Sitting of 16 February 1967

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.
  BRIGHTON MARINA BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next at Seven o'clock.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POST OFFICE

    Rhodesia (Mail)
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Postmaster-General why, in the light of an assurance given to the House on 7th February, 1966, that there is no censorship of mail to or from Rhodesia a printed slip appeared on an envelope bearing the postmark 12th October, 1966, and addressed to Rhodesia, which the hon. Member for South Dorset has sent to him, indicating that the Post Office in the United Kingdom had opened the envelope for examination.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): This letter was opened for normal Customs examination, to which mail to and from all overseas is liable. I repeat the assurances given to the House on 7th February, 1966–[Vol. 724, c. 31]—and on several subsequent occasions, that in this country there has been and is no censorship to and from Rhodesia.
    Mr. King: Whatever the purpose, does not the slip state—and I have another with me—that the packet was opened and examined by the Post Office? Would not it have been better, at the time that the Question was asked and answered, to have said that?
    Mr. Slater: There has been a continuing misunderstanding about this matter. It began shortly after the illegal declaration of independence, when letters from Rhodesia arriving here bore the censor's stamp and when some people who received those leters in this country assumed that we had applied the stamp.

    Printed Matter (Sealed Plastic Containers)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Postmaster-General if he will allow sealed plastic containers used as envelopes for printed matter to pay only the cheap rate for postage for printed matter.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: No, Sir. We must be able to open printed paper packets easily and so check that their contents are eligible for this cheap-rate service.
    Mr. Ridley: Would the hon. Gentleman explain why the Post Office persists with the ridiculous practice of having a cheap rate at all? Surely it would be easier to check that a material is circular matter if one were able to see through the envelope because it is transparent? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be easier to police this by using this method than by having to open envelopes and inspect them?
    Mr. Slater: We must be able to examine all the contents if we are to verify that the conditions laid down for the service are being met. For the information of the hon. Gentleman, transparent envelopes are not permitted in the international or inland postal services.

    Special Stamps
    Mr. Stodartasked the Postmaster-General why he has refused to devote one out of the five special issues in this year's stamp programme to the two anniversaries which are to be celebrated in Edinburgh.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member

    769
    for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 30th November.—[Vol. 737, c. 97.]
    Mr. Stodart: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that those replies were thoroughly unsatisfactory? Will he say why the issue of one of the three special stamps to do with British flora, British discoveries or British paintings could not have been postponed until next year, so as to allow for the issue of a stamp in favour of the two anniversaries commemorating Edinburgh's contribution to architecture and modern art?
    Mr. Short: I appreciate the importance of this matter. I had more than 60 suggestions and it is difficult to be objective about this. There will be new regional stamps following the new definitive stamps coming out this year, and I believe that they will prove to be the most beautiful postage stamps ever produced in this country. In addition, there may be some Scottish pictures or pictures commemorating Scottish discoveries or wild flowers in the other sets which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

    Postal Services (Productivity)
    Mr. Marquandasked the Postmaster-General what are his plans for increasing productivity in the postal services.
    Mr. Edward Short: In co-operation with outside consultants we are making thorough-going studies of methods and procedures and staffing techniques at counters in sorting offices and clerical offices. In addition we have a large-scale programme to mechanise mail handling
    and sorting processes, which I announced recently.
    All these projects are expected to contribute substantially to increasing postal productivity.
    Mr. Marquand: I welcome that reply, but is my right hon. Friend aware that in London and many other big cities postmen still deliver letters to each separate flat in blocks of flats whereas on the Continent tenants of flats generally have to provide locked letter boxes on the ground floor? Will he circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT an estimate of the improvement
    770
    in productivity which would result if that practice were adopted in this country?
    Mr. Short: It would not be possible to assess that with any degree of accuracy. We are, of course, grateful for the cooperation of local authorities and property developers in allowing this sort of thing to be done. It helps a great deal, especially in London where the labour shortage is acute.
    Mr. Ridsdale: How can the right hon. Gentleman say that productivity is being increased when services are being cut and charges are being raised? Are not this Government a Government who get things done to the detriment of the consumer?
    Mr. Short: We are certainly a Government who get things done. To come back to the Question and away from the generalities, I have announced that we were starting an enormous programme of modernisation. By the mid-1970s, this will be saving the Post Office £10 million a year, which will give us a return of 25 per cent. on our capital.

    Giro System
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Postmaster-General (1) why the Giro Directorate's plans, published in the booklet "The National Giro", are in several important respects in conflict with the Motion agreed by this House on 21st July, 1965, and with the White Paper, Command Paper No. 2751, entitled "A Post Office Giro"; and whether he will provide a giro service in accordance with the terms of both the Motion and the White Paper;
    (2) whether, in view of the fact that one of the avowed reasons for establishing a giro system was the reduction of opportunity for crime, he will implement paragraph 10 of the White Paper to the effect that a statement of account would be sent to each account holder whenever there was a change in the balance held.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: The booklet amplified the description in the White Paper of the services to be provided by the Post Office but it did not depart in any material way from the principles of that Paper or of the Motion to which my hon. Friend has referred. We believe it is

    771
    right to allow Giro account holders to choose whether to receive a statement whenever there is a change in the balance or less frequently.
    Mr. Tuck: Can my hon. Friend reconcile the statement in the White Paper that there will be provision of cheap facilities for cash remittances of any amount with the statement in the booklet that the minimum transfer allowed will be 5s?
    Mr. Slater: Market research has shown that there will be a negligible proportion of account holders wishing to transfer individual amounts of less than 5s.

    New Road Sub-Post Office, Solihull
    Mr. Grieveasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction in Solihull with the proposal to close the New Road sub-post office; and whether he will reconsider his decision in this matter.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: My right hon. Friend has reconsidered the matter in the light of the local representations brought to his notice by the hon. and learned Gentleman and others. But he is sorry that he would not be justified in keeping open the sub-post office after the new main post office becomes available only some 500 yards away.
    Mr. Grieve: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is causing great dissatisfaction to people who have used the sub-post office for many years? How many people does he want to make a protest before he reconsiders his decision?
    Mr. Slater: One always gets some type of protest whenever one seeks to give improved conditions. Some people are not prepared to accept change. I agree that a great deal of concern has been shown about this, but the additional distance people will now have to travel to the new head post office is not very great and, like the sub-post office, the new office will be in the main shopping centre, which people will wish to visit anyway. I do not think that there will be any serious inconvenience.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Glasgow-London Lines (Congestion)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Postmaster-General what information he has regarding the congestion of telephone
    772
    lines between Glasgow and London during normal business hours; and what plans he has to improve the situation.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: I am aware that there has been some congestion on the lines between London and Glasgow. We expect to provide 100 additional circuits on this route between now and March, which will augment the facilities by 14 per cent.
    Mr. Taylor: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that Answer. Does he accept that a serious problem exists and that many telephone operators in Glasgow are in danger of becoming nervous wrecks as a result of constantly hearing a voice saying, "All lines to London are engaged, please try later"? Does he consider that 100 additional circuits will he enough and has he any further plans?
    Mr. Slater: This is progress, and we are improving the position.

    United Kingdom-United States of America (Lines)
    Mr. Bostonasked the Postmaster-General (1) how many additional lines have been installed between the United Kingdom and the United States of America in the six months from June, 1966, to December, 1966; and how many are planned for the current year up to 31st December, 1967;
    (2) if he is satisfied that there are adequate telephone lines between the United Kingdom and the United States of America available for communication between 2·30 p.m. and 5 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time, and, especially, between 3 p.m. and 3·30 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: Twenty-five additional lines to the United States of America were installed between June and December, 1966, and 27 more are planned for 1967. These increases should meet traffic growth and reduce delays.
    Mr. Boston: The news of these extra lines will be very welcome indeed. Does my hon. Friend appreciate that delays can have a very serious effect on exporters, especially during the peak period, and is he satisfied that these extra lines will go a long way towards meeting present demands?
    Mr. Slater: Yes, Sir. These new lines will improve the position. We now have no fewer than 150 lines between London and the United States of America. The Post Office has little or no control over the delay outside the afternoon period. The average delay during the afternoon period is usually 30 minutes, but most calls are booked in advance and these are generally connected a few minutes before or after the wanted time.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Why is it that when one makes a telephone call from New York to the United Kingdom one is connected within a matter of seconds but that when one makes a call from the United Kingdom to New York it takes considerably longer to get connected?
    Mr. Slater: I do not know from where the hon. Gentleman gets his information. The average delay in the service is similar in both directions.

    Castle Bromwich
    Mr. Rowlandasked the Postmaster-General if he will explain the delay in the installation of equipment in the Castle Bromwich Telephone Exchange sufficient to meet the anticipated volume of demand by the dates originally promised to existing or future subscribers.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: The demand for telephones at Castle Bromwich is extremely high, as a result of housing developments in the area. We have planned a series of equipment and building extensions for the exchange designed to meet this situation. The first of these was delayed by several months and I regret that in consequence dates given in good faith to certain subscribers could not he met.
    Mr. Rowland: The Assistant Postmaster-General will know that there is a good deal of exasperation at Castle Bromwich about this. Can he tell the House how many people were given promises which have not been fulfilled and what steps have now been taken to deal with the situation? About the delays in the supply of equipment, who is the contractor from whom it comes?
    Mr. Slater: Taking the last point first, Associated Electrical Industries Limited is the contractor. However, building
    774
    delays have contributed to the situation. As regards promised dates, the 200 applicants who were originally promised connection by July, 1966, either did not receive it until recently or are still waiting. As for the steps that we are now taking, two extensions are in progress and four more are being programmed.
    Sir T. Brinton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is by no means an uncommon occurrence? In my own constituency of Kidderminster, after promises going back 18 months that new equipment would be available at the Kidderminster Exchange by December, we are now informed that it will be mid-May, by which time 700 people will be waiting to be connected?
    Mr. Slater: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and with other hon. Members who raise these issues. But 900 equipment contracts have been responsible for the delay.

    Party Lines (Tape Recording)
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Postmaster-General what action he proposes to take to prevent tape recording of conversations on party telephones by one party recording the conversations of the other.
    Mr. Short: The Telephone Regulations forbid the attachment of any device to a telephone installation without my approval. Authority to connect a recording machine to a shared line is given only when the Post Office has the written consent of the partner.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Postmaster-General aware, first, that I am very happy that he got my Question right? I thought, on rereading it, that he might have thought that I was referring to either the Parliamentary Labour Party or to the 1922 Committee.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time is Question Time.
    Mr. Lewis: The Postmaster-General must agree that there is a great deal of misuse in this connection and that it has been obvious from various cases reported in the Press that party-line systems can be misused. Does he not think that it would be better if we got rid of party lines altogether and gave everybody separate: telephones?
    Mr. Short: That is the ultimate objective, but I regret to say that it is still some way off. I share the hon. Gentleman's fears about this. I think that the recent divorce case gave rise to many fears. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary answered a Question on this. It is not by any means a straightforward matter. We are certainly aware of the problem and are studying it.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: The right hon. Gentleman said that it is illegal to attach anything to a telephone. Is he not aware that it is quite possible to take a recording of a telephone conversation without attaching anything to a telephone? Is that illegal?
    Mr. Short: I did not say that it was illegal. I said that it was forbidden by the Telephone Regulations. The weakness of this—let me say this clearly—is that there is no real penalty. The only penalty is for the Post Office to take the phone out, which we tried to do in the recent case—but the gentleman had moved, I understand. That is the weakness of the present situation, but we are looking at this. We are well aware of the other problem mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that this is probably becoming an even greater danger in this age of miniaturisation, when it is possible to bug a phone and to bug many other things as well.

    Woldingham Automatic Exchange
    Mr. Frederic Harrisasked the Postmaster-General why, at approximately 1·45 p.m. on Sunday, 29th January, it took nearly 20 minutes and more than 200 rings on the telephone at Woldingham 2365 to get the operator to answer; and what action he proposes to take to improve this service.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: This was due to an intermittent fault between Woldingham automatic exchange and the switchboard, which had not been detected by routine testing. I am sorry for the inconvenience.
    Mr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman note that these intermittent faults are constantly occurring, and will he make sure that, until there is an improvement in the service, there can be no question of increasing telephone rentals?
    Mr. Slater: The circuits at this exchange between Woldingham and the
    776
    switchboard are systematically tested. The fault was intermittent, as I have said, and it was of a type which was not detectable by the normal testing procedures. With the best will in the world, we cannot prevent occasional failures of this kind.

    Telephone Service (Shirley)
    Mr. Grieveasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that telephone subscribers in Shirley were without telephone communication between 11 a.m. Wednesday, 25th January, and 1·30 p.m. on Friday, 27th January, and again on Saturday, 28th January; what was the reason for this breakdown; and what proposals he has to prevent its repetition.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: These breakdowns were caused by moisture penetrating a cable following heavy rain and by damage when a trench collapsed during repairs. A new cable has been prov4ed. Cables are being gas pressurised and new sheathing materials introduced to minimise such interruptions.
    Mr. Grieve: I am grateful for that explanation, but is the Minister aware that there have been further breakdowns since I put down my Question, and will he take steps to see that the people of Shirley are spared that kind of breakdown?
    Mr. Slater: Yes, Sir. Every precaution is taken. The matter is still under observation by the Department.

    Kiosks (Coin Boxes)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Postmaster-General why the 3d. slots in telephone kiosks in some places but not in others are made unusable by the insertion of metal wedges, thus depriving the public of 3d. telephone calls; whether similar 3d. slots elsewhere remain available for public use; and if he will now restore the 3d. slots for public use generally.
    Mr. Edward Short: All pay-on-answer coin boxes are being modified in this way to carry into effect the decision that from the New Year the minimum charge for any call from these coin boxes would be 6d. The fitting of wedges, which I do not propose to abandon, necessarily takes time, during which a decreasing number of 3d. slots remains usable.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that this is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, that it is a gross interference with the rights of British citizens of small means to communicate urgently with each other, and that he should resort to previous practice?
    Mr. Short: The call boxes were losing £4 million a year, and this is simply a matter of saving money.

    Old People (Cheap Telephone Communications)
    Mr. Roseasked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made in the system of cheap telephone communications for the elderly, introduced experimentally in Manchester.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: Forty pairs of equipment are available. Over 750 cases have been investigated by Manchester Corporation Welfare Department, 90 submitted for trial, and 36 connected successfully. Difficulties have been experienced in finding and arranging suitable partners within the range and technical limitations of the equipment.
    Mr. Rose: While I accept that the system is still at the experimental stage, would my hon. Friend not agree that it would be a very great boon to many elderly and disabled people, and when will he be in a position to say whether the scheme can be extended to other areas?
    Mr. Slater: We are awaiting the conclusion of the experiment, and we hope to have that in our possession shortly. If we think that it is a great success, there will be no reason why it should not be extended.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Television (Broadcasting Time)
    Mr. Bryanasked the Postmaster General what representations he has received from shift workers regarding his decision to continue his restriction of the permitted hours of television broadcasting; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Postmaster General what representations he received from commercial television companies prior to the publication of the
    778
    White Paper on Broadcasting on the question of the extension of broadcasting hours; and why he refused to sanction any such increase in broadcasting time.
    Mr. Edward Short: The Independent Television Authority as the public corporation responsible for the service has put representations to me on this subject to the effect that my powers to prescribe the amount of broadcasting time should not be used or, failing that, that I should authorise a large increase in the amount. As the White Paper states, the Government do not consider that any general increase will be justified for the present. I have received two letters from shift workers. In reply, I have explained the Government's views as set out in the White Paper.
    Mr. Bryan: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to look at this from a viewer's point of view? What are the practical difficulties in allowing more hours of T.V. when the I.T.V. companies are willing to provide them? It one is afraid of representations from the B.B.C., it has, after all, the advantages of two channels and a monopoly in radio.
    Mr. Short: I would point out that the number of hours broadcasting per week in this country is double that of the next nearest country in Europe and we have the lowest licence in Europe. 1 do not think that there is any case for a general increase at the moment.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Did the right hon. Gentleman consider this on its merits, or was it part of an arrangement come to by his predecessor with the B.B.C. last March? Was part of that proposal, so as to keep the B.B.C. licence steady, that the independent television companies could not increase their hours, despite the fact that there would be no additional cost to the viewer?
    Mr. Short: The chief factor is the use of resources. When we want to develop the television system—and yesterday I announced the biggest development yet introduced—we have to weigh one thing against another.

    Local Radio Stations
    Mr. Bryanasked the Postmaster-General if he will estimate the capital expenditure and running costs of the nine

    779
    stations which are to be formed for the 12-month experiment in local sound radio.
    Captain Orrasked the Postmaster-General what proportion of the population in those areas to be covered by the proposed experimental local radio stations he estimates will be able to receive their programmes.
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Postmaster-General what representations he has received from universities, chambers of trade and commerce, local councils of churches, art associations and other representative bodies active in the social and cultural life of the community as to their willingness to make a financial contribution to the local sound radio experiment; and how much he estimates that these bodies are willing to pay.
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Postmaster-General what discussions he has had with the Council of Churches, the universities and art associations regarding his proposal that they should contribute towards an experiment in local sound radio.
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Postmaster-General (1) what he estimates will be the additional annual cost to the British Broadcasting Corporation of the proposals contained in the White Paper on Broadcasting;
    (2) if he will ensure that the nine stations taking part in the local radio experiment will cover a reasonable variety of environments, including rural areas.
    Mr. Berryasked the Postmaster-General what representations he has received from universities, chambers of trade and commerce, local councils of churches, arts associations, and other representative bodies active in the social and cultural life of the community as to their willingness to make a financial contribution to the local sound radio experiment.
    Mr. Eyreasked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will invite commercial undertakings to take part in his proposed experiment in local sound radio;
    (2) from what source he expects local authorities to raise money with which to support his proposed experiment in local sound radio.
    Mr. Crawshawasked the Postmaster-General when he expects to give authority for the setting up of local broadcasting stations; and whether he will bear in mind the claim for Liverpool to be included in those first chosen for this experiment.
    Dr. John Dunwoodyasked the Postmaster-General if each of the nine local radio stations will be sited in those areas at present deprived of B.B.C.2 television, the live theatre and the arts.
    Mr. Edward Short: The capital expenditure on the sound radio proposals in the White Paper is estimated at £300,000. Annual running costs will be about £700,000 by 1968–69, about £500,000 of which will be incurred on the local radio experiment. Part of this will be met by local contributions. Discussions are going on between the B.B.C. and local authorities which are taking soundings of other local bodies and organisations. These inquiries are additional to those I made before the White Paper. Local authorities may contribute in respect of services for which they have responsibilities, and in the provision and conduct of which the local radio station would be of value. These contributions would form part of the expenditure on their services, but there would be no specific subvention for the station as such.
    The places for the experiment will be chosen as quickly as possible. I expect the B.B.C.'s proposals within a period of weeks and I shall lose no time in considering them. The prime consideration will be to obtain, through selecting a cross section of localities, the widest range of information and experience from the experiment.
    The Government are determined to maintain the public service principle, but I think there would be general agreement that it would not be sensible to set up a new broadcasting authority for the experiment.
    Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one in this House has ever heard of 10 Questions on such a wide variety of subjects being taken together? One can only assume that it is defensive tactics after yesterday's humiliation——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Question, please.
    Mr. Bryan: The White Paper states that the money will not be raised from rates. Does that mean that the money will be raised from rates, but that that will not be revealed in the rate demand?
    Mr. Short: What the rate demand reveals is a matter for the local authority. But I imagine that, if the local radio station puts on, for example, an educational programme, part of the education rate will cover the cost of it.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the bodies mentioned in Question No. 16? Would he say how much these bodies have promised to contribute to the scheme? Would he say specifically how many of these bodies were represented at the conference on 27th January held by the B.B.C. to discuss the whole prospects of local sound radio?
    Mr. Short: I had nothing to do with the conference on 27th January. It was entirely a B.B.C. initiative. I do not know who was there, although I know that the Post Office was represented. As for contributions, I myself had discussions with a wide variety of organisations. I spent some weeks doing little else than interview people. Certainly half the House will be pleased to know that we have had a great many applications—far more than we need—all of whom are prepared to foot the bill and, in many cases, provide premises as well.
    Mr. Mawby: As according to the Notice Paper today I appear to represent two constituencies, I assume that under the Prices and Incomes Act I should be justified in asking for a higher salary.
    Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that all the formal discussions have been with local authorities, as opposed to the suggestion in the White Paper that various bodies such as those referred to in my Question would be asked to contribute? Is he aware, further, that, while it may be a good idea to go round with the hat to raise money to pay for the village church bells, it is not an ideal way of paying for a local broadcasting system?
    Mr. Short: That is a matter of opinion. I know that hon. Gentleman opposite do not want this to succeed but it will succeed and it will be a great success. As
    782
    I told the House in reply to a previous supplementary question, I interviewed a great many bodies of all kinds, and I saw, among others, the Archbishop of Canterbury. We have really talked to almost everyone concerned in the life of our communities.
    Mr. Gilmour: It appears from the B.B.C.'s pamphlet that it shares the general scepticism about the right hon. Gentleman's local sources of revenue. Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the B.B.C. is so ill-informed about this?
    Mr. Short: There is no scepticism on the part of the B.B.C. Yesterday, it showed me the applications that it has had. Let me repeat that a great many towns up and down the country have applied—far more than we need at this stage. In those cases, the whole cost will be forthcoming from the local community. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to see this, but that is the truth.
    Mr. Berry: Would the Postmaster-General tell us which local chambers of trade and commerce have signified their willingness to make a financial contribution? If the list is too long, could he circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Short: No, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman this because I do not know yet which towns will be selected.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Liverpool and other Merseyside towns are prepared to go ahead with this scheme on the financial lines he has indicated and that this would bring the service to 1½ million people? Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, if Liverpool and that area were chosen, it would be but a fitting reward for the fact that over a number of years it has produced more stars for radio, screen, television, and what-have-you, than any other part of the country?
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that his announcement will be welcomed on this side of the House? Would he also not agree that there is a strong case for siting at least some of these experimental stations in areas which do not at present get full B.B.C. sound and television services, more especially as in those areas people pay the same licence fees?
    Mr. Short: I do not think that my hon. Friend was present at yesterday's debate, but I said then that I hoped that one of these areas would include a district with a rural element in it.
    Dr. Winstanley: To assist hon. Members to make up their minds on this very important issue, would the Postmaster-General arrange for hon. Members to hear the excellent experimental local radio programmes which have already been produced and recorded by the B.B.C.?
    Mr. Short: These are available. I am sure that the B.B.C. would be pleased to allow hon. Members who have not heard them to hear them. We have advanced a good deal since then. I hope that the local radio stations will be a great deal in advance of that.
    Mr. O'Malley: Do the capital costs which the Postmaster-General mentioned include provisions for studios from which there could be live musical performances? What proportion of running costs, in the Postmaster-General's estimate, would be for the cost of employing musicians in such live performances?
    Mr. Short: I cannot say what proportion, but the White Paper says that we hope that there will be something in this for local musicians.
    Mr. Speaker: Sir Ian Orr-Ewing.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: No. 18, Sir.
    Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Gentleman to ask a supplementary question.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought that if I tried for a supplementary you would then say, "Question No. 18", and that that would close the discussion on a very important issue. That is why I did not rise at that time.
    Could the Postmaster-General tell the House why he felt that he could not allow even his choice of experimental stations to operate on the medium waves during daylight hours so that these would be available to existing listeners on ordinary medium-wave sets and also on car radios?
    Mr. Short: I will not deal with car radios, because I dealt with these in an intervention last night. I am sure that
    784
    the right answer for the car radio is Radio 247.
    The biggest thing against operating from medium waves would be that the system would have to be duplicated—on medium waves during daytime and on V.H.F. during night time. This would have been extremely wasteful. Apart from that, there would have been very great difficulties about finding medium wavelengths to do this.
    Mr. John Lee: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even some of us who voted for the Bill last night, somewhat reluctantly in my own case, would take it ill if, after this experiment had been concluded, Auntie B.B.C. were to be continued in a monopoly position?
    Mr. Short: Without agreeing with anything my hon. Friend said about the B.B.C., I must tell him that the White Paper makes it quite clear that we reserve our position at the end of the experiment. We are not in any way committed to the B.B.C.
    Sir Harmar Nichollsasked the Postmaster-General what proportion of the programmes to be broadcast by local radio stations will be locally produced material.
    Mr. Edward Short: The B.B.C. expects that out of about 18 hours broadcasting time at least 4 to 5 hours will consist of locally produced material. There will also be additional hours devoted to locally produced educational and specialist programmes.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman says that the B.B.C. "expects". Will the Corporation lay down that at least this proportion of local affairs will be put over? Otherwise, it will not be a local broadcasting station.
    Mr. Short: I think that the station manager and the local radio council will be expected to put out material from local sources for about one-third of their time.
    Mr. O'Malley: Will my right hon. Friend define more closely what he means by locally produced material? Does it mean talk or music, or how would he split it up?
    Mr. Short: I think that "locally produced material" is fairly explicit. It is material which is produced locally.
    Mr. Bryan: Who will decide this sort of question? Will the Postmaster-General give guidance to the B.B.C. on it, or will the B.B.C. decide? Will there be a book of rules, as there is for the I.T.A., for instance, on codes of conduct and that sort of thing, and from where will such rules emanate?
    Mr. Short: The station manager will have the final editorial decision, but he will have a working partnership with the local radio council.
    Mr. Crouchasked the Postmaster-General what he expects to learn from his proposed experiment in local sound radio.
    Mr. Edward Short: I would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper; and, in particular, to paragraphs 36 and 41.

    Colour Television
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewingasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the independent television programme companies' success in making and exporting colour programmes, he will reconsider his decision and allow them to be transmitted also for United Kingdom viewers.
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that many foreigners are enjoying colour films made by British television companies; and when he will remove the restrictions that prevent their being seen by people in this country.
    Mr. Short: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement in the House yesterday morning.—[Vol. 741, c. 531.]
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I think that the House and the nation will be glad that the right hon. Gentleman was able to make a statement, but I hope that he will not think, because he has given permission for the independents now to spend £30 million on extending a colour service in the UHF area, that it has yet been achieved or that he has given anything gratis to the nation.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask questions as other hon. Members do.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the Postmaster-General aware of all that which I said in that supplementary question?
    Mr. Short: This is a Government which gets things done.
    Mr. Mawby: I think that the House as a whole will welcome the statement that the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday. Is he aware that speed is of the essence to ensure that the colour films which have been made over a long period of time by many of the contractors in this country and which at the moment are shown to foreigners will be able to be shown to British viewers at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Short: Colour will start in the autumn of this year on B.B.C.2, and for a great part of the country on B.B.C.1 and I.T.V. in 1969.
    Sir Harmar Nichollsasked the Postmaster-General what estimates he has made of the extra revenue which will accrue to the British Broadcasting Corporation during 1967–68 as a result of the decision to charge a £5 licence fee for colour television; and what estimate he has made of the approximate cost to the British Broadcasting Corporation of providing a colour television service during the same period.
    Mr. Short: As the service of colour television on B.B.C.2 will not start until late 1967, the revenue from the supplementary licence fees for colour television is unlikely to be significant during 1967–68, which is the year the hon. Gentle. man asked about. The B.B.C. tells me that its operating expenditure on colour television during that year will be about £500,000.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he has done his homework in this and that the cost will be covered within the range he has just announced? The Corporation has had enough years to arrive at it. It does not seem to be a satisfactory figure taking into account all that will be involved.
    Mr. Short: I did not sav that the cost will be covered. I said that the B.B.C.'s costs would be about £500,000 in the year the hon. Gentleman asked about. Clearly, the income at the start will not be significant. It will build up as time passes, especially after the announcement I made yesterday.
    Mr. Bryan: Would the Postmaster-General tell us as a matter of policy

    787
    whether the £5 licence for colour television is to be kept separate from the other licence? In other words, if it more than pays or less than nays, will it be altered? If it makes a profit, will it go into the general funds of the B.B.C.?
    Mr. Short: It will go into the general funds of the B.B.C. where it will be kept separate. The two licences will be assessed separately. I will give no undertaking about it being altered one way or the other. As the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) pointed out, we really do not know yet how this will work out.

    Television (School Programmes)
    Mr. Wallasked the Postmaster-General if he will issue directions under the Licence and Agreement and the Television Acts to the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority not to broadcast television programmes for schools on political matters unless they are both factual and balanced.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: No, Sir. The broadcasting authorities are already under an obligation to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality.
    Mr. Wall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the numerous complaints of bias and misrepresentation contained in a B.B.C. schools broadcast entitled, "Spotlight—The Choice for Rhodesia"? Will he agree that our children should not be brain-washed by the B.B.C., even if it is on the side of the Government, and will he look into this broadcast if I send him the script?
    Mr. Slater: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I can only say that it is for the governors of the B.B.C. and the members of the I.T.A. to interpret and apply the obligation to ensure impartiality.
    Dr. Winstanley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members would be much opposed to the Postmaster-General making any representations to these bodies on the political content of educational or any other programmes?
    Mr. Mendelson: Does my hon. Friend further realise that the only complaints I have ever received about B.B.C. broadcasts to Rhodesia or about Rhodesia in
    788
    this country have been postmarked "Salisbury" and came from agents of Mr. Smith's régime?

    Weather Conditions (Republic of Ireland)
    Dame Joan Vickersasked the Postmaster-General if he will consult the Government of Eire as to the possibility of the Meteorological Office making available to the British Broadcasting Corporation and independent television in future the weather conditions daily in Eire as is done for the British Isles.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: No, Sir. This is a matter of programme content for which the broadcasting authorities are wholly responsible.
    Dame Joan Vickers: That is a very disappointing reply. As we want better relations with the Government of Eire and the present Government are making it difficult for people to go overseas, will the hon. Gentleman realise that tourism in this country is essential and will he make further efforts, perhaps behind the scenes, to try to persuade them to have this programme?
    Mr. Slater: Although I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady's view, I must inform her that it is for the broadcasting authorities to judge the need for broadcasting information even about the weather.

    Licence Fees
    Mr. Berryasked the Postmaster-General what increase he envisages in the licence fees in 1968 and 1969.
    Mr. Edward Short: No increase in the licence fees will be required before 1968. The timing of any increase will be a matter for the Government to decide in due course.
    Mr. Berry: As the Postmaster-General failed to answer my Question No. 31 about financial contributions, and in view of the confusion of the Assistant Postmaster-General last night about who was to pay for the new B.B.C. experimental stations, can we be sure that by 1969 there will not be a much larger sum for the owners of sets to pay?
    Mr. Short: For the first time, we have a pretty reasonable view of the B.B.C.'s

    789
    finances for some years ahead. I should make it clear that the major factor in the Corporation's difficulties arose because the 1962 White Paper laid on the B.B.C. a great many obligations to develop its services but the Government of the day were unwilling to face the financial consequences.

    Walkie-talkie Sets
    Mr. John Hallasked the Postmaster-General what further action he has taken to discourage the sale of walkie-talkie sets for which licences are unlikely to be issued.
    Mr. Edward Short: I have recently issued Press and broadcast notices to warn the public against buying the sets which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I hope also in the near future to ask the House to give me powers to control the import of these sets.
    Mr. Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it that that reply gives great satisfaction and I am glad to know that he is taking responsibility for prohibiting the import of these sets?

    Health Education
    Dr. David Kerrasked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the independent television companies in appointing medical advisers to promote the development of health education for their staffs in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Report of Health Education by the Cohen Committee in 1964.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: It is for the broadcasting organisations to decide what staff they should appoint. I suggest, therefore, that my hon. Friend should address his inquiry to the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.
    Dr. Kerr: Many of us feel that great opportunities for health education are being lost as a result of this delay. Is there no way by which my hon. Friend could, in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, promote these and other schemes to improve health education through the services of the B.B.C. and I.T.A.?
    Mr. Slater: I have already said in answer to previous Questions that pro-
    790
    grammes are a matter for the broadcasting authorities. One would expect them to be aware of the need to keep in touch with public policy on health education, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is quite up to date on this matter.

    Radio Manx
    Mr. Crouchasked the Postmaster-General if he will seek to visit Radio Manx officially to see what lessons can be learnt from that experiment.
    Mr. Edward Short: No, Sir. But I have had the benefit of a discussion with the chairman of Radio Manx, who came to see me.
    Mr. Crouch: Does not the Postmaster-General consider that there is an excellent opportunity for examining how commercial radio can be run in the British Isles, and that here is a case of one being run in a licensed form? Does he not think that it should be closely examined, either by himself or by his senior officers?
    Mr. Short: I do not know how many times I must say this, but I have examined the experiment of Radio Manx very carefully. I spent a whole afternoon with Mr. Mayer and I have his book, which I read with great care.
    Mr. Bryan: Does the Postmaster-General appreciate that if he visited Radio Manx he would come to the conclusion that the lining up of nine B.B.C. stations to show their paces is not an experiment but a sham?
    Mr. Short: Then the hon. Gentleman's visit to Radio 270 apparently explains his attitude towards the pirate radios.

    Radio 247
    Mr. Joplingasked the Postmaster-General what proportion of the population will he able to receive Radio 247; and whether he is satisfied with the quality of the reception on the 247 metre wavelength.
    Mr. Edward Short: The B.B.C. expects the popular music programme to be available to about 80 per cent. of the population by day, but to rather less after dark when, regrettably, interference from the continent becomes significant.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the Postmaster-General aware that that waveband is also used by Radio Albania, which I understand causes considerable interference, particularly at night, and is he satisfied that that will not be serious?
    Mr. Short: Radio Albania is becoming quite a serious matter. We are making all the representations we can to try to do something about it.

  NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY
  Mr. Moonmanasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Government policy in relation to the newspaper industry.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the speeches made by my right hon. Friends the Minister without Portfolio and the President of the Board of Trade in the debate on the Press on 8th February.—[Vol. 740, c. 1663 and c. 1776.]
  Mr. Moonman: While I recognise the time allocated to the subject recently, has my right hon. Friend any formula for dealing with possible closures of national newspapers, and, if not, would he consider the matter with appropriate unions and managements?
  The Prime Minister: It was explained by my right hon. Friends—and I took the same line in a speech at a Press luncheon earlier—that we feel that this is a matter for the responsible bodies in the newspaper industry themselves. If they have anything to report to us, any ideas they want us to consider, we shall consider them and discuss them with both sides.
  Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his hope that the newspaper proprietors will solve the present crisis is rather like hoping that the proprietors of the Maypole will help other people to open more shops? Will he consult the President of the Board of Trade with a view to setting up newspaper development areas and giving special tax allowances to would-be proprietors in one-newspaper towns to help break the increasing monopoly of the Press?
  The Prime Minister: While not wanting to follow my hon. Friend round the Maypole, I think that his analogy is not exact because the problem we all face is
  792
  not creating new newspapers; it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) said, the problem and danger of existing newspapers closing down.

  HOUSING, SCOTLAND (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with the exclusive task of dealing with the housing problem in Scotland.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware that after two years of the present set-up, completions in Scotland are still below the total for 1964, and that the records being broken are in gluts of bricks and redundancies of building workers? If he will not reallocate the jobs in the Scottish Office, will he reallocate the Ministers, and give us a Secretary of State who will fight for Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: The extent to which my right hon. Friend has fought is shown by the fact that in the 2¼ years we have been in office, 82,289 houses were completed compared with 67,622 in the previous Administration's last 2¼ years.
  Mr. Carmichael: May I press my right hon. Friend even more on this point? Does he realise that in Scotland, particularly in the Glasgow area, we have well over 100 years of neglect to overcome, and that there are special requirements to give the people decent housing accommodation?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. M. Taylor) are only too aware of the gravity of the problem, which was recently highlighted again by the publication of a very new report. That is why special priority is being given to Scotland in the matter of housing.
  Mr. Rippon: Will the Prime Minister agree that the poor rate of growth in housing, both in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, is due to the failure of policies rather than shortage of Ministers, and is he aware that he already has the largest Government in

  793
  the world? Is he now satisfied that he requires no more Ministers in order to have a permanent majority of paid place-men in the Parliamentary Labour Party?
  The Prime Minister: Now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has had his fun, we might get back to the facts. Despite the big increase in our housing completions in Scotland, compared with those under the Government of which he was quite a senior member, we had to cope with a second problem—the fact that when that Government's election boom in Scottish housing was over there was a fall in public building starts from over 8,000 a quarter to only 5,000 a quarter in the third and fourth quarters of 1964; and there were only 4,000 approvals in the third quarter against averages of well over 8,000 before and since that time. We therefore had a double inheritance to deal with.
  Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a quite unjustifiable attack on the building trade employers and workers in Scotland, and that although they have not been able to reach the target set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, they have nevertheless been able to increase and improve on last year's figures?

  LOWER-PAID WORKERS
  Mr. Croninasked the Prime Minister if he will instruct the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Social Security to co-ordinate plans for fiscal and social measures to raise the standard of living of families dependent on lower-paid workers.
  The Prime Minister: All aspects of this problem are already being considered by the Ministers concerned.
  Mr. Cronin: While, in spite of the noncommittal nature of that reply, I am sure that effective measures will be taken, may I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that there are no administrative delays? Will he bear in mind that some of us—and, I presume, the Government also—are not very proud of the fact that in this country there are still about 500.000 children living in a state of malnutrition, cold squalor and misery?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House is aware of and con-
  794
  cerned about this problem. As I said in a speech on the Beveridge Plan and as, indeed, we have all said recently, one of the major elements in poverty now, as it has been for some years, is the problem of lower-paid large families. My reply to my hon. Friend was noncommittal because the matter is being considered, and I assure him that it is being considered with very deep concern.
  Some of the proposals put forward which appear to provide a relatively easy answer are not so simple as they look. That is why we must study them all very carefully.
  Mr. Dean: May we have an assurance that in seeking ways of helping low-income families, the Government will not penalise other families through a reduction of the Income Tax child allowance?
  The Prime Minister: At this stage of the year in relation to questions about Income Tax I could not in any way prejudge or anticipate the Budget statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  WALES (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)
  Mr. Andersonasked the Prime Minister if he will instruct Ministers to ensure that Parliamentary Questions relating specifically and exclusively to Wales are always answered by the Secretary of State for Wales.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I think the present arrangements whereby Ministers normally answer Questions falling within their own field of responsibility best meet the convenience of the House.
  Mr. Anderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of transferred Questions is now far too large? Would not the problem be obviated by giving the Secretary of State for Wales, who is doing a first-rate job, increased responsibility for matters like education, agriculture and health?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend's parenthetical reference to the Secretary of State for Wales. Some Questions are so marginal that it is difficult to judge whether they should be answered by the Welsh Office Minister

  795
  or by Ministers from the functional Departments concerned. However, a number of transfers take place because some hon. Members have put Questions down to the wrong Department in the first place.
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that the right place to deal with matters relating specifically and exclusively to any nation—and Wales is no exception—is in a Parliament of the representatives of that nation, meeting on the soil of the homeland of that nation and responsible solely to the people of that nation?
  The Prime Minister: I think that that is a somewhat wider question but, while the hon. Gentleman is awaiting the consummation of that particular desire, I have not noticed that he has been particularly backward about putting down Welsh Questions in this Parliament.

  UNEMPLOYMENT
  Mr. Harold Walkerasked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for co-ordinating Government policy to ensure that unemployment does not reach or exceed that level which Her Majesty's Government have defined as being tolerable.
  The Prime Minister: This question forms an important part of the wider field of general co-ordination of Government policy for which my right hon. Friends the First Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are responsible with the economic Ministers concerned.
  Mr. Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, to many of his supporters, the worst social crime of any Government is to deprive a man of the right to work? Is he further aware that 600,000 people are now deprived of the right to work? Will he initiate as quickly as possible the reflationary measures necessary to give them a chance to do a decent job?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend says that 600,000 people are deprived of the right to work but, as the House well knows, there is a certain irreducible minimum in any case, so that the figure is exaggerated. Following my statement of 20th July, I gave an estimate of what
  796
  it might well mean in terms of unemployment. It is now clear that the rise in unemployment has been and is levelling off and I see no reason to change the estimate and qualifications I made in July.
  Sir C. Osborne: Will the Prime Minister also look at the problem of the 500,000 workers now on short time and the approximately 500,000 who previously worked overtime and have now lost it? These are two problems additional to that of the totally unemployed.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right in the numbers he has given, according to the latest published figures, of overtime as compared with those on short-time. I remind the House—and I know that he has pressed this many times—that if we had not taken the measures necessary to put the balance of payments right, the problem of unemployment would have been measured at a far higher figure than 600,000.
  Mr. Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if the level of investment does not increase and the Government do not take appropriate measures very soon to increase and encourage further investment, there is real reason to fear that, by the end of this year, the level of unemployment will be as high as it is now, if not higher?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware of the measures taken since November by the Government to stimulate further investment by means of investment grants, with particular reference to development areas. I think that he will also agree that there is a fairly general impression that a lot of the gloom that was felt—genuinely felt—during the November period is now disappearing and is being replaced by a more optimistic feeling about employment and production, and this, of course, will have its effect both on investment and on unemployment.
  Mr. Heath: Does the Prime Minister's Answer imply that we are now in the post-redeployment period? What is the evidence of redeployment in manufacturing industry since last July?
  The Prime Minister: I do not imply that we are in the post-redeployment

  797
  period. In July, I said—as the right hon. Gentleman obviously recalls—that, after redeployment, the range of figures that I mentioned would not, I thought, be unacceptable to the country. The redeployment is not complete and the unemployment figures are, as I have said, now levelling off.

  PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN SECRETARY (VISIT TO BONN)
  Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his visit to Germany.
  The Prime Minister: I was proposing to answer this Question at the end of Question Time, Mr. Speaker, but since it has been reached perhaps it might be convenient if I were to answer it now.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Younger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that, if the right hon. Gentleman decides to answer this Question now, having previously arranged to answer it after Question Time, other questions to him will be cut out?
  The Prime Minister: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is wasting his time. His facts are wrong. I arranged to answer Question No. Q7, if it was not reached, at the end of Question Time, with permission. If it is not convenient to the House for me to answer it now, I will go on to Question No. Q8, if it is called.

  GALLANTRY AWARDS
  Mr. John Leeasked the Prime Minister if he will recommend the creation of a new decoration for acts of gallantry by civilians to rank in between the George Cross and the George Medal; and if he will recommend that the award of the British Empire Order for such acts should be discontinued.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The George Cross and George Medal both rank above gallantry awards in the British Empire Order, and I see no sufficient grounds for thinking that awards in that Order should not continue to be made in recognition of less outstanding bravery.
  Mr. Lee: While I do not pretend that this is a particularly important problem now, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not agree that there is a slight anomaly in that, if one accepts that the George Cross is the civilian equivalent of the Victoria Cross and the George Medal the equivalent of the Military Cross and the Military Medal, there is no equivalent to the Distinguished Service Order or the Distinguished Conduct Medal grade of gallantry in civilian awards?
  The Prime Minister: I agree to some extent. This is a very difficult problem for everyone concerned with recommendations for awards, and there has recently been a tragic case which has given rise to my hon. Friend's Question. But we should be careful about suggesting the creation of new Orders, particularly of gallantry. It might cause further confusion and perhaps even some disparagement of the existing Orders.

  PRESIDENT JOHNSON (MEETING)
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to seek to meet the President of the United States of America.
  The Prime Minister: I have no present plans for such a meeting, Sir.
  Mr. Marten: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the electorate expect from him regular and routine summit meetings? It has been rather a long time since he has seen President Johnson. Some of his supporters would, I know, like him to do so. Will he not fix an early date?
  The Prime Minister: It is some seven months since I saw the President, and that is about the average in the period since I came to office. I think that before that the average was about once a year, although there were variations between good years and bad. I will certainly inform the hon. Member as soon as anything is arranged.
  Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early meeting with the President and inform him of the deep feeling in this country, particularly in this party,

  799
  about the continuation of bombing of North Vietnam?
  The Prime Minister: I dealt with this question on Tuesday. As my hon. Friend will realise, it is not necessary to arrange a specific face-to-face meeting for making any kind of representations to Mr. Johnson because we are in close and constant touch by other media.

  MINISTER OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Prime Minister what functions are now being performed by the Minister of Land and Natural Resources; and what stage has been reached in the dissolution of this Department.
  The Prime Minister: I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of The Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order, 1967, Sir.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While thanking the Prime Minister for that habitually courteous reply, may I ask him whether the winding-up of this separate Department does not mean that he accepts that those of us who said that he was wrong to set up a separate Ministry of Land without planning powers have been shown to be right; and how much has this experiment cost the taxpayer?
  The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman puts down a Question on the second part of his supplementary question, I will get him an answer. It does not prove what he thinks it proves, because during the period that this Ministry has been a separate Ministry it was possible for a senior Minister to concentrate on such valuable Measures as the Land Commission Bill. My right hon. Friend has also been very much concerned with the Bill on leasehold. The mere fact that the right hon. Gentleman considers that to be legalised robbery does not reflect the views of this side of the House or the House as a whole or, I believe, the one million leaseholders affected by it.
  Mr. Rippon: Can the Prime Minister say what will happen to the Ministers concerned when their Department is dissolved, and why it is necessary for a Labour Government to have four times
  800
  as many Ministers for housing and land matters as the Conservative Government?
  The Prime Minister: As I informed the House many months ago, the Ministers concerned will be assimilated into the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I have already given some reasons this afternoon in respect of Scotland, for example, why we have had a much heavier load and have had to catch up with some of the things which the Conservatives left us with. I do not think that the figures which I gave were contested even by the right hon. Gentleman.

PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN SECRETARY (VISIT TO BONN)
The Prime Minister: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to answer Question Q7.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I visited Bonn from 14th to 16th February for talks with the Federal German Chancellor and Foreign Minister. As in the other capitals we have already visited, our discussions covered a range of questions arising in the context of eventual British membership of the European Economic Community. They included such matters as our attitude to the Treaty of Rome, problems arising from the Community's agricultural policy and its policies on freedom of capital movements, and other general economic and financial questions.
We are most grateful to the German Ministers for the friendly and constructive spirit in which they approached these discussions, which enable us to explore with them in some depth the main problems which would need to be faced in any eventual negotiations. Our discussions confirmed the identity of view demonstrated by prompt and friendly reaction of the German Government to my statement of 10th November.
Mr. Wall: I thank the Prime Minister for his courtesy in informing me that he would answer this Question after Question Time. Did he receive an assurance from the German Government that they would back our entry into the Common Market even if this arouses a certain amount of difficulty with France? I also want to ask about the question of offset costs. Will the Germans continue

801
to honour the present agreement, which, I understand, ends in April, and were there any discussions about what will happen after that?
The Prime Minister: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, all our talks fully justified our feelings about the Germans' attitude as expressed in their public statements welcoming our initiative. As to what they may say in conversations with Heads of Government of other countries of the Six, this must be a matter for those holding these conversations. It is not for me to speculate about them in public.
On the question of offset costs, our visit was principally about the Common Market, but we took the advantage of one or two short private meetings to discuss matters of more bilateral interest. We understand their difficulties about offset costs and they understand ours. This is being dealt with by tripartite machinery, as the House knows. We felt that it was best left there.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: As many people in this country argue that entry to the Common Market is a solution of our economic troubles, did the Prime Minister make any inquiries as to why there were 650,000 unemployed in Germany and why it is also in budgetary difficulties?
The Prime Minister: No, I did not make any such inquiries during my visit. I would not take the view—and I do not know whether many people do—that entering the Common Market provides a solution of our economic difficulties. They will be solved, inside or outside the Common Market, only by our own efforts and policies. I gave strong reasons in the debate, as have other right hon. and hon. Members. why entry on the right conditions would help us to make those efforts more effective. But we shall not solve any problems just by being in or just by staying out.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Did the Prime Minister give the same information to the authorities in Bonn yesterday that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was giving to his own party here?
The Prime Minister: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, 1 have only just returned from Bonn. I was not
802
present at the meeting last night. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was; he seems to know all about it.
Sir Knox Cunningham: In spirit.
The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman may have been there in spirit. It is a very strange spirit for us to have at a Labour Party meeting. Nevertheless, 1 have read Press reports. I shall inform myself better on this question. But I have been trained, from painful experience over long years, not always to believe every word of what I read in the Press—even accounts of private meetings.
Mr. Park: Did the Prime Minister make it clear in his discussions that we have no intention of pandering to West German demands for the possession of or a share in the control of nuclear weapons? Did he make it clear that Her Majesty's Government will continue to use every effort to secure the early signature of a non-proliferation treaty?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend can rest assured that I received no such demands, and I am not aware of any demands on the part of the West German Government to that effect. Therefore, in that respect, there was nothing to pander to. With regard to the nonproliferation treaty, certainly in every meeting—it was true last week, it is true this week—we have continued to urge the necessity and urgency of a quick signature of such a treaty on which so much progress has recently been made.
Mr. Heath: Did the Prime Minister explain to the Federal Government what the Foreign Secretary meant when he told a Press conference that the Anglo-Soviet communiqué implied recognition, in a way, of the Oder-Neisse line?
The Prime Minister: The extraordinary thing is that the Federal German Chancellor seemed much less interested in this question than the right hon. Gentleman. He did not, in fact, raise it with me. My right hon. Friend, in discussions with the Foreign Minister, dealt with the situation. I should have been prepared to do so. But the German Government know perfectly well that nothing has changed in our policy on any of these matters.
Mr. Heath: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the Foreign Secretary meant by this sentence?
The Prime Minister: I was present at this Press conference. I was in no doubt about what he meant. My right hon. Friend went on to say that the reference in the communiqué to countries—this was the basis of the question—was a question of definition of countries, and we regard Germany, all of Germany, as a country. This is our position, and my right hon. Friend made this very clear.
As we have always said, and as the right hon. Gentleman said, the question of the definition of frontiers is for the ultimate peace conference. What my right hon. Friend was urging, and continues to urge, is the. need for and the creation of the conditions so that we can get quickly to that conference when these things will be in order.
Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister has told the House what the Foreign Secretary said, which was reported in the Press. The Foreign Secretary was then asked:
"Yes, but does that statement imply recognition of the Oder-Neisse line?",
to which he replied:
"Yes, in a way."
What did he mean?
Mr. George Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong.
The Prime Minister: As I say, I was there, and as it was not possible to ask the right hon. Gentleman, I should be happy to send him a verbatim transcript unless, as I suspect, he has already got one. If he will read the one he has got, or may have, he will find that he has reversed the questions and answers. As I have explained clearly, my right hon. Friend said that in answer to the previous question which was not very clearly formulated and then went on with the detailed explanation. It was in that order.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Tripartite talks or not, did not the Prime Minister refer to the flat refusal of the German Finance Minister to cover our offset costs? In view of the terrible effect that this is having in Britain, with the deflationary measures and the 600,000 unemployed, surely this is a matter worthy of more important discussion?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend can be quite content that the German Government are in no doubt whatever about our position on this. They were in no doubt before we went, and they are in no doubt now.
Mr. James Davidson: Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether there was any discussion of the possible establishment of a reserve currency?
The Prime Minister: A European reserve currency—no, there was no discussion.
Mr. Hooley: Was my right hon. Friend able to discuss with the Federal Government the question of trade and other financial dealings between West Germany and Rhodesia?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir, it was not necessary on this occasion. There have, of course, been continuing contacts between ourselves and Germany on this matter, and Germany is taking action. I had better not go further into the question of the remaining difficulties.
Captain W. Elliot: Is the Prime Minister aware that after his discussions in the various capitals about the Common Market he has given the House extraordinarily little information? There may be good reasons for this, but is the Prime Minister aware that when the talks are completed it will not be enough to come to the House and say that the conditions are such that we cannot apply or that they are such that we can? What is his intention for the future? Will he issue a detailed White Paper of all the discussions so that we can judge for ourselves?
The Prime Minister: I do not know in what part of the world the hon. and gallant Member has been travelling, because after each of the visits I have made a short statement and after the third visit, which was the halfway stage, I made a much longer statement and answered a large number of questions, including the exact one put by the hon. and gallant Member.
Mr. Brooks: Would not my right hon. Friend accept that, whatever interpretation might be placed upon the recent statement by the Foreign Secretary, this would be an opportune moment to clarify to the West German Government that the British Government do not regard

805
as a condition of entry to the European Economic Community any argument in favour of a revision of the Oder-Neisse frontier?
The Prime Minister: I have said that this matter was not discussed in my talks during the past week with the Chancellor. Of course, this is a separate question. It is an important question. It has nothing at all to do with the question of the conditions on which Britain should, if we can, adhere to the Common Market. There were some bilateral questions which had nothing to do with it which we found time to discuss, but this was not one of them.
Mr. Drayson: Further to the Prime Minister's reference to a peace conference, would he not agree that before this can take place there must be a meeting of the signatories of the Potsdam Agreement to settle the outstanding aspects of that agreement which have not yet been fulfilled?
The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Member misunderstood me. There is a reference in the Anglo-Soviet communiqué to a peace conference and the word "countries" comes in that reference. The particular question to which my right hon. Friend was replying was another reference to countries at the foot of page 1 of that communiqué. It did not relate to a peace conference.
Since the hon. Member has referred to the question of a peace conference, may I say that we have stressed in the communiqué the need for adequate preparation. We did not say that it means a meeting between two blocs.
Mr. Alfred Morris: From his experience of the talks so far, having visited four European capitals, can my right hon. Friend say whether he is encouraged to feel that any negotiations with the Six may be worthwhile?
The Prime Minister: This will be a matter for us to consider when we have completed the six visits. After that, we shall have to consider the position and what our next step should be. As I say, no decision at all has yet been taken on the definitive question. It will not be taken until the six visits are over. As soon as we have a decision to com-
806
municate, of course it will be made in the House.
Mr. Jennings: In his recent visits to Europe, how far has the Prime Minister discussed the political and constitutional consequences of our signing the Treaty of Rome, and with what results?
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member is referring to the internal constitutional questions——
Mr. Jennings: I mean for ourselves.
The Prime Minister:—for this country——
Mr. Jennings: Yes.
The Prime Minister: —and not the question of constitutional matters within Europe, this has not been discussed at all on our visits; but my right hon. Friend and I referred to this question in some detail in the debate on the Common Market last November.
Mr. Rankin: As a result of his visit, is my right hon. Friend optimistic that if in time an application comes to be made to enter the Common Market, Germany will support it?
The Prime Minister: It is too early to express a general view importing optimism, pessimism or anything else, but I am in no doubt whatever from the talks which we have had this week that the German Government have fully supported and amplified to us in our private discussions the very strong promise of support for our entry which they made publicly within a few hours of our own statement on 10th November.
Mr. Kirk: Has the Prime Minister seen the almost unanimous Press reports from Bonn suggesting, rather depressingly, that the German Government are advising delay? While accepting the right hon. Gentleman's wariness about Press reports generally, may I ask whether he would care to comment on this?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I was not at the receiving end of any advice of delay. I have read the Press reports. I have found them, as the hon. Gentleman has said, more depressing than were the actual talks. There has been a great deal of speculation in the Press about the

807
anxiety in Germany concerning nonproliferation as though that might affect the question of entry. I assure him that it is not in any way connected, either intrinsically or in the mind of the German Government, with the question of entry. Indeed, any anxieties which they may have about freedom to develop the peaceful use of atomic energy could be assuaged by the much greater cooperation which we could offer if we were members of Euratom or any successor body to it.
Mr. Mendelson: With reference to the treaty of nuclear non-proliferation, to the preparation of which several members of Her Majesty's Government have made such a considerable contribution, has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to a recent lecture by Professor Greve, the official representative of the West German Government in the N.A.T.O. Council, opposing the treaty and pointing to the dangers from the German point of view in supporting it? That is an official point of view. What is my right hon. Friend's comment on that?
The Prime Minister: I certainly found time on this occasion to discuss this question. We stated our position and our interpretation of the respective points on this in, as it happens, exactly the same words as we used a week earlier in our discussions with Mr. Kosygin. Our own position on this is absolutely clear. As I have said, the German Government have some anxieties, not on the question of military use, but on the danger that civil atomic energy development might be affected. We have, I think, gone a considerable way to reassure them on this, but we have plans for further technical talks, so that some of their anxieties can be wholly disposed of.
Mr. Blaker: If, as the Prime Minister has said, the Federal German Chancellor showed no interest whatever in the views of the Foreign Secretary on the Oder-Neisse line, is not that an interesting pointer to the lack of importance which the world attaches to the Foreign Secretary.
The Prime Minister: That question is about up to the level of the average question that we have had from the hon. Member ever since he came into this
808
House. The real answer, I think, is that the Federal German Chancellor was not going to be driven into a great Press tizzy about this because he knew the policy of Her Majesty's Government as stated repeatedly by my right hon. Friend and myself.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must proceed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: Can the Leader of the House kindly state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 20TI I FEBRUARY: In the morning—
Diplomatic Privileges (Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies) (Amendment) Order.
In the afternoon—
Remaining stages of the Road Safety Bill, of the Road Traffic Bill and of the Misrepresentation Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY, 21ST FEBRUARY: Remaining stages of the Housing (Financial Provisions, &c.) (Scotland) Bill.
Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order and the Exchequer Equalisation Grant (Notional Rent Income) (Scotland) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 22ND FEBRUARY: In the morning—
Second Reading of the General Rate Bill [Lords], which is a Consolidation Measure.
In the afternoon—
Debate on a Motion to approve the White Paper on Transport Policy (Command No. 3057).
Remaining stages of the Post Office (Borrowing Powers) Bill, and of the Plant Health Bill [Lords] and the Forestry Bill [Lords], which are Consolidation Measures.
THURSDAY, 23RD FEBRUARY: Supply [9th Allotted Day]:
Debate on the increase in fees to be charged to overseas students, on an Opposition Motion.
As Seven o'clock, as the House is aware, the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down Opposed Private Business for consideration.
FRIDAY, 24TH FEBRUARY: Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 27TH FEBRUARY: The business proposed:
In the morning—
Opposition and other Prayers.
In the afternoon—
A Motion to approve the White Paper on Defence, which will be concluded on Tuesday, 28th February.
Mr. Heath: Could the Leader of the House renew his undertaking that, in the unfortunate event of negotiations with Malta breaking down, he would be prepared to reorganise business for next week in order for us to have a debate on that question? Will he take note that the House would be grateful if his right hon. Friend in charge of Commonwealth relations could make a statement at an early date?
Mr. Crossman: I renew the statement I made last week and would make every effort for that to be done. As to a statement being made by my right hon. Friend, 1 will communicate that suggestion to him and, if necessary, he will give one to the House.
Mr. Heffer: In view of the fact that over 100 hon. Members have now signed Motion 408 on the question of Vietnam, and in view of the deep feeling which exists on this question, will my right hon. Friend this week give us an assurance that we shall have an early debate; in fact rearrange the business so that we can have a debate on this very important problem within the coming week?
[That this House condemns the renewed United States bombing of North Vietnam, which so flagrantly undermines the peace initiatives of U Thant, the United Nations Secretary-General; and calls upon the Government unequivocally to dissociate the United Kingdom from this action.]
Mr. Crossman: I cannot add anything further to what I said last week. In the near future we shall have the Defence Estimates coming up and we have very little Government time. Time for general debates must be found by the Opposition.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider, having looked at the Vote on Account, showing that Government expenditure has gone up 8·5 per cent. and production by only 1 per cent., that this should be the subject of a debate in the House of Commons?
Mr. Crossman: That is a matter which no doubt we shall debate in due course. It is certainly something which the Opposition could consider for a Supply Day.
Sir G. de Freitas: In view of the increasing interest in the work of the Council of Europe, will the Leader of the House consider following the example of all, or nearly all, the other 17 members of the Council and provide time for a debate on the Council of Europe?
Mr. Crossman: Yes, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am aware of the increasing interest and, through the usual channels, I will discuss the possibility of having such a debate, but not, I am afraid, in the near future.
Mr. Heath: In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's reply about a debate on the Estimates, does he recall that it is the custom of the Government to provide time for an economic debate before the Budget and it is not the job of the Opposition to offer a Supply Day for it? There has been a vast, indeed, a flabbergasting, increase in Government expenditure, and this needs to be debated urgently.
Mr. Crossman: I shall certainly pay regard to that.
Mr. Winnick: Since the Opposition could not care tuppence about the war in Vietnam—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—could the Leader of the Opposition—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot ask questions of the Leader of the Opposition during business time.
Mr. Winnick: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether he will provide for a debate on Vietnam within the next fortnight, (a) because of

811
the situation there, and (b) because of the support shown of the Motion on the Order Paper?
Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the support shown for this Motion, but I repeat what 1 said last week. In the view of the Government, unless there is a substantial change in the situation, a debate in the near future is not justified.
Mr. Sandys: Will the Leader of the House provide time to debate Motion No. 413 in my name:
[That this House deplores the refusal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 13th December, 1966 to give any estimate of the effect of sanctions against Rhodesia upon Great Britain's balance of payments, and the refusal of the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs to deny or confirm an estimate put to him at Question Time on 14th February, 1967; requests the Government to make available to the House the text of the Prime Minister's detailed statement to the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference, contained in a document, entitled Annex to CPM(66/2) 2nd Meeting, 6th September, 1966, in which he estimates that the cost to Great Britain's balance of payments up to the end of 1966, together with the special aid given or offered to Zambia, would amount to about £100 million; and calls upon the Prime Minister to explain why information on this important matter is being withheld from Parliament.]
This calls on the Prime Minister to explain why he has withheld from the House information about the cost of sanctions which he has been able to give to other Commonwealth Governments. If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to find time for an early debate, will he assure us that the Prime Minister will make a full statement next week about this matter, because the House has been disgracefully treated?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot argue on a business question.
Mr. Crossman: I think there might have been an opportunity at Question Time this afternoon for the Prime Minister to refer to this, but unfortunately it was omitted because the Question was not asked. I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime
812
Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman could persuade his colleagues to change the subject for debate on a Supply Day next week, this possibly could be the topic.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: Does not the Leader of the House accept that the resumption of bombing by the United States on North Vietnam in fact constitutes a change in policy? As there is very widespread discontent throughout Britain and in the House of Commons at the fact that U Thant's appeal and the Pope's appeal have been completely thrown aside, does not my right hon. Friend agree that there should be a speedy acceptance of the plea for a debate on Vietnam in this House?
Mr. Crossman: No. I do not agree with my hon. Friend on this. The Prime Minister made a full statement on his talks with the Russian Prime Minister. We are all disappointed that opportunities for peace which seemed to be coming did not come, but I should have thought that there was not a new situation justifying a debate.
Mr. G. Campbell: On Motion No. 365, the Leader of the House said last week that he would convey to the Secretary of State for Scotland the wish for a statement about the anomalous situation concerning the pay award to Scottish local government employees.
[That this House deplores the arbitrary application of the Government's economic policy, resulting in the rejection of a pay rise for local government employees in Scotland which has been granted to equivalent staff in England and Wales: and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to rectify this anomaly.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman be making a statement on this next week?
Mr. Crossman: I think I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend answered two Questions on this matter. I do not think he has anything to add to what he said in those Answers on 2nd February.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the words he used about yet another debate and about the impossibility of having a debate unless the Opposition find time for it? It is some months since we debated Vietnam

813
and the Prime Minister constantly says this is the most important question in the world. Is the share of the House of Commons in the conduct and formulation of foreign affairs to be reduced to zero?
Mr. Crossman: I would, of course, always listen with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend in his views on foreign affairs, but the last time we debated Vietnam was on the Adjournment before Christmas when some of my hon. Friends quite rightly spoke at some considerable length on it. The question is whether we should have another debate in this period when we are putting forward the Defence Estimates and there is a great block of work to be done. I should have thought there would be opportunities during the two days on defence and the three days on the Service Estimates for this subject to be raised by my hon. Friends. What I said was that the Government could not find special time for a debate on this subject in the near future.
Mr. Heath: May I return to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)? Is this not a matter of the utmost public importance? Whatever view hon. and right hon. Members take about the policies to be pursued towards Rhodesia, ought not the House to be given the facts? As the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he is unable to give the facts and it is known that these facts were given to the members of the Commonwealth, will the Leader of the House give a firm undertaking now that either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give the House of Commons the same information as was given to the Commonwealth?
Mr. Crossman: I am certainly prepared to convey to the Prime Minister the wish of the Leader of the Opposition for a statement next week on this subject.
Mr. Dickens: May I press my right hon. Friend further on the question of an early debate on Vietnam? Is he aware that the terms of Motion No. 408, which stands in my name and the names of 103 of my hon. Friends, is an emphatic repudiation of the Government's policy over Vietnam? Is my right hon. Friend fur-
814
ther aware that this House has not debated Vietnam for eight months'? Will he arrange for a debate in the next week or so on this very vital matter'?
Mr. Crossman: I should not have thought that the description my hon. Friend gave entirely incorporated the views of the other 100 or more who signed the Motion.
Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is it the view of the Government continually to block the Livestock Control Bill, yes or no?
Mr. Crossman: The hon. Member knows very well the practice on Fridays with such Bills. The fact that a Bill is blocked does not mean that the Government oppose the Measure or are concerned at all. This is a normal practice on Fridays. What it means is that time is not likely to be found for the Bill.
Mr. Mayhew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in accordance with the normal practice, the Defence White Paper was made available to the Press this morning but it was not available to Members of Parliament until 2.30 this afternoon? Will he look again at this practice? Is he aware that at a luncheon of the Foreign Press Association in the House of Commons today hon. Members interested in this matter had to learn the defence policy of the Government from a friendly journalist from a Communist country? If an hon. Member undertakes to observe the embargo on publication, why should he not be trusted with the Defence White Paper as much as a Communist journalist?
Mr. Crossman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising this matter in a very good-humoured way. When I was both a journalist and back-bench Member of Parliament I used to have a similar frustration in thinking that I was trusted less as an M.P. than as a journalist with regard to the pre-release of reports. I am prepared to look into this, but great problems are involved in giving precisely the same concession to back-bench Members of Parliament as are given to journalists, who are under a pledge of secrecy before a statement is made.
Sir R. Cary: May I thank the Leader of the House for so promptly providing time for a debate on transport on Wednesday next? If that debate indicates future legislation. could it be preceded by an

815
explanatory White Paper, before the Bill is published? Dividing the country into new transport conurbations may be a new form of public ownership or control. Surely, therefore, the House would be more entitled to a better explanation than could come from the generalities of a Second Reading debate?
Mr. Crossman: I thank the hon. Member for what he has said. I cannot anticipate what my right hon. Friend will say in the debate, but I can guess that further legislation will possibly be suggested.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Have not hon. Members been impugned considerably by the statement of the Leader of the House that journalists from Communist countries can be trusted with information that hon. Members cannot be trusted with?
Mr. Crossman: If in any way I did suggest such a thing, that was not my intention. I intended to point out that this is an old problem—that the Press are given some hours to prepare their reports before publication—which is usually in the afternoon in this House—at a certain time in the Vote Office. This is an old problem. I am willing to have it considered again. We might discuss it through the usual channels, since this is a source of irritation for all hon. Members who are concerned when talking with the Press at luncheons. It is ignominious to find that the Press knows something and one does not. I said that there was often a problem in trying to reconcile different interests.
Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order involved in the statement of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), as far as the Chair is concerned.
Mr. Lubbock: Is the Leader of the House aware that back benchers are in some difficulty, in regard to morning sittings, in knowing whether a Statutory Instrument will be taken in the morning or the evening? Is he further aware that it would be of great assistance if a notice were to appear on the Order Paper every time a Statutory Instrument is tabled saying whether it will be taken before lunch or after Ten o'clock in the evening?
Mr. Crossman: I appreciate that this is a problem, and I have been considering how best to deal with it. Normally we do not put the Orders down as part of our business, because Prayers are moved by the Opposition. This is a legitimate problem, especially for back benchers who want to know in advance when an Order will be discussed. I am willing to discuss this matter through the usual channels.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend take seriously the question of information to Members of Parliament? It was very embarrassing to be asked by correspondents from Bulgaria, Holland and Japan what the defence policy of Her Majesty's Government was and have to say that I did not know. Will he therefore look into this matter, not complacently, but with a view to changing the situation so as to put backbench Members of Parliament at least on the level of journalists?
Mr. Crossman: I am glad that my hon. Friend has complete confidence that when he studies the Defence Estimates he will know all about defence. I will consider this problem, but I cannot add to what I have said already.
Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his refusal to grant a debate on the failure to give local authority officers in Scotland the rise in pay to which they are entitled will cause widespread dismay throughout Scotland? Has he been informed that opposition to this policy spreads right across the parties and includes many of his hon. Friends? Will he therefore give us a debate?
Mr. Crossman: I have been informed of the interest in this subject in Scotland, and I will communicate the views of the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Michael Foot: Will my right hon. Friend consider the extremely unsatisfactory position that arises from his answers in response to requests for a debate about Vietnam? Does he seriously suggest that we could debate this matter generally and fully during the course of the defence debates? If so, we shall need to take such steps as we can to ensure that we get much more time for the Defence debates. We shall have

817
to insist upon it. Does he think it satisfactory that we were last able to debate the matter on the Adjournment, when there are some restrictions? Will he finally reconsider his statement that he thinks that possibly some of those who signed Motion No. 100 may have qualifications about it? If he does so, that is all the more reason for having a debate. Will not he consider the fact that there is a widespread demand from almost every back-bencher on this side of the House for an early debate on this matter, because we disagree with the Government's statement of the way in which the settlement which was so near was eventually ruptured? Can we have a debate?
Mr. Crossman: I will bring these matters to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who, no doubt, will consider them. I will consult him on the question whether the situation justifies a debate. All that I said was that I thought it unlikely that we should be able to find time during the immediate future, when defence is debated. I did not suggest to my hon. Friend—it would not be for me, but for you, Mr. Speaker—that we would find time for a debate on Vietnam; I said that opportunities would arise on which this subject might well be raised.
Mr. Kershaw: The Leader of the House will be aware that there has not been time to debate the Prayer on the Gloucester Order. Is he able to hold out any hopes that time can be found for a Motion on the subject during next week?
Mr. Crossman: The Gloucester Order is on our list and will come forward in due course.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: My right hon. Friend has said that there was no new situation in Vietnam. Previously he said that if there were a substantial change in the situation he would consider a debate. Does not he consider that the renewal of the bombing of North Vietnam constitutes such a substantial change?
Mr. Crossman: I appreciate that my hon. Friend thinks that. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary appreciate that he thinks that. We differ on the degree of substantiality.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) on the question of pay to local authority officers in Scotland is totally inadequate? As he knows, the same answer was given last week, and it caught us unaware. If the Secretary of State for Scotland is too ashamed to make a statement to the House on this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman suggest inviting the First Secretary to do so instead?
Mr. Crossman: I suggest that the idea that my right hon. Friend is ashamed of discussing anything with the hon. Member is a gross maligning of his reputation as a debater. Scottish matters are being discussed next week—I believe on Tuesday.
Mr. Frederic Harris: In view of the farce of the attendance on Monday mornings, such as last Monday, when there was hardly a back-bencher of the Socialist party present, is it worth while going ahead next Monday morning with similar business?
Mr. Crossman: There is a misunderstanding by those who were not present during the procedural debate on morning sittings. It was made quite clear that we would be discussing less important business in the mornings than we usually did in the afternoons. I still maintain that the number of hon. Members from the Opposition who attend in the hours of the morning sittings is not markedly smaller than the number who attend similar debates at One o'clock in the morning.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: In view of the Prime Minister's reference in his recent Swansea speech to the proposed leasehold legislation, is my right hon. Friend now in a position to say when this long-awaited Bill will be published, and when it will be debated?
Mr. Crossman: Speaking with my usual caution, I think that the question of leasehold will be debated before Easter.
Sir H. Harrison: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the extraordinary reply he made to my hon. Friend's question about blocking the Livestock Export Control Bill. One reason why he said it has been blocked was that the Government would not want to give it time. I

819
remind him that it is a Private Members' Bill and that if it is not blocked it has to take its normal place in private Members' allotted time.
Mr. Crossman: I have nothing to add to what I have said. The practice observed was the normal practice when Bills are blocked. No one can control the right of individual Members to block a Bill.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Has my right hon. Friend noticed Motion No. 415 on the Paper, dealing with the Defence of Peace in the Minds of Men—
[That this House, noting that 20 years have now elapsed since the foundation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and noting the increased nationalism and rising tensions throughout the world which have occurred in the absence of any significant action by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation to encourage a sense of world community, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to propose at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation a programme to encourage a dual perspective in education, world as well as national, so that opportunity is given in the curriculum for balancing national loyalty with a measure of conscious loyalty to the human race as a whole in all its diversity.]
—under the names of the right hon. Members for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and 85 other Members, and will he state when we may have a debate on it?
Mr. Crossman: I am aware of this Motion, which raises an extremely important subject, but again I must say to my hon. Friend that I do not see any chance in the immediate future of the Government giving time for what I agree is an extremely important matter.
Mr. Hastings: In addition to the extraordinary lack of frankness about the cost of sanctions, referred to by my hon. Friend, is the Leader of the House aware of the speech which the Commonwealth Secretary is reported to have made in New Zealand yesterday in which he clearly implied that in the event of sanctions failing the Government would consider the use of force despite the blood-
820
shed and misery which this would bring? Is not this a radical change of policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to deal with this also when he makes his statement?
Mr. Crossman: Again I say to the hon. Gentleman that if the Opposition wish to censure us once again about our Rhodesian policy, either in the past or in the present, they must find their own opportunity for doing so. I promised that I would put to the Prime Minister the need for a statement. I shall not go further than that.
Mr. Ridsdale: May I ask the Leader of the House whether his attention has been drawn to Motion No. 414:
[That this House, noting that the Government already has more Ministers more highly paid than at any other time in history, censures Her Majesty's Government for sanctioning an additional increase in salary for one of their Ministers from £72 a week to £108 a week at the same time as they appeal to lower paid workers for severe wage restraint.]
May I point out how difficult it is going to be to explain this breaking of the wage freeze by the Government?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot argue merits on business question time. The hon. Member can ask for time to debate this.
Mr. Crossman: I think I am right in saying that this Motion appeared only today. I will certainly draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I think that he will probably be only too anxious to reply to it.
Viscount Lambton: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement on foot-and-mouth disease? More than a month ago he said that he would make a statement. Week follows week with assurances but no statement. Surely this must come to an end?
Mr. Crossman: I do not think that there has been undue delay on this. As I said last week, this is a subject of great importance on which a very precise analysis is needed. I think that my right hon. Friend will make the statement next Wednesday morning.
Mr. McMaster: In view of the intolerable and rising rate of unemployment in the economically weaker parts of the United Kingdom, and particularly in Northern Ireland, will the Leader of the House provide an early day to debate the Government's failure in this field?
Mr. Crossman: I think that my answer to even more important topics is to say that we have not time for this in the near future.
Mr. MacArthur: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the question of the local government officers in Scotland? Will he recognise that his answers are completely unsatisfactory, because the carrying of messages to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland produces no reaction of any kind at all? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish business to which he referred for next Tuesday is not a suitable vehicle to discuss a matter of this kind, and will he even now try to persuade his right hon. Friend not to hide behind Written Answers but to make a statement and answer questions about this critical issue?
Mr. Crossman: I think that this is stirring up trouble without much basis. I believe that Question Time next Wednesday afternoon is likely to be devoted largely to Questions to my right hon. Friend. There is an opportunity, therefore, for asking him questions then. There is on Tuesday a whole day's business which is Scottish, and I would have thought that it was not beyond the wit of Scots to find a way of referring to this subject on one of those occasions.
Mr. MacArthur: On a point of order. If an hon. Member tables a Question to the Secretary of State next Wednesday about local government officers, is the Leader of the House saying that you, Mr. Speaker, will call that Question even if it is not reached?
Mr. Speaker: I did not understand the Leader of the House to say that. If he did, he was over-stating his capacity as Leader of the House.
Sir R. Russell: Reverting to the answer given by the Leader of the House to my two hon. Friends about the Livestock Export Control Bill, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Bill is
822
being blocked by the Government Whips on duty? If they are doing that on a freelance basis, will he either remove them from the Front Bench, or remove the blockage?
Mr. Crossman: I said that the practice observed in the blocking was normal practice. It is true, as he says, that the individuals in question, I gather, were Government Whips. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said that I gather this is what the hon. Gentleman says. If he says this, I will certainly investigate the strength of it.
Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Government are now interfering with private Members' time on Friday and deliberately using all their powers to block these Bills?
Mr. Crossman: It is the hon. Gentleman who made this assertion, into which I will now inquire.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is totally unfair for him to suggest that Scottish Members should dodge in and out of the rules of order next Wednesday to discuss a clear issue on which we need to have a clear and unambiguous statement? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an appalling and confused situation in Scotland which needs to be clarified and debated? Hon. Members from Scotland on both sides want this debate. Why will he not protect hon. Members and give us even three hours of debate next week?
Mr. Crossman: I said that the whole of Tuesday was to be devoted to Scottish business. In addition I added that on Wednesday afternoon most of Question Time would be dealing with Scotland. All I said was that I thought it unlikely that this question could not be raised in in the course of that period.
Sir R. Russell: If the right hon. Gentleman is not aware who is blocking these two Bills, will he be here at 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon to see for himself?
Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the assertion which he did. I said that I would investigate it.
Mr. John Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has received an

823
assurance from the Opposition that they will cease to block the House of Lords Delaying Powers Bill?
Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the Leader of the House give a categorical assurance that the Government Whips will not block the Bill in question next Friday?
Mr. Crossman: I think that we had better first investigate the claim made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Returning to the question of Scottish business next week, will the right hon. Gentleman give us a clear assurance that Scottish Members will be able to raise the question of N.A.L.G.O. in the debates next week and at Question Time, despite the narrow scope of the debate, and despite the fact that it is now too late to put down Questions for it? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us that assurance, because there is grave concern in Scotland about this matter?
Mr. Crossman: It is not for me to say what will and will not be in order in these debates. This is a matter for Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman used the words, "I gather that the individuals concerned were Government Whips". It had nothing to do with the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. Can the right hon. Gentleman produce any precedent for a predecessor in his position getting up at that Box and confessing that private Members' business is being blocked by Government Whips?
Mr. Crossman: The question of precedent is there. What happened was that the hon. Gentleman, if I did not misunderstand him, made an assertion that it had been blocked by Government Whips. I said that I would investigate this and give an answer.
Mr. Clark Hutchison rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) is trying to put a second supplementary question. I am not prepared to have a second round unless the House advises me otherwise.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Does the Leader of the House not remember that
824
when I asked him last week why the Government were blocking these two Bills he sent me a letter explaining why they objected to them, and I asked why the Government should block them.
Mr. Crossman: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not be unreasonable. He asked what view we took of the Bills, and I thought he was asking me what we thought of the two Bills, and I gave the view expressed by the Minister of Agriculture about the qualities of the Bills. That is all he asked me for, and I gave it to him.
Sir Knox Cunningham: That is not so.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not called the hon. and learned Gentleman again.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Reverting to the N.A.L.G.O. question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that business in Scotland is as varied as business in England, and that there is a real concern that Scottish Members will not be able to get a clear guide from the Government next week about this issue, which is of very great importance to Scotland, unless special provision for it is made by the Secretary of State for Scotland either in a statement or in a debate on the matter?
Mr. Crossman: The Secretary of State for Scotland has sat listening to these interjections, and I have no doubt that he has heard and knows that there is a demand for a statement from him. We will wait and see what happens.
Mr. Goodhew: As the right hon. Gentleman seems incapable of protecting the interests of the House, will he kindly resign?
Sir T. Beamish: These two Bills have been blocked by the Government, and they will continue to be blocked by the Government; is that right?
Mr. Crossman: I do not want to be guilty of tedious repetition. What I have said is that we will inquire into the allegation of the hon. Gentleman.
Earl of Dalkeith: Would the Leader of the House take this matter of N.A.L.G.O. very much more seriously than he has done? Scotland is in a state of near revolt over this and if he does not allow Scottish Members special time for a debate on this matter he will drive Scotland to a state of nationalism.
Mr. Crossman: We have talked on this subject for some time. If it were true that Scotland is in a state of near revolt on this issue, then it would be a grave dereliction of duty on the part of the Opposition Front Bench not to take some of its Supply time to discuss it. There is a great deal of hypocrisy going on about this.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) mentioned a letter and the Leader of the House gave his interpretation of what was contained in it. This was clearly about to be contested by my hon. and learned Friend. I agree that under the rules he could not put a second question without the permission of the House. Would it be possible for the House to give him that permission so that we can see what the truth is?
Mr. Speaker: It will be possible. I saw no indication that the House dissented from the view that I expressed, that at business time hon. Gentlemen should ask one business question. If it is a question of words, or accuracy between the two hon. Gentlemen—Sir Knox Cunningham.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the Leader of the House aware that last week I asked him in this House why the Government had blocked the Bills and he said that he would let me know? He wrote to me giving me the reasons. I have a copy of the letter here now.
Mr. Crossman: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to impugn my name, he can do so, but we are now dealing with business questions. If I remember rightly, the letter explained in what sense the Government approved and disapproved of the operation of these particular Bills.
Dame Irene Ward: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that when this controversy has been settled and he has investigated what has been said and what has not been said, he will come before the House so that we can cross-examine him about the result of his findings? May I ask, Mr. Speaker, at what stage are back benchers allowed to ask you for your protection against the Executive? I am fed up with the Executive.
Mr. Speaker: I have never been aware that the hon. Lady needed any protection, even from Mr. Speaker.
Captain W. Elliot: May I refer to the question of a debate on Vietnam? As so many hon. Members opposite have raised important issues about Vietnam, will the Leader of the House reconsider whether we should have a debate? Surely it would give the Government a chance to make a clear and unequivocal statement. The Americans, Australians and New Zealanders, and others, are in Vietnam, fighting for principles which the British Government——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting into an argument. We must not argue at this stage.
Mr. Crossman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as interested as everyone. In the last resort, in an issue as serious as Vietnam, we must leave it to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to decide whether it helps to have a debate. On balance they would rather not, but if the Opposition wants to insist upon a debate they have their method of doing so.

OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)
Mr. Powell: On a point of order. May I ask if you will direct that the OFFICIAL REPORT for yesterday should be corrected? In column 617 in the statement of the Secretary of State for Defence on Leslie Parkes he is there recorded as saying:
"His commanding officer has formally dismissed the charge of desertion made against him."
The word "formally", though it occurred in the typescript of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, which was courteously provided to the Opposition, had been deleted in the typescript, and was not pronounced by the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, as the OFFICIAL REPORT is a report of what was actually said and not of what at some previous time it might have been intended to say, may I ask you if you will give a direction that the word "formally" be expunged from the record?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being so courteous as

827
to let me know this morning that he proposed to raise this matter. I have looked into it, and the facts are as the right hon. Gentleman has stated. In the original typescript the word "formally" occurred. The Minister decided to delete it, but unfortunately the reporter, in checking the typescript with what was said, put in the word "formally", although "formally" was not said. That correction will be made.
I think that the House would want me to take this opportunity of saying how much we are satisfied with the patient and diligent work of HANSARD under very great difficulties. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

PRISON ESCAPES AND SECURITY
4.27 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Inquiry into Prison Escapes and Security (Command Paper No. 3175).
The Mountbatten Inquiry was set up on 24th October last year in the immediate aftermath of the escape of George Blake. In asking a figure as distinguished as Lord Mountbatten to undertake the inquiry I was considerably influenced, not merely by the Blake escape, but by my own uneasiness about prison security generally. It was not that the number of escapes was increasing. For closed prisons, which is the most significant figure, we have not since got near to the peak of 114 for 1961.
The final figure for England and Wales, for 1966, with a prison population about 15 per cent. above that for 1961, was 86, which was higher than the 78 for 1965 but lower than the subsidiary peak of 93 for 1964. Nor do the figures for total escapes and abscondings, despite the flurry at the end of the year, show any significant recent increase. What was worrying, therefore, was not a sudden deterioration but the fact that a bad security situation had persisted for a long time.
This contained at least two dangers. First, it was bound to be bad for the morale of prison officers—a very heavily burdened body of men. When prison escapes dominate the news to the extent that they have done at times in the recent past, it is not altogether pleasant being Home Secretary. But I suspect that it is a good deal worse being a prison officer, particularly at one of the gaols which is attracting most attention, and where the most difficult problems have to be faced.
Secondly, it is inevitable that if our general prison security is indifferent we shall lose some prisoners who are either of considerable importance to the State or a real menace to the public. I am, therefore, quite sure that, contrary to the view which some right hon. Gentlemen opposite took at the time, it was right to charge the Mountbatten Inquiry with the

829
general problem as well as with a specific inquest into the Blake escape. I never saw the one as being the enemy of the other and I found it difficult to understand why anyone who has read the Report would now take this view.
Lord Mountbatten conducted a searching inquiry into Blake, and to believe that a judicial inquiry could have told us more would demand an even greater respect for judges than I, at least, possess. I do not intend to go into great detail about the escape of George Blake, which was debated very fully on 31st October. If there are any particular points on Blake which hon. Members wish to raise I shall be glad to deal with them when, with the permission of the House, I answer the debate tonight. I made no secret of the fact, in my speech on 31st October, that serious mistakes have been made. the most basic being the fact that Blake was at Wormwood Scrubs at all. The House will have noted in the Mountbatten Report the conclusion that Wormwood Scrubs as constructed and administered had little chance of holding Blake once he had determined to go. To that extent, Blake's escape was a particularly striking example of how out-of-date prison buildings, coupled with mistakes in the categorisation of prisoners, lead almost inevitably to escapes.
But Lord Mountbatten, in one of the swiftest and most vigorous investigations which can be recalled, did more than deal with Blake. He also provided, with the help of Mr. Robert Mark, a detailed investigation into the case of Frank Mitchell, as well as into that of certain other notorious escapees of the past three years. Still more important, however, he provided an analysis, at once ruthless and humane, of the problems of the modern prison service, and a blueprint for its improvement in future.
To have done all this within two months was a remarkable achievement, and I think that the House and the nation are once again deeply in the debt of Lord Mountbatten. In addition, I believe that we would wish to extend our gratitude to the three assessors who worked so closely and energetically with him. The analysis pinpointed the difficulty of trying to run a modern penal policy within a framework of buildings constructed mostly 100 years or so ago
830
for an entirely different sort of regime and with a prison service which had suffered from a good deal of neglect from successive Governments.
The blueprint took the form of 52 recommendations. I immediately announced that I hoped to be able to carry out almost all of them and I think that it can be said that we have not, so far, made bad progress. Within two or three weeks of the Report's publication, despite the intervention of the Christmas holidays, we had set 34 of the recommendations in train. This was partly but not wholly because we had already been thinking and working along the lines of the Report.
We have, for instance, already been working on the more effective categorisation of prisoners along the lines of recommendations 1, 4, 5 and 11. We were, therefore, able to start on a scheme very quickly and within two weeks from now this will be brought into full effect as regards new prisoners. It will inevitably take time to complete the assessment of those already in prison, but a review has already been completed of prisoners in the categories of highest risk—category A, and the borderline between category A and category B. Where necessary, transfers have been ordered to make the best possible use of such highly secure accommodation as exists at present.
The Mountbatten recommendations on categorisation need to be read in the light of Lord Mountbatten's general statement that the 19th century buildings, particularly when there is severe overcrowding, will inevitably enable some prisoners to escape. Account should also be taken of his view that it is not unreasonable for certain risks to be taken in allocating prisoners to open prisons. The principles on which we have been working took into account not only the likelihood of an escape being attempted by a particular prisoner, but also the seriousness of the consequences if his escape were successful.
I must, however, give two warnings to the House. The first is to stress that no system of categorisation will ever be perfect. We shall make the best possible judgments we can on the basis of expert and experienced advice, but we shall have to do so on the basis that, if category A, the maximum security category, is to

831
have real meaning, it must be used very sparingly. That means that some pretty ugly characters will be in category B—and rightly in category B, because they could only be in category A at the expense of moving from that category some still notorious or potentially menacing prisoners.
There may be occasional misjudgments, and what may seem good judgments when they are made and would be held by the House and the public to be very good judgments in the vast majority of cases in which they work out well, may look very bad judgments in the tiny minority of cases in which they go wrong. The difficulties of categorisation are well brought out in that section of the Report dealing with the case of Frank Mitchell. This section exposed certain abuses relating to the so-called "honour party" at Dartmoor.
That party was immediately called in, as, for a short time, were the other outside working parties. The honour party, as opposed to the other outside parties, has not since been resumed, although it will be as soon as arrangements for better supervision are made. Lord Mountbatten thought it a mistake that Mitchell was allowed on the honour party, as the House will recall, not because of his record, but because he had not been given a release date.
I agree with that. But Lord Mountbatten also thought that there was much to be said for allowing Mitchell on a more closely supervised working party outside. This, he thought, would have been the logical development of decisions made about Mitchell's treatment over a number of years. This greater supervision on a normal outside working party would have avoided Mitchell's indulging in most of the headline-catching abuses, but it would not necessarily have prevented his escape.
No outside working party can approach conditions of really close security; yet if Mitchell had been treated strictly in accordance with the ex post view of this independent inquiry, his escape would still have attracted great public concern and some substantial criticism. However, had his treatment gone well—the treatment of many men with pretty horrible records does go very well—there
832
would, of course, have been no public acclaim or notice, merely a certain sense of quiet satisfaction among some devoted and courageous members of the prison department and the prison service.
This illustrates the dilemma inherent in any system of classification. I can assure the House that I have many such dilemmas on my hands at present. Decisions which look perfectly sensible when taken, quickly cease to look sensible if they go wrong.
The second warning which I must give the House relates to our present lack of adequately secure prison accommodation. Lord Mountbatten went so far as to say that we have no really secure prison, and there was some evidence that a number of prisoners immediately took him at his word. We do, of course, have the three maximum security blocks at Dartmoor, Leicester and Parkhurst, and I am ensuring that, subject to keeping the minimum of elbow room for high security new arrivals, we are using these to the full, but they are not really suitable for long-term confinement. A very delicate balance has to be struck, as was perhaps illustrated at Durham last week, between the demands of strict custody in unsuitable accommodation and the avoidance of dangerous tensions.
It is, therefore, crucially important to press ahead with the building of the new maximum security prison in the Isle of Wight. This was dealt with in recommendations 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 29, 42 and 45, of the Mountbatten Report——
Mr. Mark Woodnutt: Although Lord Mountbatten is doubtless correct to say that no prison is secure, would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that these top security blocks within the prisons at Parkhurst, Leicester and Durham are highly secure, as it might give rise to a good deal of gloom and despondency otherwise?
Mr. Jenkins: Lord Mountbatten, of course, made his own judgment. These are the most secure accommodation we have, and we believe them to be pretty secure. We have not lost anybody from them, but, as I stressed to the House, they are unsuitable for long-term confinement and this is our problem. But, of course, they do offer conditions of pretty high security. There is no question about that at all.

833
The eight recommendations of the Mountbatten Report which I mentioned by their nature stand outside the 34 which we were able to put into operation almost immediately. They relate to the maximum security prison which has to be built in the future. This prison, in Lord Mountbatten's view, cannot be completed before June, 1969. It will be a hard struggle to meet this date, but I am determined that we shall do our very best.
The decision to build the prison had been taken before the inquiry was begun. Final decisions were deferred in case the Report recommended other arrangements. The endorsement of the Home Office proposal in the Report, however, has enabled work to be resumed at once, but the original plan to provide 80 places has been amended in the light of the new assessment of the number of prisoners who need maximum security, and there are now to be 120 places which, to begin with, should provide a small reserve.
If the present volume of crimes of extreme gravity continues, or even increases, a second maximum security prison may be needed. Some preliminary study has been undertaken of its location. Perhaps; I could conveniently add, even though this belongs in some respect to a different group of recommendations relating to the prison service, that the recommendation that there should be a small allowance for duty in the new maximum security prison has been accepted in principle, as has the recommendation that tours of duty there should be short. In the meantime, however—but not merely in the meantime, for we will always have substantial numbers of potentially dangerous prisoners who do not quite qualify for Category A—it is essential that we press on with improving physical security at most of the existing closed prisons. There are a large number of recommendations—I think 17, to be precise—leading to this point.
The measures being taken to improve the physical security of prisons are concentrated on making the perimeter walls themselves more secure, installing devices which will give early warning of any attempt to breach or climb the wall, and communication systems which will enable reserves of manpower, both prison officers and police, to be directed urgently to the point at which an attack is being
834
made, whether from the inside or from the outside.
A survey has been completed of the perimeter walls of all closed prisons. Over many years—in some cases over a century—buildings have been put up either abutting the prison walls or adjoining them, which compromise their effectiveness as a barrier to ecape. Some of these constructions can be got rid of at comparatively little cost. Others involve longer-term projects before the prison wall can be considered secure, and in other cases we shall have to decide to classify the prison, because of these abutting buildings, as suitable only for Category C prisoners—those who need minimum security.
To give early warning of any attempt to breach perimeter walls, we are using a combination of mechanical devices and additional manpower. Floodlighting of walls and yards will be installed at a large number of closed prisons, electronic warning devices will be installed on the walls themselves, and there will be prison officers on patrol in the yards and on the perimeter at night, as well as during the day, equipped with pocket radio to a control room in the prison and supplemented by patrols with dogs and dog handlers.
The prison control room will have a direct v.h.f. radio link to the police headquarters of the force in the police area in which the prison is situated. Where this is appropriate, the electronic warning devices, as well as giving an alarm in the prison control room, will give an automatic alarm to the information room in police headquarters.
It will inevitably take some time, as Lord Mountbatten indicated in his Report, before this programme of work can be completed, but good progress has already been made. At Wormwood Scrubs and Wakefield, all the measures I have described are now installed, except for the clearance of some obstructions in the area of the prison walls, and work is in progress on the site at several other prisons. Direct v.h.f. links with the police are now in operation at 36 establishments.
I am very grateful indeed to the Commissioner of Police in the Metropolis and to Chief Constables throughout the country for their ready co-operation, especially as some of the help they are

835
giving, particularly with dog patrols, while the prison service is building up its own team of dogs and handlers, has placed a heavy additional burden on their own resources.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: In the Mountbatten Report there was a reference to night guards. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has anything to say about them. Those men are very old, underpaid, and clearly not up to their duties.
Mr. Jenkins: I have indeed something to say about that. Although I agree that on one showing it could come logically at this point, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would allow me to develop it in another part of my speech, where I think it fits in even more logically.
I would not wish our approach to the inadequacies of existing prisons, however, to be thought of exclusively in security terms. Custody is an important part of a prison sentence, but it is by no means the only part. The central purpose must be, if I may quote the prison rules of 1964, to encourage and assist men to live good and useful lives afterwards. This is much less likely to be achieved with archaic buildings, gross overcrowding, inadequate work facilities and disgusting sanitary conditions, than with good modern facilities.
I am particularly glad that Lord Mountbatten was as shocked as I have been on the last point. The gaols of most other advanced countries are well ahead of ours from a sanitary point of view. "Slopping out" finds no place in the prison regimes of the United States, Germany, Sweden or Switzerland, and it is an astonishing commentary on our late 19th century civilisation that when Pentonville was built as the first of the "new model" prisons in 1842, it was provided with proper lavatory facilities in the cells, but some years later those lavatories were taken out at quite considerable expense.
Since then nothing has been allowed to interfere with the sacred practice of "slopping out". Even the new prisons at Blunderston and Gartree make no improvement in this respect, nor, I greatly regret to say, does the new Albany prison, to be opened this April. But we shall be able, if I may use a piece of
836
old Ministry of Aviation jargon, to retrofit it, and this we propose to do at the earliest opportunity. With the new maximum security prison, there will be no need for a retrofit because it will be done from the beginning.
Sanitary problems are, however, by no means the only problems associated with our old prisons. They are also totally unsuited to a modern constructive penal régime. They were designed for security in the cell rather than at the perimeter, and that can only be effective if a semi-dungeon régime is to be the order of the day. Furthermore, our old gaols are really bogus Bastilles. They combine insecurity with presenting a lowering, depressing appearance to the areas which surround them. Dartmoor was built for Napoleonic war prisoners, and should be closed down as soon as possible. Our big city local gaols were mostly built half a century or so later, but are almost equally unsuitable today. They also occupy most valuable land. There would be many advantages if they could be re-sited and re-built outside the urban areas.
Since the White Paper of 1959, which came at the end of a long period covering the whole of this century up to 1959, during which virtually no new prison building was done, a substantial amount of new construction has been undertaken. Forty-six new establishments of all sorts, amounting to an additional 7,360 places, have since been provided, but the prison population has gone up faster. There has, therefore, been no significant replacement of out-of-date establishments. Today my dilemma is still more accute. The prison population rose by no less than 3,642 in 1966. A present forecast is that it will rise by about another 4,000 before we get to the autumn of this year.
Then the Criminal Justice Bill should come into operation. In that Bill we are doing everything we can to swim against this tide. Apart from the detailed provisions of the Bill, 1 cannot stress sufficiently the self-defeating nature from a whole variety of points of view, of any unnecessary decision by a sentencing authority to send a person to prison. But the Criminal Justice Bill, in the short run at least, can do little more than take a few determined steps down an escalator which is moving rapidly upwards. This year, therefore, as an emergency

837
measure, I am having to give urgent consideration to taking over certain existing military camps and using them to house about 1,200 category C prisoners after the installation of basic perimeter security.
In these circumstances, immediate replacement of out-of-date prisons is not possible, but I shall be very disappointed if, despite the exigencies of the present financial situation, I cannot start something worth while in that direction. It is an essential ingredient of an effective modern penal system.
I turn now to a separate and most vital group of Mountbatten recommendations, those for improving staff structure, conditions and training. No fewer than 22 recommendations fall within this category, and that is as it should be, for the efficiency of the prison system depends tremendously upon the morale, skill and devotion of those who work within a service which inevitably presents many difficulties and problems. Those in this service—governors, assistant governors, prison officers and others—have had and are having a pretty hard time. In advance of the physical measures, they have been making determined and successful attempts to improve security by their own efforts, and the results so far this year are pretty good, although I do not want to place too much reliance on six weeks' experience, because we are far from out of this wood yet. But the efforts which they have been making, and making successfully, impose great strains upon them.
As the short-term physical improvements, such as floodlighting, come into operation, the strain upon the staff will become somewhat less. More important, the Mountbatten Report holds out to the prison service the prospect of a substantial improvement in career prospects and public esteem. Lord Mountbatten was particularly concerned with the absence of promotion prospects for as long as 16 years, and he recommended the introduction of a new intermediate rank of senior prison officer. The Government accept that recommendation, and I hope that the rank can be introduced in the autumn.
Promotion, Lord Mountbatten thought, should be more on merit and we accept that, too, as we do the recommendation for a special allowance for those who are trained in and undertake special security
838
duties. Equally, we want night patrols to be undertaken increasingly by prison officers themselves, and this, too, will involve an allowance. We are also considering an allowance for those trained in dog handling, a most useful security device. Security training courses in sophisticated security techniques are being currently set up. On all these matters we clearly need discussion with the Prison Officers' Association, and these discussions have already begun.
Lord Mountbatten also recommended that staff establishments should be realistically reassessed. That has started and will be complete at all closed prisons by the end of the year and earlier at those of high priority from a security point of view. We shall, in any event, need to recruit 3,800 discipline officers over the next three years to take account of normal wastage, the needs of new establishments, new security duties and five-day week working at single-shift prisons. Fortunately, recruiting is currently going well and 180 officers joined in the first six weeks of this year. Applications are nearly double the rate at which they were last year. Staff housing, with which we are pressing on, is clearly of great importance in this connection.
Lord Mountbatten also recommended—and attached great importance to this—a new professional head of the prison service with the title of inspector-general. I am very glad that Brigadier Mark Maunsell has agreed to be the first holder of this post. For the head of a disciplined service and yet one whose problems are very different from those of an Armed Service, his combination of a successful Regular Army career followed by a decade of high executive work in industry and commerce was, I thought, just right. The House will recollect that Lord Mountbatten specifically recommended that this appointment should in the first instance be made from outside.
The general picture, therefore, is one of what I think we can call vigorous implementation of the Mountbatten recommendations. The number on which we are currently acting has now increased from 34 to 46. The remaining six are all necessarily longer-term, because they are concerned with the procedures when the new maximum security prison in the Isle of Wight is ready.

839
It is right that we should pay great attention to all these security matters at the present time, but we must not and will not do so at the price of in any way turning our backs on the advances towards a more humane and constructive penal system which have been made under successive Governments in recent years. That was Lord Mountbatten's attitude, and it is certainly mine. if it is not that of any hon. Member in any part of the House or of any people outside, perhaps I may remind them of some words of one of my most distinguished predecessors at the Home Office, Sir Winston Churchill, who, when Liberal Home Secretary in 1910, and after, I may say, he had involved himself and not only himself, but Mr. Lloyd George, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—which I have not yet done—in even more trouble over a gentleman known as "The Dartmoor Shepherd" than I have been in over Frank Mitchell, said:
"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country. A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused …and even of the convicted criminals against the State, a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerative processes, and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man—these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in R."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1910; Vol. 19, c. 1354.]
I agree that, whatever the climate may be from time to time, that is the consistent purpose which should inspire all Home Secretarys. It is certainly the purpose from which I have no intention of deviating.
4.58 p.m.
Mr. Quintin Hogg: Obviously, to follow a Minister who has covered a great deal of ground with a great number of separate points of policy is something of a meal to undertake and there are, therefore, only a limited number of comments which I can make at this stage upon the announcements which the right hon. Gentleman has made, except, of course, to congratulate him un-
840
reservedly on the piece of Churchillian prose with which his speech fittingly concluded.
There can be no question of voting on a Motion or Report of this kind. It would have been easy to devise an Amendment covering many of the points which the right hon. Gentleman, in the inevitable sequence of events, has covered. If I am a little more critical both of the Report and of his speech it is not because I desire either to make the right hon. Gentleman's task more difficult or to oppose for the sake of opposing. On the contrary. I shall conclude by stressing that the task which the right hon. Gentleman has set himself—whatever criticisms we may feel—is one in which he deserves the active support of not only this House but of all right thinking people.
To me, the most peculiar omission from the Report—and from the right hon. Gentleman's speech—was its failure to highlight what seems to be the common feature of all the escapes with which the Report began—Wilson in 1964; Biggs in 1965; McVickar and a number of others from a coach in 1966; Mitchell, while the investigation was still proceeding in Dartmoor in 1966; Blake, who was mentioned specially in the terms of reference; and the six prisoners who escaped from the Scrubs in June, 1966.
The common feature of all those escapes, with the possible exception of McVickar, is that it was not the people inside the prison who escaped so much as professional organisations outside who rescued them. This is the nub of the problem. I agree—and I will say more about this later—with the right hon. Gentleman's and the Report's criticisms of the structure, design and siting of our prisons. But the fact of the matter is that the question of security, with which we are confronted today, is only one aspect of the war against organised crime which we must face in considering the penal system as a whole.
If these prisoners had simply been delinquents and if they had had no friends outside, either they would not have been rescued or, having escaped, they would have been quickly recaptured. It is the fight against crime which must be solved, and we will not solve any of the fundamental problems simply by altering the design and siting of our prisons or even

841
by improving the morale of the Prison Service. Yet of course I agree that the picture which emerges regarding the physical buildings—designed for solitary confinement as their principal means of penal treatment; and their use now as instruments of a more liberal policy, for which they were never intended—a picture of prisons sited on the most valuable sites in urban areas and casting an atmosphere of gloom all around, of prisons overcrowded, squalid and insecure, is a picture which it is extremely unpleasant to have to face.
I was particularly glad that the Home Secretary took, as a special point of attack, the question of their sanitary arrangements. I had been designing to do so. I was afraid that, if I did, I would be accused by hon. Members of selecting the trivial at the expense of the important. Personally, I attach the greatest importance to this matter and I am, therefore, glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman does, too.
One cannot rehabilitate a man by degrading him physically. The sanitary conditions in prison must shock anyone—and many hon. Members know the truth of this—who has been to see them; and seeing is not the only sense which is affected. It is no good talking about rehabilitating people when we compel them to live three in a cell, of nineteenth century design, designed for one, and then compel them to queue up in the morning carrying chamber pots at the slopping out. This must be stopped because it is cruelty—and I stress that it is cruelty—of which a decent society should be ashamed when dealing with even the most desperate characters. And many of the people we send to prison are not desperate characters, a subject to which I will come shortly.
What about the Service itself? 1 respectfully suggest that it is undertrained—without any form of staff college, or course. And, secondly—because the recommendation of the Report has been accepted—it is under-inspected—the fundamental rule of all administration. public and private, being that where there is no inspection there is no efficiency. It is under-manned and probably underpaid, with inadequate prospects of promotion and with no proper provision for welfare. This, again, is a vision of a
842
social service which it is not pleasant to contemplate.
A point of criticism of the Report is that the prison service has not yet been properly slotted into the need for social work generally. Prison warders may be said largely to be a service apart. Perhaps they always will be. However, there ought—and this is a general problem of social policy with which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues must concern themselves—to be a larger organisation of social workers in the community with a closer liaison between the prison service and other forms of social work which may be allied to it. Probation officers form an obvious example. There should also be a breaking down of the isolation that exists between the prison service and other forms of social work; the provision of adequate training courses on which they will meet other social workers, and so on. These things should be considered not only in the context of prison security—although they are clearly relevant in that context—but in the general context of the kind of society which we are slowly trying to build.
In spite of the conciliatory language of the Report—and I absolutely agree with Lord Mountbatten's approach to avoid the allocation of blame, except where blame is obviously appropriate—there were a series of deplorable errors of judgment, for which I do not seek to make the right hon. Gentleman personally responsible. Some of them did not even take place during his period of office. However, in Wilson's case, the keys were counterfeited and the counterfeits tried and tested in the locks before actually being used. In Biggs's case, information about which exercise squad Biggs would be in was available outside the prison probably within minutes of his being allocated to that exercise squad.
In the McVicar case, adequate warning was given of the approaching trouble before the journey began. Unsuitable transport was used, the prisoners had keys to their own handcuffs, and three out of the six modern sets of handcuffs available had no keys and could not be used. As a matter of efficiency, that is really not good enough.
In the Blake case, the governor suggested a transfer in 1965 and got no answer out of the Home Office, although

843
accommodation in a secure prison was available at that time for him without displacing anyone else.
In Mitchell's case, one can only say from the very clear statement of facts which appears from Mr. Marks's Report, the governor, the deputy governor, the chaplain and the medical officer all reported at length on the prisoner, apparently without being in the least aware that he was terrorising the warders, enslaving his fellow prisoners, regularly visiting two public houses, returning to the prison in hired taxis, and buying budgerigars in Peter Tavey.
The answer must be that, in the short term, the Home Secretary should concentrate on the improvement of morale in the Prison Service and the administrative machine in the Home Office.
May I say a word about that administrative machine? The nature of the party struggle in this House rather tends to divert attention from the Civil Service. In the last debate that we had on the subject, at one point we seemed to be arguing how many more prisoners escaped under the Tories than under the Socialist Government. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman was wholly innocent of drawing up a league table in that respect.
That is hardly the way to approach the matter. One cannot overlook the fact, and one ought to say, that there are features in these escapes and in the Report itself which indicate that the Home Office has let down successive Home Secretaries of different complexions. We are living with prisons disgustingly overcrowded, with a Prison Service inadequately trained and whose morale could be better, and with an administrative machine which has been outgrown by the prison population. Those are not matters which have occurred overnight. They are matters which it must have been the duty of a properly organised Department to warn successive Ministers of both parties about, and I doubt whether they were adequately warned.
No one envies the position of either a Department or a Home Secretary. At about the time when Mr. Butler brought forward the rolling 10-year plan, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred obliquely, I can remember saying to one of
844
my colleagues, "It is difficult in a democracy, when we are short of roads, schools, houses and hospitals, to ask the public to vote for a new range of penal institutions provided at enormous expense"—which is what they cost. No one envies the Home Secretary or his Department the task of trying to sell that kind of programme to the public.
Here, 1 wish to make a point in a sentence or two, although I appreciate that I cannot develop it. We find that the various construction industries are one of the principal limiting factors on good government. The capacity of the construction industries of all sorts competing for necessary rebuilding in all directions is, far more than money in some ways, the limiting factor on good government. The Home Secretary is bound to some extent to be the Cinderella when people without homes and who have votes are expected to postpone their homes for the sake of a new prison with adequate security within sight of the lodgings where they are dwelling uncomfortably. These are the realities of democracy.
Before turning back to the Report, there is something else which I should like to have seen in it but which I did not see, perhaps inevitably. The right hon. Gentleman referred to it in the latter part of his speech. Why do we send people to prison? It is all very well to say, in noble prose, that the object is to rehabilitate them. But is anyone rehabilitated by being deprived of his liberty? A solicitor embezzles his clients' money. A Sikh pub-keeper makes a false declaration to the Income Tax authorities. A clergyman is caught yielding to carnal desires with some of his male staff. What do we do to them? We send them to prison.
If one goes to the Court of Criminal Appeal or its present equivalent and says that that is a bad idea, one is laughed at. But why do we send them to prison? What have we in mind, and what has Parliament in mind when it sustains the law which says so? What has the court in mind when it say, "We cannot overlook this offence"? It is very important to realise that it is no good deceiving oneself with sentimental nonsense about rehabilitation. We send them to prison because we do not know what else to do with them.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way in what is a very interesting part of his speech, but what does he think that a learned magistrate in the Midlands had in mind the other clay when he sent a girl of 22 to gaol for three mouths for driving a car four days too early?
Mr. Hogg: I do not want to comment on individual cases. It might be that such a case could be dealt with on appeal, and it might be that it was wrong. I have mentioned cases which are ordinarily dealt with by a prison sentence by any standard court. In fact, if I were a Recorder, as many hon. and learned Members are, probably I should visit such cases with prison myself.
What good do we get out of it? The answer is that the courts and Parliament send such people to prison because they feel that their offences cannot he overlooked, as they are far too serious and yet they do not know what else to do with them.
The truth is that we have to find something else to do with them, and, until we find something else, we shall not solve the problem of prison security. As I said at the beginning we have to isolate the problem of professional and dangerous crime to deal with the security of our prisons. At present, they are cluttered up with people who have committed serious offences but who present no security problem, and who are rotting their hearts out, deprived of their liberty, in overcrowded and disgusting conditions, without any constructive work, simply because we do not know what else to do with them. It really is not good enough.
Some people talk in the most sentimental way about providing work in prisons, but a prison cannot be turned into a factory. The physical conditions are impossible. The fact is that prison treatment must be supplanted at some stage by a more constructive method of penal treatment, and it was precisely for that reason that I thought that it was the greatest of calamities when, in the early days of his period of office, the right hon. Gentleman connived at the murder of the Royal Commission on Penal Reform, though I do not believe that he would do it now.
Mr. John Wells: My right hon. and learned Friend has said that a prison cannot be turned into a factory. I have visited prisons in many countries. Quite the most successful prison I have ever visited was one in Yugoslavia which was indeed a factory. The sanitary arrangements, which are usually unpleasant in prisons, were perfect in that place.
Mr. Hogg: I agree that the bad sanitary arrangements are not necessary anywhere. But a factory requires a proper flow of work, a properly designed layout, the proper proportion of persons with suitable skills, the proper machinery, and the proper product to be sold on the market. None of these conditions is present in prisons.
I agree that constructive work must be found for prisoners. When the solicitor who embezzles his client's money, when the parson who goes wrong, when the man who delivers a false Income Tax return, are punished, they must be found, under suitable conditions, with suitable restrictions on liberty, constructive and useful social work to do.
The truth of the matter is that this society and our legal system has never faced up to the fact that the only way of rehabilitating a man is that he should do work, either directly repairing by his earnings the damage which he has done to his individual victim, or do work which identifies him with society once more, making reparation for the wrong he has done to the general public.
The object of prison should be to keep people out of mischief. Prisoners should be mainly there because they have chosen to stay or because they would be dangerous if they were let out. Rehabilitation should, wherever possible, be carried out in different conditions elsewhere. Of course the prisoners inside closed institutions must be treated with humanity. They must never feel themselves, even at their worst, to be wholly outside the range of human compassion. However, anybody who believes that inside a closed institution, in the company that is found there, people can be rehabilitated on a grand scale is deceiving himself. Other methods must be found.
Mr. Victor Yates: What the right hon. and learned

847
Gentleman has said largely applies to local prisons. Does he not agree that in the training prisons like Wakefield, where it has been possible to provide a prisoner with a 40-hour week, the conditions have resulted in a correction of prisoners in a very satisfactory manner? Do not we want to make our local prisons more like our regional prisons, as has been done in some other countries?
Mr. Hogg: I would not in the least deny that great improvements have been made. However, I do not want to turn this speech into a speech on penal treatment. We must do the best we can so long as we have prisons and prisoners. We can do a very great deal.
I was saying that we must go deeper than that. A form of penal treatment must be found for the man who has gone seriously wrong and whose wrongdoing cannot be overlooked by society. Constructive work must be found for him to do which does not involve incarceration in a closed institution. Until that answer has been found—it will involve legislation as well as administrative action—the problem of prison security will not be dealt with.
For that reason, I would contend that the Report does not go deep enough into the problem it has to solve. It would be grossly churlish of me not to agree with what the Home Secretary said by way of personal tribute to Lord Mountbatten. To produce a Report in that spell of time, with so much in it, was obviously a tour de force, and Lord Mountbatten's undertaking of the work, as I said when he was appointed, was another tribute to his public spirit. What I have to say by way of criticism of the exercise is not to be interpreted, therefore, as intended as an attack on Lord Mountbatten.
As the Home Secretary knows. I was always against the form of this exercise. The right hon. Gentleman rather patted himself on the back at the beginning of his speech for his part in devising it. I do not pat him on the back. I always, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, would have preferred a separate report on Blake.
I think that this Report entirely supports the criticism I have to make. What does it tell us about Blake that we want
848
to know? Who got him out? With what degree of organisation? What was the escape route? Where is he now? What is known about his subsequent movements? Why was not more done to catch him?
This is what the Report says about the time from when Blake reached the prison gate:
"I have not carried my inquiries further, since the hunt for Blake is the responsibility of the police. I conclude my account of Blake's escape by reiterating that Wormwood Scrubs Prison as constructed and administered had little chance of holding him once he had determined to go and that he had ample time to make good his escape before any effective search for him began."
I could have told the House that in October. It did not require all the services of one of the most distinguished subjects of the Crown to reach that conclusion about Blake. I asked for a special inquiry from the first. I hope that the Home Secretary will not again quote out of context a remark which I made when he had turned down my request. I then asked him at least to do something about what my right hon. Friend had suggested, that Blake's escape should be an integral part of this Inquiry.
The terms of reference of this Inquiry, that Lord Mountbatten should look into prison escapes, with particular reference to the Blake escape, ensured from the start that nothing that we wanted to know about Blake should ever be known as a result of Lord Mountbatten's efforts.
Mr. Peter Archer: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what kind of inquiry might have been expected to reveal who got Blake out and where he is now?
Mr. Hogg: If there had been a special inquiry into the circumstances of Blake's escape and what was known about it, not stopping at the prison gates we might have got—I cannot guarantee that we would, but at least we might have got—an inquiry which revealed something. What is clear from paragraph 95 of the Report, which I have read in extenso, is that we were debarred by the terms of reference, in advance, from knowing anything.
The other thing I wanted to get—I told the Home Secretary this at the time—was

849
an inquiry in depth into prison security. Although I think that a very great deal has come out of this Report, and certainly Lord Mountbatten has revealed his own humane feelings on the matter, it did not require a great——
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves the first point, I intervene to say that I am a little puzzled by one aspect of his view on this matter. As I understood it, right from the beginning he and his right hon. Friends attached great importance to urgency. I do not take the point that eventually he asked that Blake's escape be made an integral part of the Mountbatten Inquiry, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have preferred a separate inquiry. However, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that any form of inquiry could have gone urgently into the question of exactly what the police do or do not know about where Blake is now and have published the findings urgently? That would have been most extraordinary.
Mr. Hogg: We cannot speculate about what the inquiry could have inquired into or about what security considerations would have intervened. We were merely told that there was no security question in relation to Blake. I never believed it, but that is what we were told. We wanted a separate inquiry which would have revealed all this. If the inquirer, whoever he had been, has said, "There are certain aspects of this case which cannot be discussed, in the public interest", we might have been satisfied.
All we have, in fact, is the worst of both worlds. We have no report in depth—I think that this is the point which the right hon. Gentleman has not hoisted in—on prison security, because, in two months, Lord Mountbatten had to concentrate on the bare bones of what was known already. And we have no report on Blake which has yielded anything which we wanted to know and did not know already. We would have liked an inquiry which, in relation to prison security and prison treatment generally, repaired some of the damage done by the destruction of the Royal Commission on Penal Treatment, but this also we cannot have.
I have said what I have partly by way of praise for the Home Secretary and partly by way of criticism. I assure the
850
House that we on this side wish the Home Secretary nothing but good in the task which he has undertaken. It was not unnatural, perhaps, when the series of escapes which gave rise to the Inquiry reached its peak at about Christmas time, that some of my hon. Friends should have called for the right hon. Gentleman's resignation. In this, of course, they were taking a leaf out of the Foreign Secretary's book, whose venomous and personal attack on Mr. Henry Brooke, as he then was, in similar circumstances, was one of the least edifying episodes in that right hon. Gentleman's rather chequered career. But I do not propose to pursue in Opposition conduct which I condemned in that right hon. Gentleman when I was in Government.
I do not consider that a Minister should resign every time anything goes wrong in his Department, and for the Home Secretary personally I have the usual love-hate relationship which the shadow must necessarily have for his opposite number. When I am tempted to call for the right hon. Gentleman's resignation, I am reminded of the words in "Cautionary Tales for Children",
"Be sure to keep tight hold of nurse For fear of finding something worse."
I can think of many right hon and hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches who are worse than the Home Secretary.
What we have a right to expect from the right hon. Gentleman is not that he should resign every time something goes wrong but that he should arrange a system which does not go wrong. The Mountbatten Report at least establishes that such a system will not easily be erected and it will not be erected in one or two years.
I say this now both to hon. Members opposite and to some of my hon. Fliends. The Home Secretary has been subjected to a good deal of criticism in recent months. With some of it I agree and with some of it I do not. But if the House and the country want the right to criticise the right hon. Gentleman—we all enjoy the right to criticise him and other members of the Government—if they want him to win the war against organised crime, they must provide him with the tools to do the job.
Not only when we are discussing prison security and escapes but when we are discussing housing, hospitals, roads,

851
schools and the rest, we must remember the right hon. Gentleman's demands upon us. We must provide him with the buildings. We must provide him with the men. We must provide him with the equipment, expensive modern equipment of which the prison service is almost wholly innocent, or so one thought at least until the right hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon. We must provide him with the money. But not only that.
When the Home Secretary comes back to us, as he will from time to time, to ask for sensible changes in the institutional and procedural framework of the law which may upset established principles and prejudices, both below the Gangway opposite and sometimes on my own side of the House, too, we must not sentimentalise or romanticise unduly about the status quo. We have the right to criticise the right hon. Gentleman as being unduly namby-pamby with the criminal only if we can honestly say that we have supported him in any reasonable demands he may make.
I conclude by proposing what I think he should do in the long term and in the short term. In the short term, the right hon. Gentleman must concentrate on a minimum building programme of security accommodation, on the reorganisation of the prison department in the Home Office, on the provision of an adequate inspectorate of prisons, on the provision of staff courses and security training for the inspectors and for prison officers, on the provision of proper transport, proper equipment and proper communications for the Prison Service, on the improvement of discipline, morale, promotion prospects and welfare in the Prison Service.
In the long term, he must look to replacing and re-siting almost all—or perhaps all—the existing prisons. He must look to creating a totally new method of rehabilitation and penal treatment. He must educate the public to realise the full gravity of the situation as regards organised crime. He must improve communication between the Prison service and the police, and he must largely improve the relations of both with members of the public.
5.36 p.m.
Mr. Frank Tomney: I shall not follow the right hon.
852
and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in his spate of rhetoric about the reform of the penal system. That is for another time and another day, and, important as it is, we have far narrower issues to consider in the context of the Mountbatten Report which merit our immediate attention.
My right hon. Friend presented the Report in a factual speech, admitting the shortcomings of the Prison Service and his responsibilities for the future. The strength, or the weakness, of a democracy is usually that it is wise after the event. One may advance strictures about the escapes of all the prisoners referred to in the Report, but we have to accept that those escapes took place. It is right to have recrimination about them and to ask why they happened. It is right to reserve decisions on procedure and to consider what changes should be made by the Home Office in conjunction with the Prison Service and the Prison Officers Association to ensure that such escapes are less frequent and to tighten up security wherever this can be done.
In the present state of the nation's economy, there is, so to speak, an element of competition: every section of the community thinks that it deserves a good or better reward or that it has an equal claim on the Treasury for the services which it rightly renders to the State. The tinker, the tailor, the candlestick maker, the bricklayer, the toolmaker, the carpenter—all these have great organisations to look after their interests. But the services which help us to conduct our civilised society present another problem. They, too, are now demanding, in equity, an equal share or a greater reward for the services which they perform.
It is instructive to look objectively at the kind of men who enter the services we are now considering, the police or the Prison Service, and why they do. It is incumbent upon the House to promote schemes of recruitment, promotion, reward and welfare which will strengthen that recruitment and retain it. That is where the Home Secretary will have his biggest fight with his Cabinet colleagues, and he will have to fight rather hard. He is in charge of two vital services—the police and the prison officers—which are responsible for the continuance of our fabric of civilisation. Our record in humane treatment in police supervision

853
and apprehension, and in the administration of justice, is good compared with other countries, but it could be improved in some ways.
It is the job of the House to digest the Mountbatten Report, which is a good report—concise, quickly gathered and quickly presented, dealing with the facts and leaving the arguments to be settled by the legislators. It makes recommendation on the future conduct of the service and it is for the Treasury to find the money. That is where the snags will arise. My right hon. Friend will have a fight on his hands both with the D.E.A. and the Prices and Incomes Board on the question of the just reward for prison officers.
Wormwood Scrubs is in my constituency. The prison officers there are a responsible body of men, and I do not receive many complaints from them. But one receives the occasional responsible letter pointing out the difficulties of maintaining morale in the service and the problem of the career structure, the rewards, the pension at the end of service, and the necessity for them to remain in the service and prevent wastage. That brings other problems. Any modern economic civilisation must look after its police, tax gatherers, and prison officers. What are we to do on some of the basic problems of pay to improve the prison officers' position.
Even today, my right hon. Friend has not accepted the Mountbatten Report in toto. He probably has reservations or is taking time to reconsider some of the proposals, some of which are very sweeping. There are several matters affecting the duties of prison officers, such as night patrols, where staff are not available, especially at Wormwood Scrubs, and the necessity for housing, which has been mentioned both by my right hon. Friend and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone.
I am concerned about the problems of continuance of service to the day of retirement, because when prison officers retire they must surrender the tenancy of their present house or flat. They have no great amount of capital available and no prospects of securing a house from a local authority. They are thrown on their own resources and are at the mercy of the housing situation.
854
That is why I ask my right hon. Friend to fight with his Cabinet colleagues, and he will have to fight very hard. It is important to have a scheme to increase recruitment, extend service to retirement, and improve morale. I would like him to open discussions with local authorities wherever prisons are sited to make some arrangement so that when a man has finished his prison service, when his family will be in their twenties and the need for accommodation is at its greatest, he shall have a place on the waiting list for a council house assessed on the years of his service.
Alternatively, my right hon. Friend could consider some kind of insurance policy, perhaps contributory, over and above the ordinary emoluments. I suggested such a scheme previously in regard to the police It would allow a man to take at the end of his service a capital sum which would place him in a favourable position in the housing market and would allow him to purchase a house on his retirement. It is not a big investment, spread over 20 to 35 years' service, and we should do well to consider that.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, we are dealing with organised crime which is steadily and alarmingly growing year by year. The escapes from prison, on which I shall not dwell, show that there are highly organised, determined men with funds available to put their will into operation. I think that the case of Blake was the only escape in the history of any nation, at least in the Western world, organised for political reasons, and that is what is alarming. As I said in a Question to my right hon. Friend in October, the train robbers were one thing but a coldly calculated rescue for political reasons was another. The public was alarmed at the time.
Non-involvement of the public in dealing with crime is a steadily growing factor in British public life. There was a time when the public felt more responsibility towards the police in the exercise of their duties, but it is not apparent today. Violence is afoot, and violence of a wicked and destructive nature which knows no respect for age or person, young or old, and is prepared, possibly with the use of weapons, to take the

855
ultimate risk of killing in pursuit of its ends.
That is a new chapter in British crime. In turn, it imposes an additional strain on prison officers because it is in Category A that one will in future find the greatest number of prisoners. Therefore, the suggestions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the extension of the Prison Service and his request for a programme of new prisons are urgent and necessary. To judge from the attitide of the House today, my right hon. Friend will have full sympathy in his efforts to put the situation to rights as quickly as possible.
I now turn to the document which has been submitted to my right hon. Friend by the Prison Officers' Association, and the recommended scales of pay, promotion prospects and the new officers' status which it contains. The Association has accepted the Mountbatten Report in toto. Looking through it and the Circular sent by the Association, I see no reason why my right hon. Friend should not also go the full way. The service must be adequately manned. It is not the calling of just any kind of people; it requires a special person to volunteer for that type of service. It is my right hon. Friend's job to see that his status is commensurate to the risk and responsibilities involved and that the remuneration compares with that for work of a freer and more amiable nature performed by professions outside. If he does that, he will serve the interests of the whole country.
The Report is valuable; for the first time it gives some of us an insight into prison conditions, the service we would like to see and methods of escape. These detailed technical matters are best left in the hands of those who will be able to deal with them in the future, but the general outlook on the service—both towards the police and the prison officers—is a matter of urgent consideration.
As the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said, the biggest job now is to restore the confidence of the public, which was seeping away, and to show quite firmly that the Home Secretary is on top of the job, together with the police and prison officers, in regaining control of a situation which appeared to he slipping from our grasp.
856
If my right hon. Friend does that during his tenure of office, we will all wish him well. It is a job for which every Home Secretary has borne criticism. Indeed, the office has been called the graveyard of politicians. I hope that it will not be so in his case. I hope that he will accept the very responsible and constructive paper submitted by the Prison Officer's Association as well as the Mountbatten Report, and that he will also consider my suggestion of providing, by insurance or by some other way, a capital sum to enable prison officers to be able to purchase houses or flats on retirement or, alternatively, providing for their being able to accumulate points on local housing lists.
This applies not only to prison officers but to the police and long-serving soldiers. The British Army is run by its non-commissioned officers, but they do not get a lot of money and certainly do not come out with a fortune. If we are to maintain our essential services these are the sort of things we must think about. I know my right hon. Friend well enough to realise that he will give them serious consideration.
5.51 p.m.
Mr. W. F. Deedes: I think that I agree with practically everything the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) has said, and particularly with one remark—that the Home Secretary has a fight on his hands. It is for that reason that I am bound to say that I was a little disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), I do not want the Home Secretary to resign, and I am sure that he will not. But I find myself unable unreservedly to accept his rather bright picture of the Prison Service now in a happy state of vigorous—as he called it—implementation of the Mountbatten Report.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman would have given a more convincing picture of what should be done if he had been willing to accept a little more critically and frankly some of the difficulties we know that he has on his hands—difficulties which the public should be invited much more freely to share with him so that they may consider them for themselves and in general be a little more co-operative.

857
None of us dispute the ideals about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. But they did not originate with his régime. For some of us they were strongly founded in the régime of Lord Butler at the Home Office. Some of us are entitled, however, to dispute the best means by which these ideas will be fulfilled. I do not think that any great purpose is to be derived from pursuing in detail the escapes of either Blake or Mitchell. If they represented anything, they were symptomatic of certain weaknesses in the system and are isolated scandals. It is not the least merit of the Mountbatten Report that it perceived this and went further than any of us expected when the inquiry was set up.
While I consider that the remit given to Lord Mountbatten in the circumstances was unfairly onerous, reflecting no credit on the Administration who had to throw the inquiry forward in this way, it has been brilliantly discharged. My only serious reservation is that work done, perforce, within two months should not be regarded as a blueprint for the future of the Prison Service. It is beyond human endeavour to provide in two months of rapid work all the thinking that we shall need in the course of the year or two ahead.
These principal escapes and the others which caused such interest over Christmas seem to have arisen through the concatenation of two circumstances, the one largely beyond our control and the other, I believe, attributable to serious mis-judgment. The first is what is described in the Report in paragraph 206 as
"… the spectacular growth in the prison population in recent years."
This growth has largely negatived—more than negatived—the not inconsiderable building programme. About £34 million worth out of £42 million of the estimates has been completed in a decade.
How far this size of population in our prisons should have been foreseen is arguable. There has been a tendency—and we are all guilty—to talk optimistically about the crime rate and to believe that at any moment it will turn a corner, which it does not. There is room for doubt there, but there is no room for doubt about the consequences. We can see one consequence, and a grave one, in the Criminal Justice Bill. In that Bill,
858
we are having to reshape part of our system of justice in order to meet the exigencies of the prison administration. It is not unfair to say that magistrates and others are being required to revise former concepts of appropriate punishments not least because we have to economise on prison space.
Some people may say that there is nothing to take exception to in that but we must beware of it. We have always taken great care that the Executive should not influence the judiciary but have now been forced into the position where prison administration is influencing the judiciary. I shall not dwell on that, but we should take note of it.
The second situation, which I believe is attributable to serious misjudgment, is described in paragraph 202 of the Report, which says:
"A constructive liberal prison regime and secure prisons are not necessarily incompatible, but conflicts will arise if an attempt is made to conduct a liberal regime in buildings designed in accordance with the 19th century philosophy of prison treatment."
What this really means to me is that we have allowed our ideals in prison reform to outpace the means that we are prepared to find in order to implement them. This is not new in public administration. Most of us live by this method. But when public security is involved it constitutes a grave misjudgment. It is a miscalculated risk. I think that it imposes a very unfair demand on the prison administration.
The right hon. Gentleman—deservedly, in my view—gets great credit for what can be regarded as an enlightened and liberal approach to penology. Yet, in some senses, the price has to be paid by those responsible for maintaining prison security. Between the ideals expounded by the right hon. Gentleman and what can be provided by way of a more liberal regime in prisons, a large gap exists. It has to be filled by the Prison Service itself, and it is grossly unfair that it should be blamed, even inadvertently, for failing to do it.
I thought that it was unfair of the right hon. Gentleman, as he did indirectly at Christmas time by a directive to prison governors, when many escapes were being made, to suggest by implication that they were falling down on the job. I am sure that that was not his intention, but the impression one got from the directive was

859
that they had better smarten themselves up. It was not their fault that the spate of escapes took place, and I am sure he accepts that.
It is not altogether surprising that in paragraph 17 of his Report, Lord Mountbatten says:
"… I do not believe the morale of the Prison Service as a whole is as high as it should be."
The Prison Service is, within my knowledge, well aware of what is happening. They are conscious that unfair demands are being made on them from which, if all went well, the administration would derive a certain amount of credit. If things do not go well, then the prison administration carries the can.
So much for the general background. Before I turn to the constructive possibilities, there is one other matter on which perhaps we could be enlightened. I confess that I am in a state of confusion here. Lord Mountbatten reports:
"There is no really secure prison in existence in this country."
I think that we knew that. However, what is surprising to me is why the plans for such a prison have not gone further.
Nearly two years ago, in the course of our proceedings on the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill, the right hon. Lady the Minister of State, Home Office, clearly said that a prison for very long term prisoners which would be extremely secure would be built in the Isle of Wight, that the Government were going ahead with that project, that plans were in hand and that it was hoped that it would not be too long before it was built. I am not clear whether this is the prison which has gone into the main block at Albany or the prison which should have been started but which was delayed until after the conclusion of the Mountbatten inquiry. I should like enlightenment on that. It must have been foreseen before Lord Mountbatten conducted his inquiry that there would be a need for a prison for long-term prisoners combining security with more comfortable conditions for long-term prisoners than are normally enjoyed.
I turn, perhaps more constructively, to what is perhaps the most important of Lord Mountbatten's recommendations. This is the proposal to divide prisoners into four categories—A, B, C and D.
860
This is right. What I question is whether Lord Mountbatten and his team or the Government fully comprehended what would be required to implement this very important proposal. It cannot be done by drawing names out of hats. Lord Mountbatten says little more than that the proper machinery must be set up to ensure that prisoners are allocated to the correct category. He does not return to it in the other paragraphs on prison security save indirectly in paragraphs 211 and 218.
I regard classification as absolutely central to the regime which I hope will come about through the Report. It is a science, and a constant science. The best examples which I have seen in Europe and America suggest that it is the most expensive part of prison administration. I saw not long ago a reception guidance centre in the southern part of the State of California where an expert staff of about 100 people of diverse gifts was required to look after a population of approximately 600. The time spent in classifying and diagnosing the prisoners and deciding to which prison they should most appropriately be sent occupied about 90 days.
I know that we have an arrangement of that kind in this country. I am not clear how many prisoners have been subjected to it. There is a refinement, namely presentence reports for judges, which the same institution, if properly organised, can provide. Incidentally, it may also ensure, which we are not ensuring now, that cases involving mental health which have slipped through can be picked out and appropriately dealt with.
Classification does not end there. As Lord Mountbatten observes in a later paragraph,
"The allocation of prisoners to the categories I have described needs to be kept under continuous review and subjected to careful research to ensure that allocations arc being made correctly."
Therefore, there will have to be posting and cross-posting later. This diagnosis is unending and it is an essential concomitant of the more liberal and enlightened régime to which the Home Secretary has pinned his colours. I do not think that this régime can be secured by asking too much of the prison building programme or of our prison administration. It must be increasingly secured by the continuous

861
scientific evaluation of prison inmates. This will be very expensive. It is difficult to achieve it at cut prices. It is indispensable to probation and parole. It seems to me in every sense the only secure road to a more liberal régime.
We should not fool ourselves about this. It is plain nonsense to assert, as it was asserted last year, that prison escapes are part of the price which must be paid for more enlightened penal policies. That is rationalising mismanagement. It is a most foolish doctrine because it is calculated to harden public opposition to the sort of enlightened steps which we should be taking. I do not think that the public are unjust or foolish about this. They have a very fair balance in their minds. They know very well that it does not make sense to go on talking about the war against crime, the need to strengthen the hands of the police and to ensure that the guilty do not escape justice, and, at the same time, to plead that we must accept a proportion of escapes as the price of penal reform.
This has an even more important effect on the morale of the prison service. The structure of this service must be considered much more carefully than Lord Mountbatten had time to do. I am not sure that in the long term the aim should not be an inter-related service—I do not say integrated—through the whole field of what the United States call corrections—in other words, breaking down to a degree the present watertight compartments between prison officers, probation officers, parole officers and the kindred services. These bodies will have to be extended and expanded.
Why should not prison officers be eligible to transfer to these services more freely? This would widen the scope of promotion, encourage men of quality who have an inclination for the public service and prevent the institutionalisation of prison officers. I hope that thought will be given to that matter.
Lastly, I echo what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone said about the Home Secretary's own organisation in the Home Office. It is no reflection on the Civil Service or anybody else to say that it is not right. The Mountbatten Report makes it clear that it is not right. At the time, I was strongly opposed to the
862
transfer of the Prison Commission to the Home Office. I thought it a mistake, and I think now that it was a mistake. It is no reflection on people in the present set-up, but the sort of appointments and transfers made in the light of Lord Mountbatten's Report will not of themselves provide the sort of service which we had in the Prison Commission under people like Sir Lionel Fox some years ago. I accept we cannot go back to that.
The Home Secretary, however, is confronted with a real difficulty—the same difficulty which he faces in respect of the police. The top echelon, the general staff, is not yet broadly enough based to discharge its new and very large responsibilities. That is not simply my view; it is also Lord Mountbatten's view. In paragraphs 236 to 238 he refers to the growing complexity" of the problem and goes on to speak about the difficulties of combining the functions of the professional advisers to the Home Secretary and the administration of the prison service. These difficulties will not be met by appointing strong-looking men designed to create a good public appearance. The Home Secretary must recast his general staff and its system of communications with the establishment.
Let us tell people more of what is going on. There is a case for telling people far more about our prisons and what we are trying to do. The Home Office—and I speak as a former inmate and great friend—is still far too security-minded. It is perfectly true that cameras and reporters have gone into prisons whereas they would not have gone in a year or two ago. In a sense, however, that only obscures what is not being disclosed.
Bold, fascinating and most acceptable experiments are going on in penology. They may not succeed, but that is no reason why they should be kept a dark secret until we know positively whether they will work. If the public were to share this knowledge, it would enlist a great deal more public sympathy. People would not lose their nerve by being told that men were being released in certain circumstances during their sentence to assist them in certain ways. There is far more likelihood of panic among the public when people discover something has gone wrong with an experiment of which they

863
know nothing. Let the public feel involved in what is going on, and let the prisoner feel that the public are involved, because at least one consequence would be that the transition of a man back to a normal life of work was considerably eased. My last word, therefore, is to ask the Home Secretary for more light.
6.11 p.m.
Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate because this is one of the most important subjects which we have debated for some time. I was particularly impressed by the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), which was not only powerful, but very interesting. It limits, however, what one can say afterwards, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said so much of what one would wish to say. In paying tribute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for accepting the Report. My right hon. Friend was rather limited by reason of the fact that he has to find the money for these things, whereas the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not.
These reforms cannot be bought on the cheap. It is a question not of whether we can afford the money, but whether we can afford not to find it. To reform one person could save the country many thousands of pounds in the years to come, and yet we spend so much time on keeping prisoners in the conditions of which we have heard today with so little reformation.
I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that the Criminal Justice Bill is being twisted to keep people out of prison because we cannot find places for them In my view, too many people have been kept in prison over the years who should never have gone to prison in the first place.
I believe that it is necessary to categorise prisoners the moment they start imprisonment. I cannot, however, see why it is necessary to have four categories as given in the Report. I agree that Category A is essential and that the public must be protected from certain people. The nation must be protected from certain people such as spies. In that regard, it is necessary to have high security
864
prisons. The other classes of prisoners, however, need not be divided into more than two categories.
The ordinary category would denote a person who went to an open prison. It will be said that these people will escape, but I think that the reason why they escape is that in doing so they lose so little. If these were many privileges that prisoners could acquire but which would automatically be taken away from them in stages if they escaped or committed an offence, I believe that prisoners would respect these rules and would not wish to lose their privileges. In this respect they would not need the close security which is exercised today.
I know that many people disagree with me. There are those who say that prison would be made so attractive that prisoners would like it. I have always believed that there were three purposes in putting people into prison: punishment, the protection of society and the reformation of the wrongdoer.
If I had to choose from those three, I would put reformation first and punishment last. It is necessary to protect the public and this would be done, if necessary, by putting prisoners into a category A prison. After that, every effort must be made at reformation. This cannot be done by keeping people in prison under the conditions which many of us knew existed and which the Report highlights—conditions of degradation, with men going into prison for what might be termed a trivial offence in comparison with most people who are in prison and from which, because of close association for long hours in cells, they come out knowing all the tricks of the trade and bent on a criminal career, as well as men who go into prison and who come out as homosexuals. These are the things to which we should be paying more attention rather than considering how we can make our prisons more secure.
The privileges which I have in mind and which would enable authority to be kept include tobacco. We know that in many prisons the tobacco barons have tremendous power. In some prisons in America, people are allowed to smoke as much as they wish. Why should not they smoke as much as they like if they buy the cigarettes from the pay they receive for doing honest work in prison?

865
Why should not prisoners be allowed to receive as many letters from their wives as they wish or be able to send letters home? What better pastime could there be for a prisoner than to sit down at night and write a letter to his wife? I do not believe that the existing petty restrictions in these ways serve the cause of the nation or of the man in prison. One could list many privileges which people could have in open prisons but which would automatically be taken away from them in stages if they contravened authority.
There will. of course, be people who, no matter how many privileges can be taken away, will still try to escape. For this reason there should be a third category of prison—not a maximum security prison, but a closed prison from which a man who was determined to escape would do so, but where nevertheless the conditions would make it difficult for him to escape.
It might be necessary to send a man to that type of prison when he is first sentenced, because for the first week or so a prisoner suffers from a great sense of grievance and during that period he might attempt to escape whereas on reflection a week or so later he would put the idea behind him. It may be necessary, therefore, to keep him in one of these closed prisons for the first week or two after he is sentenced.
I believe that these three categories would be workable. A prisoner would respond because a certain degree of trust was being placed in him. I believe that such an arrangement would work, because so many fewer people would be required to look after our prison service. What is even more important is that the conditions in which prison officers work would be made much more tolerable than they are today.
I do not believe that any man, however humane, can go into the prison service and enforce the regulations and conditions which have to be applied without something happening to his character. It is essential for the prison service also that these things should be done. Furthermore, if the farsighted policy which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is determined to carry out is backed by sufficient finance, we will eventually save money. It would cost something in the
866
beginning, but we would save in the long run.
My next point concerns the work which people do in prison. I do not accept the assertions of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone that it is not possible to have factories attached to prisons. I believe that it is possible, and it must be made possible. While I consider, however, that we should be lenient in many respects with prisoners, I do not believe in being soft with them. Not only is it essential to maintain their morale in prison by giving them honest and genuine work to do by means of which they can earn money to send to their families with which to buy extra things, but it is equally important that prisoners get into the way of working. Many hon. Members will know that the tendency today is that the less people do, the less they want to do.
That does not apply only to the criminal class but to every class in society that the less one does the less one wants to do. It is essential to find some means to employ these people for long hours. I do not say that they should work a 40—hour week. There should be some punishment in prison; I do not say that everything should be turned in favour of the prisoner. But we must find some means of doing this kind of thing because at present when a man comes out of prison no matter what he was like when he went in he has lost the will to work.
It is essential that from an early stage in prison a man should be allowed to go home for a weekend every so often. This should be one of the privileges. I know that people will say that they will enjoy being in prison. Some people fail to realise that when a man is sentenced to prison not only is he being punished but his wife and family also and in most cases they are completely innocent. As a result often another man goes into the prison and tells Tom Snooks that his wife has been seen going around with another man. The prisoner concerned might have been completely settled in prison and determined to finish his sentence there but in those circumstances it requires a very strong character for a man not to seek to leave prison, to go home to find what is happening.
I found how this affects a man in an incident which occurred during the war. A man who was going home on leave for

867
a week came to me and said that his wife was desperately ill and he did not intend to come back after his week's leave. He told me this because he did not want to let me down. Inquiries were made and it was found that the facts were as he stated and facilities were made for him to have an extended leave. But how many men take that line in such a situation? If it is question of his wife and family suffering such a man will not pay any regard to the penalties concerned but he will go home to see what is happening there.
The welfare services in prison must be tremendously extended. A man must be able to confide to others the difficulties he is experiencing with his family so that welfare officers can make arrangements for him to go home. Many people will say that this is being soft to the prisoner. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary appreciates the point I am making. I believe that the purpose of a sentence is reformation, not punishment. Punishment is incidental to it. If we could have this enlightened system in which the State could show mercy and prison officers could show compassion and consideration which ultimately leads to hope for the prisoner we should have a Prison Service which we could admire and not one which is degrading and of which we are heartily ashamed.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. Michael Hamilton: That was a very humane and sincere speech by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw). Many hon. Members taking part in this debate have large prisons in their constituencies. I cannot make that claim, but I can make the bold claim that the prison system as we know it today emanated from my constituency.
Originally, of course, the castle dungeon served as a convenient place of detention, but with early crime waves and the increase of population, special arrangements had to be made for the care of offenders.
Three miles east of Salisbury, there are the ruins of what is called Clarendon Palace. It was a Royal palace similar in date to Westminster Palace, but in a more salubrious setting. From there a
868
complete overhaul of the administration of justice took place. From there the order went out directing the building of gaols in the counties and boroughs all over the kingdom. The orders were called the Constitutions of Clarendon, and the buildings went up. Parliament did not debate prison escapes at that time; the prisoners stayed in.
I have read every page and paragraph of the Mountbatten Report. It is a very impressive Report. I found it in many ways a brilliant Report; yet, in other ways, I found it curiously unsatisfying. I like the way in which it is quick, direct, to the point, never boring, never turgid. It was an amazing feat that in the short space of two months Lord Mountbatten should have visited 17 separate prisons and interviewed scores of witnesses from whom evidence was taken, including three former Home Secretaries. That all this evidence should have been sifted, weighed and the conclusions drawn in so short a time was a tremendous achievement.
I was also extremely pleased that this Report praises the Prison Service as it does, and the devotion to duty of the service. The difficulty of its work shines from every page of the Report and it is something of which the general public needs to be reminded. I also liked the tribute paid indirectly to Lord Butler. It was he who started the greatest prison building programme of this century. The Report refers to the fact that £34 million has been spent since 1956 and says:
"… drive has been put behind the building programme".
I remember visiting one of Lord Butler's newest security borstals and being very much impressed. They are far finer buildings than those of any English public school. I was particularly struck by the fact that there were two chapels, one for Roman Catholic boys and one for Church of England boys. I thought that extravagant use of the taxpayers' money, but since I have come to see that, with the wise political touch as Home Secretary which Lord Butler always showed, this decision was right.
It emerges from this Report that the crime rate and the population are rising so rapidly that we are able to keep pace, but certainly no more. I noticed that today the Home Secretary talked about using Army camps. We are not achieving sufficient rebuilding to get rid of the early

869
Victorian prisons. The Home Secretary told us perfectly rightly that Dartmoor was built during the early Napoleonic Wars to house French prisoners of war in 1806, but it was in the middle of the century that the Victorians showed themselves to be the great builders they were. Pentonville, a model prison was opened in 1842. Armley, at Leeds, was built in 1847 for 350 men and today houses nearer 1,000. Wandsworth was opened in 1851 and Holloway in the following year. All these prisons in their day were admirable and served their purposes supremely well. But the Report makes clear that they constitute a very difficult legacy today, and a complete rebuilding of all these Victorian prisons would cost us more than £100 million. If that is not practicable, and clearly it is not, then at least we are not burdening our successors 100 years hence with the problem which we have today, which is of a set of prisons almost all built at the same date, designed to meet a need which in 100 years will have changed.
I think that the Report is right, in that first things must come first. This new maximum security prison in the Isle of Wight must come first, but I find myself wondering whether Lord Mountbatten realises that the wall at Everthorpe Hall cost 10 per cent. of the total cost of the building? It cost £65,000 and is 18 ft. high, and yet here in this Report Lord Mountbatten is advocating on the Isle of Wight a perimeter wall over 1 mile long and 36 ft. high. I think that money is needed and it must be spent, but the taxpayer must have value for money and 1 rather wish that the Report had dwelt a little longer on the desirability of selling existing prison sites and using the proceeds for further fresh building elsewhere. I think that more could have been made of this, and if legislation for it is needed let us have it.
1 promised to be brief. Why, then, is this Report in some ways so unsatisfying? We read in it about Blake, Mitchell, Biggs and Wilson. We put the Report down after reading the 93 pages and we ask, "Who, then, was responsible?" The answer is everybody and nobody, and this coming from an Admiral of the Fleet rather surprised me.
There is, after all, in the Royal Navy a clear chain of command. If a valuable
870
naval vessel is entrusted to an individual officer, and if the vessel is damaged, the officer is sent for. Responsibility is clearly defined. Nobody questions the definition, and if something goes wrong somebody is responsible.
We see Blake described in the Report as "no ordinary spy". It was known that in terms of national security and of international relations his safe keeping was more important than any naval vessel. He was a major security risk, yet his escape from Wormwood Scrubs on a Saturday evening, in the words of the Report, "was easily accomplished". It is true that the Report mentions that there were four occasions when Home Secretaries might have had him transferred from Wormwood Scrubs. It is also true that the Governor recommended his transfer in January, 1966, but the fact remains that he got out, and got out easily. I use the words of the Report.
The impression given to me by this Report is that it was "one of those things". We are told that our prisons are insecure, and, unless we revert to the old inhuman methods, escapes will continue. I confess that I had hoped that an Admiral of the Fleet might have recommended the establishment of a clearer chain of responsibility and that he might have grafted on to the Prison Service something of his naval ideas. But no. If more escape tomorrow, it will be nobody's fault.
The Home Secretary ended his speech with a fine piece of Churchillian prose. Perhaps I can finish mine by quoting a single sentence from The Times of today, to bear out my point about responsibility. There is a sentence which occurs in a letter written by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It says:
"… these policies are damaging to the nation, not only because of the money they waste, not only because they divert resources from other more important purposes, but because they consistently blur the edge of individual responsibility."
I think this is what the Report is in danger of doing.
6.36 p.m.
Miss Joan Lestor: It would be very tempting this afternoon to follow the thread set by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in dealing with the whole

871
question of retribution and rehabilitation, because one cannot separate a discussion on security in prisons from the whole aspect of and our outlook towards the question of what we do with people who offend against the law. Unfortunately, everything that we have to say about this must come within the confines of the matter which we are discussing, and although, like many hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, I have serious misgivings about perpetuating a prison system which carries with it so many outmoded concepts and ideas, I want it to be clearly understood that what I have to say is for the moment within the confines of this Report, and in the hope of shedding a little light into the darkness which exists among the attitudes which are prevalent about the whole of our prison system.
I was very interested in one of the points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He picked out as an omission from the Report that the factor which was common to many of the prisoners who had escaped was that they had some organisation behind them; that they were able to have an escape prepared for them because they had something to go out to. I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman, because I think he will be interested to hear this, that this aspect of the matter was part of the evidence presented to the Mountbatten Inquiry by the Howard League for Penal Reform.
One thing about the Report which struck me was that many of the people about whom the inquiry reports not only had that in common, but that many of them were serving incredibly long sentences, the sort of sentence which it is becoming common for society to impose on particular types of offenders: Biggs—30 years; Blake—42 years; Wilson—30 years. I shall say something about this later, but I hope that when the debate is concluded the Home Secretary will comment on this, because it seems obvious to me at least that whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation, if we are now going to embark on a method of punishment which means that we tell a man that he is to be deprived of his freedom for 30 or 40 years, it will be reasonable to assume that he will try to escape. This seems to me to be fairly obvious.
872
If we are dealing with a man or a woman who is deprived of freedom for five, six, or seven years, the situation is completely different. But if one considers Blake—I do not want to go into this in detail—or the conditions surrounding anybody who is imprisoned for that length of time, it seems obvious that the whole organisation of our prisons and our attitude to the man who is put in prison for that length of time are things about which we have not begun to think, to decide the best way in which we can deal with such a person.
This has as much relevance to the Report as has the point already made, that many prisoners are backed by strong organisations who arrange their escape. I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), who said that it was only necessary to classify prisoners into one or two categories. This has been our big mistake. We do not classify our prisoners sufficiently. We have not yet devised a system of classification making clear the type of person with whom we are dealing, and the treatment best suited to them. Once we get down to such a system we shall begin to move away from the concept of retribution which many of us abhor, and we shall be able to move toward the concept of rehabilitation.
It might be useful to distinguish, as has been hinted at, between prisoners who will escape simply as a demonstration, or because it is the only method of challenging some of the prisons, or because they have somewhere to escape to. We can also begin to classify people in terms of types and offences. The Report goes on to talk about a maximum security prison and the need to isolate from society people who will be dangerous should they escape or those whom it is undesirable should escape. The attitudes existing within such a prison must be different from those in a prison where one is dealing with men and women who have offended in a particular way, or who perhaps, are in need of a different type of treatment.
I am very much interested in the whole of prison life and the Prison Service. There should be more classification and breaking down of the types of people with whom we are trying to deal, in order to determine whether there is a need for punishment, rehabilitation or

873
merely a need to keep undesirable people, potentially dangerous, away from members of society. Over and above this consideration there is the question of whether disturbed and mentally abnormal prisoners with long sentences should be kept with what one might call normal people who are effective and successful criminals.
The treatment and the attitude towards these people must be different. The Home Secretary has accepted the suggestion to have a maximum security prison, and, although 1 can see the wisdom of this, my worry is that if one tries to devise a system of security, making it absolutely impossible for anyone to escape, the system may become too rigid and security-minded. This would be bound to militate against the efforts of people working within the prison service, wanting to make people ready to return to the outside world and take their place in society. Even long-term prisoners will eventually return to society. If they are not to relax into total despondence, hopelessness, and revert to what they were before they came in, any maximum security prison engaged in keeping people shut off from society for a long time must incorporate within it ways and means of treating people and helping them to return to a normal society.
The more that one isolates people the more this militates against their taking their place in society. I was glad to note that the idea of a maximum security prison on a remote island was dismissed by the Mountbatten Inquiry. It is obvious that it cannot fulfil its function in trying to rehabilitate people and make them part of society once more. One of the reasons why Dartmoor is such an unpopular place with prison staff is because it is so isolated. It produces so many difficulties that the staff must become disspirited and irritated, because they are so cut off.
If there is to be a maximum security prison it must be, of necessity, a small prison. It is much better to have small institutions than large ones. No one can stress sufficiently the small paragraph dealing with hygiene and the references to the tensions which build up within a system when three men are confined together in a cell under those conditions. Perhaps they do not like each other: perhaps they have nothing in common
874
with one another. The tensions which build up under those circumstances must be an added incentive for people to escape.
No one who has read the Report can run away with the idea, which one hears so often, that our prisons are like second and third-rate holiday camps. This is rubbish. Anything that we do now, through the Criminal Justice Bill, and so forth, to try to reduce the number of people coming into prisons must be a good thing, in so far as it will reduce the prison population. Although the number of escapes has been exaggerated, escapes over the last 10 years have risen, but so has the prison population. Unless we take drastic steps to reduce it, we shall for ever be chasing our tail and getting nowhere.
I have given a great deal of thought to long-term sentences and, having abolished the death penalty, I hope permanently, and embarked upon a situation where, for murder and other crimes against society, we will give people long prison sentences, I believe that we are entering a completely new era for the treatment of people, particularly for indeterminate sentences. Part of the incentive for not breaking out of prison is that one knows that if one behaves reasonably well, one will earn a certain amount of remission.
If people are to be in prison for 30 or 40 years, this incentive goes. Unless one questions, as I do, the wisdom of very long prison sentences, except in terms of danger to the community, and unless one can substitute it with real work and rehabilitation, one can expect people to try to escape. A 42—year sentence on Blake did not deter Vassall.
The whole concept of what deters people needs to be examined. Most people interested in the subject know that, under present circumstances, one is unlikely to rehabilitate a person sentenced to six or seven years. By then it is too late; the whole system of running down the individual has taken place. One can only do this rehabilitation in a shorter period of time. If there are to be long prison sentences, which will not rehabilitate people, one must think again.
In our Prison Service and crime prevention, we are not using our labour in the most economical way. We have

875
limited resources and need more recruits for the police and prison services. The Report deals with this. One of the difficulties is that we are using much of our resources to keep people in prison for long periods and not enough to impress on those who offend against the law that they are likely to be caught.
One of the reasons for the rising crime rate is that a person can weigh up the odds on being caught. If he is less likely to be caught, he is more likely to commit the crime and vice versa. We cannot separate our attitudes to society and people who break the law, whether by violence or any other means, from what is in the Report and our whole attitude to prison reform and preventive work.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone questioned the concepts of prisons and how we treat people. This would be a fitting subject for debate and I hope that we may one day debate what is happening in our prisons. We know that financial resources are limited, but if we spent more on housing and education, we might be doing more to prevent crime. Anyone who has worked in the children's service, as I have, and has been a chairman of a children's committee, has felt the apprehension which comes with the knowledge of the deprivation, indignities and misery which some young people suffer in their early years through all sorts of difficulties which one cannot go into.
One knows that it is those people who will be called criminals and punished in 20 years' time. This is outside the debate, but if a little more of our resources were directed to that object, we might reduce our prison population and get a more enlightened attitude to the treatment of people who offend against the law.
6.53 p.m.
Mr. James Dance: Morale and recruitment in the Prison Service are absolutely vital. This is borne out by paragraph 223 of the Mountbatten Report:
"Despite the handicaps under which the Prison Service is working, morale appeared to me to be surprisingly high in the prisons I visited, though naturally I have received a number of letters which indicate that this is not universal, and this is also the view of some prison officers I have talked to."
There is a remand home and a Borstal in my constituency and I have had fairly
876
close contact with prison officers. Their morale is amazing, but they are dubious about one or two matters.
We live in an age of violence and crime, and our only protection is the strength of our Police Force and the deterrent effect of severe sentences. We all remember the Home Secretary overriding a sentence of birching passed by a magistrate on a young criminal convicted of violence against prison warders and police officers during a riot in the prison. He was serving a life sentence for murder. I do not say that birching is the correct answer, but the right hon. Gentleman must surely advance some alternative to protect warders and police officers from this kind of violence.
We all acknowledge that a strong, efficient and well-paid Police and Prison Service is necessary to control crime. We urgently need more policemen on the beat and many more warders, but we are not recruiting them in the right way. I fear that we are putting too much stress on the views of psychiatrists. A police inspector friend of mine told me that many policemen thought that during their training psychiatrists should spend one year as warders in a prison, which would give them a much more balanced idea of the kind of people they are dealing with.
As the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) said, we have not enough police officers. At Winson Green there is a shop equipped by a firm in my constituency, Harris Brush Works, which employs a large number of prisoners. One of the snags is that, because of lack of warders to supervise, they work very short hours, which is not satisfactory to them or to the people who are encouraging them to do this kind of work. The firm tries as far as possible to take these people into its factory at Bromsgrove when they are released. They are doing a first-class job. More warders are needed to supervise this kind of work.
Another important factor, which was raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North, is housing for prison officers when they retire. A prison officer came to see me a month ago when he was due for retirement and said that his problem was that, although he had served at Winson Green and the remand home in my constituency, he was on no housing list. This is a very important matter.

877
These men and their wives, who have served the country so well for a long time, should have some form of security when they retire.
I am very glad that the Home Secretary has returned, because I should like to cross swords with him. On 26th January, I asked him:
"whether, in view of the fact that there are not totally secure prisons in this country, he will now consider recommending the installation of high-voltage electric fences round the perimeters of Her Majesty's prisons, following the Mountbatten Report."
The right hon. Gentleman answered:
"No, Sir. Apart from any other considerations, the hon. Member is under a misapprehension if he thinks this was recommended by Lord Mountbatten."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 1758.]
But my point is that the Home Secretary——

ROYAL ASSENT
6.58 p.m.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
The House went:—and, having returned;
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund Act, 1967.

2. Education Act, 1967.

3. West Indies Act, 1967.

4. London Government Act, 1967.

5. London Bridge Act, 1967.

PRISON ESCAPES AND SECURITY
Question again proposed.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Dance: You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that I was crossing swords with the Home Secretary and perhaps for clarification I ought to read out the Question again. I asked him
"whether, in view of the fact that there are not totally secure prisons in this country, he will now consider recommending the installation of high-voltage electric fences round the perimeters of Her Majesty's prisons, following the Mountbatten Report."
The Home Secretary's reply was:
878
"No, Sir. Apart from any other considerations, the hon. Member is under a misapprehension if he thinks this was recommended by Lord Mountbatten"
But that was not the point I was making. The Mountbatten Report had said that there were not totally secure prisons and I was suggesting that we should take what steps we could to ensure that they were as secure as possible. I suggested electric fences because I thought that there might be something in the idea. I am not saying that I was completely right, but I got the brush-off when I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that
"It is his own feather-bedding of the criminal classes that has done so much to undermine the morale of police and prison officers and to raise the rate of crime, on his own admission, to an all-time record level".
The right hon. Gentleman's reply was to say that it was a pity that I should have
"tabled a Question apparently based either upon a misreading or a non-reading of a most important Report …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 26th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 1758.]
That was rather unfair of the right hon. Gentleman, because an hon. Member cannot come back with a second supplementary question and so I had to sit there and look a complete idiot.
Mr. Jenkins: Now that the hon. Gentleman has put it so charmingly I hesitate to interrupt him on this occasion at some length, but I want to indicate that my reply was what it was because the words "following the Mountbatten Report" appeared to indicate that this had been one of the recommendations. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, confronted with 52 recommendations from Lord Mountbatten after two months' study, I would prefer to study those rather than make a study of one of the hon. Gentleman's recommendations without two months' study.
Mr. Dance: That is fair enough, but I wanted to make the point that in a way this came within the scope of the Mountbatten recommendations when Lord Mountbatten said:
"I recommend there should be an immediate survey of all perimeter walls."
In other words, he was saying that security of the perimeter walls was one of the great problems and I was trying to be helpful with my suggestion.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg),

879
with whom I agree so much, was perfectly right to say that criminals must be put into different categories and that an extremely violent and potentially dangerous man must be in a category different from that of others. Something has to be done to protect the public against very dangerous criminals who are a menance if they get out of prison.
I must be fair and say that I am one of those who signed the Motion asking for the Home Secretary's resignation. I sincerely hope that he will listen to the points made today. I am all for humanitarian treatment in prisons, but we can have too much feather-bedding of the bad and violent criminal, and I hope that in future the Home Secretary will take a more positive and powerful stand on that issue.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Among many enlightened speeches today we have had two particularly enlightened speeches from the Front Benches. Anyone who has been present throughout the debate and who has heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) will know that on both sides of the House there are hon. Members deeply concerned with trying to find the solution to the problems of penal reform. I was fascinated by some of the proposals of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I sincerely hope that at some time we can have a debate solely about how we intend to treat criminals in future and to answer the question of what else we can do except to put them into the existing buildings which we call prisons.
One of the country's very large prisons is in my constituency, Walton Prison. Obviously, as my right hon. Friend said, we cannot be concerned only with security, although I want to say something about security and some other aspects of prison life. I want especially to deal with sanitary conditions. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State knows that I have put a number of Questions to her during the last two and a half years about sanitary conditions in prisons generally and in Walton in particular.
Walton has had many famous prisoners. One of the most famous was Brendan Behan who wrote "Borstal Boy". Con-
880
ditions are no different now from what they were when Brendan Behan wrote these words in his fascinating book. He said:
"Mornings, we were wakened at six"—
I do not say that prisoners are still awakened at six—
"and slopped out throwing the contents of the chamber-pot into the bucket brought round by the prisoner appointed to this position. There was competition for the job because the same man brought round the breakfast."
There was competition for it because he might be able to "nick" a bit more for himself.
"Then we went down to the recess with an enamel jug and got water for washing. There was only one lavatory on each landing and it was impossible to get in and use it, with another thirty or forty fellows queueing for water for washing, and rinsing round the bottom of the chamberpots to get out what had not gone into the big slop-bucket."
This was in the winter, of course. He went on:
"All the time it was cold and black. In the morning the slate floor was freezing cold, and over the whole huge wing was a cold smell of urine and bad air, like a refrigerated lavatory."
Having read "Borstal Boy", I visited Walton Prison thinking that the conditions could not be anything like those described in the book. The sanitary arrangements, I thought, must have improved. But they had not. In the years since Brendan Behan had left the prison—he had been a political prisoner, a member of the I.R.A., and had not been sent there because he was a thief or anything of that sort—nothing had changed. I visited Walton Prison again recently and I again looked at the sanitary arrangements. Hon. Members will be interested to hear that they are still exactly the same.
We have spent a great deal of money in trying to improve Walton Prison. A new hospital block has been built and I agree that that is an improvement. However, should we go on wasting a great deal of money—and it is a waste—on buildings of this kind, buildings which cannot be adapted to modern ideas and techniques? Instead of wasting money in this way, we should push ahead even faster with the building of new prisons outside urban areas so that new ideas and techniques to improve the lot of the prisoner can be implemented.

881
Walton Prison is overcrowded. Conditions there are bad, not only for the prisoners but for those in the Prison Service. If men are forced to work in these conditions they cannot have good relations with the prisoners. I am not criticising anybody for this state of affairs. Three men must live in a small cell. Criminals are bound to be bred in such conditions. Some people have been sent to Walton Prison—I am sure that this applies to other prisons—although they have not been the sort of criminals with whom we are particularly concerned. But they have come out criminals. Under the law as it stands, people can be imprisoned for all sorts of reasons. Hardened criminals are often bred in prison and we must, therefore, do our utmost to get rid of these out-of-date buildings.
Much has been said about making prisons more secure, but is this possible? I agree that steps must be taken to ensure greater security, but many of the buildings inside our present old prisons reach the perimeter walls. In one recent case five prisoners escaped from Walton Prison because of circumstances such as these. The carpenters' shop extended not only to the perimeter wall but beyond it. There were plenty of tools available in the carpenters' shop and the prisoners merely had to walk through a door into the building which lay outside the wall. One ingenious prisoner, using the tools at his disposal, cut a hole in the wall and five prisoners went through it.
Much has been said about prisoners receiving help from outside to make good their escape. On this occasion help from outside was not needed. Indeed, one of the chaps later said, "What would you do? There was a hole staring me in the face, so naturally I went through it". Of course he did. He would have been a model prisoner indeed if he had not, particularly as it was a couple of days before Christmas.
I do not blame anybody for the present state of affairs. These old buildings are the cause of the trouble. Even if flash-lighting were introduced, it would be impossible, certainly at Walton, to have complete security because so many of the buildings extend right to the perimeter walls. The shadows cast by these buildings would make any form of flash or floodlighting almost pointless.
882
The answer is to use the interim period, between now and the time when sufficient new prisons are built outside urban areas—and we are likely to have a considerable wait—to devise methods which will ensure the best security possible. I hope that prisons will not be placed in places like Dartmoor. Prisoners should not be cast away in such isolated conditions. However, there must be a greater measure of security, if only because the people living near prisons such as Walton suffer great anxiety when there is a break-out. The escapee may not be violent, but the fact that an escape has taken place causes alarm. There must, therefore, be the maximum possible security.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not accept suggestions like those put forward by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance). The very thought of electric fences appalls me. I suggest that in addition to increasing the patrols by day and night inside the perimeter walls, there should be additional patrols outside the walls, perhaps by the police, although I appreciate that the Police Force is also short of staff. This may not be a practical suggestion, but I trust that my right hon. Friend will consider it. We cannot hope to solve the problem while we must make do with the old buildings which we call prisons. It would be better for my constituents if Walton Prison were removed and the land used for housing. We have a very serious housing problem in Liverpool.
There are many facets of this problem which I should like to discuss, but many hon. Members would like to contribute to the debate and I will not delay the House. I normally profoundly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) when debating these issues, particularly when he urges the return of capital punishment. However, I agree with him that consideration should be given to the case of the prison officer who retires, although this does not apply only to prison officers. In my constituency we have a large hospital and when the deputy matron recently retired she had nowhere to live.
It is a scandal that people who give years of service to the community, as prison officers, hospital staff and others do, are not given special consideration when they retire, particularly if their

883
living accommodation is tied to their jobs. We should try to persuade local authorities to reach an agreement with the Home Office to solve this problem, particularly the housing problem faced by people when they retire. I appreciate, of course, that not all prison officers will want to live in council houses when they retire and that some of them may wish to find their own accommodation. It is an important point, because it may be that one of the reasons why it is difficult at times to recruit people is that they fear what may happen to them when they retire.
So far, this has been a remarkably interesting and fascinating debate. As a result of it, I hope that we shall not in future find ourselves involved in a great deal of hot air about prison escapes, with people tabling Motions getting at the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone made the very fair point that prison escapes have been going on and wrong advice has been given for a very long time. All these escapes cannot be the responsibility of the present Home Secretary. Everything is being done to make certain that we have maximum security prisons within the context of a liberal régime.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Russell Johnston: I wish to echo the compliments which have been paid to Lord Mountbatten and his three assessors for the thoroughness of their Report and the despatch with which it was produced, bearing in mind the point made by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that something produced so quickly cannot be expected to produce all the answers.
It is tempting to follow those hon. Members who have gone into the whole subject of prison reform, but I shall concentrate the few remarks which I intend to make purely on security. Neither do I intend to go into individual details about Blake or Mitchell, though I will make one brief remark about Blake. Reading the rather scarifying story of his escape, it occurs to me that perhaps he and people like him, who are the undesirable objective of the attentions of foreign Powers with relatively limitless resources, should fall into a somewhat different category from what Lord Mountbatten described as Category A.
884
Such men are, after all, soldiers in a cold but real war. I doubt whether they ought necessarily to be incarcerated in criminal institutions, and it occurs to me that a special military unit of some sort might be set up to deal with that category of prisoner.
The public has been rightly shocked by the inadequacies which the Report has highlighted. It is disturbing to find ourselves, as we do so often in other matters, drifting into a serious situation, in spite of all the warning signs over the years. The rising crime rate, longer prison sentences and overcrowding have been going on for a long time. It seems that always we have to await dramatic events before urgent action is generated, and that is very unfortunate.
Equally, it has been made startlingly clear that the responsibility for the situation does not lie with the sorely overtaxed prison officers themselves but with successive Administrations and with the public, who have been more concerned with the nature of punishment than with the mechanism of carrying it out.
I wish to make six specific points on which I should welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments. First, I would commend to him those paragraphs in the Report which deal with the status of prison officers and the need to ensure that their morale is high. They are the people who work the system, and it is imperative that they should be in good heart. It is pleasing to hear the Home Secretary say that the recommendation about the senior prison officer grade is to be accepted. He ought also to look carefully at paragraph 219 on the general question of establishment ceilings. The fact that the number of prisoners has increased is not, in the end, so significant as the progressive increase in the range of work and training which prison officers carry out, and this is all linked to overcrowding and the shortage of space.
I am happy to see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland present. In Scotland, we have up to 50 per cent. overcrowding in our prisons. Clearly, that is a situation which must be tackled.
On the general matter of status and conditions, the five-day week is of significance. In Scotland, we have the anomalous position that a five-day week operates

885
only in Peterhead and Aberdeen Prisons, and that has not been extended.

The second point which the Report brings out is that there appears to be a lack of any consistent line of guidance from above, and that has instanced itself in several different ways. There seem to be considerable variations in prisons of the same type. In Dartmoor, for example, the regime appears to have been easier—some might say more lax—than elsewhere. At any rate, it appears from all the evidence which we have that Mitchell apparently wanted to go there rather than somewhere else.
There is a reference in paragraph 242 to the need for a security manual. I do not know if that means necessarily that there is no standard security manual, but there is also a reference in paragraph 238 to the need for inspection, which would suggest a lack of any standard approach to both. In general, it appears that decisions which have been taken at the administrative centre, the Home Office, have not always filtered down to prison level and become fully implemented. The recommendation of an inspector general from outside to look thoroughly at the whole situation is to be welcomed.
The third matter was touched on by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor). We have not thought out properly the problem of the long-term prisoner for whom, in the Home Secretary's own words, a life sentence means a life sentence. Such men make up a new category, and many have access to quite large outside resources, which presents another risk.
In looking at the problems which they present, we have not only to consider the structural form of any fortress island prison, as it has been called. It is not just a matter of the sort of institution which might be set up, for example, in the Isle of Wight. An important factor to be considered is the kind of society which will be created inside such a prison. It is pretty scarifying to think of some sort of super prison containing 100 or 120 long-term aggressive prisoners who have nothing to look forward to, no matter how much remission they may earn. It must be extremely alarming for prison officers to contemplate the guarding of such people who have nothing to lose. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he
886
accepted that a small extra payment should be made, but I should have thought that quite a reasonable recompense would be necessary.
It may seem inappropriate for a Liberal to say, but I notice that in paragraph 294, the possibility of armed guards is dismissed by Mountbatten. In the very special case of long-term prisoners, I should have thought that it might be necessary. I do not see any great risk in having an armoury inside a prison.
The same paragraph, having recommended that prison officers should not be armed, goes on to say:
"Shooting at a helicopter which is landing or lowering a belt from a winch comes into a different category and warning shots could be fired first."
I do not quite see how prison officers can fire shots if they have no guns. However that may be, I am not altogether satisfied that very special methods might not have to be taken in this very special category.
Fourthly, although I agree with all the remarks which have been made about categorisation and the necessity for it, we must look to some extent beyond that. As the Home Secretary is so sharply aware, there are many people in security prisons who are in for long-term sentences but who should not be in prison at all. These are people who need to be dealt with, for example, in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) in his Criminal Responsibility Bill, because they should be in establishments for the criminally insane. Lord Justice Winn said the other day that if a certain individual ever got out he would be a danger to the public. I wish to refer to an incident which occurred in the north of England only last month.
A prisoner was taken from Strange-ways Prison to Baguley Hospital for some medical investigation. The warders warned the doctor. The actual words used were that the prisoner concerned would be liable to clobber the nurses. They made it quite clear that the prisoner was quite unpredictable in his behaviour. The doctor examined the prisoner and found that this was so. He remained in hospital for four days and then returned to Strangeways Prison, where presumably he is likely to clobber anybody at any time.

887
Fifthly, we should like to know whether comparable action will be taken in Scotland. I hope that reference can be made to this by the Government in the winding-up speech, though I also hope that we shall have a separate debate on this subject in the Scottish Grand Committee in due course. Lord Mountbatten was not charged with the task of examining the Scottish system, though he mentions it in paragraphs 258 and 259 of his Report. Will there be a separate Inspector-General for Scotland—a separate supremo? If not, what is to happen?
I wonder about the present building programme in Scotland. Saughton is the very last prison which was built. Some clearing-up is required. We should be told what the situation is. We look forward to the time when there will be no trebling up, as there is in so many prisons today, but when there will be gap room to allow for any increase in crime.
Sixthly, and lastly, I have in my constituency a prison, Porterfield, a wing of which was recently designated as a special unit and which is referred to by Lord Mountbatten in paragraph 258. I am concerned about this, because this is a specific example which I know about Lord Mountbatten says that he
"found the security precautions impressive"
at Porterfield. Presumably Lord Mountbatten meant the security precautions for its use as a maximum security prison. He uses the phrase, "maximum security wing". Whether it is a maximum security wing, a segregation unit, or a special unit, is vague. The special unit itself is not completed.
This is a prison bang in the middle of a small town. Next door to it, cheek by jowl with it, is a youth hostel. There is a builder's yard very adjacent to it, with all the implements usually to be found in a builder's yard. It is generally known that one of our more dangerous prisoners, Ellis, has already been transferred to this prison. He is a man who engaged in a bank robbery and shot the bank manager. He was charged with attempted murder. Somewhere there is £19,000 still not recovered.
This represents a serious and disturbing risk. Constituents of mine living round the prison have come to me with a petition and have said that there should
888
not be a maximum security prison there. Nobody particularly likes living near a prison, but I think my constituents now have a just and valid case, if this place is being used in this way without proper preparation.
Tradesmen move in and out. This is another factor which has often been drawn to my attention by prison officers. There seems to be no screening of tradesmen. There seems to be a general disinclination by the prison authorities to use the prison officer tradesmen rather than to take in outside tradesmen. For example, general work is done by people drawn from the labour exchange. I know of a case when the employment exchange actually sent a former prisoner up to the prison to do a job inside. Fortunately, he was recognised, but easily might not have been.
It is, perhaps, unfair to concentrate on a part in this way, but I believe that it emphasises the fact that this particular choice is unsatisfactory. Also it is perhaps generally indicative of how much there is to be done over the whole prison system of the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary has a very big task before him, and I hope that he will do it with all despatch.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) will not think it a discourtesy on my part if I do not take up any of the points he made in his interesting speech, though some of them were challenging enough. My reason for not taking them up is that I want to make only one or two very short general points as my contribution to this very interesting discussion.
I have some excuse for speaking, I think. I think that 1 am not quite the only Member of Parliament with any inside experience of prisons. There are three or four others still left. But I think I am the only one who has listened to, or sought to take part in, this debate. I myself during the First World War spent 27 months in local prisons—six months in Wormwood Scrubs, nine months in a very old prison in Preston, and another 12 months in Preston. Hon. Members will have listened, I hope with some horror, to descriptions of the conditions inside local prisons, particularly the older

889
ones. They were exactly the same 50 years ago. I still have the most vivid recollections of them and I still get nightmares concerning them.
We are supposed to be having today a debate on a Motion to take note of the Mountbatten Report. The Mountbatten Report was about security in prisons. We are, in part, debating security in prisons, but the most important and the most notable speeches in the debate, particularly those from the Front Benches, have not been about security in prisons. They have been about prison conditions, a topic that the House has not debated for many years. I am not regretting the fact that the speeches have been concerned with prison conditions. I welcome it. I only regret that the time we have to devote to the topic is so short and comes round so rarely. I think that it is 17 or 18 years since the House was concerned with a debate on prison conditions.
Why are we debating this topic now? We are debating it because George Blake escaped from Wormwood Scrubs. If he had not escaped from Wormwood Scrubs, we would not have been debating it yet. It might have been another 20 years before we had another look at these conditions which still prevail, after so many generations, under a prison Act passed somewhere in the middle 1800s.
The Criminal Justice Bill is at the moment passing through the House. In many ways, it is a very good Bill. A large part of the beginning of it deals with who shall go into prison. A large part of the end of it deals with who shall come out, when, and how. There is not a word in the Bill from beginning to end about what one does with the prisoners while they are in. Yet this is the crux of the matter. is it not?
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was quite right to say that what we ought to be looking at, even if we are concerned mainly with security, and certainly if we are concerned with penal reform, is what we hope to get out of our prison system. What are we running it for? Until we know what we are running it for, we shall not concern ourselves with how to do it. It is a great pity that there is nothing in the Criminal Justice Bill to deal with what must be the crux of the matter.
890
We might consider whether we ought to pass a resolution of thanks to Mr. Blake for giving us the opportunity to look at matters which everyone regards as most important, which we are all delighted to discuss, which we all regret not having had an opportunity to discuss earlier and which we all hope later to have fuller opportunity to discuss, but which we should not have discussed had Mr. Blake remained quietly in Wormwood Scrubs. That may be an ironic comment, but it is a true comment. Everyone in the House knows that that is so. We should not have been concerned even now, after so many years, to look at the system of slopping out in prisons if Mr. Blake had quietly slopped during his stay at Wormwood Scrubs.
In making my second point, I associate myself with something else said by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone. I referred to this in my contribution to the Second Reading debate on the Criminal Justice Bill. We must have a serious look at sentencing policy. It is not good enough for infallible old gentlemen wearing red robes and full-bottomed wigs to send people to prison for 30 or 40 years and then for the rest of us to hold up our hands in horror when they try to get out. I do not know what other hon. Members feel, but I feel that if a man is sentenced to what amounts to three or four life sentences—30 years—or five or six life sentences—40 years—we cannot expect him to sit down and do nothing about it. One must expect people like that to escape if they can, and more particularly if we tell them how easy it is.
They have nothing else to do. They have nothing to hope for. It is no good telling a man serving 40 years that he can earn one-third remission by good conduct. From his point of view, he is there for life, however well behaved he is. I cannot help thinking that Her Majesty's judges, sitting with their almost unchallengeable power in the courts and exercising their moral indignation irresponsibly and thoughtlessly in the way they do, ought on occasion to he reminded of the enormity of some of the things they do under the authority which we confer upon them and in the name of us all.
If it is conceded that a man serving a sentence of that kind will escape if he

891
can, it must also be conceded, must it not, that not everyone's sympathy will be against him? Mine certainly is not. If a man successfully escapes from a thoroughly inhuman and unjustifiable sentence, I cannot blame him. I applaud him. My sympathies are not with those who want to hunt him down and bring him back again. My sympathies are with him, and I dare say that a great many Members of the House of Commons will share that view.
Blake did a terrible thing. I am not defending it. I do not excuse him. I am only saying that if we inflict a penalty of that kind, we must expect, first, that he will escape from it if he can and, second, that if he does he will carry a good deal of public sympathy with him.
My third point also arises in part out of something which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said in what I thought a very wise, civilised and humane speech. He said that one could not make a prison a factory. I do not know whether one can make a prison a factory—we succeed in making a good many factories look like prisons—but I entirely endorse, so far as I may without being thought patronising, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view that if we want to rehabilitate a man who is at odds with society, we really must give him something constructive to do. If we take a substantial part, most or all of what he earns and we use it by way of compensation to his victims, even that is better than keeping him either unemployed altogether or employed on soul-destroying activity with no constructive value, without any interest and without any inducement to do the work well or to take a pride in doing a good job.
There are difficulties here, I know. In the past, one of the principal difficulties has been the attitude of the trade unions. I am not blaming them. That attitude was taken in days when mass unemployment was the rule and unions were concerned to protect their members' right to work. Naturally, they objected to unfair competition from people who had done nothing to deserve favours from society. Unfortunately, there is unemployment still. But we hope, do we not, that we shall be able to get back to full employment, that when we have rescued ourselves from our economic disasters we
892
shall be able to maintain full employment as one of the basic rights of man?
When we do, will it be impossible to devise a system whereby prisoners, particularly long-term prisoners, can be employed at trade union rates of pay, under trade union conditions, doing useful work and producing goods which are useful to the community? There will be much less inducement or incitement to escape if men in prisons—or factories, labour camps, whatever one cares to call them—are allowed to live in decent reasonably dignified human conditions, doing useful work, making a contribution by their labour to society, and perhaps making good some of the damage they have done out of the earnings which they are allowed to earn.
Those are the things we should be examining. I hope that when we are through with this debate, through with the Criminal Justice Bill and half a dozen other things with which the House is greatly concerned, and which keep cropping up from time to time, we shall have another opportunity to look at our prison system, before another 20 years have gone by, and see if we cannot create at long last a civilised form of it.
If we do, we shall not need to concern ourselves with escapology, maximum security prisons, outside organisations or popular sympathies on the wrong side, because we shall have created a situation in which none of those things would be worth while.
8.1 p.m.
Mr. Ian MacArthur: We have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), who has taken us further along the path the debate has followed during the day, a path which I did not expect but which I welcome. We heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and the Home Secretary a fascinating development of what I may perhaps describe as prison philosophy, and I, too, hope that the House will return to a detailed debate of the human problems involved before many months have passed.
I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not follow him in more detail now but come at once to one or two points that I would like to raise,

893
because I have observed that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has been present during the debate. A number of questions arising from the Report come within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if I raise those Scottish points, because some have a wider application. As the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) said, a brief section in the Report refers to Scotland. In fact, there are two paragraphs—paragraphs 258 and 259—and not one, as he suggested, and one or two questions arise from them.
Many of the general observations and some of the specific recommendations elsewhere in the Report will be seen to apply to Scotland, but there are some specific Scottish points to which the hon. Gentleman may reply if he is fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair. I see that Lord Mountbatten visited Inverness, and I shall not develop that further now. In discussing the security wing question, his Report suggested that the new maximum security prison to be built in the Isle of Wight might be used for Category A prisoners from Scotland. Has that suggestion been considered by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and if the new Isle of Wight prison is to be used in that way under
whose jurisdiction would Scottish prisoners lodged there come? Would they be under the Home Secretary or remain under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Scotland? There may also be some legal implications in that point, which I have not yet studied, in view of the differences between Scots and English law. Will he give that some thought?
In paragraph 259, the Report takes up the point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness in that Lord Mountbatten suggests that the professional head of the English Prison Service might well be invited by the Secretary of State for Scotland to extend his visits to Scottish prisons, once he has settled into the English role, in conjunction with the Scottish Inspector of Prisons. That is a valuable suggestion, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will comment on it.
Several right hon. and hon. Members have touched on the most important question of morale in the Prison Service.
894
When he opened the debate, the Home Secretary quite rightly paid some attention to that, and referred to the need for better public relations for the Prison Service. Indeed, at paragraph 25 Lord Mountbatten states:
"I hope therefore that really good public relations will be built up for the Prison Service."
But, of course, public relations are by no means the whole story. Important as that form of communication is in presenting the prison service in a favourable way to the outside world, it cannot fill the enormous gap which must still be filled in terms of public respect for the prison service and anxiety to join it. Public relations can call attention to the hard, unglamorous, and often thankless work of the prison officers, but the way to improve the service's standing is not only through public relations but by improving the service's condition of work, its pay and its career structure.
I was glad to see that the Report states, at the end of paragraph 223:
"But the external presentation of the work of the Prison Service and the consequent improvement in an already high morale will only be effective if the internal arrangements within the Prison Service are right."
Will the hon. Gentleman turn his attention to some of the internal arrangements in the Prison Service in Scotland?
In the Scottish paragraphs of the Report, Lord Mountbatten suggested that the new promotion structure and new officer grade which he proposes for England might also find their place in Scotland. I hope that that will be so, because clearly the career structure and promotion prospects of the service are important factors in making the service attractive to people outside.
The prison buildings in Scotland are unsatisfactory. The hon. Member for Inverness reminded us that they are grossly overcrowded. It is hard to see how any process of rehabilitation can be successful in the surroundings in which prisoners are housed at present, and how prison officers can do their work most efficiently if they are subjected to conditions of that kind.
In a reply to a Question earlier this month, the Secretary of State told me that work in hand on prison building would provide 10 per cent. more places. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what

895
sort of places those will be? Will they be sufficient to keep up with the increase in the prison population, which is a reflection of the depressing increase in the rate of crime, or will they go some way towards easing the present overcrowding from which we suffer in Scotland?
The right hon. Gentleman also told me in a Written Answer that negotiations were going on for three sites in Scotland for new prison buildings. He said in a written answer:
"Negotiations are in progress for the acquisition of sites for three new establishments to provide about 900 places."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 160.]
What effect will those 900 places have on overcrowding? It would also be interesting to know where those sites are, how the negotiations are progressing and what sort of building programme is envisaged. Perhaps they could be used as an experimental development of the new type of prison we all look for.
There is also the question of recruitment. According to Answers which the right hon. Gentleman gave me on 2nd February to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) some time in January, the Scottish Prison Service is about 10 per cent. short of men at present. I understand that there are 1,432 men in the service and that about another 140 are needed to maintain present standards and eleminiate excessive overtime. Is that figure sufficient? If we are to implement the terms of the Report there will be a need for more prison officers to provide the security for which we look. I fear that the 140 forecast by the right hon. Gentleman in January may prove to be an under estimate.
Secondly, the excessive overtime we have to get rid of is indeed excessive. I learnt in another reply that these 1,400 prison officers worked about 320,000 hours overtime last year. That is far too high a figure. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to tell us what steps are being taken to improve recruitment and so to reduce overtime in Scottish prisons. I hope that he can say what prospect there is for a five-day week for the service.
I understand from the Secretary of State that the advertising campaign is to be increased over the coming months in
896
order to improve recruitment which I gather has been going ahead reasonably well over the last months. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us the recruitment target for the coming months so that we can see from time to time how things are going.
I now want to refer to a constituency question which has given me a great deal of concern. I am glad that Perth Prison takes part in the "training for freedom" scheme. This is a valuable way of rehabilitating what one might call trustworthy prisoners for return to civilian life. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone referred to deficiencies in the administrative system and I am sorry to have to tell the House of a grave deficiency which came to my notice some weeks ago.
A man from Perth Prison was working in the scheme in December and I learnt some weeks later by pure chance that he had escaped from the building site he was working on as part of the scheme. To my astonishment, I discovered that, although Perth Prison immediately informed the Scottish Office Prison Division in Edinburgh, no action whatever was taken to inform the Press or the public of the escape. So some weeks passed before anyone knew that a prisoner was on the run.
I believe that there has been some confusion as to whether or not he has been caught. I understand that he has not. If that is so, is it not likely that he might have been caught had the public been alerted to the fact that he had escaped? I regard this as really a very worrying deficiency in the administrative system.
I must say at once that I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland at the beginning of January and had a letter from him a few days ago in which, it is only fair to say, he apologised for this grave error and recognised its seriousness. I understand from the letter that action has been taken to stop this grave error from happening again. I am glad, too, that the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that this extraordinary oversight was not the responsibility of the prison authorities in Perth or of the prison officers. Very rightly, he pointed to his own Prison Department and thereby, I presume, acepted the ultimate responsibility himself.

897
This is a serious matter and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to reassure us that this sort of mistake will never happen again because, obviously, we cannot tolerate a situation in which a prisoner can escape even from such a scheme as "training for freedom" without the Press and the public being alerted. It is extraordinary that this error occurred, particularly as it came hard on the heels of a succession of spectacular escapes from prisons in England.
Mr. Hector Monro: As my hon. Friend knows, I have had this type of escape from the Dumfries Young Offenders' Institution in my constituency. Does he not agree that the impression is abroad in Scotland that, in the matter of publicity, very often the Secretary of State has come down on the side of the prisoner rather than on that of informing the public?
Mr. MacArthur: That impression has been given, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to tell the Secretary of State of our concern about this matter and that, in the course of the review which I understand is being undertaken following publication of the Mountbatten Report, he will study not only the whole question of public relations for the prison service but also the conditions in which the prison officers work and take steps to improve the whole pattern of communications between the authorities and the public in relation to the prison service, prison escapes and the whole climate in which the Prison Service in Scotland is conducted.
8.15 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): It would be wrong of me to go into too much detail on the points raised, for if I were to do so my speech would be a major one and this is only an intervention to deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) and the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur).
One should be clear that the kind of problem existing in Scotland is very different from that which gave rise, in a sense, to the Mountbatten Report. In this sense, we are all pleased that Scotland is not involved in that imme-
898
diate problem so that we can discuss this situation in general. There is no spy problem in Scotland—nothing of the nature of the 42-year sentence in the Blake case, no international security problem or development of highly organised groups outside organising escapes. It seems that most sophisticated Scottish criminals tend to drift south—possibly another example of the brain drain and one that we might welcome. So it is very much a kind of normal prison problem that we are dealing with.
I will first deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Inverness in relation to Inverness Prison. It is important to keep in mind that the Mountbatten Report gave a very favourable comment on it. Lord Mountbatten said:
"I found the security precautions impressive."
That was a flat, definite and absolute statement.
I recognise the hon. Member's anxieties, however. We had to find a place where a small number of maximum security prisoners could be accommodated. Inverness is a small prison. It already existed and there were factors within the building which made it possible to adapt it to what the hon. Gentleman wanted to have more closely defined but which Lord Mountbatten called a "security wing". There were very good reasons why the wing should be there. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, as I have said, but he would not expect me to shift a prison at the relative cost in terms of a youth hostel.
We have been thoroughly checking the problem that is mainly exercising the people of Inverness—the perimeter problem—and I expect to receive a report shortly. A number of questions have been raised in the past by the hon. Gentleman and the local council on such matters, and the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that, no matter what steps we take arising out of the review, we shall consult the local authority.
Mr. Russell Johnston: But why the decision that dangerous prisoners should be put there before the security wing is ready? It will not be ready for 18 months?
Mr. Buchan: They were put there because the security arrangements were found to be impressive. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is in the Mountbatten Report. He cannot have it both ways.
The other question he raised, in common with the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, was that of the "supremo"—the Inspector-General. In a sense, this may be something on which we in Scotland are already ahead of England. We have had an inspector of prisons for the last two or three years, and it may be that the Mountbatten inquiry learnt something from this. We shall be continuing with our inspectorate, but we should certainly welcome visits by the "supremo", who may also learn from Scottish experience as well as teaching something. We will welcome his presence, but we shall maintain our own inspectorate system.
Hon. Members referred also to the question of the five-day week in the Prison Service. I understand that it has not been put into practice in Inverness but that it is in practice in Peterhead and Aberdeen. The five-day week at Aberdeen worked very successfully. We have not been satisfied with what has happened at the other prison and we shall recast the scheme. I should be very optimistic in the present situation if I were to suggest that we shall have a five-day week in all prisons. The 320,000 hours overtime mentioned by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire gives some indication of the size of the problem.
I am glad that the hon. Member referred to the incident at Perth in the terms in which he did. Sometimes we are not very helpful to prison officers, to security or to the public when we raise matters too sharply. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he dealt with this matter. The letter from the Secretary of State has been sent to him. We accept the error. It was not in prison arrangements or in information to the Prison Department. It was purely that it was not notified to the information officer. Whether if this had been done it would have led to the arrest of the prisoner, I cannot say. The hon. Member asked whether I could guarantee that it would not happen again. This reminds
900
me of Shakespeare—"How absolute the rogue is". We cannot be as absolute as this. We are making every effort to ensure that it will not happen again. We regret the incident.
It does not follow that there is a general tendency to believe that we are more concerned with the prisoner than with the public. This is not the case. The public must be our No. 1 priority. Security must come first. Following on that come the needs of the prisoner. But neither point arose in this case.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the question of public relations. We have been looking at this very closely. The promotion structure is part of the same thing, and we hope to be able to say something more on this very shortly.
We have been fairly happy about the recruiting campaign. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen the figures. The campaign started in August. There have been 2,258 inquiries about the Prison Service. The high point of the campaign was reached in September. There were 834 inquiries—that is, roughly a third of the total—in the one month. This is an indication that a campaign of this kind can bring results. About 115 people have been successful in their applications. In a sense there is no target figure. In certain respects "infinity" is the wrong word but we can use all the officers we can recruit.
I come to the question of sites. We are talking about three sites. There have been difficulties in negotiations about the acquisition of land and access to land. We are now in at least two cases coming to the end of that kind of preliminary difficulty. One site will be the new place for women prisoners which, we hope, will be run on slightly better lines. The other will be for adult male prisoners. We shall be drawing on experience and the kind of discussion which has taken place in the House tonight before we go ahead with it.
I have been pressed on the question of dates. It is very difficult to give dates, but I should be misleading the House if I were to suggest that these new buildings will come into being shortly—certainly not before 1970. We are concerned with the early 1970s.
I hope that I have dealt with most of the points which have been raised. The

901
key thing for which we are waiting in terms of security is the new review on perimeter security.
8.24 p.m.
Mr. Mark Woodnutt: I cannot match the record of time spent in British gaols of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) but I can claim that I have spent an equivalent amount of time in Greek and German gaols, and I can appreciate the first point which he made in his excellent speech. I should like to refer to his last point and to say how much I agree with the need to give long-term prisoners, in particular, a worth-while job to do. This is important from the point of view of security, of rehabilitation and of reintroducing into them some form of self-respect. We should not only give them a job but pay them the rate for the job as long as a suitable deduction is made for the cost of their keep and as long as they pay some sort of compensation to the people who have suffered at their hands.
I wish to add my congratulations to Earl Mountbatten on the thoroughness and common sense of his Report and the speed with which it has been produced. We should also congratulate the Home Secretary on matching this by the speed with which he accepted the Report's main recommendations. I am particularly concerned with this matter because we already have two prisons in the Isle of Wight—Parkhurst and Camp Hill. A third—Albany—is under construcion and we are to have a fourth, the maximum security prison. They will all be contiguous in the same perimeter. This has been accepted locally with great difficulty. Nevertheless, the wisdom of the recommendations in the Report is recognised. All the local authorities are assisting by co-operating with the Home Office in ensuring that these plans come to fruition.
The paragraph which horrified me was that it was recommended that the name of the new prison should be Vectis, which is, of course, the Roman name for the Isle of Wight. This is wholly unacceptable to people on the island. Sixteen trading organisations use this name. It is used in our publicity. If it were used in other contexts, people would think of prisons. I was going to table a Question to the Home Secretary asking him to give
902
an assurance that he would not name the prison Vectis, Wight, Jenkins or Mountbatten, but today I received a note saying that he had agreed that it should not be called Vectis. I thank him for meeting me on this point.
When areas co-operate with the Home Office in putting up prisons, the Department should be a little more forthcoming when it is asked to make a simple concession like this and should not make people wait six weeks before giving agreement.
Paragraph 14 of the Report says that there is no really secure prison in the country. I have no doubt that that is correct, but it could have been a little better worded. It caused quite a lot of alarm and worry in areas in which there are top security prisons, particularly in the Island, where we have people like Straffen, the child murderer, and the train robbers. Having been in and seen the top security block, I have spent the last year assuring people that it really is top security and that it would be very difficult for prisoners to get out.
The qualification should have been included in the Report that although prisons as a whole cannot be considered as secure, in the top security blocks every device has been used—electronics, various mechanical aids, closed-circuit television, everything possible—and although it can never be made completely impossible for someone to escape, in such places escape is almost impossible.
It so happened when I was last in Parkhurst Prison that I was present when two prisoners escaped from the outside part of the prison and I was able to see the whole of the security arrangements brought into operation. I have nothing but praise for the speed with which the Governor controlled the operations and all the men who were not working at the time immediately came back on duty, pulling on their uniforms as they rushed into the prison. The prisoners were recaptured within two hours.
These things also should be remembered, because people in the locality of prisons become very worried when they see headlines to the effect that no prison is secure. The scheme which immediately comes into force as soon as a prisoner escapes from a prison like Parkhurst is extremely efficient. I understand that

903
only two prisoners from that prison have ever succeeded in getting off the Island. This is worthy of congratulation all round for all those who have anything to do with it.
That brings me to my main point, which concerns prison officers. I regard as the most important aspect of the Report of Earl Mountbatten that dealing with prison officers. The most important factor in ensuring that we have adequate security and a good Prison Service in the future is to make certain that we maintain high morale in the prison service. I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) when he asked the Home Secretary whether he would accept the recommendations and the memorandum put forward by the Prison Officers' Association.
These men are always on risk. They are on risk much more than a policeman, because they are there in prison, particularly a place like Parkhurst, with criminals the whole time. I do not lack courage, but when I go round Parkhurst Prison and find myself locked in one of the working shops with about 30 men and only two prison officers, to say the least I feel apprehensive. I certainly have great admiration for those two officers who stand there all day, with the criminals in their care outnumbering them by 15 to 1, who could easily turn on them and, if need be, kill them.
We must accept all these recommendations. It is quite wrong that a man in the prison service has to wait 16 years for promotion. He must in future be promoted on ability and not solely on seniority. The level of pay should undoubtedly be at least the same as for the police. The compensation for widows should be increased and compensation to men who are injured during their duty should certainly be adequate, which at present it is not. The suggestion by Lord Mountbatten of a new rank of senior prison officer is first class, because this is a way of recognising ability and of giving a higher rate of pay to men who prove themselves worthy of it.
Our liberal attitude and the liberal attitude of the Report to prison life is right. It is clearly wrong that men, however evil they may be, should be treated like animals. It is right that prisoners
904
should be rehabilitated and that they should be prepared to rejoin the outside world as decent citizens. It is also right that they should not be allowed to stagnate and suffer acute boredom inside prison. My worry always is that the do-gooders will go too far in what they want to do for the prisoner. It is extremely difficult to maintain the right sort of balance. All I ask the Home Secretary to remember is that punishment is an end in itself and not just a means to an end.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. Edward Lyons: The kernal of the problem that we have been debating today is that of achieving swiftly a large number of modern prisons. It is quite clear from the Mountbatten Report that it is impossible to have a proper liberal regime in an old-fashioned prison and, at the same time, to have security.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) demanded civilised prisons, and civilised prisons mean modern prisons. Prisons in this country fall into three categories. There are those which are not the property of the State, including Dartmoor and Preston prisons. There are only four of these altogether. The remainder in the other two categories are the property of the State. They are those which have been built since 1878 and are owned legally and beneficially by the State, and those built before 1878 which were nationalised by the Conservative Government of that time in the Prison Act, 1877.
The city prisons about which we have been hearing—Pentonville, Armley and Walton—were built before the Prison Act, 1877, and were nationalised, but perhaps the Conservatives lacked experience for they were not nationalised in a very sensible way. Although the legal title was transferred to the State by that Act, it was said that whenever the State closed one of those prisons—there are still 33 in existence in our principal towns—it had to offer the prison to the local council in whose area it was and that local council would buy it back from the State on a basis of compensation calculated on £120 per cell in respect only of those cells occupied by people sentenced by that local authority.
If within a few months of the closure of a prison the local authority does not avail

905
itself of the right to buy, the State sells and has to return to the local authority all the moneys it obtains by the sale except for the compensation calculated at £120 per cell. It is calculated that to replace Wandsworth Prison would cost £4 million but all the State would get out of the sale would be £1,056. There has been a deterrent throughout the century for the State to build new prisons because it could not obtain more than a token payment in terms of site value. We have heard a great deal today about how valuable prison sites are, but they are not valuable to the State. They are valuable to the local authority—in the case of Wandsworth, to Surrey County Council. The State would get £100,000 but Surrey County Council would be made very wealthy indeed.
What incentive is there to the State, looking purely at the value of the site, in hastening to build many more prisons? Looking at the law, one finds that in 1952 the provisions about compensation were re-enacted precisely in the Prison Act that year. The trouble with that is that £120 in 1877 was worth a great deal of money. By 1952 it was worth a great deal less, and now it is worth less still, so the compensation which the Government are getting grows less and less, while the value of the sites goes up and up. I suggest that the Government should bring in a Measure designed to ensure that the equity in these prisons reverts to the State and not to the local councils. All that it needs is a small Bill saying that Section 38 of the Prisons Act, 1952, shall not have effect. Once that is done, the State will have in its pocket a great deal more in the way of assets than it has now and will be able to use that money—and it should be so stipulated—as a building fund to help in the building of new prisons.
I should like the Home Secretary to cause investigations to be made into the market value of those 33 prisons in this country, to calculate—and it is a fixed calculation—how much the State would obtain from local councils by way of compensation, and to enable us to see the difference between these two figures. My feeling is that it will prove to be colossal, and the money could be used by the State in due course to replace these old existing prisons which are a blight on the community.
906
There is a reference in the Mountbatten Report to the security situation in the new security prison on the Isle of Wight. On looking at the plans of the new prison, Lord Mountbatten considered whether he could organise an escape from it. He envisaged that there were still two ways in which it could be done. One was to use a helicopter, together with an aeroplane, guns, and a motor car. Using those four items, he could see a way of beating the precautions in the new security prison. An alternative way, he said, was to use a helicopter with a winch attached, coming low over the prison.
The fact that Lord Mountbatten, who is not given to flights of fancy, should consider that it is within the resources of organised crime to arrange an escape by using an aeroplane and a helicopter shows how serious the problem of top flight organised crime has become—this is yet another argument for majority verdicts—and therefore the State must be prodigal if necessary in the expenditure of money to defend our security, because prison security in the long term is our security.
It is suggested that we should install in our prisons not iron bars but layers and layers of glass which would take a man with a pick axe two hours to break through to the extent of making a 2 ft. aperature. This would be a very expensive substitute for iron bars, but the fact that these matters are being considered shows the degree of the problem, and I would always be 100 per cent. behind the Home Secretary in whatever demands he made on the public purse to achieve this kind of security.
8.44 p.m.
Mr. Robert Cooke: Since Christmas I have visited Wormwood Scrubs, Pentonville, Winchester, Bristol, Dorchester, Shepton Mallet, The Verne training prison, Portland, Guy's Marsh and Reading Borstal institutions.
During the course of my researches, I have received the helpful co-operation of the Home Office and the help and encouragement of the many members of the Prison Service whom I have had the pleasure of meeting. This would also seem to have aroused considerable curiosity in the Press and broadcasting

907
organisations. Some of the reports have been somewhat ill-informed and verging on the sensational. This would be a fault in the sort of reporting which one gets on debates like this and on some of the more spectacular escapes which have taken place.
This can be remedied by the Home Office providing more information of a digestible kind for the information services. By so doing the public would be very much better informed about what was going on inside prisons and inside the Home Office in its attempt to make our prison system more workable and effective in its task of rehabilitation.
The public have a very poor appreciation of conditions within the prisons and of the conditions of the inmates. More particularly the public know very little about the devoted work of the many members of the Prison Service. They could be better informed if more information came out of headquarters, and I hope that this will be attended to. The public are naturally more concerned with security than anything else. That is supported by the Government White Paper on The Adult Offender, which says that:
"The first need is to protect society against the dangerous man or woman who by crime will disturb its peace if at large. The idea that any one is incurably wicked is distasteful and hard to accept. But experience shows that there are some who will not make friends with society ever."
I would ask the House to bear that in mind in our discussions on this very difficult subject. We are faced with a shortage of staff, inadequate buildings and terrible overcrowding in many places. The solution is not just to build more and more prisons. We must do what we can to reduce the intake, and the Criminal Justice Bill is seeking to do that among other things. There is the alternative sentence for the person who might find himself inside for a very short term.
A point which has not been dealt with so far is the way in which young persons graduate into a life of crime. The system by which they move from approved school to borstal, in and out of borstal and borstal recall, because they are not old enough to go into prison. They almost gain distinctions along the way, in the eyes of the rest of the prison community. There is something very
908
seriously wrong here, and if we are faced with this hopeless overcrowding of the expanding prison population this is where it ought to be tackled.
I am told that in many of the open borstals the people running them have no difficulties because they can send on the impossible case to some other place. But there are borstals which have nowhere to send a person and life is very difficult indeed. Statistics prove that the borstal system was designed for a very different type of inmate, and that a much poorer quality and more difficult class of person is finding himself inside the borstals. The shorter sentence, which I believe is designed to expand the facilities and get more people through the machinery is not as effective as the longer sentences previously imposed.
There is a third class of person—what one might call the persistent public nuisance. This is the person who is in and out of prison all his middle life, having followed a life of petty crime. These are surely not the sort of people whom we should imprison for ever. I propose camps or farms or communities of some kind or another where these people can become part of something like the outside life for which they are so unfitted. This would be better than locking them up in prison. These people are often inadequate, friendless and old, and they need the companionship that such places can give them. This is a problem created by the Welfare State, because in days gone by these people were the hangers-on of large households or benevolent institutions of one sort or another. Many of these have perished because of the onset of the Welfare State and high taxation. There are the special cases of alcoholics and the growing number of drug addicts. Surely the answer here is treatment. I wonder how many chronic alcoholics who are in and out of prison all their lives have ever been treated with aversion therapy, which is the only way to handle their trouble. One cannot cure the disease, but this method will keep them off alcohol, perhaps for good.
I do not underestimate the difficulties, but, with a reduced prison population, we would not need a vast increase in staff and could achieve better and more secure conditions within the existing system. Whatever we may want to do, it is

909
unrealistic to think that we can tear down our Victorian prisons and re-build them in this generation, with all the other demands on our resources.
Another important aspect is the allocation of prisoners, on arrival in prison, to the institutions which can do them most good. Half our prison problem is that we do not sort them out efficiently enough. Apart from security considerations, one must consider a prisoner's mental state. I am not impressed with what the Report says about Frank Mitchell, because his mental classification is changed several times and the relevant paragraph contains contradicting medical terms. If that can happen in Mitchell's case, no doubt it happens in others.
A small percentage of difficult prisoners can completely upset all the reform and improvement in a prison. We cannot tolerate the possibility of good work for the majority being upset by a small minority who are in the wrong place. Many prisons are trying to perform too many different functions. We know that at Wormwood Scrubs there are five different types of prisoner, from borstal allocation to the attempt to keep secure the really dangerous criminal.
I spent some time yesterday in Worm-wood Scrubs and was most impressed with the new security measures, although I still believe that the circumstances of Blake's escape were incredible. The perimeter is now well defended, but why have not the Home Office thought of making secure enclosures within it? Why are there not wire fences linking some of the parallel blocks, forming enclosed exercise yards? Surely that would produce the conditions for which Lord Mountbatten asks.
Why the delay in demolishing the temporary buildings, which are a security hazard, and why have the covered ways between the blocks not been wired off to avoid the need for supervision when moving prisoners? These things would not cost a great deal and could be done with prison labour. Surely this should be proceeded with without delay. This applies in other older prisons, too.
I turn from Wormwood Scrubs to security in general. I have seen a number of weaknesses which I will pass on to the Home Secretary. I think that that would
910
be more public-spirited than ventilating them now with others listening. I hope that he will consider them and perhaps give me an answer. I get the impression that some of the general Home Office directives to prisons are impracticable and that a more individual direction for each establishment might be necessary. Perhaps that will be done under the new arrangements.
I will give some details of the need for improvement. There are now radio links with the outside, although not in every prison, and some prison officers are linked by radio with their control rooms in the prison. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was all fixed up at Wormwood Scrubs, but it is not universal in the prisons in which we are trying to improve security. That should be speeded up. Other points are the use of manganese bars, which cannot be cut with a hacksaw, and which have been introduced in a number of establishments—out not everywhere—and bandit glass. There is the question of dead ground outside the prison. There are obviously houses which must be acquired in the interests of security. I make no secret about the fact that there is one in Bristol only four feet from the top of the wall. It is a well-known hazard. The house belongs to a private individual, and perhaps we could negotiate for its purchase.
I have found cases where new locks on prison doors have no keys, and even prison doors which have as yet no locks. This is extraordinarily irritating and demoralising to the Prison Service. I hope that we shall see some action without delay.
Allied to the question of security is the factor that perhaps we do not have sufficient deterrents against escapes, at any rate for the short-term prisoner. In 1966, of the 86 escapes from closed prisons, 25 prisoners had sentences of five years or more. It is therefore understandable that they should try to break out. But the other 61 might have been deterred from escaping by the prospect of increased sentences for escaping. This might be something which could be taken into account in the Criminal Justice Bill in which additional deterrents could be embodied.
There will be extenuating circumstances. A man who found that his wife

911
was being interfered with would make every effort to get out, however long he had to serve, even if it were only a few weeks. But increased sentences for escaping might deter short-term prisoners from trying too hard to escape.
Prison conditions have been an important subject in the debate. The overcrowding is simply terrible in many places. On the whole, prisoners are well fed, well clothed, heated, and exercised, and in some prisons a wide variety of work is available, not all of it of a monotonous nature. More must be done in that direction. Periods of association provide for a social life of a kind. Prisoners have television, broadcasting, newspapers, books, and classes, with outside people to lecture them, and visitors from home.
I join with other hon. Members in saying that the one great disgrace is the terrible condition of sanitation, which is degrading not only for the prisoners but for the prison officers. This problem is not insoluble even in the old buildings.
The Home Secretary said that it was a shameful fact that sanitation facilities had been built into Pentonville and then taken out again. He did not tell the House why they had been taken out again. It was because in those days prisoners were allowed no personal possessions, and they hid what little they had down the drain. For that reason the sanitation did not work, and it was taken out again.
With the new techniques which we have at our command, I am sure that we could and should do a great deal—there is no need for this to be expensive—with the new techniques of building which have just been developed.
I hope that we shall see much more constructive work—I do not mean necessarily putting in drains—in construction work for prinsoners, prison industries and training. Some hon. Members seem unaware that there are training prisons where men can learn quite skilled jobs, and have on occasions gone out to work, before they completed their sentences on one day a week in order to get used to the job they will have when they leave prison.
There are many other points that I would like to cover. I am glad that the Home Secretary has entered the Chamber.
912
I am sure that he will deal with these matters when he winds up the debate. He sent me a reply to a Question in which he said that there was £11 million worth of building now in progress. He told me that only £1·83 million of it would be finished in 1966–67, only £5·5 million in 1967–68 and £2·7 million in 1968–69. Although we see quite a big increase in the amount of provision in 1967–68, it would appear that a fairly savage cut has taken place and we now have information that even less is being done this year. I hope we shall see a reappraisal of this.
I would now like to ask him one question which he might find difficult. He told the House that the cuts which were made were made before the Mountbatten Report. They were, but they were made after January 1966 when we had the appointment of Mr. R. C. Lewis as assistant director for security.
These cuts were made before the Mountbatten Report, but they were made shortly after what might be called the Lewis Report. I am sure that in the Home Office there is a document, produced by Mr. Lewis, which must contain a great deal of what is in the Mountbatten Report. It must have been in the light of that report that these cuts were made. I am sorry to say, in passing, that Mr. Lewis appears not to have had any conversations with Lord Mountbatten about the production of the latter's report and submitted only written evidence. I hope that the Home Secretary will deal with that. It may be that the Home Secretary was not able to extract from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the money which he wanted—I know how devoted he is to what I might call our cause in this matter—but I hope that we can have an explanation.
I hope that some of the new building is to be modified in view of the reports of Lewis and Mountbatten, because I have seen some mose insecure cell blocks where the architectural artistry would positively invite escape, and I hope that some new materials will be used. I wonder how much consultation there has been with the Prison Service, not just the governors, but even prison officers, because I am sure that we should work up a partnership with the people who have to work the building and who should feel that at least they have had their say about what is

913
constructed. I also hope that the building programme will include ample provision for quarters for prison officers, because they must have their share.
Had time permitted, I would have liked to deal with after-care, but their noble Lordships dealt with that subject admirably last week and I hope that it will always be part of what we are trying to do. I hope that I have not raced ahead so fast that no one has heard anything I have had to say, but I know that two more hon. Members can now speak in the debate.
I have seen the Home Secretary accused of losing the confidence of the Prison Service. I would not accuse him of that, but I would say that he is at least a much misunderstood man and that there is a lack of sense of direction and a lack of communication between him and those who are actually running the prisons, and I hope that he will improve this situation.
Those who work in our prisons belong to a devoted and a largely forgotten service. The Government must devise a much clearer policy and a much more incisive policy and Parliament must provide the means for carrying it out. I hope that the spectacular and serious escapes—and they are serious because of the nature of the prisoners who have escaped—will not be allowed to obscure the underlying problems. Incidentally, I would like to see the figures of the escapes frustrated by valiant prison officers and I hope that we can have them at some time. Let this all not be just a nine days' wonder, but let us ensure that the interest of Parliament and the public is sustained in this vital, but sadly neglected, part of our society.
9.3 p.m.
Mr. Peter Archer: The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) is more familiar with the inside of our prisons than the most unfortunate of my clients. I do not claim to speak with his wealth of authority. If I do not comment on all his remarks, he is entitled to assume that for the greater part of what he said, silence implies assent.
Much has been said about the importance of morale in the Prison Service. I should like to take issue with the
914
hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) who, in the course of a very forceful but moderate speech, said that in paragraph 294 of the Mountbatten Report there was possibly a mistaken view. This is the paragraph in which it is recommended that the Prison Service should not be armed.
A short time ago, I had occasion to visit a prison in London and after my business was concluded I was invited to the staff canteen. There I met a number of prison officers. After the second sandwich, they began to forget that I was a Member of Parliament, and I learned a great deal about their attitude. One of the matters discussed was the possibility of arming them and, about this, one of them told me, "It would be quite easy for me to sit on top of tower in the centre of the prison at the end of a machine gun. It would certainly be easier than what I have to do now. However, I joined the Prison Service with the idea of making a positive contribution. I have got to know some of the people in this prison and I am sure that if they saw me down the wrong end of a machine gun they would never speak to me again as a human being" There is a great deal in what he said, and for that reason I take issue with the remarks of the hon. Member for Inverness.
Mr. Russell Johnston: I was not suggesting that there should be any general arming, but that it might be necessary in the very maximum security prisons.
Mr. Archer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the point. It that is all he had in mind, I am not sure that I take issue with him. The whole question clearly brings out the fact that one cannot divide up the techniques of security and policy matters.
I do not for a moment believe, as the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) expressed it, that prison escapes are part of the price that we must pay for our more enlightened system of penology. However, I do believe that absolute security, if it is possible to achieve, could be achieved only at a price which we, as a society, should not be prepared to pay. One could possibly ensure absolute security if a ball and chain were attached to the legs of every prisoner. One might even keep all prisoners locked in their cells for virtually their whole time in prison. However,

915
this would be the worst possible incentive to the best type of prison officers, and it is clear that some concessions must be made, even if occasionally it means that the result is not absolute security.
If a prisoner is to be returned to take his place in the world, it would be the height of folly to do that directly from a situation of maximum security. It would be asking to have him back again a week later. In these circumstances, someone must take a decision from time to time about which prisoners might be afforded more open conditions and, resulting from this, there is the possibility that, on occasion, mistakes will be made. Of course, I hope that we shall not treat mistakes lightly.
I had occasion not long ago to discuss his job with the medical superintendent of a Broadmoor institution. He told me that the greatest nightmare of his life was that someone whom he had recommended for release would kill or commit some other offence, having been released. He said, "I cannot insure myself against nightmares at the expense of keeping everyone inside. I have to back my judgment". That is basic to any aspect of public administration. We can only insure ourselves against mistakes at the cost of never taking a decision.
I have been surprised to note that no reference has been made to paragraph 318 of the Report, in which, after a masterly survey of the technical precautions which can make for security, reference is made to what might be called "psychological barriers"—and if any hon. Member is put off by the word "psychology" I would be happy to substitute the term "common sense".
If someone is determined to escape, it will be difficult to prevent him from doing so without making life virtually impossible for all concerned. There is room for a great deal of research and thought into the main factors which make people want to escape. In many cases a prisoner will make a cold and rational estimate of the position and will then decide whether or not it is worth taking the risk. Perhaps, in that sort of case, we must accept that one needs to watch him like a lynx. If a man is given such a long sentence and in such conditions that he has nothing to hope for, one cannot be surprised if he breaks out.
916
The second category is comprised of those to whom the possibility of escape presents a challenge. Anyone who has read "The Prisoner of Zenda" or even "Huckleberry Finn" will know the feeling that exists in all of us, particularly when reading about these matters or when reading stories about escapes from prisoner-of-war camps. I believe that these feelings are sometimes projected into escapes from Her Majesty's Prisons. With the right kind of prisoner, one possible way of dealing with the problem would be to remove the challenge by offering him open conditions. Any challenge having been removed, there are certain types of prisoner who would no longer be impelled to escape.
The third group comprises two categories of men. There is the man with a genuine or imaginary "beef", because he is really innocent or because of something which has happened inside the prison. The other category is the man with a personal problem, possibly to whom some kind friend has indicated that his wife is carrying on with a neighbour. Unless he can be satisfied in some way, he will be impelled to break out.
Until we have a more satisfactory welfare service with more welfare officers a possibility might be to make greater use of those dedicated people, the prison visitors—not the visiting justices, but ordinary lay people who visit a prison. get to know prisoners and go to see their wives and families. The alternative would be for the prisoner to have the prospect of being able to talk it over with his wife for long enough to satisfy himself.
Then there is the man who is unable to resist temptation, and who, if he sees the hole to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) referred, cannot resist walking through it. In that case, clearly the only satisfactory safeguard is to make sure that there are no holes of that kind left accidentally.
Perhaps the truth of the matter is that if, in all these cases, a man feels that he will be deliberately released within the foreseeable future when the time is ripe, then he is not so likely to be released accidentally before then.
The right hon. Member for Ashford asked who was to allocate prisoners to the

917
categories mentioned in the Report. Possibly a clue might be found in the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill which we shall be discussing shortly in Committee as to the way in which it shall be decided who are to be admitted to parole, and when, because the factors have a great deal in common.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) said, there is not really any conflict between rehabilitation and protecting society. Society, the Treasury, the Prison Service and the prisoner himself are all adequately satisfied if there comes a time when we can say to a prisoner meaningfully and voluntarily, "Go and sin no more".
9.13 p.m.
Mr. W. H. Loveys: I am sure that the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) will understand that, because of the clock, I shall not follow his argument. He made an excellent speech, and I agree entirely with what he and other hon. Members have said about the reasonable treatment of prisoners.
I join in welcoming the Report. It has had a general welcome in the House; it has had a general welcome from the Prison Officers' Association, and I am sure that it will have a general welcome from the public. I have enjoyed reading it, because it is one of the most readable and interesting Command Papers that I have ever seen.
I do not mention the individual escapes, which were described in one national newspaper as reading like a James Bond novel. Indeed, I have not time to talk about anything very much, having come last in the batting order. In view of that, I have thrown away my prepared notes about security. I was going to solve the whole problem, but, unfortunately, the Home Secretary will not be able to hear my ideas on the subject.
I shall confine my remarks to the Prison Service. That has not been covered in the debate as widely as prison security. I do not pretend to be an expert about the Prison Service, but one of the problems with it is that it is perhaps too much of a closed book. Members of the public know a great deal about the Police Force and its forma-
918
tion, and about the Armed Services, but we are ignorant about the Prison Service. That is a great pity.
On the face of things, the morale of the service is high. Looking at the recruitment figures and particularly at the small figures of wastage, that would seem to be the case. However, the public attitude to the service seems to be misguided and misinformed. I have always regarded prison officers as supplying a tremendous public service to the community. I was surprised and shocked to be told in a whisper by a constituent, whose occupation I did not know, that he had spent all his working life as a prison officer but that he kept quiet about it on the housing estate where he lived because he realised that his occupation was looked down upon by the community as a whole. It might well be an exceptional case. I am sure that this is not how all prison officers feel, but it is absolutely wrong that this should be the feeling of this person.
Every step should be taken by means of public relations and Press publicity to put the matter right. Lord Mountbatten was right when he stated in his Report:
"The safe custody and, so far as possible, the rehabilitation of criminals is not an occupation to be looked down upon. On the contrary, it is one which is entitled to the approval and the active support of the public as a whole."
This must be right.
I was particularly struck to learn from the Report of the lack of a reasonable promotion pyramid in the service. It is discouraging that, with few exceptions, the present system necessitates prison officers waiting apparently for 16 years before any promotion in rank. I understand that after 10 years an increase in pay is available if an officer passes the qualifying examination. The recommendation in the Report that an additional rank be created, that of senior prison officer, should be implemented; and I am glad that the Home Secretary talked sympathetically about this matter. I hope also that consideration will be given to promotion on merit instead of solely on length of service. which seems preponderantly to be the case at present.
My last point concerns a matter which I understand worries the service at governor level and, no doubt, at other levels. Since the Home Office took over

919
responsibilty from the Prison Commissioners, there has been a definite feeling within the service of a lack of contact and liaison between the service and the controlling Department. The change-over from the Prison Commission to the Home Office may have had many advantages but, in the old days, people felt that they were in touch with the top of the service. They knew the Commissioners, who were able to visit prisons regularly. They even knew the Chairman as a personality. According to the Report, apparently the Chief Director spends no less than 95 per cent. of the time in his office. He is, therefore, known as a very senior official at Whitehall and not as an identifiable professional head of the service.
That is all that I have time to say. I welcome the Report. Many eyebrows were raised at the appointment of Lord Mountbatten, but he has done an extraordinarily good job in producing this Report in such a short time. The Home Secretary said that he would vigorously implement many of the recommendations. We hope that he will be vigorous. If he is, he will certainly have the full support of the House.
9.18 p.m.
Mr. Richard Sharpies: The debate has ranged far and wide and has been notable for a number of thoughtful and constructive speeches on both sides, particularly that by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg).
I turn straightaway to the Report which has given rise to the debate. The real background is the main conclusion to which Lord Mountbatten came. He said this in paragraph 6:
"I must say at the outset that there are clear weaknesses in physical security and in administration at prison level and in the Home Office."
The Report discloses—I make no apology for referring to these matters—some significant and rather curious omissions from the Home Secretary's speech on 31st October last. The right hon. Gentleman gave details of decisions which had been taken with regard to Blake's place of confinement up to June 1964. What he did not disclose was that in January 1966 the governor of Wormwood Scrubs Prison had put forward Blake's name as one of those to be trans-
920
ferred to the maximum security block at Parkhurst.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the June escapes were not a new factor, but he did not say that these had been the first escapes from "D" Hall since 1959. The Mountbatten Report, paragraph 71. says:
"It is necessary for me to describe this incident in some detail"—
that is, the June escapes—
"both because of its importance as an example of a serious recent escape, and because it should in my opinion have been an occasion for a serious reconsideration of the wisdom of keeping Blake in Wormwood Scrubs Prison."
There is no doubt that the June escapes constituted an entirely new factor in the security of Wormwood Scrubs Prison. Prisoners were able to escape from "D" Hall, after the police had been given warning that the escapes would take place, by the simple expedient of going out of the window instead of out of the door. Equally, it is extraordinary that, when the right hon. Gentleman himself visited Wormwood Scrubs Prison on 7th June, he was not told, and apparently did not even ask, whether a maximum security prisoner such as Blake was confined in "D" Hall from which the escapes had taken place.
It is true that, after the escapes on 6th June, additional security measures were ordered, but the question which the House must ask, and which the Home Secretary must answer, is why Blake was not moved in the meantime. Conditions of security at Wormwood Scrubs Prison must have been known even before the escape on 6th June. The director of prison security, so I was told in reply to a Question, had visited Wormwood Scrubs, his main visit having been on 15th April. He made his recommendations—I was told this also by the right hon. Gentleman in answer to a Question —for improved security in the prison on 29th April.
The questions which remain unanswered are these. Why was Blake not moved in January 1966 when the security wing at Parkhurst was opened and the governor of Wormwood Scrubs recommended his transfer? Second, why did the Home Secretary not reveal in his speech on 31st October that that recommendation had been made? It may well

921
have been that at the time when it was made the recommendation was not brought to his notice, but it is almost inconceivable that at the time when the right hon. Gentleman was preparing a speech to answer a Motion of censure on himself he was not then told that the recommendation had been made.
Third, why were instructions on the recommendations which the director of prison security had submitted on 29th April not given until 22nd June? It was during this interval that all the escapes from "D" Hall took place. Why was Blake not moved from Wormwood Scrubs when the deficiencies in the security wine at "D" Hall were revealed both by the report of the director of prison security and by the ease with which the escapes on 6th June took place? One major criticism I have of Lord Mountbatten's Report is that it fails to pin responsibility where responsibility lies, and that is the question which really faces us in considering the Report.
I now want to turn to the question of Mitchell.
Mr. Crawshaw Mr. Crawshaw rose——
Mr. Sharples: I have very little time and the Home Secretary and I agreed to give as much time as we could to back-benchers.
I want to turn to Mitchell's escape, because on 13th December the Home Secretary said:
"My information is that since the decision … to put this prisoner on an outside working party was taken, as long ago as May 1965, his conduct until yesterday on this working party had been exemplary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1966; Vol. 738. c. 252]
I am sure that that was the information the Home Secretary had at the time. But he became, to put it mildly, a little testy when some of us asked questions about the composition of the working party and what had been happening on it. The Home Secretary clearly had no idea at that time of what had been going on.
One of the most disturbing revelations of the Mountbatten Report is the failure in communication between the Prison Department at the Home Office and the Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) refer-prisons. My hon. Friend the Member for red at that time to his constituents' anxiety about what we now know to have
922
been going on on the working parties at Dartmoor.
I wish to make quite clear that I want to see outside working parties. I want to see hostels for prisoners and extensions of the hostel scheme, but I want those things done under proper conditions, and that is what we tried to probe at Question Time on 13th December. It was clear that the Home Secretary then had no idea of the conditions under which the working party had been operating or of the hold—and this is much more important—Mitchell had over the whole of the prison at Dartmoor at that time.
I shall not dwell on the mistakes which have been made, because they are clearly set out in the Mountbatten Report. The Report speaks for itself, and the conclusion reveals a situation from which no one from the Home Secretary downwards can draw any credit. The House wishes to be told the action the Home Secretary is taking to put matters right not only within the prisons, about which he has talked to a certain extent this afternoon, but also within his own administration at the Home Office. There can be little doubt that the right hon. Gentleman's speech about the duration of life sentences had some effect upon Mitchell's decision to escape, and it is very important when making speeches of that kind that we should bear in mind the effect they may have upon those serving very long sentences.
The question of whether Mitchell should have been at Dartmoor at all raises much wider, and in some ways, perhaps, rather more important, issues. Anyone who reads the account of Mitchell's history over the past 37 years cannot be too happy about the ability of our penal system to cope with cases of that kind. One only needs to look at paragraph 125 of the Report. At eight, he was found to be of sub-normal intellect. He was flogged. He was certified to be mentally defective, being feeble minded. He committed attempted murder. He was sentenced to nine years imprisonment. He was certified insane and then sentenced to life imprisonment, after which he was birched.
My concern is that there may well be a good many other potential Mitchells in the somewhat hazy area which lies between Broadmoor and Dartmoor, and as yet we would seem to have no clear ideas of the

923
best way of dealing with these very difficult cases. The House will be interested to hear what ideas the right hon. Gentleman has for dealing with the terribly difficult cases of the kind of Mitchells that there are in our prisons.
But the fact remains that, since the Government took office, Biggs has gone, Blake has gone and Mitchell has gone, and that, apart from some correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman and Mitchell, conducted through the newspapers, we have no idea of what has happened to any of them. My right hon. and learned Friend quoted a nursery rhyme relating to nurses. I am not quite so charitable. The nursery rhyme I would have in mind is to do with Little Bo-Peep.
I welcome the recommendations of the Mountbatten Report with regard to the classification of prisoners on the ground of security. I am glad to learn from the right hon. Gentleman that a start is being made to implement this aspect. But what I hope we may be able to do is introduce some much more sophisticated method of classification covering all prisoners, including the short-term prisoners, not only from the point of view of security but also from the point of view of treatment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) spoke of the system of classification in California. I believe that, in the end, if we are to get the right answers in our penal system, we shall have to look towards some such system. I do not believe that any effective system of classification, except only of a most elementary kind, can take place in the conditions which exist in our local prisons.
There is a particular problem with regard to the kind of prisoners who would go into Lord Mountbatten's Category A. In paragraph 202 the Report says:
"The maximum security blocks which have been established at Parkhurst, Leicester and Durham prisons can in my view be no more than a temporary expedient. The conditions in these blocks are such as no country with a record of civilised behaviour would tolerate any longer than is absolutely essential as a stopgap measure."
For some time we have been hearing of a new maximum security prison at Albany in the Isle of Wight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford referred to plans which existed when he
924
was at the Home Office and the report of the Prison Department for 1964 speaks of a special block in the design stage. On 10th February, 1965, in Standing Committee C, the Minister of State said:
"It is our intention to build a new establishment in order that we may cope with particularly violent people who may or may not have murdered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C 10th February, 1965; c. 98.]
I am not clear about two things. The first is whether this establishment is a continuation of the idea referred to in the 1964 Report of the Prison Department and referred to also by my right hon. Friend. I am not clear from what the right hon. Lady said whether this establishment is intended to cover prisoners such as Blake.
But on 3rd March, 1965, nearly two years ago, the Minister of State said this when referring to her earlier speech:
"I spoke of a prison which would be extremely secure and where very long-term prisoners would be able to serve their sentences. That prison is to be at Albany, in the Isle of Wight. and we are going ahead with the project."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 3rd March, 1965; c. 243.]
Today we were told by the right hon. Gentleman that the very earliest date by which that prison can be opened and available for occupation is June, 1969. The stop-gap measure referred to in the Mountbatten Report will have to remain a fairly permanent arrangement for quite a long time.
Like a number of those who have spoken today, I believe that the majority of people who make up our prison population have no intention of trying to escape. They are not all Blakes or train robbers or people of that kind, and they are not all violent criminals or even professionals. I believe that the majority of people in prison are the kind of people referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend—people who have made serious mistakes and are paying the penalty for what they have done. What the majority of them want to do is to get their sentences over with as little trouble as possible.
The hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) referred to paragraph 318 of the Report. There is, therefore, no need for me to refer to it, but I draw it to the attention of the House. When people escape it is not usually to commit further crimes but

925
because of the overwhelming circumstance of some family or domestic crisis at home. Yet it is people of this kind, combined with the drunks and the inadequates, who make up the vast majority of the population of our out-of-date, semi-secure and wholly insanitary local prisons.
Many of the problems could be resolved by the adoption of a proper classification system and by giving greater opportunities for family contacts, as was referred to in paragraph 23 of the Report. We should take further risks in the use of open prisons for not only longer term prisoners but short term prisoners.
Lord Butler, when he was Home Secretary, started the process of bringing our penal system up to date. "Penal Practice in a Changing Society" was the title of the White Paper produced by his administration. It is, I believe, a landmark in the history of penal thinking. He started the process of rethinking the purpose of our penal system and of producing prisons to meet the needs of a modern society. The tremendous opportunity of carrying forward the work started by Lord Butler has been lost in the disbandment of the Royal Commission on penal reform.
The Government have already had to cut back on prison expenditure. Implementation of the recommendations of the Mountbatten Report will, in the words of the Report itself,
"cost money—probably a lot of money."
There is not only the question of building but the question of an adequate system of classification, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. Much of the success or failure of the Home Secretary's proposals will depend upon the amount of money which he is able to obtain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
In the few minutes which remain, I want to say something about prison officers. It is no use thinking that we can solve the problems of our penal system simply by building more prisons to accommodate the prisoners. It is just as important to have the prison officers to man them.
In Lord Mountbatten's Report, he states:
926
"I would like to leave as my final impression a feeling of profound admiration for the devotion of the prison service as a whole, in the face of tremendous difficulties and much misunderstanding of their work."
I join wholeheartedly in that tribute to those in the prison service.
There is, however, no doubt that the Prison Service is grossly under-manned for the work which it has to do. The problems which are posed by the greater liberty which exists in prisons today, association and opportunities for study—all these create new demands on prison staff. We talk about work in prisons. This, too. creates additional demand on the prison staff.
Perhaps I might quote from the evidence which was submitted by the Prison Officers' Association about this problem:
"… the shortage of staff in Pentonville was such that during the period of special precautions following Blake's escape it was possible on one morning for prisoners to spend only a quarter of an hour actually in the workshops (from 11.15 a.m. to 11.30 a.m.) and the next day there was no workshop labour until the afternoon"
That is the reality of establishing factories inside or outside prisons for prisoners to work in.
When one considers the question of security from the prison officers' viewpoint, this is what they say:
"The existing overcrowding and shortage at staff create conditions in which chief officers have no option but to take landing officers from their landings for long periods every day in order to meet urgent day-to-day needs. Our information is that this practice was a frequent happening in 'D' Wing at Wormwood Scrubs, where some 340 prisoners were accommodated at the time of Blake's escape—about 130 of them murderers serving life sentences!"
The total establishment in "D" Hall at that time was four prison officers.
I would like in conclusion to pay my tribute to the work of Lord Mountbatten in producing his Report so quickly and under such difficult conditions, but I must make it clear that I share the reservations of my right hon. and learned Friend. We still do no know the answers to the majority of the questions which are raised in the Report. We still do not know what has happened to the prisoners after they have gone over the prison wall. We still do not know why the administrative machine has been so ineffective, and we still do not know the extent of the right

927
hon. Gentleman's responsibility in all these matters.
The task of the Home Secretary is enormous. We appreciate that. Certainly, we hope that he succeeds in the task which he has set himself. We must make it clear, however, that we shall judge him by the results he produces.
9.45 p.m.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: I speak again with the permission of the House. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples), apart perhaps from his closing sentences, struck a rather sharper note than we have heard hitherto in the debate. I make no complaint about that, first because I think it is his natural and necessary style, and secondly because he asked some fairly shrewd questions.
He asked some questions about Blake. I think the best answer I can give him to those questions is that in paragraph 76 of his Report, Lord Mountbatten makes it clear that Home Secretaries until my time had never concerned themselves with the personal allocation of prisoners. I believe that the time when that can continue to be the case has now ceased, and it has now ceased. It is a heavy additional responsibility for a Home Secretary but I was following what was the long-established practice until the time I took office and until some time after I took office.
We have in general had an extremely useful, but on the whole an amicable, debate. It has been noticeable that the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who played a very important part in the debate in October and was issuing a great number of statements, as is his wont whenever any issue catches the headlines—for example, at the time of escapes—has not honoured us with his presence for a single moment today. Apart from being deprived of his presence, we have had a constructive debate, and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) made a very valuable contribution to it. I should like to begin by making one or two comments on the points he raised. If I pick out one or two points on which I wish to reply to him, he must not assume that the greater part of his speech did not command my enthusiastic agreement.
928
First, he said that no staff college or effective training college existed for prison officers. This is not the case. No doubt, some improvements could be made to them, but there are very good courses at the Staff College at Wakefield, which has been going since 1946. We hope to improve it. He also said—and there is a danger here—that prison officers were a group apart. This was taken up by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). There is a danger of this in all bodies like that of prison officers, but it is a fact that several hundreds of them have recently been engaging in extra-mural courses with people outside. This is a very good thing and a general tendency which we want to encourage.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, and possibly one or two other hon. Members, also raised the question of the demise of the Royal Commission and accused me of having, not murdered it, but connived at its murder. We have had an exchange on this before. I must try to correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not suppose that he will accept my correction. I certainly did not murder the Royal Commission or connive at its murder. What I was forced to do, without wishing it, was to accept the fact that I could not prevent it committing suicide. This is a very different position, but I hope that the Advisory Council which I have set up may perform nearly all the functions which the Commission performed. It would be interesting to consider whether it would be useful to ask it to address itself to some of the wider philosophical questions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised and which perhaps we are too anxious to gloss over, and not to ask for a fundamental approach to them.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, like the right hon. Member for Ashford, had some harsh things to say about the Home Office and the Prison Department of the Home Office. The Prison Department within the Home Office has, in my view, responded with tremendous enthusiasm and speed to the challenge set to it by the Mountbatten Report. I do not think I would have been able to give such a good report of what we have done had the Prison Department not been extremely anxious to make a new beginning,

929
and with great vigour, in the course of the last few months. I have every confidence in the work it is doing at the present time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney)—who told me that he would not be able to be here for the wind-up to the debate—raised an important point about the difficulties facing prison officers when they retire in middle age and lose their "tied cottages". They have difficulties about finding houses. He asked if I would consult local authorities about this problem. I will indeed consider this problem, which is a very real one. On retirement, prison officers get a lump sum gratuity—not enormous, but something which is a contribution towards finding alternative accommodation, and they are not unique in this position. Police officers are often in a somewhat similar position, but I think my hon. Friend drew attention, and rightly, to a real problem, and I will gladly give further consideration to this point.
The right hon. Member for Ashford, who spoke next, made a number of interesting points. He suggested that the directive which was issued to prison governors as soon as the new Deputy Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office took up his job immediately after Christmas was unfair of me in the sense that I was trying to suggest that prison governors had failed in their duty. I do not think that this is so, and I do not think that the directive or the letter in any way conveyed this impression. What I thought was essential at that time was to convey to prison governors that they should in the immediate future give a somewhat higher priority to security than they had been doing in the past, and I think that had I not done this I would have been open to very heavy criticism indeed. There was no question of allocating blame, and still less of trying to shuffle off responsibility. It is noticeable that in all the most notorious escapes which we have been discussing no disciplinary proceedings have been taken or considered against prison officers. There is no desire to shuffle off blame in this way.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked why progress with the new maximum security prison had not been faster than it was. I think that there is here an
930
element of misunderstanding, a perfectly comprehensible one. The prison which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State talked about during the debates on the death penalty Bill two years ago was to be a maximum security wing within the new Albany Prison, a wing which would have been subject to most, but not necessarily all, the disadvantage of the maximum security wings at the three existing prisons in which we have such wings.
It subsequently became clear that what we wanted was a separate prison, and this necessarily involved the drawing up of new plans, and fairly complicated plans, in order to provide the degree of security which we had not hitherto had, and in order also to guard against determined rescue attempts from outside, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention, and with which we had not hitherto been faced. We had advanced quite quickly with these plans, but I thought it was pure common sense, when we got to the Mountbatten stage, to wait and see whether the Inquiry endorsed our plans. Within two months it did broadly endorse our plans, but asked for a 50 per cent. increase in size, and we are progressing as rapidly as we can with the building of that prison.
Mr. Deedes: I accept that, but the right hon. Gentleman must admit that there was an official mistake in the original concept about this building.
Mr. Jenkins: That may be so, but we are at the present time doing what I think is best, and in fact had we proceeded along the original lines, we would have found that the Mountbatten Report said that we ought to have been proceeding on different lines, so the passage of time has by no means been a total disadvantage, but it is crucial that we should now go as fast as we can.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) has a great constituency interest in all these matters and I am grateful to him for the remarks that he made and for the general attitude that he has taken on these difficult problems. He will, I know, be glad to learn—although I do not regard it as the most important aspect of the subject—that in reply to his requests, and those of some others, and after consultation with Lord Mountbatten in his capacity as Governor of the Isle of Wight, we have decided not

931
to press ahead with the name Vectis, though I am not terribly attracted by the present alternative, which I think is Forest Side, as it is rather too reminiscent of a Californian cemetery to be entirely appropriate from the prison point of view. But I hope we can find some name which suffers from neither of these disadvantages.
Mr. Woodnutt: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman name it Overner, the Island word for mainlanders? After all, mainlanders will be occupying the prison.
Mr. Jenkins: I shall be grateful for any suggestions from the hon. Gentleman, or indeed from other sources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) raised the question that we perhaps needed three categories and not four.
He said that we needed the maximum security group and beyond that we could divide everyone simply into close or open prisons. I do not entirely agree with him, although I do not think it is a matter of deep principle. In the B category we need people who are fairly dangerous, and in the C category we need people who require some supervision. In the D category we could have people who can be left completely alone. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) raised the point, which was also taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons). It was the advantage of selling the valuable sites in the centre of big cities and building outside on less valuable ground. There are two problems, neither of them necessarily insuperable, associated with that project.
The first is that in the case of our city gaols, the sites in most cases are owned not by the Home Office, but by local authorities, which presents a certain problem. Secondly, the problem involved in a big prison building programme is to a large extent one of money, but it is also one of resources. This has to be borne in mind when dealing with capitalising the value of the existing sites. But this approach is a valuable one with which I am broadly in agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) raised the point
932
about the great difficulties presented by very long sentences and the almost inevitable incentive which this gave the prisoner to escape, if he had nothing before him but a very long period of imprisonment.
To some extent our parole proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill offer at least a ray of hope in this respect. One must also face up to, and we have not hitherto done this, the question of dealing with confinement in maximum security conditions for long periods and yet in tolerable conditions. There are examples, particularly in the United States, and I was very struck by what I saw in the Federal Prison at Leavenworth in Kansas. It is possible to do this, compatible with a fairly free régime in the prison, with good security round the prison perimeter and a good deal of effective prison work, in a way that we have not yet achieved here but which I hope we may be able to achieve in the future.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) raised the question of the prisoner Maxwell. I would say to him in passing that people may take different views on this, but I am sure that no Home Secretary of either party in the last 10 years would have taken a different decision to the one that I did on this particular case. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) had some of his points replied to by the Under-Secretary of State for the Scottish Office. He also raised the point about the need for a new security manual, asking whether it did not suggest that we had not applied ourselves to this problem for the future. There are prison standing orders which deal, amongst other things. with security.
We have a new problem, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone drew attention of rescues from outside. This is a new security problem and it is appropriate that we should face up to this. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), in whose tour we were glad to be able to assist—and I am glad that it gave him some useful points to put before the House—raised the question of Cuts in prison buildings before the Mountbatten proposals. He ought to look at the position now that we have the Mountbatten proposals, and see what we are doing from this time forward.

933
My hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) dealt with the psychology of prisoners and I take note of what he said. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) made a number of points about the morale of prison officers and the need for the prison service to be looked up to to a much greater extent than has been the case in the past. I think that he very slightly underestimated the extent to which we responded, not merely sympathetically, but positively, and acted upon the proposals of the Mountbatten Report in this respect. We have agreed that the new grade of senior prison officer shall be introduced, and we hope that it will be introduced by the autumn of this year. I believe that in this and other ways we are showing our determination to act upon these recommendations, and are giving a brighter prospect for the prison service and a better hope for an effective penal system in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Inquiry into Prison Escapes and Security (Command Paper No. 3175).

CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
Mr. Elystan Morgan discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Select Committee appointed by the Lords on Consolidation, &c., Bills; Mr. David Ensor added.—[Mr. Lawson.]
Mr. Peter Bessell discharged from the Estimates Committee; Mr. Philip Holland added.—[Mr. Lawson.]

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bishop.]>
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Ten o'clock.

WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Radio 247
  Radio 247
  Local Radio Stations
  Local Radio Stations
  B.B.C.2 (Colour Service)
  B.B.C.2 (Colour Service)
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  B.B.C. Relay Station, Bedford
  B.B.C. Relay Station, Bedford
  Television Booster Station Shrewsbury
  Television Booster Station Shrewsbury
  England-Scotland Football Match (Televising)
  England-Scotland Football Match (Televising)
  Viewers and Radio Council
  Viewers and Radio Council
POST OFFICE
  Truro Post Office (Special Stamps)
  Truro Post Office (Special Stamps)
  Post Offices (Hours of Business)
  Post Offices (Hours of Business)
  Post Office Railway (Extension)
  Post Office Railway (Extension)
  Letters (Cellophane Wrapping)
  Letters (Cellophane Wrapping)
  Tenbury Wells Post Office (Lunchtime Closing)
  Tenbury Wells Post Office (Lunchtime Closing)
  Staff (Older People)
  Staff (Older People)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosk, Dunmurry
  Kiosk, Dunmurry
  Kiosks, Wellingborough (Vandalism)
  Kiosks, Wellingborough (Vandalism)
  Transfers (Rental in Advance)
  Transfers (Rental in Advance)
  Kiosks (Threepenny Calls)
  Kiosks (Threepenny Calls)
  Dial a Disc Service, Leeds
  Dial a Disc Service, Leeds
  Waiting List (Northern Region)
  Waiting List (Northern Region)
  New Telephones (Lettered Dials)
  New Telephones (Lettered Dials)
  Keymaster 1+5 Equipment
  Keymaster 1+5 Equipment
  Rentals
  Rentals
  Installations (Waiting Time)
  Installations (Waiting Time)
  Transfers (Rental in Advance)
  Transfers (Rental in Advance)
  S.T.D. (Dublin)
  S.T.D. (Dublin)
  New Subscribers (Rental in Advance)
  New Subscribers (Rental in Advance)
  Decimal Currency
  Decimal Currency
  Overseas Calls
  Overseas Calls
WALES
  M4 Tunnel, Newport
  M4 Tunnel, Newport
  Housing
  Housing
  Welsh Office (Parliamentary Questions)
  Welsh Office (Parliamentary Questions)
  Countryside Commission
  Countryside Commission
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Ports
  Ports
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Married Women Teachers (Pensions)
  Married Women Teachers (Pensions)
  Law Society's Qualifying Examination (Awards)
  Law Society's Qualifying Examination (Awards)
  Overseas Students (Fees)
  Overseas Students (Fees)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Durham Prison (Disturbances)
  Durham Prison (Disturbances)
  Frank Mitchell
  Frank Mitchell
  New Prison Building
  New Prison Building
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Drug Addiction (Brain Committee's Recommendations)
  Drug Addiction (Brain Committee's Recommendations)
  Prisoners (Hostels)
  Prisoners (Hostels)
  Victims of Crime (Compensation)
  Victims of Crime (Compensation)
  Form of Summons (Adults)
  Form of Summons (Adults)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Food and Agriculture Organisation
  Food and Agriculture Organisation
  Africa (Archaeological Research)
  Africa (Archaeological Research)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Prices and Incomes Policy
  Prices and Incomes Policy
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Tanzania (British Assets)
  Tanzania (British Assets)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Tree Planting (Northern Region)
  Tree Planting (Northern Region)
  West Indies Bananas (Production)
  West Indies Bananas (Production)
  Dairy Industry (European Economic Community)
  Dairy Industry (European Economic Community)
  Eggs (Imports)
  Eggs (Imports)
SCOTLAND
  Local Government Employees (Pay)
  Local Government Employees (Pay)
  Glasgow Corporation (Staff)
  Glasgow Corporation (Staff)
  Hospitals (Unstaffed Beds)
  Hospitals (Unstaffed Beds)
  A94 (Trunking)
  A94 (Trunking)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  ANGLO-SOVIET TREATY OF PEACEFUL CO-OPERATION AND FRIENDSHIP
  ANGLO-SOVIET TREATY OF PEACEFUL CO-OPERATION AND FRIENDSHIP
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  MINISTER OF TOURISM
  MINISTER OF TOURISM
HOSPITALS
  Ear, Nose and Throat Operations (Waiting List)
  Ear, Nose and Throat Operations (Waiting List)
  Staff-Patient Ratio
  Staff-Patient Ratio
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  General Practitioners (Income)
  General Practitioners (Income)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Children, Lancashire (Deaths from Drowning)
  Children, Lancashire (Deaths from Drowning)
  Disused Industrial Sites and Water Courses (Fencing)
  Disused Industrial Sites and Water Courses (Fencing)
  New Road Pattern (Houghton-le-Spring)
  New Road Pattern (Houghton-le-Spring)
  Derelict Land, North East (Clearance Grants)
  Derelict Land, North East (Clearance Grants)
HOUSING
  Leasehold Reform
  Leasehold Reform
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Incomes (Vetting Machinery)
  Incomes (Vetting Machinery)
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE SYSTEM)
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE SYSTEM)
  LOBBY JOURNALISTS (DIVISION LISTS)
  LOBBY JOURNALISTS (DIVISION LISTS)
TECHNOLOGY
  Shipbuilding Industry (Grouping)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Grouping)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  North-East Districts (Financial Assistance)
  North-East Districts (Financial Assistance)
TRANSPORT
  Traffic Examiners
  Traffic Examiners
ROADS
  Motorways
  Motorways
PORTS
  Grants
  Grants
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Expenditure (Public Sector)
  Capital Expenditure (Public Sector)
  Developing Countries (Private Investment)
  Developing Countries (Private Investment)
  Decimal Currency
  Decimal Currency
  Customs Duty (Textile Imports)
  Customs Duty (Textile Imports)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

GRADING OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLES
3.1 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the grounds on which it is felt that the grading of fruit and vegetables at the retail end is unnecessary for shoppers.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, the present statutory provisions apply to produce sold in bulk by wholesale. An entirely different system would be needed if produce sold in small lots or individually at retail shops were required to be graded, and a far larger staff would, of course, be needed for enforcement. The Government take the view that the first step is to establish grading at the wholesale level. Since the housewife shopping for fresh fruit and vegetables can see what she is buying, and can make her own judgment of quality in relation to price, there is not the same need to introduce grading at the retail level. In effect, the housewife acts as her own grader and inspector.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is most unfortunate for him that he made the statement which he made last week? Is he furthermore aware that, while housewives or anybody else can see produce in the shops or on the stalls, there is certainly no guarantee that the produce they get is what they have seen at the front or on the top of the pile?
406
Is he furthermore aware that the only way of dealing with this problem is by grading?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am sorry that I am still unable to satisfy my noble friend on this matter. I shall not repeat the arguments of last week, but I would suggest to her that if at any time she would like to come and talk with me, either publicly or privately, I should be delighted to see whether I can help.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that of course I should be delighted to accept that invitation? But may I ask him whether, before I come, he would give some thought as to whether it might be possible to include an Amendment in the Agriculture Bill, which will soon be before your Lordships' House, whereby these powers could be extended to the consumer and to the retailer?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I shall certainly give some thought to that matter before I have the pleasure of a visit from my noble friend.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, although it may be impossible to inspect all retailers, it might well be made an offence for retailers to exhibit high-grade apples, and to put what is termed in the trade a "jumble pack" in the housewife's bag? Further, would it not be possible to educate the public to the fact that, in the case of many varieties—notably Cox—the small apples have more flavour than the large?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I think the public is a great deal more educated than it was. There are still some people who are taken in by things which look good, or even have exciting labels on them, but are not as exciting as the labels make them out to be. But I am quite sure that the public is becoming increasingly aware of that. With regard to the first part of the noble Earl's question, while of course the consumer needs, and is entitled to, a certain amount of protection, I still believe that it is the consumer, the buyer himself, who has the primary responsibility to see that he receives what he thinks he has bought.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will not the consumer inevitably become aware

407
of the grades into which produce is graded? Will he then not come to demand particular grades, and will it not be an offence clearly to represent one grade as being a different grade?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it would clearly be an offence to misrepresent any article offered for sale. I think the noble Lord is perfectly right that, as the wholesale grading progresses, people—the wholesaler, the retailer and the housewife—will become more conscious of grading, and we shall move a long way towards the result desired by my noble friend.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware of the fact that most housewives are very shy and diffident creatures, who are usually afraid to complain to a shopkeeper if they are served with an inferior product? Is that not another argument for clearly label ling Grade 1, 2, or 3, as the case may be?
LORD WALSTON: No, my Lords; I am not aware of that fact at all. I think my experience of housewives must be very different from that of my noble friend.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while I cannot confirm all that my noble friend has said, are we to gather from the answer of the Minister that the only defence which the housewife has is to enter into an altercation with the tradesman?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend would have many other ways of dealing with a problem of this sort if it ever confronted her. In all seriousness, it is always possible for a housewife to complain if she feels that she is not getting in the package the commodity which she has selected. She can insist on having that put right; she can remove her custom elsewhere, and she has a variety of courses open to her.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that imported fruit is graded? Therefore, why should not our own food be graded? Surely, this seems common sense. Is my noble friend further aware that the Answer he has given is creating very great dissatisfaction indeed among those concerned with trying to establish a better purity of goods for our people here at home?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I do not wish to weary your Lordships by going over the ground which I went over in answer to an earlier Question on this subject last week. But I would remind your Lordships that these present grading regulations which are being introduced are designed to cover the wholesale aspect of the problem with the object of improving the quality of home produce, so that it can compete better with imported produce. As a result of that, I am quite certain that the housewife will benefit, as indeed my noble friend asserts, and quite rightly asserts, she has benefited from the grading of imported produce.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, may I ask whether the rule of caveat emptor still applies in this case?

FARM SUBSIDIES
3.8 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: 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 to state the number of different subsidies and grants which are available to farmers who farm either as tenants or as owner-occupiers.]
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, twelve commodities qualify for guaranteed prices. They consist of those listed in the First Schedule to the Agriculture Act 1957, together with sugar beet. In addition, individual tenants or owner-occupiers may benefit from sixteen direct farming grants and subsidies, while four other grants are payable to assist farmers' co-operatives and other organisations benefiting farmers. The main grants and subsidies are listed in Appendix V of the White Paper published after the 1966 Price Review.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Would he agree that the administration of these grants is becoming annually more complex, and would he give an assurance that everything possible will be done to see that their administration is kept as simple as possible?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I would not entirely agree with the noble Earl

409
that they are becoming yearly more complex. But I certainly assure him that everything will be done, and is being done at present, to keep their administration, both from the Civil Service point of view and from the farmers' point of view, as simple as possible.

WEST INDIES BILL
3.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
EARL JELLICOE: I am sorry to interrupt, but I thought the noble Lord was going to make a statement.
LORD BESWICK: That will be on the next Motion, "That the Bill do now pass". My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. At the Committee stage of this Bill the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, asked me whether I could give him some further information about the provisions for implementing the Conference Report which decided the Constitution for the Associated State of St. Kitts. I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me the opportunity of going deeply into the matter which he raised and for enabling me to get the latest information. I hope I can now satisfy him and, indeed, those other noble Lords who raised the problem in this House, as well as the delegation from St. Kitts which has seen the noble Earl and other Members of your Lordships' House.
The position is as follows. The noble Earl called attention to the provision in paragraph 50 of the Conference Report that there should be a Council for Nevis and a Council for Anguilla, and also to the additional provisions in paragraph 14 of the Conference Report about the procedure to he followed in the event of any alteration in the Constitution regarding these local government provisions. The noble Earl asked—and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Willis demanded—that we
410
should make absolutely certain that these provisions were written into the Constitution. That assurance I can now give. The Constitution which has been drafted, which will come into force by Order in Council, faithfully and fully meets the provisions of both paragraph 50 and paragraph 14.
The noble Earl then referred at the Committee stage to a Bill which was being discussed by the Central Government of St. Kitts and which will establish the local Councils required under the Constitution. This Bill is being drafted in St. Kitts, by the Executive Council there, along guidelines put forward by an expert from the Ministry of Overseas Development; and, naturally, that official has every reason for ensuring that the Bill will be in accordance with the Constitution. Any suggestion that anything is being done to try to frustrate the requirements of the Constitution is, I am sure the noble Earl will agree, quite contrary to any motive which the local government expert from the Ministry of Overseas Development is likely to have. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will be able to put out of his mind any fear that there is any kind of underhand move afoot.
The noble Earl's fears rested upon certain words, which he read out at the Committee stage, which he had been told were in a document discussed by the Executive Council of St. Kitts just before Christmas, and which referred to the power of the Central Government "to suspend or abolish an Island Council". Actually, the words he read out do not accurately reflect the intentions of a reference which there will be in the legislation now being drafted in St. Kitts. In that Bill there is reference to powers which will remain with the Central Government to dissolve a Council which persistently defaults in carrying out its statutory duties. I hope that the noble Earl, who has been subjected to a certain amount of cross-fire, will appreciate the importance of this provision. If, unhappily, the occasion should arise when it is necessary for the Central Government to dissolve a Council, the Bill as now drafted makes provision for elections to be held within three months of any such dissolution. This power to dissolve a Council on these grounds is, I am told, common form in comparable legislation in other territories in that area,

411
notably St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Barbados, and there are similar powers in other parts of the world. Even in this country, I think the noble Earl will agree, there is power for the Central Government to take action to ensure that any local authority fulfils the functions for which it was elected.
I was also asked by the noble Earl whether the two gentlemen to whom he referred could be seen by a Minister from the Commonwealth Office. I am glad to say that provision was made for a meeting to be held with the Minister of State, and that that meeting has taken place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Beswick.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I made it clear on Second Reading, speaking from this Bench, that the Opposition supported this Bill. We welcomed the new principle of association which is incorporated in it; and we also felt that the fact that agreement had been reached, in some cases not without difficulty, reflected a very great measure of credit upon everyone concerned, both in the Caribbean and here. I do not in any way depart from that general endorsement of the Bill. I made no apology at Committee stage for raising the not unimportant point with which the noble Lord has just dealt, and I make no apology for coming back to it now, very briefly, because while it is true that this matter concerns only local government in these two islands, the full attendance in your Lordships' House this afternoon shows that matters of local government can excite a certain amount of passionate feeling. It is also true that it concerns only two relatively small communities, but I know that the noble Lord agrees with me that size is not the criterion here. We still hold the ultimate constitutional responsibility in relation to these islands, and it is very important that, before they attain the new status of association, everybody should be persuaded that effect will be given to the agreed constitutional arrangements. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the statement which he has just made, and, through him, I should also like to express gratitude to the Minister of State at the Commonwealth Office for seeing the two gentlemen, the representatives of the People's Action Movement.
412
There are two matters, however, which still concern me. The first is the degree of actual disturbance in these communities at the present time. I have before me a cable addressed to Dr. Herbert, the President of the People's Action Movement, from the secretary of the People's Action Movement in St. Kitts, which reads as follows:
"Defence force called out on the 14th of February. Round the clock guard on all Government property at St. Kitts. Marines and local police landed Anguilla 4 a.m. 15th July from H.M.S. Salisbury. More arrests made. Anguilla celebrations cancelled. Will notify of further developments."
I am not informed about developments in Anguilla, but as a vessel of the Royal Navy has been employed in the last 24 hours in an operation there, the noble Lord will presumably have the information and will be able to let us know the position there.
It would appear, at least on the face of it, that there is considerable concern in these two communities at the present time. I hope and trust that what the noble Lord has just said by way of reassurance will go at least some way to reassure them, but I think he would make reassurance doubly sure if he could confirm to me here and now that he is utterly satisfied that the arrangements concerning the dissolution of a council, to which he referred in his speech just now, are in his view completely compatible with both the spirit and the letter of the agreed Report, and in particular with paragraphs 14 and 50, to which we referred at the Committee stage.
I do not know whether the noble Lord can give us further information regarding the actual state of security in these three communities at the present time, and also further assurances. If he is not able to do that, I should have thought that there might be a case for postponing for a short period of time the actual passing to the state of association, as was contemplated in not dissimilar circumstances with regard to St. Vincents. Happily, agreement has now been reached in St. Vincents, and I should have thought that, with the good will of all concerned, if the provisions for local government are still arousing concern, agreement could be reached speedily between the two main parties in the island. I should be grateful for any further assurance the noble Lord can give me on this point, which

413
seems to be arousing a good deal of concern and passion and, perhaps, causing disturbances in the islands.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I should like to add my thanks to those already expressed for the statement made by the Minister, and for the fact that the Minister of State did see the representatives from the People's Action Movement. I accept the assurances given to-day. I think they are adequate, although I should like strongly to support the further questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
LORD BESWICK: So far as an assurance is concerned, I can give categorically, without any qualification, the assurance asked for. The Constitution, as drafted, will fulfil the agreement reached at the conference between the United Kingdom Government on the one hand, and representatives of the islands on the other. There is no doubt at all about that. So far as the Bill is concerned, to the best of my knowledge and belief, and on the best advice I can secure, that is in accordance with the Constitution. If, on the other hand, it so happened that the Government of St. Kitts attempted to pass legislation contrary to the Constitution it would, of course, be quite proper to challenge that legislation in the court. I make that point as an additional safeguard. I have no reason at all to believe that the Bill as drafted does contravene the Constitution.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Would there be an appeal to the Privy Council in that case?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. I dealt, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, with the fact that there is a Supreme Court, which is accepted as common to the Associated States, and that there is right of appeal to the Privy Council. The noble Earl also asked about the local situation, particularly the disturbances about which he has received a report. There is a great deal of excitement there. They have had elections;
414
they are about to move forward to this new status and this new Constitution. There is a certain amount of argument as to whether the last election settled the issues satisfactorily. I can see a number of noble Lords in this House, some who formerly, having fought an election and having won or lost that election, afterwards felt that the vote might have gone another way if only something else had happened. As I understand the situation on this island—and it is the same in St. Vincent—the result was a narrow one; and the losing side would like to have the opportunity of another "go", thinking that another election might yield a different result. There has been an election, fairly held, which elected the Government. There is no reason why that Government should not now go forward to Independence Day, and to the assumption of the new powers under the new Constitution.
I was asked a question about the position of Her Majesty's ship. It is true that a ship went there; but the latest information I have was that there was no reason at all for any personnel to be landed from that ship. Their presence was not required. I would add another point, and I say it entirely without any offence to the noble Earl. I understand that the success which the two petitioners had when the matter was last raised in this House gave them a certain amount of moral support, and on the basis of that they stimulated the activity of their followers in Anguilla. I hope that both the noble Earl and my noble friend Lord Willis are satisfied with the assurance I have given to-day; that the petitioners, too, feel that what is being done is in accordance with the Constitution; that they will, from now on, co-operate in ensuring that Independence Day is a happy day; and that the people can, after independence, have an election at the proper time, which will be in 1968.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
3.25 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Consideration of Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments be now considered. It may be for the convenience of the House if I move this Motion formally so that the main discussion may take place on the next Motion which I propose to move, That this House doth not insist on the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed. When I come to that I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to cover all the Amendments.
Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TOTHE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill (147) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 1–8]
Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out ("1967 and")
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out ("1968") and insert ("1971")
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out ("1968") and insert ("1971")
Clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out from ("1963") to end of line 12 and insert ("after the words 'three years' there shall be inserted the words 'except as hereafter provided in this subsection', and after '1967'there shall be inserted the words 'in the year 1971' ")
Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
Clause 1, page 1, line 20, leave out ("1967")
Clause 1, page 1, line 22, leave out ("1968")
Clause 1, page 1, line 24, leave out subsection (4).
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they would result in an undesirable delay in providing for the holding in different years of .separate elections to the Greater London Council and to the London borough councils
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amend-
416
ments Nos. 1 to 8 to which the Commons have disagreed. This is not the first occasion on which we have had to consider a Commons Message in regard to Amendments that this House has passed. When the other place have been able to accept our Amendments, we have taken note of that with satisfaction in most cases; when they have rejected them we have assumed an air of resignation, though regret. I think this is due to the fact that over very many years, certainly longer than I can remember, your Lordships' House has accepted the proposition that the will of the elected Chamber should prevail—although there are some noble Lords opposite who believe there is some qualification or proviso to this general rule. In any case, those who take that view recognise that where there is a qualification or proviso it should apply only on a very major national issue. This Bill, like its predecessor, the London Government Act 1963, has proved a fairly controversial one. Although it has not taken as much time as the 1963 Act, it has engendered a great deal of heat; but I think those who participated in the debates on Committee stage and Second Reading rather enjoyed themselves.
My Lords, I have been conscious during the past few days that there have been outside pressures on your Lordships' House that seek to persuade you, or your Lordships' House, to depart from previous practices. It is easy for those outside to put pen to paper and to make recommendations. We in this House are conscious not only of what we are called upon to do but also of the need to take into account the role which we have to play and the role which we should like to adopt in the years to come. I was therefore very happy and content when I heard this morning on the radio what was attributed to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington: that he intended to advise his colleagues not to vote to-day. My Lords, I hope that will be the case because I do not believe that there is a great deal that divides us.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD SHEPHERD: No, my Lords; noble Lords must not jump too quickly to what I now intend to say. They are in some strength on the Benches opposite this afternoon but they should wait patiently. I do not believe that there is

417
a great deal that divides us on this issue. Certainly in 1963 we had a fundamental clash between the two Front Benches, the two Parties, as to the best way of conducting the local government elections in London. Noble Lords opposite took the view that in the long term it would be better for the Greater London Council elections and the London borough elections to be held on one day. That was the view of the Royal Commission. But there were many, including my noble friend the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth (who perhaps knew more about London and its people than anyone else in your Lordships' House) who took the contrary view.
As the House will remember, we divided on Report to seek to do what we are trying to do in this Bill: that is, to provide that the elections for the Greater London Council and for the Councils of the London boroughs should be taken in separate years. I explained on Second Reading and in Committee the problems arising from these elections. There is the size of the boroughs and the very different issues involved. I thought that there was general agreement that what we sought to devise was a method by which the issues would not be blurred and the London electorate would have a proper basis, a proper method and opportunity to have elections, so that their views could be represented properly on the Greater London Council and on the councils of the London boroughs.
The Conservative Party now accepts—and this is why there is little that divides us—that combined elections would not be in the public interest or in the interests of the London electorate. Noble Lords opposite have gone even further. By their Amendments to the Bill they accept that to hold the Greater London Council elections in April, and the borough elections in May, would be contrary to public interest and the interests of the electorate in London. That is why there is so little that divides us. What really divides us to-day is the principle whether, if something is contrary to the public interest, you should set it right as quickly as possible. None of us underestimates the importance of these elections and the need for them to be conducted properly and for the issues to be clearly understood, so that the whole campaign may be fought properly. Therefore, if it is
418
the right principle that they should not be conducted within 30 days of each other, as would have been the case in 1967 but for this Bill, surely we are correct in saying that if we can put this matter in order and can see that these elections are conducted in the proper atmosphere, with the issues clearly understood, we should do so.
My Lords, the Government, who are responsible for this legislation, have received representations, most proper representations, from the Greater London Council and the London boroughs. I do not know whether I convinced the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor—I am sorry if I did not, but I tried to convince the noble Lord—that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has exercised his responsibilities properly; that he has not in any way responded to narrow political interests in arriving at this decision but has taken a very considerable time in making up his mind. I am convinced that what we have proposed to Parliament and what the House of Commons, by its vote (not only on Second Reading, Committee stage and Third Reading in another place, but on the Amendments moved in your Lordships' House), has taken note of, is right and in the interest of London. Your Lordships' House having given an opportunity to another place to take account of what you think of the situation, and having performed your duty, I invite you to be content to agree not to insist on your Amendments. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 8 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Shepherd.)
3.37 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I rise, not in the main to speak on the merits of this Amendment but primarily to say a few words about the position of your Lordships' House and the course which I would advise those noble Lords who sit on these Benches to follow. In recent weeks and months there have been a number of issues on which your Lordships have felt very strongly—Rhodesia and Torbay, to name but two—and it is inevitable in a House where, though Party and Party discipline is much less rigid, great issues of principle

419
divide us. This would occasion no difficulty if the Party balance in your Lordships' House reflected that in another place. Indeed, for those of us who are Conservatives it would be a great deal easier in many ways, since we could then vote according to our inclinations, our strongly held opinions and, in some cases, our consciences; and there would be no constitutional significance in our actions other than to put on record our opinions and our feelings.
It is often said that the Conservative majority in the House of Lords is a great handicap to any Labour Government and is grossly unfair. My Lords, I believe the truth to be the exact opposite. It is highly convenient to the Labour Party and the Government. If anything goes wrong, your Lordships can be used as the whipping boys. The composition of your Lordships' House can be held up to ridicule and, however good the merits of the issue on which conflict may take place, they can always be obscured by talk of the "unelected House overruling the will of the people" and the convenient slogan of "Lords versus the People" can once more be invoked.
Over the last two and a half years we on this side of the House, for reasons which we have thought proper, have conducted ourselves with restraint and moderation and have allowed a lot of legislation to go through to which we were bitterly opposed and about the effect of which on this country we had the gravest misgivings. We have done it for the reason that we believe that this House, the unelected Chamber, should not, except in the last resort and in quite exceptional circumstances, override the opinion of the House of Commons which has been elected by the people of this country. If we did not adopt such a course it would be impossible for any Labour Government to govern, since obviously much of the legislation which is introduced is bitterly opposed by those of us in the Conservative Party. It would really not be possible for a two-Chamber system of Government to operate, nor would it be a justifiable position for the unelected Chamber to control the timing of the Government's legislative programme by using its delaying powers.
The question then arises—and it is a perfectly fair question—if the House of
420
Lords does not, except in the rarest possible cases, use its remaining delaying powers, what then is it for? During the time we have been in Opposition I have, on a number of occasions, tried to answer that question, and I do so again to-day because I think it is important that I should make clear to those of my Party outside this House who feel so strongly about this Bill exactly what, in my view, is the role of the House of Lords.
There are, I think, three roles. First, there is the revisionary role: and no one would deny the usefulness of this House in that connection. We have only to look at the improvements on that dreadful Land Commission Bill and the Companies Bill which we have made in recent weeks. I do not think that Amendments such as the Government have accepted would have found their way into these Bills if this House did not exist—and if it did not exist, something else would have to be put in its place. Secondly, I think that we provide an excellent forum for discussions of importance and urgency which, as a result of our composition, are often better done here and because of our rather looser rules of order can sometimes only be done here. These debates can and should help to form public opinion on the issues of the day, and I have no doubt that among informed people there is a growing interest in the role of your Lordships' House in this direction. It will increase as time goes on.
These are the two straightforward roles, but there is a third role. There could arise a matter of great constitutional and national importance, on which there was known to be a deep division of opinion in the country or perhaps on which the people's opinion was not known. In a case of this kind, it seems to me that the House of Lords has a right, and perhaps a duty, to use its powers, not to make a decision, but to afford the people of this country and Members of the House of Commons a period for reflection and time for views to be expressed.
Therefore, although we have on occasion felt frustrated at our inability to express our point of view by voting, we have felt that in the interests of the preservation of the second Chamber and, as I believe, of its usefulness, we should conduct ourselves with moderation and

421
restraint. I do not think that noble Lords opposite can deny that since they came into office we have acted with forbearance.
We have tried over the past years to lay down certain guide lines as to how the Conservative Party will act in this House when in Opposition. There is, first, the convention of the mandate—that is to say, if a Bill appeared in the programme that the Labour Party presented at the General Election, then it should be assumed that the proposal had been approved by the electorate. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, pointed out on the Second Reading of the Steel Bill, it is a far from perfect way of judging whether or not an individual item is approved in what might be a very long manifesto, but it would not be possible to carry on Parliamentary Government with these two Chambers unless some sort of convention of this kind were observed.
We have, however, always maintained that we can, and should, express our opinion, by Division if necessary, on certain Amendments to that class of Bill. For example, it seems to me quite proper—and here I must disagree completely with what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said the other day—for your Lordships to divide upon an Amendment to enable the House of Commons to have another look at a matter and perhaps to reflect upon some new arguments which may have been advanced in this House. No constitutional crisis arises as a result of this. It is a perfectly proper and constitutional action on your Lordships' part. A clash between the two Houses would arise only if your Lordships insisted upon an Amendment.
We have had more difficulty on Statutory Orders because, as they were a comparatively novel way of legislating and very seldom used when the original Parliament Act was passed, they do not come within the scope of that Act, and therefore, if your Lordships decide to divide against an Order and carry the day, that Order lapses for good and all. It can, of course, be reintroduced in exactly the same terms by the Government, but we can throw it out again and again and it can never become operative, since the House of Lords cannot be overruled. Though I can visualise occasions when
422
your Lordships would wish to vote against an Order, I should have thought that they would be rare indeed.
We then come to the kind of issue we are discussing this afternoon, on which none of these guide lines apply. I must say frankly that I have found this the most difficult decision to make since I have been the Leader of the Conservative Party in this House. There are sound and powerful reasons which can be advanced for your Lordships standing firm on these Amendments. This Bill has no mandate from the electorate. It deprives the electorate of their right to vote. It is a nasty piece of political jiggery-pokery. Quite legitimately the question will be asked: if you do not stand firm on this Amendment, when will the House of Lords ever assert itself? I cannot deny that my noble friends and I find ourselves in great difficulty.
There are, I know, those, whose opinions I respect who take the view that this is an issue of such importance that we should face the consequences of a firm stand. Yet I think that there are equally powerful arguments to the contrary. We have always maintained that should the House reject a Bill or insist upon an Amendment, the delay afforded would be to enable the House of Commons to think again and to allow the electorate a period of reflection. But in this case, owing to the timing of the Bill, this would not happen. Insistence on this Amendment would mean that the purpose of the Bill would be frustrated for good. In other words, your Lordships' House would take the final decision as to the future of this Bill.
I do not think that any of us has ever argued that the unelected Chamber should in the end have the final say as to what legislation does or does not get on to the Statute Book. Secondly, it has always been my view that the House of Lords will only be able to use its delaying powers once. Members of the Party opposite in another place will, I am sure, make certain either that this House is abolished or that its remaining powers are removed, if there is a direct confrontation of this kind between the two Houses. Therefore, it seems to me that we should be completely and utterly convinced that the issue on which we are staking the future of this House should be one of such importance and of

423
such national significance as to leave no doubt, not only in our own minds, but also in the minds of the ordinary men and women whose interests we must safeguard.
My Lords, after much thought, I have come to the conclusion that this is not such an issue, not because it is not important but because it is not of such national significance and constitutional gravity as to fit the criteria I have outlined. It is, of course, rather difficult to describe London as a local issue, but in national terms it is. What happens under the provisions of this Bill would not concern the great majority of our fellow countrymen. It must also be said that this House, composed as it is by nomination or, by heredity, must be particularly careful when matters concerning elections and the electorate are at stake.
Now I hope that no one will read into this counsel of restraint and the advice I have felt obliged to give to your Lordships a sign of weakness or lack of principle. I believe it rather to be the realisation of the role and powers of the second Chamber as it is now constituted. I have been a Member of this House for over twenty years. I have a profound respect for its Members and for this House as a useful part of the Constitution. This would not influence me at all if I considered that the national interest demanded action, and I should not hesitate, regardless of the consequences, political or constitutional. But on balance I do not think that this is of sufficient national importance.
This is not to say that this is not a particularly disreputable Bill. All your Lordships who listened to the earlier stages of the Bill, to the speeches which were made by my noble friends, and in particular by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, will have absolutely no doubt as to the reasons for its introduction and its purpose. It is a mean and shabby little piece of gerrymandering of which any Government should be profoundly ashamed; and I must say frankly that I am surprised that noble Lords opposite, who are honourable men, do not dissociate themselves from it. It was noticeable during the speech of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor in the Second Reading debate how uncomfortable noble Lords opposite looked, and, indeed, one Member opposite, the noble
424
Baroness, Lady Stocks, to her eternal credit, got up and said so; she told us that she could not support the Bill, and told us what its purpose was. I notice that the noble Baroness is not in her place this afternoon.
I have no doubt that when Members of the Front Bench opposite look back on their distinguished careers in this House, they will look back on this occasion and be ashamed of the part they have played. The Government can make a plausible excuse for what they are doing, and hide behind that plausible excuse; but they deceive no-one, least of all themselves. The truth of the matter—and we all know it—is that the Conservatives are likely to make considerable gains at the local government elections this year. This, of course, would be undesirable from a Socialist point of view, since, for example, there are educational schemes which most people agree are extremely doubtful and which would be interrupted by the advent of a Conservative Council. And so they have changed the date of the elections.
Noble Lords opposite, obeying their three-line Whip, will no doubt be proud that they have come here to-day to vote on such a high principle. I must warn noble Lords opposite that we shall be looking very carefully at any further moves of this kind. It has been suggested in certain quarters that they intend to delay the implementation of the Boundary Commission Report. The Boundary Commission is an independent body whose duty it is to redress the electoral unfairness caused by the changes of population. It favours neither side. I very much hope that the Government will not be tempted to interfere in this respect. We might all begin to lose a little too much confidence in their integrity. Perhaps noble Lords opposite are pleased with themselves and this Bill, but I say this to them before I sit down. This is a grubby, political manœuvre, and in the end the dirt will wash off on their hands and not only stain them but tarnish their reputation.
3.45 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I am not going to make a speech; I did not come here prepared to make a speech. But many years ago, a Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Balfour, in another

425
place made a speech which drew from the Leader of the Liberal Party, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, the comment:
"Quit this fooling."
I would suggest to the noble Lord that he would do well to adopt that, and "quit this fooling". Of course, it was all play-acting. He does not believe a word of it—not a word of it. It is laid on in order to placate his extreme followers. It was a manœuvre, if I am allowed to use that expression. It was pretty heavy-handed and leaden-footed and, if I may say so, infinitely tedious and somewhat repulsive.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have sat in this House for eighteen years or so with the noble Lord opposite, and I have noticed that the only time he ever gets white with anger is when he is on a very bad wicket.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If we are going to descend to personalities, I can only say that the noble Lord looks positively yellow at this time.
LORD CARRINGTON: Who descended to personalities?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD:Perhaps I may be allowed to ascend to an even higher plane of argument than that adopted by the noble Lord.
LORD HARLECH: By the noble Lord opposite.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am afraid I do not follow the relevance of that comment. The noble Lord made some contemptible slurs on my colleagues. I reply to them only by saying that in the ordinary way he would not indulge in that sort of language. But he is in an exceptional position. He has a lot of very wild people sitting all round him, and he has to show that he is a real live man; and he has, I think, shown this. But we love him just as much as ever, although we hope that he will not talk that sort of nonsense too often, as we should be unhappy for him. The noble Lord, behind all that palaver, really took a statesmanlike line. We understand that clearly. He was calling on his supporters to retreat. Therefore we applaud him for his wisdom and
426
prudence. We forget the words, and pay tribute to the actual course that he adopted.
The only reason why I rose, apart from the desire to put the record level in terms of Parliamentary outspokenness, was simply to say one thing about the three functions which the noble Lord assigned to the House of Lords. I am speaking without any premeditation; I have not consulted colleagues, and this is not a considered pronouncement from the Government. But equally, as Leader of the House, and particularly speaking for myself after a good many years here, I must say one thing about these functions.
The first function, of revision, we all accept. On the second function, to use this House as a forum for debates, I am glad the noble Lord could say what he did say about the standard here. We echo what he said with regard to both of those functions. But he said also, that, as he understood it, in certain grave circumstances this House had a right to resist, at any rate for a time, the will of the House of Commons. For myself, I could never accept that this was part of the duty of the House of Lords. Legally they could do it within the terms of the Parliament Act. I am not going to offer any opinion as to what would happen if they did; I have not come here prepared to enter into that sort of discussion. I can only say, as someone who loves this House as much as the noble Lord does, and as much as anybody here does, that in my opinion it would be a bad day if the House of Lords ever sought to exercise that right. I hope that it never will, and I look to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to make sure that it never does.
3.59 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, if I may bring the House back to the more normal pattern of the debate, I was somewhat surprised at the intervention of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who is usually most courteous and restrained, and for whom we have a great affection. I was rather surprised at his outburst to-day.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If I caused the noble Lord surprise, I must explain why I found it necessary to speak

427
rather strongly. We were described rather as pickpockets by the noble Lord opposite.
LORD OGMORE: I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would say that you are pickpockets. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, put the case extremely clearly and fairly, and with 95 per cent. of the case he put I should entirely agree. But there are one or two points that I should like to mention from these Benches. We have considered the matter carefully to-day, as we have on previous occasions, and there are one or two points that my noble friends would like me to put.
First of all, what reason would justify the postponement of an election'? Normally, only very grave reasons. We know that a national Election was postponed in 1940 because no one could contemplate a General Election when the country was expecting imminent invasion. Very rarely, in my experience, has there been a postponement of a local government election at all. Offhand, I cannot think of an occasion. But there must be a very grave reason before the electorate has its rights taken away from it.
It is all very well to talk about the difficulties of Parties, the difficulties of returning officers and the difficulties of political groups. The people who matter are the electorate, the voters, and there has been very little talk about them. The reasons advanced in this case, as I understand them, are not reasons of any difficulty on the part of the elector; they are political and administrative matters—matters of convenience only. There are difficulties, it is felt, in having an Election a month later: difficulties for the political Parties and for the local government officials. As one of a political Party, I would say that we must put up with them. If that is the fact, if there are difficulties, we must meet them: it is our responsibility to do so.
Then we come to our position as a House. Have we a right to insist upon our Amendments? In answer, we say, "Yes; we have that right if we believe that a vital constitutional principle is at stake." Is a vital principle at stake here? It certainly is: the right of the elector to vote. Should we therefore be deterred from insisting upon our Amendments to-
428
day? Certainly not because of any threats applied from noble Lords opposite or from noble Lords elsewhere—certainly not. If it is necessary, in other words, for us to establish a principle, we must go through with it, whatever may be the consequences.
But, my Lords—and this is the one reason why I would dissociate myself from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—we feel in this case that if we exercised our right we should in fact not be exercising delaying powers but directly and finally overruling the Commons. I think that is the issue which is really before the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, quite rightly, in the normal way if we insisted on our Amendments they would go back to the Commons, and the Commons would have an opportunity of considering the matter again; and it would come back to us. The Parliament Act would apply. Owing to the peculiar circumstances in this case, the timing of the Election, if we now insist upon our Amendments the Elections cannot take place and therefore we shall in fact not be exercising our delaying powers but directly and finally overruling the Commons.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord to say so, he is not dissociating himself from me. I made exactly the same point.
LORD OGMORE: I am going on to say why I dissociate myself from the noble Lord. It is not because he did not make that point, but because he did not make it the main point. That is perfectly reasonable on our part. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, put the case on our right to disagree with the Commons on the general issue. That is the case he put, and he said this was not an important enough issue. Those were the words he used. He said that it was a local matter, not a national matter.
I say that this issue is important enough, and I and my colleagues would be quite prepared to vote to keep the Amendments if it were not for this peculiar circumstance, that by doing so we should not be delaying, so to speak, but should be finally overriding the Commons. It is not perhaps a very great difference, but there is some difference between our points of view, and I believe that I am quite entitled to point out that

429
difference. That was why I said I dissociated myself from the noble Lord. I was 95 per cent. with him, but not 100 per cent. I do not think he can complain about that. Five per cent. is a reasonable discount. However, my Lords, those are the reasons which the Liberal Party feel they should put before your Lordships to-day, and we hope that they will commend themselves to your Lordships.
4.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two, if I may, in case the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is under any impression that anything he said put the record level. No one will be convinced by his defence, and I fear that if he really were on trial he would have no chance of an acquittal at the hands of an impartial jury. Let us examine what he was saying, and consider for a moment what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. He said in the course of his speech to-day—indeed, it was his main argument—that we must put the law right. Of course, it is what they tried to make the law in 1963.
But putting the law right now can be done, as we know, in two ways; and one way means depriving the electors of their rights. Surely when they decided to put the law right they must have known that that would be the consequence. They must have known it meant that Labour councillors would have another year in office to carry out Socialist policies. They must have known that it would have been avoiding an election and prolonging their term of office. If they did know that, then the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, are so disingenuous as to be wholly unacceptable. If they say they did not know that—and I am perfectly prepared myself, in view of what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, says, to accept the proposition that they had not the least idea of the consequence of doing what they did—I am perfectly prepared to be persuaded by him that that is the case. But, of course, Governments, like human beings, are presumed to intend the natural consequences of their acts, and if the natural consequences of their acts were to confer such benefits on the Labour Party, one must presume that they were intended. But the noble Earl, Lord Longford, seeks to imply that they were not intended at all.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt? I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount was here when I was speaking, but I did not address myself to these topics at all.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I was here throughout the noble Earl's speech. His speech is understandable only on the basis that the Party to which he belongs did not understand what they were doing. If they did not understand what they were doing, then of course it is a very clear admission of their gross incompetence, which we have always suspected; but this time it has come out into the open. The Government on this issue cannot have it both ways. Either they realised what they were doing and did it for Party advantages in that particular way, when they could have done it in another way, or they did not realise what they were doing and did it inadvertently, and inadvertently secured for themselves great political advantages. It is one of the two, and therefore the noble Earl's defence does not result in a verdict of acquittal, but, if successful, in a verdict of the grossest incompetence in their dealing with matters relating to the electorate.
There is another matter on which I would touch. I entirely agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Carrington said about the way the House ought to consider these matters when they arise. I would say this to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who challenged one proposition advanced by my noble friend. I would say to him that I hope the time will not come when this House becomes again involved in a conflict with another place and has to dissent, and stand firm upon its dissent. But if the time did come when this House should take that course, not in the interests of a Party but in the interests of the nation, then I think it would be the right, and indeed the duty, of this House to take that course in the interests of the nation, come what may.
4.9 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I wish to add only a very few words. I was astonished by the outburst of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. That may be, of course, because I am a "wild man". That may be his view. I

431
can only say that I have for many years regarded him, in this House and outside, with both respect and affection; and his words distressed me very much. I do not think they were characteristic. I believe they were words which, when he looks at them tomorrow, he will regret. Whether I am right or wrong about that, I should like, if I may, to refute the answer he made. He said, on his own behalf and without consultation, that there was one point about the three functions of this House mentioned by my noble Leader with which he disagreed. That was the right, in certain circumstances, for this House to delay matters. My Lords, he can be proved wrong in his view of the Constitution by a simple consideration. The only important power which this House has to interfere at all in legislation is the power of delay, and that power exists under the Parliament Acts, the last Parliament Act, which fixed the power of delay at one year, being a Socialist Act. Therefore, in the Socialists' own view this House has a power of delay which, presumably, in some circumstances it has the right to use.
My noble Leader gave his view of the circumstances in which the House should exercise that power, but the proposition of the noble Earl the Leader of the House was that that could never arise. In that case, there is no explanation whatever of the Socialist Act which recognised that right of delay.
The other matter I should like to mention is this. When the proceedings of this House are discussed outside I think there ought to be a limit to the amount of nonsensical falsehood that is said about this House. It is not always possible to reply to nonsense by a Member of another place, if it is uttered in another place, but, when the Member of another place chooses to utter his nonsense in the columns of The Times, then the position is rather different. Some of you may have seen the letter in The Times yesterday from Mr. Eric Lubbock. He purported to describe the actions of the Conservative Party on this London Government Bill in both Houses. This is what he said about it, and I shall trouble your Lordships with only one sentence:
"Yet in spite of several midnight filibusters in both Houses, the public reaction has been negligible".
432
"Several midnight filibusters in both Houses".
LORD SHEPHERD: Hear, hear!
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, "Hear, hear!" says the Government Chief Whip. Let me remind him that if we take the four days in which this House discussed the matter—Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading—the latest hour at which we discussed this matter was on Second Reading and then we concluded our debate before 5.30 p.m. The description of this as "several midnight filibusters" seems to me to pass the limit of idiocy, even from Orpington Man.
I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, whom we always hear with so much respect and affection in this House. When it was pointed out in another place to Mr. Lubbock that his Party in this House had followed the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and that Lord Ogmore had spoken in favour of the Amendments that were being considered, and that the Liberal Lords had voted with the Conservatives in the same Lobby, at that stage the honourable Member for Orpington said this was lamentably true but Lord Ogmore—
LORD SALTOUN: Order!
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am not quoting the actual words; I am paraphrasing. I am not going to offend against the Rule of this House. Mr. Lubbock explained that this was lamentably true, but all this would not have happened, if only Lord Ogmore had had the advantage of reading what Mr. Lubbock had said on previous occasions. I can only say, having regard to Mr. Lubbock's standard of accuracy, that I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, would, either on this or on any future occasion, find it necessary to study what Mr. Lubbock said in another place. As I read that letter in The Times I could not help being reminded of those famous words of Dryden:
"The rest to some faint meaning make pretence
But Shadwell never deviates into sense."
4.16 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion that we do not insist

433
on our Amendments to the London Government Bill. I do so because once again we are faced both with the question of principle, and with the question of the powers of this House. I had to deal with this matter in the course of debate on a former occasion, when I saw clearly that the insistence of the will of the majority of this House must sooner or later lead to a direct clash between this House and the House of Commons. I refer to the "other place", which we do not seem to be able to identify by specific reference.
At least two-thirds of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was up to his usual high and fair-minded standard. I have long respected the noble Lord, and I think he is quite aware of that in the references to him that I have made in this House. Like many others, I suppose, I was full of admiration for the concise, precise and, I thought, logical way in which he dealt with this subject for at least three-parts of his speech.
The noble Lord was made aware of my attitude of mind on this matter when another supposed question of principle was before this House in regard to retrospective legislation, and on the passing of the Bill concerning that issue. This would have meant that several million pounds of the taxpayers' money would have been handed over to the Burmah Oil Company and its associates. I said then that, in my opinion, on a question of high principle, this House had no right to thwart the will of the elected House. Not at that precise moment, but at some little time later the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked me whether my reasoning applied to any right of the House of Lords to amend a measure which came to us from the House of Commons. I said, "No". But in respect of matters of clearly announced principle, and high principle, I was quite convinced that it was utterly wrong for this House, composed as it is predominantly of an hereditary element—and let us remember that there is always a threat in this House, however sparsely the Benches on the opposite side may be people in the course of normal debates, of a horde of people who have never taken the slightest interest in the doings of this House being marshalled in support of a policy, which in all probability they had not a glimmer of—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I have been in this House now for 25 years, and I have never known a case where that happened. Can the noble Lord quote a case? It is purely a bogey put up by the Labour Party.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, I have seen an unexpectedly larger attendance on the Benches opposite when any of these matters have been raised.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I interrupt? I thought I saw an unexpectedly full attendance on the opposite Benches this afternoon.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not hear the noble Lord.
LORD CARRINGTON: It does not matter.
LORD CITRINE: Well, it could not have amounted to much. May I proceed with what I have to say? From my experience during the 20 years I have been in this House, noble Lords opposite have not had the experience of sitting opposite a decided majority of another Party. They have never had that experience and I can assure them that I, who have not engaged very much in polemical discussion in this House (I think I can claim this without exaggeration), have felt a sense of frustration and wondered whether it was any use my coming here, knowing there was always the power in the hands of the Conservative Party at any time, by force of numbers rather than by argument, to frustrate whatever was being dealt with in the House at least up to that stage.
My intervention on that occasion of the Burmah Oil Company was one dealing with principle, and that principle is raised again. I did not engage in the debates on this Bill in the course of the Committee or Second Reading stage beyond asking the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, whether he was dealing with this question as a question of high principle. And to his credit, without attempting to trim and qualify, as is so customary with certain politicians, he answered, Yes: it was a matter of high principle. So I followed it up by saying that what we are doing here is challenging the House of Commons on a matter of high principle, and that brings us

435
back to the issue with which we are concerned to-day.
The principles which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington put forward, as I said, in two-thirds of his speech, I felt without examining them carefully, were fair, and, I think, summed up pretty accurately what the responsibilities of a Chamber of this kind would be. Then suddenly he veered off, and I wondered why. From the high level at which that speech started, and was maintained up to this point, he went on to the kind of speech that we might have expected from a biased Party politician. I was surprised at that. I thought from what I read in the newspapers that when we were coming here we were going to have a challenge, the kind of challenge which has been threatened so often—I will not say so often, but threatened on former occasions. But suddenly I read in the newspapers that this challenge was not to be made, and I wondered why.
By a pure coincidence, there appeared in the newspapers the Gallup Poll which showed, so far as these polls can be relied upon, a decided improvement in the standing of the present Government with the British public. I wondered, in the light of that quarter of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whether he, too, with his colleagues, had been affected by the knowledge that the disfavour which they assumed the Government had fallen into because of its justifiable and courageous measures to deal with the economic situation, had put them in such a position that no political advantage could be taken in a Party sense by the Conservative Party. It is a very strange coincidence. The noble Lord will permit me to say, without disparagement, that his speech was read from beginning to end, quite contrary to the advice we are all given and to the Resolution of this House in the Manual of Procedure. Therefore, it was a completely meditated speech, a speech which in all probability had been drawn up in consultation with Party leaders in another place. I think that is a feasible assumption.
LORD CARRINGTON: It is a false one.
LORD CITRINE: I think it is a very high probability, and the noble Lord's
436
remark will deceive nobody. I have yet to discern on the part of Members who sit on the Opposition Benches any material difference in the policies, however hare-brained they may be, of the Party leaders in the House of Commons. I have yet to see that difference, and when I do see that difference I shall begin to believe there is some measure of independence and freedom of view expressed, not necessarily by Back-Benchers, but by those who lead the Party opposite. Therefore I am bound to come to the conclusion that, despite the high moral tone that has been taken in this debate, it is basically Party advantage that has been considered in not making this challenge to-day.
I said on a former occasion—and I stick to it—that I should be very pleased to see this challenge made. I believe that every time noble Lords opposite frustrate the will of the Government of the day, they put another nail in their coffin. I have many times tried to console my colleagues on a measure which they believe has been dealt with by this method employed on these occasions by the Party opposite; I have many times said, "Don't worry; you can take it from me they are moving nearer the day when the Constitution of this House will be very materially revised". I repeat that. I regret that I should have heard such a Party harangue in a speech which in the early part was worthy of admiration.
4.26 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this is not a debate, I think, in which anyone can feel any enthusiasm about taking part. If I have decided, after listening to a portion of it, to speak for a few moments to-day, it is merely because this is an occasion, I suppose, when anyone who has been, as I have, for a very long time, a Member of your Lordships' House, ought to try to give the House, and Members who have not been here so long, the benefit—I will not say of his wisdom, but at any rate of his experience.
I have had, it so happens, more than one experience of very much the same kind as this when I was leading the Opposition during the 1945 Parliament, twenty years ago. Then, too, we had in this country, as to-day, the curious combination of a big majority for the Labour

437
Party in the other House and a big majority for the Conservative Party in this House, and so we had constantly to weigh in our minds what was the right balance between our inclinations and what one might describe, for want of a better word, as our constitutional duty. If we had had only to consult our inclinations we should have thrown out, for instance, all the nationalisation Bills, and a great many others as well: but that would have been, in effect to bring the constitutional machine to a halt; and so we did not in fact, as your Lordships know, take that particular course. We did our best to keep the machinery of the Constitution moving as smoothly as we could, while we reserved—and I say this in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Citrine—always the right of the Second Chamber to maintain its opposition to the first Chamber should we feel that the safety and welfare of the realm was threatened. On that basis we got through the 1945 Parliament pretty well, and I do not think we did any harm. On the contrary, I believe that the prestige of your Lordships' House was sensibly raised by the moderation we displayed at that time.
Now, after twenty years, much the same situation is with us again. Now, as then, there is a majority for one Party in one House and for the other Party in the other House. Now, as then, we are likely as a result—we, at any rate, who sit on this side of the House—to face very unpalatable situations, and many decisions will have to be taken, whether we decide to stand firm or not, which are bound to be awkward for all of us. That is our unhappy position, as we all know, this afternoon.
Many of us do not like this Bill. We regard it, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has already said, as a mean piece of political gerrymandering, quite unworthy of the reputation of Parliament and this country. I do not believe, any more than he does, that there can be many noble Lords, even on the other side of the House, who are really very proud about it. Indeed, to my mind it comes near the point where we in this House should feel obliged to say, "Let us chuck it out and be damned to them all!" But somehow, having turned this matter over in my mind again and again, like many other noble Lords, I cannot feel that it quite reaches that point. Therefore I
438
entirely agree with the course which he has advised. But I cannot agree that we have not the right to throw it out should we wish. We have a right. It is a right, although limited, which was conferred upon us by the last Parliament Act. That limited right is the law of the land, and it is no good noble Lords opposite saying we have not got it. That right is there in the Statute Book.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Marquess seems to be getting a little angry, possibly with me. I never said there was not a legal right. To the best of my belief, I said there was. I said that in my view it would not be prudent to exercise it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord might not agree with the right, but it is there on the Statute Book. It is one probably rarely to be exercised. We could not do it often. Perhaps it will never be exercised, at any rate in the lifetime of people as old as myself. But it is there. Otherwise, we should have single-Chamber Government, and that, I am sure, is something which the British people would never tolerate.
4.32 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long, but there are some things which have happened which have induced me to speak. I think I can say that I have been in the business that we have been mainly discussing longer than anybody, because immediately after the Parliament Act of 1911 I was devilling a good deal for those noble Lords who had become Constitution-mongers. All sorts of Constitutions were brought up and discussed at that time. In the end, I formed the opinion which I have only once before given to your Lordships and which I will now venture to give you again.
It seemed to me that the Constitution prior to 1911,with two Houses of equal powers, worked well, on the whole. It seemed to me that once there was complete mastery put into the hands of one House over the other the position could never be satisfactory, even if that other House was always most temperate, most courteous and most reasonable. But, as we know, the temper of all public assemblies, I believe even of your Lordships'

439
House, is always that of the lowest common multiple. So we can never hope for such a situation.
That being so, it has always seemed to me that your Lordships' House had a great deal of apparent responsibility without any power, and I have always said to myself that that situation can never work properly. In a great measure, it is due to the great qualities exhibited by the Leaders in your Lordships' House on both sides over many years that it has worked at all. As I have said before, I think it would be much better for the country and for the Constitution if this House ceased to exist and the House of Commons had the full responsibility for all its acts. That has always been my opinion, and I have expressed it once before in your Lordships' House when we had a debate on the Constitution. What I have to say is that if ever there comes a time when it appears to me that my duty as a Member of your Lordships' House is to vote against any Government, even if the penalty is the extinction of your Lordships' House, then I shall unhesitatingly take it, and I shall take it with joy.
4.35 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it has always been one of my desires to be a hawk, but clearly this afternoon I have to be a dove. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was the one noble Lord who got closest to the subject before the House, the question of the Bill and the Amendments. I would only say to the noble Lord that I have deployed the reasons why the Government felt it right to introduce the Bill and why we resist the Amendments of your Lordships' House. At this comparatively late hour, I doubt whether I shall be able to persuade the noble Lord to a different view. Clearly, he has made up his mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, stated his view as to the constitutional position. I will not go into that. He then made an attack upon noble Lords here. Well, attacks upon honour in politics have been made from time immemorial. I still remember my noble friend the late Lord
440
Morrison of Lambeth, making in your Lordships' House a most violent attack upon the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor—Mr. Henry Brooke, as he was then—and the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. When the noble Viscount left the Woolsack and we were able to get to know him, we found he was not such a villain as we had thought he was. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is not so bad as my late noble friend led us to believe. I am not quite sure whether this is due to the fact that his noble wife is a Member of the House and keeps a closer eye on him than perhaps was possible when he was in another place. But we have these attacks. They are made, and will no doubt continue to be made.
Having seen all the papers and having seen all those that have been involved in this matter, I am quite satisfied that there was no political pressure put upon my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I believe the present Home Secretary will maintain the same high standards as did the noble Lord opposite. But I believe that none of us is likely to change our mind if we continue this discussion. There is an important Bill on Agriculture, which I am sure the House would wish to attend to; and I wonder whether perhaps we could now conclude our discussion, and if noble Lords wish to take up wider issues on the Constitution and the area in which your Lordships' House can operate perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, could put down an Unstarred Question, or perhaps he might lend his support to the Motion of my noble friend Lord Mitchison. But there will be opportunities to come. I hope that the House will agree that this is not an occasion on which we should continue this discussion but that we should conclude this part of our business; and my hope is that your Lordships will not insist upon your Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GENERAL RATE BILL [H.L.]
Report of the Amendment received (according to Order).

AGRICULTURE BILL
4.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships have waited quite a long time for this Bill, which seeks to do many things to benefit agriculture and those engaged in it. Earlier in our discussions this afternoon it was suggested that the large attendance was because of the interest of your Lordships in local government. I was hoping it was because of your Lordships' great interest in agriculture and this Bill. After all, agriculture is still one of the most important, if not the most important, industries in the country. Time is getting away and, if it is acceptable to your Lordships, I feel that my best course is probably to traverse the main provisions in broad outline without detaining your Lordships too long. Then, at the end of the day, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Walston will be happy to respond to questions on which noble Lords may wish to have further enlightenment.
Part I of the Bill implements the policy set out in the White Paper on the Marketing of Meat and Livestock. Over the years, the House has considered a series of Reports by Committees who have inquired into this complex industry, the most recent being the Verdon-Smith Committee, which produced a most comprehensive account of the industry's problems. Various recommendations have been made by these Committees, but all have been convinced of the need for improvements.
The Bill provides for the establishment of an independent Meat and Livestock Commission charged with a wide range of functions to bring about improvements in efficiency over the whole field, from farm to consumer. The Commission will be assisted by committees representing producers, distributors and consumers, who are all, of course, vitally concerned with its work. Clause 2 provides for these committees to be consulted on any matter affecting their interests; they may initiate proposals and make representations to the Commission; and they may be employed by the Com-
442
mission in an executive capacity. They will therefore actively participate in the development and execution of the Commission's policies.
Provision for the Commission's functions is made in Clauses 3 to 8 and in Part I of Schedule 1. Producers will be provided with a full range of livestock improvement services and will be helped in a number of ways to produce the type of product their customers want and to market their stock to the best advantage. Those engaged in marketing and distribution will benefit from activities applying to all stages in the marketing chain, from the auction and slaughterhouse to the retail shop. These include the development of research and advisory services and the provision of carcase classification and improved market information. For the consumer, provision has been made in Clauses 7 and 8, and elsewhere, to provide far better opportunities to assess, and discriminate between, the products on sale in the shops. The Commission will take over the important work which the Pig Industry Development Authority has been doing and the Authority will then be dissolved. Your Lordships will no doubt wish to pay tribute to the Authority's work, which will, we hope, be continued and expanded by the Commission, with the minimum of interruption and disturbance of the staff.
In addition to the functions specified in the Bill, the Government have thought it advisable to provide for the possibility that as the industry develops—and it is changing very rapidly at present—a need may emerge for new services or other changes going beyond what is at present proposed. Clause 9 accordingly provides the necessary machinery and powers to permit the Commission to submit schemes for this purpose for ministerial and Parliamentary approval. Your Lordships will know that these powers have been criticised as being too wide, but they are no wider than is necessary to achieve their purpose and they are accompanied by very substantial safeguards, which have been strengthened by Amendments made in the other place, and which in our view will ensure that no scheme could become law unless it commanded a very wide measure of support.
On the question of finance, the Commission will be reimbursed for work done specifically on behalf of the Government,

443
and may be assisted by the Exchequer to meet the initial cost of new projects. The main source of finance will, however, be a levy on the industry in Great Britain. There have been some very exaggerated estimates of the possible size of this levy, and it may help your Lordships if I repeat that a levy on all stock at a level comparable with the present P.I.D.A. levy on pigs will probably be adequate. Even if the whole cost of a levy of this order were passed on to the consumer, it would represent less than a farthing per lb. on the average retail price of meat; but in any case we should expect that in the long run improvements in efficiency resulting from the Commission's activities should more than outweigh the cost of the levy.
In short, my Lords, the provisions for the establishment of the Commission offer a real opportunity to obtain greater efficiency in the meat and livestock industry which will be of substantial benefit not only to those engaged in the industry but also to consumers. Before leaving Part I of the Bill, I should add that provision is made in Clauses 10 and 11 for the extension of the calf subsidy arrangements to permit subsidy payments on stock certified on a deadweight basis, and in Clause 12 for the beef cow subsidy which was announced at the last Annual Review.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill, which provides for new schemes to improve farm structure, a new and extended Farm Improvement Scheme and new grants to encourage agricultural investment. I am sure there will be a general welcome for the farm structure provisions. Half the agricultural holdings in this country support farm businesses smaller than one man could run full time, and another quarter require less than the equivalent of two men. Of course many of these holdings provide a reasonable living for the occupier—and, indeed, will benefit from the provisions of this Bill. The Government have made it quite clear that they are fully alive to the importance of the small farmer and the family farm. I am particularly pleased about this, because when I was Member of another place I was regarded as one of the spokesmen for the small farmer. I am glad that my Government have made it known that they, too, are still
444
keenly interested in the welfare of the small farmer. No such farmer will be compelled to make use of this Part of the Bill. The Government's aim is to encourage the voluntary amalgamation—and I emphasise the word "voluntary"—of such holdings with other land to make farms which offer full scope to a modern farmer, defined in this Bill as commercial units. If that cannot be done in one step, it is proposed to assist the formation of intermediate units, capable of employing one man's time. There are also to be grants for beneficial boundary adjustments.
This Part of the Bill provides for 50 per cent. grants toward the incidental expenses and remodelling works occasioned by an approved amalgamation or boundary adjustment, and enables loans to be made toward the balance of these expenses and the cost of buying land. When progress would otherwise be slow, the State may buy farms by agreement and incur losses for the purpose of improving farm structure. For farmers dependent on uncommercial units and prepared to relinquish them for amalgamation, there is provision for lump sums or annuities to help them to resettle elsewhere or to retire from farming. To prevent the reversal of amalgamations assisted in these ways, Schedule 3 will ensure that the land stays together in agriculture for forty years. The Farm Improvement Scheme, which has contributed so much to the modernisation of basic fixed equipment on existing farms since 1957, has been given a new lease of life. A further £80 million is provided for the new one-quarter grants, which cover a wide range of occupier's improvements and equipment. One-man farms will still qualify for these grants.
This Part of the Bill also provides (in Clauses 31 to 34) for the new investment grants for agriculture to replace the investment allowances which were withdrawn on January 17 last year. The new incentives have been concentrated for agriculture, as for industry, where they are likely to be of the most value. They take the form of the following three grants. First, there is to be a grant of 10 per cent. on fixed equipment, fixed plant and machinery and long-term improvements to land which do not attract other grants. This will, in particular, assist the specialist livestock producers

445
who may be unable to qualify for grant under the Farm Improvement Scheme. Secondly, there is to be a grant of 10 per cent, on new tractors and harvesters, which are two vital and widely used items of equipment.
Finally, there will be a supplementary grant of 5 per cent. to grants for approved work carried out on farms under the Farm Improvement Scheme, on horticultural holdings under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme and, in England and Wales, for grants under the Farm Water Supply Scheme. As the Government recently announced, an additional incentive is to be provided for expenditure between January 1, 1967, and December 31, 1968, to correspond with the increase in industrial investment grants announced in December. The grant on tractors will be raised from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent., and on fixed equipment from 10 per cent. to 12 per cent., for expenditure during this period.
Part III of the Bill is concerned with the hills and uplands. There are three main proposals here. First, a new land improvement scheme designed to increase the productivity of hill land without being tied to the present farm structure; for this the proposed rate of grant is 50 per cent. Secondly, under Clause 42 the Government, in fulfilment of their declared intention, are seeking powers to place the hill livestock subsidies on a permanent footing. The third major proposal is that for certain areas in the hills, which have special problems and difficulties, new executive bodies—to be known as Rural Development Boards—should be established. These will be small independent bodies who will be mainly people with experience of special knowledge of forestry and agriculture. They are required to consult with local authorities and other interested bodies in drawing up a programme for their area. This will provide for the co-ordinated development of agriculture and forestry, and assurances have been given that they will consult private forestry interests as well as the Forestry Commission. The Board will be able to put up a programme of financial assistance designed to help in the implementation of their plans. They will encourage and assist the improvement of farm structure in their area, buying land for amalgamations where appropriate. Although they will no doubt work
446
very largely by advice and persuasion, nevertheless to enable them to carry out their tasks effectively it is thought right to give them powers to control land disposals and tree planting that could prejudice their programme. These powers will be exercised subject to the many safeguards for the individual written into the Bill, such as appeals to the Minister against decisions and to the Lands Tribunal on price.
The Government propose to set up only one or two boards in the first instance, and then proceed in the light of experience gained from their operation. Your Lordships will note that before a board is set up an Affirmative Resolution of each House is necessary. I am sure these new executive bodies have a most useful role to play, and I am confident that they will make a real contribution to the re-development of difficult areas in the hills.
Part IV of the Bill provides for the setting up of the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation to promote and develop co-operation generally throughout the United Kingdom and for the making of a new, comprehensive scheme of grants to be administered by the Council. The scheme will incorporate the various existing co-operative grants, extend them as equally as possible to agriculture and horticulture, and provide for the first time a wide range of assistance for co-operation in production. We are particularly anxious to develop co-operation in production. We believe that such co-operation can prove to be an important way in which smaller producers may increase their viability, and in which producers generally can raise their productivity. These proposals have been widely welcomed, both in another place and throughout the country generally, and I feel sure that they will commend themselves to this House to-day.
Finally, I turn to the miscellaneous but very worthwhile provisions in Part V of the Bill. I am sure that the House will welcome the credit provisions in Clauses 62 and 63, and also the grants to encourage better management through the use of adequate business records in Clause 64. The technical progress of the industry in recent years has been quite remarkable, but this must now be

447
matched by improvements in management if the benefits are to be fully exploited. Then Clause 65 enables the introduction of livestock health schemes. I am personally very glad that, by Clause 66, we are helping the conditions of life of our farm workers, by the introduction of a payment-during-sickness scheme. I am sure this will be welcomed by all farm workers.
There we have the Bill. It would be idle for me to pretend that this is not a great day in my life, to be moving the Second Reading of this important Bill. I believe that the Bill in its various provisions, will be of genuine lasting benefit to an industry which so many of us rightly hold in such high esteem, and which in recent years has such a very proud record of increased production. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
4.57 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, for the felicitous manner in which he has moved this Agriculture Bill this afternoon, and for the admirable, comprehensive and lucid description which he has given us of its contents. I can certainly join with him in agreeing that it is a useful Bill and has many good things in it. Indeed, there are only a few points in it on which I shall want to criticise it on the Committee stage, and I should tell the noble Lord now that my criticism of the Bill is directed not so much to what is in it as to what is not in it. I have warned the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who is going to reply to the debate, that I should like to go rather wider than the contents of the Bill itself, because I believe that the benefits in it will not materialise unless something can be done for the basic structure of the industry.
It is, I think, germane to remind your Lordships that this Bill started its life in 1965. It is, in fact, a 1965 model, and what we want to-day is a 1967 model. Conditions change so fast to-day—and particularly have they changed in the last three years—that some basic new legislation now, at a time when farmers are
448
hard up, when production is slowed up and when Europe is squared up, is required. I advise noble Lords opposite that something more fundamental than this Bill is urgently wanted. What is wanted, I believe, is a complete "rethink" of the economic foundations of the industry, including the very structure of the price guarantee by deficiency payment system. In our agricultural debate in this House last summer I urged the need for a fundamental overhaul of policy on these lines, and I believe that the intervening six months have confirmed the wisdom of that advice. The autumn collapse of livestock prices, and now the Prime Minister's initiative for entry into the Common Market, I think confirm the need for action—and urgent action—now. I only wish I could see some signs of grace in the Ministry of Agriculture that this was forthcoming.
However, let me begin by a brief comment on one or two of the major features in the Bill, and then, if I may, I will pass on to what is not in it. I have a special welcome for Part IV of the Bill, which sets out the measures to encourage co-operation in the farming industry and provides for the setting up of the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation. This, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, is a major step along the road of development of co-operation, in particular in the field of production and marketing. During the past four or five years I have been personally associated with this work as chairman of the Agricultural Market Development Committee, which I think might fairly be claimed to be the prototype for this new Central Council. Perhaps I should declare an interest in this Part of the Bill—or, as the effect of this Bill is to remove more than half the Agricultural Market Development Committee's functions, perhaps it should be a disinterest that I declare. I should like to pay a tribute to the progenitors of A.M.D.E.C., because I think it has done very useful work in this field. It was founded on the initiative of my right honourable friend Mr. Soames, when he was Minister, jointly with the three National Farmers' Unions. They set up this strange, hybrid body, with the administration paid for by the Farmers' Unions, the membership coming from the Farmers' Unions, and the Ministry

449
providing £1½million worth of grants, to promote better marketing.
In practice, our experience has shown that our main activities have turned out to be to encourage and help farmers forming groups, co-operatives and companies to improve the marketing of their produce. The most important lesson that I suppose we have learnt in the last four or five years is that you cannot make any useful progress in the improvement of the marketing of agricultural and horticultural produce unless you turn to its production as well; and, to their eternal credit, the Ministry of Agriculture, working with us in this task, have been most flexible in the administration of these grants and have allowed us to go far into the field of production with the broad purpose of improving the actual marketing of the products. It has been a very fruitful partnership, and I believe I am only stating what is fair and true in saying that the A.M.D.E.C. has been the prototype of this new statutory Council.
This new provision can, of course, do much more. It provides greater powers, greater grants and wider scope, and it can do a great deal to help especially the small and medium-sized farm to make itself viable in the conditions of to-day. But I should record in passing that our experience is that it has usually been the larger farmer who has seen the advantage of combining with his neighbours for this purpose. It has been the smaller farmer who has followed his example and reckoned that if it was a good thing for the big chap, it would probably be a good thing for him too, has then come in afterwards.
First, by combining for marketing it puts a group of farmers (a small group, as a rule) into the position of being a bigger, stronger seller, able to make contracts and, what is even more important, to keep them, and to get beyond the farm gate a bit nearer to the consumer who is going to consume the food, and therefore able to learn more precisely what the consumer wants. On the production side, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, referred, we have a number of examples of small groups of farmers in the same neighbourhood who have integrated their production together, thereby saving machinery costs and being able to even out the flow of their produce to market, to redesign
450
production the better to meet consumer taste by changed breeding programmes, by altering cropping programmes, and so on.
But I think I should just say this word of warning in passing: that every group of farmers who join together in this way are not immediately going to make a fortune. The road to success is a hard one. Success is possible only where there is the right structure and the right management and where there is 100 per cent. loyalty by the members of the group concerned. The result then will be that there will be lower production and marketing costs, and there will be a better return from the market, because they will more precisely meet the consumer tastes that they set out to serve. The Central Council can do just these things. They can give guidance on the right kind of structure to be formed by a group wishing to start and they can give them grants; and I believe that they will do a valuable job over the years. They certainly have my best wishes.
Turning now to Part I of the Bill, dealing with the Meat and Livestock Commission, I can join with the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, in welcoming the setting up of this Commission. It is, of course, based on the Verdon-Smith Report which was made to the last Conservative Government. To me, it seemed a thoroughly sound Report: a very good Report indeed. In fact, what this Meat and Livestock Commission do is to confirm that the existing system of fat stock marketing, which is based mainly on live auctions, is accepted as the best that we can do. The new Commission are there to guide and help its development, as the noble Lord has described to us. It is perhaps interesting to record that this settles, at any rate for the time being, the great post-war debate about meat marketing in which noble Lords opposite and I have often taken part, as to whether we should continue with the live auctions on the hoof or sale on the hook by grade and dead-weight, usually suggested by the Producer Marketing Board.
Of course, the existing system is very easy to fault—it is full of defects—but it has the ultimate virtue that it works. It works to get a highly-perishable commodity quickly on to the counter in good

451
condition. My own view is that Her Majesty's Government have acted rightly to base their legislation on the Verdon-Smith Report, and that this is the best way to proceed. Dead-weight sales will develop on their merits alongside the live markets. In addition, the Commission will have the difficult job of establishing grades—much easier to talk about than to do. They have a useful long-term role to play, and I certainly wish them well. I must add this critical note: that, despite the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, I am still very doubtful whether Clause 9 is not giving much too much power to the Commission. But we can discuss that matter on Committee.
My concern in this field generally is more with the livestock producers themselves, who are now so very seriously depressed. My comment on Part III, the hill land provisions, is similar. They are useful measures, but their value will not materialise unless the confidence of the livestock industry can be restored. The cattle simply will not be there. In passing, I must warn the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, that we shall have some critical comments to make about the treatment of private forestry in these hill areas when we come to the Committee stage—indeed, some of my noble friends may have some critical comments to make to-day.
The reaction of the farming world to this Bill is slight, because its immediate impact—I stress the word "immediate"—on the basic economic problems of farming is also slight. The grants for farm improvements in Part II and the new investment grants are certainly substantial and very important, but they are no more than the existing provisions of the aid served up in a new form. The farm structure grants to which the noble Lord referred are, in my judgment, mainly sociological, but I certainly welcome them, such as they are.
Now I should like to turn to make a comment on what is not in the Bill: that is, what I believe to be the necessary measures to restore the economic health of the industry and to enable it to meet the nation's needs to-day and indeed tomorrow. I have three major reasons for reviewing the system of price guarantee by deficiency payment in this country. First, and by far the greatest, is, of course,
452
the Common Market issue. If we enter the Common Market we know that our system of deficiency payments must go and that we must change to a system of minimum import prices and levies. But after last autumn's experience we have now learned—and I sincerely hope that noble Lords opposite have learned—that even if we do not enter the Common Market the repercussions of the formation and development of the Common Market agricultural policy will still necessitate a change. If we do not make such a change, we shall suffer again and again from price collapse, due to temporary influxes coming on to our own market.
In the meantime, the Prime Minister is going round Europe assiduously wooing the Common Market capitals for Great Britain's entry and stressing that agriculture is our main problem; so that many people in Europe now must know the Prime Minister's policy for solving this problem, or at any rate the outline of it. Is it not time—I put this question to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, whom we look forward to hearing answer our debate—that the Government told our farmers here what is proposed for them? After all, they are the people who do the business. The silence of the Minister of Agriculture on this matter is positively deafening. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, will give us to-day some indication of Government thinking on this matter. It would also be of great interest to the whole farming world outside—although I appreciate that a statement here could hardly expect to get such good publicity as that of the President of the Board of Trade in a private meeting yesterday.
My second reason for reviewing the deficiency payments system of guarantees—and this is a very cogent one within the industry—is that the continuous postwar expansion of production has stopped; and I believe it has stopped in such a way that it will not recover without some new approach. The December returns for the industry, which have just been published, confirm this. I should like to give just one quotation from the market report published in last week's Farmer and Stockbreeder. Under a headline of "No confidence anywhere", it reads:
"A picture of almost unrelieved gloom is presented by the December returns for England and Wales. They show that there is a complete lack of confidence in every major section

453
of the industry. Sheep numbers are falling for the first time for many years. The expansion in the beef-breeding herd appears to be levelling out. The dairy herd is not rising as expected. Numbers of young cattle have turned downwards."
And so it runs on.
To that statement I would add that the overdrafts for the industry have now for the first time exceeded the figure of £500 million. Perhaps I should declare an interest in that, too—I should be happy to be able to do so. But, to be serious, the industry is evidently seriously short of cash. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, when he comes to wind-up will give us the forecast of the Ministry of Agriculture for production for the year 1967–68, the coming year.
Thirdly, my Lords, there are production problems in each commodity section, some worse than others. By far the worst is in the livestock industry. Let me just outline the problem the livestock industry had to meet. Last autumn the market collapsed; and the important point to notice is that the collapse was due to the policies of the Common Market countries. They each raised import levies on cattle up to £4 per live cwt., or about £40 per live beast. The result was that consignments of cattle for meat due to these countries were immediately switched to wherever else they could go—the only other place being here. A large Argentine consignment intended for Italy was switched to this country, and a considerable number of Irish cattle, also intended for Europe, were similarly switched here. I should say, in passing, that the position of Irish cattle, which normally we welcome here, has greatly exacerbated the collapse of our market. The export subsidy which the Irish Government is now operating has undoubtedly worsened the position, and the result has been that we have had some 18 per cent. more Irish cattle coming on to the flooded market here.
Finally, the export of British fatstock to the six countries of the Common Market was stopped; so that this balancing trade was ruled out. The result of all this was that cattle prices here fell by about £3 per live cwt., or £30 per beast—a price about £20 per beast lower than would occur on a normal market in the autumn. Sheep prices fell almost as badly. The price guarantee system is of some help; but it was not able com-
454
pletely to protect the farmers from this fall; especially as the abatement payment worsens the position. It remains to be seen how much the Minister's undertaking to revise this will help. In the store markets, which influence the future, the prices followed the fatstock prices—and there is no price guarantee to help there. To complete the picture, the disincentive to pig numbers has been so sharp that there is now a serious shortage, and a number of bacon factories are in danger of going out of business for lack of through-put.
My Lords, the total effect of this has been that our fatstock industry has suffered the most severe set-back since the war. The seriousness of this arises from our growing dependence on home supplies for our meat. To-day, over 70 per cent. of all our meat is home-grown, compared to the pre-war figure of 46 per cent. During the next five years, inevitably, imports of meat will continue to shrink—especially, I would say, beef from the Argentine, for after that time, I think, we shall not get more than the occasional consignment. New Zealand lamb and Danish bacon will continue to come here in large quantities, but the increased demand from the newly affluent countries will almost certainly increase the price that we shall have to pay for our meat and further reduce our share of it. The present market glut is therefore undoubtedly temporary, and so it is of vital importance for our nation, for our consumers, that as imports decrease, production from our own farms should rise steadily. But exactly the reverse is happening. The set-back last autumn was sharp enough to upset the confidence of the industry. The December returns, the facts that I quoted from last week's market report, prove this.
The rhythm of the industry has been upset, and calves which should be reared-on to make more meat in two years' time are still going to slaughter. Far from getting an expansion in 1968–69, we shall get a reduction in the home-produced supply of meat. For the past century we in Britain have had the benefit of cheap and plentiful supplies of meat, based on cheap imports acquired from all over the world by the enterprise of our own merchants. The trade started from America soon after the Civil War, and it is interesting to note that by 1880 the

455
first frozen beef had arrived in this country from Australia. It was sold here at 5d. per lb.—and even then it gave 150 per cent. profit to the shippers. Happy days! But the result here has been that for a long time, for several generations, the livestock industry has survived as a by-product industry: profit margins have been slender, or non-existent.
There is an old joke about three ways of losing money. The quickest is horse-racing; the most pleasant, wine and women, but far the most certain is by fattening beef. In post-war years successive Governments have tried to change that tradition. They have increased prices, and improved the profit margins, but there is still very little profit in the fatstock business, even if everything goes right. If things go wrong, as they did last year, there is no profit in it at all. It is significant that the Common Market countries are fixing their target price for carcase meat at a level which is about one-third more than ours. So market stability, my Lords, is fundamental if we want to get our production increasing, and better returns: if we are to give producers a sufficient return to make a profit out of it.
I hope that noble Lords opposite will bear this point in mind and will take note of the fact that Britain is probably the only open market for meat left in Europe, and possibly in the world; so that if there is any glut at any time, it will come here, unless we protect ourselves. The right way to do that, and to give a fair return to producers is to use the European system of target prices and import levies, and set the target prices at a sufficiently high level to give producers a fair return and a fair living. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps, which they can do, to reconvene the Meat Study Group, and to co-ordinate the phased imported supplies with home production. This system worked very well for cereals, so that at any rate in the interim, until they can move on to a general policy, they can do something to give the necessary stability to this market.
Another section of the livestock industry which needs a change is the poultry industry. It is a vast modern industry, turning over some £270 million a year
456
and bringing to our tables, without a penny of subsidy, 400,000 tons of the cheapest meat there is. I should declare an interest in the poultry industry, as I keep some chickens. A simple change is needed in the poultry industry, and the industry has done its homework for the Ministers. The change proposed will involve no cost on the Exchequer: it is simply a change in the marketing system, involving the abolishing of the lion stamp on the egg. At present, we have the ridiculous anomaly that the unmarked eggs which by-pass the official system make continuously 6d. to a 1s. a dozen more than the guaranteed official egg. A series of odd reasons, and un-reasons, account for this, including the superstition of a great many housewives; but if the lion mark were removed, the premium would quickly disappear and this would be to the benefit of all concerned. The whole industry wants the change, the Egg Marketing Board has worked out a viable scheme for doing it, and I hope that the Minister will be able to say something encouraging about the prospect of it getting done.
Even in cereals, my Lords, the most profitable part of the farming economy, there are warning lights. And I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Walston, with his great experience of farming in the Eastern Counties, will know that the profit margins have been tightening. In fact, the wheat price shows a net reduction of 20 per cent. over the last ten years, against continually rising costs. The result has been that farmers have continuously searched for economies in production, and this has undoubtedly led in sonic cases to dangerous practices of husbandry and of continuous corn growing. I dare say that the best land could stand up to it, but I am sure that a great deal of the land growing corn cannot do so. There is an urgent need for a new break crop, possibly rape, and I hope that in this Review it may be possible to find something to encourage that. In the long term this is urgently necessary.
My Lords, let me say this, in conclusion. With the price negotiations in progress, it would not be fair for me now to press Ministers in detail on the financial position of the industry. I will therefore confine my observations to saying that all the signs indicate that profit

457
margins have been pinched too hard in the last year or two for the long-term good of the industry. I think the review I have made also indicates that for both internal and external reasons the present system of price support by deficiency payment has had its day and is no longer giving the industry the stability and a fair living that is necessary. So a change to a system which maintains price levels by import controls is overdue. In advising your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which I emphasise, is a 1965 model, I must earnestly advise Her Majesty's Ministers to bring forward a further Agriculture Bill, a 1967 model, which will make these urgently needed changes.
5.26 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, this 1965 Bill has been going on so long that I thought that I had already spoken to it. In fact, I said so to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, the other day, but he reminded me that it was only in another place that it had already had two Second Readings. However, having got to the Second Reading of this very old Bill at last, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, so much of whose life has been spent in various aspects of agriculture, should be moving the Second Reading in this House.
Although I have not in fact spoken already to this Bill, over the last year we have spoken all round it. We spoke of the Price Review on that part of the Bill, the new cow subsidy, which was introduced, and we spoke on the problems of agriculture in the most interesting debate last June which was initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. To-day, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has spoken not so much to this Bill as given us a very interesting dissertation on the problems of agriculture as he sees them. I am bound to say that I agree with a great deal of what he said. Therefore, before I go on to discuss the Bill, I wonder whether I might make one or two comments on what the noble Lord said? What he said, I think, amounted to a belief that the Bill is really irrelevant to our problems at the moment, and that it is out of date.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble
458
Lord? I certainly would not say that this Bill is irrelevant. What is in it is good, but it is not sufficiently fundamental to deal with the basis of the industry.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I take that point, and perhaps I over-stressed the criticism of the noble Lord. What in fact he is saying is that in this Bill there is no attempt to consider the fundamental problem of agriculture, which is really the question of what we produce in this country and what we import. There is no attempt to reconsider the corollary to that central problem, which is how we support the industry; whether we do it by subsidies, which we suspect is a cumbersome process with the money going into the wrong pockets, or whether we start thinking again in terms of doing it through the price of the end product. I agree with almost everything that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in this context.
My Lords, I sympathise with the Government very much for not having yet brought in a Bill to deal with these problems. Although we have been talking about these problems now for years, and with increasing urgency in this last year, this is a problem which is so fundamentally different from that with which we have been faced before that I sympathise with the Government in not wanting to tackle it yet. But this, my Lords, is something which we must face. It is a problem which we have been saying is urgent for the last two or three years; yet at the same time we say that this is such a big change that we cannot really contemplate it now. We are getting into the dangerous situation in which the agricultural set-up is becoming provincial and out of line with what is going on in the rest of the world. We simply must face up to these two fundamental issues.
So far as the Bill itself is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said that it was originally introduced at a time when agriculture was still doing well, that during the last two years we have had a struggle to keep going, and that, to that extent, the Bill is out-of-date. I accept that. The Bill is meant to fit in with the National Plan, but that Plan was put forward two years ago. All the major aspects of the Bill are a jolly good try to solve problems

459
which have been with us for a long time. I do not know how far they are going to work. We welcome the Meat and Livestock Commission. This does not go so far as some farmers would like in strengthening their position, though it may go too far for others concerned, like the butchers. But in general I accept the Commission and think that it is likely to do well.
I am rather keen on Clause 9 and its associated clause, Clause 2, because I think that these may be fruitful. The Commission are going to produce new ideas, and they will do so in consultation (under Clause 2) with the industry. This may lead to useful developments in the way we organise the marketing of fat-stock. So I welcome Clause 9, in spite of the criticisms that have been levelled against it.
I welcome two other provisions in Part I of the Bill, the extension of calf and beef cow subsidies, which came in with the Price Review. I think that the support structure outlined in Part II is a laudable attempt to deal with a problem which has been with us for many years. I do not know whether this will work, but it is as good a shot at it as any. It has to work against the existing small farming schemes, which pull in another direction, but because certain aspects of Government policy pull in another direction that does not mean that either one or the other is bad. I do not know whether the Government's suggestion of voluntary amalgamation will work or will go faster than market pressure in bringing these about, but it is a good try. Landlords always have the problem that, when they amalgamate two small farms, they may find the cost of amalgamation in terms of capital equipment is not less than the two farms separately. The problem is far from a simple one, as owners of agricultural property will recognise. Speaking the other day on the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, I suggested that the Corporation could become a landlord and try their hand at dealing with the problem of these small farms, rather on the lines of the National Trust. This may be rather a fanciful idea, but I put it out then, and I repeat it now.
Part II provides for improvement and investment grants. I welcome the enlarged scope of the farm improvement scheme,
460
and I am prepared to settle for the grant being only one-fourth instead of one-third, though, of course, there is the 5 per cent. supplement on top of that. I would say that this is a reasonably good bargain, and that on the whole most farmers will welcome it. As regards investment grants, again I simply do not know. Are they necessarily going to be more flexible or better than the old investment allowance? Or is this merely a sop to egalitarianism? Will it help the man who does not pay high taxes more than the man who does? It is anybody's guess; I just do not know. I am inclined to favour a policy which helps the ploughing back of one's own money into one's own work, rather than a straight grant.
Part III of the Bill deals with hill land. This is a special problem, which has to be looked at divorced from the rest of agriculture. I think that probably the Government are doing the right thing here, with a 50 per cent. grant and moving it on to a permanent basis. I like the role of the development boards. If we are going to deal with special problems in areas of special difficulty, we must expect to have special powers. I do not see anything wrong with this. Noble Lords on the Liberal Benches welcomed the Highlands and Islands Development Board, because we thought it was the only way of dealing with a difficult problem. This is another of these landlord problems which have become too big for the modern landlord, and the State is right in devising a scheme to meet it.
The same applies to the rural development areas. They may well be a success, but it depends on the temperaments and skills of the people who run them. There is one point, however, that wants watching. We are getting so many overlapping authorities in every direction, and here is yet another. I need not enlarge upon that, as the point is taken. This point will become increasingly difficult. I am not going to say much about co-operation, about which I know very little. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, obviously knows a great deal about co-operation, and he has told us about it. I welcome the other miscellaneous provisions, but we must watch credit. I think that the A.M.C. wants a bit of a "jerk up", because it is slow and cumbersome and all the other things it ought not to be.

461
On the whole I think that the Bill is a sensible, but rather pedestrian, attempt to solve these minor problems, apart from the central problems which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, raised. In giving the Bill a modified welcome, I do so because it is so difficult, as I emphasised at every point, to know how these new ideas are going to work. Will the Livestock Commission work well? Will Clause 9, with Clause 2 in alliance, be fruitful of new ideas? Will the structural position of agriculture be improved by the Government's suggestion, or will nothing more happen than has happened under the pressure of market influence? Will investment grants do as well as the old investment allowance? Will co-operation be promoted by what is in the Bill? I welcome what is a good try, and I hope that the Government will soon have a go at the more fundamental issues. There is really disinvestment in agriculture. Capital is not coming back into the industry. It is obvious to all that it is extremely difficult for any of the partners in agriculture to get a fair return on either the fixed equipment—which is, after all, still more than half the total value of the agricultural industry—or that aspect of the capital structure which is the tenant's capital, his stock, machinery and the rest. Lastly, there is the man who has invested his whole capital in the industry, the worker, who is still the worst paid in industry.
We are in difficulties in the agricultural industry. This Bill will help in a small way some of the smaller difficulties, but the major difficulties will be solved only by facing up to them. This Bill, though good in so far as it deals with the minor problems, does not go anywhere in the direction of the big ones. I welcome the Bill, but I would urge the Government to get down to thinking about the fundamental problems of the industry.
5.42 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, in view of the number of noble Lords who are to follow, I shall be reasonably brief in what I have to say. I was not anxious to speak on this Bill. I have been concerned with agriculture over a long period of years, and I was one of five who initiated the first agricultural policy of the Labour Party for the 1929 Election. However, as there were only three speakers from this side of the House I thought it right
462
that I should speak in the debate. I am sorry for the Ministers concerned in introducing this Bill, because, so far as I know, neither of them has played any part in the promotion of it, although they both have long agricultural experience. No doubt they are forced to confine themselves to their briefs. I am happy that I am not in that position to-day.
I speak as a retired farmer with 11 male relatives still farming for a living. I wish the Bill were such that I could support it fully, but I am afraid I cannot do so. I do not want to say much at the present stage; no doubt there will be discussions later on the Committee stage. However, the Bill is something of a disappointment to me, and, in my view, although it is a long Bill and contains many clauses, it is quite inadequate to meet the present conditions of agriculture. I can agree, to a considerable extent, with what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said. The industry at the moment is recognised as being one of the most efficient, and the Price Reviews of each succeeding year bear this out. But what the next one will tell us, who can say?
Agriculture is the greatest import-saving industry of all. It feeds half our nation, and could do even better if the financial means in respect of services rendered were forthcoming and some competitive imports were kept out. Farmers and farm workers are not properly rewarded for their labours. They are lessening in numbers and, for the most part, lead hard, industrious and uncertain lives in ever-changing weather conditions such as we have known in the last month. This Bill does not attempt to remedy their position. There are no teeth in it. Now that it is on paper, I am afraid we cannot materially alter this situation.
The Bill sets up commissions and boards for all sorts of things, but does not provide the real means of assuring farmers that they will obtain fair prices for their home products and animals. The Meat and Livestock Commission cannot buy or sell, except so far as is reasonably necessary for, and incidental to, the discharge of other functions of the Commission. The whole crux of the matter, in my view, is that the Commission should have power to buy and sell

463
in order to stabilise the markets, obtain remunerative prices for farmers, and end for all time the uncertainty and unfairness of fatstock and other marketing.
The duties of the Commission seem mainly in the direction of giving advice. I expect farmers are by now tired of receiving advice from all sorts of people. But with all the advice which is given, stock prices are unremunerative and stock is often sold at a loss. Cereal prices are the same now as they were ten years ago; but there is no reference to cereals in the Bill. Bread went up a few days ago, but not home-grown wheat. Farming costs are rising, and there has been no Government move for control to restrict these increases of recent years. Everything that the farmer needs has gone up and his returns are stagnant or going lower. Subsidies save many from giving up entirely. It is high time that the Government realised that agriculture is of importance in the nation's economics and survival and legislated accordingly.
In brief, what have we, in the long run, in this Bill? We have a Commission of 10, which will appoint three Committees numbering 45 persons; a Rural Development Board of 12, and a Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation of 14. This is 81 persons in all, due to be partly paid out of the levies on farmers; some to receive pensions, and their necessary staff to be appointed and paid. It will be a very expensive set-up.
How does the farmer share in the good things, if any, in the Bill? He is faced with levies of unstated amounts. The Minister tried to persuade us a few minutes ago that they would be low, but I would remind him that the wheat and barley levies already approximate £2 million, and it may be the same with the levies provided for in this Bill. We receive grants from the taxpayer for certain items which may benefit the farmer, but if he is a small farmer his land may be wanted for amalgamation and boundary adjustments, and he may have to quit. We may receive certain remedies in respect of bank overdrafts. And last, but by no means least, we receive advice on how to run the farming business. My Lords, the Bill has been a long time coming. It is all very nice on paper, but it does not meet present farming needs;
464
and, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, I hope that very shortly we shall have something to replace it. I had hoped that the Government would have grasped the opportunity to do something courageous and effective. This Bill does neither.
5.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I want to say only a word on that part of this Bill which concerns forestry. As for the rest of the Bill, so far as it goes I think it is generally welcome. It is virtually identical with the Bill which was born in the last Parliament and which was based on the White Paper which your Lordships discussed very fully about 15 months ago. I think that is no doubt the debate which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was thinking about. In that discussion I expressed my own support of nearly all the proposals which are now embodied in this Bill. But I made one qualification: I said that I thought the very extensive and detailed powers of interference which were given to the Rural Development Boards with private forestry would to a great extent restrict and probably frustrate the Government's policy of expanding, forestry in this country.
As the White Paper explained, Part III of this Bill, which gives power to set up these Rural Development Boards, is mainly intended—in fact, I think entirely intended—for hill farming and marginal areas where agriculture for the most part is very poorly off, sometimes quite uneconomic, and where there is usually a large exodus of population either abroad or to the great conurbations; and it is very necessary, if we want to keep the rural population there, that afforestation should expand.
There are two agencies by which forestry can be expanded: the Forestry Commission and private planters. Neither of them has the necessary means or opportunity to do everything that is required in the national interest. Both of them, for various reasons, are timid and reluctant to do as much as they ought. The White Paper talks a great deal about the integration of forestry and agriculture—a very unexceptionable phrase with which we could all agree. But I wonder whether we always think of what it means. In the areas which

465
we are discussing now, where large-scale afforestation is required, at the present time very often not more than 5 per cent. of the land which ought to be planted is in fact planted; and very often perhaps 50 per cent. or more of the agricultural land, where the farmer is still struggling along, is really quite uneconomic and ought to be afforested. You cannot talk about the integration of existing forestry with existing agriculture. What you must mean by integration is not really integration but the conversion of large areas of uneconomic agricultural land to productive forestry. That, I think, was brought out very clearly by the Zuckerman Report about nine years ago.
These two agencies, public forestry and private forestry, are doing less than they should, for various reasons. The Forestry Commission are often naturally timid; afraid of offending public opinion, because the whole weight of inertia in this kind of matter is always on the side of doing nothing, against changing the scenery and converting something that everyone is accustomed to into something new and unfamiliar. The Forestry Commission have to contend against that; and, as for the private owner who must, if our policy is to succeed, play a considerable part in the process, he is often reluctant because probably he has not enough cash—and if he borrows money from the bank he would at the present moment have to pay a rate of interest which would make Shylock blush. Although he may—I think most people do—care for his unborn grandchildren, when the moment comes to make a practical decision in the human mind, the pressing needs of the moment often seem more urgent than those of the children as yet unborn.
I have had some experience of this, because I was for some time on a regional committee of the Forestry Commission in the North-East Region of Scotland. Part of our duty was to try to persuade reluctant landowners and planters to do a bit more. Although they quite understood the need for it, it was a very difficult job indeed. I am afraid that all these restrictions—I am thinking particularly of the restrictions in Clause 51 of this Bill—will have the opposite effect from what the Government intend. It looks to me as if the people who drafted this clause had done so on the assumption that large
466
numbers of landowners were anxious to plant good agricultural land which ought not to be planted, and there must be all these restrictions to prevent them from doing so. The truth is exactly the opposite. The majority of landowners who ought to be doing more planting are, for reasons I have given, extremely reluctant to do so. They need a great deal of persuasion. And there are the wobbly ones who are perhaps being persuaded they ought to do a bit more, and they will be clean put off by the kind of restrictions contained in Clause 51. It will have the effect of stopping them. They will not bother to fill up forms and make applications to two authorities, the Forestry Commission and the Rural Development Board, instead of to one.
Let me draw attention to subsection (4) of Clause 51:
"The Board may…grant a licence subject to any condition

(a) governing the kinds of trees planted, or

(b) where the licence authorises the planting of a short term crop, requiring the use of the land for growing trees to be discontinued by the end of a specified period, and requiring before the end of that period the carrying out of such works for the clearing of the land as will make it suitable for agricultural purposes…"

and they are also given power to specify the kind of trees which may be grown. These are powers of interference, I think I may safely say, which would be regarded as utterly intolerable in agriculture. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Walston. There is little chance of a Rural Development Board being set up in East Anglia. But suppose he lived in some other part of the country, and suppose a development board consisting of most estimable people came and looked over his farm and told him, "You must not grow turnips here at all; you must grow carrots instead. And as for this field in which you are proposing to grow wheat, you obviously ought to put potatoes here, and put the next one down in grass for the next three years". Were that to happen, I think the noble Lord's well-known amiability might be a little strained. And it would not do any good because it would not result in making the noble Lord farm any better. It would only put him off; and that is what I am afraid will happen to private forestry in areas where these Boards are set up.

467
My friends and I have put down a few Amendments for the Committee stage, and they are intended to help the Government in pursuit of their policy, and not to hinder them. I will give only one short example of the kind of thing I am going to try to do. If your Lordships will look at the beginning of Clause 51, you will see that subsection (1) lays down that:
"no person shall plant land in the area of a Rural Development Boad with trees except under the authority of a licence granted to him by the Board."
Then the Bill goes on to say that this shall not apply
"(a) to planting by the Forestry Commission"—
Of course, it would be a nonsense if it did—and
"(b) so long as the covenant, agreement or scheme in question continues in force, to land which is, on the establishment of a Rural Development Board, subject to a forestry dedication covenant or agreement as defined in the Forestry Act 1947…"
Of course, it would make an absolute nonsense if they were able to stop the planting of land if the covenant had already been agreed, but the Amendment I should like the noble Lord to consider is that this exemption from licence should apply not only to land which already has a dedication covenant when the Board is constituted, but to all future agreements in that area, after the Board is constituted, which are agreed between the owner and the Forestry Commission. I think that would make much better sense of this.
I am quite sure that I know the answer which some of the noble Lords' officials will ask him to make. It will be that this Amendment is quite unnecessary, because the Forestry Commission are supposed to be in close consultation with the Rural Development Board all the time, and of course the Forestry Commission could not accept land for dedication if they had not previously agreed to do so in consultation with the Board. But it does not always happen quite like that. Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord and the House what happened to me only fifteen years ago.
In 1952 I wanted to plant a fairly considerable area of ground in the Scottish Highlands. The Forestry Commission were delighted, and they accepted it for dedication. At that time, the emer-
468
gency war regulations governing the use of land had not been repealed, and to get authority to accept dedication the Commission had to sumbit it to the Regional Agricultural Executive Committee (which was very much the same kind of body as these Boards will probably be) before they could complete the dedication agreement. The Regional Agricultural Executive Committee refused permission and said that I could plant only bits of it. There were doing their best, but they knew very little about forestry.
I was faced with two alternatives: either I had to face two or three years of tiresome and frustrating argument, or else I had to take a risk. I took the risk and I planted the whole thing in one season. If I had done it under this Bill I should have been liable to a fine of £200. I do not know what penalty there would have been under the war-time emergency regulations, but I wrote to the Secretary of State and said: "I have now planted this land. It is done and finished, and the Forestry Commission are delighted to accept it for dedication. You can, of course, stop them from accepting it if you like, but it seems to me, as you have been imploring landowners to plant trees, and since I am one of the very few landowners who has done anything about it, you ought to be grateful to me for doing it". I am glad to say that nothing happened, and it is now a flourishing young wood.
What will happen is that the Forestry Commission may be prevailed upon by members of the Rural Development Board (who may hold different views from the Commission) not to accept ground for dedication when it ought to be accepted and would be approved by all good judges of forestry. That is why I should like to provide in this clause of the Bill that only the Commission, and not the Board, shall have the duty of deciding whether or not the land shall be accepted for dedication, and that the Board ought not to have to be consulted about it in advance.
I would like to impress upon the noble Lord, who probably agrees with me already, that there is a physical limit to the number of people in this country who have enough talent and enough knowledge to be able to interfere successfully in other people's business. They are not

469
innumerable. We found that out during the war, of course, when we had to recruit so many people of less than the highest standard of intelligence to administer the many war-time regulations which were necessary. We had to go out into the highways and the hedgerows and recruit all sorts of people, some of whom came rather near to illiteracy. I remember one case of a temporary civil servant who had to issue the petrol coupons, who spent the entire morning in trying, unsuccessfully, to look up one telephone number in the telephone directory because he was never able to remember the order in which the letters of the alphabet were arranged.
I am not suggesting that the people who will be put on the Rural Development Boards will be that kind of person. I think they will be admirable and good people: a worthy alderman, probably; possibly an eloquent and loquacious trade union official; probably a stolid and amiable retired secretary of the local branch of the N.F.U.—all very good people but not necessarily fitted, by nature or experience, to determine these questions of whether land should be planted; and, if so, how it should be planted.
I am not against all kinds of control; I am in favour of some. I and my friends supported the Highlands Development Board which is now set up in the Highlands. That is a fairly good Board; at least, it has a very good Chairman, and it is efficient, within the limits which it is allowed. But one reason why we supported it was because it did not have these meddlesome powers conferred in advance on the Rural Development Boards under Clause 51 of this Bill. I happened to be on one deputation about this subject to the present Secretary of State for Scotland a little more than a year ago, and I am glad to say he assured us that it was not his intention to extend the powers in Clause 51 to the Highlands Development Board. Indeed, I am quite sure the Board would be the last people to want them. They will not want to go hopping round, telling everybody whether to grow spruce or larch on a piece of ground, or, indeed, to interfere with dedication schemes between the Forestry Commission and private individuals.
470
I hope, my Lords, that the Government will seriously and favourably consider the Amendments, which are intended to be helpful, and which we shall seek to move in the hope of modifying those parts of the Bill which seem likely to retard and to restrict the expansion of British forestry.
6.10 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I hope that in this debate I shall not go over ground which other people have already covered. I should like to say that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wise, will never apologise for addressing this House on agriculture. He could not have made a more admirable speech. It showed quite clearly that he understands the problems of farmers, which is what most of us speaking in this debate are. I declare an interest, not only as a farmer, but as chairman of an agricultural auction market. I am very interested in the Meat and Livestock Commission. I am glad that in the Bill the recommendations of the inquiry have been followed and that we are to he allowed to sell meat on the hoof and on the hook. I am sure this is important, and I hope that this policy of being able to do one or the other will always be adhered to, because I think the auction markets serve a very useful purpose and provide a service for the farmers. It would be a great pity if they were prevented from dealing both with store-stock and fatstock.
I am glad that on the Meat and Livestock Commission there is to be a committee dealing with the consumer side of meat production, because I think that the idea of labelling and describing meat as it is sold in the shops will be very valuable and useful to the housewives and to others buying meat. I welcome also Clause 12, which brings into being the beef cow subsidy for animals that are dairy calves which are being bred for beef. I think it only fair and right that this subsidy, which up to date those of us who have hill cattle have been receiving, should not be denied to other producers of beef calves, and I am glad that has been agreed.
I should like to say a word about Clauses 30 and 31 which deal with agricultural investment. I would say, in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes,

471
that he and I have had quite a correspondence on this subject, and I have received very courteous and friendly letters from him without being able to impress him with my point of view. Nevertheless, I am going to try again and I hope he will not object. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, drew attention to the fact that the improvement grants and agricultural investment grants have been changed to some extent. They have been reduced in one case from one-third to one-quarter, which is not very welcome. On the other hand, there are many additional items of farm equipment which will now qualify for grant, and that is certainly a good thing. But for some farmers who are engaged in upland and hill farming, some of these investment grants are really hedged about with unnecessary restrictions. For instance, I take particular exception to the fact that all the time they stress that to attract grants machinery must be fixed, and that nothing which is a mobile unit, unless it has its own propulsion, like a tractor or combine harvester, will be able to rank for grant.
I should like to give one or two examples, because this is something which I think is very foolish, and I believe it could be altered easily without a great deal of trouble. Take threshing mills which in the old days were built into buildings. On many old farms in Scotland you will find threshing mills built into buildings, and the corn had to be carried to those mills inside, where it was threshed. To-day this is quite old-fashioned; you either thresh corn with a combine harvester, if that suits you best, or you have a mill which you can pull with a tractor and take wherever you like so that it is available for your work. If it is one which you can pull with a tractor, you cannot get any grant. If it is one which is fixed inside, you can. This seems to me extraordinarily silly. If you have a drying apparatus for drying corn, potatoes, hay or what-have-you, and it is fixed in a shed, it is eligible for investment grant. But a mobile blower, one which is hauled by tractor, which you can take into the field and put under a haystack or baled straw-stacks, and is therefore infinitely more useful than one which is fixed, is not eligible for investment grant. The dryer which you can take from one place to another pulled by tractor is far more
472
valuable than a machine fixed inside a barn.
We live in an age when engineers are continually inventing new machinery, and the more varied the use the greater the help for the farmer. A mobile milking parlour may be much more valuable to the milk farmer than the static bale, but one is eligible for grant and the other is not. I have a letter from a young man who is just starting to farm, an enterprising fellow, trained in an agricultural college. He has written:
"In order to make the best use of my land for milk production I decided to invest in a portable milking parlour which would allow the whole farm to be grazed and the policy to be more flexible. On this type of parlour … no grant is paid. If the same parlour is concreted into [a static] position, thereby losing its main advantage, the full grant is paid."
I foresee the time when modern machines may all be able to be moved around and be of increased usefulness, and the Minister of Agriculture in the 1970s and 1980s will be tied by these clauses which will limit investment grants to fixed machinery. This is putting a premium on old-fashioned methods.
Somebody described this as a 1965 Bill. We are trying to look further forward to 1968, 1969, 1970, and so on. We want to be up-to-date and modern, and I suggest to the Minister that if his grants are going to be tied in this way they will encourage people to have old-fashioned methods, when we are all longing to have as modern and advanced methods as possible. I have had quite a lot of correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in this matter, and naturally he has to stick to the letter of the law. But I am suggesting that when we discuss it in Committee we might explore this and see whether or not an alteration could be made to make it infinitely more valuable to the farmers.
I should like to turn to Part III of the Bill, which deals with hill land. I welcome Clause 43 which amends the number of years for the winter keep scheme, extending grants from three to five years. This is a great help, and enables farmers to plan ahead. Five years in a farming enterprise is not a long time. With a big scheme of hill improvement, which can be very expensive if it includes hill draining schemes or the making of roads for access to shepherds'houses—even

473
though grants are available for roads—five years is not a long time to see a major return for this expenditure. I also welcome Clause 40, which means that the date 1967 no longer applies, and that help will continue for the hill farmer beyond this year.
Several noble Lords have made comments on the particular needs of agriculture, and I do not want to trespass on your Lordships' time to enlarge on that. But the really desperate situation of some of our hill farming enterprises is well known, or should be well known, to the Minister. I hope the Government and those who are planning the Price Review will realise what is happening. It really is no use urging the increased production of sheep and beef unless the return on these commodities pays. We are not standing here to run charitable food producing enterprises, but to make a proper contribution to the feeding of our people, and thereby save the nation's import bill and help the balance of payments. The Bill is designed to help farmers and I think it will; but if, as the result, we produce more and there is no market for the produce, then the whole object of the exercise is negatived.
Lord Nugent of Guildford has drawn attention to the different aspects of the plight of agriculture. Somebody has mentioned overdrafts. If he can, I should like the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to answer one other question. This is not mentioned in the Bill, so perhaps I ought not to raise it. It refers to overdrafts. My question is this. When does the noble Lord think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to refund the selective employment tax which is coming back to those in agriculture? Innumerable forms have been filled in by myself and many other farmers, and not a single farthing has been returned to us at all. I hope that it will not be long before we do get something back. Overdrafts are one thing, but overdrafts plus selective employment tax really is another. I beg of him, if he can, to do something about this with his right honourable friend.
Lastly, I would mention one word about establishing Rural Development Boards. I am always rather chary of setting up more boards, consultative councils, or what-have-you, to tell people what
474
to do. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, counted 81 people who were going to be involved in all this. Not one of them will produce anything except questionnaires, memoranda, bits of paper, telling us what we are supposed to do. They are all going to be paid. The salary of any decent official must be a decent salary, otherwise we shall not get good officials. These officials will have to consult with other local authority officials. And so it goes on—more and more officials, none of them producing anything at all, except memoranda and questionnaires.
Those of us who are in local government rather resent appointed people coming along and doing jobs over our heads, when if we were given the money we could probably have done the job ourselves, and with much less controversy. I do not know about the rural parts of Wales, in regard to some areas of which people are considering these boards. But I do know about the rural parts of Scotland. Already there is a Highland Development Board, a Border Economic Development Council, and I do not see the need for any more appointed authorities in Scotland and I hope that the Secretary of State will think twice before he sets up any more boards in Scotland.
There is emphasis in the Bill on co-operation between agriculture and forestry. This, obviously, is of the greatest importance. But it is already happening. Certainly in Scotland there is a close liaison between the Scottish Woodland Owners Association and the Forestry Commission. There is a close association between the Scottish Land Owners Federation and the Forestry Commission. Private woodland owners have made enormous contributions to forestry. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Duke who is to speak later, have far more knowledge of this than most of us, and have done probably more than anyone, as indeed has the noble Lord, Lord Lovat. I should be strongly opposed to handing all forestry over either to a Rural Development Board, or indeed to the Forestry Commission, with a lot of ad hoc bureaucratic powers which may cause much ill-feeling and interfere with the considerable good will and co-operation which exists between the many interests in rural areas to-day.

475
With those few remarks, I support this Bill. I hope that in Committee we shall be able to mice some Amendments, and that these Amendments will be treated by another place with respect, because in your Lordships' House I believe we have a great fund of knowledge to draw upon. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is fully aware of that, he himself being a great expert. I hope that we shall be able to improve the Bill. I support it in so far as it goes some way, if not all the way, along the road to help the farming industry.
6.15 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness in this debate. She farms on the other side of the Border from me. May I say, too, to the Minister how glad I am to see that this Bill applies both to England and to Scotland? Too often we have separate Bills on agriculture and other subjects brought before us, when, with a little more preparation and a little more give and take, we could draft one Bill which would be of general advantage. So this Bill will be especially welcomed by those who live along the Border, on both sides, and who have to put up with a good deal of inefficient administration in different fields because of this separate legislation. I am glad that we are not adding to that inefficiency to-night through this Bill.
I should like to apologise for the fact that I may have to leave before the end of this debate. I dislike asking leave to do that, but if I had not perhaps spoken in every Agriculture Bill since I first entered the other place twenty years ago—that is, I have spoken from both sides of both Houses—perhaps I should not have asked your Lordships' permission to excuse me this evening. But I wanted to add a word about this Bill; and I would say, first, that I think the Minister must have done well in the Legislation Committee to get authority for such a long Bill. There is always so much potential agricultural legislation in the pipeline that it is a question in the Department of what is to be left out. I would echo the words of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who has already shown what a pity it is that the fundamentals have been left out. A great deal of this long Bill con-
476
sists of the less important matters. Anyone who has served in the Ministry of Agriculture must sympathise with a Minister after a year of poor weather and had prices.
The income of the industry is falling. To bring this debate into perspective I should like to think that when the noble Lord, Lord Walston, comes to wind up, he will be able to give us the up-to-date calculations of the income of the industry. He must have these figures, because they are always available at the time of the Price Review. The latest figure we have at the moment is that contained in last year's Price Review White Paper. If he has not on the Box before him the up-to-date figures, I hope he will ask some official to get them for him, because they are relevant to this debate.
I would support my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford when he expresses the need for basic re-thinking of our support system, and carrying on where my late chief, Mr. Soames, began. Particularly ought the Minister to do this in the light of present practice and thinking on the Continent. I hope that the Price Review, which we shall hear about not many weeks hence, will show that this is happening in the Department, even if there are no indications of it in the Bill.
At Question Time to-day a Question was asked which demonstrated how easy it is for this agricultural support system of ours to become so complicated that the ordinary man can barely understand it; and the Minister must be constantly on his guard against letting this system become ever more complicated. It can easily become unintelligible, and I should like to invite any noble Lord who has a copy of the Bill beside him to look at Clause 10, which deals with calf subsidies, which are, of course, relevant to any small farmer in the country. The clause is virtually unintelligible. At every Price Review time there is a special temptation to introduce some new refinement such as this; but these refinements are no substitute for basic thinking.
Having said that, I would add that it is not always the Minister's fault when these refinements have to be introduced. The abolition of investment allowances was not the fault of the Minister of Agriculture. But I am doubtful—here I must part from my noble friend—about the wisdom of including mobile equipment,

477
such as tractors, in the investment grant provisions, together with fixed equipment. There may be a few votes in it—I admit that. But I rather doubt whether for purely administrative reasons this is the right way of doing it, and whether, if it was necessary to grant aid for the purchase of tractors, harvesters and other machinery, it ought not to have been thought out in another way. I am glad, however, that the Farm Improvement Scheme is continuing. I would not quarrel with the drop in the rate. It is much better that the scheme should continue, because it has brought immense benefit to an industry which was badly starved of capital for fixed equipment.
I should like now to turn to the Rural Development Boards, which I think every speaker has mentioned. They are, indeed, a great experiment in Socialism. I have always supported the idea of greater integration of agriculture and forestry in hill areas, but I cannot see that this is a good way to do it; or, indeed, the simplest way. An elaborate new organisation is being set up, and I think that Lord Wise's calculation of 81 as the membership of all these bodies allowed for only one Rural Development Board. Under the Bill there could be many more than one.
This provides for an elaborate new organisation and the writing into a Statute of a whole list of restrictions and controls which, so far as forestry is concerned, applies, as I see it, to only one half of the industry: that is to say, private forestry, and not to the Forestry Commission. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Walston, what the private forestry industry has done to deserve Clause 51. I have never seen a clause of this sort, in any Bill, crying out more loudly for amendment. How many Rural Development Boards is it in the Government's mind to set up? I am told there is likely to be one in some part of Wales, and probably another in the Pennines, but that there is unlikely to be one in Scotland. What has Scotland done to deserve this favour?
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: Everything.
LORD INGLEWOOD: As I see it, too, if it is considered that the Pennines are a suitable area there is no reason why the boundaries of the board should not
478
extend from the Scottish Border to the Peak.
Then one comes to the question of overlapping which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. When the noble Lord comes to reply I hope we shall be told what are the planning powers of Rural Development Boards. How are they going to fit in with the planning authorities? There will surely be a clash with administration in a National Park area if the boundaries of a Rural Development Board should overlap with those of a National Park. It could well be that the country in a National Park exactly satisfies the sort of conditions set out in this Bill for the establishment of a Rural Development Board. There is no doubt at all that rural interests, and not just foresters, are particularly apprehensive, too, about the composition of these Boards. The chairman is going to be a figure of great importance, and whom are we going to see chosen? Will it be an ambitious Socialist urban alderman, or even a safe Socialist alderman to whom the Party feel that they owe some service in his later years? If one follows precedent, those are the sort of people from whom these chairmen are likely to be chosen.
LORD WALSTON: Like the chairman of the Steel Board?
LORD INGLEWOOD: Perhaps he would do; I do not know. This criticism is not against the idea of helping the small farmers in these areas to amalgamate, nor against helping agriculture, forestry and tourism; but I am against what I believe to be the absurdly far-reaching powers when little or no amendment of the existing powers of the Minister, and very little addition to his existing A.L.S. staff, would enable him to go a long way, if not the whole way, towards achieving important results, such as helping the small dairy farmers in the poorer parts of the Pennines to amalgamate. The Minister already has powers in his hands in this respect, and if they are not sufficient they could be made sufficient with far less amendment than the setting up of this elaborate and expensive system. I am sure that substitution of such a policy not only would cost less but would have general support in the countryside. But I admit it would not be Socialism. The Minister must, indeed,

479
give back confidence to the industry and reverse this trend of falling prices, before he finds himself in the position of the psalmist and able to echo his words:
"For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills".
6.35 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has said about the application of this Bill equally to Scotland and to England. I should like to join with him in congratulating the Minister upon steering this by no means uncomplicated Bill into the safe haven of your Lordships' House. I trust that such refitting as may be necessary will be done with expedition, and that this much needed Act will be brought quickly into operation, and so remove a degree of uncertainty and consequent anxiety which impending legislation inevitably produces. And all the more so when it concerns an industry based on a large number of small units, and an industry which, as the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has so ably pointed out, is at this moment somewhat overcast by hard times and the consequent difficulty of making a reasonable profit.
As a member of the Pig Industry Development Authority, whose functions will be absorbed by the Meat and Livestock Commission, it is with some trepidation that I venture to speak on the first Part of the Bill. But there are two points I wish to make. The first concerns the period of uncertainty to which I have referred in so far as the present staff of P.I.D.A. are concerned. The shadow of the axe has been hanging over them for nearly two years. I appreciate the tribute which has been paid to them by the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, and I should like to add mine for the way in which the P.I.D.A. staff have maintained their energy and drive. That, I think, is all the more reason why an assurance as regards their continuing employment would be a most useful encouragement, and it certainly would be welcomed by the members of the Authority who realise how much of the success of P.I.D.A. has been due to the devotion of its staff. I welcome the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, that the work of P.I.D.A. is to be continued with the minimum of interruption.
480
The other point I wish to make is on the broad organisation of the Meat and Livestock Commission. I must confess that when the structure of the Commission was first announced I was very sorry that the main divisions were not vertical by animals—beef, mutton, pork. But on reflection I am convinced of the rightness of the proposed horizontal divisions representing respectively the producers, then a combination of marketing, processing and distribution, and, thirdly, the consumers. The method by which the Consumers Committee is constituted is an extremely attractive one, which I hope might be used as a model for future developments in other fields.
I welcome the proposals in Part II of the Bill which make possible the amalgamation of uncommercial units and the improvement of farm boundaries. Especially important are the proposals to pay lump sums or annuities to those occupiers who release the whole or part of their land for amalgamation. In this connection, I trust that there will be a fairly liberal interpretation of the term "uncommercial", and that its definition will include that the land is uncommercial by reason of the age or infirmity of the farmer. Indeed, if I had my way in this matter I should like to include inefficiency of the farmer as falling within the term "uncommercial". In every industry where grants for assistance are made by the State, there are some persons who seek benefit by making false statements. The effectiveness of much of this Bill will depend on the speed with which grants can be made. In the past there have been cases where delay has meant missing the benefits for the production of a whole year. If a greater measure of trust could be reposed in the farmer—and in the vast majority of cases this can be safely done—these matters can be settled much more quickly than has sometimes been the case in the past.
However, the quid pro quo for this should be more severe penalties for the farmer who makes a statement which he knows to be false. I submit that on summary conviction a fine of £100 is small in relation to a false statement by which the farmer could put £1,000 in his pocket. I realise that on conviction by indictment the extent of the fine is unspecified, and that both have sentences of imprisonment. In the initial stages of

481
the application of this Part of the Bill immediate and summary retribution will be a very salutary warning to those applicants for grants who may feel tempted to be a little careless in the preparation of their application. I hope that some adjustment may be made in this respect.
With regard to the Rural Development Boards, there are two points which occur to me, and both are peculiar to Scotland. Pace the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, the Bill obviously anticipates extension to Scotland. I would question whether adequate notice of the establishment of such a Board is given by a notice lodged at a county council office. While the detail of the Board's rights should be available for inspection at the county council office, I think that notice of its establishment should be given a much wider publicity. I share the apprehension of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, in this matter. There are now so many statutory bodies which have crept up behind farmers, of whose existence a farmer becomes aware only when he transgresses one of their regulations.
My other point relates to Clause 48, and I should have thought that the Scottish equivalent of the English Land Tribunal was the Scottish Land Court. I feel there must be good reason for the difference, and it would be interesting to a non-legal person like myself to know the answer. I must say, in fairness to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that I do not expect to be given the answer this evening. I welcome the Bill and the attitude of the Government and of the Minister while it has been going through another place. I believe that something like 50 Amendments put down by the Opposition have been accepted, and there is general good will to see this Bill on the Statute Book as soon as possible.
In conclusion, I should like, if I may without impertinence, to revert to Part I of the Bill which deals with the Meat and Livestock Commission, in which I have already declared my special interest. In Schedule 1, Part II of the Bill, it is stated that the
"Commission shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession".
As a sort of Morituri te salutant I would echo those words in the Schedule, and wish the Commission long life and perpetual succession.
6.42 p.m.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, on the charming way in which he introduced the Bill. He made it sound so good that, although I would not say that some of the compulsory powers, and some of the farming by decree, which inevitably creeps into a very great document of this kind, were concealed, they were not, perhaps, made clear enough by any speaker except the noble Lord, Lord Wise, who I thought made a first-class contribution to the debate.
As farmers, we welcome almost everything in this Bill, because most of the things that are set out are inevitable with advancement in agriculture. I would make certain reservations, and I should like to speak on this occasion for the Highlands of Scotland. The noble Baroness left off on the Borders. I am glad to think that her rapidity and rate of fire has far exceeded that of any other speaker, and it is an honour and a privilege for me to treat her as my far from venerable great-aunt. We who are left in the debate shall all lag far behind her.
The Highlands have peculiar problems of their own. I would remind your Lordships that they represent two-thirds of the land surface of Scotland, and it seems to me that the hill farming side of this country has been neglected in the past. At a time when I took a more active part in your Lordships' House, I did a certain amount towards the passing of the Hill Farming Act, in 1946, and the Livestock Rearing Act, in 1951. Farming in the hills is now at the crossroads, and I genuinely believe that all that good work will be wasted, unless the Government take immediate action to arrest the drift of confidence of people, and take into account the necessary adjunct to hill farming, which is the long-term aspect. I cannot believe that, with a world food shortage, more should not be done in the hills.
The hill farmer, particularly the sheep hill farmer, sees himself now in a position in which he cannot begin to get back as little as 2 per cent. on his capital; and nobody wants to continue like that. If any of your Lordships have visited the Beauly or Conan Valleys after the recent

483
disastrous floods, you will readily understand that one bad year in the hills can wipe out four or five years' farming profits in a declining industry. I am not well versed in Board of Trade matters, or in exports over imports, but it seems to me surely possible not to dump cheaper meat, whether it is beef or mutton, in a country which is trying to economise. I feel that attention to the whole long-term aspect in hill farming is lacking.
I am delighted to hear from the noble Lord that there is every chance of subsidies continuing. I shall not elaborate greatly on subsidies. I do not approve of them, but one certainly could not farm in the hills without them. But it is not a bit of good dangling 25s. on a ewe, or so much per hill cow, if it is expected to last only for a year, for two years or for three years. In the case of hill cattle, which multiplied on the hills in the past—and surely this could he done again—it is not a bit of good having a three, four, or five year programme, because before you come into production you are only starting with your first calves. You start with heifer calves; it is two and a half years before you put them to the bull, and another year before you get a calf; and by the time you sell your store cattle you may very well find yourself in Queer Street, with the subsidy coming off again.
I have said that the Highlands have particular problems, and one of the greatest, apart from the weather, the unrelenting climate and the poor soil, is the fact that we can only sell store animals out of the hills. Store cattle and sheep come on the market at the same time, and there is a glut, which it is impossible to deal with. There is nothing sadder than to see a hill man, who has been working for a year to get his lambs or his weaned calves to market, finding that there is absolutely no demand for them. But he cannot take them home, because he is faced with the severity of the winter, and has sufficient keep only for his breeding stock, with no followers.
I am sorry that this Bill has said nothing in any part of it about land reclamation. That seems to me to be
484
one of the most important aspects of agriculture to-day in this country. We are losing 40,000 acres a year to various requirements other than farming. There is a Land Commission, which I am sorry to think could not be sent out, all 2,000 civil servants, every morning, with their buckets and spades, from Newcastle to reclaim part of the Humber Estuary. The general idea in the Highlands, which I have myself put to the Highlands and Islands Development Board—which, after all, is the first of these Development Boards in existence—is to try to reclaim land.
There are thousands of lost acres in the Spey Valley, and some of the more productive mud flats in the various estuaries could unquestionably be converted to make the Highlands, at any rate, self-sufficient. I feel that the Highlands may well be the poor relation in agriculture. Yet we do, of course, grow a lot of the barley which produces the whisky, which in turn raises levies of anything up to £150 million in taxation annually. We have no communications, and we could do with a lift in the hills. I hope that the noble Lord will pass on that reminder to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
House adjourned during pleasure:
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
7.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Consolidated Fund,

Education,

West Indies,

London Government,

London Bridge.

House adjourned during pleasure:
House resumed.

AGRICULTURE BILL
7.12 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, after that very historic interlude, which I hope that we shall see, at any rate occasionally, in the years to come, we return once again to the Agriculture Bill. This is very much an omnibus Bill. It deals with a great many matters and I propose to mention only one or two points. First, I should like to say something about hill farming; secondly, about the amalgamation of uneconomic holdings, and thirdly, about co-operation. I welcome the proposals for stabilising subsidies and other benefits which are proposed for hill farmers. After all hill farming is about the most hazardous of all forms of farming. I was a hill farmer in Northern Ireland for some years, and there the land was not good hill land; it was boggy, peaty soil, rather, I suppose, the same type as the soil you would find in Argyllshire. The sheep which I had on my farm were pure bred Blackfaced.
The dangerous time in hill farming is the winter and the early spring, before the new grass comes. After a severe winter, when the grass comes late, the ewes are weak and have little milk when the lambs are born in April. Often there is a bitter East wind in April—certainly there was in my part of the country. I remember that on one occasion during one of these bitter winds 22 lambs were born in one night. The shepherd did his best to put them in a sheltered place for the night, but when he came back in the morning 20 of them were dead. That is the kind of thing the hill farmer is up against. There is also the problems created by foxes and dogs. It is extraordinary how careless so many people are about keeping their dogs in at night. The animals go out and become killers on the hill. They can maim and cause the death of numerous sheep. Then there are vermin—for instance, the grey crows. I remember one occasion when a ewe was cast; that is to say, it had fallen over on its back and because of its big fleece, could not get up. While it was in that helpless state a grey crow pecked out both its eyes. The wretched animal was blinded for life. Fortunately the shepherd came upon it soon afterwards and the animal was taken down to lower
486
ground. It lived on for several years and had a lamb every year, so that was not so bad for the poor thing, considering that it was completely blind.
Perhaps the worst of all hazards is snow drifts in winter. To-day the weather forecasts help the shepherds and very often disasters may be prevented, because if sheep can be gathered and taken to lower ground they can at any rate be kept together. But sometimes blizzards come without warning when the sheep are scattered over the mountain. I have lost as many as 100 sheep in one night; they were buried and smothered to death under the snow. I just mention these details, my Lords, in order to show the difficulties under which a hill farmer works and how much he deserves the subsidies and other benefits that he has received in recent years, and will continue to receive under the provisions of this Bill.
I should like to say a word about Part II of the Bill. I am especially interested in the provisions relating to the amalgamation of small uneconomic farms with larger units and how this will operate in Northern Ireland, where I believe that there are 20,000 farms of under 20 acres. It must be remembered that in Ulster there are no tenant farmers, because under the Land Acts, which began in the time of Gladstone in the 1870s (and there were later enactments right up to the 1920s) all the tenant farmers were entitled to buy their land from the landlords. Consequently, all the farmers in Ireland to-day, both North and South, are absolute owners of their land, subject, in the case of some later sales, to small terminable annuities.
We also have a system there called the conacre letting of land, under which small farmers can let their land for the season only to neighbours with larger farms. Let me give an example. A small farmer with 15 acres may let his land for the season under the conacre system for, say, £150. If he is an old man he will probably also draw the old age pension and he can continue in his house. Such a man, I think, would not wish to come under the scheme in this Bill, unless the grants which were proposed in the White Paper issued in August, 1965, were to be considerably increased. In regard to this point, I was glad to see that the present Minister of Agriculture,

487
Mr. Peart, admitted in another place that the grants published in the White Paper were not sufficient and would have to be increased.
However, quite apart from the proposed scheme in the Bill, I am told that in recent years a large number of small farms in Northern Ireland have been absorbed by purchase into larger units, so that something has already been done. I believe that there have been recent talks between the Minister of Agriculture here and the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, and I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Walston, could tell me whether any decisions were reached in those talks.
In conclusion, I come to Part IV of the Bill, which deals with co-operative schemes. This is an admirable idea, but how far will it work out in practice? That remains to be seen. I am afraid that the British farmer is not very co-operatively minded. Perhaps the greatest experiment ever tried in these Islands in agricultural co-operation took place in Ireland at the end of the last century and the beginning of this. With that scheme the name of Sir Horace Plunkett will always be associated. Under the scheme, co-operative creameries and other industries were set up. I think they were quite successful, but I am afraid that few of them remain to-day. This Bill is obviously going to become law, and I hope that its provisions will prove beneficial to the agricultural community.
7.25 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I want to deal with only one point in this Bill, and I promise to be brief. I refer to Clause 31, which deals with grants for fixed machinery. Presumably, fixed machinery includes batteries. Many noble Lords may accuse me of introducing the old bogey of humanitarianism again. Well, perhaps that is so; but it depends on how one looks at this: whether one regards the prevention of unnecessary suffering by defenceless creatures as a desirable thing or not. I happen to be one of those who do. I am not going to hold for a moment that the domestic fowl is one of the most intelligent of creatures. The fact is that it is very much the reverse. But one does not have to be very intelligent to suffer pain, fear and
488
discomfort. Probably the more stupid you are, the more you suffer, because you do not realise either how to get rid of pain or how long it is going to last.
Of these three elements, the first, pain, is rather a doubtful quality so far as batteries are concerned. Whether de-beaking causes pain, I am not prepared to say, but it certainly causes discomfort. The other two are quite certain. I can see my noble friend Lord Ferrers sitting there, all ready to say that the birds are kept in an extremely comfortable and warm situation, protected from bad weather. But, with all due respect to my noble friend, that really is absolute nonsense, because surely that is making the birds into human beings. If one were a human being, I do not think one would like to spend one's life sitting strapped into a chair in the comfort of a warm room and, what is more, having one hand cut off so that one should not hit the man sitting in the chair beside one. There is no doubt that battery birds live a totally unnatural life. They get no exercise; they live in semi-darkness, with never a glimpse of the sun and, in present circumstances, with not enough room even to stretch their wings. On top of that, there is this question of de-beaking, which must cause discomfort at least.
Apart from the humanitarian aspect of this question, let us look at the quality of the product of batteries. I was reminded only last week that this is Quality and Reliability Year. If we want quality in eggs, we shall certainly not go to a battery, because there is nothing on earth more tasteless than a battery egg. I think it should be made compulsory to label them as such, so that they should not be sold in shops as normal eggs. They are even worse than deep-litter eggs, which are themselves not nearly so good as free-range eggs. From all points of view, batteries are not desirable machines, and I wish that the Government could make it possible to exclude them from these desirable grants for fixed machinery that are included in this Bill.
7.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I want to speak only briefly on this Bill. To begin with, I should like to say that although there are benefits from the Bill, there is no substitute whatever

489
for proper prices for agricultural produce, and I hope that the Price Review which is now on the way will recognise this fact. This is a palliative, perhaps, but it is no cure whatever for the real problems which the industry is now facing.
I desire to seek some information on Part I in regard to farm and structure improvements, and the promotion of agricultural investment. Clause 26(1) says:
"The appropriate Minister may in accordance with a scheme…
Who makes that scheme? Am I right in assuming that you can make a scheme yourself as a landlord in conjunction with your tenant? Or who makes it? The clause just says, "in accordance with a scheme". It goes on to deal with an "uncommercial unit", but qualifies it by saying that an uncommercial unit
"shall be owned and occupied…"
Does that mean to say that unless you own and occupy it a tenant cannot get a golden handshake? I do not understand this. I apologise for my stupidity in not being able to undersand it, but perhaps it could be made clear.
I come now to another matter on the same subject, in Clause 27. The words which appear in Clause 27(1) are:
"an individual who in prescribed circumstances…"
What are the prescribed circumstances? You cannot see them anywhere in the Bill—at least, I cannot. Then the clause goes on to deal withan uncommercial unit of land, and so on. I should like to know whether a landlord, if he agrees with his tenant and everybody else, can join two intermediate units and make one commercial unit. An uncommercial unit, yes. But can you join two intermediate units? This is not clear to me, although probably it is to everybody else, and I should like, if possible, to have it ironed out. Later on, talking about these units, the clause says:
"calculated in a prescribed way …"
What is the prescribed way? It does not tell you that. Then Clause 27(1) paragraph (c) says:
"subject to the provisions in Part III of this Act, in accordance with arrangements approved by a Rural Development Board as being for the purpose of facilitating the a forestation of land in the area of the Board."
I earnestly hope that we shall never have Development Boards in Scotland;
490
and, anyway, we shall not have them for six or seven years, because I am thankful to say that we are well down the list of places that are to be afflicted with these other people to manage their business. But it seems to me (and this point was mentioned, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford) that if you have an agreement to dedicate land to forestry with the Forestry Commission, this should be good enough. I think "a development board" should come out, and the words "and/or", or something of that sort, be inserted instead.
I want to note, in passing, a very unusual act of generosity on the part of the Treasury. It is so unusual to have an act of generosity on the part of the Treasury that I wonder if they have noticed it. It is on page 22 of the Bill, where it says that the annuity can be enjoyed by the wife. Quite frequently, an antique Highlander takes for his second wife a young and bonny lassie of 17 or 18, and it seems to me that the Treasury will be paying that annuity for a very long time. This is most generous of them, but I do not suppose they have thought about it.
Perhaps I may point out one other matter. Later in the Bill the Minister takes to himself powers to take on a part holding while waiting for it to be made into a commercial unit. There is a danger here which I am surprised is not covered. Here it not only says that he may amalgamate and so on, but uses the words "to use the land". I should have thought that the temporary tenant, who can be turned out without security of tenure, should at least be given the option of the combined unit when it becomes a commercial unit. Otherwise, this is merely an invitation to the Government to nationalise land. I think this is wrong. I do not think it is in the interests of the farmer, and I think that this protection should be given to the tenant farmer, so that one or other of them makes sure that the tenant farmer gets it and the Government do not set up a bureaucratic institution.
If I may now take up one other point, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, it is the question of fixed normal plant and so on. I should, of course, have declared an interest here before I started, but I think everybody realises that I am up to

491
the hilt in interest in this. I am not quite so sanguine about this business as the noble Baroness appears to be. I have installed a dryer, and have equipped it with a tractor-driven fan, and the reason I did this was because the electric distribution system in Scotland is single-phase. A high-powered single-phase motor is an expensive thing. There are technical difficulties in starting it; it can be done, but it is not easy, and it is not like a three-phase. If I had installed an electric motor to drive this fan, I should have got grant on it without question. But this would have been a stupid thing to do. In my own particular grain dryer I have one Aga fixed by a couple of bolts which fills the thing and this gives grant. Then I have three bins and I empty those bins with another. That does not give grant although it is exactly the same Aga. My fan does not give grant. My heater does not give grant. How are you going to work a grain dryer without a fan or a heater. Of the ducts that take the air through the grain, the portal, as you might say, which is bolted to the concrete, gives grant, but the duct from the portal which carries air to the grain does not. Schedule 4 of the Bill lists all the various items on which you can get grants, and paragraph 17, which has been added, says:
"Any operation incidental to any of the operations specified in the other paragraphs of this schedule or necessary or proper in carrying it out or securing the full benefit thereof."
I should like an answer to this. If that does not cover the point of the integral parts of a dryer, if you cannot operate without it, I do not know what does. It appears to cover it. But I am quite sure that if I think it does, it does not! Therefore, I should like the noble Lord to make this point quite clear.
7.40 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, I am sorry if I am delaying the conclusion of the debate, but I will be very brief. I feel that this is a Bill which deserves a wide discussion. I should like, also in a few words, although it does not deal with all the major problems of farmers, to thank the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, for bringing forward proposals which are due from time to time and provisions which will be beneficial
492
to agriculture and to production from the land.
I would refer briefly to advantages in the voluntary amalgamation of small farms in cases where they are unlikely ever to be economic, with a better distribution of fields among adjoining farms. Also, I should like to add a reminder that this should be done with considerable care and knowledge of the circumstances, and not necessarily in all cases, as I am sure the noble Lord realises, as others do, that there are very many occasions where a small farm may not be economic to one person but it can be to another, and can provide a very useful stepping-stone to a person on his way to a bigger farm. These amalgamations have been practised by landowners where opportunities have occurred, and it is satisfactory that this action has been in accordance with official policy; and I feel it can be continued by individuals as well as under Government auspices.
In this matter, and more so in other parts of the Bill, including the changeover from allowances to investment grants, the procedure seems to be more complicated than is necessary and to bring more complications and delays and cost to farmers and those concerned with the management of land and farming. Perhaps also it may involve less freedom of choice of production from the land. I should like to feel that simplifications may be possible during the further stages of the Bill.
I do not find a friendly welcome for Rural Development Boards, or that in Scotland any wish, or need, has been shown for them to be set up. I am happy to think that there have been indications, which I hope will continue, that there will be no hurry to set them up and that there will be a careful watch first on such Boards which are set up in other places in the United Kingdom. I think we all agree that the selection of membership of these Boards is very important indeed, and some of us are anxious that it may be difficult to secure for them the services of persons of the greatest wisdom and experience, who are probably already fully engaged and employed in their own work and in many other local government and other local works.

493
This is not a Bill for the protection of forestry, but the growing of trees comes into it. There is an appearance of discouragement and more control for private forestry, rather than encouragement of private forestry. In so far as land may be released for forestry by these Boards, it seems that preference and advantages are mainly for the Forestry Commission, and there is not equality for all who are willing to help the nation by growing trees and producing more timber. And yet locally, when sites are released for forestry and are distant from Forestry Commission forests, and when acreages are small, the planting and management are much more suitable to be done by individuals on the spot; and the Forestry Commission quite properly do not want to be bothered too frequently with places which they know are less suitable to themselves.
I was relieved to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, state that consideration would also be given to private forestry. I should like to ask whether it is accidental or deliberate in this Bill that a preference seems to be given to the Forestry Commission with an advantage over other growers; and, if so, why this is. The two branches of forestry, State and private, work very closely together. I work very closely with both, and I am sure that all in forestry want each to make its maximum contribution, one helping the other, and conversely. We should like to believe that Government and Parliament want an expansion of forestry by all who can do so.
Occasional references are made to what the Government will do for forestry, but this seems to be one of those things which are everyone's responsibility and which are always being postponed. I do not suppose that this is the occasion to go into forestry very much, but as it has been mentioned in the Bill I feel it is justifiable to emphasise a few words which I hope will be taken up by those more concerned with it. I trust I shall be excused for a few very gentle points of disagreement; and I hope this Bill will be further improved in this House.
7.47 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we have had quite a long debate and it seems indeed extraordinary that this Bill, which originally started so long ago as Novem-
494
ber, 1965, has at last come up to your Lordships' House. At one time I wondered whether it would ever reach us. It certainly had a thorough vetting in another place when there. I was delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, put the Government's case this afternoon, because he, like his noble friend Lord Walston—I was going to say are fellow travellers. If I say that, I do not mean it in any form of derogatory political sense, but merely that they hail from the same part of the world as that from which I come, and it is good to see two people from East Anglia put the Government's case. I only wish it was a better one, but it is good to see them.
The noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, said he had some pride in moving this Bill, but I think that as the debate went on his pride must have withered somewhat, because most of the debate seemed to consist of criticism. Indeed the Bill did not evoke the welcome his pride must have anticipated, because even from his own Party he managed to succeed in getting only one noble Lord to back up this "wonderful Bill"; and he, the noble Lord, Lord Wise, took the biggest swipe at the Bill of any noble Lord who has spoken. I reckon that Lord Hilton of Upton's Bill has had a pretty rough ride one way and another this evening. But he hoped it was a great Bill, and I think the Minister of Agriculture in another place certainly said that this was a great Bill. We had a big Agriculture Bill in 1947 and one in 1957, and I think the idea was that as this was 1967 this Bill also would be a great Agriculture Bill.
I do not believe it is a great Bill. It has many good points—it certainly has—but it has bad ones, and no real beacon shines out from the Bill pointing the way ahead for agriculture over the next decade. There is nothing in the Bill which will restore to farmers the confidence which they have lost during the last 18 months or so. There is nothing in this Bill which will give them the feeling, "Now we know where to go. Now we have the light, and we can invest and go ahead". This is what agriculture wants. This is what farmers want. This is what they have not got, and this is the opportunity which the Government, in this Bill, have missed. Instead of producing a Bill which will give farmers the confidence which they require, the

495
Government have produced this Bill which contains a major amount of minor alterations and a minor amount of major ones—and I certainly do not intend to comment on each and every one of them, otherwise we shall be here until tomorrow and longer.
The whole of Part I of the Bill is devoted to setting up the Meat and Livestock Commission. This is a huge undertaking, and a brave one, and I certainly hope that it will prove successful. It will certainly prove expensive. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, had some severe doubts on this, and I have even heard that the suggested cost by the Verdon-Smith Committee of £2 million a year is an underestimate of considerable magnitude. I wonder whether the noble Lord, when he replies, can give us any idea at all how much this will cost to run.
So much of the success of this Commission, as of all Commissions, will depend, of course, on the people who are appointed to it. In this Bill the practice of the Government has differed slightly from that which has been evident in some other Bills, in which the members of the Commission have been announced before the Parliamentary proposals have been approved. I wonder whether the noble Lord can give us any indication who the members of the Commission will be, and indeed when the Commission will be set up. This is the thing in which all farmers, traders and slaughterers are interested. To set up a Commission such as this is a big undertaking, and many eventualities must be catered for, but the sympathies which many people—noble Lords on this side of the House, farmers, traders, slaughterers and people in the meat industry—have for this Commission and its chances of success are lacerated by the sweeping and crippling provisions of Clause 9.
To my mind, this is an obnoxious clause, the cause and need for which has never been adequately explained. Nor has it been explained this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton. It allows the Commission to "compel or encourage", and it is interesting to note the juxtaposition of those particular words and the priorities given to them. It is not "encourage and compel". It enables the Commission to compel and
496
encourage people to do various things, and it enables the Commission to put a man out of business, whether he is a producer, a slaughterer or a trader. Why? The only reason we have been given for this (and it was given in another place) was that we must make provision for the unforeseeable future. I do not believe that is a sufficiently good answer. I think it is wholly wrong for the Government to take such wide and crippling powers without a specific purpose in mind. If there is a specific purpose I suggest that we should be told about it, and if there is not a specific purpose, these wide powers should not be taken.
Turning to the clauses which deal with farm structure, the amalgamations which are envisaged and the grants which are going to be made to encourage them, here, speaking personally, I congratulate the Government. They have grasped a very prickly nettle. In my view, they were quite right to do so, and equally right so to draft the clauses that any forms of amalgamation on this score should be voluntary and not compulsory.
Farm structure over the next few years is going to alter; circumstances will make it alter—and here I am not thinking only or necessarily of small farms. I believe the future will show a polarisation of the size of farms into, on the one hand, extensive farms of a larger nature and, on the other hand, smaller intensive family farms. It will be just as unviable in the long term to be an extensive farmer who is not large, as it will be to a small farmer who is not intensive. Units must get bigger, and I think the Government are right to give this encouragement. Whether the carrot contained in the Bill will be big enough to make the donkey run is another matter. I personally doubt it, but no doubt the Government will watch this point carefully. But the sad and the odd part about this is that the policies of the Government are running directly against each other. Their left hand does one thing, and their right does another.
Here is the Minister of Agriculture, encouraging the elimination of unviable units and encouraging, by amalgamation, the increase in the size of units. This is right and wholly acceptable, for larger units are a fact of economic life, whether one likes it or not. But what does the Chancellor of the Exchequer do? With

497
his estate duty and capital gains tax he deliberately and specifically causes the fragmentation of units. I am not just making a Party point here, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Walston, will seriously consider this, because I intend to show him factually the stupidity of the present situation. No one can call a 40-acre farm a large one, nor even a 90-acre farm, and one can well visualise an amalgamation of them into a 130-acre farm, which would be a sensible and logical thing to do. Any farmer so amalgamating two units will get a grant upon them, and if this comes about the unit must stay as one for 40 years. I stress this period of 40 years because it is an important factor in this example. The unit must stay as one for 40 years, otherwise the grant is returnable.
Let us now consider the fate of the owner-occupier of 130 acres. Since 1938 inflation in this country has increased at about 4 per cent. Compound, and it is a reasonable assumption to make that it will continue at this rate. Let us assume that in 1945 an owner-occupier bought a 130-acre farm for £11,000. By the mere processes of inflation, without any real improvement being made to his farm or his holding, in 1965 that holding would have been worth £25,000. It would have gone up from £11,000 to£25,000 in 20 years, and by 1985 it will have gone up to £55,000—by the mere processes of inflation. The owner-occupier dies in 1985, 40 years after he purchased his farm. Along comes the Chancellor of the Exchequer and claims, in capital gains tax and estate duty, £16,700—more than the whole of the sum of money which the owner-occupier paid to purchase his farm in the first instance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer claims what is in fact 30 per cent. of his total assets. In order to find this money, what do his executors do? They sell—and they have to sell—40 acres.
So we have the ridiculous situation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer splitting up a 130-acre farm into a 90-acre unit and a 40-acre unit, and at the same time the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food paying a grant to join the two units together again. I suggest that as individual tactics the Government may be able to argue each case forcibly, but as overall strategy I would
498
suggest that such dichotomy of views is mad. I am glad to see that the Government have decided to continue with the Farm Improvements Scheme. I have always considered this to be one of the best methods of spending money on agriculture, because it encourages the farmer and helps him to equip himself capitally for the future, and by such capital equipment to lower his costs of production. I am, however, sorry that the Government have seen fit to reduce the size of the grant from 33⅓per cent. to 25 per cent. I know that the argument is that although the subsidy is less, it is spread over a wider area. That is a perfectly valid argument to have and to project. But personally, I think it is wrong, for the value of the one-third grant, which is a very substantial grant, spread over a smaller area is a far greater incentive to the farmer to invest his money than is a system whereby the farmer has to find 75 per cent. of the total capital cost. We are getting into a state of a proliferation of little grants and regulations which will do no one any good.
Earlier this afternoon I asked a Starred Question about how many grants there were that are applicable to agriculture, and to my intense and huge surprise the noble Lord opposite told me there were only 16—I think he said 16 farming grants or subsidies. I was greatly surprised. I thought there would have been 150. But it only goes to prove the point, that these 16 grants and subsidies have so many bits and pieces twisted on to them, added on to them, and so many restrictions on them, that the comprehension of them becomes almost impossible. I only hope that the noble Lord will stick by the assurance which he gave me in his supplementary reply, that everything will be done and is being done to keep them as simple as possible because, with the greatest respect, this is not the case with this Bill. It makes grants far more difficult to comprehend and far more difficult to interpret.
I do not for one minute suggest that the Government support of agriculture should be curtailed, but I do suggest that it should be rationalised and that the grants available should be fewer and bigger. And no one will suggest that will not make things simpler to run, cheaper to administer and easier to understand.

499
There is even provision in Clause 31(1)(c) for a 10 per cent. grant to be payable on an improvement, provided that the improvement is not already covered by another grant. It seems to me that we are getting to a position of absurdity. I do not decry grant aid as a system to encourage investment, but I do not believe that a 10 per cent. grant will encourage anyone to invest. I think that the economists in the Ministry of Agriculture are being given too big a heyday, adding bits here and subtracting bits there, so that the farmer does not know where he is, to what he is entitled or what is expected of him. I would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, takes this message over grants back to the Ministry of Agriculture. Quite simply, they should be bigger, fewer, simpler.
Nevertheless, I congratulate the Government on making what may appear to be a small but what is, in fact, a very significant change to the Farm Improvement Scheme; namely, changing the criteria on which the farming improvement grant is paid from the "prudent landlord" test to the "prudent owner-occupier" test. In the past, far too many sound and sensible schemes were strangled by the restrictive noose of the "prudent landlord" test, and this alteration is wholly commendable.
Similar reflections to those that I have made on these grants can be made in respect of Clause 32. Here the Minister has replaced the old investment allowance on tractor and combine with an investment grant. In the old days, one could work out in five minutes the written-down value of a tractor. Not so under this Bill. A farmer will in future have to apply for a form and fill it in; and the form is then to be shunted backwards and forwards within the Ministry for no less than two years, in order for the farmer to reap two payments of grant, the aggregate of which will be less than the total to which he was entitled before. This is a shocking waste of time and money, and it is a method of which I suggest the noble Lord, Lord Walston, should be ashamed. I do wish that even he—though I suppose this is too much to ask—could stop this bureaucratic machine from expanding like some huge amœba over everything, spreading its protoplasm everywhere. It
500
has become quite impossible. I believe that it is a grossly unnecessary and retrograde step on the part of the Government, and it cannot in the long run be to the credit of agriculture or the taxpayer.
My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said that agricultural indebtedness and overdrafts now exceed £500 million. The sad part—and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, knows this—is that over the past decade or so capital investment in agriculture has not come out of profits, as it should have done, but out of extra bank borrowing. This has been possible mainly by virtue of the fact that inflation has increased the value of the land, which has frequently been used as a security for the borrowing. This is not a healthy situation. In my view, far more of the capital investment in the future ought to come out of farm profits, and I wish that I thought this Bill would do more to see that it does.
My Lords, there are many Parts to this Bill, and I have chosen to comment on only a few of them. If I appear to have been critical, I hope that the noble Lord will understand that it is not just for the sake of being critical, and that such criticism as I have made does not apply in equal proportions to all Parts of the Bill. I think that this Bill has good Parts to it and good points in it. I should like to give it a warm welcome, because Bills designed to help and encourage agriculture deserve a warm welcome and every encouragement. But my welcome to this Bill is not so great as it should be, or as I should have liked it to be, for two basic reasons. First, it deliberately sows into agriculture more controls, more restrictions, more form fillings and more regulations, at a time when these should be reduced. Secondly, it fails completely to strike the note which it should strike, and for which agriculture is yearning; namely, that of giving a strong guiding light to agriculture for the future and to farmers in particular, to show them what is wanted of them, and what is expected of them, in the years that lie ahead.
8.8 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it is for me a great pleasure to take part once more in an agricultural debate. I do not know whether I should declare an

501
interest, because I am not quite certain whether I am in fact a farmer or not. I am perhaps what some people might call a weekend farmer. I criticise my son's farming when I go home. But I cannot really pretend to be actively engaged in it myself, so possibly I have no direct interest to declare, but I still have a very great interest in this industry. I have enjoyed listening to this debate, and I am grateful to those noble Lords, and it is the majority of them, who have given a welcome to this Bill.
I must confess at the beginning that I find myself in basic disagreement with almost every noble Lord who has spoken, because the attitude which has been taken is to say—and I hope I am not misrepresenting the general view—that the Bill has good points but that it does not get down to the fundamentals of agriculture; it skates over them. There I disagree. After all, what are the fundamentals of agriculture? What does agriculture want? It wants security, it wants an assurance against violent changes, and it wants a knowledge that its products will be needed in increasing quantities. It wants all of those things, and I suggest to your Lordships that it has got them. It has the 1947 Act and it has the 1957 Act, both of which give those securities and assurances against violent changes. Provided agriculture is prepared to believe them—and, of course nobody can insist, particularly a politician, that his words are believed—it has had a whole series of statements from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Secretary and many other Members of the Government to the effect that agriculture is not only important to-day, but has an ever-increasing role to play in the National Plan. It has all those things.
But that is not enough; it needs more. What it needs in order to increase its already great competitiveness in terms of the rest of the world is a sound basic structure. In the first place, it needs a sound marketing organisation to close that gap that we so often talk about between the producer and the consumer, and it needs a courageous tackling of a problem which we do not hear so much about now—although in the old days we used to hear of it, and it is still with us—that of the marginal farm.
502
I suggest to your Lordships that this Bill tackles those three points. It tackles the structure in farming by the provisions which have, on the whole, received a welcome from your Lordships, and I am grateful for it. There is this scheme for the voluntary amalgamation of farms—and I repeat, as my noble friend made clear at the outset, that this is purely voluntary. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wondered whether the carrot was sufficiently strong or attractive to make the donkey run. I do not know if it is. But the donkey has been running for quite a time. Over the years there has been a process of amalgamation of holdings. There has been a process of the running down of small farms, marginal farms, inefficient farms—call them what you like—by degrees. Often after their total productivity and the national capital expended on them has been largely squandered, they have been amalgamated into larger units. That is why the average size of our farms is mounting steadily, in spite of the impact of death duties which has been with us for a long time. That has been happening.
One may say: Why bother to do anything else about it if it is happening? There are two reasons why we should do something about it. One reason is that it is not happening fast enough for the efficiency of the industry in which we are all interested. The second reason is that, when it happens without any carrot at all, it entails a considerable degree of hardship on those farmers who are farming these marginal farms, wondering if they should give up. They are old, possibly; they are inefficient; they have not the training; they are under-capitalised, or whatever it may be, for the struggle on their farms, because they cannot afford to give them up. It is a great hardship to themselves and a squandering of the natural fertility and resources of that land. This carrot has been added to the natural economic processes—interference, if you like, with the natural economic processes, which some noble Lords may deplore; but they are in order to encourage a natural process, to make it go faster in the national interest, and to remove much of the hardship which in the past has gone with it. That, I repeat, is striking at one of the fundamental problems of our agriculture to-day—assisting our farms to become viable units, to cope

503
increasingly with the conditions, not only to-day, but ahead.
Secondly, it tackles the marketing problem with livestock. I am most grateful for the kind words which, almost universally, have been expressed in favour of the provisions for the Meat and Livestock Commission. Of course, some of the comments have been somewhat contradictory. At one point the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, praised the words of my noble friend Lord Wise, who unfortunately was not able to remain until the end. He then went on to criticise Clause 9 which, as he thought, gave frightening powers to the Commission. On the other hand, he may remember that my noble friend Lord Wise criticised the Commission on the ground that it had not teeth to it. He wanted more. So, in spite of some superficial resemblance between the noble Earl and my noble friend, when they get down to discussing the Livestock Commission I think they will find several basic differences between them.
However, we have tackled this important problem, one of the most important problems of marketing in the whole of the agricultural field. That is another fundamental approach. There is the continued assistance to co-operation in all its forms. I will come back to this and deal in more detail later with some of the comments made about that. Again it is something which I think everybody agrees must be dealt with in our agriculture. We do not want agriculture consisting solely of great farms, enormous farming enterprises, ranches of 10,000 acres or whatever it may be. We do want to have the small farmer still having ample opportunity. If he wants to give up, we have the scheme for voluntary amalgamation. But if, as I hope, he wants to stay—and I know that many of them will—he must be assisted by various forms of co-operation, not only in marketing, but in the ownership of the machinery, and in the actual cultivation of his soil, and so on. Some of them do it already. So much the better. But here is positive assistance to help them in this.
Finally, there is this question of what, as I said, was in earlier days called the marginal farm and the marginal areas of agriculture. There we are bringing in the Rural Development Boards to deal
504
solely with this problem of a whole area, not necessarily within the boundaries of any one local government area, but within natural agricultural boundaries where the standard of living, because of the climate, because of the fertility, because of the communications, or whatever the cause may be, is too low.
I apologise in advance for detaining your Lordships, but many points have been raised, and I do not want to miss too many of them. Much has been said in criticism of these Rural Development Boards. With respect, I think that most of the criticisms are based on an entire misunderstanding of what these Boards are supposed to do. In the first place, let me make it quite clear that there is no suggestion that these Boards will be widespread throughout the whole country; that they will march from Wales up across the Pennines, up to the Borders into the Highlands, and back through Yorkshire, and even into East Anglia. There is no suggestion of that kind at all.
The first of these Boards has not yet been decided. Where it will be I do not know. Who will be the members of it, who will be the chairman of it, I cannot say. But I can assure your Lordships that the chairman will not be, in the words of one noble Lord," an ambitious Socialist alderman". I can equally assure your Lordships that he will not be an effete and idle Conservative Peer. Whoever he is, he will be chosen because he is a good man who knows his job; who has ideas and is capable of undertaking this important activity. The activity is to ensure that the selected area, instead of becoming a rural slum steadily going downhill, with people leaving it, roofs falling off the houses, weeds growing where crops should grow, or used to grow, and so on, is developed in a way which will be good for the country as a whole. Whether it is going to be developed in the way of large-scale sheep farming and extensive farms, or whether it will be developed purely for forestry or for amenities, tourism or whatever it maybe, I do not know. It will be for the Board to decide that. It must have sufficient power to develop the whole area in that way. That is why it has these powers over forestry.
A good deal has been said on this matter, but in view of the functions of the Board which I have described to your

505
Lordships it is clear that if an area is decided upon by the Board as being, for example, an adequate place for a particular form of tourism, one cannot have a private a forestation scheme put up in the middle of it which will spoil the whole plan. It must be co-ordinated and controlled. The same goes for the Forestry Commission; but as the Commission is a national body it will, from the beginning of this scheme, work in so closely with the Rural Development Board that there is no need to make special provisions in the Bill. It is not going to be treated any differently. All forestry, whether Forestry Commission forestry or private forestry, will be co-ordinated into the development of this particular area.
So I suggest to your Lordships that in these four ways this Bill is striking at some of the fundamental weaknesses in our present agriculture structure, and, coupled with the statements of members of the Government and the previous 1957 and 1947 Acts, I believe it provides the basis for a still further advance of our own agriculture.
I should now like to deal with some of the points which have been raised during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford—and I thank him for his very thoughtful speech—talked about the whole question of livestock farmers' confidence, the collapse in the autumn of confidence in livestock prices, and so on. I do not deny that there were very serious misgivings among farmers during that period, but I believe that those misgivings were largely ill-founded. After all, we know that livestock prices fluctuate. It is because we know of those fluctuations that our present system, which Lord Nugent of Guildford appears to want to change, including the whole price structure and deficiency payments, was brought in; so that even if the market price drops, the final result to the seller, the producer, if not absolutely constant, at any rate does not drop in a corresponding way. That, I believe, is the right way to do it. Although I freely admit that the sellers of stall cattle did suffer at that time, they would have suffered very much more had there not been the system of support prices and deficiency payments which we now have and which the noble Lord and, I imagine, his friends wish to do away with.
506
I should like to remind your Lordships and the farming community as a whole, when they talk of a lack of confidence, of what has been done for livestock producers in the last two years. There is a useful little list in the last two Annual Reviews. The guaranteed price of fat cattle was raised in the first Review by 4s. and then by a further 10s. per cwt. in the second Review. The new beef-cow subsidy has been introduced; the rates of the hill cow subsidy have been raised, as have the rates of the calf subsidy. The guaranteed price for sheep has been raised; and the hill sheep subsidy has been put on a continuing annual basis. In the light of those actions over the last two years, I do not see that there is any justifiable reason for lack of confidence over the long term. I agree that there are periods when prices drop rather low; but there are other periods when they rise rather high. We have just been through a had one, and have come out of it. But that is not a reason either for losing confidence yourself, or, if I may say so, for encouraging other people to lose their confidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, mentioned A.M.D.E.C. and asked some questions about it. I was very glad he mentioned it. Obviously one listens with great care to everything the noble Lord says, but more particularly when he speaks with such authority on A.M.D.E.C. itself. I should like to thank him, both personally and, if I may, officially, for the magnificent work he has done as chairman of that body. I think we must bear in mind that although it is true that a considerable proportion of the grants which A.M.D.E.C. have recommended have gone to the assistance of co-operation, their sphere of activities goes very much further than that. After all, the scheme covers marketing generally, and any responsible person or body with an interest in the marketing of agricultural and horticultural produce may apply for grant, provided the proposal which is being put forward holds out the prospect of benefit to producers. So I am quite certain—and I hope the noble Lord shares my certainty in this—that when the new Council is established to deal with co-operation there will still be a great deal of scope for A.M.D.E.C. in the more general fields of marketing. I

507
hope that any fears he or his colleagues may have on that score will by now be dissipated.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to say that I did not express any fears on that?
LORD WALSTON: I think that I was rather transposing and thinking of the fears which the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, expressed on P.I.D.A. Perhaps I might come to that also, and assure him that there need be no fears of any kind for any of the staff of P.I.D.A. Clause 22 (1) provides for the transfer of the assets, liabilities and obligations of the Authority to the Commission. This covers a number of matters, but not least the liabilities and obligations of the Authority to its staff. These include any contracts with the staff and any other obligations there may be with respect to their employment. So that, subject to any changes, the staff will be employed on the same conditions as exist at present with regard, for example, to such matters as periods of notice on both sides for the termination of contract. In this respect, the position of the staff in relation to the Commission should be exactly as it was previously in relation to the Authority. The Commission itself will make its own arrangements with its staff, but in the long run there will be so much wider scope for the Commission that there is no fear at all that there will be any diminution of its activities.
The Common Market was another matter that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. The words he used were that the Prime Minister was now assiduously wooing the Six. He further suggested that, in carrying out this wooing, the Prime Minister must have formulated our own agricultural plans so that he could discuss it with the Governments of the Six. The noble Lord went on to suggest that, that being so, there was no reason why British farmers and your Lordships should not be told what those plans are. I think that that is in some measure—although I know it is entirely unintentional—a misrepresentation of the present situation. These visits to the members of the Six are in no way the visits of a wooer. They
508
are visits in order to explore, to discuss, to find out. They are exploratory in the widest sense. I can assure the noble Lord that there are no detailed, worked-out plans for the shape of British agriculture when we sign the Treaty of Rome or anything of that kind. If we sign the Treaty of Rome—and, as I think most noble Lords here know, I personally hope that we shall—we shall clearly have to discuss the whole question of our agricultural policy. But that is not to-day and it is not to-morrow, and what we are dealing with to-day is the situation as it is to-day and to-morrow. Therefore, I think it is right for this Bill to confine itself to those matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, was in many ways very kind to us. He said that we were making a jolly good try to solve the problems which have been with us for a long time. He spoke of a laudable attempt, and matters of that sort. He was somewhat lukewarm in some of his other comments, although I do not object to that. I think it is natural, particularly coming from the northern climes, to be lukewarm about some of the things which are done in Whitehall and in Westminster. But I am glad that he agrees that what we are doing is on the right lines, and I hope that what I have said has allayed some of his fears that we are not really getting down to the fundamental problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, told me that he was unable to remain to the end, because he had to catch his train back to Norfolk, and I think I have already dealt with most of his comments. He mentioned the point that in his view farmers were tired of receiving advice. I must say that I do not subscribe to that view, even though the noble Baroness seems to nod her head in agreement with the noble Lord. But from such little experience as I have and from the information I get, it seems to me that the services of the National Agricultural Advisory Service are far more in demand now than they were five years ago or ten years ago, which is not an indication that the farmers do not want to receive advice. If it is good advice they will receive it. The services of the Milk Marketing Board are very much in demand and have had an enormous impact on raising the efficiency of our agriculture

509
and of our dairy herds. So I would not subscribe to that view at all.
I hope that I have dealt with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on forestry and on the general problem of the Rural Development Boards. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, made, as always, a very valuable, interesting and well-informed speech, though I would say, on the question of drawing the line between where you get your investment grant and where you do not—and other noble Lords raised this matter, too—that it is always possible to find examples of ridiculous dividing lines. The noble Viscount, Lord Stone haven, mentioned some, too. A line must be drawn somewhere, and wherever the line is drawn you can produce some examples. But that does not mean that your line should not be drawn. It should be drawn, and I think that where the line has been drawn at the moment is, on the whole, a reasonable and rational point. I would point out to the noble Baroness that, as I understand it, tractors do receive an investment grant, self-propelled combines do, and harvesting machinery does, and the line has been drawn between static machinery and mobile machinery—mobile under its own power. That is as logical and as easily administered a distinction as one can get.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made great play with the difficulties of these grants that they were too complicated and we ought to make them simpler. This is an example of what happens when we make them simple. We say that self-propelled and mobile vehicles get the grant. Then we get noble Lords and farmers saying, "This is ridiculous. Look at what happens." But if one answered all these points there would be far more complications in administering the grants, far more form-filling, far more inspectors, and all the things which the noble Earl wants to do away with.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, with the greatest respect, if the noble Lord's Government had kept the position as it was, where one obtained all these things by virtue of the investment allowances as opposed to going into investment grants, there would not be all the problems which the noble Lord is now encountering.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, we should not have those problems, but we
510
should have others. Then, of course, we always get complaints from farmers who, for one reason or another, pay no tax or very little tax and who say, "We are getting no advantage from these investment allowances, and all the big boys who are making the big profits are the ones who get them." We have been attacked to a certain extent to-day, but more often in the past, for helping the big boys more than the little boys, and this is one way of helping the little boys. One cannot have it every way. In the matter of the selective employment tax—
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves on, may I remind him that I asked whether he would interpret paragraph 17 of Schedule 4, which says:
"Any operation incidental to any of the operations specified in the other paragraphs of this Schedule or necessary or proper in carrying it out or securing the full benefit thereof."
Can you get the full benefit of a crop drier without a fan?
LORD WALSTON: No, my Lords, you cannot. But, frankly, without being in any way offensive to the noble Viscount, I think that this is rather a specific matter. I should be very happy to write to him about it without trying to explain, in any more detail than I have attempted to do already, all the reasons why the line has been drawn in this particular place and has gone through the middle of his fan.
If I may now go on to the selective employment tax, I am glad to be able to tell the noble Baroness that repayments are already being made. I understand that something like £4 million has already been repaid, and I am very glad to say that I am one of the recipients. I hope that before long it will extend its way up into the North and that the noble Baroness herself will also be a recipient. While I am on the subject, may I say how very pleased I was to hear her kind words, speaking as a prominent representative of the consumer, and also those of the noble Lord, Lord Baler no, on the new regulations embodied in this Bill, which will go some way, if not far enough to satisfy my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry to improve the situation of the consumer as regards marketing?
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is not here, but even if he were I do not

511
think he would be surprised if I did not comment on his questions about farm income. I do not think that they are strictly relevant to this Bill, though they are, of course, extremely relevant to the Price Review which I hope your Lordships will have the opportunity of debating before very long. Somewhere, I have notes on what other noble Lords have said, but I seem to have mislaid them. So I hope that if I have left out any serious points I shall be taken up before I sit down on this; or, alternatively, that noble Lords will write to me, when I will do my best to answer any questions.
In conclusion, I should like to say what those of us who have remained until this late hour all know so well, that agriculture is a great industry, and it is not only great in size but great in achievement. At least since 1939, its record is indeed a very proud one, and I think we can say without any fear of contradiction that if all the other industries in this country had equalled agriculture in its achievements, in its increased output, in its stabilisation of prices and in its increased efficiency, our economic life would be much easier than it is at the present time. I, for one, am proud to be a member of the agricultural community. There are very few countries in the world which can vie with us in yield per acre, in yield per animal or in output per man, and very few indeed which can vie with us in our record of holding prices in check.
The result of this achievement has led not only to import saving, to which noble Lords have already referred—and very substantial and important import saving—but also to exports; very substantial exports indeed, amounting to something in the neighbourhood of £100 million in the last year. That is quite an achievement for an industry which used to be regarded as being the poor relation of the other, more modern, technologically minded industries. But it is not only agriculture which has benefited from this, or this country which has benefited: the industries ancillary to agriculture also have benefited. We have made enormous advances, for instance, in plant breeding, which have benefits throughout the whole world. From our fertiliser factories there have been very substantial exports, based
512
on our home agriculture. There have been advances in herbicides and pesticides; and, of course, in the agricultural machinery industry itself. Because of the firm home base, we are now exporting agricultural machinery, and in 1966 the value amounted to over £140 million.
My Lords, all these are things which people should know about more. People engaged in agriculture should know about them, and be proud of them; people who are not engaged in agriculture should know about them, and be grateful for them. They have been achieved for a variety of reasons. They have been achieved because we have good farmers and farm workers. That is at the core of it all. They have been achieved because we have first-class scientists and engineers; and they have been achieved also because, over the years, we have had Governments—and this includes both Parties—which have instituted and created the right framework in which this agriculture could develop. Included in Government are the National Agricultural Advisory Service officials, the civil servants, and the politicians, too. I believe that this Bill is one more example of the type of Government action which helps agriculture along the path of further advance, and I am confident that in the years ahead the industry will find that what is being legislated for to-day will help it to continue with the advance that it has already made.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to say that he would, allow a question by anyone who had been left out. I raised the problem of the Highlands, which are a very large land mass where more can be done than in any other part of the United Kingdom if we get our chance. I do not know whether the noble Lord is leaving the answer to that point to the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I would remind him of what I have said already. We sell for less, and we have to pay a great deal more for what we buy. This is a perfectly intolerable state of affairs, bearing in mind the distance from any market.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has just said. The Highlands are a problem on their own. There are—and there is no need for me to recount them, because the noble Lord knows them well—a whole series of items

513
of special legislation which have been enacted in order to help with these problems; not to solve them, but to help with them. I think that some of the provisions of the Bill will help, although, of course, they are not directed specifically towards the Highlands. We have the curious arrangement here, as the noble Lord knows well, of the Ministry of Agriculture in England and, North of the Border, the Secretary of State for Scotland. I know well that both of them are fully aware of these problems, and are thinking of them the whole time. I can-
514
not give the noble Lord any more specific answer, but would refer him once more to those items in this Bill, particularly those to do with livestock, and to some of the livestock subsidies, which I believe will be of some help, particularly to his own area.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at a quarter before nine o'clock.