaust Fumes)
  Driving Licence (Minimum Age)
  Driving Licence (Minimum Age)
  Motor Vehicles (Noise)
  Motor Vehicles (Noise)
  Motor Rallies (Control Regulations)
  Motor Rallies (Control Regulations)
  Travel Conditions
  Travel Conditions
  Goods Vehicles
  Goods Vehicles
  Parking (Christmas Plans)
  Parking (Christmas Plans)
  Travel Concessions Act, 1964
  Travel Concessions Act, 1964
  Inland Waterways (Legislation)
  Inland Waterways (Legislation)
  Passenger Insurance
  Passenger Insurance
  Private Motor Cars, London (Restrictions)
  Private Motor Cars, London (Restrictions)
  Transport Services, Llanarthnau
  Transport Services, Llanarthnau
  Motor Vehicles (Unroadworthy Condition)
  Motor Vehicles (Unroadworthy Condition)
  Motor Vehicles (Trafficators)
  Motor Vehicles (Trafficators)
  Park Lane-Hyde Park Corner Area (Congestion)
  Park Lane-Hyde Park Corner Area (Congestion)
  London Supermarkets (Night Delivery Experiments)
  London Supermarkets (Night Delivery Experiments)
  Speed (Television Advertising)
  Speed (Television Advertising)
  Motor Vehicles (Excise Duty)
  Motor Vehicles (Excise Duty)
POST OFFICE
  London Trades Directory
  London Trades Directory
  Donaghadee Post Office (Resiting)
  Donaghadee Post Office (Resiting)
  Sub-Post Office, Newtownards
  Sub-Post Office, Newtownards
  Temporary Postmen, Hull (Christmas Period)
  Temporary Postmen, Hull (Christmas Period)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Television Receivers, Western Highlands (Cost)
  Television Receivers, Western Highlands (Cost)
  B.B.C. 2 (Wales)
  B.B.C. 2 (Wales)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Waiting Lists
  Waiting Lists
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Salmon Disease
  Salmon Disease
  Civic Restaurants (Middlesbrough)
  Civic Restaurants (Middlesbrough)
  Agricultural Production (Growth)
  Agricultural Production (Growth)
  Farm Grants and Subsidies (Wales and Monmouthshire)
  Farm Grants and Subsidies (Wales and Monmouthshire)
  Land Reclamation (Wales)
  Land Reclamation (Wales)
  Tenant Farmers (Disturbance Compensation)
  Tenant Farmers (Disturbance Compensation)
  Hill Sheep Subsidy
  Hill Sheep Subsidy
SCOTLAND
  Hospitals (Old People)
  Hospitals (Old People)
  Colleges of Education Teachers (Salaries and Pensions)
  Colleges of Education Teachers (Salaries and Pensions)
  Fishing Industry (Credit Facilities)
  Fishing Industry (Credit Facilities)
  International Bureau of Education
  International Bureau of Education
  Probation Officers (Pay)
  Probation Officers (Pay)
  Geriatric Hospital Beds, Ayrshire (Waiting List)
  Geriatric Hospital Beds, Ayrshire (Waiting List)
  Housing
  Housing
  General Teaching Council (Recommendations)
  General Teaching Council (Recommendations)
  Hill Sheep Subsidy
  Hill Sheep Subsidy
  Dental Operating Technicians
  Dental Operating Technicians
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Armed Services (Rationalisation and Reorganisation)
  Armed Services (Rationalisation and Reorganisation)
  Communications and Reconnaissance Satellites
  Communications and Reconnaissance Satellites
  Service Catering Departments (Meat Supplies)
  Service Catering Departments (Meat Supplies)
  Meteorological Services (Bristol Airport)
  Meteorological Services (Bristol Airport)
  Meteorological Office (Scientific Assistants)
  Meteorological Office (Scientific Assistants)
  British Forces, Aden (Meat Supplies)
  British Forces, Aden (Meat Supplies)
  Weather Forecasts
  Weather Forecasts
  Flood Warnings
  Flood Warnings
  Royal Ordnance Factories (Machine Tools)
  Royal Ordnance Factories (Machine Tools)
  Boulters Lodge (Road Widening)
  Boulters Lodge (Road Widening)
  Barracks (London)
  Barracks (London)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Wormwood Scrubs Prison (Security)
  Wormwood Scrubs Prison (Security)
  Robert Maxwell
  Robert Maxwell
  Quarter Sessions (Increases of Sentences)
  Quarter Sessions (Increases of Sentences)
  Perjury (Convictions)
  Perjury (Convictions)
  Plaid Cymru (Police Visits)
  Plaid Cymru (Police Visits)
  Race Relations Act
  Race Relations Act
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Diplomatic Relations
  Diplomatic Relations
  "Overseas Development"
  "Overseas Development"
  Developing Countries (Economic Aid)
  Developing Countries (Economic Aid)
  Malawi (Grant)
  Malawi (Grant)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Earnings-Related Benefits (Ex-Service Men)
  Earnings-Related Benefits (Ex-Service Men)
  Earnings-Related Supplement (Widows of Service Men)
  Earnings-Related Supplement (Widows of Service Men)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Church of England School, Woodham Ferrers
  Church of England School, Woodham Ferrers
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Circular No. 26/66
  Circular No. 26/66
  Greater London Boroughs (Ownership)
  Greater London Boroughs (Ownership)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Industrial Training Boards (Professions)
  Industrial Training Boards (Professions)
  Redeployment (Criteria)
  Redeployment (Criteria)
  Cadeby Main Colliery (Strike)
  Cadeby Main Colliery (Strike)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Trade Balance
  Trade Balance
  Unemployment (Ardrossan, Largs, Rothesay and Stevenston)
  Unemployment (Ardrossan, Largs, Rothesay and Stevenston)
  Exports
  Exports
  Commercial Trailers (Hire-Purchase Restrictions)
  Commercial Trailers (Hire-Purchase Restrictions)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Bricks (Stocks)
  Bricks (Stocks)
  House of Commons (Committee Room Furniture)
  House of Commons (Committee Room Furniture)
WALES
  Sea Defence
  Sea Defence
  Welsh Language (Legislation)
  Welsh Language (Legislation)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Ministers' Overseas Visits (Staff)
  Ministers' Overseas Visits (Staff)

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

LORD HUNT
Sir Henry Cecil John Hunt, C.B.E., D.S.O., having been created Baron Hunt, of Llanvair Waterdine in the County of Salop, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Burton of Coventry and the Lord Tangley.
The Marquess of Headfort—Took the Oath.
The Marquess of Donegall—Took the Oath.

FREIGHT-LINER TRAINS: PERSONAL STATEMENT BY LORD CHAMPION
2.46 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, with permission of the House I ask leave to correct an answer which I gave to a supplementary question yesterday, quoted in col. 120 of Hansard, when I said that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport had met on Monday one of the important unions connected with the question of freight-liner trains. The meeting was, in fact, with the British Road Services Management. I should like to apologise to the House for this error, which arose out of my misunderstanding of a telephoned reply to my request for the latest information on the freight-liner train position.

GIBRALTAR: DEFENCE NEEDS AND DEVELOPMENT
2.47 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: 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 consideration is being given by the Ministry of Defence to the question of relinquishing, whilst taking into account the legitimate interests of the Services, sites in Gibraltar,

(a) for residential development; and

(b) so that further beach and other amenities may be provided for the development of tourism.]

THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the Ministry of Defence is in continuous touch with the Commonwealth Office and the Gibraltar authorities on the future development of the Colony. In recent years many sites have been relinquished to the Government of Gibraltar. Proposals for transfers invariably receive sympathetic consideration.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply, which does not carry one much further. In view of the fact that the summary of the main findings and policy recommendations of the Gibraltar Study Group, which was set up by Her Majesty's Government, were submitted on December 16 last, nearly a year ago, is it not time that Her Majesty's Government considered the implications of these recommendations, as quite a number involve consideration of military installations in Gibraltar?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Beswick would probably be better at answering this part of the question. But it is a fact that during the last three years the Services have made available about forty properties, including some on the coast, and in the situation as it exists now, I understand that if further land were made available it is doubtful whether it could be utilised for the sort of long-term purposes to which the noble Lord referred. I am sure that this shows no

235
lack of sympathy on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I am answering the noble Lord's question in purely practical terms.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that supplementary reply. But is he aware that considerable emphasis was placed by the Study Group on the desirability of building a centre for residential and tourist use, in the Rosia Bay area in particular? I am quite sure the noble Lord will be aware that the Services have a number of installations, buildings and so forth, in that area.
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes, my Lords. I am well aware of the Rosia Bay position. In fact it is true that the Navy have essential facilities there, but when and if Rosia Bay is required for this sort of development—and I must stress it is not at the moment a practical proposition—we shall be prepared to discuss reproviding those facilities elsewhere. I assure the noble Lord that this will be sympathetically considered, but it does not arise at this moment.

RHODESIA: U.N. RESOLUTION
2.52 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 why, since they disagreed with the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations calling for the use of force against Rhodesia, they did not vote against it.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, the General Assembly resolution on Southern Rhodesia of November 17 to which the noble Lord refers was identical with the draft resolution adopted in the Fourth Committee on November 10. During the debate in that Committee a separate vote was taken on paragraph 8 which inter alia called for the use of force. The United Kingdom together with seventeen other members voted against this paragraph and subsequently abstained on the resolution
236
as a whole. In the plenary sesion representatives were asked to limit their interventions to explanations of vote and the Assembly proceeded to vote on the resolution as a whole. Our representative therefore repeated our previous abstention.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for his Answer? Does it not occur to Her Majesty's Government that to abstain on a resolution with substantial parts of which they disagree may lead to greater dangers than those which they seek to avoid?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite understand the noble Lord's point, but it would be equally illogical to vote against a resolution on the substantial points of which we agree.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, that is not, is it, a general principle for proceeding on resolutions? Surely the failure to vote on the merits is likely to lead both the Government and the United Nations into disrepute.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as to the general principle in these matters, I should have thought that there was a principle which we should acknowledge and understand in the proceedings in this House; but the proceedings in the United Nations are somewhat different. There, we must have regard to the wider implications of the lesson, or conclusions, which might be drawn from our action by the world as a whole.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that proceedings in the United Nations are somewhat different. But, in view of the publication by General van Horn of his book, Soldiering for Peace, which certainly brings out what ought to cause a great deal of disquiet as to the way United Nations affairs are conducted, does the noble Lord not think that, in order to avoid misunderstanding, it would be better if Her Majesty's Government register definite votes in cases where they have definitely stated their policy?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I cannot comment on the book, which I am afraid I have not read. But in this particular case we definitely abstained on a resolution with parts of which we agreed and with parts of which we disagreed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask one question? Supposing this matter came before the Security Council, with whom alone, I believe, executive power rests, would Her Majesty's Government use their vote against the use of force in view of their declaration that they were opposed to it?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Marquess will remember from his previous experience in another place that there is a very definite rule about hypothetical questions. I think that I will adopt that ruling on this.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this? Is it not the case that the great substance of this I resolution was one with which Her Majesty's Government agreed, but there was a clause referring to force with which Her Majesty's Government disagreed and that therefore it was the logical attitude of Her Majesty's Government to abstain on this resolution?
LORD BESWICK: I have no doubt that my noble friend has put more clearly the same point which I have been trying to make.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he remembers that a little less than twelve months ago, both at the United Nations and in another place, the Prime Minister quoted Dante with approval to this effect:
"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who are neutral in a moral crisis"?
Can he say what has changed the Prime Minister's view? Is it perhaps the attitude of South Africa?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in this context I am not quite sure of the nature of the moral crisis to which the noble Lord refers. In this case I should have found myself in an unsatisfactory position if I had been jockeyed into a situation of allying myself with only two nations who were voting against 89 other nations on the proposition that the African people in Rhodesia were entitled to freedom.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government, after abstaining, placed on the record an explanation of the reasons for that abstention so that when the resolution is read that explanation can be seen?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. The position, as I have tried to indicate, is that our representative at the United Nations made it quite clear in the Fourth Committee why we voted against this clause and why we abstained on the resolution as a whole. No general debate took place in the General Assembly. It was understood perfectly clearly why we were abstaining.

RHODESIA
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will make a Statement on Rhodesia.

RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION BILL [H.L.]
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Race Relations Act 1965 so as to prohibit racial and religious discrimination in employment, housing, business, clubs and all places of public resort; to enlarge, and to confer certain powers of investigation and enforcement upon, the Race Relations Board; and to amend Section 6 of that Act. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Brockway.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

INDUSTRIAL REORGANISATION CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in moving that the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Bill be now read a first time I should like to draw the attention of the House to the notification which appeared in our Minutes to the effect that if the Bill was received on Tuesday, November 22, it was intended to set it down for Second Reading on Thursday, December 1. In view of the fact that the Bill is only one day late, I hope that the House will agree to the Second Reading taking place as previously arranged. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

NATIONAL COAL BOARD (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL
Brought from Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS
2.58 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move the Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper. The Amendment mentioned therein carries out the recommendation of the Procedure Committee contained in their Third Report which was agreed to by the House on Thursday last. The effect of the change will be that Unstarred Questions will have to come at the end of the day's business.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 be amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
(6) Unstarred Questions shall be entered last.—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Standing Order amended accordingly.

THE DIVORCE LAWS
3.0 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER rose to call attention to the Divorce Laws with special reference to the recent Report entitled Putting Asunder and to the Report of the Law Commission on Reform of the Grounds of Divorce (Cmnd. 3123); and to move for Papers. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the length of the list of those of your Lordships who have indicated your intention to intervene in this debate at once encourages and appals me, but it at least assures me that I shall be in no danger of being accused of wasting the time of your Lordships' House by tabling this Motion.
There is now abroad, I think, a certain sense of urgency about the need to reform the divorce laws. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack has himself shown evidence of that sense of urgency, in that he immediately referred the Report of the so-called Archbishop's Group, Putting Asunder, to the Law Commission. The Law Commission
240
then reported on it in a matter of some three or four months, showing a remarkable sense of urgency and promptitude. It is extremely convenient that this afternoon we should have both Reports in front of us, for the second Report—that of the Law Commission—is, in a sense, a commentary upon and a criticism of the earlier Report, Putting Asunder.
I think that the problem about divorce which confronts the country at the moment can be put in this way. Where there is a community which, on the one hand, sets a very high value upon the stability of marriage, because it considers that the inner family—that of parents and children—is the basic unit of its own society, and because it considers that the break-up of a marriage has the most deleterious effects upon the children of the marriage and that therefore the community itself may be endangered in the next generation if there are too many broken homes, but, on the other hand, insists that divorce shall be made available for those who find the continuance of their marriage unbearable, it is of the first importance that the divorce laws should do the least possible damage to the stability of marriage, whilst providing the relief demanded in a humane and decent manner. The question is: have we in this country at present that system of law? The two Reports, to which I am drawing your Lordships' attention this afternoon, are agreed in this: that both consider that our present laws satisfy neither of the two requirements.
The present law is based on the principle of the matrimonial offence. It dates from the time when divorce was rare and granted as a relief only in extreme cases, and it did not include the right to re-marry. To petition for divorce was the last despairing act of one whose marriage had become utterly unbearable by reason of the outrageous conduct of the other party. It was natural, therefore, that the court should demand clear proof of the serious matrimonial offence or offences complained of; that it should expect that the petitioner should be genuinely aggrieved: that there was no question of collusion or of condo nation; and that the petitioner was not also guilty of an equally serious matrimonial offence.
As this no longer agrees with our social climate, we do not approach the

241
problem of divorce in the same way. Divorce does not now carry with it the same serious social consequences that it did, and the whole approach of the matrimonial offence—the serious aggrievement, the clean hands, the absence of any kind of collusion—seems now to a great many people to be altogether out of place. It seems that it results, all too often, in the artificial creation of an atmosphere of bitterness and hostility where none such need exist. This is most evident, of course, in defended cases, but it happens, also, in undefended cases.
It often happens that the two parties agree that there must be a divorce, and the so-called guilty party agrees not to contest the case, without realising that the inevitable consequence of this must be that he or she is branded in open court as guilty of this or that matrimonial offence and is therefore responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. It often happens that someone who has agreed not to defend a case has foolishly attended the hearing of a case and has been appalled by the terms in which counsel have represented the matrimonial offence; counsel having to make it clear to the judge that there is, indeed, an offence, and that it is complained of, and that it justifies the dissolution of the marriage. He or she is even more appalled when the other party to the marriage is called into the witness-box and agrees that, indeed, the conduct was so, and that he or she is now so aggrieved that the divorce is abundantly justified. It is then, very often, that bitterness is created between the two parties.
The present law is also held to be unsatisfactory, because to the ground of the matrimonial offences has been added another ground which is not an offence at all—insanity. In addition, the offence of cruelty has been interpreted to include behaviour which was not intended to be cruel but which has created an intolerable situation. That, too, is not an offence in the ordinary sense of the word, because there is no mens rea in it; there was no intention to be cruel. Further, the almost invariable use of the judge's discretion, and the issue of double decrees in favour of both parties, have whittled away almost to nothing the requirement that the petitioner should have clean hands and should be genuinely aggrieved.
242
In fact, the courts are more and more acting not on the ground of the matrimonial offence at all, but on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
It is not uncommon for a judge in the divorce courts to say to the two parties: "Both of you have committed matrimonial offences. Neither of you deserves a divorce. But it is in the public interest that this marriage of yours, which is irretrievably dead, should be legally ended." The courts are more and more acting on the principle that a divorce should be granted where a marriage has broken down. Lastly, the present law does nothing to solve the problem created by a broken marriage, where one of the parties enters into another stable, but illicit, union and the other refuses to sue for divorce. The two in the illicit union cannot marry, and their children must remain illegitimate.
However, I need not detain your Lordships any longer with criticism of the existing divorce procedure. It will, I hope, be enough to quote the conclusions of these two Reports. The Report Putting Asunder concludes as follows:
"That the law as it stands is unsatisfactory all the judges and lawyers who gave us evidence agreed, however much they differed concerning the remedies to be applied. We are far from being convinced that the present provisions of the law witness to the sanctity of marriage, or uphold its public repute, in any observable way, or that they are irreplaceable as buttresses of morality, either in the narrower field of matrimonial and sexual relationships, or in the wider field which includes considerations of truth, the sacredness of oaths, and the integrity of professional practice. As a piece of social mechanism the present system has not only cut loose from its moral and judicial foundations; it is, quite simply, inept."
The Report of the Law Commission concludes:
"It seems clear that the present law does not adequately achieve the objectives of a good divorce law.…It does not do all it might to aid the stability of marriage, but tends rather to discourage attempts at reconciliation. It does not enable all dead marriages to be buried, and those that it buries are not always interred with the minimum of distress and humiliation. It does not achieve the maximum possible fairness to all concerned, for a spouse may be branded as guilty in law though not the more blameworthy in fact. The insistence on guilt and innocence tends to embitter relationships, with particularly damaging results to the children, rather than to promote future harmony. Its principles are widely regarded as hypocritical."

243
My Lords, if, then, it be generally agreed that this is the case, what are the remedies at present proposed? If one concentrates on my first criticism—the unnecessary bitterness and the general unreality caused by basing the divorce law on the matrimonial offence—the obvious remedy to suggest is the substitution for the matrimonial offence of divorce by mutual consent of the two parties as the sole ground. After all, what better evidence can there be that a marriage has no future than that the two parties both agree that it cannot go on and want to end it? Who can better judge the condition of a marriage than the parties themselves? The answer to that, of course, my Lords, as any marriage guidance counsellor will tell you, is: almost anybody else.
But divorce by consent is open to the grave, indeed overwhelming, objection that it reduces marriage to a purely private contract and ignores the interest of the community. Many of the supporters of divorce by consent seem to recognise the force of this objection, at least where children are involved, and would limit it to marriages where there are no children or where the children are grown up. A further and equally serious objection is that the substitution of divorce by consent as the sole ground, or even its introduction as an additional ground, would cast the gravest doubt on the intention of those contracting marriage to intend a lifelong union. After all, if divorce by consent were introduced, what would the marriage vow really amount to—"Till death us do part, or we both decide to call it a day"?
To protect the lifelong character of the marriage vows from being utterly destroyed by the feasibility of divorce, it is essential that the final decision be that of the community and not of the parties themselves. One of the worst features of our present system based on the matrimonial offence is that, in fact, very often it is the parties who decide and the community is helpless to intervene. The point is well made in evidence, submitted yesterday by an ecclesiastical organisation to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Divorce of the Parliament of Canada, in the course of an argument against the matrimonial offence in general and the addition of a further ground, that
244
of separation, in particular. This organisation argued as follows (I quote from page 30):
"Under the 'matrimonial offence' system of divorce, the so-called 'innocent spouse' is the sole judge who decides whether the so-called 'guilty party' can ever remarry. Conversely, apart from the lucky 'innocent spouse' who obtains proof of the adultery of his or her 'guilty spouse' without the co-operation of that 'guilty spouse', the guilty spouse ' is the judge who decides whether the ' innocent spouse' can ever remarry. The 'guilty spouse' does this by concealing his or her misconduct and refusing to volunteer evidence of such misconduct.
"While the 'ground for separation' form of 'marriage breakdown' put before this Committee by the Canadian Bar Association is a distinct improvement over the 'matrimonial offence' concept, nevertheless it is the least attractive form of 'marriage breakdown.' If the period of separation of the parties is the sole criterion for determining the irrretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the party chiefly responsible for the breakdown would know with certainty that he or she would eventually gain the right to remarry. It is true that that right would not be gained for some years, but it shares the defect of the 'matrimonial offence' in that the parties, not society, make the ultimate decision. If the matrimonial offence or the period of separation is proven, the Court has no choice but to grant the decree.…Society has a vital interest in the stability of family life, and society should assert that interest by giving to its representative, the Court, and not to the parties only, the final decision".
My Lords, I will say no more about divorce by consent except to quote the pejorative concluding comment of the Law Commission upon it:
"Divorce by consent—This would be practicable only as an additional, and not a sole comprehensive, ground. It would not be more than a palliative and would probably be unacceptable except in the case of marriages in which there are no dependent children. Even in the case of childless marriages, if consent were the sole criterion, it might lead to the dissolution of marriages that had not broken down irretrievably."
Surely that is to damn with the faintest of praise!
If one concentrates on the problem created by the dead marriage and the co-existing stable but illicit union, the obvious remedy is to suggest the addition of a new ground—that of separation. That is Mr. Abse's Bill and the Law Commission's separation ground. I have already dealt with the main objection to this by my quotation from the Canadian evidence. Further objections appear on almost every page of the Report Putting Asunder. The essential point surely is

245
that this leaves the matrimonial offence as the main ground of divorce and so does nothing to remove most of the unsatisfactory features of the present system. It is a tinkering reform and not a radical reform; and, as the Law Commission said, so long as a relatively quick divorce can be obtained on the ground of the matrimonial offence people will take that way out rather than to wait a longer period to get divorce on the ground of separation. Such evidence as there is from Australia goes to confirm that.
What the Law Commission actually said is this:
"The fact is that if someone can get a divorce by a speedy method, he will generally not wait until he can obtain it by a much more dilatory one, even if that method may avoid some of the bitterness and recrimination likely to arise in proceedings based on proof of a matrimonial offence."
The Law Commission are hopeful in one of their own proposals that a separation of two years would be sufficiently short to dissuade people from unnecessarily having to resort to the matrimonial offence. I myself can see little reason for sharing that optimism.
My Lords, I come now to the third remedy proposed, that of the substitution for the matrimonial offence of the breakdown of marriage as the sole ground of divorce. There is no need for me to repeat the arguments in favour of this proposal. They have been set out at great length in the Report, Putting, Asunder; they are admirably and most fairly summarised in the Report of the Law Commission; and they have been widely canvassed in the Press. It will be enough for me to quote a sentence or two from Putting Asunder.
"…a divorce law founded on the doctrine of breakdown would not only accord better with social realities than the present law does, but it would have the merit of showing up divorce for what in essence it is—not a reward for marital virtue on the one side and a penalty for marital delinquency on the other; not a victory for one spouse and a reverse for the other; but a defeat for both, a failure of the marital 'two-in-one ship' in which both its members, however unequal their responsibility, are inevitably involved together."
If this principle of breakdown were adopted as the sole ground for divorce, the divorce courts would of course have to satisfy themselves that the marriage had in fact broken down irretrievably. Sufficient evidence of this would in most
246
cases be contained in the pleadings which would include, inter alia, a statement of what, if any, attempts at reconciliation had been made. Sometimes, but by no means always or even often, the court might feel it necessary to make further inquiries. In such cases, Putting Asunder says:
"provision should be made for the intervention, when needed, of counsel representing the public interest or the interests of children of the family."
Further, a body of workers would no doubt have to be recruited who would be available to help the court in a number of ways. They would not be needed in every case, but they should be available for use when and if the court required them.
The Law Commission, having carefully considered this proposal, view it with great favour, it seems to me, and reject it only on purely practical grouds. This is what they say:
"…we are forced to the conclusion that Breakdown with Inquest as proposed by the Archbishop's Group cannot, despite its undoubted attractions and our sympathy with the principles underlying the Group's approach, be made to work because of purely practical difficulties."
The difficulties are, first, that cases would take longer; second, that more judges and more courts would be needed; third, that the suggested welfare officers to assist the courts would be unobtainable in sufficient numbers. Even if all this were true—and it is by no means certain that it is true—it would be poor reason indeed for rejecting a proposal which on other grounds is considered to be the best that has yet been put forward.
The fact that under the present system the average undefended case goes through a divorce court in about seven and a half minutes is nothing to be proud of; it is not a feature which should be preserved in any alternative system. The fact that urgent or desirable reform will involve the establishment of new tribunals and the recruiting of more civil servants, estate agents, valuers and what-have-you, has not prevented Governments—and least of all this Government—from pressing on with the reform of the Rent Act, Land Acts and tax laws, or matters which the Government hold to be desirable, essential or urgent. It is my contention that a reform of the divorce laws in the

247
best possible way is, if not essential, at least desirable and urgent.
However, the Law Commission have, for purely practical reasons, turned down the proposal as put forward in Putting Asunder, but have suggested another form of it which, they claim, would meet the practical objections. The Commission call it "Breakdown without Inquest". My own opinion is that this proposal calls for a very careful and sympathetic consideration. If it came before Parliament in the shape of a Bill I think I should support it, except for one thing. The Law Commission argue that the period of separation required as proof of breakdown, if "Breakdown without Inquest" were the sole ground of the divorce, could not be longer than six months and that this would be unacceptable. Indeed, it would! But the Law Commission offer no very cogent reason for making the period so short. They say:
"If the period chosen were a relatively long one, say, three years, innocent parties who can now obtain a divorce with reasonable dispatch on the ground of outrageous conduct by the other spouse would have to wait three years in all cases."
It would appear to many to be an intolerable hurry and, moreover, would inevitably add to the already large number of illicit unions and illegitimate children. On this, one might comment that the availability of a quick divorce followed by a quick re-marriage is one of the least satisfactory features of our present system. A longer delay between the date of the separation and the possibility of a second re-marriage is highly desirable in itself. In my experience of dealing with marriages after divorce—and I have to deal with a good many—those that prove most stable are almost invariably those which were contracted some time after the divorce and had nothing whatever to do with the obtaining of the divorce. A proposal which would involve a longer delay than is now necessary between the date of separation and the entry into a second marriage would be a merit and not an objection in any proposal.
My Lords, I can find no reference in the Law Commission Report to a suggestion made in Putting Asunder that the existing judicial separation order machinery should be kept in being for
248
use in cases where immediate relief and protection are required. Putting Asunder is quite clear about this:
"Whatever may happen to the law of divorce, it will always be necessary to provide protection and relief for the spouse who is being treated in a manner utterly inconsistent with matrimonial obligations. In other words, the immediate remedy of a legal separation of some kind must continue to be available. Consequently we wish to make it clear that our criticisms of the part played by the matrimonial offence in divorce suits do not apply in its role in proceedings for separation."
To this might well be added the suggestion found in a different form in the Canadian evidence, that, to save duplication of procedure, after the granting of a separation order at the end of the stated period of separation necessary for divorce, either party without further hearing should automatically be granted a decree of divorce subject to the arrangements about maintenance, provision for children and so on.
To sum up this part, of the remedies proposed I find that the substitution of divorce by consent, or the addition of divorce by consent to the existing grounds, or the addition of a ground of separation in whatever form, are all totally unacceptable. I am convinced that the substitution of the breakdown of marriage is the right solution and that a feasible scheme could be worked out which would meet all the objections in whole or in part; and I believe that this would receive general popular approval.
I pass now to a brief mention of some of the other matters on which the two reports are in agreement.First—and it is most important—is that the Divorce Court should have power to adjourn a case if it sees any hope of a reconciliation. This would be an extremely important and beneficial reform. The second is that all questions of maintenance, provision for children, custody, access and the rest should be dealt with and settled so far as possible before the case comes on for hearing. The third is that no decree should be issued unless the court is satisfied that the arrangements agreed are the most equitable in all the circumstances. The fourth is that greater emphasis be placed on the possibility of reconciliation. This means, of course, that considerably larger sums of money should be spent than are at present, first on the training of far larger numbers of

249
voluntary expert marriage guidance counsellors through the agency of the Tavistock Institute and the Central Marriage Guidance Council, or possibly by some other organisation. Secondly, the services of professional psychologists and psychiatrists should be made available for the help of the unpaid marriage counsellors when such help is needed. Thirdly, elementary training courses in marriage counselling should be provided in all localities for those classes of people who are frequently and naturally turned to for help by married couples in distress, such as the clergy, doctors, lawyers, district nurses, probation officers and so on. Simple courses should be available in every locality for those people to attend if they so wish.
I do not think that the Law Commission Report anywhere explicitly endorses any of these detailed suggestions, but I think it is a fair inference from what is contained in their Report that the Commission give sympathetic support in general to the suggestions put forward in Putting Asunder. It is possible, though not of course certain, that the extra money thus spent, or a great part of it, would be recovered in savings on legal aid. It is possible, because we know already of many strained marriages which, by means of a little outside help, have been preserved, and not only preserved but converted into positive sources of happiness both for the parties themselves and for their children. There is no reason to suppose that, with more and more expert outside help available, a great many more such marriages under strain would not be similarly preserved and converted and therefore would never come into the divorce courts at all. At any rate, in the interests of human happiness the risk is worth the expenditure.
In the great majority of cases divorce means for the wife serious economic loss. Probably this cannot wholly be avoided, but it can, and should, be drastically mitigated; and all the more so if the law is going to provide that the wife of a delinquent husband may be divorced by him against her will. One of my greatest objections to the Bill of Mr. Abse is that it contains nothing to soften the wife's economic loss. It seeks to remedy one class of injustice by creating another. It is good to know that this problem is under active consideration by the Law
250
Commission and that its urgency is recognised. Their Report states:
"But far more radical reforms are needed in the law relating to the family property (in which we include pension rights) and in the rules governing financial relief and the machinery for its enforcement if, as a result of the divorce, she is not to suffer materially, either at once, or later through loss of a pension as her ex-husband's widow. These problems are among those dealt with in two separate studies on which we are engaged at the present time: one on family property and the other on financial relief."
It is, of course, true that the noble Baroness, Lady Summer skill, has been a pioneer in this respect and that her Matrimonial Homes Bill does something to protect the divorced wife and to mitigate her economic loss. I am confident that the noble Lady will agree with me that much more still needs to be done to protect these women. It would, I think, be culpably irresponsible and unjust to introduce the breakdown of marriage principle into our law in any form before these economic reforms were also ready for enactment alongside.
Finally, my Lords—and it really is finally—the two Reports are agreed that if the breakdown of marriage is to be introduced in any form there must be a bar, either discretionary or absolute, against the issuing of a degree where it would be contrary to the public interest, that is to say, where it would give general offence and seem to be flagrantly unjust. The great difficulty of defining such a bar with adequate precision led the Law Commission to put it forward with the greatest diffidence. It is indeed extremely difficult so to define this bar as to give to the courts adequate guidance and at the same time not to bind their hands too strictly. Nevertheless, I believe hat the Law Commission agree in principle with Putting Asunder, that such a bar is not merely desirable but essential. I am aware that I have omitted a great deal which any really comprehensive review of the divorce problem ought necessarily to include; I am also well aware that I have wearied your Lordships long enough.
What it comes to, my Lords, is this. I believe that public opinion on the whole now agrees that our divorce laws should be made more realistic, more decent and more humane. I believe that public opinion does not want easier divorce, but it does want more sensible divorce, and I believe that it wishes, in particular, that

251
marriage ties which have for years existed only in the merest, emptiest and most legal sense should be ended, but ended with the minimum of injustice and unhappiness to all parties—in short, that a time has come not for a tinkering reform but for a radical reform; that a time has come to move away from our present marrage system, with all the bitterness which it unnecessarily engenders, in the direction of something more civilised and more enlightened. I beg to move for Papers.
3.41 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have the feeling—I may be quite wrong—that I am taking part to-day in what is, and will in future be recognised to be, an historic occasion. I should like, if I may, to say five things. The first is to express my indebtedness, and I am sure the indebtedness of all your Lordships, to the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter for introducing the debate this afternoon. The most reverend Primate was good enough to send me an advance copy of Putting Asunder, and as soon as I read it I thought that this was a document of immense social significance. When it was published in July, I wrote to the right reverend Prelate, reminding him that this House is now the place for all social reform to be first discussed and suggesting that he might think fit in November to open a debate here. He was good enough to reply that he had expected that the most reverend Primate might want a debate in the Church Assembly. It had not occurred to him to try for a debate in your Lordships' House, but if I thought it desirable he would be very glad to do so. In thanking him, this is not the ordinary courtesy expression—I am most grateful to him for having responded in that way to my suggestion.
The second thing I should like to say is that I am the Minister who is responsible for this branch of our law and that the Government's attitude to this debate is one of neutrality. The third thing I want to put to your Lordships is about the Law Commission. I thought that the Report of the right reverend Prelate's Committee was a document of great social significance, first, because of its outright condemnation of the whole of our present divorce law, and, secondly,
252
because it suggested the sweeping away of divorce for adultery, divorce for cruelty, divorce for desertion and divorce for wilful refusal to consummate the marriage, and substituting as the sole ground for divorce this one new test of the breakdown of the marriage.
My next point is not always understood. I referred to it briefly last week at the end of our debate, when naturally there were only a few Members in the House. We discussed this day last week the first Annual Report of the Law Commission and, if I may, I should like to put right something that I omitted to say then. All noble Lords who took part in that debate were unanimous in their praise of the first year's work of the Law Commission and members of the Opposition were most generous in agreeing that the fears which had been expressed at the time of the debate in this House on the Bill had proved to be erroneous. May I add to that my own thanks to the Commission staff? I know the sort of hours they had to work in this, their first year, and I had meant to express my gratitude to them.
Under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, the Law Commission have from time to time to prepare a draft programme of law reform, not for a year or for any specified length of time, and the Government have then to approve or disapprove of it. Once it has been approved, that is more or less the end of the Commission's contact with the Government. When they make any proposal for reform under that subsection, it has to be laid before the Parliament, whether the Government Department concerned likes it or not; and neither I nor the Government as a whole, after the programme is once approved, have any power to say to the Law Commission, "You are to do this", or "You are not to do that".
But there is one further point. Under Section 3(1)(e), any Minister is entitled to ask the Law Commission for advice or information about any point. Now the original programme approved by the Government included matrimonial law, and when I read Putting Asunder I thought that it might be useful to me to have a summary from the Law Commission of this and other proposals in this field. I knew about Mr. Abse's Bill and that a Member of your Lordships' House also intended to introduce a Bill. I asked

253
the Commission to point out what was said for and against, what had happened in other countries which had tried any of these suggestions and what suggestions they thought would be practicable or not. I had in mind that if it were the sort of document I hoped it would be, it might be usefully published for the information of legislators in both Houses. I did not expect a document of anything like this length. How they did it in three months I am not sure, but of course the Chairman has been for many years a Judge in the Divorce Division.
Your Lordships will have noticed that after a reference to the fact that
"…our First Programme requires us to furnish you with an examination of the Matrimonial Law…".
the Commission say:
"Our Report may be regarded as the first step towards carrying out that examination and its scope will be wide enough to include the study not only of Putting Asunder but also of the other proposals for reform of the existing grounds of divorce which have received most support. It is not, of course, for us but for Parliament to settle such controversial social issues as the advisability of extending the present grounds of divorce. Our function in advising you must be to assist the Legislature and the general public in considering these questions by pointing out the implications of various possible courses of action. Perhaps the most useful service that we can perform at this stage is to mark out the boundaries of the field of choice."
I hope that noble Lords who have read the Report will agree that it is not only immensely interesting, but a most useful handbook of reform in this field.
I must add that an unfortunate thing happened. Three days before the Report was to be published, a Sunday newspaper published an article under headlines stating that the Commission was recommending divorce by consent. This, of course, is a travesty of anything contained in the Report. I must do the writer the justice of assuming that he had not read the Report. Two other Sunday newspapers thereupon borrowed the story from an early edition of the first paper. I am not criticising the Press at all. It is, I understand, not unusual for a newspaper to borrow from the early editions of other newspapers. It is the business of the Press to find out what is going on and, if it is interesting, to publish it.
Of course, at that time the Report had been seen, or ought to have been seen, only by the Law Commission, my Depart-
254
ment and the Government printers, so any knowledge must necessarily involve a breach of confidence. I mention all this only because it was rather hard on the Law Commission that the suggestion was made to the public that the Law Commission was arrogating to itself the right to say what our divorce laws ought to be, which, as I have explained, it was not doing at all.
The third point is this. The Government have decided, and already announced, that they are going to introduce legislation to transfer undefended divorce cases to the county courts. As this decision is criticised in this Report, I think I must, with your Lordships' permission, reply to it. What the Report says is this:
"We cannot approve bringing uncontested cases into the jurisdiction of the county courts. We find ourselves in agreement, as did the Morton Commission and the Denning Committee, with the words of the Gorell Commission of 1912."—
which it quotes. The Gorell Commission said:
"The gravity of divorce and other matrimonial cases, affecting as they do the family life, the status of the parties and the interests of their children, and the interests of the State in the moral and social well-being of its citizens, makes it desirable to provide, if possible, that even for the poorest persons these cases should be determined by the superior courts of the country, assisted by the attendance of the Bar, which we regard as of high importance in divorce and matrimonial cases, both in the interests of the parties and in the public interest."
The Report continues:
"We also fear that transfer of divorce jurisdiction to the county courts would have the effect of impeding more radical reforms that eventually might be seen to be desirable."
I cannot help thinking that there is a misunderstanding on this point. After the war, when there was this sharp rise in divorce cases, it became clear that the existing High Court Judges could not possibly try all the cases, and therefore a Committee was appointed, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was the Chairman, to find out what ought to be done. I was then Chairman of the Society of Labour Lawyers, or it may have been the Haldane Society, and I remember going to give evidence on behalf of the Society. We thought that undefended divorce cases ought to be transferred to the county court. So I have, at least, been consistent. This was opposed by representatives of the Church

255
of England for the very reason which I have already read. It was thought that this would tend to lower the whole status of matrimony and that people would go round committing adultery because a marriage was dissolved in the county court.
What the Committee recommended, and what was done, was the usual brilliant English compromise—namely, that in future undefended divorce cases should be tried by the county court judges dressed up as High Court Judges for the day. I do not use that phrase in any offensive way. They are made commissioners, and a commissioner has authority to try High Court cases; and they are called "my Lord", instead of "Your Honour". From discussions that I have had with my clerical friends I am quite sure there is a very real misunderstanding about this. What they think is that if a case is tried in the High Court, then it is tried in a superior-looking kind of court, and the proceedings are conducted with every formality, whereas if, on the other hand, the case is tried in the county court, it will be tried in some grubby place in between half a dozen judgment summonses and actions about hire-purchase, and with the usual informal procedure of the county court. This is nothing remotely like what happens.
Outside London the cases are taken only at 45 towns which have a divorce jurisdiction and where there is a High Court registrar familiar with the divorce law. The registrar is most important in divorce cases, because he hears all the interlocutory applications, including the important ones on maintenance. Often it is not at all easy to find out what a husband is earning. So cases are heard only at these 45towns, in whatever court may be available. If the assizes and quarter sessions are not sitting, then the judge can sit in the assize court; or he sits in his own county court, or whatever is available. The procedure is exactly the same, because the same High Court procedural law applies as in the High Court.
In London the Judge sits in the Law Courts. There are two or three county court judges all the time in the Law Courts conducting undefended divorce cases. Their accommodation is, I am afraid, deplorable. Naturally, the High Court Judges have the better courts, and
256
the county court judges—and occasionally a High Court Judge—sit in the most wretched accommodation. I spent August and September converting some additional rooms into courts, including two white-tiled jury rooms, with lavatories attached, because we are so short of courts. We still have two army huts which were put up as temporary courts after the 1914–18 war and have been used ever since; and I have had to hire a hallon the other side of Fleet Street as an additional court. One of the courts used for this purpose is a room which is between six and seven yards each way. It has a desk for the judge; it has a couple of tables, and some chairs. This is infinitely worse accommodation than in the average county court.
Under what is proposed the following changes would be made. First, the undefended cases would be taken only at the divorce towns. All the district registrars in the divorce towns are also county court registrars. So that all the interlocutory summonses would be heard by the same man who hears them now, and the cases would be tried by the same men who try them now—because in the last seventeen years I have never heard any complaint from the Church of England about how the cases have been tried—and they will be tried in the judge's own court.
In London, the petitioner would have a choice. Either he could go to the Law Courts, and the Judge would try the case there exactly as he does now, or it is proposed that there should be (though this is a matter for Parliament) half a dozen peripheral courts around London at the sort of distance that Croydon is from London: because if the parties, the witnesses, the solicitors and everybody else are in Croydon, there does not seem to be much point in moving them to London. These courts would have registrars there trained in the divorce registry. The County Court Judge of Croydon, for example, can sit in the new £1¼million court building which is now being built, and which will include two county courts infinitely superior, from the point of view of accommodation, to the sort of accommodation used at present.
There would be one other change: the county court judges would do less divorce than they do now. The reason for this is that for some years now—and this still applies—the county court judges

257
have been taking outside London not only nearly all the undefended divorce cases, but also about half the short defended cases. The Government's view is that if there is a dispute between husband and wife which has to be decided by a court, and may lead to a change in marital status, this is something that ought to be decided by a High Court Judge. The Government therefore propose to stop the county court judges from doing the short defended cases, all of which would be tried by the High Court Judges.
It is for the reasons I have given that the Government think this is the right course to take. What happens at the moment is very largely a pretence. One consequence has been that over all these years, for what to any lawyer in an undefended case is a case lasting ten minutes, they have all been drawing High Court fees. A change to the county courts, making a reality of what happens at present, would save substantially in relation to legal aid.
The last thing I want to say is this. There is, unfortunately, some dispute between the Committee of the right reverend Prelate and the Law Commission as to the practicability of the Committee's proposal. I wondered very much whether I should say anything about this to-day, but I have come to the conclusion that I ought to—for this reason. I cannot ignore the fact that I am the person who knows better than anyone else in the country which is right about this, because I spend my life on questions of Judge power and availability of courts. I had thought of summarising what the Committee say, but I do not think I should do so, because it is so difficult to be certain that one gets a summary exactly right. May we therefore see exactly what is proposed?
The Committee say:
"We are assured that, having considered the history of a marriage, the reasons alleged for its failure (together with, in contested cases, the arguments put forward on the other side), and the attempts which have been made—or not made—to achieve reconciliation, a court should find it possible to determine the probability of the joint life being revived".
I entirely agree with that statement, and read it only to emphasise that this inquisition is to include both the history of the marriage and the reasons alleged for its
258
failure, as well as the question whether it has permanently broken down. Then they say this:
"Under a law based on breakdown the trial of a divorce case would become in some respects analogous to a coroner's inquest, in that its object would be judicial inquiry into the alleged facts and causes of the 'death' of a marriage relationship. It would have to be made possible for the court, therefore, to inquire effectively into what attempts at reconciliation had been made, into the feasibility of further attempts, into the acts, events, and circumstances, alleged to have destroyed the marriage, into the truth of statements made (especially in uncontested cases), and into all matters bearing upon the determination of public interest.…
"…the court should have discretionary power to require the attendance of both parties on occasion…any respondent wishing to take any part whatever in the proceedings, whether to deny breakdown or not, should be required on receiving a copy of the petition to return a statement informing the court of his or her attitude to matters pleaded by the petitioner…all matters outstanding between husband and wife should be disposed of in a single trial."
They make it plain—and I am not criticising them—that this should include questions of custody and maintenance.
The Committee go on:
"In principle it is obviously fitting that husband and wife should both be present at proceedings about the legal ending of their marriage, and it would help the court if they were both there to be examined…attendance of both parties should be encouraged.…
"In addition therefore to stressing the importance of the presumption in favour of marriage, and of the assistance of the Bar, we recommend that provision should be made for the intervention, when needed, of counsel representing the public interest or the interests of children of the family. We believe, further, that steps should be taken, as part of immediate procedural reform, to create a body of officers (the name of 'forensic social workers' has been suggested) to help the court in a number of ways. These officers could, when required to do so, verify attempts at reconciliation, test the reliability of assertions made to the court, and investigate any other matters on which the court wished to be informed, and could report on the circumstances of children of the family.…
…we recommend:
(a) that, whenever the custody of children is in dispute and, in uncontested cases, whenever the children are not in the petitioner's care, a report should be submitted to the court in advance of the hearing…".
Then they say:
"We believe that the court should be at liberty to order maintenance with regard partly to need, partly to means, and partly to the behaviour of the spouses during the marriage."

259
They go on to recommend:

"(c) that the accusatorial procedure should be replaced by procedure appropriate to inquiry into the condition of marriage relationships;

(d) that means should be devised to ensure that all relevant information and considerations would be brought to the court's notice;

(e) that steps should be taken without delay to enlist the officers the court would need….

Later they say:
"…that the Official Solicitor should be empowered to make inquiries….It has been suggested that both needs might be met by enlarging the powers and resources of the Official Solicitor of the Supreme Court (who already fulfils some of the functions we have in mind) so that on the one hand he could instruct counsel, when the nature of the case made it appropriate, to represent the public interest or the children of the family, or to argue points of law; and on the other hand could, when required, investigate and report on such matters as the candour of statements made to the court, the welfare of children, and the adequacy of arrangements proposed for them or for a dependent spouse."
Of course, when a Judge is taken ill at, say, Winchester Assizes the Lord Chief Justice naturally wants to know what I am going to do. The alternative I have is either to leave the cases for trial at some later period or to appoint a commissioner, usually a member of the Bar, or sometimes a county court judge. Nobody likes commissioners. The public like their cases to be tried by judges, and not by barristers dressed up as judges for the day. The barrister does not like it, because the Treasury rates for the payment of commissioners are such that he loses money by it. It is rather unfair on the clients with whom he was about to spend the next fortnight because he has to return his briefs at the very last moment.
On the other hand, one must get the cases tried. Exactly the same thing happens with the county court judges, although there are more of them, and I have to decide whether to supply a deputy judge or move somebody else, or what I am to do. So I am necessarily more in contact with the question of the Judge power than anyone, and we have a shortage of judges. All my life we have been short of judges, rather than had too many. This is one of the reasons why too many cases tend to be put in the list, because the most awful thing that can happen is for all the cases to be
260
settled and the judge to have an afternoon off. Everything has to be directed to avoid this happening.
The reason I am saying this is that, so far as I can see, to conduct an inquisitorial inquiry into the history of a marriage, to see whether it has finally broken down and if so who has caused it; to deal with custody; to deal with children, must take on an average, I should have thought, a day. If I were to be extremely pessimistic I would say half a day—or optimistic, whichever way you look atit—but it cannot conceivably take less than that. There are 35,000 undefended divorce cases, so that means: can I find courts and judges for 17,500 additional court days?
It is not surprising that the Law Courts are what they are. They were opened in 1882, when the total number of High Court Judges was 22; and it is now 62. I am sorry to say that the Central Criminal Court, London's assize court, at the Old Bailey, is getting into arrears. The reason is that they have added to the six proper courts another court in part of the hall; they have turned the library into a court and a committee room into a court. There are no more rooms to be turned into courts, so there is nothing more I can do.
In many of the London stipendiary magistrates' courts it takes nine weeks to get an ordinary careless driving summons taken. This is because, with the additional criminal work, there are not enough stipendiary magistrates. I can appoint additional stipendiary magistrates, but that is no good, for there is nowhere for them to sit. You cannot use any hall for a criminal court, because you must have cells, and you must have police accommodation. The 80 county court judges have to sit in 400 places, but I have only 90 purpose-built county courts. I have to find accommodation for the rest of them somewhere. If the local assize court is free, which is very rare, that is fine; but usually they sit in the magistrates' courts on the days when the magistrates are not sitting. But with the additional magistrates' work it is becoming more difficult to find days when they do not sit. So the county court judges sit in the shire hall, or a committee room in the town hall, or anywhere I can scrape in for them.

261
We have a desperate shortage of courts in this country. I have myself written to every Law Minister in Western Europe and the old Dominions, and the judicial authorities in the United States, to ask them two questions: "How many whole-time professional judges have you per million of the population?"; and secondly, "What proportion of your annual Budget is spent on justice other than prisons or police?"—for which I am not responsible. The answers, as I expected, showed that we have a far smaller number of whole-time professional judges per million of the population than any other country, and that with one doubtful exception we spend a smaller proportion of our Budget on justice than does any other Western democracy.
I have checked my estimate of what the Committee's proposals mean in this way: there is an appendix to the Committee's Report, made by a member of the Bar, and I discussed this with him in order to make quite sure that I was not misunderstanding. I am not against any of this, I may say. He proposes that there should be family courts which would hear all these cases. one court for every two or three counties—that is to say, between 20 and 25 courts—and that each court should be staffed by a President and a bench of perhaps three to six Judges. He makes it clear, naturally, that in accordance with the Committee's views they must all be High Court Judges. So, with the President, there will be four to seven High Court Judges for each of the 20 courts, which means about 110 additional High Court Judges for this kind of court. All the Queen's Bench work and all the work of the civil and criminal cases at Assizes, of the existing Divorce Court Judges, of the Chancery Division, the Admiralty and Probate cases and the Commercial Court, takes in all 62. Of course, anything is possible; if I had enough time and money obviously the thing could be done. But from what I know about the Judge power and the existing situation with regard to our courts I am bound to say that I regard these proposals as being quite impracticable in practice within any measurable distance of time.
Finally, may I say this? I have not expressed any personal opinion because, rightly or wrongly, I feel that if a Minister who represents the Government in
262
a debate expresses a personal opinion there is a risk of some confusion as to whether at a particular point he is speaking for the Government or for himself. But I should like to say one other thing. I joined the Divorce Law Reform Association before I was married, over forty years ago, and I should not like it to be thought from anything that I have said, or anything that I have not said, that I am in any way unsympathetic to this Committee's Report. The one thing that everybody seems to be agreed about is the universal condemnation of our existing law, and it is my hope that today's debate may prove to be a basis for some rational reform of our law upon which Parliament can agree.

RHODESIA
4.12 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to repeat a Statement about Rhodesia which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is making in another place. His words are—and I am now quoting the Prime Minister:
"We have now studied Mr. Smith's reply to the terms for a settlement put forward by the British Government. In spite of some further elucidatory exchanges, I have to tell the House that there remains a very wide gap of principle which would have to be bridged before there could be any settlement which we could honourably commend to Parliament.
"However, the Governor has made an earnest appeal to my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary to pay a further visit to Salisbury to discuss with him the present critical position. In view of the Governor's courageous stand over the past twelve months, my right honourable friend has decided this is right. Accordingly he proposes to leave to-morrow for a short visit to Salisbury. Should Mr. Smith wish to take the opportunity while my right honourable friend is in Salisbury to convey any further views to Her Majesty's Government, the Commonwealth Secretary will, of course, again make himself available for a meeting under the Governor's ægis.

263
"I hope to make a further statement to the House early next week after the Commonwealth Secretary's visit."
My Lords, that concludes the Prime Minister's Statement.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for having repeated that Statement. In spite of the pessimistic tone of the Statement as a whole, I think all your Lordships will welcome the fact that the Government obviously think it worth while for the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs to go to Rhodesia to-morrow, and certainly he goes with the best wishes for his success from everybody who sits on this side of the House, for we believe a solution can be found only by a negotiated settlement.
May I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he has anything to tell us of the arrangements for next week? We had, through the usual channels, arranged that there would be a debate on Rhodesia some time next week. Is it possible yet to tell whether we can still hold to that arrangement, or will it be unlikely that the Secretary of State will get back from Rhodesia in time for us to adhere to it?
LORD WADE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, for giving us that Statement, may I first endorse the reference to the Governor? In view of his request it would seem right that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs should make this further visit. However, with regard to the last part of the Statement—and this follows the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—could we have some assurance that a debate will take place as soon as possible after the further Statement, since time is running out?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am grateful, both on my own behalf and on behalf of the Government, for what has been said about the Governor, and also for the expressions of good wishes from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade. Inevitably I cannot make a promise about the precise date of the debate. I can certainly give the assurance that the Government are anxious to bring it on as soon
264
as possible, and I do not rule out by any means the possibility that we should have a debate next week. I cannot give a guarantee; I can only say that we shall keep very closely in touch through the usual channels.

THE DIVORCE LAWS
4.18 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may we now continue with marriage and divorce; and before I give your Lordships my views on that subject I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor some questions which I hope he will answer when he comes to reply. I am not quite clear, from what he said, whether or not I already have the answers. He said that at this moment the Government are neutral. I am afraid that does not carry me, at any rate, quite far enough. May I remind your Lordships that ever since 1857, when the Divorce Division of the High Court was set up and matrimonial control was taken out of the hands of the Ecclesiastical Courts and, to some extent, out of your Lordships' hands by Private Member's Bill, since that time, when a Government Bill was brought in by Lord Palmerston's Government, virtually all legislation dealing with divorce (and certainly in recent years) has been by Private Members' Bills. One thinks particularly of 1937 and Sir Alan Herbert's Bill, which was the first time for 240 years that the grounds for divorce had been widened. Since 1697, when the Macclesfield case produced divorce in your Lordships' House, the grounds had not been widened until Sir Alan Herbert's Bill.
One fully understands why Governments have apparently been somewhat nervous of introducing Government legislation on these great social questions, at the back of which is a good deal of individual conscience. It is not the sort of legislation in regard to which one can normally put on the Party Whips. On the other hand, if you produce a Government Bill without Party Whips and the Government are defeated, it is somewhat embarrassing for the Government of the day. Indeed, I suppose in certain circumstances it might even lead to the resignation of the Lord Chancellor.

265
Whether Governments have been right or wrong to take the view that this is a field for Private Members' Bills, I do not know.
But something new has happened now. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has submitted the ecclesiastical Report to the Law Commission. The Law Commission, quite clearly, in spite of what they said, are there—it was laid down in the Act—not to advise the Legislature or the public; they are there to advise the Lord Chancellor and Government Departments, in this case, the Lord Chancellor. So any action that is taken is entirely a responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. One would like to know, if the noble and learned Lord can answer it, whether it is the intention of the Government at some future date to introduce legislation amending the divorce laws, or whether they intend to encourage future Governments perhaps, but at any rate intend not to leave it to Private Members' Bills. If they intend in the future to have Government legislation, I think we ought to know. If they do not, I do not quite know why this was referred to the Law Commission.
However, may I say this about the views of the Law Commission? From Parliament's point of view—not from the Lord Chancellor's point of view, whom they are advising, but from Parliament's point of view—the Law Commission carry no more weight than that of the Archbishop's Committee. We do not know whom they consulted, what evidence they heard or what opportunity they gave to interested bodies and the public to give evidence or express their views. May I suggest that it might be a suitable move to have a Royal Commission again on this subject? Opinions change so rapidly these days. We have not had a Royal Commission on this subject since 1956. If we had a Royal Commission reporting to Parliament, and the Government of the day then introduced legislation based on the Report of the Royal Commission and took the Whips off, I think there would be little danger of the Government's being defeated. That is only a suggestion, but we have here two most important bodies who disagree, and it is very difficult without some such body as a Royal Commission to say which was right. So much for that.
266
Now I propose to talk about marriage and divorce. We are all grateful to the right reverend Prelate for introducing this Motion, but I find myself in a somewhat difficult position. I am preceded by an ecclesiastical expert and by the highest legal expert. I am to be followed by the most reverend Primate; and I am to be followed by other noble and learned Lords. I am virtually the only layman, in the proper sense of the word, speaking on this subject, because even one or two other laymen are experts on social reform. The only thing to do on these occasions is to "stick one's neck out", and I intend to do so. I am going to stick it out by suggesting that I know what the ordinary man in the street thinks about marriage and divorce. I will not be so rash as to suggest that I know what the ordinary woman in the street thinks about it, but if I refer to the ordinary man during my remarks, may it be taken that I am also referring to the ordinary woman, unless later in the debate the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, tells us that something I have said does not refer to the ordinary woman, and I shall doubtless accept her opinion.
The first thing to remember about this debate is that it is about the ordinary man. It is the ordinary man who gets married and in some cases gets divorced, and whatever laws Parliament passes in this field must be acceptable to the ordinary man, or they will not work. I think we should do well to remember that. May I just define what I think the ordinary man is? I would define him, in fact, by saying what he is not. He is not a lawyer. Lawyers, of necessity, view these matters from a slightly different angle from that of the ordinary man. So I think we may say he is not a lawyer. He is not a man whose religious beliefs indicate to him that divorce is at all times wrong. Nowadays I think he would not be an ordinary man who held those beliefs. He is not a man who has made a special study of marriage and divorce. Your Lordships may say, in other words, that he is ruled by his heart rather than by his head; that marriage and divorce are essentially basically matters of the heart. I would suggest that that definition covers 80 per cent. of the population of this country, and I include myself among them.
What are the opinions of us ordinary men about these subjects? I think first

267
of all we feel that, both in the public interest and in our own interest, marriage is a long-term contract. We should probably put it in these words: that one ought not to get married unless one thinks one can make a good "go" of it. Secondly, if you say to us, "What about divorce?", I think we shall answer, "That depends; it depends on whether there are children; it depends on whether the children are grown-up or young. It all depends whether one really approves of divorce, or not, but it depends particularly on the children". Then you can say to us, "Supposing the marriage is completely impossible and has broken down, and either there are no children or the children have grown up, or at any rate the situation in the home is such that it is bad for the young children, what do you feel about divorce then?". I think our answer would be, "Then divorce should be as easy as possible, as speedy as possible or as is advisable, if it can be carried out with the maximum of human dignity and with the minimum of bitterness". I think those would be our views.
May I say one word about this question of divorce by consent, which, as the noble and learned Lord said, was not recommended by the Law Commission, nor was it recommended by the Church commission, but it has been talked about and there are some people who hold that divorce by consent should be allowed. Apart from the fact that it is, in my belief, generally against the public interest, in any marriage there is one moment, or more than one moment but at any rate one moment, when things are more difficult between the two married people than is normal. It is at that moment, or those moments, that the married couple want all the support they can get; and difficult or not too easy divorce is in fact one of the supports they do get. If there is divorce by consent, one can visualise a hell of a family row going on, both partners to the marriage at a given moment saying, "We will divorce each other"; then pride comes into play and neither gives way; a perfectly good marriage that might be happy for another thirty or forty years would break up, and that is that. Anything approaching divorce by consent must be wrong, both in the public interest
268
and, indeed, in the interest of each married couple.
From the recommendations of the ecclesiastical committee, the Archbishop's Group, if I may so term it, I understand that they want divorce when a marriage has really broken down but after a good deal of exploration to see that it has properly broken down and for good. I do not think we ordinary men would altogether like that. I think it is going to be difficult, on those terms, to obtain a divorce with reasonable human dignity, and there is going to be a lot of dirty linen washed in public. On that basis there might be the maximum of unpleasantness and bitterness. I feel that strongly, and I shall have something further to say on this question of maximum bitterness.
What I think we ordinary men would like to see is, first of all, the three-year rule maintained: that is, no divorce in the first three years of marriage. One must give a marriage a chance to get properly off the ground. I am told that the honeymoon or the earlier years of marriage are the most difficult times. I personally have not found them so. Obviously, one must give the marriage a chance, particularly when one thinks that it should be a long-term contract. So I think we should keep that rule.
I believe, too, that we feel that the matrimonial offence provision ought to be kept, on the basis that marriage is a contract and that if one of the partners breaks the contract the other partner should have some redress. I know all the difficulties about collusion, which nowadays does not seem to matter much, and that there are bad or difficult cases; but, by and large, it has the advantage that the majority of cases are undefended, and the great advantage that solicitors can advise their clients with reasonable certainty and not leave them up in the air, so to speak. When the case is undefended there is, I think, the minimum of bitterness caused and no particular loss of human dignity. I agree that defended cases are different.
But suppose we accept that. Strange as it may seem, I think the matrimonial offence part of the law is acceptable at present to the ordinary man. I do not say that he thinks it perfect, but I think it is reasonably acceptable. I agree that it might be wise, in addition, to have

269
a fairly simple divorce on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. I think these two would work together better than the right reverend Prelate indicated. If you have a matrimonial offence divorce which might go through quite quickly, and you have a reasonable time for the divorce because the marriage has broken down, then the two might go well together and there might be far less collusion.
I have not had it explained to me, and the noble and learned Lord did not explain it, although the right reverend Prelate raised the question, why this six months' period should be brought in by the Law Commission. I may have misunderstood their recommendation. The kind of arrangement that I think we envisage is a true separation, and the only fact that would have to be proved would be that the partners had separated for two years; but the court would have power to defer a divorce for another two years, if the short period of two years was grossly to the detriment of either partner or of any children. So, the normal time for separation would be two years; but if somebody was really misbehaving and the other partner was suffering the court could delay the divorce for up to another two years. The details would obviously have to be worked out. I should have thought that that might work, together with the provision regarding the matrimonial offence.
As I have said, I am going to be followed by a number to ecclesiastical, legal and social experts. Doubtless, they are going to pick to pieces what I have said. I do not mind. At any rate, to-day, among all the experts, the ordinary man has had his say; and I again ask your Lordships to remember that basically this debate is about the ordinary man.
4.35 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, let me say at once how grateful I feel for the speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. Those of us who have the misfortune to be either ecclesiastics or lawyers welcome nothing so much as the views of those who, in every sense of the term, are laymen. It was because of the high value that I set upon the lay mind, and my awareness of the limitation both of the ecclesiastical mind and of the legal mind,
270
that in picking those who were good enough to serve on my Group on this subject I drew upon the services of a number who can fairly be called laymen and laywomen. As myself the originator of one of the two documents on which the debate has been centred, I should like to say a word or two about the origin and background of that document.
It was three years ago, when there was before Parliament a Bill to introduce separation as a ground for divorce, that I declared myself strongly opposed to making separation in itself a ground for divorce; and I am as opposed to-day as I was then. I was, and still am, equally opposed to the making of consent as such a ground for divorce. But, while doing my utmost with others to resist the promotion of these two grounds, I was terribly aware of the weaknesses and evils connected with the present law based upon the matrimonial offence, and I therefore embarked upon this adventure of inviting a number of people whose broad, religious and sociological standpoint was akin to my own to try to discover whether it would be possible to frame a law of marriage not based upon the matrimonial offence but based upon a law of breakdown, yet free from the evils both of the present system and of the proposals which I thought it right to reject.
There was comment upon the very suggestion of abandoning matrimonial offence as a basis. Let me say a word about that. I start from the position that while, on the one hand, the Churches, including my own Church, have definite beliefs about marriage as a lifelong union, on the other hand, we have for some time recognised the existence of State divorce laws which diverge from that which fundamentally we believe about the nature of a marriage. As for the matrimonial offence, there is, I believe, nothing sacrosanct about the principle of the matrimonial offence as a basis for the law of divorce. It is true that it is a principle which has an ecclesiastical origin, but a quite imprecise ecclesiastical origin. In the Church law in the West for many centuries the matrimonial offence was a ground not for divorce but for separation, and thus the connection between the ecclesiastical law of matrimonial offence and the basing of

271
the law of modern States on the matrimonial offence is not a direct one. The matrimonial offence came to be the principle for the divorce laws in modern States for historical reasons, but not, I believe, for any reasons of Divine necessity.
Then the question has been asked: supposing the matrimonial offence ceased to be the basis of the divorce law and, instead, breakdown of marriage was substituted, how would the relation between Church marriages and civil marriages be affected? My belief is that they would not be affected at all. Church marriages would continue to be what they have been hitherto. Civil marriages would still be the making of a lifelong covenant, the legal nexus of which could be broken, not by the will of the individuals, but by the will of the court on behalf of the community. I believe that such a change in the State's divorce laws would leave the relation between the Church's law and the State's law the same essential relation that it is now. However, I believe that it would be quite otherwise if civil marriage were to be based on a principle of consent. That would raise very big questions indeed about the relation between Church marriage and civil marriage—but I will come back to that presently. That is the origin of the document, Putting Asunder, which is now before your Lordships' House for debate and also before the country for study. Personally, I find the conclusions of the document very convincing.
But, side by side with these proposals, we have the other document, that produced by the Law Commission. I should like to express great gratitude for the Report of the Law Commission, and for the sympathetic and kind way in which it treats the proposals of my Group. But in comparing the two documents I do not think it is right to suppose that because one document is the work exclusively of lawyers it is necessarily a more scientific work than the other. In fact, I believe that in some places the opposite is the case. For instance, the Archbishop's Group drew not only upon lawyers and ecclesiastics, but also upon a variety of lay persons for the forming of that judgment. I believe that that is a composition which leads to a more
272
scientific result in the truest sense of the term "scientific".
Furthermore, I notice one oddly unscientific thing in the Law Commission's Report. Having given a number of reasons why divorce proceedings on the basis of the law of breakdown would be very difficult to enterprise, it goes on to declare that if the law of breakdown were adopted divorces would he more frequent. For that assertion no kind of scientific evidence is adduced.
What of the alternatives which the Law Commission's Report puts before us? It puts three: separation, consent, and what it calls the law of "breakdown without inquest". Let me say a word or two about each of these options which the Law Commission puts before us. First, on the matter of separation, it is entirely possible to understand the reasons behind the pleas for making separation a ground for divorce, the many distressing circumstances which drive persons unhappily married to matrimonial offences in order to secure a divorce which they cannot secure in other ways. But I am convinced that if separation in itself is made a ground for divorce, first, there will be occasions when a marriage might have been saved although a divorce has to be given, and, secondly, there will be also occasions of great injustice.
I think that all of us who take part in these discussions have a pretty big postbag about the subject. Inevitably my postbag contains letters from persons whose marriages are very unhappy, pleading that for the sake of their happiness certain greater facilities for divorce should be afforded. But I have been very struck lately by another sort of letter in my postbag, and I should like to describe a sample of this kind. A married woman writes to say that she wants to go on being loyal to her husband, a husband who has been infatuated by an adventuress who has caught him: the wife wants to go on being faithful to him.
This sort of case of a husband being caught by an adventuress has happened before, and the wife believes that if she sticks to him faithfully and patiently there is no need to give up. She writes to say:
"For goodness' sake save us from a divorce law in which my husband and the adventuress can take the initiative in divorcing me against my will when the only thing that I have done wrong is to be faithful."

273
It is sometimes said that such a woman is being vindictive, and it is asked why she should want to be vindictive against others. But I do not believe that this is vindictiveness at all. It is love and patience and faithfulness, the salt of the character of our country. I do not want to see a woman in that position exposed to the kind of justice to which she would be exposed if separation in itself were made a ground for divorce.
Then there is the proposal to make consent a ground for divorce. Obviously, one understands the ground for the plea, especially when over 90 per cent. of divorce cases are undefended and the element of consent is present in divorces already, and inevitably will be present in divorces. Yet I am convinced that if consent of itself were made a ground for a divorce, there would be very grave objections. And here I would first quote the words of Putting Asunder:
"Since it gives the court as representing the country no effective part in a divorce, it virtually repudiates the community's interest in the stability of marriage."
I believe that is a fair comment. Secondly, I believe that divorce by consent is contrary to the nature of the meaning of the marriage contract as a life-long union. As the right reverend Prelate said, it really substitutes, "Until we find we want to make an end of it" for the solemn contract "Until death us do part". I believe that if divorce by consent were to get on to the Statute Book the Churches, including my own, would no longer be able to say that marriage in Church and civil marriage were identical in the nature of the contract made.
But there is a third suggestion put out by the Law Commission; the suggestion of law of breakdown without inquest. I very much wonder whether the difference between that and what is proposed in Putting Asunder is an absolute, unbridgeable difference. I would suppose, speaking in this context as a layman, that if breakdown were the ground of divorce, there might be cases where the evidence alas was all so clear, and alas all so pointing one way, that it would take the court very little time indeed to give an answer, and perhaps other cases where it would take the court a great deal of time.
However, I should like to see whether the authors of Putting Asunder and the
274
Law Commission might together try to bridge the gap between what is called, on the one hand, breakdown with inquest, and, on the other hand, breakdown without inquest. But, if such an attempt is made, I should like to attach a provision which seems to me quite vital. Breakdown must not merely be made identical with separation as such, and breakdown must not be made identical with consent as such. Those may be partial evidences of breakdown, but neither consent alone nor separation alone give the court the total answer which it ought to be given in the interests of the community.
Where do we go from here? I was very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for explaining some of the misunderstandings under which we churchmen have apparently been about the transfer of divorce jurisdiction to the county courts. I was very grateful for his very ample explanation of that, and I think we were all grateful for his statistical calculation of what would be involved, in terms of court space and in terms of court manpower, if the proposals in Putting Asunder were carried into effect. But if a course really is the best course for the stability of marriage and the home in this country, we ought not to lie down under existing difficulties of court space and manpower, and say that those difficulties must answer the matter for ever. I intend to sit through the debate in the great hope that perhaps other noble and learned Lords may in the course of it tell us that they do not see that those difficulties are really insuperable, because if a certain kind of divorce procedure is the one on other grounds thought to be right, we ought not as a country to be bogged down by these practical difficulties.
Where do we go from here? Quite apart from the grounds of divorce, there is a fair amount of beneficial legislation suggested in Putting Asunder, and spoken of sympathetically in the Law Commission's Report, which could well be carried into effect irrespective of change in the grounds of divorce. Indeed, as has been said, changes in the grounds of divorce may not prove to be as helpful as we might hope, unless these other legislative changes are made as well. That is why I was very disappointed when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, hinting at future legislation, was

275
only able to mention legislation concerning the relation of the divorce courts to the county courts.
The Law Commission, so to speak, throw at Parliament three options and say, "It is for Parliament to choose between these three". But how does Parliament choose without more lead, help and guidance than it is getting just now? Any Member of Parliament can introduce a Private Men-fiber's Bill. One has been introduced already in another place, and it is perfectly possible for some of us who very much dislike that Bill to introduce another Private Member's Bill promoting another kind of principle for legislation. But I do not think that Parliament is going to find the answer by procedures of this kind.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that if we now had a Royal Commission it could do a very valuable piece of work—not, I think, taking so very long over it—because I believe that both the state of evidence and the state of thought and feeling have altered a good deal since the last RoyalCommission on this subject produced its Report. Failing a Royal Commission, is it really impossible to have discussion and a getting together to thresh out some worthwhile legislative proposals? I have already suggested one matter on which I think that the authors of these two documents might very profitably compare notes with a view to producing something on which both of them agree.
My Lords, let me sum up by saying that I think the present law based on the matrimonial offence gives us the worst of one world. I believe that the fashionable proposals of introducing divorce by consent, or divorce on the ground of separation, would really give us the worst of both worlds in a matter so tragic as that of divorce and the breaking of marriages and homes. I shrink from using the adjective "best", but I still believe that, if they could be carried out, the proposals in Putting Asunder would give us a law free from the worst evils of the present law, and also one which tended to help rather than to undermine the stability of marriage and the home.
4.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, in rising to speak on this occasion
276
I do so with great trepidation, first because this is the first time I have had the temerity to address your Lordships' House, and secondly for the same reason that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, mentioned, that this subject might be held to be the province of churchmen and those of your Lordships learned in the law, and I have no such qualifications. But I have particular reasons for choosing this time to want to speak. In the first place, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already told your Lordships, there is a Bill before this House awaiting a Second Reading. That Bill is in my name. Secondly, I want to be absolutely frank with your Lordships and begin by telling you that if, as a result of our deliberations to-day, some divorce law reform were to take place and that divorce law reform were to be applicable to my own country of domicile—Scotland—it might have an effect on me in my own domestic situation. However, I think I may assume that any legislation following what we are discussing to-day would apply only to England and Wales. I feel, therefore, that I can claim I am not in any way speaking for myself but that I have both personal interest and personal knowledge of some of the difficulties and hardships under the law as it stands to-day.
First of all, I should like to say that there is one omission from Putting Asunder and the Law Commission's Report that I very much regret. Both Reports very properly give a good deal of space and attention to both the moral and the material welfare of children, but neither of them mentions one category of children that I should like to bring to your Lordships'attention—namely, the legitimate child who is forced to live in an unmarried home. This can come about in several ways. If a woman is widowed and left with young children, or if a married man loses his wife and is left with young children, or if either of them is left with young children as the result of a divorce, then, if they form an attachment with somebody of the opposite sex who is married and set up a home with that person but that person's husband or wife refuses to institute divorce proceedings, those children, though themselves legitimate, are going to live with their mother or father in a home in which that parent is not married to the other party.

277
I think that this constitutes very great difficulty for these children. Either the couple must pretend they are married—in which case, unless the children are very young, they will know it to be untrue and will be forced to participate in a lie, which will further expose them to the malice of some nasty-minded person who may choose a very embarrassing moment to disclose his knowledge that the child's father and the lady of the house or the child's mother and the man of the house are not truly married or, if the couple make no such pretence, then on such children is placed the deeply embarrassing necessity of explaining to every person they ask to their home that their mother and the man of the house, or vice versa, are not married, and why they are not married. My Lords, I feel that in any divorce case where the position of the children may be a major issue the lot of such children as I have described should be taken into account.
I should now like to turn to Putting Asunder. I have read this with immense interest and with tremendous admiration for the thought that has gone into it and, perhaps above all, for the courage of the Group in recommending these very sweeping reforms. They would not only abolish all our present divorce laws but would also sweep away all past thinking and all established conceptions, including the so-called "innocent" and so-called "guilty" parties. I find this line of thought very attractive indeed, but I must admit that, quite apart from the practical difficulties which are referred to in the Law Commission's Report and which have been further exemplified by the Lord Chancellor this afternoon, I have other doubts.
May I refer for a moment to paragraph 84 of Putting Asunder, where it is suggested that the divorce courts would become like coroners' courts, sitting to examine the death of a marriage as a coroner's court examines the death of a person? With great respect to the most reverend Primate and his Group, I cannot see that there is any parallel here. A coroner's court sits to examine how the death of a person came about once that death has been established; under the principle of breakdown, a divorce court, however constituted or reconstituted, would have to discover whether in fact the marriage was dead. This is a very different matter, and one which I think
278
must, at least to some extent, remain one of opinion.
I feel that, in practice, the law would have to lay down certain conditions which, if they were found to exist, would justify the court in assuming that the marriage had broken down beyond any reasonable chance of reconciliation. A fixed period of separation is obviously the easiest condition to suggest. In my Bill I suggest five years, but even then with many safeguards; but I do not want to talk about that now. Even the Group suggest that a number of years of separation might be an important factor. I still think, however, that this would have to be made much more definite, although I am very interested in the idea of the Commission that a shorter period might be accepted where both parties of the marriage are agreed that the chance of reconciliation is negligible.
Suppose the Putting Asunder outline became the law of the land, that there is a defended case and that, under the old law, the petitioner in the case would have been called "the guilty party". Suppose, further, that he comes before the court and maintains that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and that he has already established a home with another woman I have said "he", and therefore I must say "with another woman", but it might be the woman who brought the petition, in which case it would be "with another man; but it does not affect my argument. Then suppose that the respondent, on the other hand, maintains, rather as in the most reverend Primate's story, that there have been previous infidelities, that this is just a fascination, that it will not last and that he or she is still confident there is a chance of salving the marriage. Let us also assume that the "forensic social workers" have been recruited and have been properly trained, but that, on looking into this case, they are divided in their opinion. In such circumstances how is the court to adjudicate? I suggest that in practice there would be only one possibility. The court would have to adjourn the case for a fixed period, perhaps another two years, and tell the petitioner that he could then ask to be heard again; and then, if the circumstances were the same, presumably they would grant him a divorce. I ask your Lordships to contrast this procedure with that where a

279
fixed period, and a reasonably long period (let us assume about five years), was adopted. There would be two hearings as against one; both the petitioner and the respondent would have far more expenditure—probably far more than twice the expenditure—because of all the time they would have to spend in getting legal advice on the position.
But I think there are other objections much more serious than these material ones. In the first place, experience teaches us (I think this is referred to in the Law Commission Report, although I am not certain) that once recourse is had to the courts reconciliation hardly ever takes place. Let us take my instance. The petitioner brings the case quite early after separation from his wife; he goes to the courts and he is told that he must wait another two years. Pride alone may make reconciliation quite impossible. But if he had had to wait a full five years before bringing the case at all there is a good chance that he might have changed his mind.
Also I must admit that I have some doubts about the functions of these "forensic social workers". So long as they confined themselves to verifying statements and investigating the position of the children, their reports might be useful. But if it were assumed that they had to assist the courts in assessing the chances of reconciliation (which might necessitate what could be called inquisitorial procedure into the breakdown of the marriage) then I think they might be on very dangerous ground. Obviously they would have to interview other people, friends of both the husband and the wife. But I am afraid that in doing so they might, albeit inadvertently, throw light on the skeletons in the cupboards of certain other marriages which would be much better kept behind those cupboard doors. At best they could cause grave embarrassment; at worst, they might even cause the break-up of other marriages quite apart from the one being investigated.
There is a great tendency for all great thinkers on reform to wish to sweep away the existing structure and to build anew. Great thinking has clearly gone into this Report and we should be grateful to the Group. As a result of their deliberations I am sure that eventually we
280
shall get better divorce laws and sounder thinking. But in practice reforms can seldom come as the reformers would like: they usually come through pulling down a little here and rebuilding a little there, and patching and mending in other places. I do not believe that the divorce laws can be any exception to this generality.
Further, I would point out that it was vital for the Archbishop's Group to be logical and consistent in their Report, for had they made recommendations which seemed contradictory the whole Report could have been brought into disrepute. Thus they could not recommend divorce for breakdown of marriage at the instance of the apparently guilty party as an addition to the present divorce laws where the conception of divorce only as a means of relief for the so-called innocent party is the predominant motive. While the Group have to be logical and consistent, it is far more important that the law should be recognised as humane than that it should be based solely on the principle of consistency.
Before leaving Putting Asunder I should like to add one comment. While we have heard of the practical difficulties of adopting this plan—and I have put forward other difficulties of the inquisitorial system—I still believe that if we could accept the compromise of the first step by adding to the existing law divorce for breakdown (in certain conditions) the time might well come when the position which the Archbishop's Group want would almost be attained. While it might be impossible legally ever to abandon the matrimonial offence, I believe that good taste and public opinion would lead to these being so rarely used that they would become almost a thing of the past.
My Lords, may I now turn briefly to the Law Commission Report? It may seem presumtuous for a layman like myself to congratulate lawyers on a lawyers' Report. Nevertheless, I feel that I must put it on record that I have seldom read any document, let alone a document prepared by lawyers, so admirable in its simplicity and clarity. I had intended to refer to the Commission's recommendations on desertion and to read a few excerpts from their summary, but both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the right reverend Prelate have already done so. The fact remains that so far this afternoon not one speaker,

281
I think, has advocated divorce by consent. So for the moment I think we can dismiss that possibility.
May I turn then to divorce for separation? Here I feel that the border between what is called "separation" and what is called "breakdown" may be a narrow one. The lawyers themselves say that divorce for separation is an application of the principle of breakdown. First of all, I would come to the case where they suggest it would be a practical possibility to grant divorce after two years' separation after the parties agreed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. I should welcome that reform. The Law Commission Report states:
"Under the present law, where both parties want a divorce, in most cases they get one sooner or later. Sometimes they get one by questionable means."
It may be said that this is somewhere near divorce by consent, but certainly it is no nearer divorce by consent than the idea of the Archbishop's Group. It would have the added safeguard that there would have to be at least two years' separation before the case could be brought to court.
But in this discussion, it is important that we should face one fact. However desirable a reform may be which is based on some kind of agreement between husband and wife, it is not fundamental: it cannot do more than touch the fringes of our real problem. It can do virtually nothing to legalisethose unions—and their number is becoming greater—that are stable but where marriage is impossible because the previous spouse of one or both of the partners refuses to take proceedings.
My Lords, those who oppose reform usually do so out of fear that the additional grounds for divorce will bring the institution of marriage into disrepute, but the existence in ever-increasing numbers of these stable but unmarried homes is, to my mind, an even greater danger to the repute of marriage. In conclusion, may I just reverse the usual procedure? May I throw the spotlight, as I think other speakers have done this afternoon, on the very large area where there seems to be a very considerable measure of agreement?
Over the past few years many Bills on divorce law reform have been intro-
282
duced in another place almost all of them suggested break-down as one of the causes for divorce. Owing to the pressure of Government business, discussion on all but a few of these Bills has been severely curtailed. The right reverend Primate's Group, in Putting Asunder, wants break-down as a cause for divorce.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY: My Lords, the cause, not a cause.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I am sorry: I accept that—the cause for divorce. The Law Commission put it forward as a very practical reform, and though, as has been pointed out already, they cannot make any recommendation, one can hardly read their Report without thinking that, of all the reforms they put forward, they consider this to be one of the most practical and desirable.
Finally, my Lords, and perhaps least important, there is the Bill in my name awaiting a Second Reading, which is virtually identical with one of the possibilities put forward by the Law Commission and which provides safeguards for the financial position of the other spouse and for the children, very much as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. I was disappointed in the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and I shall look forward to his answer at the end of the debate, because if I could get any positive assurance that there would be Government-sponsored legislation on this matter at an early date, I might feel disposed to ask permission to withdraw my Bill.
But my first reaction on listening to the speeches so far this afternoon is that, having discussed the very sweeping reforms suggested by Putting Asunder, and the very wide field of choice put forward by the Law Commission, it would certainly not do any harm, and might do a lot of good, if for a time your Lordships' attention were devoted to one small but, to my mind, vitally important arc of that great circle. I do hope that we shall not have another Royal Commission. I once had the honour of chairing a Royal Commission, and I believe that its Report was one of the quickest that has ever been brought out; but that took three years. I think we should make up our own minds. I do not want this matter delayed.

283
The most reverend Primate referred to our postbags. I have had many letters since the introduction of my Bill, and I should like to tell your Lordships about just one of them. It came from a lady whom I will call "Miss Smith". Early in World War I she formed a boy-and-girl attachment with a man whom I will call "Mr. Brown". Then the circumstances of that war separated them. I do not know why—probably "Mr. Brown" went into one of the Armed Forces. While away he met another lady and contracted one of those very hasty war-time marriages that were so common among young people at that time.
His marriage was unhappy almost from the word "go". After a very short time he separated from his wife, but she refused to divorce him. The separation had nothing to do with Miss Smith", and it was not until some years after "Mr. Brown" had left his wife that he and "Miss Smith" met again. Then their early affection deepened into something really great. "Mr. Brown" again went back to his wife, but there was no hope for him of getting his freedom. In 1924 this couple set up a home together, and they are still living to-day in love and constancy together. My Lords, if these two ever stand before the Great Judgment Seat; if the Almighty God is the merciful and loving Father that the Christian Church teaches us, I cannot hold that they will stand condemned. Canit then be right for the laws of this land that they have been denied any legal recognition of their union for over forty years?
5.27 p.m.
LORD HODSON: My Lords, it is my privilege to-night to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who has just spoken, on his maiden speech, and to welcome the remarks he has made. I have no doubt that your Lordships were particularly interested in the fact that he is contemplating introducing a measure which is relevant to the topic we are discussing to-night, and I wish him well in that, although I shall have something to say on that subject in the course of the very short speech I intend to make. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, held himself out as an "ordinary man", the contrast being supposed to be between himself and those "horrible lawyers", who are extraordinary, or not ordinary, men. I may
284
not be a very good lawyer, but I hope I am a better ordinary man than I am a lawyer, and it is as ordinary men—and women, too, I should say approaching a serious social problem that we are discussing this matter to-night.
I suppose that the only "laymen "on this topic are the people who have never been married. The married men are people who know something about marriage. I claim from my own experience in the law to have had a rather specialised opportunity of observing marriage, because I practised in the Divorce Court, and was for a long time a Judge in that court. We are all agreed—I am sure that none of your Lordships will show any dissent about this—thatour prime object, the prime object of any legislation on this matter, is to keep in view the importance of preserving the institution of marriage. We lawyers do not talk about the contract of marriage; we talk about marriage as an institution, something different from a contract, which confers a status on those who enter into it. I have been struck by my observation, naturally a detached observation, as counsel and as a Judge, of the way in which people who have suffered and endured during years of unhappiness have perhaps, in some curious way, been the better for it, and I want to make this point, because I think it is a point, that since marriage is the foundation of our social structure it gives the ordinary man an opportunity to learn something about service to his fellow countrymen by learning in the home how to serve his spouse. No doubt there are marriages which are reasonably happy where one is completely selfish and the other a "doormat", but those are exceptions. In most marriages there is great service rendered by one to the other.
I read with interest the Report of the Archbishop's Group which is called Putting Asunder, and the Report of the Law Commission and its comments on that Report. I regret that I shall be unable to be present at the end of this debate, and I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to the House for that. But in the course of a few observations I have to make I should like to refer to one or two aspects of this problem. Lately, it has become a fashion to talk about marriages "breaking down". When a friend's wife is

285
found to have run off with another man, one is told that the marriage has "broken down". It is the sort of euphemism, which covers anything from that situation to the parties becoming rather bored with one another and separating. I confess that I am very cynical about this "breakdown" business.
The custom has grown up to point the finger of scorn at the matrimonial offence, and I hope that I shall not fall into the trap of using either the word "innocent" or the word "guilty"—words which are so unpopular to-day. But, after all, the legal system is set up in order to try cases. If one is trying a running-down case arising from a collision between motor cars, or a claim for money lent, one is trying to find out what has been proved, which involves in practically every case what is guilt—or liability, if you like—for a wrong done by one party to the other. That is the way the courts work. I confess that I find it distasteful to consider the situation of somebody who has been a judge or would like to be a judge sitting as an inquisitor while husband and wife are throwing mud at one another in an atmosphere said to be—I do not know why something different from hostile litigation.
There is a passage in the Law Commission's Report which brings this out. If I may say so, they have not missed very much and they have dealt with this problem. They point out that there is already a departure from the matrimonial offence principle in existence in this country, a point which I think is made in Putting Asunder. If one's spouse is mentally deranged, one may put her away. But, as the Law Commission point out, that in itself is no justification for departing from a system, which may be unsatisfactory, in favour of this vague euphemism "breakdown of marriage", which I find would be distressing, distasteful and embarrassing to all concerned.
Suppose the parties whose life is being inquired into took the other line, which. I imagine would be more admirable, and said, "Mea culpa"and refused to throw mud at each other. Information would not be forthcoming to enable the inquisitor to decide the proper provision which ought to be made for the maintenance of the other spouse. It would seem almost impossible that a just result could be
286
achieved without some inquiry into the rights and wrongs of the matter.
The Law Commission's remedy brings me back to a suggestion I made in your Lordships' House three years ago—and to those who heard it before I apologise for mentioning it again. The Law Commission are careful to say that they are not putting forward proposals of their own. Incidentally, if I may say so with due respect to the most reverend Primate, the Commission have said some pretty harsh things about Putting Asunder's suggestions for breakdown inquiries. I am not going to quote what they say, but noble Lords who have read it will see that the solution of the Church committee is open to very serious criticism.
I want to make only two points on the solution which is suggested—I am not sure that I am using the right words—of breakdown without inquiry after a period of separation. This brings up a matter very near to my heart—compulsory divorce. When this matter was mentioned three years ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, spoke on this subject. Some noble Lords on the other side who were in favour of the Separation Bill said that there was no compulsion about it at all. I do not know what they meant, because of course there is. I see no earthly reason why a woman and I say a woman because that is usually the case—should be compelled to divorce her husband, or to be divorced by him, after a period of separation, if she does not want to do it, or why she should be compelled to explain why she does not want a divorce. I have had a number of letters from women on this topic, as no doubt the noble Lady has, and they all sing the same tune: "Why should I be turned away by my husband? I married him and I intended it to be permanent." And, quite apart from any religious objection, while I know that these women have stones thrown at them in their private lives, I do not feel in a position to throw stones at women who take that line, or to call them vindictive. We do not know the motives that inspire them. And they are entitled to say that they do not want to be divorced.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made some attempt to meet part of this problem, when he replied to the debate. One

287
of the points he made was that this is not fair on poor people. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, made the same point. I am used to legislation of "soak the rich" variety, and there is a great deal to be said for it—it is good "Robin Hood" stuff; but I am not in favour of soaking the poor. Perhaps it is not literally true to say that this is soaking the poor, but, at any rate, it gives a remedy to rich people who can afford to pay maintenance for the ex-wife, or ex-wives, however many they have, if they are rich enough. But the poor man just cannot do it. And this point has not been met. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who seems to have given the matter careful consideration said that he did not think that there was much in it as a poor man will still be a poor man and will not have any more money when he has got his divorce. But that does not meet the point. Once a woman has been cast off from the legal tie, the monetary position for her will be worse. If her ex-husband gets a new wife, the new wife will have a legal claim on the husband. And it is no good talking about safe-guards. There will not he any safeguards. The ex-husband can be sent to prison if he does not pay, but that will not produce any money. And he cannot keep two women. It just is "not on".
I feel that this position has never been dealt with successfully by those who advocate separation as a ground for divorce. The Law Commission is comprised of wise and clever people. They recognise this difficulty, as do the Archbishop's Group, also, and they use the word "equitable" as being a sort of soft and gentle word to be applied to the provision which will be made for the woman of whom I am now speaking, the word "equitable", I suppose, carrying in its train the suggestion, "We will be fair to both. There is not enough money. The husband cannot pay, and he will not have to pay". But that is not my idea of equity.
I apologise to those to whom I have addressed remarks of this kind before; and now that the right reverend Prelate is here, I should like to thank him for the Report, to apologise to him for the fact that I was not present when he opened this debate—I was occupied in another
288
part of your Lordships' House—and also to apologise to him for the fact that I shall not be able to stay to the end of the debate to hear him demolish what I have just said.
Often on these occasions something is said about the matrimonial offence in a derogatory sense. But I think that this has been overdone. The two principal matrimonial offences, adultery and desertion, are generally capable of proof; and it is said that they are also subject to a great deal of cheating. Well, of course, people do cheat the law. People cheat the Customs, they cheat the Revenue and they cheat the courts. But that does not seem to me of itself a good reason for altering the law about matrimonial offences.
I do not feel the same way about cruelty. For myself, I think it is a great pity that cruelty was ever introduced as a ground for divorce. Nobody ever seems to understand quite what cruelty amounts to. I understand it as it was in the old days, that it was cruelty if you could prove violence. But now it has become so subtle that one can almost be cruel by accident.
My memory goes back to my childhood and the days when I read P. G. Wodehouse, who described an American State where a lady got a divorce on the grounds of the most savage and malicious cruelty inflicted upon her by her husband, he having insisted on her dog having the leg of a chicken and not the wing. I know the learned Chairman of the Law Commission will bear me out, because he has been a Judge in the divorce courts. Judges are amazed at the astonishing propositions put forward in court as seeking to establish a case of cruelty.
I have detained your Lordships for too long, but I must confess that I feel strongly about this matter. I think, as the noble Earl said, it is really too much to expect that we can deal with something of this kind by some sweeping reform—scrap the lot and start again. I know it is cold comfort to people to be told that we cannot do very much, but my feeling is that reform in this field must be undertaken with great care and, if need be, step by step.
5.44 p.m.
BARONESS SUM MERSKILL: My Lords, this is not the first occasion on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, and I have spoken in a debate on subjects similar to law reform. I should like to say how much I welcome his remarks on the economic position of women. When I stand up here and focus attention on the need to improve the economic position of the housewife, I always feel that noble Lords are saying, "Here she goes again!" So, to hear the noble and learned Lord, with all his wisdom and experience of the courts, tell the House that this is vital to the matter which we are discussing pleases me enormously.
Last week, when we debated the First Report of the Law Commission, and it was mentioned that this debate on divorce would be held to-day, I said that we were putting the cart before the horse. Before we can settle these problems which are concerned with the two sexes, man and woman, we must settle the problem which my noble and learned friend Lord Hodson has raised: that is, in the first place, to ensure that the poor wife and I say "poor" from a financial point of view—can face sweeping changes in the divorce law with her head held high and say, "Well, if this comes, I can face the world. At least, I shall not feel poverty stricken. I can struggle on feeling that the problem is settled".
I should like first, therefore, to comment on the part of the Law Commission's Report dealing with that. I cannot accept what they have said about separation without tremendous qualifications. First of all, I want to see legislation passed through both Houses of Parliament which will improve the economic position of the married woman. Then, I want to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said in his excellent contribution from an ordinary man, that what we have to remember in this debate is that we in this country approach marriage through love, not just through the head. I think this is most important to remember. In a debate such as this I am very much aware that I personally am a happily married woman. We are all making confessions here to-day. I have done a lot in my life. I have won elections; I have come to your Lordships' House; I have helped to pass legislation;
290
and I have had children. But the outstanding thing in my life, for which I am profoundly grateful, is that I married a really wonderful man.
We have to approach marriage in that way, and realise that marriage really is essential to every man and woman in order to have fulfilment. You want companionship; you want to love, and to be loved. When we approach marriage we should say, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, quite rightly said, "This is for keeps". Let us approach the whole question of the divorce law in that way, and dismiss the modern approach, which some people may say is the ideal one (and which I shall deal with a little later), that marriage may be a trial marriage, and if it does not work you can get rid of your partner.
I say that I find this debate not very attractive because it must involve considerations of the vulnerability of the marriage contract, deemed by most of us to be of such lasting value. There are two things to consider. First, there are the children. The children of a broken marriage present all kinds of imponderables. Secondly and I hope noble Lords, who are most understanding on these matters, will agree with me—a woman's approach to marriage is fundamentally different from that of a man. Consequently, it is unrealistic to believe that some divorce formula can meet all the needs of men and women, of different temperaments, attributes and background. We must just do our best in the light of circumstances.
Then, human behaviour and human emotions are unpredictable, and the wisest have learned that it is a mistake to rely on logic to meet the problems of a broken home. It is only recently that our wise Judges (and how delighted I am to see so many of them here to-day, including the Master of the Rolls, who I am happy to know will speak later) have decided that the mother, who may be the guilty party in a divorce, is still the best person to look after the children. This is a complete departure from the old punitive position, and, as I have already said, it is a realisation by our Judges that a woman's approach and a man's approach to marriage are so entirely different.
There is little equality of the sexes in home-making because I believe it is the

291
maternal instinct which provides the driving force. And with all due respect to noble Lords, I would say that, if she is a wise woman, a woman's maternal instinct embraces not only her children but her husband as well. I would say that in these days of full employment if a woman is ill-treated by her husband she could leave the home overnight, knowing that he is legally responsible for the care of the children. But we all know that this rarely happens. She will tolerate anything. She will tolerate poverty, cruelty, drunkenness or unfaithfulness rather than leave the home, although she knows that she could get a job the next day.
Therefore it would seem that a further weakening of the marriage tie by easier divorce must bear more hardly on the mother and the children than on the father. I would point out to the House that in the United States of America the marriage tie has been weakened so effectively that there is now one divorce for every three marriages; and I do not think there is any evidence that it has necessarily improved the quality of family life in the United States.
The so-called divorce reformer could equally be called a marriage-breaker, for that is the effect of hastily conceived changes in family law. I hope I shall still be alive when one day, in our wisdom, we decide to supersede the Western form of marriage by some other form appropriate to the times which will ensure children more adequate protection. But for the time being we must use the institution which we have modified in the course of the last century, always having borne in mind that the stability of the family must be our invaluable guide.
I speak more in sorrow than in anger. The Archbishop's Group have produced a curious and disappointing document called Putting Asunder, in which they have failed to recognise that the stability of the family should have governed all their thinking. For this reason their proposals will baffle the churchgoer, and the recommendations are calculated to astonish a scientific humanist, for this reason. These proposals can be interpreted only as a rejection of a lifelong marriage contract and the substitution of trial marriage. I will explain why.
292
It is recommended that the doctrine of the breakdown of marriage should be substituted for the matrimonial offence as the basis for divorce. Undoubtedly this approach will make it much easier to obtain a divorce. The procedure suggested—and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor read it out in detail—is that every husband or wife, or both (the Archbishop preferred both) seeking a divorce should appear before a court which would conduct an inquest into the family life of the petitioner and the respondent. This suggests to me that the Church must be completely out of touch with the ordinary man and woman.
One reason why the proportion of undefended divorce cases is so high is that a married couple hold a mutually enjoyed, close, spiritual and physical communion, and they cannot tolerate the thought of opening their wounds by relating their traumatic experiences before complete strangers in a court. How can you expect a woman who has kept her love letters all her life, as women do, later on, despite there having been some trouble, to go to the kind of court that we have heard described to-day and tell the court all about the history of her marriage, what happened and when, and who did what? She shrinks from such a thing, and that is why so many divorce cases are undefended. It has not surprised me when I have been told that 97 per cent. of the cases are undefended. Men and women so very often cannot tolerate going to a court.
The right reverend Prelate this afternoon described what happened in a court when a barrister told everybody what had happened and the respondent did not come and deny it. We are told that in the kind of court proposed they jolly well must come and describe these things. My Lords, the Church are out of date. The Church are now offering to us a public confessional for these hurt people or, as the Law Commission describes it, an "inquisitorial investigation", worthy, I suggest, of a mediaeval society.
Divorce on the ground of breakdown alone, which could be for incompatibility, is little different from divorce by consent. No one can tell of the pressures which might be brought to bear on one of the spouses before going before the court of inquisition. Incompatibility, supported by evidence of friends and a

293
declaration from the couple that they are not prepared to live together again, must justify a divorce if breakdown alone is established as the grounds of ending a marriage. In one of these courts that are contemplated two people will explain in public how incompatible they are and why they cannot get on together, so that at the end of the day the marriage can be ended. My Lords, the whole thing is unrealistic. Think of the pressure which could be brought to bear on one of them to go to the court and explain how things are difficult, or to refuse to go, when, according to what we have heard to-day, the court would certainly be prejudiced because the husband or the wife had refused to go.
All this would lead to couples regarding marriage as a temporary arrangement which could be jettisoned as soon as it presented some difficulty. In fact, as I have already said in my opening remarks, married life could be regarded as being on trial until the time when the court might be asked to end it. The Archbishop's Group have not asked themselves several pertinent questions. What are the criteria of a breakdown? As we all know, Judges are human beings, subject to ordinary emotions, and I say therefore that the decisions must be subjective, varying from court to court. The result would be that solicitors could never give a client reliable advice because the result of the case would be unpredictable and, if I may dare to say so, depending perhaps on the Judges' moods or prejudices that day.
Even if the terms for a divorce were acceptable, is the procedure practical? The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has told us to-day of the shortage of Judges and of court staff. I learned to-day that a number of special welfare officers were to he appointed. The shortage of welfare officers in this country is so great that some local authorities are absolutely desperate for them. Some of our delinquency is caused because we have not enough of these excellent welfare officers to look after our young people, and we have been told today that in connection with these inquisitorial courts a small army of helpers will have to be recruited, including welfare officers.
It seems to me that the Archbishop's Group, in seeking to modify the divorce law, have forgotten that the stability of
294
the family must be their guiding star: because, if I may say so, I gathered from Putting Asunder that they were preoccupied with the fate of those tempted to forget their marriage vows. On page 13 the Report says:
"where marriage is concerned life-long monogamy is what human nature really needs for its fulfilment;"
The fact is that human nature is polygamous, and I am sure that if we were to ask the President of Pakistan, who is in the country now, he would give an address which would completely controvert what Putting Asunder has said. I believe that divorce must primarily concern itself not with the needs of human nature but with the needs of the family—
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: What is the difference?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Lord asks: "What is the difference?" There is a great difference. The needs of the family, if they are put before human nature, mean that the husband and wife must be very unselfish in the interests of their children and must not think of their primitive nature. I am rather surprised that the noble Lord should ask me such a simple question.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: If the noble Lady is referring to me, I did not say that.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: No; I was referring to the right reverend Prelate. I know what a wonderful contribution the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has made in the past to the social services.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My question was put because I should have thought that "human nature" included the natural maternal instinct for the welfare of the children, and the paternal instinct for the welfare of the children and the wife. I was not quite sure what distinction the noble Lady was drawing.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Of course our civilisation is itself evolving, because we are being successful, I hope, in controlling human nature; and marriage itself, in the first place, was established in order to control human nature.
I am sure it will be agreed that the matrimonial offence is not always the basic cause of the failure of marriage. It may well be a desperate attempt to

295
escape from an uncongenial relationship. It may be simply a symptom of unhappiness in the home. The case then resolves itself into a wrangle as to what matrimonial offence should be advanced in order to secure a divorce. I agree that this may well present a squalid situation. Nevertheless, although there are wrangles in the home, the very difficulties encountered provide a deterrent to divorce. Futhermore, the greater the deterrent to divorce the less likelihood there is of people entering marriage in an irresponsible manner.
We have heard a suggestion that another Royal Commission should be set up. I hope the House will not accept that suggestion. The last Royal Commission reported ten years ago, and human beings have not changed a great deal in the last ten years. Questions concerning a change in the divorce law prompted the Government in 1951 to set up the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, known as the Morton Commission. The Commission consisted of sixteen members, six of whom were women. In parenthesis, may I say to the right reverend Prelate that I was sorry to see the Archbishop's Group of twelve included only two women—Miss Rubinstein, a solicitor, and Lady Oppenheimer, a writer on Christian ethics.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: And a wife and mother.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I do not deny that; I am only saying that I am very sorry the Group was not perhaps a little more representative of women.
The Royal Commission sat for four years; they held 102 meetings, in London and Edinburgh; they heard evidence from 67 organisations and 48 individual witnesses. The members of the Commission, with one exception, were all agreed that the present law based on the matrimonial offence should be retained. They discussed the matter for four years, and that was their decision. Nine members were opposed to the principle of accepting breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce:
"Because in whatever form that principle might be introduced it would entail the recognition of divorce against the will of a spouse who had committed no recognised matrimonial offence."
296
My Lords, the argument which is frequently employed is that the law must be changed in order to help the illegitimate children of the extra-marital alliance. Let us think of the ordinary people in this country. How many men can keep two families in an equal standard of comfort? The first family, after a few months, will come second to the family in possession of the wage-earner. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Hodson, saying that on Friday night there is one woman who will get the money, and that is the woman who is in possession of the wage-earner.
The Law Commission have applied themselves to this aspect of the matter. They said:
"A court would have to take into account among all the other circumstances of the case the pension position and the likelihood that a subsequent marriage might make it impossible for a petitioner to continue to pay maintenance to a former wife at a rate which was fair."
Then they said:
"While to refuse a divorce on this ground might be said to be discriminating against the poor it may be argued that on marriage the petitioner has undertaken an obligation to support his wife—at least while she is innocent of any matrimonial offence—and should not be allowed to acquire other obligations which disable him from fulfilling his prior one."
I would deduce from this that the Law Commission recognised that the average man cannot adequately support two families. Of course this presents no problem to the wealthy man who can afford to support the children of two families without discrimination against the first. The Archbishop's Committee suggest that a divorce might be withheld if a man could not undertake these financial obligations. But a law which cannot be of universal application is inequitable and undemocratic in conception and must raise public opposition. All Parliamentarians know that a law which is not enforceable, for any reason, is bad law.
The Royal Commission, during the four years they sat, had ample opportunity of discussing with those concerned the welfare of children from broken homes, and they expressed this view:
"The best home for children is of course a happy home, but in our opinion (and most of our expert witnesses confirmed this) children can put up with a good deal of friction between their parents so long as the home remains intact. The relations between the parents must usually be very bad indeed before a divorce is in the interests of the children."

297
They added:
"If the principle that a marriage should be ended if it has irretrievably broken down is followed to its logical conclusion then it must be accepted that a spouse who had committed no recognised matrimonial offence could be divorced against his will. In our opinion this would be so plainly unjust as to be in itself conclusive against the introduction of any ground of divorce which had this result."
Finally, may I say this? We have seen in our newspapers, and on television, during the last few weeks a great deal of publicity directed to this matter. Young men who write in some of our weekly papers are inclined to equate easier divorce, abortion reform and reform in the homosexual field as a sign of progress. It was therefore a welcome relief to find, when I read my Observer on Sunday, that Katharine Whitehorn, a highly intelligent young mother who I am sure everybody would say is "with it" in the modern world, had written this:
"It is odd that divorce should be talked of in enlightened circles as if it were a benefit that should he available to all, rather than a tragedy it is worth almost anything to avoid."
My Lords, we must recognise human frailty, and must balance one consideration with another in deciding whether it is wise further to weaken the institution of marriage. The time may come when our society is so constituted that we have a suitable substitute for marriage, but that time has not yet arrived, and therefore we must try to shore it up rather than seek to undermine it.
6.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Reid for allowing me to intervene at this stage as unfortunately I have an engagement which I must keep which would prevent me from taking part in this debate later and which I fear will prevent me from hearing the Lord Chancellor, if he speaks again with leave, and the reply of the right reverend Prelate.
I am very glad indeed to have this opportunity of following the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. It is not often my pleasure, and it is not of course the first occasion on which she and Lord Hodson have found themselves expressing similar points of view on certain subjects. But on this occasion I find myself able to come to the defence of the right reverend Prelate for what to me is the
298
most unwarranted and most unjustified attack upon the excellent Report that he produced. Indeed, as the noble Baroness went on I began to wonder whether she had ever read Putting Asunder. I wonder in fact what happens if she takes her car when it has broken down to a garage to be repaired. Does she take up the time of the garage proprietor in telling him the whole history of the car since it came from the factory? It really is ridiculous to suggest that in endeavouring to prove or establish the fact that the marriage has broken down at the time the petition is lodged the wife will have to go right through the whole history of the married life and produce her love letters to show that at the particular time that marriage has come to an end.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I did not say that.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I took a note of it. The noble Baroness said she would have to tell all about the history of the marriage.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Certainly.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: You might just as well have to tell about the history of the motor car when a punctured tyre is repaired. I must say I find it very astonishing. Also I find it very astonishing that she should pour such scorn on the suggestion that if possible more welfare officers should be employed in this field. I thought she would have welcomed that proposal. We spend far too much money on facilitating divorce; I am sure she would agree with that. I think it would be much better if we spent a bit more money on trying to prevent marriages from breaking up, and that would be the task, as I see it, of these welfare officers, not as officers investigating on behalf of the court.
I should like, if I might, to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on the Report of his Group, and the most reverend Primate on his initiative in appointing that Group and in getting so many distinguished people to serve upon it. I might point out to the noble Baroness, who criticised that membership because it had only two ladies upon it, that it is of course an unfortunate fact that the Law Commission do not have one feminine member.

299
I perhaps have few qualifications to speak in this debate, but I had the experience in years gone by of appearing before my noble and learned friend Lord Hodson when he was sitting in the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division on divorce cases, and as he knows, for some time I did some work in that Division. I cannot claim to be a member of the Divorce Law Reform Society; I never have been; but my position on this question is certainly not neutral. I do hope that the position of the Government and of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not continue to be neutral.
I am not speaking in favour of making divorce easier. I should like to see our system operate in such a way that where there has to be a divorce the bitterness and friction is removed to the greatest possible degree, because in my experience that bitterness is often terrible and often reflected on the children of the marriage. One great appeal this new proposal has to me is that I think that in the vast majority of cases proof of the fact that the marriage has come to an end will not involve proof of which member of the relationship is responsible for that sorry state of affairs. It is just the fact that the marriage has come to an end which would have to be proved. I must say that, although as my noble and learned friend Lord Hodson did, it is possible to poke a little fun at the use of the word "breakdown", I think the concept is one which is quite clear. The recommendation, if I understand it rightly, is that divorce should be granted on its being proved that really the marriage has ended, and without proof in most cases of who is responsible for that sorry state of affairs. I think that if a marriage has come to an end, then we ought to secure as best we can that the situation which results from that should be tidied up and dealt with in as friendly a fashion as possible.
I am not going to take up time by criticising the present system. It has its defenders; my noble and learned friend Lord Hodson is one, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, is really another. I share the views expressed on our present system by the Archbishop's Group and the Law Commission. I think it is thoroughly unsatisfactory; I think it is thoroughly unreal,
300
and I think it can promote and foster bitterness. I think we should, if we possibly can, find a more real basis, a more just basis for the termination of marriages when that has to occur. That is my approach, and I am definitely attracted to the proposals contained in the Report of the Archbishop's Group.
I have always felt—I say this quite frankly—a great deal of doubt as to whether that system could be operated practically. I think the language about an inquest used in the Group's Report has had attached to it perhaps far more importance than it really merits. As I see it, in many cases the documentary information provided on affidavit by the parties will be sufficient to satisfy the court beyond all doubt of the fact that the marriage has really come to an end. I was astonished, therefore, to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say that he estimated that every single case of this kind would take half a day or a day. It would, I think, follow from the intepretation that has been placed on the right reverend Prelate's Report, by the Law Commission as well, that if this system was adopted there would be nothing similar to an undefended divorce case. I personally did not read this report in that way. I thought it was right to emphasise the inquisitorial aspect as opposed to the litigious aspect, because that is important. I thought, also, the criticism could be made that it was not perhaps sufficiently emphasised that the court might well be satisfied that that condition of affairs existed without engaging in an inquisition in every single case, and certainly without raking over the whole marriage history, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, seemed to think it involved. I feel that it would be a better basis for our divorce system if when it was established that the marriage relationship had in fact ended, the law would then treat the marriage as terminated. But, as I have said, I have always doubted whether a practical scheme for that could be worked out.
If I might venture one criticism of Putting Asunder, it is that I think the Group dealt perhaps too lightly with the practical aspects. My noble and learned friend Lord Devlin signed that Report; so did Mr. Justice Phillimore; so did my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. I

301
am quite sure that none of them would have signed that Report unless they were satisfied that was practicable. They make that quite clear in paragraph 27, because, having reached the conclusion that the doctrine of breakdown of marriage should be comprehensively substituted for the doctrine of matrimonial offence as a basis for divorce, they said
"The rest of our work consisted in trying to make sure that the substitution was practicable."
So I conclude from that that, rightly or wrongly, the members of the Archbishop's Group in fact satisfied themselves that the adoption of this new basis was workable and practicable.
Then, of course, came the Report of the Law Commission. I do not wish to criticise the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having taken advantage of the powers under the Act to get advice from the Law Commission. But I think it has its disadvantages, because anyone reading their Report quickly would, I think, get the impression from it that they were in favour of divorce after six months' separation with consent, and after five to seven years' separation without consent. That is not the case, but I think that is the impression that one would get from glancing through their Report. Bringing the Law Commission into such a political and social field has its disadvantages, I think.
However that may be, I think the Commission produced a Report of great interest; but, whether they are better qualified to express a view on the practical aspects of the Group's Report than the Group itself. I must say I rather doubt. Mr. Justice Scarman can speak with great authority with regard to divorce. So, of course, can Mr. Justice Phillimore. Mr. Neil Lawson I think did some work in the Divorce Division, but one would not regard him as a member of the Divorce Bar. As to the other gentlemen, most distinguished, some of them most distinguished academic lawyers, I am not at all sure that they are the people who are best qualified to say whether or not a scheme is practicable.
It was interesting to me to note that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, while claiming to be in the best position to judge whether or not the scheme was practicable, did not rest at
302
all upon the views expressed by the Law Commission. I hope I am not doing his argument an injustice when I say that his approach was, if I can put it shortly, that he had spoken to a particular gentleman who had served on the Archbishop's Group, had found out what was in that gentleman's mind and then calculated how many judges would be required, which would be a vast number.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if the noble and learned Viscount will forgive me, I was not relying upon something that was in his mind, but upon one of the appendices. I think it is Appendix G of the Report itself.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. He was relying upon that. I am not seeking to attack the noble and learned Lord. If I had been in his position, I am sure I should have made the same calculation. I might have made the same comment. That is the real issue about this, and all I would say about it now is that I do not believe we can solve this question in this debate, whether it is practical or whether it is not practical.
So far the arguments seem to me to be fairly evenly balanced. But I start with this: that if the majority of your Lordships'House—I hope I have the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with me on this point—regard the present system as highly unsatisfactory, then we should seek to replace it by something else. I am not in the least worried by Lord Hodson's observation about scrapping the lot and starting again. I think that would probably be the best thing to do to get right away from the doctrine of matrimonial offence and establishing someone's guilt. I wonder how often the courts do find out who is guilty of bringing a marriage to an end?
I come back to this: that whatever system is to be found in the Appendix to this Report, if the majority of this House think that the basis put forward would be a better basis, then do not let us quarrel about whether the Group are right in saying that it is practicable or the Law Commission are right in saying it is not, or the Lord Chancellor is right in his deduction from the Appendix, but let us find some way in which a body of people can get together to see whether they can

303
work out a practical way of putting this basis into effect. I am not trying to attack the Law Commission, but I think the right body for that particular kind of work ought to comprise people who are experienced in the courts; and, just because the proposal or the machinery put forward in the Appendix will not work, if we really regard the present system as unsatisfactory then we ought not to leave it at that, but should see whether there is any way in which it can be made to work satisfactorily.
There is one other matter I should like to touch upon. I shall not take up too much of your Lordships' time. Breakdown of marriage has been assumed always to apply in the sense that my noble and learned friend called compulsory divorce. I think that is a different question. I should like to see the matrimonial offence categories swept away and replaced by one of breakdown of marriage. But I am by no means convinced that a divorce should be granted on that basis if one of the parties objected, and objected for good reason. By that I mean that I do not think the objection ought to be allowed to prevail if it is done purely out of spite, or with a view to extracting more money, and the court thinks it is reasonable. I personally do not think that the adoption of this recommendation necessarily means compulsory divorce.
I apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time, and I am sorry that I shall not hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he comes to reply. I welcome the fact that he consulted the Law Commission, for one reason particularly: that I hoped it meant that the Government were going to take an attitude and take action with regard to this matter. For many years Governments of all complexions have so far left it to private enterprise. Years ago I myself introduced a Bill which did reach the Statute Book and among other things abolished the rule in Russell v. Russell. The kind of reform that is required in this branch of the law—and I believe this is a branch of the law which requires reform perhaps more than any other—is not the kind of reform that can possibly be undertaken by a private Member. I hope that I can persuade the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to persuade his colleagues—because that I am sure is where the trouble will come—
304
to let him take action on this matter. He, as he has said, is the Minister responsible. It is not enough, surely, for him to say after that that his position is neutral—full-stop. I do not think it is necessary to have a Royal Commission. What I hope he will say is that he will ask a body of experts on this subject to see whether they can work out a machinery, very different, perhaps, from that advocated in the Report, but a machinery which could make divorce based on breakdown a practical and workable proposition.
6.31 p.m.
LORD REID: My Lords, most people in this country distrust revolutionary reforms, and until a few minutes ago I thought that my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne was in that category; but apparently he is not. If I oppose, as I do, Putting Asunder as the basis of reform, it is not because I wish to block all useful reforms. I should like to see reforms which are at once practicable and likely to be acceptable to the people of this country, and I do not believe that Putting Asunder comes under either heading. My noble and learned friend who has just spoken tried to make out that this document sets out a practicable scheme. If time permitted I should like to take that up, but the time is getting on and I will only say this. If there is to be real inquiry so as to differentiate breakdown from divorce by consent, then I think that the scheme is wholly impracticable, at least within any measurable period. If, on the other hand, there is not to be real inquiry, then it seems to me that the scheme is almost indistinguishable from divorce by consent.
I would start off by saying this—and this matter was referred to a little earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, whose maiden speech we all so much enjoyed. I am in the position of agreeing heartily with half of what he said and disagreeing equally heartily with the other half, but I am sure we all hope that we shall hear him again soon. He referred to the passage on page 34 of the Law Commission's Report:
"Under the present law, when both parties want a divorce, in most cases they get one sooner or later. Sometimes they get one by questionable means…"
It appears to me that we might as well start by recognising the fact that if the

305
present position is that most people who want a divorce get one, then the first task should be to make it possible for them to get one without employing questionable means. I think that would go a very long way towards solving 90 per cent. of the problems which confront us.
The Law Commission, for some reason which I do not wholly understand, have put separation and consent into different compartments. I believe they can well be combined. They are not really independent grounds, and if the spouses have in fact been living separate for, let us say, two or three years—I would accept any reasonable period—and if they both genuinely want divorce, then I believe they should have it. The fact that they have been living separately for several years is surely ample evidence that the marriage has broken down; and if they both want divorce, what earthly good is there in sending a welfare officer to try to persuade them to live together again? Therefore I should think that even on the breakdown theory, all the public interest is on the side of permitting a divorce in those circumstances. But we have to ensure, of course, that both parties really do consent. One knows that the weaker spouse is very often overborne by the other. Therefore I would not give a divorce on this ground unless both parties appeared before the judge and made it clear to him that they were both desirous of having a divorce.
On the whole, I should think that if that is the position, the children would be better off if there were a divorce; but I should be quite content to leave the discretion to the judge to refuse divorce if he was satisfied that that was in the interests of the children. That would certainly get rid of the objection to the present system that it engenders bitterness, because if the parties are going to appear as one before the court and say that they consent, there is no need to go into any past history. I cannot see how you could have a less humiliating or less embarrassing means of bringing a marriage to an end, certainly far less humiliating and embarrassing than an enquiry such as I understand is envisaged in Putting Asunder. But I would not permit that kind of thing if one of the parties really objects. If a party, against whom nothing can be said that he or she has contributed to the breakdown of the marriage, says,
306
"I will not ask for a divorce", divorce ought not to be thrust upon him or her.
At this point I take issue with Putting Asunder. The theory behind Putting Asunder, as is explained in a number of passages, is that breakdown and matrimonial offence cannot live together in our law. I have read and re-read the passages in which that is set out. Clearly it is obvious to them that they have put forward an irrefutable argument, but the argument appears to me to be of no weight whatsoever, and I think I am living in a different world from those who framed Putting Asunder. Speaking as a lawyer, I can see no difficulty at all in principle in combining breakdown with matrimonial offence for different kinds of cases; and, speaking as a member of the public, it seems to me common sense that they should be combined. After all, we are dealing with two kinds of case. In one case one party has committed an offence and the other party seeks a remedy. Why should he not have it? In the other kind of case, where there has been no matrimonial offence, the question is whether in the public interest a marriage should be dissolved. I can see no reason at all why these cases ought not to be dealt with separately.
If I may turn for a moment to the Law Commission's paper, I think they have been rather led astray by the use of metaphor. They speak not once but several times of an empty legal shell. They speak of decent burial for dead marriages. Nothing is more dangerous, when you are trying to find a remedy for something which is wrong, than to allow metaphor to come between you and reality. That, I think, is what the Law Commission have done up to a point, although I do not want to suggest that I have the same objection to their paper as I have to Putting Asunder. I think there is a great deal in the Law Commission's paper which I could heartily accept.
We are not looking for a panacea here. Breakdown is put forward, so far as I can see, as a panacea to cure all ills. But no remedy is going to be equally applicable to all the multifarious types of case which require the intervention of the State for their remedy. I am struck by the fact that, although the most reverend Primate's Group have put this on a high logical basis, at once they find they cannot

307
press breakdown to its logical conclusion, which seems odd when they start off in that very high way.
Take the case of the really innocent wife who has done nothing to contribute to the breakdown of the marriage. The husband goes away with another woman, or perhaps, as often happens, he is snatched away by another woman, and the wife has nothing to reproach herself with. What does Putting Asunder say about that? It says something which astonishes me. It says, on page 53, that sometimes a divorce will be permitted; sometimes it will not. What is the criterion to be? The Report refers to cases where the husband who has gone off with the other woman is "patently responsible" (I do not know what that means) for the breakdown—that is one element but that is not enough—and has "blatantly flouted the obligations of marriage". I venture to ask the right reverend Prelate, what is the force of the word "blatantly"?
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, if I may intervene for a moment, I think that what the Group had in mind was that whereas it is in general in the public interest that marriages which are dead should be dissolved, even though one party cannot be proved in a court of law to have committed an offence which would legally justify such a divorce (if the matrimonial offence condition were to continue), nevertheless there are other cases where the behaviour of the one spouse has been so blatantly self-seeking as to cause a public scandal, a general offence.
LORD REID: My Lords, it seems very odd, if we are going to tell husbands who are thinking of going off with another woman, or to tell the other woman who is thinking of snatching away the husband. "Provided you carry on your affair smoothly and adroitly, it is in the public interest that you shall get a divorce against the innocent spouse. But if you are not so smooth and adroit, then the public interest is different". That may be some people's idea of public interest, but it is not mine.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: No, my Lords. It would be the noble and learned Lord's idea of public interest, would it not, that a decree should not
308
be issued if it would strike a blow at public morality? That is all we mean.
LORD REID: My Lords, I venture to think that any decree given in those circumstances, however adroit the methods of the man who goes off with the other woman, is a blow at public morality.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, that means, does it, that the noble and learned Lord would not admit the principle of the breakdown of marriage, either as a substitute for a matrimonial offence, or as an addition to it? Do I understand the noble and learned Lord correctly?
LORD REID: No, my Lords. I have already said that I will not admit it as a substitute. I will admit it as an addition, provided that both parties consent.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: What happens if they do not both consent?
LORD REID: Then I think certainly the public interest is that the spouse who has taken the other spouse for life and wishes to continue with that should not be divorced against her will.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, in other words, the noble and learned Lord has no answer to the problem which is created by the dead marriage and the co-existing stable, but illicit, union.
LORD REID: My Lords, I had the advantage of hearing the most reverend Primate, and I was very much struck by what he said about the woman who kept on hoping and kept to her marriage vows. I am very much inclined to think that on this matter there must be a schism between the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate.
There is another respect in which it seems to be that Putting Asunder fails lamentably, and that is with regard to financial considerations. They say on page 48, that full protection of economic and financial rights must be "assured". That is their word. Of course, it is quite impossible to assure financial protection, full or otherwise, in the case of the ordinary wage-earner, and I cannot read this as anything other than one law for

309
the rich and one for the poor. Then it is said a few pages later on—on page 73 to be exact—that everything will depend on the ability and willingness to make this contribution. Ability I have already dealt with. As regards willingness, a rogue will promise anything. Is that to be accepted? And even the promise of the honest man—once he gets into the clutches of the second wife—will not get very far.
I am astonished that this idea should be put forward, unless the framers of this document are contemplating some really effective method of enforcing this promise. I do not suppose they want, any more than I do, to put a man in prison if he does not come up to his promise. That does nobody any good. The only other possible remedy is to stop the money out of the man's wages. I am not sure that a great many people, either trade unions or employers, are in favour of that. But that is not enough, because the man changes his job, and in that case the only possibility would be that the Ministry of National Insurance should be put under an obligation to tell the wife who the new employer is, so that she can get her money out of him, get him to stop the wages. Is it really the intention of the authors of this document that that should be done? If it is not, then this is, in my view, so much waste paper.
I shall not detain your Lordships at this time of night, but I wish, in conclusion, just to say this. I realise that in supporting the right of the blameless, deserted wife to refuse to be divorced I have not only Putting Asunder but also, I think, the Law Commission against me. But I am not in the least worried by that, because I firmly believe that in this matter the balance of public opinion is to-day, and for any measurable future time will continue to be, on my side. At least I can say that I shall continue to oppose any proposal of this kind.
6.50 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I want to thank the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, for allowing me to speak now, before him, because I shall have to be away, I am afraid, all too shortly. My Lords, I have had some experience in this field. I have sat as a divorce judge, I have been chairman of a Divorce Committee, and I have
310
presided over many divorce cases in the Court of Appeal. I would say at once how much I support the recommendations of the Archbishop's Group, set out in Putting Asunder. By Statute, the law at the present stage is based on the matrimonial effects. In law, we have to find cruelty, adultery or desertion, and we have to use our discretion, but the day-to-day practice in our courts is to act on the principle of the breakdown of the marriage. I have seen it all the way through my experience.
At one time—I think it is now nearly fifteen years ago—sitting in the Court of Appeal we sought to limit the strict doctrine of cruelty, which went on violence or near-violence, as the case may be. We limited or reduced it by saying that if there was an intent to injure or an intent to cause misery, whether it was by a gambling husband or the like, that would be cruelty in law. That was one advance. But my noble and learned friend Lord Reid, sitting in this House judicially in the year 1964, made a landmark in our law as to cruelty. It is no longer necessary to have an intent to injure; it is no longer necessary to have an intent to cause misery, or to aim your conduct at another. It is sufficient—and I say this deliberately—if an intolerable situation is created. Indeed, that very case was one in which an intolerable situation had been created. The wife had run a guest-house on her own for years, and the husband incurred considerable debts. All the husband could do was look after the garden and a few agricultural machines. The wife's life was made a misery, and her health was broken. Was he guilty of cruelty? Without going into details, I may say that in that case my noble and learned friend widened the conception of cruelty to far beyond that of the layman, and we really have, in fact, divorce because of the breakdown of marriage. We have applied that since in the Court of Appeal.
Fifteen years ago we in the Court of Appeal said that if one spouse refused sexual intercourse to the other then that was not cruelty. Since my noble and learned friend's case—I say it is his; he took the leading part—we have had cases of refusal of sexual intercourse. Suppose a woman, through fear of child-bearing, refuses her husband intercourse because of a psychological inhibition. That has

311
been held to be cruelty. Suppose a man is so under-sexed that for years he has no intercourse with his wife and, I add here, the marriage breaks down, she has to leave him and her health is ruined. Rightly or wrongly, following the good guidance we have had, when the marriage has broken down we have held that to be cruelty.
Then take the discretion cases—as though you could tell what was right or wrong! We invariably exercise our discretion when the marriage has broken down. Let me tell your Lordships of a case that came before us just a few weeks ago of a sailor's wife in Portsmouth. Her husband had gone abroad, at sea, and then the painter or decorator, in coming to the house, formed a liaison with the wife and set up house with her. He then found that his wife had gone off with another man, and brought his suit for divorce. He had to admit in his discretion statement how he had gone off with the sailor's wife. The county court judge said, I do not like a man who goes off with a sailor's wife; I am going to refuse this man a divorce". In the Court of Appeal we looked at it differently. We asked ourselves: "Has this marriage completely broken down?" Although this man did very wrong in going off with the sailor's wife, a new stable union had been created, and his own wife had gone off with somebody else. The marriage had completely broken down, and so we granted a decree. In desertion cases—and you never can tell; it is six of one and half-a-dozen of the other—if the parties have been separate for three years there is no difficulty in getting a divorce.
My Lords, I say that the law has evolved in accordance with the social needs of our society at the present time, and that these stable illicit unions (as Putting Asunder calls them) call for remedy—remedy, indeed, in the interests of marriage, so that the new union can be regularised. That, as I conceive it, is the principle which is introduced, and I welcome the courage, as indeed it is, of the Archbishop's Group in introducing this new principle.
My Lords, are there great practical difficulties? I fear that the Law Commission have magnified them no end. As I see it, an inquest is not considered necessary in every case, or even in the
312
great majority of cases. In the great majority of the cases that come before us, we have no difficulty. I do not know what the proportion is, but in nine out of ten, or it may be ninety out of one hundred, the parties have already set up their separate establishments. They are already living with other people, and have formed their families. In those cases there will be no difficulty in saying that the marriage has broken down. They can be dealt with at once, just as they are now. Indeed, in many of the cases which are fought now—they may be fought for four or five days, with both sides wanting a divorce—they are fighting because they know that whoever wins will have a better say on the question of the children or on the question of maintenance, as the case may be. That is why the cases are fought, and that is why the breakdown of marriage should be the test.
Then with what should we replace it? Here I see no real difficulty. When sitting on the Committee which I have mentioned (it is now twenty years ago) I thought to myself, "It is too early yet, but perhaps in twenty years' time we might have family courts." My Lords, I still think that is the right solution. The mechanics of the legal machinery are not apt to deal with these human problems. Indeed, at an inquiry such as is suggested I should like to see both sides coming informally, not to wash their dirty linen in public but just coming. I do not think it would take too much time to arrange everything—the future of the children, the maintenance of the wife and, mark you, the public interest also, because I should not like to let an innocent wife be divorced against her will where the public interest did not demand it. Indeed, a family court (if you call it a court), with an inquiry such as this, ought to be held in all cases. Many of them will be as quick as can be, for the parties will have arranged it themselves, in a way, beforehand, by their own conduct. I also think that in many other branches of the law we ought to have family courts; but this system, boldly attempted, would, I think, be a solution of these social problems.
I was glad to hear the most reverend Primate refer to a breakdown without

313
inquest as being, perhaps, the solution—and here the Law Commission, it seems to me, have failed to notice a cardinal point. They say, quite rightly, that if a long period were chosen, such as three years' complete separation, then the breakdown of a marriage could be presumed. Of course, it might not always be so: one would have to see whether it was a proper case. But then they go on to say, "But how would you deal with cases of outrageous conduct within less than three years?"—and a shorter period of six months is suggested. No one would visualise that if there was outrageous conduct it could not be dealt with. What I would have said is: Do not let cases be brought under three years, but let a judge be able to give leave to bring one within that time in a case of outrageous conduct. Complete control can be kept of these cases. My Lords, having seen the operation of the law in this matter over many years, I think the time has come for this brave new principle to be upheld, and I hope that the machinery can be adapted as recommended by Putting Asunder so as to implement it in due course.
7.0 p.m.
THE EARL. OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, it is a tradition (I do not know whether it is a good tradition or not) that one of my faith should take part in your Lordships' debates on divorce. I have, however, very little to say. It is quite unnecessary for me to explain to your Lordships the view which my Church takes of the indissolubility of a valid and consummated marriage; your Lordships know that very well. The matter was raised at the last General Council. It was decided, and it was decided by an overwhelming majority, that no change could be made in that position.
Nevertheless, I am a citizen of a country which, whether I like it or not, has divorce as one of its institutions. There is nothing to stop me, or any Roman Catholic, attempting to obtain for this country the best and most just divorce law possible. I should gladly contribute to that, and I should not consider that my principles are in any way affronted by my doing so. The same view, I am glad to say, is taken by the Archbishop's Group, and I was particularly impressed by the very able piece of
314
theology which the Report, Putting Asunder,contains on the subject of Our Lord's teaching as recorded in St. Matthew. May I say, however, that I have been profoundly influenced by the course of this debate? I have torn up my notes, and I must confess that, after hearing so many speeches, I am left in very grave doubt—much more doubt than I had when I came into the House with the full intention of giving the utmost support in my power to the Archbishop's Group Report. But now I do not know what useful contribution I can make, except this.
I am in the position of the young lady in Dickens who did not know what she did like but did know what she did not like. What I do not like is divorce for the single matrimonial offence. Against that I have a very strong prejudice indeed, and it dates from my days in the Army when officers had sometimes to help poor, wretched soldiers who had heard that their poor, lonely wives had betrayed them and when they felt the only course open to them was to apply for a divorce. The real horror and misery that I felt in handling those petitions has left a very deep impression on my mind. Divorce for the single matrimonial offence, or even for half a dozen matrimonial offences, is no longer in harmony with public opinion.
I remember that forty or fifty years ago, when I was young, if you mentioned divorce at all you always mentioned it with reference to the guilt or innocence of the parties. You always, I believe, said, "She had to divorce her husband "or "He is a divorced man." If it was the other way round, if the wife was the guilty party, one might say, "She is a divorced woman"; but in point of fact it was rather bad form to do so; the words were so terrible that they could hardly be pronounced in English. One usually said it in French. One said, "She is a divorcée."
Public opinion at that time was behind the concept of the innocent and the guilty party; and I say that it is not behind that concept to-day. I find to-day that if people mention divorce they will say, "They have had a divorce", or, "Her previous marriage has broken up." They will use words like that. The question of innocence or guilt. to the modern mind, is not relevant. I am therefore in

315
favour of divorce law reform; but the only thing I want to say on the kind of reform is that protection to the really innocent parties, the parties who have not had discretion exercised in their favour, the real, genuine, innocent parties, is of the utmost importance.
Just before coming into the Chamber, I received a letter. It was marked "Urgent". The writer underestimated the importance of this debate. She thought we were going to pass a law based on Putting Asunder straight away—possibly this afternoon. Of course she was wrong. But what she was very much concerned with was her pension. She implied in her letter that she would have given her husband (who had deserted her for a younger women a long time ago) his freedom, but would lose her pension if she did so. That is a real question. When better-informed speakers than I come to wind up this debate I hope very much that that woman's fears will be entirely set at rest, and that practical proposals will be made (I do not value very much mere assurances) to ensure that she will be looked after. As a practical issue, if a change is made in the divorce law so that she can divorce her husband, I want to know what will happen to that pension.
7.8 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this has indeed been a remarkable debate. I think that every speaker has made a valuable contribution, and the value of the debate has been that these contributions have been so diverse. Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I feel that my own views have been somewhat shaken since I have heard these diverse views. I hope that that is the position of most of the speakers to-day—although I have very little hope about one of them who has left the Chamber recently. But I should hope there is a possibility that others will have been influenced by what has been said.
May I offer two sets of congratulations? First, one to the authors of Putting Asunder. Whether or not one agrees with that Report, it is a remarkable effort, and I want to congratulate the authors sincerely on having made a valuable contribution to our thoughts in this field. Of course, few people will agree with every word of it, and I do not suppose
316
that on consideration the authors themselves would; but it certainly can be put Into the arena as a most valuable contribution. I should also like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, on a remarkable maiden speech. One is accustomed to congratulating maiden speakers and very often one does so with one's tongue in one's cheek. I can assure the noble Earl that my tongue is not in my cheek on this occasion; his was a really most valuable contribution to the debate.
Almost everyone has agreed that the law requires changing. I do not think that anyone, with possibly one exception, would contend that it is perfect, but there was not a great deal of agreement about the way in which the law requires to be changed. The most revolutionary proposal was that we should abandon the existing law altogether and rely entirely on the concept of the broken marriage. There is a great deal to be said for that and I must admit it is a very attractive idea. But I am bound to say that marriages end for a great variety of reasons, and it would be very difficult to put them all under the one umbrella of the broken marriage. To-day we have the concept of the matrimonial offence which covers a considerable variety of offences.
There is, for example, cruelty. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, was somewhat cynical about cruelty and so was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, but those of us who have had some experience in practice, as I have had (I have had many years of practice in divorce proceedings, although I have not specialised in divorce), realise that cruelty is a real thing. It may have been somewhat extended recently by judicial decision, but those of us with experience know that a great deal of cruelty takes place and that some of it is intolerable. To pretend that this can just be brushed aside is to be cruel to those injured people who have suffered from the effects of cruelty.
Imagine the position of a woman whose husband is consistently unfaithful. Is she to be expected to put up with that or to wait until she can establish that the marriage has broken down or use that as evidence of the breakdown of the marriage? It may not be accepted as evidence of the breakdown of the marriage, and I feel that in such a case

317
the injured party ought to have the right to go to court and ask for a divorce on that ground alone—that her spouse had been unfaithful or cruel. I would gladly have the concept of the breakdown of marriage as an additional ground. I know that is opposed to the whole trend and theory in the document Putting Asunder. I realise that the authors of that document have devoted a great deal of space to establishing that you have to make a choice—either a matrimonial offence or the breakdown of marriage. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, that there is no need to make the choice and that the two conceptions are not incompatible. On the one hand, you may have the concept of the broken marriage and on the other, the concept of the matrimonial offence.
As we know—I have had much experience of it there are—cases of couples who, having lived together for years, find they have lost all affection, love, respect, interest or anything else in one another. I know couples who do not speak, and may not have spoken for weeks, to each other. If they have anything to say, they communicate by written messages. I have known that happen over and over again. No matrimonial offence is committed; and there for it is right to give them a ground for divorce, if they want it, by saying that the marriage has broken down. In such a case you would give that right to either spouse. Neither is wholly to blame and neither is blameless. No one would wish—I say this to my noble friend Lady Summerskill—toperpetuate a marriage of that kind, and there are so many of them. Even if there are children I do not know whether anyone would say that such a marriage had to be maintained at all costs for the sake of the children. In such cases as I have instanced surely the children would be better off if the marriage was terminated than if they were brought up in that kind of atmosphere. I can assure noble Lords that this is not a piece of fiction. This kind of situation is occurring on a large scale.
It has been said that 93 per cent. of divorces are undefended and a number of speakers asked us to draw from that the inference that they are therefore collusive divorces. I am sure that is not right. It is my experience that almost everyone who wishes to petition for a divorce feels
318
that he has suffered injury, and that the other party has committed an offence. It is as simple as that. If there is any hesitation on the part of the wife, it is because she is afraid of losing her home or afraid of the future financial insecurity which she may suffer. But these are not collusive divorces simply because 93 per cent. of them are undefended. The truth is that in 93 per cent. of the cases, or near enough, there is no defence to offer, and people will not defend a petition for divorce if they have no defence.
My Lords, I think that most of the things I wanted to say have already been said, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, but I did not altogether agree with him about the unsatisfactory nature of this Report. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord is not in the Chamber, because I wanted to criticise his logic. I think that when a person professes to be logical, and works things out by logic, and then comes to the wrong conclusion, there must be something wrong about his logic. The conclusion that the noble and learned Lord arrived at was that there ought not to be divorce at all when a marriage has broken down. I wonder whether he would say that there ought not to be a divorce for the kind of case I have quoted.
The right reverend Prelate asked: where do we go from here? A number of suggestions have been made as to where we do go from here. First, I think that this debate has given us so much stimulation that it would not be a bad idea if we read it over and thought about it and possibly came back in a few months' time and discussed it again. Secondly, I think that there might be something to be said for a discussion between the Church Group and the Law Commissioners. The Law Commission are not there to determine policy and this is a policy document. None the less, they have great experience on the practical side, and it may he that the Group would modify to some extent views which arose from a misunderstanding of their practical effect, and it would perhaps remove a number of misconceptions which have been aroused in the public mind.
One of them, to which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred, is that every case would take half a day and involve minute investigation. I am sure that that was not intended, but that may be the impression

319
unintentionally created by this Report, and it would not be a bad idea if the Group looked at it again. I am not in favour of a Royal Commission. The last Royal Commission sat for four years and produced at least three different Reports, possibly more. They came to no definite conclusion, not even to a satisfactory majority or minority; in some respects they were equally divided. Nor am I in favour of the Government itself introducing legislation—because I do not want to break up this present excellent Government, and whatever legislation we introduced, it would quite likely break up the Government.
This is essentially a matter for a Private Member's Bill, with free speech, plenty of time given for a discussion and a free vote. It is no good letting a private Member introduce a measure one Friday afternoon, if he is successful in the ballot, and leave it at that—I think most of us have agreed that the law is in need of some kind of revision, and I would suggest that if the Government would encourage some private Member to introduce a Bill, and would give ample time for discussion, it would be the best way of revising it. I have come to the conclusion that it would be wrong to come to a firm decision on this matter as a result of to-day's debate. We all ought to think more about it. We are all agreed that there is need for something to be done, and I hope that we can come back to this subject fairly soon and eventually decide that some action should be taken.
7.24 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, it is my misfortune that I have been unable to be present for the whole of this debate, and therefore I am unaware whether any specific reference has been made to the Free Churches. It may not be your Lordships' opinion that such reference should be made, but I venture it, because I believe that in the Free Churches we have good reasons to be grateful for both of these documents. If I were to select one, in particular, it would be Putting Asunder, the principal reason for that being the deep concern which we have, like the Church of England, for the facts of divorce and for our experience of the great number of unhappy mar-
320
riages of which divorce is a culminating end-product.
The second reason we in the Free Churches are grateful is that in avoiding rigidity we have only achieved imprecision. We are in considerable difficulty as to what we ought to believe, and we are only too grateful for any help we can receive. Though I cannot always speak on behalf of the Free Churches on every matter, I am quite sure I can say that we are thankful for the help which we have received from this report. It is an illuminating, compulsive, and in some respects convincing, document.
I would agree that there are many things yet to be said and that we should postpone final judgment, but I think that if some ballot could be taken of the Free Churches it would be found that the overall attitude was a general support for what Putting Asunder sets forth as the main principle of the substitution of breakdown of marriage for the existing matrimonial offences. And not least for a theological reason: the disagreeable element in the thinking of all Christian people when they think of the contriving, and conniving, and achieving, of divorce. It may be somewhat specious, but it is somewhat more comfortable to the theology I seek to embrace, to take the far more simple proposition that there are conditions under which a marriage is dead, and that in that case it is not necessary to infer that those whom God has joined together man can put asunder. In a very real sense these marriages have died and therefore they should be decently buried. There is a sense in which this is a piece of escapism, but there is also a sense in which I think the Free Churches would in general agree that this principle of a substitution of a breakdown, or a collapse or a decease—not only a nervous breakdown, but the actual end of an existing marriage—should be recognised as such, and should be decently buried.
In the second place, I am sure that this proposition has the immeasurable advantage of unity and simplicity which again is a specious argument in some cases; but not, I think, in this. It lays down an overall principle within which it is possible to frame the various ancillaries and clauses, corollaries and riders. I was much interested when the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, talked of the

321
common man and in an extraordinary way associated himself as an ordinary man. I took the precaution earlier today of consulting about 400 ordinary men, in a larger and louder place than this, and I put before them many of the matters which have exercised your Lordships' minds in the last few hours. It may be of some interest that I should record a few of their reactions. One of them was this. With the typical morality of the non-churchgoer, they were concerned to ask, in the case where a marriage no longer existed and could be presumed dead: who had killed it? They thought that many of these cases were cases of murder. And I believe that this is a matter on which great and deep thought has to be dedicated, and upon which the provisos which have been ventilated to-day are of the utmost importance.
It is true that there are marriages which have broken down—and in my experience I can think of many—where the adjudication of blame would be extremely difficult. But there are many other cases, of which I deplore the memory, in which no one would doubt that in large measure one party had been the "villain of the piece", and one party had indeed betrayed the other. In these cases I am glad that this natural and somewhat bucolic attitude of the man in the street about the preservation of the elementary principles of right and wrong should not be obscured. And any concept of compulsory divorce would be most repugnant.
I do not share the view (though I have not the competence with any precision to deal with it) that this particular change, revolutionary as it is, would require practical adjustments which at the moment are quite out of reach. I read in the Report, Putting Asunder, of the possible recruitment of what are called "forensic social workers". I put that suggestion to the crowd on Tower Hill. They thought that the word "offensive" was too near the word "forensic" to give it any viability, and suggested that there might be other and better names. I think that is true. We in the Church have a curious aptitude for the wrong names. I belong in the Methodist Church to those who are called "worn-out ministers"—it is purely, a description of those of supernumerary rank.
322
Whatever be the nomenclature, I do not subscribe to the view that it would be impossible to find a sufficient number of people within the period which obviously is at our disposal before this can possibly become law. I should not be surprised if parsons could not be recruited. Most of them have not enough to do; or—let me re-phrase that—many are engaged on duties which could be more profitably exchanged for others. They are not without competence. They are in grave need of training, of course, but I think that training could be offered to them. If the idea is right, then let us not put it aside as a principle simply because at the moment we cannot exercise it as a fact.
I would venture, even though the hour is late, to introduce one other theme which, so far as I know, has not so far been ventilated. I was rather surprised to find there was no special place, even in the Appendix to Putting Asunder, for what I should regard as very important elements in this whole concern—namely, economic considerations. There are sociological considerations in that particular Appendix which, for lack of time, as I understand it, could not be approved by the Commission. But, in general, I do not think it is necessary to re-read the Communist Manifesto of 1848 to recover one's sense of shock and of contempt for the idea that marriage in modern society is economically determined, and that all the superstructure of love and care and spiritual values are to be discontinued, if not to be utterly repudiated.
On the other hand, I think it is dangerous to think not only that marriages are made in Heaven, but that is not only their provenance, but their pasture. I think this would be extremely stupid to pretend as a fact, and I, for one, take refuge in what the immortal Dr. Temple quoted—whether he was the author of it or not is perhaps another matter—that of all the world's religions Christianity is the most materialistic. I am quite confident that a great many of the marriages which have broken down have done so principally not because those who are partners to those marriages were evil-minded or lust-minded or even weak-minded, but because they were ordinary

323
people compelled to face particular economic circumstances which might have overthrown most marriages.
I, for one, am impressed by the comment that is made in Appendix F (I think it is), that we are still, when thinking of marriage, concerned with a majority of people who are poor. I wonder how many marriages which now are regarded as beyond repair could be repaired if the whole housing concept in this country were transferred from the realm of profit to the realm of service and regarded in the same light as, for instance, a health service and an education service. I know how in many of the problems which come to me past orally the psychological difficulties of marriage which have become intolerable are often associated with the physical proximity of families in crowded conditions, and in many cases the physical proximity of a mother-in-law.
There is an interesting comment in the same Appendix of the different functions that now belong to marriage in the so-called affluent society. Many marriages, though they may begin in a flame of passion, are maintained only by the cords and bonds of a common responsibility and an allocation of duties. I remember that when I was a boy I played the piano and my brother played the violin. Neither of us was a great musician, but we made music together, and we needed one another. If we had both played the fiddle, we might have gone outside to find our accompanist. It is surely true that many marriages are maintained because the funtions between the two parties are clearly defined, and mutually included and mutually demanded. But where today the man and the women may indeed he bread-winners, and where there is rather a separation of duties, that has been largely disposed of. We need new contexts and we need new cements; and many of these cements have to be found in a society which has destroyed the cements that appertained hitherto. This is ranging more widely, but it would not, I think, be a reasonable debate in your Lordships' House on the matter of divorce unless we were to take into account the overall context of the society in which people, many of them heartily and sincerely, are endeavouring to maintain permanent relations.
This is no occasion for the end of a sermon, but I should be untrue if I did not
324
record my own conviction and offer it in the pool of those things that have hitherto been said in welcoming, as I do most heartily, the main recommendations of the Archbishop's Report. I would say at the same time that our principal business in the maintenance of marriage as a permanent institution is that for Christians it provides the language without which we could not speak our faith, and in society it provides the only cement and integument in which there is any permanence, as I think, of those great virtues which, whether Christian or not, we cherish.
7.37 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, has taken compassion on your Lordships and decided not to speak, and I therefore rise now to make my contribution to this debate. Since the war, I doubt whether many social questions have engaged the attention of the community more than the matter of divorce. Many years ago we had the Denning Committee, followed by the Morton Commission, and in July of this year the Church of England Report, and more recently the Report of the Law Commission. The proposals and views of both Reports have been ably considered by a number of your Lordships to-day and I do not feel that I can usefully add anything to what has already been said. As I see it, the main difference between the two Reports is that the Church of England would substitute the irretrievable breakdown of marriage for the present system of matrimonial offences, while the Law Commission would retain matrimonial offences and take marriage breakdown into effect.
I should like to say at this stage that I find myself ranged on the side of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Exeter, and on the side, generally speaking, of the Anglican Report. But I should like to say that those responsible for both Reports are to be congratulated on their sincere and sustained attempt to find a more acceptable solution to this grave and growing social problem. I think that both Reports recognise that there is not an easy solution. But what I feel is perhaps more important is that both are genuinely concerned with strengthening in every possible way the stability of marriage. It is the strengthening of marriage with which I am chiefly

325
concerned, and I hope your Lordships will grant your usual indulgence and allow me to say something on this matter which means casting the net of discussion much wider than it has been hitherto to-day.
Before doing so, may I say that I regret that the Law Commission feel that the proposal of the Church of England in respect of the broken marriage is unworkable because the procedure to determine whether a marriage had irretrievably broken down would be time-consuming, expensive and difficult. Surely this matter of cost in itself is not a sufficiently good reason to abandon the suggestion made in the Anglican Report. When we consider the grave personal and social problems stemming from marriage breakdown and the consequent cost of that breakdown to the community, it might not prove to be so expensive after all.
I recognise that no one knows better than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor what would be involved in giving effect to this proposal. The noble and learned Lord has referred to the need for more judges and for more buildings. But would it be a matter that could be dealt with adequately only by Judges of the High Court? Surely, the deciding factor would not be, strictly speaking, a matter of law. It would be a matter of the quality of the relationship existing between husband and wife. Here I would suggest—and I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not think I am being impertinent, and I hope the noble and learned Judges will not think so, either—that, in view of the fact that the court would be more concerned about the quality of the personal relationship rather than a matter of law, this could be done by lay people better equipped, perhaps, to make that kind of assessment.
I would remind your Lordships that most of the matrimonial orders in magistrates' courts are made by lay justices who have in many cases an uncanny knowledge of people; and not only that, but an uncanny knowledge of their lives and the problems they have to face. Nor do I think that buildings are necessarily a problem. There are hundreds of elegant council chambers in our town halls up and down the country used only one day or one evening a month. During the rest of the time they are empty. I
326
suggest, with great respect, that these could be brought into use and could be made into very good courts, conveniently situated for the people involved.
Both Reports refer to the importance of reconciliation, and both pay tribute to the work done by marriage guidance agencies. Perhaps at this stage I ought to declare an interest, being one of the founders of the National Marriage Guidance Council, although I do not benefit financially from my association with it. I was glad to see that the Law Commission referred to the comment often made—and here I quote from their Report:
"…a disproportionate amount of public money is spent on dissolving marriages in comparison with the small sum spent on marriage guidance and conciliation."
It also expresses the view:
"…that the preventive medicine of guidance before marriage and help during the marriage is likely to achieve far more than attempted cures after the breakdown has occurred."
Nevertheless, the Law Commission's Report says subsequently:
"The saving even of a very small number of marriages is worth while…".
I should like to stress the importance of making more money available to the marriage guidance agencies in order that they can extend the valuable work they are doing already—work which, I suggest to your Lordships, is of supreme importance to the community.
I am not unmindful of the fact that this Government and previous Governments have been reasonably—I say "reasonably"—generous to the three marriage guidance agencies, the National Marriage Guidance Council, the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council, and the Family Discussion Bureau. But the grants given to these three bodies amount to only £62,625 per year. It is estimated that about £3 million of the £5,500,000 spent last year on legal aid is spent on providing legal aid for divorce. This means that, for every £50 which we make available for terminating marriage, we spend £1 on trying to preserve it. Surely we need to be more realistic in our approach, and more generous in trying to prevent this social problem.
I do not agree that it is hardly worth while to provide facilities for reconciliation when a marriage has reached, or is on the way to, the divorce court. I believe

327
the divorce court puts an end to a number of thoroughly bad marriages every year; but I also believe that it puts an end to a number of potentially good ones. Surely, in a progressive and enlightened community we need, alongside this mortuary for dead marriages—for that is what the divorce court is—a growing hospital service for sick marriages. It is all very well for people to argue that 93 per cent. of divorces are not contested and that they are therefore consensual. I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was quite right when he said that in many cases they are not defended because there is no defence; because a matrimonial offence has been committed.
I hesitate to draw on my own experience. I have for many years been chairman of a domestic court in London, and I know from experience that when there is no defence it is because a matrimonial offence has been committed, which is followed by the making of a matrimonial order, and in many instances the case finds its way to the divorce court. The case has already been established and proved in the lower court. I am not worried about what is likely to come out if society decides to make irretrievable breakdown in marriage a ground for divorce. Nothing could come out in an inquiry of that kind which does not already come out in the lower court. If your Lordships were to attend a domestic court, I think you would be surprised at the—I was going to say basic intimate details which come out in that court, and I do not think that if irretrievable breakdown in marriage became a ground for divorce any unpleasant details could come out that have not already come out in many of the matrimonial cases in our domestic courts.
While I am opposed to the introduction of compulsory conciliation procedures, I feel that the facilities for exploring the possibilities of reconciliation should be available in the divorce court so that couples can avail themselves of conciliation services if they so wish. I am not persuaded, if I may be permitted to say so, by the suggestion that solicitors acting for the petitioner should be required to draw their clients' attention to the availability of marriage guidance organisations. I do not think it is a realistic suggestion, for reasons which I
328
will not go into. It could easily become a meaningless requirement performed by the solicitors, and have no more effect or influence than that. If we had conciliators attached to the Divorce Court—and I see no reason why we should not—I suggest that the solicitor should be required to notify the conciliator, or the conciliation department, when a matrimonial petition had been filed. This would enable conciliation officers to make their own contact with the petitioner, and explore the possibilities of reconciliation in an informal way rather than in a formal way.
Petitions for divorce have risen sharply since 1960, from just under 29,000 in 1960 to just over 42,000 in 1965. I have not the figures for the number of children involved in these petitions in 1965, but I understand that in 1964, when the total number of petitions was nearly 42,000, over 50,000 children were involved; but that means up to the age of 21. I understand that it was in the region of 22,000 children under the age of 16–22,000 children at a time in their lives when they should feel needed, wanted, loved and secure. There is not a single Member of this House who can get up at any time and say, "I am indifferent to whether people love me, want me or need me". From the cradle to the grave we need somebody to love us, we need somebody to want us, we want to feel that somebody needs us; and yet in the region of 22,000 children under the age of 16 are being uprooted and often set down in a new environment at a time in their lives when they should have this feeling of being wanted and needed and loved.
I think we have to face the fact that the applications for divorce will tend to increase because we are living in a period of earlier marriage and longer life. This means that marriage to-day has a life span of between 45 and 50 years, which means that it is going to be exposed to the stresses and strains of a much longer period than perhaps in a generation or two ago. This means that the social and personal disorder stemming from the breakdown of marriage could get more and more acute. We see the effect of marriage breakdown in juvenile delinquency and in the deprived child.
I have already referred—and I hope your Lordships will allow me to remind

329
you—to the importance the Law Commission attaches to what it describes as
"the preventive medicine of guidance before marriage".
At this point I quite unashamedly ask the Government to make more money available to those marriage guidance agencies engaged in this work. We have about 70,000 children in care—a nice little expression which covers a very grave social problem. We spend between £500 and £600 per year on keeping one child in a local authority home. We cannot do it for much less. The total amount given by the State to the three marriage guidance organisations to which I have referred is roughly the sum that we spend in one year on looking after 100 children in local authority homes.
If matrimonial offences—as we know them are to be retained, and perhaps added to by other grounds, I would ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he would consider establishing a Family Division of the High Court, if the status quo is to be maintained. I think the problems of judicial separation and divorce and all these other things warrant a Family Division. I am disturbed at the intention—if it is not already a decision, and I fear it is—to refer undefended divorce cases to the county court. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already dealt with that and I will not pursue the matter, other than to say that while I agree that the "dead" marriage must have an unceremonious burial, I think it ought to be one with dignity, and I cannot think that the county court, with its associations in the public mind, would do anything to improve the image of marriage.
Divorce law may well need reform, but law reform in itself is not enough. We must find practical ways of preserving family life. In my view this means a considerable extension of the marriage counselling services, and the provision of education for family life in all our schools, not to mention the need for the State to provide more money to make all this possible.
7.58 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, in the first place I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, on his excellent and sincere speech.
330
I think the majority of people feel that the Anglican Report must eventually come to pass, but I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, and I can see that there are considerable difficulties. I drew a mental picture of somebody being married in a big cathedral by one of the right reverend Prelates and the marriage ending in a divorce in a 1914–18 hut by a second-class magistrate. The time must come when there is sufficient legal apparatus to deal with this new law, but I look at the position in a rather different way. I would refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has just said concerning the rise in the divorce rate to 42,000 a year, and the 50,000 children a year who are cast out. I feel there must be some reason for this. Obviously one reason is that we have a Welfare State and people can get free legal aid, which makes many people get divorced who would not otherwise do so; but if we could only find one other reason which could be cured, I believe it would reduce the divorce rate.
If I were coming to your Lordships' House and on the way I found two people locked up in an iron cage, and they said to me, "Let us out", I would first say to them, "Who locked you in?" If they said, "We locked ourselves in", I would ask them why. I think the first thing to grasp is the reason why people get married. We have heard to-day of the sad way in which they get divorced, but why do they get married in the first place? First of all, of course, it is because of physical attraction. They see in each other the possible genes which could make better and healthier children; they can admire each other's intelligence, for the same reason, and also they can get married as a mariage de convenance. They can get married simply for money, or because they are lonely and they want companionship, and I believe a great many women get married for security. The point is that every person who gets married—myself included—does so because they want something out of it. Both partners want and expect something from marriage, and they are out to get it. That is the reason, I think in every case, when people get married.
Of course, there is the fact that people fall in love at first sight; there is no doubt that that happens quite a lot. The psychiatrists have an explanation for this.

331
I think the most plausible explanation is that a man sees a girl with a brown hat and he admires her, and he sees another girl with bacon streak hair and he admires her, and a third with a green dress and he admires her; finally he meets a girl with a brown hat and bacon streak hair and a Breen dress and he falls in love. I think it is Freud's explanation of love at first sight.
There is another explanation, but I do not intend to give it because it will upset my whole argument, so I will cheat on that. However, even though love at first sight comes by Freudian explanation, those concerned are still wanting to get something; they expect to get something out of marriage, and they get married but do not always get what they want. As the Americans say, "the cookie crumbles" and the marriage comes to an end. There are many reasons why nothing can be done about it. There are occupational dangers which occur in every trade or business—the man goes mad or something like that happens. I am not quite sure that the fact of a husband going mad causes divorce. I have a friend whose husband is shut up periodically. She has never thought of divorce; she is quite happy when he goes to "the bin". She was rather worried about it, and I said, "Look at it this way. He has got a certificate to say he is sane, and we have not", which is a very striking point. On the whole, one can do nothing about these occupational dangers of marriage: the madness, the alcoholism, the homosexuality, these things which crop up. They break a marriage. I do not think anybody can stop it; it is going to go that way. In America, which is a race-ahead country, living up to the Joneses, they all want something else and they are always looking over their shoulders to see if there is anything better, and so they get a three-to-one marriage rate.
We in this country are not like that. I believe a great number of people want to get married and stay married. I think I should have declared before now that I shall have been married 39 years on February 8, and we have got on extremely well. I first met my wife in 1913, which is a long time ago, and there is nothing worse we can know about each other than we know now. I make a speech occasionally when the children
332
come on the anniversary, and I say this, "During the whole of our married life we have had only one fight, but we have had armistices every now and again." My wife says, "The only reason I have stuck to John all these years is that he has never bored me", and perhaps that is one of the secrets of marriages sticking together.
We have heard many of the reasons for divorce. Is there any other reason why more people get divorced to-day which has not been mentioned? I am certain it is a question of the mother-in-law. I know the mother-in-law is a stage joke; it has been a stage joke for years. I remember reading a play of David Garrick which starts off with a scene with everybody in deep black and the women in tears. Suddenly, the husband says, "Oh well, she will never be a mother-in-law again". I had a mother-in-law. I was very fond of my mother-in-law and she was very fond of me and we got on very well, but if we had been shut up in a small house together we should have killed each other. I think the housing problem is the biggest cause of divorce to-day in this country. These young people want to get married and be happy but cannot get a house. I do not think mother-in-laws are wrong; I can understand them for looking after their children. But a decent husband like myself gets his wife away from the children. You cannot be cooped up in a house. However, I will say what I said some time ago in your Lordships' House. It was not very popular then and it will not be any more popular now. I think housing is a national interest, and it should not be a matter of Party politics.
8.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I must declare an interest in this matter, in that I am one of the mediæval men upon whom the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, poured such immense scorn during her speech.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Mediaeval society, I said.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Belonging to a medieval society, if the noble Baroness would rather have it that way, who was on the Committee which produced Putting Asunder. Perhaps since the noble Baroness quoted from the

333
chapter of the Report which sets out the position justifying the attempt by the Church Group to advise or comment on the law of divorce, I might just draw her attention to this passage. Since the noble Baroness quoted the words:
"where marriage is concerned lifelong monogamy is what human nature really needs for its fulfilment."—
with which sentiment she disagreed—it might be as well to read the whole of the sentence, which goes like this:
"Christians must continue seeking to persuade their fellow-citizens, by example no less than by explanation when called for, that where marriage is concerned life-long monogamy is what human nature really needs for its fulfilment."
It is perhaps a different matter if you disagree with the whole of the sentence.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I do completely disagree with it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I suppose that if any of us on the committee had hoped there would be unanimity in support of this Report this evening we must have been most woefully disappointed. On the other hand, I think there have been only a few speakers this afternoon who have not joined in the general refrain, with which the Law Commission now seem to be in accord, that there is something wrong with the existing divorce law.
The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Exeter, quoted to the House paragraph 28 of the Law Commission's Report, which I think summarises what is wrong in their view, as indeed, I think, in the view of the authors of Putting Asunder. But he did not perhaps deal altogether with the further points that we raised in some of the following paragraphs, because these are also of the greatest importance. First of all, in paragraph 29 the Law Commission deal with the question of reconciliation, and here, as in so many other parts of the Report, there seems to be a large measure of agreement between what the Law Commission have said and what appears in Putting Asunder. It is perhaps upon that helpful note that I can continue this speech. This is, of course, of the greatest importance, and what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said about the need for' money and encouragement for marriage guidance agencies to be avail-
334
able and active, at the right time and in the right place, is of the greatest importance.
Some of the procedural matters which the Law Commission recommend also seem to be fully in agreement with what appears in Putting Asunder. There is perhaps just one point that I might mention, about the power of the court to adjourn. When dealing with divorce based upon the matrimonial offence in cases where, as so many noble Lords have said this afternoon, the petitioner has a right to a divorce upon proof of the offence having been committed, it must be rather more difficult for the court to refuse to hear him and, instead, to adjourn the matter for further consideration, if he is in a position to be able to prove the offence and presumably, therefore, is entitled automatically to his relief. Leaving that point aside—and this is perhaps where the concept does not mix so well—I find myself entirely in agreement with what is said on reconciliation.
Then we come to the stable illicit union with which the Law Commission deal. Here, I must confess, the figures seem to me to be most impressive, and I think it is a matter which ought to be dealt with, and dealt with in accordance with a general philosophy, rather than put forward as the prime reason for reform and the rest of the reform built around it. Our Report, Putting Asunder considered whether the proper way to start divorce law reform was by looking at these stable illicit unions and the illegitimate children resulting from them, but on the whole we came to the conclusion that it was better to start at the other end, but of course to bring in that matter in its right place. So there again there is agreement.
The question of justice to wives on the financial front is something which goes much wider than simply a matter of divorce. It is a complicated question of how to collect maintenance; and a large number of other bodies are involved. It is therefore a great relief to me, at any rate, to find that the Law Commission are actively proposing to look into this problem, and into the financial position of children whose parents are divorced. It may be that the cart will not be before the horse, as the noble Baroness feared, because the result of their considerations may

335
easily come to fruition before any change in the divorce law is put into effect. So I do not think we necessarily need fear that one.
But if there is one thing that the debate has emphasised, it is that one has to be particularly careful where, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, there is "compulsory divorce". If there is one matter, above all else, which exercises one's conscience and one's mind on this matter, it seems to me to be that in the proper and fair solution (if there is one) of that problem is a most important ingredient in planning a satisfactory solution to a reformed divorce law.
The children, of course, have got to be considered, and if it is possible to improve upon the consideration given to their future by the courts, over what is now given, then any improvement will be welcome. I hope that here again the Law Commission may be able to give some assistance. I think that in Putting Asunder certain other ideas are put forward, such as sending the name and address of the children to the county council or the county borough council in which they are going to live, so that at least the children's authority will know that it has within its area children who may need help. Going on in a tone of agreement with what the Law Commission have said in commenting upon Putting Asunder, I would not, I think, want even to query many, if any, of the basic assumptions which they set out in paragraph 52. I believe that these are probably right, and certainly I do not believe that there will be any fruitful result in arguing about them.
But there is one matter which arises here, and it is one that I feel to be of the greatest importance. I commented last week, in the debate upon the first Report of the Law Commission, that when they are dealing with a subject of this nature they have inevitably, unless the policy is given to them by some Government Department, to determine in the first place the scope of the policy within which they are to work. In this case there has been no exception, and in paragraph 15 the Law Commission set out what they think to be the objectives of a good divorce law. In the second of these they say, first, this:
336
"When, regrettably, a marriage has irretrievably broken down"—
the good divorce law ought—
"to enable the empty legal shell to be destroyed with the maximum fairness, and the minimum bitterness, distress and humiliation."
I think nobody would quarrel with that; but it depends how far you take it, and I have a feeling that, later on in their Report, the Law Commission have perhaps taken this concept a little too far, because unless one allows for the occasional incident—perhaps it would be the defended case—when some sort of unpleasantness, which one hopes would be less than now occurs, is endured by the parties to the suit, I do not believe that the court can fulfil its role as representing society; and I do not believe that it can fairly take up any sort of posture in which it can impose or use the safeguards that everybody again seems to agree are necessary. It is not a matter that I believe would be widespread.
But when the Law Commission go on to say this sort of thing, which they do in paragraph 60:
"If our divorce laws are to be made more humane, it seems to us that the undefended divorce offers a better model than the dilatory, expensive and distressing defended divorce,"
that may well be so, but frankly, I would not take the undefended divorce as the model for an ideal hearing of a divorce case. I do not believe that it witnesses to the dignity of marriage to dissolve it in a rather desultory way, in some cases in about 7½ minutes; and I greatly doubt—I believe this is a matter that ought to be considered further—whether it is necessarily an imposition to take a little longer than that, or whether the public would necessarily resent it. There is a great difference between taking a little longer than that and a whole day on each case.
The Law Commission take the matter of humaneness further still. This can be found, I think, in paragraphs 92 and 93. They have suggested by this time that the ground of separation should be added to the other existing matrimonial offences; and they then say:
"If a single period of separation of five or seven years were prescribed, but divorces were also obtainable on the ground of matrimonial offence, it would be on those latter grounds that petitions would continue to be brought when possible and all the distasteful features of the present system would remain."

337
So they suggest that the time should be cut down. The result of that, they feel, would be that in a large number of cases petitioners would choose the separation ground because it would avoid their having to go through the unpleasant process of bringing a suit in adultery, in desertion or in cruelty, and they think that this would be an advantage.
I suspect that it would not, because where we have thrown out, or where we have sought to throw out, the concept of the matrimonial offence on the ground of hypocrisy of its use, I believe we bring it back in again if we introduce a system where people, while in fact complaining about a matrimonial offence, would be much better advised, and it would be much more pleasant for them—and the system allows it—that they should ignore that matrimonial offence and pretend that the matter was simply one of separation.
The other thing that I believe would happen is that there would be no further defended cases at all unless the petitioner was extremely badly advised. Under a matrimonial offence system you can at least defend a suit by saying that no such offence was committed. The alternative to that is for the petitioner to wait for two years, having lived apart from his wife for that period of time; then, provided that he proves the two years' separation, there is no defence, because it is a mandatory ground upon which he should get relief. The further point is that, under that sort of system, it will not matter whether it was the petitioner or the respondent who was really the cause of the separation starting. Therefore it seems to me, as I say, that one is seldom going to get a case that will be defended.
If that is so I would suggest it is open to argument, even if you wish, as I do, to avoid the humiliation and the bitterness which I accept is inherent in the present system, whether the system should be one where, as a matter of principle—and this is what, I believe, comes out of what the Law Commission said—everything should be made as sugar-sweet and smooth as possible for every conceivable case. Ought we not sometimes to have cases where somebody's conscience is pricked? Are we really going to set up a new system of divorce which in fact will mean that in no circumstances must anything discreditable ever have to be said by anyone? I
338
believe that if we do that there is a danger that we shall make it too quick, too easy, too agreeable to get rid of and to escape from the responsibilities of the institution of marriage, and that this may very well reflect upon the value in which those responsibilities are held and are entered into.
If that appears to be a somewhat harsh doctrine, I also can quote from the same article by Mrs. White horn. She said that she was inclined to think that the aspect of the Putting Asunder recommendations which the Law Commission rejected, the prolonged social inquest, had a lot to recommend it. It was rejected because it would take too long and would cost too much, but she thought that that was exactly what was in its favour. She thought that there were occasions when a divorce should be a little unpleasant for the petitioner. Even if, therefore, the Law Commission criticise a little the authors of Putting Asunder and their paragraph 60, in which they say that they look with equanimity upon an inquest into the history of the marriage, I do not think this is necessarily wholly disreputable and something to be rejected in all circumstances.
I should now like to deal with what seems to me to be a main misapprehension. Of course, if there was going to be in every single case a full social inquisition into every fact of the whole of the marriage in question, it would take a long time; it would involve a large number of courts and judges; it would be very unpleasant; and I do not think either the public or the Treasury would consider it for one moment. Further, it is perhaps true, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, that the authors of this Report are a little sad that they used that analogy. I believe that a genuine misunderstanding has arisen from their analogy of "an inquest". The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is always most impressive when he produces the sort of practical objection to which he treated the House this afternoon. Nevertheless, I hope that he has not finally made up his mind that this matter is impracticable. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that they did not think that we had been quite so foolish as to put forward a system so totally and

339
obviously impracticable as both the Law Commission and the Lord Chancellor appear to have thought it.
I do not believe—I do not hold this view myself—thatit is in any way necessary in every case to have a full day's inquest. I do not believe it is necessary in every case to have a forensic social worker, or whatever one chooses to call him (and we will take the noble Lord, Lord Soper's advice on this) snooping into the background, or inquiring, as the Queen's Proctor's agents sometimes now do, into every possible aspect that might be of interest to the court. On the contrary, I think that Lord Dilhorne and Lord Denning were quite right. In the vast majority of cases it would be perfectly possible, with the lengthened pleadings which the Law Commission say seem to be perfectly practicable, and a new method of entering, not an appearance, but simply an acknowledgement of the service of the petition, for the respondent, without having to take part in the case, to comment on the matters set out in the petition, and it would be perfectly clear to the court whether or not it could safely proceed quite swiftly.
Equally, there would be cases where it would be clear from what was said by one side or the other, or both, that some further inquiries should be made. Then perhaps the welfare officer might do something useful, and then indeed the court might ask for something to be found out or to be investigated which might in due course go towards the imposition of one of the bars which are suggested and agreed by everybody. I do not believe this to be an impracticable matter, and I am very sorry that there has been this grave misunderstanding about it. I hope that the advice given by several noble Lords this afternoon that there could be some sort of collaboration in order to see whether or not this matter is practicable may come to something, because I do not believe it should be abandoned. I will return to this matter very briefly in a moment.
I said that I feared for the addition of the ground of separation to the existing matrimonial offences, and so indeed I do. If your Lordships consider that that combination is the final and most satisfactory conclusion to the whole prob-
340
lem so be it. But let there be no misunderstanding about this. This is not a half-way house to the sort of breakdown which is envisaged in Putting Asunder. Indeed it is the very contrary. Enormous care has been taken in this new report to try to explain why. I will not bore the House with all the points, but there are two which are of importance. Here the Australian experience is most relevant. In the context of divorce on the ground of matrimonial offence one has a verbally formulated set of circumstances which automatically, if proved, give relief. If then you add in that context a ground which consists of separation for two years, then that is another verbally formulated set of circumstances and, if proved, is automatically a ground for relief. That is not likely, in fact the very contrary, to induce the court even to begin to take a very profound view of what has gone wrong with the marriage. Indeed, the very proponents of it suggest that it will be used as a masquerade in order that the parties may avoid having to disclose in public the more unpalatable features of what has gone wrong with their marriage. That is the very contrary of what "breakdown", in the terms of Putting Asunder, is meant to mean.
Another point is to be considered. As in Australia, I believe that the court here would find it extremely difficult to apply the safeguard which has been put forward as being in the public interest—the safeguard against scandal. I was interested to hear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, thought there would be cases where this would be most applicable; and it was the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who said: Who killed the marriage? There may well be cases where the person who killed it ought not to be able to rely on his murder in order to get a divorce.
But if the court is simply looking for a set of verbally formulated circumstances, why should it look for any other circumstances which would lead it to bring into operation this bar? It was not thought by the Australian authorities that this was likely to happen. Therefore, if you are never, as I believe to be the case, going to have a defended case, where is the court going to get the information from by which it will be able to use its discretion and, even in

341
the most scandalous case, refuse the decree to the petitioner? One of the very objects of this operation, unless one agrees with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, is to allow, in circumstances where public interest requires it, even those persons who now would have been guilty of a matrimonial offence to seek and obtain a decree.
Again, when you insert that idea into a context which is, so far as the rest of it is concerned, entirely based upon the matrimonial offence, with its concepts of guilt and innocence, the biggest crisis of conscience of all arises when you say that the person who would otherwise be guilty is to be given a decree at his petition, against a person who would otherwise have been innocent. Above all, it is for this reason—and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, was not thinking of these cases as being covered by the matter at all—that I myself, at any rate, would not in any circumstances wish to see the ground of separation attached to a law of divorce which was otherwise based upon the matrimonial offence, because it would be bound to appear extremely unjust when it was used by the guilty petitioner.
If you transform the whole matter into the realm of breakdown, guilt and innocence disappear, and although on occasions it may still be unattractive and on occasions it may still have to be refused, I think the matter is much less offensive to one's conscience. The sort of case in the letter which the most reverend Primate quoted is, I think, capable of some sort of answer in this set of circumstances.
The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, whom for the record I should also like to congratulate on his interesting maiden speech, quoted an example of what could happen as a result of attaching the ground of separation to the present law. He said that the person might have to wait for five years, or whatever period of time it was, and by that time he might have got over the infatuation. But it is perfectly possible that there is some merit in allowing the wife, in the example that he quoted, where she did not wish a divorce, to defend the action on the grounds that the marriage had not broken down; and, of course, if you introduce the ground of separation, and that is a
342
fact, then there is no room for such a defence at all. Therefore one thing is quite clear: that the noble Earl was wrong in suggesting that the authors of Putting Asunder were only being logical in refusing to attach the ground of separation to the matrimonial offence. In my view, at any rate, the two are completely repugnant.
Therefore, what I think is left, as I think both the right reverend Prelate and the most reverend Primate suggested, is that there is perhaps a great deal less between the Report of the Archbishop's Group and that of the Law Commission, when they deal with the breakdown without inquest, than might otherwise be supposed. It is a very short passage in the Law Commission's Report and it starts at paragraph 71. Let us, perhaps, at this point do what has been suggested and face two matters. First of all, let us face the fact that divorce with the consent of the parties is not necessarily wrong, and there is all the world of difference between that and divorce because and on the ground of the parties consenting.
The other fact—let us face it—is the one which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, told us: that in many cases the courts are already acting on the principle of breakdown. If we look at the passage on breakdown without inquest, I would not quarrel for one moment with the questions set out in paragraph 72, nor would I quarrel with any of the procedural matters set out in paragraph 74, save only for this. The Law Commission have suggested that this could work only if the court could operate on the assumption that, when the prescribed period of separation had run, it could assume that the marriage had broken down, and a great deal of the rest of the difficulty depends upon how long the prescribed period is to be—indeed, I think all the rest of the difficulty.
Why must there be a prescribed period? If, as I believe to be the case, the documents and the facts establish perfectly clearly that the marriage has broken down—not because there has been a separation, but because there has been a whole chain of other circumstances which have had this result—and if the petitioner comes fairly soon after the last of these have occurred and asks for relief, and says that the marriage has broken down, is it not perfectly conceivable that the

343
court, within the sort of concept that is set out in breakdown without inquest, would be able very often to deal with it there and then? And if that is so, then the separation cases—the grounds where now desertion would be an issue—may have to take rather longer, and it may be that the court would not be satisfied until a rather longer period had elapsed and the separation had been seen to continue. But that does not stop the court from dealing with the other cases urgently.
Because the Law Commission say that inquest would be impossible, they have put forward the alternative, which they say is different, which is breakdown without inquest. I have attempted to argue that in many cases breakdown will, in any event, be without inquest, and, if that is so, then I believe that there is a very possible marriage between the Law Commission's proposals in paragraph 71 and what was in the minds of the Group who wrote the other Report. Therefore, if there can at least come the degree of reconciliation out of the debate this evening that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will look at this subject again, and will see whether the matter is quite so insurmountable as he supposed, then I have no doubt whatever that, if there is anything that can be done by those who composed this Report of the Archbishop's Group, they will be only too glad to discuss it with him. Perhaps, therefore, if we come back, as one noble Lord suggested, in a few months' time, after having thought about it, we shall find that to-day's debate has been of immense use and in the end has a fruitful result.
8.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I have your Lordships' permission to speak again? Having said that, I would say that I think I shall be mercifully brief. I should like, first, however, to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, upon his maiden speech and to say that we shall look forward to hearing him again when he goes further with his own Bill on this subject. May I just say to the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, that I think we shall all agree—I believe there has been a very general tendency in all parts of the House to agree—that the financial relations between the spouses are of immense importance, par-
344
ticulalry of course, the question of pension, and it may be that this is one of the next things which we really ought to look at.
My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell speaks with particular authority in this field, as one of the founders of the National Marriage Guidance Council. As he knows, I have always been a strong supporter of the Council, and I think I am right in saying that the present Government have approximately doubled the financial support which they have given to it. He specifically asked me whether I was opposed to a Family Division of the High Court. No, I am not at all opposed. There is obviously a great deal to be said for transferring probate work from that Division to the Chancery Division, having an Admiralty and Commercial Court, and transferring adoption cases and ward ship cases from the Chancery Division to what would then be a Division which dealt with nothing but family work.
Nor am I in any way opposed to local family courts, which may deal with divorce as well as cases of the kind now dealt with in a magistrates' court, which usually holds people who are accused of crime and has never seemed to me a very suitable place for matrimonial matters. I should have to say, if asked, that personally I think a mixture of lawyers and laymen is a very good court for this sort of purpose, and that if one had somebody of the standing of a county court judge and four local justices that might be quite a good court. But I should like to make one thing quite clear: when, if Parliament agrees, the Government transfer undefended divorce cases to county courts, this will be entirely without prejudice to any radical overhaul of the whole of our divorce laws.
Finally, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, may I say that I do not anticipate that the Government are likely to appoint a Royal Commission in this field. After all, Royal Commissions are the classic way of people who do not really want any real reform, any more than I think the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, really wants any real reform in this field. If my recollection is right, the Royal Commission were appointed because there was Mrs. Eirene White's Bill, and the Government (I quite forget

345
which Party were in power; there are a lot of common features between all Governments) did not know what to do, and so they appointed a Royal Commission. That hung up the whole matter for five years. Now we have Mr. Abse's Bill, and we are back where we started. The main object of appointing a Royal Commission is to ascertain facts which are not easy to ascertain; but I should have thought that in this field we know the facts, and that the people who ought to decide are Parliament. I do not see that a particular group of 24 people are any more fit to decide this than Parliament itself.
Then the noble Lord asked me whether the Government might themselves produce proposals. My Lords, all I can say is that the Government's present attitude is that of neutrality; which has generally, I think, been the attitude of Governments in this field—which, of course, is concerned, in part, with religious beliefs. But perhaps I should add that, clearly, Governments are influenced by public opinion. If I had been asked two years ago whether I thought that a Bill enacting the Wolfe den recommendations, or a Bill altering the law of abortion, would be likely to pass through both Houses of Parliament (as it looks rather as though they may well do) I should have said, No; I should not have thought so. But the result of discussion in your Lordships' House of a Bill which was going through all its stages here was that there were many articles in the newspapers—and not only articles in the newspapers, but a lot of discussion on television—and we suddenly woke up one morning to find that 65 or 70 per cent. of the people were in favour of the proposed changes in the law on abortion. I am quite sure that if a popular vote had been taken before your Lordships started to discuss that matter the result would have been very different. It is, of course, in the course of discussions of this kind, on television and otherwise, that people learn a lot more about the facts of a thing than they knew before. So I hope that those who seek radical reform in this particular field will not get too depressed with the Government statement that at the present time their attitude is one of neutrality.
I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, asked me whether the
346
Government would appoint some Committee to see how practical the reform suggested by the most reverend Primate's Group might be. There again, my Lords, I should not think that that is a matter for the Government, but (and this is the only personal opinion I would express) I am not at all clear that the gap between the most reverend Primate's Group and the Law Commission is unbridgeable, and it may be that one of the next things that could most usefully be done would be to have a continuance of discussions between those two bodies.
8.45 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this debate. It would obviously be impossible to cover all the arguments which have been made and to comment on them. I am extremely grateful to all of your Lordships who have contributed to this debate. I myself have learnt a great deal from it, and I hope that your Lordships may also have done so.
I should like to say that it was with particular interest that I heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say that he was not unsympathetic to the creation of a Family Division of the High Court and of family courts throughout the country. The authors of the Report Putting Asunder had that kind of reform at the back of their minds most of the time they were deliberating, but they realised that such a reform must necessarily take a long time, and they therefore decided they must try to put their main proposal into some sort of shape which would fit the existing court structure. I think that that is the reason for what is really a great misunderstanding: the misunderstanding that the authors of Putting Asunder intended, with the existing structure of courts, that there should be a deep and prolonged inquiry into every case of divorce. Nor, indeed, even if we had the reformed courts, should we expect there to be a prolonged inquiry into every case; but, obviously, with the smaller, local courts, something more like an inquest and less like a trial would be easier than I think it would be in the present High Court or county court.
Several of your Lordships have asked, Where do we go from here? I know very well where I am going from here—I am going to dinner. But to-morrow

347
morning I am going, with one other member of the Archbishop's Group, to have a friendly discussion with Mr. Justice Scarman and one other member of the Law Commission about this gap between divorce with inquest and divorce without inquest, because I myself am quite convinced that this gap is not so very wide and that in fact we could come to an agreement about a practicable method of working a divorce law which was based wholly on the principle of the breakdown of marriage. If that comes about, the
348
authors of Putting Asunder will feel completely justified. We shall also feel very greatly indebted to your Lordships for allowing us leave to take up so much of your time this afternoon, from which I believe the country will greatly benefit. With those remarks, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before nine o'clock.