Sitting of 10 May 1967

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MEMBERS (ACCESS TO THE HOUSE)
10.4 a.m.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. William Hamilton.
Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) catches your eye, may I raise a point of order with you? It arises out of the Sessional Order passed by this House directing the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to keep the access to the House clear. This morning, I had to run one and a half miles to be in my place here because I was held up on the other side of Victoria Station.
The point on which I seek your help is whether you have any power or standing in the matter to see that the Sessional Order is enforced and, if not, if the House could be informed how far the Sessional Order applies; in other words whether it goes merely into Parliament square, or beyond where hon. Members may be delayed with still a half hour journey to the House.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the best plan is that I look into the point raised by the hon. Member for Ilford, North(Mr. Iremonger).

BUSINESS INTERESTS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (REGISTER)
10.6 a.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of a register of the outside business interests of Members of Parliament.
My purpose is to establish an official public register of the pecuniary interests and emoluments of Members of both
1416
Houses. I think that it would be generally accepted that our public political life, especially in Parliament, is probably freer from corruption than in any other country in the world. But we tend to accept that all too smugly as a self-evident proposition, without requiring positive proof of it.
I do not accept that posture. I believe that our Parliament is relatively incorrupt, but I am afraid not wholly so. My views on this matter are fortified by the recently issued book, "The Business Background of M.P.s", by Mr. Andrew Roth. Mr. Roth quotes the specific instance of Commander Courtney, who was Member of Parliament for Harrow, East from 1959 to 1966. I need not go into the details of that case, but Mr. Roth refers to articles written by the Commander for the Sunday Telegraph in which he said, among other things:
"My election as Conservative M.P. for Harrow, East improved my business affairs … On the one hand I had acquired an access to the Board of Trade and other Ministries which could and did prove valuable."
Then Mr. Roth draws attention to an article in the Sunday Times of 12th February, 1967, concerning the business activities of another hon. Member. Again, I deliberately refrain from going into the details, partly because they are to be found in Mr. Roth's book and in the Sunday Times article to which it refers. I say merely that that hon. Member had not listed his activities in "Who's Who", nor declared his interest in certain companies to the House of Commons, nor volunteered the information to Mr. Roth for inclusion in his succession of books on M.P.s' business interests.
Certain hon. Members, including the one just mentioned, have been connected with recently crashed cut-price motor car insurance companies, including the notorious Savundra empire. Yet another hon. Member was intimately associated with the John Bloom companies which came crashing down some while ago and which are currently under investigation by the Board of Trade. Other hon. Members of both Houses had associated with what Mr. Roth describes as an "armchair farming" firm, Anglian Pig Breeders, which went into liquidation in December, 1965.
It may be that all the hon. Members concerned in these ventures were innocent

1417
dupes used by companies engaged in rather dubious business practices which felt that the association of hon. Members' names with their activities might help to create an aura of respectability and honesty sufficiently convincing to gull the public.
I would be the last to deny the right of any Member of either House to have outside business interests. Most Members seem to be quite willing to disclose what those interests are, but this at the moment is entirely voluntary. One example quoted by Mr. Roth deserves to be put on record.
The House will recall that hon. Members got a substantial increase in their salaries in the autumn of 1964 as the result of a recommendation by an impartial outside body. In July, 1966, a certain hon. Member asked that all hon. Members' salaries should be cut by 10 per cent. in view of the economic situation. A month later, that same hon. Member acquired two directorships in American drug companies. I find the chronological juxtaposition of these two incidents portraying something which to my mind is deplorably squalid.
I recall a further incident—that of the Burmah Oil Company. This was probably the most sordid example in recent ha story of how Parliament can be used and abused in the interests of big business. In the course of the debate on the issue, I listed the names of Members of another place, 38 in all, who were shareholders in the Burmah Oil Company and many of whom had not attended the Lords for years but who attended for that debate in order to vote something like £40 million of public money for their company.
It seems to me, therefore, that the need for a statutory register of business interests is overwhelming. The Times, in its editorial comment on the Bill last Monday, was wrong in assuming that there would be no public interest in the matter or that the information disclosed is
"… ascertainable already within the Palace of Westminster …"
It is not. Or at least, if it is, it is due to the activities of people like Mr. Roth. Some hon. Members are very cagey in divulging their interests. A much more profound and accurate comment was
1418
made by Mr. David Wood, also of The Times, when he reviewed Mr. Roth's book on 17th April Mr. Wood wrote:
"The substantial point that arises from Roth's researches is that membership of the Commons, like membership of an Administration, does bring invitations to serve business interests in more ways than one. It is not just a question of the directorships that go in plenty to former Conservative Ministers: it is also a question of retainers as advisers and consultants that may come a politician's way, no matter which side of the House he sits."
The Times was right in saying, however, that mere observation of the House's convention to declare one's interest when speaking in debate is not enough. That is so because, firstly, the interested Member may not choose to speak; secondly, he can exert greater influence behind the scenes than he can in public debate; and, thirdly, he does not have to declare an interest in asking Questions in the House.
When discussing this with a Privy Councillor, who is a Member of this House, I was told that some hon. Members have been known to have been paid by outside interests a fixed sum for asking Parliamentary Questions on their behalf, and this was confirmed in discussion with the correspondent of an eminently reputable newspaper, who made specific reference to a former Member for one of the Northern Ireland constituencies.
How would the Bill work? Each financial year, each hon. Member would be required to fill in a form giving details of directorships held, the names of the companies and a brief explanation of the nature of their business. Secondly, he would be compelled to declare any individual shareholdings in any company above the value, say, of £500. Thirdly, he would be compelled to declare the nature of other emoluments over an annual value of £500 paid by any outside body. This would include, for example, hon. Members sponsored by trade unions. I know that they are quite willing to put this on record. Everyone knows who they are and, generally speaking, what the unions do for them. These declarations would, of course, exclude casual fees like those for appearances on television.
The penalty for failure to disclose—but I do not expect that any hon. Member

1419
would be unwilling to disclose his interests—would be decided by the Committee of Privileges on the merits of each case. I reject completely The Times' verdict that my suggestion
"… would be corporately self-insulting."
I also repudiate the suggestion that the Bill would contain an implication that hon. Members
"… can no longer be trusted to behave with honour and discretion in a way that once they could."
Hon. Members on both sides of this House support the principle of a statutory register. Nor do I accept the view that, because a particular legislative Measure gives one particular party a political advantage, it should not be introduced. I have never felt inhibited by considerations of that kind.
10.16 a.m.
Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I rise to ask the House to refuse the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) leave to bring in this Bill. The House has a great affection for the hon. Gentleman and we are all very glad to see that he has recovered so admirably from his recent heart condition and is in such very robust form again. If he had had to do what I had to do to get here today, he would have dropped dead on the way. Who knows but that the same may not happen to me!
In normal circumstances, the House would have been inclined, knowing the hon. Gentleman to have dismissed this Parliamentary exercise with the affectionate tolerance which it usually extends to him, but I feel that there is need to go a little further than that. I want first, bluntly and straightforwardly, to say to him that he owes it in all honour to say outside the House what he has said about Commander Courtney and what he has said—although he was not quite so brave in mentioning them by name— about my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling), my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris) and his own right hon. Friend, the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who was connected with the pig farming enterprise the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
My main objection, as the hon. Gentleman attempted to anticipate, is that it casts an aspersion upon the honour of
1420
the House collectively. If there is any one quality which the House has demanded from its Members—it is the quality which it has made a synonym for membership—that is the quality that a Member has when he is entitled to be named by other Members in the term "honourable Gentleman".
The hon. Member for Fife, West has impugned the integrity of the House and the integrity of all hon. Members with business interests, whatever he may mean by that. But the hon. Gentleman has also impugned the integrity of hon. Members with any other kind of pecuniary interest, although, of course, "pecuniary interest" does not carry quite the same party political stigma as "business interest", since we on this side of the House are proud to say that it is our supporters and, to a large extent, we ourselves who have maintained the business supremacy of this nation.
The House is equally entitled to take a critical look at the hon. Member for Fife, West. In examining him, we see a perfectly pardonable old-fashioned romanticism which imagines that there is something sinister about business, about the free enterprise system, and some peculiarly uneconomic principle that guides boards of directors of public companies and makes them think, quite stupidly, that having an M.P. on the board gives them some special magic or assistance in conducting their affairs. I know of no company which would be so stupid, and if Members of Parliament are on boards of directors it is because their fellow directors consider that the business help they can give them fully justifies it and that they can justify it to the shareholders.
We should also examine what could be the possible means of "business and pecuniary interest" and consider the practical effect of registering such things. An interest or action is either definable or demonstrable and subject, therefore, to rules which may be drawn and drafted, or it is not demonstrable and definable in such a way. If it is not demonstrable and definable, then any rules made governing it are meaningless and, therefore, unenforceable.
In asking the House to reject this Motion, it is my submission that the concepts which the hon. Member has put to the House are not definable interests

1421
with any manifest meaning in relation to hon. Members and their membership of this House; and to suggest that such things should be registered is not an attempt to enforce any beneficial rule that might be obvious but is an attempt to cast a malicious smear on the House in general, and in particular on hon. Members on this side of the House who believe in the enterprise system.
In so far as interests and actions in this House are definable and demonstrable, Erskine May is both clear and full on the subject. It would be a waste of the time of the House for me to rehearse what Erskine May says but I will put on record both references, which are contained—in the Sixteenth (1957) Edition—in pages 439 to 443 and also page 125 in respect of contempt which, if the hon. Member cares to examine it, he will find refers to an offence that he has committed himself, subject only to the protection that he has as a Member of this House—because he has brought the House into dishonour and disrepute by what he has said.
In the few moments remaining I want to point out to the hon. Member that when he accuses an hon. Member of having been paid a sum of money for risking a Question in the House it is an offence. It is contempt of the House, and it is specifically mentioned and defined in Erskine May.
Therefore, having, as I felt obliged to dO, put upon the hon. Member in honour the obligation to name hon. Members outside and to name in the House those Members whom he was accusing of corruption in their capacity as hon. Members, I also put upon him in honour the obligation to name outside, and also in this House, the hon. Member whom he said has committed the Parliamentary offence as laid down in Erskine May.
I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has in view as the idealistic concept of membership of this House— whether he means that we and those of our fellow countrymen who put ourselves at the service of our country in this House should be monks, totally divorced from the beginning unto the end—or for how long—from any relationship at all with the ordinary conduct of the
1422
life of this nation, or whether we are only etiolated insects, turned out from underneath some academic stone, at a salary of up to £3,000 a year.
It is difficult to see what the hon. Member means. Are we to be born in a kind of Aldous Huxleyesque test tube as Members of Parliament, never allowed to be tainted with any contact with the life and business of those whose destiny is largely in our hands? I do not like the idea of this register. It has a nasty taint of the Gestapo—to use a famous phrase. It is difficult to think how, once the hon. Member has this register, which everyone will have to fill in, he will be able to resist demands that hon. Members' telephone conversations should be tapped in order to be quite sure that they are not having anything on the side that they should not be having.
I want to make a somewhat disagreeable suggestion, in reply to the hon. Member. It is not only business interests which might corrupt hon. Members in their membership of the House; there are other interests. Part of the difficulty that we are in in relation to the post mortem on Suez is that it was impossible, in time of peace, with no 18B Regulation, for the House to go into secret session and for the Prime Minister to say things that he did not want to say with card-carrying members of the Communist Party sitting on this side of the House in those days.
I hope that the House will reject the Motion with the contempt that it deserves, and not connive at or abet the hon. Member in the aspersions that he has cast on this honourable House.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business): —
Mr. Speaker: A Division having been claimed under paragraph 4 of the Sessional Order, proceedings on this Motion stand over until the end of this evening, when the Division will be taken.
The Proceedings stood deferred pursuant to Order (Sittings of the House (Morning Sittings)).

CARRIAGE BY AIR (OVERSEAS TERRITORIES)
10.25 a.m.
The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas): I beg to move,
That the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Overseas Territories) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th April, be approved.
I trust that in moving this Order I shall not do anything to add to the high temperature that the House was brought to by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger).
Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will join with me in agreeing that to some extent the temperature was raised by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).
Mr. Thomas: I have been brought up in the Methodist oath never to yield to temptation.
The draft Order applies to dependent territories and that is the interest of the Commonwealth Office in sponsoring it this morning. The provisions of the draft Order follow closely—allowance being made for necessary adaptations—the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order, 1967 which was approved in February by this House. What is now proposed is to apply to the dependent territories the same provisions as have already been agreed should apply as part of the law of the United Kingdom.
Three Conventions are relevant to the draft Order—the Warsaw Convention of 1929, the Warsaw Convention, as amended by the Hague Protocol of 1955—or, in other words, the amended Convention, as I shall call it—and the Guadalajara Convention. The Warsaw Convention of 1929 was ratified by the United Kingdom both on her own account and in respect of the then dependent territories.
The Carriage by Air Act, 1932 gave effect in the United Kingdom to this Convention, which limited the liability of the carrier to £3,000 per passenger in respect of international carriage, as defined in the Convention; the Carriage by Air (Non-international Carriage)
1424
(United Kingdom) Order, 1952, and its Colonial counterpart, the Carriage by Air (Non-international Carriage) (Colonies, Protectorates and Trust Territories) Order, 1953, which were made under the provisions of that Act, apply the same limit of liability to domestic and other carriage not covered by the Convention. The former Order—that is, the 1952 Order—applies as part of the law of the United Kingdom and the 1953 Order as part of the law of those territories to which it applies.
The Hague Protocol of 1955 made a number of amendments to the Warsaw Convention and in particular raised the limit of liability to £6,000 per passenger in respect of international carriage. The United Kingdom has now notified the Government of Poland of its intention to ratify the Hague Protocol both on its own account and on behalf of the dependent territories mentioned in the draft Order. New legislation is therefore required not only for the United Kingdom but for these dependent territories.
The Guadalajara Convention, 1961, was given effect to in the United Kingdom by the Carriage by Air (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1962. We are concerned with this Convention because the draft Order applies its provisions. It does little more than define the expression "carrier" used in both the unamended and the amended Warsaw Conventions. The Guadalajara Convention was ratified on behalf of the United Kingdom in 1964.
Section 1 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1961, gives effect in the United Kingdom to the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol of 1955, thereby enabling the Protocol to be ratified by the United Kingdom. An Order in Council has now been made, the Carriage by Air (Convention) Order, 1967, which certifies 1st June as the day on which the amended Convention will come into force for the United Kingdom. With effect from that date, the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, which gives effect to the Warsaw Convention of 1929, will be repealed. When this happens, the Carriage by Air (Non-international Carriage) (United Kingdom) Order 1952 will be revoked and replaced on 1st June by the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order, 1967.
This latter Order applies the principles of the amended Convention, with

1425
modifications, to carriage by air not governed by that Convention. It is also proposed to revoke the Carriage by Air Non-international Carriage) (Colonies, Protectorates and Trust Territories) Order, 1953, in so far as it applies as part of the law of the Territories to which the draft Order applies.
This draft Order, which it is proposed to make under Sections 9 and 10 of the 1961 Act and Section 5 of the Carriage by Air (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1962, is to replace the Carriage by Air (Non-international Carriage) (Colonies, Protectorates and Trust Territories) Order, 1953. The Order follows as closely as possible—making allowance for the necessary adaptations for the needs of dependent territories—the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order of 1967, which applies in the United Kingdom. The House has already approved that. The Order will now apply to the dependent territories mentioned, that is to say, those territories on behalf of which the United Kingdom has ratified the Hague Protocol of 1955.
The main provisions of the Order are, first, that it applies to domestic and other carriage not governed by either the unamended or the amended Warsaw Convention the principles of the amended Convention, including the Guadalajara Convention of 1961, with certain adaptations and modifications, among which are the omission of the requirements as to documentation and of the restrictions of courts in which actions may be brought.
Second, of more general interest is the raising of the carrier's limit of liability to £21,000 per passenger, which, under the 1953 Order was only £3,000. It also applies the principles of the amended Convention to the carriage of airmail, with similar adaptations and modifications.
Third, as a transitional provision, it applies those principles to the diminishing amount of carriage which will continue to be governed by the unamended Warsaw Convention with adaptations and modifications which conform to that Convention, to which the United Kingdom remains a party and which limits the carrier's liability to £3,000.
Fourth, it applies the Warsaw/Hague system to gratuitous carriage by the
1426
Crown, carriage by the Crown for reward being already governed by that system.
Fifth, it gives the Governor of a dependent territory power to exempt in relation to that territory any class of carriage from the requirements of the Order; but this will be rarely used.
Sixth, it applies to the dependent territories mentioned in the Order so that the provisions of the Order become part of the law of those territories.
Finally, it confers on passengers and their dependants and on the shippers of cargo the reversal of the burden of proving the carrier's negligence, in exchange for which the carrier will enjoy a limit of liability. The carrier will not be liable if he proves that he took due care, but his liability will be limited, in the absence of wilful misconduct, unless he has contracted for a higher figure.
The Order will apply only to those territories listed in Schedule 5, that is, those on whose behalf the amended Convention has been ratified. In respect of the few territories for whom it would not now be appropriate for us to legislate, we have suggested to them that they may wish to consider bringing in their own legislation or, if they wish, having this Order applied to them. In the present state of their constitutional development, this can best be left to them. We have, of course, consulted all the territories, whether mentioned in Schedule 5 or not, about this proposal.
It is proposed that another Order in Council, the Carriage by Air (Overseas Territories) Order, 1967, will be made under Section 9 of the 1961 Act and will also come into operation on 1st June. It is not required by the terms of the 1961 Act to be laid before Parliament.
This Order is an international Carriage Order and its main purpose is to extend to the dependent territories mentioned therein the provisions of the amended Convention: the £6,000 limit of liability will apply. If, therefore, the Hague Protocol and the two Overseas Territories Orders come into effect on 1st June, there will be three classes of carriage governed by their provisions, of which notice can be taken in the courts of the listed territories.
First is carriage governed by the Warsaw Convention as amended by the

1427
Hague Protocol, where the £6,000 limit of liability will apply—for example, air journeys between Gibraltar and Paris, since both the United Kingdom and France will be parties to the Protocol. Second is the residual and diminishing amount of carriage still governed by the unamended Warsaw Convention, where the £3,000 limit will apply—for example, air journeys from Hong Kong to Delhi, until India also ratifies the Protocol.
Third is the carriage governed by neither the amended nor the unamended Convention, where the £21,000 limit will apply—for example, journeys between Suva and Nadi, both of which are in Fiji, between London and Gibraltar, since Gibraltar is assumed to be part of the United Kingdom, Bermuda-Bahamas nonstop, and Gibraltar-Istanbul, since Turkey is not yet a party to either the Protocol or the unamended Convention.
Carriage with the limit of £6,000 will be governed by the Carriage by Air (Overseas Territories) Order, 1967, and carriage with the limits of £3,000 and £21,000 by the draft Order. If the Order is approved, it will come into operation on the same date as that proposed for the coming into operation of the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order, 1967, that is, on 1st June, 1967, the date of the coming into force of the Hague Protocol in respect of the United Kingdom.
I have given this straightforward and simple explanation to the House in the confident belief that the House will be pleased to approve the Order.
10.40 a.m.
Mr. Tim Fortescue: On this memorable occasion it has been extremely useful to have in advance, in printed form, a copy of the Minister of State's speech which, so far as one can see, is word for word precisely the speech that was delivered in another place on Monday——
Mr. George Thomas: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. What is good enough for the other place is good enough for the hon. Gentleman. Apart from that, if the House was to understand what I had to say, I had to stick closely to the speech that had been prepared.
Mr. Fortescue: It is indeed, most gratifying to recognise this Socialist approbation and approval of what goes on in another place. I hope that it will be a sign that hon. Members opposite will not in future be quite so enthusiastic in their criticisms of that venerable institution.
Fortified by this pre-knowledge of what the hon. Gentleman was to say, I find my task on this very matter much easier than I thought it would have been. There is one paragraph to which I should particularly like to draw the attention of the House. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for me to give the column number of the House of Lords OFFICIAL REPORT——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may quote from a speech made in another place if it was made by a Minister expressing Government policy.
Mr. Fortescue: I will not quote it completely, but the paragraph begins, as it has just been repeated by the Minister:
"This Order will apply only to those territories mentioned in Schedule 5 to the draft Order; that is to say, the territories on whose behalf the amended Convention has been ratified."
Then follows the sentence to Which I particularly wish to draw attention:
"In respect of the few territories for whom it would not now be appropriate for us to legislate we have suggested to them that they may wish to consider bringing in their own legislation or, if they wish, having this Order applied to them."
I note from Schedule 5 that there are some very notable omissions from the list. One is Aden, and another is Rhodesia. It would seem to an uninformed Member of this House that in these territories particularly the risks, whether present or potential, of accidents or mishaps to aeroplanes approaching them might be higher than the risks to aeroplanes approaching other territories, such as the British Antarctic territory or the Central and Southern Line Islands—which must be an outstandingly important part of the Commonwealth, and about which I should like further information from the hon. Gentleman because I confess to having not the slightest idea of where they are. The Minister will probably be on more familiar ground if he answers that question than he is, perhaps, on aviation matters.

1429
May we be told why the territory of Aden, for which this House is responsible, and the territory of Rhodesia, for which, as we hear over and over again, ad nauseam, from the other side this House is also responsible, have not been included in Schedule 5? In particular, may we please know whether the last sentence of this paragraph, which was repeated by the hon. Gentleman, applies to Rhodesia. It states:
"We have, of course, consulted with all the territories, whether mentioned in Schedule 5 or not, about what is proposed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 282, c. 1189.]
Have the Government consulted the Governor of Rhodesia about what is proposed in the Order? If not, we would like to know why: if so, we would like to know the Governor's reply on that point.
An entirely different point is that of carriage of mail by air between the united Kingdom and dependent territories. Reference is made in the Order to the consignor and consignee of goods curried by air. In most cases this is completely clear, but who is the consignor and who is the consignee of a letter carried by air mail? Is it the member of the public who writes the letter, or is it the member of the public at the other end who receives it? Or is it the Postmaster-General in each territory, or is it the Post Office, the Government Department, which consigns the letter? Who is the consignee who is entitled to claim under the Order if something goes wrong? Is it just an additional protection for a Government Department, or is the writer of the letter protected by this provision? If we could have answers to these questions, we would be much happier about eventually approving the Order.
10.45 a.m.
Mr. Marcus Kimball: The Minister of State told us that there had been a series of consultations with people in this country who are interested and involved in the Order. I want to refer to Section 3 in page 14, which deals with air waybills, and more particularly to those air waybills which describe cargoes of live animals. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been appalled over the last years by the endless tragedies resulting from the consignment of live animals by air. The House is familiar with the ghastly circumstances
1430
of the consignment of monkeys from Pakistan, most of which were found to be dead on arrival at London Airport. The House is also aware of reports in the Press some three weeks ago about a consignment of tortoises from North Africa, all of which died in transit.
Is the Minister of State satisfied that the description put in the air waybill before the cargo is loaded is sufficient for the crew to understand what they are transporting, how the animals should be handled and, if the flight goes wrong and is diverted, the procedure by which the animals are given a break, are fed and watered? I am not satisfied that in this Order we have gone far enough in making sure that countries involved in the carriage of animals by air provide sufficient safeguards in the descriptions laid down in Article 6—which is covered by Section 3.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken endless trouble over the question of the transportation of horses by air and the international standards that must be observed. He was most courteous in consulting our main livestock export companies, when it was made perfectly clear that everyone thought that when horses are transported by air, not only must the air waybill be very descriptive but that, where necessary, certain additional precautions must be taken in the form of alterations to the design and layout of the aeroplane.
It is most important, for instance, that horses should never be transported in the dark; the aeroplanes should always have lights on. Equally, it is most important that a member of the crew must always have a humane killer, so that not only can the horses be dealt with speedily and safely if they get disturbed but, if necessary, can be put down during transportation.
All interested parties in this country welcome these provisions and we all feel that they will be put into practice, but I see nothing in Articles 5, 6, 7 or 8 that assures us that not only will the cargo be correctly described in the waybill but that, where the cargo demands alteration in the structure and layout of aeroplanes, alteration will be enforced.
The Minister of State is probably aware of the enormous export trade we now have in dogs. The export of dogs from this country far exceeds that of

1431
all other livestock. I am advised by the Kennel Club that the bulk of dogs exported goes by air. With the precautions that are already being taken and the general experience of transporting these valuable cargoes to different parts of the world, it is now possible, employing the necessary packaging and proper boxing arrangements, successfully to transport dogs throughout the world.
Having done some of this exporting, what worries me is the fact that at no time, when filling in the waybill, need one say when the animal was last fed. Many dogs are exported to Japan, a trip of two or three days. It takes that time if they are not sent by express passenger service. Air waybills should include the times of feeding and, if possible, the types of feed on which certain animals thrive.
The Second Schedule of the Order is somewhat obscure. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that this Schedule applies to the unamended Convention, whereas the Order as a whole applies to the amended Convention. The Minister has been under pressure to get this Instrument through and I asure him that I do not wish to delay its progress. Nevertheless, I must complain at the slipshod drafting of the Order. Those involved in the transportation of goods by air cannot be expected to have the text and reference books which are available to hon. Members. I suggest that no Order has been as muddled in its drafting as this one. I hope that the Minister will not bring such an Order—drafted in such an incomprehensible and difficult-to-understand way—before the House again.
It is not clear what will happen in respect of the increase in fares which the airlines will have to charge as a result of our ratifying this Instrument. Insurance premiums will be going up considerably and this is bound to involve the airlines in a considerable increase in expenses. What consultations has the Minister had with the Prices and Incomes Board? Are the domestic airlines in Britain to be allowed to put up their fares immediately to meet the increase in the insurance cover? Can we have an undertaking that the increase in fares for which application has recently been
1432
made takes into consideration the increased insurance premiums which the companies will have to pay?
In introducing the Order the Minister did not deal sufficiently with the problem of the insurance cover which people take out, literally out of a slot machine, at airports. One can put money in a machine which is linked to a time-scale and obtain additional insurance cover over and above that contained in the Order. What will happen if an exemption under Article 8 is invoked—that is to say, if one is going on a flight where the basic £6,000 insurance liability of the company carrying one no longer applies?
I understand that in certain cases, by Ministerial licence, there may be an exemption from liability if a company fails to get one safely to one's destination. If one decided to take out an additional premium from a slot machine at an airport, one should be informed whether the Minister has invoked a special licence so that an exemption applies. In such a case the person going to the slot machine would need to take out an additional £6,000 insurance cover. Has the Minister had consultations about this? The matter was raised on Second Reading. This surely means that these insurance slot machines will have to be divided into two sections: one dealing with cases where the Convention has been ratified and is applied and the second where an exemption arises.
I trust that the Minister appreciates that this is a more complicated matter than it may at first appear. I trust that before disposing of the Order we will be given a satisfactory answer to my three questions—about the air waybill, the insurance principle and the fact that many of my hon. Friends and I regard this Order as having been extremely incompetently drafted.
10.57 a.m.
Mr. Graham Page: The House will have noted on the Order Paper the comment that
"The Instrument has not yet been considered by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments."
The Minister asked the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments to meet to consider this Order. The Committee fixed a meeting for this afternoon, but, thereafter, the hon Gentleman placed the

1433
draft Order on the Order Paper for this morning. It is regrettable that this happened, for the Select Committee now cannot report to the House either to the effect that it has nothing to say about the Instrument or that it has some comment to make about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) raised one draft-rig difficulty in connection with Schedule 2. I wish to refer to a more constitutional point which arises under Article 6, in which power is given to the governor of overseas territories to apply the Order with certain conditions and limitations. As the House knows, a Minister or the Crown by Order is not permitted to sub-delegate legislation unless the parent Act allows. Here the Order is being made carrying out certain matters in connection with these Conventions and then a governor is given a sort of sub-delegated power to legislate.
That is contained in, and sanctioned by, Section 10 of the 1961 Act. My recollection of that provision may be wrong, but I trust that the Minister will confirm that what I say is correct, remembering that Article 6 states that
"The Governor of an Overseas Territory may … by writing under his hand …"
apply the Order. What form is this to take? How is this to be promulgated in the territory itself and how are we in this country to know whether any territory has been brought in by a governor under Article 6?
I am not sure how "writing under his hand" is to be published—whether it is to be published officially in the territory concerned or published here. Will hon. Members be able to see it in the Library of the House or are we to be left in the dark?
One can see from the example given by the Minister that, when considering flights between one place and another, it does not only matter whether the flight started from this country because the various limits apply according to where the flight is routed. It is, therefore, important for us to know whether a governor has exercised his power to extend it to a particular territory "by writing under his hand".
If this Order can delegate the right to legislate in that way, can it delegate so far as it does in this Article to give the Governor the right to impose con-
1434
ditions and limitations? It does not say that the Governor may apply this Order or not apply it, but that he may apply it with conditions and limitations, or rewrite the Order altogether. I should like an assurance that Article 6 is valid in accordance with the parent Statute.
Another point concerns the form of the Order. I am sure that the House was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation and his summary of the three different kinds of case or category of flight with which we are concerned. He gave them as three categories: one, the £6,000 limit; two, the £3,000 limit; and three, the £21,000 limit. He informed the House that the £6,000 limit comes under a separate Order altogether and the £3,000 and £21,000 limits come under the draft Order we are debating. There is a precedent for combining Orders of this sort even though they have different Parliamentary procedures.
It would have been possible for what I call the £6,000 limit rule to be included in this Order even though this Order has to come before the House in draft. There are precedents for combining in one Order a subject which requires Parliamentary procedure and a subject which does not require it. It is convenient in a case such as this to have the whole subject in one Order. It would have eased the hon. Gentleman's job very much in explaining it had it all been combined in one order. I think that the Ministry of Transport has done this on occasion in connection with powers the Minister has some of which have to come before the House and others of which do not.
I raise those two points: first, the powers which give the Crown the right to make an Order containing such a provision as is in Article 6, and, secondly, the form of the Order in which it might have been convenient to combine powers which do not need Parliamentary procedure and those which do.
11.2 a.m.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I wish to thank the Minister for the musical way in which he read out to the House the careful explanation which he told us he had written for his noble Friend to deliver in the House of Lords on Monday. It would have been an advantage to the House as a whole if he had told us that we had this advance notice of

1435
the speech he has made. Hon. Members will find it a useful innovation if they can study the verbatim text in advance, because not all Ministers are so articulate as the hon. Gentleman.
Having congratulated the hon. Gentleman on that, I welcome the aspects of this Order, and first its relative promptness. It has come forward much earlier in time than the similar Order made in 1953, which has been in force hitherto. Secondly, I welcome the improvements in some of the layout in the text of the Order. Here, I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). It would be churlish not to welcome this because when we were debating in February the provisions of the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order, 1967, I suggested that some important improvements should be made. I am glad to see that much improvement has been made. but that leads me to ask why it could not have been made before.
Broadly, the Order we are considering has much less application and less importance than the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order, 1967. It seems that we are now in an unfortunate situation in which the document which is more clear to those concerned with this subject is the document of lesser importance. I wonder whether there is a possibility of producing a revised version, perhaps a combined version, following the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) so that we have the best available text on this subject and so far as possible have it within one set of covers. It would seem that one of the purposes we are here to serve is to make life easier for those who have to interpret the regulations which we pass into law and not to make them more complicated or difficult. I should be interested to know if the Minister has any comment to make on that.
I must confess that there are still some obscurities about the effect of this Order. The first concerns the question of the exemptions mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and other hon. Members. When this matter was debated on the previous Order it was explained that, broadly, these exemptions would fall into two categories The first con-
1436
cerned the activities of genuine flying and gliding clubs and the other concerned certain types of gratuitous carriage in Crown aircraft, particularly Transport Command carriage of the forces. Those two classifications have been explained to me in a letter I had from the Minister of State, Board of Trade.
I should like to know whether it is the intention that the exemptions which governors of overseas territories may apply will fall precisely into those categories or whether there will be extra discretion to exempt exceeding that existing in the United Kingdom and, if so, what that discretion is. This should be known. The discretion which is being granted to the governors should be understood before we pass this Measure into law.
There also must be some greater provision and stipulation concerning the publication of the exemptions which may be made. It is not yet satisfactorily resolved in this country whether a flying club is obliged to display a notice and, if so, in what form, saying that these provisions do not apply to a certain type of flight undertaken by that club. This should be known. This is just as true in dependent territories with which we are concerned this morning as it is in this country. There needs to be some precision on this of which so far there is no sign.
Another point I make was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) concerning the carriage of airmail. He asked, as I did when we were debating this matter in February, for a definition of the consignor, who is mentioned in this Order, but who is not defined. I suggested that it was important that he should be defined because certain rights are involved and the prospect of much litigation depends on the absence of certainty in the definition of who the consignor is.
I received a letter from the Minister of State taking up this point, but he did not actually answer my question. He said:
"On the point you made about airmail the owner of the cargo (who is likely to be the poster or an addressee) is not, I am advised, necessarily precluded by the Convention from bringing an action against the carrier, but if he does so Article 24 as applied to airmail by the Order will restrict him to the conditions and limits of the Convention. The Post Office will be in a similar position."

1437
That does not tell me who the consignor or the consignee is and it is important that his should be established, because the possibility that there will be difficult litigation has been borne out by a case which has recently come before the courts. That was the case of Moukataff v. B.O.A.C. I understand that Mr. Moukataff was a Lebanese businessman who asked Barclay's Bank, in London, to send £20,000 in £5 notes to his agents in Kuwait by registered airmail uninsured. Unfortunately, the money was stolen at Heathrow by one of B.O.A.C.'s loaders who was subsequently tried and convicted of the offence.
Mr. Moukataff was entitled to £2 18s. per packet compensation from the G.P.O. and managed to recover a small part of the balance from the convicted thief. Then, in an action which I am told has no precedent in G.P.O. history, Mr. Moukataff sued B.O.A.C. for the un-recovered balance of over £17,000 and obtained judgment for the full amount, plus costs. In his judgment, tthe judge made it clear that, although the law was clear on the subject of the G.P.O. liability, there was no statutory provision dealing with the carrier's liability.
This is a case of carriage by air, and it is the sort of case which may happen again. It is clearly a case where it is rot adequate to say, "Let us see what the courts make of it", because, if we are to pass legislation and say, "We are not quite sure what we mean, but the courts will decide", we shall be abdicating one of our functions.
I reiterate to the Minister of State, and, through him, to the Board of Trade, that there is a strong and urgent case here for some precise definition of what the words "consignor" and "consignee" are intended to mean. If we do not have such a definition, there will be litigation. This, since it will derive from uncertainty in the terms of the Order, will mean that we are not discharging our proper function.
I turn now to the question of the territories covered by the Order. I can perhaps help my hon. Friend the Member for Garston a little, perhaps a little more than the Minister of State will be able to help him, because my researches do not reveal that the Central and Southern Line Islands are mentioned in
1438
the 1966 edition of the C.R.O. Yearbook. However, I learn from another publication that these important islands, which fall within the scope of the Order, come into two categories. There are three Line Islands, I am told—Fanning Island, Washington Island and Christmas Island—which are part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony and, therefore, covered under that heading in Schedule 5.
This leaves five islands which are administered direct by the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific. Two of those Islands—Flint Island and Caroline Island—were in 1951 leased to commercial interests in Tahiti. I know no more about them than that. Of the other three, Starbuck Island, which has an area of one square mile, is uninhabited. Vostock Island, whose area I do not know, is uninhabited. Maiden Island, which has an area of 35 square miles and which contains deposits of guano of doubtful value, is also uninhabited.
Mr. Fortescue: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this educational lecture. It is fascinating. Could he tell me, in furtherance of my education, whether any of these islands have airports or aerodromes?
Mr. Onslow: My researches have not revealed that. Perhaps that question might be more fairly addressed to the Minister of State. I should be grateful for any information which he can provide.
On a slightly more important note, I ask the Minister of State to cover the question of Aden, because, apart from anything else, the security of flights into and out of Aden at this moment causes some anxiety. The situation with regard to Aden Airways itself appears to be obscure. It seems odd that we have a lacuna of sorts here. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us a little more about it and if he would enumerate what he called in his speech "the few territories" which are omitted. It is very important that somewhere it should be placed on record which are the territories which fall outside the scope of the Order. I suppose they will be published in the other Order which the hon. Gentleman told us is to be made, but at least it is important that there should be a consolidated list somewhere so that the position is known.

1439
This applies particularly to one territory which I note has also been left out—that is, the condominiun of the New Hebrides. I am not quite sure whether there are constitutional developments in train in the New Hebrides which make this an inappropriate moment at which to bring them within the scope of the Order. There are certainly airports there, and, indeed, airlines flying into the New Hebrides from Fiji. Fiji Airways and the Union de Transports Aériens fly in. There are two internal airways having scheduled and charter services—New Hebrides Airways and Hebridair. At present, I am advised, no one knows under what provisions carriage by air in that territory is governed, whether this be under French law or under British law and, if so, under what British law. This is an obscurity which should be cleared up.
I should like the Minister of State to comment briefly on the question of possible increases in fares. It is clear that, if the provisions of the Order increase the liability which airlines may have to accept, it is likely to lead to some increase in their insurance premiums. The precise effect of this may be difficult to calculate, but I hope that the Minister can give us some idea of the kind of increase he expects to occur.
Although this may not be the appropriate moment, I wonder if the Minister of State can say anything about flights into and out of Gibraltar. There is some public anxiety on this score. Gibraltar is covered by the Order. Parliament could perhaps be notified officially as to what the position of Her Majesty's Government now is with regard to services into and out of Gibraltar.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said about the question of animals and the inadequacy of the air way bill in this respect. I do not suppose that there is any way in which the Order could be amended to meet this inadequacy, because the conditions set down there are part of the Conventions. But there does seem to be a very strong case for improving the conditions under which animals are transported by air. There was a disturbing case reported in the Press only yesterday of some animals which had been shipped into this country from
1440
Singapore and which arrived in a very distressed condition.
Ordinary inanimate cargo and the condition in which it arrives is, presumably, a matter between the consignor and the consignee, whoever they may be, and the carrier. However, the carriage of animals is of more general and public concern, because we simply cannot be content to treat them as lumps of inanimate matter whose ownership is vested in an individual and whose wellbeing is of no concern to anyone else.
We are, rightly, horrified and disgusted by some of the reports which we see. Perhaps there is nothing that can be done on this occasion, but I put it to the Government that there may be a need for a further convention in the realm of carriage by air which covers the conditions under which animals are to be carried.
It would be singularly appropriate if the initiative here were to come from this country, because we have a major trade in this respect. We are major importers of pets. We are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough reminded us, a significant importer of various animals for other reasons. We are a nation of animal lovers. It would be a good and appropriate thing if some initiative towards the creation of a convention covering this aspect of carriage by air were to come from the United Kingdom.
The only other point I want to make concerns that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby about the fact that the Order comes before us having not yet been before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. If the process of going before the Select Committee is thought to be of any value, there may well be occasions on which it is impossible, for one reason or another, for the process to be completed before the Government have to bring an order before us.
I note that the Government have brought this Order before us on this Wednesday morning, the last morning sitting before the Order is to come into force on 1st June. Therefore, I suppose it was either a question of bringing it on this morning or of bringing it on tomorrow night. There may be good reasons in the Government's mind why they think it necessary to bring the Order

1441
on this morning, but at least the hon. Gentleman might have said that he was sorry that it had not been before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. I did not hear him say that he was sorry.
Mr. George Thomas: I hope to speak again.
Mr. Onslow: I am delighted to know that the hon. Gentleman proposes to speak again and, no doubt, will say that he is sorry; but he might have volunteered an apology.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is losing his sense of proportion and getting unduly excited. He is being quite unreasonable. He must not anticipate what I shall say to the House. I shall reply in courteous terms to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). The hon. Gentleman must not accuse me of discourtesy because I did not apologise in advance of a complaint which his hon. Friend was about to make.
Mr. Onslow: The Minister of State is himself falling into the temptation of getting heated. Perhaps I may be allowed to finish the complaint which I was putting.
My complaint is that the Minister of State, having been able to read the Order Paper just as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby can read it, and having, presumably, noted thereon the statement that the Order has not yet been considered by the Select Committee, did not volunteer an apology. There is nothing to be ashamed of in having to apologise to the House, and it is much better to apologise before being called upon to do so.
The hon. Gentleman has put himself in an unfortunate position. He is in charge of this business. He knows that the Order has not been before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. It would have been better if he had said that he was sorry that it had not proved possible to have it considered by the Select Committee, and then, no doubt, no more would have been said about it. As it is, he will have to say that he is sorry after being pressed to do so.
Otherwise, I commend the Order. I hope that we shall have satisfaction on
1442
the questions which my hon. Friends have raised about certain of its provisions and applications and that we shall have a full answer on the more important points which have been raised in debate.
11.22 a.m.
Mr. George Thomas: I am not often annoyed in this Chamber, but I confess that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) did annoy me. I have been here too long to take exception to anything that is said, but the hon. Gentleman was so ungracious and niggling, and that always annoys me. I have been in the House long enough to know that I should treat everyone with courtesy, and I have a strange habit of expecting the same myself.
Of course, I apologise to the House and to the hon. Gentleman that, owing to the time factor, we had to put this Order down for this morning and it has not been before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. I am a great believer in the authority of the House and its Committees being fully observed. It is always better if an Order comes before the House after having been before the Select Committee of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is such a distinguished and useful member.
Mr. Kimball: Will the Minister of State now agree that this proves that the pressure on morning sitting time is mounting considerably and that the Government will have great difficulty fitting in all the business that they want to take at morning sittings?
Mr. Thomas: That is another point, and, happily, it does not fall to me. I am sometimes amazed by all that happens here. I think that, if we sat on Sundays, we should find something to talk about.
Mr. Onslow: We certainly should. [Laughter..]
Mr. Thomas: There we are. We are on better terms now. Perhaps it was my Welsh temperament. I did not want to upset the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Graham Page: If we sat on Sundays, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would no longer sit for a Welsh constituency.
Mr. Thomas: If we sat on Sundays, I should reconsider my postion; but I

1443
rather like this place, and I hope that I shall not be driven to that point.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) is well known for his concern for the well being of animals. In the days when it was my privilege to serve at the Home Office, I had a great deal to do with the hon. Gentleman. Like hon. Members on both sides, I am an animal lover, and I hate cruelty to any living thing. I am not very fond of snakes, but I do not want cruelty to them, either. There may be need for a further Convention on the carriage of animals by air—I do not know—but, if such a convention were thought necessary, I am sure that both the hon. Member for Woking and his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough would pursue the matter, and I certainly agree that it is our obligation as a country to do all we can to ensure the avoidance of suffering by any living thing. I would not oppose suggestions made to that end.
I have been asked some highly technical questions, and I shall do my best to answer them. I have had my "leg pulled" about a speech which I delivered to the House—perhaps that is really what offended me; no one likes being caught out—but I shall do my best now to answer the questions which have been put, and I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the points which have been raised this morning.
The House has approved this Order in its application to the United Kingdom. All that we are doing now is asking that it shall apply to the dependent territories. That is why I was, innocently, put into this position, which is not an easy one, as a member of the Administration.
I have been asked about Gibraltar. My hon. Friend the other Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs returns today from Gibraltar, and I have no doubt that she will take an early opportunity to convey to the House the results of her observations.
I was asked why Aden is omitted. The hon. Member for Woking is quite right to say that this is a sensitive point at the moment. Consultations with the Federation of South Arabia have not been completed, but it is always possible to add further names, if necessary, to Schedule
1444
5, and I am sure that there will be no reluctance to add the name of Aden if it is thought necessary and agreed.
Next, I was asked which dependent territories are not included in Schedule 5. First, there are the Associated States in the Caribbean, namely, Antigua, St. Kitts, Dominica, St. Lucia and Grenada. St. Vincent also is excluded. It was expected that St. Vincent would be an Associated State by 1st June. However, the new date is likely to be shortly after that. Swaziland is excepted; it has recently become a Protected State with full internal self-government. Next, there are the Protected States of Tonga and Brunei, for which we have never, I believe, legislated on this question.
Southern Rhodesia is excepted. It has its own legislation on this subject, and before I.D.I. we did not include Southern Rhodesia in our civil aviation Orders. We believe that the same thing as I said about Aden can apply there. If necessary, any name can be added at another time to Schedule 5. It is not, however, our intention to alter this legislation.
Mr. Onslow: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm, therefore, that all these territories, or perhaps all except Rhodesia, will be included and named in the further Order in Council—the Carriage by Air (Overseas Territory) Order, 1967— which is to be made? Can he also confirm that it will be possible for a territory to be transferred from the appropriate Schedule of that Order to Schedule 5 of the present Order and that in appropriate cases this will be done?
Mr. Thomas: I will communicate with the hon. Member about that. We are suggesting to those folk that they might care to legislate themselves. If it is necessary for us then to include them, they will be included.
Mr. Fortescue: Will the hon. Gentleman be very kind and answer my question about communication with the Governor of Rhodesia on this matter? The hon. Gentleman specifically said that we have consulted all the territories, whether mentioned in Schedule 5 or not, about what is proposed. May I ask specifically again whether there has been any communication with Rhodesia on this matter?
Mr. Thomas: No. There has not been consultation with the Governor on this question, because hitherto we did not legislate on it for Rhodesia. It is considered that that must be a place which will have to wait—I hope not too long— until we have settled the question in Rhodesia.
Mr. Fortescue: Would it be fair, therefore, to say that the remark, made both in the other place and in the House of Commons, that we have consulted all the territories, whether mentioned in Schedule 5 or not, about what is proposed is not strictly accurate?
Mr. Thomas: I do not want to argue with the hon. Member. Rhodesia is a very special field. The Governor is us; he is our voice. If we consulted him, we would be consulting ourselves. I am quite sure that the House will appreciate that the Governor represents this country. This is an Order which limits liability. In that sense, therefore, it is not directly concerned with the carriage of horses or tortoises. Its purpose is to limit the liability.
I was asked about the Governor making exceptions. The Governor will not be allowed to make exceptions in carriage other than carriage within his own territory. The order will not apply to carriage between his territory and elsewhere. If there is an exemption, the liability is unlimited, but the airline can then itself by contract arrange with the passenger the amount of the limit.
In reply to the hon. Member for Gainsborough, the Order does not apply to personal insurance slot machines. When I travel by air I nearly always use, or used to use, that kind of slot machine. I always felt that I was safe because I was covered for £20,000 and I was sure that I would never bring that money to my family. That is not covered by the Order.
The hon. Member for Woking was very kind to give his detailed answer about the
1446
Islands. He helped to complete my education, too. As far as I am aware, in the Central Islands there neither is nor has been an airport; but one never knows. They may have one sometime. We would not want to bother the House—I certainly hope that nobody will bother me—to introduce an order of this sort again.
The hon. Member for Woking, who is very ingenious, raised the question of the New Hebrides. We have never legislated for the condominium of the New Hebrides and we cannot do so. I assure the hon. Member, however, that we will look into this question. I will look into all the questions which have been raised.
The hon. Gentleman was very kind to thank us for the improvements which have been made in the form of the Order. Whether it is necessary to have a combined version of all these Orders is not a matter for me but is an interesting question for whoever is responsible. I will see that the hon. Gentleman's views are brought to the notice of the responsible authority.
I was asked who was the consignee. On this, again, I shall have to write to the hon. Member, and it should be interesting correspondence. I promise him, however, that I will look into it. The question of prices and incomes and increased fares would have to be dealt with if it arose. It certainly has nothing to do with the passing of the Order this morning.
We have had a very good debate, much better than I expected when I was preparing myself, as my noble Friend prepared himself in another place. I earnestly hope that the House will now agree to pass the Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Overseas Territories) Order, 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th April, be approved.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL [Lords]

  Clause 36.—(REPEALS AND SAVINGS.)
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  11.39 a.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: Clause 36 is the Clause which repeals certain Statutes and makes certain saving. Subsection (1) states that
  "the enactments mentioned in Schedule 3 to this Act are hereby repealed".
  Schedule 3 sets out three Statutes and part of a fourth. In the table of comparisons, at least eight Statutory Instruments are mentioned as being subjects from which Clauses of the Bill have been derived: that is to say, existing law which has been consolidated in the Bill.
  In previous Consolidation Bills, the repeal Schedule has mentioned Statutory Instruments which have been consolidated and which were repealed by the Consolidation Measure. The problem is even more puzzling when one considers subsection (2), which is the savings subsection, and which says:
  "Nothing in this repeal shall effect any instrument made or any other thing whatsoever done under any enactment repealed by this Act …".
  The Statutory Instruments in the Table of Comparison were made under Statutes repealed by this Act. They seem to be saved under subsection (2). Although we are told that they are consolidated elsewhere in the Bill, they do not appear as repealed in the Schedule of repeals, but seem to be kept alive by subsection (2). I should like an explanation of this point.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): As the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has said, the Schedule refers to certain Orders, as distinct from Statutes, and they are not repealed. But they are Transfer of Functions Orders, which, in so far as we are
  1448
  repeating the appropriate legislation, are spent. There is a number of these Orders under this Bill and under the Bill which we shall consider in a moment, which provide not merely for the transfer of functions but also for certain consequential matters.
  They provide for the transfer from one Ministry to another of rights and liabilities and also for a reference to documents, which matters would not be covered by the Bill. If we repealed part of these Instruments, the rest of the Instruments would be extremely difficult to construe. Therefore, these Instruments have not been repealed but left in effect. As the hon. Gentleman said, they are saved by Clause 36(2). This is why the Bill has been arranged in this way. I hope that that explanation is sufficient.
  Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful for that explanation, but it seems not to cover one of the Statutory Instruments, that from which paragraph (3) of Schedule 2 is derived, the British South American Airways Corporation (Dissolution) Order, 1952. That seems to be completely spent and might have been included in the Schedule of Repeals.
  The Solicitor-General: I have not the particular Order with me, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the explanation applies.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Schedule 1.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO THE CORPORATIONS.)
  Question proposed, That this be the First Schedule to the Bill.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: We are in some difficulty, because, although the Bill has three Schedules and 37 Clauses, it spent only three minutes in another place. Unlike the last air Bill which we discussed, we have not had the benefit of the hon. and learned Gentleman repeating the speech made by a Minister in another place. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman entirely satisfied that paragraph (7) of the Schedule gives the Corporation power to pay each member of the Board——
  The Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hot. Gentleman will realise that this is a Consolidation Bill, on which discussion of the merits is not permitted. All we are able to discuss is whether the law should be consolidated and, if so, whether that has been adequately done. We cannot discuss the merits of measures being consolidated.
  Mr. Kimball: With respect, Sir Eric, is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that this Consolidation Measure will allow him to pay salaries to members of the Board equal to those current in industry and the City, so that we may be absolutely certain of getting people of suitable calibre——
  The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that questions of that kind are out of order, because we cannot debate the effect of the Measures being consolidated. Therefore, the Minister cannot be asked about the effect of particular parts of the Bill. All that can be asked is whether the existing law is being properly consolidated.
  Mr. Kimball: With respect, I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Eric. Would it be in order for this discussion to take place on Third Reading?
  The Chairman: No, I am afraid that it would not.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]
11.48 a.m.
The Chairman: It may be convenient if I put the question on Clauses 1 to 14 inclusive at once.
Question, That Clauses 1 to 14 stand part of the Bill, put and agreed to.

Clause 15.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION, REPEALS, SAVINGS AND COMMENCEMENT.)
Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Graham Page: Much the same point arises on this Bill as we discussed on the previous Consolidation Measure, but in a different way. Clause 15 is the repeal and savings Clause. Subsection (3) repeals three Statutes, and there is no Schedule of repeals. Three Statutory Instruments are mentioned in the Table of Comparison as subjects from which certain Clauses have been derived. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will explain why those are not repealed.
I raised on Second Reading the question of the wording of the savings Clause and whether this effected the evidently intended savings, that is, keeping alive previous Instruments, particularly Statutory Instruments. Subsection (4) begins with the words:
"Any approval, consent or direction …
The House will recollect that, on the last Bill we were discussing, the words "any Instrument" were used. I am puzzled by the different wording in this Measure. It may mean exactly the same thing and perhaps the Solicitor-General is satisfied. But we have got used to the word "Instrument" as referring to Statutory Instruments which have been made under previous Measures, consolidated in a Consolidation Bill, and kept alive by the use of that phrase The phrase
"Any approval, consent or direction"
does not seem to include Statutory Instruments And why is it necessary to have the breathing space provided by subsection (8) of
"… one month beginning with the day on which it is passed"?
The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): The explanation for the form of the Bill and for the reference to certain Orders on the table in the Schedule is the same as I gave when we were discussing the last Measure, and perhaps I need not repeat that explanation.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) referred to subsection (4). Here, we are not merely dealing with Statutory Instruments. Because of the nature of the subject matter under the earlier Acts, approval, consents or directions may have been given and, therefore, it is necessary to save that in this Measure. The hon. Gentleman quoted the first few words of the subsection, but it states:
"Any approval, consent or direction given, any appointment made or any other thing done under or by virtue of any provision of the said Acts shall be deemed …"
I advise the House that the words "any other thing done" cover Statutory Instruments, with the result that Statutory Instruments are saved by this subsection.
The hon. Member for Crosby then referred to subsection (8), which states:
"This Act shall come into force at the expiration of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is passed".
It would, of course, be possible to provide that the Bill should come into force on the day it becomes an Act, upon receiving the Royal Assent. It is, however, a matter of administrative convenience when dealing with Measures of this sort to have a certain breathing space so that those who must administer the Measure can familiarise themselves with it in its new form. It is a good thing for them to have it on their desks so that everybody concerned may know the new Statute under which they must operate before it comes into force.
That is why this is quite a common tradition in consolidation Measures, and I therefore invite the House to accept it.
Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that explanation It is with some defer-
1452
ence and respect that I question his interpretation of subsection (4). If he is hoping to include Statutory Instruments in the words "any other thing done" following the words
"Any approval, consent or direction given …"
I think that he is stretching the ejusdem generis rule rather beyond its usual interpretation. I cannot be satisfied with that explanation and I hope that more definite words will be used in future in consolidation Measures.
Sir Frank Pearson: I hope that the Solicitor-General can give me two assurances. Clause 6 is concerned with temporary borrowing powers. Could I have an assurance that the figure of £250,000 mentioned therein is exactly the same as that mentioned in the original Act and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not thought it necessary to raise the figure to meet modern requirements?
Clause 11 deals with certain powers in regard to projects sponsored by Government Departments and, in that provision, the Post Office is particularly excluded. Was the Post Office particularly excluded in the original Act?
The Solicitor-General: I did not know that these points would be raised. Had I realised it I would have been able to provide a fuller reply.
If the hon. Member for Crosby will look at the Report of the Joint Committee he will see that the Committee reported that this Measure was pure consolidation, which means that the law is precisely what it was. It is only the form of the law, and not its substance, which is being changed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES AND DISEASES (OLD CASES) BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES AND DISEASES (OLD CASES) BILL [Lords]

  Clause 1.—(CONTINUATION OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION IN CERTAIN CASES.)
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  11.57 a.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I wish to protest at the form of the consolidation in Clause 1. It is a most difficult form of consolidation when one is referred to an Act and the Schedule to an Act which is being repealed in the very Schedule to this Consolidation Bill.
  This means that anyone who reads this Bill is required to refer to a repealed Act, and that will not be found in print. It will not be printed in future editions of any current Statutes to which one refers. When an Act is repealed, Her Majesty's Stationery Office does not continue to print it. It will, therefore, be extremely difficult for anyone to find out what is meant by the Clause.
  I cannot understand why it is necessary to make the consolidation in this form, that one should refer to Schedule 9 of the Industrial Injuries Act, 1946, and then, when turning to the Schedule of this Consolidation Bill, find that that Schedule is repealed. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain this in greater detail to the House and tell us why this has been necessary.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): The Bill has been fully considered by the Joint Committee, on which all parties in this House are represented. That Committee contains practitioners in both branches of the legal profession. Those practitioners considered this Consolidation Measure and were perfectly satisfied with this form of the Clause. It would. therefore, be an impossible exercise for us in this House to do the Committee's work over again for it.
  I respectfully inform the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that I cannot see that the Clause raises any difficulty at all. In 1946 we brought
  1454
  workmen's compensation to an end after many years. It had been a fruitful source of litigation. I suppose that no statutes have been litigated more than the workmen's compensation Acts. They were brought to an end and the system of industrial injuries was put in their place.
  It was necessary to save the rights under the workmen's compensation Acts of those who had been injured and whose claims had been adjudicated before 1946. There was, therefore, included a saving Clause, which was Section 89 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946. This Clause has a similar purpose. It simply saves the rights of those who are still entitled to benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Acts.
  The hon. Gentleman said that these repealed Acts will no longer be printed by the Stationery Office. Of course, they will not, but I cannot imagine that that will cause any difficulty to anyone who has to interpret the Statute. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that in my chambers and in his office and throughout the legal profession there are sets of statutes which are available to all of us and which go back for a very long time. They are available to hon. Members in the Library.
  12 noon
  Mr. Graham Page: What then is the purpose of consolidation? Surely the purpose of a Consolidation Measure is to include in one document the law on a subject as it then stands. Here we are told that Schedule 9 of the 1946 Act will continue to apply to certain cases. Surely a better form of consolidation would have been to repeat that Schedule in this Consolidation Bill instead of leaving it to be found somewhere else. This is not consolidation; this is legislation by reference and it only makes Consolidation Bills that much less valuable to those who have to work with him.
  As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, of course he and I probably have the old Statutes on dusty shelves in our offices, but that is not the purpose for which we are consolidating these Acts. When our clients come to see us, they should not have to ask us to get on the step-ladder and reach down from the

  1455
  tenth shelf a Statute which contains Schedule 9 because the Consolidation Measure says that there is a Schedule 9 of the 1946 Act which still applies to the client's case. We ought to be able to refer to the Consolidation Measure and find the law as it stands on that day and as we have consolidated it. not needing to look further for the law. It would have been better to set out Schedule 9 in the Bill and to say that it applied to such and such cases.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 2 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 16.—(SHORT TITLE. EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT.)
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Graham Page: Subsection (3), the last subsection in the Bill, says:
  "This Act shall come into force on such day as the Minister may by order made by statutory instrument appoint."
  I appreciate that this provision was probably necessary when the Bill was first drafted, because the Bill includes certain matters which will be law under a Bill which has now passed through all its stages in both Houses and which is now awaiting Royal Assent. At that stage, one could not tell at what time this Consolidation Bill would reach this House and pass through all its stages here, and it was therefore proper to reserve the date on which it should come into operation.
  But that hardly seems necessary now, and I would have thought that the Solicitor-General could have seen that this provision was removed. I dislike this type of subsection, because a Statutory Instrument appointing a time is not subject to any Parliamentary procedure and does not even have to be laid before the House. It is made by a Minister, and only those who are very observant of the various Stationery Office publications will notice that the Statute has been brought into force. I would have thought that we could have done without this subsection now.
  The Solicitor-General: I explained when we were dealing with the last Bill that it is sometimes convenient to have a period of grace between a Bill receiving the Royal Assent and its actual coming into force. It sometimes happens that a particular period is specified. With the last Bill, it was a month after the Royal Assent had been given before the Act began to operate. There are many precedents for a provision of this kind to say that the Act shall come into force on an appointed day. When dealing with matters of a good deal of complexity, it is convenient to have this degree of elasticity about the date when the Act comes into force.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)
  Question proposed, That this be the Schedule to the Bill.
  Mr. Graham Page: Hon. Members will see that in the last item in the first column of the Schedule there is a blank. We have now reached the last stage of the Bill's passage through this House at which any Amendment can be made. Who is to fill in the blank? The blank appears against the Short Title of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Amendment) Act, 1967, and the reference is "1967 c." and then there is a blank.
  This may be a very small matter, but it means that something will be printed in a Bill after it has received the Royal Assent which was not printed in the Bill when it passed through all its stages in the two Houses. We are left in the difficulty that we shall be asked to give a Third Reading to a Bill which contains a blank. Who is to fill the hole in the Government's bucket?
  Mr. Kimball: This is a very important matter. The Solicitor-General ought to take the Bill away and wait until he is able to fill in the blank. I understand that the Government have the happy knowledge that they have plenty of time on morning sittings and it is therefore very wrong that they should present to the House a Bill which is not finished, which is not fully written out, when they could easily withdraw it and fill in the blank later in this Session of Parliament.

  1457
  We are being asked to agree to a Schedule which contains a table of derivations which is not even complete and the Solicitor-General ought not to ask for a Third Reading of the Bill until he has been able to fill that table. I hope that he will explain this position at length. This is exactly like being presented with a blank cheque and told, "We will finish the calculation if you just sign" The numbers, figures, dates and descriptions of the 1967 Act have not been filled in. I am reluctant to see a Bill go through incomplete like this.
  I am delighted that the right hon. Lady the Minister of State for the Home Department is present, for she can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government have plenty of time in morning sittings. The hon. and learned Gentleman should withdraw the Bill and not ask for a Third Reading. My hon. Friends would not object if he did so and if he returned when he was able to fill in the whole table of derivations.
  The Solicitor-General: The explanation is quite simple. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) will see, if he looks again at the Schedule, that the reference where there is a blank is to the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Amendment) Act, 1967. That is a Measure which has passed through its various stages, but not yet received the Royal Assent. It is impossible to fill in the chapter number until the Royal Assent has been obtained. No one knows as yet what the number will be. That is the reason for the blank.
  I would suggest that there is no room for an error here. It is merely a matter of filling in the number, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone will put in the wrong number.
  It does not require any action by either House, because it is an addition which can be made as a printing correction. There is power to make printing corrections before Bills receive the Royal Assent. Such corrections are made by the Clerk of the Parliaments in the other place, and that is what will be done on this occasion.
  Mr. Graham Page: This cannot possibly be a printing correction. It has been left blank deliberately, and a
  1458
  deliberate blank cannot be called a printing error which may be corrected by the Clerk of the Parliaments. It may seem to be a very small matter, but we know too well in this House that precedents are set by very small matters, and it may be that on some future occasion an important blank will be left. In this case, it is of some importance, and it cannot be passed over by calling it a matter for a printing correction. This cannot come within the Standing Orders allowing the Clerk of the Parliaments to make that correction.
  May I ask when the Royal Assent is expected to the Bill? I can promise the hon. and learned Gentleman that, if he withholds the completion of this Committee stage and the Third Reading of the Bill until the Royal Assent has been given, we shall give it to him on the nod.
  It is a very small matter of this sort which sets a precedent, and, on a future occasion, we may be told that, as this was allowed to go through as a printing correction, we must let something else go through in the same way. I protest strongly. I offer the hon. and learned Gentleman the opportunity that if, for example, there is any intention to have the Royal Assent to any Statutes today, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Amendment) Act, 1967, can be included, and we shall give him the Third Reading on the nod. However, I am not inclined to allow a Bill of this kind to go forward with a blank in it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Question put:—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Since a Division has been claimed, I am bound by paragraph 4 of the Sessional Order on Morning Sittings to declare that the proceedings on the Motion before the House on the Bill stand deferred until the end of business this evening.
  The Proceedings stood deferred pursuant to Order (Sittings of the House (Morning Sittings)).

REMAND ACCOMMODATION (FEMALES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
12.13 p.m.
Mr. George Wallace: The right of an individual to contact his Member of Parliament is generally a recognised and accepted part of our democratic procedure. Very often, during the efforts made to deal with a constituent's grievance, a situation is revealed which causes wider concern, and the value of an hon. Member's personal contact with constituents cannot be over-stated.
A few weeks ago, at short notice and under great pressure from the Lord Mayor of Norwich, I had to deal with the case of a young constituent of mine, a girl aged 17, who on a first offence had been convicted by magistrates and remanded in custody for a period of approximately three weeks pending reports and a decision on her future. The court was held in northern Norfolk. The place for remanding her in custody was Holloway Prison, London, well over 100 miles from her home.
I do not wish to name the girl. There has been quite enough publicity given to her case already, and I am pleased to inform the House that there has been a very happy result for her. I look forward to her developing as a good and useful citizen and, for reasons which the House will understand and appreciate, I shall not reveal her identity.
My concern is to deal with what, in my view, is the serious situation revealed in a letter to me from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, dated 18th April, the final paragraph of which says:
"It appears that courts in London, East Anglia and the south-east of England have no female remand centre facilities, and the only place where a girl aged 17 or over can be placed is, therefore, Holloway. I understand that she is too old to go to a remand home where the age limit is 17 years."
Up to that point, I had tended to be critical of the magistrates in the case, but that statement by the noble Lord altered the picture somewhat. On 27th April last, I tabled a Question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and his written reply said:
1460
"The remand centre at Holloway for girls aged 17 but under 21 is now being brought into use. It is in the remodelled hospital, and is entirely separate from the rest of the prison. Adult women on remand at Holloway Prison are kept separately from convicted prisoners."
He went on:
"I am considering whether more satisfactory arrangements can be made for remand accommodation for women and girls in the south-east, but I have to bear in mind the very heavy increase in the male prison population."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1967; Vol. 722, c. 322.]
Although young women on remand are kept separate from convicted prisoners and even the accommodation is an improvement on what used to be the case, the prison stigma remains. Furthermore, at this critical time, these children— because that is what they are—need parents or relatives readily available. Long-distance travel imposes a considerable burden on them, and not only a financial one, and parents are not always to blame in these cases.
If this is a remand centre, I pose these questions. Why give a prison number? Why has it a prison address, with "H.M. Prison, Holloway" on letter headings? Why lock up girls in their cells at 5 p.m. until next morning, and on Sundays at 4 p.m. until Monday morning? Then again, what about the dress—thick seamed stockings, black flat-toed lace-up shoes, red cardigan, green-spotted blouse, and grey skirt—in other words, a prison uniform?
I have considered this situation carefully and, to my mind, it all adds up to a prison sentence in advance and cannot be justified. Very few of these young girls basically are complete and absolute potential criminals. I speak as a father. In a young girl aged between 17 and 21, emotional upsets often lead to stupid actions needing great care, understanding and sympathy in handling the individual.
In my view, the situation revealed gives rise to serious concern. Shock treatment may help in a few cases but in many others serious and permanent harm can be caused. Many magistrates in East Anglia are concerned. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) is unable to take part in the debate and tenders his apologies because he shares my serious concern and gives

1461
me full support in any efforts I may make.
The hon. Gentleman is under pressure from an important body of women in his constituency, including quite a number of magistrates, who have expresed their serious concern and I will quote from a local newspaper on the matter:
"Several members, including some whose personal experience as magistrates has given them an insight into the problem, took part in discussion.
It was emphasised that it was quite wrong that young people brought before a court and remanded for some special psychiatric or medical report should be taken to prisons pending their next appearance before the magistrates."
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South will, indeed, be bringing pressure to bear in other ways.
It may be argued fairly and properly that the accommodation in Holloway is separate, but the fact remains—and this is the serious factor which worries me and many others—that the only remand centre for the whole of East Anglia, the whole of the south-east of England, which are both very large areas, and for London, for girls aged 17 and under 21, is Her Majesty's Prison at Holloway. That fact cannot be denied.
I appreciate the problems of the Home Office and all those who would like to see something done to achieve a better situation. I know how difficult it is for authorities when they want to set up a small remand home in an area. Immediately the local population rises up in protest. But we must face that situation. Some years ago, I had to face it when the Salvation Army wanted to put up a home in a so-called respectable neighbourhood in the area in which I lived. We had to fight but the home was set up and is now part of the local scene and is doing magnificent work.
I do not want to delay the House. I feel that I have a very strong and worrying case. I appreciate all the problems that face the Home Office in dealing with this serious situation. But perhaps, if there is some degree of publicity of this issue, the people who should look at the situation are in many cases the magistrates themselves who take decisions which place the Home Office in this situation. As I have said, I appreciate the problems but, even allow-
1462
ing for all this, I cannot help but say and bluntly declare that the position is disturbing, worrying and shocking.
12.24 p.m.
The Minister of State for the Home Department (Miss Alice Bacon): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) for raising this subject because it gives me an opportunity that it is not possible to have during ordinary Question and Answer to say what we have been doing about this problem during the last year or two. I can well understand his anxieties about the matter. It has always worried me that young girls have had to be remanded in prison.
I make it clear that today we are discussing remand centres. Sometimes there is confusion in the minds of some people between remand centres and remand homes. Remand homes are for children under the age of 17 and are the responsibility of the local authorities. My hon. Friend will know that, only a few months ago, I was able to open in Norfolk a very good remand home provided by Norfolk and the surrounding counties for boys and girls under 17.
One aspect which my hon. Friend has not mentioned is probably more worrying than any of these which he did mention. This is that, on occasions, magistrates declare that a boy or girl under the age of 17 whom they are remanding is too "unruly or depraved"—to use the words of the Act—to be sent to a remand home and must be sent to a remand centre or, if one is not available, to a prison. This has caused me a great many headaches during my time at the Home Office.
We are today discussing remand centres, which were envisaged by the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. These centres were to be placed where boys and girls between the ages of 17 and 21 could be remanded in custody in order to avoid being remanded in prison. Unfortunately, progress in the 1950s was very slow. Not one remand centre was opened in the 1950s. Indeed, I often raised this matter, when I was in opposition, with the then Government and in 1961, during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act, 1961, I was instrumental in leading for the Opposition and defeating the then Government in Committee because of the lack of remand centres.

1463
The first remand centre—one for boys— was not opened until 1961, which was 13 years after the 1948 Act setting them up. So my hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty which has faced us because of the slowness in getting these centres started between 1948 and 1961.
All those that are now in operation for girls were opened in 1965. Those that are fully in operation at the moment are at Brockhill, near Birmingham, Low Newton, in County Durham, Puckle-church, near Bristol and Risley, near Warrington. Some of these also have separate accomodation for boys on the same site and some for women. Each block for the girls in the age group 17 to 21 is separate. Thus, by 1965, the whole of the country was covered except for the far South-West and the southeast of England, including London and Norfolk. For the far South-West, temporary accommodation at Exeter is available until there are additional places at Pucklechurch, which we are providing at the moment.
That leaves the area of south-east England, London and Norfolk. This area has given us a great deal of concern. It was announced some time ago that Hollo-way was to cease to be a women's prison and that the site was to be cleared and redeveloped as a remand centre to serve the whole of the South-East. Unfortunately, there has been delay with this project due to the increase in prison population over the last few years. But 18 months ago, when it was clear that we could not dispense entirely with Hollo-way in the immediate future, I investigated the possibilities of an interim arrangement.
I felt that we could not wait until Holloway was completely rebuilt in the way I have described. I looked around for some place where we could have an interim remand centre until the time when Holloway could be properly developed. We decided that what we could do quicker and in the best possible way was to take the old hospital at Holloway. This has now been shut off from the main building and redesigned as a remand centre. It is only partly in use as yet but will be fully in use in about eight weeks' time, when the decorations are complete. We took the opportunity presented to build a com-
1464
plete new hospital for the prison and this has a separate entrance from the remand centre.
This new hospital is a great improvement on the previous one. The staff is assisted by visiting psychotherapists and specialists, including specialists in gynaecology and venereology, and is supported by nearby hospitals. I recently visited the remand centre and the hospital to see how it was going on and was very pleased with what had been done. I hope that my hon. Friend, who has been critical this morning, will visit the remand centre when it is fully in operation. I invite other hon. Members to visit it, because I am sure that they will be pleased with the accommodation provided.
This centre will be called the South-East Remand Centre. I know that many people, like my hon. Friend. feel that the word "Holloway" conjures up terrible things, but I hope that when he goes to the remand centre he will also visit Holloway to see some of the good work that is being done there, even in the old building. One wing is run on a group counselling basis, and there is a domestic training wing where full-time domestic training is given to those sentenced for neglecting children and others likely to benefit from it. That is by the way. This remand centre, as an interim measure, will be functioning within eight weeks, and I hope that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to visit it.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the distance that has to be travelled when someone from Norfolk was remanded in London. I recognise that girls may be some distance from home, but this is inevitable not only in Norfolk but in the rest of the country. The total number of girls aged between 17 and 21 remanded in custody at any one time is very small. On 30th April only 117 girls were so remanded in the whole of England and Wales. This is rather a high figure, because usually the numbers of such girls on remand are below 100. Even with five centres my hon. Friend will see that the numbers are very small. It would be quite impracticable to have more and to run units for very small numbers. Even where there is a remand centre for boys on the same site there are completely different establishments, which require staffing in different ways.

1465
Norfolk is not alone in this matter. I represent a constituency in Yorkshire, and my hon. Friend will see from the siting of the remand centres to which I have already referred that there is not a remand centre in Yorkshire, and that girls have to travel either to Warrington, in Lancashire, or to Durham. With such small numbers involved, it is a choice between a few remand centres where the girls can be properly looked after, or travelling rather longer distances.
Most girls remanded in custody are remanded for medical and psychiatric reports so that the necessary staff must be available in or near the remand centre. They share medical specialists with other establishments, but there must also be resident staff for observation purposes.
When the Criminal Justice Bill, now before Parliament, becomes law, it is most likely that the numbers remanded in custody will be even fewer. At present about half of the 35,000 people —adults and younger people—annually remanded in custody do not, on conviction, receive custodial sentences. Some of them—over 2,000 in 1965—are not even convicted. This a matter which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary thought ought to be tackled in some way in the Criminal Justice Bill. In that Bill, which has now gone to another place, restrictions are therefore placed on the powers of magistrates to remand in custody. This means that the figure of about 100 girls aged between 17 and 21 who are remanded in custody at any one time could be fewer than this in future, when the Criminal Justice Bill is in operation.
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it would be unrealistic and impracticable to provide more than five remand centres for girls. As I have said, not only in Norfolk but in many other areas of the country girls have to travel some distance.
My hon. Friend raised the question of girls and boys being given numbers. It is necessary for proper documentation and statistical records that each person received in custody should be allotted a number. After all, there might be several Mary Smiths in custody at any one time. I can assure my hon. Friend that these persons are not called by their numbers; they are usually addressed by
1466
their Christian names in girls' establishments of this kind. It is essential, however, in order to avoid mistakes, that numbers should be used.
The atmosphere in a girls' remand centre is not one of rigid disciplinary control on an impersonal basis. Girls remanded in custody are allowed as much time in association at work, in classes or at recreation, as circumstances or staff allow.
My hon. Friend said that girls were locked up This is not general, but a good deal depends on the individuals themselves perhaps I can have a word with my hon Friend on that matter later.
As for clothing, an unconvicted person in custody can wear his own clothing if it is suitable, tidy and clean. He can also have clothing sent in from outside by his relatives and friends. Only if his clothing is considered not suitable and when no clothing is sent in from outside for him is he provided with prison clothing, and then it is of a different colour from that worn by convicted prisoners.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we appreciate the problem. I hope that he will recognise that during the last few years we have made some strides, after a great deal of neglect. I hope that he and any other of my hon. Friends, or hon. Members opposite—if there are any present!—will take the opportunity to visit the new remand centre when it is ready in a few weeks' time. I am sure that he will recognise that we have done everything possible to provide a very good building with adequate decoration, and that we have all the medical and psychiatric facilities available. I could not promise him, however, that we could have a lot of little units all over the country. This would be a completely unsatisfactory and impracticable arrangement.
It is a choice between travelling a short distance and having facilities available. We have taken this question very seriously. I have spent a great deal of time on it myself, because it is something in respect of which I expressed criticism when nothing whatever was done in the 1950s, after the passing of the 1948 Act. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we are doing everything we can and

1467
will recognise that we take the problem very seriously.
Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend not of the opinion that in the circumstances that apply especially in the area about which I am concerned, magistrates should at least be a little more careful in dealing with the sort of people about whom I have expressed concern? I can give her a letter which shows that this is a point which must be taken care of——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am afraid that the hon. Member is making an intervention, and not a speech. He has exhausted his right to make a speech.
Mr. Wallace: Yes, I have nearly exhausted myself, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
1468
Would my right hon. Friend assure me that a discreet word could be passed on to magistrates that they should not too readily convict these people or remand them?
Miss Bacon: That is a very difficult question. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend has no power to direct magistrates how to carry out their duties. The Criminal Justice Bill restricts to some extent magistrates' rights over remanding people in custody, but how they perform their tasks and deal with the people who come before them is entirely for them.
The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.
Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

BILLS PRESENTED
  MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BUXTON, STOCKPORT AND YORK)
  Bill to confirm Provisional Orders of the Minister of Housing and Local Government relating to the borough of Buxton, the county borough of Stockport and the city of York, presented by Mr. Anthony Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 257.]
  MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREATER LONDON PARKS AND OPEN SPACES)
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Housing and Local Government relating to Greater London parks and open spaces, presented by Mr. Anthony Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed [Bill 258.]
  MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (WEST HERTFORDSHIRE MAIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT)
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Housing and Local Government relating to the West Hertfordshire Main Drainage District, presented by Mr. Anthony Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed [Bill 259.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Cattle (Cysticercus Bovis)
    Mr. Steeleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what efforts are being made, and how much is being spent, to investigate the cause of cysticercus bovis in cattle.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): The cause of cysticercus bovis in cattle is already known: cattle are infected through the ingestion of tape worm eggs discharged by the human host.
    Mr. Steele: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present approach to the cause, and to the eradication of this disease seems to be rather half-hearted? Could we not have an assurance that something more should be done in this matter?
    Mr. Buchan: The evidence we have is that this is not an acute public health problem, but it is a public health problem, and I will keep the possibility of further research in mind.

    Road Improvement (Rhu-Garelochhead)
    Mr. Steeleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement with regard to the proposed improvement on the road from Rhu to Garelochhead.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): Preparations are being completed on the scheme between Blairvadock and Croy, at Rhu to which reference was made in the reply given to my hon. Friend on 25th January, and, when the necessary land is acquired, work on this road improvement will begin.—[Vol. 739, c. 292.]
    Mr. Steele: Does that Answer imply that one of the three alternatives sent by the county council to the Department— the road from Rhu to Garelochhead— has been approved, and that the road will be completed; or that the county council can only go ahead now with getting the necessary planning permission?
    Dr. Mabon: No, Sir. The position at the moment is that the county council has plans for at least two more schemes, one from Croy to Shandon, which is one and a half miles, and one from Craigendoran to Mollandhu Farm which is two and a quarter miles. Those schemes have not yet been accepted for grant, but the work in the programme that has been approved will keep the county council busy for the next two years. The others we will discuss with local authorities very soon, as a consequence of the changes caused by the 1966 Act in relation to further work.

    Scottish Economy (White Paper)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the proposals in the White Paper on the Scottish Economy, the Scottish Plan, continue to be based on the United Kingdom growth rate of 3·8 per cent. in the six years from 1965 to 1970, as indicated in the first paragraph of its Chapter 1.
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a revised version of the 1965 White Paper on the Scottish Economy to take account of the reduction in the predicted United Kingdom growth rate upon which it was based.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The broad strategy of the White Paper remains unchanged, but because of the recent economic situation it will take longer to achieve the objectives. No revision of the White Paper details is at present envisaged.
    Mr. Campbell: As the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs has stated that the revised National Plan now being prepared will extend to Scotland, will the Secretary of State for Scotland, soon after that has been done, issue another White Paper showing any changes necessary for Scotland?
    Mr. Ross: I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman suggests, but we must appreciate that the broad strategy must remain the same—the targets must remain the same—in relation to the achievement of our aims in respect both of industry and the supporting infrastructure. What I foresee is that it will be timings that are changed rather than effort.
    Mr. Brewis: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what rate of growth he expects for this year?
    Mr. Ross: I have not laid down any for this year.

    Tourist Industry
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take action to encourage and assist the tourist industry in Scotland.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: My right hon. Friend has consistently done this, and
    1472
    will continue to do so, in consultation with the Scottish Tourist Board. The Countryside (Scotland) Bill is the latest evidence of our concern for the provision of tourist facilities.
    Mr. Campbell: But would not the greatest help that the Secretary of State could give be to persuade the Government to abolish the Selective Employment Tax and to restore investment allowance for hotels?
    Dr. Mabon: I would strongly advise the hon. Gentleman to look at the tourist industry today, when he will see that the assertions he makes about the Selective Employment Tax are not borne out by the facts. I would willingly challenge the Opposition to debate the health and prosperity of the industry, which has so far done exceptionally well.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the imposition of the Selective Employment Tax on the tourist industry can be logically related to the proposal of the Highlands and Islands Board to build hotels?
    Dr. Mabon: Because the Selective Employment Tax is designed to strengthen the economy as a whole it is therefore bound to strengthen the tourist industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and if members of the Opposition disbelieve us in this matter they are flying in the face of the facts.
    Mr. Noble: Then will the Minister promise to answer the very large number of letters we are getting from those in the hotel industry, and satisfy them that the two points mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) are not a deterrent to them? If he has been out and about in Scotland he must know that this is not the view of the hotel industry.
    Dr. Mabon: I know that some hoteliers take this view, and I am perfectly willing to answer letters, as I always seek to do, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the facts are in doubt here, obviously, otherwise he would not say what he has been saying. The sooner he refreshes his memory as to what is happening the sooner he will see that this, in fact, is a prosperous industry.

    Teaching Profession (Graduates)
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the numbers of graduates entering the teaching profession in each of the next four years.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): The estimated figures for the four years beginning 1967–68 are 1,050, 1,200, 1,450 and 1,620.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that the main pressure when the school leaving age is raised will be at the upper end of the teachers' scale, particularly on graduate teachers; and that to be ready for 1970–71 the students should have entered university last October? Is he satisfied that there will be sufficient graduate teachers in 1970–71?
    Mr. Millan: I think that there will be; pressure at the graduate teacher level, but I would not agree that that is where the main pressure will be when the age is raised in 1970. It is rather more likely to be in practical and aesthetic subjects. But these figures, as the hon. Gentleman will see, which reflect the number of students at present in universities are quite encouraging although, naturally, we would like more than these numbers if we can possibly get them.
    Mr. MacArthur: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the shortage of teachers is likely to be in 1970–71, based on his latest assessment of the position?
    Mr. Millan: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, an assessment was made recently which brought out a figure of about 6,000, but he will also know that, since then, certain steps have been taken to improve the position, and I would hope that, in the event, the shortage would be a great deal less than that.

    Bacon Pigs
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the total production of pigs is consigned for bacon.
    Mr. Buchan: In recent years, the proportion of total pig production in Scotland consigned for bacon has been
    1474
    about 70 per cent., and in the United Kingdom as a whole about 35 per cent.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that the bacon contracts announced this morning face bacon producers in Scotland with an increase of lld. a score, whereas the Government guaranteed price was increased by 1s. lld. a score? In view of the much greater importance of the bacon industry to producers in Scotland than to producers in England, can the hon. Gentleman say whether he is satisfied with this level of return?
    Mr. Buchan: I am satisfied that not only the measures announced this morning but the various measures of the Government have assisted the pig industry in general, both curers and producers. I hope, too, that the scheme announced on 12th April, with a new form of levy, will be of assistance to directing increasing aid to the pig industry.

    Highways (Review)
    Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to conclude the present highway review required by the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1966; and whether in the course of this he has yet taken a decision on the proposal to reclassify the A94 road as a trunk road.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: By 15th May my right hon. Friend will have notified local highway authorities of the new pattern of principal roads. After studying the reactions of the local authorities my right hon. Friend has decided to reconsider this proposal when the Tayside Study is completed. Meantime, the status of the A92 and A94 will remain unchanged.
    Mr. Dewar: Will my hon. Friend agree that in a year when, despite ill-informed rumour to the contrary, even more is being spent on Scottish roads than before, there is a very strong case for looking at the A94, which will be an essential lifeline between what we hope will be an expanding North-East and the central belt of Scotland; and that any long-term delay in looking at the problem of improving this road will cause great dismay and disappointment in north-east Scotland?
    Dr. Mabon: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is perfectly right in saying that we are spending more money than in any previous year. I hope to meet the Tayside group on behalf of my right hon. Friend next week. When the study is completed, which will be by next summer, we can look at this very important matter once again.
    Mr. G. Campbell: Is the Minister of State aware that great dislocation is now being caused to traffic in the North-East by the sudden closure of the Spey bridge on the trunk road at Fochabers at the weekend, and will he treat this as a very urgent matter?
    Dr. Mabon: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mackenzie—Question No. 8.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the proposed trunk road classification of the A94 is a matter of great importance to my constituency, might I be allowed to put a question?
    Mr. Speaker: The same consideration would apply to every hon. Member whose Question was not called.

    Hill Sheep Industry
    Mr. Alasdair Mackenzieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to place the hill sheep farming industry in Scotland in a position to plan the long-term expansion of the industry.
    Mr. Buchan: The recent Review determinations included various measures of further assistance to the hill sheep industry and these, together with the Agriculture Bill provisions, particularly the proposed Hill Land Improvement Scheme, are designed to enable hill sheep farmers to play their part in achieving the programme of selective expansion for agriculture.
    Mr. Mackenzie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that Answer. Is he aware of the contrary views expressed by pro-Common Market M.P.s and the N.F.U. of Scotland on this very vital question? Will he assure the House that he will keep in close consultation with the N.F.U. over matters affecting hill and upland farm-
    1476
    ing during negotiations to join the Common Market?
    Mr. Buchan: I am aware of the concern which has been expressed by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. I shall certainly keep in touch and listen to its views on this problem.

    Housing (Compulsory Purchase Procedures)
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to accelerate compulsory purchase procedures, in view of the need to accelerate ate urban redevelopment and slumclearance.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: My right hon. Friend is reviewing the existing planning machinery, including the compulsory powers needed to support planning action with a view to legislation.
    Mr. Johnston: I welcome this, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not incompatible to speed up these procedures and at the same time provide time for a proper appeal?
    Dr. Mabon: I agree very much with the hon. Member.
    Mr. Hannan: In this review will my hon. Friend bear in mind the extremely heavy cost which has fallen on the City of Glasgow? Only today in the Press there are three instances in which compensation sums appear to be extremely high. Will he look at this question also?
    Dr. Mabon: In relation to compulsory purchase there is a definite procedure of arbitration laid down. I shall certainly look at the matter, but I am not aware of any defect in that regard. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to look at the question again.

    Salmon and Trout Fishing
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the controversy surrounding the Hunter Report on salmon and trout, and the complexity of the issues involved, he will publish a White Paper outlining the kind of legislation the Government intend proposing as appropriate to the future development and regulation of salmon and trout fishing.
    Mr. Ross: I shall bear this useful suggestion in mind for consideration when I have completed my study of the Hunter Committee's recommendations and the various comments on them which I have received.
    Mr. Johnston: Would not the Secretary of State agree that, since the Government are clearly undecided on this issue, it would be a good thing to do something which is seldom done in this House— debate the issue before it is decided?
    Mr. Ross: I should be delighted to have a debate on this subject and to get the views of the House on it. Practically every organisation from which we invited representations wanted to meet us. We have met about 12 and there are about 17 others with which we said we would discuss the matter. We are hoping that these meetings may be over by the end of May. It would be a good idea if we could find time—I hope that we shall—to discuss this matter among ourselves.
    Mr. Carmichael: Will my right hon. Friend consider in the legislation examination of the rateable value of some of the salmon fishings in Scotland which seem quite disproportionate to the income received from them?
    Mr. Ross: That might be appropriate for a rating and valuation Bill, but not for considerations concerning the Hunter Report.

    Valuation Appeals
    Mr. Doigasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals to Scottish valuation appeal committees have been successful for house occupiers; and in how many of these the assessor has asked for a stated case since the last revaluation.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I regret that my right hon. Friend does not have this information, and could not readily obtain it.
    Mr. Doig: Is the Minister of State aware that it is becoming a common practice every time a decision of a valuation committee goes against the assessor for him automatically to ask for a case to be staled? This is becoming almost a form of intimidation of valuation appeal committees. Will my hon. Friend look into this?
    Dr. Mabon: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his own successful appeal. According to information at our disposal so far, noting that the time for appeal has been extended to 15th August, the assessor exercises this right very sparingly and only when an important principle is at stake. I shall look into this when the cases building up have been completed after the middle of August.
    Mr. Eadie: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the time is probably now opportune for him to re-examine the legacy he inherited from the Sorn Committee proposals and the Rating and Valuation Act, 1956? Does he not agree that the whole matter should be examined to bring it more within a state of reality?
    Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend will recollect the debates we had on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill in 1966 and the statements made by my right hon. Friend in connection with the establishment of the Royal Commission on Local Government. He will see that we are very much alive to the defects of the valuation system in Scotland. Once the Royal Commission has reported we shall be able to see our way more clearly on what to do about that.

    Valuation System
    Mr. Doigasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to revise the present method of valuation which penalises those who improve their homes.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: My right hon. Friend can hold out little hope of an early change in the valuation system.
    Mr. Doig: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the present procedure results in an incentive against improving houses and that ultimately this will have a bad effect on the provision of houses, not only for actual owners but also for tenants? In order to get the high standard which is necessary, will he have another look at this matter so that he can provide an incentive for improving houses and not for allowing them to fall apart?
    Dr. Mabon: I quite accept that there are defects in the rating and valuation system. We shall have to look at this matter when the Royal Commission has reported. The Commission is not enjoined

    1479
    to give us other than general views on local finance, but nevertheless, arising from the Report we are sure that there must be further examination.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this matter is causing a very great sense of injustice? While it may be right to await some of the recommendations of the Commission, is it not right that we should take some action immediately as suggested by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig)?
    Dr. Mabon: Without being too partisan about it, I must remind the hon. Lady that the Rating and Valuation Act, 1956, was passed by the previous Government and it was said by the Minister then that the Act would last for a hundred years. This matter has not been referred to in the manifesto of the party opposite and the party has not said that it would revise the system. We are the only party which has attempted anything. We have promised to look at the matter in a most detailed form when we are able to do so.
    Mr. Wylie: While agreeing with what the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) said, may I ask whether the Minister of State would not agree that it might be possible on consideration to introduce interim provisions to exclude occupiers' improvements for the purpose of valuation on the lines, for example, of the night storage heater argument which he eventually accepted although that was late in the debate?
    Dr. Mabon: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member on his victory on that occasion, coupled with that of my hon. Friends, but we debated this matter at length on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill in 1966. We made the point that electric light, which was the cause of higher valuation, had not ceased to pread throughout Scottish housing as a system. We must take all these matters into account but I cannot hold out any hope of early legislation.

    Housing Standards
    Mr James Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he accepts the recommendations of the Housing Advisory Committee in regard to satisfactory standards for existing dwell
    1480
    ings; and when will legislation be forthcoming to apply such standards uniformly to all local authorities in Scotland.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: The local authority associations and other interested bodies are being consulted about these important recommendations. When my right hon. Friend knows their views, he will be better able to make decisions.
    Mr. Davidson: Would the Minister of State agree that what is badly needed is a much clearer definition of slum conditions so that we can appreciate the size of the problem, and that much greater flexibility is needed in applying building regulations to meet special cases?
    Dr. Mabon: I do not know about the last point, but certainly in regard to legislation which may arise from the recommendations of the Advisory Committee this matter is extremely complex. We have had representations from the County Councils Association and the Convention of Royal Burghs. My noble Friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary has met housing convenors and has had detailed talks with Glasgow Corporation, and officials of the Department have met the Federation of Property Owners and Factors to discuss the matter further. This is quite difficult but we are determined to have the information by October.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the intended beneficiaries of these recommendations have been waiting for a considerable time for their implementation? Will he issue a list of local authorities to whom this is to be applied, stating when?
    Dr. Mabon: The intention is to apply this to the whole of Scotland. We have sent a copy of the Report, which was printed and made available only in February, to every local authority and we have asked them to comment in detail on the recommendations so that we may have this work done by October.

    Industrial Economy
    Mr. James Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has recently taken to alleviate the effect of current economic strictures upon the industrial economy of Scotland.
    Mr. Ross: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my replies to the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on 9th November and to my hon. Friends the Members for Woolwich, West (Mr. Handing) and Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 21st December. Since then, the payment of investment grants has been speeded up, Bank Rate has been reduced three times, and the fixed ceiling on bank advances has been removed. The Government are considering a further programme of advance factories and have put forward for discussion a proposal for a regional employment premium.—[Vol. 735, c. 1281; Vol. 738, c. 1389.]
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Secretary of State aware of the state of the paper industry in north-east Scotland at present, partly as the result of economic strictures, but also as the result of indiscriminate dumping by Austria and other countries? Will the right hon. Gentleman bring to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade how important this industry is to employment and to the holding of population in the north-east of Scotland?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman makes a very serious allegation when he talks of "indiscriminate dumping". There are procedures for dealing with this, if it were proved. I will certainly bring what he says to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. We are not unconcerned about the state of industry in north-east Scotland. The fact that in the North-East, in the area of Aberdeen and round about, the unemployment figure is less than the national average—it is about 2·3 per cent. —gives an indication that unemployment is less serious there than elsewhere.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Secretary of State referred to the advancement of the payment of investment grants. Has not the demand for investment grants been far below the Government's expectations in Scotland? If the Secretary of State has any doubt about this, will he look up the reply he received from the Minister of State, Board of Trade?
    Mr. Ross: I do not think that the Minister of State, Board of Trade, or, indeed, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, would always agree with the interpretation the hon. Gentleman places upon words.
    Mr. G. Campbell: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the speeding up of investment grants can be of no assistance to the many parts of industry which do not qualify for them, although they previously got investment allowances?
    Mr. Ross: I have heard the hon. Gentleman on this point before. What is happening, and what has been happening in Scotland, in 1965 and 1966 and in the first quarter of this year shows industrial development building at a higher rate than at any time during the comparable period of the early 1960s. The position is far less gloomy in the long term than hon. Members would have us believe.

    Timber (Seasoning)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will direct the Forestry Commission to establish additional timber kilns, with a view to facilitating the maturity of home-grown timber for structural purposes; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: No, Sir. The seasoning of timber is a function of the home timber trade.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that small-scale contractors have seasoned some of their home-grown timber and have been able to use it in housing construction, for which it had previously been regarded as unsuitable? If this practice were encouraged on a large scale, could it not lead to the reduction of timber imports and, therefore, to the easing of the balance of payments problem?
    Dr. Mabon: Traders are very much aware of the need for change. They are in active discussion, not only with the Forestry Commission, but with ourselves and, to some extent, with the Board of Trade. We want to do everything we can to increase the supply of home-grown timber for building.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Will the Minister of State assure the House that he will do his best to ensure that all forms of plant and machinery for processing homegrown timber will in future qualify for the maximum rate of investment grant?
    Dr. Mabon: I can only note that request at this stage.
    Mr. Noble: Does not the Minister of State know that in my own constituency there is an extremely good example of the Forestry Commission and the homegrown timber trade doing this in conjunction? Will he at least consider this rather than leave it entirely to the homegrown timber trade to do it?
    Dr. Mabon: I will certainly consider it. As I said when replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), this is a matter of concern between the trade, the Forestry Commission and ourselves and, to some extent, the Board of Trade. It is fair that we should look at this more closely. There is a great argument about research here, about who should do the research, and about the financing of the research, quite apart from the point made by the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith). We will certainly bear these matters in mind.

    Robert Burns
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to make examination on the works of Robert Burns compulsory for the Scottish leaving certificate; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ross: None, Sir. Detailed arrangements for the conduct of the examination are a matter for the Scottish Certificate of Education Examination Board. In recent years there has always been in the higher grade English paper a question on Burns or a question which could be answered by reference to the candidate's knowledge of Burns's poetry.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all that I am asking is that Robert Burns, the Scottish bard, should enjoy equal status with Shakespeare, the English bard? As the works of Burns are internationally famous, does not the Secretary of State think that at least one question should be compulsorily answered on these works by those taking the Scottish Certificate of Education?
    Mr. Ross: Shakespeare may need this extra encouragement, but Burns does not need it. If my hon. Friend recalls Burns's own strictures in "The Twa Dogs" in relation to schools and colleges—
    1484
    "But human bodies are sic fools,
    For a' their colleges and schools."
    he will appreciate that we had better put our faith and reputation in the knowledge and the instinctive love that Scots people have for Burns, without relying upon colleges and teachers.
    Mr. Brewis: Will the Secretary of State make the study of "Holy Willie's Prayer" compulsory?
    Mr. Ross: With the slightest encouragement, I will start on it. There is another quotation which the hon. Gentleman might find much more apposite—certainly some of my hon. Friends will—from the "Address to the Unco Guid":
    "O ye wha are sae guid yoursel,
    Sae pious and sae holy,
    Ye've nought to do but mark and tell
    Your neibour's fauts and folly!"
    The hon. Gentleman should note his own faults and follies.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The poet Burns was a concise poet.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that appreciation of the works of Robert Burns marches pari passu with the spread of nationalism in Scotland? Will he take that into account in the education of children in schools?
    Mr. Ross: I do not think that it is nationalism. I think that it is national pride.
    Mr. Ian MacArthur: Will the Secretary of State recognise that there are other great figures in Scottish literature, and will he take steps to try to improve the standard of literary education in Scotland so that the great literary heritage of our country is fully and comprehensively understood by our children?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Some of them have suffered from being school subjects. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the Central Committee on English, which was set up last year, is presently studying the best way to forward the study of Scottish literature comprehensively.

    Scottish Economic Planning Council
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost to date to public funds of the Scottish Economic Planning Council.
    Mr. Ross: Members of the Planning Council serve without payment but are reimbursed their travelling and other essential expenses. Sums reimbursed under this head so far amount to £933.
    Mr. Brewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman re-examining the rôle of this Council as suggested in a resolution to the General Council of the T.U.C., to make it a more effective instrument for securing Scotland's share of national economic expansion?
    Mr. Ross: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer I gave at the S.T.U.C. a few days after that statement was made. The hon. Gentleman will see that there was a misunderstanding of what the rôle actually was.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does this expenditure cover the study of the implications of Common Market entry for Scotland? In view of the very real fears in the iron and steel industry and in other Scottish industries, and in view of the Secretary of State's remarkable silence, may I ask whether he will publish the results of any such study?
    Mr. Ross: I have been accused of many things, but not of silence in relation to this matter or any other. I assure the hon. Gentleman that everything which is relevant to Scotland's economic future can be studied by the Economic Planning Council, either at my insistence or on its own initiative.

    Donglas-Ewart School, Newton Stewart
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will approve a site for the rebuilding of the Douglas-Ewart School, Newton Stewart.
    Mr. Millan: Wigtownshire Education Authority has not yet sought my right hon. Friend's approval to a site. I understand, however, that at its meeting on Monday, 8th May, Wigtown County Council approved the education com-
    1486
    mittee's proposal to build a new comprehensive school on a site behind the existing school at Newton Stewart.
    Mr. Brewis: Did not the hon. Gentleman's Department indicate that it would not allow the authority to build a new school in any circumstances?
    Mr. Millan: I do not think that that is an accurate representation of what took place. What we did say was that, if any question of a completely new school was to be considered, there would have to be found a use for the new wing and gymnasium of the existing school which was completed only in 1959.

    Agricultural Efficiency
    Mr. Stodartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to produce a figure which will represent the efficiency factor applicable to agriculture in Scotland before the next Price Review.
    Mr. Buchan: The calculation of such a figure would involve a large amount of statistical work, and I am not satisfied that this would be justified, bearing in mind that the Annual Review determinations relate to the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. Stodart: But does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, when one is dealing so substantially with livestock farming, in which gains in efficiency are more difficult to secure, this would be an exercise worth doing, if possible? Do not the "Little Neddies" afford an admirable instrument for doing just this, and are they not eager to do it?
    Mr. Buchan: We try all the time to improve the economic and financial data, and the work of the "Neddies" is an example of what is being done. We are aware of this question, but I was speaking in a broader context about the efficiency factor. We are continuing our general examination and research into the economic condition of Scottish farming.
    Mr. Steele: If my hon. Friend gave way to this request, would it not involve an addition to our Civil Service staff, and am I not right in thinking that the Opposition did not want any more civil servants?
    Mr. Buchan: Yes, Sir.
    Sir J. Gilmour: As we have a separate Department of Agriculture in Scotland, how is it not possible to produce these figures?
    Mr. Buchan: I did not say that it was not possible to produce the figures. I said that separation of an efficiency factor in relation to the Annual Price Review would not warrant the amount of work involved. The Department of Agriculture in Scotland contributes considerably to the thinking which goes into the Annual Price Review and the examination of the economic basis of British agriculture as a whole.

    Hill Cow Subsidy
    Mr. Stodartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if it his intention that the increase during the next 10 years in the number of cows eligible for the hill cow subsidy should be as great or greater than that which has taken place since 1958.
    Mr. Buchan: The number of hill cows eligible for the subsidy has increased by some 90 per cent. since 1958. The annual rate of increase has averaged over 7 per cent. during recent years. We want to maintain the rate of expansion, but I doubt if it serves any useful purpose to put a figure on it for as long ahead as 10 years.
    Mr. Stodart: Would it not give great confidence to this sector of the industry if the Minister accepted that it was desirable to set a figure of this kind, in order that the encouragement and stimulus which the Secretary of State gave the National Farmers' Union at its annual general meeting could be carried into more concrete effect?
    Mr. Buchan: The main confidence which is given to the industry in Scotland comes as a result of the substantial measures of assistance which we have given it in the Annual Price Review. I need not detail it for the hon. Gentleman, but that is the right kind of confidence and the kind of confidence which is required.

    New Towns (Rents)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of recently announced Government policy on prices
    1488
    and incomes, he will now reconsider the proposal to have a new rent structure in new towns.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: The scheme of graduated rents introduced by the Scottish new town development corporations is not inconsistent with the Government's policy on prices and incomes.
    Mr. Eadie: An entirely different rent structure exists in towns and burghs outside the new towns. Does not my hon. Friend agree that, by and large, many of these tenants take home the same wage packet every week?
    Dr. Mabon: Several ad hoc surveys of earnings in some of the new towns in Scotland have been carried out. I do not know what the comparison is with other parts, but I suspect that in the new towns there are, generally, higher incomes than in the older communities. I should add that the increases will not be made before the end of the period of restraint. In Livingston, in my hon. Friend's constituency, there will be no increase till May, 1968, and, in particular, we have been most anxious to ensure that arrangements for graduation of rent will protect lower-paid tenants.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Does not my hon. Friend realise mat his reply seems to indicate an extraordinary degree of complacency? How is it possible to examine the rents in new towns in isolation from the problems of overspill, the problems of rent structures of all local authorities, and the rents now being charged under the Rent Acts in Glasgow and some other cities? Will he arrange for the Housing Advisory Committee to look into the whole problem of rents?
    Dr. Mabon: My right hon. Friend is actively concerned about the level of rents in Scotland. He has been in discussion with the Scottish Special Housing Association, as its recent announcement shows, with the new towns, and also with various local authorities which, from time to time, have asked for advice about the prices and incomes policy. The fact remains that we have heavy deficits not only in the new towns but elsewhere, and these have to be faced.

    Children (Post-Primary Education)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals were received in Scotland from parents

    1489
    or guardians in relation to the postprimary education their children would receive in the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, and to the nearest available date in 1967.
    Mr. Millan: The number of disputes between parents and education authorities in Scotland referred to my right hon. Friend under Section 29(2) of the Education (Scotland) Act for the years in question were:

    1960

    …

    …

    109

    1961

    …

    …

    131

    1962

    …

    …

    119

    1963

    …

    …

    130

    1964

    …

    …

    88

    1965

    …

    …

    91

    1966

    …

    …

    268

    1967 (to 1st May)

    …

    …

    8

    Mr. Eadie: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as a consequence of the reorganisation of post-primary education in Scotland, the number of appeals should diminish, and, further, that the primary schools should experience a new freedom and no longer look over their shoulder, awaiting the 12-plus examinations?
    Mr. Millan: With the introduction of comprehensive secondary education, the need for transfer schemes of the kind we have now will disappear, and this will have the effect, among other things, of giving greater freedom to teaching in the primary schools. This is already evident in our primary schools.
    Sir M. Galpern: How many of these appeals were successful?
    Mr. Millan: In any one year, about a quarter are successful.

    Housing (Galashiels)
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the housing to be built by the Scottish Special Housing Association near Galashiels will be of a suitably high standard for this pilot scheme in Border development.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: The proposed Darnick development depends upon the outcome of a public inquiry. If my right hon. Friend decides that it should be allowed to proceed, I am satisfied that the Scottish Special Housing Association, which will be co-operating with the county council, will provide houses of high standards.
    Mr. Steel: Is the Minister of State aware of the need to ensure that, if this development goes ahead, it is of a high aesthetic standard? What proposals has he to give an extra budget to the S.S.H.A. in order to achieve that high standard?
    Dr. Mabon: An extra budget may involve heavy deficits, which, of course, mean higher rents. Therefore, one must—to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) on Question No. 22—equate the kind of tenants coming to this development with the Government's desire, if it be approved, to have a high standard and high quality amenity development here. This is a serious problem. We shall have to look at it when the later stages arrive.
    Mr. Galbraith: Why not have a public architectural competition? Is not mat the way to ensure a high standard?
    Dr. Mabon: I have often said in debates on housing in Scotland that we Scots tend to undervalue the immense talent and achievement in the Scottish Special Housing Association. It has an excellent record and—I am sure that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) will agree—we can safely leave it to the S.S.H.A. to maintain a high standard.

    The Borders (Development)
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, following their report on the Western Borders due in the autumn, he will retain the services of Professor Johnson-Marshall and his planning team for continued consultation in the process of future development of the Scottish Borders as a whole.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: The consultants in question were appointed for a specific task. The need for a continuing planning consultancy service in the Borders would be a matter for consideration with the local planning authorities when the report from Edinburgh University has been submitted.
    Mr. Steel: Is there not a strong case for extending the survey after the interim report to the whole of the Borders, including Berwickshire? In any case, does

    1491
    the hon. Gentleman agree, now that we have in Edinburgh University a planning team of international repute which could be of great service to Scotland as a whole, that it should not be disbanded at the end of the present survey?
    Dr. Mabon: I think that there is a misunderstanding here, and, with respect, the hon. Gentleman did not, perhaps, phrase his Question quite in the way he intended. I assumed that he was referring to a continuing planning consultancy service, but, obviously, he means another stage in the present exercise. We shall have to consider that when we have the report. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that as fair.

    Complaints against Local Authorities
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce legislation to establish regional offices in Scotland and appoint suitably qualified persons to investigate and report on complaints of injustice and unfair treatment against local authorities.
    Mr. William Ross: No, Sir.
    Mr. Taylor: If there is a case for a Parliamentary Commissioner, is there not an even stronger case for having some kind of ombudsman to look into complaints against local authorities? If a local authority approaches him with a specific proposal, what attitude will the right hon. Gentleman adopt?
    Mr. Ross: The Government have already made clear that they will welcome experiments by local authorities in this connection, but we feel that it is better to leave it to them at the moment rather than race in with statutory obligations. If we want to go further along that line, it would be better to wait to see what comes out of the Royal Commission and consider whether, by that time, with the experience we have had of the Parliamentary Commissioner, we should extend it statutorily to local authorities.
    Mr. Manuel: Will my right hon. Friend turn his face against any suggestion, such as that contained in the Question, which would lower the dignity and integrity of our local authorities? Is he aware that the real corrective is local elections, which are usually dodged by hon. Members opposite in the areas where they exercise greatest control?
    Mr. Ross: I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent, that there may well be exaggeration of the difficulties of getting satisfaction from local councillors or local government officers. However, we have to appreciate that it might well be to the benefit of local democracy to have this arrangement. My hon. Friend is fundamentally right—that the real barrier against local bureaucracy is healthy democracy.

    Teacher Shortage (Glasgow)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, what plans he now has to alleviate the shortage of teachers, particularly in Glasgow.
    Mr. Millan: I cannot add at present to the reply given on 5th April to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright), except that my right hon. Friend is expecting shortly to meet members of Glasgow Education Authority to discuss the whole problem.—[Vol. 744, c 241.]
    Mr. Taylor: Are not the Government guilty of appalling complacency in this matter? How long has the Secretary of State been considering the recommendations of the Roberts Committee? When can we have a decision and when can we have action?
    Mr. Millan: I have answered Questions about the Roberts Report before. The hon. Gentleman knows that that Report is still under consideration. However, he has not listened to my Anwer. I have just told him that the Secretary of State is shortly to meet the Glasgow Education Authority to discuss its problems.
    Mr. Hannan: On this issue of the shortage of teachers, does my hon. Friend recall the Departmental reports of 1951, 1953 and 1955, the Appleton Report on the shortage of mathematics and science teachers in 1955, and the Knox Report of 1957–58? Against whom should the charge of complacency about the shortage of teachers rest?
    Mr. Millan: I am not sure that offhand I can remember the details of all those Reports. I know that we have had a shortage of teachers for a very long time and that we are now taking every step open to us to try to remedy it.

    Highlands and Islands Development Board (Report)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the first annual report of the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
    Mr. Ross: The Board expects to submit its Report to me later this month. and I shall present it to Parliament as soon as possible thereafter.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he told us that we would have this report and a debate last month? Why has there been this long delay? Is he aware that the Minister of State has kept a constituent of mine waiting for six weeks for a reply to a complaint about the activities of the Board? Does not this suggest a need for a bit more urgency in the Scottish Office about this matter?
    Mr. Ross: The matter about which a letter was written to the Minister of State was rather involved and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a reply to him in the post which he will receive today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is a very involved matter. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the delay is a matter of the preparation of the report having Taken longer than was expected. As soon as we get it, we shall waste no time in getting it to the printers and having it printed as quickly as possible. I sincerely hope that we shall still be able to have that debate.
    Mr. Noble: Does the right hon. Gentleman hope to make it available to the House by, say, 1st July? What is his timing if he gets it at the end of this month?
    Mr. Ross: Oh, yes. It will depend on how long the printers take, but it will be ready before then. We want it in our hands in time for the debates on the Estimates, and I hope that it will be.

    Regional Employment Premium
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to obtain a comprehensive review of the probable effect of the Government's proposal for regional em-
    1494
    ployment premiums on investment in Scotland from the Scottish Economic Planning Council.
    Mr. Ross: At it meeting on 14th April the Scottish Economic Planning Council had a wide ranging discussion about the regional employment premium during which the possible effects on the Scottish economy were thoroughly examined.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) has expressed measured dubiety about the effectiveness of this proposal? How does he think that a proposal to add an extra £1 per head to the Government's dole to industry will encourage investment in Scotland at a time when manufacturers can see no prospect of either profits or markets?
    Mr. Ross: I do not know whether I should gather from that that I can write down the hon. Gentleman as being against it. It would be unwise of me to comment until we have received comments from those from whom we have invited them. We have had the first suggestion of reactions from the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). I have had some discussions with the chairman and we are arranging further meetings on the subject. Other interests and individuals have written to me wholeheartedly in support.
    Mr. G. Campbell: In the process of consultation for which the Government have provided, will there be scope for representative views to be ascertained in regions such as the north-east of Scotland and the Highlands?
    Mr. Ross: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, both the North-East and the Highlands are represented on the Scottish Economic Planning Council, but there is nothing to prevent any individual, no matter where he is in Scotland, from conveying his views to me, or to the D.E.A.
    Mr. Dewar: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the almost universal initial reaction to the proposals has been to welcome them as an example of the unprecedented commitment of the present Government to the redevelopment of the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Ross: It is true that the Scottish Council (Development and Industries) recognises the general proposition as an indication of our determination to deal with the problem of the regions.
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the exclusion of Edinburgh from the proposed scheme, whereby the Government pay a regional employment premium to manufacturing industries; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Wylieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the increased investment grants now payable in development areas, and the recent proposals for a regional employment premium to manufacturing establishments in development areas, he has received any further representations from Edinburgh Corporation or other interested bodies on the exclusion of Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello as a development area; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ross: I have received joint representations on these matters from Edinburgh Corporation and other interested bodies in the City, and separately from the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, the Leith Dock Commission, and individual firms. The bodies concerned have been informed that their representations will be taken into account in the Government's consideration of the proposal for a regional employment premium.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this will make competition for industries in Edinburgh very much harder and very unfair? Is he aware that I myself have received several representations? Why do the Government treat Edinburgh so' scurvily?
    Mr. Ross: We do not treat Edinburgh scurvily. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he has previously made these gloomy prophecies about what would happen to Edinburgh and he has told us about all the firms which would not develop. He might go to see whether all that came to pass. He would discover that there have been considerable developments in Edinburgh—without advantages—since that time. It still has the lowest unemployment of Scotland.
    Mr. Wylie: Do the firms which have made representations include firms from
    1496
    the industrial estate as Sighthill in my constituency? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that a number of firms are greatly concerned about the joint effect of the regional employment premium on top of the distinction in regional development grants?
    Mr. Ross: I accept this and I have a long list of the firms in Edinburgh which have written. I have had more representations about the regional employment premium from Edinburgh than from anywhere else. I get the impression that industry in Scotland is glad to have the premium and that those who object are those who write.
    Mr. Stodart: Why was the Minister of State reported as saying the other day that the question of Leith Docks on its own had never been examined before, when that suggestion has been put to the right hon. Gentleman and the President of the Board of Trade time without number in the last two years?
    Mr. Ross: The subject of Leith has been put to the Government before, but it is very much more difficult to examine a site than an area.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that, so long as he allows himself to be pushed around by a junior Minister at the Board of Trade, his reputation will continue its sad decline?
    Mr. Ross: I wish that the noble Lord and his friends would make up their minds. They complain because we give too much assistance in Scotland and say that we should concentrate it more, and at the same time ask for it to be spread further. I wish that they would make up their minds whether the regional employment premium is good or bad. The noble Lord says that it is bad. Now the Edinburgh people say, "It is so bad, give it to us too."
    Mr. Woodburn: With regard to Leith, which is the port of Edinburgh, the Government have made a big investment in the re-creation and rebuilding of the docks. Would my right hon. Friend assure us that nothing will hinder that development and that every encouragement will be given to that specialised purpose of developing the port of Edinburgh?
    Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that the development of the

    1497
    docks is going ahead, as is the procedure over the representations which we have had. When we are considering the comments about the regional employment premium, all this will be taken into account.

    Edinburgh—Glasgow Road (Dual Carriageway)
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the A8 Edinburgh to Glasgow road will be dual carriageway throughout its length.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: In 1970, when construction of the M8 motorway is expected to be finished.
    Mr. Monro: Will the Minister accept t hat there is grave concern in Scotland about the accident rate on the three-lane section of this road? Will he make every endeavour to speed completion?
    Dr. Mabon: I accept that. We are proceeding as fast as we can, having regard to the programme which we inherited. Six miles were started in 1961, none in 1962, five in 1963, none in 1964, six in 1965; seven and a half miles will be started this year and eight and a half next year.

    The Arts, Sport and Recreation (Grants)
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the amount of Government grant awarded to the arts, and to sport and recreation, respectively, in Scotland in 1966–67, or the latest convenient year.
    Mr. Millan: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers given on 5th April to my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small).
    Mr. Monro: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that younger people in Scotland need more consideration and that there should be a more equitable balance between arts and recreation?
    Mr. Millan: I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that expenditure in both respects is going up considerably. For example, in 1967–68 the estimate for sports and recreation together shows an increase of 27 per cent. on the figures for 1966–67, which themselves represent
    1498
    a considerable increase over what happened under the Conservative Government.

    Local Authority Housing (Circular)
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now issued a circular to local authorities in Scotland, about tendering procedures, building standards and methods of supervision for local authority house building.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Yes, Sir. I am sending a copy to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: I am grateful to the Minister of State for that reply. Will he please keep a watch on this matter in years to come? As he will know, there has been some bad building in certain parts of Scotland?
    Dr. Mabon: Yes, Sir.

    Tay Road Bridge
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland by what amount the traffic over the Tay Road Bridge has exceeded the estimates put forward by the Road Bridge Authority at the time of the public inquiry last year.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Joint Board's estimate of an average of 4,000 vehicles a day was exceeded during the period up to 27th April by 1,900 vehicles a day.
    Sir J. Gilmour: In view of this large increase in the traffic, would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is essential to make the road from the south end of the Tay Bridge to its junction with the main east-west trunk road at Melville crossroads a trunk road?
    Dr. Mabon: That is a non sequitur of the first order. The level of tolls and, no doubt, the other matter which the hon. Gentleman raised can come up under Section 88 of the Tay Bridge Order, 1962. We can look at this matter when the first 12 months have expired—that is to say, in August this year.
    Mr. Doig: Would my hon. Friend exert pressure to have the tolls for public service vehicles on this bridge reduced, as the income is higher than was expected, bearing in mind that the rail services are cut drastically from this week?
    Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend will recognise that the Secretary of State cannot review this matter until August, 1967, when, of course, we must consult the Joint Board first and listen to any other representations.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is there any connection between the higher traffic which crosses the bridge and the scandalous decision to postpone indefinitely the "trunking" of the A94? Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that that road still carries the vast majority of the longdistance traffic from central Scotland to the North-East, regardless of the Tay Road Bridge?
    Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman has it wrong. We are not postponing it indefinitely. As I said earlier, this matter will be discussed next week and will, of course, come up again when the Tay-side Study is completed in the summer of next year. Obviously, that will be the right time to make that decision.

    Eggs
    Sir J. Gilraonrasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and the Egg Marketing Board about the future level of egg production in Scotland, in view of the recent Price Review decision to reduce the guaranteed price for eggs in order to discourage over-production; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchan: Prospects for the egg industry were discussed with the three farmers' unions at the Annual Review As announced in the Annual Review White Paper, the Government have agreed to discuss with the farmers' unions and the Egg Marketing Board the future marketing arrangements for eggs, and these discussions may well have a bearing on production. I cannot anticipate the outcome of these talks.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied, in view of that Answer and the large number of eggs which have had to be broken out over past months, that there is any justification for spending Government money on encouraging new poultry ventures to come to Scotland, particularly to the east and west of Fife?
    Mr. Buchan: I cannot comment on the last part of that question, but, as
    1500
    regards marketing generally, I have seen no objections from farmers on the need for Government assistance to a very important industry.

    Selective Employment Tax (Tourist Industry)
    Mr. Youngerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate of the cost of Selective Employment Tax to the tourist industry in Scotland.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: To produce a meaningful figure would be costly in terms of staff, time and effort and would divert officials from more urgent work.
    Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nobody in the Scottish tourist industry is under any illusion that this tax is a millstone around its neck? In what way does the S.E.T. assist this important industry to expand and do its job?
    Dr. Mabon: I have already given three excellent answers to that question and I do not think that I should bore the House any longer.
    Mr. MacArthur: Does the hon. Gentleman not recollect that, only last summer, his predecessor in office accepted our estimate that the tax would cost hotels in Scotland almost £2 million a year? How does he believe that a tax of that amount helps the industry's efficiency?
    Dr. Mabon: If the hon. Gentleman wishes, he should debate this with us. I challenge the Opposition to debate the welfare of the tourist industry in Scotland, when he would see how well we have done in the last year.

    South of Scotland Electricity Board (Prices)
    Mr. Youngerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the recent increases in prices announced by the South of Scotland Electricity Board are in accordance with Government policy.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on 6th April.—[Vol. 744, c. 86.]
    Mr. Younger: Would the hon. Gentleman explain to the House and the people of Scotland what logic there is in entirely freezing wages and exhorting private industry to keep prices down, when he sets such an appalling example in allowing the prices of this industry, of which he has control, to be put up?
    Dr. Mabon: That is an extraordinary question from the hon. Gentleman, who is normally responsible in these matters. If he understood the position of the electricity boards in Scotland, he would not frame his question like that. The increases, as we know, were originally announced by the Board on 20th July, 1966, and were postponed following the announcement of the prices and incomes standstill. They were necessitated by cost increases outside the Board's control. They could not otherwise be fully absorbed, and are therefore justified in terms of the special criteria in paragraph 10 in the White Paper on the Prices and Incomes Standstill, Period of Severe Restraint.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Would the hon. Gentleman assure us that the south of Scotland increases will not be followed by increases in the North?
    Dr. Mabon: We shall just have to wait end see what happens.

    Cupar Sugar Factory
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the annual acreage of sugar beet necessary to ensure the economic viability of the Cupar sugar factory.
    Mr. Buchan: This is a matter for the British Sugar Corporation. I understand that the figure is 16,000 acres.
    Mr. MacArthur: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the likely acreage this year is something under 7,000, less than half the viable acreage for the economic working of the factory? Will he realise that urgent action is necessary if the sugar beet industry is to continue in a viable form in Scotland?
    Mr. Buchan: We have already started taking action to try to overcome the ill-effects of the policies of the party opposite, who cut the transport subvention in
    1502
    1963 and thus halved the sugar acreage in Scotland. We are now encouraging the development in the area.

    Fee-Paying Schools and Secondary Education
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which local authorities have not conformed with his policy to abolish fee-paying schools; and whether he will now allow local authorities greater freedom in determining the form of secondary education in their areas.
    Mr. Millan: Edinburgh has recently reaffirmed that it wishes to continue its fee-paying schools on their present basis. Glasgow wishes to discuss with my right hon. Friend the future position of its fee-paying and selective schools. Following Circular No. 600, my right hon. Friend has approved proposals from authorities for reorganising their provision of secondary education on a comprehensive basis in a number of ways.
    Mr. MacArthur: What attitude will the right hon. Gentleman now take towards Edinburgh and Glasgow local authorities in this matter? Will he continue a system of consultation, or does he intend, as we fear, to move to compulsion?
    Mr. Millan: As I have said, we shall be discussing this question with Glasgow, who have asked to meet us on it, and we shall also have to have further consultations with Edinburgh.

    Comprehensive Education
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will enumerate the various ways, consistent with his policy, in which selectivity can be retained within a comprehensive system of education.
    Mr. Millan: It was envisaged in Circular No. 600 that some education authorities, for geographical reasons or as an alternative to long delay in achieving comprehensive reorganisation, might adopt a "two-tier" form of organisation.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that a feeling was created that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

    1503
    Scotland thought that there should or could be some selectivity in education in the Scottish set-up, which, in the view of many of us, was inconsistent with Labour Party policy? Can he assure us that that will not be the case?
    Mr. Millan: Nothing has happened which is in any way contrary to Circular No. 600 issued about 18 months ago. I can assure my hon. Friend about that.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman at least agree to adopting a more flexible attitude than is adopted in Circular 600 and give a specific assurance that he will not bully and bludgeon the Glasgow Labour-controlled Corporation into abolishing selective schools against its better judgment?
    Mr. Millan: There is no question of bullying or bludgeoning Glasgow Education Authority, and I am sure that it would not be looking to the hon. Gentleman for help even if there were.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MEMBERSHIP)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [8th May]:
That this House approves the statement contained in the Command Paper, Membership of the European Communities (Command Paper No. 3269).—[The Prime Minister.]
Which Amendment was, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'regrets that Her Majesty's Government, having failed to inform the country of the estimated results of Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community, have nevertheless declared their intention of applying immediately for entry, leaving substantial matters to be negotiated thereafter, and thereby causing anxiety to our partners in the Commonwealth and the European Free Trade Association and creating the probability of injurious repercussions on British sovereignty and the rule of law, on the price of food, on the balance of payments and on the rôle of sterling in the world'.—[Mr. Turton.]
Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
3.32 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): The House will not need to be told that I feel special pride in being privileged to make this speech on this day. We are about to set out on a course which, if it succeeds, will shape the affairs of our country and the lives of our people for generations to come. This is a responsibility which nobody can shoulder lightly. And I understand the mood which leads some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and some hon. Members on the other side of the House to counsel extreme caution.
The issues involved are of the greatest importance. What happens over any one of them could affect profoundly the lives and pockets not only of each one of us, but of our children and our grandchildren. For that reason the Government have done their utmost to assess the economic consequences before making this decision.
For this reason the debate so far has concentrated largely on these details. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has described both the care we have

1505
take in the decision-making process and the balance of advantage and disadvantage as the Government see it. Subsequently in the debate there have been detailed analyses of the main problems with which we are faced in joining the Community. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs has talked about Commonwealth trade, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dwelt on the problems for our balance of payments and the consequences for capital movements, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has spoken of the agricultural problems.
In their speeches hon. Members in all parts of the House have taken up various points of detail and asked questions on them. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State will be replying in his winding-up speech tonight, but in opening this last day of this great debate I would like to stand back, as it were, and explain to the House how I see the broad issues which this decision involves us in.
Inevitably we have talked a good deal about the economic problems that would arise from going in, because these seem —I underline the word "seem"—to be quantifiable. But in all of these it is extremely important not to let the big issues get lost in a mass of technical, detail, and I submit to the House that this must be the keynote of our discussions this day.
The Community is not called the European Economic Community for nothing. Those who founded it—Schumann, Monnet, Spaak; and happily one of those is physically with us today—quite deliberately called it this, and quite deliberately directed its early efforts to economic considerations. But this was because they correctly saw that this was the way of attacking the political issues of a very divided Western Europe, not to speak of a very divided Europe. In making the decision today that Britain should join the European Economic Community, we an; also recognising that this is not only a question of a balance of economic advantage and disadvantage, but, above all, a step providing a greater political purpose for our Continent.
Many of the founders of the Community had, as their own personal driving force, the view of a federal
1506
Europe. This idea has not progressed, and we are not ourselves asked to endorse it. The idea of political unity in Europe does not, I repeat, mean endorsing a federalist view of Europe.
Ever since the war, the European argument, if I may call it that, has always been near the centre of our political life. There has been in this country—we have all felt it—a steady and growing awareness that our future is closely linked with that of our neighbours on the continent of Europe.
To a great extent, of course, this has come about because of a sense of our changed position in the world. The development of the world means that there is no longer a place for imperial Powers. But we, a European country, still have a crucial and influential role to play in the world. And how we are to play it is really what we are considering today.
The opportunity we can now seize is to play our part in reasserting Europe's role in the world and with Europe, to reassert our own rô1e. After the cataclysm of the last war, it was inevitable that there had to be a period of recovery, of building up. Today Europe, if she wishes, is in a position to make herself strong enough to play her full part again.
Our first concern politically must be with the security of this country. Historically our security was centred on Western Europe. Today, if we join the Community, the rivalries within Western Europe which led to two world wars would finally be silenced. A seal will be put upon the reconciliation of deeply felt antagonisms by including as partners in a single entity the principal Western European combatants of those two wars.
But we have all in Europe realised since the last war that the security of our Continent is bound up with the security of a wider area; and needs the involvement of other countries and a wider North Atlantic Alliance. It has always been our view that Europe should be in a position to make its views on defence heard as effectively as possible within the Alliance. The way of doing this is something which we shall have to consider with all our European partners when the time comes. But I am bound to say, with reference to the remarks

1507
of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, in particular his references to a European nuclear force, and, incidentally, the consequences for this of a non-proliferation treaty, that they were in my view dangerous, unwise and—if he meant what he seemed to be saying—not very well informed.
Within the world, and within Europe, there is another division, the one which separates East from West. There is already a flexibility in East/West relations. Attitudes are changing. And the building of unity in the West brings with it opportunities for healing the East/ West division which we must use to the full. The process has already started. In trade and commerce, culture, and in our diplomatic links at the highest level, we are coming closer together.
Of course, these first steps in improving relations between the two halves of our continent have only been made possible by the balance of power between the United States and the Soviet Union, and by the growing realisation in both those countries that mutual co-operation and understanding is not only possible but essential. But there is an inter-action here of cause and effect; for an increasing détente between East and West Europe will bring more confidence in its turn to the United States and the Soviet Union in their dealings with each other.
Together with the Western Alliance as a whole, it is our object to resolve the divisions of Europe in a just and equitable way and, on that basis, to enable Western Europe to live in harmony to our mutual benefit with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. And I am convinced that if Britain is a member of a united European Economic Community, the prospects of success of this whole movement towards détente will be immeasurably greater.
I believe that the same is true if the problems of the developing world are to be met. We in Europe carry responsibility——
Mr. J. J. Mendelson: As my right hon. Friend is the spokesman for foreign affairs and, therefore, to some extent of defence, will he not enlarge before the conclusion of this debate on what was said by the Leader of the Opposition? Is there any way in which
1508
the Government would agree, as the price of entry, to a joint nuclear command within E.E.C.? Surely we should have a statement from the Government about this.
Mr. Brown: I have said what I felt at this moment needed to be said about what the Leader of the Opposition said. I have many other things to say, if my hon. Friend will allow me to continue.
As I was saying, the same is true if the problems of the developing world are to be met. We in Europe have a responsibility to seek to improve the lot of men and women elsewhere in countries that are far behind our own in terms of economic development.
The countries of Western Europe are already doing much, and it ought to be recorded that the Six's own record in this is admirable. In 1965—the latest year for which complete figures are available—the total flow of their official aid to the developing countries, expressed in terms of capital outgoings, both bilateral and by means of the Community's Development Fund, was worth approximately £520 million. I am leaving entirely out of account private investment and credit and dealing only with official aid. Here, therefore—I say this because of what is sometimes said—there already exists a positive and outward looking approach to this formidable problem of bridging the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
We can be proud, too, of our own record. Again taking 1965 figures, Britain's official aid to the developing world amounted to some £180 million, rather over one-third of the Community's aid. But none of us can sit back and say that we have done enough. Yet, the hard fact is that the magnitude of the task is being intensified all the time by the rapidly rising level of world population. The problem can only be met by the co-ordination efforts of countries working in this field. And our own ability to go on providing this vital aid and to increase this level depends on our economic health.
So there are two compelling reasons for recognising that the best way for European countries to help solve this particular problem lies in the co-ordination and pooling of our efforts. The result might then be not just a sum of what

1509
we are each doing, but ultimately very much more than that.
It may be asked, as, indeed, it has been, whether the political objectives which I have set out cannot be achieved in other ways than by using the framework which is provided by the E.E.C. Certainly a number of ways have been tried already, and there are various organisations in Europe as evidence of this. But none of them is enough. We all recognise that. It is clear, I believe, to most of us now that the best solution lies in the European Economic Community—the Community as it has developed after these ten formative years and enlarged to embrace as many other European countries as can and wish to join. By creating a customs and economic union among its members, the E.E.C. binds them firmly together at the roots: and at the same time it provides a framework for effective political cooperation which, we can be sure, will become more and more powerful as the individual members of the Community grow closer together.
To us in Britain this approach surely is particularly attractive. It is pragmatic. It does not set out to try to do everything at once—like laying down the forms and details of political co-operation in advance. It does not involve us in federalist experiments which most of us feel do not arise in the foreseeable future.
But we have already made clear to our prospective partners in the Community that we would wish to be associated with any discussions on political unity at the earliest possible moment so that we can make our contribution to that straight away instead of waiting until the formal negotiations for joining are complete. We will certainly play our part fully in the political institutions that emerge from such discussions.
We have always recognised and have repeatedly said that joining the E.E.C. was not the only course open to us. As I said in our debate last year, for example, we could, among other things, look to some as yet unformulated Atlantic grouping, or we could "go it alone". These are possibilities, and of course, should we not succeed in our present endeavours, one or the other or a combination of them would have to follow. In my opinion, however, neither carries
1510
with it the benefits that would flow from joining the Community.
Let us look at them a little more closely. "Going it alone" sounds very well. It has a good British ring to it: and, at first sight, it appears to have much to commend it. We could, it is said, retain our E.F.T.A. partnership and our Commonwealth trade; and we would not have to face any of the changes or balance of payments problems which joining the Community might entail.
I submit, however, that the reality would be very different. E.F.T.A. has been a great success. But its members have always had in mind that it was only one step along the road to the larger European market which all its members want. That aim is stated explicitly in the Stockholm Convention which set it up. If we turned our backs on the E.E.C. now, other members would not follow suit just to oblige us. Already Austria is negotiating association with the Community, and others, particularly Denmark, have made it clear that they want to join the E. E.C. as soon as possible. And so, too, has the Irish Republic.
That is the direction of the present movement. We are certainly big enough to move the other way, but we must not expect that all our E.F.T.A. partners would necessarily want to do the same.
In the case of the Commonwealth our trade in that grouping is, of course, highly important to us. Whatever happens we shall, of course, make every effort to preserve it, both in our interests and in the interests of other Commonwealth countries. But here also there are changes taking place. We cannot alone meet the needs of the Commonwealth. That is the reason why for some time the patterns of trade have been changing. Since 1958, when the Community was founded, our exports to Community countries have doubled in value, from nearly £500 million to rather more than £1,000 million, and they now account for 20 per cent. of our total world exports, and this despite the tariff barrier. Similarly, our exports to E.F.T.A. have doubled in the same period, from £360 million to £760 million. Our sales to E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. countries together have gone up from 25 per cent. of our exports in 1958 to 34 per cent in 1966.

1511
In contrast our exports to Commonwealth countries—here I am leaving out South Africa and the Irish Republic, who are still part of the Commonwealth preference area—remain almost static in monetary terms, £1,257 million in 1958; £1,328 million in 1966–7; as a percentage of all our exports they went down from 37 per cent to 25 per cent.
Therefore, we can certainly give ourselves no comfortable assurance that were we to abandon our approach to the Community, the pattern of trade would then start changing in the other direction. We might in those circumstances even find ourselves with the worst of both worlds, our trade with the Commonwealth decreasing and the opportunities in Europe reduced. The other countries of the Commonwealth, no less than ourselves, are already adapting to this changing pattern. Australia looks more and more to her markets in the East, to Japan and to America. Canada's trade has also become progressively more bound up with the United States. In Africa, Commonwealth countries are turning to the E.E.C. Nigeria has already reached an association agreement with the Community, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania are in the process of negotiating one. And in the field of aid, it is worth remembering, India, the largest member of the Commonwealth, now receives more aid from Germany than she does from us.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: Is it true that India was not consulted about our application to join the European Community?
Mr. Brown: Consultation with the Commonwealth, as, of course, with our E.F.T.A. partners, has been continuous and full all the way through.
The world does not stand still. If we try to go it alone, we cannot count on our traditional trade just going on along its present lines.
But that is not all. I have left to the last what I believe many of us believe is one of the most compelling arguments against going it alone, the question of technological development. We are an industrial country living by our brains and selling what we invent and what we make. But brains, "know-how" and technological skills are not enough. It is a scale and specialisation that we need
1512
if the prizes in this field are not increasingly to go to the United States and the Soviet Union. Both these countries have a large domestic market to which their technologically-based industries have immediate access. This in turn allows for a high-gearing of industrial development.
If we really are to tackle the technological gap between Europe and the United States, we have got to get together with other European countries and pool our technological knowledge and inventiveness. We are co-operating technologically to some extent with other European countries at the moment. We are doing this with Concord, in E.L.D.O. and in other projects. That I know, but if technological co-operation is to be really effective I believe that we must pool this knowledge and create new technological projects on a joint basis within one market, when we have a great contribution to make in this field.
And I should at this point like to mention something about another contribution, seldom mentioned but important, that Britain can make if we join the Community. We have in this country a particularly strong, responsible and democratic trade union organisation. One of the advantages that would flow from our membership of the Community is the intensified co-operation of the trade unions of the Six and our own trade unions. Some of those who fear the consequences of our membership can take reassurance from this fact, and from the fact that in the Community it will be our purpose to seek to ensure that trade unions have an important role to play both within the Community and in its institutions.
As I said earlier, there is a second alternative, that of what is called the Atlantic grouping but sometimes referred to as the North Atlantic Free Trade Area. This, too, the Government have considered. Leaving aside, if I may, the very pertinent question of whether our prospective partners in this kind of grouping want such an arrangement, let me say this.
We should, were it to come about, in any circumstances be a small country in a group which inevitably would be dominated by its one super-power member. Our ability to influence, not only world affairs but the very organisation of our own economy, would in these

1513
circumstances compare unfavourably with what we might expect to be the case were we in an enlarged European Community.
Then there is the further possibility, sometimes mentioned, that of association status with the Community under Article 238 of the Treaty. It has been argued that in this way we might avoid some of the difficulties which face us if we apply for full membership under Article 237.
I do not accept this at all. In the first place, such a solution would be very half-hearted and defeatist. We should be forgoing a large number of political benefits which a united Europe would bring. But even more important, such a solution would mean that we would be joining a group in the development and organisation of which we should have no influence. We would be passengers on the train; but the driving would be done by someone else, and we should not even be able to decide where we wanted to go. We have never accepted an arrangement of that nature for this country, and I am pretty sure we would not want to do so now.
On this subject I would like to make two further points. We expect to get in: we would never have gone this far or got this far if we did not. I have just made it clear that in my view the alternatives to membership are second best. But at the same time, let me repeat, if we do not get in the world would not stand still. An alternative would have to be found, with all the widening of divisions that this would mean, and all who have to deal with this issue here and elsewhere now should, I suggest, take that into account.
Second, if we are in or if we are out, as my right hon. Friend said and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday said, our own success in life from here on must depend on our own endeavours. For all these considerations, the Government therefore have taken their decision. We feel sure of the way we ought now to proceed. Therefore, we call today upon this House to approve our decision so that we may apply straight away to join the Communities. We shall make our application short, clear, positive and to the point. In the application there will be no "ifs" and "buts", no conditions
1514
or stipulations. We shall apply to join. [Interruption.] I anticipated that, if I may say so to my hon. Friends. What I have written out here is that some Members of the House may be concerned about what I have just said. It turned out to be an understatement. I think, therefore, it may help my hon. Friends if I ask them to recall Article 237 of the Treaty. It reads:
"Any European State may apply to become a member of the Community. It shall address its application to the Council which, after obtaining the opinion of the Commission, shall give a unanimous decision thereon.
The conditions of admission and the adjustments to this Treaty necessitated by it shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. Such agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
What I think is too often forgotten is that this clearly means that although the application should be unconditional, entry will be on the terms established during negotiations leading up to an agreement.
In deciding on this particular approach we have had very much in mind the terms of the previous applications which was submitted in 1961. But I think it is generally recognised on all sides that we laid ourselves open to criticism—and indeed were so criticised later on—for not being sufficiently wholehearted about our application.
It is always a good thing to read the record—for both sides of the House. The negotiation, in the terms of the Resolution of the House at that time provided for an application to initiate negotiations to see if satisfactory arrangements could be made. Our own probe, which we have already conducted and concluded, was directed to the same purpose. Now we intend to put in a clear, clean, and uncluttered application.
We have given much thought to the actual timing of our application. The strong arguments were against delay. Once we had reached our decision—once this House reached its decision—we wanted it to be clearly recognised for what it was. We want to join, so let us apply without any further prevarication. This was one argument.
Another was the need to put an end to the uncertainties of our position Of

1515
course, uncertainties of another kind remain and will be there until the negotiations are successfully concluded. But our friends in the Community now know where we stand.
Delay would hold disadvantages for all of us. Both we and the existing members of the Community, for the reasons which I have just given, need to press on with the creation of a strong European technology; delay will only put us at still greater disadvantage with United States competition. But the advance in the technological field, which has now become a real possibility for Europe, requires commercial and economic decisions which inevitably depend on general confidence, both here and in the Community, that our application will succeed.
But the harmful significances of inaction or delay do not rest only within Europe. In those wider issues about which I have talked, removing tension between East and West, and tackling the problems of the developing world, time is against us. Every consideration points to the need to begin negotiations soon, to keep the process short, and to focus on the few major issues. We simply cannot afford to hang about.
For our part, we have done all that we can to meet these requirements. We expect that our application will be accepted and that the negotiations will be begun before the summer holidays. I expect to be able to make formal contact, clear the ground and agree on procedures so that, at the very least, we can get down to business in earnest and without any further delay when work resumes in the autumn.
Mr. R. H. Turton: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what are the lesser issues which he intends to negotiate after entry?
Mr. Brown: To a very large extent, these are matters which will emerge during the negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated—and I do not propose to repeat—the four major issues which emerged as we went round Europe. There are many others which we shall find during our negotiations and which we must settle before we can commend an actual joining to the House There are others which we
1516
could leave over until afterwards. It is impossible to lay those down. What my right hon. Friend meant—and I am sure that those who went through some of the agonies before will recognise this—was that we should not get cluttered up and bogged down in a mass of technical detail which, even if we reached agreement, is of no value if the application does not go forward anyway. Those are matters on which we shall be reporting to the House in due course, and we shall ourselves bear them in mind in our negotiations.
Great decisions such as those which we are being asked to make today involve a sense of history: they are more than a commercial calculation, and require both boldness and an instinct for political realities. In the last analysis, our decision to negotiate our entry into the European Communities is basically a political one; and, for the reasons I have given, I believe that it is the right decision. As my right hon. Friend said, it is a decision which will determine the future of Britain, and may well determine the future of Europe and even the peace of the world, for decades to come.
Membership of the Community will neither diminish us nor the Community. It will provide a wider field for our talents and a greater force for the common policies which we shall evolve together. Together the countries of Western Europe can play a part far greater than the sum of their individual efforts, and thus exert a beneficial influence on all the great issues of our time.
We aim to join the European Economic Community without delay. We make this application on the basis of mutual advantage. We hope to gain from membership, but we are equally aware and conscious of what we can contribute to the other members. The opportunity is with us all to combine to build a Europe worthy of her peoples. I pray that this opportunity will not be missed.
4.6 p.m.
Mr. J. B. Godber: We have just listened to a typical speech from the right hon. Gentleman in which he said a lot of things with which many of us on this side of the House would agree. We recognise his genuine approach to this matter and his sense of history in the speech which he has made today.

1517
However, we have had two consecutive speeches from that Dispatch Box—the one to which we have just listened and the speech in winding up last night— directed to the same Motion. They were made by members of the same Cabinet, pledged to the same objective, but utterly different in attitude, in atmosphere and, I fear, also in aim.
I gather from his speech today that the Foreign Secretary is anxious to find ways of getting in. He made that very clear. He said that we expect to get in and that our application will be short, clear, positive and to the point. The impression which was left on me last night by the Minister of Agriculture was that he was desperately seeking reasons to stay out. That was the impression which he left on the House——
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): If the right hon. Gentleman were Minister, would he not seek adequately to safeguard the interests of British farmers and consumers? That is all that I suggested, and I gave an objective survey, which is in my White Paper.
Mr. Godber: If the right hon. Gentleman had waited a moment, he would have had an effective reply to that without having to intervene, because I shall he dealing with those specific issues and with his White Paper.
The impression which I had and which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends had was as I have just said. Indeed, hon. Members on his own side who are not keen to get in said afterwards what a good speech he had made. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman enjoyed the commentary from those hon. Gentlemen who do not feel the same way as he does. The impression was quite clear, and I thought that it was deplorable.
The question arises, then, whether these two members of the Cabinet can continue together on the same course, and the question arises for the Prime Minister, too. If he means what he said to the House on Monday in his long speech, can he afford to make his approach with what I can only describe as a dead weight in one of the key positions in the discussions?
That is the way I see it. It is not that the Minister of Agriculture talked of the high prices of certain key foods He did,
1518
and he was right to do so. Many of us have referred to them already on a number of occasions. What gave us concern was his completely negative approach right across the board and so different from the approach which we have just heard. I want to deal with some of his arguments in some detail.
I would have liked and am sorely tempted to follow some of the interesting comments made by the Foreign Secretary, but if I were to do that I would weary the House too long because I must deal with some of the very big question marks left by the Minister of Agriculture last night. So it is no discourtesy to the Foreign Secretary that I do not propose to follow him closely today.
I want to make my attitude clear. Coming, as I do, from an agricultural background—and a horticultural background—and thus from the background of an industry most closely affected by the proposal to enter the E.E.C., I have long since embraced the cause of British membership of the Community.
I have not done so on agricultural grounds, or on the question of food supplies. I have done so on political grounds and the wider economic grounds to which the Foreign Secretary referred. Those are the grounds which first convinced me. Certainly, there may be an adequate future for Britain outside the Community, as the right hon. Gentleman said, but it certainly would be a better future inside the Community, and this is the overriding factor.
The Foreign Secretary referred to our grandchildren. Clearly, he was thinking in the long term, and rightly so. I agree that our grandchildren would sleep much more soundly in their beds if we were able to help create a larger European community—and I believe that they would have better beds to sleep in as well when the economic advantages showed themselves.
I believe that the advantages of our going in are real, but if they are to be achieved then we have also got to accept the common agricultural policy and the higher food prices that this entails. This is a necessary corollary, and it is some advance on the road to reality that the Government now agree that this is so, for it is not so long since they were claiming that the common agricultural policy

1519
could be amended to meet the requirements of this country to a very much larger degree than they now pretend.
Last November, the Prime Minister himself was still maintaining that some wide changes could be made. I will go further back, as some hon. Members have already done, in considering the Prime Minister's views about the common agricultural policy. In 1962, he said that it was an "autarkic monstrosity". But he is willing to accept it now for the wider benefits which will flow in other aspects of our life. We have long recognised what the right hon. Gentleman now acknowledges, that we have to accept the common agricultural policy. But we also recognise what the Government apparently do not yet recognise—that if we are not able to go in, then we shall have to adopt new measures of agricultural support.
I say this by reason of the effect of the common agricultural policy on a country like ours, situated on the borders of the Community. At the last election we put forward our proposals to that effect, and I do not propose to go into them now. But I remind the Minister of Agriculture that at the time he was quoting very freely what he assessed as the total cost of the Tory policy on food supplies. He quoted it at £400 million. Nowadays, in relation to the higher costs, he talks largely in percentage terms and not in terms of the £550 million to £800 million, according to whichever figure one takes. I notice that difference of approach, as have others.
Because we recognise that it is necessary to come to terms with the common agricultural policy, we have for some time been pressing the Government to give us their clear assessment of what this would mean. We were given a few figures last November. The Prime Minister gave, in his first announcement, the broad effects as he saw them. We have had little since then until the last few days. But the new Select Committee on Agriculture did force some further estimates from the Minister of Agriculture a week or two ago and now we have the White Paper to which the Minister referred and which I want to analyse in some detail in one or two aspects. I apologise for this but, in view of the Minister's speech last night, I must put on record our feeling in the
1520
Opposition on some of the points he made.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: My right hon. Friend has referred to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture on three occasions. On an issue as important as this, with effects so widespread as they could be, would my right hon. Friend expect a Minister of the Crown to come to the Dispatch Box and do any other than say frankly and in detail what he and his Department think?
Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) feels, I think, that that is what the Minister did. I am going to say that I feel that the right hon. Gentleman's assessments are wrong, and it is my duty to analyse them as I see them and get on the record what I and others think. [Interruption.] The suspicion is not entirely on one side of the House.
Mr. Roy Roebuck Mr. Roy Roebuck (Harrow, East) rose——
Mr. Godber: No. I must get on.
The Minister of Agriculture was extremely defensive last night. I got the impression, both from the White Paper and his speech, that he is ill-informed at present about what is happening in Brussels. Maybe he did not want to know or did not want to get involved in discussion of certain of the matters.
Our delegation in Brussels is a good one, but it is very small. The Select Committee on Agriculture has been probing the staffing of the delegation, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. In fact, it has pointed out that our Ambassador in Brussels has been asking for further agricultural help ever since last October, and only yesterday one of my hon. Friends was told that the question is still under review. This is six months later. Yet there is need to keep in the closest contact with Brussels and to know precisely how the common agricultural policy is developing the whole time.
It does not seem good enough that the Government are not making the attempt to keep in this close contact, which is so essential in regard to knowing just how the new aspects of the policy are developing. This, I believe, is the key to some of the attitudes which the Minister of Agriculture has taken up in this regard. Last night, I interrupted his speech to

1521
ask about developments in regard to an Annual Price Review, because he was paying considerable attention to this. I asked him to tell us more about how the Community is developing its own arrangements. He gave no effective reply. Yet there is an important story to tell. Why did he not tell it to the House? Does he know it or not?
The developments have been rapid ever the last few months. Although they have not the formalised arrangements that we have, they have agreed that they shall fix their prices annually, all at the same time, that this shall be done on the basis of reports by the Commission and that there shall be a two months' period during which producers' organisations can make representations. The decisions will then be taken by the Council of Ministers. Why did he not tell us this? I: would have helped materially to get a view in relation to how far they are going in following the system to which our farmers attach so much importance.
I find the White Paper an extremely disappointing document. Originally, I was a little puzzled about its authorship. But I think that this was made clear by the Minister himself last night. On at least three occasions he said that it was his White Paper. Usually, White Papers are produced on behalf of the Government, but he emphasised that it was his own. To be fair, he said that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland had produced it He said:
"There may be arguments about my White Paper, but we have tried honestly and objectively to present the facts … We have tried to present objectively the facts as we see them … I hope that my White Paper has been carefully read and studied by all hon. Members … There will be those who accuse me of being negative in my approach … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1967; Vol. 746 c. 1403–4.]
The right hon. Gentleman was clearly on the defensive about the White Paper, and I am not surprised when I look at its contents.
First, I do not dissent from the general conclusion which the right hon. Gentleman reaches in paragraph 73 of the White Paper—[Interruption.]—I shall have some other comments to make—that the aggregate net income of the industry could be expected to be about the same level as if we were outside the Community at present. There is no reason why that
1522
agricultural net income should not be expanded by expanding production in this country.
I listened in vain last night for some talk of an expansion of home production from the Minister. On Monday the Prime Minister talked about this both in the House and on television, but the Minister of Agriculture did not. Perhaps he has forgotten that he still pays lip-service to the target in the National Plan for an increase in agricultural production of £200 million by 1970. Yet last night, in relation to the possibilities here, we never had a word as to what could be done about stepping up production.
In the earlier part of the White Paper, there is a very strange distinction in that whereas paragraph 13 refers to that part of Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome which talks of State aids which distort or threaten to distort competition and points out that this is a very restricting factor, there is nowhere in that paragraph a reference to the other provisions of Article 92, which are very important. The interesting thing is that while the White Paper is so selective in its reference to part of Article 92 the Minister quoted the other part in his speech yesterday. That seemed to be a very odd way of handling the matter. It added to the confusion.
This is a very important point to our farmers, because on it hinges a great deal of what we can continue to do through what are generally known as the production grants for our farmers. The main support for our farmers comes, on the one hand, from deficiency payments, and, on the other, from production grants. Production grants must be generally within the rules of Article 92 if they are to continue once we have got in.
A number of them will no doubt be able to continue and I hope that the Government will concentrate on this aspect in their negotiation as an important matter affecting many of our producers in areas which need more help than others. I hope that we shall have a clear assurance that this will be done, and that the full effect of Article 92—both the part quoted in the White Paper and the part referred to by the Minister—will be borne in mind in this regard, because a large sum of money is involved. It is clear that while we should be able to

1523
continue some we ought also to be seeking back from the Guarantee and Guidance Fund of the Community such sums as we can reasonably claim to help in regard to production grants, too.
It is also important to remember that the guidance section of the Fund is being limited to a ceiling of about £100 milion. Therefore, as a country, we will not be able to get a large slice out of it. It would be wrong to seek to quantify a figure, but if the sum has to be separated out between a number of countries there is an obvious limit. Therefore, we must look to being able to continue a considerable number of our existing production grants if farmers in more difficult areas are to continue to farm effectively and get a better return.
Problems will arise in connection with creating a system whereby hill cattle subsidies can come within the terms of Article 92. Another very important subsidy for these difficult areas is the hill sheep subsidy. In this case there is no common agricultural arrangement. Therefore, the provision that those commodities which are not covered need not necessarily come under the effect of Article 93—whereby controls are imposed—ought to make it possible to retain the present position in respect of sheep farming, if need be. I see no reference in the White Paper to this subject.
Mr. R. T. Paget: Is not the answer that the price of mutton will rise so much that sheep farmers will need no assistance? The producers of sheep, beef and wheat will make a fortune, and the other producers will go bankrupt.
Mr. Godber: That may apply in the case of lowland sheep, but some hill farmers will have problems. If need be, it will be possible to provide assistance for them. I accept wholly the hon. and learned Member's point about lowland sheep farmers, but many hill farmers would express a very different view if he spoke to them on the subject.
There are many other paragraphs in the White Paper that I could pick up, but I want to concentrate on paragraph 26, which states the position in respect of cereal prices. Anyone who has studied this problem knows that the big diffi
1524
culty will be the sharp rise in cereal prices which, while very pleasant to the arable farmer, will put up the cost of feeding-stuffs heavily for many livestock producers.
Paragraph 26 seems to give an entirely wrong assessment as to what the prices should be. I ask the Minister to have the whole matter looked at again, because these figures cannot be effectively substantiated in relation to the farm gate price. In paragraph 26 the White Paper refers to the comparable E.E.C. producer price, which I take to mean the farm gate price. If it is the producer price it could only be the equivalent of the farm gate price in this country.
The paragraph gives a price of £35 10s. a ton for wheat and £30 10s. a ton for barley. I have arrived at estimates substantially lower than those, but I have also seen other estimates. I do not seek to justify my own figures; I call the attention of the Minister to what appeared in a publication issued by one of our large industrial concerns—I.C.I. It has taken the target and intervention prices and applied them to different areas. It shows that in the zone where the lowest prices are affected it would bring the farm gate price down to £31 15s. for wheat and £27 4s. for barley—very much lower prices than the Minister has given.
Other estimates which I have obtained from Brussels, although not so low as the I.C.I. figures are lower than the Minister's. If his figures are wrong it invalidates the whole of his argument about the livestock position.
Mr. Peart: My figures are not wrong. In an article in the Daily Telegraph on 2nd May the right hon. Gentleman repeated the argument that he is now using. He then gave an incorrect intervention price in Duisburg. He has taken no account of the seasonal price scale. He has been wrong in print and he is wrong now.
Mr. Godber: I do not accept that. I have checked the figures.
Mr. Peart: I have, too.
Mr. Godber: I have checked these figures from the Community—about £33 for wheat and between £28 and £29 for barley. The Minister has to substantiate them. He has not got the true farm gate price and it is the farm gate price that

1525
matters, and not just the intervention price, because the intervention price is the wholesale price.
Mr. Peart indicated dissent.
Mr. Godber: It is no good the Minister's waving this away. On this whole question he has a wrong basis, and this affects the estimates that he makes in the succeeding paragraph, about profit on livestock, in which he tries to paint a much blacker picture than need be painted, relying on figures which I have told him are not acceptable. I demand that he looks at this again and justifies his figures as those paid to the farmer at the farm gate, which is quite different to a general intervention price at wholesale level. This invalidates most of the rest of I he estimates in his White Paper; I believe that the picture for livestock will not be as black as he tried to paint it.
The right hon. Gentleman referred also last night to milk and appeared to be predicting grave difficulties, though he qualified this to some extent later. But he made no mention of the changing pattern of production, for instance, in regard to summer milk supplies. He must know, as anyone in the business does, that if stimulus were given to greater summer production, this would be much more profitable than the price level which he spoke about. He concentrated on the winter milk, which is clearly the unprofitable aspect, and did not mention the summer prices which would be given. His general assessment was unnecessarily pessimistic, as were all his remarks in this regard.
The Minister spent a long time on the White Paper and I feel obliged to do the same. He gave the figures which we have heard many times of a½½ per cent. increase in the price of food, but why has he not estimated this so as to give the housewife a clearer picture of what she would have to pay? He gave some food prices which would go up sharply, but did not give a clear estimate, arising from the White Paper's global figure, of what this means as a weekly addition to the cost of food for the average housewife. This is what matters to her.
Working on the basis of the figures which the Government have produced
1526
and checking them against a number of other estimates which produce roughly the same total, over an average of five years, it may be shown that the increase in cost of food to the housewife will be about 5s. a head per week. If it were five years, this would mean an increase of 1s. a week each year for five years on the weekly household food bill. This is far more realistic than the Minister's odd figures last night, when he talked of those which would be sharply affected, like butter and meat. If his own figure of 10–14 per cent. in the White Paper is correct, this is what it means for the housewife and this is what she should be told in order to get the fair picture.
This, then, is the position in regard to food supplies generally. Of course, there would be money available from reduction of deficiency payments which could be used to help those receiving grants from the social services and there should be some available from the Government to help the housewife who does not get social security payments. This would mean that it would reduce her cost of goods in other ways while the cost of food was going up. It is a pity that the Minister did not give a more balanced picture. This stems from his antipathy to the whole question.
A final important aspect is the balance of payments. It is true that 90 per cent. of the levies must be paid over to the Fund and, as we shall be importing more food than any other country, we shall be paying more, but the levies equate at present only to about half the total payment into the Guarantee and Guidance Fund. If we pay a large percentage of the levy, surely we could contrive that our percentage of payments on the direct payments are very low. We should thus be able to balance off the harsh impact of our having to pay an unfair share because we are high importers.
This is not a matter of the greatest difficulty. Of course, we must consider with the gravest concern any addition to the balance of payments, but if the Minister's own proposals for increased agricultural production, which has been talked about but which has not been achieved— an increase, he claimed, of £200 million-worth of food by 1970; I cannot see how that will be done now, but it is certainly

1527
possible—it will mean a further substantial saving on the balance of payments which should be offset against these payments for food.
The saving would be not merely on the levy but on the total cost of food, if it is produced at home. There may be some offsets, but the bulk should be saved. This seems to be the sensible way of tackling this and it is regrettable that there has been stagnation in agricultural production recently.
I agree with what the Minister said about fishing, that we must get agreement about fishery limits and access to fishing grounds. There should be no difficulty, because the problems are mutual. No decisions have yet been taken and we can start here at least with a clean slate. I hope that this will be dealt with adequately.
Horticulture's special problems have always been recognised. Not only do our horticultural producers rely on tariff protection for most commodities, as opposed to the normal agricultural support system —there are quotas for one or two, like apples and pears, but in the main it is tariffs—but their main competitors are in the existing countries of the Community. At the end of the transitional stage, therefore, our producers will be exposed to unrestricted imports from their main competitors. This problem may be common to many industries which will accept this new challenge, but there is a special factor for horticulture which puts it in a category of its own.
The climatic advantage of a considerable part of the Common Market enables them to produce horticultural crops earlier and much more cheaply than we can. Horticulture covers a wide range of production, not all of which will suffer. For instance, many green vegetable crops grown in the open here are unlikely to suffer heavy increased competition. They are mainly bulky and of relatively low value, which would make their transport from the Mediterranean an expensive addition to production costs.
Some types of our greenhouse production could compete on level terms, if— it is a big "if"—substantially more money were invested in capital improvements to take advantage of the latest knowledge gained from research. There
1528
will, however, be a large number of horticultural producers who will have to compete in impossible conditions. It may be possible to help, through negotiating longer transitional arrangements for certain specified crops, and there is also, in addition, already a Horticultural Improvements Scheme, through which a good deal more Government assistance could be channelled to help our horticulturists meet this new competition.
Whatever is done, it is likely that a substantial number of growers, many operating on small units, will be unable to face competition with products from the shores of the Mediterranean. The Government must face this special responsibility. These people cannot compete on level terms and must not be sacrificed in the wider national interest. The Government's responsibility should be met wherever necessary by appropriate compensation for those who have to give up which should clearly be paid for defined types of production, and as a lump sum, either to enable the individual to sell out and take up some other form of livelihood, or, if he wished, to adapt his holding to some other production where he could compete.
The sum allocated might help to put him on his feet again, but the Government should accept this special responsibility and discuss with the industry's leaders how such help could be given so as to be fair both to the grower and to the taxpayer. The horticulture industry deserves this special recognition.
Mr. James Johnson: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of farming, he will recall that last night he challenged the Minister and asked him what length of time he thought would be needed for the transitional period. My right hon. Friend replied, in effect, "As long as possible". What length of time does the right hon. Gentleman consider should occupy the transitional period? Earlier he mentioned five years. Does he consider that to be about right?
Mr. Godber: The Minister was extremely coy about this last night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Ministers have the job of negotiating this matter——
Mr. Archie Manuel: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman answer?
Mr. Godber:—and they have claimed that it would be an embarrassment to say how long. I would not wish to embarrass them any more than they wish to embarrass themselves. Thus, while I gave an estimate of the time that I thought would be required in regard to food price increases—and I suggest that that might be a reasonable figure—I would not like to tie the Minister's hand. If he can get longer than that, all the better. I thought that the time I gave was a reasonable period, considering food price increases in this country.
Mr. Johnson Mr. Johnson rose——
Mr. Godber: I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have dealt with his question fairly. I have made the position perfectly clear, and I suggest that we now leave it there.
Mr. Johnson: Is it five years?
Mr. Godber: I regret having taken so long to detail this point, but in view of what the Minister said last night and in view of the White Paper which he published, I thought it essential to make these various points clear straight away. The right hon. Gentleman's speech last night did a great deal of harm and unnecessarily disturbed people on the production side, as well as consumers. He must accept responsibility for that. Why did he do it? Others will, no doubt, be contemplating that question. I am not going into the inter-scene problems on the benches opposite, except to say that it seemed a strange way for a Minister to behave on an important matter like this. I prefer to approach it in the manner in which the Foreign Secretary approached it.
My assessment is that if we go into the E.E.C.—apart from the transitional points involved—we should work towards solving these problems, but also towards a Price Review system which, in any case, is well on the way to achievement. I hope, too, that our growers will make closer links with C.O.P.A., the organisation in Brussels which draws together different producer organisations of the Community, and we should start to work out the practical problems from the growers' point of view. I look upon these as essential preliminary matters.
1530
There are a variety of other matters, some of which I have mentioned. I have indicated the way in which the balance of payments problem should be tackled. As for the cost of food to the consumer, I have given my analysis, and I stand by it. Indeed, I suggest that it is more realistic than that of the Minister. As to the problems that arise in addition to these problems, there are many detailed matters, many of which can be taken up through the negotiations in the way in which the Foreign Secretary described. I hope that the negotiations will not be too long drawn out. Nobody welcomes the sharp increase that could take place in certain food prices, but if there is a reasonable transitional period, I believe that this can be dealt with.
If the benefits, if we go in, are substantial—as many, including the Foreign Secretary, have claimed—I would say that there is nothing on the agricultural side and nothing on the food side that need prevent our entry; that is, given those factors to which I have referred. The hardships on consumers can be mitigated and the problems concerning our balance of payments can be eased by higher production at home; and for the farmers, there will be opportunities as well as problems.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concluded his speech last night by saying:
"I hope that what I have said will be sufficient to convince the House that we have overlooked none of these problems."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1414.]
If we are to seek to go into the Community, I suggest that we need look not only at the problems but at the opportunities as well. This necessity was so notably lacking in the Minister's speech last night. I prefer, while looking at the problems, to look at the opportunities as well. I believe that this is the feeling not only of the majority of Ministers in the Government but of the majority of hon. Members in the House and of the majority of people in the country.
I hope that the Motion will be supported to the full. I do not often choose to go into the Lobby with the Government. I do so tonight gladly.
4.46 p.m.
Mr. E. Shinwell: The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber)

1531
will hardly expect me to follow him into the complexities of the agricultural policy. I have sometimes regarded myself as an expert on many topics and have ventilated my views in the House. I recall one occasion when, from the Opposition Front Bench, I made a remarkable speech on white fish, which has some bearing on the topic which the right hon. Gentleman has been discussing.
I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's observations that he does not trust the present Government. Why he is going into the Lobby with them tonight, I cannot say. I have some doubts about the Government myself, but as regards their general overall policy, I am one of their most loyal and devoted supporters.
I note also that the right hon. Gentleman has thrown the farming community overboard. It is not very long since the Opposition threw the Commonwealth overboard. The Tory cargo has been slowly and gradually jettisoned; and now there is hardly anything left—that is, except to support the Labour Government.
Before the right hon. Member for Grantham addressed the House we had a remarkable spate of oratory. There were many eloquent, cogent and logical speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Many speeches for which many of my hon. Friends were responsible contained reservations about Government policy in this matter. In my view—and it is only my opinion, for what it is worth—they had the best of the argument. After all, they had no reservations. All the reservations were on the side of those who support the Government. There was much more certainty on the side of those who object to the Government's line of country. I, of course, recognise that they must be grateful to several Ministers who addressed the House, none more so than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We recognise that when he addressed us last night he was performing a most difficult and embarrassing operation, but he did it with remarkable courage.
It has sometimes been suggested by the newspapers, even the newspaper which I understand is exclusive to the top people—I shall not give it a gratuitous advertisement—and demands have
1532
been made—strident demands, blatant demands, firm demands, strenuous demands, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture should resign. I beg him to do nothing of the sort.
On the other hand, if some right hon. Gentlemen, almost the hierarchy of the Labour Government, were to resign, I could bear it with my customary fortitude. If time permitted, I should like to occupy the time of hon. and right hon. Members by running over—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am not speaking physically but intellectually, and in an assembly now cluttered up with intellectuals it is surely permissible to run over in that sense.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, in that remarkable speech last night, made it clear beyond a peradven-ture that problems of the most intricate, grave and profound character have to be considered, and eventually negotiated, before we decide to associate ourselves with the countries of the Six. Better to have this frankness than concealment— the House is entitled to frankness, and so is the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs spoke. I have the highest regard and respect for my right hon. Friend. He and I had the fortune to co-operate when I happened to be Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. It was, I assure the House, a most harmonious co-operation. I should have preferred it to have continued, but occasionally one is the victim of circumstances over which one has no control whatever. But that is another story, to be unfolded perhaps, in my next volume of autobiography, or, who can tell, perhaps by my biographer some day when I have shuffled off this mortal coil.
But my right hon. Friend made one observation to which I must take exception. He said that there was no incompatibility between associating with the Si.x and our devotion to the Commonwealth and the continuation of the Commonwealth. I am bound to say that, whatever may be the view of Her Majesty's Government, that is not the view of some members of the Six. It is doubtful whether it is the view of General de Gaulle. It is certainly not the view of M. Pompidou, the present French Prime Minister. And I have before me the

1533
opinion expressed by M. Pisani, who was at one time the French agricultural Minster. He has been a Minister in the Gaulist Government, but recently resigned. He said:
"Britain could not enter the Common Market without abandoning the Common-Wealth if she respected the Treaty of Rome."
It may be easy to dismiss that as a casual observation, but these are the people with whom the Government have to treat. I therefore beg my right hon. Friend to pay a little more attention to what is being said on the other side—on the Continent.
Then there is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I listened to him yesterday with almost rapt attention. I was absorbed in his glowing account of the remarkable economic and financial improvement that is taking place in our affairs. We are paying off our external debts. Day by day we are hurrying to pay off the debts. It might all have been said in the recent Budget, but it was left over for this occasion. Had it something to do with our application for membership of the Common Market? Was it the prelude, the overture, the paving of the way? "Look at our financial position. Look at our strength. Why keep us out?"
But when my right hon. Friend spoke about paying off the external debt I could not help reflecting at the time, and have asked myself since: why not pay off some of the internal debt? For example, if there is so much money floating about, what about paying off the post-war credits? Or why not pay some of the back pay to which a large number of workpeople are entitled as a result of negotiation? I dismiss the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a moment—or, perhaps, for the whole of this proceeding——
Sir Douglas Glover: For good?
Mr. Shinwell: No, not for good. We have to put up with him, whether we like it or not.
Having made those few observations, I should like to remind the House of the criticism to which some of us have been subjected. We have been called all sorts of names. I have been accustomed to that for many years, and have survived, but some of the things that have been
1534
said about some of my hon. Friends and, in particular, about myself, deserve a reply.
We have been described as "Little Englanders", as anti-Europeans, as being obtuse, obdurate, obstinate, perverse— and, worst of all, as ancient Britons. I am proud to be a Briton—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I mean what I say. As for being ancient, it is not my fault. It just happened.
I have received since the beginning of the discussion—it began a few weeks ago—more than 1,000 letters, all individual letters. I have almost thought of asking the Postmaster-General to allow me to buy a sub-post office. This has become something of a burden. I have received many letters from people in the country who describe themselves as "Ancient Britons". Some of them have suggested that we might form a club. I do not want to frighten hon. Members, but some have suggested that we might form an Ancient Britons Party—remember, there are more than 6 million of them, all ancient Britons—a formidable, powerful organisation that we might create. In a period of time when there is disquiet about the decline of Parliamentary democracy and the decline of Parliament itself and when many people say that neither this Government nor the previous Government, neither the Labour Party nor the Tory Party are capable of dealing with our problems, there is an opportunity. I might even become president of this Ancient Britons Party.
I do not want to frighten hon. Members too much, but I received one letter to which I direct attention. Perhaps I had better read it. Someone wrote to me:
"You may be an ancient Briton …"
I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I did not make this point. This is the letter sent to me, I assure him. I do not wish him any harm, but this is what the writer said:
"You may be an ancient Briton, but a heifer usually finishes up as an old cow."
In deference to my hon. Friend I shall not read the rest, but I am bound to say to him that, ancient though I am, I am no expert in medical diagnosis and I

1535
wish him no harm. He will be very fortunate if he becomes an ancient Briton.
It is about time I addressed myself to the subject of the debate. In doing so I am bound to make some reference to the probing activities of my two right hon. Friends, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I have sometimes wondered whether in the course of the probing activities they actually discovered what the French objections were to our membership of the Common Market. I have also wondered whether it was not perhaps a trifle humiliating to go appealing to the French in the way that has been done. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote an article in the Sunday Express in 1963—the Sunday Express, a Beaverbrook newspaper; hon. Members know what they are.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Anti-Common Market.
Mr. Shinwell: The article said:
"Next month Mr. Harold Macmillan goes to Rome, His purpose: to beg the Italian Government to do its best to help Britain into the Common Market. It is a humiliating trip for a British Prime Minister, and one that hardly bodes well for the strength of our position if we actually join the Six… Mr. Macmillan is making another attempt to buy support for his Common Market bid, which is not only humiliating but profoundly perilous."
Then there is this extract from HANSARD:
"the impression created, not least by the Prime Minister …"
That was Harold Macmillan—
"this is a serious aspect of it—was of a Government falling over itself to get into Europe at almost any price."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 1273.]
That is what I am afraid of, to get into Europe at almost any price. I am not going to follow the line taken by other hon. Members and to retail the process of conversion for which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is responsible. I understand the evolutionary process. There was a time when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might almost have been described in this context as a reluctant debutante, an opponent, a definite, vigorous, active opponent of entry into the Common Market. Now my right hon. Friend appears as a supporter with reservations and doubts.
1536
I had better leave the narrative of what has happened in the past and the statements which have been made in the past. They are a bit embarrassing. But there is one which I think ought to be read. It is a statement made in Montreal in 1964. I shall not give the whole of it but a part referring to the conditions stipulated by the Labour Party. Apart from erosion here and there, it still exists, as indeed the Prime Minister himself and the Foreign Secretary have admitted, and that should be emphasised. The Prime Minister said:
"Those conditions were then, and are now, the only conditions on which we were, …."
Please note this—
"or 'at any future time will be, prepared to consider entry into the European Economic Community."
"Or at any future time", that is now, next week and during the negotiations. Definite assurances, stipulated conditions, firm, pragmatic—we can use many adjectives about this, but that is clearly understood.
I come to what I regard as the crux of this problem. I should like in that context to refer to the remarkable speech made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. When the right hon. Gentleman was engaged in his negotiations a few years ago and I frequently questioned him and argued against him, as he well knows I always admitted his integrity. There is no question about that. He believed in what he was doing. Perhaps I should say this. It is something of a disgression but I think it ought to be said. I respect the sincerity of every hon. Member who takes part in this discussion. I understand it. Difference of opinion does not mean that one has no respect for the opinions of others. I recognise that.
I recall the situation in which Ramsay Macdonald found himself in 1931. Frequently I have been asked what I thought of his quality at the time and how he felt about it. My reply has always been that he believed that he was doing the right thing. I disputed it with him at the time. I told him to remain Leader of the Opposition. He was furious with me. I had been intimate with him for a long time. He believed he was right. I believe that is the case with the Prime Minister, but in the case of the Foreign Secretary he believes when he wishes to believe.

1537
Surely hon. Members who listened to his speech today must agree with that. He made no new contribution to the debate. It was a repetition of what is familiar to every hon. Member who has followed these discussions, but of course the Foreign Secretary has integrity. There is no question about that. I do not doubt that for a moment. He is a dedicated European and always has been. He is desperately anxious to get in. He is flushed with feverish anxiety to get in. The problem is: how far will he go in negotiations in order to get in?
That is why I propose, as I have intimated, to refer to the speech made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Before doing so, I want to refer to a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in answer to myself, when I asked him some weeks ago whether he regarded entry into the Common Market as the road to political unity. He disputed that with me. I have his reply here. My right hon. Friend said that there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which compels us to accept political unity; there is no political objective in our minds. He has changed his mind since. If that is disputed, I can read his answer.
I can understand that over a period of time, after reflection, meditation and consideration, and after trying to understand the problem, one changes one's view. But this is the kind of thing which, it might be said, is like the man on the flying trapeze. This is an acrobatic feat which we never expected to happen. Only a few weeks ago my right hon. Friend said that there was no question of political unity. Now it is the objective; and I have always believed that it was.
During the discussions which took place a few years ago I never objected to some kind of economic understanding—a reduction in tariffs, commercial arrangements, technological improvement, anything of the sort. We have to live with other people. Multilateral trade, bilateral arrangements—of course; we all understand that. But political unity of the type which some of those represented in the Six have in mind I have always strongly objected to.
I have before me a copy of "The Round Table" issued in January of this year, so it is comparatively recent, on this subject of political unity, which con-
1538
tains a statement made by one of the founders of the Economic Community, M. Spaak. I will read what he says. It ought to be understood, because it is of the utmost importance in trying to ensure a correct appreciation of what the objective is and what we are up against. M. Spaak says this:
"At this point, a very important question has to be raised. If Great Britain is one day to join the Treaty of Rome, is she ready to accept all the political implications? Is she prepared to pursue step by step the stages which would lead to a united political Europe? In 1963, Mr. Heath was categorically affirmative on this point".
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Shinwell: That is perfectly true. M. Spaak continues:
"and his statement greatly facilitated the negotiations. What is the position now? I must confess that it does not appear clear to me; and yet it is essential that all misunderstandings and uncertainties should be dispelled. If Great Britain wanted to limit her adhesion to the economic clauses of the Treaty of Rome while rejecting its political objective, we would be placed in an extremely difficult situation."
I hope that my hon. Friends who are prepared to accept some economic understanding with the countries of the Six, but who strongly object to a political objective such as M. Spaak refers to, and who do not want a European Parliament, a supranational government and the subordination of Westminster which would be bound to happen eventually, will take note of what has been said. This is the view I have always held. It is nothing new.
What is the implication of it all? It arose yesterday in the course of the debate when the Leader of the Opposition made a statement which I shall now read. There was a bit of an altercation between the two Front Benches over this. The Leader of the Opposition said that he thought that my two right hon. Friends were a bit shocked at what was said. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said:
"We have said that we will support the Government in their application. Having gone through these negotiations myself, I do not wish to see our present negotiators subjected to the sort of things that we were subjected to. I know what is means."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1302.]
I should like to ask the Leader of the Opposition: what was the obstacle in 1963? What was General de Gaulle

1539
objecting to? Was it some economic adjustment? Was it some matter of agricultural policy? Could it possibly have been something like this—I have it here—the Nassau Agreement? Could it have been? When I sought to intervene in the right hon. Gentleman's speech yesterday, he refused to yield. I am ready to yield. This is very important. We are entitled to know, and the country is entitled to know, whether at the end of the day there will be a deal with General de Gaulle on the subject of the abandonment or the renegotiation of the Nassau Agreement and whether General de Gaulle is going to be top dog so far as military affairs on the Continent of Europe are concerned. We want to know. What is the obstacle?
I will ask a question of my right hon. Friends who have to negotiate this question. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said quite honestly this afternoon that we have friends in Europe— Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Luxembourg and Italy. He left out France. Who is the obstacle? Is it General de Gaulle? What is to be the nature of the negotiations with General de Gaulle? What are they to be about? The Commonwealth? My right hon. Friends are prepared to make adjustments there. They have said so. The agricultural policy? They are prepared to make adjustments. The lesser issues which have been referred to? All these can be the subject of adjustments.
Then what is it that would placate General de Gaulle? Is it in the sphere of defence? For, if it is, we ought to know before the negotiations take place.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will say that these are matters of a confidential character and when we ask questions in the course of the next few months about the negotiations we shall get the same answer. That is the kind of answer which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition used to give to me very often when I asked questions. We shall be told, "These matters are confidential", until there is a fait accompli. We must try to prevent a fait accompli of that kind that ties us up not merely body and soul, hand and foot, in the economic sphere, but which ties us up to some military arrangement about which we are entitled to know and to which we are entitled, if
1540
we so decide, to object. We ought to have answers on that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who is to wind up tonight will give us some indication of it.
In any event, does the Nassau Agreement still remain? The Polaris submarine part—does it still remain? The Atlantic force—does it still remain? Where do we stand in the matter of defence? Is the subject of defence to be one of the topics that are to be negotiated? If so, we are entitled to know. I leave it there, although much more could be said.
I do not often commit anything to writing, except when I do so for the Press, and provided the fees are substantial. There is nothing wrong in that. I just follow the lead of many others. In any case, one has to earn a living. Besides, one must look ahead; one has to consider one's future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There is much more in that observation than may appear at first sight, because, if we should eventually be absorbed in a European Parliament——
Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose——
Mr. Shinwell: No, I prefer not. I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but it would interrupt the thread of my discourse, and I am coming to a conclusion.
Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose——
Mr. Shinwell: Tell me about it afterwards.
Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend wanted to know about the Nassau Agreement.
Mr. Shinwell: I ask my hon. Friend not to make the differences more acute than they need be. Let us not disturb our harmony.
Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend asked about the Nassau Agreement, and I want to say something about that.
Mr. Shinwell: We shall get the answer from my right hon. Friend who is to wind up.
Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend's objection to going in based on the Nassau Agreement?
Mr. Shinwell: My objection to going in is that I do not know all the facts. I do not know what is to be negotiated.

1541
I shall not be in the negotiations, and neither will my hon. Friend. I want to know. We are entitled to know. Even the Opposition, who will be going into the Lobby with the Government tonight, are entitled to know, and I am surprised that they have not asked more questions about it—but perhaps that would embarrass the Leader of the Opposition. We must avoid that at all costs, because we might put him in such an embarrassing situation that, at the end of the day, he might decide not to go into the Lobby with the Government.
I was dealing with a personal matter just now when I was interrupted, and I shall now come back to it. I have to consider my future and I should like to know whether, if we go in, our pensions will be safeguarded.
Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Yes, they are all right.
Mr. Shinwell: Are they? I do not know. I should like to have an assurance about it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw says that they are all right.
Mr. Bellenger: Shall I tell my right hon. Friend why?
Mr. Shinwell: Yes, certainly.
Mr. Bellenger: As one of the trustees of the Fund, I can tell my right hon. Friend that there are considerable sums of money provided by hon. Members themselves and by the Treasury, and these are all safely invested, many of them in Commonwealth securities.
Mr. Shinwell: In Commonwealth securities? I am more apprehensive than ever. I must go on writing for the newspapers.
I have ventured to put a final few words in writing. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for this, but I do not want my views to be misrepresented, and this may happen when one speaks off the cuff. I wanted to put it on record. It will not take long.
I take note of the assurances by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Commonwealth Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture. As regards the Prime Minister, there is a possibility, perhaps remote, that he will endeavour to extract the most favourable conditions
1542
during the negotiations. But in the case of the Foreign Secretary, who, as I have already remarked, is and always has been a dedicated European and has sincere convictions, I regret—I mean what I say—being unable to accept his assurances.
The principal obstacle, as we know, is General de Gaulle. The Foreign Secretary will do his utmost to persuade the Prime Minister in an effort to placate the General and to ensure British entry into the Common Market, and he may even be ready to sweep all the conditions under the carpet. That is my view.
I suspect that the reservations which have been stated by Ministers are intended for internal consumption in order to placate members of the party. It will be another story when negotiations begin. All the familiar arguments, the slogans, the assertions, the assumptions and the speculations, are being trotted out, but precious little evidence which would justify Britain's association with the Common Market. The people of this country are far from unanimous. Will that be denied? The Gallup Polls are a deception, loaded with loaded questions.
No Government have ever been entrusted with a mandate from the electors. In the Labour election manifesto in 1964 only a brief reference was made to this subject. It was then regarded as a "dead duck", and at the last election there was hardly a whisper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, just a whisper. It is doubtful if any candidate referred to the subject or was asked a question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
Dr. Hugh Gray: Lots of us were asked questions and we referred to it. My right hon. Friend must know that.
Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend is so youthful in political affairs that he does not realise that people did not understand or know very much about it even in asking a question. Certainly, no questions were asked of me.
Dr. Gray: If my right hon. Friend wants to know, they asked questions continually. It is not a matter of age. My right hon. Friend knows this quite well.
Mr. Shinwell: I repeat that it was certainly not an issue at the last election.
Dr. Gray: That depends on the constituency.
Mr. Shinwell: Do not get excited.
Dr. Gray: I shall get excited if I want to.
Mr. Shinwell: What can I do? If my hon. Friend will get excited, I cannot prevent him.
Mr. Edward Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way for a moment? I know that he always wishes to be fair. He may express his own views as to the attention devoted to this matter by his own party, but I can tell him that, for the Conservative Party, it was a clear obligation in the party manifesto, and in the great majority of Conservative candidates' election addresses it appeared as a specific pledge. I discussed it personally as leader of the party in every speech I made and in television broadcasts.
Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman says that, I accept it; but what was the result? I always try to be fair. If there is objection raised to what I have said, I can only say that in the North-East and the northern area there was never a word said about it. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the same in the South."] The candidate who fought me, who, by the way, was one of the officials of the Tory Party organisation, never mentioned it. But let that pass. Let the question be withdrawn. Is that satisfactory? Does that satisfy my hon. Friend?
Dr. Gray: All right.
Mr. Shinwell: Thank you very much.
It is notorious that those engaged in finance and a section of our industrial concerns—this aspect of the matter was dealt with yesterday by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) in a remarkable and cogent speech—all concerned with special and, for the most part, selfish interest—and, of course, Mr. Cecil King of the Daily Mirror are unanimous. But they do not represent this country. They represent only themselves.
Despite all the extravagant propaganda and the comparative silence of the Press—and that is putting it mildly—the
1544
Labour Party is sharply divided. There is also a minority in the Tory Party and beyond doubt there is division not only in the Cabinet, but among junior members of the Government. I fully understand and respect the enforced silence of many of my colleagues. I take no objection and I merely state a fact.
If the public ignores these facts and fails to make the strongest protests before negotiations begin, we shall be faced by decisions in which the public has had no voice. In the short run we shall, as is admitted by Government spokesmen, suffer rising prices, the effect of severe competition, perhaps increased unemployment, and all on the assumption that in the years ahead, some say five—that was what the Leader of the Liberal Party said yesterday—some say ten—that is what the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) said yesterday—some say even longer, benefits may accrue.
Long before then the Commonwealth will be disrupted, will probably vanish as the magnificent moral force it is. We shall be tied hand and foot, body and soul, to a bureaucracy in Brussels, or Paris, or even Bonn, shackled by regulations about which we have had no say and unable to raise issues in the Parliament at Westminster vital to our domestic, legal, financial and foreign interests. I must place on record that this represents my firm conviction.
After all the pros and cons have been argued in this debate, I remain a convinced and unrepentant opponent of the Government's policy. I am a supporter of the Government's general policy, but here we must part company. I shall not take advantage of the new liberalisation of the Parliamentary party and abstain. Those who abstain from voting do not support the Government. The only difference between the abstainers and those who, like myself, will vote deliberately against the Government is just this—and I state it firmly: I have strong convictions; so have those who abstain; I have the courage of my convictions. That is the difference.
I shall seek no favours whatever the consequences. Hon. Members—and I say this most sincerely and earnestly—will, I am sure, vote honestly in accord with their convictions. I respect them. I shall not be false to my convictions.
5.33 p.m.
Sir Lionel Heald: I have promised to be brief and it would not be in accordance with the custom of the House for me to comment on the "resignation" speech of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), made from the appropriate seat. Perhaps we ought to apologise to him if it was not heard in silence. I think everyone will agree that that was because it was one of the most entertaining and happiest resignation speeches ever heard in the House, delivered with that inimitable manner which all of us admire, even though we might disagree with the right hon. Gentleman.
I propose to address myself to the single issue of the legal aspect of entry, a matter about which a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to hear more from the Government before the debate ends. To save lime, I say at once that I entirely agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said yesterday, which in effect was that he accepted the view, put forward by the Lord Chancellor in another place, that the legal considerations certainly did not justify rejection of the proposal to apply for membership.
It should be made plain, however, that a number of arguments have been put forward against entry which are quite unfounded and misleading. They merely darken counsel, because they detract attention from the issues which really matter. I want as shortly as I can to point out what these misleading arguments are and, secondly, briefly to mention two or three issues on which the House is entitled to definite assurances.
As for the bad points; many hon. Members have read with interest, and in many cases with surprise, an article in their favourite breakfast newspaper the other day with the striking headline:
"If you're not guilty—prove it."
That article contained a number of assertions as to what would be the effect of going into the Common Market, and I ought to briefly mention them. The suggestion in the headline was definitely that the ordinary rules of criminal procedure and evidence would have to be altered if we went into the Common Market. That is nonsense. As the Lord Chan-
1546
cellor explained in another place and as the Prime Minister explained here, the criminal law of this country and the essentials of the whole law of this country are not touched in any way by the Treaty of Rome.
Then I read this:
"Even the nation's food will change … Your jam, for example, may have to taste like French 'confiture'",
I thought that it was Beachcomber's article which I was reading, but apparently it was to be serious, because it went on to say that anyone who broke the Community's rules dealing, for instance, with restrictive practices in Community trade would be liable to have his premises searched and his books investigated by foreign inspectors, who would be entitled to drag him off to a Continental court to be punished without the intervention of any British court. Again, to put it mildly, that is just not the case. As the Prime Minister pointed out, an infraction of laws of that kind would be dealt with as a breach of our law by British courts and enforced by British authorities. Any inspection would take place under the direction of the court.
The writer even went on to suggest that in the Community "one smooth, bland, anonymous system of uniformed law" would have to be introduced, apparently overnight, and he drew attention in particular to Article 100.
Mr. Robert Maxwell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoting from War Cry?
Sir L. Heald: I mentioned Beachcomber and thought that that was sufficient identification for this purpose.
I was saying that the writer quoted Article 100. As sometimes happens in these articles he did not quote it completely. I will read the article, leaving out part of it, as was done in the newspaper. It says:
"The Council shall … issue directives for the approximation of such legislative and administrative provisions of Member States as directly affect the establishment or operation of the Common Market."
The newspaper article left out the words "by a unanimous decision", so it will be seen that we have a complete and absolute power to prevent that being done. Any lawyer who has read the Treaty would know that this is what Dr. Johnson called "sad" nonsense. It is sad, because there

1547
are millions of people who read this and believe it. I have already had letters from people quoting it and asking me, as I am a lawyer, why I am supporting something which will turn the law of the land upside down. It is not true. I will not quote my reply to the letters, but I hope that I replied in a way which will be generally approved.
That newspaper article is about 80 per cent. bunk. This ought to be said. If anyone thinks that I am being gratuitously offensive about this, I would point out that the article begins by saying:
"If our 109 lawyer Members of Parliament honour the country above party there is one special issue they must raise "
I am therefore speaking out, and I believe that we all will.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I do not recall having read the newspaper article to which my right hon. and learned Friend refers, but to deal with Article 100, on the approximation of laws, there are directives already issued on a unanimous vote by the Community, obviously without the necessity of our consent. Those are directly binding on this country and in that we have no say.
Sir L. Heald: My right hon. and learned Friend has anticipated my next point. There are three matters on which I ask for further reassurance and elucidation. The first has to do with new regulations. We ought to have much more explanation about the safeguards which will exist. There is plenty of provision for discussion and consultation with bodies such as trade unions and employers and other organisations. There is discussion before the Commission, and eventually the Minister can take part in the discussion. No doubt we shall be able to have a discussion here before the Minister goes to the meeting at which the regulation will be introduced. I would like to know if further steps are to be taken, such as laying the Order before the House? That would not be a very revolutionary thing to do, because, as we know from experience, if the Government were in favour of it, they would be able to get it through quite easily.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) is quite right in saying that there are already existing regulations that could be very awkward for us. May
1548
we have an assurance that there will be negotiations providing, for example, for the possibility of an amendment? Amendment is possible, or it might be dealt with in that way, in some cases by transitional provisions. In some cases there are protocols. Can we have an assurance that that will be done?
There is another very important aspect of this. Already there is in force—whether it is a directive, I do not know—something unanimously agreed, which provides that all the members will adopt the added value taxation system in 1970. The Prime Minister made some remarks about this. I heard them at the time, and I have read them again, but with the greatest respect I think that they mean absolutely nothing at all, except that this is something to be considered. Are we to accept this? How will we function in a Community in which every one else except us has an added value taxation system? Do the Government accept that it is a good system? If they think that it is a bad one, what will they do about it?
It has been suggested that lawyers in this House are not taking an interest in this matter. This is not so. I believe that they are taking a great interest. I have the honour to be the chairman of a committee of Conservative lawyers which is considering these matters at present. The views that I have expressed are, in principle, the views held by the committee. I am sure that the same thing applies to hon. and learned and hon. Gentlemen opposite. We are all prepared to help in this matter. If one believes, as I do, that we ought to make every effort to get into the Community on a proper basis, then we ought to be prepared to assist in a practical and constructive way, not to find ingenious or imaginative reasons in order to say that, given a certain hypothetical reason, we should not go in. We should try to find some workable and reasonable way to deal with the legal problems which undoubtedly exist.
5.46 p.m.
Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has rightly pointed out some of the problems about the law and the orders. I, too, would like to know more about the procedure to be followed in this House. Until

1549
he brought evidence on the point, I had not believed that Beachcomber had taken over the whole of that newspaper, but it must be so. As to the added value tax, I recently asked the Chancellor a Question which I should like to follow up by asking for further information.
I have heard most of the debate in the last two days, and all of today's debate, and to me the most powerful argument against going into the Lobby in support of the Government's Motion is the danger of us becoming part of a land-locked arganisation—land-locked in Brussels or Strasbourg. In other words, land-locked in an organisation in which we would be counting our motor cars and washing machines and trying to keep up with the Joneses, the Duponts and the Schmidts. That is an important argument, and if I did not believe that there was an answer to it, I would certainly not be supporting the Government's Motion tonight.
However, there is an answer to this. When we go into the Community the Council of Europe will continue. If we play our full part we will not be inward-looking. The Community deals almost entirely with economic matters—trade, industry, agriculture, finance and so on— but the Council of Europe concentrates on political, cultural, legal and social matters. This will continue, even if the Community is made bigger. The two organisations are complementary.
We can see this if we compare the agenda of the European Parliament with that of the Assembly of the Council of Europe. The task of the European Parliament is to implement the Treaty of Rome, and the Council of Europe Assembly discusses a far wider range of problems. When Britain is a member of the Community we, like France, Germany and Italy, will have 36 members in that expanded European Parliament. We will also still have our 18 Members in the Assembly of the Council of Europe and have our Foreign Secretary on the Committee of Ministers.
If we seek a wider Europe and refuse to become land-locked in Brussels and Strasbourg, the Council of Europe is the key because of the Statute of the Council of Europe. For example, the Statute allows the Assembly to discuss topical questions—that is, anything except military matters. During the last session ten days ago we discussed the coup d'état in
1550
Greece and the "Torrey Canyon". Furthermore, the Statute is flexible enough for us to allow a member State to choose the activities in which it participates and makes it possible for non-member States to take part in particular activities. For example, the Soviet Union at this moment is taking part in technical discussions on patents.
We in this country are, by our history, accustomed to looking outwards across the Continent and across the sea. When we are in the Community we can ensure that the Council of Europe plays its part in establishing better relations with Eastern Europe, and the place to begin is in technical co-operation. The Council of Europe's intergovernmental programme of work provides an ideal framework for 'technical co-operation in matters like public health.
If the Community is enlarged and this country, Ireland, Denmark and Norway, join, there will still be many Council of Europe countries left outside, such as Cyprus, Greece, Iceland, Malta and Turkey, as well as the neutral countries— Austria, Sweden and Switzerland. The Committee of Ministers and the Assembly of the Council of Europe will remain as the places in which these countries can have their say on European problems. As in the past, the Council of Europe will be the link between those countries which are in the Community and those countries which are outside it.
The Council of Europe looks not only across Europe but across the seas to the developing countries. In the Council of Europe we have welcomed speakers from all over the world. In the last year, we have had with us U Thant and speakers from Asia and Africa and North and South America. Our policy is to continue this practice. If I had my way, we would also have Ministers from Eastern Europe.
At the last meeting of the Assembly of the Council of Europe ten days ago, a resolution was adopted unanimously by the Political Committee. In one of the paragraphs it expresses the belief
"that the expansion of the European Communities by the inclusion of the United Kingdom and other countries is essential for the strengthening of Europe both politically and economically."
That resolution was endorsed by the Assembly.

1551
Yet another reason why the Assembly, which, after all, is made up of Members of Parliament from 18 European countries, wants this country to be in the Community is our tradition of concern for developing countries.
Captain Walter Elliot: Was the resolution endorsed unanimously?
Sir G. de Freitas: No. I was in the Chair at the time, and a few, but a very few, hands were raised against it. It was accepted unanimously in the Political Committee, which contained representatives of, for example, the majority party in France.
Our friends in the Assembly feel that another former colonial Power is of value in the Community to strengthen those who wish to press that the rich industrial countries should do more for the developing countries of Asia and Africa. It may sound strange to refer to the respect in which the former colonial Powers are held, but the fact is that, however one reads the figures, taking the gross national product, Belgium, Britain, France and the Netherlands come out as the countries contributing most help to the developing countries. I am not speculating on the reasons for that. I am merely stating the fact which came out in the debate ten days ago in which some hon. Members took part or heard.
We have in this country a particular obligation to the developing Commonwealth. Certainly I should not have left the House a few years ago and gone to Africa if I had not believed that this was of tremendous importance. But we must beware of the dangers of paternalism and of appearing to be patronising. I speak from first-hand knowledge only of the new African countries which feel themselves ready to run their own affairs.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to Nigeria, which has become an associate member of the Common Market, and to the fact that Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania and perhaps Ghana will possibly negotiate to become associate members. These new countries want to look after themselves. They believe first, that if we were in a larger market our economy would be strengthened, and, secondly, that inside the
1552
Community—this is another way of stating the point which I have just made— we shall remind the others with little or no colonial experience of the rich nations' duty to the poorer nations.
Mr. J. T. Price: I, too, have been a member of the Council of Europe for about three years. Our friends on the Continent even outside the Market, with whom we have excellent relations, have not made anything like the sacrifices which this country has made on behalf of the developing countries. This country is taking 35 per cent. of the textile products of the developing countries, whereas the Continental countries are taking no more than 4 per cent. I have protested about this at Strasbourg and the Council of Europe until I am blue in the face, but they pass "holier than thou" resolutions and do nothing about it. Therefore, I am not very impressed by that argument in support of our going into the Common Market.
Sir G. de Freitas: I hope my hon. Friend will accept my point that we have such a good record that, if they want us in, it is a measure of their belief in our sincerity and initiative. That is what has happened, not only in Strasbourg but in the European Left. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to that a few days ago. The recent European Left resolution said that it was convinced that the entry of the United Kingdom into the E.E.C. will make a most valuable contribution in every field. This was passed after discussion at the conference of the Socialist Parties of Western Europe.
I have recently returned to the Council of Europe after a long gap. When I first went there 16 years ago, I believed, like most members of the British delegation, that a European nation of 50 million people had an important part to play in the modern world. All the other countries with populations the size of ours, 50 million—Germany, France and Italy—which sent delegations had been defeated and over-run and had lost faith in the nation State. But we had not. We had won; we had not been defeated.
However, during the last 16 years it has become obvious to many of us that there is not a very great future today for a country of 50 million people in a world dominated by huge countries like the United States, the U.S.S.R., and, very

1553
soon, China. Therefore, like most hon. Members—as, I am sure, the Division will show—I look to Europe knowing that we have much to offer our fellow Europeans.
One of the problems—and let us be frank—is that in the same way as I said that we had not been defeated, General de Gaulle was never defeated and he is— [Interruption]—this is uncanny, being so often interrupted by Black Rod.
Mr. David Webster: The right hon. Gentleman would never get this at Strasbourg.

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

1.Local Government (Termination of Reviews) Act, 1967.

2.Private Places of Entertainment(Licensing) Act 1967.

3.Housing (Financial Provisions, &c.) (Scotland) Act 1967.

4.Road Traffic Act 1967.

5.Agriculture Act 1967.

6.Royal Assent Act 1967.

7.Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967.

8.National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Amendment) Act 1967.

9.Merchant Shipping Act 1967.

10.Merchant Shipping (Load Lines) Act 1967.

11.Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967.

12.Housing Subsidies Act 1967.

13.Road Safety Act 1967.

14.Commonwealth Settlement Act 1967.

15.Development of Inventions Act 1967.

16.Air Corporations Act 1967.

17.Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act 1967.

1554

18.Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Act 1967.

19.Saint Mary-le-Park, Battersea Act 1967.

20.Bath University of Technology Act 1967.

21.Newcastle-under-Lyme Burgesses' Lands Act 1967.

22.East Kilbride Burgh Act 1967.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MEMBERSHIP)
6.14 p.m.
Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
Sir G. de Freitas: I am very glad indeed that I had the chance of hearing that Royal Assent had been given to the Royal Assent Act, because I have had the uncanny fortune of being on my feet and making a speech several times recently when we have been summoned to hear the Royal Assent given. The odds against this happening to one Member so often must be fantastic. However, it cannot happen again.
I will try to come back to the point I was making. The point I was making —I think it was; it is very difficult to be interrupted in midstream—was that in 1951 when I first went to the Council of Europe, like most of the members of our delegation, I did not believe that the day of the sovereign nation State of 50 million people was over. I thought such a country had a large role in the world, and today, 16 years later, we find that after all a great change has taken place. Many of the countries of that size in Europe were defeated and overrun during the war. We were not. We were on the victorious side, whereas the other big countries were defeated. I believe that is one of the reasons—as it is also one of the problems—why we appeared to be more nationalistic, and less willing to surrender our sovereignty than other countries. I believe that one of the problems today is that though France was defeated during the war General de Gaulle was not defeated, and General de Gaulle still feels, as we felt in 1951, that the rôle of the 50 million nation State is relevant in the world. This is one of the problems we have to face.

1555
We have talked in this debate about going into Europe or not going into Europe, and that disguises the fact that we are already deeply involved in Europe. Let me give two examples. I have been talking a good deal of the Council of Europe and I will take two illustrations from it. First, this country has accepted more of the Council of Europe's international agreements and conventions than any of the 18 countries except three, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark. We are deeply in Europe. Secondly, more than 170 members of this House and of the other place have served at Strasbourg. We are deeply in Europe and we are European.
I see here hon. Friends of mine and hon. Members opposite who have been on the delegation to Strasbourg, and I am sure that they have had the same experience as I have felt in looking at that semicircle of 150 members of the Assembly drawn from 18 countries of Europe and sitting there, not by nation or by party, but in alphabetical order of their surnames. It is impossible to tell what their nationalities were— except, possibly, 5 per cent., one could say, came from one part of Europe and possibly 5 per cent. from another. We are sitting among our fellow Europeans.
I see this Motion we are going to vote on tonight as a step, the next step, in getting further involved in Europe.
My earliest memory is of a German bomb falling on London in the First World War. I see the last two wars as European civil wars, and they have convinced me of the stupidity of the European nation State.
Mr. William Molloy: Civil wars between States?
Sir G. de Freitas: Civil wars, yes. Wars of one part of Europe against another: yes, I mean civil wars in Europe.
When I returned to the House from Africa a few years ago, what distressed me was to find that some of the great nations of Europe had become reinfected with nationalism. What an appalling example that was to set the new countries, African countries particularly, where we have been preaching to them not to go back to tribalism.
In Europe we are fortunate in having a long and a rich civilisation; we are
1556
blessed materially and spiritually; we have great advantages and we have great opportunities. One of these opportunities is to set an example to these new countries in international co-operation and of living together in peace. In years to come, when we are all gone, perhaps only two or three of us remembered, this day, I am convinced, will be seen as not only a great day in the history of Britain, but also as a great day in the history of Europe, and perhaps also as a great day in the history of the world.
6.14 p.m.
Mr. John Hall: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his very interesting speech, because I think that there must be something like 80 Members whose names are still on the list of those who wish to speak in the debate, and, therefore, to let others in, I want to be as brief as possible.
I wonder how many hon. and right hon. Members in this House have had the experience—I am sure some of them have—of going to church and reflecting that those not already strong in the Christian faith, after listening to the sermon, ran a very considerable danger of emerging from the church with no faith at all. I am moved to that reflection by speeches I have been listening to during the three days of this debate, particularly the speeches from the Front Bench on the Government side.
With the sole exception of the speech which we heard today from the Foreign Secretary, in the course of which he made it clear that he is a dedicated European, the major speeches, excellent and detailed though they were, seemed in logic to be more against entry than for it. The Minister of Agriculture's speech last night has been referred to already both by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well). That was a first-class example of what I mean.
In the few moments left last night, I was moved to intervene to suggest to the Minister that we should see him going into the Lobby against the Motion. In the interval between the beginning of my speech and its continuation now, I have had time for more mature reflection,

1557
and I am sure that my reaction last night was born instinctively from the sombre picture which the Minister painted about the effect of entry on our agriculture and horticulture, to which he made a passing reference, and on the cost of living and our balance of payments.
Mr. John Wells: Far from making any reference to horticulture, the Minister skated over it, dismissing it in a sentence and neglecting it entirely, as he has done throughout.
Mr. Hall: Perhaps I did not express myself very well. I said that the Minister made a passing reference to horticulture, and I think that that is a fair way of putting it.
His sombre picture created in me the reaction that, after all this, surely he would be voting against the Motion. However, on mature reflection, I am sure that his feet will lead him into the Lobby on the Government side tonight, although I should not like to say where his spirit will be.
It has been said, and I have no doubt that it will be said many more times before we vote, that the House is about to take one of the most fateful decisions that it has taken for centuries. I have heard it said that this is the most fateful event since 1066. However, it must be remembered that, on that occasion, Harold was killed and the French won. I hope that we do not see history repeating itself, although we must be aware that the French hostility to which the right hon. Member for Kettering has referred might kill both the application and the political reputation of the Prime Minister.
I do not quite agree that the decision which we are expected to take tonight is the most important one that we shall have to take for many years. There is a long road to travel between the time that we make application to enter and the time that we actually enter, and much may happen in the intervening period to influence our final decision about entry. It is that final decision which may prove to be the most important in the history of our country. When, if ever, the House is required to take that final decision—I hope that I am right in assuming that the House will be able to take a final decision and that the vote tonight is not irrevocable—I trust that it will not be
1558
found necessary to whip us through the Lobbies in support of the Government's policy.
We all know what a three-line Whip is, and we know that, when any hon. Member has strong conscientious objections to a policy, it is understood that he ignores the three-line Whip, as I am certain that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will ignore it tonight. However, that is not understood outside the House to anything like the same degree, and it would be much more impressive if the Government's decision tonight was backed by a free vote and not a pressed one. Putting a three-line Whip on in these circumstances, particularly on this side of the House, debases its value.
In view of the Whip which exists on both sides, it is clear that nothing said in the debate will change the Government's decision to apply. I must make it clear that I welcome the conversion of the Prime Minister, as others have before me. It is said that there is more joy in Brussels over one sinner that repenteth than over many other people, and I am glad that the Prime Minister has been converted in such a remarkable way.
Despite some reservations which I shall express later, I am particularly impressed that the Prime Minister, in a speech lasting an hour and 25 minutes, should have deployed the most telling arguments against entry, only to come down at the end in favour of going in. That is a triumph of faith, hope and, on our side, charity. It is a remarkable feat, and he must be congratulated on having apparently inspired all his colleagues in the Government with that same faith.
It is said that the possible advantages of entering are not quantifiable. That is a word which has been used quite a lot during the debate, and I promise that that is the first and last time that I shall use it. The arguments for the long-term benefits are based upon imponderables, but that it the stuff of which faith is made, and it is on faith that the Government have decided to make application. It is faith triumphing over fact. It has made it possible for honour to be satised, and that is why no member of the Government has found it necessary to resign. Whatever doubts I may have about the reasoning behind the policy, I am impressed by this act of faith.

1559
I was particularly impressed by the way in which members of the Government accepted the figure of £100 million which the Prime Minister plucked out of the air as being the annual cost to the country of entering the Community. In a fairly long passage considering the possible cost implications but without prior arithmetic, that figure emerged suddenly as, at the same time, did the figure of a 3 per cent. growth rate with which it was associated. If ever there was an act of faith, it was to say that we shall have an annual growth rate of 3 per cent, from which the cost of entering can be met. Apparently that is accepted by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, despite the reasoned arguments in The Times which gave estimated figures of something between £500 and £800 million as the possible cost of entry. In passing, one might have thought that the article could have been written by the President of the Board of Trade before his conversion, but we know that it was not, although it was very much along his line of thought.
During the debate, neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer challenged the figures in The Times, except to say that they did not accept them. In my present state of half faith, I am almost prepared to accept that attitude of mind.
I was impressed, too, by the way in which the House has been hypnotised into sitting through a debate of two and a half days without any real attempt to get down to a discussion of the lesser issues which can best be dealt with after entry. There has been only a passing reference to those issues, and that was in answer to an intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). The topic was passed off on the grounds that we must not allow our application to be cluttered up by detail. That is probably quite right, but the House ought at least to know what are some of the lesser issues which it is thought that we shall have to negotiate when we get in. I am the last person to say that we should attempt to impose conditions when making application, but at least we in this House should have the information which we want.
Despite all this impressive evidence of faith, which must put men of little faith
1560
To shame, I confess that I am uneasy about two matters. One is the timing of the application. The other is the feeling that the nation as a whole does not really understand the implications of entry.
I have not been one of those urging the Prime Minister to maintain the momentum of negotiation. I have always believed that the economy must be strong before we apply. I do not share the view that it is strong. I doubt whether he shares it. I fancy that he hopes that entry will achieve for Britain what, as the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) said, Governments have failed to achieve—economic growth and viability.
I think that it is still thought, as it was thought when we were in office that if we fail to find the solution to revitalising the economy and getting the rate of growth that we want, perhaps entry into the Common Market will do for us what we have failed to do for ourselves. I think that there is something of this thought' behind the Prime Minister's conversion to a European attitude.
If the timing is wrong, as I believe it is, we run into certain dangers. First, we are negotiating from weakness. Secondly, there is the greater danger of refusal, if only because it might be argued that going into Europe with a weakened economy might damage the Community itself and that our economic ills might be infectious. Thirdly, we run the danger of encouraging at home a "marking time, waiting for the Community" mentality—in other words, waiting for entry to solve some of the problems of industry.
We also run the danger that, if the application is accepted and our economy is not strong, as I believe that it is not, industry will not be properly poised to take the shock of entry. Finally—although perhaps a minor point—we run the risk of prejudicing the success of the Kennedy Round negotiations in Geneva, because it may be argued, as indeed the Canadians are arguing, that the Community countries, seeing the possibility of E.F.T.A. countries coming in with them and creating a much larger market, may drag their feet and oppose a general reduction in tariffs. All these are dangers if we do not get the timing of the application right.

1561
I have always made my position clear. I believe that the economic advantages of going in are marginal, if they exist at all. I have sometimes wondered whether they might not carry with them some dangers of which we are not fully aware. For example, we shall be geographically on the perimeter of the Common Market area and there may be a tendency for the large organisations of this country to shift their centre of operations more into the centre of the Community. It may also be that new investment, especially from elsewhere, like the United States, will be tempted into the geographical centre. I do not know, but these are possible dangers.
I have never been impressed by the economic advantages. What has always attracted me are the political considerations. I can see a strong case politically in the long run for entering Europe and that is why I have always, until recently at any rate, tended to favour entry and have supported the moves made to get this country involved in Europe.
That is why I listened with great interest to the Foreign Secretary's speech. I thought that it was attractively delivered but it was disappointing because the right hon. Gentleman gave up a good deal of time to discussing economic and technological considerations which had already been covered by previous speakers and he did not concentrate sufficiently on the real political considerations. What was probably more important than what he said was what he did not say, particularly about defence. I am certain that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would have wanted to probe further what lay behind the assertions concerning European defence. Nevertheless, it was an attractive speech and because I myself am attracted to the political considerations of entering Europe it did something to quieten some of my doubts about the wisdom of entry.
Having said that, I still think that we and the country must weigh very carefully the cost of entry, and there should be no doubt in anyone's mind, here or outside, what that cost is likely to be. It is wrong for the Government to say that they have a mandate for this. Whatever may have been in the Tory manifesto—and we went into this fully—in the
1562
Labour manifesto, to my recollection, there was only a very short paragraph about the subject and if any voters voted for the Labour Party on the strength of that paragraph they are now being faced with entry under conditions never envisaged by that paragraph.
But I doubt very much whether many voters were influenced one way or another by the question of the Common Market at the election. I doubt whether it was a live election issue. Except under special circumstances, the electors do not vote on such matters but on matters of domestic detail, which they understand. There was really no mandate for any party to go into the Market on whatever terms.
Between now and the point when our application may be accepted, I suggest that it is the duty of the Government and all of us to ensure that the people are fully and frankly informed of the implications of entry and that, in the meantime—and this is a warning to myself more, perhaps, than to anyone else—we must avoid turning this into an emotional issue, which it is tending to become.
People are tending to take up attitudes on both sides and dig themselves in. On either side, this is a bad thing. What we should do is judge the issue on its merits as the facts emerge during the negotiations between now and the time when we may enter. Our overriding concern must be the well-being of the country, of the Commonwealth and of E.F.T.A. for whom we have a moral responsibility. Our final decision when it has to be made should be made in the full knowledge and understanding of all the facts and implications of those facts and with the support of an informed general public.
We do not now have that full knowledge and full understanding of the implications. We must wait for them to emerge and, when the time comes, I hope that we shall be able to vote freely with a full knowledge of the issues that lie before us and knowing what we are doing.
6.37 p.m.
Mr. John Rankin: I agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) that this is an occasion when the House might well have had a free vote. It is

1563
important, and the hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the reasons, that on this occasion we should have had a free expression of opinion. As he said, the issue did not appear generally during the election. It may have been raised in some parts of the country but in my fight in Govan the Common Market was not mentioned by me nor was it raised with me by any elector, and in such a situation the House should be permitted to exercise its discretion.
We are faced with a very simple fact—the question of what we should do in relation to the Common Market. Either we decide to reject it or we decide to enter or to agree to enter. My mind on that issue is perfectly clear. I am in favour of entering the Common Market. We are living in a world which is changing quickly over very wide areas.
For nearly 200 years we have been part of a growing Commonwealth. That Commonwealth has paid us, over a substantial period, a tribute amounting to almost £200 million every year. With that £200 million there came the £40 million of earnings from our coal exports. In the Chancellor's hands at the beginning of every financial year there was this huge sum of money. This has now more or less disappeared. The Chancellor is being forced to adopt many devices to try to overcome that deficiency. That change has taken place, and with it there has gone a change in the composition of the Commonwealth and in trading relationships between ourselves and the Commonwealth.
I want briefly to look a little more closely at the changes which have been taking place in that relationship. The figures which I propose to use are the result of the researches of our own excellent Library Research Department. We have been hearing a good deal in the Press—some reports have not been quite fair—about the change in our import and export figures in relation to Australia. I propose to consider Australia, Canada and New Zealand, because they have figured most largely in the debate. Many of our colonies are looking more for aid than trade with us on a basis that would be remunerative.
Imports by Australia from us in 1966 show an arresting fall as compared with the 1950 figure. In 1950 the figure was
1564
39·7 per cent., and last year it had declined to 25·8 per cent. That does not mean that the value of those imports have declined; indeed, they have risen from £209 million in 1950 to £758 million last year. But in 1966 we were not earning the same proportion of this expanding trade as we were in 1950.
While imports by Australia fell proportionately, the Japanese figure rose from £7 million in 1950 to £280 million last year. This is a significant indication of what is happening on the import side.
Mr. Brian Parkyn: Can my hon. Friend tell us to what extent the increase in trade between Australia and Japan was affected by our application to join the Common Market in 1961?
Mr. Rankin: I cannot answer such a question. I am merely quoting the figures presented to me.
I now want to consider the export figures. Our exports to Australia have declined from 38· per cent. to 17·6 per cent. while those of Japan have risen from 3· 9 per cent. to 17·8 per cent. Although the figures are not so arresting, the same tendency is taking place in our trading relationships with New Zealand. Our imports from New Zealand have declined from 60·1 per cent. of total trade in 1950 to 38 per cent. last year, and our exports to New Zealand from 66·4 per cent. in 1950 to 44·7 per cent. last year.
In Canada, trade with the United States has been expanding rapidly while ours has been increasing only feebly. The import figure rose from £404 million to £645 million, whereas the United States figure increased from £2,152 million to £7,000 million. Our exports rose from £469 million to £1,131 million, and United States exports from £2,000 million to £6,000 million. These figures represent a trend which is bound to give us serious thought.
With the decline in the group to which we have now been attached for so long the natural impulse is to look around for another group. The world in which we live today is composed largely of groups —the Chinese group, the Russian group and the American group. Most hon. Members would agree that whatever sympathy we have with groups in the Far East, to join them would not be a tenable proposition. Many of us would

1565
resent falling more closely into the hands of the American group. Consequently, the European group is the natural group for us, economically and politically.
We are entering a group whose status, economically and politically, is close to ours. We have already signified that closeness by accepting the idea of a tunnel between this country and Europe. If this development takes place the natural question that any Member representing a division in a small country like Scotland will ask is: how will this affect the country to which I belong and the division which I represent? Every Scots Member knows that unemployment in Scotland, while we are still outside the Community, has been rising and has reached 83,000, which it has rarely reached before. This is serious. An important industry in my constituency is faced with the threat of closure. There is maldistribution of population. Two distinct parts of the country, the Highlands and the Lowlands, lack people and 4 million are concentrated in the middle belt, which is an unhealthy distribution.
It will not recover its health until the Highlands and Lowlands are treated more equitably in terms of industry and population. Everyone wants a new attitude towards the Highlands. Direct Government intervention is proposed by introducing industry to that part of Scotland. We ask whether the present tendency will be accelerated or retarded by our entry to the Common Market. That is why I want an assurance from the Government Front Bench that accession will not result in continued underdistribution of employment and industry in the Highlands and Lowlands.
We have heard today of a possible understanding with the French about a new approach to aviation development and that an airbus is now being considered, and also that an agreement is possible between the two Defence Ministries over the swing-wing aircraft. I should not like to think that these decisions are not based only on defence or technological considerations; but are partly political, to help our application. If they become accepted policy, with technological expansions between Britain and the Common Market, I hope that they will go forward on their merits and not as political aids to our entry.
1566
Many others wish to speak. So, having stated the position in regard to my country's industry and development, and the case for the development of aviation, I am glad that both sides have listened agreeably to the first Scotsman called in the debate.
6.51 p.m.
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: When our application for entry to the Common Market goes in tomorrow, as I believe it will, signed by the Prime Minister, I hope he realises that, thereafter, events will be out of his control. He has cleverly stage-managed his party to the point of applying, but he will write the script no longer from that point.
The answer we get depends on what people on the Continent are thinking and saying. They will be looking after the interests of the E.E.C. first, and of their own countries and Britain second. Control will pass from Westminster, and that will be the pattern for the future. If the Government are set on joining, we must be clear that heavy concessions will be necessary and that the more keen the Government are, the greater they will be. It is clear that the five Gaitskell conditions are already no longer valid—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—it is quite clear. The London Declaration of 1961, regarding our E.F.T.A. partners, has been thrown overboard.
The Prime Minister's statement on 2nd May was full of vague phrases and let-outs and did not give me confidence. We were told of lesser issues which could be decided after we had joined. This is laughable. Who would join first and try to negotiate when outnumbered? I want to know what the lesser issues are. We were promised a great debate and information. I have tried by Questions to get information, but nothing happens. The debate has not got off the ground, but is one of the Prime Minister's non-starters. If the case is so good, why can we not have information and a free vote?
I am opposed to our entry of the E.E.C. on many grounds, but mainly on two. The first is economic. It is admitted that the cost of living per family of four will rise by 25s. per week. It may well be more—the butchers think so. What has not been calculated is the effect on wage and salary claims and

1567
consequently on the price of goods and on exports. Surely Government Departments could make calculations. If not, surely it is unwise to go forward.
There will be many effects on pensioners and those near the pension level, who will have to be helped. What will be the price of that? Do the people in the country realise the extent to which they will be hit? I am glad to say that my constituents in South Edinburgh know.
I am also deeply worried about Scotland. Perhaps a Treasury Minister will tell the House what are the views of the Scotch Whisky Association about our entry. I know them, but I should like to hear them expressed from the Government Front Bench. Our steel industry is bound to suffer because of the increased cost of fuel in Scotland; and our coal industry, with the competition from the Community, which allows in American coal, will suffer equally.
It is clear that if we enter the E.E.C. there will be a loss of sovereignty. Considering the terms of the Treaty of Rome, this will undoubtedly occur. Commonwealth preferences will have to go. I never thought that I would live to see the day when it was advocated that these preferences should be abandoned, least of all by the Conservative Party.
Any trading arrangements which we wish to make, whether with countries of the East or others, will be subject to the agreement and approval of Brussels. Because of voting arrangements, if we join the E.E.C. Britain may have to take action which is against our best interests, and we certainly will not be free agents. A lot of internal affairs will be interfered with, like the social services, transport and the movement of labour and capital. Even our legal system will have to be altered by this House because of decisions made in Brussels. Is that what hon. Members and the country really want? I say "No", and for that reason I shall be in the "No" Lobby tonight.
It has been put about that it may be a good thing for us to join the E.E.C. because it will enable us to get out of the stagnation which at present exists. I believe that we can solve our own problems in our own country, and I suggest
1568
that the stagnation which exists is due to the faulty tax policies and lack of incentives of the present Government.
In all these matters I am guided by two principles; first, that I will not support policies which cause Her Majesty's subjects overseas and in the Commonwealth to be treated worse economically than foreigners, and, secondly, that I will not see a lessening of the sovereignty of Britain or of Parliament. Nor was I elected for this purpose. For the future, I prefer to turn to the great British nations overseas and to America rather than to Europe.
7.4 p.m.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) will forgive me if I do not follow them into the Scottish countryside. Although my constituency contains the highlands of Sydenham and the foggy lowlands of Dulwich Village, their problems are very different from those of Scotland.
If the present Government lives in history, it will be because they have eschewed short-term expedients, have declined to accept transitory and ephemeral popularity and, instead, have kept their eye firmly fixed on the distant goal. To me, that is part of the ethic of the Socialism in which I believe.
Some of my hon. Friends have spoken about their Socialism. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has come to a conclusion different from mine because he believes that what he regards as Socialist measures will not be possible if we enter the E.E.C. I disagree with his facts, but I accept the sincerity of his views. I would not be so arrogant as to believe that my brand of Socialism is the only one, even if it happens to be the best one.
On this question of the distant goal, we have the enthusiastic support of countless European Socialists inside and outside the E.E.C. who want us to join the Community. Countless people inside and outside the E.E.C. who are not Socialists also support us. They want us in because they believe, I suggest rightly, that our entry will give the Community a new dimension and that it will become a much broader and more outward-looking Community than it is today. They, too, believe

1569
that some of the criticisms which my hon. Friends have made of the Community as it exists today will be capable of being cured in the future—even more so if, as I hope, together with us there go in other countries such as the Scandinavian nations, with their tradition of democracy like ours, to strengthen and broaden the democratic idea enshrined in the Community.
Many hon. Members have dilated largely on the price that will have to be paid. It is right and proper that this should be considered. The Leader of the Opposition remarked on the price and he included in it something which I could not include; the idea of some sort of defence agreement. I could not help wondering, when I heard him speak about the negotiations on the last occasion and congratulating the Government on having taken up those negotiations where they left off, what part defence played in the negotiations on the last occasion; or whether the subject came in only at the last minute when the then Conservative Government signed the Nassau Agreement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) spoke, as he was entitled to do, at length about the price we would have to pay. When considering the price, it is no use looking merely at that price without considering what one is buying. If one is buying a house, one must consider whether it is a mansion or a cottage, in addition to what it contains. It was only towards the end of my hon. Friend's speech that he came even to mention one or more of the matters for which we are likely to pay the price—when he spoke about economic independence, a subject to which I shall return.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale seemed to suggest that the figures we had been given by the Prime Minister and all the calculations that had been made by the Government painted an optimistic and rosy picture. He may be right, and he is entitled to his view. However, in my submission, the true picture was made brilliantly clear by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last night. When the Cabinet, in those days in Whitehall and at Chequers, was examining the figures and all the pros and cons, there was certainly no lack of people with acute minds
1570
and without a great enthusiasm for entering the Community to make sure that the figures that ultimately emerged were not too rosy and optimistic.
We heard my right hon. Friend repeat the very figures that the Prime Minister had given. Can one really say, in the light of that, that it is likely that those figures present too rosy a picture? Is it likely that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture would have accepted those figures, and would have supported the Government, as he has supported the Government, in this application for admission to the Community—because he accepts Cabinet responsibility just as all his colleagues in the Cabinet have accepted that responsibility in supporting the application—if those figures had been unduly rosy and unduly optimistic?
Then we had my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). He made, if I may respectfully say so, a most attractive and persuasive speech Indeed, if I can make half as persuasive a speech when I am twice his age it will be a miracle. But it is, perhaps, a little too much to hope that with persuasiveness one will also have consistency. I noticed that one half of my right hon. Friend's speech was devoted to telling us that the man whom we shall have to placate will be General de Gaulle. He asked, "What are we to offer him to placate him? The others do not matter—they are all on our side. It is the General who is the obstacle—what are we to offer him?" He spent the other half of his speech saying that if we go in we shall have to become part of a supranational community—the very thing of which General de Gaulle is the sole opponent in the Common Market as it exists now——
Mr. Raphael Tuck: He will not last for ever.
Mr. Silkin: I will not comment on that. My hon. Friend has a greater gift of prophecy than I have.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: It is a reasonable estimate.
Mr. Silkin: As I say, these are the question of price that one has to consider. I do not dispute that one has to consider them, and it is right and fair that we should know what the price will

1571
be as far as we can estimate it. But it is not the price that is the only consideration. Another consideration is what we are to pay for. This emerged from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but it is something to which very few hon. Members in this debate have given great attention.
It seems to me that there are two vital questions with which the enlargement of the Community is designed to deal. First, there is the question of economic independence mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. We can see today the creeping control of trans-Atlantic capital spreading its tentacles not only over our industry but over the industry of the Community as well. There is nothing that can be done to stop it as long as we do not have a market within Europe which can compete with the market of the United States of America. I am not anti-American—that is the last thing of which I would be accused on this side of the House—but my pro-Americanism does not extend to the belief that it is right and proper that American capital should gradually take control of this country's industries. I can see the possibility of the great European market wresting that control from American capital and enabling us within Europe itself to make use of the great technological gifts that we in this country have—because we have often led the world and are still leading the world in technology—in a way which will make it unnecessary and impossible for this process of creeping control from across the Atlantic to continue.
Secondly, there is the great political problem of a divided Europe, and here I want to ask my hon. Friends who are opposed to the idea of a widening of the European Community the following questions. Will they agree with me that Germany will never accept a permanently divided Germany? Will they agree with me that the Soviet Union will never accept a united Germany except in the context of a united Europe? If they agree with me on both of those matters, how can we ever solve the European problem—of which the German problem is the root and the key, and the possible source of future conflict—unless we can achieve a united Europe? And how can we achieve a united Europe without this country being part of it?
1572
I agree that even if we go into the Community, even if the Scandinavians go into the Community, we may still not solve this problem, but I am quite certain that we can never solve the problem unless we go into it. We shall never solve it unless the Community is expanded and, having expanded, eventually stretches out towards the Eastern European countries at present behind the Iron Curtain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has said so forcibly.
If this is right, one is entitled to ask what the alternatives are to British and Scandinavian entry into the Community. How else are these two problems to be solved? How are we to get our economic independence? My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said, "Let us expand our trade with E.F.T.A., let us strengthen our ties with E.F.T.A. and increase our trade with the Commonwealth." Hon. Members opposite have said, "Let us have an Atlantic Free Trade Area," but I did not notice my hon. Friend make that suggestion. Indeed, the whole idea of British economic independence of America is hardly likely to be facilitated by that step.
But, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, the whole purpose of the creation of E.F.T.A. was as a step towards the enlargement of the European Economic Community. It is the countries of E.F.T.A. which are pushing us in today. If we do not go in, many of them probably will: they will certainly go in if we do. They want us in. To believe that we can conceivably use E.F.T.A. as an alternative to the larger market of the Community is nothing more than a pipe-dream.
We talk of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth countries, one after another, are seeking association with the Community. Again, the idea that we could use the Commonwealth as an alternative in order to provide the larger market we need is nothing but a pipe-dream.
I therefore conceive of no other real alternative method of securing those two great objectives. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that if we do not get into the Common Market it will not be the end of the world. There are alternative courses, but they are very much a second best and certainly

1573
Will not achieve the ends I want to see achieved.
When we come to the way in which e should apply to be made part of the Community, this I must say. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on the first day of this debate spent a little to me criticising what he called the "unconditionalists" and sought, as I thought, to tar with the brush of unconditionalism some of my hon. Friends who have strong and very passionate views on the subject. I do not know any unconditionalists on this side of the House. I do not know whether there are any opposite or not. I am not concerned about them, but I am concerned about this side of the House. But, having said that, I am bound 1o say that the European Community exists on a basis of trust. Every partnership which is successful exists on that basis.
It is no use our applying to go in or hoping to go in unless we also have the trust which will enable us to play our part as partners in the Community. I want us to make an application in the way suggested by my right hon. Friend when he spoke this afternoon. I want us to negotiate after that application has been made, but I hope that in those negotiations before we actually enter the Community we shall be satisfied with those assurances which one partner would expect from other partners on a basis of trust and that we shall not demand the amount of detailed linkages and tyings up which one would demand if one were contracting with someone at arm's length.
If our future partners in the Community give us an assurance that they recognise our need for transitional arrangements, that they recognise the need of our Commonwealth for a proper way of solving their problems, and if they explain this in sufficiently explicit terms, it would be utterly wrong, indeed it would be unproductive, for us to try to tie them down in advance of our entry to the small change and minutiæ of the details. I hope that when my right hon. Friend goes into these negotiations he will go into them in that way. And if we do go into the Community, we must likewise go in on a basis of trust. It will
1574
be useless for us to go to Brussels and seek to make our way into the Community if we do it any way that suggests that those making the application are less than sincere in their belief that to do so is to the great historic advantage not only of this country but of Europe as a whole.
7.22 p.m.
Sir Beresford Craddock: In his interesting and sincere speech, the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) made reference to two very powerful speeches we have heard in this debate. One was by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and the other by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). The hon. and learned Member will recall that both his hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend made certain references to converts and conversion. I am quite satisfied that what I shall say—and I am sorry about this—will certainly not convert the hon. and learned Member, nor I am sure will it convert the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary, or even the Leader of my party.
On Monday evening my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) reminded us, when he had the privilege of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, rather late in the evening, that even after that short period of debate practically everything had been said for and against going into the Common Market and he asked what more was there to say? After two and a half or almost three days debate I find myself in that position also. So what I propose to do is to put on record the reasons why I cannot support the Government in the Lobby tonight and that if a Division is called I shall certainly go into the Lobby with my hon. and right hon. Friends who have tabled the Amendment.
Although I signed the Amendment I am not against, and never have been against, political and economic co-operation with Europe. On the contrary, one recognises the possible values both of political and economic co-operation. What I have always been against, and still am against—nothing I have heard in this debate has convinced me otherwise—is that this country should become a signatory of the Treaty of Rome. I propose to explain briefly why I still maintain that position.

1575
Yesterday afternoon my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition reminded us of the history of the development of the movement towards co-operation within Europe. He reminded us that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), in the early' fifties when he was President of the Board of Trade, made great efforts to form a system of economic co-operation in Europe, a system which was designed to embrace not only the countries which we now refer to as the Six but also those countries we call E.F.T.A., the members of the Commonwealth and any other nations which would agree to join a free trade area. I supported that proposal with enthusiasm and wholeheartedly. It was a matter of regret to me, as it was to many, that that system so strongly advocated by my right hon. Friend did not prevail.
So we arrived at the two systems, the Economic Community resulting from the Treaty of Rome and the system which we call E.F.T.A. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was trying to negotiate in 1962–63 to get this country into the Economic Community I am sure, whatever our views, we all agreed that he displayed tremendous patience and tenacity in his efforts. At that time I had been out of business and industry for some years. Having forsaken commercial life to earn what I thought would be a reasonable living in the law, I got out of touch a little with the commercial aspects of the country. I naturally tried to get as much information as possible about the economic benefits which might accrue to this country if we became members of the Community.
I discussed the possibilities. It is obvious that with an enlarged market we would undoubtedly expect economic benefits in the way of trade and so on. I wanted to get more information about what industry thought of the magnitude of the benefits which would accrue to this country. So I discussed this with many good friends in industry whom I had known for years, some in charge of large organisations and some in charge of organisations which were not so large. At that time, in 1962–63, the overwhelming opinion of those with whom I discussed the issue was that without
1576
doubt the benefits would be very substantial.
Not unnaturally, I have discussed this question again with these people since the question of our joining the E.E.C. has become a burning issues during the last few months. I find that these same people are now not nearly so certain about the great economic benefits as they were some years ago. The best I have been able to get from them is the expression, "We think on balance that our trade and industry will benefit".
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: My hon. Friend will agree that 90 per cent. of industrialists have expressed, through the C.B.I., the opinion that there will be a benefit.
Hon. Members: No.
Sir B. Craddock: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). That is not the view which has been expressed to me by quite important industrialists. I am glad that my hon. Friend interrupted me, because we all know that he has very great interests in the motor manufacturing industry. My hon. Friend has reminded me that I must mention a report issued recently by the Motor Manufacturers Association. I have not read the whole report, but a fairly full account of it was given in the business section of The Times recently. The report shows that our motor manufacturers expect that, if we enter the Community, there will during the first few years be an annual loss of £17 million sterling. I cannot argue about that. I take that figure.
Mr. Webster: Will my hon. Friend tell me the loss to the motor industry this year?
Sir B. Craddock: I am not in touch. For that information I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham.
A very interesting article appeared in the February, 1967, issue of the journal, Export. It is known that this is the journal of the Institute of Exports. This article makes quite remarkable reading. It casts grave doubts on the economic benefits which may accure to this country from our joining the E.E.C.
There are many other aspects of the problem, major and lesser. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan

1577
(Mr. Rankin) is not in his place. I listened to his speech with great interest. I know that he is keenly interested in our shipbuilding industry, particularly the Scottish sector of it. Only the other day the House agreed to a Measure designed to give substantial assistance to our shipbuilding industry. Article 92(3,c) of the Treaty makes a very important reference to the European shipbuilding industry. I want the Government Front Bench to answer an admittedly slightly hypothetical but nevertheless important question. There is talk of lesser issues; but if we were to get into the Community by the end of this year, or even in the early spring of 1968, what would happen to the scheme of helping our shipbuilding industry as a result of the operation of Article 92(3,c)?
As to agriculture, it is now an admittted fact that the cost of many items of food will rise steeply. In reply to a supplementary question on his statement last week, the Prime Minister said that he was not going to bother about the lower type of groceries. The Prime Minister knows, as we all do, that some of the lower types of groceries are very important to millions of housewives.
Mr. Roy Roebuck: H.P. Sauce.
Sir B. Craddock: I am much obliged. It is attractive to want to believe that, if we accepted the agricultural system of the Community, it would mean the abolition of subsidies under our own system and that the money saved thereby—about £250 million—would be used to bring down taxation. We all recognise that this would be impossible, because if a saving was achieved in that way, the money saved would, of necessity, have to be spent on shielding pensioners and other sections of the Community from the effects of the steep rise in the cost of many foodstuffs of which the Government have rightly, openly and honestly warned us.
Again on agriculture, there is the difficult question of the balance of payments. The Prime Minister said on Monday, first, that what would be involved on agriculture would be about £175–250; million on our balance of payments but went on to mention the figure of £100 million. I tried to interrupt the Prime Minister, but his was a long speech and he. did not give way. I wanted to ascertain whether the £100 million was in
1578
addition to the, say, £200 million, making a minimum of £300 million on our balance of payments.
With the best will in the world, I cannot see how we shall get over the difficult problem of the balance of payments, which has been a thorn in the flesh of our economy for years, by entering the Community and adopting a system which may well increase these difficulties to the extent of at least £200–£300 million. I have always believed that one of the surest ways of overcoming this difficulty is by an increase in production and an increase in the volume of sales of the goods we produce. After all, we may manufacture all we want to manufacture, but, if we cannot sell the goods in the world markets, what is the use?
Why is production today so stagnant? In my view, one of the main reasons is the heavy burden of taxation on both individuals and companies. Until we get this burden down, encouraging men and women in industry to earn and to keep more of their earnings, and encouraging businesses by lower taxation to make good profits, we shall never, or not for a very long time, master this difficult problem.
Now, the legal system. In spite of what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), I am sure that certain changes in our law will have to be made if we go into the Community. But I shall not dwell on that question because my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who is a recognised expert on this branch of the matter, hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and I shall leave that aspect of the matter to be dealt with by him.
What about the political aspects of entry? As I see it, there are two issues here, one very broad and one much narrower. It has often been argued—the point was repeated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) on Monday afternoon—that if we had been in the Community, or if there had been an E.E.C. years ago, we might have avoided the appalling catastrophies of two world wars. This may well be so. I concede the possibility. But, equally, it could be said that if, prior to 1914, this country had developed—[Interruption..] I

1579
shall not stop. I seldom speak in debates in the House now, with so much work upstairs to do, and I wish to take full advantage of the opportunity now.
I was dealing with the argument that, if we had had the Community earlier, we might have avoided two world wars. Of course we might. But one might as well say that, if the work of our nuclear physicists in the years before 1914 had been carried on to the development of nuclear weapons, this might have prevented two world wars. With respect, I do not think much of that argument.
My real opposition to entering the E.E.C.—let me be frank about it—is that I am not prepared to accept a system under which a group of Ministers and civil servants sitting in Brussels will make laws which we, if we are members, must accept without question in Westminster. That is not an encroachment on our sovereignty which I am prepared to accept. It is argued that, whenever we sign a treaty, we give up a certain amount of sovereignty. This is true, but, under most of the treaties which we have entered into—N.A.T.O. is an example—we can give up the treaty on giving one year's notice. But it appears from Article 240 that the Treaty of Rome is one to which we should be bound, if not in perpetuity, at least for a very long time. Whatever may be said, once we are members, we shall have to accept the decisions come to by the Commission and by the Ministers. This is not a position which I could accept.
I find certain aspects of the present approach to the Community rather astonishing. First, what is the position of ·E.F.T.A. countries? I have always understood that it was a firm condition for this country's entry into the Community that we should do so only if the member countries of E.F.T.A., if they wished, went in at the same time as we did. What is the position now? The communiqué issued after the recent E.F.T.A. conference is difficult to understand, and I should like to be told what is to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) asked yesterday what the position regarding E.F.T.A. would be between now and the ultimate time if we ever go into the Community.
1580
Finally, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), I am surprised that the Prime Minister, with all his experience and shrewdness, should choose this moment to try to get into the Common Market. He told us on Monday that his view is that our position is strong. I do not believe it. Again, I refer to the leading article in the business section of The Times on Monday, which cast grave doubts on our position in relation to sterling balances and other aspects, even at this time. It is the essence of prudence to try to negotiate from strength, not from weakness. I am very surprised that the Prime Minister has chosen this moment to try to enter the Community.
Finally, I am certain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not wish to appear discourteous, but there are many hon. Members waiting to take part.
Sir B. Craddock: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, and, with great respect, I acknowledge your injunction. I conclude in this way. For all the reasons I have given, I shall be happy to go into the Lobby against the Government tonight.
7.47 p.m.
Mr. J. J. Mendelson: For unavoidable reasons, I suppose, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary cannot be with us at this moment, but I should have preferred that at least one senior member of the Cabinet, perhaps the one who is to reply to the debate or the one who opened it today, would be here to listen to the discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I urge the Treasury Bench to make the feeling which has just been shown known in the usual way to my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet so that several, or at least one, may be present with us in the very near future. It is an affront to the House in a debate of this importance, when every Member has to accept his own responsibility, that members of the Cabinet are absent most of the time.
In his opening speech today, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was concerned particularly with economic matters and disappointed many right hon. and hon. Members by not saying more about foreign affairs and defence. There has been a marked reluctance on the part

1581
of the Foreign Secretary to give the House a detailed outline of how the matter looks from the point of view of the Foreign Office and of the Ministry of Defence. However, as my right hon. Friend spent so much time on economic matters, I shall follow him, beginning with a review of some of the points which he made.
At one stage, after he had been interrupted from the back benches, my right hon. Friend read parts of the Treaty of Rome to the House. That was a courteous thing to do; it is always good to be reminded of the homework one has already done, and we were grateful for it. Then, having read a passage from the Treaty of Rome, my right hon. Friend, with a triumphant air, turning to his own back benches, expressed his conclusion that he would do all the serious negotiating after our application had been accepted. What does the reality of that assurance look like?
I should like to quote from a statement made two days ago by Dr. Kiesinger, Chancellor of West Germany. It was only because I did not want to interrupt my right hon. Friend too often that I did not rise to put this statement on the record while he was speaking. I regret all the more that he is not now here to deal with this matter.
The Chancellor of the West German Government was quoted in The Guardian of Tuesday, 9th May, as follows:
"The West German Chancellor, Dr. Kiesinger, said here tonight that Britain's entry to the Common Market would only be possible if she adhered not only to the text of the Rome Treaty but also to everything that had been created so far or was still planned."
What are the negotiations to be about after we are inside the Common Market if that is the view of one of the principals who is to face us once we are inside?
I take this opportunity to make one thing clear. Although I agreed with many of the things which he said during his brilliant speech, I profoundly disagreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington on one issue. He seemed to concentrate on France and General de Gaulle as the only possible difficult negotiating partner, or difficult nation, once our application had been accepted, or before. I pray in aid the view of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
In the first debate which we had in the House after the negotiations con-
1582
ducted by the Leader of the Opposition had broken down and when the then Conservative Government were giving an outline of the negotiations which made it appear as though the President of France had been the only serious obstacle, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), who is now Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, said that we did not accept this mythology about the breakdown of the negotiations which the Conservative Government had created in making France the only responsible party. I agreed with my right hon. Friend. The statement by the Chancellor of West Germany two days ago is evidence that it is true today as it was then that there are several of our negotiating partners who do not believe that serious negotiations are possible. This is the crux of the debate.
Sir D. Glover: Several? Who are they?
Mr. Mendelson: Dr. Kiesinger, as well as President de Gaulle. It may be argued that the others among the Six are important and I never want to be discourteous to anybody, but surely the point of view of the Chancellor of West Germany and the French Government between them represents a powerful section of the Six.
Moreover, it has always been the honest opinion, which I respect, of Lord Gladwyn, for instance, or the right hon. Gentleman who until recently led the Liberal Party and who has now been replaced, to the regret of many people of whom I am one, and whom I have always admired and whose straightforwardness I have always admired, that there is no serious negotiation in which to engage and that what Britain has to do is to accept the situation as it is.
What alarms me and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends is that we are now being told in very uncertain language that there is to be some negotiation before entry but that many of the serious negotiations will take place after entry. The view which I have just quoted and which was prominently expressed at the time is, to quote Dr. Kiesinger, that we must accept not only the Treaty of Rome, but everything created so far or planned.
That is why I am not prepared tonight to sign the blank cheque which is contained in the Motion. Tonight is the occasion when those who hold my view

1583
are under a serious obligation to make our views clear. If we sign the blank cheque, we shall have no reserve position in future on which to fall back when, as I fear, in the course of the negotiations the Government agree with Lord Gladwyn and the others and say that if we want to go in, we have to accept everything as it is.
I turn to what I hoped would be the main business of the speech of my right hon. Friend—foreign affairs and defence. In the same speech Dr. Kiesinger had something else interesting to say. I quote:
"He said that not only were economic problems at stake but that the final aim of a common foreign policy within the E.E.C."
We have heard very little about this. There has been a good deal of discussion from the back benches, but there has been no real information about a common foreign policy from those members of the Cabinet who have spoken so far.
What was meant by Dr. Kiesinger's statement on foreign policy? I remember being present at several Press conferences in Bonn when for three short periods I represented one of our weekly journals there. The Press conferences were taken by Dr. Adenauer, the late Chancellor. He always made it clear, both at the Press conferences and privately later, that he was not the least interested in Britain's entry into the Common Market unless we were binding ourselves to a common foreign policy to which we would then be obliged strictly to adhere. I am glad to have the approval of hon. Members on both sides of the House for that statement.
In our debates in this House when Dr. Adenauer was in office I used to say that I did not believe that this was merely the personal attitude of one man. I was convinced that future Governments in Bonn would take the same view. Dr. Kiesinger's statement of only two days ago is proof conclusive that that is so.
Dr. Gray: Is my hon. Friend saying that France and the other Common Market countries are pursuing the same foreign policy?
Mr. Mendelson: We ought not to waste time on propaganda questions at this stage. [Laughter.]
Dr. Gray: I am absolutely serious.
Mr. Mendelson: I shall deal with it in half a second in the scheme of my remarks, and I think that my hon. Friend will be satisfied that I have dealt with it.
This demand for a joint foreign policy to which Britain would strictly adhere means that all the problems which are now dividing the Eastern and Western countries and in which we now have a view which is active upon international affairs would be subject to joint decisions by a committee of Foreign Ministers.
It does not matter whether at present a given French Government disagrees with a given German Government about particular immediate issues. What matters is that, as the Prime Minister has said, economic matters may be important, but what is now determining him to ask for entry are the political matters. It means that these will become the dominant theme of the Community after Britain is inside, and it will mean a radical difference which the House must appreciate before it signs the blank cheque.
I turn to the problem of defence, because foreign and defence policy are obviously closely linked. I beg my right hon. Friends to take note of this point. We must have some answer from the First Secretary who, although he is now preoccupied with economic affairs, is no stranger to foreign affairs, and we must have an answer before the debate is concluded.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made the most important statement of the debate so far when he spoke yesterday. There has been a marked reluctance by members of the Government who have spoken so far to give a detailed reply to it.
It would be downright irresponsible, and I am choosing my words carefully, if the Government were not to answer these questions and then ask the House of Commons for permission to apply for entry into the Common Market. The important question that the Leader of the Opposition raised was contained in two statements. First of all, he said, on his own initiative—before the Prime Minister asked him to go a little further on the theme—that defence would be a major issue in the negotiations.
It is no use my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saying on Monday from

1585
the Front Bench that he was convinced that the issue of defence, and particularly nuclear defence, must be left where it is now. This afternoon I invited my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to say a little more about this. I asked him whether during the negotiations the Government would be prepared as the price of entry to agree to a joint nuclear Western command within E.E.C. I received no answer from my right hon. Friend. I say that the House is entitled to an explicit answer to this question before we vote tonight.
Secondly, also on this matter of defence, on the invitation, perhaps through the provocation, of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition went a little further. I was glad that the Prime Minister did provoke the Leader of the Opposition to go a little further on this matter. He then said that he believed, this was his formulation, that the proper solution which we should accept, presumably during the negotiations, would be that the nuclear forces of France and the United Kingdom should be joined together and held in trust for the Six.
This was a very puzzling formulation, at any rate to me. I have heard of sums of money being held in trust for orphans; I have heard of capital being held in trust for an association of poor scholars, but I have never yet heard the formulation that a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons should be held in trust for someone else. The Government ought to have pressed—I hope that they will do so tonight—the Leader of the Opposition to say a little more about this. This was a very important statement of new policy, made for the first time in this House by the Leader of the alternative Government. There is a serious obligation on the Leader of the Opposition to come clean and tell the House what this new policy is.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Why does the hon. Member find it so difficult to understand my right hon. Friend? Does not the Soviet Union hold nuclear weapons in trust for the Warsaw Pact?
Mr. Mendelson: I have great respect for the hon. Member and for his independence of spirit, but as I am modest enough never to claim to interpret the policy of my leader, I think that he will
1586
be well advised not to try to interpret the policy of his leader. We must ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) to explain his policy which he has arrived at with the advice of the Shadow Cabinet. The hon. Gentleman is not a Member of the Shadow Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the same subject when giving the Godkin lectures in the United States the other day. That is not the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is in HANSARD."] It is no good the right hon. Gentleman producing documents there. This is the place where he has to explain himself.
There is great danger in this, and that is why I attach importance to this statement. There is great danger in such a new policy. It is the kind of policy which will now be quoted in the negotiations, and it will be said that the Opposition are committed to this policy and the Government will have to have an attitude towards it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) says, all that we have so far had has been a very limited reaction. When I invited my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to say more about this he refused. What we need is a far more categorical explanation of the Government's attitude, because this also involves the aspirations of another Member of the Six.
It involves the aspirations of very powerful Members of the Cabinet of the Government of Bonn. Here I link this particular problem of a Western nuclear command force with the non-proliferation treaty. There was another startling statement which the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday afternoon to which again an answer has to be forthcoming from the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman looked at my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and at my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and asked: was it not clear, and did my right hon. Friends deny, that the non-proliferation treaty had been so designed that it left the way open for a Western European E.E.C. nuclear command?
That was startling news to me and to most of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I had never heard it before. Here is this most important treaty, on which so many

1587
Members of our Government have laboured; here is a treaty to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Chalfont and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary who is now on the Treasury Bench, have made profound contributions over a matter of two years. The United States Government have also worked hard on it, together with Mr. Kosygin and Mr. Gromyko.
I have always thought, in my uninstructed way, that this was a treaty designed to prevent the spreading of nuclear weapons. Now we are told, on the authority of the Leader of the Opposition, that this is not so, and that the treaty has been redesigned and so arranged as to leave room for a new and additional nuclear command within E.E.C. This is something which the Prime Minister has always denied, except yesterday afternoon. [Interruption.] If an hon. Member wishes to intervene, I will gladly give way.
Mr. Webster: Without quoting any lectures given outside this country, may I quote what was said in HANSARD:
"I have said, in relation to nuclear defence, that, with the French force de frappe and the British deterrent, it should be possible for these two aspects of nuclear weapons to be held in trust for Europe. This, in my belief, would not end non-proliferation in any way. In fact, I understand that the non-proliferation has been designed to enable a United Europe to have its own nuclear force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1299.]
Mr. Mendelson: That is what I said. I do not want to be unkind, but the hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House. That is precisely what I said. They are the same words. My instinct not to give way was right in the first place.
To return to the subject, which is a very important one, we now hear for the first time, on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that this treaty is designed to leave room for a Western European additional nuclear command. This is very startling and dangerous news, because if there is anything designed to wreck any hope of agreement on the non-proliferation treaty this is it.
My last point concerns the attitude of my hon. and right hon. Friends tonight. I would seriously suggest to very many of them who have worked very hard for
1588
many years to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons that they must think very carefully and very long before approving the Motion. They may well be supporting a policy of taking the first step to allow not only the creation of a new nuclear command but the introduction later on of the Federal Republic of Germany as an active participant in this new nuclear command.
It is the declared policy of some of the most powerful members of the West German Cabinet to have a more active part for the Federal Republic in the control and possible use of nuclear weapons. They do not want a national nuclear establishment in West Germany. That would be a false accusation. They know that they cannot have that, but what Herr Strauss is aiming at is the active participation of the Federal Republic in a nuclear command in E.E.C.
What Herr Strauss has always aimed at is now becoming a practical possibility through political negotiation. Can anyone envisage that after we join E.E.C and agree to Dr. Kiesinger's proposal for a Committee of Foreign Ministers making foreign policy for all of us, and when we have a joint nuclear command only between France and Britain, Germany after four or five years, through Herr Strauss and other Members of the West German Cabinet, will not point out that they are making a major contribution to the Community and are an equal partner? They will ask how long are the others to discriminate against them, to deny them an equal share in the control of nuclear arms?
These are the real issues facing the House tonight. It is a matter of great regret that we have not had a great deal of detailed information from the Government on these important matters.
My right hon. Friends must understand that I am not speaking in personal bitterness. Practically everyone on the Government Front Bench has been a personal friend for many years. I do not believe that any bitterness should be introduced into our ranks over this matter. But I must ask them to realise that when hon. Members on this side of the House follow their own decision, having looked at all the serious factors involved, they are under an obligation to accept and respect our attitude as we respect the attitude of other hon. Members.
8.11 p.m.
Mr. John Wells: I hope that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the labyrinth of European possibilities and imponderables. The great majority of hon. Members who have spoken have referred to imponderables, doubts and difficulties. I wish to speak briefly on one narrow specific point—what our Prime Minister would condemn as the "minor groceries". Yet this is an aspect of our agricultural policy which affects perhaps the most prosperous section of agriculture, namely, horticulture.
The value of horticultural production in this country every year is about £185 million. Yet the Minister of Agriculture, in his most incompetent and cavalier speech last night, brushed horticulture aside in one short phrase. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in his very able speech, gave the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt when he said that he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had said something about horticulture. But I believe that the Prime Minister, in his long-winded speech, did not even mention the topic.
It may be surprising to hon. Members that this topic should appear to us in Kent to be so important. Our farmers and growers are some of the most skilful in the country. They are blending the ancient skills and traditions of our land with the new technology. Our glasshouse industry has gone from strength to str2ngth in recent years. That industry and the top fruit industry will be gravely threatened if we enter Europe. The one sop of the Minister of Agriculture to the consumer was to say that tomatoes and apples might be a bit cheaper. That might be very nice for the housewife, who faces price rises for beef, butter, cereals, and so on, but it is a very hard outlook for the grower. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member to snigger, but perhaps there are no growers in Lewisham.
Horticulturists are a successful and vital part of agricultural production. If they are to be helped by the Government, the first requiremnt is that the key to progress which is found within the Common Market countries, namely, co-operation and modern marketing techniques, should be fostered. The Prime Minister,
1590
in his cut-back measures of 20th July last, saw fit to relegate the Covent Garden replacement scheme to the same bracket as municipal baths and other local government extravagances.
Horticulturists want an early assurance that the Government, whatever the outcome of these negotiations, will help horticulture to stand on its own feet. The general agriculturist will benefit considerably if we enter the Common Market. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) made a highly emotional speech with very little content of reality. The truth is that the great bulk of agriculturists will do very well if we enter the Common Market. Indeed, certain sections of horticulture—for instance, the field vegetable section—will prosper. But the two narrower sections, particularly the top fruit section, clearly will suffer.
I therefore ask the Government for a categorical assurance that they will take early steps within the framework of what we can do in this country to improve the co-operative methods and the marketing system and to assist growers to modernise; and the steps which are already being taken in European countries towards grading should be extended in this country. If these measures should fail, and if the Government should be unwilling to meet their direct obligation to help our industry to stand on its feet, I hope that they will take heed of the very wise words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) this afternoon.
The essential ultimate requirement is a proper golden handshake for the handful of growers who undoubtedly will be hit. If hon. Members who represent industrial constituencies see great benefits accruing to our industrial concerns, the least that they can do is to ensure that the Government give a proper golden handshake to our growers. I repeat the phrase "golden handshake", because we do not want the rusty iron handshake which has been offered certain hill farmers in the extremely indifferent Agriculture Bill which received the Royal Assent today.
Mr. Stan Newens: I agree with certain of the hon. Gentleman's points about the need for provisions enabling home horticulture to adjust itself, but would not he agree that a great deal

1591
has been done by the Labour Government to improve conditions in horticulture? Speaking as a Member who represents part of the Lea Valley, I should have thought that that was self-evident, and it is only right that the hon. Gentleman should pay tribute to what the Government have done already.
Mr. Wells: Naturally I respect the hon. Gentleman's constituency viewpoint, but I must remind him of the time before he became a Member of the House, when the Horticulture Improvement Scheme was launched by my noble Friend Lord Blakenham, who was then Minister of Agriculture, and followed through by Mr. Christopher Soames. The present Minister of Agriculture has only tinkered and fiddled with the schemes brought forward by Conservative Administrations. We have had no new Measure. The one considerable benefit which the Labour Government have conferred on horticulturists is to include fork-lift trucks in the schedules of items which qualify for assistance. I do not deny the usefulness of that, but let us stick to the point.
The massive investment in equipment lying behind our hard fruit industry—in cold stores, and so on—amounts to a very large sum. This investment is scattered throughout the fruit-growing areas. The constituency of the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) has much fixed equipment in it. He will be aware of the traditional pattern of the glasshouse industry, centred round a great city, which is going out generation by generation as the glass becomes derelict. This has always been the pattern.
Far from assisting British horticulture, the Labour Government through the Act of the Patronage Secretary's father—the Town and Country Planning Act brought in by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—put the first nail in the coffin of the progress of the glasshouse industry. The second nail was the revived Town and Country Planning Act, and the last one is the Land Commission Act which will make this natural process even harder.
Let us, however, stick to the main issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say "Hear, hear". I have been keeping plainly to the "minor
1592
groceries", unlike other hon. Members who have searched their consciences and given their biographies. The Labour Government have nothing whatever to boast about in their conduct with the horticulture industry. I hope that we may have a considerable change of heart in the next few hours and that we may have some sort of reassuring statement from the Government Front Bench.
8.21 p.m.
Mr. Austen Albu: My hon. Friends will not be surprised if I say that I welcome the firm decision, undoubtedly supported by the whole Cabinet, that Britain should become a member of the European Economic Community.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in a typical speech, said that those who opposed entering did so without reservation and that those who supported our entering did it with reservation. That is not very surprising. Great changes are always much more easy to oppose than to accept. To accept a great change involves full consideration of what it involves, while to oppose it could be completely negative.
I agree with my right hon. Friend, however, in one thing, which has been said by almost every hon. Member who has spoken: that the issues in this case are basically political. In my first speech in the House in favour of our entry, which was in July, 1960, I recognised that the Community was a combination for political purposes. Whatever the subject of the speeches which have been made during this debate, there is no doubt that behind them, whether they be for or against, stood political conviction and therefore, of course, a fair degree of emotion. That is understandable and justified. Nevertheless, I believe that there are great economic advantages for us in the future, especially the advantages, to which frequent reference has been made, of modern technology and industrial scale to which, I think, I was almost the first hon. Member in the House to refer many years ago. There are, however, I admit, very great short-term difficulties. I have never believed, nor do I believe, that any supporter of our entry believed that entry was in any way a solution for our current economic problems.

1593
There are some economists—or perhaps I should say econometricians—who seem to me to take an unnecessarily gloomy view. There was, for example, what I can only describe as the arrogant article in The Times Business News on Monday, 1st May. I say "arrogant" because, from my experience, no one can forecast economic developments four or five years ahead with any degree of accuracy. That, we can assume, is the sort of minimum transitional period.
The writer of the article assumed the most unfavourable factors and he also assumed that the Government would take no steps to correct them. The argument was built up by a relentless use of statistics in a sort of house-that-Jack-built manner; for instance, the effect of food price changes on wages and costs and their relation to the elasticity of demand at the end of the transitional period. On that I can only say that, apart from the speculative nature of most of the figures, the whole argument would fall to the ground if to compensate for the higher costs— which are equivalent, after all, to an upward revaluation of the £—an equivalent degree of devaluation were to take place.
The writer of the article, with a strange emotionalism in one presuming scientific objectivity, asked whether the Government would
"march with glad hearts into a cold-blooded devaluation".
No doubt they would not. There are, however, alternative methods—for instance, a step-by-step devaluation by small annual amounts parallel to the transitional period. I realise the difficulties of this. It might involve, for instance, rather higher rates of interest than would otherwise be necessary. I suggest, however, that these alternatives are worth considering.
The other main argument of the writer, quite unsupported by any real evidence, was that the use of the London capital market would lead to a great outflow of capital. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have dealt with this matter at length, but I see no reason why, if the problem of the outflow of portfolio investment to third countries via Europe can be dealt with, the expertise of the London
1594
capital market should not on balance be to our advantage.
On the economic problems created by our entering the Community, I am by no means complacent, but I am not complacent about our economic situation in any event. Neither am I pessimistic, however.
No one can doubt—it is difficult to avoid clichés in this matter—that we face the greatest political decision which the country has faced for at least the last 300 years.
I believe—and here I shall be considerably controversial—that the imperial era which was a very short part of that period, on balance, has been a handicap to our national development. I doubt whether we have received from it any economic advantage for nearly a century. It has inhibited us from facing necessary economic change, and we now find it extremely expensive to liquidate.
The ideas which were prevalent at the beginning of the century, and which still find their echoes among right hon. and hon. Members, the older ones especially, on the benches opposite, for a strong imperial connection have been shown to be dreams which reached their fulfilment, I regret to say, in that mausoleum of imperialism, New Delhi.
The Ottawa Agreements, which followed the Balfour Declaration after the Imperial Conference of 1926, were based on an outmoded conception that we, the industrial country, could exchange our industrial products for the commodities of the former Colonial Territories, and the, at that time, independent members of the Commonwealth. I say in passing that some hon. Members have greatly exaggerated the effects of the loss of preferences taking into account the whole of our export trade.
In recent years, many had hoped that an alternative would be found in a growing, free collaboration between the increasing number of independent Commonwealth States. Alas, however, that dream also is fading because of our obvious inability to provide for their defence and, as it now appears, even the capital for their industry, their eagerness to build up their own industries behind strong tariff barriers in competition with our own and, even more so, their willingness to take military and political

1595
decisions even against our interests or the interests of each other. The Commonwealth ties are, I believe, loosening fast.
To those who refer with justifiable emotion to our kith and kin, I would only point out that there are more of our kith and kin outside the Commonwealth than there are inside it—[Interruption.]— in the United States of America, for example. On the other hand, in the Commonwealth our kith and kin are now a very small minority. On the other hand, our history shows that we are most affected by what happens in Europe, where all our major wars have started. In recent years the combination of nationalism and technology has combined to make those wars ever more horrifying.
Professor E. H. Carr, in a brilliant little book written just at the end of the war and entitled, "Nationalism and After", pointed out that the economic impetus to the growing nationalism of European States was to some extent controlled in the nineteenth century by the illusion that economic and political systems were separate—that was in the age of laissez faire, and also, of course, of great poverty. He also pointed out the fact that the world economy was at that time managed from one centre, the City of London.
When the great majority of the populations of the European countries began to acquire, as they did in the last century and more and more during this, political influence, and to demand higher living standards, their Governments were forced to pay more attention to their national economies, and this led to economic nationalism which soon developed into political nationalism. The breakdown of these national economies between the wars led to the rise of the demagogues and the horrors of the 'thirties and 'forties.
These facts, I believe, were recognised by the founders of the Community, and they saw that the only way to get rid of the dangers of nationalism in Europe was to develop an expanding economy not restricted by national boundaries. I also believe that the stability of Western Europe must inevitably contribute to the stability of all Europe as a whole.
Mind you, the idea of a federation of European States is not new in our party.
1596
In 1927 Ernest Bevin succeeded in getting a resolution passed by the Trades Union Congress in favour of the creation of a united states of Europe, and in 1945, when he was Foreign Secretary, he said that he did not regret that, in the regional discussions which were then taking place, the idea was being revived.
Unfortunately, with few exceptions we were so overcome by the scale of our own problems, and perhaps with our own virtues in solving them, that we threw away the chance of the leadership of Europe at that time, and in spite of the speeches of Winston Churchill and of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) at Strasbourg, the party opposite when it came to power was inhibited, no doubt by its imperial past, for many years in taking the step. We on our side feared the economic instability of a Europe organised on capitalist lines. We had, I am afraid, little confidence in the effectiveness of our Socialist colleagues or any understanding of the degree to which the Government of any political party, under the influence of Socialist ideas and thinking and Keynsian ideas and thinking, would run their economies with the idea of maintaining full employment and certainly the success with which they have done so—[Interruption.] They succeeded in doing it, and will continue to succeed in doing it, to an outstanding extent compared with any previous era.
Now most of us on both sides, probably, are more modest—certainly those with experience—in our claims for the unique virtues of our own economic policies, and there is no doubt that the gap which existed between the policies of the E.E.C. countries and ourselves appears much less than it did. Moreover, it cannot be denied that most of them—all of them—have as many of the symbols of Social Democracy as we have ourselves.
Mr. Frank Hooley: Symbols?
Mr. Albu: I do not know whether we claim we have all we would desire in the way of the policies of social democracy, but I believe that those countries have as much of social policies as we have, of economic development and full employment, and are like us in their general attitudes. I do not believe, if we try to measure the extent of their

1597
social democracy, we can say there is much difference between us.
Mr. Hooley Mr. Hooley rose——
Mr. Albu: Well, that is my view. It is no good examining dogma. What we want to examine are conditions of life of the people, because that is what Socialism stands for. [Interruption.] I would tell my hon. Friend that the standard of living in West Germany is higher than in this country at the present time. I agree they have a degree of unemployment roughly comparable with our own, but I believe also that it will be found that they will be able to cure it faster because they have very much greater reserves than we have at the present time.
To conclude, I hope that we are not too late. I hope also that now we have a chance to make up for what—with hindsight I admit—now seem to me the wasted years. In recent times our people seem to have lost their sense of direction, and that is why I am convinced the majority—the younger, perhaps—but the majority certainly—will welcome the opportunity of the challenge to help build up a peaceful, progressive, and generous Europe.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. Percy Grieve: I count myself lucky at this late hour in the debate to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sat in the Chamber through the three days of debate, and I realise that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak after me, so I shall endeavour to express my gratitude by being as brief as I can.
If I may take up where the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) left off, I share with him the view that there is a future for this country in union with Europe and that the European ideal is the greatest one that has come out of the post-war world. I speak as a convinced European, as one who, from the end of the war, believed that, if we were to have a continuous peace and developing prosperity in Europe, we should have a united Europe.
I do not pretend to pierce the veil of the future or to be able to say whether we shall have a Europe des patries or a federal Europe. What I hope we shall be doing in the request which will be
1598
presented to the Commission in Brussels tomorrow is taking the first step to uniting our destinies with those of Europe, by which I mean not only those countries which now constitute the European Economic Community, but all those which, in the course of time, will unite their destinies with theirs and with ours.
One cannot have listened to the whole debate without being impressed by the sincerity which has obviously motivated speakers on both sides of the House and on both sides of the Motion—for and against. I was happy to listen to the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) a few minutes ago. Despite political differences which are as old as our acquaintance, we have a friendship which dates back 30 years. I found myself in almost complete agreement with him. I did not share his views or those of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) about a Socialist Europe. He spoke of that dream. I should have described it as a nightmare. What I look forward to is a united Europe.
I shall not go over the economic reasons why I believe that we should unite our destinies with Europe. That has been done by numerous hon. Members in the course of the debate. Suffice to say that it seems to me that, in a modern world, one needs a great market to develop the great industries which must compete in that world in terms of research, in complexity and in world markets. To build up those great industries, one must have the resources of such a great community as exists in the United States and in Russia and as I believe we shall have in Europe when we are united in the European Economic Community.
As for the political reasons why I believe that we should go in, first, we have for centuries endeavoured to preserve a balance of power in Europe against those who have sought to unite Europe by conquest. In the present case, Europe is not being united by conquest but by agreement. If we find ourselves outside it and willingly remain outside, inevitably we shall remain isolated off the coast of Europe.
I agree that there are other possibilities. There is the possibility of an Atlantic Community. However, if we go into

1599
Europe, we go in as one amongst equals and as one of the great States of Europe. If we go into an Atlantic Community, can it be as anything other than the 51st State of the United States of America?
I do not speak as an anti-American, because I have the greatest respect for the United States. I approve of what the Americans are doing in South-East Asia to preserve that area from Communism—[Interruption.] I know that that will not meet with approval on the benches opposite below the Gangway. I make the point to show that I am not speaking as an anti-American, but as a European.
The point was well made—and I am glad to see him here—by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) that we shall go in with our heads held high. We have much to contribute in Europe, and the Seven, or the Seven-plus, will not be the same as the Six because it will be enriched by what we shall take in. We have our political maturity and experience of democracy, our technological and industrial greatness, our financial strength, expertise and achievement. We take all of this into the Europe of tomorrow if we go into it.
This is the complete answer to those who are afraid of what has been called the bureaucracy of Brussels, the High Commission. It is said that laws will be made for us without our having a voice in them. That is nonsense. Sometimes I think that the bureaucrats of Brussels, along with the gnomes of Zurich and the bankers of the City form the demonology of some hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. We should go in and take part in what is being done. We shall have a member on the Council and a representative on the Commission. We shall be represented in the Assembly and we shall have our judge on the court. What those institutions do for Europe they will do with our participation.
I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir B. Craddock) taking this view about the bureaucracy of Brussels and was equally surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) subscribe to the view that our laws would be overturned, that we would
1600
no longer have our common law of England. It simply is not true. The laws made by the European Community will be laws on restrictive practices and commercial matters and other matters of that kind. They will not affect our criminal law, our common law, our law of civil liberties or our law of inheritance. Those things will remain our birthright.
This point was so well made by the Lord Chancellor in another place earlier this week, and by my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) in this debate that I am surprised to hear such doctrines still being propagated. The Lord Chancellor quoted some observations made by Lord Dilhorne in another place when speaking about the Common Market on 2nd August, 1962, in col. 420 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I shall not quote it, but it was true then and remains true today.
Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So that I might not create the impression that I am making comments when seated, I rise to point out that it is not in order— is it?—for an hon. Member to quote here proceedings in another place.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) made it perfectly clear that he was not proposing to quote from another place.
Mr. Grieve: I was about to say that it was said in another place that the changes in the law resulting from accession to the Community would not affect the ordinary man or woman in this country, who simply would not realise the changes resulting in the laws dealing with commerce and restrictive practices.
Another issue is that of sovereignty. It is said that this Parliament would no longer be sovereign. That is not true either. One abdicates a degree of sovereignty every time one makes a treaty. It is a function of sovereignty to abdicate sovereignty. It is a result of freedom to make contracts and contracts limit the freedom of the individual. We limit our sovereignty when we subscribe to U.N.O., G.A.T.T., N.A.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. We shall limit our sovereignty in subscribing to the Treaty of Rome, and I believe that we shall be

1601
right in so doing. But we do not thereby abdicate all our sovereignty.
I have made my speech as briefly and as fast as I can. Finally, I want to repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in his speech the night before last. Let us be positive in our approach to Europe. I believe that what, more than anything else, has made difficulties for us has been a doubt in the minds of our European friends—and I really mean that; we have many friends in the countries of the Economic Community— whether we were really in earnest and were really Europeans. Let us, therefore, be positive in our approach to Europe and, above all—I plead with the House— let us be positive in our approach to France. I have always believed that in a strong Franco-British friendship, understanding, alliance and unity lies the key to the future peace and prosperity of Europe.
I am convinced, as I believe many others are, that one of our difficulties in the past has been that France has been regarded as an obstacle to be overcome rather than an ally and friend to be persuaded and won over. It is as friends to be won over that we should approach them now—as we should approach the other countries of the European Economic Community.
With that in mind I want to say something about the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The French have a nuclear arm of their own. There is no question of proliferation in their developing it. They have it already, and nothing that anyone says or does will prevent their developing it. Should not we, therefore, at least consider the question of pooling our resources with theirs—not only our civil nuclear resources but our military nuclear resources?
One hon. Member opposite this evening asked, "What does it mean to hold in trust?" I would have thought that that had a quite justifiably and understandably clear meaning. Nobody in this House would wish to see the Germans developing a nuclear deterrent of their own. It would be intolerable for our relations with Russia if such a thing were to happen. Why not, therefore, develop-
1602
our nuclear capacity along with the French, as trustees for the whole European Community of which I hope and trust we are shortly to become members?
8.48 p.m.
Mr. Robert Maxwell: There can be no doubt that the Government will receive a massive majority for its application, which will be lodged tomorrow. The only problem faced both by the House and by the country is what to do to ensure the success of our application. I respect and recognise the sincerity of some of my hon. and right hon. Friends who oppose this application, but I cannot for the life of me understand how men with 20 or 30 years' service to the Labour Party and this House can undermine the Government's position in respect of the application to join the Community, in the way that has been done, for instance, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in alliance with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)——
Mr. Manuel: Did you tell him?
Mrs. Renée Short: What is he supposed to do if he thinks it is wrong?
Mr. Maxwell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington can well look after himself——
Mr. Manuel: Had you the decency to tell him?
Mr. Maxwell: Everyone knows that, in this debate, the die has been cast. No one can make any difference except if he wanted to help or underline the Government's application.
In a few days', the President of France will hold his usual Press conference and will be able to crow that he has taught the insular race on this island a lesson. He told us a few years ago to go back and to reapply when we were ready to accept both the spirit and the letter of the Treaty of Rome. We have come back and have admitted that our policies towards the E.E.C. and in Europe since the end of the war have been wrong. By applying for the second time and in a simple form, and undertaking to sign the Treaty as it stands, subject to the necessary safeguards—[An HON. MEMBER: "What are they?"]—we are indeed making a considerable change.

1603
I am afraid that many people in Europe are convinced that a great majority of people in these islands are anti-European——
Mrs. Renée Short: They are right, too.
Mr. Maxwell: I fear that many in the European newspapers, radio stations and television network will be reporting comments like that. I should like to tell the House and Europe that the people of Great Britain are not anti-European and that this application is sincere and very important. When millions of people in Europe feel in their hearts that they want Britain to come in, I should like to confirm to them that their instinct is right and that there cannot be a united Europe without Great Britain.
I should like to tell the House a personal story. It is well known that I, unlike the majority of hon. Members, did not have the good fortune to be born in these islands. Unlike most hon. Members, I made some effort to get here and, furthermore, I made a choice. I had the opportunity in 1940, after the collapse of France, of emigrating to the United States, but, instead, I chose to emigrate to the United Kingdom. What made me do that?
First, the fact that Great Britain stood alone. Although I was born in a country which was dismembered by Hitler because of the errors committed by the party opposite at Munich—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—I nevertheless joined in the defence of these islands. I landed here with a rifle in my hands——
Sir Edward Brown: We went out with rifles, as well.
Mr. Maxwell:—I did not come here as a refugee.
I chose to live here, not only because Britain stood alone against Hitler, but because the people were prepared to sacrifice their everything and stood behind Winston Churchill in 1940, because this is a country which stands for fair play and in which political parties may have their differences but nevertheless talk to each other. There are no fisticuffs in this Chamber. There is, by and large, no corruption in British politics. We have considerable experience in world affairs and a considerable contribution to make in science, education and finance. In many
1604
of the things Great Britain does, we tend to act pragmatically; for example, we often take the side of the underdog.
For all these reasons Europeans rightly feel that we have a contribution to make to uniting Europe. That is why I want the people of Europe to know that the speech which represents Great Britain is that made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary this afternoon and not the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington. I urge hon. Members who wish to undermine these negotiations and who would like to see them fail to say what alternative they offer the youth of Britain. Our Empire has gone and the Commonwealth is disintegrating fast. What are we to offer in their place?
An opportunity to play a vital role in uniting this great Continent of Europe is a goal and challenge which we need as a nation. Just to argue about the price of tomatoes or to say that we want to know about nuclear defence treaties—[HON. MEMBERS: "We do."]—is not enough. In any event, the Treaty of Rome contains no provision for discussions to be held on nuclear matters. What is the use of pressing the Prime Minister on this issue? He is bound to have months of being pressed by my hon. Friends in a troublesome and muddlesome way and, on this defence issue, he will have to tell them that it is not a subject which is being discussed. It cannot be discussed because provision for such discussion is not contained in the Treaty of Rome.
Now that Great Britain is genuinely prepared to take this decisive step to join the Community, what excites Europe is the fact that this decision has been taken by a Labour Government who represent the British workers—[Interruption.]—and who most certainly represent the organised workers in the trade union movement in these islands. That makes this decision really mean something.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) reminded the House, when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in Opposition on the last occasion they did nothing about this. Great Britain was invited to play a full part at the meeting at Messina; that was where the Treaty of Rome was written. At that time hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, but they would not even send an

1605
observer. They withdrew. I am glad to have them in the Lobby voting with the Government on this issue. It is a national issue and any hon. Member who is prepared to shilly shally or dilly dally on little matters—[Interruption.]—will have to answer for that action in years to come.
Mr. John Tilney: Would the hon. Gentleman remember what his hon. Friends failed to do over the Schuman Plan when they were in power?
Mr. Maxwell: That is quite right. The hon. Member is perfectly right. The Labour Party is as guilty as the Tory Party over this issue. But when hon. Members laugh about this matter, I would remind them that Europe is on the verge of being united——
Mrs. Renée Short: Nonsense.
Mr. Maxwell: Which country has it in its power to let us in or keep us out? It is France——
Mrs. Short: My hon. Friend's knowledge of geography seems to be absolutely lamentable. He keeps repeating that Europe is on the verge of being united, but since the war Europe has been divided into three blocs.
Mr. Maxwell: I am well aware——
Mrs. Short: How is it united, then?
Mr. Maxwell: Europe is on the verge of being united. An example of the failure of Great Britain's policies towards Europe is the fact that we are having to make a second application. We are having to accept a Treaty which we could have helped to frame. But we did not allow ourselves in because we believed, foolishly, that we still had the resources to play the great Power game. We have learned that we have not.
Our chronic balance of payments position, our lack of economic growth, the way the United States has let us down— for instance, at Suez—has merely convinced this country and this Government that if Britain is to have any chance at all of playing a role in world affairs, and if we are to give our people something really to look forward to, it can be done only jointly with our friends and allies in Europe.
1606
Britain's entry into the European Economic Community should bring to an end once and for all the bloody rivalry amongst the European nation States that has caused blood letting in two succeeding generations and has led to the economic and political decline of this Continent. I would remind the House that many people in Europe believe, and I share the belief, that had Britain got involved in Europe earlier we would undoubtedly have prevented the last war, and might even have prevented the First World War.
Of the continental Powers, only France, under de Gaulle, has regained her vitality and confidence. Italy is too weak; Germany too unsure and guilt ridden. Britain's entry into the Common Market should usher in a new era of growth, stability and security for the nearly 200 million people of this great and ancient Continent of Europe. Let us resolve to take part in this noble venture with a will, and the determination to make a real contribution to freeing this Continent to manage its own affairs, to contribute to our own prosperity, to help raise the standard of living of the less well off people, and to play a leading rôle in the preservation of peace in the world.
9.4 p.m.
Mr. David Webster: Like the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell), I want us to enter Europe. Listening to the hon. Gentleman's peroration and his description of the countries which are prominent members of the European Community, I could not understand why he should want us to enter, because he seemed to have a very poor opinion of each of them.
I hope that the Government—and I wish them success in their negotiations—have spent some time not only preparing the ground by visits to the capitals but also preparing a staff of negotiators with detailed knowledge and experience of the Common Market countries. They will not just be dealing with major questions. Although I agree that it is probably right to stick to the major issues, it is the minor questions, the groceries, with which we as constituency Members will be concerned. The details of the negotiations must be prepared very thoroughly, and I hope that this will be done with the greatest care.

1607
The Prime Minister is some one who can say that we are going to join the Common Market and that there will be no cause for failure on our part, but if there is cause for failure it will be his responsibility because I am not satisfied that he has prepared the ground or the diplomatic staffs with the detailed knowledge required for hard negotiations on many of the details.
A great deal has been said about agriculture and there is little I can add on the subject at this stage. It is expected that the price of food might increase by 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. It is essential that we should negotiate an interim period of approximately five years. That would mean that the increase in the cost of food could go up 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. a year over those years. As everyone knows, it has gone up far more than that in the last three years. It is essential to protect our contribution to the Guidance and Guarantee Fund. One of the things which has been brought out is that the guidance fund is limited in extent. I hope that it will be possible after 1970 to increase that fund, because that is something which will produce the potential for new methods in agriculture.
I do not think many of my hon. Friends or hon. Members opposite who disagree deeply with our entry have accepted the possibility that we might for once—this is very rare under this Government— actually have a reduction in taxes. We on this side of the House must insist that such a reduction of taxes shall be passed on to those who will suffer because of the increase in food prices, and passed on to the sector most in need.
Mr. John Hall: I am not sure how my hon. Friend thinks that we shall get a reduction in taxes when we remember that the burden of taxation is higher in the Common Market countries than in ours.
Mr. Webster: The agriculture support system is different. That is how there could be such a reduction. There is a great risk of the contribution to the Guidance and Guarantee Fund being anything from £150 million to £230 million, but it would be a bad negotiator who settled for less than £100 million or £120 million contribution to that fund. For that reason we should wish our
1608
negotiators to be very thoroughly attuned to attitudes and thinking of the people in the European Commission.
There has been much talk about technology. This country, which has only a limited amount of raw materials, is dependent on skills. Hon. Members on both sides represent those skills in this House. We have been suffering from a brain drain not only through the loss of ability to pay people who are skilled engineers but through the loss of the capacity and loss of potential. There is a real dramatic scope for those industries in Britain and Europe. Despite the efforts of President de Gaulle, the brain drain is common to the French. It is common to the Germans and to every country in Europe. We see a crisis in at least one of the Communities which we are seeking to join. Euratom for the last 12 months has been unable to agree on a common budget. Much of the technological advance which we seek is to a great extent dependent on this. Projects at Winfrith stand at risk because of this. I hope that our entry will bring about negotiating skills for an agreement in this respect.
There are also the aircraft industry and the computer industry. The right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) spoke about institutions in Strasbourg and in this country. At that moment Black Rod came into this House. I gathered that it was for the last time. That is a procedure which, as he knows, does not happen in the European Parliaments.
If Britain goes into the Common Market, we in the House must insist that we contribute to the development of institutions in the Common Market so that the fears of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) are allayed. We should have a European Parliament directly elected which can bring a European Commission to book. This is absolutely essential. At present, there is no control over a European Commission if it becomes excessive in its powers. There are various procedures, but they are seldom evoked. The British genius for democracy is greatly needed in developing the institutions which would be commen to all of us.
Those in the country and in the House who oppose our entry will, I think, agree that for the last fifty or sixty years there

1609
has been an increasing spirit of malaise about this country. We have withdrawn from our Empire. We have withdrawn from our influence as a great naval power. When a country withdraws in that way, with whatever dignity, with whatever self-respect, and whatever institutions it attempts to bequeath to the countries it leaves behind and for which it has done its best, the operation is, at best, not an inspiriting performance. It is difficult and hard for all to bear.
Here for this country, on the threshold of Europe, there is another opportunity, another challenge. Those hon. Members who oppose our entry have eloquently put forward the challenge. I believe that this country and this House would rise to this challenge, make the great new partnership successful, and assist European countries in their own development.
9.12 p.m.
Mr. Terence Boston: I hope in the course of a very brief speech to make two passing references to the points which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) has made, particularly with regard to technology and horticulture.
At the outset it would probably be as well for me to declare an interest. This is an extraordinary debate in which to declare an interest, but such are the demands of the House that it is perhaps as well that I do so. In fact, upstairs at a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting I made a confession during the debate on the Common Market; but, through one of those curious aberrations,this happened to be one of the statements which was not leaked out in the course of the reports which appeared.
The declaration of interest which I feel compelled to make in this debate— I apologise to those of my hon. Friends who have heard me say this for repeating it—is that my wife is Australian, my maternal grandfather was Italian, and one of my maternal great-grandmothers was French. I am, therefore, in the position of being one-quarter Italian and one-eight French. I leave it to European computer development to work out exactly what my children will be. I have long felt that, if Britain joined the Common Market, in my case this would really mean the Common Market would be joining me.
1610
I have felt for a long time that the ideal solution undoubtedly is to join the Common Market, provided that arrangements can be made to avoid letting down our friends and dishonouring the commitments which we have entered into. I am among those who have supported the concept of a wider Europe. I believe, together with many of my hon. Friends, that any decision to join should be linked with some clear commitment here.
Clearly, Britain's aim must be for closer links with Europe as a whole. There is undoubtedly a danger that the present European Economic Community could become increasingly inward-looking. I believe that Britain could make the E.E.C. more outward-looking as a body. Britain has a vital role to play in forging closer contacts, particularly with the Eastern European nations. In one body connected with the British Council, I have had something to do in the past eight or nine months with relations with Eastern European countries.
Considerable progress has been made in the past two years in improving relations between East and West, and I do not accept that membership of the European Economic Community would necessarily make these links harder to secure. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday, it is notable that France under de Gaulle has made considerable strides in building up trade and other contacts with Eastern European countries, including some of the smaller countries, notably Rumania. Whether inside or outside, Britain must give greater momentum to these developments for closer links with Eastern European countries. From inside, we could help such developments, a point to which I shall return in a moment.
Insufficient attention has been paid in this debate, I feel, to what should happen if we do not succeed in our application—if we make one—to join the E.E.C. Last time, what damaged Britain's prestige more than anything else was not so much that there was humiliation felt because Britain did not get in but that, when the negotiations finally came to an end, the then Government seemed to be floundering, without a thought about where to go next. It may have been a factor contributing to our failure to get in last time that the alternatives were not sufficiently explained and dealt with during the negotiations. We had, and

1611
have, no sufficient fall-back position. This was the mistake last time. Now, we must be ready with a prepared programme if we do not succeed in our application, if made. Nothing could be worse than a sense of let-down if we fail to get in and have not prepared for that possibility.
I should like to hear much more from the Government about the courses of action which they would propose to take in that event. There are two great advantages in putting forward the alternatives at this stage. First, there is the advantage of avoiding any sense of letdown. Second—here I disagree profoundly with the view which the Leader of the Opposition put yesterday—it would help our negotiating position if those with whom we shall be negotiating have a clear and precise indication of the alternatives which we consider to be open to us. After all, we are supposed not to be crawling into Europe. If the alternatives are explained sufficiently beforehand, this will be an added advantage in our negotiating position.
Whatever happens, whether we go in or not, we must be ready to maintain the momentum of developing links with Europe. If things go well with our application, this will, obviously, create a momentum of its own. If they do not— I am not one of those who would regard that as an unmitigated disaster—we must be ready to continue in top gear with a prepared series of alternative steps. In that event, the first steps to be taken, one assumes, would be a round of top-level talks with the East European countries—I hope that this will take place in any case—and with the Commonwealth countries as well, while maintaining our close contacts with the E.F.T.A. countries. Undoubtedly, these plans ought to be prepared in advance, and, as I say, such preparation would help our negotiating position.
Several hon. Members have said that we should show enthusiasm in making our application. If we put forward the alternatives open to us in the event of our not getting in, this of itself will show our determination to get in. It will be a measure of enthusiasm, and will be a help in our negotiating position.
There are a number of specific moves which ought to be made in connection
1612
with this, moves not of some vague wider European concept, but tangible proposals for developing trade and other exchanges with East European and other countries. Much has been said about the need to develop the technological community which the hon. Member for Western-super-Mare mentioned in his speech, something which has been developed in a very tangible and specific way. There is also the need for a clearing house for scientific and technical information. These are specific tangible propositions which would provide an alternative series of proposals which could be followed if we fail in any application which might be made.
We cannot contemplate going through these convulsions once every five years. I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), but I agree with him that it would be wrong to go through this upheaval once every five years, and it ought to be stated categorically now that this is a one-and-for-all exercise. Every time we engage upon any series of negotiations to enter the E.E.C. this obviously arouses both hopes and fears at home and abroad among our E.F.T.A. and Commonwealth partners. Although I am broadly in favour of entering the E.E.C. at this stage, I believe that we should state quite clearly that this application, if one is made as a result of tonight's Division, should be a once-and-for-all exercise and that if it fails we should then be prepared to go ahead with a clearly stated set of alternatives.
I have kept on fairly general points without going into some of the detailed balance sheet arguments. Obviously, coming from a partly agricultural constituency, I should like to mention some of the difficulties affecting agriculture and particularly affecting horticulture. But the important things which should be borne in mind in any application are that we should be ready to go ahead in top gear with an alternative in the event of failing to enter, and, secondly, that we should make it clear to our E.F.T.A. and Commonwealth partners that, if we fail this time, we do not intend to apply again.
9.23 p.m.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I started my speech on Mr. Macmillan's Motion under Article 237

1613
of the Treaty of Rome six years ago by expressing my sense of privilege that I was taking part in so momentous a debate. I feel that I cannot improve on that for a start to this speech in 1967, but I cannot offer any guarantee that in the rest of my speech I shall necessarily maintain that agreeably uncontroversial standard. Then as now some of my right hon. and hon. Friends felt constrained to put down an Amendment to the Motion, and I now commend our Amendment to the House.
In 1961, the economic side was stressed the more strongly, and it was necessary in those days to bring out the fact that there were great political and constitutional implications. Today, that is taken for granted. Indeed, the Government have said that their main purpose derives from the political aspect. It was said by the Prime Minister and confirmed today by the Foreign Secretary. Never-theless, it is still, of course, necessary to strike an economic balance sheet.
Economics after all, are a very important part of politics, and politicians who forget that soon have it brought home to them. I want to start by saying a word or two on the economic aspect. When one strikes an economic balance sheet, there are items on both sides, as there are in all but the very simplest transactions of life. Surely the salient feature here is that, whereas the economic advantages tend to be speculative and contingent, the economic disadvantages are certain and inescapable.
Let me try to make that proposition good. There are two main economic advantages claimed by advocates of entry. First there is the avoidance for our exports of the common external tariff of the Six, and secondly the claimed advantages of the so-called economies of scale—the technological and other advances which are expected to accrue from a large market. The first of those advantages is factual. It is the only certain economic advantage of joining the Community. It is priced at £75 million a year.
On the other side of the balance sheet, the list of economic disadvantages is long and chilly. The increase in the cost of living we are told, will be 3 per cent. to ½ per cent., with its inevitable consequence of an increase in our production costs. and therefore in our export costs, with this difference, that the disadvantage
1614
will not be confined to the Community, but will handicap our export endeavours in all the markets of the world.
Mr. Donald Anderson Mr. Donald Anderson (Monmouth) rose——
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is for the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is in possession of the Floor of the House to decide whether to give way.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has been long enough in the House to know that I always like to give way. I am not being guilty of any discourtesy, but at this stage of the debate we are on a timetable, and I have an argument to make. I hope that he will forgive me.
The list is: loss of Commonwealth and E.F.T.A. preferences, £130 million a year; increased costs of our imports, £150 million a year; payments on the compulsory agricultural levy, up to £250 million a year; adverse movement of capital, £100 million a year. The Times has obligingly done the arithmetic for us. It is £630 million a year to gain £75 million a year.
Gamblers who plunge rashly on being told that there is easy money to be made are called suckers. What then, is the right term to attach to a Government who plunge rashly when they know that they are to be involved in a certain loss—a certain loss not even compensated by the so-called economies of scale, because the economy, we are told, will then be so deflated that we shall not be able to put them into operation?
When we last debated this matter in this House in November of last year I said, of the economic aspect, that at best it was non proven. In the light of the figures, and the knowledge that we now have, like Clive in Westminster Hall, I stand astonished at my own moderation. These are the calculations put forward for us by The Times, and they have not been gainsaid or rejected by the Treasury.
These are matters of trade. If they were to be refuted, who more authoritative, one would think, than the President of the Board of Trade, a man of known integrity, ability and experience? But we have not heard him in this debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] My hon. Friends say,

1615
"Where is he?". He has visited us from time to time at the far and less visible end of the Treasury Bench a transient and embarrassed phantom, scarcely even accorded the traditional privilege of the small boy—to be seen and not heard. Anyway, he certainly has not been heard. I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, were he here and would forgive so simple a canine metaphor, why has the President of the Board of Trade been muzzled?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not objecting to the poetry, but I must now put a procedural Motion.
It being half-past Nine o'clock the debate stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Order of the Day relating to European Communities may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour during a period of one and a half hours after half-past Nine o'clock, though opposed.
Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: To what doghouse has the President of the Board of Trade been sent? Perhaps the Prime Minister will find that licensing is a two-way traffic. There may be those with the courage and integrity to hand back their licence if they do not agree with what is done.
Mark the strange turn of events; mark the curious paradox with which we are faced. The Times concludes its gloomy but convincing analysis with these words:
"Parliament must decide whether the economic cost is worth the political benefit."
What strange words are these? Up to a short time ago, the advocates of entry were telling us that it was the political cost which was to be justified by the economic benefit, so strong was it. Now that argument is turned on its head, and we are invited to reach the same conclusion as to entry on precisely opposite reasoning.
It is not only the arguments which are not the same. The proponents are not the same. The commanding general is leading his troops in the opposite direction. In this debate we have heard a lot about conversion. I make no general criticism of political conversion. That is
1616
partly what we are in politics for—to convert other people to our way of thinking. Genuine conversion and frank avowal of error should never be reprobated. It should be respected and applauded.
The Prime Minister's conversion is notable; and, with the generosity so characteristic of him, he is determined not to keep it to himself. He is going to extend it to all his right hon. and hon. Friends. There was once a Roman Emperor, an early convert to Christianity, who had his troops baptised in battalions. That is the Prime Minister's technique: whipped into the water, a compulsory and collective immersion, zealots and sceptics alike.
We have heard several comparisons in the debate. The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) made a comparison with the Road to Damascus. There are some ingredients which seem to be in parallel. The suddenness of the occasion is a close parallel. I am not so sure about the next one. St. Paul's conversion was wholly unconditional. After what the Foreign Secretary said, perhaps that also applies to the Prime Minister's. Then, of course, St. Paul's conversion was characterised by a shining sincerity. I hope that that also applies in the present case. After all, there is no harm in hoping.
I read another comparison in a newspaper which struck me as being nearer—Peel's abandonment of Protection in 1846. The House may echo the sad query of a contemporary newspaper in 1846 in regard to Peel.
"The error of the right hon. Gentleman",
said the newspaper,
"is perfectly inexplicable. The arguments in support of the Protection which he has so frequently and so eloquently used would have convinced us … even had we not other irre-sistable evidence …"
It ended with the sad query:
"… how does it happen that they have not convinced himself?"
I also commend to the House what Disraeli said on Peel's conversion as being applicable here, too:
"Do not then because you see a great personage giving up his opinions—do not cheer him on, do not give so ready a reward to tergiversation."
Of course, it is not easy to see what caused his conversion.

1617
It is fair to say that the Foreign Secretary had no need of conversion— he is an old Common Market man—and it would be nice to think that it was his cool, detached, analytical logic, his careful and patient ratiocination which had at last brought conviction to the rest of his right hon. Friends. It does not, however, fit in with the character given to the Foreign Secretary by his right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale likened the Foreign Secretary in his itinerant journeys to Sancho Panza. I, perhaps, having a kindlier nature than the hon. Member, have discovered a rôle equally useful, but more dignified, in the Foreign Secretary's relationship with the Prime Minister. As heir apparent, he stands in the same relationship as James Duke of York to Charles II: "They won't kill me, George, to make you king."
Just as there is nothing in the economic factors to justify this conversion, there is nothing either in the political or the constitutional. If there were political and constitutional objections in 1961, and, indeed, in March, 1966, they are still there today.
It has been said that I am making the same objections to the Treaty of Rome now as I was making six years ago. It is said by way of criticism. Consistency on matters of principle used to be a political virtue. Of course, principle now, as we know, is démodé, vieux jeu. It is pragmatism that is the rage, le dernier cri. I believe, however, that principles are still a good guide in politics, and not to be blown hither and thither by every passing puff of political fashion. If I am making the same points about the Treaty of Rome now, it is because it is the same Treaty of Rome, unamended and binding in perpetuity.
I have two short but, I hope, sufficient propositions on this aspect of the impact of the Treaty of Rome. I have always accepted that there is no express commitment to political federation or the wider aspects of defence and international relations in the Treaty of Rome; but it does not follow that we can disregard those matters.
Suppose that in time, in five, ten or fifteen years—a short time in the life of a nation—the Six decide to go forward
1618
to full political federation, and we have signed the Treaty of Rome meanwhile. Would not our arrangements be so inextricably intertwined with theirs that we would have to go along with them whether we wanted it or not?
The first of my propositions is this. As we know, if we sign the Treaty, Britain will at once have to approximate her laws, over a wide range, to those of the Community. There is no dispute about this. The only dispute is as to how significant it would be. The Prime Minister, and the Lord Chancellor in another place, sought to mitigate it by producing a little list of laws which would not be affected—the criminal law, the law of divorce, and so on. But most citizens do not spend their time in the criminal courts or the divorce courts. They are commercial people. And even then the list was inexact. One of the matters excluded was town and country planning; but the system of industrial development certificates would have to go, and this is at the root of planning for industrial use——
Mr. Anderson: Nonsense.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Somebody says "Nonsense", but perhaps the hon. Member would be good enough to look up Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act, and he will see how close the connection is; and, perhaps, then pass it on to the Prime Minister, and the Lord Chancellor, too.
The matters which are covered—taxation and tariffs, transport and agriculture, the movement of workers and of capital, social services, and the distribution of industry are the heart and substance of our economic and social life.
Then for the future—my second proposition—Article 189 of the Treaty has been referred to. It says that, for the achievement of their aims,
"The Council and Commission shall issue regulations and directives"
and that the regulations
"shall be binding in every respect and directly applicable in each Member State."
That means that Parliament here would not be able to reject or vary the regulations. The collective laws of the Community would bind the individual British citizen, and Parliament and the courts alike would be powerless to intervene.

1619
These are what are called lesser issues —or, perhaps, not even issues at all. How can such things be? How can the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law be lesser issues? And what are the scales which can give such short weight as that? I say these are great issues—the long unfolding of our common law, and the evolution of our Parliamentary system, cradled here in Westminster, and copied, adapted and emulated to the far corners of the earth, the envy of the bond and the model of the free. These are great issues, and they are to be weighed in the scales of principle.
The House will recall what Burke said in regard to Ship Money:
"Twenty shillings would not have ruined Mr. Hampden's fortune. But the payment of half twenty shillings, on the principle on which it was demanded, would have made him a slave."
May I conclude by saying a word about my vote tonight and the reasons for it? It will not be a mere anti vote. The newspapers, for ease of reference, tend to label me and those who think like me as anti-Marketeers. That is, of course, a considerable over-simplification. I am not hostile to the Community. Far from it. At the very outset of this controversy, on 2nd August, 1961, I testified in this House to my respect for the Community, for the nations which comprise it, and for the gentlemen who administer its affairs; and I abide by that today. I further claim to be as good a European as the advocates of entry.
To be a good European, one does not have to be exclusively European. That is what we are now told we must be. We are told that we must loosen our Commonwealth and Atlantic ties, that we must turn our backs on the outside world, that we must become not only exclusively European but exclusively Western European to the prejudice, if need be, of our partners in E.F.T.A. I am too good a European to acquiesce in any breach of faith with them. We are told that we must do these things in order to induce General de Gaulle to raise the portcullis and let us in.
I find that something of a paradox. Consider the dates. The Treaty of Rome was signed in March, 1957. The General came to power in France in May, 1958. Supposing that those dates had been reversed. Does anyone think that France,
1620
under his leadership, would have signed the Treaty of Rome in its present unamended form and accepted all its supranational rigidities and its invasions of sovereignty?
Now we are told that the General is the arbiter of this matter; and I must say that it saddens me somewhat to hear people conjecture, with bated breath and resigned expressions, whether or not the General will let us in, and how great a renunciation he will demand of us to do so. I do not think that Britain's fate and fortune should be at the decision of any man, however illustrious. In saying that, certainly I mean no disrespect to the General. He is a great man, a great leader and a great patriot. I do not think that I can add that he is a great democrat, because I understand that he takes a somewhat robustly Cromwellian view of Parliamentary institutions.
The House will recall the familiar lines:
"Upon what meat does this our Caesar feed, That he is grown so great?"
and,
"… he doth bestride the narrow world.
Like a Colossus; and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs, and peep about".
I will not conclude the quotation, because I believe that it is not apt either now or at any time. There will never be a dishonourable grave for Britain, whether in the Common Market or outside.
I believe that Britain still has a lively and useful part to play on the world stage. It will not be the same role precisely as we have played in the past, because it is a changing world, and certainly I accept that. It is not because this application has in it vast change and great risk that I shall say "No" tonight. Britain has always accepted risk and weathered change; and we must accept change and the need for adaptability if we are to go on playing our part in the fast-moving modern world in which we live, with all its hopes and its hazards, its perils and its problems.
I am not inward looking nor backward looking. I am concerned with Britain's global contribution in the future in a changing world. I believe that this contribution can best and most effectively be made with the minimum of regional restriction and institutional inhibition.
Given those circumstances, I believe that there is still a great world rôle for

1621
Britain to play as the advocate and exemplar of all the great causes, for which Britain has traditionally stood— for justice, for peace, for freedom, for tolerance and fair dealing between man and man, and as an interpreter and emollient influence in a troubled and turbulent world. That is a rôle to which I believe Britain can and should still aspire. Believing this, it is in no negative spirit but in that profound conviction that I shall cast my vote tonight.
9.50 p.m.
Mrs. Renée Short: I am very pleased that three days of patience have been rewarded, but I am sorry that the only woman to speak in this debate should be left to the end. I promised you, Mr. Speaker, to sit down at five minutes to ten. So I have only five minutes.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has put very effectively the economic cost of Britain's entry into the Common Market, which is one of the main reasons why I oppose it. I always have done so, because I can see quite clearly that the burdens of Britain's entry, as burdens always are, will be put on the shoulders of those least able to bear them. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Monday that certain consumer goods are likely to be reduced in price. We have been told that apples and tomatoes would come down in price. That is marvellous. That is the basic fodder—is it not?—for large families, for pensioners and for people with less than £12 a week.
The fact is that the basic commodities that these families need are bread, dairy products, butter and meat—which some of them are already able to afford only infrequently—and that these will become prohibitive in price. My right hon. Friend also said all would be well if we could achieve a 3 per cent. growth in our national product. But, pace the National Plan, we have not been able to achieve an increase in our national product so that the only way in which we can finance the balance of payments deficit is by deflation of something like 10 per cent. or by increasing the level of unemployment to 4 per cent. That is what The Times told us in the article quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. This is good enough reason for me as a Socialist to be opposed.
1622
But my main reason for opposing British entry is on political grounds. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) gave us a geography lesson, and in his interpretation Europe is divided into three blocs. I do not believe that our going into one bloc will give us more independence to do what we ought to be doing, and I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) that we should try to go into the Common Market first. We should first be doing what he suggested—that is, to try and bring the three blocs together.
This is one of the main reasons for my disappointment with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in which he showed no cognisance of these problems and their solution in bringing together the E.E.C., E.F.T.A. and Comecon. Together, all these countries have a greater gross national product than the United States, and that is the main economic problem of the world.
If my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were to use their enormous talents, the skill they possess, the influence they have in the world and the expertise they have obtained in their journeys around Europe to do precisely that, it would bring enormous benefit to our people, because here is a really expanding market.
The market of the Six is not an expanding market any more. It is slowing down. West Germany has the same number of unemployed as we have. Its productive capacity has fallen. [Interruption.] The market of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, on the contrary, is a growing market where our consumer goods and our engineering products could find a ready sale. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has sat here three days trying to make this speech and has a right to be heard.
Mrs. Short: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The "gentlemen's party" is not very polite tonight.
It is in this direction that I believe the salvation for our people lies and not in going into this restrictive group which cements the divisions of Europe. Our destiny lies in seeking to create the united Europe and the united world that I believe all of us want to see.

1623
I say to my right hon. Friend that a great deal of the solution to our problem lies in our own endeavours. For heaven's sake, let us take the brakes oft the British economy and make our approaches in those markets where we know there is a rising standard of living and a demand for the things that we can produce.
Mr. William Baxter: On a point of order. Last night, Mr. Speaker, in your absence I asked Mr. Deputy Speaker whether a decision in favour of our entry into Europe would be in accordance with the Act of Union, as it stipulates quite clearly that there are several exclusions with which this Parliament has no power to interfere. Have you had an opportunity of discussing with the legal advisers of the House the question whether or not a decision of this Parliament on this question is in accordance with the Act of Union?
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member will be aware, I read the point that he made last night. It is not a point of order for me. I hope that it will be taken up in the reply.
9.56 p.m.
Mr. Reginald Maudling: I am glad that you said "in the reply". Mr. Speaker. This has been a debate of remarkable quality, fully measuring up to the immense significance of the issues that we have been discussing. Many points of view have been expressed, in every case with frankness, clarity and conciseness. In the course of this three days' debate, we have run over the whole range of the arguments. It is now right for us as a House to take this solemn decision. It is my responsibility, on behalf of the Opposition, to sum up the reasons why we shall support the Government Motion this evening in the Lobby.
I am sorry to have a difference with my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). I well understand the anxieties which underlie their Amendment. We all well understand them. The Government still have a responsibility to try to dispel or mitigate some of these anxieties. They have not done so so far.
1624
I want to take up a point with which I hope the Minister will deal—the question of the minor issues, or groceries. What are they? Sincere questions have been asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House again and again. What are these minor issues which are to be relegated for decision after entry into the Community? I hope that the Minister will answer this question fully, because it is of immense importance.
I must oppose my right hon. Friends and recommend to my other right hon. and hon. Friends that they should oppose them, for the overwhelming reason that the effect of the Amendment would be to register the opposition of this House to the Government's initiative—to register disapproval—and this we cannot do. The Conservative Party has constantly expressed, at and between elections, its belief that it is right for Britain to make a further effort to join the Community. For that reason, I am afraid that with great regret I must recommend my hon. Friends to reject the Amendment.
I have been concerned with the problems of the European Economic Community for more than 10 years. I have always been convinced that it is in the interests of this country and the whole of Western Europe to have a single Western European economic system.
This debate has been called historic. It is historic in the sense that it is important and in the sense of unity between both sides of the House to such a remarkable degree—but it is not new. It is part of a continuing process that has gone on for many years. We attempted, in the Free Trade Area negotiations in 1957 and 1958, to achieve an objective of this character. The right hon. Member the Leader of the Liberal Party quoted something that I said about not having dreamed of trying to enter the Common Market in the late 1950s. This was because we then had the possibility of a free trade area which would have avoided many of the difficulties of joining the Common Market and—this is often forgotten now—which was explicitly accepted before the Treaty of Rome was even signed by all the other European countries, including the heads of Government of Germany and France.
We were therefore in 1957–58 trying to achieve a free trade area. If we had done so, it would have made a better

1625
basis for the future of Europe than we see at present. The attempt failed, as we know. The veto was imposed. Then there came my right hon. Friend's attempt to see if we could find a means of entering the European Community. What is now happening is a continuation of that process.
The Foreign Secretary this afternoon tried to draw a distinction which I do not follow. I can see no distinction between a conditional application to join and an application to join on the basis of conditions to be agreed in negotiations. He made it: clear—I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends noticed this—that if the conditions were not right the Government would not be prepared, in those regrettable circumstances, to recommend to this country final agreement to entry of the Community.
It is therefore right for us now, as we have done through the debate, to weigh the issues pro and con, both economic and political. Although it is balanced, the decision comes down definitely and decisively on the side of applying to join the Community.
There are both long-term and short-term considerations, and I believe that far too much attention has been paid in the debate to the short-term considerations. We are discussing a decision which holds good not for five years but for fifty years and more. We are discussing the whole economic future organisation of Europe and probably of the Western world—the whole political future, in many ways— and, important though the short-term considerations are, it is the long-term future which matters, and this must be what we concentrate on.
The great disadvantage is that the short-term factors, which are, on the whole, adverse economically, are far more easy to quantify than the long-term advantages. One can add up, after a fashion, the short-term difficulties, but it is hard to put any figure on the long-term advantages.
In an extraordinarily powerful speech, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) talked about guesswork. I do not think that it is guesswork. I think that it is judgment and faith which we need in this matter. We have to make a decision about what, in the long term, will be the interests of this country. This
1626
is a matter just as much of faith and of judgment as it is of guesswork.
While we weigh in the balance in this debate, as we are doing, whether it is right for this country to go in and to apply or not to apply, once having made our decision, let us pursue it with enthusiasm and determination all the way through. It is no good being halfhearted. It is right to be dispassionate and to reject sentiment about the past and about the future, and there is danger of both. The judgment having been reached dispassionately, it must be followed with all the enthusiasm which we can manage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) said that this is a challenge. Let us regard it as a challenge. Having made our decision, let us accept the challenge and obtain from meeting it all the benefits for our people and those of Western Europe which can be involved in a historic move forward of this character.
I look first at the economic considerations. In the short term, of course, there are difficulties. Prices, particularly of food, will rise, as we know. Against that, one must offset, first, the falls in prices of other commodities and, second, a substantial reduction in Government expenditure as a result of the reduction in subsidies. Both these factors can well mitigate the effect of the rise in the food prices on the cost of living.
Second, British agriculture will have to face great changes—they might better be called distortions: shifts from one form of production to another—but, in total, I have no doubt that our highly efficient modern agriculture will benefit from participation in a wide community with a rapidly growing consumer power, a community in which the political power of the farmers in terms of numbers is probably much greater even than it is in this country.
It is hard to assess the immediate effect of joining on the balance of payments. We gain access to an enormous market and we gain access on a basis of preference against our main external industrial competitors, the United States and Japan. This will be an enormous gain, particularly to our engineering, electrical and modern developing technological industries.

1627
We lose preferences in E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth, and little has been said about our Commonwealth preferences. Indeed, I say frankly that not enough has been said on this issue, remembering that they are valuable still and because we must recognise what we are losing by giving them up. We face competition in our own markets from Europe. In many cases, such as chemicals, we will have to have tariff protection against third countries lower under the common tariff than we enjoy under our own one at the moment.
Little has also been said on the question of invisibles. This is something which gives us an enormous part of our export income, and from invisibles and the skill and ability of the City of London, the banks, insurance companies and commodity markets, this country will reap a rich harvest in a wide European market. This is a big factor concerning entry which has so far been virtually ignored.
Then the question of capital movement. I agree that there are dangers in free capital movement, but we should not assume that all the risks are on one side. The City of London has the most highly developed capital market outside the United States—way ahead of any capital market on the Continent of Western Europe. Our ability to mobilise savings, not only here but from European countries as well, will be of great importance.
Added to that is the almost certain development of greater United States investment in the United Kingdom as a result of our joining the E.E.C. I am sure that we could look forward, if we are confident and capable enough, to a substantial gain on the balance of payments on the capital side of the account.
We must, then, consider the agricultural levies. It is logical to say that, in a complete economic union, levies on imports should fall into the same fund, whatever the port of entry, as it were. But complete economic union is a long way ahead, and at the present time the effect of the regulations unamended would throw a heavy burden on the British balance of payments. The Prime Minister rightly made this point, and I am glad to know that it is one matter on which he will be keeping a close eye during the negotiations.
1628
I can sum up on the short-term issue by saying that the factors are adverse and that we will probably lose on the balance of payments. The Prime Minister calculated that there would be a £100 million a year shift to export or import saving on an accumulative basis. This is a formidable figure, and I am inclined to think that it may be an underestimate. A shift of £100 million from domestic consumption to exports may easily mean more than £100 million off domestic demand. On top of this, we have the other problems which are involved in the need to expand our economy while maintaining a healthy balance of payments position. To do all this as well is a very formidable task indeed. I hope that the Government are not underestimating it and that they realise that the House is entitled tonight to hear more about how the Government hope to catch up on this problem, remembering that it will be a practical, early, and growing one.
These are the short-term factors as I see them, and, as I have said, I believe that they are outweighed by the long-term advantages. I am convinced that we will come to this conclusion if we look at the basic economic problem of this country, which is to increase our productivity, and if we compare our performance with that of our main industrial competitors, particularly the United States, which has three main advantages—first, a larger market; secondly, far greater research and development and, thirdly, different attitudes in industry on the part of management and unions. These three things can be dealt with by our joining the E.E.C.
The size of the market is too obvious to need stressing. The availability of long runs of production obviously brings down costs enormously. Recent figures we have seen about the chemical industry show clearly how the very efficient plants in this country cannot compete in terms of cost with the American plants of equal efficiency. This is because the Americans have so much bigger a market. That is a very important factor, indeed.
A second factor is the development of technology—not merely producing the bright new ideas that our own scientists do produce but turning them into the construction of hardware to be produced on the factory floor. Development problems, problems of technology, must

1629
always yield more easily to those who have greater numbers to apply to them. If the Americans can put eight engineers on to a problem and we can put only one, the Americans are likely to solve it better and more quickly than we shall. We cannot get this large technological basis for industrial development unless we have a market of adequate scale on which to found it.
As to the attitude of industry, both Management and unions, we can increase our productivity greatly without any additional capital equipment simply by working better and with more modern applications. I fear that it is harder to get Englishmen to change their methods of work than it is to get them to work longer hours. If we join a wider economic area, the effect will be large revivification of management and unions in their attitude to responsibility, innovation and progress in British industry. These are the three major economic arguments for joining the Community.
There are, of course, matters on the other side. A small country can exist and prosper alongside big countries, as is the case with the Swiss chemical industry or the Swiss machine tool industry, or the Swedish aircraft industry and the Swedish motor industry. It is quite possible to be small and efficient. One must not over-exaggerate the arguments about scale.
Secondly, to get the full benefit of the advantages that scale can bring one wants not merely the suppression of tariffs but such things as a common company law, a common taxation basis, a common commercial law—all the things that exist in economic union and are essential for the creation of the major international companies which will have to be formed if we are to get the benefits of modern technology on the maximum scale.
I therefore conclude, basically, that we need the room to expand our industry and, above all, we need the room to expand our technologically based industry. If we look at the pattern of our trade, it is quite clear that more and more we are concentrating on more highly specialised development projects, and this demands a market of adequate scale. That is the first reason why I believe that, in the long-term, it must be right to try to join the European Economic Community.
1630
The second reason is the negative one. Suppose we stay outside, suppose we are excluded, we shall be facing across the Channel a competitor with an industrial base on the scale of the United States but with levels of wages and salaries more akin to our own than to the American. This would be a formidable competitor, not only in Europe but throughout the rest of the world, including those areas like E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth where we still continue to enjoy a preferential position. Those are the two fundamental economic arguments: we need the large markets, and to be excluded would present us with a competitor on a formidable scale.
It has, of course, been stressed on many occasions that there are alternatives. I agree that there are alternatives. I am not sure that we need necessarily chase after new ideas, but I would not dismiss the idea of a North Atlantic Free Trade Area quite as quickly as did the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. But why do we need alternatives'? I believe that if we fail to get in we can still prosper and grow on the existing trade patterns, but we shall not prosper and grow, and Europe will not prosper and grow, on the scale that could be achieved if we were in the Community. This is the fundamental point. It is not ruin outside and prosperity inside, since we work together in both cases, but far greater success inside than could be obtained outside.
The difficulties which have stood in the way of our membership of the Community are, of course, well known. I do not believe they need be in any way decisive. I am quite convinced that experience has shown that any difficulty that can exist can be solved given good will all round and a mutual determination by all countries concerned to solve, those problems.
Agriculture used to be a stumbling block in 1957–58, and it was difficult in the early 'sixties. It is not the same difficulty now with the ready acceptance, rightly I believe, by the Government of the Common Agriculture Policy. The Commonwealth used to be put forward as a great difficulty, and there are difficulties which exist, but it is now apparent to all Commonwealth countries that basically their interest is in a strong British

1631
economy, a strong consuming country and a capital-providing country. Given proper attention to such problems as New Zealand butter and the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, it must be in the Commonwealth's long-term interest and, therefore, for the strength and health of the Commonwealth that we should be inside the Community rather than outside.
The other argument which is sometimes advanced against our membership is that we are not true Europeans. I find this a difficult argument to understand. I do not quite know what it means. We are by history, by tradition, by everything in our nation, Europeans. If it means that we do not wish to participate in a narrow inward-looking Europe that is true, but that is not my conception of what is meant by being European. I want to be a member of a European Community which is fundamentally outward-looking, West and East alike.
The question of our special relationship with the United States often comes up, and I should like to say a word or two about this. I believe that we in this country have a special relationship with the United States, but properly understood this relationship would bring to the Common Market not an element of disruption but an element of greater strength. There are permanent and transient features in our American-British relationship.
The permanent features are in custom, history, kinship, friendship—all human relationships which spring from something which is permanent. There are the less-permanent features which are strategic and defence which are affected by particular circumstances. But in the long-term our relationship with America is of a special human character. To bring this into the Community would be of tremendous value. I am certain that to see a new division arising between North America and Western Europe would be of great danger to all of us. To see a return by the United States to isolation would be for the United States to cut herself off from the culture and political experience and contacts of Europe, and that would be bad for her; indeed, to see the possibility of the United States and the Soviet Union coming to a deal over our heads in Europe, as they might well be tempted to do if we cut
1632
ourselves off, would be disastrous for us. I ask the Government to concentrate on this.
The Prime Minister in his first speech, emphasised—I think I am right in my recollection—that his concept of a united Europe including Britain was one which should contribute to greater strength of the Atlantic Alliance and of the Atlantic Community. That is of tremendous importance. There is a real danger that in the years ahead if there were to be created a rather inward-looking Europe and if all our forces were withdrawn from east of Suez the Americans might say, "The Europeans are now the isolationists. We will turn our backs on Europe, look across the Pacific and with Australia and New Zealand we shall concentrate our objectives there and ignore Europe." I hope very much that in our dealings in these negotiations we shall have constantly in mind the need for maintaining the unity of the Western world.
Another difficulty raised about our membership is the position of sterling. As the Chancellor explained cogently, this is not a real difficulty. We can deal with balance of payments problems within the parameters of the Treaty of Rome as well as outside. As for the position of sterling as a reserve currency, this in a sense is a red herring. People sometimes talk as if having a reserve currency is a privilege. It is not, it is a burden. We have a reserve currency because other people hold our currency and this means we owe money. This is a fact which I sometimes point out to Continentals who say that they would like to have a reserve currency. I think that we would welcome that. Both the United States and Britain would welcome the emergence of other reserve currencies to supplement the dollar and sterling.
Indeed, in the proposals I put before the I.M.F. meeting in 1962, we were suggesting bringing in other strong currencies and imprinting on them the stamp of the I.M.F., in order to create new reserve currencies to help fulfil this function.
There is a deep misunderstanding here which must be dispelled. We are not clinging jealously to some special privilege in having a reserve currency. We are proud of sterling as an international medium of exchange. We are determined

1633
to maintain our obligations to those to whom we owe money. Subject to that, the sooner methods can be devised—on a world-wide basis—not on a European one—of supplementing the two reserve currencies the better we shall be pleased. Therefore, I do not see any possible difficulty to our joining the Community arising from the special position of sterling as a reserve currency.
These are the main economic problems that seem to exist before us. I come briefly, in the few minutes remaining to me, to the political problems. Where do we stand with E.F.T.A.? Will the Minister in replying please be absolutely clear as to where we stand with our colleagues on E.F.T.A., because we do not wish in any way to jeopardise our obligations to them?
As to the Commonwealth, we have heard about New Zealand butter and about sugar. What about the arrangement my right hon. Friend worked out with such patience and success in Brussels dealing with die problems, for example, of India, and the problems of cereals from Canada and Australia? Where do the Government stand on them?
I turn finally to the question of foreign policy. It is argued mat this is mainly a political rather than an economic issue. I accept the arguments. There can be few higher aspirations for us than to play our part in avoiding, first of all, further or future conflicts within Western Europe and to play our part in me political and diplomatic development of Europe and in our relations with Eastern Europe. Also, I see it as a noble aspiration for Britain to try to ensure that her voice is made as loud, as clear and as effective as possible within Europe in the councils of the world. It might be said to be a choice, perhaps, between having a partial say in a very large voice and having complete control over our own voice. But in the modern world, to have complete control over one's own foreign policy and one's own foreign dispositions is asking more than history will grant now to any independent nation.
I am sure that we must look at this decision with eyes that are clear and in no way starry, either about the past or about the future. We must not think too much in terms of black and white. These issues are far too subtle for that.
1634
The progress of the Community, constantly bringing changes, means that a static picture is bound to be misleading. The terms of the Treaty of Rome are modified, for example, by practice, as in the case of migration. The facts of economic life together will mean far more economic decisions being taken in common than are specifically provided for within the Treaty of Rome. We shall finish up, if we enter, with a common currency, a common reserve system, and common policies on the pressure of demand, because there cannot be a free movement of goods, labour and capital unless we work on this basis. This is not part of the Treaty of Rome. It is part of the sheer logic of economic co-operation.
Then, on the political side, it is true that there is nothing in the Treaty about political unity. But, as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) pointed out—he referred to an article written by M. Spaak—political unity underlies this great concept of economic unity.
On the other hand the question is asked: how can there be a single voice speaking for Europe, unless there is a common foreign policy? This is a good argument in logic but a bad one in practice. It is a good example of having too much black and white, because the way these things will develop is far more pragmatic than that, if I may use a word which is a little overworked in this debate, perhaps. This is where our political skill will mainly be deployed. If we try to argue between theoretical federation or the theory of the Europe des états, we would not cope with the real problems, which are the problems coming up every day in economics and in politics.
The way in which the voice of Europe will get stronger is by European countries working together, understanding one another better, and coming to common policies; not by being forced to do so, but because they want to do so.
Those are the reasons why I believe, as I have for some time now, that it is right for us to apply to join the Common Market. There are dangers. There are the short-term economic problems, I agree. One cannot be certain what will develop in the future. There are great political problems and changes to be

1635
faced among all the nations of the Western world, and there is the need to maintain the cohesion of the Western world in a highly dangerous international situation. All these are dangers. We cannot embark on a course like this without facing dangers.
We have to weigh the short-term disadvantages which we can see clearly with the long-term advantages which we can see if we have an eye to look for them and determination to realise them. As I said at the beginning, I believe that we should weigh this decision carefully and calmly, and then, having taken our decision, enter upon our course with all the enthusiasm and determination which this nation can muster.
10.25 p.m.
The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): At the outset of this impressive debate, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made very clear the difficulties and problems which this country will face in the approach to the European Economic Community and the difficulties which will confront her in the opening years of membership of the Community. Each one of my right hon. Friends who has spoken from this Box has done the same in his own field.
I am sure that it was right to state the difficulties plainly. It was right, in the first instance, from the point of view of our own countrymen. It ought not to be said at the end of this debate that the Government have made any attempt to minimise the real and serious problems which face us, and, in view of the speeches which have been made, I am sure that that charge could not now be levied. It was right, also, to make the difficulties clear for the purpose of the negotiations themselves. Those with whom we are to negotiate should not be left in any doubt that the matters which we shall raise are by no means trivialities. They are matters vital to this country. It is important to stress this plainly so that no one need suppose that, when we raise them, we are in any sense making unnecessary difficulties. We want there to be, on both sides of the negotiations, a correct appreciation of the size of the problems, neither maximising nor minimising them. It was right, therefore,
1636
during this debate, to make clear the size of the problems with which we are faced.
During the debate itself, each hon. Member who has spoken, as, I suppose, was natural, has developed, according to his particular experience, constituency concerns and personal knowledge, this or that problem. Altogether, it is a tough thicket of difficulties through which we have to make our way. But, while it is entirely right that this should be made clear in the debate, we must not—here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling)— make the mistake of taking too short-term a view of what is involved. If we see without illusions the tough thicket of difficulties, we must also have sufficient vision to see what opportunities lie beyond once we have carved our way through that thicket, and we must have the prudence to see what dangers lie in wait for us if this effort either is not made or is unsuccessful.
The difficulties to which reference has been made in the debate are partly economic and partly political. I take, first, the range of economic difficulties. These are partly concerned with the joint effect on our economy of changes in the cost of living, the balance of payments, and capital movements.
Many estimates have been made and quoted during the debate of what they are. When trying to assess the validity of these estimates, we should notice that there are the following considerations which we should bear in mind. The first is a very obvious one, but it has certainly been obscured in the presentation in some organs of the Press, that, for example, the changes in the cost of living do not occur all at once and overnight. This was made very clear in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture when he stressed—[Interruption.]—I expected that reaction and I will now invite hon. Members opposite to consider what they really wanted in this respect. Did they want the Government to come to the debate and minimise the serious problems which face us in this respect? Do they think that my right hon. Friend was wrong to present as clearly and as plainly as possible what those difficulties are? Do they think that he was wrong to say that, because of that, a long transitional period would be necessary?

1637
Those questions they have not answered. The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) agreed with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that the House ought not to tie his hands by an exact statement of what the transitional period would be, and any responsible person knows that. I was present at the end of the debate last night and nearly all the back benchers of the party opposite were baying at the Minister to name an exact period, and the right hon. Member for Grantham, who today says that it would be wrong to tie the Minister's hands, offered not one word of rebuke or discouragement at the time to those of his hon. Friends who were doing so.
In a true assessment of the economic difficulties, we have not only to take into account the fact that there will be——
Sir John Rodgers: I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not be so party political.
Mr. Stewart: I have listened to about three-quarters of the debate during the three days which it has lasted. I think hat I am entitled to reply and I think hat hon. Members who have spoken are entitled to hear what I now have to say in reply. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) tells me not to be party political; he might have made that remark to his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham.
A true assessment of the size of the economic difficulties means that not only must we take into account the fact that there is a transitional period, but also that we ought not to make at the outset the assumption that we shall have no success in any negotiations about the levies, about the use of the Fund, or about any other adjustments which may be made. It is a significant fact that some of the estimates of our difficulties are made on the assumption that we shall secure no success in negotiations in any of these matters. It is not a legitimate way to conduct the argument to assume that if we go in, everything will be unfavourable to us in the course of the negotiations, but that if we stay out, all the surrounding circumstances will be favourable.
For instance, it has been asked whether, if we do not attempt to go in, or if we fail, E.F.TA. will remain for us
1638
still to belong to. I hope so, but it would be quite wrong to talk as though that were a fixed and certain fact. If we are to take a gloomy view of what we achieve or do not achieve in the negotiations, we have to take a similarly cautious view of what threatening things might happen to us if we do not make the attempt, or if we do not get in.
We should also notice, in assessing the size of the economic burden, that a large amount of money now spent on agricultural support costs will not be needed for that purpose. We shall, at least, not have to pay twice over, in the Community's way and in our own. In the attempt to assess the whole net effect of the immediate economic burden, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave the cumulative figure of £100 million, climbing over a period of five years, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) referred.
I quite accept his point that we must not treat this as if it were a light achievment, but it is right to set it in proportion. This is about one third of 1 per cent. of the gross national product. I accept that this is not money that falls into only one flat. Neither is it something so enormous that we ought to support this argument by saying that it is something beyond the powers of this country to achieve.
The mention of it brings us to the point that very much turns in this argument on what we may expect in the way of increased powers of growth in this country. It is to that in a few minutes which I shall turn. Before doing so, I should like to make this last remark on the question of the undoubted immediate difficulties. It has now been stated in all quarters of the House that the necessary measures, fiscal or through the social services, must be taken to see that these burdens are not left casually to lie where they fall, some of them hitting people who can least afford to be hit. It was made quite clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the television interview that it would be necessary to deal with this problem through pensions and social services. A similar statement was made, I was glad to notice, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), when he

1639
spoke of the need to help those who might be hardest hit.
Other speakers, particularly those representing agricultural interests, have in some cases asked for particular compensation for particular people. The House will be with me when I say that it would be quite unreasonable to try to spell out at this stage of the proceedings the exact machinery with which one deals with that problem. I am sure that I am right and I am sure that the House will agree when I say that we must start from the general principle that if any particular group is bearing a particular share of the immediate burden, the community should come to its rescue, and such difficulties as there are should be fairly spread, just as, we trust, the later benefits will be spread throughout the community.
Mr. Manuel: This is a very important point. I take it that when my right hon. Friend mentions the lower income groups, he is including in this, we hope, the lower wage earners who, because they are wholly employed under the National Insurance Acts today, cannot get any assistance?
Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with that point on television. [Interruption.] The point that my hon. Friend makes is a right and entirely legitimate one, and it falls within the compass of what I have said, that wherever one finds a particular group which can say that the action of Britain in going into the Community has struck it particularly hard, the community must go to its rescue. Clearly as essential is the fact that the growth of the economy during those years should be sufficient to justify the attempt to make it possible, not merely to counteract the immediate burden, but to bring to this country a great many advantages. There are very solid reasons for believing this to be so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) pointed out, I think rightly, that he, some time ago, was the first to emphasise in this House the great and increasing importance of economies of scale in industry. That is a point which I need not labour now. It has been made by many hon. Members. The only point which I wish to make in addition is that not only is it of great importance now, for example, in the chemical, plastics, elec-
1640
tronics, motor car and computer industries, but that it is a factor which will be of growing importance to our economy in the years to come.
That will mean that if we do not get into the Common Market, as the years go by the difficulties which we shall face in trying to sell in world markets in competition with industries that can reap the economies of scale will grow over the years. This is an additional reason why we cannot, in trying to strike the balance sheet, tot up the burdens and difficulties, on the one hand, and then assume that if we do not go in, everything will proceed smoothly. We must accept from the nature of industrial development that if we do not go in the struggle to provide our people with a proper standard of life will be conducted in increasingly difficult circumstances.
We should notice, too, that one of the problems which we face in this country, in a number of industries, is this. Is it possible to have firms of the size where they can really reap the greatest advantages without their being so near a monopoly as to threaten the interests of the consumer? That can happen if the total market with which one is dealing is the market only of this country, or of this country and E.F.T.A. It is far less likely to happen when the whole market with which we are dealing is to the 300 million people.
We should notice also that one effect of entry into the Community will be to give what our industry particularly needs at the present time: a special impetus towards the export field. This is undoubtedly, in coping with our present difficulties, one of the things for which we have particularly to look. We know in many instances the technical things that need to be done in industry to increase productivity. What we want is a sufficient motive and drive to get those things done particularly in the export and in the import-saving field. One of the things which entry into the Community can bring to us is this impetus towards exports.
These advantages, although they are very real, will not drop into anyone's lap. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) warned the Government against seeking easy money. I was much amused

1641
by his speech. He spoke to us of the problems of the convert. As one who has known him for many years, even when he was a Liberal, I understood how he felt about converts. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Government must not look for easy money, we are all fully aware of that. The door to these advantages is opened if we go into the Community. They are not achieved without very considerable effort.
That effort will mean the application in industry of the whole range of industrial discoveries which we now find being made in private industry, in the National Economic Development Council. The right hon. Member for Barnet asked me what steps the Government would take to ensure that we could reap those advantages. If he studies the con-elusions of last autumn's National Productivity Conference, he will see the view of industry itself on the lines of policy that should be pursued in particular industries and firms. These have to be pursued with greater vigour.
We have also got greatly to increase the opportunities for training of skilled labour in this country; we have to encourage forms of payment of wages which give direct encouragement to productivity and the more efficient employment of labour; we have to press ahead with our regional policies to see that we do not leave in many parts of the country unemployed labour and resources.
The anxieties that have been expressed on economic matters have not only been about these immediate economic burdens. A number of my hon. Friends have expressed doubts about the position of the development areas, and I want to say something therefore about regional policy in this connection. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who particularly raised this point, that it is perfectly true that, at the present time, if we deny an Industrial Development Certificate to someone who wants to go to the South-East or the Midlands, he will probably have to go to one of the development areas in this country, whereas, if one pictures us in the Community, he could, at least in theory, go somewhere on the Continent. It is no good denying that that is so.
1642
But it would be a gross exaggeration to imagine that this could or would happen in the great majority of cases. If one looks at the kind of firms and the kind of enterprises for which applications are made, it is clear that, in the great majority of cases, their interests would not at all be served by a move of this kind and we must remember also that there are many other instruments of regional policy.
There is the Government's policy of dispersal of organisations under their own control; there are the differential rates of investment grants; there are the building of advance factories and the steady improvement of the transport and other infrastructure of the regions—although I would say there that one of the things to which special attention will have to be given if we enter will be the improvement of communications between the development areas and the ports of the South and East coasts. That is one of the things to which the Government will have to give their attention.
But there would be nothing in the Treaty of Rome or in the practices of the Community to prevent us, for example, from going ahead with the policy of regional employment premiums which the country is now discussing. There was some question also——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member has been listened to up to the moment. I hope that the conversations will cease.
Mr. Stewart: There is also the question of how far policies involving planning and public ownership could be continued in the Community. If one looks not only at the wording of the Treaty of Rome but at the actual practice of the Community, both the individual countries in it and the planning activities of the Community collectively, it is clear that there is nothing that we do or want to do now that we should be inhibited from doing if we were in membership.
The question was asked, "Granted you can plan, that you can have such public ownership as you wish, what about the ends with which this is concerned?" There again, if one looks both at the wording of the Treaty and at the practice of the Community countries, we see that increasingly they are regarding the ends of economic policy as not only the

1643
individual standard of life but social welfare and that they are doing this in some cases to an extent that leaves us behind. I do not believe therefore that the anxieties expressed on economic policy go anywhere near making the case against entry into the Community. But I share the views which have been expressed in many quarters that a very great part of this argument is an argument about future political development.
Some have asked, "What are our obligations towards E.F.T.A.?". I should make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale that it is not right to say that we waived a pledge to E.F.T.A. The E.F.T.A. countries accept as fully as we do that the London Declaration is no longer appropriate to the position today. That was fully and equally understood between us. The nature of the obligation we now have is to keep them fully informed during the negotiations, to have regard— although not to the wrecking of our own chances—to their opinion while we are negotiating and, as is stated in the Communiqué, to make sure that if one or more E.F.T.A. countries enter and others are still on their way in we do not take action, such as the immediate dismantling of tariffs, which would distort the pattern of trade among the E.F.T.A. countries. This is a reasonable and negotiable undertaking.
But some of the political anxieties go futher than this. There have been anxieties about the political structure of Europe. Are we letting ourselves into some kind of federal prison? We should notice that the political institutions of Europe have still to be worked out. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition gave us one piece of good advice. Speaking of last time he said that it was a mistake on our part to try to negotiate and settle matters for the future which had not already been settled in the E.E.C. That is good advice, and of wide application.
We ought not to approach—and we need not approach—these negotiations in the belief that we have to adopt a particular position, either about future political institutions in Europe, or defence, or monetary matters. I was a
1644
little surprised at the right hon. Member forgetting his good advice by trying to plant on us a recipe for defence that, as far as one could understand it, seemed to be dangerous and ill-considered.
There were also anxieties about what part Europe will play in the world and what part the individual countries of Western Europe will play in the whole community of Europe itself. Every Member can have his own hopes or, perhaps, his own nightmares about this. Some axe concerned about the possibly undue predominance of one Power or another. But one thing common to all the imagined futures of Europe that people adopt if we do not make this attempt is that whatever happens it will be settled more and more without us and over our heads.
I understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) about defence, but if the countries of Western Europe and the United States were to act in the manner that he feared they might—I do not share that fear, but if he were right it would be something to be concerned about—our absence from the European Economic Community would not make it less likely, if it is likely at all. There would be increasing danger that on one issue after another things would be settled without us and over our heads. In all the imaginary pictures of the future of Europe there would be one common feature, or lack of feature—the absence of the United Kingdom.
Another reason that moves people politically is a sheer emotional reason— and a quite legitimate one, at that. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that we all have something of an Ancient Briton in us, and if the time comes when his statue is placed side by side with that of Queen Boadicea in her chariot on Westminster Bridge there will be many who will be with him in spirit.
The mistake we make is to suppose that these strong and passionate feelings are peculiar to the British. We must accept this fact. May not a Frenchman feel pride in the great achievements of his country throughout the centuries? May not a Belgian feel pride in his country's emergence through centuries of slavery to its present independent and free institutions? Yet none of these has felt that

1645
this was incompatible with membership of a Community designed to give a fuller and richer life to Europe as a whole.
Other political anxieties concern East-West trade and the part Europe can play towards the developing countries. Here again, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and the hon. Lady the Member for Watford were concerned——
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Not me.
Mr. Stewart: I meant to say my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short).
Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order. I am not a lady.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Stewart: I apologise to my hon. Friend.
One thing which hon. Members who are concerned over this point will notice is that it is not only this country which is concerned about the possibility of increasing trade with Eastern Europe. There is great and growing interest in all the countries of the Community; and here again there are no grounds for supposing that the separation of this country from the Community will help the process of trade between Eastern and Western Europe. That trade will proceed, as trade with the Commonwealth will proceed, and as the possibility of giving aid to the
underdeveloped countries will proceed, in proportion as Western Europe, including ourselves, moves forward towards higher productivity and to a higher standard of life.
I mentioned the developing countries and the problem of aid. The Community has greater total wealth and greater resources for that than we have. But we have great knowledge and skill in the application of aid. In this sphere of aid, as in technology, what is needed is a marriage of our skill and knowledge with the increasing wealth that would be available in the development of the Community. All these things—increasing East-West trade, the possibility of an increasing rapprochement with the East and more generous aid to the underdeveloped countries—are among the things which can be achieved in a greater Europe.
Will Europe have the vision to do these things? I believe it can and I believe that that would be more sure if we were in than if we were out, for what does the very derivation of the word, the very name, Europe mean? It means "wide prospect, broad vision". That is Europe's name and may that be Europe's destiny.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question: —
The House divided: Ayes, 487, Noes, 26.

Division No. 337.]

AYES

[11.0 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Bidwell, Sydney

Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

Albu, Austen

Bitten, John

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Bishop, E. S.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Blaker, Peter

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Alldritt, Walter

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Campbell, Gordon

Allen, Scholefield

Body, Richard

Cant, R. B.

Anderson, Donald

Bossom, Sir Cllve

Carlisle, Mark

Archer, Peter

Boston, Terence

Carmichael, Neil

Armstrong, Ernest

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Ashley, Jack

Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Astor, John

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Cary, Sir Robert

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

Boyden, James

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Channon, H. P. G.

Awdry, Daniel

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Chapman, Donald

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Bradley, Tom

Chichester-Clark, R.

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Braine, Bernard

Clark, Henry

Baker, W. H. K.

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Clegg, Walter

Balniel, Lord

Brewis, John

Coe, Denis

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Coleman, Donald

Barnes, Michael

Bromley-Davenport,Lt, -Col. Sir Walter

Conlan, Bernard

Barnett, Joel

Brooks, Edwin

Cooke, Robert

Batsford, Brian

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

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

Cordle, John

Bence, Cyrill

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

Corfield, F. V.

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

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

Costain, A. P.

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Crawley, Aidan

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Bryan, Paul

Crawshaw, Richard

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Buchan, Norman

Cronin, John

Berry, Hn. Anthony

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

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Crouch, David

Gresham Cooke, R.

Lawson, George

Crowder, F. P.

Grieve, Percy

Ledger, Ron

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Dalyell, Tam

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Dance, James

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Gurden, Harold

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Lipton, Marcus

Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

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

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

Lomas, Kenneth

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Longden, Gilbert

Davies, Ifor (Cower)

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Loughlin, Charles

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hamling, William

Loveys, W. H.

Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

Hannan, William

Luard, Evan

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

Harper, Joseph

Lubbock, Eric

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Delargy, Hugh

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Dell, Edmund

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Dempsey, James

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

MacArthur, Ian

Dewar, Donald

Hart, Mrs. Judith

McBride, Neil

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

McCann, John

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Harvie Anderson, Miss

MacColl, James

Dobson, Ray

Haseldine, Norman

MacDermot, Niall

Doig, Peter

Hastings, Stephen

McGuire, Michael

Donnelly, Desmond

Hattersley, Roy

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Doughty, Charles

Hawkins, Paul

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Hay, John

Mackie, John

Drayson, G. B.

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Mackintosh, John P.

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Maclennan, Robert

Dunn, James A.

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

Dunnett, Jack

Heffer, Eric S.

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

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

Henig, Stanley

McNamara, J. Kevin

Edelman, Maurice

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

MacPherson, Malcolm

Eden, Sir John

Heseltine, Michael

Maddan, Martin

Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

Higgins, Terence L.

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Hlley, Joseph

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Hill, J. E. B.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Hilton, W. S.

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

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

Hirst, Geoffrey

Mapp, Charles

Emery, Peter

Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Marquand, David

Ermals, David

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Ensor, David

Holland, Philip

Mason, Roy

Errington, Sir Eric

Hooson, Emlyn

Maude, Angus

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Hordern, Peter

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

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

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Mawby, Ray

Eyre, Reginald

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Maxwell, Robert

Faulds, Andrew

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Fernyhough, E.

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

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

Finch, Harold

Howie, W.

Mayhew, Christopher

Fisher, Nigel

Hoy, James

Mellish, Robert

Fitch, Alan (Wlgan)

Huckfield, L.

Millan, Bruce

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Floud, Bernard

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Hunt, John

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Ford, Ben

Hunter, Adam

Miscampbell, Norman

Forrester, John

Iremonger, T. L.

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Fortescue, Tim

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Foster, Sir John

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Monro, Hector

Fowler, Gerry

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

Montgomery, Fergus

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

Janner, Sir Barnett

Moonman, Eric

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Freeson, Reginald

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Gardner, Tony

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

Moyle, Roland

Gibson-Watt, David

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Murray, Albert

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Murton, Oscar

Ginsburg, David

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

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Glover, Sir Douglas

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Neave, Airey

Glyn, Sir Richard

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Newens, Stan

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Judd, Frank

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Goodhart, Philip

Kershaw, Anthony

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Goodhew, Victor

Kimball, Marcus

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

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Nott, John

Gourlay, Harry

Kirk, Peter

Oakes, Gordon

Gower, Raymond

Kitson, Timothy

Ogden, Eric

Grant, Anthony

Knight, Mrs. Jill

O'Malley, Brian

Grant-Ferris, R.

Lambton, Viscount

Onslow, Cranley

1648

1649

Oram, Albert E.

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Vickers, Dame Joan

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Rose, Paul

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Oswald, Thomas

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

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

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Padley, Walter

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Royle, Anthony

Wall, Patrick

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Wallace, George

Palmer, Arthur

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Walters, Dennis

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Scott, Nicholas

Ward, Dame Irene

Pardoe, John

Sharples, Richard

Watkins, David (Consett)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

Weatherill, Bernard

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Sheldon, Robert

Webster, David

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Shore, Peter (Stepney)

Weitzman, David

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

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

Wellbeloved, James

Peel, John

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Pentland, Norman

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Percival, Ian

Sinclair, Sir George

Whitaker, Ben

Peyton, John

Skeffington, Arthur

White, Mrs. Eirene

pike, Miss Mervyn

Slater, Joseph

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Pink, R. Bonner

Small, William

Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Smith, John

Wilkins, W. A.

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Snow, Julian

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Spriggs, Leslie

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Stainton, Keith

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Price, William (Rugby)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

prior, J. M. L.

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Pym, Francis

Stodart, Anthony

Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

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

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Stonehouse, John

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Randall, Harry

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Rankin, John

Summers, Sir Spencer

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Winnick, David

Rees, Merlyn

Swingler, Stephen

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Tapsell, Peter

Winterbottom, R, E.

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Taverne, Dick

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Reynolds, G. W,

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Temple, John M.

Woodnutt, Mark

Richard, Ivor

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Worsley, Marcus

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Wright, Esmond

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Wyatt, Woodrow

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Thornton, Ernest

Wylie, N. R.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Younger, Hn, George

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Tilney, John

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

Tinn, James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

Tomney, Frank

Mr. Charles Grey and

Robson Brown, Sir William

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Mr. William Whitlock

NOES

Baxter, William

Forrest, George

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Bell, Ronald

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Black, Sir Cyril

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Teeling, Sir William

Bullus, Sir Eric

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Burden, F. A.

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

Cunningham, Sir Knox

McMaster, Stanley

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Currie, G. B. H,

Maginnis, John E.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchisor and

Farr, John

Marten, Neil

Mr. Edward M. Taylor.

Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes, 488, Noes, 62.

Division No. 338.]

AYES

[11.15 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Albu, Austen

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Baker, W. H. K.

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Balniel, Lord

Bidwell, Sydney

Alldritt, Walter

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Biffen, John

Allen, Scholefield

Barnes, Michael

Biggs-Davison, John

Anderson, Donald

Barnett, Joel

Bishop, E. S.

Archer, Peter

Batsford, Brian

Blaker, Peter

Armstrong, Ernest

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Ashley, Jack

Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

Body, Richard

Astor, John

Bence, Cyril

Bossom, Sir Clive

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

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Boston, Terence

Awdry, Daniel

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Bowden, Rt. Hn, Herbert

Dunnett, Jack

Heffer, Eric S.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

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

Henig, Stanley

Boyden, James

Edelman, Maurice

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Etdward

Eden, Sir John

Heseltine, Michael

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

Higgins, Terence L.

Bradley, Tom

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Hiley, Joseph

Braine, Bernard

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Hill, J. E. B.

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Hilton, W. S.

Brewis, John

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

Hirst, Geoffrey

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Emery, Peter

Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

Ennals, David

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Brooks, Edwin

Ensor, David

Holland, Philip

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Errington, Sir Eric

Hooson, Emlyn

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

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Hordern, Peter

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

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

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

Eyre, Reginald

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

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

Faulds, Andrew

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Fernyhough, E.

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Bryan, Paul

Finch, Harold

Howie, W.

Buchan, Norman

Fisher, Nigel

Hoy, James

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

Fitch, Alan (Wlgan)

Huckfield, L,

Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Floud, Bernard

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Hunt, John

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Ford, Ben

Hunter, Advn

Campbell, Gordon

Forrester, John

Iremonger, T. L.

Cant, R. B.

Fortescue, Tim

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Carlisle, Mark

Foster, Sir John

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Carmichael, Nell

Fowler, Gerry

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

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

Janner, Sir Barnett

Cary, sir Robert

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Castle Rt. Hn. Barbara

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Channon, H. P. G.

Freeson, Reginald

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Chapman, Donald

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Gardner, Tony

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

Clark, Henry

Gibson-Watt, David

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Clegg, Walter

Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Coe, Denis

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Coleman, Donald

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Conlan, Bernard

Ginsburg, David

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

Cooke, Robert

Glover, Sir Douglas

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Glyn, Sir Richard

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Judd, Frank

Cordle, John

Goodhart, Philip

Kershaw, Anthony

Corfield, F. V.

Goodhew, Victor

Kimball, Marcus

Costain, A. P.

Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Crawley, Aidan

Gourlay, Harry

Kirk, Peter

Crawshaw, Richard

Gower, Raymond

Kitson, Timothy

Cronin, John

Grant, Anthony

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Grant-Ferris, R.

Lambton, Viscount

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Crouch, David

Gresham Cooke, R.

Lawson, George

Crowder, F. P.

Grieve, Percy

Ledger, Ron

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Dalyell, Tarn

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Dance, James

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Gurden, Harold

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Lipton, Marcus

Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire,W.)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

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

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

Lomas, Kenneth

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Longden, Gilbert

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Loughlin, Charles

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hamling, William

Loveys, W. H.

Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

Hannan, William

Luard, Evan

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

Harper, Joseph

Lubbock, Eric

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Delargy, Hugh

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Dell, Edmund

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Dempsey, James

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

MacArthur, Ian

Dewar, Donald

Hart, Mrs. Judith

McBride, Neil

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

McCann, John

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Harvie Anderson, Miss

MacColl, James

Dobson, Ray

Haseldine, Norman

MacDermot, Niall

Doig, Peter

Hastings, Stephen

McGuire, Michael

Donnelly, Desmond

Hattersley, Roy

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Doughty, Charles

Hawkins, Paul

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Hay, John

Mackie, John

Drayson, G. B.

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Mackintosh, John P.

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Maclennan, Robert

Dunn, James A.

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

1652

1653

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Peel, John

Summers, Sir Spencer

McNamara, J. Kevin

Pentland, Norman

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

MacPherson, Malcolm

Percival, Ian

Swingler, Stephen

Maddan, Martin

Peyton, John

Tapsell, Peter

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Taverne, Dick

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Pink, R. Bonner

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

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

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Temple, John M.

Mapp, Charles

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Marquand, David

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Price, William (Rugby)

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Mason, Roy

Prior, J. M. L.

Thornton, Ernest

Maude, Angus

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Pym, Francis

Tilney, John

Mawby, Ray

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Tinn, James

Maxwell, Robert

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Tomney, Frank

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Randall, Harry

van Straubenzee, W. R.

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

Rankin, John

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Mayhew, Christopher

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Vickers, Dame Joan

Mellish, Robert

Rees, Merlyn

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Millan, Bruce

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Reynolds, G. W.

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Miscampbell, Norman

Richard, Ivor

Wall, Patrick

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Wallace, George

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Ridsdale, Julian

Walters, Dennis

Monro, Hector

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Ward, Dame Irene

Montgomery, Fergus

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Watkins, David (Consett)

Moonman, Eric

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Weatherill, Bernard

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

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

Webster, David

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

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

Weitzman, David

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Robson Brown, Sir William

Wellbeloved, James

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Weds, William (Walsall, N.)

Moyle, Roland

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Whitaker, Ben

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Rose, Paul

White, Mrs. Eirene

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Murray, Albert

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

Murton, Oscar

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Wilkins, W. A.

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Royle, Anthony

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Neave, Airey

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Newens, Stan

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Scott, Nicholas

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Sharples, Richard

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

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

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

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Nott, John

Sheldon, Robert

Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

Oakes, Gordon

Shore, Peter (Stepney)

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Ogden, Eric

8hort, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

O'Malley, Brian

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Onslow, Cranley

Sllkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Oram, Albert E.

Sinclair, Sir George

winnick, David

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Skeffington, Arthur

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Slater, Joseph

Winterbottom, R. E.

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Small, William

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Oswald, Thomas

Smith, John

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

Snow, Julian

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Padley, Walter

Spriggs, Leslie

Woodnutt, Mark

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Stainton, Keith

Worsley, Marcus

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Wright, Esmond

Palmer, Arthur

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Wyatt, Woodrow

Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Wylie, N. R.

Pardoe, John

Stodart, Anthony

Younger, Hn. Ceorge

Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Stonehouse, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Mr. Charles Grey and

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Mr. William Whitlock.

NOES

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Driberg, Tom

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Baiter, William

Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

Kenyon, Clifford

Bell, Ronald

Farr, John

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Black, Sir Cyril

Forrest, George

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

Booth, Albert

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Lee, John (Reading)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hobden, Dennis ((Brighton, K'town)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Burden, F. A.

Hooley, Frank

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Hutchison, Michael Clark

McMaster, Stanley

Currie, G. B. H.

Jackson, peter M. (High Peak)

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

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

Maginnis, John E.

Dickens, James

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Manuel, Archie

1654

1655

Marten, Neil

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Mendelson, J. J.

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Varley, Eric G.

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Molloy, William

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Yates, Victor

Neal, Harold

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Swain, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Norwood, Christopher

Taylor,EdwardM.(G'gow,Cathcart)

Mr. Michael Foot and

Orme, Stanley

Teeling, Sir William

Mr. Ian Mikardo.

Resolved,

That this House approves the statement contained in the Command Paper, Membership of the European Communities (Command Paper No. 3269).

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Bishop and Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby added to the Sub-Committee on Oil Pollution appointed by the Select Committee on Science and Technology.— [Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

BUSINESS INTERESTS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (REGISTER)
Deferred proceeding resumed:—
Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Order (Sittings of the House (Morning Sittings)), put forthwith the Question,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of a register of the outside business interests of Members of Parliament.
Question agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Ben Whitaker, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. John Robertson, and Mr. William Molloy.

BUSINESS INTERESTS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (REGISTER)
  BUSINESS INTERESTS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (REGISTER)
  Bill to provide for the establishment of a register of the outside business interests of Members of Parliament, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 30th June, and to be printed. [Bill 256.]

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES AND DISEASES (OLD CASES) BILL [Lords]
Deferred proceeding resumed:—
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER,pursuant to Order (Sittings of the House (Morning Sittings)), put forthwith the Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

NORTH-EAST LANCASHIRE
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]
11.36 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: After the drama, tension and excitement, not to say discomfort, of the past few minutes, it would be an understatement if I were to say that this Adjournment Motion was something of an anti-climax. It is, however, a welcome relief to get back to the mundane problems of Lancashire, and North-East Lancashire in particular, after a three-day debate of, we are told, such historic importance.
The subject which I now bring before the House has, however, particular relevance and flows naturally from some of the great events which we have been discussing over the past three days, because much of the debate on the Common Market centred on what Government policy towards the regions would be in the event of entry. I for one am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that the present trend of concentrating industrial development and economic growth in the regions, which previously had been neglected, will not, and need not, be overturned as a result of going into the Common Market.
The problems of East Lancashire are not unknown in this House. I do not want to make a speech full of statistics; the emotional appeals that had been associated with the particular economic problems that have hit Lancashire over the past few years are equally well known.
What are those problems? Any debates on Lancashire's problems must be seen against the background of the decline of its two basic industries, coal and, even more important, textiles. We have had a full debate on textiles, and I do not want to take the time of the House tonight by going into the details.
Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Cotton textiles.
Mr. Davidson: Cotton textiles; I am obliged to the hon. Member. But we cannot allow a basic industry to decline so rapidly and in such a concentrated

1659
fashion without bringing in new industries to replace it, and that, in a nutshell, is the immediate need for Lancashire.
I am pleased to see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is here. He represents the neighbouring constituency of Rossendale. It is not for me to speak on his behalf and he could certainly speak on this subject more eloquently than I. I am sure that if he had the freedom I have to express opinions, he would be expressing them as forcibly in this House as he does, I know, at the meetings concerning textiles and Lancashire which he attends regularly.
I am not surprised to see my right hon. Friend here for this debate because he was also here throughout the debate on textiles which took place at an unearthly hour of the morning. Ministers are easy to hit. They are easy targets. They are popularly conceived to be powerful figures but they are by convention frequently unable to hit back. I am happy to pay my tribute now to my right hon. Friend.
One of the other problems facing Lancashire is the lure of the surrounding development areas. I pay tribute to what the Government have done to try to bring employment into areas which have suffered over the years from consistently heavy unemployment, but development areas as at present designated should not benefit at the expense of areas such as North-East Lancashire, which are not economically sound themselves, and that is what is happening at the moment.
The nearness of Skelmersdale, for instance, and the threat of a new town in the Chorley area is viewed with severe forebodings in North-East Lancashire. What we fear is that the increased development grants and the inducements which will follow from the setting up or the proposed setting up of another new town will increase the disparity even more between the development areas and the old industrial areas, with their problems of urban renewal, slum clearance, derelict and obsolete factories and ugliness.
The increased grants that will induce the building of factories in the Chorley area will mitigate even more strongly against North-East Lancashire in the pre-
1660
sent unbalanced situation and I should like my hon. Friend to give an assurance that he is well aware of the feeling in North-East Lancashire about the possibility of such a new town being built. Recently, we read that Courtaulds intend to build a new weaving factory, but we were horrified to find that it is not to be built in Lancashire but in Carlisle. That sums up the difficulties with which the area is faced.
Obviously, with the great financial inducements that development areas can offer—and no one begrudges them the help they are given—Lancashire feels very much that it is being written off at the moment. We view also with concern the suggestion of new employment premiums for the development areas. These would further increase the disparity between the old industrial areas and the new, attractive towns being built. One of the great needs of North-East Lancashire is for help in urban renewal. At the moment Lancashire is not benefiting from the handsome grant which is given to the development areas.
The problem of urban renewal in Lancashire is a very large one. We feel that the Government should give special, considerate and sympathetic help to the councils which are doing such a splendid job, from their own resources, to clear the eyesores that have plagued Lancashire for so long.
We need action now in Lancashire. The excuse that the Government have put up in the past few months—I appreciate the sincerity and good intentions behind it—is that it is necessary to solve the problems of the development areas first. But some of these areas have been development areas for 20 years, and they might go on being development areas. If we allow time to drag on the problem will become so difficult that the very regions that we are trying to help, and to which I am drawing attention, will have problems as difficult as those of the development areas. Then it will be too late to help them.
What I am asking for is well known to the Government. The Lancashire and Merseyside Industrial Development Association and the North-East Lancashire Industrial Development Association have made very plain what they feel to be the only answer to Lancashire's problems. First, the whole of East Lancashire

1661
should be made a development area; secondly, it should have very generous Government help for slum clearance and urban renewal and, thirdly, there should be a campaign to attract new industry into Lancashire, to replace the declining textile and coal industries. There should also be less luring away of existing industry to the development areas surrounding the area.
I do not share the pessimism that prevails in Lancashire at the moment. I am sure that the Government mean well to Lancashire and will not let Lancashire down. I would like my hon. Friend to tell Lancashire plainly that he understands its problems and will do something about them, and that Lancashire has not been written off.
Dr. Winstanley: I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member has said, but he seems to give the impression—when he says that East Lancashire should be made into a development area—that it is necessary to bring in new industry to replace the dying cotton trade. I think that is not precisely the impression he intended to give. I should like to know whether he wants to see the cotton trade revitalised, so that it can be much bigger than it is now.
Mr. Davidson: I have made my views on cotton known in this House. I spoke at some length in the debate on the cotton trade. Of course I want to see the industry revitalised, but I am equally concerned that new and modern industry should be attracted to Lancashire.
11.49 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): I am sure the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) for raising this problem tonight. His concern is a genuine one. It is shared by a number of hon. Members who have constituencies in the North-East Lancashire area, and I feel that their concern is demonstrated by the fact that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr.Greenwood), is sitting next to me.
I can tell my hon. Friend straight away that it is important to separate as far as possible the short-term from the long-term problem of the area of which he has been speaking. The short-term problem
1662
can be traced to events in the economy since last July; the general effect on economic activity in the country of the measures taken then resulted in, to some extent, halting the flow of new work and new industry to North-East Lancashire as well as to other areas of the country. In addition, there is the particular problem of the textile industry, which has been caused by the tightening credit situation and by a certain amount of de-stocking. However, these are temporary factors. Nobody would dare to venture a strong opinion about the fortunes of the textile industry, because it is difficult to predict with accuracy about it. My view is that the coming year should see some evidence of recovery. Imports have been checked considerably in the past year and in the earlier months of this year and we expect to see an end to de-stocking. We also hope to see some increase in consumer demand, which will be of general benefit.
Sir Frank Pearson: Would the hon. Gentleman recognise that this problem is not due solely to the rundown of the textile industry? It is a process which has been happening for a number of years, with young people being lost to the area, in which the average age of the working population is far too high. The trouble has been caused by a flow of working capacity away from the area.
Mr. Shore: I began by distinguishing between the short-term and long-term problems so that I could come on, in the few minutes remaining to me, to the long-term basic problems of North-East Lancashire. It is important to consider these problems and not to over-concentrate on the short-term problems of the past year.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington is aware, the basic problems about which we are talking have been with the North-East Lancashire area for a long time. Depopulation is an old problem. More than 600,000 people lived in the area in 1911. Today only about 475,000 live there. We are, therefore, not discussing a new problem, but one that has existed for many decades. It is inevitable that, with depopulation on this scale, the age structure of the area will be unbalanced, with a high proportion of people over 45.

1663
Why has this movement of population taken place? Only by considering that question will a solution be found I suggest that this big "why" can be answered in this way. First, there is the long-term decline of the cotton textile industry. I need say no more about that. It has gone on throughout our lifetime and has greatly affected the North-East Lancashire area. Secondly, the area has a certain remoteness. Communications have not been good in the past and its roads system leaves much to be desired. This is an obstacle to industrialists when considering the area as a possible location for new plants. Thirdly, housing in the area is poor. A lack of modern development and building has resulted in many towns in the area not looking particularly attractive. Over 37 per cent. of the houses were shown by the 1961 census to lack bathrooms.
In addition, there is the general problem of the industrial inheritance of the nineteenth century and, above all, the smoke and smog that hangs over a great deal of the area. That is the background of the decline, and my hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the need for a double policy of bringing in new industry and, most important, generally improving the area's amenities and infrastructure.
I want to say just a word about Ley-land and Chorley. This should not necessarily be regarded as a threat. In a sense, it could be something that complemented and added to the prospect of the other towns in the area. A preliminary study has been made, and I believe that the consultants have now submitted their report to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who will be considering it. Further, when the report is published it will be considered by the Regional Economic Planning Council and the local authorities in the area. I can assure my hon. Friend that the worries he has expressed will be examined objectively by the council and the other bodies in the area. I hope that he will not take an over-pessimistic view of the possible effects of development before the whole thing has been assessed.
I turn now to the two other main problems that concern my hon. Friend. The first is the policy towards new industry in the area. I can well understand
1664
his feeling that the problem would be solved if these areas were put on a par with development areas generally. In fact, under our Industrial Development Act we have given much wider terms of reference to guide the President of the Board of Trade in determining what would be a development area.
It would be very difficult to argue the case, particularly at present, that North-East Lancashire comes within the scope of the Act. We are dealing here with levels of unemployment which, although they have been high, regrettably, during the winter, if taken over a period of years, have been extremely low. I have looked at the period from, say, March 1964 right through to September of last year, and I do not think that during the whole of that period unemployment has averaged over I per cent. It is not a long-term unemployment problem, but one of a rather different kind.
There are two possible ways of dealing with the problem. One is to try to find, as it were, a new method of helping areas of this kind which do not qualify for development area status—what some people have referred to as "grey" areas. I cannot say tonight what our thinking is on the subject, but I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be giving the subject very careful and close study. There are problems. First, we do not want to dilute the aid given to the development areas—they have great problems which we must help them to solve. Secondly, we have the problem of establishing, as it were, criteria to define what a grey area is. Thirdly, we have to decide which of the available policy instruments would be most appropriate to use.
In the meantime, I can assure my hon. Friend that the I.D.C. policy in the North-East Lancashire area is now being, and will continue to be, exercised most liberally in favour of firms in that area. Further, there is the assurance of the President of the Board of Trade that he will assist the development of new industries wherever there are major releases of labour to be faced from the cotton textile industry. It is not just a matter of a liberal I.D.C. policy for firms that are already there, but where my right hon. Friend sees a danger of any substantial release of labour from the

1665
cotton textile industry he will apply a liberal policy.
I turn now to the problem of environment and communications. This is extremely important. Some developments are taking place which will be beneficial to the North-East Lancashire area.
I refer to the road developments, such as the link with the M6 which will come about with the improvement of A59 which will also go east into Yorkshire. In addition, there is the improvement of the A56 which links the area direct with Manchester. Thirdly, there is the link with the M61 which goes south of Burnley. These are very important developments which will be of great benefit to the area. They must be pressed ahead with as quickly as the road programme will allow.
I agree that housing and urban renewal are extremely important and on these local authorities have been extremely active. I do not wish to select unduly, but Burnley has been very enterprising and under the town development scheme it has agreed to build 5,000 houses over the next 10 years. This is contrary to the trend of depopulation in the area and will be welcomed by all in North-East Lancashire.
In addition, there is the general improvement of environment which will come about by extending smoke control orders. Local authorities vary a great deal in the vigour with which they carry out this legislation, but Burnley has declared about 50 per cent. of its area under the scheme. It has been estimated that we can get 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. more sunshine in North-East Lancashire by vigorously dealing with the problem of smoke pollution.
My hon. Friend may perhaps find reassurance in the fact that we now have the advantage of areas of this kind being within the scope of survey by regional economic planning councils. It was only in 1965 that we had the first report on the north-west area. For the first time we had a report which not only looked at the whole area but which began to analyse the sub-regions in a systematic way and to consider their problems. The council is now pursuing a variety of
1666
studies which are relevant to the future of North-East Lancashire.
This has been a valuable debate. I assure my hon. Friend that there is a built-in awareness by the Government of the problems of North-East Lancashire. Its problems are familiar to many Ministers and they are being looked at by the Regional Economic Planning Council. When proposals begin to come forward from the Council, my Department will give them most serious consideration and we will do all in our power to help the sub-region.
12.5 a.m.
Sir Frank Pearson: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the most important sector of this problem. the total imbalance which will be caused if development areas are given subsidised wages. This is the biggest threat to East Lancashire and the Minister has totally failed to deal with this issue. He has totally under-rated the fear of East Lancashire that it will not get a fair crack of the whip and the fear that the development areas will take the cream of industrial development. It is a pity that the Minister did not take this opportunity to tell East Lancashire in much clearer terms what the Government's intention is with regard to these areas.
With the running down of the coal mines and of the textile industry, the people there are in grave doubt as to what their future will be. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) will be disappointed with the Minister's reply. We in East Lancashire looked forward to the debate with hope. We believed that we might get some indication from the Government of what the future of East Lancashire would be. We have had no answer. We have had some woolly words about smoke clearance. Smoke clearance is not much good to people who are out of work. It is not much good to an area whose young people are leaving. It is no good to an area whose two great traditional industries of mining and textiles are in decline. The Minister says that smoke clearance is the answer. Smoke clearance will not be enough for East Lancashire.

1667
As a result of the debate, my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Accrington, and the people of Burnley, Nelson and Colne, and Blackburn, will be extremely disappointed—
The Question having been proposed after half-past Nine o'clock on Wednes
1668
day evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at six minutes past Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Four-Term School Year
  Four-Term School Year
  Strathclyde General Hospital, Motherwell
  Strathclyde General Hospital, Motherwell
  Health Checks
  Health Checks
  Gaskin Report
  Gaskin Report
  Roads (Resurfacing)
  Roads (Resurfacing)
  Sheep, Cow and Beef Subsidies
  Sheep, Cow and Beef Subsidies
  Illegitimate Births
  Illegitimate Births
  Geriatric Beds, Glasgow (Waiting List)
  Geriatric Beds, Glasgow (Waiting List)
  Craiginches Prison, Aberdeen (Overcrowding)
  Craiginches Prison, Aberdeen (Overcrowding)
  Peterhead Prison (Prisoner's Letter)
  Peterhead Prison (Prisoner's Letter)
  Local Authority Houses (Interest Charges)
  Local Authority Houses (Interest Charges)
  Slums
  Slums
  Spey Bridge
  Spey Bridge
  Highland Development Board (Youth Services)
  Highland Development Board (Youth Services)
  Scottish Trawlers' Federation (Secretary's Letter)
  Scottish Trawlers' Federation (Secretary's Letter)
  Scottish Administration (Commissions and Statutory Bodies)
  Scottish Administration (Commissions and Statutory Bodies)
  Higher Mathematics Examination Paper (Error)
  Higher Mathematics Examination Paper (Error)
  Teachers (Roberts Report)
  Teachers (Roberts Report)
  Egg Producers (Financial Returns)
  Egg Producers (Financial Returns)
  Rail Closures and Disposal of Assets
  Rail Closures and Disposal of Assets
  Non-Graduate Men Teachers (Remuneration)
  Non-Graduate Men Teachers (Remuneration)
  Scottish Plan
  Scottish Plan
  Rate Support Grants
  Rate Support Grants
  Scottish Housing Advisory Committee (Report)
  Scottish Housing Advisory Committee (Report)
  Post Primary Education, Midlothian
  Post Primary Education, Midlothian
  Selective Employment Tax (Repayment Claims)
  Selective Employment Tax (Repayment Claims)
  Scottish Woodland Owners' Association (Chipboard)
  Scottish Woodland Owners' Association (Chipboard)
  Rent Registration (Angus)
  Rent Registration (Angus)
  Irvine New Town (Development Corporation)
  Irvine New Town (Development Corporation)
  Highland Transport Board (Report)
  Highland Transport Board (Report)
  Scottish Marriage Law
  Scottish Marriage Law
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  "Torrey Canyon"
  "Torrey Canyon"
  Project Mallard
  Project Mallard
  Polaris Warheads (Underground Tests)
  Polaris Warheads (Underground Tests)
  British Shipyards (Orders)
  British Shipyards (Orders)
  Anglo-French Variable Geometry Aircraft
  Anglo-French Variable Geometry Aircraft
  British Army
  British Army
  Mr. Michael Moyle
  Mr. Michael Moyle
  Towers (Demolition)
  Towers (Demolition)
  Roughs Tower
  Roughs Tower
  Scottish Infantry Battalions (Strength)
  Scottish Infantry Battalions (Strength)
  Royal Naval Dockyards (Pay and Staff Structure)
  Royal Naval Dockyards (Pay and Staff Structure)
  Military Airfields, Sheffield (Civil Users)
  Military Airfields, Sheffield (Civil Users)
  Indian Ocean Islands
  Indian Ocean Islands
ROADS
  A20 (Improvement)
  A20 (Improvement)
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  A1 (Draft Order Representations)
  A1 (Draft Order Representations)
TRANSPORT
  Accidents (Shattered Windscreens)
  Accidents (Shattered Windscreens)
  Conurbation Authorities
  Conurbation Authorities
  Taxis and Minicabs (Accidents)
  Taxis and Minicabs (Accidents)
  Co-ordination (North-East Scotland— Northern Europe)
  Co-ordination (North-East Scotland— Northern Europe)
AVIATION
  Hum Airport
  Hum Airport
  Abbotsinch and Turnhouse Airports (Diversions)
  Abbotsinch and Turnhouse Airports (Diversions)
  Autair International Limited
  Autair International Limited
  Aerodrome Development Projects (Government Grant)
  Aerodrome Development Projects (Government Grant)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Detergents (Prices)
  Detergents (Prices)
  Travel Agencies (Common Law Liabilities)
  Travel Agencies (Common Law Liabilities)
  Portuguese Cotton Dresses (Imports)
  Portuguese Cotton Dresses (Imports)
  Industrial Development (Surrey)
  Industrial Development (Surrey)
  Industrial Development, North East (Loans and Grants)
  Industrial Development, North East (Loans and Grants)
  Employment (Financial Assistance to Firms)
  Employment (Financial Assistance to Firms)
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  Trading Stamps
  Trading Stamps
  Direct Overseas Investment (Cmnd. 3244)
  Direct Overseas Investment (Cmnd. 3244)
  Patent System
  Patent System
  North Cornwall Abattoir Co. Ltd. (Building Grant)
  North Cornwall Abattoir Co. Ltd. (Building Grant)
  International Motor Insurance Cards (Monopolies Commission's Report)
  International Motor Insurance Cards (Monopolies Commission's Report)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Margarine (Prices)
  Margarine (Prices)
  European Economic Community (Fisheries Policy)
  European Economic Community (Fisheries Policy)
  Live Poultry (Transport)
  Live Poultry (Transport)
  Forestry Commission (Profit and Loss Account)
  Forestry Commission (Profit and Loss Account)
TECHNOLOGY
  Northern Region (Manpower Statistics)
  Northern Region (Manpower Statistics)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Inspectors
  Police Inspectors
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Offences Punishable by Imprisonment (Acts)
  Offences Punishable by Imprisonment (Acts)
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Law Commission on Imputed Criminal Intent (Report)
  Law Commission on Imputed Criminal Intent (Report)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Zambia (British Detainees)
  Zambia (British Detainees)
  Western Pacific Courts Order, 1967
  Western Pacific Courts Order, 1967
  DIVORCE PETITIONERS (WELSH DOMICILE)
  DIVORCE PETITIONERS (WELSH DOMICILE)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation Revenue (Companies)
  Taxation Revenue (Companies)
  European Reserve Currency Unit
  European Reserve Currency Unit
  Direct Investment (Sterling and Non-Sterling Areas)
  Direct Investment (Sterling and Non-Sterling Areas)
  Government Departments (Press Advertising)
  Government Departments (Press Advertising)
  Stationery Office (Welsh Language Publications)
  Stationery Office (Welsh Language Publications)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Invalid Vehicles (Partially Disabled)
  Invalid Vehicles (Partially Disabled)
HOUSING
  Local Authority Houses
  Local Authority Houses
  Council Houses, Brighton
  Council Houses, Brighton
  "Queen Elizabeth" and "Queen Mary"
  "Queen Elizabeth" and "Queen Mary"
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Buildings (Demolition Permission and Preservation Orders)
  Buildings (Demolition Permission and Preservation Orders)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  C.B.R. Jersey Mills, Brighton (Talks)
  C.B.R. Jersey Mills, Brighton (Talks)
  Unemployment (Greater London Area)
  Unemployment (Greater London Area)
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
POST OFFICE
  Special Stamp (British and Foreign Bible Society)
  Special Stamp (British and Foreign Bible Society)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Power Stations (North Sea Gas)
  Power Stations (North Sea Gas)
WALES
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Local Offices, Wales (Welsh Language)
  Local Offices, Wales (Welsh Language)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit

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

LORD FAIRHAVEN
Henry Rogers, Lord Fairhaven, having succeeded to the title by virtue of a Special Remainder contained in Letters Patent dated the twenty-fifth day of July in the tenth year of Her Majesty's reign—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord De Ramsey and the Lord Ailwyn.

BARONESS BERKELEY
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that Her Majesty has been pleased to terminate the abeyance of the Barony of Berkeley in favour of Mary Lalle Foley-Berkeley. The Barony has been in abeyance since the death in 1964 of her mother, Eva Mary Fitz-hardinge, Baroness Berkeley. A Writ of Summons has been issued in pursuance of Section 6 of the Peerage Act 1963, and the noble Lady attends at the Bar to take her seat.
After which, Baroness Berkeley took the Oath.

CHILD IMMIGRANTS AND MEDICAL SERVICES
2.33 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that large numbers of immigrants who, being under the age of 16, are not required to obtain entry certificates, and are therefore not referred to the medical officers of health of their places of destination,
1422
often move into new areas of the United Kingdom without the knowledge of the relevant medical authorities, with the frequent result that they themselves remain ignorant of the medical services available to them, and also that the medical authorities are not speedily aware of notifiable complaints from which they may be suffering; and if so, whether they propose to take any action to remedy this state of affairs.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, entry certificates apply only to Commonwealth immigrants; their possession is not compulsory, but many, including dependants, do obtain them. The names and destination addresses of these, and of all voucher-holders, are passed to the local medical officers of health from the port of entry, but it is not practicable at present to obtain addresses from dependants who arrive without entry certificates. All those coming in for settlement are given a leaflet or card, advising them to register with a doctor.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer, of which I could not hear quite all. I would only ask further whether, in so far as this state of affairs exists—and I gathered that it does to some extent exist—the noble Lord will always bear in mind that it involves a double threat, both to the immigrants, who must themselves be in need of help and advice, and to the public health of the country.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite sure to what state of affairs the noble Lord refers, but there is in some respects a certain difficulty—indeed, I would go so far as to say an inadequacy. But I believe that we go as far as we can to meet this difficulty. As I have said, at the port of entry a card, printed in eight languages, four of them Asiatic, is given to each dependant immigrant, advising him to register with a doctor and explaining that to do this would be in his own interests. I gather that of the 31,739 immigrants who came in 1966 and whose names and addresses we had, two in three were successfully contacted, and of this total 23,027 were Commonwealth immigrants. I think that we are

1423
doing as much as possible under the present legislation.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, would my noble friend consider sending this information also to the International Friendship Councils which are now being appointed in the various countries and also to the liaison officers, so that this gap may be filled?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that seems to be a very good suggestion. I should be very surprised to find that it had not already been carried out, but I will certainly look into it.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
2.37 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what success they have had in countering the efforts of the widespread network of organisations seeking by various methods, which have been reported in detail in the Press, to promote illegal immigration into this country.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I think the terms of the noble Lord's Question overstate the extent of the mischief, serious as it is. In the nature of things we have no means of knowing precisely what success attends our efforts to prevent evasion of the immigration control, but I can assure your Lordships that we are doing all we can to ensure that an effective control is maintained.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that, on the whole, very satisfactory Answer, may I ask him one further question? As it has been stated (my only information comes from the Press, and it may be incorrect) that the firms supplying forged passports in India and Pakistan maintain agents in Frankfurt and other Continental centres, and that among other activities they supply those who have been refused entry with further forged passports for a second attempt, could the noble Lord say how far it is possible for our officials
1424
to obtain co-operation from the Continental police in dealing with this particular racket?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, so far as forged passports are concerned, our officers detect a number of forgeries and take appropriate action. Of course, they are constantly on the lookout for this kind of thing. With regard to the noble Lord's question as to co-operation from the police on the Continent, I am afraid that I cannot give him an answer to-day, but I will certanly look into it.

GOLD AND SILVER MOVEMENTS: SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 consider introducing legislation requiring that the police be notified of the movement of gold or silver above a certain value.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the responsibility for security of the movement of a valuable load rests with the firms concerned, and while the police are glad to have an opportunity to advise, Her Majesty's Government would not regard it as desirable to legislate to make it compulsory for the police to be notified about the proposed movement of particular types of load. The Home Secretary has asked the Home Office Standing Committee on Crime Prevention to study urgently the problem of improving the security of valuable loads in transit, and their recommendations will be carefully considered.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, is not one of the methods by which these robberies can be reduced in the hands of the insurance companies, and are they not already making premiums very heavy for those firms who have repeated losses?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the enormous extent of the movement of valuables in the country may not be generally realised. It totals upwards of

1425
£30,000 million a year in cash and gold, including some £15 million a day between the Bank of England and the clearing banks. That is exclusive of the movement of precious stones and other valuable loads. It is estimated that the losses of cash, bullion and other valuable loads by theft in transit is put at one ten-thousandth part of 1 per cent. of the total value carried. So it would seem the insurance companies get fair value for money.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord has not forgotten that it is not every insurance company which carries this type of risk.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is not for Her Majesty's Government to interfere with insurance companies and tell them how to conduct their business. I would add this: again the police are always ready and willing to advise. It might well be that if in certain cases their advice had been sought the crime might have been frustrated.

TREATMENT OF MRS. KATHLEEN CATTOUSE
2.40 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 an apology has been made to Mrs. Kathleen Cattouse, wife of the Deputy Premier of British Honduras, for her treatment by the immigration officials at Heathrow Airport on March 23.]
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords. Mrs. Cattouse was medically examined under the normal arrangements which are, I am sure, well understood, and for which Her Majesty's Government see no need to apologise. The Home Office were given clearly to understand that Mrs. Cattouse was not content to come as a visitor, that is to say, for a fixed period of up to six months in the first instance, and she was granted an entry certificate that gave her the advantage of unconditional admission so that she could stay permanently, or for as long as she liked. This meant that she came within the category of those for whom
1426
medical examination is required, and the immigration officer acted correctly and in accordance with his instructions.
Medical examinations at ports are carried out by doctors, and any request to a passenger to remove clothing for a medical examination would be made only by the doctor or his assistant acting under his instructions, and not while the passenger was with an immigration officer. The Government are considering how far it would be possible to arrange for immigrants to be medically examined in their country of origin, instead of on arrival in this country.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend particularly for the last sentence of his reply. Is it not the case that Miss Nadia Cattouse was given assurances at the Home Office, and that communications were sent to the immigration officials in British Honduras in order to remove any difficulties should her mother, the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister of British Honduras, come to this country? Further, is it not the case that, nevertheless, this woman of growing years, after the exhaustion of the long air journey from America, was kept in detention for an hour and a half and was asked to unclothe to the waist for medical examination? Does my noble friend think that that is a desirable procedure to follow in the case of a woman of this kind?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is certainly the case that Miss Nadia Cattouse visited the Home Office and saw the Home Office officials about the demand she made in British Honduras for her mother to have a return air ticket. As my noble friend suggests, our people in the Home Office cabled at public expense and said that because Mrs. Cattouse wanted to come here indefinitely or permanently, and because she was over 60, she had every right to come, and an entry certificate was granted. She was not with the immigration officer for more than one minute or perhaps two minutes on arrival, and perhaps one minute after the medical examination.
Mrs. Cattouse had a leaflet which clearly states:
"Holders of Ministry of Labour vouchers and other Commonwealth citizens who are coming for a long time will normally be examined by the medical inspector when they arrive."

1427
It is, I would submit, with respect to my noble friend, an abuse of language to describe a medical examination in the excellently fitted, equipped and staffed medical unit at Heathrow as "detention". Of course I understand the feelings of Miss Nadia Cattouse. I have read her letter in The Times of Saturday last. But when she asks:
"Has a Canadian or an Australian lady, because she is white, been examined?"
my answer is categorically: Yes, thousands of them. And if we have a rule approved by this House, sought by Parliament, that there shall be medical examination because of the fear of pulmonary tuberculosis, then it would be wrong to discriminate.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, will my noble friend forgive me if I press the matter just a little further, because I feel it is so important for race relations. He mentioned an Australian or a Canadian lady. Does he really think that if the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, or the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada came to this country, she would be subjected to the same treatment that the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister of British Honduras underwent? May I urge him, because of the importance of this treatment in a sense of racial equality, to encourage the immigration officials at Heathrow and elsewhere, who have a difficult task, to show discretion and equality in these matters?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the immigation officers and the medical officers have instructions, and they carry them out. With regard to my noble friend's question about the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia or of Canada, if the same conditions applied—that is to say, that the lady in question was over 60 and was going to live here more or less permanently—then either of these ladies would have been subject to the same regulations, and they might well have been asked to have a medical examination.

SEA FISH (CONSERVATION) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate (with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation
1428
of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949) certain enactments which provide for regulating the commercial use of, fishing for, and landing of, sea fish, and for authorising measures for the increase or improvement of marine resources. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a,—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a and to be printed.

SEA FISHERIES (SHELLFISH) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to shellfish fisheries and shellfish, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

WEST MIDLANDS (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1967
2.48 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET) moved that the West Midlands (Amendment) Order 1967, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, by the West Midlands Order 1965, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing of the day, among other changes, transferred part of the former Borough of Oldbury to the Borough of Halesowen. In that part there was an Essoldo Cinema. In the former Borough of Oldbury it was possible for the justices to license cinemas to open on Sundays. In the Borough of Halesowen the justices have no such power. This amending Order restores the right of the cinema to apply for a licence to open on Sundays by applying Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the part of the former Borough of Oldbury now in the Borough of Halesowen. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the West Midlands (Amendment) Order 1967 be approved.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL
Order of the Day read for the Consideration of the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The Reference is to Bill (197) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause—
Subsidies under Part I not payable in certain circumstances
(" . In respect of any year during which a local authority fails to satisfy the Minister that it grants rent relief only to those of its tenants who need it and to the extent that they need it, no subsidies shall be payable under this Part of this Act to that local authority.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason will be deemed sufficient.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Amendment in question is your Lordships' Amendment No. 6, which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, moved during Committee stage in this House. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on this Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed. The House will recall that this Amendment, which was carried against the advice of the Government, sought to restrict the payment of the subsidies under Part I of the Bill to those local authorities who satisfied the Minister that they granted rent relief only to those of their tenants who need it and to the extent that they need it. The Commons have disagreed to the Amendment on the grounds that it alters the financial arrangements made by the Commons. The Amendment clearly has
1430
this effect, since it restricts the circumstances in which the Minister may distribute the new subsidies and introduces a new factor into the financial arrangements governing the distribution of the subsidies.
I think there is no need for me to go again into the merits of the case, which have been fully argued on both sides and on several occasions during the passage of the Bill through both Houses. The House of Commons have rejected the Amendment on grounds which they are entitled to invoke, and I trust your Lordships will accept that conclusion. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, as this is a matter of finance there is no more to be done in your Lordships' House; nor is there much more to be said, except that the Government are now self-declared wasters of public money, for they are insisting on deleting a clause which says that the taxpayers need not provide large new subsidies to such local authorities as are choosing to use existing subsidies wastefully.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Criminal Justice Bill be read a second time. In every sense of the word this is a major Bill: in another place the Notes on Clauses and Amendments alone have involved an output of about a quarter of a million sheets of typescript. But the Bill's importance derives neither from its length nor from its complexity; it derives from its proposals for radical change in the powers and procedure of the courts, from important advances in sentencing policy, and the treatment of offenders. Most important of all, it is a Bill—the first within my recollection—which places the main emphasis on the preservation and reform of the offender as a citizen. Some of its proposals implement the recommendations of a number of distinguished Committees. They meet the need for reforms which some of us have advocated for many years.

1431
The Standing Committee in another place, packed with legal luminaries, discussed the Bill for nine weeks, through 19 full sessions. They considered it in an atmosphere virtually free from Party, and made many improvements to the original Bill. In this House, the greatly enlarged Bill will be considered in the same atmosphere, by an even more eminent body of jurists, and it is not unreasonable to assume that further improvements will be suggested. Be that as it may, I am confident that, when it becomes an Act, this Bill will be a beacon lighting the way in our courts and penal establishments for many years to come. In a Bill of nearly 90 clauses and six Schedules, a clause-by-clause analysis would be both tedious and unhelpful. I propose instead to summarise briefly in some parts, and in others at greater length, to explain the thinking behind our proposed actions, and the administrative steps which will flow from them.
The 27 clauses of Part I are concerned with committal proceedings, and with new provisions regarding evidence, procedure and trial. They provide for committal proceedings in certain cases without consideration of the evidence; for written statements to be admissible as evidence, equally with oral evidence; for restrictions on the publication of reports of committal proceedings—all subject to appropriate safeguards and all designed to improve the efficiency of the machinery of criminal justice, whilst safeguarding the interests of the accused. In Clause 10 we provide for majority verdicts, one of the Bill's most controversial proposals, which I am sure we shall debate very fully and in Committee. For this reason, though I have much ground to cover, it is necessary for me to state now the Government's reasons for this step.
It is no unwarranted innovation. No sudden whim, but a reform which has been canvassed for a very long time. Of all the authorities on this subject, ancient and modern, I will quote but one, Jeremy Bentham, who said:
"If the work of forming verdicts, had been the work of calm reflection, working by the light of experience, in a comparatively mature and enlightened age, some number, certain of affording a majority on one side, viz., an odd number, would on this, as on other occasions, have been provided; and to the decision of that preponderating number would of course have
1432
been given the effect of the conjunct decision of the whole."
It is because he is "working by the light of experience" that my right honourable friend has put this proposal in the Bill. At present a disagreement, necessitating a new trial, requires only one juror of the 12 to stand out against a verdict for conviction or acquittal. Such figures as we have, suggest that disagreements occur in from 3½ to 4 per cent. of cases. At consequent retrials, juries appear to split about fifty-fifty between convictions, on the one hand, and acquittals or further disagreements, on the other. In not a few of the cases disagreement is caused by an irrational juror whose decision is prompted not by the evidence, but by dislike of a particular law or of the police, or even, as in one case mentioned in another place, because he does not "believe in fingerprint evidence".
Time-wasting, and sometimes cruel, as such disagreements are, they would not, standing alone, be too alarming. But the really grave and mounting problem with which we must deal is that of deliberate corruption or intimidation of jurors, to secure a vote for acquittal. In the last year or so there have been a number of major cases, mainly in the Metropolitan Police area. One last year attracted comment by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice. During the first trial of this case two jurors were seen to be approached by associates of the accused. The judge discharged the jury, and the trial had to start again. During the second trial, no fewer than three jurors reported that they had been offered bribes. Even so, in the event, of the five accused four were acquitted. The fifth, a bank messenger, who was convicted was probably the least important.
The trouble is, my Lords, that we know nothing of these cases when the juror does not speak. We see only the tip of the iceberg. And these cases usually involve the men most difficult to get into the dock—the "back-room boys" of large-scale organised crime, who are responsible for a considerable proportion of our total crime losses, averaging some £300,000 a week. We cannot allow these men to succeed in their contempt for the processes of justice.
It has been urged that the proper way to deal with this menace is to protect

1433
juries from interference. We are trying to do this, and in one current case 82 police officers have been engaged on surveillance of the jury for more than a month—and that is in addition to those who are protecting witnesses. Can it really be argued that this is the answer? Is it not far more sensible to remove, or try to remove, the motive for suborning a juror?
During our discussions we shall hear the most authoritative legal opinion on our proposal, but a Gallup Poll of about 70 per cent. in favour of majority verdicts leaves little room for doubt that in our proposal we have the backing of public opinion. And I would draw your Lordships' attention to the safeguards in the Bill. We are not providing, as in Scotland, for a simple majority, but for one of 10 to 2. That means that 83 per cent. of the jury must agree. How often in those matters with which we are familiar, do we find such a high proportion agreeing on a question of fact? Or to quote Forsyth:
"How seldom do we find in the casual intercourse of life that the first 12 men we meet take the same view of a disputed fact."
And he adds:
"it is quite certain that the unanimity is only apparent and not real, and is purchased at the sacrifice of truth".
Therefore, to further the cause of truth my right honourable friend proposes that a majority verdict shall not be accepted until the jury have deliberated for at least two hours, and that they should then announce in open court the numbers agreeing and dissenting. We believe that with these safeguards there is nothing in our proposal for the innocent to fear. On the contrary, we are convinced that it will increase public respect for our system of criminal justice, and strengthen the jury system by visibly adapting it to the needs of to-day. Also in Part I of the Bill we propose that convicted criminals should be disqualified, either for 10 years or for life, from serving on juries, and we provide penalties for infringement.
My Lords, most of us have long deplored the fact that, every year, upwards of 15,000 persons whose offences are judged by the courts not to merit imprisonment, are nevertheless made to suffer all the social, economic, and domestic penalties of imprisonment, through
1434
being remanded in custody by the self-same court, which later decides they should not go to prison. In the Bill we attempt to reduce this number by enacting that, subject to extensive safeguards, persons who are to be tried before magistrates' courts for an offence punishable summarily with not more than six months imprisonment shall be granted bail. We also provide in Part I added powers for magistrates to try summarily certain offences under the Forgery Act 1913; and we impose a prohibition on the imposition by a magistrate of a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a person's absence.
Before leaving Part I, I would mention one matter on which Her Majesty's Government will ask the House to amend the Bill at a later stage. One of the matters which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary asked the Law Commission to consider in its first programme was the decision in the case—in 1961—of Director of Public Prosecutions v.Smith. The Commission have recommended that the law should be amended to reverse the decision of the House of Lords, and that a subjective test should be applied in ascertaining the intent required in murder, and all other offences, where it is necessary to ascertain the existence of intent or foresight. The Government believe that that recommendation will be generally welcomed by legal and other informed opinion.
The Law Commission made other proposals affecting the nature of intent in murder. These need further consideration, but we did not think it right on that account to delay making a change in the law which has been widely demanded.
I now turn to the twenty clauses of Part II relating to the powers of the courts to deal with offenders. In the first of these we take the long overdue step of abolishing preventive detention and corrective training, and put in their place a new method of dealing with persistent offenders. To qualify for sentence as "persistent", an offender must satisfy five conditions. He must be convicted, on indictment, of an offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more. The conviction must be within three years of conviction for an offence carrying an equivalent penalty, or of his final release from prison after serving a sentence for

1435
such an offence. He must have had, since the age of 21, at least three convictions for an equivalent offence. On at least two of these he must have been sent to prison, corrective training, or preventive detention. Finally, the aggregate of these sentences must have totalled not less than five years.
If all these unhappy conditions are satisfied the court may, if they consider it necessary for the protection of the public, impose an extended sentence. In so doing the court must issue an extended sentence certificate. An extended sentence can be for as much as five years, where the maximum for the offence is not more than five years, or for 10 years where the maximum for the offence is not more than 10 years. Where the maximum for the offence is 10 years or more, this also becomes the maximum for the extended sentence. These maxima compare with an effective minimum of seven, and a maximum of 14 years, under the present system of preventive detention which is to be abolished. Extended sentence prisoners will be eligible for licensing, after one-third of their sentence, under the scheme I shall be describing later in my speech.
The White Paper The Adult Offender quotes the dictum of the late Sir Alexander Paterson: "You cannot train men for freedom in conditions of captivity". In the Prison Service, we have to. And I believe that when the prison spell is sufficiently long for effective training, we are doing so with increasing success. This, however, cannot apply to the 65 per cent. of all prisoners who are sentenced to imprisonment for six months or less, and for whom imprisonment only defers and renders more difficult the solution of their problems. Allowing for remission, these people are in prison for periods ranging from a few days up to a maximum of four months. Thus, since this period is insufficient for effective rehabilitation, it means that two out of every three prisoners are sentenced to imprisonment solely as a punishment—a punishment of which prison is a comparatively small part, compared with the added punishments of loss of their job; discontinuance of qualification for social security benefit; breach in relationship with the family, and the insulation of the prisoner from the habit of ordinary work and of coping with life's problems in
1436
normal society, to say nothing of the lifelong difficulties which dog a man's foot-steps when he leaves prison.
Where the crime warrants it these things cannot be helped, but the Government are not satisfied that such hardships, inflicted on many of the two out of every three prisoners who serve four months or less for minor crimes, bring a sufficiently worthwhile benefit to society at large. For this reason, we propose a number of ways to ensure that many such offenders shall not be sent to prison. It has been alleged that our sole motive is to reduce the pressure on prison accommodation. This is not so. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary decided on these measures well before the 1966 prison population explosion. Never the less, on a day like this, and for the next four or five months of summer, in a situation where we have nearly 9,000 men sleeping two and three in a cell designed for one man, and in most cases so designed 100 years ago, we shall welcome the alleviation which may come from the exclusion from prison of offenders who can be better dealt with in the community.
It is nine years since we passed the First Offenders Act, and the last thing I did in another place before coming here was to move its First Reading. The Act instructed magistrates' courts not to commit to prison first offenders who could be dealt with by any other means. Yet every year some 7,000 first offenders are sent to prison, the great majority for less than six months. We propose to deal with these, and indeed with a much wider range of offenders, by means of mandatory suspended sentences. We ask your Lordships to agree that a court which passes a sentence of imprisonment of not more than six months must suspend the sentence for a period of not less than one year or more than three years, unless first, the offence involved violence or threat of violence, possession of a firearm, explosives, or offensive weapon, or indecent conduct towards a person under the age of 16; or, second, the offence was not originally dealt with by way of a probation order, or order for conditional discharge, or committed while the offender was subject to such an order; or, third, the court has passed, or proposes to pass, a sentence of imprisonment for another offence which it is not

1437
obliged to suspend; or, fourth, the offender is already serving a sentence for another offence; or, fifth, he has previously served a sentence or has been subject to a suspended sentence.
In the Bill we also give power to the Home Secretary to submit an order for the approval of Parliament bringing within the mandatory provisions for suspended sentences offenders who have not recently been in prison or under a suspended sentence. There is also power to make an order extending the mandatory provisions to sentences of imprisonment of twelve months or less. That, of course, would be later on, in the light of experience. In addition, the Bill provides that courts which pass a sentence of not more than two years may, at their discretion, suspend the sentence.
My Lords, we believe that the shock of appearance and trial before a court, and the infliction of a sentence, albeit suspended, will restore many offenders to the path of rectitude without recourse to prison. If, however, the offender commits another offence during the prescribed period of suspension, the court, in addition to inflicting the penalty appropriate to the subsequent offence, must order the suspended sentence to take effect for the original term unless, having regard to the circumstances which have arisen since the suspended sentence, it would be unjust to do so. If they think the full sentence would be unjust they may substitute a shorter term of imprisonment or an additional period of suspension, or take no action at all with regard to the suspended sentence.
If a suspended sentence has to be executed, no one will be worse off than if the offender had been sent to prison immediately. But if the offender gets safely through the period of suspension the result will be in every way an improvement on the immediate committal to prison which takes place under existing legislation. It will be less costly to the community than either prison or probation, and infinitely less costly in terms of uncovenanted hardship for the offender and his family. The Bill also provides powers for the Home Secretary to make rules so that, in cases where the rules apply, the court must obtain and consider a social inquiry report before passing a custodial sentence. We hope this
1438
will reduce the number of men sent to prison for the less serious crimes—men who at present often leave behind a desperate family situation made much worse by their absence.
Another substantial field for reduction of the number of non-useful, perhaps even harmful, prison terms lies in the greater use of substantial fines, and their determined collection in cash, in place of too-ready and over-costly committal to prison in default of payment. The present level of maximum fines is too low, and even derisory. In Clause 34, therefore, we propose to increase from £100 to £400 the maximum fines which magistrates can inflict under Section 19(6) of the 1952 Act. In Clause 76 and Schedule 3 we take power to increase a very wide range of fines. The majority of the increases are of the order of four and five-fold, and reflect the change in the value of money; but others, ranging up to a fifty-fold increase, also reflect a more realistic assessment of the gravity of the offence.
At present some 10,000 persons go to prison every year in default of payment of fines. This is a grave waste of the taxpayers' money and a loss to the nation's productive effort. And on financial, general penological and social grounds imprisonment in default is greatly inferior to extracting the fine. Of course, imprisonment must remain as the ultimate sanction. The Bill does not take away any substantial part of the courts' powers of enforcement. It merely makes adjustments to the existing procedure, with the object of ensuring that, so far as possible, fine defaulters are sent to prison only if the court has considered or tried all other methods of enforcement, and if the court, before committing the defaulter to prison, has inquired into the reasons for the default.
With this object, Clause 35 supersedes part of the existing enforcement code contained in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952. The main changes we make are, first, that a court will no longer be able to refuse time to pay because of the gravity of the offence or the offender's record; and, second, that in every case where a court has given time to pay it will be required to hold a means inquiry before committing a defaulter to prison.
Clause 36 enables fines to be enforced in the civil courts. This is a corollary of

1439
the more important Clause 37, which enables fines to be enforced by attachment of earnings orders within the meaning of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958. When that Act was passed it halved in its first year the number of men in prison for default in maintenance payments. Without necessarily expecting the same result for fine defaulters, the Government believe that attachment orders for fines will be a useful addition to the powers of the courts, enabling them to extract the money from a significant number of offenders who would otherwise be sent to prison.
My Lords, although it is placed in Part VI of the Bill it would, I think, be convenient if I dealt now with our plans for excluding from prison another substantial body of offenders who serve short sentences. Every year there are some 5,000 committals to prison for drunkenness offences, including about 4,000 in default of payment of fines. The actual number of persons concerned is substantially less than 5,000, because many go to prison several times in the course of a year—the record being held, so far as I am aware, by a man who managed to collect no fewer than 236 convictions in less than two years. The work of drying out and cleaning up these men, well knowing that they will soon be back, is a stupid waste of our badly-strained prison resources, particularly at prisons like Pentonville, where drunks account for one in six of all admissions. Neither the excellent clinic there nor the fresh air we provide at Spring Hill open prison is a substitute for the continuous support these sick people need if they are to be, at least partially, restored to useful citizenship. Prison is not the place.
We therefore propose that a fine not exceeding £50 shall be substituted for the existing provisions in a number of Acts which at present authorise a fine of up to £10 or a short term of imprisonment, or both. But the Home Secretary will not make an Order implementing this change until he is satisfied that sufficient suitable accommodation is available for the care and treatment of these people within the community. We intend, with the help of voluntary bodies, to set up therapeutic hostels where offenders, while receiving continuous support, can go out to work and keep themselves. A start has already
1440
been made, and from the limited experience gained so far we know that even the most degraded, skid-row types, who have not worked for years, can be helped to a position where they can keep in work and behave responsibly. The Home Secretary has charged me with responsibility for setting up these and the ordinary multi-purpose after-care hostels, and I am confident we shall make good progress.
I turn now to Part III and the provisions dealing with the treatment of offenders. The most important of these is the proposed power to release a prisoner on licence when he has served a third of his sentence and provided he has also served twelve months in prison. Every prisoner who satisfies those conditions will be considered for release, but he will not appear before a board or committee. Initially, his case will be considered by a local review committee at each prison. My right honourable friend will lay down the arrangements under which these committees will work, and these will allow for a single member, providing he is not a prison officer, to interview the prisoner. This, we think, will introduce humanity into the procedure and reduce the element of strain.
My Lords, the process of change in an individual's prison regime will remain independent of, but naturally will have a bearing on, the process of selection for parole. We are proceeding as rapidly as possible, as your Lordships will be aware, to allocation of prisoners on sentence, and to the categorisation of prisons into classes A (special security). B, C and D (the open prisons). The assessment of the conduct a man in prison may determine his transfer from a maximum "B" to a closed, but lesser security, "C" prison, and from "C" to open conditions. It may be expected that prisoners whose response to training has justified transfer to open conditions will have satisfied some of the criteria justifying release on licence, and they will not be unaware of the significance of favourable transfers to more permissive régimes.
In their consideration of the cases to recommend the local committees will be guided by full information about the prisoner and by regular reports indicating the prisoner's progress and response to training. And they can avail themselves of the views of members of the prison

1441
staff in close contact with their charges. The major question the committee must answer is not whether the man is a good prisoner, in the sense that he conforms with the rules, although that is not unimportant, but whether, on the evidence, he is likely to make a good citizen, and benefit both society and himself, through earlier release. The Home Secretary will also appoint a Prison Licensing Board to which he will refer those cases which appear to him, from the reports of the local committees, to be suitable for consideration, for release on licence. The Secretary of State will be able to release a prisoner on licence only on the recommendation of the Board, and this will also be the position regarding the release of prisoners serving life sentences, and corresponding juvenile cases. The Board will not interview prisoners, but may arrange for a single member to do so.
The Bill preserves present arrangements for consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, in life-sentence cases, but with life-sentence prisoners there will be no minimum period of one year, and of course there cannot possibly be a minimum of one-third of a life sentence. The Home Secretary will determine, on the advice of the Board, the conditions of the licence under which a prisoner is released, and licensees will be subject to recall to prison. Recall of a licensee by the Secretary of State will require the prior agreement of the Licensing Board, but in urgent cases he will have the power of recall without the Board's agreement. When he exercises this power the Home Secretary must inform the Board, and will be obliged to release the prisoner forthwith if the Board so recommends. This will also apply if, after considering written representations by a recalled licensee, the Board recommend his immediate release.
My Lords, the degree of success which we achieve through these proposals will depend in large measure on the efforts of the Probation Service. Not only will its members be responsible for the supervision of prisoners released on licence, but those members who are prison welfare officers will have a major part to play in preparing prisoners for acceptance of after-care. At present all too few accept it in any real sense. The present number of prison welfare officers is inadequate for this purpose, and we propose over
1442
the next two years an increase of well over 100 per cent. on the present strength, so that eventually each welfare officer will be responsible on average for no more than 125 prisoners. The beneficial effect of rehabilitation in prison would be largely dissipated without effective after-care services, because if prisons become genuinely reformative, release is not the end but a continuation of the process. We have therefore taken steps to enable after-care to be decentralised, and for the links with prisons and the understanding of community involvement to be strengthened.
Many probation services have increased, and are increasing, their recruitment of volunteer aids, and my Department, by setting up regional consultative committees, has provided the pattern for further co-operation with the voluntary movement, as they help to plan the provision of after-care hostels in every area. The regional committees include representatives of probation committees, the Probation Service, the Prison Service and N.A.C.R.O., the national body of the voluntary movement. Observers from the Home Office will attend as necessary. They will advise on the need for hostels and their location, and stimulate the development of new hostels, including the adult probation hostels, which we intend to provide as yet another alternative to prison. When these arrangements are functioning fully, my Lords, we shall at last be able to claim that our rehabilitation service begins on the day a man enters prison, and does not end until he is firmly back on his feet in the community. Clauses 79 and 80 in Part VI of the Bill are designed to facilitate this work.
Before I leave the question of release on licence it is, I think, necessary to utter a word of warning, so as not to encourage false hopes. Each year upwards of 4,000 men, having served 12 months in prison and one-third of their sentences, will become eligible for consideration for release. From the time, 18 months ago, that our proposals were first published in the White Paper, when my noble friend Lord Stow Hill was Home Secretary, we have received many inquiries about the likelihood of release of particular prisoners. It is therefore necessary for me to make it clear that release on licence is not automatic but has to be earned;

1443
justified by the sort of criteria I have mentioned. And it cannot begin when this Bill receives the Royal Assent. Rules have to be laid before Parliament; the Board and local committees constituted and a great deal of preparatory administrative work completed. Some phasing of its introduction is inevitable so that the review machinery does not become clogged at the start. In these circumstances we shall be unable to begin releases on licence until next year, but in the interests of all concerned we shall press ahead as quickly as we safely can. Meanwhile, I think it can be fairly claimed that the machinery we have devised is a guarantee of responsible judgments and just decisions: and a guarantee also that the possibility of early release will depend on a prisoner's own efforts.
May I now refer briefly to Part IV of the Bill, which consolidates the law governing the grant of legal aid, and gives effect to some of the recommendations of Mr. Justice Widgery's Committee on Legal Aid in Criminal Proceedings? The most far-reaching change is a provision that applicants for legal aid, if their means are sufficient, may be required to pay a contribution towards the legal aid costs. The Bill also provides more effective arrangements to enable persons convicted on indictment to receive legal advice on the question whether there appear to be grounds for an appeal. I think this is a proposal of major importance. The Widgery Committee gave valuable guidance to the courts on the criteria which should be applied in deciding whether legal aid should be granted. As the Home Secretary has stated, the Government agree in principle with these recommendations, and it is hoped that in due course effect will be given to them. It is not, however, proposed to commend to the courts at present those recommendations which can be implemented under the existing powers, as we believe that all the recommendations, whether they require legislation or not, should come into operation as a whole and not piecemeal.
Part V, my Lords, relates to shot guns and is a case for experts. In the four clauses of Part V of the Bill we seek to end the present unrestricted sale of shot guns. These weapons, as well
1444
as having their proper place in agriculture and sport, can, when misused, become one of the most deadly firearms generally available. It will now become an offence subject to a penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine of £200, to have or own a shot gun without having a valid shot gun certificate. This certificate procedure will be new, and different from the present firearm certificate procedure under the Firearms Acts of 1937 and 1965. There will be very few exceptions, but where places are being used for particular events, such as Bisley competitions—but not to shoot game—chief constables may permit persons without United Kingdom certificates to take part. Strict rules about supervision will be the prerequisite in all cases. Visitors to this country from overseas will be exempt for not more than one month in any twelve month period, so as to allow the visitor who has come for a short period of shooting to bring his own guns with him. No person under the age of 15 may accept a shot gun or ammunition as a gift, and no one may make such a gift; and there are penalties for infringement.
My Lords, the method I have adopted of explaining the Bill in accordance with its main themes has left me with several separate clauses. I will refer to three of them. Clause 54 abolishes corporal punishment in prisons. I, for one, welcome the departure from the penal system of the last practical evidence of the 19th century belief in the civilising influence of official brutality. Clause 73 provides that the offence of making false written statements actually tendered in evidence, under Clauses 2 and 7 of this Bill, is punishable with a maximum of two years' imprisonment. Clause 74 provides that persons who make false statements of means in connection with an application for a legal aid order, or in relation to default in payment of fines, will be liable on conviction to up to four months' imprisonment, or a fine of £100 or both.
Finally, I should mention two Amendments, on Scottish points, which we shall propose in Committee. So far as treatment of offenders is concerned, this is an English Bill. There is a traditional principle, which the Government think is right, and should be maintained, of separate English and Scottish legislation on this subject. But we have come to the conclusion that there is one point at

1445
which an exception must be made. The provisions regarding the release of prisoners in Part III of the Bill constitute such an important practical change in the law that the Government do not think it can be enacted for England and Wales only. Accordingly, we propose to extend these provisions to Scotland. The Government also propose to amend the provisions of the law governing the transfer of prisoners, to enable Lord Mount-batten's suggestion to be implemented; namely, that the new maximum security prison to be built in the Isle of Wight should he available for prisoners from Scotland who require this standard of security.
My Lords, I hope that, without going into detail on points which we can discuss at length in Committee, I have given your Lordships a clear picture of the main proposals of this Bill, and our reasons for them. When enacted, it will simplify the procedure and save the time of the courts; it will help both the police and the courts to bring criminals to justice. And, not least, while removing from the penal system archaic or unsatisfactory practices, it will provide us with greatly improved methods, which should help us to achieve greater success in our efforts to turn criminals into decent citizens. As such it deserves, and I am confident will receive, your Lordships' wholehearted support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stonham.)
3.35 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, if I may do so without presumption, I should like to offer my warmest congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the comprehensive and always interesting manner in which he has presented this Bill to your Lordships' House. He has delivered a speech which I am sure will have been heard with pride and satisfaction by the Home Secretary himself. At the outset, I must express my apologies to noble Lords, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in that very soon after I sit down I have to keep an unavoidable appointment which I made some time ago, when it was understood that this Bill was to have its Second Reading taken on Monday. But I hope I shall be back to hear the later speeches of what promises to be a long debate.
1446
My Lords, this Bill strikes me as a collection of items, most of them helpful, and noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord opposite, will not be surprised to find me welcoming a number of them in view of their past history. Clauses 8, 9 and 10 implement recommendations of the Ninth Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee about Evidence, a subject which, when I was Home Secretary, I asked that Committee to review and to report upon. Clauses 12 and 13 are based on two of the valuable recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Jury Service which I set up in 1963. Clause 28, at long last, as the noble Lord implied, abolishes preventive detention—a decision which I announced to Parliament as long ago as 1964. I am sorry that it has taken so long to give it legislative force, but I welcome the action now, The whole of Part IV of the Bill springs from the Report of the Departmental Committee on Legal Aid in Criminal Procedure, the Widgery Committee, which I appointed because it seemed to me that the time had come to review the whole of that subject. Let me hasten to add that there are other important clauses in this Bill which owe a great deal to the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, during his 14 months as Home Secretary; so that at least three Home Secretarys have played a part in the gestation of this Bill, although I give the present Home Secretary full credit for bringing it eventually to birth.
I mentioned the Departmental Committee on Jury Service, over which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, presided with such distinction. That Committee's Report was completed and published more than two years ago. It made some 58 recommendations, of which this Bill implements two. I have some reason to believe that the other 56—not all of which would require a change in the law—are still under consideration. I cannot help asking why those that would involve legislation could not have been included in this Bill. Action in this field, too, is overdue. The present law is largely based on the Juries Act of 1825. The present law produces a great and undesirable preponderance of men over women on juries, which the Morris Committee recommendations will correct. I feel certain that

1447
both Houses of Parliament would unanimously support another recommendation of that Committee: that no one should be qualified to serve on a jury who cannot read, write, speak and understand the English language without difficulty. Your Lordships might well think it more important and urgent to make the law ensure that, than to present Parliament with Clause 11 of this Bill which, for the first time, provides for majority verdicts in England and Wales, a subject which of course was outside the terms of reference of the Morris Committee.
Let me say at once that I am personally in favour of majority verdicts, and I am prepared to support that with my vote if need be. Clause 11 will probably be one of the most controversial clauses to be dealt with in your Lordships' House, and I do not really think that the Home Secretary has enough evidence to prove his case for this change up to the hilt. I am not happy about either subsection (2) or subsection (3) of that clause; but I am ready to declare my own belief that the main subsection, subsection (1), should be given a trial.
The treatment of the Morris Report illustrates, in microcosm, my main criticism of a Bill which contains many good proposals still in their separate parcels, if I may express it like that. As a Bill, it has no unity. It is based on no profoundly considered philosophy of justice or punishment. Historians, looking back, will say that the major tragedy of these times in the field of crime and punishment was that the Royal Commission on the Penal System, which was set up in 1964, was dissolved again in 1966 before it had completed its work. My own future ideas in 1964 had been for a shortish Criminal Justice Bill in the 1964–65 Session to deal with fines, preventive detention and a number of such detailed matters that were ripe for action; and then later on a major Criminal Justice Bill at the end of the decade, much more epoch-making and radical than this one, and based on a whole new philosophy of punishment with modern application, such as I believe that the Royal Commission, by deep and comprehensive study, would by then have worked out.
That chance has been missed. It will not easily come again. We have missed it because the Government were in such
1448
a hurry to announce their own views on a number of important subjects, which they did in the two White Papers, The Young Offender and The Adult Offender, without waiting for the Royal Commission, that a number of members of the Commission, understandably perhaps, but very regrettably, said that they were not prepared to go on spending their time working out considered objective advice to the Government on the whole penal system when the Government had already jumped to conclusions on various aspects of it. I believe that both the Home Secretary's concerned—the present Home Secretary and his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill—would have liked the Royal Commission to continue and complete its work, but they found that they had undermined it.
So now we have this Bill, which is like a number of useful separate parcels bagged together. It was examined with enormous thoroughness in Standing Committee in another place and (I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham) in a non-Party spirit, at 19 sittings, one of which went on until half-past one in the morning. I trust that the noble Earl the Leader of the House will spare us an ordeal like that on this Bill, because half-past one in the morning is not the best time of day to do justice. I make no criticism, but the Bill seems to me to have been examined in another place predominantly from the point of view of lawyers. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that the Standing Committee was packed with legal luminaries. I trust, we shall have the full benefit of that in your Lordships' House, too, but I hope that we shall also look at it carefully and understandingly from the standpoint of magistrates, of the Probation Service and of other interests vitally concerned, to whom it is of very special importance. This is not a lawyers' Bill only; it is just as much a layman's Bill. You cannot be sure of getting justice by leaving it entirely to lawyers.
Personally, I am in broad agreement with the purposes underlying the first seven clauses, headed "Committal proceedings", about which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, I think, not very much. We shall probably have to look carefully at Clause 3 in Committee, but the general idea of shortening the time

1449
taken up in proceedings before examining justices must commend itself to almost everyone, provided that the rights of the defendant are properly preserved. The next group of clauses, based on the 9th Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, I have already mentioned. I should like to express my own thanks to Lord Justice Sellers and his Committee for that Report, which I think was completed less than six months ago, and also to congratulate the Government on so speedily acting on it.
Clause 15—"Restrictions on refusal of bail"—will probably require examination in Committee, though I fully understand and share the Government's desire not to have more people remanded in custody than is really necessary, not simply because they crowd up already overcrowded local prisons, but because it is an act of gross injustice whenever a truly innocent man is put behind bars. The rest of Part I consists mainly of useful tidying up provisions, though Clause 19 sticks out like a sore and ugly thumb. This clause seems to owe its place in the Bill solely to the present Home Secretary's personal view that it should be made very difficult indeed to stage a successful prosecution of a book for obscenity. I do not think Clause 19 will survive impartial scrutiny.
Coming to Part II, I am quite sure that we are right to abolish preventive detention and collective training as distinctive forms of punishment. The conditions for extended sentence in Clause 28 are, I think, identical with those that I proposed to Parliament in 1964. The proposed maximum lengths of the extended sentences are different and in general rather shorter; but all that is something to consider in Committee.
Personally, I am strongly in favour of experimenting with the suspended sentence, though Clause 30(3) seems to me to tie the court down too tightly; and I cannot believe it right to compel a court to suspend a sentence of six months' imprisonment when the offender has already shown his colours by getting himself sent to a detention centre. Let me add at once that I am convinced that it is right, whenever it is possible, to avoid sending a person to prison for a short first sentence. A short spell in prison is open to criticism anyway on the grounds the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned.
1450
A short first prison sentence all too often merely removes the deterrent fear of the unknown, and I am sure that so far as we possibly can we should bring it about that no one goes to prison for a first time except for grave misconduct and on a substantial sentence.
This brings me to the series of clauses, Clause 35 onward, concerned with the enforcement of fines. Let us, when it comes to Committee, examine whether these are really going to be effective for their purpose. Of course we do not want more people in prison for non-payment of fines than is absolutely avoidable, but even more important than that is to make sure that the offender can never get away with it. Perhaps at this point I may just turn to the later clause, Clause 75, dealing with drunks, and say how much I agree with the general purpose of avoiding filling up Pentonville and other local prisons with people who are simply there because when out of prison they cannot keep sober. I am glad that the Government are now experimenting with sending them from London to Spring Hill Open Prison. When I was Home Secretary I made great search for alternative premises to which drunks could be sent, because it is ridiculous that they should be in the full security of an ordinary prison. It was extremely hard to find anything, and I notice that Clause 75 is not to come into force until the Secretary of State is satisfied that sufficient suitable accommodation is available for the care and treatment of persons convicted of being drunk and disorderly. It is not entirely clear on the face of this clause how the court will manage to send the drunk to that suitable accommodation when it exists, but that again is a matter which we can consider later.
I will not say anything about the clauses amending the law on probation orders and probation committees, because I hope that my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, with his special interest and knowledge of the Probation Service, will deal with them. I am sure he will approve, as I do, of Clause 46 regarding social inquiry reports. This, and the whole next Part of the Bill dealing with release on licence, only highlights the crying need for a sufficiently well-staffed Probation Service. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said something about enlarging the present welfare service. I, for one, should be

1451
grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when he comes to wind up at the end of this long debate, will say more about the prospects of our securing an adequate Probation Service—that is, adequate in numbers. It is no use passing enlightened legislation if the trained men and women who are essential for implementing it do not exist.
I think we are right to experiment with release on licence, and my noble friends and I are grateful to the Government for yielding to Opposition pressure in another place and agreeing that there should be an independent Prison Licensing Board, and that the Home Secretary should not decide all these cases himself without the assistance of any external advice. I have had to carry the responsibility of deciding a number of individual cases concerning release and recall, and I think I can see all the pros and cons, but I feel sure that in order to carry conviction that justice is being done it is desirable that there should be this Prison Licensing Board. I feel sure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will understand if we need later to probe Clause 48 with particular care, because it was only added to the Bill during the final stages in another place. We should like to know a great deal more about the local review committees and how they will work, as well as about the procedure for the Prison Licensing Board.
A point which I think is more than a Committee point is whether all those who are released from prison before the expiry of their sentences ought not to be under licence until the date when their sentences finally expire. I am very conscious of the danger period that begins with so many prisoners soon after they find themselves back in the free world again, just as I became equally conscious, when I was Home Secretary, of the numbers of men in prison who could to everybody's benefit be let out earlier. That is not for one moment to criticise the courts for passing excessive sentences (I do not think that is what happens), but simply to record the plain fact that the punishment of being sent to prison has a quick effect for good on some prisoners, though at the far extreme it
1452
has no reformative effect at all on others.
We have a long list of speakers, and I will not detain your Lordships by seeking to go right through Parts IV, V and VI of the Bill. I feel sure that every valid point will have been expressed by way of criticism or commendation before this debate is over. I find much more to commend than to criticise in the Bill: I almost said "in the Bill as a whole"; but it is not a whole; it is a collection. With the cutting short of the work of the Royal Commission, Parliament will now have to wait many years, I fear, for the Bill that we really want; namely, a Criminal Justice Bill which digs new foundations deep, and does not simply improve the superstructure.
More and more I feel convinced that we must get reparation into our penal plan, along with deterrence and rehabilitation. This Bill stops short of that; it does not touch it. More and more I feel certain that we must both enlarge and rationalise the methods available to the courts for dealing with young offenders. This Bill does not touch that. I felt sure that we should get profound help on that subject from the Royal Commission, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Amory, with all his wisdom and his intense interest in the good of the young.
As to grown-up offenders, I believe that new ideas of punishment are needed too. Even when this Bill is in operation, there will still be hundreds, indeed thousands, of men in prison who might have a better chance of turning back into good citizens if there were a wider range of treatments available that could be applied to them, other than the ordinary custodial prison sentence. A prison system is necessary and essential, but if it is applied to different kinds of people of every sort as a means of little more than depriving them of liberty, it can become terribly wasteful. Luckily, we have a body of prison governors who I believe are doing the very best they can with the prison system as it is. But I hope that in the treatment of offenders the appeal of your Lordships will be neither for extreme laxity nor for extreme severity, but for experiment, experiment, experiment. There is a long way to go, and it requires a comprehensive type of thinking which is somehow absent from

1453
this otherwise useful Bill, which deserves that your Lordships should give it a unanimous Second Reading.
3.57 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in congratulating the Minister on a most interesting and lucid speech, and to join with him, also, in describing this Bill as very much a miscellaneous provisions Bill. I am afraid that nobody in Opposition could fail to suggest that in some respects this is a curate's egg. But let me begin by saying that at least it gets off to a good start in its effort to shorten and simplify committal proceedings. This, I feel sure, must be welcomed by almost everybody in England.
We then come to the next and most miscellaneous collection of clauses, the chief of which is Clause 11, which must be, I think, one of the most contentious clauses, dealing with the majority verdict. I propose to take some little time over this clause, and I am rather afraid that when I have finished with it the time for me to sit down will have arrived. What are the Government's reasons for wishing to introduce majority verdicts? I think there is a first and perhaps underlying reason, and that is the thought that too many guilty men are nowadays going free. Then there is the second and more explicitly stated reason, which is that too many juries disagree. These are two quite separate and distinct points, and I should like to deal with them separately and in order.
First, do too many guilty men go free? It is perfectly true that 40 per cent. of those who are tried by jury are acquitted. If it were the fact that this meant that 40 per cent. of those who go into the dock go out free men, this would be most alarming. But this is not so, because, of course, the majority of those who are arraigned plead guilty and do not come before a jury; and when that is taken into account, the 40 per cent. of acquittals by juries becomes 16 per cent. of acquittals of those who are arraigned in the clock, which is a much less alarming figure.
There is another comforting figure to be quoted, because I think that when we are discussing majority verdicts we are discussing them in connection with offences against property, involving
1454
violence. Those are the organised crimes which, we are told, lead to intimidation of juries, and so on. But one finds that juries are far less ready to acquit in this type of case than in the ordinary run of cases. The 16 per cent. of acquittals by juries include cases like drunk-in-charge cases, where it is notorious that juries are acquitting practically the whole time. But when we get to the offences against property, involving violence, the organised crime, the 16 per cent. comes down to 7¼ per cent.
My Lords, is 7¼ per cent. of acquittals of this class of case an unsatisfactory figure? Let us put it the other way. What is a satisfactory figure? Would 0 per cent. of acquittals be a satisfactory figure? It would not satisfy me. I should be absolutely horrified to think that no jury ever acquitted somebody of a crime against property, involving violence. I should be horrified at 1 per cent., 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of acquittals. I should regard this as far too low. Four per cent. or 5 per cent. would perhaps be about right. It is possible to suggest that 7¼ per cent. is a little on the high side. That may be so, if one thinks that every time a guilty man is acquitted by a jury that is a tragedy. But I do not think one can take that view.
Take the case of a professional man who is charged with some serious fraud. His life is in ruins already. If he is convicted he is bound to be sent to prison, not because anybody supposes it is going to do him the slightest good, but purely as an example to other people in positions of trust, so that they will not commit serious offences of fraud. He goes through what he calls the ordeal of his trial. I know we say that we have abolished trial by ordeal; but this man would say that he went through an ordeal as the jury went out to consider their verdict, and he saw the prison gates opening before him. But when they come back, and the foreman says, "We find him not guilty", this man practically faints with joy and relief. He is never going to come back into a criminal court again. So it is not fair to suggest it is a tragedy every time a guilty man is acquitted.
There is a clause in this Bill, Clause 10, which will go a considerable way to

1455
reducing the percentage of guilty men who are acquitted. Clause 10 will abolish the "sprung alibi", the case in which the accused suddenly at the last moment presents an alibi which the prosecution has no chance to check on. This is going to be a very salutary measure, and that is going to help a great deal in this respect. We cannot net criminals with certainty in the sort of way they net salmon in some of the rivers of Canada, where the mouth of the river is netted continuously with a net of very large mesh which lets through all the young, small, breeding fish up to about 7 lb, and catches practically all the mature fish. I wish we could do that with our net to catch criminals; but we cannot. We have a very imperfect net indeed with which to catch criminals. If we are to throw this net wider, in order to ensure that fewer guilty men go free, I am afraid that we are going to start getting some of the innocent; and I could not subscribe to that.
The second reason given for introducing majority verdicts is that too many juries disagree. The Minister gave us the figure just now: the proportion is under 4 per cent. Again, if one remembers that the majority of those who are arraigned plead guilty, the number of cases that end with the disagreement of a first jury is well under 2 per cent. And what happens then? The case, of course, is retried. The second trial is a very wearisome business for counsel engaged in it, because it has all been gone through before and the whole thing is stale and flat—it is a miserable performance. But at any rate the prosecution start the second trial with a great advantage which they did not have at the first trial: they know what the defence is. And the result is that the statistics show that in second trials the chances of conviction are twice the chance of acquittal. I believe that the statistics show a proportion of 4:2:1 in second trials, after the first jury have disagreed. Four persons are convicted; two are acquitted, and in one case there is a second disagreement. There you have the second disagreement being 1 in 7 of 2 per cent. Let us call this a quarter of 1 per cent. Are the Government telling us that a quarter of 1 per cent. of disagreements is an unsatisfactory high figure? If so, let us consider the reasons why we are told that juries disagree.
1456
We are told that there are two reasons. The first is that one or two out of twelve jurors may be perverse "cranks". The second is that one or two of the twelve may have been bribed or intimidated. Let us deal with the two perverse "cranks". I think there may be something in this contention: there are always some. There was the Irish juryman who emerged from the jury room in a great state of discontent, saying, "Eleven more obstinate follow citizens I never met in all my life"! There are some of those. But I am rather surprised that Her Majesty's Government are suggesting that even as many as one in twelve people are inclined to be perverse "cranks"; because I would remind them it was almost exactly by a percentage of one vote in twelve that they obtained their majority at the last General Election over their political opponents. In any event, there is a clause in this Bill, Clause 12, which will keep ex-prisoners off juries, and thus get rid of a great many, I suspect, of the perverse and "cranky" jurors who now serve. That will get rid of the spirit of,
"There but for the Grace of God go I."
I am sure that this will be a very great improvement, and I certainly welcome Clause 12.
Now let us come to the second reason: that one or two jurors may be bribed or intimidated. I believe that there has in recent years been one case of a conviction of a person for intimidating a juror. I did not hear the Minister refer to it. I am not surprised he did not, because I do not think that one single case helps Her Majesty's Government's argument on this point. I believe that it is also suggested that there are nine or ten cases where intimidation of jurors was seriously suspected. That does not seem to me to be very impressive evidence of the need to sweep away the unanimity rule of verdicts in criminal cases, which we are told has been for 600 years one of the safeguards of the liberty of the subject.
Clause 11 might be just bearable if the fact that a verdict was a majority verdict was not to be disclosed, so that nobody knew whether it was a unanimous verdict or only a majority verdict. But no. The clause provides that the fact that it is a majority verdict must be disclosed. The Home Secretary says that

1457
he must know how this experiment is working. I believe we shall get endless statistics produced from this. I do not doubt that we shall have fewer unanimous verdicts, but the sort of thing that will happen will be this—I am not suggesting that I know what goes on inside jury rooms, but believe this is the sort of thing that happens. On the average jury there are one or two jurors who are inclined to stand out. They say, "We are not quite satisfied". The other ten say, "But you are not going to stand out against us completely, are you?" And after they have discussed the matter, the one or two will say, "No, if you ten are satisfied, we do not feel so strongly about it that we will stand out against you", and a unanimous verdict is quite properly returned.
But under the new system these two people will say, "Don't you ten argue with us. We are not satisfied. We are perfectly entitled to have our reservations. It does not have to be a unanimous verdict any longer"; and a majority verdict will be returned and no doubt the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary will be delighted. He will say, "Look at all these majority verdicts—all these cases that would have resulted in disagreements among juries. Look at all the time that would have been wasted if these cases had had to be tried a second time". I venture to suggest that this argument will be upon a false basis, and there will be others who will be shaking their heads and saying, "We wish we could go back to the old days when jury verdicts had to be unanimous and we did not have all the uncertainty among juries that we are getting at the present time."
Let me quote a short passage from the speech made by the right honourable and learned gentleman the Attorney General in the Second Reading debate in another place on December 12 last. This was the speech in which the Attorney General was winding up the debate, after hearing all the arguments on every side. This is what he said:
"Action is needed to make this bribery, or attempted bribery, unprofitable, and it is my view and that of my right honourable friend that the introduction of majority verdicts will tend to help in the solution of this problem, while, of course, providing no guarantee that it will be successful."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 12/12/66, col. 203.]
If that was the sum total of the enthusiasm of the Attorney General for
1458
this measure, after hearing that lengthy debate, I do not think a very strong case has been made out.
I do not like to throw spanners into the works without trying to provide some alternative constructive proposal, so let me now put forward a proposal of my own, in all humility. It is only by custom that when a second jury has disagreed the accused is not tried a third time. I suppose it is the English sporting spirit: if he has managed to escape from two juries, good luck to him—let him go free! But if it were thought that he had had two, or even one, jury bribed, I do not think much of the English sporting spirit would be left in his favour. So I put forward this suggestion. Let chief constables be invited to get in touch with the appropriate Law Officer in every case in which there have been two disagreements by juries, and let the chief constable put forward any solid grounds he has for believing that there has been intimidation or interference with either of the juries; and if the Law Officer thinks there are solid reasons for believing that, then let there be a third trial.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is exactly what happened in a fairly recent case where there was reason to suspect bribery, and a third trial did take place.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us the result of that third trial?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords, the accused person was convicted.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, is that not splendid? I think that is what we want.
Let us pass this Bill without Clause 11. Let us have Clause 11—majority verdicts—introduced as a separate Bill by a Private Member, and let us have a free vote on all sides of the House. Then we shall know what the House really thinks about it. By that time, perhaps the Home Secretary will be able to put before us more than one case in recent years of the intimidation of a juror, and more than nine (or whatever the number is) cases of suspicion. Then the House can look at the whole matter on a free vote. But let us leave Clause 11 out of this Bill.
4.15 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will give a warm welcome to this most important Bill. I should like at the outset to congratulate the Home Secretary on having introduced it, and to add a word of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his really masterly statement of its purposes and working. There is a long list of speakers, and much as I should like to dwell upon a number of the very important provisions and reforms which the Bill contains, I will address myself only to one particular aspect; namely, Clause 11. I do that because I have the misfortune here to differ from the view which Her Majesty's Government have taken. I very much regret that they are proposing to introduce the principle of majority verdicts.
The arguments for and against this proposal have been fully canvassed in another place. They have been rather overlaid by historical references and rather encrusted with adjectives like "conservatism" and "sacrosanct", and that sort of thing. I should like to strip all that away and say, in two sentences, why I am so much against the principle of majority verdicts. The first sentence is that even now, when we have unanimous verdicts, there are wrongful convictions. I know it. I had the clearest case through my own hands when I had some responsibility in this matter. Such cases are very rare, fortunately, but they do happen. The second sentence, if I may so describe it, is this: if we introduce the principle that a man may be convicted if 10 out of 12 jurors think he is guilty, we shall be greatly enlarging the risk of his being wrongfully convicted. It is regrettable if a guilty person is allowed to go free; it is a first-class catastrophe if an innocent man is convicted.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, put before your Lordships some interesting figures. It is sometimes said—and I cordially agree with it as an adage, subject to qualification—that it is better that a dozen guilty men should go free than that one innocent man should be convicted. That statement contains a profound truth, but the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, pointed out that if we analyse the figures the percentage of acquittals is something like 7½ per cent. Am I being wholly unreasonable in thinking that in at any rate some of those cases the per
1460
sons who were acquitted were in fact innocent and not guilty? Why it should always be assumed that juries are wrong when they acquit I cannot understand, even in cases of driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. I sometimes feel great regret at the disparaging observations which are made with regard to what I think is the most admirable system of justice in the world, trial by jury in this country. If one is trying to get as near as human wisdom can devise to the certainty that verdicts are right, we cannot achieve, at any rate by any system which civilisation has yet thought of, such certainty as nearly as we can by the system of the British jury, properly directed by a British judge. It is now sought to pull that system to bits, or perhaps I should rather say gravely to impair its operation, to increase the risk of innocent persons being wrongfully convicted.
Why is it done? It is said: "Criminals may secure acquittals because in a jury of twelve when there are two people who wish to acquit, whereas ten wish to convict you should assume that the two are either 'cranks' or have been corrupted." Why in the world should one make that assumption? What right has anybody to make the assumption that in the case of a jury, when nothing at all is known about the two who dissent, they are either corrupt or "cranks"? That is very strange doctrine in this democracy of ours; that if you disagree with others you must be either a crook or a "crank".
The jury, after all, is a cross-section of ordinary people in this country. The court has no means of knowing why the two dissented—nobody has any means of knowing. The only people in the world who know why they dissented are the two jurors themselves and their fellow-jurymen and jury-women to whom they disclosed their reasons. They may not be crooks or "cranks" at all. They may be people who have managed to penetrate rather more fully into the evidence and have taken a view which, contrary to the view of the majority, is the right view. They may be perfectly honest, honourable people without any "crankiness" at all, and they differ from their colleagues. It seems to me little short of an outrage to say that we have the slightest right to assume, because two people out of twelve differ

1461
from the other ten, therefore they are either "cranks" or corrupt. They may be the two who have a better grasp of the facts; who have attached greater consideration than the others to particular aspects of the evidence, and who have in fact arrived at what is the right conclusion as against the others. I therefore very much deplore this proposal.
I want to take the argument a little further. I always hesitate very much before I make reference to a case which has been tried, and in which some of the actors are still living. To revive painful memories of a case of this sort is something one should do only with great hesitation and reserve, and I hope that those concerned will forgive me if, for this reason. I refer to the Hanratty case for the purpose of serious argument. It was a unanimous verdict in a case which depended on identity. The unfortunate young woman in that case had been subjected to most abominable treatment. She made a mistake at first about identity, and then later explained that mistake. The jury heard her, listened to her, assessed her evidence, and heard her being cross-examined. They went out, and were out hours considering their verdict. They came back and unanimously gave their opinion that they were certain the charge had been proved against the prisoner.
In that case, assume that the verdict had been by a majority of ten to two. We then had what to me is the detested system of capital punishment. By a verdict of ten to two Hanratty would have been sentenced to death. In due course that sentence would have come before the Home Secretary, and it would have been his duty to make a recommendation to the Sovereign as to whether the law should take its course. Can anybody in this House conceive, in a case of that sort, a Secretary of State recommending to the Queen that the law should be allowed to take its course? He would certainly, I should have thought, say "No; in this case I must recommend a reprieve". And why? Simply because there were two people, about whose identity he knew nothing, about the probity of whom he knew nothing, about the clarity of views of whom he knew nothing, who dissented from the other ten. Because of that fact he would be unable to banish from his mind the possibility that the verdict might
1462
be wrong. He would recommend reprieve because the verdict was uncertain.
It makes not the slightest difference in the world, in my respectful submission to your Lordships, that the capital penalty has gone. A man should not be sentenced to six months' imprisonment unless the charge is certainly proved. It makes no difference whether he is faced with the death sentence or faced with the shortest curtailment of his liberty. It is vital to our democracy and criminal system that nobody is deprived of liberty after trial by jury unless certainty has been reached. It is said "Yes, but you must invert the argument". It is said, "Surely, if you have a case in which ten people on the jury are for acquittal but the other two for conviction, the accused person should be acquitted". Again I do not agree. If you adopt that view you are adopting what is, in effect, something like the Scottish practice of "not proven".
I ask your Lordships to envisage the case of a man who lives on a council estate, for example, where everybody knows everybody else in the road. He has been charged with some offence of assault upon a woman or child with disagreeable features in it, a sexual aspect or something of the sort. He has been put upon trial, subjected to the appalling ordeal which trial of that sort means, and he is acquitted. At the moment, he is acquitted by unanimous verdict. He is accepted back in his family, by his workmates, and he can resume his normal life. All of us, I think, would regard it as grossly unfair to treat that man otherwise than as an innocent man, although in fact, technically, what the jury has said is not, "You are innocent", but, "We have not been convinced that you are guilty". Nevertheless, by common acceptance of fair standards a man acquitted by unanimous verdict of a jury is accepted back and able to resume his station in society, and to live in future a normal happy life with his family and friends.
Assume that man has been acquitted, not by unanimous verdict, but by a majority of ten to two. When he comes among gatherings of his friends, when he walks in the street, when he is seen by neighbours, can one imagine the knowing looks—"You managed to fool ten, but not the other two. Keep away from my wife and my child ". That man would be under a stigma for the rest of

1463
his life and would never live it down. His work may be near the place where he lives; it may be impossible for him to move; it may be impossible to change his way of life. He is therefore, as a result, subjected to that sort of treatment, when he may be as innocent as possibly can be; he labours under this cloud of suspicion for the rest of his life.
I do not accept that it is a good thing that a man should be acquitted by a majority verdict of ten to two. I would urgently ask the Government, if it is not too late, to reconsider their view about this. The figures upon which they have decided to make this momentous change, I should have thought, are slender in the extreme. What are they? They are 3·4 to 4 per cent. throughout the country of disagreements, and at the Central Criminal Court in 1965—and it is said that it is there that the mischief resides—under 5 per cent.; 49 cases out of 1,181, I think it was, just under one in 20. These cases include the cases, after all, of the serious criminal conspiracies of quite often unbelievable complexity, in which it would be very surprising if you did not find disagreement among juries now and again. That, I should have thought, was a pathetically slender ground for introducing this change. The case is just not made out.
Not only that, but when attempts are made to corrupt juries, to approach them, it is said, "This is the tip of the iceberg. You do not know about it". In point of fact very often you do, because jurymen report it to the police. I was interested to note in the one case of which the Home Secretary gave details either two or three jurymen reported that they had been approached. I think it is a grossly unfair reflection upon our fellow-citizens to imply that it is very easy to corrupt a jury. There are weak men and weak women everywhere, but the great majority of our fellow citizens, the overwhelming majority, regard jury service as a sacred duty of the highest obligation, and a jury is not so easy to corrupt as this change would imply. One thinks of the greasy-looking "plug-ugly" going up to a man in a public house and saying, "Here is £100. Do me a little favour". Most times he would come out with a somewhat bloody nose
1464
and with the bribe still in his pocket. I just do not believe that it is a case of walking up to a juryman and saying, "Here is some money. Let my friend go." For those reasons—I hope I have not deployed them at too great length—I am against this proposal. Apart from that, the Bill contains a great many extremely valuable reforms which I am glad to see, and I congratulate the Government on introducing them.
4.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, have devoted the whole content of their speeches to Clause 11 of the Bill, which, although it is an important clause, I myself do not regard as one of the most important provisions of the Bill. I will say something on that subject a little later. The Bill is a massive and extremely important Bill, and I should like to add my congratulations to those of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the way in which he so clearly expounded a massive Bill, but a Bill of bits and pieces. Some of the bits are very good; some of them are not so good, and I hope we shall improve them; and some of them, in my view, are definitely bad, and I hope we shall cut them out.
With this long list of speakers I think it would be tedious if I went through the Bill clause by clause and expressed my support for those bits which I consider to be good; but if I do not say something about the good bits a false impression may arise that I am just critical of the Bill and nothing else. Indeed, perhaps a false impression may arise from the fact that I am speaking this afternoon with the Lord Chief Justice on my left and a former Lord Chief Justice just beside me, both of whom can be relied upon to keep me in a comparative degree of order. I am sure your Lordships are glad to see Lord Goddard here and paying such keen attention to this debate.
I propose to speak mainly on the parts of which I am critical, but I should like to begin by referring to the new committal procedure. I have repeatedly urged that the present procedure for committal is archaic, time-wasting and expensive. Witnesses have to come and

1465
wait to give evidence, and they are seldom cross-examined. Police witnesses have to spend much time on this task. It would be interesting to know how much money is spent on the taking of depositions, and all that. I do not think that there are any statistics available, but it must run into many millions, and it seldom serves a useful purpose. So I very much welcome the proposal that magistrates should be able to commit for trial on written documents. That will greatly relieve the pressure on magistrates' courts, and I hope that this procedure will be widely and almost invariably used. When it is used, there will not be any hearing of the evidence in a magistrates' court—nothing in the nature of a hearing of the case, and, apart from the evidence of the accused and the charges on which he is committed or of which he is acquitted, nothing to report.
When the accused person wishes to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution, or to submit that there is no case to answer, or indeed to call evidence himself, then my belief is that it is right that there should be a hearing of that evidence in the magistrates' court. But it is quite wrong, in my belief, when there is anything in the nature of a hearing in a magistrates' court at the instance of the accused, that the proceedings should not be fully reportable in the Press and elsewhere and that they should be reportable only if the accused asks for it. What is the reason for such a proposal? It is sometimes said that publication of the evidence for the prosecution in a magistrates' court may prejudice the subsequent trial. That is easy to suggest but difficult to substantiate, and I doubt whether it ever happens. Jurors make up their mind on what they have heard at the trial; and even if a juror has seen a newspaper report of the committal proceedings it is not likely that he will remember it when the trial comes along, nor is it likely that if he does remember it his recollection, which is likely to be vague, will affect his judgment of the evidence.
I suppose the strongest argument for this change is that at the magistrates' court some evidence may be admitted which is excluded at the trial as not admissible, and the possibility, which I should think so remote as not to be worthy of
1466
serious consideration, that a juror may recollect the piece of evidence at the trial. But where there is a piece of evidence of doubtful admissibility, surely the right course is for the magistrates to say that they will hear that piece of evidence in camera, and not just on account of that circumstance to make it law that the proceedings shall only be reportable at the accused's request. I hold no brief for the Press on this matter and I have received no brief from them, but there is, in my belief, a great public interest in the public administration of justice, and only where the case for it has been conclusively established and in exceptional circumstances should publication of proceedings in criminal cases be restricted.
It is on that ground that I base my objections to Clause 3. I feel it is anomalous that while Clause 6 requires the magistrate to sit in open court, Clause 3 makes it impossible for a member of the public to know what is going on in a committal case unless he attends the court or the accused asks for the proceedings to be reported. So, in my view, Clause 3 is a bad provision, and I tell the noble Lord that on the Committee stage I shall do my best to see that it is excised from the Bill. To sum up, I suggest that the position should be that if written statements are used and the accused is committed on those, there would be no reports; there would not be a hearing to report. But where there is a hearing at the instance of the accused, where at his instance there is something in the nature of a trial, the proceedings should be in public; and the public interest requires that they should be as fully reportable as they are to-day.
I turn to the next subject of importance dealt with in the Bill and the subject on which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, spoke with such feeling and intensity. No doubt we shall have a great debate on this matter in Committee. I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, with the greatest respect, that I must confess I found his statistics singularly unconvincing when he took into account the number of cases in which there had been no trial at all but a plea of guilty on indictment. I do not think one ought to base one's view on this particular question on what statistics may or may not show. At the present moment there are

1467
no statistics, and no information can be obtained which shows, when a jury has disagreed, how great the disagreement has been. It may not be just one or two; it may be many more than that. Although I would share with the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, as I think everyone does, a great aversion to increasing the risk that an innocent person may be convicted, I completely dissent from Lord Stow Hill's proposal that to introduce a majority verdict in this country would be to increase the risk of that happening. If the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was right about that, then he ought to go on to contend and to establish that there is a greater risk of a Scotsman being convicted in Scotland, although innocent of a crime, than if that Scotsman comes to this country and stands trial here. But that is not one of the reasons why Scotsmen come to England.
LORD BOOTHBY: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The difficulty is that in Scotland they have a bare majority. I do not myself believe that there is in the slightest an increased risk of an innocent person being convicted if we have a majority verdict. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said that people when innocent can still be convicted with a unanimous verdict. That may be so, but it does not seem to me that that argument carries any weight unless it be the case that there really is an increased chance of conviction on a majority verdict, and I do not think that is established at all.
Then it is said that the case for change is not proved. How can the case be proved? Could any public inquiry or investigation serve any useful purpose? None of us knows what goes on in the jury room. We can speculate, as did the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, but we do not know. I should be very adverse to any kind of investigation into what happens in the jury room. Then it is said that there is only one case where a man has been brought to trial for intimidating a jury. No one can say that that is the only case which has occurred; we just do not know; and no public inquiry or private inquiry would elicit in how many cases this has occurred.
1468
It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, suggested, a matter of a man in a four-ale bar offering a large monetary sum to corrupt a juror. The danger now is much greater and is that of intimidation—intimidation perhaps involving threats to the family on the telephone. Where a juror is on the telephone, it is easy enough to find out his number. In the old days, jurors were locked up and kept together until they returned their verdict. I am not suggesting that we should go back to that; but if we are not going to return to that system then we should do all we can to prevent and safeguard the administration of justice from being frustrated by the efforts made to corrupt or intimidate particular juries. So on that ground I would support this proposal.
It is not desirable on that ground alone. There may be people who hold so strongly to particular views that perhaps they ought not to be sitting on a jury at all. Take the case, which will no longer occur, of a trial for murder, when murder was capital, with a man or a woman being called to that jury who is a firm opponent of capital punishment and who knows that the return of a verdict of guilty can have only one consequence. I am sorry for people in that position; they should not, of course, be on the jury at all. But if they disagree in, on the evidence, the clearest case is it right that, because of that particular view, held independently of that case, the person on trial in a case which has been proved up to the hilt should not be convicted and should have to stand his trial again? In this country we have no means of finding out the individual views of jurors; therefore we do not know them. That being so, I consider that it would be an improvement in the administration of justice that such a person—it may be somebody who holds an equally strong view about blood sports—should not be subjected to pressure by other jurors, but should be able to say, "I adhere to my view, I do not agree, and it does not matter if the rest of you do agree." Is that likely to lead to an increased risk of conviction of the innocent?
I have undertaken a number of prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act, and I have been concerned in more than one case lest, perchance, there should be a well-known Communist upon the jury. If

1469
there were, whatever the evidence, however clear the guilt, there would be a considerable chance of a disagreement and of the whole trial being frustrated. Do we really gain anything by insisting that there should be unanimity of verdict? Scotland has had majority verdicts for a long time, and I am glad to see the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Guest among the list of speakers. But this is not applicable only to Scotland. We take great pride in our system of justice, a system which, if I may use the word, we have exported to what were the Colonies and to Commonwealth territories; and I am very grateful to the Home Office for giving me some information on this matter. It is indeed surprising to discover the large number of Commonwealth territories which allow majority verdicts in criminal cases. So far as I can find out, there has been very little criticism of them and no demand for their abolition.
The number of cases in which one is likely to have a majority verdict is, I believe, very small. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, gave the percentages relating to those who plead guilty and those where there is a trial. I myself consider that the number of cases in which there will be a majority verdict will be extremely small—for this reason. Under the later subsections of that clause there must be a time for consideration before any such verdict can be returned; and I consider this to be a good proposal. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was a little critical of it, but it is a similar system to that which obtains in many parts of the Commonwealth. If one now takes the total number of disagreements, I do not think one will find it likely that the number of majority verdicts, if this Bill is passed, will be considerable. However, I am sure we shall have a great debate on this matter at a later stage of the Bill.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount leaves the matter of majority verdicts, he took me to task for bringing into account the cases where people plead guilty. But surely one must do this, because the cases which are fought before juries are doubtful cases in which there is something to argue about, and in those cases one would expect a higher percentage of acquittals.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I do not assume that the cases which are fought are necessarily the doubtful cases. One starts with the case going before magistrates, and the magistrates who commit for trial need not be unanimous; at that stage a majority is sufficient. And if there is an appeal to quarter sessions against conviction by the magistrates, again it is a majority decision of the justices at quarter sessions. But when it comes to trial before a jury it is said, "That is all wrong: the decision must be unanimous." A case which has been committed for trial, having gone through the magistrates' court, when the judge or chairman of the court lets the case go to a jury, may be a difficult case to prove, but I would not accept the proposition that the vast majority of the fought cases are doubtful ones. Some are cases which are fought in the hope that some miracle will happen, like having upon the jury somebody who cannot read, write or hear.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I have all been members of the same circuit for many years. I recognise the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, upon this matter, and this is, I think, the first and unique occasion when I have found him to be far more conservative than I am.
I welcome the provision that prisoners who have served sentences of five years should be disqualified from sitting on juries, but I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would just say a little about how this is going to work. It is true that if a man who is disqualified by reason of a previous conviction sits upon a jury he commits a criminal offence. But it will be an intolerable burden to place on someone who has, for instance, been convicted years ago, and ten years ago finishes a sentence of five years, if he is to be required, having re-established himself, having gained a good reputation in his locality, to get up when he is called to the jury box and confess to his past misconduct. I am sure that is not intended, but I should like—and I think it would be useful—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to say how this provision will be operated to avoid the possibility of that happening.
Is a form, for instance, to be sent round to everyone called to serve as a juror

1471
which he can complete? Will his name then never appear upon a jury panel, or will his name be struck off the jury panel? I should prefer that his name never appeared on the jury panel, because if a line is suddenly struck through it people who see that jury panel after this Bill becomes law will be apt to suspect that that man has a criminal record. I think it is very important that we should know—I do not ask for a statement today, but perhaps we could be told when we come to the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill," during the Committee stage—how it is going to be operated.
I come now to the alibi provision. I welcome it, and I have urged it for a very long time. With regard to suspended sentences, I have no objection to giving the courts power to suspend a sentence if the suspended sentence is indeed a reality. One finds, however, that it is not provided here that if a person commits another offence he will serve that suspended sentence, but it is provided by the next clause that if he commits another offence the court before which he is then brought can relieve him of the obligation to serve the whole or part of the suspended sentence. I doubt whether that is at all wise or right, because I think that that provision greatly reduces the deterrent effect which ought to accompany a suspended sentence. I rather suspect that this provision lacks the reality which it ought to have.
Subsection (3) of Clause 30 is a most important provision, a far more important provision than majority verdicts; and I say, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that I think it is a throughly bad provision. What does it do? It is mandatory, and provides that magistrates shall suspend a sentence if the sentence which they pass is not more than six months. Under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, Section 19, that is the maximum sentence which magistrates can pass on an indictable offence triable summarily. An indictable offence is not just a minor offence, and this provision means that where a man is tried summarily on an indictable offence, and where the court would now think the only possible sentence was a sentence of imprisonment, and that there was no
1472
alternative, the court will in future have to suspend that sentence.
The belief is pretty widely held that the first time you are caught committing an offence you will be bound over, and nothing will happen to you. The provision in subsection (3) of Clause 30 really ensures that the second time you are caught not much is going to happen to you, because if you are thought fit for imprisonment the sentence will be suspended. I cannot help feeling that this is likely to lead to very great difficulties in the magistrates' courts.
Take the case, for instance, of two brothers charged together, one aged 21 and the other 19. The magistrates think it right to send the 19-year-old to a detention centre, but is it fair to do so if all they can do to the older brother, when they think he ought to be sentenced to imprisonment, is to pass a suspended sentence of imprisonment? Will that really be fair and just as between those two? I have no objection to the Home Secretary giving magistrates discretion in this matter, but I object to making it mandatory.
I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor said about short sentences. Short sentences are, by and large, a bad thing, and any court ought to be extremely reluctant before passing a short sentence. But there are cases where imprisonment is really the only punishment that can be given, and to take away from magistrates the power of sending someone to prison on summary conviction for an indictable offence is, in my belief, utterly wrong. I do not think the reasons stand examination. The noble Lord said that the sole motive was not to reduce the prison population, but then he went on to say that of course it would have that result, and that it would be welcomed. If that be to any extent a reason which is actuating the Home Office then, with the greatest respect, I feel that they have their priorities wrong.
In these days, surely the last thing that we should want to do is to make it appear that the administration of the criminal law is getting soft and weak. The important thing is to avoid that happening. I cannot but believe that the retention of this subsection in the Bill will create that impression—and really t it will be more than an impression—and

1473
that it will deprive magistrates of a very important part of their powers, the power in an appropriate case to send to prison, a power which should be seldom exercised. So it will be abolishing one of the deterrents now available to prevent the commission of crime, and that should be the first priority.
The reforming of the person who has committed a crime is, I agree, of tremendous importance. But do not let us remove the deterrent powers of magistrates, and do not let us make it clear that a man can now really assume that the first time he will be put on probation, that the second time in a magistrates' court he will get a suspended sentence, and that the third time he may get that suspended sentence completely removed. I regard this provision, which will affect far more people in this country than the majority verdicts, as being one of the major features of this Bill, and it is with great sorrow and regret that I must say that I consider it a bad feature.
I now turn—and I will take it as shortly as I can—to what I call the licensing provisions. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, knows, I have for long been urging, and have been in favour of, an enlargement of the power to license prisoners and I welcome that provision in this Bill. I also welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has agreed, I gather somewhat reluctantly, to the creation of a Parole Board. I think that that is a most important feature. But it is very important that that Board should command respect from the public, from those engaged in the administration of the law and also from the prison population. In the Bill we are told that the Board is to have a chairman, but we are not told what kind of chairman he is to be. That is left completely and utterly vague.
In Schedule 2 we are told with some degree of precision who shall be included among its members. One member is to be:
"a person who holds or has held judicial office;"
To my mind those words are far too wide. That would qualify a junior recorder, of the smallest county borough. If this Board is to have the esteem it should have, it ought to include someone who has held or holds not just a judicial office but a high judicial office.
1474
I hope that consideration will be given to that point.
Then the fourth category of member of the Board is to be:
"a person appearing to the Secretary of State to have made a study of the causes of delinquency or the treatment of offenders".
Those words are very vague. And if, as I think the noble Lord recognised, the main consideration is to be not whether a man has behaved well in prison, and so deserves to be licensed, but whether he is likely to go straight when released from prison, I am not sure that a person who has made a study of deliquency or of the treatment of offenders is best qualified to assess that prospect. I should prefer to see some member of the Prison Department as a member of the Board.
But what I think is much more important than the constitution of the Board is the powers it will have, and I hope that further thought will be given to these. First of all, as I understand it, there will be local review committees.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount to make sure that I have got his thought on the constitution of the Prison Licensing Board correctly? I understood him to say that he thought somebody connected with the Prison Department should be a member of the Board. If that is so, would it not completely destroy the independence of the Board, which has seemed so desirable? The other point is that at two previous stages, both in the local committee and in the Department, of course, members of the Prison Service will have an opportunity to express a view about particular cases.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I was not expressing a final view. I was saying that I should prefer to have on the main Board, the Prison Licensing Board, someone who has been or still is in the Prison Department, rather than someone who merely fulfils the description in subparagraph (d) of paragraph (1) of Schedule 2. One can think of many people who have devoted their lives to the Prison Service who would fill the position, and I certainly should not be against it.
But I want to come now to how the system, so far as I can see, is going to work. There will be the local review committee, to which the prisoner will

1475
apply if the rules permit him to do so; or his case will be reviewed by that committee. We shall no doubt hear about that. But who is going to be on that committee? It is quite right that the governor of the prison—or indeed any of the prison staff—should be available to give any information which is sought from him by the members of the committee, but I should think it wrong if at that level the governor of the prison was a member of the committee, because then, I think, the emphasis would be far too much on how the man has behaved in prison and far too little on how he is likely to behave when he leaves. It would also, I think, he putting the governor in a slightly embarrassing position. I should like to see the local review committee made an independent body. This is exceedingly important, because if a case does not get through that local review committee it does not come to the Home Secretary and therefore never gets to the Board at all. So it is extremely important that these filters should be right.
When a case does come to the Board, one sees that the Board will have before it only such material as the Secretary of State likes to give it. The Board will be entitled to have the prisoner interviewed by one of its members. That means that the persons whose cases come before the Board will be those persons who the Home Secretary thinks ought to be released on licence. I believe that that Board should be entitled to ask for, and obtain, such papers about the case as they may want; that they should be entitled, if they so wish, to consult with the judge who has tried the case, or the chairman of the court; and that they should not be restricted in this way. As I see it, under the Bill the Board will simply be asked to give a "rubber-stamp" approval to the Home Secretary's view. I agree it is very important that what the Home Secretary decides to do should be endorsed and approved by the Board, but I should like to see the Board a little more independent and a little more able to decide things on its own. I should like very much to consider whether we could devise some satisfactory way to ensure that cases which ought to come up to the Home Secretary on their way to
1476
the Board are not stopped at the first stage by the local review committee. We shall no doubt have an opportunity of considering that point during the Committee stage.
My Lords, I fear that, taking my speech as a whole, it must have sounded very critical, but there are many things in this Bill which I support, including majority verdicts. I reserve all comment on the proposal to embody the Law Commission's report on The Queen v.Smith in statutory form, except to say that that case has been more misunderstood by lawyers, and not least by the Law Commission, than any case I have known.
5.8 p.m.
LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST: My Lords, I regret that owing to my duties elsewhere I was denied the advantage of hearing the major part of the exposition of this measure by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Nevertheless, I trust that I may be allowed to offer a few submissions in regard to the Bill. Owing to an engagement made before the alteration of the date of this debate. I hope your Lordships will acquit me of discourtesy if I ask your Lordships' leave not to be in my place during the later stages.
I should like to express in general a welcome for this Bill, and respectfully to express my appreciation of the progressive, forward-looking and humanitarian approach which has guided the Home Secretary in introducing this measure. I am sure it is right that we should not regard any of our legal system as sacrosanct and not to be investigated. I very much approve of all the proposals in the early part of the Bill in regard to committal proceedings. I feel sure that there has been an unnecessary waste of time in years past, and I welcome the proposals to avoid that and to simplify procedure, as well as the other proposals in the early part of the Bill.
I welcome very much, subject to some of the matters that need exemption, as mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, the proposals for release on licence. There is much here that will be by way of experiment. I feel sure that the experiment is well worth making. I must confess that I share entirely, if I may respectfully say so, some of the anxieties expressed by the

1477
noble and learned Viscount in regard to Clause 30(3). If courts have the duty and responsibility of doing what is right at the particular time and in the particular circumstances of a case, I feel that it would be unfortunate if they should find themselves unduly cramped by something laid down which is too rigid and restrictive. Therefore, I echo what the noble and learned Viscount has said in regard to that matter.
My Lords, although this is a measure which should be warmly commended, for my own part I feel that it has a blemish, in that it includes, among so much that is progressive, a proposed step which I regard as entirely retrograde. I refer to the proposal to introduce majority verdicts. The fact that a system has lasted fo 600 years is no reason in itself for maintaining that system if it is shown to be defective. But I would submit that, if a system has survived and thrived for 600 years, at least the onus is on those who suggest that it has now become defective to prove what they say.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, will my noble friend forgive me for interrupting? The system of majority verdicts has worked very well in Scotland, and our system of criminal justice is incomparably superior to that of England.
LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST: My Lords, I was about to deploy one or two submissions before your Lordships. I am not unmindful that there is this system in Scotland; but I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not deflect myself at this moment to deal with the question he has raised.
I think we are entitled to ask why this change is now proposed. We had a Criminal Justice Bill in this House in 1961 which became an Act. I do not recall that it was then suggested that the time had come to abandon the system that had for so long lasted; I do not recall that in this House noble Lords have been advocating this change. Why has it come about? The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was good enough to refer to a Committee over which I had the honour of presiding. As that Committee has been mentioned, I hope it will not be thought unseemly if I refer to it. It is entirely clear that the question of majority verdicts was not within our terms of reference. Our terms
1478
of reference related to qualifications for jury service. They were:
"… to inquire into the law and practice in England and Wales regarding the qualifications for, exemptions from, and conditions of jury service, and related matters; and to make recommendations."
I refer to that at this moment only to say that at that time, May, 1963, no-one then thought of introducing majority verdicts.
The Committee heard evidence from a wide variety of important bodies and groups, and from important persons. Had we been charged with the duty of making some inquiry in regard to majority verdicts, it could easily have been done. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that in any inquiry about jury service there is the limitation that one does not want to affect the secrecy that binds those who have served on juries. But at least one can get certain facts. We did our work during 1963 and 1964, and we reported in the early part of 1965. Our Report was published in, I think it was, April, 1965. Throughout our deliberations, if anyone had then thought that majority verdicts must be considered, our terms of reference easily could have been altered and we could have been charged with the duty of looking into the matter.
We were not invited to look at the whole system of trial by jury; but I do not understand that anyone wishes to change that system. There might he an inquiry in regard to that. It might be considered: "Although we have placed such faith in this system, may we not want to change it?" I am not averse to any change if we can show that that change involves improvement. But no-one has suggested that the whole system should be looked at. In the course of our work we considered the calibre of juries at the present time. That was relevant only because we were considering qualifications for the future and, naturally, we wanted to consider what was the result of having the present qualifications. We had a Rood deal of evidence on that. Some witnesses suggested that the quality of juries had deteriorated; others suggested that it had not. The latter view was the view of the majority.
In paragraph 48 of our Report, we said:
"The tribute to the quality of present-day juries quoted in paragraph 47 above is much

1479
more representative of the general tenor of the evidence presented to us than the criticism quoted in paragraph 46; and we cannot do better than to quote the following extract from a summary made by the General Council of the Bar of comments offered by a total of 78 Recorders:"
My Lords, before we decide to go in for majority verdicts, it would be at least of interest to know what the 78 or more Recorders think about this, and what the chairmen of quarter sessions—those who are dealing with the great majority of trials by jury—think about it.
This was the view put to us by the Bar Council. I am quoting the extract in the Report:
"'The general view is that the calibre of present-day juries is satisfactory and fully adequate to do proper justice. Many are impressed not only by their good sense, but, above all, by their very real sense of responsibility and their conscientious and fair approach to their duties.'"
That was the viewpoint put by others. The passage continues:
"The calibre of juries seems to have improved greatly during the last ten years, as a result to some extent, no doubt, of increased educational facilities, but probably more so, perhaps surprisingly, because of the great popularity of television broadcasts of court trial programmes. The average jury does not arrive in court wholly ignorant of its function nor disturbed by the novelty of the scene or procedure. The majority opinion is strongly against any suggestion of specially selected juries or trial by experts in any case, however complicated."
My Lords, I think we are entitled to ask what is the reason now made for this change, a change, as I understand it, first suggested in another place in August of last year. Why? What has happened? Why no suggestion earlier? Why no inquiry earlier? It has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, with whose speech I found myself in entire agreement (as I was in entire agreement with the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill) that there are not enough convictions. But I do not think that is officially put forward at all for this proposal, so that may be set on one side entirely.
Incidentally, we have not any figures in regard to the number of trials and the number of convictions. We have a very good estimate made by the Home Office Research Unit, and we can place the greatest confidence in them and I have no doubt that their views will be
1480
right. But there is published each year a book of criminal statistics, a most elaborate book containing a wealth of information concerning crime. I invite correction if I am wrong, but nowhere in these massive books do we anywhere find, first, the total number of trials before a jury in England and Wales after pleas of guilty; and, secondly, the total number of those who were found guilty and the total number who were acquitted. As I say, the Home Office Research Unit have figures, which doubtless are representative, from which they are able to make the deduction which in no way do I challenge, for I have such respect for the work undertaken in the Home Office. But, my Lords, it is surely rather remarkable that so fundamental a change should be suggested without our having the elementary, basic figures.
But that is not the reason advanced—that there are not enough convictions. It has been suggested that, well, there may be a perverse man. We have always had the odd, perverse man in the community, and the occasional "crank" likewise—there is no change in 1966 as compared to the early years—but again I think it has been officially disclaimed as a reason for introducing this change. So the sole reason, as I understand it, for this suggestion is that it has been thought that in recent periods there have been attempts so to influence some members of a jury that in cases where everyone except the influenced person would be in favour of a conviction, there has been disagreement. My Lords, so the argument runs, if there is a disagreement there has to be a second trial, and obviously that is to be deplored, with all the expense that is involved. But if that is the reason, and the sole reason, advanced for this change, surely the first desirability is to get the figures. Again I say, and I invite correction, nowhere in these massive books do we find the number of cases of disagreement.
The Committee to which I have referred (and I apologise for referring to it again), as part of our duty of examining the calibre of juries made some inquiries. We asked for some figures and I think that those figures were probably the first figures obtained. At the Central Criminal Court in 1963 there were 699 contested cases in 27 of which the jury disagreed; and at the London Sessions in the same

1481
year there were 1,087 contested cases, in 29 of which the jury disagreed. That is in 1963 in London, where the problem is said to arise and where it is more or less agreed that there is a different situation from that which applies in other parts of the country. Those figures do not show any unhealthy state of affairs. I suggest that they show that the jury system is working well. It would be surprising if there were not a certain number of disagreements.
We said in our Report, in paragraph 357:
" The requirement in criminal cases that all 12 jurors must be in agreement on their verdict makes it inevitable that there will be a number of disagreements. It seems to us that this need cause no concern unless disagreements occur so frequently as to indicate that the orderly administration of justice is being prejudiced. Indeed it can be argued that the absence of a certain number of disagreements would itself be disturbing, since in the nature of things 12 individuals chosen at random are unlikely always to take the same view about a particular matter, and the existence of disagreement may, therefore, be evidence that jurors are performing their duties conscientiously."
We proceeded in the next paragraph to express the view:
"… that a disagreement, especially on a long case, can be a disastrous waste of time and money, and it could be argued from this that subject to certain safeguards majority verdicts should be accepted. While we do not advance this view, which in any case would take us outside our terms of reference, the question of majority verdicts is one which many people consider to be of importance and worthy of future consideration."
My Lords, it was not within our terms of reference, and therefore it follows that any views I am expressing are my personal views and not the views of that Committee. I suggest that before so vital a change as this is contemplated, the first thing would be to get the facts, and at the present time we do not have the facts and the figures in regard to the disagreements throughout the country. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, referred to some figures which were given in regard to the Central Criminal Court: 37 trials in the year 1965 where the jury failed to agree. Surely there is nothing alarming in that. They involved 49 people and we know what happened to those 49 people afterwards. In the case of 25 the jury, on a further trial, did agree and convicted; in the case of a further 14 the jury did agree and acquitted, and in the
1482
remaining cases there was a second disagreement. I again express concurrence with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said: those figures, as proof of the need for a change, give evidence which is slender and meagre to such an extent as almost to be derisory.
My Lords, that this is a fundamental change cannot, I suggest, admit of doubt. We have a horror of sending an innocent man to prison, and for centuries we have tried to avoid that by having as much certainty as possible. The certainty that we have tried to achieve has been in two ways: first, the judge directs the jury that on the evidence every one of them must be sure of guilt before they return a verdict of guilty; and the second requirement is that every one of the jury must agree. There is no magic in the number of 12 on the jury—we could have 11, 10, or even 7. We managed with seven when there was a shortage of manpower during the war. But the advantage of our system, the pride of our system, has been that not only must every juror be satisfied, but that also every jury must be satisfied. Are we, on this inadequate evidence, to jettison one part of a principle that so many of us think is a beneficient part of our legal system?
If a judge directed a jury that they must be reasonably sure before they convicted, I imagine that the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal would quash the conviction. It is not enough to say, "reasonably sure". If a judge said that they must be "pretty sure" or "pretty certain", I imagine that the Criminal Division would frown upon those phrases. Can there be any doubt that, if we adopt the system whereby out of 12 people a majority of ten will do, whereby it is enough for a conviction that five-sixths think there is guilt, we are saying that there can be a conviction if the jury, as a jury, can say that they are pretty sure "because five out of six think that guilt is established.
I have expressed sincerely my admiration for so much that is in the Bill, but I regret that this one provision should now be included. I do not know whether it is too late for Her Majesty's Government to think again. If there is some further proof, if we can be persuaded that this system should be changed, I am ready to accept conviction to that effect.

1483
I do not think that we should regard any part of our legal system as free from being subject to careful examination, but I feel that on this evidence we are throwing away a great principle, and I regret it.
5.33 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:
My Lords, like the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, I would join the chorus of praise of this Bill before proceeding to make one or two critical comments. I find something to admire in every part of the Bill, with the possible exception of Part IV, which I regard as adding unnecessary complications to something that ought to be simplified. However I do not propose to discuss that in any detail.
I am delighted with Part I and its simplification of committal procedure. Perhaps I ought to profess an interest here, because I have spent more than forty years as a justice of the peace, and I am horrified at the amount of my life which has been wasted in hearing committal proceedings. In the whole of that long experience I have known only one case in which the bench on which I was serving did not commit. There was one other case in which the bench argued at considerable length before coming to a decision, and in the end the decision was that there should be a committal. I welcome tremendously in Part I the fact that we are now to be allowed to make certain conditions on bail. This legalises a practice which I think is a good deal more widespread than is generally admitted.
I welcome in Part II the fact that we are to have suspended sentences. The great difference between the suspended sentence and the conditional discharge is that a suspended sentence is easy to understand and the conditional discharge is not. If a man knows that a sentence of a year's or two years' imprisonment is hanging over him, that is perfectly plain, but if he is told that he will be dealt with for an offence if within the next year he commits another offence, this makes very little impact. I cannot agree, however, with the view of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that the whole effect of this provision is nullified by the escape
1484
clause, which allows the sentence not to be imposed if in the circumstances it seems unjust. I am sure that this is an absolutely necessary escape. We cannot have a rigid system. I believe that the fear that this will lead to an automatic reversion of the intention of the suspended sentence is quite unjustified. However, experience will show.
I welcome the provisions for licensing prisoners who have a determinate sentence, and above all I welcome the ending in Part III of what my noble friend Lord Stonham referred to as official brutality—namely, the final end of corporal punishment as an element in our penal system.
I think that a kind word should be said for the Government for having tacked on to the conclusion of the Bill, where they perhaps look a little irrelevant, the firearms provisions. I am extremely glad that we should have more stringent control of firearms and that the Government have waived any importance they attach to the consistency of the whole Bill in order to include these provisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cum-nor, regretted that this Bill had anticipated what might have been the findings of the now defunct Royal Commission. As a member of that Commission, who served on it with some assiduity for eighteen months, and as an unrepentant advocate of its dissolution, I would say that, on the contrary, had the Royal Commission still been in being we should not have had the Bill at all; or certainly not for a very considerable time. I think that the noble Lord (I regret that he is not at the moment in his place) had a romantic illusion as to the product that might come forth from that Commission, had it remained in being. I am delighted that we were not an obstruction which prevented this admirable Bill from being brought forward at this time.
I come now to one or two points in the Bill on which I feel doubts. The question of majority verdicts has been adequately argued by those who are much better equipped on this subject than I am, and I would add only one or two remarks. I think it is perfectly clear from the speech made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, that the proposal to introduce a majority verdict in juries was made for one reason only: a fear that guilty men were going free owing to the

1485
fact that juries might be corrupted or intimidated, or might contain one or two cranks ". There was no reference to this proposal being necessitated by the fear that innocent men were being convicted. If this is the sole reason why a change is proposed, it is a profound reversal of what has always been the philosophy of British justice: that it is better that a guilty man should go free than that an innocent man should be convicted. It seems to me that this is a very odd way of dealing with the possible corruption or intimidation of juries. If a jury is corrupted or intimidated, surely the matter should be taken up on its own merits. It seems to me odd that we should say, "You are welcome to corrupt two, but you cannot corrupt a third"; and this is exactly what the proposal says.
Most important of all, it seems that we are making this change completely in the dark. My noble friend Lord Stonham referred to the irrational juror, and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, told us that the system works well in Scotland. If I may say so with respect, the noble Lord is entitled to say that the system works in Scotland, but he has no evidence on which to say whether it works well or badly, for he has no knowledge whether it causes an innocent man to be convicted or a guilty man to be acquitted.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I know that it works well. I have been watching it for forty years. And why the English do not pay more attention to Scottish procedure I shall never be able to understand. It is far better.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:
I recognise that the noble Lord's Divine inspiration takes precedence over any regard for evidence. Of course, we have no evidence—and I think this is important—about what happens when juries retire. In the United States there has recently been an inquiry, very restricted, as to the results of jury trials when contrasted with the opinions of the judges who conducted the trials. Two American investigators inquired from 555 judges (they have a great many judges in the States) what was their view of the rightness or wrongness of the verdicts which their juries had brought in. They found that there was disagreement between judges and juries as a result of the trial in 19 per cent. of the cases, and that in
1486
16 per cent. of the cases the disagreement was on the side that the jury acquitted when the judge would have convicted. The judges then proceeded to give the reasons why they thought the juries had come to these, as they thought, wrong conclusions. But nobody asked the juries what was in their minds, and, as a result, we were not very much further forward.
Here I should like to make a proposal which I know is highly controversial and very radical. I think it is time we found out what goes on in jury rooms. I have listened to noble and learned Lords who have spoken so far in the debate, all of whom have upheld the sanctity of the secrecy of the jury. But I should have thought that it was time a responsible body inquired—if necessary, getting their evidence in camera from persons who have served as jurors—as to what is the procedure that goes on, so that we could collect a serious body of evidence about this institution. I have never understood why in this day and age this should be one social institution which has to he immune from any kind of impartial investigation—and the more so when it is an institution which makes decisions which are vital to the lives of our fellow citizens.
A large part of this Bill is designed to keep people out of prison who ought not to be there. This many of us welcome wholeheartedly. It may, however, entail some difficulty for unfortunate persons like magistrates who have to find something else to do with the people who now go to prison but who perhaps ought not to go there. I should like to assure my noble friend Lord Stonham that one of the sub-committees of the Penal Advisory Council—a sub-committee of which I have the honour to be chairman—is desperately searching for alternative forms of non-custodial treatment, trying to exercise their imagination in thinking up new possibilities, and also trying to wrestle with the difficult question of how a non-custodial penalty can be enforced if the defendant chooses just to disregard it.
I come now to one other topic on which I wish to say something, and that is the licensing of prisoners with determinate sentences. Here again, I am sure that the proposal contained in the Bill is an admirable one in principle. I am not quite so sure about the Licensing Board, and I

1487
shall have something to say about the constitution and powers of that Board in a moment. I think that, whoever does the licensing, there are certain principles which ought to be weighed most carefully. Perhaps I should add here that I say this with some experience of parole boards in other countries, where apparently—I speak now of Australia—there are no guiding rules and no clearly thought-out priorities, and where I have seen parole boards acting most carefully and conscientiously but upon their impressions of the moment, and often acting with disastrous results.
I am sure that whoever does the licensing must think clearly why a prisoner should be licensed and why he should not be licensed. He should not be licensed if he is a danger to the public. I hold that this should be the top priority, although, in itself, it is not an absolute one, because one may take risks with smaller offences that one would not take if the offences committed, or likely to be committed, are grave ones. One must take into account, secondly, the effect of detention on the prisoner himself. If he is deteriorating, that is an argument in favour of his being released—and we know that personalities do greatly deteriorate in prison over long periods of detention. Thirdly, the Board must take account of the effect on other people, both inside and outside prison. If that were not so, it would be quite reasonable to release a great number of murderers, because a great number of murderers are most unlikely to commit further offences. But this would be totally unpalatable to the public at large and, indeed, to other prisoners.
One must remember that this Licensing Board is, in a way, going to act as a sort of additional court of appeal. I have no doubt that the Board will be tempted to license prisoners more readily in cases in which they think the original sentence was very excessive. I was made aware of this the other day when I heard what appeared to me to be a most excessive sentence passed on certain prisoners, and I very much regretted that this would come into effect before they would have an opportunity of being licensed under the provisions of this Bill. It seems to
1488
me that this is one factor which has not received enough attention, and that this Board will, in effect, act as another form of appeal against sentence.
The White Paper was, if I may say so, rather glib about this matter of licensing. It said it was expected that we should license prisoners who would be likely to respond to generous treatment and who were not regarded as risks. This presupposes that we know who is likely to respond to generous treatment and who is not to be regarded as a risk: it did not say by whom they were not to be regarded as risks. I hope that the Licensing Board, when they come to these practical questions, will not only set out their priorities but also quantify; and I hope they will pay great attention to the research that has been done, which throws some light on the probability that a prisoner will turn out to be a risk.
The Home Office have sponsored, and through their own research department conducted, a great deal of research about the after careers of prisoners who have been treated in various ways. It is a great waste of money and of everybody's time if this research is continued, produces some results, and nobody takes any notice of them. I hope that one of the first things the Licensing Board will do will be to make a careful study of the evidence on which depends the question of who is likely to be a good risk and who is likely to be a bad risk.
My Lords, I understand that we are now to adjourn for the Royal Commission.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure:
House resumed.

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

Local Government (Termination of Reviews),

Private Places of Entertainment (Licensing),

Housing (Financial Provisions, &c.) (Scotland),

Road Traffic,

Agriculture,

Royal Assent,

Slaughter of Poultry,

National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Amendment),

Merchant Shipping,

Merchant Shipping (Load Lines),

Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions),

Housing Subsidies,

Road Safety,

Commonwealth Settlement,

Development of Inventions,

Air Corporations,

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation,

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board,

Saint Mary-le-Park, Battersea,

Bath University of Technology,

Newcastle-under-Lyme Burgesses' Lands,

East Kilbride Burgh.

House adjourned during pleasure:
House resumed.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL
6.13 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, if I may resume where I left off, I have just one or two more things I should like to say. I was trying to put to your Lordships very strongly that it will be the duty of the Prison Licensing Board to take account of the actual evidence available about the probability of different prisoners committing subsequent offences. I should like to remind your Lordships that we already have a little evidence that bears on this. When we had preventive detention, it was the
1490
duty of an Advisory Board to recommend those detainees who should serve two-thirds of their sentence and those who should serve five-sixths of their sentence.
The Advisory Board performed its functions with the utmost care and conscientiousness. It had before it information about home background, work record, criminal history and personality of the candidates for earlier release. But unfortunately it worked out that the Advisory Board might just as well not have looked at any of this information, because their results were no better than random. If they had simply tossed up to see who should serve two-thirds of their sentence and who should serve five-sixths, they would have achieved results just as good as they achieved by this extremely careful and conscientious work. But it was subsequently shown by the Home Office Research Unit that this was because they had not adequately organised the information available to them. By organising that information, and carefully noting what factors in the applicants' history proved in practice to be of good prognostic value, and what factors of poor prognostic value, it would have been possible greatly to improve the results.
In the case of preventive detainees, the results were not going to be very good anyway. There was always, I regret to say, more than a 50 per cent, chance of a reconviction. But whereas the Advisory Board failed to distinguish entirely between the better risks and the less good risks, the Home Office Research Unit was able to grade the risks so that they could indicate in which cases there was a 60 per cent, chance that a man might be re-convicted, and others in which there was a 90 per cent, chance that he would be re-convicted. This is not, of course, anything approaching certainty, but it is a considerable advance, and it is information which is absolutely vital if the Licensing Board is going to do its job effectively.
It has been said, I think by a distinguished American sociologist, that mankind has thrown away most of its experience for lack of a competent system of recording. This is particularly true of our penal system. There is no reason why it should be or need be any longer true,

1491
and the success of imaginative measures like the present Bill will very largely depend upon our putting a stop to this waste of experience. My Lords, some of the proposals I have made I know are extremely controversial and radical. In the course of my life I have supported a number of highly controversial and radical measures. I have lived long enough to see many of them put into effect, and many of them also now regarded as absolute commonplace.
6.18 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships very long. I only wish to express a welcome for this Bill in general and in principle from these Benches, and to utter a particular word of welcome with regard to three of its provisions. The first is the belated abolition of preventive detention. Preventive detention failed, first, because the sentence came to be given to the wrong type of prisoner; that is to say, to the feckless, petty criminal, and not, as originally intended, to persistent serious offenders. It is greatly to be hoped that the now proposed extended sentences will not suffer the same fate. I believe that the conditions in the Bill necessary to qualify for extended sentence will in fact prevent this happening.
The second reason why preventive detention failed was because the prisoners concerned were totally unable to understand the principles upon which the Board were acting. The prisoners were bewildered and confused. They could not discover what it was they were supposed to do in order to obtain their earlier release. They could not understand why some persons were released whom the prisoners had every reason to suppose would not make a success of life in the world, and so there grew up a deep, bewildered sense of injustice. I think we must be extremely careful to avoid this happening again under the parole system, about which I will say a word in a moment.
The second Part of the Bill which I welcome very greatly is the forthright attack on the short prison sentence, and the determination to make much greater use of punishment by fine and use of the suspended sentence. I hope that this will drastically reduce the population of the prisons. I entirely agree with what
1492
noble Lords have said, that the short prison sentence is quite useless—indeed, worse than useless: it is bad because it tends not to reform but positively to corrupt. Yet there is still, I think, something to be said for the short prison sentence, though I do not often say it because I am the only person who happens to take this view. In these days of affluence, to lose one's liberty and at the same time to be deprived of one's comfort is a daunting prospect. I am a great reader of the novels of Mr. P. G. Wodehouse, and the things that Mr. Wodehouse's young men feared most of all was the prospect of "doing seven days" without the option.
If, therefore, this attack on short sentences of imprisonment were to go extremely well, and in consequence a wing or two wings in some of our local prisons became unoccupied, I should in those circumstances seek to fill them with what I might call the non-criminal offenders; that is to say, those who commit offences against the law to which no social stigma attaches. Many classes of motor and traffic offenders, persistent cheats in relation to television licences, gross offenders against the anti-litter laws, people who sit down on pavements and wait for the police to remove them and obstruct other citizens going about their lawful business—to these non-criminal offenders I think that seven or twenty days without the option in our unmodernised and, to say the least of it, rather sordid local prisons would prove a powerful deterrent; more powerful than even a severe fine.
I come now to the proposed licensing system. Ever since this Bill was introduced into another place this question of parole has been a major topic of conversation among the prisoners. It has inevitably raised great hopes and, as inevitably, it will cause great disappointment, and maybe resentment, among those whose applications are refused. It is essential that any machinery created to operate this release on licence should be understood by the prisoners, and that the prisoners on every occasion should be informed of the reasons why they have been turned down. It is most likely that the prisoner will not accept the reasons for his having been turned down, but he must be given them; and he must be given the real reasons, however damaging to his self-respect.

1493
It is essential, I think, that throughout the time of his sentence there should be a regular discussion between each prisoner and one member of the Prison Service about his progress, or lack of progress, as the case may be, so that every prisoner may know that his case is under continuous review, however remote his chances of being released on licence may be. I believe that it would be unwise to attach too great hopes to the success of this parole system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has said, to some extent it is bound to be a hit-and-miss affair. However much one studies the records and listens to the opinions of other people, in the end the decision is bound to have a large element of guess-work in it.
I do not believe that the scheme could possibly work without the acceptance of the proposed local review committees which, under Clause 48(5), the Secretary of State is empowered to create. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that apparently it is the intention of the Secretary of State to establish a local review committee in connection with every local and general prison. I think that this is essential. Each prisoner must have the opportunity of being interviewed, either by the committee as a whole or at least by one member of it. Then the composition of the committee must include somebody to represent the general public—say a magistrate—and someone to represent the local probation service, because it is on the Probation Service that the responsibility for looking after the man released on licence will generally devolve. I would say that there should also be on the committee a member of the Prison Service. I remember vividly, when I sat in on some of the sittings of the board under the preventive detention system, when the governor or assistant governor was present only as an assessor, that the committee did not seem to me to pay sufficient attention to the views expressed by the governor at particular proceedings.
As for the Central Prison Licensing Board, it seems to me that the composition proposed in Schedule 2 is probably right. I am certain that on it there must be a member of the Judiciary or someone who has held high legal office. I do not think he ought to be chairman, because that
1494
would have an adverse effect upon the prisoners, who would feel that they were, so to speak, being tried all over again. But the other classes represented in the Schedule are probably right. I am certain that the chairman will have to be whole-time and paid, and the numbers of the different categories must be large enough to enable the Board to meet if not weekly at least twice a month, because it is essential that the interval between the prisoner making his application and his hearing of the result must be reduced to the barest minimum. If the procedure gets involved in delays in the law and delays in Whitehall, it will be extremely cruel, because the man waiting to hear the result of his application—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the right reverend Prelate? It is not intended that prisoners should make an application or that there should be need for an application. When a man has been twelve months in prison and has served one-third of his sentence his case is automatically considered.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: Does he know that it is being automatically considered?
LORD STONHAM: Probably. Every prisoner will know that it will be automatically considered.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: There fore he knows that it is now before whatever Board it is, and he waits for the answer. All I am pleading for is that the machinery should be made as simple and as expeditious as possible, because the man will be in a state of suspense, and that has an effect upon the whole wing of the prison.
6.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, the Bill which we are considering to-day is, I think many of us feel, somewhat of a mixed grill, and, as I find with most mixed grills, there are some components I like much better than others. The best ones seem to me to be wholly in line with the policies of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor when he was Home Secretary, and I am sure that my noble friend will go down in history as a very enlightened Home Secretary. I do not propose to range over the whole field, noble Lords will be relieved to

1495
hear. In fact, as regards the very important proposals in Part I, I should be wholly unqualified either to criticise or to offer alternative proposals. I have had no experience, either as a lawyer or as a magistrate, though it has been said that if only those who were qualified spoke, the world would be filled with a profound silence. I would say of Part I only that I found the speeches which have been made by noble and learned Lords against the majority verdict extremely persuasive to a layman like myself.
I should like to make a few observations on the treatment of offenders, being impressions which as a layman I formed during my eighteen months' experience as Chairman of the now defunct Royal Commission on the Penal System. I am, of course, speaking only for myself, and not for my then colleagues. I will not bother your Lordships with the reasons why the Royal Commission folded up. I suppose one of the main reasons was the doubt felt by the minority of members as to the feasibility of dealing effectively with the very wide terms of reference before us, particularly in view of the Government's having rather jumped the gun—or perhaps I ought to say, jumped my gun—with the issue of two White Papers and the question of the Commission's making a report in time to fit in with the legislative programme of the Government.
Speaking for myself, I feel that it was a pity that the Royal Commission was not encouraged to proceed with its task. I would acknowledge, in passing, that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, did give us encouragement in that direction. I believe that the Commission could have produced a useful Report which, after considering the broad concepts and purposes of the penal system, could have laid down guide lines for reforms and developments on which detailed changes could be based. It is not the first time I have had a horse shot under me. I was for eighteen months a Minister in charge of one Department, and, no doubt as an alternative to getting rid of me as a Minister my Department was eliminated. It looks as if after about eighteen months my colleagues find me intolerable.
I should like to make one or two obvious remarks on the objects of the penal system and then mention some directions
1496
which I think reforms should take. The first overriding object, I suppose, of the penal system is the protection of the public from violence and injustice resulting from breaches of the law of the land. Two provisos are that any punishment or treatment meted out must not do violence to the moral consciousness of normal, decent people and as little harm as possible to human dignity. There are broadly three ways in which the penal system operates: deterrence; incarceration—that is to say, removing the offender from circulation—and, lastly, reform or rehabilitation. Punishment, unlike retribution or vengeance, is legitimate as a deterrent, subject to the provisos I have mentioned. In fact, in almost any operation of the penal system some element of punishment is bound to be involved. But I think we all agree that the effects of punishment must be carefully watched. It is a blunt instrument and its effects can be quite counter-productive, and by itself it is seldom effective.
As regards deterrence, I found during the time I was on the Royal Commission that research could tell us very little, objectively or statistically, about the effects of various deterrents. The reason, obviously, is that one is dealing with a subjective matter, and what deters one has little influence on another. One view which I thought prevailed quite clearly was that the most effective deterrent of all is the certainty or extreme likelihood of detection. One can be sure that most of the obvious deterrents—the fear of exposure, the moral disapprobation of one's fellow citizens, conviction, loss of liberty and monetary penalties do have considerable deterrent effect, but how much absolutely or relatively it seems very hard indeed to measure.
I think we should all agree that incarceration is unavoidable when the protection of the public requires the offender to be kept out of circulation and possibly for some forms of treatment. But imprisonment, by itself, is not only negative but, by removing from the offender the exercise of self-discipline, is apt to conflict disastrously with the object of reform and can be wholly destructive to the sense of responsibility. In going round prisons—and as a layman I had never done so before—I found that the worst

1497
feature was not the severity or the hardship of the regime—I found very little evidence of that—but, on the contrary, the rather soul-destroying inertia and lack of challenge involved in the wholly artiticial of the inmates. The conclusion to which I think one must come is that complete restriction of liberty must be a treatment of last resort, and only those who must be should be kept in prison under conditions of full restriction of liberty. There is plenty of evidence today that our overcrowded prisons are cluttered up with considerable numbers of offenders who need not be there. That has been the theme of most speakers today. I am entirely in favour of those provisions of this Bill which recognise this and seek alternative forms of treatment.
What categories do not appear to need incarceration in the security of a prison? Examples have been quoted to-day and I can only summarise some of them: alcoholics and debtors, most of those sentenced for short terms and most petty persistent offenders and inadequates. Surely the aim must be to get these out of closed prisons whenever possible and to devise alternative forms of treatment which would allow them to continue to earn their living, and, as far as possible, fulfil their normal responsibilities. In the case of the persistent offender and other inadequates it may well be that they should earn their living under adequate supervision. I very much welcome the provision in Clause 15 which is aimed at reducing the number of accused who are remanded in custody.
It is clear that much thought and experimentation must be given to the problem of devising alternative forms of punishment and treatment which involve less than full restriction of liberty. Here I find myself convinced that the principle of financial restitution could, with advantage, be brought back prominently into our penal system. In these days of the so-called affluent society, hire-purchase commitments, often over relatively long periods, are part of everyday life. The exploitation of the principle of financial restitution, accompanied no doubt by a power of attachment of earnings of all kinds, would often open the way to forms of deterrents and punishments which would enable certain types of offenders to remain in circulation as earning mem
1498
bers of society, fulfilling their family responsibilities. In many cases, too, fines should be far higher, and one is very glad to see the proposals in this Bill for raising them. Whether they go far enough is another matter.
I now come to the joint questions of greater flexibility in sentencing and release on licence. It seems to me that if we take seriously that the object of treatment should be to turn the offender into a law-abiding and responsible citizen, then we must accept three conclusions. The first is that the treatment should be progressive—that is to say, graduated steps leading progressively back to full liberty—secondly, that the form of treatment must be tailored to the needs of the individual; and, thirdly, that these considerations will often involve modification of the original sentence in the light of the response of the individual to the treatment he has had. Therefore, one concludes that there must be a possibility of a greater element of indeterminacy in the original sentence. In that regard, some form of release or partial release under licence is highly desirable.
As regards the greater flexibility in sentencing, there are various alternatives, and the one that is incorporated in this Bill is the suspended sentence. I should have thought that was excellent, though I find myself in agreement with my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne in doubting whether it is right that it should be made mandatory. I should much prefer that it was not mandatory. But I welcome the suspended sentence, and I think other forms of indeterminacy in sentence should be investigated further and considered.
As regards release on licence, this concept is wholly in line with the principle of the progressive treatment of the individual. It is one step in a graduated series of steps, but it is a very important one involving the question of liberty or its reverse. The present system of fixed remission for good conduct seems neither wholly satisfactory nor sufficient by itself. Therefore, I find myself entirely in favour of the extension of the system of release on licence under supervision.
I am glad that there is to be a Licensing Board. Possibly even regional panels will be required, though I do not know the

1499
numbers which would be involved. But I should have liked it to be even more independent of the administrative authority—the Home Secretary—than it is. Such a Board would no doubt reach its decisions after giving full weight to the recommendations of the prison authorities, who have direct knowledge and experience of the offender's conduct, character and reaction to treatment. But I think the administrative authority which is responsible for the prisoner's supervision and incarceration should not also he responsible for the decision involving his release or otherwise.
If a really serious attempt is to be made to restrict imprisonment to those cases which positively require retention behind walls, then it is clear that great efforts must be made to extend the various forms of open institutions, hostels, sheltered employment and freedom under supervision. These all call for a high degree of co-operation with the public, who must understand the difference between offenders who are a serious menace to society, and those who are only a relatively minor inconvenience. If it is found possible, as I should have thought it was, that the result of policies of this kind might be to get out of prison about a third of those who are at present there, and to keep them fulfilling their normal responsibilities under an appropriate degree of supervision, then that would be a magnificent bit of progress to achieve. Then, as a byproduct—though, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, not the main reason for doing this—it would give a much better chance of dealing effectively with the smaller number who must, for one reason or another, be kept in conditions of high security; and probably many of them should be kept in conditions of greater security than is possible to-day.
I said that I would not range over the whole field though it is terribly tempting to do so, and I ask your Lordships' indulgence if I have waffled a bit freely already. I welcome the Bill with the exceptions which I have mentioned, as edging generally in the right direction. It is not an inspiring document in itself, but if one adds some of the bits and pieces together the general theme can be identified, and it is one which I should have thought we should wish to support.
1500
It may be that in this complex field, in which the results of research do not yet offer much positive guidance, it is necessary to proceed by a series of cautious steps in the light of day-to-day experience. I think we must be humble enough to realise that we do not yet know enough about the psychology of human beings to be dogmatic in our judgments about what deterrents are effective and what forms of treatment are most productive.
I remember hearing a lecture by a very distinguished penologist who ended with these words:
"In the result, success often seems to depend more upon Mother Nature and Father Time than on anything in particular we have done."
That is a sobering thought, and there may be some truth in it. But I do not wish that remark to be interpreted as meaning that attempts to devise a more effective penal system are doomed to failure. I feel exactly the contrary. I believe that we should feel encouraged, and we must not let up in our efforts to work out a system in which deterrents and treatments can be devised under which the unnatural and destructive conditions of closed prisons are reserved only for those who must be kept there for the protection of the public. So far as this Bill contributes to that end, it is to be applauded. It seems to me a kind of ostrich-size curate's egg in which the good parts clearly outnumber the dubious parts; and I, for one, welcome it very much.
6.49 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I have been told by the usual channels that this is a convenient moment for me to speak, and I hope that is so. In a House as richly furnished with lawyers as ours is, particularly to-day, I want to keep well clear of the courts and to deal mainly and briefly with Part III of this Bill—"Treatment of Offenders"—and to some extent to follow my noble friend who has just sat down. Before I do so, I should like to deplore with others the fact that the Royal Commission over which my noble friend presided has been dissolved. There is a good deal to be said for proceeding by practical expedients, but I feel that in this particular field we need to proceed also by the evolution of longterm policy rooted in soundly-based doctrine—and this is what we lack.

1501
However, I start my remarks with the view that I believe is generally shared: that the main object in the treatment of offenders is to reform them so that at the end of the treatment they do not offend again. I know that some feel that we should look to the treatment to deter. Perhaps sometimes it can, perhaps sometimes it does; but in general—and no one has argued this more cogently than the noble and learned Lord who is now the Lord Chancellor in the debate on Penal Reform which he initiated about three years ago in your Lordships' House—it is a high and rising conviction rate, leading to a real fear of getting caught, that deters more than the treatment which would follow if there was a conviction. So in general, I submit, we can look to the police and to the courts to deter, to the Prison Service and the Probation Service to reform.
There are many—and I am among them—who feel that the law-abiding citizens of this country already suffer more than enough inconvenience, loss, damage, injury and even torture at the hands of our worse criminals, and we therefore do not want to do anything which adds to the hazards from which they already suffer. There is no reason why our people should put up with any more injury and loss than they already do. They indeed deserve the fullest protection that the law can give from those who menace them in this way. But there really is no need to keep 35,000 people incarcerated in prison to provide this protection for the public. That protection would be provided, and I hope will be provided, by locking up quite small numbers of really dangerous prisoners in properly secure prisons.
This is the point, of course, to which the noble Earl, Lord Mountbatten of Burma, addressed himself and reported upon in Cmnd. 3175. He mentioned that accommodation for 120 people only would be sufficient to cater for the really dangerous criminals; and I think that earlier on the Association of Prison Officers had given it as their view that only 5 per cent. of the present prison population—something like 2,000 people—needed really high-security prisons. If that security is provided for really dangerous criminals, then much greater liberties can be taken with the rest, with little or no hazard to the public. In any case, the public will be sub-
1502
jected to some hazard as prisoners are discharged at the end of their terms, as they will be in any case, whether they are judged to have been reformed or not.
But even when the relatively small number of potentially-dangerous criminals are safely locked up out of the way, far too little that is effective and positive in the way of reform can be done in our prisons in the overcrowded and obsolescent state they are in to-day. I would entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate in his suggestion that in their present state they would indeed prove a considerable deterrent to the class of criminal that he cited, but as institutions in which positive reform can be undertaken they are failing badly and inevitably, even with the best will in the world on the part of the Prison Service. The words of the Home Secretary during the Second Reading of this Bill in another place on December 12, 1966, at column 64, are therefore fully understandable. He said:
"The main range of the penal provisions of the Bill revolves around the single theme, that of keeping out of prison those who need not be there"—
and, indeed, some of its clauses certainly do that.
The new powers the Home Secretary proposes to give to the courts in Part II to deal with offenders—the much higher fines, the restrictions that he lays upon courts in imposing prison sentences in certain cases—all have that effect; but the provisions of Part III, on which there has been considerable debate this afternoon, do not have the effect of keeping offenders out of prison. The clauses relating to release on licence take out of prison some people who have already been there for a year or more; and as we have already found, they raise very tricky issues as to who is to come out, who is to go back in, and how the whole system is to be operated.
But worse still, in my view, the operation of this system will place very heavy new burdens upon the Probation Service, which at its present strength of around 2,500 and at its present recruiting rate, is none too well placed to undertake them. I hope that when he comes to wind up for the Government the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to reassure us that the Probation Service can

1503
in fact handle the burden that is to be laid upon them; or, if they cannot, that the Home Secretary will not make more than slight use of this provision. If it is the Home Secretary's desire to keep out of prison people who need not be there, and if the Probation Service has the resources to help in this, surely the better policy would be to provide further alternative places of custody, as my noble friend Lord Amory has just recommended, particularly more hostels and institutions of that kind, and to encourage courts to make more use of them rather than sending people to prison.
In order to come to a judgment on this I think we want to know much more than the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has so far told us about the Government's plans as to probation hostels. How many do they propose to provide? How many have they in fact started? What grants are they currently making available to the voluntary bodies who are prepared to establish them? What are they doing about the difficult problem of staffing them, and so on? I do not think that the courts would need very much encouragement to use probation hostels if more were available. Most magistrates to whom I have spoken about this would welcome the opportunity of putting offenders on probation with a condition of residence in a probation hostel if they thought that there was the slightest chance of it being practical to implement such a sentence. In fact, I believe that the only effect at present of awarding such a sentence is to involve a wretched probation officer in ringing round all the 40 probation hostels in the country, only to find that none of them has any room for the offender who has been awarded such a sentence.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I think he is under something of a misapprehension, and it may be that he is mixing up aftercare hostels with probation hostels for adults. There are no adult probation hostels in the country at the moment at all. We propose to provide them. The only probation hostels as such which are now available are those for young persons.
LORD SANDFORD: I was aware of that fact, and also of the fact that it was
1504
the Government's intention to provide probation hostels for adults. I was hoping that we would hear more about this to-day, because all these proposals for release on licence and for the provision of probation hostels involve the Probation Service in new and additional burdens. Surely the time has come to increase substantially the provision of institutions of the probation hostel type, and to plan the provision around the country on a more rational and regional basis. The plans that have been outlined in the Home Office Circular 46/67 relating to aftercare hostels are a good indication of the way in which this could be done. It would be interesting to know whether it is also going to be done in the case of probation hostels for young offenders and probation hostels for adults, when these are provided, and at the same time to make more sensible arrangements for getting these hostels properly used.
In the Morrison Report of 1962, Cmnd. 1800, I do not believe that a study of sufficient depth was made of the potential demand for this sort of penal institution. In any case, the time has come to review it. Everyone agrees that a major rebuilding effort is involved before we can get our stock of penal institutions right. Second only to the provision of top-security prisons, with the protection of the public in mind, I would put the provision of probation hostels and similar institutions with the reformation of the offender in mind. The cost of providing custodial accommodation by building hostels will not be much greater than that of building larger penal institutions, and it may be less. But the cost of running them will certainly be considerably less. Such figures as I have been able to obtain from the latest reports of the Probation and Prison Services indicate that offenders on probation with a condition of residence in a probation hostel cost the taxpayer something like £5 per head per week. Prisoners cost the taxpayer something like £13 per head per week. I do not think there is any question at all about where the more positive reform takes place.
I mention all this now on the Second Reading of the Bill because I fear that in his zeal—his very natural zeal—to try to reduce the prison population by means of "release under licence", the Home Secretary will use up manpower in the

1505
Probation Service and voluntary effort available in the community in looking after ex-prisoners whose reform is difficult and doubtful, whereas were more probation hostels to be provided, these same resources could be used far more effectively to deal with offenders whose treatment is easier, and where the chances of reform are far higher. Of course, one would like to be able to deal effectively with all classes of offenders. But this is simply not practicable at present. The Probation Service is short-handed and already overloaded; the Prison Service is short of staff and the prisons overcrowded.
So what are we to do? Do we try everything and do none of it particularly well? Or do we pick out some priorities and do one or a few things really adequately? I say that we should concentrate on the younger criminals, those of under and around 21 and try to check them early in their criminal careers. Whenever it is safe and suitable—and I am not recommending any of this for dangerous criminals or those who use violence—let us put them on probation in probation hostels under that flexible degree of custody and supervision which this system provides. I believe it provides a good chance of reform for far more offenders than are at present able to use the paltry 700 places that are available.
Hostels are far more suitable than prison for the prisoners whose offences arise from taking drugs or getting drunk. It enables offenders to remain in employment; it requires them to contribute to their own maintenance, and it could, if we had the necessary legislation, require them to contribute to the restitution and reparation for any loss they have caused. It costs the taxpayer less than half as much as it costs to send a man to prison; it keeps the offender out of harm's way and away from his criminal associates; and yet it does not impede any useful and helpful support that the offender can receive from his family. Furthermore, it eases the strain on the Prison Service, and in this way meets the desires of the Home Secretary by reducing the flow of offenders into prison. I believe that this is the policy which, far more than "release on licence", will not only make the work of the hard-pressed prison officers easier and more effective, but also the policy which gives the equally hard-
1506
pressed probation officers the best possible chance of turning the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just.
7.5 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, there is a great deal in this Bill that is excellent. I will not take up your Lordships' time by going through it in detail, except to say how welcome are the provisions that written statements should be admissible, that the defence should give notice of an alibi, that there should be parole boards, and the like. But I would raise two matters which are matters of high constitutional principle. I will first refer to the question of majority verdicts. In this country, for over 600 years juries have had to be unanimous in their verdicts. That principle is fundamental to our constitution and it has been taken by settlers from this country overseas to the United States, to Canada, to Australia, to New Zealand and other parts of the world. Nowhere has that principle been whittled away.
It is now suggested that it should be taken away here, and I ask myself: What is the reasoning behind the principle? I believe it is founded in our fundamental rule that no man is to be found guilty unless he is proved so beyond reasonable doubt. If one juror—or even two—has doubts, doubts that cannot be resolved, then it is right that the accused should be found not guilty. For what a great question is posed if the verdict be not unanimous but of a ten—two majority! Is there not a question whether the accused is guilty? Or if the accused were acquitted by a ten to two verdict is it not questionable whether he may after all, have been guilty?
In the days before capital punishment was abolished no one would have entertained this proposal for one moment. No-one would have thought it safe to hang a man on a verdict of ten to two, or of eleven to one. And the introduction of this suggestion can be traced directly back to the abolition of capital punishment. But the reason for the principle of unanimity is not in its application to capital punishment. The reason is that no man should be convicted unless he is proved guilty. Let me remind your Lordships how it started in 1367, when the Judges of Assize went to Northampton, 600 years ago this year. In a trial then, one juryman stood out: the eleven others were in

1507
favour of convicting. The Judge told the dissenting juror that he would commit him to prison unless he agreed with the eleven; the juror said: "I would rather die in prison that give a verdict against my conscience." The Judge accepted the verdict of the majority, of the eleven, and the case was brought before the King's Judges here in London. All the Judges held that the verdict of the eleven was no verdict, because no man was bound to give a verdict against his conscience.
My Lords, six hundred years have passed and never has that principle been challenged till now. I have been around the circuits of England. All the people know it. Only once have I been asked by a jury: "Should we be unanimous?" Everybody knows it. Are we to depart from it now? What is the evidence for doing so? As I have said, it is only since capital punishment was abolished that this change has been suggested. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, presided over his Committee on the jury system, the terms of reference were almost wide enough to include this matter, certainly to embrace it on the fringes. No one suggested that on the evidence a majority verdict should be accepted. Indeed, the figures given in Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest's Report in 1965 showed that the number of disagreements were minimal.
And how were these cases dealt with? The problem to-day is said to be the danger of bribery and corruption or, indeed, the occasional "crank". They were dealt with in the old days quite simply: the jury were kept together without food or drink until they were agreed. They were kept even through the night; indeed, right up until this century they were kept together from the beginning of a case to the end so that no one could tamper with them. Only in this century has the rule been mitigated. Even until the 1940s, or the 1930s, in a murder case they were always kept in a hotel and kept together, and when the occasional disagreement occurred there could be, and was, and is, a re-trial. My Lords, that is how the matter has been dealt with in the past. I agree that nowadays we could not expect juries to be kept together and not to go home at night. Only in the most exceptional circumstances, would that arise. Surely the right way to deal
1508
with it is not to take away our old principle but to deal with the briber or corrupter, or the person on the jury who is bribed or corrupted, as we have machinery to do—although it may be difficult to find out about the bribery or corruption.
My Lords, as nothing was suggested before 1966, how has it all come about? I am afraid that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice was under a misapprehension when he said, "I can safely say that all judges would be in favour of majority verdicts". In March of this year he consulted 37 Queen's Bench Judges, including himself, and the Home Secretary gave us these figures. Of those 37 Judges, 25 were wholly in favour of majority verdicts: two had not sufficient experience to be able to express a real view, and eight were wholly against them.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, that was a majority verdict.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, they were against the majority verdict.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: That was a majority verdict against the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
LORD DENNING: The eight were against majority verdicts. I could tell your Lordships who would be with me in thinking that we ought to keep our principle of unanimous verdicts—some of the wisest and most experienced of the judges. I do not include, of course, those who speak with me or are with me in this House. But there are other members of the legal profession who have dealings with juries. The 27 Queen's Bench Judges are not the sole repository of wisdom and experience. There are recorders, chairmen of quarter sessions, Judges at the Central Criminal Court and the County of London Sessions and the like. But this is not a matter to be dealt with by a tally of heads of Judges to see whether or not they think it right that we should have majority verdicts. This is a far more important step, and one that should not be entered upon except after due inquiry and research—and that is what we have not had. Before we reverse a principle which has existed for 600 years we should have statistics and evidence. I do not wish to say more about this Part of the Bill.

1509
There is one other Part, also a matter of principle, about which one can feel some anxiety; that is the Part relating to proceedings in open court before magistrates. Hitherto, for a hundred years the Press has been able to attend magistrates' courts and to report their proceedings. Every court of law is open to every subject of the Queen. It is one of the safeguards of justice in our system that courts should be open, available to all: not only to those who would repeat outside, by word of mouth, what happened, but also to the newspapers so that they can report what happened. It is suggested that there is a danger that a fair trial could not be had, or is not likely to be had, if preliminary proceedings, committal proceedings, are reported. My Lords, my experience is that juries go by the evidence in the case before them. Even in the case of Doctor Bodkin Adams, he was acquitted.
The proposal for majority verdicts is another great change, but there is not the same criticism that I could make of it. Lord Tucker's very experienced and good Committee reported wholly in favour of it, so there are not such strong grounds for any criticism that I could make. Nevertheless, I would urge that a provision for majority verdicts should not be included in the middle of a Bill dealing with criminal procedure. We ought not to alter such a high constitutional principle—at least not until there has been further and due inquiry.
7.16 p.m.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, I rise to join with others in welcoming this Bill. It is often said that lawyers, and particularly judges, are reactionary creatures; they do not welcome any change at all. It has even been said that the reason there is so little reform is that there are so many lawyers in another place. But this Bill contains provision after provision which is welcomed, I think, by all those who have concern for the administration of criminal justice. Numbers of provisions have been referred to, and there are many more which are small in themselves but which are most welcome—power to couple probation with disqualification for a driving offence; the extension of conditional discharge from twelve months to three years; the ability to con-
1510
vert a probation order after a period into an order of conditional discharge. These are matters, one may say, of detail, but of the greatest importance to those who are concerned with the sentencing and treatment of offenders.
I think there is hardly a topic in this Bill of which I do not wholly approve. It is only when one comes to the details and the machinery that I think there is room for improvement which may be made in your Lordships' House. Those who have taken part in this debate have, one after another, dealt almost wholly with majority verdicts. That is clearly a matter of great controversy; it is bound to be debated at some length at a later stage. For my part, I propose to adduce no arguments on it at this stage, but merely to say that I am wholly in favour of majority verdicts, not only from the standpoint of a judge but as a matter of principle.
There are one or two matters which I think will have to be looked into with some care. The first arises in committal proceedings. I think that everyone welcomes Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, in that their provisions will relieve hard-pressed magistrates of a very considerable burden. A great deal of time and expense will be saved. But when it comes to Clause 3, dealing with restrictions on reporting, then, like my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, I do not feel that the case is made out for any restriction upon the Press. It seems to me that in those cases (and we all hope there will be few) where the defence opts for a full hearing with oral evidence, they ought to take the full publicity which exists at the moment. It has always been a cardinal principle that justice must be done, and can best he done, in the full glare of publicity. Only the paramount cause of an unfair trial would be a matter for curbing publicity.
With all respect to my noble and learned friend Lord Tucker, I would point out that his Report itself says that no one can say—in other words, that the case is not proved—that juries are ever influenced by what they have read. I think that to-day juries are perfectly capable of accepting a strong direction from a judge to the effect that it is no good pretending that they have not read all about it, but they must put it out of their minds and decide the case on

1511
the evidence presented in court; and so far as anybody can tell, no judge has had any difficulty in getting juries to adhere to that direction. Again, that seems to me to be a matter which will form the subject of considerable debate.
I welcome the provision to encourage magistrates to grant bail rather than remand in custody, and I most sincerely welcome Clauses 16 and 17. Heretofore it has been idle to make a condition or extract an undertaking, because there is no way of enforcing it. One can purport to make a condition of bail that the accused is not to leave the country; but if next day a policeman sees him getting into an aeroplane on the South Coast to go to France, there is no power whatever to restrain him. Now, thanks to Clause 17, if that becomes law, such a condition can be enforced. As a matter of detail, I am a little worried whether Clause 15(5) is wide enough. I think it needs to be looked at again with some care and in particular paragraph (a), where a magistrates' court is not bound to put a person on bail if he is subject to imprisonment for a term of not less than six months and has been previously sentenced to imprisonment or borstal training. It seems to me clear that "detention centre" ought to be added. Otherwise, we get the extraordinary position that a youth who has been sent to a detention centre for six months need not be put on bail, whereas one who has committed exactly the same offence, but because no vacancy can be found has been sentenced to six months' imprisonment, cannot be put on bail. It seems to me that detention centre ought to be added in that exception.
Turning to suspended sentences, with the power to put on probation and the power now to give a conditional discharge for three years, I very much doubt whether there is any room for the suspended sentence. It is said that it is more effective because the sentence is stated, but I think that most judges—certainly I have always done so—in putting a man on conditional discharge say that they have been minded to give him twelve months imprisonment but on thinking it over propose to give him conditional discharge. The judge explains what that is and says that if the man commits another offence he will be brought back
1512
and punished for this one, and he has heard the sort of sentence the judge has in mind. It is rather ironic that only this morning I was in touch with one Province of Canada where they have suspended sentences and they are thinking of abolishing them. They were amazed when I told them that there was to be a debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon about whether we should have that system. But I welcome any weapon that the courts will have at their disposal in dealing with crime, even if that weapon is never used. Therefore I do not object to this provision as a matter of principle.
What I do object to, and what has been said already, is the mandatory suspended sentence in subsection (3) of six months or less. Experience has always shown that a mandatory sentence produces great difficulties. It produces great anomalies, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, pointed out. He gave the case of what might happen to two brothers, one under 21 and the other over 21. One can think of a number of anomalies and difficulties which would arise. There is a great temptation that some magistrates' courts, faced with the fact that if they exercise their powers they have to give a suspended sentence which is limited to six months, will commit a man to quarter sessions in the hope that he will get nine or twelve months. We should all thoroughly deplore that attitude, but I think it would be inevitable.
My approach to the matter is that magistrates generally will take every conceivable step before sending anybody to prison. No doubt there are black sheep in the family—I do not know—but the many records I see of young men who have a mania for taking and driving away cars, or driving while disqualified or uninsured, show step after step taken by the magistrates before finally, on perhaps the fifth or sixth occasion, they send a man to prison. Now, on the sixth occasion, because they have been so lenient in the past, all they can do is to be lenient again and give a suspended sentence. It worries me. It seems to me that magistrates ought to have a discretion. They are trying not to send people to prison if it can be avoided, and if there are some who tend to act otherwise, then it is a matter of training and educating those magistrates.

1513
The idea that we should impose upon them a mandatory fixed sentence of this sort is certainly one of which I do not approve. If we are to have a provision for a mandatory suspended sentence, the clause must be looked at in some detail. This sentence need not be given in certain circumstances which are set out in subsection (3), and when we get to paragraph (e) we find it need not be imposed if the accused has been sentenced to imprisonment or borstal. Again it seems to me that "detention centre" ought to be added. But I would go further and say that in this provision there should be an addition to cover dangerous driving, driving while unfit through drink or drugs, and driving while disqualified. These are the prevalent offences with which magistrates are dealing, and in the illustration I gave of the typical record it seems to me that the time has come when they must say that they have taken every other step and now the defendant must go to prison. I should like to see paragraph (e) widened.
Finally on this subject, if a suspended sentence is to be effective it must be as near automatic as possible if an offence is committed. We all agree that it cannot be completely automatic. Subsection (1) of Clause 31 shows quite clearly that this is the intention, because it says:
"and a court shall make an order under paragraph (a) …"—
which provides that the suspended sentence shall take effect subject to the court's opinion on certain matters. That, it seems to me, is the right approach. But I should like to add there, in order to emphasise this point, that if the magistrates are minded to make an order otherwise, they should be compelled to state their reasons in writing. The position is rather like that of the "special reasons" which may enable a driver to escape disqualification for a road traffic offence.
I come, lastly, to the matter which I think will require careful consideration, and that is the machinery for the release of prisoners on licence. The general idea is one that I think we all accept, and certainly many of us have advocated it for a long time. It is a complete anomaly that somebody undergoing a life sentence can be released at any time on licence, subject to supervision, whereas a man sentenced to a fixed term cannot be released on licence, subject to supervision, in that way. His sentence may be remitted as
1514
an act of the prerogative, but he cannot be let out on licence. Therefore, I thoroughly welcome this provision.
I welcome, also, what has now been incorporated as a Government Amendment; namely, the setting up of an independent Board. I appreciate that this has been done rather at the last moment, and the details have not been thought out. I think it is in this area that your Lordships' House can make a most valuable contribution. If one goes first to the Constitution, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, referred to the provision in Schedule 2 that one member of the board should be:
"a person who holds or has held judicial office".
I feel strongly that that person ought to be somebody of the standing of a High Court Judge. As a pure matter of constitutional issue, this is a case where the liberty of the subject is very much at stake: not only the liberty of the man who is then being considered but also, inevitably, the liberty of all the others who have not so far been looked at. On that ground alone it seems to me that somebody holding, or having held, high judicial office ought to be on the Board.
Secondly, despite what is sometimes said about High Court Judges, I think that, by and large, the public—and, oddly enough, above all the prisoners; that is undoubted—do have some confidence in the Judges. Although there is not a judicial inquiry in the strict sense, there are quasi-judicial proceedings which will involve the weighing of evidence and matters of that sort. For those reasons, as I say, I feel that somebody of the standing of a High Court Judge should be on the Board. I should add this—although one hates to say it. If this plan is to succeed, there must be confidence between the Judiciary and the Board. In Canada (I do not think it matters my saying this) they are at loggerheads. The Judiciary are saying that the Board let people out when they, the Board, think that the Judges have given too long a sentence, though that is nothing to do with the function of the Board. They also think that the Board are being too lenient. In such circumstances there is a grave danger that judges will double and treble the sentences in order to make certain that the one-third that has to elapse before a man is eligible for

1515
consideration will be a long period. Nobody would deplore more than myself any tendency towards that; but it is a tendency that has been shown by experience to exist in other countries. I think it only right to say that if one member of the Board were a High Court Judge there would be complete confidence, and any danger of that sort would not exist.
My Lords, I am sorry to occupy so much time, but this question of release is an important one. The powers of this Board, as I understand it, are certainly not as wide as they should be. Incidentally, theirs will be a majority verdict: I do not think there is any doubt about that. But under the clause as at present drafted all the Board are allowed to do is to look at such documents as the Secretary of State chooses to send to them. I cannot think that that is the function of this independent Parole Board. The matter comes to them after going through two sieves—first the local review committee, and finally the Home Office—and all they are being allowed to do under this Bill is to look at such documents as the Home Office send them. It is making a farce of their powers.
Surely they must be entitled, if necessary, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said, to send for the transcript: if the case has been to appeal to get the transcript on appeal; to consult may be the Judge, or somebody who has been concerned in the case. Supposing there is a mental element, cannot they call for the report of the psychiatrist? They have a psychiatrist member on the Board. Cannot he say: "We have this opinion, but I think we ought to see the author of this opinion and cross-examine him"? Under the Bill all they are entitled to do—though I feel that this is only because this matter has not yet been fully thought out—is to look at such documents as the Home Secretary may send them.
Then, when one comes to the local review committee, all that is said in subsection (5) is:
"The Secretary of State may by rules make provision for the establishment and constitution of a local review committee."
Should not the constitution of that committee, like that of the Board, be incorporated in the Bill? We are told that the local review committee will consist
1516
of the governor, a visiting justice and a probation officer. But, whatever the constitution is to be, ought it not to be set out in the Bill? I think it is this first stage which in many ways is the most important. This machinery is bound to give rise to dissatisfaction in the prisons. The very fact that somebody is being chosen and somebody is not is bound to give rise to dissatisfaction. And that dissatisfaction will be vented on the governor. The prisoners will feel that they are in the hands of the governor. Incidentally (this is only a by-product), I do not like the name "Prison Licensing Board". I am looking at it from the point of view of the prisoner. He will I say: "This is the prison; this is the governor. That is what is behind it all. It is not an independent Parole Board, but a Prison Licensing Board". Be that as it may, I think it is most important that we should decide what the constitution of the local review committee should be.
Finally there is the question whether there ought not to be, if the governor is to be, as it were, in the chair, some method of appeal by a man whose name has not been put forward; maybe a direct appeal to the Home Office, because otherwise there will be the most intense grievance—"Jones has been chosen and I haven't." If one goes to the parole board in other countries, I think one finds that the parole board itself chooses, and every prisoner has access to it. It would be quite impossible in this country, with 4,500 people, as is said, being eligible every year. No board could in fact investigate each of the 4,500 cases. Therefore, there has to be a sieve, or, as is now suggested, the two sieves. But something must be done, I think, to prevent the dissatisfaction of the man who has never surmounted the first hurdle at all, and whose name therefore will never go forward.
Now I may have misunderstood this point, but I think it is a curious feature. Whereas the short title of Part III is:
"Treatment of offenders: Release of prisoners on licence and supervision of prisoners after release"
I do not believe there is any provision in what follows for supervision of the prisoners. There is certainly no provision that it is to be done by probation officers, which I understand it is. That, perhaps, is a matter of detail, but I should like

1517
to add my very strong conviction that this Part of this Bill, if it becomes law, should not be put into operation until the Home Secretary is quite clear that the strength of the Probation Service is sufficient. It would be lamentable if this attempt failed at the outset because there was insufficient manpower to enable it to have a chance; and from the Probation Service's point of view this is very alarming.
There are 4,500 prisoners eligible every year for consideration. Presumably the probation officer's report will have to be obtained in each one of those cases. He will have to make inquiries as to the home conditions and, if a prisoner was considered for release and released, where he would go. It is a tremendous task. On top of that, those who are in fact released, which may be something like 500 or 750 in the course of the year, must be supervised. As I think probation officers will tell any one of us, it is one thing to supervise a delinquent youth at the parting of the ways, but quite a different thing to supervise a sophisticated, highly dangerous criminal who is now thought to be safe to be at large. It is a formidable task. I think a different technique is involved, and it ought not to be undertaken until the Probation Service is really strong.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord allow me to point this out? He himself suggested a figure of 500 to 750. If it was fifty cases per probation officer it would not be a terribly heavy case-load. That would be ten probation officers—not an enormous number compared with the 2,500 we now have in the Service. I would assure him that, so far as these extra burdens are concerned, they have been taken into account with regard to our programme of recruitment and training.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I only hope that this is not the proverbial straw, because this unfortunate Service, which performs such admirable work, has more and more, day after day, put upon it. They are dedicated men, and therefore pay, though important, does not matter to them so much, perhaps, as to others. But for myself I wholly fail to see how a substantial addition is to be made to the Probation Service, and
1518
a constant addition in the sense that wastage will not eliminate it altogether, unless these unfortunate men get more pay. I am afraid I am using this Bill, perhaps, as a platform for that, but I do feel very strongly. A principal probation officer for the whole of the London area, with his enormous administration, gets less than a local authority librarian. It is really ludicrous. The trouble is that the local authorities have their own welfare officers and similar work, and they are depriving the Probation Service by paying so much more for very much the same sort of work. I sincerely hope that something will be done to build up the Probation Service in that way.
My Lords, may I mention lastly one comparatively minor point. Your Lordships will remember that, during the Committee stage (I think it was) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill, your Lordships' House agreed to a clause which provided that there should be no release of a man from life sentence without consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of the day and the trial Judge if available. I confess that I had in mind then the hope that that task would be taken over ultimately by a parole board. However, perhaps I should be flattered to see that, in Clause 50(1), provision is made in the case of life sentence prisoners for not only the parole board, as I choose to call it, to be consulted, but also the Lord Chief Justice of England and the trial Judge if available. One is flattered to think that our opinions are worth having, but I venture to think that, if they are, that would not be the stage at which to consult them.
In these cases the local review committee will have recommended release, the Home Office have recommended release, they have sent them forward to the parole board, and the parole board have recommended release. It is difficult to think that the opinion of two Judges would be of very much use at that stage. It seems to me that any consultation with the Judges that takes place should be by the Home Office before the matter is remitted to the board; and if the Judges disagreed with the proposal that the Home Secretary desired the name to go forward, then it would go forward with, included in the purpose, the purpose of

1519
the Judges. My Lords, I am sorry to have taken up so much time. These are largely Committee points, but I feel, certainly in regard to the parole board, that it is useful to mention it at this stage, because I am sure the provisions as to its constitution and powers and the working of it can be vastly improved.
7.48 p.m.
LORD HODSON: My Lords, in welcoming this Bill I should like to add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the manner in which he has presented it. I propose to confine myself to only one or two matters. I have been privileged to listen to this debate, and I think that everyone who has spoken has made a valuable contribution. The subject in which I am particularly interested—it has interested me for many years—has been touched on but not discussed at great length, and that is the suspended sentence.
I do not think everyone in this House fully appreciates the real point of the suspended sentence. I speak with deference in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, who is a very eminent criminologist and no doubt knows more about this topic than I do. But the sursis, the suspended sentence, was introduced in France and Belgium at the end of the last century; and there it meant, and still means, what it says: that you get a sentence which is suspended over your head like the Sword of Damocles, and it descends when the thread is broken by your committing an offence which qualifies you to suffer your fate.
In this country we have not been willing to accept that kind of punishment. Over the years the Magistrates' Association has discussed it, but I think the general consensus of opinion among magistrates has been that they would rather have things left as they are. They prefer to have a discretion at the end of a period, such as is covered by the conditional discharge, to decide what should be done. But the real point of the suspended sentence, if we are to have it all, is that there should be no discretion for anybody to exercise at the end of the period. That makes it a most valuable weapon for what I might describe as the "corrigible" offenders.
1520
May I take it that many of your Lordships have committed motoring offences in the past, and many more will commit them in the future. You are just the sort of people who are suitable for suspended sentences; but if you offend again, let the sword fall! Let it not be said that there is discretion in somebody before whom you appear that you should not suffer the punishment! We may not like the idea, but I think if we are going to have this principle at all, that is what we ought to have. I think that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice feels the same difficulty about accepting the suggestion in this Bill. It is really a "wishy-washy" suggestion, if that is not too strong an expression to use. You are adding nothing to the conditional discharge, except this: that you are telling a man in plain words, as the judges normally do to-day, what he ought to have in a suspended sentence; but under this proposal you have got to do it. In the case of a conditional discharge, I suppose that in a general way the man thinks that he has got off, whereas under a suspended sentence he will not be so apt to think that.
I do ask the Government to consider again whether it is really worth while introducing the suspended sentence unless they are prepared to ask the country to accept the Continental sursis with its full force. The idea behind it, I think, is that the suspended sentence is given to the man I have called the "corrigible" offender as a favour to him, as it were. It is a punishment which is inflicted in order—in part at any rate—to satisfy the public desire that punishment should be given where it is deserved, while so far as the offender is concerned the fact that this thing is hanging over his head acts as a deterrent to him in his personal capacity. That is all I want to say about that.
I do not propose to discuss the vexed question of the majority verdict. I am a "majority verdict" man. I have no great qualifications, but I have not been as impressed as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, apparently was by the somewhat impassioned speeches, as if it were one of the great traditions of our country that we should have a unanimous verdict. I think it has been described as "part of the Constitution". I do not quite see why. We have majority

1521
decisions by magistrates, and majority decisions in this House, and nobody says it is dreadful that the opinions of the minority should be ignored. I do not see why the same should not apply in crime, especially as in Scotland and in the Colonies the majority verdict has been running for years. In Scotland I suppose it has been running as long as our own system, though I do not speak with any knowledge of that. The time to discuss this point, I suppose, will be at the Committee stage, when no doubt we shall hear my noble and learned friend Lord Denning again. I must say that he shook me, because I had always thought of him before as an ardent reformer. Now he seems to have become a backslider into the past. This seems to be a new face for him altogether and I shall not recognise him so easily.
There is one other matter on which I wish to comment. From my own acquaintance with people in the countryside where I live I know that there is a good deal of talk about shot guns, and I am rather afraid that this idea of licensing shot guns is not going to be particularly good. I am very much averse to putting additional work on the police, as no doubt your Lordships are. There is a tremendous amount of work connected with this, and in any event the burglar does not want the sort of shot gun your Lordships use. What he wants is a sawn-off shot gun, and he will not get a certificate for a shot gun; he will steal yours and saw off the barrel. What good the licensing will do I confess I am in some doubt. With that slightly unimportant matter I will conclude by asking those responsible for the Bill to have another thought about this shot gun business, to see whether it really is worth while making the police spend much more time with pens in their hands instead of being out and about on the beat.
7.58 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I am inclined to express general support for the provisions of the Bill. It is, of course, very much a miscellaneous provisions Bill, but for all that this does not preclude its containing much of great value. As the hour is getting late, I propose to confine my remarks to a few words on two topics.
1522
The first of these is the question of committal proceedings, and this seems to me to be a most valuable and sensible reform. Some time ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, said that at present what we have is an elaborate procedure whereby the evidence is transferred from one piece of paper on which it is already recorded, to another piece of paper on which it is recorded again. Although of course we cannot totally abolish committal proceedings because we need them in order that a judicial body should be satisfied that there is a case to go for trial, this can generally be done just as well by a written statement as by oral evidence.
More controversial is the question of reporting these proceedings in the Press. I am in favour of reporting judicial proceedings as a general matter, as no doubt we all are, but I suggest that this is not just a battle of freedom for the Press. Unfortunately, as one knows, certain sections of the Press have a passion for sensationalising everything that seems good to them for that purpose, and I think in some cases this can lead to injustice. Surely, therefore, it should be enough that publicity is given to the actual trial itself. Full Press publicity occasionally has to yield to other considerations, and this is by no means the only example. There is, for instance, the case of juvenile proceedings, and also the case of the Judicial Proceedings Act 1926, so there is nothing extraordinary or novel about this; and I think the case put forward by the Tucker Committee was well made out. This Bill substantially gives effect to that Committee's recommendations.
The only other point about which I wish to say a few words is one which has been very much before your Lordships throughout this debate. I refer to majority verdicts. I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. The first thing I should like to say in this connection is that I entirely echo the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, when she said that what we need here is a great deal more research into the actual function of the jury. Some research of this kind has been carried out in the United States of America, but in this country there has been virtually none at all. I should have thought it was clear that the jury has an essential role in the administration of justice. I would venture to disagree

1523
with the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that there is any high constitutional principle involved here. So far as the exact conditions under which a jury operates are concerned, these are not sacrosanct; they are matters of technique, whether we have any particular number in a jury or whether it goes by majority or whatever it may be.
But the really cardinal point, surely, is that if we have an institution of a particular kind and it has worked extremely well over a very long period, then there is a heavy onus on those who seek to change it in some important and material particular to make out their case. The case that is put for this far-reaching change—though, as I said, I do not regard it as a matter of constitutional principle, it nevertheless is a far-reaching change—is mainly on the ground that in some instances there has been corruption. Though it is agreed that the number of cases is probably small, the important point is made that this does affect serious criminals. Of course it is not practicable at the present day to hold juries incommunicado as they used to be. But surely the position is that where you have these gentlemen sometimes referred to as "big fish", who are likely to be able to exert themselves to corrupt juries and have the resources to do it, such cases are comparatively easily identifiable, and precautions can be taken to try to prevent these things from happening. It is said that this will involve a great many policemen, and indeed that is clearly so. But even if this measure is passed, you will still have to take precautions, you will still have to be careful to see that juries are not corrupted where there is some reason to fear that this may be so. So the argument that you will have to deploy a lot of police in such matters does not seem to have a great deal of force.
It seems to me that on the other side there are comparatively strong arguments in favour of unanimity. In the first place, unanimity is one of those things which increases public respect for the verdicts of juries; and, secondly, the question of the exact size of the majority is a somewhat arbitrary matter. Indeed, if we are going to proceed on the basis of having majority verdicts, there seems no
1524
ground in principle for resisting the suggestion of a simple majority. Although I appreciate that it is acceptable in Scotland, which has a rather different tradition in these matters from our own, do not imagine that anyone arguing in favour of majority verdicts in this country would argue in favour of a simple majority to replace our present unanimity.
Lastly, and in many ways perhaps the most important, there is the point that if you introduce majority verdicts to a considerable degree you remove the power of the minority to argue the case the other way. Because of this, it may lead, at any rate in some instances, to wrong convictions. An attempt is made to meet this point in the Bill by the two-hour rule, but this seems to be a very artificial rule and one which may easily bring the whole system into contempt, if juries have to sit around for a couple of hours, when in fact they have decided the case as between 10 and 2, simply because the judge has told them, "I cannot accept that verdict until you have had two hours to deliberate". Some of your Lordships may recollect having seen a rather impressive American film called Twelve Angry Men which turned on this very theme of a single juror being convinced of the innocence of the accused as against the other eleven, and the film dealt with the whole episode in the jury room and the way in which that one man eventually turned the eleven round. That must be a very exceptional situation; nevertheless, it points to the possibility of people being wrongfully convicted, and the avoidance of this is surely a very important feature in our system of justice.
Therefore, on balance, it seems to me that, quite apart from any constitutional principle, the case for a change of this sort has not been made out. I do not regard the question of unanimity as necessarily part of the mythology of the jury, as it has been put in some places. It seems to me, however, that the unanimity principle is on a sensible basis, and it is one which should not lightly be set aside unless there are the most compelling and cogent reasons against it. Accordingly, while in principle I give my warm support to most of what is in this Bill. I remain unconvinced at present regarding the merits of the provisions of Clause 11.
8.6 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, in adding, even at this late hour, my congratulations to my noble friend on his presentation of the Bill and saying how much I personally welcome it in general terms, I daresay I can also speak for the majority of the Christian organisations in this country. I know I can speak for the British Council of Churches, which, in the opinion of the sponsors of this Bill, has already rendered valuable service and has given them great encouragement. It is a good Bill, and though it has miscellaneous characteristics and I suppose for Free Churchmen and Churchmen generally would not be regarded as a companion volume to Bunyan's Grace Abounding, it would nevertheless be regarded as a first chapter to his other great work Pilgrim's Progress.
There are backgrounds to this Bill which in my judgment ought to be included in any comprehensive survey of its Second Reading. What is the backcloth to this Bill? It is the undoubted increase, large increase, in the number of criminals in prison. It is the suggested increase in criminality generally. Of the first there is no doubt at all—35,000–6,000 more than in 1964. It is a large increase and it is a serious increase. If it represents an increase in criminality generally, this Bill has tremendous significance, or ought to have, in endeavouring to face some of the problems created by this new situation. I do not know whether this is so. But there are more people alive to commit crime, and more crimes they can commit if they are so minded. I have not the information—adequate research has not been undertaken to provide it—to decide whether we are worse than we were; but we are bad enough, in all conscience, and the serious attempt this Bill makes to deal with some of the problems must be welcomed by people of good will and by the Christian Church. I welcome it for the Christian Church for another reason. It has an emphasis on reformation rather than deterrence and so to me is far more consonant with an ultimate Christian principle.
Finally, in this Bill, in general terms, though it has been described as a hotchpotch and a series of miscellaneous items, I can detect, I hope not unfairly, certain broad impulses which are welcome. The first is the impulse, the attempt, in the
1526
Bill to keep as many people as possible out of prison. I believe that is right, because I have no use for prison at all ultimately, and though obviously it cannot be a matter of immediate practical politics to get rid of the prison system, I believe it is irremediable and my own 15 years' experience as a prison chaplain has confirmed it. I think imprisonment is nasty, brutish, and ought at least to be short. And finally I can find no justification for the principle enshrined in the whole prison ethos. I know this demolition of the whole system of prisons cannot be done in a stroke and ought not to be attempted except by due process, but I welcome most heartily the attempts being made to keep as many people as possible out of prison, in attendance on the time when we can abolish prison altogether and substitute the hostel system or something other to which I may come later on.
With regard to the question of short sentences, I do not believe they have done anybody any good and I believe they have done a lot of people harm. The suspended sentence, with due deference to what seemed to me to be a very reasonable and cogent argument on the part of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, the increasing of the opportunity of bail, the increasing of fines, all these are good; and I am much impressed by evidence that comes from across the Channel, and therefore may be of increasing interest to us as the days go by.
I want to quote accurately M. Morice, who is the Director of the French Penal Institution—that is as near as I can get to the phrase: it may be slightly different from that. He is interested in, and has drawn up a survey on, the question of suicides in prison. It turns out that every other day somebody tries to commit suicide in a French prison, and as a result of his inquiries he has come to the complete and final conclusion that the vast majority of those who attempt to commit suicide do so either in the first stages of their imprisonment or after a long term of imprisonment.
It seems to me that his argument is the kind of argument which is supported, at least within my own recollection, by the traumatic conditions that belong to short sentences, and the utterly useless waste of time which they provide. Therefore, in general terms, how heartily do I welcome

1527
the provisions in this Bill which seek to prevent people from getting into this kind of environment, the prison environment, which does them no good and may, indeed, form for them a pattern which is evil! I also believe that this is true of the very long sentence, and the evidence from the French suicide inquiry backs up this view to a certain extent. The results show also that a large percentage of those who attempt to commit suicide do so in the despair of a long sentence.
I am committed to the belief (I cannot argue it in full at this time of night) that any sentence of over four years, if it is not enlivened by hope at the end of it, and is not in some way made remedial and reformative by access to normal conditions, as well as to a prison cell and the yard—indeed, the whole accoutrement of the prison—is likely to destroy some quite essential dimension in the prisoner. I do not believe that long sentences, unless they are spaced out with much more generous and much more humanitarian methods, such as would be found in hostels, are compatible with the Christian faith. I certainly do not believe that they do any prisoner any good. Therefore, in this general sense, in noticing in the general provisions of the Bill, the attempt to keep people out of prison, how heartily do I agree with the Bill!
The Long Title of the Bill refers to it as, among other things, a Bill
"to make further provision for…the management of prisons…"
I find that this is not fulfilled in the Bill, and this is where my major criticism of the Bill can be found. I welcome heartily the abolition of corporal punishment in prisons, having had to minister to those who have been the victims of corporal punishment, and having also had to come to terms with the psychological results and the often perverted reactions of people to corporal punishment. I am quite sure that corporal punishment in prisons, let alone outside prison, is an enormity.
But there are other conditions in prison which are just as bad, and I should have hoped that by this time a far more serious attempt would have been made to deal with this execrable problem of three or two in a cell. I find that three in a cell is generally, from the sexual standpoint, preferable to having two in a cell, but where there are 9,000 of either two or
1528
three in a cell—and I know the size of the cell, as no doubt do some others of your Lordships—I find this an intolerable situation, and I have every reason to think that the depravity which is likely to be consequent upon such a kind of incarceration is out of all proportion to the efforts which could be made.
We should demolish Pentonville, which is a stinking hole—and I say that advisedly; there is no way of getting rid of the smell. The same is true of Wandsworth. They ought to have been demolished, and I think would have been, just before 1939, had it not been for the war. They are monstrosities. They have no useful purpose, even if open prisons have. If we are talking of the management of prisons, then I firmly believe that one of the essential characteristics of any move in the right direction would be the demolition of this kind of prison and as quickly as possible.
I turn for a few moments to a matter of interest which was raised for the first time only just now in this debate, the question of firearms. If it be true that a sentence of death "concentrates the mind", I would delay your Lordships for a moment to remind myself, and perhaps to persuade you, that there is nothing which concentrates the minds of many people so much as the possession of a gun in their pocket. So long as you have a gun you are not thinking of other methods of defence. The gun is an occupational attitude. I believe that it is perfectly right that shot guns should be included, even if they can be sawn off. Inasmuch as it has already been represented in the course of this debate that the firearms matter goes rather widely, let me go a little more widely still. I should like to see the total abolition of all toy guns, because I believe they create much the same kind of reaction as an actual gun itself does. It is an interesting comment that in the Soviet Union it is illegal, and attracts a large fine—and, in the last resort, a prison sentence—that toy guns of any description should be sold to or possessed by children.
I should like to see the total abolition of the manufacture and sale of pistols and revolvers. I have never been able to be persuaded that a pistol serves any useful purpose, even in sporting and farm conditions, which could not be better served by a shot gun. The prevalence,

1529
as I happen to know as a practising social worker, of the ideology of the gun and the kind of violence which has increased have a great deal to do with the gun in the pocket which induces by its very presence an attitude to life that I consider deplorable. And if we are bidden "not to cause occasions of stumbling", then this seems to be one of the most promising of all the general attitudes of this Bill, and I hope that it will go a lot further than it does.
One last comment. I believe most heartily in the general intention of this Bill to transfer the emphasis away from the prison cell to the hostel. I have some little knowledge of how this can be done with regard to alcoholics. I would ask my noble friend to tell us a little more about this when and if he can. There are many kinds of hostel. There are hostels for the drunk. How ridiculous it is to send a drunk to prison! What a waste of time of the drunk and of the prison authority! I should like magistrates to remember that they can insist, as a term of probation, that a man who is put on probation because he has been drunk and disorderly gives an undertaking to keep "off the bottle" entirely. That was omitted from one of the recent Bills, but it is still at any rate a possible injunction.
But what I am most concerned about is the immediate prospect. If, as indeed is true, we are suffering from an overworked Probation Service, with not a great likelihood that they will recruit as many as we want, then, as has been indicated in the Bill, there is a place for voluntary hostels. To bring the matter up to date, I would undertake, in the mission where I work, to purchase, if the Government provide the money, a hostel immediately, and include it in the kind of alcoholic work that is now being undertaken. I say that because I am sure that I am not unique in this feeling. I am sure there are many Christian organisations who are a little tired of asking the question, "Is God dead?" and who would like to move on to something a little more practical. One thing they might do is to combine and co-operate in this most adventurous and, I think, hopeful attitude of this Bill. One reason, above anything else, why I regard this Bill as hopeful, and as leaning pre-eminently in the right direction, is that it includes the proposal
1530
—though it has not yet been amplified and implemented—that there should be, in an attempt to deal with the delinquents and the prisoners, this general transfer to the hostels in place of the outworn, useless and completely unjustifiable prison system.
8.20 p.m.
LORD GUEST: My Lords, in rising to take part in this debate I feel most conscious of the accusation of inter-meddling in what is primarily an English Criminal Justice Bill, in matters which really do not concern a Scots lawyer. On the whole, I firmly think that it is not right for Scots lawyers to try to import into an English system Scots principles. May I say that I also hold the vice-versa view. I think that there is good and bad in both systems. It is usually found that the system of law is suited to the particular country, so I think that the motto "Gang warily" is a very wise one in what in other fields is regarded as a cross-fertilisation procedure. But sometimes when an innovation is suggested in one system of law, and that innovation has been the accepted practice from time immemorial in another, it may be not unhelpful to know what the experience of that other country is and what in fact happens. I say at the outset that I feel nothing but surprise at the outcry which has been raised against the proposals in Clause 11 in regard to majority verdicts. But I refrain from expressing surprise, and I speak purely in this matter as amicus curiae. Therefore, it may be helpful if I give the House some of the history and a little of the experience which has been gained in Scotland in regard to majority verdicts.
A bare majority verdict of 15 jurors has been established in Scotland since the year 1534, even in capital cases. What happens in fact is that in his charge to the jury the judge reminds them that they have three verdicts open to them —a verdict of "guilty", "not guilty", or "not proven". He tells them that unanimity is desirable but is by no means necessary, and that they can return a verdict by a bare majority at any time. When the jury return after their deliberations the clerk asks them, "Members of the jury, what is your verdict?". If their verdict is one of "not guilty", then that is the end of the matter. And that, I think, is a difference from the proposal

1531
made in Clause 11 of this Bill, to which I will refer later. If the verdict is not guilty, then, as I say, that is an end of the matter, and no question is asked as to whether it is by a majority or unanimous. If the verdict is "not proven", similarly no question is asked as to whether it is by a majority or unanimous. If, however, there is a verdict of "guilty", then the clerk proceeds to ask the foreman of the jury, "Is it unanimous or by a majority?", and accordingly the verdict is recorded, "Unanimous" or, "By a majority". But the extent of the majority is not disclosed, and that is the end of the matter so far as the jury are concerned.
It seems obvious to a Scotsman that there are very great advantages in such a system. In the first place, you never have a retrial on account of disagreement—and a retrial is unsatisfactory both in regard to the public and to the accused. The verdict of the jury is final, and the case is not reopened. In Scotland, up to the present moment the safeguards have been considered adequate; namely, the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal in 1926, and that if an appeal is taken, then the fact that the jury have returned a verdict by a majority is something which the Court of Criminal Appeal can take into account—but, of course, they do not know the extent of the majority. I have endeavoured to get statistics from Scotland to ascertain the figures of majority verdicts, but unfortunately these are not available. The general impression is the rather interesting fact that up to ten years ago the rule was that unanimous verdicts were really in the majority. In the last ten years there has been an increasing tendency for majority verdicts to be returned. The reason for that I cannot explain, and I do not think it is easy to explain.
It has been said in another place, and perhaps it may be said here, that the distinguishing feature between Scotland and England is that in Scotland corroboration is required before a verdict of "guilty" can be returned. One witness is not sufficient; there must be corroboration by facts and circumstances. In my humble judgment, this really has nothing to do with the question. It is entirely a separate matter as to the degree of proof which is required, and as to the extent
1532
of the majority which is necessary. The reasons for the difference between the two verdicts have been variously explained, though never very satisfactorily. I was interested to observe that Hallam, an English historian, described the unanimous verdict as:
"That preposterous relic of barbarism".
I suspect the reason was that in times far gone by judges used to compel jurors to return a verdict—not necessarily a verdict of "guilty", but that they were enclosed until they returned a verdict, it may well be that the unanimous verdict has sprung from that. In Scotland, on the other hand, verdicts have mainly been arrived at by what was called "the sense of the meeting". It was not thought at all anomalous that there should be a minority of the jury who were not in favour of a verdict of "guilty," and that did not in any way prejudice the verdict of the majority.
What I think is significant is that, so far as I am aware—and so far as anybody I have discussed the matter with is aware—there has never been any complaint or suggestion of unfairness throughout the whole history of the matter in Scotland since the 16th century, since that system has been regularly in operation. What I think is more significant, however, is that the Scots Law Commission, which has invited complaints, representations or observations on reforms has, so I am informed on the authority of the Chairman of that Commission, received no observations or suggestions on the system of majority verdicts. One would have expected that, in the 400-odd years which have passed since 1534, if there had been anything unfair or unreasonable in majority verdicts it would have shown its head. The presence of a Scots Law Commission was an opportunity for the public to register protests, if there were any.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to one matter which is perhaps a matter for the Committee stage, but which may be worth mentioning at present. I indicated to your Lordships that in Scotland when the jury returned a verdict of "not guilty", that was an end of the matter. As I understand Clause 11. it contemplates in England that there should be a verdict of 'not guilty by a majority", if that was in fact the verdict of the jury. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill,

1533
made a very good point when he said that no man would feel that he had been cleared of a charge if the jury returned a verdict of not guilty by a majority.
It seems to me to be quite unnecessary to complicate the matter in that way, and perhaps the Government would give consideration on the Committee stage of the Bill to alter Clause 11 in such a way that the only case in which a majority verdict would be announced would be where there was a verdict of "guilty". It seems to me quite unnecessary where there is a verdict of "not guilty" that any question should be raised whether it is unanimous or by a majority. If the verdict is one of "not guilty, then whether it was because the desired majority was not obtained, or because the whole of the jury were in favour of "not guilty", the man would have a clean sheet. Subject to that alteration, I would firmly support the clause.
8.30 p.m.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I join with, I think, every other noble Lord who has spoken in commending this Bill in general. It is true that it is a very mixed bag and that it does not attempt to introduce a number of reforms which are generally accepted as desirable; but I think it will be more profitable for me to concentrate on what is in the Bill rather than on what might have been, and I think that every proposal in the Bill is based on a good idea, even if in detail they may not all quite hit the nail on the head.
I propose to confine myself primarily to consideration of the Bill from the point of view of the Probation and Aftercare Service. May I first say that a number of the minor provisions seem to me admirable. These include the provisions about bail in Clauses 15 to 17, and those about probation and discharge in Clauses 41 to 46. Indeed, two clauses which have been introduced since the Bill was first published meet points which have been raised by the National Association of Probation Officers—Clause 43, which allows courts to substitute an order of conditional discharge for a probation order; and Clause 46, under which courts may be obliged to consider a social inquiry report before imposing a prison sentence. This last one is something about which the Probation Service feels very strongly, and it will cheerfully accept any
1534
additional burden which may result. I was very pleased to hear the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, of the intention of Clauses 79 and 80, which I am afraid had not been clear to me from reading them. Of course, I fully support anything which is designed to stimulate the development of hostels and the use of volunteers in after-care.
I have some reservations about the proposal in Clause 37 to empower courts to enforce fines by attachment of earnings orders. These do not work very well in enforcing maintenance orders, except when the person himself finds it convenient, in that it saves him trouble and avoids the temptation to spend his money on something else. Otherwise he is apt to get out of it simply by changing his job, and that is not something which one wants to encourage among the sort of people who are likely to incur fines for criminal offences. Furthermore, an order involves disclosing to the employer that the man has been fined, and this may also have unfortunate consequences. These snags would be overcome if the P.A.Y.E. machinery could be used. The tax authorities could be informed of the deductions required and the employer would simply receive notice of a change in the man's tax code, which, of course, goes with him wherever he goes. I concede that there may be administrative snags to this proposals also, but I should like to know what they are before the idea is dismissed.
Next I should like to say something about suspended sentences. I have great sympathy with the motives of this scheme, and of course it will help with the general aim of reducing the number of people going to prison. I understand that it works well in other countries, although the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, has expressed a different view. But I am not sure about its being satisfactory in the context of our system.
In the first place, I think it will pose a dilemma to a court which has to deal with someone under suspended sentence who has committed a further offence. The court must take into account Clause 31 of the Bill, which lays down the general principle that the suspended sentence should be imposed unaltered
"unless the court is of opinion that it would be unjust to do so in view of all the circumstances which have arisen since the suspended

1535
sentence was passed, including the facts of the subsequent offence."
If it is of that opinion, the court may vary or ignore the suspended sentence. But how should that proviso be interpreted? The whole basis of suspended sentences, as I understand it, is that the offender shall be in no doubt of what will happen to him if he offends again. But if they are rigorously enforced, then very often they will be unfair or unjust. On the other hand, if they are regularly varied on account of altered circumstances, the whole thing will lose its point and will have no obvious advantage over a conditional discharge or indeed a probation order.
That brines me to a further anxiety in the minds of probation officers: that courts may see this as an easy way out, saving, trouble both for themselves and the Probation Service, and may use the threat involved in a suspended sentence as a deterrent in cases where a probation order would have been better. For these reasons I am, on balance, against the suspended sentence, and this is something which I regret, since one of its most active proponents has been a colleague of mine on the bench on which I serve—a man whose sincerity I very greatly respect.
Now I turn to what is to me the most important part of the whole Bill—the release of prisoners on licence, or parole. I think that this is a very fine idea, quite apart from its incidental advantage of easing the congestion in prisons. But the detailed application of the idea is far from easy and the Bill will have to be considerably improved if it is to be workable. First, I should like to say something about the principle of parole. The present one-third remission is based on behaviour in prison, without reference to possible behaviour after release. It is, I think, well-known that intelligent professional criminals, if they are unlucky enough to get caught, make the best prisoners. They have the sense to understand that the best course is to be a model prisoner and earn the maximum remission, so as to get back to the practice of their profession as soon as possible. Only the most inadequate or unstable prisoners are foolish enough to misbehave to the point of forfeiting their remission while in prison.
1536
The new scheme for remitting a further third of the sentence is based on a different principle—not behaviour in prison, but the prognostication of behaviour after release; certainly a more logical criterion, but one very much more difficult to assess. And if the basis of the scheme is that men shall be released on parole who seem to have the best chance of success outside, is it not a weakness of it that those men will have the benefit of supervision during what would have been the rest of their sentence, while the worst risks who are not thought likely to succeed outside will serve their normal term and then get no supervision at all?
The original version of the Bill gave no indication of how this difficult task of assessment would be carried out. It simply said that the Secretary of State may release on licence. As it now reaches us it is rather more explicit, but I still cannot say that I am altogether happy about it. The proposal now is that there shall be a local review committee for each prison, which will review the cases of those eligible for parole and report to the Secretary of State. He will select from the cases recommended by those committees those which appear to him suitable for release and refer them to the Prison Licensing Board, which will then advise him whether or not to release them.
This shuttling to and fro seems rather peculiar. How will it work out in practice? The composition of the local review committee is not laid down in the Bill, but the Home Secretary has said that it will probably consist of the prison governor, a senior probation officer for the area and a member of the board of visitors. This raises a further question. Will the governor make the decision about what shall be recommended after listening to the advice of the other members, or will the committee operate democratically with the view of the majority prevailing? I hope the latter.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State power to make rules for these committees but, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington. I think we ought to know how the Government intend that they should carry out their duties. In any case, one would have thought that a member of the Prison Welfare Service would have been more useful than a local senior probation

1537
officer. In a prison where there are enough prison welfare officers to justify the appointment of a senior prison welfare officer, he would be the obvious person. Although, admittedly, a senior prison welfare officer in a prison is still a rarity, one hopes—and I am encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said today—that that situation may be improved.
As the Home Secretary said in the debate in another place, and as the noble Lord, Lord. Stonham, said again to-day, the Prison Department has constantly to take decisions about what happens to a prisoner; whether he should be moved from one sort of prison to another—for example, from a closed one to an open one—or should be selected for the hostel scheme, and so on. Ideally, this should be done by a case committee consisting of those concerned with all aspects of prisoners' progress, including prison welfare and after-care, and this would surely be the right body to consider suitability for parole as well.
The proposed local review committee seems to be rather an ad hoc body assembling from time to time to consider the cases of a batch of prisoners. It is suggested that the prisoner will not appear before the committee, but that the senior probation officer member will interview him. I think that, inevitably, the prisoner will assume that this is the man who will, in fact, make the decision about his release.. This seems likely to create very tense situations in prisons, with the prisoner whose date of eligibility for release has come up waiting anxiously for his interview and then for the decision ultimately to come through—followed, of course, by bitter disappointment for those not chosen. Relationships would certainly be difficult even under the system that I have suggested, but at least the process of assessment would be a continuing one, with no new people or bodies coming in to heighten the tension.
Anyway, what happens next? The committee sends its report, presumably with recommendations, to the Home Secretary; the Home Secretary eliminates those he cannot approve—I suppose on grounds of overall policy, national security or something of that sort—and then he sends the rest of the names for consideration by the Board. The Board then lets the Home Secretary know which
1538
of these it recommends, and the Home Secretary gives instructions for them to be released. I think I have that right. It seems to me to involve a great many bites at the cherry; and it is a little difficult to see on what basis the Board will reconsider the recommendations of the committee as pruned by the Home Secretary. After all, the committee will be in the best position to form an opinion, and it will be very discouraging for them if their recommendations are much altered at the two subsequent stages.
Now a word on the question of supervision of men on parole. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, pointed out, the Bill says nothing at all about this question of supervision, except in Clause 49, where it says:
"A person subject to a licence…shall comply with such conditions, if any, as may…be specified…"
But it has been generally assumed—and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said to-day—that the intention is that men on licence shall be put under the supervision of a probation officer. Will all men on licence be under supervision, or will some be released without any form of supervision? And if it is the intention that all should be under supervision, would it not be better to say so in the Bill? The supervision of men so released is, of course, a duty which the Probation Service willingly accepts in principle, although whether it could take it on at its present strength is another matter. Here, may I say how grateful I am to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice for what he has said about the Probation Service in this context?
But the relationship between the man on licence and his supervising officer will clearly be an extremely difficult one, and the officer will need all the support he can be given. To whom will he report? In probation and after-care he has his local case committee, and he can regularly discuss the progress of his clients with people whom he knows and who share with him responsibility for their future. Presumably with parole he will report through his principal probation officer to the prison department in London, which may seem to him, by comparison, rather remote and comfortless.
His responsibilities become even more worrying when the question of revocation of a licence arises. And here again the

1539
Bill is extremely vague. It simply says, in Clause 51, that the Secretary of State may recall a man to prison on the recommendation of the Prison Licensing Board or, in urgent cases, without consulting the Board. But on what information will the Secretary of State base his decision? I suppose the answer is, "On the reports he receives from the supervising officer," and if the reports are had enough to justify it the police will eventually be sent to pick up the man and take him back to prison where he will, under Clause 51(3), have the right to make written representations about what has happened to him. Surely this cannot be satisfactory.
In the first place, can the supervising officer hope to establish a proper relationship with his client if the client knows that the officer has the power to make direct recommendations for his recall to prison? That cannot be a good basis for mutual understanding, which is essential if the supervision is to do any good.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what precisely is the basic difference between that procedure and that which now obtains, under which, if the man or boy on probation is not carrying out the terms of his order satisfactorily, the probation officer has to report him with a view, possibly, to his being sent to prison?
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to the person on probation, and I was just coming to that. What I was going to ask was: is it right to have a system by which a man can be put in prison by an administrative order, even if he is still technically a prisoner, without any opportunity of being heard in his defence or of confronting those who would put him away? Surely it would be better if the whole business of recall were done through the courts, on the same basis as breaches of probation are now handled, and as was provided for also in Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1961, which is now being repealed.
In that case a man could be brought before a court by a supervising officer if he was in breach of his conditions. Or if the supervising officer had lost touch with him he could ask the court for a warrant to bring him back. In either
1540
case the man would have an opportunity to explain his actions and to refute what was being said about him. The court could, in appropriate cases, warn him that he would be sent back to prison if he did not mend his ways, and the court could further be empowered to combine this warning with some other punishment for the breach of the conditions—for instance, a fine—just as it now can in the case of a probation order. And if it appeared that the man ought to go back to prison then he could be remanded in custody for the Board to consider his case. This, in my view, would certainly be a better system from the point of view of the probation officer and would make for a much clearer and easier situation between him and his client.
My Lords, in all that I have been saying I have been trying to get beyond the wording of this Bill and to see what it means for those who will be involved in making it work. I have tried to be constructive. The Probation and After-Care Service, as I have said, accepts that the supervision of men on parole should rightly be part of its duties. It asks only two things: first, that the system should be workable; and, second, that the Service should not be asked to undertake these new duties until its strength has grown to a point which makes it possible —and I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, say, as I understood, that that is indeed the intention. I know it has been said that the number of prisoners involved will not be large enough to make a serious difference to work-loads, but the men released will constitute only part of the extra work. In every case where release on parole is even contemplated one of the considerations must be the home conditions to which the man will return, the prospects of employment and so on; and that means a social inquiry report by the local probation officer, whether the final decision is to release the man or not. I hope that consideration will be given to the anxieties of the Service in these matters. Those in it want to do the job, and to do it well as soon as they feel they can.
There are still a number of points at which, in my view, the Bill could be improved, but I think I have said enough to-day. In general, I commend the Bill, so far as it goes, but I wish it had been possible to bring in a measure dealing

1541
more broadly with the whole subject of penal reform. I wonder when we may hope to see such a Bill.
8.48 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I rise to welcome this Bill for two particular reasons: first, because I think it tries to blow some of the dust out of our legal system—and I welcome that—and, secondly, on a more personal level, because I know it represents the consummation for my noble friend Lord Stonham of many years of dreaming and hoping in this particular field. To those already expressed to-day I want to add my congratulations to my noble friend, not only on the way he presented the Bill but on the many years of work that he and many others have put in to make some of the provisions of the Bill a reality.
There are, in fact, two approaches to British justice. There is, first of all, the view, which I regard as romantic, highly-coloured and smug, which maintains that British justice is the best in the world and that there is nothing to beat our judges, our policemen, our courts or our legal system in general. This is a view that is taken largely by Englishmen abroad; and I must confess that after visiting some of the countries to which I have been, and having seen their legal and law enforcement systems, I have come home with considerable relief and gratitude and have welcomed our own particular law enforcement and legal system. But it is a smug and narrow view. There is much that is wrong in our legal system and much that we have been afraid to alter, for one reason or another which I do not profess to understand.
Then there is the opposing view, expressed by Englishmen at home, especially when they have been in contact with the law: the view expressed, probably in its angriest form, by Dickens in some of his books. He had a great contempt for lawyers. It seems that many great writers have seen fit to castigate and beat the law. I like Shakespeare's phrase:
"Let's kill all lawyers."
I have great sympathy for that. And his reference to lawyers who
"sleep between term and term and then they perceive not how time moves".
I have often felt, when I have had contact with lawyers on something which I have regarded as an urgent matter, that
1542
they do "sleep between term and term" and do not seem to share the urgency I feel. My Lords, the truth lies somewhere between these two views. British justice has a great deal to recommend it; but it is not perfect. But let others praise it; let us criticise it and try to alter it. It is not so good that it cannot be improved. I believe that this Bill introduces some much needed and long overdue improvements.
It is a huge and varied Bill. It has been described in various terms this afternoon. I find it a little like a Chinese meal, with noodles, sweet and sour, and chop suey and a little for everybody's taste. I do not intend to comment on anything at this particular stage except this question of majority verdicts by juries. This section of the Bill might perhaps be described as the "sweet and sour course", judging by the debate we have had this afternoon. I have react and listened to the arguments against majority verdicts; and I must admit that I am no wiser now than I was before. The only argument that seems to have been advanced is that the jury system as we have it to-day is 600 years old; that it has worked well with rare exceptions; that in its earlier beginnings it did strike some vigorous blows for British justice; and that, therefore, we should not be in too much of a hurry to change it. I cannot sec that 600 years is rushing it; but that seems to be the argument.
My Lords, that is the classic argument against all change. This House is considerably older than 600 years; but even your Lordships—who are notably obstinate—have recognised that changes must come here and that our position and powers must be altered, and have even steeled ourselves to these changes.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to say that one of the arguments used, I think by myself, was not that it was an instrument of 600 years' durtion but that it was high time that we examined it rather more closely before making a change of this kind.
LORD WILLIS: I thank the noble Lady for that intervention. I was in fact just coming to this particular point.

1543
As I was saying, we in this House, with much greater antiquity, have steeled ourselves to certain changes that must come. It seems to me that one ought to do this in relation to majority verdicts and the present jury system. The other question that has been raised—and this is where I come to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger—is that we have not enough evidence, and therefore we should hang on a little longer and investigate the problem. But I suggest that this is going to be an area in which it is practically impossible to get evidence. We are now facing what is a new and completely different situation and one which calls for new thinking, a situation that is terribly dangerous and on which we cannot afford to wait. We have all heard that there has been this immense increase in crime, from 11,000 prisoners a year in 1938 to 35.000 to-day. This is an appalling picture; and a sad one. I find it personally sad because I used to have the dream that once we got rid of unemployment in this country and built a different kind of England where people would not be out of work and would not be poor, crime would decrease. It seems to me—and it is a rather chastening thought—that the more we move forward, the bigger the scum that we create. I find that sad.
Coupled with the increase in crime, there is the enormous increase in organised crime and in the gangs. We must never forget that this is the new element: that crime has rationalised itself far more than our industry has. It has moved a long, long way from the "thieves' kitchen" of old. This is the day of the big "fixer"—and let no one be under any illusions that this is not going on every single day in relation to our legal and jury systems. This is the day of the entrepreneur of crime, the impressario, the agent, with immense resources of money, contacts and personnel. A small crook to-day goes to a "fixer" and is financed for his operation. He gets an advance of money and he gets an expert assessment of the possibilities of the crime that he wants to undertake; and in return he gives the "fixer" 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. or even 60 per cent. of his proceeds. But that "fixer" gives him not only the money but protection all the way along the line.
1544
A leading police officer once told me how difficult it was for the police to get information on these "fixers", or to pin them down in any way. He described his embarrassment one evening when he went to a highly respectable dinner party and actually met there a man that he knew to be one of the leading "fixers". They are some of the more highly-respectable men in our community—or they appear to be so—and they operate on a gigantic scale. The great train robbery, the bullion robbery, these are just the tip of the thing; it also operates on a small scale all down the line. These people can fix anything, and they can fix a jury, and they are fixing juries, day in and day out. You cannot get evidence on it because these people are not stupid. They have seen that the Achilles' heel of the present system is that only one person has to disagree and the accused is off, is away, is free. It may be that he will be sent for trial again; but if there is a disagreement a second time he will be free.
That is the Achilles' heel at which they struck. They strike with money and with threats, and they strike continuously. It is being done now. We publish the names of all jurors; their addresses are published and it is not difficult to get their telephone numbers. What jury man is going to come into the open and say: "I had a telephone call at midnight which said what would happen to my house or my children or to myself if I did not give the right verdict." What juryman but the exceptional man would say, "I have been offered not £50 but £500 in order to bring in the right sort of verdict." You could set up a commission to sit for twenty years and not get that kind of evidence. But it goes on; and it goes on all the time. It is practically impossible to lay hands on these people or to get proof. As crime develops on this huge and organised scale it will go on more and more. It will still continue, even if we bring in this change and make majority verdicts possible; but at least it will be much more difficult for the "fixer".
That is why I welcome the change. These "fixers" do not advertise their successes—but they are having successes, many more than those that have been quoted in the debate in another place or here to-day. That is why I support this recommendation. I support it as an

1545
urgent measure, and I do not believe that the setting up of another committee to investigate the working will help in any way. This is not a sporting game. This is not a game of cricket. This is a very serious Position in which lives, money and justice are involved. We cannot afford to go on playing about with it any longer. We are trying to put bad criminals behind bars. We must not think that our policemen who are trying to do this are, in fact, merely batsmen going to the wicket. We must not apply the same rules to them as one would to cricket.
My Lords, I was going to comment on one or two other points, but I will not do so in view of the lateness of the hour. I should like to support very much some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, particularly in relation to the Probation Service. This Bill is asking a great deal of the Probation Service. It seems to me that this is a body of people underpaid and overworked, and that we ought to go into the question much more carefully, because to have an idea is one thing, but to have the administrative machinery and the people to carry it out is another. I am not sure that the suggestion that auxiliaries should be trained to work alongside properly trained probation officers is not a good one. I think we could find a large number of people with a sufficient sense of dedication, sufficient devotion and willingness to work alongside properly trained probation officers, and so take some of the burden off the shoulders of those officers.
I should have liked to see in the Bill (although perhaps it does not come within its scope) an attempt to deal with what I regard as this terrible problem of the magistrates. This is another hoary old problem in our system with which we never seem to get to terms. A case was quoted the other day, I think in another place, of a 79 year old man charged with his first offence. He appeared in court and was given a sentence of three months. A 33 year old man charged with the same offence at the same court was fined £25. I am sure that your Lordships could quote hundreds of other cases revealing these terrible discrepancies between what happens in one court before one magistrate, and what happens in another. Any commercial traveller could
1546
produce his little black book in which would appear which are the worst places in the country to be caught for motoring offences, and which are the least bad. I cannot understand why, when we are talking about justice, we cannot obtain some kind of regularity in the treatment of offenders who come before our magistrates. It seems to me that this is something which urgently requires attention. I hope that will come, because we have what I think is a great team now. We have one of the best Home Secretaries and one of the best Lord Chancellors in living memory, in my humble opinion, and I hope that they will be able to tackle this reform.
I had intended to speak for about ten minutes, but I want to end on a note of mild protest. It concerns in particular the business of the House. I wish to protest strongly about one thing. To-day we have had an excellent debate which has included some fine speeches, but as a humble Back Bencher I should like to protest against the undue length of some of the speeches made in the early part of the debate, and against the fact that there were certain interventions in the "batting order" as printed without there being any consultation. Since we are talking about justice, I think this is wrong. Every Peer is equal, and I think it wrong that this should happen. The inevitable result is that the best of the time is taken, and towards the end of the evening speakers get up and feel forced to apologise to your Lordships' House, and to say, "I am sorry to keep your Lordships at this late hour", and, "I am not going to cover all the points I wanted to cover". Then they gabble a speech and sit down in a great hurry. I believe that some attention should be paid to this matter, because I think it wrong and rather selfish of the earlier speakers to go on at that great length. I hope that perhaps the Chief Whips or the Parties concerned may do something about this through the usual channels. I am making this protest because I know that many humble Back Benchers like myself feel very strongly about it.
9.4 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I think that the answer to my noble friend is that at this hour of the night we are speaking for the Record rather than to each other. But when he has such a good

1547
and attentive audience, I do not think that my noble friend Lord Willis need have any fear that his record will not be spread pretty widely. I should also like to say to him that a great deal of work is being put into the problem of obtaining a certain uniformity in relation to fines in courts up and down the country. My own county bench has had this matter in hand for quite a long time. The difficulty is to spread the movement over the country. It is possible that one county may vary a great deal from another, and there may be substantial differences between the West County and the North-East. I agree that there is a case for ironing that out, although perhaps this is not the occasion on which to go into the matter in detail.
My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those of almost every other speaker to-day to my noble friend Lord Stonham, not only for the admirably lucid exposition he gave of this difficult Bill, but for all the work which we know that he does in the Home Office—at any rate, those of us who are in close touch with these criminal problems. We feel confident in the support which we get from him when we have a problem to take to that important Department. I have had some difficulty in judging what sort of Second Reading speech to make, because this is emphatically a Committee stage Bill, as has been emphasised by quite a number of speakers. To my taste the Bill is full of "cherries" and it is quite obvious, from what has been going on to-day, that pretty well every one of the cherries is going to be bitten on twice. I do not propose to do that very much myself, although I have a sheaf of—I will not call them "cherry stones"—points on individual clauses which at one stage earlier in the day I had hoped I might have the opportunity of making. But I am reserving the points for the Committee stage, when I hope that I shall have a chance to speak on quite a number of them.
I should like, however, to make two or three general observations on the Bill. It has been welcomed by practically every speaker, although some had small reservations, and like those other speakers, I welcome it. Yet when I recall the high hopes with which we welcomed the Criminal Justice Bill in 1948, and ponder how many of what were regarded as im-
1548
portant provisions in that Bill are being eliminated by this Bill, I cannot refrain from feeling a little sorry. I am thinking particularly of the disposal provisions, the sentencing provisions, and not of the earlier part, which deals largely with procedure. The 1948 Act was more concerned with the sentencing aspects, and it is on the sentencing aspects that I want to concentrate my remarks.
An important part of this Bill is taken up with undoing some of what appeared in 1948 to be the most promising innovations, and it may well be that twenty years hence we shall be back here again—at least those young enough to be able to look forward to twenty years on—to deal with some of the provisions of this Bill in exactly the same way. The Bill deals with the problems of punishment in an empirical manner, as did the 1948 Act. At that time many of us thought we had the clues to the problem. I am inclined to think now that in this jungle there are no really certain clues. For the fact is that we are dealing with human beings. This is becoming much more understood and accepted during the present century than it ever was during the time when our criminal system was built up, and it is a basic rule which none of us must allow himself to forget.
We have to continue to handle these problems in an empirical way and be prepared to change our outlook, not merely from generation to generation but from decade to decade. I remember in 1948 the late Lord Templewood emphasising the complexity of the subject. He said in his speech on the Second Reading of the 1948 Act:
"The merit of this Bill is that it gathers together these experiences"—
of the years since Victorian times—
"and attempts to make a new approach to penal questions upon a much wider front"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28/4/48, col. 467.]
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Willis that if that was true in 1948, it is even more true at the present time. Certainly our experience in the intervening years has underwritten emphatically the word "complexity".
I hope that your Lordships will forgive my harking back to the 1948 Act. I think I am the only Member of your Lordships' House whose name is down on the list of speakers to-day who took part in those debates. I have vivid

1549
recollection of them, because at that time I was acting as a sort of junior barrister, or staff officer, to the late Lord Jowitt, who was Lord Chancellor at the time and in charge of the Bill. I remember the personal note which that great lawyer and speaker struck at that time and which so often gave a distinctive flavour to his speeches. His Second Reading speech on that Bill received more rapt attention than any other speech I ever heard him make in your Lordships' House. I should like to quote a passage from that speech. Pointing out how he had come to take a personal interest in these problems he said:
"I think I may say that I have visited nearly all the prisons in this country and Scotland, as well as those of many foreign countries. When I started 25 years ago it all seemed so easy. I thought the lines upon which reform should be carried through were so clear and so simple. I confess that, having now learned a good deal about this subject, I am baffled and perplexed about many of the solutions which we ought to adopt."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27/4/48, col. 391.]
I must say that I have great sympathy with his feelings in expressing that view. It is, of course, a note of desolation, up to a point, and, I suppose, a note of pessimism. To compare it with the speech of Lord Templewood, it certainly lacks the buoyancy which he (and of course to a large extent he had been the architect of the 1948 Act), was able to infuse into his speech.
I should like to make it clear, however, that what I said earlier on about the present Bill undoing the work of the 1948 Act in a number of important respects must not be taken to mean that I think that Act has not, on the whole, stood up to the stresses and strains which have been put upon it. Indeed, a large part of it is still very much operative, and on the whole it is operating satisfactorily at the present time. Nevertheless, I think it must be confessed that most of those of us who have been concerned with the problems of criminality over 25 years—and some of us even longer—are able to find only rare, small grounds for optimism in what has happened since 1948, during which time we have had a terrible upsurge of crime.
My noble friend Lord Willis gave some of the figures, and they cannot fail to frighten anybody who is worried about the preservation of order in our com-
1550
munity. It would not be too much to say that we are at our wit's end to explain this terrible upsurge of crime, and even more as to how to cope with it successfully. It seems to be beyond our powers. During the 'thirties, when I first began to take a close interest in these problems, there was a slight increase in criminality—the statistics went up by what would now be an almost invisible amount on the graph—and it was fashionable at that time to attribute this to the terrible unemployment of those years. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, may remember this.
I convinced myself by some statistical studies, which no doubt were of a very crude character, that there was no basis whatever for this theory. The argument was really post hoc, propter hoc, and to some extent was motivated by the wishes of the people who found this tendency. It is ironic to look back on that period from the present day, when we have practically full employment. If we were to use the post hoc argument we could explain the crime wave in all sorts of differing and equally unsatisfactory ways. Thus in 1935 there was practically no scientific penology in this country; there was no research unit in the Home Office; and there was no teaching of the subject in any university in the British Isles. The Institute of Criminology at Cambridge had not been thought of. Only the Institute for Scientific Study of Delinquency had made a start on researches which have proliferated in all directions in the period since the end of the Second World War. And even that Institute was started by medical men, and not by lawyers, administrators or prison officials. I pride myself that I was one of the few lawyers who became a supporter of it from the very start.
On the post hoc theory, one might say that it was only when you begin to study and research into crime that crime increases. And if you were to turn your attention to what has happened in the United States you would apparently find this theory confirmed, because in the United States they have more criminology, they have a much greater number of criminologists than any other country in the world, and they also have a great many more criminals than any other country in the world. Yet, of course, common sense would tell you

1551
that this was a theory that could not hold water for a minute.
So we come to a position when the wave of crime is at its height in this country, at a time when everybody obtains full employment, when there is no real want, and when genuine efforts are being made by everybody concerned, in a way which certainly was not characteristic of the early years of the century, to deal with criminals in a sympathetic way. Lord Jowitt might well say, "Having now learned a good deal about this subject, I am baffled and perplexed." Well, my Lords, I am battled and perplexed, just as that great lawyer and that great student of these problems was.
There is one other general topic on which I should like to say just a word or two before I close. As I have already said, the matter with which I am most interested in this Bill is the sentencing—those parts of the Bill which deal with the sentencing of criminals. I always find this much the most difficult part of the administration of justice, much the most worrying, much the worst thing to take over and on which to ponder whether I have done my work well or not. And I am quite sure that that is so with all other sensitive men who take part in the administration of the criminal law in this country.
In the Parts of this Bill which deal with this problem Parliament is really providing a tool for judges, chairmen of quarter sessions, recorders, magistrates and those of us who have to administer the criminal law, and of course particularly for the Judges of the High Court, who not only do the sentencing in the more important and difficult cases but also supervise the work of the justices of the peace who are entrusted with the job of administering the main mass of the criminal law.
I regret to say that I sometimes have a feeling that the tools provided by Parliament, and by the Government, which brings them before Parliament, are not as effectively and as understandingly used by the judges as they might be. I do not quite know what is the solution to this difficulty, but I am sure we need a much closer co-operation than exists at present. I have the feeling that some of the judges make much greater efforts to keep them
1552
selves in touch with modern work in penology and criminology than others do. I remember that in one of the debates on crime which we used to have from time to time some years ago the late Lord Astor made the interesting suggestion that every judge who was made responsible for administering the criminal law ought on his appointment to spend a short time in prison, so that he would know what prison was like before he sent men there. It is a very interesting suggestion. I think that an even more useful suggestion would be that every judge, on being appointed to do this kind of work, should spend some time in going through a course in penology and in sentencing. After all, judges are lawyers, and the lawyer's job is really a very different one from that of sentencing a man who has been found guilty of a crime.
In recent years, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who addressed us only an hour or so ago, has been doing a most valuable work, as many of your Lordships will know, in holding sentencing conferences for judges and recorders, and chairmen of quarter sessions, which I am sure have been most helpful. But of course this is, as it were, the laboratory work, from which the theoretical study has been completely absent. It would be much better if this practical laboratory work came at the end of a course which the judges and recorders and others who attend the sentencing conferences had already been through.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has of course been doing most valuable work, if he will allow me to say so, since he became Lord Chancellor, by stepping up the training arrangements for magistrates. These courses are much appreciated, judging from what I hear in my own county from those who are now going through them, and who have been taking advantage of them during the past months. Would he not think that it was just as valuable, or possibly even more valuable, that the lawyers whom he appoints to the very responsible positions of Judges of the High Court should also be asked to go through a preliminary period of training in the theory and problem of sentencing? I should like to commend that to the noble and learned Lord. Obviously, it is not in this Bill, but the Bill leaves many

1553
matters which will have to be worked out by the Judges of the High Court. These are problems which have been touched on, in connection with parole work and suspended sentences. They are there, so to speak, in outline. The build-up will undoubtedly have to come from the Queen's Bench Division and from the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, and I think it would be valuable if steps of the kind I have suggested could be taken in order to see that the build-up is carried through by men who are really well versed in the modern theories of penology and criminology which, after all, have made great strides over the past few years.
9.29 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, although the hour is "early" I intend to be reasonably brief. At least I always think it reasonable, and I hope that your Lordships will, too. I do not intend to make the usual winding-up Second Reading speech which comes from the Opposition Benches, because the Bill has had a general welcome and the differences of opinion, which have been pretty sharp in certain cases, have cut across Party. What I intend to do, therefore, is to make a few general observations, and then I shall raise certain points which your Lordships may think are Committee points. But I want to give notice to the Government that I, at any rate, am likely to put down Amendments on the Committee stage, so that the Government can think about them in advance.
Although this Bill has been described as a hotch-potch—indeed it is—it is really divided into two parts. There is the earlier part dealing with criminal procedure and the powers of the court and so on, and there is, in the main, in the second part the treatment of offenders. It was in this second part, the treatment of offenders, that the Bill was so very much improved in the other place. Although there will be certain controversy at the later stages on matters of detail, what has now arrived in general has received a welcome from all sides. On this part, as the matter has been so fully argued to-day, I want to deal with only two matters.
This part of the Bill is obviously only a beginning on the methods of treating offenders. Some of your Lordships have criticised it for not going far enough,
1554
because there are many things we want to see which are not in the Bill. I have a feeling that we may not be able to go much further in this connection until we have proper buildings, which we have not got in a variety of ways. I would commend to Her Majesty's Government the speech of my noble friend Lord Sandford. We are embarking, so we were told not so long ago by the Government, on a big scheme of new prison building, which is undoubtedly necessary; I am not arguing about that. But a word of caution is necessary here. If this Bill has the desired effect of reducing radically the prison population, it may well be that that money will run out on erecting new prison buildings which may not be necessary in a fairly short time, whereas we do want, probably just as much, new hostels.
I agree with my noble friend, Lord Sandford, that the first hostels we need are probation hostels. As I said in a debate in your Lordships' House not long ago, it is with the young that we are likely to have most success under probation, with probation hostels and so on, rather than with, if I may use the rather loose term, the hardened criminal under after-care. I am not saying we should not do after-care, but this is a question of priorities. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to bear in mind with regard to the burst of new prison building recommended by the Mountbatten Report that some of it may not be necessary in the immediate future, and if any money can be spared I think hostels should have it rather than one or two prisons that eventually may not be necessary.
The only other thing I want to say about this part of the Bill—both my noble friend Lord Sandford and my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell have brought it out very clearly—is that many of us are worried that as a result of this Bill, if it is carried out fully, an unbearable burden will be put on the Probation Service. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, says "No", but I think that needs to be proved. It will put a lot of extra work on the Probation Service. They have more than enough to do now. I mention that merely as a matter on which many of us are rather worried.
I turn to the earlier part of the Bill. It is natural that it should be largely

1555
argued by those connected with the law—that is quite right, because of their experience. We expected it to be argued by those connected with the law. What happens on the next stage is that we laymen become the jury, and an unusual jury, because counsel on each side will come into the jury room with us.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: And there will be a majority verdict.
LORD DERWENT: And of course there will be a majority verdict. I was going to say it, but my noble and learned friend is always too quick for me. I am not going to debate Clause 11, which has given rise to most controversy. I started at the beginning of this debate very much against majority verdicts, because the fears of some of us had not been answered by anyone until about half-an-hour ago. Certainly, the Government did not answer them. They produced certain figures and statistics, which I must say did not carry us far and I thought proved the opposite case. It was not until the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, spoke that I began to waver.
I was just going to say something rather waspish about the noble Lord, Lord Willis, but as he is not in his place perhaps I had better avoid it. I would say that he did not do his case much good by, if I may so term it, gross exaggeration without any proof. I am not going into all that. I have never really thought that this question of majority verdicts was of the most vital importance. But I did dislike subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 11, although the two go together to a certain extent.
I could not believe it right that in the case of a verdict of "not guilty" the foreman could get up in court and say that there had been a majority verdict and give the numbers of how the jury voted. One can see how impossible that would be. A man might well be guilty and everybody thought him guilty, but he might be acquitted not by a majority verdict but because the case against him was not strong enough. He would go home and throw out his chest and say, "Look what I did." But another fellow, a lawyer, a policeman, or a clergyman might be charged with an offence. Let us take the case of the policeman. One member of the jury might not be able to stand policemen. The rest of the jury might say that obviously the accused was not guilty.
1556
But as the clause stands now, that policeman could go out of the court knowing that one man—and it would not be known who that man was—had said he was guilty. Can you imagine what everyone would say on a policeman going back to his area?—that one man had "seen through him". The fact that the man just did not like policemen would not be known.
It was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, that in Scotland, when there is a verdict of "not guilty" nothing is said in the verdict about the majority figure. I believe that if we are to have Clause 11, we must have that provision inserted in the clause. The clause must be amended so that where there is a verdict of "not guilty", whether it is a majority verdict or not, nothing is said and nobody knows except the jury. Undoubtedly, if the Government do not put some Amendment down for the next stage of the Bill, then we will.
We think the Bill should be amended in regard to subsection (3). I do not quite know how the subsection is to work. If it is not to be announced that it is by a majority verdict, how can subsection (3) apply, under which the judge has to tell the jury that in order to have a majority verdict they must deliberate for two or three hours? Frankly, I do not see the point of subsection (3), but I have not thought out a suitable Amendment. I suggest that probably the easiest way is for it to be left out. That is a matter we shall have to think about.
So much, so far as I am concerned at the moment, about Clause 11. There is one thing I should like to say about Clause 12. This is quite a proper clause, directed to trying to stop certain people with criminal records from serving on a jury. The clause needs strengthening. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne raised in slightly different form the question how you were to bring to the notice of a man who had a criminal record that he was not eligible to serve on a jury. He did not want it brought to the man's notice in front of other people. I think it can be done perfectly well. I think it ought to be done, otherwise a man who is disqualified may sit on a jury and, when he is "run in" for doing it, he is going to say, "I did not know anything about this Clause 12. Nobody ever told me." He must be told. We are trying

1557
to deal with bribery of jurors, and I would suggest that if one is going to amend this, then, provided that people are told that if they have done such-and-such a thing they are not eligible as jurors, if a man sits on a jury and is prosecuted a fine of £100 is inadequate. I suggest that the figure, as a maximum, should be somewhere nearer £400, for the man will be sitting quite deliberately knowing that he is disqualified.
I turn to Clause 30. Again my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne and other noble Lords were unhappy that subsection (3) does not give magistrates discretion in suspended sentences if they propose to pass a sentence of six months or less. I dislike the idea. All I will say about the clause at this stage is that if the House accepts subsection (3)(a) (which relates to the list of crimes in which the discretion is given back to the magistrates not to suspend sentence), the offence of trafficking in drugs should be added to the list of crimes in which a period under detention is probably suitable. It is very difficult to get hold of drug traffickers, and where a man is convicted of trafficking in drugs, even though it is his first offence, I do not think that the sentence should be suspended.
The only other point I wish to mention on that clause has already been raised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in relation to Clause 30(3)(e)—and this also relates to Clause 15. For some unknown reason, the matter of detention was left out. The paragraph mentions the case if:
"the offender had at any time before the commission of the offence been sentenced to, or served any part of a sentence of, imprisonment or borstal training …".
I think that the words "or detention" ought to go in there, and also in the appropriate part of Clause 15.
The only other matter to which I would refer is Clause 69, on firearms. I do not quite know why this provision is in the Bill, but I personally am in favour—though, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, said, criminals do not use our form of shot gun as a rule. However, there are certain matters about which I am concerned. Nobody knows how many shot guns there are in the hands of those entitled to have them. The best guess I have been given is 1½ million people—it may be more, it may be less—but
1558
certainly it is a very large number. If this provision is included, it will throw a great deal of additional work on the police. Therefore, I would suggest that, if this Part of the Bill is brought into force, then after the certificates have been printed and are in the hands of the police ready for issuing a period of three or four months should elapse before the provision comes into force. This will give the police a longer period of time in which to go into all the applications. I think that the bringing into force of this provision needs careful consideration, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consult everybody who is interested (and all kinds of people will be concerned, such as gunmakers, the police, the C.L.A. and so on) as to the best way of handling this matter.
There is another problem that I should like to mention. Shot guns are likely to be found in certain areas and not in others, and certain police forces will have a tremendous amount of work; though I daresay that in some of the big cities they will have very little. Suppose that they are on three-year licences like the firearms certificates. That means that every three years at a given date the first people will be coming up for their certificates. The police will then have to deal with their 1 million or 1½ million people, probably in the last week before the old certificates expire. I suggest that while the Government are thinking about the matter, shot guns not being quite the same as ordinary firearms, they should think about chief constables being given permission to give these certificates for five years and not three where they think fit, in order to save work.
There are certain people interested in the firearms business who will be putting down Amendments, so I am told, at the next stage of the Bill, not with the idea of pressing them but in order to get some information on what is in the Government's mind. I am not putting those Amendments down, but I am merely telling the Government so that they can think about it. That is all I have to say. Obviously, we all welcome this Bill. We nearly all have criticisms of it, major or minor—mostly minor. As I say, they cut across Party, and I have no doubt that if any Party puts the Whips on, it will find many of its keenest supporters in the opposite Lobby.
9.47 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, apologising, as usual, to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to the extent that I am turning my back on him, I must say that I have had a most interesting afternoon and evening, because I have heard all the speeches except two since half past two, and as I do not pretend to know as much of this subject as my noble friend Lord Stonham does, or as much as many noble Lords who have spoken, I have had a most interesting time.
We have, after all, been honoured in this debate with contributions from two former Home Secretaries and one former Lord Chancellor. A former Lord Chief Justice has been here; and there have been the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, speaking with the weight of his authority as Chairman of the Royal Commission, as well as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Chairman of the Committee on Juries. No Home Secretary, I am sure, could have had a more authoritative series of speeches.
A good deal has been said, so I shall probably go on for hours, and I hope that nobody who wants to leave will hesitate for a moment in doing so, because your Lordships can read all about it in Hansard. So there is really no point in sitting to hear it, so long as one person stays—because if the last man goes there is nobody to move the Adjournment of the House and I shall necessarily be found here to-morrow morning waiting for somebody to release me.
The Bill has received a general welcome from everybody. There have been informed and critical comments, which I am sure my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will welcome. In another place the Bill was examined and dealt with on a non-Party basis, as my noble friend Lord Stonham said, in 19 meetings one of which finished at two in the morning, and there is no doubt that my right honourable friend will seek to deal with the matter in the same way here.
As my noble friend Lord Chorley, with his experience of the 1948 Act, said, this is really the first major Bill on criminal procedure and penal treatment since that
1560
Act was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Chuter Ede. Undoubtedly the most controversial question is that of majority verdicts, so, if I may, I will deal with that last. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, expressed views on the general subject matter of the Bill with which, if I may say so, except possibly for one or two details, I very heartily concurred. As usual, I found myself agreeing with my noble friend Lord Soper and my noble friend Lord Willis, though we must have a talk some time on justices of the peace. This idea which Mr. Gordon in the Sunday Express stimulates, that if somebody is convicted of stealing a bicycle at one place and somebody else is convicted of stealing a bicycle at another place, there is something shockingly wrong if the sentences are not exactly the same, is, of course, absolutely barmy. Obviously, you cannot express any view on this unless you know all the relevant facts, which contributors of this kind never tell you. One has to see what the previous character and record of the two people have been and, if there is a question of a fine, what their means are.
Everybody, including all judges and justices of the peace, is most anxious that sentences should be as alike as possible, but since all cases differ it is only a theoretical possibility that sentences can be alike. We are anxious, of course, that they should not be too dissimilar. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, as my noble friend Lord Chorley has said, has periodical sentencing conferences with High Court judges, recorders and chairmen of quarter sessions. I do the same, to the best of my ability, with regional conferences of justices of the peace, and they are always most anxious to attend meetings of this kind. Also, of course, many benches in a county get together to compare notes; and the Magistrates' Association helps, too. A great deal is being done to stop a wider disparity of sentences than is inevitable.
If I may take the Bill in order of clauses and the comments made upon them, Clause 3 deals with the Press, on which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, spoke, and in which my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead was interested. Of course this is a very old point, because it is some years

1561
since we had the Tucker Report. Your Lordships may remember what the Tucker Report's conclusions were. Almost always in preliminary proceedings, as your Lordships know, the defendant reserves his defence, so what you get in preliminary proceedings is a speech by counsel for the prosecution and all the evidence for the prosecution with nothing for the defence. All that is in the papers. The Tucker Report said you cannot prove that this prejudices juries against a man before his trial starts, and you cannot prove that it does not; but the Report said there is a very widespread belief that it does.
I know, of course, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has said, that juries are told, "You must try this case on the evidence you have heard, and must forget all about what you have read in the papers"; and they really behave very well. But take the Moors case as an example. Whether it is good for the public or bad for the public to have all the revolting details twice over, I do not know, but it seems to me absolutely absurd to pretend that any juryman in a case like that can possibly go into the jury box without the slightest prejudice of any kind against the man in the dock. I have always thought that we ought to treat this matter as we treat matrimonial cases, putting some bar on what the Press report other than the fact that preliminary proceedings are taking place, the name and address of the man, what he is charged with, and what the result is.
If that was so when the Tucker Committee reported, and if the Tucker Committee were right in their view, then I think it must apply with much more force if the other provisions of this Bill are enacted. Because now the accused will have a free choice of saying, "Don't bother about any preliminary proceedings; I don't want any at all", in which case there will not be anything to report, or of saying, if he does not want the whole of the preliminary proceedings, "I want to cross-examine just one witness". It may frequently happen that he will accept most of the written statements he has been given of the evidence that the prosecution witnesses are going to give, and will just say, "I want to cross-examine only one person". If one were going to have many such preliminary
1562
proceedings reported, it seems to me that the reports would be still less fair and accurate representations of the proceedings as a whole than is the case now. I myself have always been of the opinion that the unanimous recommendations (as I think they were) of the Tucker Committee were right.
Clause 12 deals with ex-prisoners. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said—and I am sure we shall all agree with him—that it would not be right for an ex-prisoner who is summoned to serve on a jury to have to get up in court and say: "I want to be excused because I have been in prison myself." That, of course, is not contemplated at all. What is contemplated is that there will be a warning notice in the standard form sent out with every jury summons. This will set out what the disqualifications are, and it will carry a warning that if disqualified persons sit on a jury they will be liable to a fine of £100. If they are disqualified, all they have to do is to inform the summoning officer of the facts of their disqualification so that the summons may be withdrawn. An assurance will be given that the information sent to the summoning officer will be treated by him as strictly confidential. That I hope meets the point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne.
Now may I turn to Clause 13. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, inquired what was likely to happen about the Morris Committee's recommendations. The Government have already stated clearly that they accept, in the main, the recommendations of the Morris Committee, and hope to introduce legislation in due course. The reason why only this very limited recommendation is being carried out in this Bill is because most of the recommendations of the Committee apply to jurors in both criminal and civil cases. The Bill, plainly, is a criminal Bill and would not have been an appropriate vehicle with which to deal with jurors in civil cases.
Clause 15 concerns the restrictions on refusal of bail. One or two noble Lords would have liked, in the places where it is excluded, detention centres to have been included. One realises, of course, that this is a matter of opinion. The Government have so far taken the view

1563
that detention centre sentences are really different from prison sentences: first, because detention centre sentences may be passed for comparatively minor offences which would not merit borstal or imprisonment; and, secondly, because the regime of detention centres is quite different from that of prison or borstal. The deterrent impact of a suspended sentence will be felt by someone who has not been in prison or in borstal before, whether or not he has been in a detention centre. Thirdly, they are different because it seems wrong that a person should be more likely to go to prison because of a detention centre sentence passed perhaps years ago when he may have been no more than 14; and, lastly, because one does not want to get people conditioned to prison. Once you have been in prison you have become conditioned; whereas one who has only had a detention centre sentence has not been conditioned to prison.
Now Clauses 30 to 33: Suspended sentences. I am sure that my right honourable friend will take much into account what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, my noble friend Baroness Wootton of Abinger, my noble friend Lord Soper, and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell. Plainly, suspended sentences are, as with most of these things, matters of opinion. The Government are firmly of the opinion that we ought now to have suspended sentences. The balance of opinion now seems to be strongly in their favour, and the introduction was supported in evidence to the Royal Commission on the penal system, by the Magistrates' Association, the Justice Clerks' Society, the Society of Clerks of the Peace, the Law Society, and the Association of Prison Welfare Officers. After all, the position we are facing is that, taking the 1964 figures of 22,500 offenders who were given sentences of six months or less, about 7,400 had not previously served custodial sentences; and of these, about 5,900 were convicted of an offence not involving personal violence or sexual assault. It may be, however, that we shall discuss that further on the Committee stage.
1564
My Lords, as to the Probation Service, referred to in Clauses 41 and 44, the Government will, of course, take careful account of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell. There were really two points that were made, one more so by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, about whether we should need the prison buildings. I am afraid that is so. Whatever else we do, we shall certainly need the full building programme. The prison population, unhappily, tends to go up all the time, and however successful this Bill may be, the Government are satisfied that they will need the full extent of the building programme.
With regard to probation hostels, with which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was particularly concerned, this, after all, is what the Government are doing. It has not been done before, it is being done now, and we are glad that the noble Lord approves. Four probation hostels are being built to start with, and we shall go on from there. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, was concerned to know whether the amount of work being put on to the Probation Service would overwhelm it. We do not think that is so, for these reasons. There may be 750 to 1,000 releases on licence, and that would be full-time work for 15 to 20 probation officers. Under Clause 53, perhaps 800 prisoners sentenced when under 21 would provide full-time work for 15 probation officers. Under Clause 46, the provision of 5,000 extra social inquiry reports would be full-time work for 10 probation officers, which makes a total of between 40 and 50 probation officers. The present strength of the service is 2,500 and the target by 1970 is 3,500; and out of those figures the Government are satisfied that if there is a call for a further 40 to 50 it could be accommodated.
My Lords, there was a good deal of criticism about the Prison Licensing Board, but I do not suppose that any ten people, or if you had a jury of twelve, that any twelve people, would agree upon what the composition of a Board like this should be. As to local committees, if a local committee thinks a particular case is not a case for release, there is still nothing to stop the Home Office from sending the case to the Board. The noble

1565
and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, raised a question about documents. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, said (and if I may say so I quite agree with him) that there must be confidence between the Board and the Home Office. I did not follow the point about documents. If the Board want any documents and the Home Office has not sent them, the Board have only to say so. I cannot see any difficulty about that.
It was suggested that everyone ought to have the right of appeal. Everybody would could conceivably be released can always petition the Home Office. If all these people are to have a right of appeal to somebody else, then that appeal body will be swamped. It is the intention of my right honourable friend that in the case of a life sentence the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge would be consulted before the case goes to the Board.
On the question of composition, I was sorry to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice say that there ought to be a High Court Judge on the Board. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would not be opposed to that; it would be I who would oppose it, because I do not know where the judges are to come from. At least some members of this Board would have to be whole-time all the year round, and, frankly, even for three months at a time, this is not the sort of work which a High Court Judge would want. These are matters which can be discussed at a later stage.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, I understood, from what I read of the debates in another place, that the Home Secretary said that it would amount to five days a month. Even if it were more, if this is a job that a judge ought to do, however overworked and busy they are, a judge must be found.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, no doubt we shall have plenty of opportunity to consider before Committee stage what the total volume of work is likely to be. One or two suggestions were made in the course of discussions which seemed to me to be likely to lead to an increase of their work. The noble and learned Lord knows the difficulties which we both have in making
1566
the best use of our very limited judge-power in this country.
The other particular comment on this subject was that it does not seem to have been very well thought out. The Government do not think that it is a good idea. I have always thought that if we had a parole scheme, it ought to be left to the Home Secretary. So if it is thought that it is not well thought out, it is those who proposed it who did not think it out very well. Perhaps in that case they will do so before Committee stage. There are a great many difficulties about the parole scheme being worked by a Board. There will have to he local committees and so forth. But my right honourable friend was very anxious to accommodate the majority in the Committee, whatever its Parts', and he promptly accepted the idea. It may be right. There is no good then complaining that there are difficulties about it. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, asked to whom a probation officer in trouble could go. He would go to the Home Secretary, as he does now.
In regard to Clause 69, I would not venture to intervene in the dispute about shot guns, but my right honourable friend will consider carefully what was said, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, and by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent.
That leaves me with majority verdicts, on which we have had an interesting discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, the noble and learned Viscount. Lord Dilhorne, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hodson and Lord Guest, are in favour of majority verdicts and about a similar number are against—all equally distinguished, no doubt. I do not understand the objection to majority verdicts. It was strongly put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on the footing that this was a sacred English tradition: that nobody ought to be found guilty unless that was a unanimous verdict; that this was general in the Commonwealth. Even if there were eleven to one, it ought to lead to an acquittal. I cannot understand this at all.
First of all, if it is eleven to one, we do not get an acquittal: we get a new trial. I cannot understand what this general

1567
historic view is. Take, for example, the position in the Commonwealth. In Gibraltar, it is seven to two; in Sierre Leone, two-thirds; Malta, two-thirds; Jamaica, nine to three; and five to two in a jury of seven, where it is murder or manslaughter; India, simple majority; West Malaysia, five to two; Singapore, five to two; Ceylon, five to two—and I may say that they have had five to two since 1801 without anybody complaining about it; Tasmania, ten to two; South Australia, five-sixths; Guyana, ten to two; Pakistan, six to three; Trinidad and Tobago, seven to two—but there has been nine to three out of twelve for manslaughter arising out of a murder charge; Mauritius, seven to two; St. Lucia, seven to two. And the general report from High Commissioners is that this situation does not give rise to dissatisfaction or any demand for unanimity. Some have a one-hour provision and some have a two-hour provision; South Australia has four hours; Trinidad and Tobago, three hours; St. Lucia, two hours for eight to one and three hours for seven to two. So it is not accurate to say that we have had unanimous verdicts in the Commonwealth for years and years.
What I cannot understand is where this general idea about the necessity for unanimity comes from. After all, as my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger knows, more than 98 per cent. of all criminal cases in the country are decided by justices of the peace by a majority. Nobody says that benches should not send people to prison unless the justices are unanimous. If you go to the Court of Appeal, the matter may be decided by a majority; or if you appeal from a magistrates' court to quarter sessions, it may be decided by a majority. Every day of the week people are being sent to prison by justices of the peace on a majority decision. So I do not understand at all where this view comes from. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that the Government's view is not primarily based on the number of acquittals, though there is a general feeling among those used to our criminal courts that the proportion of obviously guilty people who are acquitted has risen a good deal in the last few years.
It must be remembered that the judge and the lawyers in the case know the
1568
man's previous record, which the jury do not, and usually know a good many other things about him which may not be admissible in evidence. This may have something to do with the increase in legal aid. The police and Home Office figures of the percentage of those who plead not guilty who are acquitted are around 40 per cent., excluding motoring cases.
If it is true to say, as I think it is, that the certainty of conviction is the principal deterrent ground, then this is very high. I agree, as every Englishman would, that it is much better that guilty people should be acquitted than that innocent people should be convicted. There is a general feeling among those who know best that the balance is a bit far the other way. However, that is not the main reason. The main reasons are two. The first is because of "cranks" on juries, and secondly, because of jurymen being bribed or intimidated.
So far as "cranks" are concerned, there is a great deal of mental ill-health in the country. It is not kind to refer to a lunatic fringe, but there is a great deal of mental ill-health, and I think, on the whole, it is on the increase. Particularly since the last Mental Health Act, many who would be in institutions are now at home. There are many people who have written to the Lord Chancellor every week for the past ten years. In any public office one cannot help noticing how many people, quite apart from this, are not rational.
One of our troubles to-day is that there are a number of frightfully long cases. If a case lasts a month, the Lord Chief Justice says to me, "You will have to find some other Judge for me, because otherwise the Judge on this Assize will not be able to do any of his other work at all." If you take one case, which was a recent one—a customs conspiracy case concerning limited companies—it was very involved indeed, and lasted 43 days. Those are sitting days; this means two months. The foreman said to the associate, quite properly, when asked whether they were agreed, "Isn't 11 to 1 enough?" Then consider the expense. That case cost £75,000 to retry. It did not cost the accused that, because they all had legal aid; the taxpayer was paying for both the prosecution and the defence. Take another case, in which the foreman of the jury produced a note

1569
to the Judge saying that 11 of the jury were of the unanimous opinion that the twelfth was not fit to sit on a jury. Such cases do occur.
I remember a civil case of a woman who had a toxic thyroid. Not long ago, if you had that complaint you died, because there was no known cure. Then they tried operating, and that was not any good. But eventually an operation succeeded. Now it is no more dangerous than having your tonsils out. But one in a hundred times, for a reason no one knows, a vocal chord is paralysed. This does not matter, because the other compensates for it, but there is that trouble. This is an action that would never have been brought if the doctors had explained things; they do not tell you what happens. You must have about a fortnight's sedation. The night before the operation the woman concerned said to the surgeon, "I do some work for the B.B.C. Is there any risk of this affecting my voice?". He had to think quickly. She had to have the operation because there was no other known cure, and if he upset her she would have had to start the sedation all over again. He said, "No".
He had done about 150 such operations without trouble, but of course it would be this one that affected the vocal chords, and she said that she could no longer shout at her husband—but you could hear her speak quite well in the witness box. But from her point of view it was quite understandable, because either the doctor's advice in telling her that it could not affect her voice was negligent, or, if his advice was right, the operation was negligently done. Naturally, when the medical evidence was given—it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I remember, who tried the case with a jury—it was perfectly obvious that the doctors had been in no way at fault at all. The jury were out for three and a half hours; and I heard afterwards that eleven were agreed from the start, and the other was a woman who maintained that the doctors should have advised faith healing. because she was a great believer in faith healing. Faith healing had never been mentioned from the start of the case to the end. This is the sort of peril one is under.
Last year at the Central Criminal Court there were 51 disagreements. In
1570
five cases, when retried, there was a second disagreement. That shows that those five were the sort of cases where some people take one view and some another. In the remaining 46 retrials, 23 were unanimously convicted, and 23 unanimously acquitted. Of course, I think that judges, and some other people, if I may respectfully say this, tend to think that when there is disagreement you have about 10 or 11 jolly sensible people who want to convict and one or two idiots who want to acquit. But it is quite fair to suggest on those figures that your "crank" is just as likely to be a man who insists on convicting, when everyone else wants to acquit. So the damage that these very long trials, with one or two "cranks" on the jury, can do, and the amount which even in civil cases they can cost the parties, is enormous.
The second reason, and a more important one of course, is that referred to by Lord Willis, that we now have this highly organised form of crime. These men stop at nothing, including bribery and intimidation—and when I say "intimidation", from some cases it looks rather like torture. What my noble friend Lord Willis said was quite right.
It was, I suppose, about two years ago that a judge or two, and a barrister or two, started writing to me to say how shocked they were at the way in which juries, particularly at the Central Criminal Court, were being intimidated. The difficulty is that we cannot prove it. Somebody slides up to a juror (and it is usually the poorest juror) when he is in his front garden and says. "You are on that jury. There is £2,000 in it for you if there is no conviction—a thousand down and a thousand when it's over ". But of course he is only a "runner" and the juror does not know who the man is and he cannot be found.
In one case:
"On Monday afternoon the wife of one of the jurors came to the court in tears and the court officer, not unnaturally, asked her what the matter was. Eventually it all came out. Her husband, an Trish labourer, was followed home on the Friday night and offered £300 if he disagreed with the rest of the jury, and the alternative of a beating-up if he told the police about it. The juror knew the character of the man and had a pretty good idea what his friends were like, so he told his wife and decided to keep quiet about it. His wife had come down to look after him on his way home that evening."

1571
That man did in fact identify from a photograph the man who had approached him, but nothing would induce him to give evidence of it because he was so frightened. This is now the sort of situation into which we are getting.
Apart from cases in London, there have been cases in Glamorgan, Sheffield, Northampton, York and Buckinghamshire. I have details of other cases, in some of which there were repeated efforts. If a judge, having found that a juror had been approached, got rid of that juror or discharged the jury and started again, he found the same sort of thing happening with the new jurors. I hesitate to give details, because it would be difficult to do so without the cases being identified, and this itself might get somebody into trouble with a gang. This has become the sort of procedure, and in the nature of things one cannot get the evidence to prosecute because everybody is too frightened to give it. This seems to me to be serious.
Since I first considered this matter I have been strongly in favour of majority verdicts, certainly if it is 11 to 1 (which nobody seems to have considered much) and also, on the whole, if it is 10 to 2. It may be possible to "nobble" two people, but I should have thought that if one had to "nobble" three, it would, in practice, be a very difficult thing to do. I think this is the only real way to provide both against the crank and against this new form of part bribery and part intimidation.
I apologise to your Lordships for having taken so long. My right honourable friend, when he was introducing the Bill in the other place, said that there was behind it a desire to be
"… liberal and rational in its approach to the difficult and emotional questions of crime and punishment, while at the same time being directly relevant in all its approaches to the most menacing crime situation with which this country has recently been confronted.
"In seeking to achieve this twin purpose, I have tried to follow three main strands of policy. The first has been that of
1572
streamlining our criminal court procedure so as to enable all those concerned with law enforcement, and, certainly not least, the police, to operate within a less time-wasting framework.
"The second has been to give us a criminal law which is less concerned with observing"
the niceties
"and more concerned with arriving at the truth, both for the guilty and the innocent. The third has been so to modernise our penal system that it could better perform its triple rôle of deterrence, rehabilitation and effective custody."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), col. 53, 12/12/66.]
I believe that this Bill will achieve that object, and for that reason I know that your Lordships will, in fact supporting it in general, give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  HOUSE OF LORDS STAFF AND SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TAX
  HOUSE OF LORDS STAFF AND SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TAX