Sitting of 29 November 1967

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

    Protein Supply
    Dr. David Kerrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support he is giving to research into alternative sources of protein supply for animal and human consumption, respectively.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): Research into this subject is being carried on under the auspices of the Agricultural Research Council. My right hon. Friend has asked the Food Research Advisory Committee to consider whether further Government support for this kind of research is required.
    Dr. Kerr: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. However, would he not agree that one of the most grave shortages of any foodstuff in the world is that of protein food? May we have an assurance that research being conducted in this country has in mind the needs of overseas countries whose protein shortage is even more serious than ours is likely to be?
    Mr. Hoy: I give my hon. Friend and the House that assurance. A considerable amount of research is being done, not only by the Government, but under the auspices of private industry. We all have in mind the needs of overseas countries as well as our own.

    Bacon
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that home
    406
    production of bacon is fulfilling its allocation of the Bacon Sharing Agreement; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): Although home production of bacon is likely to fall short of our minimum allocation in 1967–68, it has shown a considerable increase in the last six months. Production in the July-September quarter was over 15 per cent. higher than in January-March.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Bearing in mind that last year bacon imports cost this country £123 million—64 per cent. of our consumption—would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the time has come to renegotiate the Bacon Sharing Agreement and to give more encouragement to home producers?
    Mr. Peart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bacon Sharing Agreement has been in existence for a long time, even before I was Minister. It is reviewed every year. I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I am looking at this matter carefully. I am glad to say that the latest figures show that the breeding herd in Great Britain at September, 1967, was 3 per cent. up.

    Agricultural Production (Expansion)
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate an inquiry into how the balance of payments position of this country could be strengthened by an expansion in British agriculture.
    Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said that we are reviewing the implications for agriculture of the new situation created by devaluation.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as long as he delays introducing measures and incentives to expand home production he is stifling one of the industries which can contribute most to this country's economic recovery?
    Mr. Peart: I am not attempting to stifle the industry. I have already made a public pronouncement about the effects of devaluation and I have paid tribute to the agriculture industry. In addition, I

    407
    have always defended the selective expansion programme and the rôle which home agriculture can play. In view of devaluation, I am looking at this matter carefully and having it re-examined.
    Mr. Mackintosh: When my right hon. Friend has completed his re-examination, will he either bring the Price Review forward or make an announcement so that farmers may alter their plans for the coming year to fulfil what the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires in the way of expansion?
    Mr. Peart: As my hon. Friend knows, I am examining this matter, and if I have to make an announcement I will do so. I recognise that there are certain commodities which need to be considered. There is no attempt at delay.
    Mr. Godber: We are all glad that the Minister is reviewing the matter, but would he agree that there is urgency about it because farmers' costs have increased and every hon. Member wants to see a real expansion in production and to give all the assistance we can to achieve it? Would the right hon. Gentleman make a statement as soon as possible?
    Mr. Peart: Certainly. I am glad that all hon. Members will assist me when I make a statement and will help to carry out the policy. I am most grateful.
    Mr. Tudor Watkins: Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the imports of mutton and lamb and try to bring about expansion, particularly as there is so much concern about this matter in view of the Common Market negotiations?
    Mr. Peart: I have said that I am looking at this matter, and I will make a statement as soon as possible. I cannot go further than that. I note what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Turton: Surely there is a special procedure laid down for occasions such as this—a special agricultural Price Review? Will not the Minister invoke this procedure instead of waiting for March when, by dillying and dallying, he will have lost a great opportunity for agriculture?
    Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that there are certain
    408
    things which I can do, but I want to look at this matter carefully. There is no reason why we should panic. Immediately devaluation was announced, I set in motion a careful examination which my officials are now carrying out. As soon as I decide the priorities, I will inform the House.
    Sir Frank Pearson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that, as far back as the much vaunted National Plan, the proposal was that agricultural production should increase substantially? This has not happened. Will he now accept that very urgent measures are necessary in the light of the present situation and see that this does happen?
    Mr. Peart: I am anxious that the industry should make its maximum contribution. This has been stressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and myself. I believe it can do so and I hope there will be no pessimism from any source.
    Mr. Henry Clark: Will the Minister search for different ways of making promises of expanded agriculture more credible to the industry than previous promises seem to have been?
    Mr. Peart: It is unfair of the hon. Member to say that. I have had discussions and am in close touch with the National Farmers' Union, which represents the industry. We work well together. I know the Union's views and I always take note of what its members say in relation to the expansion programme. Although we did not lay down specific commodity targets, the broad policy was accepted by the industry.

    Beef (Deficiency Payments)
    Mr. Hawkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the deficiency payments for beef during the current financial year.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his latest estimates of price support payments in 1967–68.
    Mr. Peart: The Winter Supplementary Estimates which will be published in the next few days will include some £18 million on account of the possible increase in the cost of price support in

    409
    the United Kingdom, of which £13½ million is for fat cattle. In accordance with normal practice this is about three quarters of the increase we think may be needed and is attributable in large part to changes made at the Annual Review.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does the Minister not realise that these high payments, even though they may be reduced temporarily because of the shortage of cattle through foot-and-mouth disease, will produce a demand for cuts in subsidies from townspeople? Will he at once start levies on imports, beginning with Argentine beef?
    Mr. Peart: I am rather surprised at the hon. Member suggesting that I should adopt immediately a levy system because that would mean the end of the subsidy system as we know it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] His hon. Friends take up the cry, "Cut the farmers' subsidies." This system is imperative to the guarantee. We emphasised that at the last Price Review and I believe we were right to do it.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Why did the Minister begin reconsideration only after devaluation? Was he deceived by the Prime Minister's assurances that there would not be devaluation? Why did he not make contingency plans against devaluation and bring in an immediate Review after them instead of waiting until after it had happened?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Member is out of touch with reality. When a decision was made I accepted collective responsibility and started my plans. Hon. Members must know full well that I could not inform many people about a major decision before embarking on this. I hope that the hon. Member will be realistic.
    Mr. Prior: Why is the Minister pouring such scorn on a levy system? Does he not realise that devaluation is tantamount to a 15 per cent. levy on all imports, except that we do not get the benefit from it?
    Mr. Peart: When the hon. Member says that I am pouring scorn on the system he should know that our system is working very well. Our agricultural support system, which we have built up on the 1947 and the 1957 Acts, is the
    410
    admiration of many countries in Europe. I do not want easily to destroy it for some false Conservative approach.

    Barley
    Mr. Hawkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the rise in barley production in France is having on exports of barley from this country and on prices in the market here.
    Mr. Hoy: As a result of higher production of barley on the Continent, including France, it had been expected that exports from the United Kingdom would be lower this season than last. It is not possible to isolate the effect of this on the home market price, nor to assess at present the effect of sterling devaluation on United Kingdom barley exports.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does the Minister not believe that this rise in production of barley abroad, coupled with low consumption at home because of foot-and-mouth disease, is due to lower profitability of livestock? Does he not think it will mean a sharp decrease in profits for the barley farmer? What is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Hoy: The hon. Member should not be so pessimistic. We do not underestimate the fall in the number of cattle as a result of this most unfortunate outbreak, but I do not think we should use that for this purpose. After all, the guarantee is there and I am certain that those who grow barley are appreciative of it.

    Farm Costs
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take immediate steps to relieve the pressure of increased costs on farmers' incomes.
    Mr. Monroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the rise in costs to agriculture in Great Britain since the 1967 Price Review, on the basis of a full year's figures.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now hold a special agricultural Price Review in order to secure a saving of £200 million this year on our balance

    411
    of payments account, and in order to compensate producers for their increased cost of production resulting from devaluation of the £ sterling.
    Mr. Peart: I cannot yet say what the total rise in costs will be in a full year. In particular, it is too early to assess what additional costs may arise from devaluation. In present circumstances, I do not consider a special Review would be justified, but the Government are considering the implications for agriculture of the new situation.
    Mr. Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that costs to farmers are increasing from every angle and that many of these costs are the direct result of this Government's measures? Will he not have a special Price Review, bring forward the Review so that these costs can be recouped immediately?
    Mr. Peart: I accept that costs have risen. I give one example, wage costs. This will have a major effect. These are matters which we shall have to consider in the Review. It is not yet possible to estimate any increases caused by devaluation.
    Mr. Monro: Will the Minister accept that the figure of rising costs is already at least £30 million this year? When considering the Price Review, can he not anticipate rises in wages so that farmers are not always a year behind?
    Mr. Peart: I will not commit myself to a figure. This is something we must discuss with the industry and it would be wrong to try to be precise. Anyone could make a guess and be right or not right, but I do not think it would be right for me to make a guess.
    Mr. Turton: If the Minister will not hold a special Review, is there not a danger that we shall not get the saving of £200 million on our balance of payments which is absolutely essential to this country? Will he not therefore initiate a policy of cutting down unnecessary food imports, starting with eggs and beef?
    Mr. Peart: I have said that we are looking at this whole question which arises from devaluation. We do not need a special Review for this. There are some commodities on which we can take
    412
    action without having any Review procedure. We are having discussions, but I am not going to be pushed into taking a panic measure.
    Mr. W. Baxter: Would it not be helpful if the Opposition would make clear whether they are in support of import control or of bringing forward the Price Review?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Both."]—I imagine that my right hon. Friend is entitled to know their views.
    Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend is quite right. We are not certain what the policy of the Opposition is. I am not certain whether they want import control, import substitution, or the direct agreements—which they signed, not I.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will my right hon. Friend enter discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to raising the ceiling on credit for farmers, particularly in Scotland, and easing the general situation of farmers' borrowing? This is something which must be undertaken for the Price Review whenever it is held.
    Mr. Peart: I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said, and I am sure the Secretary of State for Scotland will take note of his question and bear it in mind. This is a matter for discussion with the unions.
    Mr. Stodart: Is the Minister aware that, unhappily, he is sounding more casual than usual about this matter and that continually "giving consideration" is not enough in an urgent situation such as this? There has been a substantial and sudden change in costs. Will he start the Review machinery earlier?
    Mr. Peart: I have told the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, including the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Scottish Opposition, that I have acted already. Immediately devaluation was announced I got my own Ministry officials working on this, and we are having a precise examination of where we can best assist the industry in relation to specific commodities. I believe that that is the right course. I do not accept the view that we need the Review to be put forward or a special Review. I am certain that this is the view of sensible people in the industry.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the difficulties of the small tenant farmer, will the Minister consider getting in touch with the leaders of the Opposition to see if we can get agreed legislation to provide for a moratorium on rents?
    Mr. Peart: I think not.

    Milk
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed the details of the pool price dilution formula for milk; and if he will now announce it.
    Mr. Hoy: The Government have agreed with the Farmers' Unions the factors to be taken into account in the implementation of the milk price assurance given at the 1966 Review. This year's figures will be published in the 1968 An Dual Review White Paper.
    Mr. Mills: Yes, but does not the Minister realise that the farmers are very anxious to know exactly how this plan is going to work? Does the Minister realise, too, that if he wants calves he has got to have cows, and if he is to have cows he has got to have milk—[An HON. MEMBER: "And a bull."]—and if he is to have milk he has got to have money for it?
    Mr. Hoy: I must say that I left the bull to the hon. Gentleman who has not made a bad job of it. Of course farmers know what conditions there are. They have been worked out by the N.F.U. and the Government. There is an agreement, and indeed, the provisional estimate of the United Kingdom average producer price in 1967–68 is rather more than ¾d. more than last year. The indications are that the farmers' incomes are rising, and I am delighted to see it. We are disappointed with calf retentions. We have said this, and we hope they will improve, but on the whole it is not a bad story.
    Mr. Grant-Ferris: Would it not be a good thing if the hon. Gentleman were to impress upon his right hon. Friend that he ought to revise his plans altogether in view of the chronic stock shortage, which has become obvious and is likely to become more so before we have done with this scourge?
    Mr. Hoy: I take that into consideration, but the figures do not bear out
    414
    what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The figures are up considerably compared with 1964. Talking off the record, I think it is about 230,000 up—off the cuff, I should have said, but I think that hon. Gentleman will know that I mean. I do not have the figure with me, but I think that it is 230,000 up compared with 1964.
    Mr. Peart: A sluggish Opposition.
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he proposes to take in order to prevent the dilution of the producer price of milk by imports of dumped and subsidised milk products.
    Mr. Hoy: Producers' returns are maintained at their proper level through the mechanism of the guarantee, which is reviewed annually, in the light of all the relevant factors. This long-standing arrangement has stood the test of time. Any application for the imposition of anti-dumping duties should be made to the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Irvine: As the Minister has recently made arrangements for dealing with some of these imports, should not these arrangements be widely extended?
    Mr. Hoy: We certainly took action in one specific instance, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's thanks.
    Sir Frank Pearsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his present estimate of the average producer price for milk during the year 1967–68.
    Mr. Hoy: It is estimated that the United Kingdom average net producer price for milk in 1967–68 will be about 3s. 3½d. a gallon.
    Sir F. Pearson: Would the Minister agree that the low price attracted by manufactured milk is the bugbear of the milk price structure? In view of the need to expand production over all spheres, will the Minister consider having a new look at the whole principle of the standard price?
    Mr. Hoy: Quite obviously the amount that goes to manufacture has its effect, but about 90 per cent. of our total milk production is covered by the guaranteed price, and I repeat that the price this

    415
    year will be about ¾d. more than last year, because since June our forecast of milk production has gone up by a further 60 million gallons.

    Fatstock Producers (Abatements)
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to relieve the abatement suffered by fatstock producers prior to his announcement in July.
    Mr. Peart: In disbursing the expected final payment after the end of the fatstock year 1967–68 we propose to give priority to producers who suffered heavy abatements in the three weeks before my announcement in July, so as to put them on an equal footing with those who sold immediately afterwards when the abatement was limited to 6s.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: But would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the economic conditions of today it is lunacy to fine farmers for over-production when what we need is more domestic production?
    Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise the history of the scheme, and that it was introduced by my predecessor—
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In 1967?
    Mr. Peart: Not in 1967. The scheme was operative then. I took the action which I thought was right, and it was welcomed by the industry.

    Agriculture (Selective Expansion Programme)
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a progress report on the selective expansion programme for agriculture.
    Mr. Peart: We do of course look at progress under the selective expansion programme at the Annual Review; but we are now looking at the programme in the light of devaluation to see what agriculture might contribute.
    Sir G. Sinclair: But does not the Minister realise that Britain's most efficient industry, the farming industry, is straining at the leash to expand? What is his pro-
    416
    gramme for implementing the promise of the Prime Minister of a programme of expansion?
    Mr. Peart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not stopping the industry from expanding. In fact I believe that the industry is a very dynamic industry. We have given it tremendous support. I said, and I repeat, that we are looking precisely at the effects of devaluation, and when I am in a position to make a statement I will do so. But there is no attempt to restrict the industry.
    Mr. Mackintosh: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the farming industry appreciates the great opportunity it now has, and that there is no desperate need for an immediate announcement, but that mid-January would be the last date that an announcement should be made, and would my right hon. Friend accept that and say that it will come before then?
    Mr. Peart: I hope the hon. Member will not tie me to a date—[HON. MEMBERS "Oh."]—for making an announcement. It could come sooner. I will decide and nobody else.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Gauleiter Peart.
    Mr. Stodart: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that since he launched his selective expansion programme the production index of the agricultural industry has fallen steadily by one point each year?
    Mr. Peart: No. I cannot accept that. In view of the reactions of hon. and right hon. Members opposite I would ask, surely it is right that the Minister should make the decision when to make the announcement?
    Sir G. Nabarro: May I speak—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Withdraw."]—for the Worcestershire farmers? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reputation he is rapidly earning in Worcestershire is that of a person guilty of endless, windy, pious platitudes and no effective action to help our local farmers?
    Mr. Peart: I believe that that statement by the hon. Member represents his view, and his standing with the farming community is very slight.

    Calf Slaughterings
    Mr. Joplingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the increased level of calf slaughterings is in accordance with the selective expansion programme as outlined in the National Plan.
    Mr. Hoy: Many of the extra calves kept for rearing in 1964 and 1965, when slaughterings were almost halved, proved to be overcostly to fatten and made poor quality beef. A return this year to a more selective approach is not inconsistent with the declared objectives of the Plan.
    Mr. Jopling: In view of the high rate and cost of slaughtering this year would not a more honest answer to my Question have been "No"?
    Mr. Hoy: I do not understand the meaning of that supplementary question. I have already, in reply to an earlier Question, expressed my regret at the calf slaughtering. What is true is that the number of breeding cows is increasing in the dairy herd in England and Wales and in the bed herd in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I can now confirm the figure I gave off the cuff just now. In 1967 the herd was 230,000 more in the United Kingdom than it was in 1964.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Yes, but does not this increased slaughtering of calves suggest another aspect of the matter, that a lot of hon. Members in the House know that a great many calves are being produced under rather inhumane factory methods to provide delicacies for expensive hotels, and manufactured foods, and that many Members of this House have the strongest objection to those methods?
    Mr. Hoy: What I am interested in is that more calves are being retained. I think that this is the best way to make a contribution to our stock, and to the farming community.

    Statutory Bodies (Cost)
    Mr. Joplingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost to farmers of statutory bodies established since October, 1964.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): The direct charges on farmers by river authorities have averaged about £200,000 a year. The net cost to farmers of the Home Crown Cereals Authority averaged £140,000. Figures for levies on farmers by statutory bodies for 1967–68 are not yet available.
    Mr. Jopling: Would the Minister care to tell us how much the Training Board is likely to take from the industry as well? Would he not agree that it has been the cause of the farmers' lack of confidence more than any other one thing, and, bearing this in mind, would he try to recoup the farmers for that?
    Mr. Mackie: As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, it is very difficult to evaluate all the value to the agricultural industry of these various bodies which have been brought in in the last two or three years. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, as a farmer, the chaos there was in the commodity markets, meat and cereals in particular, so that we had to do something to get order in the marketing of these commodities.

    Horticulture (Fuel Oil Surcharge)
    Mr. R. W. Elliottasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional costs will fall on to horticulturists during the current financial year as a result of the surcharge on fuel oil.
    Mr. Alisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional costs will be incurred by the agricultural industry during the current financial year as a result of the surcharge on fuel oil.
    Mr. John Mackie: It is estimated that in the financial year ending 31st March, 1968, the 2d. per gallon surcharge on fuel oil may increase agricultural and horticultural costs by about £2½ million of which about £0·4 million relates to oil used for glasshouse heating.
    Mr. Elliott: Will the hon. Gentleman make quite sure that the officials in his Department looking into the effects of

    419
    devaluation on the agriculture industry alone will take into account the extra burden which the hard-pressed horticultural industry will experience through devaluation?
    Mr. Mackie: Yes.
    Mr. Ridley: Since not even this Government would suggest burning coal in agricultural tractors, why can they not remove the fuel oil tax altogether from agriculture?
    Mr. Mackie: Agriculture has to bear its fair share of any increases like these which, because of the Middle East situation, are almost unavoidable. For agriculture, they are taken into account in the Price Review.
    Mr. Godber: In that last Answer, is the hon. Gentleman telling us that horticulture will be reimbursed in the next Price Review?
    Mr. Mackie: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) asked me specifically about agriculture, and I replied about agriculture. If the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) is asking me about horticulture now, I am prepared to answer him. The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to what his hon. Friend asked me. There is the Horticulture Improvement Scheme to help the horticulture industry, and it is taking tremendous advantage of it to the tune of about £5½ million a year.

    Fertilisers
    Mr. Henry Clarkasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the extra cost to the agricultural industry of fertilisers during the current financial year as a result of a reduced rate of subsidy and an increase in manufacturers' prices; and what effect on the use of fertilisers by farmers he estimates this will have.
    Mr. John Mackie: The 6 per cent. increase in fertiliser prices last March and the reduction in subsidy rates from 1st June are estimated to add about £7½ million to farmers' fertiliser costs in the current financial year. The temporary surcharge on nitrogen could add a further £1½ million if it continues to the end of the financial year. Demand for fertilisers remains buoyant and these additions in
    420
    farmers' prices are not expected to have any appreciable effect on their use in the rest of the year.
    Mr. Clark: Even accepting that the Minister's very optimistic reply is correct, how does he tie that in with his right hon. Friend's statement that the Government are not stopping the expansion of agriculture?
    Mr. Mackie: I do not quite follow that supplementary question. I do not think that my right hon. Friend said that, in any case. As I say, the demand for fertilisers is buoyant. I do not want to weary the House with figures, but the demand is rising every year, apart from 1965–66. This year, the estimate is to the tune of 1,638,000 nutrient tons.
    Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Does that figure include horticultural production? If it does, would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, if the added cost is not recouped under existing procedures, that is an additional reason for aiding horticulture?
    Mr. Mackie: My reply to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) applies to this Question as well.

    Store Lambs
    Mr. Stodartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how prices of store lambs this autumn have compared with those a year ago.
    Mr. Hoy: The average prices of store lambs of both hill and other breeds were up to 8s. per head higher in September and October of this year than in the same months of 1966. Information on hill sheep sales in November is not yet complete, but the prices of lambs of other breeds have been running higher than last year by between 10s, and £1 per head.
    Mr. Stodart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is welcome news but that, last year, the sheep industry went into a very deep trough? The prices which he has mentioned are still below those of three years ago, while costs have been soaring. Will he take steps to reimburse this sector of the industry which perhaps has been harder hit than any other?
    Mr. Hoy: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman thinks my information is

    421
    welcome. However, even taking the year 1965 as a comparison, we are up to that level this year, which shows an even greater improvement. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned prices. He knows what was done in this year's annual Price Review to help this section of the industry, and we shall be looking at it again, together with other relevant factors, when the next Price Review takes place.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, while the average price may be up, in certain areas of Scotland the poorer quality lambs have not been so rewarded by higher prices? Will he consider what steps the Government can take to assist the fattening of lambs and substituting for the production of store lambs a rather more intensified form of fatstock production?
    Mr. Hoy: It is always the case, no matter what branch of industry one is in—agriculture or otherwise—that poorer qualities obviously fetch lower prices. I would remind my hon. Friend that the guaranteed price for fat sheep was increased by 1d. per lb., and that will have helped. If further assistance can be given, we will look at it.

    Republic of Ireland (Discussions)
    Mr. Stodartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the discussions which he has been having with the Minister of Agriculture in Eire.
    Mr. Peart: These discussions are still in progress and I cannot say anything about them at the moment.
    Mr. Stodart: Can the Minister say why these talks have had to be held at all, in view of the Prime Minister's assurance that the position of the British farmer would be in no way prejudiced by the Irish Trade Agreement—or is it that the right hon. Gentleman has found himself a victim of yet another misleading statement by his right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Peart: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman knows full well why I initiated talks. I was worried about the impact of Irish products on our market, and the lack of phasing. I felt that it was right that I should see also that the Irish Government did not put on an export subsidy, as they did last year. That is
    422
    why we have been having talks. I think that that is sensible.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Because of the present economic situation, has the right hon. Gentleman made any suggestion for a reduction in the £10 million which is annually borne by the United Kingdom taxpayer for the benefit of Eire agriculture?
    Mr. Peart: I do not think that we should cancel it. It is mutually advantageous to have the Agreement. It is good for our industry. We want Irish stores, and I have asked for them. I am glad to say that the figure has shown an improvement this year.

    Meat Imports
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much he estimates will be spent on imports of meat during 1967.
    Mr. Peart: I cannot predict the final cost but our imports of meat and meat preparations of all kinds from January to September cost £290 million. Of this total, imports of carcase meat and offal accounted for £132 million.
    Mr. Irvine: Particularly after devaluation, does the Minister not think that this is a staggering figure which ought to receive immediate attention?
    Mr. Peart: It is a large figure. It has always been part of our traditional food policy to import, as well as putting an emphasis on home production. There are some people who would wish us to stop all imports, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who are nodding their heads in agreement will answer this question: would they stop imports of meat from New Zealand?
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would the Minister consider whether it would not be advantageous now to import meat off the bone from a certain area where foot-and-mouth is endemic? It would save money and, if his advisers at Pirbright advocated it, it might afford some relief from the danger of foot-and-mouth.
    Mr. Peart: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a Question down on this subject. I hope that it will be reached. I should prefer to wait until it is reached before answering it.
    Mr. Hazell: In my right hon. Friend's Review of agricultural production, will he give added consideration to stimulating the production of home-produced meat?
    Mr. Peart: Of course, we did that in the last Review. We increased the guarantees. That was a declaration of our intention.

    Agricultural and Horticultural Holdings (Planning Permissions)
    Mr. Loveysasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now revise his present policy concerning support by his Department to planning applications on agricultural and horticultural holdings, so as to give a clear indication of support when he considers the proposals are of benefit to the industry.
    Mr. Peart: I believe that a change of policy is desirable. However this is a complex matter and my consultations are not yet complete. I share the desire of the hon. Member for an early solution.
    Mr. Loveys: I thank the Minister for once again expressing his concern about this matter. May I ask whether we can have something rather more definite, as many local farmers misunderstand the general position, which is being unhelpful to the agricultural industry?
    Mr. Peart: I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible, and inform him directly.
    Mr. Loveysasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that comments and advice given by his Department to local authorities concerning planning applications on agricultural and horticultural holdings are submitted by suitably qualified officers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Mackie: Yes, Sir. Advice to local planning authorities is given only by professionally qualified officers of the Agricultural Land Service.
    Mr. Loveys: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that specialist horticulturists are expressing concern about comments coming from the Agricultural Land Service, because they feel that the most qualified officers in the specialist field are the horticultural officers of the N.A.S.? Will the
    424
    hon. Gentleman give this special consideration?
    Mr. Mackie: I appreciate that it is very difficult for everybody to be specialists in all the details of horticulture, and we are looking at this, along with the other points mentioned by my right hon. Friend.

    Cereals (Import Costs)
    Mr. Kitsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much he estimates the imports of cereals will cost during 1967.
    Mr. Peart: About £200 million.
    Mr. Kitson: Will the Minister make a statement in the very near future in order to stimulate home production, bearing in mind that plans for sowing times have to be made very soon?
    Mr. Peart: I shall note that. It is one of the commodities which I had in mind when I replied to an earlier Question.

    Agricultural Wage Award
    Sir C. Mott-Radclyffeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional costs will be incurred by farmers during the current financial year as a result of the recent agricultural wage award.
    Mr. John Mackie: About £3 million in Great Britain.
    Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: As devaluation has produced a new situation, with a heavy increase in costs for all imported feedingstuffs and fertilisers, is not this another argument for trying to hasten the Price Review so that farmers can plan ahead with some confidence?
    Mr. Mackie: My right hon. Friend answered the point—[Hon. Members: "No."]—he may not have answered it to the satisfaction of some hon Gentlemen opposite, but he has answered the point about an additional Price Review. The £3 million is for a short period of the financial year. For a full year it will be much more. It will only affect next year.
    Mr. Hazell: As the new wage award does not become operative until February, 1968, will my hon. Friend give consideration to an earlier date being fixed for this award?

    Wheat
    Mr. Priorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect imports of soft wheat are having on prices of home-grown wheat.
    Mr. Hoy: It is impossible to isolate the effect of imports on domestic market prices, but before devaluation these were running at a generally lower level than last year.
    Mr. Prior: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there was more home production this year, and therefore we needed imports less? Apart from that, does not he think it is time that his right hon. Friend and he had a fresh look at agricultural policy, instead of coming to the House with the negative and complacent attitude which they have produced up to now?
    Mr. Hoy: I was interested to see the hon. Gentleman reading that supplementary question. Let me say in reply that our home crop is up by 400,000 tons. The hon. Gentleman will remember that at the last Annual Price Review we put the guaranteed price up by 10s. a ton. The farmer's protection is the minimum import price, and let the hon. Gentleman remember that even the E.E.C. took steps not to impair that.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, in regard to all his import policy, that he is serving the Ministry of food as well as agriculture, and will he bear in mind, too, the cost to housewives as well as the interests of farmers?
    Mr. Hoy: I have said this before in the House, that what we have to endeavour to do is to be fair to our home producers, and at the same time take steps to protect the housewife who is the purchaser of all these goods.
    Mr. Stodart: Is not the British producer of cereals the lowest cost producer in the world?
    Mr. Hoy: I am not arguing against that. What I said in reply to my hon. Friend was that when prices are being fixed it is the duty of this Ministry, whichever Government are in power, to look after the interests of both the producer and the consumer.

    Agricultural Workers
    Sir Frank Pearsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the annual decline in the numbers of agricultural workers is in accordance with the lines laid down in the National Plan.
    Mr. John Mackie: The outflow of workers varies from year to year.
    The National Plan indicated a fall in the labour force by 1970 of some 140,000, but no annual rate of outflow was given. The Agricultural Census shows a reduction between June, 1964, and June, 1967, of some 84,000 regular workers.
    Sir F. Pearson: Against the background of the Minister's acceptance of the need for increased agricultural production, may I ask whether he will now recognise that in many parts of the country there is an acute shortage of trained stockmen, and will he revise his previous policies and take steps to encourage the recruitment of such men?
    Mr. Mackie: Up to now, with a steady decrease in the labour force, we have had a steady increase in efficiency and production. We see no reason for this not to continue. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are areas of the country in which there is a scarcity of stockmen, but if he would like proof that labour can come out of agriculture he should look at page 37 and the photograph in last week's issue of The Farmer's Weekly.
    Mr. Mackintosh: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there are some parts of the country in which the run-out of labour in agriculture affects all sections of industry, and is extremely serious? Will he consider the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), about bringing forward the wages award so as immediately to encourage the retention of workers in this section of the industry?
    Mr. Mackie: I do not think that bringing forward the award would have any effect. I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, as I do with my hon. Friend, that there are areas in which labour may be scarce but I do not think that either the hon. Gentleman's or my hon. Friend's suggestion would make any difference in the meantime.

    Sugar Prices
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the prospects of an international agreement on sugar prices being reached; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peart: At its meeting earlier this month the International Sugar Council discussed the preparations being made by the Secretary General of UNCTAD for a negotiating Conference to be held next April. The Council welcomed this prospect
    "in view of the general belief that such a Conference now had a reasonable chance of success."
    I share that belief and welcome these developments.
    Mr. Farr: What it the attitude of the Common Market countries in this discussion? Is it true that by their uncooperative attitude they are proving to be the main stumbling block in reaching international agreement?
    Mr. Peart: It is not for me to answer for Common Market policy. I think that one must explore that further.

    Commonwealth Sugar Agreement
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the recent London talks on the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
    Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir. The talks ended last Wednesday. There are no changes in the price and quota arrangements for 1968. In view of our application to join the E.E.C. it was agreed not to discuss the question of extension.
    Mr. Farr: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but can he give the House an assurance that he has borne in mind the immense value of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement to many of the under-developed Commonwealth countries? Moreover, is he aware that the economies of many of these smaller nations are entirely dependent on their sugar crop?
    Mr. Peart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remark. I pay tribute to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. It gives long-term security to many parts
    428
    of the world where they have only monoculture and provides prosperity for their people. It is of great value.

    Farms (Amalgamation Grants)
    Mr. James Davidsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in the event of the occupiers of a large farm and of a non-commercial holding both wishing to purchase a non-commercial holding vacated by a third party who has obtained a grant or annuity under the terms of the Agriculture Act, both prospective buyers are given equal consideration for amalgamation grants.
    Mr. John Mackie: Whichever buyer the outgoer chooses will be eligible for the amalgamation grant provided the amalgamation meets the conditions of the scheme. The outgoer would not qualify for a grant or annuity until the approved amalgamation had been completed.
    Mr. Davidson: If it is the intention of the Government to create a larger number of viable commercial holdings should not preference be given to amalgamations which will create additional commercial holdings and not merely increase the size of farms which are already viable units?
    Mr. Mackie: The hon. Member has argued this with me very often on previous occasions. My reply is the same. It would do away with the voluntary nature of the scheme, and that we do not want to do.

    Farming and Forestry (Loans)
    Mr. James Davidsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider seeking to establish a Land Bank to give fixed-interest loans for both farming and forestry on the lines of the French Credit Agricole which lends at 3 per cent., details of which have been sent to him.
    Mr. Hoy: No, Sir. I do not think that an institution on these lines would be appropriate in view of our present arrangements for supporting and financing agriculture and forestry.
    Mr. Davidson: Are the Government aware that the present Bank Rate is a crippling burden on the agricultural

    429
    industry and that if the industry were permitted to invest a higher proportion of borrowed capital it would be able to reduce its liabilities more rapidly than it can at present?
    Mr. Hoy: Yes. We appreciate what the interest rates are, but the House as a whole will appreciate the arrangements that we have made through the agriculture corporations for the lending of money to British agriculture. Interest rates cannot be taken alone when considering the position of agriculture. We have also to consider the support price and guaranteed prices in our system.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why does my hon. Friend give such a conservative answer? Is not he aware that many farmers who have overdrafts at the bank complain bitterly about the high rate of interest? Does not he think that some new initiative would help to relieve them from the pressure of high interest rates?
    Mr. Hoy: Yes—and the Government have made provision in this respect. For certain lending institutions we provide a certain sum of money free of interest. As hon. Members opposite will remember, I had to defend this in Committee on the last Agriculture Bill.
    Mr. Godber: Will not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that if he is defending existing interest rates as being necessary for farmers it adds importance to the claims made to his right hon. Friend for an early decision on increased prices to help the farmers?
    Mr. Hoy: My right hon. Friend has never sought to deny what they were. He will also be aware that the Government guarantee money and provide money which keeps these long-term loans down to the lowest possible figure. I am not seeking to use this as an excuse, but many people in other industries would be grateful if they could get loans on the same terms as are granted to agriculture.

    Brucellosis (Accredited Herds) Scheme
    Mr. Kitsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress so far made on the brucellosis eradication scheme.
    Mr. Peart: Up to 20th November we received 7,850 applications for member-
    430
    ship of the Brucellosis (Accredited Herds) Scheme. Of these, 700 have been withdrawn: 6,400 preliminary visits have been made and 4,550 herds are in varying stages of their qualifying tests; and eight herds are now on the Register. I regret that while the epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease continues we cannot deal with new applications, and there will be delays in routine testing.
    Mr. Kitson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many farmers are very worried about the present scheme, in that infected cattle are being put into cattle markets, purchased and sent into brucella-free herds? When does he intend to start his eradication policy?
    Mr. Peart: This happened before, in T.T. days. I am anxious that we should get ahead with this. I pressed for it and made an announcement. I am having co-operation, but it is too early to give a full estimate of how the scheme is going. Applications representing just under 4 per cent. of the total number of herds have been received.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Minister aware that if only eight herds are free from brucellosis it is disgraceful at this stage? When will he tackle this problem vigorously, in the interests of the health of the British people? When will he do something about it?
    Mr. Peart: I do not think that, in the circumstances, progress is slow. I have made a start, which is more than my predecessors did.

    Agricultural Holdings
    Mr. Bodyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agricultural holdings are owned or administered by his Department; and how many of them have been separately visited by him in the last 12 months.
    Mr. Peart: 1,365 agricultural holdings are in my possession or administered by my Department. This includes 805 smallholdings managed by the L.S.A. on my behalf. I visited a number of the holdings on one of my estates last winter and my senior professional officers frequently visit Ministry properties on my behalf.
    Mr. Body: Is the Minister aware that that Answer is even worse than I expected? Does he realise that there are 271 agricultural holdings in the County of Holland and that he has still not visited any of them?
    Mr. Peart: I cannot see every holding in the country. I spend as much time as possible every weekend, travelling about the country and speaking to the farmers. I cannot do any more than I am doing.

    Smallholdings
    Mr. Bodyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he opposes tenants of his smallholdings acquiring a tenancy of a nearby smallholding owned privately or by a county council, although the two holdings together would make an economic farm.
    Mr. John Mackie: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Question of 3rd May list.—[Vol. 746, c. 63–4.]
    Mr. Body: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will cause no satisfaction to some of his tenants in the County of Holland who are trying to make a livelihood off 10 acres? Is not this one more reason why the Minister should visit the 271 tenants that he has in the County of Holland?
    Mr. Mackie: I have crossed swords with the hon. Member on this subject before. I am afraid that the answer is the same. The tenants sign an agreement not to take land from outside the estate. Our policy of amalgamations would be stultified if we were to allow this and I think that the hon. Member knows this only too well.

    Warble Fly
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made as to the number of cattle which receive treatment against infestation by warble fly.
    Mr. John Mackie: I cannot estimate the exact number, but a survey of over 15,000 herds made in 1966 showed that about 7 per cent. of them had been treated with systemic insecticides.
    Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the damage to hides caused by warble fly will the Minister consider a scheme under which
    432
    notification will be given to people who sell fat cattle, whether their hides were so infected after the animal was killed?
    Mr. Mackie: We are directing a lot of publicity to farmers. It would be administratively difficult to carry out the hon. Member's suggestion, but I will look into the matter.

    Rabbits
    Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on how many occasions in 1965, 1966 and 1967 he has prosecuted owners or occupiers of land for failing to abate an infestation of rabbits, authorised the exercise of his default powers of entry to carry out necessary rabbit clearance work, or issued formal warning letters to the owners and occupiers of rabbit-infested land;
    (2) whether, in view of the fact that it is possible for an offender to avoid conviction by taking only nominal remedial action, he is satisfied that his powers under the Agriculture Act, 1947 to protect farmland from infestation by rabbits are sufficient; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Mackie: During the years ended 30th September, 1965, 1966 and 1967 there were no prosecutions; in each of these years two entries were made in default and 33, 13 and 17 warning letters respectively were sent.
    I should, however, like to emphasise that this formal statutory action is taken only in those comparatively rare cases where persuasion fails.
    We do not agree that an occupier can circumvent the law as the hon. Member suggests; our present powers under the Agriculture Act, 1947, and the Pests Act, 1954, to see that rabbits are properly controlled are adequate.
    Mr. Hill: Can the Minister say how long the normal interval is between the first inspection by his officers and the exercise of default powers or prosecution, if there were a prosecution? Secondly, does not he agree that if this pest is to be kept under permanent control the ultimate sanction must be made more severe and effective than it is at the moment?
    Mr. Mackie: I cannot give the hon. Member exact figures at the moment but

    433
    I will look into the matter and let him have them. On the other point, we feel that rabbits had been kept fairly well under control with a voluntary scheme. The hon. Member's right hon. Friend is continually at me in other contexts for taking too many powers. I hope that the hon. Member will not ask for more powers than his right hon. Friend wants me not to have.

    Hill Farmers (Income)
    Mr. Monroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present level of income of hill farmers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peart: Hill farmers' returns will benefit this year from the increases in the hill cow, hill sheep and calf subsidies at the last Annual Review and the stronger store markets. We shall, of course, be considering farmers' incomes soon in the context of the Annual Review, together with all other relevant factors.
    Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in an earlier reply the indication was that the underlying trend of incomes for hill farms was static and that costs were rising? What is the right hon Gentleman going to do about it?
    Mr. Peart: As the hon. Member knows, this is a matter for the Review.
    Mr. Hooson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that small hill farmers in areas adjacent to parts of the country affected by foot-and-mouth disease have had to bear heavy additional costs this year because they have had to retain their store cattle and store lambs, and to buy fodder?
    Mr. Peart: This question of cost is a factor that we have to bear in mind.
    Mr. Godber: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his answer to this Question, like his answer to some earlier ones, adds to the need for an early statement that we shall recoup farmers for these costs? Will he give an answer which will show that he realises the need—as expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House—for an early statement?
    Mr. Peart: I said that I will make a statement as early as possible. These are matters for Review procedure and discussion with the unions.
    Rear Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the right hon. Gentleman assist hill farmers and all other farmers by cancelling forthwith the importation of beef from the Argentine?
    Mr. Peart: That has nothing to do with this Question about hill farmers.
    Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on these benches and many farmers in East Yorkshire take exception to the way in which the Opposition wish to involve him at this stage in some ill-thought and unpremeditated action?
    Mr. Peart indicated assent.

SOUTH ARABIA
The following Written Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. JAMES JOHNSON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on South Arabia.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to Question No. 89 on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson).
I informed the House on 14th November that Her Majesty's Government had decided that South Arabia should become independent and that the withdrawal of our forces would be completed by 30th November—
Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Question No. 89 is to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman should have said that he was answering Written Question No. 89.
Mr. Brown: As I carefully said, Mr. Speaker, I am answering Question No. 89 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson). If I had not made this statement orally

435
today, the House and my hon. Friend would have thought that they had a quarrel with me. Therefore, I deliberately chose to do what I thought was the desire of the House, to make the statement orally and not simply by means of Written Answer.
I informed the House on 14th November that Her Majesty's Government had decided that South Arabia should become independent and that the withdrawal of our forces would be completed by 30th November.
I am now glad to tell the House that the withdrawal of British forces was successfully completed at noon today and that South Arabia will become independent at midnight local time, that is, 9 p.m. our time, tonight. An Order-in-Council providing for the relinquishment of Her Majesty's sovereignty in South Arabia was made yesterday.
The House will be aware that negotiations began in Geneva on 21st November between a British delegation led by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Shackleton and a delegation from the National Liberation Front led by Mr. Qahtan al Shaabi. I am glad to say that agreement on many of the points which have been discussed was reached this morning. A joint communiqué has been issued and I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library.
The talks were adjourned to allow the National Liberation Front delegates to return to Aden for Independence Day, and they will be resumed shortly.
As the communiqué indicates, the discussions in Geneva have covered a wide range of subjects, including the transfer of power and the questions of civil and military aid. On the latter point, as the communiqué says, we have agreed to continue aid at the existing levels for the next six months, while negotiations continue.
As regards the islands, the wishes of the inhabitants have been ascertained and decisions as to their future have been taken by us. These decisions entail further discussions with the South Arabian authorities and in that situation I hope that the House will agree that the best course would be to defer an announcement on this subject for a few days.
436
The representatives of the National Liberation Front naturally regard the formation of a Government as one of the first tasks to be undertaken on their return to Aden. I am not, however, at this stage in a position to give the House any indication of the form which these representatives think the new Government will take.
I am sure that the House will join me, on the eve of the new State's independence, in wishing it every success, and will be glad to note that it has been agreed to establish diplomatic relations between us and to exchange ambassadors. The talks in Geneva have been conducted in a good atmosphere, and I have every hope that we will have the best possible relationship with the independent State, which is to take the name of the People's Republic of Southern Yemen.
I am sure the House would wish me to pay tribute to the devotion and courage of all those officials and civilians who, over many years and in the face of increasing difficulties, have sought to prepare South Arabia for independence. The Armed Forces, under the distinguished leadership of Admiral Sir Michael Le Fanu, deserve special recognition for the skill and forebearance with which they have carried out their exceedingly difficult task. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Finally, I am sure that the House will acknowledge the special contribution of Sir Humphrey Trevelyan, who is returning to London this afternoon on relinquishing his post as High Commissioner. He willingly put his experience and his special skills at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government at a critical time in the Middle East and in South Arabia particularly. The safe and peaceful withdrawal of the last of our forces in recent weeks is due in large part to the confidence between Briton and Arab, which has been built up so patiently out of suspicion and strife.
Mr. Johnson: We note that discussion on some subjects, particularly financial aid, will be resumed after independence, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the keen satisfaction of hon. Members on these benches that we have now completed the disciplined withdrawal of our forces, and about the establishment of good relations with the people who are

437
now to form the future Government of the People's Republic of Southern Yemen? Will the financial aid, whatever it may be in future, phase out over a period to ensure at least some stability in the new State?
Mr. Brown: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for the preamble to his question. As I have said, we realise that the new Government must be allowed and enabled to get themselves into the saddle. That is why we will continue aid at, I repeat, the existing levels for the next six months. During that period, while negotiations are being resumed, we will consider what the situation ought to be after that.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the whole House will be glad that the evacuation process has been completed without loss? Sir Humphrey Trevelyan has carried out, with his usual distinction, a most disagreeable task, as have the Command and the troops. Questions inevitably arise on these matters which would be better debated later.
Of course, the new State is not entitled to a continuance of aid, but it is difficult to contest the right hon. Gentleman's desire to avoid chaos in the next few weeks. However, will he keep this aid under strict review and see that there is some return for the aid in respect of the treatment, in particular, of British nationals?
My last question is about the Federal rulers, about whom I think that the right hon. Gentleman will have something to say.
Mr. Brown: I am obliged. On aid, I am clear that it must be carried over for a period, and I thought that six months was a reasonable period during which negotiations could take place. The right hon. Gentleman will know at least as well as I do that we have considerable commercial interests there which earn us a good deal of foreign exchange. It could not possibly be in our interests—quite apart from anyone else's—that chaos should ensue if it can be avoided.
We have received assurances from the N.L.F. delegates about British nationals and we shall, of course, watch how they are carried out. We are leaving behind an embassy under a chargé d' affaires and we shall also keep part at any rate of the naval task force in the area for a
438
time. Of course, these things will all be carefully watched. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, only a few of the Federalis are detained. We have raised this matter repeatedly and I have grounds for hoping that even they will shortly be released, though the right hon. Gentleman may be assured that we will keep this in the negotiations which will be resumed shortly.
Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware, first, that the payment of protection money rarely buys protection? Secondly, which of the six principles which are necessary to our recognition of Rhodesia have been applied to Aden?
Mr. Brown: I do not understand the relevance of the latter point, but I will tell my hon. and learned Friend and his hon. Friends on the other side of the House that one straight principle that we bear in mind is the right of self-determination—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—and the ending of colonial rule, and we have applied this in Aden.
As to the first part of the question, there is no question of protection money here. I repeat that no more is being paid than we were already committed to pay, and I am continuing it for six months while we see how the negotiations go.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the outgoing Government had undertaken certain international agreements, notably the freedom of passage through the Straits of Perim. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the new Government have accepted those international obligations and will observe them?
Mr. Brown: There is as yet no new Government, but the delegation from the N.L.F., in the course of discussions in Geneva, as the communiqué shows, had agreed to accept the international obligations which we have extended to Aden, and one of those is the Geneva Convention which seeks to ensure free passage through international waterways. One of these is the waterway of the Straits of Perim.
Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we on this side of the House, with one or two ludicrous exceptions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—have great admiration for the skill and incisiveness with which he has managed the transfer of power in South Arabia—[HON.

439
MEMBERS: "Oh."]—a very skilful job extremely well managed?
Mr. Brown: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. May I say to the House, and to those who find this a matter of humour and frivolity, that some of us, not only on this side of the House—
Mr. Goodhew: Humbug.
Mr. Brown:—but also on the Front Bench opposite, know the great anxiety that we have been through during the last few days, and I would beg the House to conduct itself in accordance with our traditions.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What arrangements have been made to offer evacuation to those Aden nationals who fear for their safety because of their service to the British régime—for example, in the police and the Civil Service?
Mr. Brown: We cannot undertake unlimited commitments to other people, but we have certainly ensured that all the British civilians and all the expatriates from other countries knew that evacution was available for them if they wanted to take advantage of it, and that the decision to stay was theirs and theirs alone.
I am very happy to say that the atmosphere in Aden now is far better than any of us could have expected a short while ago. The morale of everybody there is pretty high, and I beg the House to keep it that way and not try to spoil it.
Mr. Colin Jackson: Bearing in mind the limited task force which is to remain behind, can my right hon. Friend say what he considers the position to be now in the Yemen? Does he think that the Egyptian troops, for example, are continuing to withdraw?
Mr. Brown: I have no doubt at all that the Egyptian withdrawal from the Yemen has not only gone so far, but will very shortly be completed.
Mr. James Davidson: May I add a tribute from the Liberal bench to those already paid by the Foreign Secretary? May I also ask to whom and in what manner was responsibility for control actually transferred? What safeguards are there for the future of the political and racial minorities in the area?
Mr. Brown: Until there is a new Government there is no Government to whom control can be passed. This is one of the complications of this moment. But we have had these discussions with the N.L.F. delegates. We have got the agreement with the N.L.F. delegates and they have now returned to Aden. As I said in my statement, they will, no doubt, shortly form a Government to whom control will pass and with whom our relations will then be assumed.
The question of the minorities in Aden and in South Arabia has been discussed with the N.L.F. delegates and we have received assurances from them about their intentions to honour our approach to the question.
Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: My right hon. Friend has repeatedly stressed the desire of the British Government to associate the United Nations with the settlement in South Arabia. Can he say what has been done in that respect?
Mr. Brown: In the end and in the ultimate the solution of this problem has been worked out between us and the N.L.F. delegates, but we have kept the United Nations fully informed at every stage. The United Nations Mission has not in the ultimate played the part that some people hoped it would have done earlier, but this has very much changed in the last few months. We have, as I said, kept the U.N. fully in touch with the situation.
Sir S. Summers: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this House is in need of a lecture on decorum, will he arrange for another Minister to give it?
Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, but I could not possibly arrange for a member of the Opposition to give it, could I?
Mr. Whitaker: While accepting the sincere congratulations of us on this side of the House for his historic extrication of this country from an untenable position, will my right hon. Friend make absolutely sure in the future that we never face such a predicament in the Persian Gulf?
Mr. Brown: I suggest that we do not link too many things together here. There is a situation in Aden. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a very great relief

441
to have been able to extricate ourselves in this w ay from that situation.
On the question of the Gulf and our commitments there, our intentions are a very different matter altogether, but we shall do our duty there as, of course, we are committed to do.
Lieut.-Commander Maydon: In defining the principles of self-determination, how much weight do Her Majesty's Government give to the incidence of terrorism in a case like this? Furthermore, could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much in total the civil and military aid is likely to amount to over the next six months?
Mr. Brown: May I remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that Government after Government—Conservative, Liberal and Labour—have found it necessary to come to terms with people who were previously called terrorists—like, for example, Cyprus, Ireland and many places? it does not do any good when one has come to terms with it to hark back to the past and use these phrases. I would remind the hon and gallant Gentleman that the distinguished President of Kenya, for example, was referred to in very different terms some time ago from the terms which are applied to him now. One must deal with the situation as it now is, and with the Government that can come to power.
I repeat that aid is continuing at present levels, and at present levels it may total over that period something like £9 million, plus, I think, the £3 million to which we are already committed anyway.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. David Steel.

SCOTLAND (FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE)
Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now give clear guidance to the local authorities in the Border counties as to the steps which they should be taking to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease into Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The veterinary advice given to my right hon. Friend the Minister
442
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who is responsible for operational control measures against foot and mouth throughput Great Britain, is that, while the initiatives taken in this matter by local authorities and others are to be welcomed, there are, in fact, few steps open to them that can add materially to the protection provided by the widespread control measures put into operation by my right hon. Friend.
I should, however, like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the various voluntary measures taken by public and private bodies throughout Scotland in restricting movements and activities involving contact with livestock.
Mr. Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am grateful to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for seeing me so quickly about this problem yesterday? Is he aware, however, that different policies are being pursued by different counties along the Border? Should not disinfectant splashes be set up on all roads into Scotland and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that the cost involved in doing this does not fall on the ratepayers of these counties?
Mr. Ross: If I thought that it was necessary to give that advice, it would be given, but I do not believe that it is essential at the moment. While appreciating the concern which everyone feels about this, I would be reluctant to dissuade anybody from taking action that might be helpful. Naturally, the action that is taken varies according to where it is taken. If disinfectant splashes are established at, for example, individual farm entrances, that is of far more value than establishing them on busy roads.
Mr. Noble: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep the situation under very careful observation with his right hon. Friend who, I know, has operational control in this matter? I say that because it appears odd to Scottish farmers that disinfectant straw mats are being laid across bridges over the Thames while no similar effort is being made in Scotland.
As soon as the right hon. Gentleman feels that something useful can be done, will he take the necessary steps and make certain that all local authorities cooperate with his staff to achieve the maximum security along the Border?
Mr. Ross: This Question arises because of the contact that has existed between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's veterinary officials, local authorities and local farming interests. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am in very close contact at all times with my right hon. Friend about this matter. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not unaware of the stringency of control already applying in Scotland; the control area machinery and the fact that there is no movement of livestock either way between England and Scotland.
Mr. Rankin: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Irish Governments, both North and South, have decided to seal off Ireland in the interests of safety, although Ireland has the safeguard of the water that surrounds her shores? Is he satisfied that, because of Scotland's contiguity with England, similar steps might not be advantageous to the farmers and people of Scotland?
Mr. Ross: I am satisfied at the moment by what is being done in concentrating on the areas which have been so disastrously affected and to ensure that there is control and isolation there. I am also satisfied, in addition to the steps that have been taken in those areas, that steps are being taken in Scotland and on the Borders—indeed, in all contiguous areas—to limit movement.
Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the precautions being taken by Dumfries County Council on the Border are being taken entirely at the council's own initiative and that they are costing about £300 a week to run? Will the Secretary of State pay for this?
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman knows that my generosity towards Scottish local authorities is such that I am prepared to consider anything. This and other authorities will not, I am sure, be unwilling to approach the Secretary of State for help, either directly or through the rate support grant.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: What are the latest figures of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth in Scotland?
Mr. Ross: We hope to keep the figures as they are; none at all.
Mr. Baker: Would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House on two points: first, of the efficiency of the germicides and viricides that are available; and, secondly, that adequate stocks of these exist should it be necessary to use them on a widespread scale in Scotland.
Mr. Ross: Yes, if the occasion should arise—but we must concentrate our resources at present on the affected areas and where the danger lies. The danger comes from these areas. This, in the long run, will be to the benefit of Scotland.
Mr. J. T. Price: Will the Secretary of State convey to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the deep admiration which many of us, certainly on this side of the House, feel for him and his Department for the great fortitude and industry with which they have coped with this grave epidemic? We also wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the way in which he has resisted some of the hysterical appeals made to him to take panic measures at a time when the Ministry has proved beyond doubt that, coupled with the tactical efforts of his veterinary staff and the veterinary profession generally, everything possible has been done to allay the fears that still rest in the minds of many farmers?
Mr. Ross: I am sure that my hon. Friend was expressing the true feelings of the House for the efforts of my right hon. Friend and his staff. Some of the pressures put on him were a bit unfair; for example, it was suggested that he should have been visiting some smallholdings at this time.
Mr. Brewis: At this time of year, when there is usually a good deal of movement of stock in Scotland between farms, what advice is the Secretary of State giving to farmers about whether these moves should take place? Will he also give guidance about the holding of public functions like young farmers' club meetings?
Mr. Ross: If anybody is in doubt on this issue, he should get in touch with the veterinary services. This applies to both movements and gatherings. I welcome the voluntary efforts that have been made to restrict these movements. As

445
the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, the movement of stock is subject to licence, in any case. Each application is considered on its merits, and although there have been suggestions about certain hardships being caused by the complete barrier that exists between Scotland and England, these must be accepted in the present situation.
Mr. James Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to my information, there is still some movement of horses and ponies between prohibited areas in England and areas so far free of foot-and-mouth in Scotland? What steps does he intend to take to try to prevent this movement?
Mr. Ross: The first thing is to get the information about it.
Earl of Dalkeith: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only the movement of livestock that causes anxiety to farmers in Scotland, but the movement of lorries and other vehicles from the South into Scotland? In view of the layout of the Scottish Border, would it not be sensible now to have certain control points on the Border with disinfectant pads and mats?
Mr. Ross: I have already said that the real danger points are at the farm roads. I am satisfied that the farmers themselves are taking certain steps. I do not want to spread or waste our efforts by taking measures which might be quite unnecessary.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

SCOTLAND (FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE)
  BILL PRESENTED
    EDUCATION
    Bill to amend the law as to the effect of and procedure for making changes in the character, size or situation of county schools or voluntary schools and to make certain other amendments as to the approval or provision of school premises; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Gordon Walker; supported by Mr. Stewart, Miss Alice Bacon, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Harold Lever; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 14.]
  PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS
    MAINTENANCE ORDERS
    Bill to amend the enactments relating to matrimonial, guardianship and affiliation proceedings so far as they limit the weekly rate of the maintenance payments which may be ordered by magistrates' courts, presented by Mr. Quintin Hogg; supported by Mr. Charles Pannell, Dame Joan Vickers, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. Leo Abse, Mr. R. Gresham Cooke, and Mr. Anthony Grant; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th December, and to be printed. [Bill 15.]
  ADOPTION
  Bill to make provision for extending the powers of courts in the United Kingdom with respect to the adoption of children; for enabling effect to be given in the United Kingdom to adoptions effected in other countries and to determinations of authorities in other countries with respect to adoptions; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Walter Alldritt; supported by Mrs. Braddock, Mr. Richard Crawshaw, Mr. James A. Dunn, Mr. van Straubenzee, Mr. Eric Ogden, Mr. Simon Mahon, Mr. Gordon Oakes, and Mr. Tim Fortescue; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd February, and to be printed. [Bill 16.]
  NATIONAL LOTTERY
  Bill to authorise the creation of a National Lottery Board; to empower and require the Board to organise and operate a lottery scheme and to make grants in aid of charitable organisations, medical research and other social and welfare purposes; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. James Tinn; supported by Mr. R. Graham Page, Mr. Walter Alldritt, Mr. Bernard Conlan, and Mr. Ted Leadbitter; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd February, and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

  DIVORCE REFORM
  Bill to amend the grounds for divorce and judicial separation; to facilitate reconciliation in matrimonial causes; and for purposes connected with the matters

  447
  aforesaid, presented by Mr. William Wilson; supported by Mr. Leo Abse, Sir George Sinclair, Dame Joan Vickers, Mrs. Lena Jeger, Mr. John Parker, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Peter M. Jackson, Dr. David Kerr, Mr. Anthony Royle, and Mr. Ian Gilmour; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th February, and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (FURTHER PROVISIONS)
  Bill to make provision for the payment of pensions out of the National Insurance Fund for certain classes of person not eligible for pensions under the National Insurance Act 1946, presented by Mr. Terence L. Higgins; supported by Mr. Airey Neave, Dame Irene Ward, Sir John Vaughan-Morgan, Mr. Turton, Miss Harvie Anderson, Mr. Maurice Macmillan, Mr. W. H. Loveys, Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. David Mitchell, and Mr. Richard Sharples; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 16th February, and to be printed. [Bill 19.]
  CARAVAN SITES
  Bill to restrict the eviction from caravan sites of occupiers of caravans and make other provision for the benefit of such occupiers; to secure the establishment of such sites by local authorities for the use of gipsies and other persons of nomadic habit, and control in certain areas the unauthorised occupation of land by such persons; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Eric Lubbock; read the First time: to be read a Second time upon Friday, 1st March, and to be printed. [Bill 20.]
  PUBLIC SERVICE AND ARMED FORCES PENSIONS REVIEW
  Bill to provide for regular reviews of public service and armed forces pensions in order to ensure that they rise with the cost of living, presented by Mr. Frank Taylor; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 26th January, and to be printed. [Bill 21.]
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GOODS AND SERVICES)
  Bill to make provision with respect to the supply of goods and services by local authorities to certain public bodies, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Hilton; supported by Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. Archie Manuel, Mr. W. T. Williams, Mr. William Hamling, Mr. Arnold Shaw, and Mr. Robert Maxwell; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 15th December, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]
  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS
  Bill to make, in place of certain statutory provisions relating to Sunday observance and the playing of games, provision, in relation to Sunday, for preventing, in the case of certain spectacles taking place during certain hours, payments being made by members of the public for the privilege of watching them and, in the case of public dancing so taking place, payments being made by members of the public for the privilege of participating therein; to exclude certain acts from the scope of the Sunday Observance Act 1677; and to make provision for, and in connection with, the winding up of the Cinematograph Fund, presented by Mr. William Hamling; supported by Mr. John Parker, Mr. Ian Gilmour, Mr. David Ensor, Mrs. Renee Short, and Mr. William Hamilton; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th December, and to be printed. [Bill 23.]
  THEATRES
  Bill to abolish censorship of the theatre and to amend the law in respect of theatres and theatrical performances, presented by Mr. G. R. Strauss; supported by Sir David Renton, Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. William Wilson, Mr. Andrew Faulds, Mr. Michael Foot, and Mr. Hugh Jenkins; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd February, and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

  DOMESTIC AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS (RESTRICTION OF PUBLICITY)
  Bill to make further provision for enabling Courts to sit in private and for preventing or restricting publicity for

  449
  certain proceedings, presented by Sir Lionel Heald; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 15th December, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (SCOTLAND)
  Bill to enable constables in Scotland to detain and search persons suspected of having offensive weapons with them in public places without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, presented by Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith; supported by Mr. Norman Wylie, Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith, Mr. Edward M. Taylor, Mr. Esmond Wright, Mr. Anthony Stodart, Miss Harvie Anderson, Mr. George Younger, Mr. Hector Monro, Mr. Gordon Campbell, Mr. John Brewis, and Mr. Baker; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 26th January, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]
  CLEAN AIR
  Bill to make further provision for abating the pollution of the air, presented by Mr. Robert Maxwell; supported by Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes, Mr. Dan Jones, Mr. Leslie Huckfield, Sir Gerald Nabarro, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. William Deedes, and Mr. Duncan Sandys; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd February, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]
  LIVE HARE COURSING (ABOLITION)
  Bill to abolish live hare coursing, presented by Mr. Eric S. Heffer; supported by Mr. Rafton Pounder, Mr. William Price, Dr. Winstanley, Mr. Victor Yates, Miss Joan Lestor, Captain Henry Kerby, Mr. Peter Bessell, Mr. David Ensor, Mr. John Ellis, and Mr. Kevin McNamara; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 15th December, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' MUTUAL INVESTMENT TRUST
  Bill to extend the scope of the powers of investment made collectively by local authorities through the Local Authorities' Mutual Investment Trust, presented by Mr. Stanley Henig; supported by Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. Tom Bradley, Mr. Bob Brown, Mr. Charles Fletcher
  450
  Cooke, Mr. Arthur Jones, Mr. Richard Mitchell, Mr. James Wellbeloved, and Mr. Peter Mills; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 26th January, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to confer certain rights upon parish councils in connection with applications for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Acts; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison; supported by Mr. James Ramsden, Mr. Antony Buck, Mr. Prior, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Sir Frank Pearson, and Mr. Francis Noel-Baker; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 1st March, and to be printed. [Bill 31.]
  SHOPS
  Bill to repeal certain sections of the Shops Act 1950 and to limit the hours of work of shop assistants and others, presented by Mr. Nicholas Scott; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 26th January, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]
  FRIENDLY AND INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES
  Bill to make further provision with respect to the accounts of friendly societies and industrial and provident societies and the auditing of those accounts, and with respect to the rules and valuations of friendly societies, presented by Mr. Paget; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th December, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

  AIRCRAFT NOISE
  Bill to restrain nuisance by aircraft noise; to restore freedom to pursue actions against aircraft owners and operators for nuisance by noise and vibration; to empower the President of the Board of Trade more effectively to limit and restrain aircraft noise to empower the Parliamentary Commissioner to inquire into and report on all such questions; and for purposes connected

  451
  therewith, presented by Mr. James Johnson; supported by Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Mr. George Jeger, Mr. Frederick Willey, Mr. S. C. Silkin, Mr. Russell Kerr, Mr. John Ryan, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, and Miss Joan Lestor; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 15th December, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

  AUTHORISED SWEEPSTAKES
  Bill to authorise sweepstakes by the persons, on the terms and for the purposes hereinafter prescribed, presented by Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby; supported by Mr. Ian Percival, Mr. Ian Lloyd, Mr. R. Graham Page, and Miss Quennell; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th February, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]
  EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT)
  Bill to make further provision with respect to the liability of an employer for injury to his employee attributable to any defect in equipment provided by or by arrangement with the employer for the purposes of the employer's business; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, presented by Mr. John Cronin; supported by Mr. Leo Abse, Mr. Sydney Silverman, and Dr. David Owen; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 1st March, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]
  ROAD SAFETY ACT 1967 (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend certain provisions of the Road Safety Act 1967 relating to breath tests and disqualification from driving, presented by Mr. Marcus Kimball; supported by Mr. Timothy Kitson, Mr. Anthony Boyle, Mr. John Osborn, Sir Frank Pearson, Mr. Anthony Berry, Mr. John Smith, Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Ian Lloyd, and Mr. Peter Crowder; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 16th February, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (DECEASED TENANTS)
  Bill to make further provision with respect to the tenure of agricultural holdings by extending in appropriate cases the tenancy of an agricultural holding where the original tenant had died; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Roy Hughes on behalf of Mr. Elystan Morgan; supported by Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. William Edwards, read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 1st March, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]
  WILD PLANTS PROTECTION
  Bill to protect wild plants and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Peter Mills; supported by Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. Timothy Kitson, Mr. James Ramsden, Mr. Marcus Kimball, and Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd February, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949 (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1949 by extending the franchise to all persons of eighteen years or over, presented by Mr. Donald Anderson; supported by Mr. William Hamling, Mr. Stanley Henig, and Mr. Eric S. Heffer, read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 1st March, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]
  TRAVEL CONCESSIONS
  Bill to remove certain restrictions on the power of local authorities to make arrangements for the granting of travel concessions, and to enable road passenger transport undertakings to make such arrangements, presented by Mr. Bob Brown; supported by Mr. Albert Booth, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Alan Lee Williams, Dr. Ernest Davies, Mr. Trevor Park, Mr. William Price, Mr. Leslie Huckfield, and Mr. Arthur Davidson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th February, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]
  4.3 p.m.
  Lord Balniel: I do not wish unduly to detain the Committee, Sir Eric, but may I raise a point of order which I think is of importance to the rights of back benchers and of the Opposition especially in connection with the Committee stage of the Bill?
  For reasons which we understand, the Committee stage has been substantially delayed. On 16th November we were told by the Leader of the House—as he is not present I hasten to say that I make no criticism of him—that the reason was:
  "I gather that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security has some late Amendments and that it would be for the convenience of the House to see them in due time to debate them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 638.]
  'The Committee stage was subsequently further postponed, and I asked the Leader of the House on 20th November:
  "Are we to understand that the Amendments are drafting Amendments or are connected with the economic situation?"
  The Leader of the House replied:
  "I think that the second assumption would be correct."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 953.]
  No Amendments by the Government have been put on the Notice Paper, nor has any statement been made by the Minister of Social Security, as we were led to believe would happen. That is a matter which lies in the Government's discretion. But earlier this week my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) asked what had happened to the Amendments which we had been led to believe were to be tabled. The Minister replied:
  "He will get a full explanation when we discuss the Bill on Wednesday."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 33.]
  The Chief Whip of the Liberal Party also asked whether we would get an explanation from the Government of the consequences of their devaluation measures
  454
  on the Bill, and again the Minister asked us to await the debate on Wednesday.
  My point of order is that I understand that in Committee we debate the very narrowly defined Amendments and also the Questions, That Clauses stand part. I understand that on neither of those occasions is it possible for the Minister to make a full explanation. On Third Reading, also, we can discuss only matters which are contained in the Bill, and I therefore ask you, Sir Eric, how it is possible for the Minister to implement the undertakings which were given earlier this week?
  The Minister of Social Security (Mrs. Judith Hart): Further to that point of order. I should be very happy—indeed, I am anxious—to explain, as I promised, why there are no Government Amendments. Some procedural difficulties are presented, as the noble Lord recognised. It might well be held that an explanation of this kind might be relevant to our discussions, particularly on the first two Amendments. It might equally he held that it might be relevant to our discussion either on the Question, That Clause 1 stand part, or on the Third Reading. Those all seem to me to be possibilities.
  I find myself in the difficulty that to explain why we have not put down Amendments presents particular procedural difficulties and I, too, would welcome your guidance, Sir Eric. I am happy to give an explanation at whatever point the Committee thinks best.
  The Chairman: In answer to the point of order raised by the noble Lord, the Minister has indicated that she desires to give an explanation, and I imagine that she will endeavour to do so within the rules of order on one or other of the Amendments which are being called.
  Lord Balniel: Further to that point of order. If the Minister gives that explanation, are we, as an Opposition, entitled to a full-ranging debate of the matters which she raises? With great respect, it seems to me that the Committee is in a considerable difficulty. Perhaps, a solution might be for the Minister to move to report Progress, and to make a statement of the Government's policy, which the whole Committee is awaiting. Then perhaps we could have a full, wide-ranging debate of the issues involved.
  Mrs. Hart: Further to that point of order. The difficulty is not quite as the noble Lord seems to summarise it. It is not that the Committee is awaiting a statement of policy from the Government. The Committee is waiting to hear why there are no Government Amendments. I must distinguish between the two rather carefully, because what might be held to be relevant to the Bill in terms of the absence of Government Amendments would certainly not be relevant in terms of a general discussion of the whole Government policy about one particular aspect of devaluation—at least, not on this occasion and in this Committee.
  I seek your guidance, Sir Eric. It would be perfectly convenient for me at this point to explain why there are no Government Amendments, if you would regard that as being suitable.
  Mr. John Pardoe: Further to the point of order, Sir Eric. I, too, find myself in some difficulty, as does the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). I fully understood from what Government spokesmen said that we should have a chance to discuss the aftermath of devaluation in relation to the Bill. I am in a quandary. I notice from the list of selections that none of the new Clauses has been selected. I imagine, Sir Eric—I should be grateful if you would clarify the position—that this means that we shall not have a chance to discuss the new Clauses. Realising that the Government had failed to put down Amendments of this sort, I tabled the widest possible new Clause 3 to enable a discussion to take place and to enable us to be given a specific answer.
  Mrs. Hart: Further to that point of order, Sir Eric. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to suggest that he was led in any way by any of my right hon. Friends or myself to suppose that there would be on this occasion and the further stages of the Bill an opportunity for a full discussion or a full statement to be made about the Government's policy as regards the effects of devaluation on the most vulnerable.
  I would refer the hon. Gentleman, as did the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), to what was said in the House. The hon. Gentleman will find that on both occasions when the Lord President of the Council was
  456
  answering questions about the timing of the further stages of the Bill and when I was answering a question related to this on Monday all of us were discussing the further progress of the Bill. On Monday, I said that consideration was being given to the implications of devaluation on the further progress of the Bill—no more, no less. Therefore, the Committee is entitled to expect from me an explanation of what our view was on the further progress of the Bill, but no more.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Sir John Eden: Further to the point of order, Sir Eric—
  The Chairman: If the Committee will allow me, I will deal with the points of order already raised.
  In answer to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), the new Clauses have not been selected because they are out of order.
  In answer to the point of order raised by the noble Lord, it would be out of order in this Committee stage to have anything in the nature of a far-reaching debate on devaluation. Equally, it would be out of order in the Committee stage to have any kind of debate as to why there are no Government Amendments.
  I should have thought, if I may suggest it to the Committee, that the best course would have been to proceed with the Amendments which are on the Notice Paper and which have been selected and see how far we can get in discussing them with the matters, so far as they are in order, that both sides of the Committee want to raise.
  Sir J. Eden: Further to that point of order, Sir Eric. If I may say so with respect, you have accurately stated the dilemma in which we find ourselves. It is apparent from what the right hon. Lady has said already that she is anxious, where it is possible, to meet the wishes of the Committee and give us some of the information which she has in her possession.
  It is distinctly within my recollection that in one of the earlier exchanges the Leader of the House indicated that Government Amendments would be tabled in time for full study before the weekend.

  457
  These have not materialised. I think that there is a clear solution before the right hon. Lady, and that is to report Progress, a suggestion put to her by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), one to which I hope she will give very serious consideration, because in that way she would be able to meet the full wishes of the Committee and make the explanation that she is anxious to give.
  Lord Balniel: Further to the point of order, Sir Eric. Perhaps it might be of assistance if I myself moved to report Progress so as to enable the right hon. Lady to explain why the Amendments have not been tabled and also give the Committee some outline of the policies which are now to be pursued to assist the poorest sections of our community and save them from the full impact of the Government's devaluation proposals.
  I beg to move,
  That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  The Chairman: It would certainly regularise the procedure in the Committee if I were to accept a Motion to report Progress on the understanding that it was designed to enable the Minister to make a short statement as to matters that the noble Lord has raised with a view to our then proceeding with the Amendments as soon as that matter has been disposed of.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Further to that point of order, Sir Eric. If Progress is reported for the purpose that you have said, which I think is very reasonable and the only possible solution, your statement that the Amendments on the Notice Paper should then be proceeded with would deny quesioning of the statement by the Minister. That, surely, must he contained within any short debate to report Progress. I trust that you are not ruling in advance that it must be purely for the purpose of a statement by the Minister, excluding any discussion on it.
  The Chairman: The Standing Orders on the subject are quite explicit. Any debate on a Motion to report Progess is very narrowly circumscribed.
  Mr. Peter Tapsell: Further to that point of order, Sir Eric. Can you say whether, when the second Amendment which I understand the Chair is likely to call is put, it will be in order to
  458
  discuss the closely related Amendments to the Schedule?
  The Chairman: My present intention in calling the second Amendment is to have a number of related Amendments discussed with it as indicated in the list in the Lobby.
  The Question is, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mrs. Hart: I welcome the opportunity that the noble Lord has given me to clarify the situation. As I said a moment or two ago, I realised that the Committee would have bee wondering why we had not put down Government Amendments to the Bill in view of the fact that on one occasion, and on one occasion alone, the Bill was delayed so that we could consider the matter. I emphasise that it was on one occasion alone. The second delay was for the rearrangement of business last week to allow a debate on devaluation. The total delay has not been more than eight days.
  The Government have made it quite clear that one of their main concerns is that the most vulnerable shall be protected from the consequences of the rise in prices due to devaluation. The Committee will want to hear from me which groups we identify as likely to be in need of protection and at what time we see this as likely to be necessary, because it has a bearing on the Bill. We see the most vulnerable as those with slender resources who are old or sick and those families which must support their children on very low incomes. It is these groups who must be given help at the right time.
  We start off, fortunately, in a good position. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs said last week, we calculate that the increase in the cost of living due to devaluation will be about 2½ to 3 per cent. It was only a month ago that we increased the scales of supplementary benefit, by 5s. at the single householder rate. So those among the old and sick with the greatest need start off from a new and better level of income. At the same time, we are now in the Bill legislating for an increase in family allowances, to take full effect in April. An increased family allowance for each fourth and subsequent

  459
  child in larger families was, of course, put into payment at the end of last month.
  The groups that we identify as likely to be in need of protection therefore start off from this new and better level of income which the present Government have assured for them.
  What we propose to do is to watch price trends carefully, and I can give the Committee a complete assurance that at the right time we will take the appropriate action to protect these groups. We shall, of course, be intent upon directing our help to those groups which need it most—
  Mr. Frederic Harris: In what way?
  Mrs. Hart:—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have patience.
  In the field of the poorest of those who are old or sick. we have an easy and accepted method by way of supplementary benefits. In relation to poor families, we must, of course, consider the help which is to be given in the context of redistribution of purchasing power to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred a week ago.
  The Committee will appreciate that it was thought advisable to delay by a week or so the further stages of the Bill because I wanted to make sure that no options that we might wish to use would be closed to us. Taking a power in the Bill would have been one of them, but I am satisfied that there are other ways in which we can do whatever we may need to do. So I have not proposed any Amendments to the Bill.
  I can, however, assure the Committee that at the right time action will be taken, and the House of Commons will be asked to approve our proposals.
  Lord Balniel: This is the first occasion we have had of hearing from the Government the policies which they will implement to fulfil the promise which was given by the Prime Minister to protect the weakest sections of the community from the full impact of devaluation. The righ hon. Lady has now given the Committee her estimate of the increased prices which will follow from devaluation. There is no doubt that the £ in the pockets of
  460
  ordinary members of the community has been devalued, in spite of the slightly different story they were told on television. We will have to have an opportunity of studying this important statement and we hope to have an opportunity of debating it at an early date.
  Three questions occur to me immediately. First, when will legislation be introduced? I do not think that the right hon. Lady told us that. Secondly, she selected certain groups of the community would be hardest hit by devaluation. One of the groups which she mentioned were families with a large number of children in a low income bracket. It is precisely these families who could be helped by the Bill if the right hon. Lady were prepared to amend it.
  Mrs. Hart: I think that the noble Lord may find it helpful if I remind him of the exact passage of my statement to which he is presumably referring. I identified as one group those families who must support their children on very low incomes.
  Lord Balniel: I think that the right hon. Lady, if I have understood her correctly, has confirmed that my hearing was absolutely correct. It is precisely these families who could be helped if Amendments were tabled by the Government. We shall want to have the opportunity of studying the statement and debating it. At this stage I express our very deep regret that the Government have not been prepared to accept the advice we proffered them on Second Reading to amend the Bill to help the lowest income families who are hardest hit by rising prices.
  Sir J. Eden: I was hoping that we would get—if not from the Minister herself, at any rate from some other occupant of the Government Front Bench—a clear indication of what the right hon. Lady meant by "at the right time". Her statement was couched in extremely general terms. She said that she would take appropriate action, that she would direct help to those who most need it, that she would do this at the right time, and that action will then be taken.
  All these, as the Minister will appreciate, and as was clearly intended, are very general terms. They beg an enormous number of questions. There are

  461
  many hon. Members on both sides who must believe, as I do, and as my noble Friend obviously does, that this is the right time, that this is the opportunity, that the right hon. Lady has the chance now of taking appropriate action to help those who need help most, and that the Bill is the opportunity which is provided for her. All that we heard during the days preceding this Committee stage indicated that the Government were considering tabling Amendments to the Bill. The right hon. Lady has not made it clear why that action was not taken, why she considers the Bill to be the inappropriate time, and why she has decided to delay bringing help to those who really stand in most need of it.
  If we cannot have any further intervention from the right hon. Lady at this stage of our proceedings, some other occupant of the Treasury Bench—some other right hon. or hon. Member of Ministerial rank—should have the courtesy of explaining the full implications of the words the Minister used, because her assurances were in such loose general terms that we are entitled to hear more detail from the Government about what is intended.
  Captain Walter Elliot: On a point of order, Sir Eric. The right hon. Lady said earlier that, if she made a statement, it would probably be found that her statement would affect Clauses 1 and 2 and that it might be convenient to allow the debate to cover those two Clauses. I think that you ruled earlier that that would not be possible. In my opinion, the right hon. Lady was absolutely right and her statement considerably affects our deliberations on these two Clauses. I wonder whether you could rule now on the question whether we shall be able in the course of the debate to discuss the statement which the Minister has made.
  The Chairman: I am not sure that I understand the import of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point of order. In so far as I do understand it, my answer is that we shall have to wait until we reach the Amendments to see precisely what is in order and what is not. It would be premature for me to rule on hypothetical questions of that kind now.
  Mr. Pardoe: I regard what we have just heard from the Minister as disgrace-
  462
  fully complacent. Hon. Members will know that we have been given a categoric assurance; in many statements from the Government during the last week or so we have been assured that the Government would table Amendments to the Bill and would make proposals for taking care of the very real increase in the cost of living which will occur as a result of devaluation. I am one of those who has argued the case for devaluation over the last three years. It does no good to the case for devaluation to be complacent about the effects it will have on the living standards of the people whom the right hon. Lady has delineated as the old, the sick, and families on low incomes.
  The Minister said that one of the options open to the Government was taking the power which I suggested, but that she had discarded that. I cannot think why she has discarded it. If she is to help the families on low incomes, I think I am right in saying that she will have to introduce new legislation, with all the delays involved in that process. The Minister knows full well how many increases there have been in family allowances in the last 20 years. It will take goodness knows how long to get another increase through. The Bill is out of date today. It is out of date long before it is due to come into force in April: it is devalued.
  Sir Douglas Glover: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I have been provoked into rising because the right hon. Lady's reply to the Motion was thoroughly disgraceful. Although the Motion was moved as a formality so that the Minister could have an opportunity to make her explanation, as the result of her explanation I think that the Committee should carry the Motion. The Minister has said, in effect, that what the Prime Minister said about protecting the under-privileged from the effects of devaluation will not be put into effect for months. It cannot be, unless it is incorporated into the Bill.
  Everybody concerned with this Committee stage has been expecting the Minister to table Amendments, right up to the last minute. The Minister has explained why she has not done so—because the Government have no intention of doing anything at present. I am sure that many hon. Members opposite,

  463
  too, would like to table Amendments to put into effect the pledge given by the Prime Minister on television, namely, that it was the Government's intention to protect the under-privileged element in the community. It would have been in order for hon. Members to have done this. I think that the Motion should be carried so that the Committee stage of the Bill could be delayed and hon. Members on both sides could table appropriate Amendments to carry out the Prime Minister's pledge.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I do not want to spoil the enjoyment and pleasure of some hon. Members opposite. If they make their speeches now, it may save time later. It would be unreasonable to assume that the effects of devaluation will be obvious even by April, which is the point of time we shall be discussing later.
  I am not trying to make political capital out of this, as some hon. Members opposite are. I would like my right hon. Friend to assure me that a special watch will be kept on the rise in the cost of living which is expected to occur as a result of devaluation. Hopes having been raised, and statements having been made by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, old people, particularly those who are being exploited mercilessly at the moment by hon. Members opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am entitled to my opinion. It is quite reasonable to expect my right hon. Friend to assure us that a close watch will be kept on the rise in the cost of living resulting from devaluation.
  The Chairman: Order. I cannot allow this to become a general debate on devaluation. What the hon. Gentleman is saying does not relate to the Motion, although it may be appropriate to some other occasion.
  Mr. Brown: I am a very fair-minded man, but that was the whole purpose of the exercise by hon. Members opposite. What I am asking for is specifically related to what my right hon. Friend said in her statement, when she said that the cost of living would be likely to rise by 2½ per cent. to 3 per cent. All I am asking for is an assurance that this will be watched
  464
  and that when the cost of living starts to rise because of the devaluation, we shall have an indication that the appropriate time has arrived for further increases in benefits to be announced.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: Many of us were dumbfounded as well as angered by the Minister's statement. I can only assume that she is not sufficiently seized of the problem facing those about whom she said rather nebulously would eventually have to be helped. She said that the rise in the cost of living, against which we are anxious that this legislation should protect those about whom the right hon. Lady has said she is concerned, would be between 2½ per cent. and 3 per cent. due to devaluation, but is extraordinary to imagine, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) suggested, that no increase in the cost of living will be felt until next April.
  That is ridiculous. Certainly, the increases about which we are concerned will not be kept down to 3½ per cent. or even 2½ per cent. Price increases for things such as bread, butter, tea, coffee and meat, increases against which those about whom we are concerned need protection, not by next April but in this legislation, will have occurred long before next April. Many of us are extremely concerned about the right hon. Lady's attitude which seems to be "jam tomorrow", and never help for those who need it today.
  Mr. Hirst: Our proceedings are becoming a complete farce. Once the right hon. Lady had intended not to put forward any Amendments to the Bill there was only one thing which she could do and that was to withdraw the Bill until the Government had made their decision. It is prejudicial to the reputation of Parliament that we should have to discuss Amendments to a Bill which in a short time will have no relevance to the protection of those who are badly hit by devaluation.
  The suggestion that the Motion should be accepted is the only right and dignified way to proceed, and I am surprised that the Government should have dreamt for a moment of presenting this situation to the House and insulting those concerned at the same time.
  Mr. Tim Fortescue: It can be seldom that a Minister has had such an opportunity for using legislation actually before Parliament at a time of devaluation or some other economic tragedy. Will the right hon. Lady explain rather more fully why she does not choose to make use of this wonderful opportunity? She has said that she will not do so, but we should like to know why.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) in confronting the right hon. Lady with her extraordinary estimate of a 2½ per cent. to 3 per cent. increase in the cost of living because of devaluation. What basis has she for such a figure? Does she not know that already the cost of imported goods is rising in excess of that amount and that Australian foods have already gone up? Even the Chancellor gave an estimate of about 6 per cent., or 7½d. in the £.Where does the right hon. Lady get the idea that it will be 2½ per cent. to 3 per cent.? [HON. MEMBERS "That is about 7½d."] So it is; I retract that argument.
  The Chairman: Order. This kind of detail is not relevant to whether we should proceed with the Bill.
  Sir Spencer Summers: I may be voicing an opinion which no one else shares, but I cannot help thinking that an important point in the right hon. Lady's statement may have been missed. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friends complained that everything was to be done irrespective of the incomes of the beneficiaries and that the Bill lacked the opportunity to select and to make sure that help was going where it was really needed. It was for that reason that we found fault with the method of using this Bill, but we felt that if it bad to be used, then we would make the best of it.
  I understood the right hon. Lady to say that in her desire to fulfil the Prime Minister's promise to help certain sections of the population who will suffer she has come round to our point of view that the Bill is not a suitable opportunity to fulfil and that she is endorsing our fundamental proposition on Second Reading by saying that she cannot use the Bill to fulfil the Prime Minister's pledge.
  466
  Let us hope that she does not take too long to find another vehicle.
  Lord Balniel: You have been extraordinarily good to the Committee, Sir Eric, in allowing us to debate this Motion. I am a little disappointed that the right hon. Lady has not taken the opportunity to take back her Bill and re-examine it and try to help those sections of the community in greatest need.
  Before withdrawing the Motion, discussion of which has been of the greatest assistance to the Committee, there are three points which I should like to put from an immediate and off-the-cuff study of the statement. First, the Government clearly have absolutely no intention of giving any immedate help to those in greatest need. They are not prepared to amend the Bill, which comes into operation next April. Those families in the greatest need will not receive enough until next April, and we know already that the benefits which they will be receiving will by then have become seriously devalued from the time of their introduction on Second Reading.
  Secondly, it is clear that if she wished the right hon. Lady could amend the Bill absolutely immediately—only an alteration in the Financial Resolution is required—and it is, therefore, clear that the Government have no wish to amend the Bill to bring help to needy families.
  Thirdly, it is clear that the right hon. Lady has no intention of telling the country when legislation will be introduced—and legislation will be necessary—to implement the Prime Minister's pledge. We will clearly have to seek an early opportunity to debate this thoroughly unsatisfactory statement. We are grateful to you, Sir Eric, for giving us the opportunity to elicit it and with your permission. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Question put and negatived.

  FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
    Clause 1.

      (INCREASE OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND RELATED AMENDMENTS.)
      Sir S. Summers: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, leave out from 'words' to end of line 8.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discussed Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 10, leave out from '1' to end of line 2 on page 2.
      Sir S. Summers: These Amendments are part and parcel of the same proposition. The effect of this Amendment is to confine the increase in family allowances to the third, fourth and fifth and subsequent children of families, instead of the second, third, fourth and fifth. In other words, it is to leave the position of the second child, or the first qualifying child, unchanged by the increases foreshadowed in the Bill.
      I have always felt that we were not justified in giving special help to the second child of the family. I have not forgotten the original debates when family allowances first began. The justification for family allowances as a principle, advanced as a basis upon which the Beveridge Report was built, was, among other things, that only if the larger families were specially taken care of would it be possible for the two sides of industry to negotiate the rate for the job. The question arose as to where the line should be drawn to enable the rate for the job to be negotiated, knowing full well that larger families were being taken care of separately. The line was drawn at families larger than one.
      I have always contended that there was no justification for drawing that line there. I have always thought that it was a perfectly fair proposition to say to parents that they ought to be capable, through their own exertions, and the normal arrangements in the Welfare State, to take care of two children, and that only for the third and subsequent children should special help be called for, in part to enable the rate for the job to be negotiated without the complications of claims for large families.
      I have had it in mind on a number of occasions to eliminate the help already provided for the first qualifying child. I studied the Bill with some care to see whether this opportunity should be taken to fulfil that ambition. When I reflect upon the increases in the cost of living—no doubt considerably greater than the figures quoted today—which will fall on every family in the land, it seems to be a very inappropriate time to attempt to
      468
      justify taking from a family the help for the first qualifying child which they already receive. I therefore abandoned the idea of eliminating help for that child. Today I found my case not on the proposition of eliminating existing help, but leaving the position of the first qualifying child unchanged and confining the help to the third and subsequent children of the family.
      When I ventilated this topic I found few people who appreciated the enormous expense of dealing with that child out of the money that we are talking about. Approximately 60 per cent. of the total expenditure on family allowances goes to those with one qualifying child. I am told that out of the £124 million, which is the additional cost of the improved benefits inherent in this Bill, over £70 million is involved in providing the increase from the present 8s. to the proposed 15s. for the first qualifying child.
      4.45 p.m.
      I accept that there is a case for helping families with a number of children. I have not sought to diminish in any way the help that the Government are proposing to give to families of three, four, five or six, on the grounds of national economy or anything else. We have tilted the scale insufficiently favourably towards the large family, and spent too much of the money on the second child. When we are told by many qualified people that Government expenditure must be cut if we are to derive benefits from devaluation it is quite unjustifiable to spend £70 million in those circumstances to improve the position of the second child of every family. The addition of £124 million forecast in the Bill to bring up the total for family allowances to £280 million a year or thereabouts is a staggering item in the total budget under social security.
      If we can give help to the large and deserving families without touching the position of the second child and at the same time save something like £70 million annually of taxpayers' money this must be in the interests of the nation. It would prevent devaluation from producing a worse state of affairs than we had previously.
      Sir J. Eden: I do not know whether I am required to declare an interest, being the parent of what might be described

      469
      as a larger family, having more than two children. In any case I am speaking against my interests, if I had to declare them, because I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers). He made out on extremely strong case for withholding this proposed increase from the first qualifying child. The figures he gave to the Committee about the weight of total expenditure which will be occasioned by the increase for the first qualifying child are particularly significant at this time.
      In the light of our economic situation we should limit total expenditure as much as we can and ensure that such expenditure as we do incur goes to those families which appear to be most in need. As the right hon. Lady has said, it is the large families, admittedly large families with a low income—I took down her words on this point—which will be qualifying most for the special action which she promised to the Committee, and for which vie have to wait until it is decided that a due and appropriate time has arrived.
      This Amendment gives the Committee an opportunity to move in that direction. This is the chance that we now have to point such help as we believe right in the direction of those most in need. I do not know what information the right hon. Lady has had coming into her Department. It will certainly be much more comprehensive than the results of my own experiences. Therefore, she will be able to give full information about the evidence of need among families in which there are only two children. But I should have thought that it was self-evident that those who had more than two children were likely to be in greater need than those families with just two children.
      Surely we are considering primarily those in need and those in the low income groups. Surely we have not in mind every family with two children or more regardless of income. I do not need the family allowance, I am glad to say, and a number of other hon. Members are in exactly the same position. The counter-argument to the argument that one should not draw it in those circumstances is, "You lose it anyway in taxation". If that is so, this is a totally unnecessary exercise. If the Minister lends herself to that argument, she is supporting the con-
      470
      cept that what she has most in mind is the poorer family in the low income group.
      We must strive to find a way of giving most help to those in most need. The larger poorer family must certainly be in more need of assistance and benefit than the smaller poorer family. Therefore, in these times of economic stringency, we are right to limit the amount which we propose to spend on this category.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury fairly said that he thought that this was not the right time to do away with it altogether. He may be right. But to support the proposition which he made would certainly be taking a step in the right direction, for there can be no justification for the Committee at this time to endorse a proposition to increase from 8s. to 15s. the allowance payable in respect of the first qualifying child. Surely all parents with two children in the family and no more will do whatever they can to look after their own affairs and not so to conduct their home life as to make it necessary for them to depend on the additional 7s. a week.
      If there are families to which the extra 7s. a week is critical—and undoubtedly they exist—there are already facilities in the Welfare State to which they can turn for special help. They can turn to some form of supplementary allowance.
      Mrs. Hart: A man in full-time work—and this applies to many of the poorest families—has nowhere else to turn.
      Sir J. Eden: The man in full-time work certainly has nowhere else to turn, but if he has two children surely he should be able to earn sufficient to make it unnecessary for him to depend on an additional 7s. a week. That is my argument.
      This is a difficult point to explain. What one is saying is that if a family cannot get beyond the second child without having to rely on this additional element of 7s. a week, one hopes that the family will not get any larger. I put it quite bluntly—and I believe this very strongly—and say that we must inculcate some sense of responsibility in these matters. Surely this is the time, when grave economic and financial difficulties are facing the country, to make a start in that direction.

      471
      Therefore, I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said. While leaving the 8s. element in for the first qualifying child, we should take this opportunity of not endorsing the increase.
      Mr. Will Griffiths: I did not intend to intervene at this stage, and I do so only because I wish to be clear about what the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) and those who support him are trying to do.
      The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) said that anybody with two children should be capable of looking after them. If that is a representative view of the Opposition—and I suspect that it cannot be—
      Sir S. Summers: The hon. Gentleman has misquoted my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend thought that in today's circumstances the family with two children only should be capable of looking after them without an increase of 7s. for the first qualifying child.
      Mr. Griffiths: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West is like me, but I do not like other people to interpret my speeches. If I misunderstood him, I should have thought that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West was capable of explaining what he said without the aid of the hon. Member for Aylesbury.
      Sir J. Eden: Since the hon. Gentleman invites me to do so, may I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) said? I emphasised throughout the element of the increase before us—the 7s. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said about retaining the 8s. element already in existence.
      Mr. Griffiths: The position is that hon. Members opposite do not object to a family allowance on the existing scale being paid for the first qualifying child.
      Sir J. Eden: The matter can be summed up by asking: when will we take some account of the fact that in the present circumstances, in which we have had to have devaluation, we must bring to an end some element of self-indulgence?
      Mr. Griffiths: If it is the Opposition's view, which I do not think it is, taking
      472
      them in toto, that as a principle a family with two children should be able to provide for itself, clearly that has not been the view during the years in which both hon. Members have been in the House. During the years of Conservative Government, family allowances were raised. I remember Lord Butler, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, raising the family allowance in 1952. We must be generous to the Opposition in assuming that they do not want to end a principle which has obtained since the first Family Allowances Act was introduced, namely, that the first qualifying child should receive some kind of benefit—and we can argue about how much it should be.
      I wish to understand what the Amendment seeks to do. We talk about selectivity or universality in social benefits. Many of my hon. Friends believe that the amount of money available for welfare services should be concentrated on the worst off groups. That is the view which we have heard from the hon. Members for Aylesbury and Bournemouth, West. Am I not right in assuming that the Amendment does not suggest that, by leaving out the second child, the whole of the saving so effected should be concentrated on the third and fourth child? The plain fact is that what the hon. Member for Aylesbury and his colleagues are trying to do is to save money at the expense of a certain number of people entitled to family allowances under the existing law.
      The Amendment seeks to reduce the total amount of money that the Government propose to spend on family allowances. That may not be the intention, but it is what the Amendment would do. On a future occasion I should like to join in the argument with my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite about where the incidence of support for poor families and people in distress should alight. I emphasise to my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite, if they are so concerned about poverty in the economic circumstances of the moment, that this would be the worst time of all to cut down on family allowances as suggested by the hon. Member for Aylesbury.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Pardoe: I cannot support this Amendment. Some strange attitudes have

      473
      been expressed in this debate which I have not heard even from the Opposition recently. I thought those suggestions were dead and buried.
      There has been talk about indulgence. I suppose sexual indulgence was meant. There is absolutely no connection at all between the size of the family allowance and the size of the family which anyone is prepared to have. This has been shown by research all over the world. I remind the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) that the value to him and to me—because I imagine we both pay tax at standard rate—of the incentive of tax allowance to have more children is infinitely more than it is to anyone in my constituency who is trying to make do on £9 10s. a week take-home pay.
      Sir J. Eden: I do not take the point made by the hon. Member too seriously, but, lest anyone should do so, I should explain that the use by me of the word "indulgence" was not in the terms that the hon. Member would have us believe. I am concerned, as everyone must be, with the position in which the country finds itself. When we are increasing expenditure of any nature we should examine it more critically than ever now. My use of the term "indulgence" was meant to embrace the total of expenditure, because this is watched critically by people outside the country.
      Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Member has explained that to his own satisfaction, but not to mine. A phrase which I am certain occurred in his speech was that people ought to be able to look after a family of two children in present economic circumstances. That is not the case in the kind of family I am talking about.
      In the Bill we are not concerned primarily to relieve poverty. I hope that the Government and the Opposition are with me on this. The principle enshrined in family allowances when Beveridge brought them in was that it is far more expensive for a married man with children to bring up a family and maintain the same standard of living as a single man or a married man without children. All the surveys done on expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Labour show
      474
      that it takes a married man with two children two-and-a-half or three times as much expenditure to maintain the same standard of living as a single man. This principle is partly what we are talking about. It is not just the relief of poverty.
      We enshrine the principle in our tax system. I would be more convinced by the Amendment if any suggestion had been made by those supporting it that they were prepared to give up the tax allowance in respect of the second child or, indeed, of the first. For my first child, I receive £47 10s. from the State through tax allowance. Someone who does not pay standard rate of Income Tax receives for the second child—
      Lord Balniel: Would not the hon. Member agree that there is a very substantial difference between a family allowance and a tax allowance? A family allowance is something given by the State to an individual; a tax allowance allows an individual who has earned money by his own work to keep a greater proportion of those earnings if he has a family because he has greater commitments than a bachelor or a married person without children. Surely the hon. Member sees this very elementary difference between the two types of allowance?
      Mr. Pardoe: The noble Lord's memory should be long enough to know that since he asked that question two weeks ago there is no point in my giving the answer to it again and saying that I disagree. I cannot see the fine distinction he seeks to make between the money passed over the Post Office counter and money one gets because the State thinks it necessary for one to have it to bring up a family. The proposal is to do away with the £39 at present paid to people in respect of a second child, but to allow the likes of us to keep not only the £39, but the £47 10s. we get in respect of the first child and the allowance in respect of the second child.
      Apart from me, no one seems to be proposing that we should do away with both and reallocate the money. I would have found the Amendment more acceptable and more honest if any suggestion had been made from the Opposition that they were prepared in the interests of the nation, during this terrible catastrophe, to do away with their tax allowances as well. For these reasons we should undoubtedly oppose this Amendment. There

      475
      is very good reason to suppose that there are many families with only two children who are suffering poverty. There are many families with only one child who suffer poverty although the Family Circumstances Survey does not show this up. It would be wrong in any circumstances to give away that which we have been given by the Government in the Bill.
      Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has put forward a most extraordinary argument. Unless one believes that everyone in the country should draw the same income, his argument is untenable. What one gets in tax allowance for children is an amount of money one is allowed to keep as a result of efforts made for the benefit of one's family. It is not something given by the State, but something which the State does not take away.
      That is totally different from the same person paying tax to allow an allowance to be paid from the State to someone in poorer circumstances to relieve his poverty. I cannot believe that a society such as we have in Britain could begin to accept that. One of the things we have been arguing about for a long time is the incentive for people to work. If we take away the family tax allowance, we would take away another incentive to work. Why should a person try to earn more if we take away the benefit he wants to create for his family by his effort?
      I turn to a different argument. The Committee might think that I am a little muddled, because I disagree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) said. I would, however, recommend the right hon. Lady to accept this Amendment, for a reason which I will now try to put to her, but which has very little to do with the arguments so far put about it.
      There is a great deal of sense, in a time of stringency, not to increase benefits to people who manage to jolly along—I will not put it any higher than that—on the present arrangements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) said, payment of this to the second child will cost more than half the amount that this Committee will disburse; in other words, it is going to cost about £70 million.
      476
      This is the point I should like to put to the right hon. Lady, in the conditions in which the country finds itself. In other conditions, if the Clause had been produced at some other time, I would be inclined to accept it, but the right hon. Lady has already said this afternoon that she is proposing to carry out the pledge of the Prime Minister that those in the bottom income categories will be protected against devaluation. She will, I have no doubt, remember the Chancellor's speech winding up the debate on Wednesday of last week, when he said that we were going to face a tough time because of devaluation, and a lowering of the standards of living, and that it meant that increases of pay had got to be fought ruthlessly—I think that was his word. I should like to say to the right hon. Lady that here she has got £70 million which could be put into the kitty for the relief of a lot of other cases of suffering, and she could do it by accepting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury.
      When she begins to produce her proposals for alleviating suffering and poverty—after all, it is not just children who were the categories the Prime Minister was referring to—she is going to come up against an enormously tough battle with the Treasury and the Chancellor of the time. By this Amendment she would not be taking anything away from anybody, but would be leaving the allowance for the second child, and she would be saving £70 million. She would then be in a very much stronger position, in arguing with the Chancellor about other measures which she will want to carry out, if she could say, "On the Family Allowances Bill, because of the problems confronting the country, I accepted an Amendment which saved you and the Treasury £70 million". Then the Chancellor and the Treasury would be in a very much more difficult position in refusing the proposals that she will probably want to bring before us.
      Mr. Will Griffiths: I wonder whether the hon. Member appreciates, as I am sure he does, that the Bill was published before devaluation, and that it was, therefore, the appreciation by the Government, and presumably the appreciation by the House, at that time, that the vast majority of the families involved—as,

      477
      indeed, we have heard during the debate today—were then in need of this increase. In consequence of devaluation it is generally accepted that the cost of living will increase. Therefore, if we withdraw he family allowance from the first qualifying child we must worsen the conditions of the family which has a first qualifying child. Surely that must be the case?
      Sir D. Glover: I think the hon. Member has slightly misunderstood the Amendment. The Amendment is not withdrawing anything from anybody. It is leaving the payment of 8s. for the second child and not increasing it to 15s.
      However, I was just going to finish. I do not want to delay the Committee much longer. This Bill was produced before devaluation, and, as I have already said, I do not go along with a great many of the arguments put for this Amendment. I am putting this case to the right hon. Lady in the special context in which we are now debating the Bill. Now, after devaluation, when the right hon. Lady, as Minister of Social Security, is going to have to produce benefits which will cost money, she is going to have to come up against a lot of opposition, particularly from the Treasury and the Chancellor of the time, in getting that money voted, and in these circumstances I believe there is a great deal to be said for accepting this Amendment, which would save her £70 million.
      Mr. Will Griffiths rose—
      Sir D. Glover: I will not give way again. After all, this is Committee stage, and the hon. Member can speak again if he catches your eye, Mr. Mallalieu.
      I have said what I wanted to say. I do not suppose the right hon. Lady will accept the Amendment, but I think that three or four months from now, when she is battling with the Treasury, she will remember the words I have put to her today and will wish she had listened to the hon. Member for Ormskirk.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Marcus Worsley: Before commenting briefly on the content of the debate, I should like to remark on the comments of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). That a Liberal Member of Parliament cannot under-
      478
      stand the difference between social benefits paid under the insurance scheme and a tax allowance, which is a measure of ability to pay tax out of one's own income, astonishes me. We are familiar, of course, with this argument from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Clearly, many Socialists believe that there is no difference, but the fact that an hon. Member speaking from the Liberal bench, apparently as an official spokesman for his party on this matter, should seriously argue that there is no difference is itself a reason why so many people cannot understand the difference between the Liberal and the Socialist parties.
      My main purpose, however, is to comment on the main substance of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) has done the Committee a service in introducing it. There is some difference of opinion in the Committee about where the existence of need lies in different sizes of family. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) thought the main need fell in the larger families; the hon. Member for Cornwall, North thought the main need fell in the families with two children. I would not like to give an answer to the question, and I hope that the right hon. Lady, when she replies to the debate, will take the opportunity to speak at greater length about where the hardship lies in relation to the size of family.
      I attempted to put to her a Written Question on this subject last week. I must say that she was not very informative in her Answer. She referred me to an Answer which she had previously given to one of her hon. Friends. I looked that up, and I found that that Answer referred us to the Report on the circumstances of families. So we were not very much wiser, particularly because my Question related not to the situation as it was at the time of that review, but the situation as it would be if these increases were made. In other words, I was not referring to the 500,000 children but to the 250,000 children who would be left, as a result of the Government's measures, below the poverty line. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Lady will take this opportunity to give us this information.
      We need to be persuaded that the ratio she proposes for paying the allowances

      479
      is right. We need to be persuaded that it is not just the number first thought of. She has added a figure of 7s. to each qualifying child. This, to begin with, alters the present ratio. The relationship between Os. for the first child, 15s. for the second, and 17s. for the third is not the same ratio as Os., 8s., 10s., which is the present ratio. Is this change of ratio something thought out? Or is it, as I strongly suspect it to be, simply a figure thought up and added without proper research? We have criticised the Government over and over again for a lack of consistent research in these matters, and we would like to know exactly what has been the research behind these figures.
      My sympathies are with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West. I cannot believe that the ratio which the right hon. Lady is suggesting is based on a scientific assessment of need. I feel certain that it is not, but I willingly and with pleasure give way to her, and hope that she can convice me that it is.
      Mrs. Hart: Let me deal with some of the points raised, but, first, I want to endorse exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) said, because what we have heard today from some hon. Members opposite has been a classic example of the Conservative approach to the social services, using the slogan of giving help where it is most needed to justify a reduction in total expenditure on the social services.
      That is exactly what the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S Summers) has tried to do, and some of his hon. Friends admit it. He is proposing to take away the increase from the smaller poor family, and at the same time he is proposing to give nothing more to the larger family—
      Sir S. Summers: And the smaller rich family as well.
      Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman is concerning himself with something which strikes me as particularly noteworthy, and I refer to what might be called crocodile tears about poverty in general. I remember that we had a debate last Friday on poverty, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts). We had 13 speakers
      480
      from this side of the House, and only one speech from the other side. That was from the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott). The only other person present on the other side of the House was a poor, lonely hon. Member who was waiting for his own Motion to be called. Let us not have the kind of crocodile tears which we have had today, and I will not have any spurious pretence from hon. Members opposite that they are more concerned about poverty among families than the Government are.
      Mrs. Knight: It is nonsense for the right hon. Lady to suggest that hon. Members on this side of the Committee are not concerned about poverty. She knows quite well that many of us have engagements in our constituencies on Fridays with, about and among the very people for whom she now accuses us of caring nothing. Had a debate on the subject occurred on a recognised Parliamentary day, great interest would have been shown from this side of the Committee.
      Sir D. Glover: Where are all the hon. Members opposite today?
      Mrs. Hart: My hon. Friends are not here because they know that we are discussing an Amendment which makes no sense.
      It is true that many Ministers and back bench hon. Members have constituency and other duties on Fridays, but the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) knows as well as I do that the degree of general interest in a subject by any of the parties in the House is fairly represented by the number of hon. Members who attend a debate on a Friday.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Mrs. Hart: Judging by that, it was extraordinary that there were 13 times the number of hon. Members on this side of the Committee who found their constituency engagements allowed them to attend the debate to which I have referred.
      Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Would you rule on what the attendance during a debate last Friday has to do with an Amendment during the Committee stage of this Bill?
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): I do not think that that is a point of order.
      Mrs. Hart: If interventions are permitted by the Chair then it is in order for me to reply to them. May I point out to the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) that when she was sufficiently interested in one Bill passing through the House, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill, her constituency engagements did not keep her away.
      Lord Balniel: In studying the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers), who for many years has had a great interest in these matters, it is open to all of us to have reservations about certain aspects of it. However, probably quite unwittingly, the right hon. Lady has distorted his argument by saying that he is proposing to reduce the expenditure on family allowances by £70 million—
      Mrs. Hart: I never mentioned that figure.
      Lord Balniel: She might not have mentioned the figure, but that is what it is. What my hon. Friend is doing is releasing a figure of £70 million. He cannot suggest that it be concentrated in particular directions, because the Financial Resolution is drawn so tightly that it is impossible to achieve what we believe should be achieved, which is a concentration of family allowances to those in the greatest need.
      Mrs. Hart: The noble Lord might do well to maintain a little patience, even when provoked. I had only just begun to deal with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, and, in a moment, I shall come to the other relevant considerations bearing upon the Amendment.
      I began by saying, and I repeat, that this is a classic illustration of the Conservative approach to the social services in that they advance the somewhat spurious argument under which the concentration of effort on those who most need help is used as a justification for cutting down the amount to be spent on the services as a whole. I start off with that observation.
      The hon. Gentleman makes an assertion in Amendment which is a highly
      482
      relevant and debatable one. If we leave out of account the fact that he would be seeking to save money on the deal as a whole, he asserts that poverty is to be found more frequently amongst larger families than amongst smaller families. He asked if I had any figures to illustrate our approach to this, and I can help him.
      I have to refer to the Family Circumstances Survey. This has to be the case, as was the case in my reply to the hon. Member for Chelsea when he asked me a Question last week. To that extent, I cannot give up-to-date figures because, so far, we have not instituted a regular running survey which would keep our figures up to date all the time. Perhaps we should consider doing that, as well as considering what priorities we should give to research in my Ministry. It is a matter to which I am giving attention at the moment. The only reliable figures which we have are those of last year's Survey, and the figures revealed have to be qualified by a number of factors none of which it is possible to measure accurately.
      As I explained on Second Reading, there are a number of factors which can change the incidence of family poverty, such as pay increases, rent rebates and rate rebates, which tend to reduce family poverty, and rent increases and price increases, which can increase it. It is impossible to quantify precisely the extent to which, in different and opposing ways, each factor affects the figures in the Survey. Therefore, I can only quote those figures with reservations.
      What the Survey showed was that, of the families with two or more children where the fathers were in full-time work and whose incomes were below the supplementary benefit level as it applied in 1966, 45 per cent. had only two children. In other words, just a shade less than half of the families whose fathers were in full-time work and who were defined as living in poverty were families of only two children. If one takes fatherless families, excluding the one child family which tends to be fairly frequent, 55 per cent. of fatherless families identified as living in poverty were families with only two children.
      The moment that we introduce the kind of Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman to restrict the increase in

      483
      family allowances proposed in the Bill to families where there are more than two children and do not apply the increase to families with only two children, we automatically cut out from the benefits of the Bill a very high proportion—just less than half—of the families with whom we are primarily concerned. I do not believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite would wish to do this, taking it on the merits of the case, unless they were deliberately seeking to cut down the total cost of the Bill and to save expenditure on the social services, because there could be no logic in a desire to do it for any other reason.
      5.30 p.m.
      There are many different views about whether the increase should be distributed according to the number of children in the family. I think that the House knows as well as I do the varying public reactions to the Bill, and to the proposed increase. There are at least four reactions which hon. Members must have met.
      There is, first, the reaction which bears closely on what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said about the relationship between taxation and tax allowances, family allowances, and cash benefits. The argument here is, "Do not give family allowances, or any increase in family allowances, to the better off". Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said this. The answer is that one must closely relate taxation, and what happens within a progressive system of taxation, to what is paid out in family allowances.
      We could do it by the strict "give and take" method, which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, and some others would like, and in which I see many advantages—and I am looking at all the possibilities—or we could use other methods; but, whichever way we do it, if we have a system of progressive taxation, the net result will be that the better off will pay, in taxation, to subsidise the cash benefits paid out to those who most need them, the less well off. The two cannot be divorced, and this is the answer to those who say, "Do not give family allowances to the better off; confine them to those who are less well off".
      Some argue that higher family allowances should he paid in respect of older children, and this is a tenable argument.
      484
      It can be argued that as a child gets older the cost to the family increases, because it eats more, it needs more expensive clothes, and more expensive equipment, but this argument is full of difficulties. We do not at the moment have any easy method by which this can be done, and there is the counter argument that, in many families, by the time the children are older the father is perhaps earning rather more, and is therefore less in need of the help which he would get from family allowances. This is an argument on which there are two aspects to be considered.
      There is, then, the third argument, and I am glad that it has not been raised by anyone today, and I think that on Second Reading we all rejected it. It is strongly felt by some members of the public, but I have no sympathy with what they say. They ask, "Why should we who have smaller families subsidies the larger families?". It is a prevalent argument in which I hope all hon. Members will refrain from joining. I hope they will actively counter it among their constituents who may raise it with them, because it is a dangerous argument, and one which we must wholeheartedly reject.
      The fourth public reaction is the opposite of that of the hon. Gentleman. It is, "Why do you not concentrate more of the money available for family allowances on the first child, because it is the first child who is the greatest expense to the family. It may be the first child who necessitates the family moving into a larger house, buying a cot, buying equipment, and so on."
      There are a number of different points of view in relation to the strict merits of the hon. Gentleman's case. Some are tenable and debatable, while others are not. Bearing in mind the figures which I have given, which show that just under half the families defined as living in poverty are families who would not benefit from the Bill if the Amendment were accepted. I say that the Committee should not agree to it. I hope very much that, having explored the issues, and promoted a stimulating debate, the hon. Member for Aylesbury will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
      Sir S. Summers: I do not propose to delay the Committee for many minutes, but there are a number of points which

      485
      the right hon. Lady has mentioned which cannot go unchallenged.
      I very much regret that in the first debate in Committee on social security in which the right hon. Lady has participated since she took over this office she hay brought into it what can only be described as a kind of auction of compassion and concern between the two sides of the Committee. If we are to be treated to a lecture about who is more concerned with poverty—and I hope that it will not happen again—we shall consider comparing the degree of compassion shown by her and her predecessor, who felt unwilling to continue in the job with the amount of money put at her disposal.
      We have been told that the effect of the Amendment, which is to save £70 million, is a classic example of the Conservative approach to these matters. There was a classic example of the Socialist approach to these matters in the last thing said by the right hon. Lady, namely, that because some families on the poverty line have two children, therefore all families with two children should necessarily be helped to the extent of an extra 7s. a week. This universality of approach is one reason why far more money than is necessary or appropriate is being spent on the social services.
      When it comes to the question of £70 million, if a case can be made—
      The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am not trying to be awkward, but the figure of £70 million has been used repeatedly in connection with the Amendment, and I am in some difficulty in finding out where it comes from. As I see it, the net cost of the total upgrading of family allowances under the Bill would be £83 million, and I am assuming that the £70 million relates to the saving in consequence of the non-application of the 7s. to the second child. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify this for me.
      Sir S. Summers: I have here the figures for 1965, which show that out of 6,423,000 children receiving family allowances, 3,869,000 payments were for the second child only, and since then the population has increased. Perhaps the right hon.
      486
      Lady understands this, and therefore need not listen. The £70 million to which I am referring is part of the £124 million referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum, the gross payment which the Bill provides. This is, in effect, the payment to the first qualifying child. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say, as was mentioned during the Second Reading debate, that the net cost is about £85 million. The net effect of the Amendment would he about £50 million, rather than £70 million. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Approximately two-thirds of the cost of the Bill is in respect of the first qualifying child. Whether one takes the gross figure, or the net figure, it is about two-thirds of the cost of the Bill, and this is a fact which cannot be disputed.
      Mr. Peter Archer rose—
      Sir S. Summers: I cannot give way. We have spent a long time on this, and I was interrupted on a number of occasions during my previous speech. The Minister seems completely to have lost sight of the fact that this is a question of priorities. I do not consider that the claim to public money, to the tune of £70 gross or £50 net, in respect of families with a first qualifying child is anything like as good as the claim by many other sections of the community to public money, in terms of social security.
      The Minister will soon ask us to approve a new Bill for tens of millions of £s to help families particularly in need, if the Treasury will agree. Perhaps the Treasury will not allow the Prime Minister's promise to be honoured, but if such a Bill does come forward my case is that the priority for that Bill will be far greater than the priority for spending money on the first qualifying child.
      It is not up to us to suggest how this money should be spent or whether it should be a saving to the taxpayers' money in total. We are not able to suggest alternative methods of dealing with this £70 million gross or £50 million net. But I am convinced that this is not the best way for public money to be spent at present, and I am sorry that the Government have seen fit to attempt to do so at this juncture.
      Amendment negatived.
      The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): I think that we can take, with Amendment No. 3, in Clause 1, page 2, line 12, leave out "4s." and insert "3s.", Amendment No. 13, in Schedule 1, page 6, line 21, column 4, leave out "13 0" and insert "14 0"; Amendment No. 15, in line 32, column 4, leave out "13 0" and insert "14 0"; Amendment No. 17, in line 52, column 4, leave out "13 0" and insert "14 0 "; Amendment No. 19, in line 54, column 4, leave out "13 0" and insert "14 0"; Amendment No. 21, in page 7, line 31, column 4, leave out "13 0" and insert "14 0"; Amendment No. 7, in line 39, column 4, leave out "13 0" and insert "14 0"; Amendment No. 23, in line 44, column 4, leave out "13 0" and insert "14 0"; Amendment No. 25, in line 45, column 4, leave out "13 0 and insert "14 0"; Amendment No. 27, in line 46, column 4, leave out "1 10 6" and insert "1 11 6"; Amendment No. 9, in line 48, column 4, leave out "1 10 6" and insert "1 11 6"; Amendment No. 29, in line 56, column 4, leave out "13 0" and insert "14 0"; Amendment No. 31, in line 57, column 4, leave out "13 0" and insert "14 0"; and Amendment No. 11, in line 58, column 4, leave out "1 10 6" and insert "1 11 6".
      Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. As I understand it, Mr. Irving, it is sought to have two debates on this series of Amendments dealing with dependency benefits—a debate on the second child Amendments and a debate on subsequent child Amendments. It would be for the convenience of the Committee and certainly for those moving Amendments to have one overall debate on all the Amendments relating to the proposed changes in dependency benefits, because they are all inter-related.
      Mr. Worsley: The Minister has anticipated me. I entirely agree with him. In moving the Amendments that I wish to move I shall find myself, of necessity, indulging in repetition, which I hope would be not too tedious, but which might be.
      The Deputy Chairman: If that is the wish of the Committee it will be satisfactory from the point of view of the Chair. If we are to take Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 13, leave out paragraph (c), with Amendment No. 3 it will bring into
      488
      the debate all the other Amendments to the Schedule, namely, Amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 21, column 5, leave out "11 0" and insert "17 0", Amendment No. 16, in line 32, column 5, leave out "11 0" and insert "17 0", Amendment No. 18, in line 52, column 5, leave out "11 0" and insert "17 0", Amendment No. 20, in line 54, column 5, leave out "11 0" and insert "17 0", Amendment No. 22, in page 7, line 31, column 5, leave out "11 0" and insert "17 0". Amendment No. 8, in line 39, column 5, leave out "11 0" and insert "17 0", Amendment No. 24, in line 44, column 5, leave out "11 0" and insert "17 0", Amendment No. 26, in line 45, column 5, leave out "11 0" and insert "17 0", Amendment No. 28, in line 46, column 5, leave out "1 8 6" and insert "1 12 6". Amendment No. 10, in line 48, column 5, leave out "1 8 6" and insert "1 12 6", Amendment No. 30, in line 56, column 5, leave out "11 0" and insert "17 0", Amendment No. 32, in line 57, colunm 5. leave out "11 0" and insert "17 0", and Amendment No. 12, in line 58, column 5, leave out "1 8 6" and insert "1 12 6".
      Mr. Worsley: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 12, leave out "4s." and insert "3s.".
      I am grateful to you, Mr. Irving, for allowing us to take all the Amendments together. It will not have escaped your notice, or that of the House, that we have been in great difficulty, in framing Amendments, in expressing them in the terms that we would wish. It has been difficult for us to keep within the rules of order. This fact, and the extremely close wording of both the Long Title and the Money Resolution, make us regret even more the fact that the Government have not put down any Amendments. They have the ability to alter these things, and we do not. I must leave the matter there.
      The terms of the Amendments are not necessarily those which we would have preferred, and I hope that this will be understood. The Order Paper is littered with our good intentions, but, very properly, the Chairman has not selected them all. In particular, we realise that in discussing this wide group of Amendments there is nothing whatever to help solve the problem of low-earning families

      489
      or families subject to the wage-stop. matters in respect of which we sought to put down Amendments but which we will not have the opportunity of discussing
      5.45 p.m.
      The effect of the Amendments would be to provide that those who are on National Insurance benefit of any kind should receive the full benefit of the increase proposed in family allowances, instead of only part of it as proposed by the Bill. I know that the Minister and my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) had a passage of arms on this subject during the Second Reading debate. I appreciate that these matters are difficult to follow, but I trust that what I am going to say is correct.
      Clause 1(2) increases the benefit for the first child by 3s. The first child is not subject to family allowance. The subsection goes on to decrease the benefit for the second child by 4s. Thus, a family with two children drawing benefit and family allowances would receive a 6s. increase. In other words, a family with two children would draw 1s. less than a family not drawing benefit. I want to know why the Government have chosen this figure.
      Under the Amendments we are maintaining the increase of 3s. for the first child and reducing the decrease in respect of the second child from 4s. to 3s., so that the family with two children will receive an additional 7s. benefit.
      Under the Bill family allowance in respect of the third and subsequent children is increased by 7s. Benefit is reduced in most cases by 6s, and for widows and other analogous cases by 4s. Thus, most families entitled to benefit would, under the Bill, be only 1s. better off in respect of children after the second and, in the case of widows, 3s. better off for children after the second. Thus, a family of three children with sickness benefit would he, in total, 6s. better off and a family with four children 8s. better off. Our Amendments would give the full benefit of 7s. for each child.
      Our first purpose in putting down the Amendments was to discover what thinking lay behind the Government's selection of these figures. Why give a net increase of 3s. for a sick or unemployed family with one child, 6s. for
      490
      a sick or unemployed family with two children, and 7s., and so on, for a family with three children? It is an odd sort of selectivity. It concentrates the additional help strictly on the first two children of the family.
      I do not want to run over the whole course of our last debate. We then sought some information from the Minister but we got precious little. Is the sort of information that she was able to give the House all that the Government are using for a basis of their choice of figures in this matter? The right hon. Lady, who I am sorry is not present, listed the public prejudices in this matter and the different opinions of the bigger or smaller family. But we should base our social policy not on public prejudice but on knowledge. I regret that, some months after we pressed in the debates on the Ministry of Social Security Bill for a social research unit in the Department, the Minister should still be thinking about it. It is high time that we had knowledge instead of prejudice to go on—
      Mr. Pardoe: What sort of knowledge is the hon. Gentleman asking for the research unit to do? Does he want to establish where poverty exists or needs to be eradicated in these families, or does he want to determine some relationship between the size of the family and the expenditure necessary to keep up a certain standard of living?
      Mr. Worsley: With respect, I see no great distinction between those two kinds of research—
      Mr. Pardoe indicated dissent.
      Mr. Worsley: Perhaps we could debate this more fully some other time.
      I want very wide research. I want the questions which the Minister herself put answered to discover where poverty lies and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give more solid information tonight. This is not just a matter of giving a figure of 45 per cent. or 55 per cent. for different categories. Taking all the families in the country, we want, to know whether there is relatively greater poverty in big or small families.
      The second objective of the Amendments is to argue our general case that

      491
      help should be given where needed and not across the board. My hon. Friends intend to discuss particular categories and problems, and I am putting the general case. Most of the families categorised in Schedule I, that is, those entitled to benefit under the National Insurance Scheme are in need. This applies not to all, but to most. Most of those helped under Clause 1(1) are in need. Neither of these facts is controvertible. Surely we should concentrate all our help on families in need.
      We wish to help every category beyond those covered by these Amendments. The more one looks at the figures in the Government's proposals the more remarkable they become. The anomaly is that they propose to give, for example, a man earning £100 a week—to take an extreme example—with four children an increase of 21s. a week. But a man on the same income with four children who is unemployed or sick would have an increase of 8s. a week. Is this Labour Government selectivity? The larger the family, the more absurd the difference. If such a man had six children, he would receive, under the Bill, an increase of 35s. a week, but if unemployed or sick 10s. a week—
      Mr. Loughlin: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand what the Bill does? Does not he know that this is a family allowance Bill and not an up-rating Bill for National Insurance? If he does not understand the Bill, he should not speak on it.
      Mr. Worsley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courteous manner of expressing himself. What matters to a family is not whether the money comes from the National Insurance Fund or by way of family allowances, but the total amount which will be received. The hon. Gentleman should not cast remarks like this across the Floor, since they show his total ignorance of how families behave. My point is simple and he is not seeking to dispute it. It is that a man with a high income and six children would get an extra 35s. a week under the Bill, while a family with sickness or unemployment benefit would get 10s. It would make no difference to any of those families where the money came from.
      Of course, I am aware that any hon. Gentlemen opposite who speak—there are
      492
      remarkably few present—may argue that the solution is by way of taxation. We have debated this already, but I hope that the Committee will draw a distinction, now more than ever, between the disincentive effect of taking away a tax allowance and a social benefit, because, unless we do, we will never achieve the sort of incentives for the family man who can increase the wealth of the country and therefore our ability to help the weak.
      Therefore, the Government's selectivity is stupid; we should identify need and then help it. If the Minister cannot come with us all the way in this, it would be possible, indeed, relatively easy, to select certain categories which we have mentioned. The right hon. Lady has borrowed in the Bill a good Tory precedent for giving special benefit to widows, widowed mothers and the like. We respond to this, as far as it goes, but she should go much further. Within the categories listed in the Schedule there is a number of sub-categories which should be specially helped.
      I end with a special plea for the chronic sick. Surely it should be possible to give special help to those families in which sickness is of long duration. It is illogical and hard-hearted to give exactly the same treatment for short-term and long-term sickness. Surely the impact upon the family of long-term sickness is different from and far more deadly than that of short-term sickness. Among these categories, could we not select the chronic sick?
      To give another example—I must not, unfortunately, refer to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor), which is not selected—we could make a sub-category of those requiring constant attendance. But, instead of any particular categorisation, the Government intend to give an overall increase, not selecting areas of need. It is because we feel that the Government should turn from this universal approach, which leaves large numbers of people still in poverty, to a more selective one that we support these Amendments.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Tapsell: I support the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) and I wish to deal with one of the special

      493
      categories of need to which he referred and to which we seek to draw attention in Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, in the names of two of my hon. Friends and myself, dealing particularly with the child dependants' allowances of widowed mothers. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 is to ensure that the widowed mother should receive under the Bill increases equivalent to the full 7s. increase in family allowances for each of her qualifying children. In these Amendments we have taken account of the fact that there is under the Bill an increase of 3s. in the dependents' allowance for the first child.
      Perhaps I should briefly give specific examples of the effects that these two Amendments would have. Let me give, first, the example of the widowed mother with two dependent children. At present she receives a family allowance of 8s. a week for her second child, dependants' benefit of £2 2s. 6d. a week for her first child and £1 14s. 6d. a week for her second child, making a total from family allowances and dependants' benefit of £4 5s. 0d. a week.
      Under the Bill it is proposed to increase the family allowance for her second child by 7s. from 8s. to 15s. a week, to put up the dependants' benefit for the first child and £1 14s. 6d. a week for her by 4s. a week the dependants' benefit that she receives for her second child.
      Therefore, the difference between the position of the widow with two children, before and after the Bill, is that her income is increased by 6s. a week. If she were getting the benefit of the full family allowances increase, the difference ought to be 7s. Our Amendment, therefore, increases the dependants' benefit for the second child by 1s. which would ensure that the widowed mother would get her 7s. increase, in just the same way that a man at work and earning £100 a week gets the full 7s. increase for his second child.
      The next example is that of the widow with three children. Her family allowances at present are 8s. for the first qualifying child and 10s. for the second qualifying child, and her dependants' benefit amounts to £2 2s. 6d. for the first child, £1 14s. 6d. for the second and £1 12s. 6d. for the third, making a total of £6 7s. 6d. a week.
      494
      The effect of the Bill would be to increase the family allowance for the second child by 7s. to 15s. a week, and by 7s. to 17s. a week for the third child, and to increase the dependants' benefit by 3s. for the first child to £2 5s. 6d. a week, but it would cut by 4s. a week the dependants' benefit that she at present receives for both the second and third child. Her total income, therefore, under the new proposals would be £6 16s. 6d. a week, an increase of 9s. However, if she were getting the benefit of the full 7s. increase in family allowance for each of her two qualifying children, the difference would be not 9s, but 14s. a week.
      Our first Amendment increases the dependants' allowances for the second child by 1s., and our second Amendment increases the dependants' allowance for the third child by 4s. to make up the remainder of the difference. The effect of both the Amendments is to ensure that the widowed mother with dependent children gets the whole of the proposed 7s. increase in family allowances and does not have any of it taken away as a result of the reduction in child dependants' allowances.
      I am not saying that the method envisaged by our Amendments is necessarily the ideal method which I would use if I were bringing forward legislation, but, of course, within the rules of order one has to debate these subjects as best one can. Nor, let make it clear, am I advocating any general increase in the overall level of expenditure on social services. Of course, this is not an appropriate occasion to indicate where savings should be made to pay for the increased expenditure from the National Insurance Fund which these Amendments would involve, but I hope that on another occasion I shall have an opportunity to show where I would make those savings.
      The Prime Minister's pledge, which has been reiterated in a very vague and general form this afternoon by the Minister of Social Security, is to protect particularly vulnerable groups from the serious price rises which are bound to result from devaluation. This must be an aim which we all share, however, much we may deplore the policies which have inevitably produced this catastrophe. There must be general agreement, too, that the widowed mother with dependent children

      495
      is particularly in need of our compassion and our help at this time.
      I was sorry that the right hon. Lady, who is not with us at the moment, saw fit earlier this afternoon to suggest that we on these benches are, in her words, "shedding crocodile tears" when we indicate our anxiety and sympathy for the underprivileged groups in our community. If I may say so with respect to the right hon. Lady, whose qualities I admire, I think that at this early stage in her career as Minister of Social Security this is an unfortunate approach. We shall, no doubt, have many debates on these matters. I fully accept the compassion and sincerity with which she and her colleagues approach suffering and poverty in our midst, and I would have thought it was childish nonsense to suggest that this was not a feeling that is shared by Members in all parts of the Committee. I hope that in future we shall be able to conduct our debates without these rather out-dated and disagreeable charges being bandied about.
      There can be few people in our community more vulnerable to a rise in prices of the basic necessities of life than the widowed mother. I naturally welcome the recent increases in dependent child allowances for widows, but I am unable to understand the reasoning behind the decision taken in this Bill, and which I seek to challenge in these two Amendments to which I am speaking. I put down these Amendments not in any hostile or partisan spirit but to enable the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to explain the reasons behind the thinking in this Bill, and in particular to give answers to the two following questions.
      First of all, why in this Bill, as in the legislation introduced in 1964 by the present Government, has the Minister abandoned the policy of Conservative Governments, anyhow from 1956 onwards, of singling out the widowed mother with dependent children for especially favourable treatment when funds are made available for an increase in welfare benefits? When I say "especially favourable treatment" I am comparing her, for instance, with the sick and unemployed. I hope that no one will suggest that I do not fully accept the case for giving them special help, too, but I am now arguing the narrow point
      496
      of whether, in various categories of special need, there is not a continuing case, as was accepted by Conservative Governments, for giving especially favourable treatment to the widowed mother with dependent children.
      After all, in the great majority of cases the need for sickness or unemployment benefit is of relatively short duration. It tends to arise in families where the breadwinner is still alive and where, because he has recently become unemployed or sick, one may usually expect there to be some economic buffer, as a result of savings when he was at work, against real hardship. With the widowed mother with dependent children—except during the first few weeks after the death of her husband, the family's breadwinner—this is not the case. Widowhood and motherhood are generally of much longer duration than sickness and unemployment. This was presumably the reason which led Conservative predecessors of the right hon. Lady in her office to give greater increases in various forms to widowed mothers than to other categories of special need. While all were helped, the widowed mother got slightly more help than the others. Against this background, I ask the Minister what has led the Government to abandon this policy of especially favourable treatment for the widowed mother with dependent children.
      My second question is this. The Beveridge Report treated family allowances—which had already been announced in principle by the war-time National Government before the Report was published—as separate from, although essentially complementary to, the insurance-based welfare benefits which were recommended in that Report.
      This approach, of keeping family allowances separate from National Insurance benefits, has been followed by all Governments ever since. When family allowances were increased under Conservative Governments, National Insurance benefits were not reduced to take account of this. Yet, in the Bill, it is proposed to reduce some child dependent allowances to take account of the increase in family allowances.
      It is important for the Committee to realise, whatever the arguments for or against doing this, that the proposal to

      497
      do so introduces an entirely new principle in to the administration of the social services. Never before when family allowances have been increased have National Insurance benefits for dependent children been reduced. There may be a good reason for this but we have not been told what it is and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will state the reason that has led the Government to introduce this new principle.
      I ask the Government to bear in mind the psychological impact of this. realise that all Governments, from time to time, when they have adjusted National Insurance benefits in an upward direction, have adjusted National Assistance benefits downwards to take account of that. I hope the Minister will accept that that has always led to a widespread sense of injustice. I readily accept that Conservative Governments did it. More than 10 years ago, when I was responsible in the Conservative Research Department for social security matters, I sought to persuade Conservative Ministers that some administrative method should be found so that when National Insurance benefits went up, they should see that at the same time or shortly afterwards National Assistance scales did not go down.
      Although it is true that what really matters is the overall income of a family, people who are very near the poverty line and who read in their papers that they will get a certain number of shillings more—hon. Members know from experience of receiving letters precisely what happens—they are upset to find that a lot of the increase is taken away with the other hand.
      6.15 p.m.
      It has always seemed to me—and I have argued this at party committee meetings upstairs and elsewhere—that when National Insurance benefits are increased, then a new and higher level of what used to be called National Assistance scales should be brought in at the same time to ensure that the beneficiary gets the new and full increase. The right hon. Lady's proposals seem to be extending this bad old tradition from the past of which both Conservative and Labour Governments have been guilty—into a new sphere. For the first time, she is going to adopt exactly the same approach when increasing family allow-
      498
      ances. She will take away some of the increase with the other hand by reducing the widow's child dependent allowances.
      I urge her not to approach this problem with a closed mind and to realise that it is not merely material help that is important to these people but also that they should feel that we in the House of Commons and the people in Whitehall who administer their affairs regard them as individuals and understand their problems.
      Why has the Minister introduced this entirely new principle of reducing National Insurance child dependents benefits when increasing family allowances? If, as I hope, the Minister feels that there may be some force in my arguments, I trust that she will indicate her readiness to accept the spirit of Amendments 9 and 10 and, in due course, introduce her own Amendments to give widowed mothers with dependent children the full benefit of the proposed 7s. increase in family allowances.
      Mr. Fortescue: I am glad to speak following my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) because I had intended to make much the same point, but in a different way. The preamble to the Bill announces that the Measure is designed to:
      "…increase family allowances … and make related adjustments of certain benefits under the National Insurance Act, 1965…"
      and other enactments. My first question is similar to that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle. Why should such benefits under the National Insurance Acts be in any way related to family allowances? They never have been before. Why are they being so related this time?
      On Second Reading the Minister pointed out forcibly and convincingly that the chief problem of poverty related to the families of wage-earners whose wages were not high enough to properly support their children. There are, of course, many other problems, but hon. Members were made to realise that this is a real problem which we should ' be considering. Other problems can be dealt with by other means, but the children of a large family of a man who is not earning enough to keep them properly, who are, therefore, suffering and

      499
      who are unable to obtain any benefit from anywhere else must today receive our careful attention. The Bill falls far short of bringing the right kind of help to these children. It in some measure helps the other children who are in poverty, but the main burden of child poverty is not properly tackled by the Measure.
      It has already been pointed out that the relation of family allowances to payments to children under the National Insurance Acts results in the production of figures and calculations of great complexity. On Second Reading and today there have been friendly arguments about exactly how much is involved for how many children and whether certain allowances should be increased or decreased. A large mass of figures appears in the Schedules to the Bill and today we are considering many Amendments to those Schedules.
      These matters are now so complex that it takes a considerable expert to understand them. Most of those affected by the changes do not understand them, and very much resent the docking of an increase to which they think they are entitled. I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary hears about this from his constituents, just as we do. The point should not be overlooked. It is important that in our social security legislation justice should be seen to be done, and at the moment it is becoming too difficult for many people to understand.
      During the Second Reading debate I suggested that it would be far simpler to deal with this complex question by introducing negative Income Tax and completely abolishing family allowances as such. The Parliamentary Secretary replied to that point at considerable length, and I see from the OFFICIAL REPORT that last Friday he replied to it at even greater length when the question was raised by some hon. Members opposite. I very much regret that I was not here on Friday. The right hon. Lady's criticism also applies to me, but I believe that it was possibly more important to try to give advice to the people of Liverpool who are affected by the Government's policies than to have been here arguing about them.
      Last Friday the Parliamentary Secretary said that negative Income tax should
      500
      not be disregarded completely, and he went much further than he did during the Second Reading debate. He even commended the system in some ways, but he again raised innumerable objections about the practicability of introducing it because of administrative difficulties. But there would be great simplification if the principle of negative Income Tax were applied only to those in employment and the present system of benefits, exemplified in the Schedules to the Bill, were retained for those worse-off members of the community in whose families the breadwinner is not in employment. The family allowance could still disappear completely, and the system of negative Income Tax could be introduced simply for those in employment.
      I could quote many of the objections the hon. Gentleman raised and refute them, but I do not think that this is the occasion. If the system of negative Income Tax were restricted to those in employment, the objections would not hold much water. The Parliamentary Secretary asked on Friday how Income Tax in reverse would be paid if a man left his wife. I do not think that that was a very relevant argument, because many people leave their wives, I regret to say. I do not seek to encourage the practice, but there is no great difficulty in dealing with their Income Tax affairs by a system of negative Income Tax after they have done that regrettable thing.
      I do not want to pursue that point much further, because I believe that I am entirely out of order. But I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if the principle we argued about last week could be re-examined, with a view to applying it only to those in employment and not to the other categories of the worse-off people, it might seem suddenly to be much more practical than it did in the past.
      Mr. Loughlin: May I make an oblique reference in passing to this issue, which is completely out of order?
      The Chairman: Only if it is very short.
      Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) did me the courtesy of reading the speech I made on Friday. But I can only

      501
      assume that he did not read it very carefully, because I said that I would not rule out a system of negative Income Tax but that we should have to be absolutely sure that we got it right before we would dream of introducing it.
      I should now like to turn for a moment to what was a rather silly outburst by me against the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). I am afraid that I was a bit rude to him. I consider that that was silly, and I hope that he will accept my apologies and let me withdraw the remark. I became a bit exasperated because, having been associated with the fill over a long period, I have reached the point where I make clear divisions in examining its real purpose and intent.
      The Bill does not pretend to be a general up-rating of National Insurance benefits for children. Those benefits were increased by 2s. 6d. a week as recently as last month. The Bill's main aim is to increase family allowances. My right hon. Friend the Minister said on Second Reading:
      "The object of a family allowances increase, after all, is to help families who cannot be helped through the National Insurance and supplementary benefits scheme, and to restore to some extent the balance between family allowances and the benefits under those schemes …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th November, 1967 Vol. 753, c. 1039.]
      Unlike insurance benefits, family allowances are payable whether or not the recipient is in work. Several hon. Members have referred to Beveridge, who advocated a system of universal children's allowances. When he did that, Beveridge recognised that earnings do not normally take account of the differences in the size of families. However, a working person with children is relatively worse off than a childless person with the same earnings. Family allowances, which are taxable and therefore decline in value with increased earnings, are one way of recognising the difference in responsibilities.
      Similarly, on personal benefit alone, beneficiaries with children would be worse off than the childless beneficiaries. But that is already recognised in the provision for the children of beneficiaries by dependency benefits, which supplement family allowances and bring the amount payable for each child of a beneficiary up to the appropriate total.
      502
      In the Bill, we are fixing this total at 28s. per week for the child in regard to most National Insurance benefits, and £2 5s. 6d. for widows. Contrary to what some hon. Members opposite have said, the rates of benefits have always reflected the existence of family allowances. This is seen clearly in the provision of lower rates for second and subsequent children than for the first child. But because family allowances have previously been allowed to fall behind the improvements in benefits, it has been necessary for benefits to form a larger and larger part of the total provision.
      6.30 p.m.
      The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) said in his very clear speech that the offsetting of dependency benefits on this occasion was contrary to the policy pursued by the Tories in the past. He said that when the Tories increased family allowances they did not decrease widows' child allowances. The Tory Administration in 1952 increased the family allowance from 5s. to 8s., and at that time the widows' child allowance was half-a-crown. It would have been extremely difficult for the Tory Government to reduce that half-a-crown.
      Mr. Tapsell: On the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman is referring the Conservatives had just come to power after six and a half years of Labour rule and were facing the very serious situation that they inherited from the Labour Government.
      Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman gets over-sensitive and distorts history. I do not want to have a discussion on this Bill that is loaded politically. Hon. Members know my attitude to political debate and discussion. I do not think that I have ever had a reputation here for being kindly to my political opponents, but I believe that there are occasions when one can do it and occasions when one need not.
      Let me take the hon. Gentleman back to 1952, without going into whether there was an economic crisis or not. I am not arguing that the Tories were wrong in merely increasing the family allowance from 5s. to 8s. That is not under discussion. The point is that it would have been very difficult for them to reduce the widows' allowance when it was half-a-crown.

      503
      The second increase in the family allowance by the Tory Administration was in October, 1956, when the increase was 2s. per week. That was tied to only the third and subsequent children. If anyone had talked about making adjustments in any other benefits in relation to increases of that kind, it would have been almost impossible to sustain.
      Mr. Tapsell: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman a second time. I also am very reluctant to get involved in anything in the nature of partisan discussion on this matter. But the hon. Gentleman must admit that he is slightly trailing his coat. Having dealt with two family allowance increases, he will be going on to emphasise the very substantial increases which Conservative Ministers made in child dependency allowances to widowed mothers which they inherited at the absurdly low level of 2s. 6d. a week from the Socialists.
      Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman is getting excited for no reason. I am merely dealing with the point that he made. I am not seeking to score any political advantage. All I am saying is that in the light of the increases granted during that period, it would have been virtually impossible for the Tory Administration to make corresponding decreases in the dependency benefits. It is as simple as that, and I am not seeking to score a point. I am not arguing that the Tory Party did not increase the dependency benefits, for that would be flying in the face of history. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will believe me when I say that all I want to do is to explain what the position is.
      I should have thought that the complementary nature of the benefits did not need explaining. Any examination of the existing dependency benefits, or even the proposals in the Bill, would have demonstrated that in one case the dependency benefit is a pure dependency benefit—because no family allowance is paid in respect of the first child—and that in all other cases the sum total, which at present is 25s., is made up of the existing rate of family allowance with an element of dependency benefit bringing it up to the 25s. We are not doing anything in practice to which exception can be taken.
      504
      If it is not accepted that the dependency benefits and the family allowances have a complementary nature, I can understand why there is some argument about the concept that we are giving substantial sums of money to people earning £100 a week and taking from people when they are sick and unemployed. But we must get clear in our minds that what we are dealing with here is only one facet of the social security structure to which both sides of the Committee have subscribed so far. The £100 per week man is a bit of a red herring. Whatever we do in this field, unless we accept the situation of complete selectivity it will always be possible for someone to say that we are giving a lot of money to someone who does not need it and could give more money to someone who does.
      I shall be ruled out of order it I tall, about selectivity in this debate, and I do not want that. I merely tell the hon. Gentleman that I think that he was less than fair—I put it no higher than that—when he began to talk in terms of the £100 per week man and the person who is unemployed and sick. My right hon. Friend and I are as concerned about the unemployed, the sick and all who are dependent upon National Insurance benefits as any hon. Member. But if it is accepted that there is a complementary nature between dependency benefits and family allowances, what we are doing is reasonable.
      It could be argued on this basis that there is no need to increase dependency benefits. Family allowances, on the one hand, are designed to assist parents with large families and with family commitments. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) that there is an additional factor, but in the main the purpose of family allowances is to deal with the situation where a man is in work. The purpose of dependency benefits, on the other hand, is to deal with the situation where a man is not in work but is in receipt of National Insurance of one kind or another.
      I said that it could be argued that in a family allowance uprating Bill of this kind it would not be wrong if there were no increases in dependency benefit rates. But we are increasing those rates on this occasion. The figures given by the hon.

      505
      Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) were correct. We are increasing the first child allowance by 3s., making the total 28s instead of 25s. We are increasing the total allowance for the second child by 3s. Then there is the increase of Is. for subsequent children.
      The hon. Gentleman asked me on what basis we arrived at these figures. The purpose of partial offsets, as distinct from total offsets, is that this constitutes part of a package deal. There will shortly be increases in charges for school meals and for welfare milk for children below the age of five. The hon. Gentleman confessed that he was a little confused about the figures. He was not half as confused as I became when I attempted to calculate the effect of this, with all the permutations that arise from some children being at school and some not being of school age.
      We have calculated, as far as it is possible to calculate, that we can offset, by the amounts by which we are increasing dependency benefits, the possible increases for families which may arise consequent upon the increased charges for school meals and welfare milk. In the package deal we are ensuring that the fourth and subsequent children of families will receive free school meals as of right.
      Mr. Worsley: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the whole of the net increase of benefits and family allowances, taken together, will go, as part of this package deal, in the increased cost on school meals and welfare milk?
      Mr. Loughlin: No, the whole of the net increase will not go in that way. We have tended to err on the generous side. It must not be assumed that the whole of it will be expended in this way. There is an added benefit in our calculations by virtue of the fourth and subsequent children in large families receiving free school meals. It works out at 3s. 4d. a week over the year for each child having free school meals.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Tapsell: As the child dependency allowance for third and subsequent children is being reduced by 4s., the larger family is losing as a result of the reduction in the child dependency allowance.
      Mr. Loughlin: I would not be dogmatic about this. It does not neces-
      506
      sarily follow in this context that a family with more children, taking the balance between the household's expenditure and its income, needs a greater amount of money because the offsets are part of a package. Some work has been done on this. Frankly, it is not very clear. I appreciate that we are reducing the benefit for the fourth and fifth child by a greater amount than we are for the second and third child. The three-child family gets the additional benefit for the first child of 3s. We have tried to deal with this situation on the basis of the complementary nature of the benefits. We have done it with a degree of equity. I hope that in the light of this explanation the Amendment will be withdrawn.
      Dame Irene Ward: I must apologise to the Committee for not being here when the debate began. I was attending the Select Committee dealing with the Parliamentary Commissioner. I am therefore at a disadvantage in that I have not heard the whole debate. I also apologise to the Chair for not having risen quickly enough to catch the eye of the Chair before the Joint Parliamentary Secretary began his reply. In the beginning I regretted my tardiness, but now I am rather pleased about it, because I have had the benefit of hearing the whole of his case.
      The hon. Gentleman merely said that the Government could not do anything for the widowed mother. He gave no satisfactory explanation why there was this particularly unfortunate attack, because I regard it as such, on the widowed mother. The country does not understand the complexities of this scheme. However much study is devoted to this subject, it is difficult to understand the reasoning behind the Government's decision. I have had a great deal of correspondence on the subject. I have written to the appropriate Ministers asking for a reply. We all appreciate the fact that we get full explanations from the Ministry, an establishment which was laid down a long time ago. Whether we agree with the explanations is another matter.
      We all have every reason to thank Ministers from this Ministry for the way in which they try to explain their decisions, and I am always grateful on behalf of those who write to me and to whom

      507
      I send on the correspondence. Whether they are any wiser when they have read the answers is a moot point, and I sometimes do not understand them myself.
      I want to quote one paragraph from a letter about a constituent of mine. It took the Parliamentary Secretary three full pages to reply to me about a very simple case of a widowed mother. I will not weary hon. Members by reading it all, but suffice it to say that the explanation is much wider than that which the Parliamentary Secretary has just given us, although equally unsatisfactory. It is about one of my constituents and it explains the reduction in the allowance for one of her children. It says:
      "First of all, I should confirm that the family allowances increase which"—
      my constituent—
      "is now receiving for her fourth child has led to a reduction in the amount of the increase of widowed mother's allowance payable for that child. As a result of the recent changes, she receives for the child 5s. a week extra in family allowances and 2s. 6d. less in widowed mother's allowances, leaving her with an advantage from the changes of 2s. 6d. a week for the child. I can see why"—
      my constituent—
      "should feel that she is unfavourably treated in comparison with an ordinary working person who appears to get the full advantage of the 5s. increase in family allowances for a fourth (or subsequent) child."
      The Minister is able to see why she should feel aggrieved. I am delighted that we should have had this debate today, because, whatever the reason for family allowances—and I accept all that the Parliamentary Secretary said about them—the fact remains that the widowed mother is to be in a disadvantageous position, and that is intolerable.
      The Parliamentary Secretary suddenly shot off at a tangent to speak about school meals. They have nothing to do with the subject. The way in which free meals are allocated has been part of our policy for many years and does not affect the fact that the widowed mother is at a disadvantage compared with other working people in the matter of allowances for certain children.
      I feel strongly about this subject because I was the daughter of a widow and certainly my widowed mother never had a large income. I can speak without prejudice. The fact remains that the child of a widow does not have the
      508
      opportunities which would be provided by a father who by his own skill, whatever it might be, could rise up the salary scale and thus automatically raise his family's standard of life. The children of a widowed mother, unless she marries again, are always at a disadvantage, because her salary or social security, the income which accrues to the family, remains at roughly what it was when the father died. In normal circumstances, as the breadwinner gets older and gets more skilled and adds more years in the Civil Service or in his profession, the standard of life of the family automatically goes up. The family of a widow hardly ever moves from the static position it took up when the mother became a widow.
      It is therefore tremendously important that Parliament should always accept, as we have always tried to accept—I do not make any political points—that we have to do something special to protect the family of the widow. Having listened to so many promises and pledges, and attacks when my party was in office, I am bitterly disappointed that the Ministry of Social Security should have decided that it is right to refuse to widows the dependants' allowance in respect of some of their dependent children.
      The Parliamentary Secretary said that family allowances were introduced for something quite different a very long time ago. I remember Eleanor Rathbone, our late colleague, the individual who brought about the acceptance of family allowances in our legislation. It took a long time for her to get them accepted as a matter of policy, but I am certain that Eleanor Rathbone would not agree that family allowances should now be operated to the disadvantage of a widowed mother.
      I do not think that I need argue further, because the problems and difficulties and figures have already been explained. The explanation given by the Ministry in this long letter is quite unsatisfactory. It is very sad that widowed mothers should feel that they are being unfairly treated. Widows have enough sadness in life without having to feel that they are badly treated compared with families in work and with the opportunity of an ever-increasing standard of life. Psychologically, it is bad for them that they should do so.

      509
      I therefore very much regret this decision. I do not accept the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation. However, hon. Members opposite are in a majority, although it is extraordinary how few of them have contributed to these discussions on a very important Bill. That augurs badly for the Prime Minister's pledge when we consider the other problems which will be raised. I will say no more than that. I very much regret the decision not to accept the Amendments to give widowed mothers a better deal.
      7.0 p.m.
      Lord Balniel: I apologise for missing the first few moments or two of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's speech but, having apologised to him, I am bound to say that, as I listened to him, I grew more and more disheartened, not because he had taken little trouble in replying—because he tried to reply to the satisfaction of the Committee—but because it was sad to hear him turning down a series of Amendments which we think are very reasonable and rather important. The whole Committee is indebted for the way in which these Amendments have been submitted by my hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) and the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell).
      We recognise that we are discussing, in these Amendments, probably the most complicated aspects of social welfare schemes, and the way in which my hon. Friends spoke has been of value to the Committee. May I say how much I also appreciated the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), because she touched on something of great importance in human relations at the Ministry of Social Security.
      We all pay tribute to the way in which the Ministry answers letters, probably more carefully than any other Department of Government. But there must be many a Member of Parliament who looks at the length of the letters, gives a sigh of exhaustion, and passes it straight to the constituent. I suspect, and it is no more than a suspicion, that the complexity of the replies received from the Ministry is not only bewildering to Members, who on the whole are fairly conversant with the structure of social security, but extremely complicated for the great majority of constituents. I am making the point because it was said very effectively that a
      510
      simplification of replies from the Ministry would be widely appreciated by constituents who raised matters.
      Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we have given very careful consideration to the nature of our replies, the degree of detail we think ought to go into them, and how we can make them convey the picture in its entirety. He may be interested to know that I have had more thanks given to me personally and in letters from Members opposite than I have from my hon. Friends. They have said that the letters we send out are fully detailed and couched in reasonably nice terms. We have looked at this. I am convinced that it is impossible for us to give the information required in complicated cases of this kind in any other way.
      Lord Balniel: Clearly the Parliamentary Secretary has looked into this matter, and it does not surprise me that he has received more "thank you letters" from this side of the Committee, which is noted for its courtesy, than from the other side. These Amendments are designed to help various groups of people in the community so as to ensure that, following the passing of this Bill, they receive the full benefit of allowances. The purpose of the Amendments, and they are multitudinous, is to ensure that certain groups of people should have the full benefit of the 7s. increase in the cash family allowances after taking account of the fact that under the Bill the National Insurance child dependants' allowance for the first child has been increased by 3s.
      The problem to which my hon. Friends have called attention arises for the second and subsequent children, because the National Insurance dependants' allowance has been reduced for the second and subsequent children. These Amendments are designed to bring additional help to three broad groups of people, whom we believe should be given a high priority in our social policies and who should get the full benefit of the 7s. increase. It is true that there are other groups of the community whom we feel should receive the full 7s. increase. The Amendments are on the Notice Paper and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea has said, they show our intentions although, alas, they are out of order under the Financial Resolution.

      511
      The groups that we are discussing fall into three separate categories. First, there are widows with children. Secondly, women drawing a child's special allowance. This is an allowance introduced in 1957. and is payable to a woman whose marriage has been dissolved or annulled. It is paid on the death of her former husband if she has a child towards whose support the former husband has been contributing. The third group for whom we are trying to obtain the full 7s. increase are the sick and the unemployed with children.
      During the Second Reading debate the Parliamentary Secretary and I had a certain dispute about various figures. I appreciate now that he was trying to be helpful, and that there was a misunderstanding between us as to what exactly we were discussing. I appreciate his helpful attitude, but it does not alter the fact that the principle which I was enunciating was absolutely sound. I concede that in detail the Parliamentary Secretary, with the full resources of the Civil Service behind him, as well as his great knowledge of the Bill, was correct, hut the principle that we are discussing in these Amendments is an important one and it is right that we should be debating it.
      I do not want to burden the Committee with more than a minimum of figures because they have already been given by my hon. Friends, but I would like to give an example of what happens under the Bill. First, the sick and the unemployed with children. Under this Bill the married man who is unemployed or ill, with two children, will benefit only to the extent of 6s. a week instead of a full 7s. increase in family allowances. This is because of the reduction in the National Insurance child dependants' allowance for the second and subsequent children. The same failure to give the full benefit of 7s. arises for the widowed mother and for the woman drawing a child's special allowance. The only other example I will give concerns the widowed mother for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth made such an eloquent plea.
      This is an example of a widowed mother with three children. Under the Bill she gets, I believe, a total of £6 16 6s. This represents an increase of 9s. If she benefited to the full extent
      512
      of the 7s. family allowance increase she would be receiving, not an increase of 9s., but an increase of 14s. I welcome what the Government have done in this Bill in giving additional help to the first child.
      Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the same error about which I warned him before. He is using a lot of figures, but I want to ask him one simple question. Does he accept the complementary nature of dependency benefits and family allowances? Does he accept that at present the first qualifying child in a family gets a dependency benefit of 25s., and that that is a straight-through benefit? The second qualifying child gets National Insurance benefit of 17s. and then gets the 8s. for family allowances making a 25s. actual allowance. With the third and qualifying child, there are the two elements in the total allowance of 17s. in National Insurance plus the 10s. family allowance. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept this, why has he not been fighting it all along the line instead of trying to confuse the issue when we are simply accepting the same complementary principle as we have had in the past?
      Mr. Tapsell: May I make a point which is directly relevant to the question which I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to answer but which I do not think he answered, although he gave some explanations? We on this side accept that every social welfare benefit is, to some extent, complementary to every other one. The question which I asked him was: does he realise that he is introducing an entirely new principle by reducing National Insurance benefits when he increases family allowances?
      Lord Balniel: I was perfectly clear in my mind about this matter before the Parliamentary Secretary's intervention. His very prolonged intervention must have caused confusion, not only in my mind, but in the mind of all hon. Members. The answer, as given by my hon. Friend, is that we accept the complementary relationship between family allowances and the insurance dependency. All that I am saying is that there are certain groups of people—widowed mothers, the sick, the unemployed with children and the women drawing child dependency allowance—who are priority groups in the social welfare structure. But we are very

      513
      sorry that the Government have so arranged the structure of the Bill that these groups do not receive the full 7s. increase for their second and subsequent child. The whole point of these Amendments is that we believe that that group of people should receive the 7s. increase rather than the lesser amounts included in the Bill.
      It is clear that, regrettably, the Government do not accept these Amendments. All that I ask them is this: will they consider again, not just the sick, but the chronically sick, those who have been sick for longer than six months, because among this section of the community there is a concentration of financial hardship? Will they also look again sympathetically to the problems facing widowed mothers which have been advanced by my hon. Friends?
      Amendment negatived.
      The Temporary Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): Does the hon. Member wish to move Amendment No. 4 separately?
      Mr. Worsley: No.
      Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mrs. Knight: During the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, there were one or two occasions when I thought that he was, tantalisingly, on the edge of a break-through to a great truth. In a sort of verbal minuet, he approached it and then retreated. While I was left gasping and wondering whether he would ever let the true light of it break upon him, he left the matter and went on to another subject altogether. It is essential to boil down the debate to the great truth which we face in this Clause, namely, that at this time there is extreme anger and acute irritation among the public that blanket increases are being granted to all families regardless of need.
      7.15 p.m.
      We are left in no doubt by speeches from right hon. Members opposite and from other quarters that Britain is in rags, ruin and penury and that we are deflated, devalued and in the hands of the money lenders. Therefore, surely this is a time when excess expenditure of the kind envisaged in the Clause should he considered with very great care. If it
      514
      were going merely to people who needed it, there would he no question about it and we could all support the Clause with great enthusiasm. But that is not the case.
      I do not know whether it is an underestimated truth that the people of this country are very ready to countenance extra expenditure if they feel that it is needed. Similarly, they are well able to bear suffering in the cause of getting Britain out of her difficulties. There is no question about that. What is occasioning extreme irritation is the fact that people feel that a large proportion of the money envisaged in the Bill will go to people who do not need it.
      We have heard various estimates of the precise amount about which we are speaking. It is estimated in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that the gross amount in the first full year will he about £124 million. The net amount was quoted earlier. But then are added the words—and they are rather sinister—"increasing steadily thereafter". Let us be in no doubt, therefore, that a large amount of extra expenditure is envisaged.
      Whenever we set our hand to Measures of this kind, it is important to recognise that we act, not in secret, but with the eyes of the world on us. When a man goes to his bank manager and asks for money to spend on a project which he cannot afford without assistance, the bank manager casts a very jaundiced eye afterwards if he sees that the man has spent a large amount of money on fitting out his children with new clothes. I would not argue, about fitting out children with new clothes if they needed them and if their existing raiment was in holes. I wish to voice what I believe is a very strong feeling of anger in this country that so much of this money is going to people who do not need it.
      There is talk about the famous fur-coated lady who goes to draw her family allowance. Just because a lady is fortunate enough to have a fur coat, I would not suggest that she is of necessity in the higher income group. But some people believe that people of this kind who draw the family allowance should not draw it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) touched on this point. He said something which I think was a little misleading. The fact is that even if a person

      515
      does not draw the family allowance, he is taxed on it as if he had drawn it.
      I had a letter from a constituent, from which I will read an excerpt. It says:
      "I am ready to do my share to help our country get back on its feet, but I must heartily condemn any increases in pensions, family allowances, sick pay etc. unless these terns are selective.
      There have been so many increases in the National Insurance over the past few years that it now becomes a major item from one's pay. When people are living alone, like I am, dependent upon my own efforts, through no fault of my own…constant rising of outgoings are drastically reducing my own standard of living. At 55 I pay single person's rates and do not get any other than the initial Income Tax relief, and whilst I would not grudge help to those truly needing it, I feel that many families getting large sums are not in need."
      This brings me straight to the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) and the Minister. Both seemed to imply that there was something morally wrong in seeking to curb expenditure on social services. The Committee should be absolutely clear on this there are social services and social services. The point about the lack of need is worrying many people. Many poor families are desperately in need, but it seems that they will not be much helped by the Bill.
      We have discussed Amendments covering widowed mothers, but other persons are in great need, divorced mothers and persons who look after elderly dependants. There are old persons who receive no pension. My hon. Friends have put forward suggestions for help to them. The Minister blew the trumpet of hope for people of this kind in a singularly muted fashion. There is no doubt that the expenditure here envisaged—such a large proportion of which will go to people who do not need it—could be restrained without any moral wrong, indeed with a great deal of moral right. This is something which the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange and the Minister seemed to misunderstand.
      No one minds increases in expenditure of this sort, but we must recognise that this expenditure, which is very large, will puzzle some overseas friends very much. This is a matter on which we should dwell when we are able to do so. Does the Committee think that the proposal for this
      516
      vast extra expenditure is right? I do not think so.
      Mr. Fergus Montgomery: The Minister told us on Second Reading that this was a powerful attack on child poverty. The Clause deals with the amount of increase to be paid in family allowances. We have been told that the gross cost of this Measure will be about £124 million for the first year. Under the Clause as it stands the poor will be helped at exactly the same rate as the rich. Only slight help will be given to families in real need.
      I wonder whether the Minister is completely satisfied with the Clause as it stands and is satisfied that the amount of money to be distributed is being distributed in the best possible way. She said on Second Reading that there were about half a million children in families with resources below the supplementary benefit level, families affected by the wage stop. Their plight has been worsened by recent events, by devaluation, by which there will be a rise in the cost of living. Many of those families have a very difficult time.
      I have in mind a hard-working, decent family in my constituency. The father is not in the best of health. He has had to accept a job with a very small wage. There are three children at school, one in the sixth form of a grammar school. According to this Clause, that family will be helped by about 14s. a week. I am sure that they will be grateful, but I would have been much happier if there had been more for that type of family and less for those who can afford to provide for their children.
      There are the families of the unemployed, of widowed mothers, and the sick. Those families, living on the supplementary benefit level, will not get the full value from the 7s. per child. That is given with one hand and taken away by the other. I am sorry to labour the point and I know that the Parliamentary Secretary spent a great deal of time explaining it, but it is very difficult to explain it to constituents.
      I understand that the larger the family when on supplementary benefit, the less they will get of the 7s. per child. They get 3s. extra for the first child and the 3s. increase on present rates for the second and 1s. for each subsequent child. This

      517
      means that a family on supplementary benefit level with two children of school age will get 6s. instead of 7s. With three children of school age they will get 7s. instead of 14s. and with four children of school age they will get 8s. instead of 21s.
      The Parliamentary Secretary spent a great deal of time explaining this but it is still difficult to put it over to the families concerned. They read in the newspapers that family allowances are to be increased by 7s. per child after the first child, but when they do the arithmetic and get the actual amount they find it is a great deal less than they had expected.
      I am certain that the hon. Lady is as anxious to alleviate the poverty which exists as we are, but this Clause only skirts the question. Perhaps it is a holding operation. If so, how long is it to be a holding operation? There were peculiar circumstances earlier this afternoon when we were told that at some time in the future there is to be further legislation to try to eradicate some of the ill-effects among poor families of devaluation.
      It would have been much better if the whole thing had been embodied in this Bill so that we could give help to those people as quickly as possible. Under this Clause those families will not be helped until April next year. If we have to wait for further legislation, how soon will the benefits of that legislation be felt by families which really need them?
      I wonder whether hon. Members opposite remember that their Election Manifesto in 1964 said:
      "Labour will replace inadequate maintenance grants with reorganised family allowances, graduated according to the age of the child, with a particularly steep rise for those remaining at school after the statutory leaving age."
      It is rather significant that that pledge did not appear in the 1966 manifesto. It would be interesting to find from hon. Members opposite whether it is still part of their party policy. That pledge would be a great deal of help to a lot of people today, but this Clause does not go anything like as far as that pledge.
      7.30 p.m.
      I would ask the Minister, in thinking about this whole system, to bear in mind the great increase which we shall have in our population over the next few years and the fact that our working population
      518
      will not increase by anything like the same amount. In other words, we shall have a smaller percentage of people working to support a larger percentage of people having social benefits of one sort or another. Therefore, I wonder whether the right hon. Lady is satisfied that this money is being spent in the right way, and whether she will give thought in the future to trying to channel it where real poverty exists, and do something about it.
      I cannot vote against this Clause, because it is giving some assistance to some of the people, but I am afraid that it does not give nearly as much help as I would like given to the people I personally would like to help.
      Mr. J. T. Price: I think it would be very unfortunate if my right hon. Friend were left, as a result of this debate, with any impression that some of the views expressed from the opposite side of the Committee are peculiar to that side of the Committee. Lest any such view should be taken, I should like to make it quite clear, speaking entirely for myself, and not for any group or cabal of hon. Members, that I, too, am critical about the way in which this benefit is being put forward.
      I had the pleasure and advantage of listening to my right hon. Friend explaining the Bill on Second Reading. I listened most attentively to the arguments in support of this proposal to extend this benefit to improve these family allowances right across the board, to an extent estimated at £124 million in the first year, rising thereafter to some unspecified figure. Anyone who cares to look up the Minister's speech would scarcely find sufficient argument or evidence in that speech to support such a comprehensive method of dealing with this problem.
      I think it is common ground between all Members in this Committee that we have sufficient good will to extend generosity to the utmost limits of our resources to the 150,000 or so deprived families, the large families, with sickness, with unemployment, the kind of families who are living very much below the poverty line, and about whom a Committee has recently reported to the Minister. But, so far as the generality of the public are concerned, this country is living in very parlous times. We know there are many anxieties which beset the

      519
      minds of our constituents. Nevertheless, no one can say that a very large section of the 26 million or so insured contributors who pay to the social insurance fund are under present conditions having the sort of time which justifies this Measure. I am aware, of course, that many people are unemployed; I am aware that many people have large families and have not sufficient income to sustain them. This Bill is directed to raising their standard substantially beyond what it is at the moment.
      However, when I was a young man—which was some time ago now—and was taking my first maiden flights into social activities connected with the Labour Party, we early Socialists of those days—and I am not as ancient as all that, let me say, so that we do not get the context wrong—the people of my generation, had inscribed upon our banners, in putting forward the reforms we thought necessary, a slogan, as many parties bear slogans, and our slogan was: "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need." I think that was a fine ethical motto to put on any banner.
      Mrs. Knight: Es it still there?
      Mr. Price: I hope I may put this case in the way I wish to. I am putting it moderately and temperately and, I hope, logically.
      We have now, apparently, arrived at another situation, because of our industrial and social history. Anybody who lived during the early part of the century and through two world wars, saw what was, heaven knows, the horrible poverty which used to beset our people, mainly in the great cities, with which, I suppose, the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) was not familiar. As a Lancastrian living in the industrial north, I saw this kind of poverty on such a scale that I doubt whether the present generation, even my right hon. Friend the Minister, could possibly conceive it, because she has not seen it.
      Mrs. Hart: Will my hon. Friend allow me?
      Mr. Price: Certainly.
      Mrs. Hart: During the black years of the 'thirties I saw plenty of it.
      Mr. Price: I am glad to have that assurance. I am only making the point to come to the next point, because I think one needs a little historical perspective to get this argument right.
      During those black years we had a means test, which was dreaded by most working-class families suffering poverty, deprivation and unemployment. It was so severe, and so punitive in its effect upon the people who were seeking the very modest and tiny social benefits which at that time were available. In those days the family which had only one effective breadwinner and which sought public assistance from the old boards of guardians, as they were called in those days, had to put the whole income of the family into a pool and the family's income was taken as a whole before any member of the family was entitled to draw any assistance at all. That was the means test in its crudest form. It led, as my right hon. Friend knows, to the break up of families because a family's breadwinner, on whom the family mainly relied for a few shillings a week, would go to live somewhere else so that the public assistance authorities could not include his earnings in the family's income.
      We look back on those days with a good deal of nostalgia. A good many of my hon. Friends who remember those days still bear the brands of the damage done psychologically to our generation by the crude and coercive conditions of the means test under the Conservative Governments of those days—if I may make a small party point. I am glad to see that in this modern Parliament we have newer people coming along, who may be better educated, who may not have had to suffer such personal hardship. I am glad to see liberal instincts. of which we regarded ourselves in those days as the guardians, permeate this Committee, so that the Committee has become more liberal in its attitude to social problems. A generation ago it would have been impossible for anybody sitting on the Opposition side to make the sort of speech which was made by the hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston tonight. I am all in favour of these benefits for those people who are in need. It would have been impossible a generation ago to give such benefits, but, thanks to the propagandists and pioneers of social

      521
      reform, the spirit of those reformers has permeated our modern society and we need no longer labour in vain in trying to get a more humane attitude to social problems.
      But, frankly, when I look at the scale of our commitment to expenditure of public money on all kinds of desirable social projects in our social services, on social insurance, on public health, on education, and all the other desirable things, I have got to be selective in what I regard as the priority charge on the rational Exchequer. I hope that that's not an unfair way of putting it. There fore, during this Committee stage of the Bill, which may be too late to make any impact upon the present policy, I say earnestly to my right hon. Friend that she would be mistaken if she assumed that the kind of criticism being ventilated from the other side of the Committee 's peculiar to that side. Many of my colleagues share my views, and I should not like it to go out from this Parliament that the Labour Party is so tooted to the old, traditional attitude towards the means test that some of its members do not realise that, if we are to help the worst hit members of our society who are below the poverty line, the argument cannot be sustained any longer that benefits should be extended right across the board to every family, regardless of social position or income. I hope that I shall not have spoken in vain tonight and that any hon. Member who shares my views will be generous enough to support what I have said.
      I represent a constituency in Lancashire, and Lancashire is probably one of the most earthy areas in the country, where people are more concerned with a common sense attitude towards problems than with sophisticated arguments put forward by polemical speakers. My constituents tell me that it would be folly to extend these benefits indefinitely, because they have an impact upon National Insurance contributions which are becoming increasingly oppressive on the wage envelopes of the lower-paid workers. That is a valid Socialist argument, and it is also a valid trade union argument.
      I do rot wish to detain the Committee any longer in listening to my rather discursive little speech. However, I felt strongly impelled to say that, when we propose to spend such a large sum of
      522
      money as £124 million on one single improvement in a social benefit which is so desirable to a large number of people, the Minister should be asked to give a more convicing reason for doing it than she has. I was christened Thomas. I hope that I have justified my name, because I am still a sceptic.
      Mr. Pardoe: I want to take up one or two of the points which have been made in the debate. First, I accept that there is a strong feeling in the country that we should not be giving blanket increases across the board. This is always the case. I have had the same sort of protests as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has had, and one does the best that one can to refute them.
      I have some sympathy with parts of the case made out against giving blanket increases, because I believe that we should try to redistribute the total sum of money which we allocate to the improvement of family conditions, and that is one of the reasons why the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and I have had some altercation. I do not argue that we should take away all the money which we pay to middle and upper income group families. What I am saying is that we should not give the extra to those who do not need it, and that we can avoid giving it to them by rearranging our present tax allowances.
      To take my own case as an illustration, I have three children under 11 years of age. For the first child, I get a tax allowance of £47 10s. For the second child, I get a similar allowance and, under the provisions of the Bill, I shall get £39 from the Post Office, making a total of £86 10s. For the third child, I get the same tax allowance of £47 10s., and a further £44 4s. under the Bill, making a total of £91 14s. It means that, in one form or another, I shall get a total of £225 14s. from the State, which is an increase of £39 on what I get at present.
      7.45 p.m.
      My point is that the tax allowances for children could be rearranged to ensure that I do not get the extra £39. Let me say at once that I am not arguing that I do not want it. However, it is wrong that the money should be paid to those in the middle and upper income groups where it is not so badly needed. After all, we are trying to deal with

      523
      poverty in the Bill. It is for that reason that I say that we should rearrange our tax allowances, and I hope that the noble Lord and I will not fight about that.
      The hon. Member for Edgbaston rather implied that we are spending too much on social services, and she mentioned the reaction of other countries. She said that, in our present economic situation, some countries will be puzzled by these provisions—
      Mrs. Knight: At no stage did I say or suggest that there was anything wrong about expenditure on social measures. My whole speech was devoted to developing the point that the money should be spent where it is most needed, and that there was nothing wrong in avoiding spending it on the kind of people with whom the hon. Gentleman has just ranged himself. There is no case at all for giving more money to people who already are in receipt of sufficient to enable them to manage satisfactorily without an increase, and the money thereby saved should go to those who need it.
      Mr. Pardoe: I am glad that the hon. Lady has denied the allegation that she thought that we were spending too much on social services. Unfortunately, her view is not entirely shared by everyone, and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been subjected to complaints that we spend more than foreign countries on these matters, and that it is one of the reasons for the decline of the Empire, and the rest of it.
      However, it is interesting to point out to such people that we are lagging behind in our expenditure on social services compared with other countries in Europe. If one looks at the proposed family allowances under the Bill and compares them with those of other countries, one finds, for instance, that family allowances in France amount to about £5 a month for the first child, rising to £7s. 10s. for the third and subsequent children. That is rather higher than the figure we are discussing. In Germany, there is no allowance for the first child, but the allowance for the second child is £2 5s. a month, rising to £6 5s. for the sixth child and subsequent children. These are substantial sums—
      Mr. J. T. Price: I agree that those are fair comparisons, but, on the other side
      524
      of the coin, has the hon. Gentleman got the figures of the contributions paid in these countries?
      Mr. Pardoe: Unfortunately, I have not, but I was coming on to the point made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) when he said that undoubtedly there are people in the country who resent the contributions which they have to pay. Family allowances, of course, do not come out of National Insurance contributions, but other increases given in the past few months do. I am opposed to the contributory principle for pensions. Instead, I should prefer to see a social security tax introduced which could not be allocated to Suez follies or even to building motorways, and with contributions related to incomes, so that a person paid according to his ability. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman, and assures him that I am on the side of his angels.
      I think that a large number of us in this committee, whatever our political views, are in favour of the broad principle of giving more to those who need it, and less to those who do not, but what we are concerned about, even those who cannot go all the way on this, is just how, we do it. The administrative costs are sometimes very considerable, indeed. We know that in 1964, under the old National Assistance Board, administrative costs amounted to about 8 per cent. of the total benefits and this was twice or three times the amount under the National Insurance administration.
      Then there is the problem that if we practise selectivity and the means test, it is a disincentive to effort, just as much as progressive Income Tax is. If one believes that progressive Income Tax is a disincentive, one must also believe that selectivity, in the way in which many hon. Members discuss it in the House, is also a disincentive. I think that what we have to do is to come to a united front on what kind of selectivity we are arguing for, and I believe our social services should be linked to the Income Tax form. The disadvantage of this is that the Income Tax form is always out-of-date, and one is often dealing with poverty which arises week by week.
      The answer is that in such things as family allowances, and in many other kinds of social service, we should pay a

      525
      flat rate which is sufficient to bring everybody up to a decent level. We should then add a sufficient amount of the total taxable income to ensure that those who pay the standard rate of Income Tax pay the whole lot back to the Exchequer. This would be simple administratively.
      At the moment we have to include in our Income Tax returns the amount which we receive for family allowances. l am suggesting that this amount should De grossed up to such a figure that, when taxed at 8s. 3d. in the £, brings back o the Exchequer the amount that was originally paid out. Administratively this would be simpler than any of the other suggestions that have been put forward, and it would ensure that those in the middle and upper income brackets would have to pay back to the Exchequer what they really did not need in social services.
      I propose, finally, to talk about the future. I believe that a much greater part of this problem should be dealt with through occupational schemes. It is already true that the Armed Forces pay a marriage allowance. This is partly to compel-Bate for the additional cost of a wife and family, although it is not paid per child. I think that we might well look to solving our teacher pay problem—though I shall not get thanked for this—by going over to this kind of occupational scheme. A great Liberal, Beveridge, when he was at the London School of Economics, concocted a family endowment scheme which was an occupational scheme, but unfortunately it has not been extended through all the universities.
      I believe that the final answer to our problem is that the State should pay a sufficient basic level of family allowance so that nobody can fall below that net, and for the rest, income related to need, to be paid by occupational schemes established in the wages structure of this country.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I want for a few minutes to add to the general confusion that exists in the Committee. I confess that I have not heard any brilliant ideas today, but I am modest enough to say in advance that nothing new will come from me either.
      526
      We are discussing an extremely complicated subject, and, with due respect to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I must say that he did not help. I am not blaming him for that, but this subject is incredibly complicated, and there is a tendency for us all to indulge in a little propaganda.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) is not here. I wish that I had more constituents whose only concern was whether they should draw their family allowance, or lose it by way of Income Tax.
      We have listened to some sickening hypocrisy from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have asked why we have not introduced pensions for people who do not have them. I cannot personalise, but it was quite sickening to hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) talking about a subject which we are not even discussing tonight. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power for 13 years—and there is no harm it repeating this again and again—and they had plenty of time to do something for the very section of the community about whom this smokescreen is being raised. The idea of world financiers who are speculating in sterling trembling at the thought of our discussion tonight is quite amusing.
      I have made this plea before, and I make it again. I have a great admiration for my right hon. Friend's drive and ability. I am not trying to get anything out of her, I am merely saying what is true. This is an incredibly complicated issue. Why is it so complicated? Let us consider some of the things which have to be taken into account when deciding how to hand out money. We have earnings-related benefits, supplementary benefits, unemployment benefits, sickness benefits, with the amount paid being governed by whether it is paid for long-term sickness or not, the additional complication of school meals and welfare foods, should the increases be related to cost of living increases, should they be related to the increase in earnings among the rest of the community, and so on.
      Not enough attention has been paid to the point made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). We hear a lot about the lack of incentives for executives. What I am worried about is

      527
      the lack of examination into the level at which a disincentive might arise if we introduced some kind of selectivity. I do not think that anyone can afford to be dogmatic in his approach to this problem. I realise that we have to do something in the short term to make up for the effects of devaluation, but we ought to take a long, cool look at just where we are going.
      It is becoming impossible to convince the public that they are getting their rights. We are not even getting any political advantage out of many of the things that we are doing. This is because it is all so complicated. I am not blaming anybody. I think that we are all caught up in it. I support the Clause and the Bill, but I am pleading for a serious attempt to be made to simplify the method of making payments. We must make a serious attempt to enable the staff in local offices to try to attend to the public. We must try to give them more time to explain to people what is behind the increases, and in this way perhaps get across to the public that we are doing a good job.
      I wonder whether my hon. Friend can tell me something more about the person earning £100 a week, to whom one hon. Member opposite referred. I presume that the hon. Member is quite concerned about this individual. To what extent will he benefit under the proposed increase if he has two, three, or four children? It is obviously a good debating point, but we have been subjected to a curious argument by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have taken one section of the community and tried to give the impression that they are getting more than the poor widow receives. I wish that I could find the widow about whom hon. Gentlemen opposite have been talking. I do not know where she is, but she is certainly not a very average widow.
      It is not fair of hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that we are giving less to the widow than we are to the man who earns £100 a week. There are many things to be taken into account. Is she a working widow? What does she earn? Does she receive supplementation? It is dishonest of hon. Gentlemen opposite to give the impression that we on this side
      528
      of the Committee are concerned only about the millionaire.
      Having made those points, and having made my plea for simplicity, I hope that we shall get some information from my hon. Friend.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mrs. Hart: The Committee will appreciate that we have ranged rather widely in our discussion, but probably quite usefully. I regard it as a pity that we keep having these nibbles at debates on selectivity without ever the chance fully to explore the matter and to go into all the arguments. I would welcome it very much if my hon. Friends or hon. Members opposite cared to find some way of giving us time to explore the issue. My hon. Friend read what I said on Second Reading, when I summarised the situation and made it clear that I did not have time to do more than that. I listed several strong reasons against developing the idea of selectivity further, certainly in family allowances.
      We are always limited to the fact that we almost stray out of order when we even refer to this matter, and we therefore cannot explore it in detail. I would welcome the chance to do so. I shall have to speak in a summary form again tonight, but I shall try to explain the situation more fully than I did on Second Reading. It is clearly the desire of the Committee that I should devote my remarks to the question of directing help to where it is most needed. That is the strand of the argument with which the Committee is most concerned.
      The last thing in the world that anyone on the Government side wishes to do in this Bill, or in any other Bill concerned with social expenditure, is to make the rich richer. When people talk about help going where it is most needed I ask them to consider the problem of cash benefits in the context of taxation, because the two cannot properly be divorced.
      The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said that these increases would occur in April under the Bill. I would draw his attention and that of the Committee to two points which are related to the extent to which the Bill will give help to those who most need it. First, the Finance Bill also comes in April. Secondly, as I made clear on

      529
      Second Reading, any question of tax adjustment must be left to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to consider in the context of his Budget proposals in general.
      It would be totally absurd and quite unrealistic to concentrate arguments upon this Bill or any other Bill that purported to further the idea of making sure that help went where it was most needed without setting those arguments right in the centre of the taxation system.
      I can put various possibilities that would be open to the Committee. One possibility—mentioned on Second Reading and today, and also in the debate last Friday—is a possible negative Income Tax, or Income Tax in reverse, at some time in the future. This proposition is full of the difficulties and complications that my hon. Friend outlined last Friday. It is equally exposed to the difficulty that, in so far as we are talking about negative Income Tax systems, of whatever kind, we are talking about a point which is necessarily pretty far in the future, because in order to carry out any of the systems we need pretty complete computerisation in the Inland Revenue and on the social security side, and however Cast we move on both fronts—and we are moving very fast—we cannot envisage that this would be a real issue for several years.
      Therefore, it people want to discuss the question not in realistic terms but in terms of what we should do nine or ten years hence, by all means let them discuss Income Tax in reverse, but it cannot be regarded as a way out, at this moment, in this Bill.
      Mr. Pardoe: I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that at present on our Income Tax return form we have a figure which states the amount that we receive, and that is included in the taxable income. I merely ask that that figure should be doubled or trebled, notionally. We do not need computers to do that. It is a simple mathematical calculation.
      Mrs. Hart: If the hon. Member had waited he would have seen that I was corning to that point. I was dealing first with possible machinery concerned with a system of Income Tax in reverse as a possible method of avoiding means-tested benefits and yet providing that the
      530
      money went from the rich to the poor. I am explaining why that is not on, in practical terms, for a good while ahead. It is not with us in terms of reality at the moment.
      A second possibility is the idea that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North has put forward, with which it is probably appropriate to take the various permutations of give and take, because most are based on the idea that as one gives out so one takes in, and this is in one operation, not related to income or benefit but solely to tax allowances on the one hand and family allowances and cash benefits on the other.
      This is an extremely attractive proposition and it deserves the most serious thought, it would solve many of our problems. I merely say that there are a number of ways in which tax adjustments can he made in order to achieve the net result that one does not give more to the rich but one does give more to the poor, and that the strict "give and take" solution is not the only one. These solutions follow the general slogan, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". I am delighted to know that so many Conservatives are adopting this as their new slogan for the 1970s. This would he a possible way through the dilemma.
      An individual means test of family allowances would create a great number of difficulties, and would not achieve the objects of those who put it forward. In the first place, there are the administrative implications. The burden it would place on an enlarged bureaucracy would he such that I am afraid that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) would be the first to say. "How dare the Government increase the number of civil servants in local offices?"
      Mrs. Knight: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that all the way through we are facing means tests of one kind and another. Certainly in terms of children carrying on to further education or any kind of education it is means test, mean test, all the way. It is nonsense to suggest that there are no means tests at the moment. We are hedged around with them constantly. They are with us, and with us to stay.
      Mrs. Hart: I take it from what the hon. Lady has said that she would not have

      531
      any objection if she found that the number of civil servants employed in her local Ministry offices had been doubled overnight in order to deal with the means testing of family allowances. I take it, also, that she is still not clear about the fact that if we related a test of means, at the end where a person pays in through taxation, to universal benefits paid out, we could achieve the same result—that is, of getting money to where it is most need—as if we had a less progressive system of taxation with means tests for the benefits being paid out. She must understand that point. We are talking essentially about a redistribution of purchasing power and wealth. The hon. Lady and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, are talking about it so as to restrict themselves to considering only the cash benefit as it is paid out and are depriving themselves of the opportunity of relating that to the taxation end and to how taxation is raised—
      Mr. J. T. Price: My right hon. Friend is pursuing a very illusive argument, although valiantly. She is trying to defend using a steam-hammer to crack a nut. I can put it simply with a simple question. How much—if her Department has made any estimate—will be clawed back from the benefit's global cost of £124 million in the first year by the taxation machine? In other words, what do we finish up with?
      Mrs. Hart: I am glad to see my hon. Friend allying himself with those hon. Members opposite who have pressed me to say more than I can in anticipation of the Chancellor's Budget in April. I cannot at this stage, any more than the Chancellor himself can. I ask my hon. Friend to accept from me that taxation adjustments must be in the context of the general Budget proposals, and that, as my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor said last week, a redistribution of purchasing power will have to be related to the methods which we use to carry through these Measures. My hon. Friend has been long enough in the House to know that he cannot get more than that from me in advance of April—
      Mr. Price: Since my right hon. Friend has been good enough to put it so nicely, perhaps I may say that I am still sceptical
      532
      about her proposal and that she has not justified her case.
      Mrs. Hart: In that case, I invite my hon. Friend to put down a Motion at the next opportunity for a Friday debate on this point when we can have a whole afternoon and I can deal with every point he has raised and make a speech long enough to explain to him what I have in mind.
      We are making a considerable contribution by this Clause to the relief of the poverty which concerns us. Under the Clause, some money will go to better-off people who are not in poverty, but this must be seen in relation to whatever taxation adjustments are made in the Budget. Only in that context can it be understood that cash benefits, when they are universal and across the board—even though, when taken by themselves, they can be seen as giving money sometimes to people who need it and sometimes to those who do not—nevertheless cannot be divorced from the tax structure and the kind of progressive taxation system in which we on this side believe.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedules agreed to.
      Bill reported, without Amendment.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      8.16 p.m.
      Lord Balniel: The Third Reading of this Bill achieves a small niche in Parliamentary history, because this is the first time in the history of the House of Commons that the Third Reading is not an automatic process of law making. It has been demanded by the Opposition that we should have the opportunity to debate this important Bill on Third Reading.
      While it achieves a small niche in Parliamentary history, however, I doubt whether the Government can look on it as achieving any mark at all in the history of their thinking on social policies. It is as if they had put the needle back on a record which played in 1947, to give

      533
      us the old, old tune. It is true that we have a new and energetic Minister, but the tune is old and out of date. The thinking behind the Bill is fossilised. The Bill itself is rigid and inadequate, as has been clearly shown by the inability to amend it to take into account the very serious economic situation which has developed since Second Reading.
      I should like to say this to the Minister with all friendship but with great firmness, and, I hope, without presumption. She earlier undertook what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) referred to as an auction in compassion and she complained that the Conservative Party were shedding crocodile tears about the problems of those in poverty. As my hon. Friend said, she herself is in a vulnerable position. She has taken over a Ministry from which the previous Minister resigned because she was not satisfied that the Government were taking adequate steps to help those in the poorest section of the community.
      She complained that few Conservative Members last week attended the debate on the minimum wage, which is nothing to do, incidentally, with her Department, but comes under the Ministry of Labour—
      Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member is wrong.
      Mrs. Hart rose—
      Lord Balniel: Let me go on.
      It is fair for me to point out that only two hon. Members, I think, of her party have taken part in the Committee debates this afternoon and that every Amendment and new Clause—there are several pages of them—has been put down by Liberal and Conservative Members. Not one is in the name of an hon. Member opposite.
      I accept the right hon. Lady's compassion and sincerity, although not the political thinking behind the Bill. I have no doubt that we will have many arguments on political matters, but I ask her, if we accept her sincerity and compassion, as we must, to do the same for us. This is the very minimum of dignity with which we can conduct our debates in trying to help those who are less fortunate than most of us.
      534
      Now, on Third Reading, the Bill stands exactly as it did when it was introduced. It is an indiscriminate Measure designed, through increased taxation, to pay increased family allowances for rich and poor families alike. It involves a substantial increase in taxation, about £124 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said, not only will there be an annual bill of £124 million but, as the financial memorandum makes clear, there will be an increasing burden on the taxpayer in following years.
      The Bill remains, as on Second Reading, one which, because it is indiscriminate and vastly expensive, can only give inadequate help to those in the greatest need. None of the arguments which we advanced on Second Reading have been heeded. No Amendments which we have put forward today have been accepted and, in spite of what we were led to believe the Government would do, no Amendments have been put down by the Government. However, one major change has taken place since the Second Reading. The £ has been devalued. The Prime Minister told the people of the country that the £ in their pockets has not been devalued. He strained credulity much too far. That was a most misleading statement. Every family with children, every family affected by this Bill, will find that as the weeks go by the £ in their pockets or in their purses has been devalued. It will buy less. For every £1 which they earn and for every £1 which they receive in family allowances—
      Mr. Loughlin: This is not in the Bill.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order.
      Lord Balniel: I have no doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
      Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you give me your guidance? Does the Bill include any reference to devaluation and to the Prime Minister's statement? Is it not true to say that we can debate only what is in the Bill and not other matters?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, everything that the noble Lord has said so far is perfectly in order. If it had not been, I would have stopped him.
      Lord Balniel: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      As I said, every which people earn and every £ which they will receive under this Bill in family allowances will buy less food, less clothing and less warmth. By so much has the Bill been devalued even while it was passing through the House of Commons.
      I was astonished by the statement of the Ministry of Social Security earlier in our proceedings today when we were informed of the steps that the Government were taking to implement the Prime Minister's pledge to protect the weakest sections of the community. There was the refusal to amend this Bill. There was no indication of how or when help would be given. All we know is that this Bill is to be implemented in April of next year. Even before devaluation, this Bill, because of its indiscriminate, rigid and in some respects wasteful methods, left 250,000 children living in families below the poverty line. Now, with rising prices which will follow devaluation, these families will fall deeper into poverty. The struggle which they will have to face in everyday life will be that much harder.
      Most of these children will not be helped by any increase in supplementary benefit, because most of these children are in families where their fathers are in work and are, therefore, not eligible for supplementary benefits. I think the theme which has run through almost every speech, be they from these benches or from the benches opposite, at every stage of this Bill has been one of criticism that no effort has been made by the Government to concentrate help where it is most needed. It is right on Third Reading—I am sure that I am in order to do this—to re-emphasise the failure of this Bill to concentrate resources and to point out what it actually means in terms of people. The Report of the Minister of Social Security on the circumstances of families showed that something like 500,000 children—
      Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you give me some guidance? Could you tell me when there was a change in the rules of this House which enabled hon. Members to speak on matters that are not
      536
      actually in the Bill when the Bill is debated on Third Reading?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: In answer to that point of order, there has been no change of ruling. It is perfectly in order on Third Reading, even under the new Standing Orders, to discuss the merits of the Bill and the contents of the Bill—
      Mr. Loughlin: The contents of the Bill, yes.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker:—and any matters relating to the contents of the Bill. It is in order to give reasons why the Third Reading should either be supported or opposed. Every argument that is relevant to the merits and the contents of the Bill is in order. What is out of order is anything that is extraneous to the Bill. It is out of order to argue that things ought to be in the Bill which are not in the Bill.
      Lord Balniel: I am grateful to you Mr. Deputy Speaker, for explaining to the Parliamentary Secretary the proceedures of the House. I am quite sure that you will call me to order when I stray from the procedures of the House. I am being very careful not to refer to matters which are outside this Bill.
      What I am explaining to the House, although it seems to cause a great deal of mirth to the Parliamentary Secretary. is that there are sections of the community who are affected by this Bill in such a way that they will be left below the poverty line as defined by the Supplementary Benefit Commission. This seems to me to be serious and completely relevant to the Third Reading of this Bill.
      As I was explaining, the Report of the Ministry of Social Security on the circumstances of families showed that something like 500,000 children in 160,000 families are living below the poverty line as defined by the Supplementary Benefit Commission—that which used to be called the National Assistance Board. I quite accept that this marker of poverty is not something which is static. It is not an absolute standard of poverty. For instance, the National Assistance levels rose by 50 per cent. during the period in which we were in office. So, using this definition of poverty, I accept that we are

      537
      using a different definition of poverty from that which was used several years ago.
      Nonetheless I think the Minister will agree that the supplementary benefit level k a fairly rough marker as to where poverty lies. As the Minister herself said oh Second Reading, social researchers take it as their yardstick. She said that if one is above the supplementary benefit level one is out of poverty if one s below it one is in poverty. think everyone will agree that any family today living at supplementary benefit levels is living an extremely uncomfortable life, but any family living below these levels is living in really extremely unhappy circumstances. I think every lion. Member will agree that this is the case.
      What the Bill does for families living below the supplementary benefit line is twofold. I quite accept that it helps to a certain degree. Firstly, after increasing taxation by£120 million, the Bill will leave a quarter of a million children living in families below the supplementary benefit level. This is because the help in the Bill is being given indiscriminately and wastefully. A thin layer of help is being given to everybody, whether or not they need it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) graphically pointed out, we cannot give extra help to girls like Cathy because equal help must he given to every Tom, Dick and Harry, whether or not he needs it.
      This sums up the argument against the method which the Government have chosen. The condemnation of the method is that a quarter of a million children are being left—even when the Bill is enacted—below the poverty line. The second aspect is that many of these children are living in families in which the breadwinner is unemployed and so is receiving supplementary benefit. However, because of his previously low earnings, his supplementary benefit is wage stopped. One-eighth of these quarter of a million children are living in wage stopped families.
      The whole House is disturbed at the way in -which the number of children living in wage stopped families is increasing rapidly. Earlier this week the Minister for Social Security said that the number of such children in September,
      538
      1966, was 52,000, whereas the number in September, 1967, had increased to 80,000. I regret that the Minister has not found it possible to amend the Bill—I appreciate that now I am straying out of order for a fraction of a second—to take into account all the recommendations of the Supplementary Benefits Commission in this connection. I hope that at a later stage, perhaps in another place, she will make the necessary Amendments.
      We naturally welcome additional help being given to those in need. However, we fear that this tremendous increase of taxation under the Bill, £120 million, is directly contrary to what this country needs, which is not an increase but a decrease in direct taxation. We also regret that this opportunity has not been taken to concentrate our resources to where they are most needed but that, instead, they are being wastefully and indiscriminately distributed under an old-fashioned and worn out system.
      8.33 p.m.
      Mr. Frank Hooky: I regret that hon. Gentlemen opposite have not taken advantage of the changes in our rules of procedure to permit a formal Third Reading. I cannot understand why the Opposition chose to oppose this technique since nothing said by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) was particularly new or had not emerged in our debates on Second Reading and in Committee. The Opposition did not even take the trouble to take up the full amount of time available on Second Reading to exploit their arguments, such as they were. I therefore cannot see why they have obstructed what I regard as a useful improvement in our procedure.
      It is simply not true to say that this is an across-the-board increase. As the Minister pointed out earlier, taking into account the taxation that is payable, there is a sharp distinction between the amounts which the poorest and richest people will receive. Having made a rough calculation, I reckon that people who pay no tax at all will receive an increase per qualifying child of £18 4s. a year; that those who pay at the reduced rate of tax will receive an increase per qualifying child of £14 12s. a year and that those who pay tax at the standard rate will get an increase per qualifying child of

      539
      £10 15s. 6d. a year. For families with four children that is the difference between an annual increase in income of £54, £43 and £32, which is scarcely an across-the-board increase for everybody.
      Although I suppose I should not be, I am staggered by the hypocrisy of the argument of hon. Members opposite. For eight years from 1956 to 1964 they did not increase the allowances and thereby bring help to the poor families. Instead, they deliberately arranged the tax system to bring extra benefits to the wealthiest families, by stepping up the tax allowances for children in such a way that the wealthiest families received the greatest benefit. Yet they now accuse us of not helping the poor families. They also gave an extra premium for children over 16. That is not unreasonable in itself, but they did it in the full knowledge that it was in the richer income group that children over 16 stayed on at school, and therefore got the benefit of the allowances.
      There are arguments for such tax arrangements, but there is no justification for hon. Members opposite waxing self-righteous about our not helping the poorest families when they not only failed to do that but deliberately handed out substantial sums to—as they thought—their own supporters in the richest echelons of society. If that is not hypocrisy I should like to know what it is.
      Finally, there is the question of the wage-stop. Although I recognise that possibly the Bill was not the place to deal with it, I am genuinely concerned about it. I know that my right hon. Friend is also very much concerned about its principle. I hope that her concern will continue, and that in the not too distant future we shall have substantial and positive action to deal with what I regard as a blot on our social security system.
      8.37 p.m.
      Mrs. Hart: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) that we have had ample discussion on Second Reading and in Committee, and most of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) was singularly repetitious. However, there are one or two points to which I wish to reply.
      540
      The first concerns the wage-stop. I am not sure what the noble Lord was implying. It seemed that he wished legislation to be introduced to end the wage-stop. I do not know whether that is what he wants, because the Supplementary Benefit Commission has been looking at the operation of the wage-stop, and there is no need for legislation to carry out its conclusions. I take it, therefore, that he, like my hon. Friend and many others, would like to abolish it completely.
      Lord Balniel: No. The right hon. Lady is mistaken. The Supplementary Benefit Commission's report on the wage-stop was in her hands nine days ago. We asked that a copy should be placed in the Library to facilitate today's debate, but the right hon. Lady has found that impossible, for reasons which I do not understand. If the Amendments to the Bill which I suggested on Second Reading can instead be done by administrative means, I am only too delighted. My point was that if legislation was required I hoped that she would introduce it later in another place.
      Mrs. Hart: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I did not misunderstand him. As he knows, because I said so on Monday, the Commission's Report is being published extremely quickly, and it will be in the hands of hon. Members very soon.
      My hon. Friend has dealt very effectively with the noble Lord's basic argument about concentrating help where it is most needed. On Second Reading the noble Lord made his generalised demand for concentrating help where it was most needed and his generalised criticism of what he described as indiscriminate relief. He put forward suggestions about how this might be achieved—suggestions about bigger family allowances for the largest families, bigger family allowances for the older childen, and Income Tax in reverse—and said that the whole thing could be solved by major reconstruction of the whole system of Government as it affects the social services.
      What is interesting is that, despite the temptation presented to him by his hon. Friends, the noble Lord has at no point during the proceedings on the Bill committed the Opposition Front Bench into a belief in means-tested family allowances. Some of his hon. Friends would have done so, but he has been wise

      541
      enough—I congratulate him—to refrain from totally committing his party to a concept of this kind. I believe that this is because he knows it to be totally unrealistic and incapable of giving any assistance to our main objective of ensuring the right kind of redistribution of purchasing power and wealth. I congratulate the noble Lord on refraining from succumbing to the temptations with which he had been presented on all sides—by one or two of my hon. Friends and many of his hon. Friends.
      The Bill, as I said on Second Reading, makes a real contribution to helping those who are in the greatest need, the families defined in the Ministry's survey as living in poverty. It cannot go the whole way. It cannot pretend to be anything more than a serious and helpful contribution to the ending of poverty. I wish that I would not be out of order if I were to follow the noble Lord along the avenues that he opened up. I should like very much to know what the Conservative Party thinks about the way to end the low wage structure which is the underlying root cause of the poverty about which we are talking. Would the Conservative Party, as I rather suspect from one or two of the things the noble Lord has said this evening, favour a direct State subsidy to low wages?
      Lord Balniel: No.
      Mrs. Hart: Then, would the Conservative Party favour deliberate action to create a minimum wage? Perhaps that is what they would favour. On the other hand, perhaps they have no policy at all for dealing with the problem of low wages. To the extent that they offer us no constructive thoughts on the basic problem of low wages that was being explored by my hon. Friends in the social security debate on Friday, no solution beyond vague suggestions of means testing, hon. and right hon. Members opposite cannot claim that they are taking the thinking of the country any further forward in the attack that we are seeking to make on the remaining poverty.
      The Bill raises issues on which there are many divisions of opinion. However, the one thing about which we are in agreement is, I think, that in what it does for the people who need the help that it offers them it is an extremely useful Bill. I
      542
      hope that it will speedily pass through its remaining stages.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  WAYS AND MEANS

    NATIONAL LOANS
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That it is expedient—

    (a) to establish a National Loans Fund and to prescribe its relationship with the Consolidated Fund,

    (b) to substitute, or to take power to substitute, the National Loans Fund for the Consolidated Fund in certain enactments, including enactments relating to Government lending and advances and to the Exchange Equalisation Account,

    (c) to make further provision as to the rate of interest on Government lending and advances,

    (d) to confer new powers of raising money, of creating securities and unsecured liabilities and of entering into arrangements or agreements for varying the terms on which money has been borrowed or securities have been issued,

    (e) to pay into the National Loans Fund any money raised or otherwise obtained in exercise of the new powers,

    (f) to charge on the National Loans Fund with recourse to the Consolidated Fund—

    (i) the principal and interest on any money borrowed under the new powers, or due under securities issued, or liabilities created, under the new powers, any sums required for the purpose of a sinking fund and any other sums to be paid in accordance with the terms on which money is borrowed,

    (ii) all existing national debt,

    (iii) any expenses incurred, in the past or future, in connection with the raising of money, the issue, repayment, redemption, surrender or exchange of securities, or the management of securities,

    (g) to amend in other respects the law about Government borrowing,

    (h) to direct that profits in the Issue Department of the Bank of England shall be paid into the National Loans Fund or applied in meeting any liability of the Treasury to that Department created under the new powers,

    (i) to make payable out of money provided by Parliament certain payments now charged on the Consolidated Fund, and

    (j) generally to make provision for the management of the Government's financial business.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Terence L. Higgins: This is an extremely complicated Resolution. I think that it would be convenient to take the Money Resolution with this Resolution.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I do not think that the House can take both Resolutions together. I think that we must first discuss the Ways and Means Resolution and then take the Money Resolution separately. It may well be that the debate on the first Resolution will make a second debate unnecessary.
    Mr. Higgins: By all means. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if that is for the convenience of the House.
    I was saying that this Resolution is extremely complicated and very technical. I gather that the reason why we have to debate it is that it effectively asks for new powers to raise money. As I understand the business which we are now discussing, this will be its effect in the matter of extending the borrowing powers of the Public Works Loan Board. This Resolution and the Money Resolution also make some radical changes in the whole system of our national accounts.
    This is a story which has been unfolding gradually. We were first given some indication of it when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this in his Budget Statement:
    "The present arrangements have grown up as a series of ad hoc responses to particular situations over a long period of years. I think that the time has come to take stock of the suitability of the present arrangements in the contemporary world".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April. 1967 Vol. 744. c. 999.]
    In the debate on the Loyal Address the Chancellor made some remarks about the form of the national accounts which I hall turn to in a few moments.
    In essence, the Resolution covers the establishment of a new National Loans Fund. There are a series of questions which I ought to ask the Financial Secretary so that we can have a clearer idea of what the Government's intentions are before we debate the Second Reading of the Bill on a later date. The first question is a simple one, but perhaps it
    544
    ought to be asked, in view of the changes which are proposed. It is a fine tradition of the House that in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill we are able to raise matters of particular concern to our constituents. I assume that the changes which the Government now propose to make under the Resolution and subsequent legislation will in no way affect the procedures of the House. I assume also that when the National Loans Fund question comes before the House it will not, alas, give back benchers the right to raise their constituents' problems.
    I come now to the Resolution and to the relationship, referred to in its earlier paragraphs, between the Consolidated Fund and the proposed National Loans Fund. As I understand it, the Government's intention is to distinguish clearly the Loans Fund from the Consolidated Fund, which, if the proposed legislation is enacted, will be merely concerned with the Government's revenue coming in from taxation and, in turn, with the expenditure which the Government make out of that taxation on both current account and capital account.
    The Loans Fund will be concerned with the funds which the Government obtain from borrowing and, again, the expenditure which the Government undertake out of that borrowing, some of it presumably going to finance current expenditure and some to finance capital expenditure. The new proposals will help to simplify our accounts in the sense that one fund, the Consolidated Fund, will be concerned with taxation and the other, the Loans Fund, will be concerned with borrowing, but we shall still have both funds used to finance current expenditure and capital expenditure, so that particular confusion will not be eliminated.
    There are one or two specific questions about the actual projects likely to be financed out of the Loans Fund. What will be the position of the nationalised industries? If I understand it correctly, the proposal is that all the borrowing by the nationalised industries is to be financed out of the Loans Fund. Perhaps the Financial Secretary can clarify that the nationalised industries would not be borrowing from any source other than the Loans Fund.

    545
    I should be grateful if' he would tell us, in view of paragraph 1(c) of the Resolution which says:
    "to make further provision as to the rate of interest on Government lending and advances"
    whether it is the Government's intention that all the money lent to the nationalised industries out of this Fund will be, if in loans of a comparable kind, at the same rates of interest and on the same terms. This has a considerable bearing on the recent White Paper on the review of the economic and financial objectives of the nationalised industries, Cmnd. 3437. We should like to be clear whether it is proposed that all the nationalised industries should make interest payments on the same basis.
    Is it proposed to revise the rates of interest from the Fund as the costs of money going into the Fund rise or fall? I understand the proposal to be that the Fund will not be a profit or loss-making institution, that it will seek to lend to the various bodies which it finances at a rate which covers the cost which it incurs borrowing from the various sources available to it. In terms of our national accounts this is something which we want to establish.
    The position of the local authorities arose in the debate on the Gracious Speech when on 7th November my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) intervened in the speech of the Chancellor to ask what was the position about borrowing by local authorities and when the Chancellor replied that the intention was that local authorities would be able to borrow at a rather cheaper rate of interest than otherwise.
    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make it clear whether the position of local authorities, who can now choose between borrowing on the open market and obtaining a loan from the Government, will alter and whether the lower rate of interest of which the Chancellor spoke with such enthusiasm on 7th November will reflect merely the difference in the credit rating of the Government and local authorities, or whether there will be some element of subsidy in the lower rates of interest which an individual local authority is charged when borrowing from the Loans Fund.
    546
    Thirdly, I want to turn to a rather technical point. As I understand it, the intention is that the Loan Board will cover virtually all the various organisations upon whose behalf the Government are borrowing, and this will include, not only nationalised industries, local authorities and so on, but also a number of international institutions. I understand, for example, that our subscriptions to say, the International Monetary Fund, will be paid out of this National Loans Fund. I am not entirely clear what the position is about the drawing rights under the International Monetary Fund. If we exercise our drawing rights on the International Monetary Fund are we to find that the money raised under these rights passes into this Loans Fund and thence into various Government agencies, or are we to understand that it goes instead straight into the Exchequer Equalisation Account?
    From the point of view of being able to follow this transaction, it may be that this is not merely a matter of procedure, but that it also may have some effect on the way in which we can understand precisely what is happening to the state of the economy. In his speech on 7th November the Chancellor said:
    "By themselves, these changes"—
    which the Chancellor was proposing to make and which are covered by this Motion—
    "will not affect the present arrangements under which local authorities are able to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board and the market. Nor will they affect borrowings by nationalised industries. But it will make it easier to make these changes in future if they are thought to be desirable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th November, 1967; Vol. 753. c. 866.]
    I should like some clarification on this point. The Chancellor appears to be referring to some other change with regard to the Public Works Loan Board and the market. Even if we cannot get a clear reply this evening, because I realise I am asking a number of complicated questions, it would be worth while spelling out what the other changes are which the Chancellor mentioned in his speech and to which he apparently does not later return explicitly, as far as I know, at any subsequent stage.
    I have a few questions to ask about the presentation of the accounts, at a technical level. The way in which our

    547
    national accounts are presented has been a matter of controversy for a great many years. A White Paper was entirely devoted to this in 1963. A lot of the trouble, then and since, turned upon the question of the debateable line, and the idea that accounts were divided into those which were above the line and those below.
    The Economist at that time, in May, 1966, pointed out that:
    "The present line is admittedly annoying to any logician: it separates expenditure for which there is merely a general power to borrow from expenditure for which there is (largely by historical accident) a specific power to borrow, a legalistic distinction that has little significance."
    As I understand it, the effect which the Government are covering by this Resolution will be to adjust our accounts in the way I have described. I am not entirely clear whether this will effectively eliminate the line and the idea of dividing general from specific borrowing rights. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would consider whether it would be helpful at this stage to spell out exactly how that controversial object will be affected and whether there will be a radical change in the form of our accounts.
    Despite the reconciliation which takes place each year when we have a financial statement between the purely accounting concepts and the national income concepts, there is no doubt that anything which enables us to reconcile those two sets of figures and, as far as possible, to put the national accounts of an accounting sort on the same basis as the national income statistics is likely to be advantageous. I hope that it will be possible, if the Bill is passed and comes into operation, to formulate the accounts in such a way that it is easy to establish precisely what the Government surplus or deficit is for any year in national income terms or in Keynesian terms, because this is an important concept if we are to ascertain whether the economy is in such a situation that the Government should take inflationary or deflationary measures.
    It may well be that the measures which the Government are initiating tonight will eventually make it easier to understand precisely what action they are taking at Budget time, although I suspect that it will be necessary to add one or two tables concerning that borrowing, such
    548
    as local authority borrowing, which will still take place, to some extent, outside the new National Loans Fund.
    We do not at this stage wish to prejudge the Government's Bill, which we have not yet had an opportunity of seeing. For that reason, we do not propose to vote on this Motion or the Money Resolution. This is a matter which we must leave open until we see the Bill. However, it would be helpful if the Financial Secretary could give an indication of the answers to some of the questions which I have asked.
    9.2 p.m.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) for raising these points, because although it would be improper for me, Mr. Irving—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are now in the House and that I wear a different hat.
    Mr. Lever: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to say, especially having regard to the rank to which you have drawn my attention—and it is quite inappropriate that it should have been necessary for you to do so. Mr. Deputy Speaker—that I must not allow my passion for the aesthetic and financial attractions of the Bill to carry me over the narrow line of explanation and exposition appropriate at this stage. I must reserve the full flower of passion and feeling for the Second Reading debate when the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will have considered the controversial implications of the Bill.
    I have been asked whether the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill will be affected by this Motion or by the Bill to follow. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will remain in the same unfettered enjoyment of all privileges, ancient and modern, relevant and irrelevant, necessary and unnecessary, which they at present enjoy during those exhilarating debates. No one need fear that any changes will result from the Bill.
    I have been asked whether these proposals will clear up the question of Government spending so that the accounts take on a modern or Keynesian

    549
    look. We cannot undertake to draw our accounts to fit any particular economist's ideal, but the effect of these changes will be to make it clear what the Government have been up to financially, because from now on the Exchequer accounts will simply show what the Government have received in taxation and what they have spent on both capital and current account. As long as they keep their expenditure below the sum they have received from taxation, there will be a surplus which will pass to the National Loans Fund.
    If however, the Government spend more than they get in taxation, they will have to resort to borrowing from the National Loans Fund to cover the deficit. All the Exchequer grants in future will record what the Government have collected from an enthusiastic citizenry and the fine work they have done—I am sure this is intended by both parties in Government—with the money. They will also show the citizenry whether or not they have spent more than they have got in taxation. If it is more, they will have a borrowing from the National Loans Fund. On those happy occasions when they spend less, they will have a surplus which they will pay over to the National Loans Fund.
    I was asked, will the nationalised industries borrow only here? Yes, all their long-term borrowing will go on as now from the Government and they will borrow from the National Loans Fund. But from time to time some of the nationalised industries have borrowed short-terms from banks. That kind of borrowing and their credits will continue as before.
    Interest rates—I am asked, will they be the same for the different nationalised industries? The Government observe strict impartiality in charges to the various nationalised industries because they are all solvent and the Government are responsible for their solvency. It would not be right to make a differential rate between one industry and another.
    Will rates to the nationalised industries and local authorities when they borrow from the National Loans Fund rise or fall from time to time? The answer is that they will rise and fall according to the cost to the Government and it is the cost to the Government at the time the loans are made that will be relevant.
    550
    Without going to the nearest fraction of an interest rate, the Government will lend to a nationalised industry or a local authority at their own cost of borrowing at the time that they are lending—plus certain expenses. If the Government have been prudent and borrowed earlier at a cheaper rate, there is no reason why the cheaper rate should not be available for the customer. If the Government have borrowed sums of money at a higher rate earlier, there is no reason why the borrower should not pay the higher rate.* The borrower will in each case pay the going cost at the time of borrowing on the borrowed money.
    Mr. Higgins: Do I understand from what the hon. Gentleman said that the rate will not subsequently be changed on loans to the nationalised industries if the rate was negotiated in some future period?
    Mr. Lever: I am puzzled to hear about the loans that have been negotiated in some future period. Does the hon. Member mean in respect of borrowings already contracted for at present by the nationalised industries with the Government?
    Mr. Higgins: I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. Suppose they borrow next April at a certain rate and then a year later the rate has changed, the loan which they took next April will not then have its rate altered in the light of current circumstances? Is that correct? The rate they are actually charged is the rate at the time they take the loan from the National Loans Board and they will continue to be charged that rate until such time as they repay the loan?
    Mr. Lever: The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that when we lend from the National Loans Fund to any of the borrowers, a local authority or the nationalised industry, the loan will have a term on it and the rate of interest fixed will be the rate appropriate for that term at the time of borrowing.
    I was asked why we expect that local authorities will be able to borrow more cheaply from us than in the market. This is because the Government are a very large borrower and have considerable credit and considerable marketability for their stocks which are probably the most marketable stocks in the world The
    *[Note: For correction, see Vol 756, col. 88.]

    551
    great attractions to lenders make it worth their while to suffer the fractionally lower rate of interest at which we are able to borrow than are smaller local authorities, and for this reason we can relend rather more cheaply, if we are able or think it right to. On the other hand, if a local authority prefers, or thinks it can do better, it can always go elsewhere and try to get money cheaper. We have no restrictive monopoly on local authorities' power to borrow, which will continue in other respects exactly as now.
    I am asked to explain about the Exchange Equalisation Account. This is simplicity itself. What will happen is that the Exchange Equalisation Account will borrow foreign currencies from the International Monetary Fund. In order to do so the Account will have to pay out sterling, because it will be receiving foreign currencies in the first stage of this matter, which it will then pay to the International Monetary Fund. The result, in short, is this. The Exchange Equalisation Account always has a fairly large sum of sterling in the form of Treasury Bills. It will cash in the Treasury Bills and will hand on the sterling to the International Monetary Fund. So we get the position that the indebtedness of the Government will reveal itself, strangely enough, by the credit they have in sterling with the International Monetary Fund. This only occurs when drawings are made the Fund will draw funds in sterling from the International Monetary Fund. The foreign currencies will be held in the Exchange Equalisation Account where, I am told, they are rather fond of foreign currencies from time to time. I hope that that covers that point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    I am asked what future changes we contemplate in local authority borrowing. I think that it would be preferable not to give a fuller, more interesting answer to the hon. Gentleman and to the House and that we should leave that question to the Second Reading of the Bill itself.
    Will the line go, I am asked. It must be announced with some gravity that this line, which came into being in 1875, and thereafter has always baffled new hon. Members of the House, hearing learned and ancient Members talk about below
    552
    the line and above the line expenditure, with which older Members have sometimes baffled by-election arrivals—they will have to think of something more ingenious—will go as soon as the Bill becomes law.
    I hope I have dealt with the point, raised by the hon. Gentleman to the sati,- faction of the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That it is expedient—

    (a) to establish a National Loans Fund and to prescribe its relationship with the Consolidated Fund,

    (b) to substitute, or to take power to substitute, the National Loans Fund for the Consolidated Fund in certain enactments, including enactments relating to Government lending and advances and to the Exchange Equalisation Account,

    (c) to make further provision as to the rate of interest on Government lending and advances,

    (d) to confer new powers of raising money, of creating securities and unsecured liabilities and of entering into arrangements or agreements for varying the terms on which money has been borrowed or securities have been issued,

    (e) to pay into the National Loans Fund any money raised or otherwise obtained in exercise of the new powers,

    (f) to charge on the National Loans Fund with recourse to the Consolidated Fund—

    (i) the principal and interest on any money borrowed under the new powers, or due under securities issued, or liabilities created, under the new powers, any sums required for the purpose of a sinking fund and any other sums to be paid in accordance with the terms on which money is borrowed,

    (ii) all existing national debt,

    (iii) any expenses incurred, in the past or future, in connection with the raising of money, the issue, repayment, redemption, surrender or exchange of securities, or the management of securities,

    (g) to amend in other respects the lass about Government borrowing,

    (h) to direct that profits in the Issue Department of the Bank of England shall be paid into the National Loans Fund or applied in meeting any liability of the Treasury to that Department created under the new powers,

    (i) to make payable out of money provided by Parliament certain payments now charged on the Consolidated Fund, and

    (j) generally to make provision for the management of the Government's financial business.

    NATIONAL LOANS [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a National Loans Fund, it is expedient—

    (a) to authorise the issue of money out of the National Loans Fund to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the purposes of making loans subject to a limit which—

    (i) in the first instance shall be one thousand million pounds,

    (ii) but which may be increased by Treasury orders up to four thousand million pounds,

    (b) to authorise the payment into the National Loans Fund of all sums paid or applicable in or towards the discharge of the principal or interest of any loan made by the said Commissioners before or after the passing of this resolution, and of any other sums now payable into the Local Loans Fund,

    (c) to authorise the remission of unpaid balances of principal and arrears of interest due to the said Commissioners in respect of any loans specified for that purpose in the said Act.

    (d) to wind up the Local Loans Fund and—

    (i) extinguish all its liabilities to the Consolidated Fund, and

    (ii) pay into the National Loans Fund any cash balance standing to the credit of the Local Loans Fund,

    (e) to amend the law about the making of loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners,

    (f) to pay out of money provided by Parliament any additional sums so payable under section 194(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 or section 64(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1954 (repayment by instalments out of money provided by Parliament of sums payable out of the Consolidated Fund under Part I or Part V of the Town and Country Planning Act 1954 or the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1954 or Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962).
    —[Mr. Harold Lever.]

    Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Diamond, and Mr. Harold Lever upon the Resolution and upon the Ways and Means Resolution come to this day.

    NATION AL LOANS
    Bill to establish a National Loans Fund, to substitute the National Loans Fund for the Consolidated Fund in certain enactments, including enactments relating to Government lending and advances, the Exchange Equalisation Account and government annuities, to make profits of the Issue Department of the Bank of England payable into the National Loans Fund and to make other provision as to the said Department, to charge the whole of the national debt on the National Loans Fund, and to amend the law about Government borrowing: to make future provision for loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and to authorise advances out of the National Loans Fund for the purpose of such loans; to transfer to Votes certain payments charged on the Consolidated Fund; and generally to make provision for the management of the Government's financial business, presented accordingly and read the First time: to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

  DOCK WORKERS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT)
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Scott: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) (Amendment) Order 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 1252), dated 18th August, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd August, in the last session of Parliament, be annulled.
  This Order amends the Dock Labour Scheme to give effect to the 1965 Devlin Report and, in particular, to decasualise the system of dock labour and give permanent employment to dock workers.
  First, I want to make it clear that we on this side have no intention of dividing the House on the Order. We do not oppose it, and we think that decasualisation marks an important step forward in the labour situation in our docks. Nevertheless, we feel that there are several points on a very complex Order which need airing, and we have several questions to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. Moreover, we believe that, depending on the answers which he gives, there

  555
  may need to be some Amendment to the Order in the very near future.
  One recognises that the Order, which embodies a scheme for the complete reorganisation of the Dock Labour Scheme, is the result of compromise and negotiation between the unions and the port employers. By definition, therefore, it cannot be ideal. However, I am delighted that it is at least to be given a fair try and will not be strangled at birth by the activities of unofficial agitators in the docks.
  I want for a moment to refer to the events of the last eight weeks, because they are very much concerned with the context of the Order. The most important lesson which can be drawn from our experience is that, while the Minister of Labour has been resisting suggestions in the House that he should take emergency powers to deal with unofficial action in the docks, and while the country has been fuming at the lack of action and anxious to see the dispute resolved, there is a need for some path open to the Minister of Labour between inaction or cajolery and emergency powers and putting in troops.
  If the Minister had the power to order a cooling-off period, it would be a useful weapon to help in bringing the parties together. It would save great economic damage to the country and achieve some sort of solution much sooner than otherwise would be the case.
  I am disappointed that the Order makes no special provision to deal with unofficial strikes. The Devlin Report, which gave birth to the scheme, said of the Transport and General Workers Union in paragraph 283:
  "To start with, the T. & G. must re-establish its power and authority in the three major ports…It must fight the dissidents on their own ground. This will entail a great campaign in which the Union concentrates all its available resources in the docks."
  One of the most disappointing features of the unofficial dispute over recent weeks has been the fact that the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union has been conspicuous by his absence. He has been extremely equivocal in his attitude and has refused absolutely to fight the dissidents on their own ground or wage any great campaign to break their authority and assert the authority of his Union.
  Mr. John Ellis: I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman says is true. The General Secretary of the union has spoken up during the dispute. This has been a huge reorganisation in an industry where relations have been notably bad. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remarks about the General Secretary.
  Mr. Scott: The House must make its judgment. It is precisely because it is such a major reorganisation that the General Secretary of the union should have played a more prominent part in persuading his members to accept the scheme than he has done. My reading of his attitude is that he has been extremely equivocal and damaging to the case of his union.
  I welcome the scheme to build up a better system of communications in the docks, and in particular a system of shop stewards, but I wonder whether, if agreements had been enforceable, as we on this side of the House have suggested, the general secretary of a union whose funds were at risk would have been quite so careless with his authority, and quite so indifferent to the breakdown in communications between the union and its members as we have seen during this dispute.
  I think that there is a case for the special treatment of unofficial strikes in this Order, not only because of the weakness of the union leadership—although we look for an improvement in that regard—not only because there is provision for a "fire brigade" committee to go in immediately when any dispute is threatened, and to settle it—although we believe that the establishment of this group will make unofficial strikes even less excusable in the future than they have been in the past—not only because there is no provision within the Dock Labour Scheme for workers who are made idle as a result of the action of other unofficial strikers to be laid off, but surely because, when a new deal like this has been negotiated, there is a case for giving special treatment to the matter of unofficial strikes, and to those who are trying to wreck the scheme.
  I want to refer to the Order, and particularly to the disciplinary procedure relating to dock workers. At the moment, if a worker is guilty of misconduct such

  557
  as to justify his summary dismissal, the employer may terminate his contract of employment without notice. He thereupon becomes a temporary unattached worker in the employment of the National Board, and then the Board has to take certain action. It can dismiss him summarily, or it can take various other actions.
  I think that when a worker has been involved in an unofficial strike, we ought to shift the emphasis. Power ought to be given to the employer to dismiss him summarily, and the onus should then be on the union to ask the Board to negotiate the re-entry of the worker into the scheme. This would strengthen the union's hand considerably, because it could say to those who were taking a leading rôle in unofficial action that, while it would be prepared to negotiate re-entry to the scheme, it would require undertakings about future observations of the contracts and procedures which have been agreed.
  Mr. Ellis: Will the hon. Gentleman instance any country in which this kind of legislation exists, which enables men to be dismissed summarily for taking action in this way?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) knows that he cannot amend the Order.
  Mr. Scott: I am trying to show that there are certain shortcomings in the Order, and I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will be able to allay some of our doubts about these, and possibly even say something about future action, subject, of course, Mr. Speaker, to your ruling on that.
  I think that there is a case for a shift in emphasis to give power summarily to dismiss workers, and then putting the onus on the union to apply for their re-entry into the scheme. This would strengthen the union's hand, and give it some of the power and authority which it lacks, and has been shown to lack in recent weeks.
  This Order was due to come into force in conjunction with a national agreement to abolish certain restrictive practices, but whether it is coincidence or not—and perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us—once the Minister at the Press Conference on 22nd August announced a firm date for the introduction of the
  558
  scheme, the prospects of getting a signature from the union side to that agreement seemed significantly to recede.
  I understand that there have been local agreements and that considerable progress has been made in getting rid of the restrictive practices which resulted from the casual employment of labour. On the other hand, one hears that in Leith output is running at only 60 per cent. of the output achieved before decasualisation. We would like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that both the letter and the spirit of the agreement to abolish restrictive practices consequent upon the casual system of labour have been removed following decasualisation.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: I am sure that the hon. Member wants to be eminently fair. Will he point out that since the strike in the great port of Liverpool there has been considerable progress both in productivity and in the abolition of restrictive practices?
  Mr. Scott: I am delighted to see that perhaps the most damaging restrictive practice—welting in Liverpool or spelling in Scotland, which are the same—has disappeared. But I should like to hear from the Minister about the general progress made and to have his assurance that both the spirit and the letter of the agreement are being observed generally.
  The security which the dockers will enjoy under the scheme is greater than that which is enjoyed by any other industrial worker. I do not complain about that, but a question arises from it. At the moment the Order gives the Board power, after a worker has been suspended, to reinstate him with his former employer. This does not seem to be conducive to good industrial relations. It would be very much better to have power to award damages, through the appeals tribunal, or—if the Government were wise enough to adopt our suggestion of a system of industrial court—to allow damages to be given and for the worker to be reinstated with another employer. The scheme outlined in the Order does not seem conducive to good industrial relations if a worker can be reinstated with the employer who dismissed him.
  I now turn to the question of the level of manpower in the docks and questions of productivity raised by the Order.

  559
  Paragraph 3 of the scheme aims at ensuring
  "the full and proper utilisation of dock labour"
  and therefore not only to give the docker security of employment but also to give the nation an efficient dock labour system. The Press release of the Minister's on 22nd August—
  Mr. Ellis: Perhaps I have been misled. I am looking at paragraph 3 of the Order. Is it page 19?
  Mr. Scott: It is page 18—paragraph 3(1,a). The Minister's Press release said that
  "the improvements in efficiency and industrial relations which the decasualised system will bring, will enable substantial improvements in the productivity of dock labour to be achieved. Because of the 'no redundancy' pledge accepted by all the parties as the basis for the introduction of decasualisation, the resulting manpower savings will need to be realised through normal wastage or agreed or voluntary severance schemes. The independent members indicated that the cost of the settlement could be offset by those means within two years. The Minister of Labour has asked the two sides to report to him by mid-October on their plans to achieve this, and in particular on the future recruitment and retirement policies of the industry."
  These are central to the Order and its efficient working, and we would like a progress report from the Minister about the talks announced in the Press release.
  The present labour force of the ports within the scheme covered by the Order is about 60,000 and it is estimated that the requirement for the early 1970s will be about 40,000. The Order makes certain provisions and mentions schemes for voluntary retirement and severance pay. Naturally, wastage will make some reduction in these numbers, but it certainly cannot bridge the gap between 40,000 and 60,000.
  One lack in the Order is that the retirement age for dockers is not reduced from 68 to 65. It is ludicrous that a retirement age three years above the normal should apply in an industry involving heavy manual work. It is clear that a voluntary severance pay scheme will be needed, and we would like to hear that the Government will be prepared to give help for its establishment. Otherwise, I do not see how we can effect the necessary reduction in manpower to enable the
  560
  Order to contribute to the efficient working of the docks and an increase in productivity.
  Turning to the individual employer rather than the general scheme, we see that Clause 17 of the Scheme lays down the procedure when an employer wants to vary his work force. The Order lacks a firm procedure with an in-built time-scale to get a quick decision from the Board on an appeal by an employer. If an employer loses half his business for an indefinite period, he may be required to go on employing the same number of dockers. This can lead only to the bankruptcy court and to the need to re-employ his old force with other employers.
  Surely some time-scale should be: built in or a new Order introduced so that a decision in 14 or 21 days can be achieved. Otherwise, particularly in a port whose business was declining, a vicious circle could build up, with redundant dockers being shifted from one employer to another and employer after employer being driven into bankruptcy.
  We give a general welcome to the Order, although we have some reservations on which we look forward to hearing the Parliamentary Secretary's comments. All in all, we believe that decasualisation will mark a great step forward in the docks. We only hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can also say that the Government have abandoned their plans for nationalisation, which would be another great step forward.
  9.34 p.m.
  Mr. John Ellis: The Opposition are praying against an Order which is consequential on certain Acts like the Docks and Harbour Act which made it possible to put the decasualisation into effect. The speech of the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) was reasonably general and. as the Order covers many aspects, I intend to deal with Articles 6, 9 and 17, which cover issues of discipline and manning in individual firms.
  The hon. Gentleman, in criticising this Order, seemed to feel that some of the disciplinary provisions do not go far enough. That is a completely wrong attitude to adopt. We are dealing with men who over the years have had to fight to improve their conditions. In my

  561
  port at Bristol men were recruited into what were called the pens because they gathered there like cattle waiting to be picked out. When hon. Members talk of strikes in the docks, be they official or unofficial, they miss the fundamental point that no man voluntarily goes out of work unless he has been brought up in an iron school of injustice.
  I would have thought that hon. Members in all parts of the House would welcome the action that the Government have taken in having produced this Order, because unless we are careful we shall get back to the old cry of "Bring in more discipline", which is what led to these hostile relationships in the industry when men were embittered.
  Let us deal with the conditions which make men react in this way. We ought to have learned our lesson from the situation in the docks in the past. I pay tribute to the Minister for the understanding that he has shown and for his resistance to the suggestion that he should show the iron fist—although perhaps he has not done so in the railway dispute. I do not agree with his attitude there. However, he is adopting the right attitude to the dockers.
  Article 9 of the Order is designed to improve the lot of the individual docker. As we read through the various provisions we find that this Order is designed to give the docker the thing which he has never had before, security of employment. He knows that he has a job and that he will receive proper financial reward. When we are told that these men have conditions which are operative nowhere else in industry, I ask hon. Member, to remember that dockers need security of employment because over the years they have had to go for long periods without work.
  The hon. Member spoke of there being too many men in the industry. The employers bear a great share of the blame here, because it has suited them to have a great pool of men from whom they can choose, thus depressing conditions. Now the birds have come home to roost. I am satisfied that we shall get out of these difficulties as time goes on.
  I have been in consultation with the Transport and General Workers Union on the proposal to reduce the retirement
  562
  age from 68 to 65. This is a heavy industry; it is a hard industry, and the thought of employing men till they are 68 is an abomination to my hon. Friends, as it should be to hon. Members on the other side of the House.
  I am empowered to say that the unions are willing to talk on this issue. They will be only too pleased to discuss the retirement of men at the age of 65 or even at 60. In the joint negotiations that will go on about this with my right hon. Friend—and, of course, the employers will also be represented—all these matters will be thrashed out. However, the unions insist that the conditions and pensions that the men receive must be adequate for their needs.
  As things stand at present, the system appears to be that after a great many years' service, a pension of £5 a week will be paid, plus £100 severance pay. However, that is after a lifetime's service in the docks. I also understand that although a man may have spent a considerable length of time in the docks, his pension may be as low as 25s. a week. The men's representatives are extremely concerned about this problem. They require proof that something will be done to overcome these difficulties and cure the poor conditions affecting men leaving the industry after a number of years.
  Reference has been made to overmanning and I have explained how this can come about. However, this and other problems can be solved when carrying through the sort of major social revolution in this industry that the Government are undertaking. When such a revolution is taking place, there is bound to be considerable upheaval, but, by sensible recruitment policies, I am sure that these difficulties can be overcome.
  We pledged that all the men on the registers would be allocated, and that pledge has been kept. The various firms have taken up these men. Nevertheless—and I speak from experience in the Port of Bristol—I would like to see figures to prove how this allocation of men has been carried out.
  It is understandable that when someone must opt for 20 men or 200 men to do a certain amount of work, it will be natural for him to opt for the lowest number he can use. Perhaps he needs 200 men but will ask for only 180. This

  563
  presents a problem which must be carefully examined. Otherwise, in a week when there is not continuity of work, the person opting for the men may take 180 men instead of 200, thereby saving the wages of 20 men. And 20 times £15 results in a saving of £300 a week. At the end of the first trial period we will be looking at this problem to see exactly how transferability has been working.
  We will be interested to know how many men were allocated in ports where the stevedoring firms were sharing as the sole general employers. In Bristol, on the other hand, we are in the unusual position of having the dock municipally owned. There, one of the employers is the Port of Bristol, so that besides the stevedoring firms taking up labour, also competing in the general pool for labour and taking up its share of men was the Port of Bristol Authority, which is owned by the local council.
  I will, therefore, be interested to see the final figures that are resolved. The problem in Bristol was an easier one because a great many men could be employed by the local authority. The figures will be interesting because the rules that apply in Bristol are the same as those that apply in other ports. However, in ports which are not municipally owned the people employing labour must take up their share of the general availability of labour, and I am not sure that that has happened in Bristol.
  I suggest that there may have been a tendency to keep down the number of men permanently on the stevedoring firms' books and put them on to the Port of Bristol Authority's books. One reason for my suspicion in this matter is that the Port of Bristol Authority is wholly controlled by the local council and the Docks Committee, but on the Docks Committee, which is controlled by the Conservative Party, sit some stevedoring employers, one of whom is the chairman of the Committee and is associated with the employers. It can be seen why I have some fears. I shall look at the figures very carefully.
  We shall need to keep a careful watch to see that the Port of Bristol Authority does not once more provide services and facilities for another section that uses the
  564
  docks to take the profit, that the municipally-owned body is not doing all the donkey work for the stevedoring employers to take all the profits, as has happened in the past.
  It was a mistake for hon. Members opposite to pray against the Order. I think that both sides of the House concede that the conditions of the dockers over the years have been as bad as those of any section of workers. The dockers' militancy today has been formed over long years of oppression, of being at the employers' beck and call, with the numbers kept in so that the employers could try any one of any number. For the first time decasualisation, for which we have worked in the industry and which the Order is all about, has been achieved. For the first time, thousands of men know what it is to have security in their job and to know that they will receive recompense at the end of the week. It is because of the way the bargaining has been carried out that we have had troubles in the past.
  Mr. Scott: May I make it clear, as I did in moving the Prayer, that we on this side of the House welcome decasualisation? It is not our intention to divide the House against it, but the only way in which we can debate such an historic matter is for the Opposition to move such a Prayer.
  Mr. Ellis: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has said so, but it was apparent to me from some of his opening remarks that he was complaining that the Order was not strong enough on the disciplinary side to deal with various actions that might occur in the docks. The hon. Gentleman seeks to tack his remarks on to something that is not particularly relevant to what the Order tries to do.
  The Order tries to give men oppressed in the past the security of job tenure that they have never known before. Those men have a memory; that oppression was not generations ago but only months ago. To attempt to resort to a kind of mass discipline in the Order would be a totally wrong way to solve the problem. It was because we involved ourselves with that kind of philosophy that we have the trouble in the docks today. It was largely because of the forebears of the present generation of right hon. and hon. Members opposite that we find ourselves

  565
  in this position. The Order is a courageous attempt to put the matter right. I wish it God-speed, because I believe that we are seeing a social revolution in the docks.
  9.50 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: It is surprising that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) should have chosen to accuse the Opposition of making a mistake in moving the Prayer. For any hon. Member on the Government side to use, other than in bated breath, the word "mistake" at this stage of our nation's affairs implies the most staggering temerity.
  I take up the point that the hon. Member made, the serious economic point that many of the conditions in the docks are due entirely in a sense to the whim of employers who desire to have large number of men available. Certainly there is an element of this in the situation.
  Mr. Ellis: In the past.
  Mr. Lloyd: In the past, and even now.
  Mr. Ellis: Yes.
  Mr. Lloyd: I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that one of the fundamental economic factors that we cannot escape in dealing with the random arrival of ships in ports is the need for a fluctuating supply of the resources available to discharge them. There are many ways in which it can be organised and many solutions and techniques which can be used, but the problem is fundamental. It remains. It is a human one as well as technical.
  Mr. Ellis: I know that this is a difficult problem, but the hon. Gentleman is surely not really suggesting that the only way out is to keep a huge labour force and perhaps employ the men for one week as they are needed and then fire them. I am sure he did not mean that.
  Mr. Lloyd: By no means am I suggesting that. I am simply suggesting that if we are seeking to attribute blame in situations of this type which have long historical trends we should attribute it fairly as between human beings with all their frailties and the realities of economic life, which are sometimes beyond human beings.
  I turn to the main case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington,
  566
  South (Mr. Scott). He has been absolutely right to emphasise some of the serious technical weaknesses of the Order. All his criticisms are justified, though they did not in any way weaken the general support for the aims of decasualisation which the Opposition support. But I detect in the timing of the Order, which is perhaps of more crucial importance than we might consider, a certain whiff of one of Parkinson's Laws. Parkinson once said that the great establishments and buildings appeared at the time when the organisations they represented began to decline in power. In this case it seems that arrangements, however desirable, are beginning to appear to offer permanence of employment to dock workers when in a sense permanence for the industry as a whole is certainly, for a given or static number of dockworkers, in its present form a pious hope.
  The whole of the marine and port industry is now aware of what the modern conception of unit loads, particularly containers, means for the industry. But containers are the means developed by technology to reduce drastically the whole of the old-fashioned operation of heaving and shoving cargoes out of the ships in much the same way as the Phoenicians did 2,000 years ago. It is wrong to suggest that even with the most rapid rate of introduction of containers dock work will disappear, but permanence of employment in dock work is now understood as something which the State, employers, trade unions, the Government or Mr. Jack Dash cannot possibly in any circumstances guarantee. It is certain that over the next 20 years the face of the port industry will change dramatically, much more dramatically than most people realise.
  To illustrate briefly with a most descriptive example, the other day there was published a photograph of a ship lying six miles offshore in Vietnam. It was a modern tanker ship being discharged by a large Sikorski crane helicopter, which obviously took the containers several miles inland. No port was used. This is a very small cloud on the horizon and not, I suggest, in any way an economic likelihood in the near future, but it suggests the shape of things to come, and we must watch it very closely.

  567
  The Order is intended to facilitate a peaceful and economic redeployment of resources. We are entitled to ask—this is all we are doing—whether it is likely to achieve its purpose. Communication is surely the basis of any measure intended to secure the co-operation of large numbers of men. Good communication is the essence of the success of this Order and of any Order intended to achieve the same result.
  May I refer to a summary of the communications problem, in the context of which the Order is perhaps an example, which has given rise to the present series of unofficial strikes. In a recent copy of the Liverpool Journal of Commerce, a paper which deals particularly with this problem, a special correspondent wrote as follows:
  "London dockers, through their union branch meetings and divisional committees and joint committees with members of the National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers Union, had a major say in moulding the decasualisation agreement.
  Every clause was referred down the line to branch level. The controversial continuity of work rule that finally crippled the Royal group of docks was almost the last clause to be agreed. It was debated at branch level when Mr. Jack Dash, leader of the London Portworkers Unofficial Liaison Committee, queried various aspects of it, but was finally in favour of it being included in ' the little grey book '—the agreement drawn up between the unions and the enclosed docks employers.
  Any branch had power to refuse the rule, have it amended or referred for further consideration. Nobody did. This is why the strikers got very little sympathy from the union leaders, one of whom commented: ' If Mr. Jack Dash and his committee cannot find a fight on one point they will soon find another'."
  It is obvious from what I have read out that this was a very serious effort at communication. If it failed as seriously as it did, the House is entitled to ask why. One obvious reason is the sheer complexity, the intricacy, and the detail of these provisions and arrangements. No wonder it took two years to explain them. What the Treasury, in another context has described as algorithm procedures, procedures for simplifying public documents and procedures for simplifying a public explanation of what is required by public measures, are most drastically needed in this industry. If they are needed in telephone booths, they are certainly needed in the docks.
  568
  Is there not a more important conclusion? If the Order is a typical example of the over-regulation, over-prescription, over-definition, which is strangling the country, should we not look at this type of thing very much more closely? Must every contingency be foreseen and covered by legislation or Orders in Council? How many people will really know what this Order contains? How many people will understand its provisions? How many people will apply it correctly? How many Members of the House have read it? How many dockers are likely to read it? How many directors of port employer companies are likely to read it in full from cover to cover? Perhaps the crucial question is—how many will begin to understand it?
  I come to the question of morale. I ask these questions because the Order will be worth nothing at all, unless it has a significant impact on morale, the morale of both employers and employees in the dock industry, and unless it stimulates enterprise, which the whole House will agree is necessary, and co-operation, which again the whole House will agree is necessary.
  There are three types of failure which will completely nullify the purpose and aim of the Order. The first failure is if the employers are unwilling to make the enormous communication effort which it requires. The second type of failure will be if there is, in consequence of the Order, little impact on official or unofficial strikes. I most earnestly emphasise both these, because I am sure the Government are fully aware that we must find solutions in both fields. The third condition for the success of the Order is that the technical adaptation of the ports to the requirements of the second half of the 20th century is not impeded.
  An hon. Member said that productivity was rising in the Port of Liverpool. It was only this morning in Lloyds List that Mr. Kentish Barnes, Chairman of the Waterfront Committee in that port, said that master porterage charges in Liverpool had gone up from 157½ per cent. to 196 per cent. to pay for this measure, but there had been no increase in productivity in Liverpool whatever. I cannot dispute the authority of Mr. Kentish Barnes and doubtless others will

  569
  have other views, but this is an authoritative view of the situation and it is one which frightens me desperately, because, unless the measures which are to cost the country a great deal are paid for by higher productivity in the ports, we may as well wash them all out.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the fact that Liverpool is an employer-dominated port is a very good reason for the dock industry generally being taken into public ownership in order that the improvements which h e suggests can be made?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) must resist the temptation to answer that.
  Mr. Lloyd: I must resist the temptation to answer that, Mr. Speaker.
  Communication is the essential basis, the communication which the Order implies, needs and requires, for communication is the essential basis of such rationality as human beings can achieve. The facts, the arguments, the real patterns of self-interest must be honestly and effectively displayed and communicated. This must be done often against the hostility of those whose power rests on a basic denial of reality, for good communication breeds security and confidence and those are indispensable lubricants of industrial change. Uncertainty and ignorance are the natural weapons of reaction.
  What chance is there of achieving these conditions? When the maximum cooperation is called for from them, requiring investment on a significant scale, the employers are threatened with creeping nationalisation, a sort of multiple sclerosis of the nerve ends of the economy. I refer to a statement made within the last week by the President of the Chamber of Shipping. I am sure that the Government and all hon. Members opposite will realise that ship owners throughout the country are one of the key groups who have to support the implementation of and who will have to help to make this measure successful. This is what was said:
  "…what incentive is there for port employers to go ahead with their plans to develop personnel and welfare arrangements, which are so essential to the well-being of the docks, when the Government is standing over them and threatening to run them out of business by nationalisation? How can you expect em-
  570
  ployers to give of their best when such a situation exists?"
  He concluded his speech as follows, and I hope that the Government will heed this request:
  "I therefore make this direct and immediate appeal to the Government—call off your nationalisation proposals for the docks industry of this country."
  Mr. Speaker: This is a wide debate, but not as wide as that.
  Mr. Lloyd: I return to the second condition of success; that was one, but we must let it be. If we are to achieve something, it must clearly have a direct impact on official strikes. A tremendous effort must be made via all media of communication to make sure that this thing is understood—the Press, TV, radio, direct means of communication, pamphlets, lectures and talks. All must be employed to simplify the presentation of the Order to those affected by it.
  Secondly, if unofficial strikes are to be avoided, and this is perhaps the key to the question, there must be powerful disincentives built into this—and it does not exist at the moment—and all similar and subsequent legislation, because the nation is fed up to the back teeth with organised mass stupidity.
  As I understand it, there are only two answers: first, the inoculation of the affected population with good information, with reasoned arguments, and with positive incentives; secondly, stringent measures against the microbes of industrial anarchy. The Order provides neither of those.
  I conclude my observations with one remark by the chairman of a company which is closely involved in the introduction of containerisation, which, in a sense, will have to take place within the context of the Order over the next 20 years.
  Sir Basil Smallpeice, Chairman of Associated Containers, said this morning that there were two groups to beware of in achieving this technological revolution for Britain. I will refer to only one. He said:
  "First there are the Governments—and I mean any Government—and particularly their transportation planners, who believe that they can foretell the future with precision and establish rigid patterns for controlling it."
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: Having been involved in the Liverpool dock strike

  571
  for the whole of the six weeks, I would not wish to participate in any debate on the docks at this time—I have had a surfeit of interest over the last couple of months. The Opposition have decided to pray against this Order. It is not the only way that they could have raised these very important matters—there are other avenues, open to them, as they very well know. Nevertheless, they say that they want to ventilate the position and I am going to take as much advantage of that as anyone.
  To me this Order, and all that it means, is quite historic. I started on the Liverpool dockside as a boy of 14, 40 years ago next May. I can well remember what I thought then. People are talking about Communists and Trotskyists on the dockside. I was always told to appreciate something that I said in this House when I was a new Member. I said that men were not ciphers, they were not units of production, but were entitled to dignity, a dignity that I feel this Order brings to them.
  I said, in my presumption at that time, that the men were entitled to this sort of dignity because they were not just pieces of material, they were spiritual beings. They were entitled to dignity, not because of the Labour Party or the Labour Government, not because of the Conservative Government which was in office at that time, and not because of the Liberals, but by virtue of their very makeup. Men are entitled to the dignity that Almight God intended them to have.
  There are thousands of men on the Liverpool dockside who think as I do. They have felt all their lives that the conditions that this Order now offsets were a complete affront to their dignity. That is why we have had so much upset in the docks. All my life I have worked for the dockers, and I am in the happy position tonight to be able to pay testimony to two other hon. Members who have done likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Alldritt), who was chairman of the Liverpool Trades Council at one time, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
  This was not the first strike in which I have participated and I am a fairly reasonable man. We were responsible
  572
  for the settlement of the unofficial seamen's strike in 1950. Above all we want dignity and peace and security in our industry. That is all that we have asked for and I would not be any sort of politician at all, and I would certainly not be any sort of Liverpudlian, if I did not take up the remarks made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Lang-stone (Mr. Ian Lloyd). The Conservative Party had a lifetime of opportunity to do something for us.
  I can remember my first day at the docks on a ship called the "Somerset". I looked through a shed, as a boy of 14 years of age—a massive empty Liverpool dock shed. I saw 500 or 600 men in the teeming rain waiting to be picked on. I said to my father, who was my own boss at that time, "Why do not the men stand inside the shed out of the rain?"—because they have to work all day. They were left out in the rain when there was an empty shed. That was where we had to start from. These men had to work diligently all day. What happened then if the bosses at that time did not pick what they thought were the best gangs? They broke them at 12 noon, and had what was called a "fresh pick". This is where we started and this is where we have got to. I want to pay testimony to the excellent work that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has done. He is following—and he will take no exception to this—in the tradition set by the finest Minister of Labour and probably the best Foreign Secretary this country has ever had who is buried at Westminster Abbey under the proud title of "Trade Unionist and Foreign Secretary"—the late Ernest Bevin. He dreamt of decasualisation for dockers. When he appeared at the Dockers' Inquiry, which resulted in the Shaw Award, he earned for himself in 1924, the wonderful title of "The Dockers' K.C.".
  When hon. Members opposite talk about the interests of management, why do they not say a word about the people who have done so much in trying to bring a rational and reasonable approach into this jungle of dockland? We have had many disappointments in the past. Sometimes we thought that we had obtained the pearl of great price in dockland. It turned out to be not quite that. I want decasualisation to be a success. The men employed in dockland have suffered the

  573
  vicissitudes of bad industrial conditions and have had to contend with bad industrial relations. The travesty and tragedy was that they were also the men in the great ports like Liverpool who had the worst possible social conditions to put up with.
  I say to the members at present on the Opposition Front Bench—and they are reasonable men—that when these men go to work they are more conditioned, not by the conditions of work, but by the bad social environment in which many of them have to live. I say as a man who has fought Communism all his life that they are a nuisance and that they take advantage of things, but the conditions had to be there for them to take advantage of. Do not let anyone, even the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour, point the finger particularly to the men in Liverpool and attribute the recent strike to Trotsky or Communist elements. That is not true. If it were true, I should be the first to say so.
  I can be light-hearted about this. When I stood among the Liverpool men at the end of the strike, to my amazement I found among my ex-Army colleagues from the Irish Guards and other regiments and members of the Royal Navy that five of us went to the same Catholic school. We took an active part in the settlement of that strike. I find it a bit trying when I hear only the famous establishments, such as Eton and Harrow, mentioned in the House. It will do no harm to mention St. James's Elementary School, Marsh Lane, Bootle, as having produced some men who have not fallen for the blandishments of Communism but have applied their Christian faith and Christian standards in the docks against some tough opposition.
  I hope that all this is in the past. By virtue of this Order, the men in Liverpool have the chance of participating in the high-wage industry for which they have been looking for a long time. If my observations are correct, the men appear to be happier because of this Order and its implications, in spite of a bad start, than they have ever been in their lives.
  This is absolutely essential because we are now, in one port alone, spending £15 million on new docks. Modernisation has been accepted. It was never resisted by the Liverpool men, but it has to be accepted with more alacrity. We have
  574
  to have new approaches if we are to take advantage of containerisation and palletisation which can bring prosperity to our great ports. This could have been achieved far more easily if there had been one employer. I shall not be churlish about this for we have made tremendous progress.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone mentioned a gentleman called Kentish Barnes. I hope that no one will take Kentish Barnes as the voice of Liverpool. I doubt whether even his own colleagues and management would support him in some of the outlandish views he expresses from time to time. In the spirit of sweet reasonableness I appear to be showing, may I say that the chairman of the Liverpool employers made a catastrophic error two weeks after the strike had finished. We had worked hard to finish it, but he made that error in the words he used in front of the Prime Minister and Mr. Frank Cousins. He said enough to drive any reasonable man out on strike again but for the attitude of the men advised by people like me to take no notice and to understand they had become part and parcel of the scheme.
  The men look on this situation, not as something to give them a high wage but as something which must be understood. Dockers are getting new houses and we are raising their whole social vista. Their children go to university. They will not put up with the old nonsense of years ago. They have no intention of doing that. If anyone tries to work the oracle and bring back the anachronisms of other days, he will find that the men will not have it. They have achieved standards by virtue of their action, their children have better opportunities and they are living in better homes.
  People are demanding these new standards and it is impossible to go back. I appeal to those on both sides of the industry. Trade unions have been remiss in many ways. I do not want to say much about that; I appeal to both sides to go forward together. This has been a difficult industry for the trade unions and for the employers, but these are new days. The employers did not try hard enough in the past, but there is a great opportunity for them and for the unions now. In Liverpool I want to see one union now that this chance has come.

  575
  For the men to be split in their endeavours is bad for the industry and bad for the men. I know that the men are thinking on these lines and, given the conditions provided by this Order, I am sure that this will come about.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: We are not so far apart as the hon. Member suggests, but I should like to have his reaction to one point. He suggested that the men are demanding this higher standard of living. Would it not be right to send forth a message from this House that it is something which we must all achieve, not demand? Demanding by itself is no good; achieving is what is required.
  Mr. Mahon: Any person who has worked in the docks knows that he never got anything for nothing and that he must achieve it by his own efforts. To get rid of the welting system in Liverpool was a fantastic achievement. The welt, to my mind, was justified in many, many cases—justified when men had to work in horrible conditions, when men had to work on frozen cargoes, justified in refrigerated ships, justified in working with carbon black, and with many other of those obnoxious cargoes. I remember coming to this House on one occasion to complain about an Egyptian cargo which was most objectionable, an affront not only to the dockers but to the dockers' wives, a cargo of poisoned rags from Egypt and other places, and being imported in the port of Liverpool. The men, quite rightly, refused to do that objectionable job.
  That, again, was an affront to their dignity. If ever there has been a set of men conscious of their dignity, then it is the Liverpool dockers—and it is impossible for anyone to succeed who tries to pool them into a mass, for they are the most individualistic men I have ever met in a not inconsiderable industrial experience.
  On an occasion like this there is just a chance that one can pay compliments, and there are two men who have contributed much of great value to the port of Liverpool. Mr. Jack Scamp did a remarkable job when he was sent there by the Minister of Labour and I would thank the Minister of Labour for sending him. He, and Mr. Jack Jones of the Transport and General Workers' Union,
  576
  could not have tried harder or with more success to bring a satisfactory end to the dispute. The whole of the men on Merseyside would like me as a dockside representative to say to the Government and anyone else concerned, that we are appreciative of their efforts. People very often do valuable work but are never appreciated, but we are highly appreciative of the attitude taken by those two gentlemen when they came to Liverpool.
  One other thing. A strike occurs and we have difficulty, but I would like to pay testimony to the Minister of Social Security for all that she did to try to bring the strike to a quick and successful conclusion. She did her job according to Act of Parliament, and she did it in the best possible manner, in a just way, in an adequate way, and she helped those men to an attitude of reason. Some people say that men should never be assisted when they are in industrial conflict. I could enlarge on this by saying it is a most astounding thing that the Russian people could never understand why we help our people when they are in industrial conflict, but I should be out of order if I were to proceed with that any further. However, I am glad to pay that testimony.
  I think I have said almost all that I really wished to say. I had no speech prepared when I came into the Chamber. There are just one or two other things. Age is important in this industry, and there are many old men in it. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right. The "no redundancy" undertaking given by the Ministry of Labour helped tremendously to bring the strike to an end in Liverpool. That is the undertaking he gave that there would be no redundancy. It helped, because we all know that in an industry like this the first men to go out are often the sick men, the older men. I support my hon. Friends who say that 60 is the age limit. It is hard for a man of that age to have to go up and down a 40 ft. ladder every morning and every afternoon, whether he has been sick, whether he has had operations, whether he has been wounded in the war. We have seen all these things happen throughout our lifetime in peace and in war.
  What we want is understanding, an understanding that men cannot afford to go out of the industry unless they are

  577
  offered an adequate reward. I have often thought, having been in local government so long, that people in local government jobs have much easier jobs in many ways, certainly physically. They can go at 60. Policemen work hard, but they can go after 25 years' service, and after 30 years' service are quite handsomely rewarded in some ways. Dockers have never been adequately rewarded, and, to my mind, are still not going to be adequately rewarded. So I hope that everyone, in the Opposition, trade unionists, and industrialists, will do all that they possibly can to see that the men are given proper pensions—at least, at this stage, at 65 and not 68, and I would hope that the age could be got down to 60.
  I hope that there will be no pressurised wastage in the industry. Certainly there should be normal redundancy and a severance scheme, if necessary, but there should be no artificial reduction in numbers. The men know that there must eventually be a reduction because of the introduction of modern appliances, but they want an undertaking that social justice will prevail at all times no matter whether they go out of the industry by virtue of a severance scheme or because of sickness or old age. Let us have no pressurised wastage.
  Employers can lay themselves out to get rid of men without applying severance or normal redundancy. However,
  578
  if the job opportunity in a place like Liverpool is reduced, there must be a continuation of diversification of industry to replace the lost jobs. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember that in the days of a Conservative Government, when there were difficulties, the right hon. Gentleman who is now Opposition Chief Whip and another Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Board of Trade sent officers into my constituency. That trend has been continued, and I am grateful for it. Now we have the Giro, with 5,000 jobs to be created in my constituency—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we cannot go as wide as this.
  Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I apologise. I know that I am straying far from the point. I wanted to indicate briefly that, if one gets rid of one set of jobs in the docks, the continuation of diversification of industry is very important in order to provide other employment.
  I am grateful for being able to say a few words in support of the Order. No one appreciates what has been done more than the dock workers of Liverpool, and I hope that we shall go on to a more prosperous society and get rid of the anachronism of strikes, both unofficial and official.
  10.27 p.m.
  Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Were I to endeavour to make a speech on this subject, I should probably follow many of the points made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon). However, I have no wish to weary the House with a long repetitive contribution. I intervene merely to indicate the general support of my Party to the whole scheme of decasualisation. Everyone is hastening to support the arrangement, and I am delighted about it, because my party has been in favour of decasualisation for a very long time.
  Since we have been given an opportunity to ventilate points and ask questions, to which we may even get replies in the course of time, it occurs to me that I might put forward one matter about which I have some concern. Obviously there are others, but there are important negotiations proceeding at the moment, and we are all waiting with interest to see how they turn out. We hope that they turn out the right way, and perhaps it would not be altogether helpful to explore all the various doubts which we have in our minds.
  The one point to which I would like an answer is this. I have had many talks with dockers in both Liverpool and Manchester. From what they said it appeared that trade union relationships had broken down. Every one to whom I spoke expressed the view that he had grievances, which he explained sometimes more clearly than others, but fundamentally his fear was that his grievances were not understood even by his own union leaders. The point was made over and over again. It was my view that an immense amount of frustration seemed to have arisen merely because the dockers of Liverpool felt that their own union leaders who were conducting negotiations on their behalf were not fully aware of their various points, and they themselves had not had an adequate opportunity to make their position clear.
  I do not need to remind hon. Members that the position is different in the various docks, as was pointed out to me by many of the dock workers. In the smaller ports, where work tends to be seasonal, and therefore rather spasmodic, the workers would necessarily take a different view of the whole question of decasualisation and of basic pay
  580
  from that which would be taken in a port like Liverpool, where the question of full-back pay has not really arisen in recent years, since there has been virtual continuity of employment. It was also true that Liverpool people could not clearly understand, and neither could I, why their sick pay should be £4 a week less than that of their colleagues in London, Hull, and elsewhere.
  I do not want to labour these points, but their existence, and the fact that they have led to a tragedy which has had a serious effect on us all, and indeed on the dockers themselves, must underline the importance of establishing a structure in which there is effective local representation of the worker's point of view. The need is for effective local negotiation and consultation, and for direct representation of dock workers on the bodies making the decisions which will affect them. It seems to me that once we have experience of a proper industrial relationship based on decasualisation, the need for the dock labour boards at present envisaged will disappear.
  I am concerned about the constitution of the dock labour boards. It appears that their constitution, centrally and locally, is to be 50 per cent. employer representation, and 50 per cent. trade union representation. If the need is for local representation in order effectively to ventilate local grievances—and all hon. Members here tonight must be clear that the grievances are local, and vary very much from one dock to another—we have to provide for this in the new scheme.
  I welcome what was said by the hon. Gentleman about the kind of industrial relationship which he envisages in these areas, but how does he envisage overcoming the immense difficulties which exist, such as a docker in Liverpool being represented by a trade union which is not concerned merely with dockers? Not only is it not concerned merely with dockers; it is not concerned merely with Liverpool dockers. I therefore feel that we need some further explanation about those parts of the Order which relate to the appointment of workers' representatives on the dock boards.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the proviso for a new shop steward system in the docks will permit more industrial democracy in the industry?
  Dr. Winstanley: I have asked the Minister to explain more clearly precisely how this will work. I am endeavouring to make the point that this is fundamental to the working of the whole scheme. We all hope that the scheme will be a success, as I am sure the dockers hope it will be, but it will stand or fall on this kind of representation. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to give us some further explanation of this matter, which I regard as crucial to the whale business.
  10.34 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The Order is an amendment of a series of Orders which have been coming into existence since 1947. This is very important, because 1947 was the milestone in the docks industry. At that time the National Dock Labour Board was established, and we found that this was the first towards the decasualisation scheme that we are discussing tonight.
  Over the years we have seen how, step by step, dock workers have made some small progress. It is interesting to note that the 1947 Order was introduced by a Labour Government, and this is not unnoticed by the dockers in Liverpool, London and other ports in the country. Before 1947, the conditions of the dockers were simply chaotic. The only time when there was any sort of order at all was during the war, when order was introduced into the ports precisely because we were engaged in a great war and there had to be some sort of order and decent conditions. But even they were only a small step forward.
  Now we have what my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) calls an historic document. I think this is an historic document. I am not ungrateful to those hon. Members opposite who have moved this Motion and have given us an opportunity to discuss the question and to declare our full support for the Government on this Order. It gives us the chance fully to explore and probe the Order, the difficulties which will undoubtedly arise and the solutions to those difficulties.
  When we discuss this Order we ought not to allow our minds to be clouded by the fact that unfortunately two disputes arose, in Liverpool and in London, when
  582
  the Order was introduced. I am not an authority on the London dispute, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle has clearly outlined the basic factors concerning the Liverpool dispute. However, I believe that when the Order was introduced certain mistakes were made, particularly in connection with communications. One of the problems which the Liverpool dockers brought home to us very clearly was the fact that they did not see the rule book until they had been in dispute for about 10 days. In a sense, therefore, they were being asked to buy a pig in a poke, and nobody does that. It was most unfortunate that the rule book was not brought out some time before the operation of the scheme so that the dockers could have discussed it in detail and made their recommendations before the dispute took place.
  The dispute in Liverpool was not led by a group of Communists or Trotskyists, or any other "ists". There are not 9,500 dockers, in Liverpool, all members of the Communist Party or Trotskyist group. I can assure the House of that, without any doubt. Of course, there were one or two Communists and Trotskyists involved around the fringes, as there are in any industrial dispute.
  Jack Scamp's report, in my opinion, vindicated the dockers of Liverpool, because it brought out very clearly that they had genuine grievances which ought to have been settled before the actual vesting day, as it were, when the new Order came into operation. This was the great scandal and problem in Liverpool. I do not want to go too deeply into the dispute. We are not discussing that particular dispute now, but we know that those dockers had legitimate grievances, which are now partially settled, although there is still room for negotiation over certain outstanding problems.
  One of the great problems was that the average wages in Liverpool were £3 or £4 a week lower than the rest of the industry, and the dockers had to work far more overtime to earn them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle mentioned the social and housing conditions in Liverpool and the lack of amenities and welfare provision. The Order is a step forward to eliminate these bad conditions: it is not the end but the beginning.

  583
  I agree with my hon. Friend that one union along the line of docks in Liverpool would be better than two, but I am not sure, because they are in the Transport and General Workers' Union, with a trade section covering their industry, and there is nothing wrong with that, provided that the workers have their own body for their particular problems. We should not split hairs.
  What will the new agreement do? More than anything else, I welcome the fact that a system of shop stewards is being instituted. The shop steward can sometimes be the nightmare of the union official or the employer, but, if they are honest, most employers, and certainly all union officials, will agree that the organising basis of any union is the shop steward system, because he is the transmission belt from the worker to the official and from the official right up to managerial level, and that he helps to solve problems.
  We hear many stories about wicked shop stewards leading workers out on strike, but the actual number of strikes led by shop stewards is very small. What about the hundreds of thousands of shop stewards who every day solve difficulties before they reach dispute stage? It is one of the most important developments for years that we shall now have an organised shop steward system as in any other section of workers, like, for instance, the building industry.
  Permanency is vital. The Liverpool workers did not strike because they opposed the introduction of permanent work. One of my hon. Friends who wrote in the Mirror that this was the issue did not have a clue about it. They had grievances which they wanted settled and were not arguing about permanent work. They have always wanted that.
  The dignity of the workers is important. I ask hon. Members to imagine themselves being lined up in a "pen". That word in itself suggests a cattle or sheep pen. The boss examines the workers, decides that one is not a bad sort of fellow and that he will have him, but not another who is too old or almost dying, and so passes to the next man. What a humiliating experience for any human being. The Order will eliminate that once and for all, and this is wel-
  584
  comed by the dockers, by their wives and families and by anyone else with anything to do with the industry.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: My hon. Friend alluded to a Press report in one of the national dailies. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), who had something derogatory to say about the dock labour force. I said earlier that no one would take what Mr. Kentish Barnes said as coming with authority from the employers. Equally, no one in the Labour Party will take those remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth seriously.
  Mr. Heffer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. He understands the industrial scene and certainly knows the position in the Liverpool docks.
  I was saying that the dock workers do not argue with the idea of permanency of employment. They want to get rid of the indignity which I have seen but which I have not experienced as a docker. However, I did experience it as a ship repair worker when I first went to Liverpool. I had to queue in the "stand"—itself a humiliating experience—while the boss came along and decided, according to his whim, whether or not to employ me and others. The Government's new scheme represents a new era for dock workers, and this is to be welcomed.
  I agree that the relationship between the needs of human beings and the needs of the industry must be balanced. In the past, the human being has been sacrificed in the interest of the industry. He has been discarded, and this must never happen again. Neither do we want to see the employers in Liverpool and elsewhere going bankrupt, although I hope that eventually there will be only one employer; but that is another story. Under the new arrangements, we have a reduced number of employers, and this, in itself, presents a real problem.
  We should not think that the problems we are experiencing have not been faced elsewhere. In San Francisco, the employers were prepared, so to speak, to buy the entire rule book, and at enormous price they did so, with the result that when workers were retired they found themselves handsomely rewarded. I agree that our workers should retire

  585
  earlier, but I hope that their pensions and other payments will be better than at present suggested.
  A lump sum of £100 with a pension of perhaps 25s. a week—with a bit of luck, after a lifetime's service, it might be £5 a week—is not good enough. We want better pensions and a better severance pay agreement. It is not just a question of employers not going bankrupt. I do not want the workers to become bankrupt when they retire after years of hard service in a rotten industry.
  An immense revolution is going on in the docks, with modernisation, mechanisation and the introduction of the container system and so on. It is of immense importance to the country, to the people living in the ports and to the dockers themselves. As in any industrial revolution, we must take care. We do not want to repeat what happened in the last industrial revolution, when the worker got the bad end of the stick and the employers made enormous profits.
  The workers must share to the full in this technological revolution and that is why, with the introduction of this new scheme, we must have better conditions, better wages, increased productivity, with the dockers having not only greater dignity but greater material benefits. In a sense, this is quite a historic debate.
  I wish to end by making one or two comments on the idea of disciplining workers. When people raise the question, I sometimes wonder whether they really understand the life and conditions of the workers and what causes a man to go on strike. Does anybody seriously believe that either in Liverpool or London one or two men can keep thousands out on strike unless there are justified grievances over which they are prepared to stay out? Would the hon. Gentleman opposite who raised the question of discipline, with its industrial court basis, suggest that we put 9,500 Liverpool dockers in prison? If that happened, we would not have a labour force. Perhaps it is suggested that we might pick out one or two of the leaders and put them in gaol. That was unfortunately done under a Labour Government, and all it did was to keep the dockers out for much longer than they should have been out.
  586
  We must be careful when we talk about discipline of the workers. The important point is that in order to get rid of unofficial or official disputes we must understand the workers' grievances and make certain that there is machinery, both through the trade unions and the Ministry of Labour, to deal with them quickly, so that they do not fester and ultimately lead to strikes.
  Mr. Robert Carr: The only suggestion in this debate from this side of the House about discipline was to give the union—not the employer—more power over its members who flagrantly break agreements which the union has made on behalf of its members.
  Mr. Heffer: I understand that there is a sophisticated argument on the Front Bench opposite and an unsophisticated argument on the back benches. I heard an hon. Gentleman who has left the Chamber talk about organised mass stupidity and the need for discipline to deal with organised mass stupid people. I can only think that he really wanted to put them in gaol. I admit that this is not the argument used by the Front Bench opposite.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman would not want to be unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd). What my hon. Friend was saying about organised mass stupidity, or whatever it was, was that the provisions of the Order and the nature of the scheme had to be explained to those whom it was intended to benefit, so that it would not be possible to organise mass stupidity. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is not right to laugh. That is true. My hon. Friend is not here to defend himself, and it is not right that he should be misrepresented.
  Mr. Heffer: There is a contradiction in that. It would be very difficult to communicate and get people to understand things if they were stupid in the mass. I agree about the importance of communications. I have made the point before that it is absolutely right that there should be better communication between the dockers at ship level right through to the top. That is acceptable, and the

  587
  shop stewards' movement will help to improve that communication.
  I want to take up the point about the discipline of the unions over the workers. It is a very interesting concept that we ought to dwell on for a moment. What constitutes a trade union? The general secretary of a trade union is an equal member with the member on the shop floor. A union is made up of its entire membership. What is wrong is that, unfortunately, sometimes decisions are made by the executives without actual reference to the bottom level, and sometimes this leads to a revolt from the lower ranks against the national executives, and there one gets a break in communications. This sometimes happens; I am not denying it for a moment.
  That is why I think it is important that at all times before an agreement is finally reached it should be discussed at mass meetings right down to the bottom level, and there must be a right for the workers to revise the agreement before it is finally accepted. That is what is important. This is how it used to be. Unfortunately, there has been in certain cases a tendency to move away from this. But that is not a fundamental mistake. It is a weakness in some organisations which is being corrected at present by the workers themselves.
  So when we talk about discipline it should be remembered that the answer is not to give more power to the executives over the rank and file. It is a question of getting the rank and file actually to participate in decision making in the organisation. If that is done, then that problem is solved and there is no contradiction between the executives, the district officials and the rank and file.
  I have digressed somewhat, but I thought it very important to deal with the question of discipline. It would be fundamentally wrong if we had a position where it was suggested that the executives should have increased power at the expense of workers at the bottom level.
  The Order is a historic document. It opens a new era. It means that we have the greatest opportunity that we have ever had in the docks industry. It is an opportunity that we should all grasp with both hands. It will not solve all the problems in the industry, but it is one further step
  588
  on the long road along which the dockers have been fighting since the days of James Sexton, in Liverpool, who formed the dockers' union. It is a long, hard road that has been travelled, and this is a very important milestone on it, though it is not the end of it.
  I am very glad, on a very rare occasion, at this hour of the night to be able to support an Order which the Government have introduced rather than, as I have done in the past, criticise one.
  10.59 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: Until he lost his way just at the end, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) had made an excellent speech, with most of which I agreed. I also felt that the speech by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) was most moving and most important. It is a tragedy that this historic Order should be debated in the aftermath of two strikes.
  The hon. Member for Walton examined the Liverpool strike. I turn to examine the London strike. We must examine it and see where the blame for it lies and what lessons we can learn from it. First, we must place the blame fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Minister, who allowed himself to be bounced by the tally clerks into announcing the operation of the Order far too quickly. The hon. Member for Walton called the speed with which it was introduced a scandal. He was absolutely right. There were so many loose ends at the time of introduction—
  Mr. Heffer rose—
  Mr. Page: No. I listened for a long time. I cannot give way now.
  We must face the fact that the Minister suddenly made the decision to introduce it on 18th September though initially he announced that it would start on Friday, 15th September. So he appears to have taken a little advice on this.
  Then, in the exercise of allocating the blame and learning the lessons, we must look at the London Joint Negotiating Committee because of the new minimum wage scale which it introduced to come into force at the time of the Order. Before decasualisation the tally clerks, the

  589
  lightermen and the dockers and stevedores all had the same minimum wage. Suddenly one day the dockers woke up and discovered that the tally clerks had a minimum wage of £21, the lightermen a minimum wage of £18, and the dockers and stevedores a minimum wage of £16. That was produced without real discussion and real understanding.
  It leads me to the third party to blame—the London port employers, because it was not until the eleventh and three-quarter hour of the negotiations that the trade union negotiators realised that the minimum wage for dockers would be £16 and not £17. All along the discussions had been on the basis of £17. The union representatives signed the agreement on the understanding that it would be a minimum of £17. Suddenly the London port employers, under pressure from the national port employers, fully supportad by the Minister on this, said, "Sorry, boys. It is not £17, after all. It is £16, otherwise we will get out of step with the dockers in the rest of the country". I believe that in Liverpool they are negotiating for £17 a week. What will happen in London if it is a mere plusage of £1, which will take the London dockers up to £18? No wonder they were bewildered. Because they were bewildered there was this strike.
  Though there was little time, I believe that the leadership displayed by the docks officers of the Transport and General Workers' Union was abysmal. They appeared to be right out of touch with the dockers. It has been said that better communications were needed, that much stronger leadership should have been exerted, and that it appeared to people close to the dispute that the officials of the Transport and General Workers' Union were sitting back in their offices waiting for the initiative to be taken by Mr. Dash.
  I also think that the leaders of that union—Mr. Cousins, Mr. Jones and others—can be indicted for not going to the docks themselves, for not arranging meetings at which they themselves, with their authority, with their drive and with their power, could have addressed their own members and explained to them why they thought that the members were being misled by Mr. Dash. It should have been done.
  590
  Mr. Dash used the continuity rule to bring the dockers out on strike. It was an absurd reason. The continuity rule is a sensible rule, and most dockers agree that it is a sensible rule. In fact, there was the threat of a strike in another part of the London docks when the dockers heard that the continuity rule might be excluded from the grey book. There was not sufficient understanding of this rule or sufficient understanding of the meaning of the whole decasualisation scheme.
  Mr. Dash played on the fears and the resentment of the dockers because they felt that they were being sold a pup. They felt that their wages would be reduced. They did not understand the way in which decasualisation would operate. I believe that there is still a festering wound in the minds of the dockers in London about the minimum wage and about the way that decasualisation has been introduced. There are fears because of redundancy, fears because the Government's redundancy scheme is less advantageous than that which has already been instituted by the port employers and by the Port of London Authority.
  I beg the port employers, the Minister of Labour, the Transport and General Workers' Union and the other unions to use the few days they have left until January, by issuing pamphlets, by speeches, by advertisements in newspapers, by persuading newspapers to carry editorials, to explain to the dockers what a vital, dignified and worthwhile Order this is, one which can bring security and a better standard of living to all of them.
  11.5 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): The hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) began by dealing with some general matters affecting unofficial strikes and industrial discipline; general in that they related to workers covered by the Order and workers extra to the Order. I am sure he knows very well that my right hon. Friend dealt with matters pertaining to this in a characteristically forthright speech at Wakefield on Saturday, and that he will know that the conclusion of that characteristically forthright speech was that these general matters should

  591
  await the findings of the Royal Commission. Certainly that is as far as the Government can or should go in dealing with matters as general as that. I believe that the organisation and setting up of a Royal Commission places some obligation on the Government to listen to its conclusions. The hon. Member and the House will have to await the good tidings of the spring, as my right hon. Friend described them, and see what the Government's reactions to the proposals are.
  I turn now to the more specific matters affecting the Order and the workers covered by it. Of course, I accept entirely that, in moving the Prayer against the Order, the hon. Gentleman and his party were not seeking to set the clock back. It is clearly not their intention to destroy the scheme, or to "recasualise" the docks. I am perfectly prepared to judge their views on the docks by what they have said today, but I must make it absolutely clear and will reiterate that, despite their enthusiasm for the general principle of decasualisation, some of the proposals which they have put forward this evening, which, I am sure, they believed to be improvements, would certainly erode the principles on which the scheme is based, would certainly undermine the confidence on which the scheme depends and would certainly dissipate the good will which the scheme already enjoys.
  I will explain why I believe that by setting out the principles on which the Order is based. Clearly, the Order has two objects. One is social. It is simply the desire to create a better deal for the docker. I wish that the hon. Member for Paddington, South had spent a little more time dealing with that fundamental aspect of the Order, for many of my hon. Friends will agree with me that perhaps the primary intent of the Order was to bring about dignity of employment for the docker and the social requirements which dockers have demanded and deserved and wanted for half a century.
  The second object is economic. It is to bring about more efficient docks, to run in double harness with the Docks and Harbours Act, and to bring about a more efficient ports system. Efficiency must be created as a result of better
  592
  relationships between official trade unions and the men they represent, by the extension of the shop steward system and by men accepting that their best interests are to be served by following the leadership of their elected trade union officials; the leadership of the people who best represent their views.
  But if the hon. Member for Paddington, South believes that, as I think he does, I must ask him whether he thinks that course is likely to be served by a campaign of denigration of the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union. It is difficult for the hon. Member to say to the men that they must rely on their trade unions more and to be embarrassingly supported by his hon. Friends crying out that that general secretary is not doing his job.
  Mr. Scott: It is clear that the men do not rely on their unions, and it appears that the unions were not representing their local interests. I was arguing that the general secretary concerned should identify himself more and keep more in touch with the men at local level.
  Mr. Hattersley: I will deal with the matter of local interest, a subject raised by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley).
  I accept that there are differences in the needs and demands of dockers in different ports. One of the reasons why the scheme builds in special local arrangements is because the Ministry and the Government accept that the local boards must be composed, in part, of local nominees, men nominated locally by the local trade union. These are men representing local views, and there is the absolute necessity to convince members of the union that their interests and views are being represented.
  I reiterate that the creation of a lively shop steward system, with permanent employment as opposed to casual employment, is bound to facilitate a much more rewarding, genuine and practical relationship between the official trade union and the men it seeks to represent.
  The two objectives of the scheme, social and economic, are dependent on one fundamental point which appears time after time in the Order. That is the security which the Order provides. The social objectives are facilitated by the readiness to accept change that

  593
  security brings. What I take exception to, in the most objective sort of way, are those parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech which are likely to undermine the main idea of the security offered by the scheme.
  That does not mean that the Government have automatically closed their mind to the possibility of changing details of the Order. We understand that a scheme as revolutionary as this, which at one stroke makes a fundamental change in the nature of employment in the docks and, yet, must do it by a series of detailed amendments, is unlikely to be ideal at the very beginning. Despite the very long process of consultation and negotiation which took place, there is clearly a possibility that the Government might want to make some marginal alterations in the scheme.
  Some of the specific suggestions made this evening do not commend themselves to the Government, because they have the fundamental weakness of undermining the self-confidence which we hope the scheme has already created. I turn specifically to what the hon. Gentleman for Paddington, South said about summary dismissal. His right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) interrupted one of my hon. Friends to say that no suggestion had been made from that side of the House which would give any power over the unofficial striker other than the enhanced power that should go to the unions and was appropriate to them. That is not, as I understand it, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Paddington, South. He went in great detail and with great accuracy, into the provisions of Clause 14A(2) and 14A(3). Those provisions enable the individual port employer to take disciplinary procedures against one of his employees. He reminded the House of the new provision under Clause 14 whereby a man was suspended but, finally, arbitration was in the hands of the Dock Labour Board. As I understand it, he was suggesting that the power of dismissal under those conditions would be more appropriately vested in the individual employer. That seems to be a very substantial extension of the disciplinary powers as advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have the greatest doubts about the practicability and propriety of that suggestion, about the prac-
  594
  ticability and propriety of allowing a unilateral system of dismissal.
  The Ministry and the National Joint Advisory Committee of my Ministry regards the disciplinary and dismissal procedures of this industry in many ways as a model. They embody the essential feature of dual control. They enable the man to feel that if he has been disciplined, if action is to be taken against him, it will be taken after proper consideration, and by people who will look upon his misdemeanour objectively and decide what is the best course for him and the industry.
  Mr. Scott: What I sought to put forward was that there should be a difference in emphasis in procedure relating to unofficial strikes and constitutional action. I quite accept the provisions for all the aspects other than unofficial strikes. This is a new scheme and dispute procedures are agreed and built in. They should be followed. If one goes outside the scheme, there is a case for shifting the emphasis and putting it on the union for reapplying for entry.
  Mr. Hattersley: The scheme, in Clause 14, is essentially laid down for individual acts of indiscipline appropriate for individual misdemeanour but is totally inappropriate for mass acts of indiscipline. While the clauses operate satisfactorily in terms of industrial misdemeanours, it would be wrong to extend them in such a way as to give an individual employer the right to remove a man from the register and black list him in the industry because he had taken part in a dispute. The difference between us is that in our view, this is not the way to deal with the problem. In our view this would encourage and stimulate industrial unrest.
  I will now deal with some of the other points raised this evening, particularly the suggestion by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) that my right hon. Friend had not made the Order at the right time and that if it had been made at a different time and in a different way many of these troubles might have been avoided. I remind the hon. Member of the process of consultation which preceded the Order. The first Devlin Report was published in August 1965. As a result of two recommendations of that Report—that there

  595
  should be a revised national directive and a small negotiating committee to consider the implementation of that directive—the National Modernisation Committee was set up. The National Joint Council then had two years consultation and negotiation with both sides of the industry. Both sides were represented on it and lay members not representative of the industry gave their objective opinions.
  As a result of two years' consultation, a draft Order was produced subject to normal statutory procedure. A public inquiry was held and objections heard. After that process, the National Joint Council Modernisation Committee considered other alternatives and improvements. Only at the end of that time was my right hon. Friend of the opinion that he was ready to make an Order and knew what it would contain. If the hon. Member suggests that the timing was wrong, I hope that he does not suggest that there was inadequate consultation because that kind of representation was made.
  He might have suggested it on the basis that although the consultation was right the docks were not ready for the outcome of that consultation, no matter how accurate it had been and how appropriate it was. By the time the Order came into operation only 300 men—about 0·5 per cent. of the whole industry of 60,000—were not allocated to one employer or another. By the time the Order came into operation there were certainly some outstanding problems, but it is the view of my right hon. Friend, and I hope the view of the House, that by the simple act of making an Order in some ways those problems were either solved, or the parties were encouraged to solve them. Within a few days of the Order coming into operation the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers had agreed to the establishment of a common register. At some point my right hon. Friend had to make the Order as a stimulus to getting the outstanding difficulties dealt with and the problems solved. That is what happened.
  Dr. Winstanley: Notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman has just said, he would agree, I am sure, that the Devlin
  596
  Report laid down as a precondition of the introduction of decasualisation that the unions should inform their members, yet we have heard the observation of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that the members in Liverpool were not in possession of the book until after the date when the business should have started. Surely, this is the precipitancy about which one is concerned?
  Mr. Hattersley: I am conscious of the point the hon. Gentleman has made, and I hope in a moment to deal with the publicity, if that is the word, we tried to bring to the scheme. But let me turn, before coming to that, as I certainly will in the ten minutes left to me, to deal with another point of great substance which was raised on both sides of the House, the point about the number of men in the industry and whether, therefore, the Order is doomed to failure because of the structural imbalance between the demand for men and the number of men available for and determined to work in the docks.
  Clearly, the compulsory retirement age is a matter which remains subject to negotiation. Clearly, hon. Gentlemen would not want me to say anything which might prejudice those negotiations by simply thinking aloud what the age ought to be, either in terms of the efficiency of the industry or in terms of the individual welfare of the men. But I think some things must be said now.
  One is, of course, that the pension scheme, which is an essential part of this Order, and which for all its inadequacy—I accept some of the reservations about the pension scheme expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walton—provides a better scheme than the industry had before, and therefore is likely to encourage a man to give up the job when his health and age should prompt him to give it up. A great deal of progress has been made in reducing the age at which a man working in the docks should be able to go. In 1961 an agreement that the retirement age should be reduced to 65 was accepted. Since then it has gone down from 70 to 68. During the month after 18th September, a month after the Order was instituted, the offer that the National Joint Council made to men between 65 and 68 to leave

  597
  the industry voluntarily with some financial inducement, some financial assistance, was taken up—in no small degree; 1,700 men out of a possible 1,900 took advantage of that scheme.
  Therefore, whilst the promise of no redundancy is essential to the smooth working of the scheme and the smooth operation of this Order, the Government know very well that there are some problems which arise in terms of manning and they know perfectly well they have an obligation to solve them in a humane but at the same time an efficient way. The National Board, of course, has some very specific functions in terms of manning the industry. Clause 3 (1,b and d)—I was going to say enable—indeed charge the Board to regulate recruitment and discharge from the industry. It charges the Board to keep a register under review. We should be applauding that, because of the Order before the House tonight, there is a national authority charged with the obligation of trying to get the labour position right.
  I reiterate that there are difficulties. I reiterate that those difficulties can only be solved within the terms of the Government's promise of no redundancy and within the terms or our insistence that it must be organised in a compassionate as well as an efficient way. But the Government are seized of the problem and are negotiating about it at this very moment. [Interruption.] I cannot give way now as I have only four minutes left and some very detailed and complicated questions to answer, and I should like to do the House the courtesy of trying to answer them.
  I was asked a particularly detailed question about the productivity assurances. I have to tell the House that of the Leith position, about which I was asked a precise question, I have no information, but I will certainly let the hon. Gentleman know what the position is. I may add, wryly, that my suspicion is that if things were bad we would have heard about it. It is the invariable rule in the Ministry of Labour that if we do not know, then it is all right. I will try to confirm that optimistic assumption, and I will let the hon. Gentleman know.
  About Liverpool, I do know, and I know there is a great programme of re-
  598
  vision of the incentive scheme designed to overcome the incentive scheme difficulties which have characterised working in Liverpool for a very long time. The scheme envisaged would do away with excessive overtime worked at that port. The scheme should bring about more productivity, which is absolutely essential for the working of the scheme.
  I was asked about the complication of the Order. I would be the last to deny that it is a complicated Order to understand, and it is even more complicated to debate. We are tied by a number of factors. The first is that it must be an amending Order, which must be related to its predecessors. For the benefit of the House and others, we have tried to make it more clear to the lay mind by publishing the Second Schedule. But, clearly, that will not help many men in the docks.
  To try to remedy that deficiency the National Modernisation Committee prepared a Docks Bulletin, which went to every man in the docks, explaining what the scheme had to offer him, what the advantages were, and what benefits the Government proposed to offer the dock industry as a result of this Order. It is almost certainly an unprecedented step in terms of industrial public relations, and one which the House should applaud. I hope that it will be conveyed to the people who thought of it—people outside my Ministry, incidentally—that the House regards it as an admirable example of what should be done.
  Finally, I return to the principles on which the Order is based. It is intended to be a Measure by which both social justice and economic efficiency will improve in the docks. It is intended to be a Measure by which, simultaneously, the social aspirations and needs of the dock workers are married to the nation's wish that the docks should be organised more efficiently.
  I reiterate that, if those two aims are to be achieved, the Ministry and the Government must have the confidence of the men in the docks. Arrangements which make it more easy for them to be dismissed in an arbitrary fashion, and criticisms, not of their unofficial leaders, but of their official leaders who for some weeks have done their best to reassert their authority over dock working members, are not conducive to that process.

  599
  The Order which I ask the House to approve is almost unique in the Government's experience in that, at one blow, we are able to advance something which is both morally right and economically expedient. Those two go together all too infrequently. It is a fortunate Government who have the opportunity to advance on both fronts simultaneously, and an unwise Opposition who choose to pray against it.
  Mr. Iremonger: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he offer a word of advice or assurance to employers who are suffering great anxiety in this respect? There are many small lighterage companies making, say, £30,000 a year which are obliged to carry on their books and pay men whom they cannot employ and who are costing them just exactly that sum.
  Mr. Hattersley: I was waiting for that point to be raised throughout the debate. The Order is specific, in that it offers special assistance to those companies, particularly small ones, which have a temporary structural surplus of labour. The levy under Clause 21 of Schedule 2, which can be as much as 10 per cent. of the wage bill of the entire permanent work force, can be used under Clause 3(2,f) to help meet the immediate running costs of those small firms who have men surplus to requirements. By helping firms financially in this way with their immediate surpluses, we are meeting both the points which I tried to raise. We are helping them stave off bankruptcy and to remain an efficient part of the industry. We are preserving the continuity of employment and the security of the men who might otherwise be laid off casually because of a temporary shortage of work. The point raised under the levy and surplus wage payment issue exemplifies perfectly the dual rôle I have mentioned.
  Question put and negatived.

  TEACHERS (SALARIES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Price: I wish to raise the question of the teachers who, until very recently—indeed until a day or two ago—were on the verge of the most serious dispute since the Second World War, if not this century, between the teaching profession and those who employ them. Happily, much of the topicality which might have surrounded this debate has been dissipated by the agreement which was reached yesterday between the teachers and the local education authorities, and it now looks as though we shall not have the mass dismissals of teachers which appeared almost inevitable only last week when I applied to initiate this debate.
  However, I think that on this occasion it is useful to air some of the origins of this dispute, and to have a debate about them, because in my view it is most important that the Department of Education and Science should give a real lead in the future to make sure that the situation which has existed for the past two months, the uncertainty which has existed, and the real bitterness which has grown up, does not occur again. If the Department gave that lead, it could go a long way to achieving this.
  What has been gained by this dispute? I agree with what I imagine my right hon. Friend will say, "Not a great deal", but I can list two things. One is the commitment on the local authorities' side, and, indeed, I suppose also on the Government's side, that the idea that teachers are compelled to supervise school meals is now finished. I wholly welcome this, and I shall say something more about it later.
  Secondly, there is almost a commitment—I might almost call it a total commitment—that the primary-secondary differential, that is the de facto situation whereby the average salary of secondary school teachers is a great deal higher than that of primary school teachers, will be radically modified when the next Burnham negotiations take place in 1969. These are two great gains on which the National Union of Teachers, although

  601
  it has made mistakes, and has come under a certain amount of odium over the past few weeks, can look back.
  I think that the present situation holds lessons for the Government, for the local education authorities, and for the teachers. I think that the events of the last six weeks must be looked at in the context of growing militancy among teachers, not only in this country, but all over the world. In New York we have seen the end of a bitter teachers' strike which lasted for many weeks, and was only solved by, as it were, going above the local education authority, and the Mayor of New York stepping in to solve it. I think that it is this sort of solution that we have to look for nowadays in Britain.
  In the short time available to me, I want to talk about four things. The first is the excuse for the dispute, not the real cause of it, the supervision of school meals by teachers. I am in the happy position of having been in both situations. Before I came to this House, I was a teacher for 10 years, and for about half that time I was subjected to the compulsory supervision of school meals. I did it because I was so badly paid that I welcomed it because I did not have to pay for my lunch every day. I then moved to a rather more enlightened local authority in the West Riding of Yorkshire where a fully-staffed ancillary service was in existence and I ceased to supervise school meals in any way at all. The one lesson that I drew from that was that when I had my dinner hours free to prepare for lessons, free to think about teaching instead of thinking about supervising the school meals, I was a marginally better teacher than I had been before. I think this is the great lesson.
  The whole effort of the teaching profession in the next few years must be in one way or another to relieve teachers of the burden of work in order that they can use spare time to improve themselves as teachers. There is this enormous difference between the infants teacher who has no free periods, who works right through the day from when she arrives at school, supervising the school meals, until the school day finishes, and for example the university lecturer who gives three or four lectures a week with one
  602
  or two classes in addition. The great aim, particularly for primary school teachers, must be to give them more time off. Relieving them of school meal supervision will give them more time off in order to become better teachers. Inasmuch as they will have more time off in the future, I feel that a real victory has been obtained.
  I wish to ask three questions. In many of the 17 areas where the National Union of Teachers invoked sanctions, a fully-staffed ancillary service has been set up within weeks, and the local authorities have now pledged themselves to continue that service. The obvious question now is, when are we to have a fully-staffed ancillary service to supervise school meals all over the country? When does the Department envisage that we shall have this fully-staffed ancillary service?
  Secondly, what advice are the Government giving local authorities now that we are in this new situation and the local authorities in all areas have promised to move towards a fully-staffed ancillary service to supervise school meals?
  Thirdly—and here comes the crunch—how are local authorities to pay for this ancillary service? Where is the money coming from? Is there machinery by which this extra money can be found through the general grant? It is very difficult to pay extra little bits of money through the general grant. Yet local authorities have complained, quite rightly, that they cannot be expected to set up a new service unless they are given the money to pay for it.
  This is vital to the future industrial peace of the teaching movement. Although this dispute has been settled for the time being, if there are difficulties in some of the more explosive areas of the country, it could flare up again. It is vital that answers should be given to these questions.
  On the question of ancillaries generally, it is worth stating that the National Union of Teachers has constantly been blamed for not accepting ancillaries. The truth is that the local authorities will not appoint ancillaries, and the truth behind that is the fact that the local authorities are so squeezed for current expenditure that they have not got the money to appoint ancillaries. What is

  603
  the Department's views about encouraging local authorities to appoint ancillaries, particularly to supervise school meals?
  Second, the question of unqualified teachers is the least important topic in this debate. We should distinguish two sorts—first, those who are perhaps mature students and who want to do some teaching before going on to training college. They should be given every encouragement to do one or two years as temporary teachers, as laid down by the Burnham Committee. The Ministry has a right to be adamant about this, but the union has a real complaint because, in many areas, temporary teachers, who, according to the Burnham Committee, should teach for only one or two years before going on to training college are in fact teaching for ten, 15 or 20 years simply because no replacements can be accepted. Because they do not want dilution by the back door, they have started the campaign against unqualified teachers. If the Department said clearly that temporary teachers should only teach for two years, much of this bitterness would disappear.
  Third, the primary-secondary differential is at the heart of this dispute. Local authorities and the Department commonly say that all teachers receive the same basic salary, and this is true, but the average salary of the secondary school teacher is far higher—I do not know the exact figure, but perhaps my right hon. Friend could provide it—than to a primary school teacher, because the payments above the Burnham scale are so much greater.
  The Ministry is very proud of the Plowden Report, as it said at a Press conference the other day, adding how much it was doing to implement it. This Report said that the primary-secondary differential was a fundamental obstacle to giving primary schools a square deal. I am glad that one thing which has come out of the dispute is the recognition by local authorities that this is a problem. Hitherto, throughout the dispute, they have refused to do this. Now, a working party has been set up, for which I am grateful.
  The dispute about the differential is not about salaries alone. It is partly that the teachers want it lessened and the two
  604
  blocks of salaries brought together, but it simply reflects the basic dissatisfaction of many primary school teachers about the schools in which they teach. It is a genuine feeling which has taken the Department and local authorities by surprise, and I hope that it will never be ignored again. This was a strong feeling during the Burnham negotiations and because those negotiations did not consider it, all this bitterness arose. I would like to know what action the Government see the new working party taking. There is no reason why it should not reach agreement about the differential long before the 1969 date for the new Burnham agreement, and I hope that the Department will do what it can to see that the agreement comes quickly, since it will remove much of the bitterness.
  The Department's rôle in the education service is at the bottom of much of the unhappiness and bitterness. The Department is just one of the partners in the management panel. However, the bitterness of the teachers about the salary structure and the intransigence of the management panel at the last Burnham negotiations about the primary differential—for which, I believe, the local education authorities were primarily responsible—has rubbed off on the Secretary of State for Education and Science; the Ministry is blamed for whatever goes wrong.
  All the evidence throughout the dispute has been to the effect that if only the management had been willing to recognise the existence of the problem, the dispute would have been quite quickly settled. I remind my right hon. Friend that the 1944 Act, which has been amended, states that the Secretary of State must
  "… secure the effective execution by local authorities under his control and direction, of the national policy of providing a comprehensive educational service in every area."
  I do not believe that nearly enough of a firm hand has been placed on the local education authorities in the past and I ask for the words of the Act to be properly adhered to in future so that the Minister can take real responsibility for assuaging all the bitterness that has arisen in the past and make sure that it never arises again. There are dangers unless the Ministry makes it clear to the teachers that it really wants to see these

  605
  difficulties of the difference between primary and secondary teachers solved once and for all. Otherwise these difficulties will arise again.
  11.46 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) and I have at least one thing in common. We have both supervised school meals. I can, therefore, claim to know from experience what I am talking about, just as my hon. Friend claimed precisely that.
  As my hon. Friend said, when he first gave notice to raise this subject the position looked very serious. The House will be pleased to hear that there was a settlement yesterday. It is very important that nothing is said tonight that might in any way exacerbate the position. My hon. Friend will agree, on reflection, that if I were to answer all his questions I would be prejudging the work of the working parties which are due to be set up and which will start work very soon.
  I am glad that this debate has taken place because it gives me an opportunity to try to make clear the issues which are in dispute. Certainly there is a need for clarification, because rarely can the issues have been so mixed up or ends so confused with means. When the sanctions campaign of the National Union of Teachers was introduced, the impression was abroad that it was about the supervision of school meals and the employment of unqualified teachers.
  There is undoubtedly still an impression in the country that if teachers could be relieved of the supervision of school meals, all would be well. Certainly the teachers have strong feelings on these matters. Equally certainly, these alone would not have led the N.U.T. to the extreme measures it has taken. Opposition to the supervision of school meals and the employment of unqualified teachers was an expression of secondary grievances.
  The real argument, as my hon. Friend said, has been about salaries. The campaign started as an attempt to overturn the recent Burnham pay settlement, which was determined by independent arbitrators after discussions in the Burnham Committee had broken down. The real
  606
  grievances—and I know that they are strongly and sincerely felt—are still about salaries.
  Between 22nd September and 7th November, after the N.U.T. had failed to respond to offers by the local authority associations to discuss the issues of school meals and unqualified teachers, my right hon. Friend had four meetings with representatives of the union. They were not easy meetings, because those who came were, understandably, not in a position to commit the union, and almost invariably what seemed promising ideas for settlement in a meeting were amended afterwards, and discussion had to begin again. Nevertheless, they were useful because they defined more closely than before the causes of dispute, and they went a long way towards finding the formula for a settlement. The agreement which was reached yesterday between the local authority associations and the N.U.T. had its origin in those meetings.
  One thing which was very early apparent in the meetings was that the issue of the employment of unqualified teachers was not an issue which in itself would have led to a crisis. That there is a problem is recognised by all concerned, and that it could be dealt with adequately in a working party was equally apparent. There has been only a little discussion about it, and it has never been a reason for major conflict.
  The school meals issue is more complicated. The union has always said that it was in favour of school meals, but it objected to the local education authorities' powers to compel teachers to undertake supervision. The powers of compulsion were rarely used, although they were always in the background. My right hon. Friend pointed out that although some local education authorities would be reluctant to see compulsion go, for fear that the school meals service would break down in their areas, he had an open mind and was prepared to initiate talks on the problem with the teachers and the local authorities, provided the union lifted its sanctions. He suggested that a working party might be appointed with the intention of reaching conclusions within a month.
  That suggestion, too, is reflected in the settlement which has now been reached. It may seem to some hon. Members that

  607
  an easier solution might have been possible, but this is not a simple matter. It is not, as some people think, an argument about serving meals. It relates to the whole question of supervision and discipline in the school at lunch time. The head teacher in any school is responsible when children are in the school.
  But the main issue has been over salaries, and in particular the system under which the salaries of heads and deputy heads, and the number of graded posts in a school, are determined in accordance with the number of pupils, weighted by age—the "unit total system", as it is known. My right hon. Friend made it plain to the union that under no circumstances was he prepared to entertain an alteration to the arbitrators' award within the period of its currency. He realised, however, how strongly the teachers felt about the effect of this system on primary school teachers, and he therefore said that he would be very happy to consider with the authorities how the teachers' salary grievances might be explored, in order that there might be an easier approach to the more controversial matters in the next salary settlement, which is expected to operate from 1st April, 1969.
  I do not think that we do any good service to either the teachers or their employers if we suggest that a revision of the unit total system presents an easy problem. The arbitrators listened to argument on the subject and obviously did not find it easy. What is needed is a cool look at what should be recognised to be a difficult problem. In order that this might be done my right hon. Friend suggested that either he or the Burnham Committee might invite three or four persons experienced in educational matters to give advice on the problem. Alternatively, he suggested to the union that it might be of advantage to refer the structure of teachers' salaries to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The union indicated that it preferred to keep consideration of the matter within the Burnham machine, but, again, the seed of the final agreement on this matter had been sown.
  There have since been patient and detailed talks between the union and the local authority associations, and I do not think it would be helpful at this stage
  608
  to summarise them in detail or to elaborate the difficulties which arose. Suffice it to say that agreement was reached yesterday. It is a fairly long and complicated agreement in which the words have been weighed carefully by both parties. Essentially it provides for working parties to be appointed to consider promptly the issues relating to school meals and unqualified teachers, the former to do its utmost to report within a month of its first meeting and the second within six months.
  On the salary issues the Burnham Committee is recommended to set up a working party to examine the principles underlying the structure of the basic salary scale and to review the arrangements relating to the unit total system with a view to making recommendations in time for negotiations for the next salary settlement. I know that here my hon. Friend has asked me various questions, but I think it would be utterly wrong for me tonight to go into details as to how these working parties should go about their business or to make comments on what might come out of them. We all hope that the working parties will produce very good reports which will form a basis for a permanent settlement of these issues.
  Mr. Christopher Price rose—
  Miss Bacon: No. I am sorry. I cannot give way. I have only three minutes left. If I do I shall not finish what I have to say. My hon. Friend did not allow me a lot of time.
  It is part of the agreement that the local authority associations will draw the attention of their members to the fact that they are free to make appropriate provision of supervisory assistance and will advise those affected by sanctions which have not appointed additional supervisory staff to review the scale of provision and consider the need for the immediate appointment of additional supervisors in primary and secondary schools.
  The National Union of Teachers, for its part, will authorise the members in the 18 areas affected by sanctions prior to 1st November to co-operate in the meantime on a strictly voluntary basis in maintaining or restoring the normal provision of midday meals. This will be without prejudice to the work of the

  609
  working party and in the light of the response to the advice given by the associations to their members.
  In the six additional sanctions areas the N.U.T. agreed to withdraw its instructions to its members not to participate in school meals supervision, and the associations agreed to request the authorities to withdraw, or refrain from taking, counter-measures.
  Pleased as I am that it has been possible to reach this agreement, I am saddened that it has been achieved so late and after so much bitterness has been caused. I think it was within the grasp of the teachers when they talked with the Secretary of State on 7th November and again when they considered the matter further with the local authority associations on 10th November. I understand that both parties have now conveyed the agreement to their
  610
  members. The extension of sanctions which the union announced on 8th November and the counter-measures which the authorities felt compelled to take undoubtedly worsened the atmosphere.
  When hard feelings have been aroused on both sides there is clearly a risk that misunderstandings will arise. We now have an opportunity to put an end to the unfortunate events of the last few months. Not all the damage that has been done will be immediately repaired. But I believe that given good will and a recognition by each side of the other's difficulties we can yet achieve an agreement which might be the basis of a better understanding for the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Dairy Products and Eggs (Import Costs)
  Dairy Products and Eggs (Import Costs)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Food Policy (Consumers' Views)
  Food Policy (Consumers' Views)
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Fruit and Vegetables (Grading)
  Fruit and Vegetables (Grading)
  Pigs (Processed Swill)
  Pigs (Processed Swill)
  Farmers (Electricity)
  Farmers (Electricity)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Officials (Farm Land and Buildings)
  Officials (Farm Land and Buildings)
  Cyclamates
  Cyclamates
  MEMBERS OF THE FOOD ADDITIVES AND CONTAMINANTS COMMITTEE
  MEMBERS OF THE FOOD ADDITIVES AND CONTAMINANTS COMMITTEE
  MEMBERS OF THE PHARMACOLOGY SUB-COMMITTEE
  MEMBERS OF THE PHARMACOLOGY SUB-COMMITTEE
  Dogs and Cats (Quarantine)
  Dogs and Cats (Quarantine)
  Farmers (Selective Employment Tax)
  Farmers (Selective Employment Tax)
  Food Additives and Contaminants (Research)
  Food Additives and Contaminants (Research)
  Northern Ireland Agriculture (Bank Charges)
  Northern Ireland Agriculture (Bank Charges)
  Deer (West Surrey)
  Deer (West Surrey)
  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Food Imports (Higher Prices)
  Food Imports (Higher Prices)
  White Fish (Minimum Price)
  White Fish (Minimum Price)
  Agricultural Industry (Devaluation)
  Agricultural Industry (Devaluation)
  Fish Imports (Devaluation)
  Fish Imports (Devaluation)
  Fishmeal Industry (Devaluation)
  Fishmeal Industry (Devaluation)
  New Zealand Lamb
  New Zealand Lamb
  Irish Meat (Supplies)
  Irish Meat (Supplies)
SCOTLAND
  Electricity Charges (Aluminium Smelting Companies)
  Electricity Charges (Aluminium Smelting Companies)
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Sport and Physical Recreation
  Sport and Physical Recreation
  Tourist Industry
  Tourist Industry
  Agricultural Industry
  Agricultural Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Housing.
  Housing.
  Planning Appeals (Members of Parliament)
  Planning Appeals (Members of Parliament)
  Farms (Sales)
  Farms (Sales)
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Secondary Schools (Contracts)
  Secondary Schools (Contracts)
  Buildings of Historic and Architectural Merit (Edinburgh)
  Buildings of Historic and Architectural Merit (Edinburgh)
  Association of Teachers of Russian (Representations)
  Association of Teachers of Russian (Representations)
  Technical Teachers
  Technical Teachers
  Secondary Schools (Russian Language)
  Secondary Schools (Russian Language)
  Sewage Plants
  Sewage Plants
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Defence Staffs (Costs)
  Defence Staffs (Costs)
  H.M.S. "Victorious"
  H.M.S. "Victorious"
  Docks (Use of Troops)
  Docks (Use of Troops)
  Aldabra
  Aldabra
  United States Military Equipment (Cost)
  United States Military Equipment (Cost)
  Polaris Submarines
  Polaris Submarines
  United States Aircraft
  United States Aircraft
  Royal Air Force (Redundant Pilots)
  Royal Air Force (Redundant Pilots)
  Dartmoor Exercise (Deaths)
  Dartmoor Exercise (Deaths)
  Royal Naval Propellant Factory, Caerwent
  Royal Naval Propellant Factory, Caerwent
  Unrequired Land
  Unrequired Land
  1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards (Pamphlet)
  1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards (Pamphlet)
  British Jungle Warfare School
  British Jungle Warfare School
  R.A.F. Staff College (Candidates' University Courses)
  R.A.F. Staff College (Candidates' University Courses)
SHIPPING
  Grain Vessels
  Grain Vessels
TRANSPORT
  Public Transport (Christmas Holiday)
  Public Transport (Christmas Holiday)
  St. Boswells-Kelso Bus Service
  St. Boswells-Kelso Bus Service
  Windscreen Washers
  Windscreen Washers
  Swanage and Corfe
  Swanage and Corfe
RAILWAYS
  British Railways Board (Members)
  British Railways Board (Members)
  British Rail (Mr. N. J. Macmillan)
  British Rail (Mr. N. J. Macmillan)
  Wareham—Swanage Line (Closure)
  Wareham—Swanage Line (Closure)
  Superannuation Benefits
  Superannuation Benefits
  Sir Thomas Yates and Mr. James Haworth (Replacement)
  Sir Thomas Yates and Mr. James Haworth (Replacement)
PORTS
  Lighterage and Towage Undertakings
  Lighterage and Towage Undertakings
ROADS
  Unfenced Roads (Sheep)
  Unfenced Roads (Sheep)
  Wareham-Corfe-Swanage Road
  Wareham-Corfe-Swanage Road
  Wareham Level Crossing
  Wareham Level Crossing
  Yorkshire-Lancashire Motorway
  Yorkshire-Lancashire Motorway
BOARD OF TRADE
  Timber-Using Industries (Northern Region)
  Timber-Using Industries (Northern Region)
  Associated Chrome Chemicals Ltd., Rutherglen (Site)
  Associated Chrome Chemicals Ltd., Rutherglen (Site)
  Publicly-Owned Industries (Wales)
  Publicly-Owned Industries (Wales)
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Holidaymakers (British Residents)
  Holidaymakers (British Residents)
  Factory Building (Team Valley Trading Estate)
  Factory Building (Team Valley Trading Estate)
  Paper and Board Industry (Scotland)
  Paper and Board Industry (Scotland)
  Vicuna Wool
  Vicuna Wool
  Tariff Preferences (Pakistan and India)
  Tariff Preferences (Pakistan and India)
  Bentley Colliery
  Bentley Colliery
  British Travel and Holidays Association
  British Travel and Holidays Association
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Unidentified Flying Objects
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Export Rebate (Departmental Staff)
  Export Rebate (Departmental Staff)
  Sterling Balances (Devaluation)
  Sterling Balances (Devaluation)
  Savings
  Savings
  Credit Facilities and Export Bonds
  Credit Facilities and Export Bonds
  Intensive Livestock Units (Rates)
  Intensive Livestock Units (Rates)
  Bank Rate
  Bank Rate
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants (Recruitment)
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants (Recruitment)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Milk (Cost)
  School Milk (Cost)
  National Theatre
  National Theatre
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Horticultural Industry (Training Levy)
  Horticultural Industry (Training Levy)
  Guild of Insurance Officials (Dispute)
  Guild of Insurance Officials (Dispute)
  Unemployment (Yorkshire and Humberside Region)
  Unemployment (Yorkshire and Humberside Region)
  Women (Wage Increases)
  Women (Wage Increases)
  Banks (Dispute)
  Banks (Dispute)
  Weekly and Hourly Earnings
  Weekly and Hourly Earnings
  Employment
  Employment
  Selective Employment Tax (Departmental Staff)
  Selective Employment Tax (Departmental Staff)
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Wash Barrage Scheme
  Wash Barrage Scheme
  Derelict Land (Reclamation)
  Derelict Land (Reclamation)
HOUSING
  Planning Blight
  Planning Blight
  Local Authority Rents
  Local Authority Rents
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Fuel Oil Surcharge (Fishing Industry)
  Fuel Oil Surcharge (Fishing Industry)
  MEMBERS' DINING ROOM (COLD LAMB CUTLETS)
  MEMBERS' DINING ROOM (COLD LAMB CUTLETS)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Prices and Incomes
  Prices and Incomes
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fire Services
  Fire Services
  Oystercatchers (Protection)
  Oystercatchers (Protection)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Expenditure
  Aid Expenditure
  Nigeria (British Nationals)
  Nigeria (British Nationals)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Deposits
  Deposits
  Cornwood Exchange
  Cornwood Exchange
  Telephone Directories (Welsh Language)
  Telephone Directories (Welsh Language)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
TECHNOLOGY
  Sonic Bangs
  Sonic Bangs
WALES
  Welsh Language (Books)
  Welsh Language (Books)
  Welsh Office (Board of Trade Functions)
  Welsh Office (Board of Trade Functions)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
The Viscount Leverhulme—Took the Oath.

OXFORD RAILWAY STATION
2.35 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: 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 when the construction of the new Oxford Station is likely to commence, and when the work is likely to be completed.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I understand from the British Railways Board that they have sought planning permission from the Oxford City Council for the construction of a new station at Oxford. They have not, however, put an investment proposal to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, and no date for the start of work can be given at present.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. In view of the considerable loss of public good will since the closure of the "down" platform more than a year ago, could not the preliminary steps be hurried on before growing resentment ceases to make this passenger traffic a paying proposition? Further, could my noble friend say how long it is likely to be before the work is completed once it has begun?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I fear that, in answer to the latter part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I cannot give a date. In regard to the first point that the noble Lord made, may I say that the fears he expressed earlier this year have not been borne out, in that the increase in passenger traffic in Oxford, despite the inconveniences that are fully recognised, has been shown to be most satisfactory. The British Railways Board are most anxious to proceed with the construction of this new station, taking into account the economic circumstances.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while most gratified to hear of the increase in railway passenger traffic, I would ask my noble friend this further question. Does he not realise that this increase is hardly in keeping with the exceptional increase in general traffic in this area, and still remains only the hard core of the potential railway traffic which could accrue if proper facilities were given?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would agree that this station, which is an old station, constructed in 1850, certainly needs to be rebuilt. At the moment, the British Railways Board are improving the condition of the tunnel between the "up" and the "down" lines, but I cannot hold out any specific hope until that new station has been built.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether this work includes the abolition of the old sidings to the passenger station, whose present existence means that there is a railway swing bridge across the Oxford canal which takes 40 minutes and six men's handwork to swing every time a boat goes through, at considerable cost and with no payment to the British Railways Board?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I had an awful fear when I saw my noble friend that he would bring in canals and particularly the Oxford Canal. I am afraid I could not answer his specific question without notice.

TRANSPORT USERS' CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES' RECOMMENDATIONS
LORD SEGAL: 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 further action can be taken by an area transport users' consultative committee after its recommendations have been rejected by the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if in the circumstances envisaged by my noble friend the Central Committee decide to make no recommendation to the Minister, the area committee are at liberty to give further consideration to the matter. They might decide to pursue it directly with the Transport Board concerned, but such a decision would be exceptional. Any further formal action which they might take would again be reported to the Central Committee.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether it is not a denial of ordinary democratic procedures if the recommendations of an area committee are flouted by the Central Committee? And what is the object of appointing all these committees if the views of the railway travelling public are so persistently disregarded?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, whether it is democratic or not, these procedures are laid down in the 1962 Transport Act. The area committees are what they are: they are closely connected with the particular problems. The Central Committee of course, includes the chairmen of various area bodies, plus other persons whom the Minister may appoint. The committees look into the matter, and the Central Committee can, if it sees fit, make recommendations to the Minister.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, has not the Central Committee over and over again proved itself to be merely the rubber stamp for decisions already taken by the Railway Executive?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord must get his information right. My information is that there are but rare cases of such procedures.

ARMED FORCES: DISCHARGE RIGHTS OF BOY ENTRANTS
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 a decision has now been made on the recommendations of the Committee on the Age of Majority regarding opportunities for boys of 15 who join the Forces to secure discharge before they are 30 years of age.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of Defence for Administration is taking into careful consideration the views expressed in your Lordships' House on October 23, 1967, the last occasion when my noble friend raised a similar Question, and also on November 22, 1967, when your Lordships' House debated the Latey Report on the Age of Majority. My honourable friend regrets that he cannot make a Statement as he had originally hoped. He will announce his conclusions as soon as he possibly can, but it will not be easy to satisfy everyone.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I tabled this Question before our debate which took place last week? In view of the fact that the Minister then said that this matter was being looked at urgently, can be press the honourable gentleman to reach a very early decision upon it, because it is becoming a scandal that boys should be retained in the Services from 15 to 30 years of age against their will.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, without commenting on the substance of what my noble friend has said, I will certainly pass on his views to my honourable friend. I would make the point that this is a problem with some extremely complicated long-term implications for the Armed Forces. I realise that months have now passed since the Report on the Age of Majority was published, but I would

95
ask my noble friend to contain himself in patience for a little longer.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I repeat the question that I put to my noble friend some months ago? Why is it that a boy of 15 is able to enter into a contract through a parent which is legally binding in the Services, whereas it is not legally binding in any other field in the country?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I cannot add to the answer which was given to that question on a previous occasion. As I have said, my honourable friend will be reporting his conclusions on an examination of the whole problem, as it affects both the age of majority and its specific implications for the Armed Forces, as soon as he possibly can.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, does not this matter refer to an insignificant minority of those who are in the Armed Services, and are the problems of the Defence Ministry so complex that this elementary human principle of liberty can continue to be denied?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the problems of the liberty of the individual in an organised society have been argued at great length over the centuries. I should be delighted to debate them further with my noble friend, but I am sure that he would not wish me to do so to-day. I have made the point that these matters raise complicated and difficult problems for my honourable friend. This is not, as my noble friend has said, a question of a derisory minority, but of a substantial number of people. It raises substantial problems, and my honourable friend is determined to resolve these before reporting his conclusions.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend—and I speak as one who joined the Army at the age of 16 in 1914 and served his full stint—whether he does not think that some of these young boys make the finest soldiers in the British Army? Furthermore, if it is alleged that they do not know their minds when they go in, may it not be that perhaps they do not know their minds when they decide to come out?
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a big human problem involved in this Question? In many cases these boys of 15 are living in homes, and they are got out of the homes by being encouraged to go into the Services. Then, when the boys reach the age of 21, they do not like Service life, but have no hope of getting out. Cannot that position be rectified?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be aware that the Latey Report on the Age of Majority made certain recommendations covering this point. Some of those recommendations present no problems at all; others do present problems, and it would be wrong for my honourable friend, or the Government, to come to a conclusion on this matter before all the implications have been examined.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, would not the Minister agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, said? He was in my regiment, so he would be quite well trained. Would not the Minister agree that the more boys of 15 who join the Army, the better? And let them be taught some discipline while they are at an age when they can understand; and let them get their hair cut.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the noble and gallant Viscount has always interesting and constructive things to say about these matters. I will bear in mind what he said about the length of people's hair. I should like to congratulate him on his good fortune in having the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, in his regiment—a piece of good fortune surpassed only by Lord Leatherland.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, at somewhat different levels.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that, whereas my noble friend Lord Leatherland and the noble and gallant Viscount opposite have survived the war, there are some who joined at 16 and who have not survived? Perhaps if they were here to-day they might make a different contribution to this exchange.

TURNSTILES IN PUBLIC LAVATORIES
2.48 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that, while the Public Lavatories (Turnstiles) Act 1963 has required the removal of all turnstiles in public lavatories provided by local authorities, such turnstiles still remain in lavatories provided for passengers' use at railway, coach and bus stations; and seeing that they are just as objectionable in the one place as in the other, what action is being taken to bring about their removal everywhere.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Baroness has already made her first speech from the Front Bench, but I believe this is the first Question she has put from there, and I think it will be a fearsome task for a Minister to reply. The subject of her Question is a matter of management for the various transport undertakings, which are under no statutory obligation to remove turnstiles. They have, however, assured my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport that they are taking the opportunity as it occurs to dispense with the old type of turnstile which is the cause of complaint.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him whether the new prototype at New Street, Birmingham, is to be used throughout the rest of the country? If so, it is almost worse than the old turnstile; and it costs 6d. a time to use.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will understand that I have no personal experience of that turnstile, but I shall look into that point. I believe there is some standardisation taking place, and I am not quite sure whether the complaint is really valid.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the fact that it was the present Minister of Transport who first raised this issue, could she be pressed to see that this change is made on all the transport services.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my right honourable friend is very keen on this matter. In fact, one of the supple-mentaries was in her own handwriting. I think it is right to say that there is now only one of the old turnstiles—the type about which there was so much complaint—left with British Railways, and that is the one at Cardiff General, which I gather is for the Gents. The new turnstiles are coming into use, but I shall certainly see that the noble Baroness's complaint is examined, to see whether it is valid. The private bus companies and those under the Transport Holding Company are removing the old turnstiles as rapidly as possible. As the noble Baroness will know, by law the municipal bus companies have to remove them all.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, whereas, of course, it is easy to standardise some sort of reception or turnstile, it is impossible to standardise the size of the ladies going through it. Therefore the allowance must be a generous one.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will see that that point is conveyed to my right honourable friend.

FUTURE BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will make a Statement on South Arabia. It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that it is intended to put off the Committee stage of the Consular Relations Bill, which was to have been taken to-morrow, in order to allow a clear day for the Committee stage of the Consumer Protection Bill. It is hoped to adjourn the Committee stage on this Bill to-morrow at about 9 p.m., without any break. It is then intended to resume the Committee stage of the Consumer Protection Bill on Monday next, December 4 breaking off at about 5.30 p.m. in order to take the Committee stage of the Consular Relations Bill, which is expected to take less than half-an-hour, and then to resume the Committee stage of the Consumer Protection Bill with a view to finishing it that night.

CRIME AND THE COMMUNITY
2.53 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY LORD ROWLEY rose to call attention to the problems created by crime, and particularly planned crime, in the community; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper, I am very conscious of the temptation to dramatise the problem of crime which is facing our community to-day. Almost daily the newspapers report raids and robbery with violence, involving in many cases callous brutality and in some cases sadism. I think the whole nation was shocked the other day when it read of the attack upon a farmer's wife in Scotland, when, in order to compel her to disclose the place where the family money was kept, the robbers attacked the baby of the wife. We read in the papers this afternoon that only this morning, within two or three miles of this Chamber, there was an attack upon a young police officer who was investigating suspicious circumstances. He was attacked by three men and thrown over a railway bridge on to the rails below; and no doubt that young police officer will have sustained quite serious injuries.
I do not come here this afternoon with any blueprint of a solution. My intention in putting this Motion on the Order Paper was to focus the attention of your Lordships on a situation where in recent years there has been a great, almost staggering, increase in crime in our community which must, if it continues, seriously impair our British way of life. We must realise that the image of the British nation, which for so long has been held up as probably the most law-abiding nation in the world, is being, or is likely to be, tarnished if this increasing wave of crime throughout the country continues.
I think we can depend only upon the facts. It is not a matter of opinion as to whether or not crime is increasing; we should look at what facts are available. I realise that figures do not always justify certain conclusions, but I think the best I can do this afternoon is to produce some figures which have all been obtained from official sources, and which I think your Lordships will find startling in their
100
extent. It seemed to me that the best way to bring the position home to the minds of those who may be listening to me, or who may read what is said in this debate, was to use the figures on a basis of comparison.
Let us first of all take robbery with violence and assault with intent to rob. Of course, that covers the type of case about which we are so frequently reading, where two, three, four or six thugs attack somebody with a view to robbing him. In 1937, 30 years ago, in the whole of England and Wales there were 209 such cases. In 1966, there were 4,474 such cases. If we take the Metropolitan area alone, the figures for robbery with violence in 1966 were 1,992. It is true—and possibly a good thing, too—that in 260 of those cases the robbers failed to steal anything, but in the other 1,700 cases the value of property stolen, mostly cash, was £.1½million. So that a relatively small number of individuals were able to get away with £1½ million tax free.
I think we are all entitled to compare the fact that we have to pay taxes on what we earn, and that these people are able to get away with £1½ million divided between a relatively small number and without paying tax. What is more, in my opinion it is a direct encouragement to a lot of young men of that type. If they think that there is easy money to be made they are prepared, even for the first time, to use violence because of the large amounts involved. I shall have a little to say later as to what I think the public should do, and the responsibility it bears in almost making it easy for these people to do what they are doing.
In the Metropolitan Police area in 1966 there were about 1,900 cases of robbery with violence. In 1937, the same year that I took before, there were 102 cases in the whole of that area. I think we can form an opinion as to the seriousness of the problem if I quote the views of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in his Report for 1966. He said:
"Robbery with violence, particularly when firearms, vicious weapons or noxious liquids are used, is perhaps the greatest menace which has to be faced in London to-day."
That is a very serious statement for the Commissioner to have to make.
I have dealt with robbery with violence and with assaults with intent to rob.

101
They, of course, as the lawyers present in the House will know, are indictable offences. Now I want to deal with the larger section of indictable offences, such as larceny, burglary and house-breaking—and here the figures are even more startling. Let us take indictable offences as a whole, including the figures for London, which I have just quoted. In 1937, in England and Wales there were 266,000 indictable offences. Of those 266,000, 92,000 were in London. In 1966—last year—for the whole of England and Wales the number was 1,199,000, of which 282,500 cases were in London. My Lords, if these figures do not constitute an appalling commentary on the Affluent State, it is difficult to know what does. It would appear that as our material standards improve our moral standards are deteriorating. It is true that the Commissioner pointed out that, comparing the first seven months of 1966 with the first seven months of 1967, there has been a reduction of something like 7,500 in the number of indictable offences—a reduction of roughly 4 per cent.—and to the extent that it goes this is, of course, welcome news. None the less, I suggest that all these facts and figures constitute a sombre picture of our community life to-day.
My Lords, one can imagine people asking: What about the police? In my view, the police forces of our country are faced with an almost impossible task in dealing with this problem, first, because they are undermanned. The Police Commissioner, in his Report, indicates that the Metropolitan Police Force is 6,200 men below establishment. I understand that most of the provincial police forces are similarly undermanned. If we take the total police forces of England, Wales and Scotland, I think I am right in saying—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that we have something fewer than 70,000 men. That figure seems to be in question, but it does not matter. Take France, which has a population less than ours. I am not going to say that we should always seek to adapt what the French do, but I am told that, with a population less than ours, they have a total police force of 130,000. It seems to me that this shortage is a handicap on the efforts of our police in dealing with this particular problem.
The police have the efficiency; they have efficient equipment. I hope that some noble Lords who are present will have had the advantage that I have had of visiting Scotland Yard or some of the county police headquarters. I was very impressed with the scientific aids that are operated, certainly in Scotland Yard. The computerisation, the automation, the radio-telecommunications and teleprinter services were all used, and there is no doubt that any failure on the part of our police forces to grapple with this burning problem is certainly not due to a lack of efficiency.
But I think that we have to do more than expect the police to carry this burden alone. I believe the public have their part to play as well. I believe we have to become security conscious. What is happening? We read in the papers almost every week, if not every day, of women being sent to take thousands of pounds to the bank or to collect thousands of pounds to take back to the factory or the shop to pay wages. It is the same with the banks themselves, too. There was the case in Dolphin Square, a mile or so from this Chamber, outside a small branch of Lloyds Bank, when, at 10 o'clock in the morning, an elderly bank clerk, with a young clerk to act as escort, walking between the car and the entrance to the bank, were waylaid by two thugs. This was at 10 o'clock in the morning, when people were round about. These clerks had ammonia thrown in their eyes, they were coshed and struck to the ground, the satchel was taken away and within two minutes the thugs had disappeared. It is the same with post offices. We read of a post office in Kennington on which there was a raid. All the £75,000 worth of postal orders and insurance stamps, apparently, which was in a safe under the control of the sub-postmistress, was taken. She was compelled to disclose the combination of the safe; and, at their leisure, the thugs got away with this vast amount of loot. I would suggest that employers have to realise that we are living in such times, and that they must take all precautions.
Just as I am going to endeavour to show that crime is organised, is planned, so I think the defence against the criminals at large must be organised as well; and I am quite sure—in fact, I understand that it is so—that the police

103
throughout the Metropolitan district, and I am sure throughout the country, would be only too happy to give advice as to the steps which should be taken. The police are in an impossible position because they are faced with a kind of guerrilla war on the community. Those who have had command of military operations against guerrillas know that one of the great difficulties is the surprise attack. The guerrillas do not give notice of when they are going to make their bid. Nor, in this country, do they give notice when they are going to attack a bank or those who may be carrying cash from one place to another. So the criminals who are engaged in activities of this type have all the advantage of surprise.
I am not suggesting for one moment that all these activities are masterminded; that we have two or three Al Capones in London who will enrol, recruit and pay large numbers of these thugs to carry out these operations; but I do say that these criminal activities are definitely organised on business lines. What happens? The place that is intended to be raided is carefully observed for several weeks, if necessary, beforehand. The operation is planned in every detail, and the raid is carried out with military precision and timing, just like a commando raid used to be carried out in the days of the war. Moreover, as we saw from what took place at a Co-operative bank recently, the criminals of to-day are equipped with the latest equipment. In that case they were able, during the week-end and at their leisure, to penetrate (I think it was) a foot or two feet of concrete or steel with a flame-thrower device which had apparently been developed in France after the war in order to destroy some of the many concrete shelters that had been put up during the war.
It is true, of course, that the criminal has been helped, and the police handicapped, by another development. These thugs always use stolen cars; and the Police Commissioner reports that in London alone during last year 7,600 motor cars were stolen from their rightful owners. We are all aware of what happens. The criminals seem to specialise in Jaguar cars. It is a pity that Jaguar owners cannot take steps to make it more difficult for their cars to be stolen. I
104
do not own a Jaguar, but I believe they are one of the fastest cars we have. Another difficulty that the police are facing is the ability of the criminal—with the aid of a stolen car at the place of operation and another half a mile or so away—to make a get-away quickly. It appears to be an acknowledged fact that the criminals listen to police radio transmissions; and no major crime is committed that does not involve the use of a stolen car.
My Lords, I have said that the public have their part to play in this by taking more precautions than they do. But what can the Government do? The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, took, I think, the first major step in this great campaign against crime when during his tenure of office as Home Secretary he established what is known as the Crime Research Unit. I think that was a valuable step; but I must frankly say that we have not been told much about its activities.
I wonder whether something could not be done along the lines of the President's Crime Commission appointed by President Johnson two years ago. Noble Lords ned not get apprehensive when I pick up this huge volume. It is the first report of the President's Crime Commission, which is called The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. The Commission, a very representative one, have examined and analysed every facet of crime that one can conceive of and have produced a remarkable document. It contains many most valuable recommendations which I am quite sure would be of value to those seeking to combat crime in this country. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate whether or not the Home Office are giving consideration to publishing a Report by the Criminal Research Unit, to which I have just referred or, if not, whether they would give consideration to the establishment of some sort of Commission which would have as its terms of reference the responsibility for examining and analysing every possible facet of crime, whether it be drug-taking, juvenile delinquency, rioting in the streets or what-have-you.
The American Commission's Report has been followed by a Bill which has gone through the House of Representatives and is now going through the Senate.

105
It is a Bill which is called, technically, the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Assistance Act 1967, but which is more popularly known as the Street Safety and Crime Control Bill. Under it, money is provided by the central Government to aid the State Governments and the local authorities. We do not have State Governments, but we have county responsibilities which are included in our local government. The main purpose of this Bill is to encourage the methods of public protection against criminals, by providing equipment and by the establishment of agencies which would be responsible for planning all forms of activities in resistance to the criminal element. The Report also seems to attach great importance to public education relating to crime prevention, including an education programme in schools and in community agencies. So throughout both the Report and the Bill there is great emphasis on planning.
My Lords, I turn now to the question of punishment. We are all aware of the great debate on whether, and to what extent, punishment should fit the crime and what forms that punishment should take. I strongly support the imaginative policies carried out by the Home Secretary following the work of my noble friend Lord Stow Hill when he was Home Secretary and, no doubt, anticipated by that of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I am a strong supporter of probation and of the parole system—and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is here because he is the new chairman of the Parole Board. But having said that, I must express some doubt as to whether in all cases we need to be too emphatic upon letting people out on parole or treating them as first offenders. A noble Lord who is not here this afternoon told me the other day that as chairman of a quarter sessions he had before him a young man who had committed a similar offence some months ago. Because he had been a first offender he had been put on probation. Within a few months had repeated the offence and, no doubt, the second time was not put on probation. But I am more concerned with those who use ammonia and shotguns, the violent criminals. Surely there is a case for giving them more severe punishment. They have brought suffering and injury
106
to people on their lawful occasions through committing these acts, and I should like to see the Government having another look at the application of the principles relating to both probation and parole.
My Lords, I finish by saying a word or two about "having a go". I think this is another field in which some members of the public can contribute to the solution of this problem. I thought that I was much too old ever to think of "having a go", but when I read the other day of the Field Marshal of 67 or 63 years of age "having a go" with three men—and I met him the other day and he seemed none the worse for it—it seemed to me that there was still hope for some of us of my age.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, did the noble Lord refer to my age as 68?
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, the noble and gallant Viscount looks even younger than 68.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the great increase in crime to which he has been referring has its roots primarily in the break-down of religious truth in the family life in this country?
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I was going to finish on that note. I have already said that as we get more materially prosperous there seems to be a lowering of our moral standards. I shall to some extent cover the point raised by the noble and gallant Viscount in a moment; but I want now to say a word about "having a go". There are complications about that, as the Minister will agree.
Some weeks ago a relative of a Member of your Lordships' House was passing a jeweller's shop in Sloane Square just at the time when three criminals were raiding the shop. He was evidently quite husky enough to "have a go"; and he did "have a go". He was giving what is popularly known as "what for" to one of them, when the other two came on the scene. He was coshed and thrown to the ground and injured to some extent—certainly his clothes were damaged. He got a letter of thanks from the firm that owned the shop; but that was all. He

107
has no right to any insurance or to any compensation from anyone and—
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord. He must have heard of compensation for criminal injury. I cannot comment on a particular case, but there are certainly arrangements for payment of compensation in cases similar to that he has described.
LORD ROWLEY: Well my Lords, my informant was apparently not aware of that. I thought it had to be a question of going to the assistance of a police officer, and there was no police officer on the spot at the time. No doubt the noble Lord will check that, because it is important. It is a little hard on anyone who "has a go" if he has to buy a new suit—and they are pretty expensive these days—because he has gone to render assistance against an attack by one of these criminals.
Then there is the question of a motor car which becomes damaged. Suppose a motorist rams his car against a "getaway" car which is being used by those engaged in one of these operations. What is the position? I should like the noble Lord to tell us, or to look into it. Is the motorist entitled to recover the cost of repairing a car which he has used deliberately to ram a "get-away" car? These are practical points about which we all ought to be satisfied. I hope that the noble Lord will tell us.
My other point about the public as a whole (and this applies especially to employers and shopkeepers who do not take the necessary precautions) is that there is too much apathy and indifference. I find that people take the view, "It could not happen to me". That is a very dangerous point of view to take, because we know that anyone, at any time, in any place, may be subjected to an attack. These attacks may vary in degree according to the amount of loot which the criminals think they are likely to secure.
Finally, my Lords, may I say this? In my view, crime is a social problem which is interwoven with almost every aspect of our national life. Those who commit acts of violence, those who rob, those who burgle are not the only persons
108
who are guilty of anti-social conduct. The drug pedlars; their victims, the drug addicts; the teenage vandals; the young hooligans who deliberately commit damage in railway trains and provoke riots at football matches—they are all contributing towards the weakening of the fibre of our community and are equally guilty of anti-social conduct.
In my view (it is also the view which was expressed by the Commissioner of Police in his Report last year), there is a greater need for more parental control and wiser teaching, both at home and in the schools. There is a need to seek to fire the young people of our country with a greater idealism, a greater spiritual faith; and certainly to inculcate into their minds—for, of course, they are the citizens of to-morrow in our great community—the need to live up to higher standards of moral conduct. In my view it is only along these lines that we can hope to safeguard our great national heritage and our British way of life. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am but a new Member of your Lordships' House, but I venture to say that it is high time that we should discuss again here the state of crime, which as the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, was right in saying, is a disgrace to our nation. We are all indebted to the noble Lord for initiating this debate. He was good enough to let me know a considerable time ago that he was thinking of doing so. He and I have not collaborated in preparing our speeches, but I hope it will be found that mine is, as it were, complementary to his and that by different ways we have arrived at the same conclusions.
My Lords, the prevention of crime is even better than its detection. I know that the Home Office and the Police Service have been increasingly stressing crime prevention in their training of young policemen at District Training Centres, and of detectives at the Detective Training Centres, and at the Police College at Bramshill. In addition, in my time at the Home Office specialist courses were started at Stafford. I should like to know from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, whether those courses are being continued and are proving productive, and whether the knowledge

109
gained there is permeating the whole service; because I am sure that that was the original intent in the development of those courses.
I think we should all like to know, too, how much the Police Service is gaining in its attempts to win the cooperation of the public. The noble Lord, Lord Rowley, spoke of this. Last year the Home Secretary himself initiated a national crime prevention campaign. If I remember rightly, it was concentrated largely on housebreaking and on car thefts, as those were thought of as the special fields in which ordinary members of the public could do more to protect themselves. I believe that such a campaign must be continuous and that it must largely be projected by television right into the home. One might say that this sort of campaign is directed against petty crime, rather than against planned crime which is, perhaps, the central theme of this debate. But that view, my Lords, is mistaken. There is no greater handicap on the police in fighting large-scale organised crime than the enormous number of police man-hours which have to be spent following up petty crimes which could have been prevented by a little more care on the part of the public.
With regard to large-scale crime, one would like to know how much success the police are achieving in getting the owners of valuable goods to take intelligent precautions for safeguarding them. How far are insurance companies, for example, insisting that vehicles carrying valuable loads do not travel the same route at the same time on the same day of the week so that thieves will know exactly where and when to lie in wait for them? Is there a working party still in permanent session between the police and the insurance companies to secure that the companies are swiftly made aware of the latest crime methods and the most effective means of countering them; to persuade the insurance companies to charge differential premiums according to the precautions taken by the insurers, or indeed to refuse cover unless certain precautions are taken? We are all careful to see that the radiators of our cars are filled with anti-freeze mixture in winter. This is not only because it is annoying to have a cracked radiator, but also because the insurance companies
110
have given us notice that unless we take that precaution they will not be prepared to meet the cost of radiators cracking because of frost. I believe that in the matter of preventing crime insurance companies can in similar ways exercise very great influence.
My argument is that the reduction of that portion of crime which is foreseeable and preventable makes that much more available in the way of resources to tackle crime which is less foreseeable and hardly preventable. Tackling that sort of crime is a matter of resources and of brains. When I say resources I am thinking of police numbers and equipment and deployment. But numbers, my Lords, come first. One cannot read the two reports published annually, the Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and the Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, without being made aware of the difficulty that chief officers of police experience in detaching men for special duties—special and much-needed duties—because of the sheer shortage of police manpower in the big cities.
If I may, I will read one telling paragraph from the Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for 1966:
"Last year I reported on the setting up of a highly mobile striking force, the Special Patrol Group, which started in April, 1965. All its members are volunteers and their activities have strongly confirmed my hopes for its success. The Group has been responsible for 530 arrests for crime and the recovery of £21,220 worth of stolen property as well as making 197 arrests for other offences. It has now been deployed upon crime prevention and detection within thirty police areas within this Police District; it has taken part in many searches, including Epping Forest and territory in Hertfordshire when the fugitive Roberts was arrested for the murder of three Metropolitan police officers. Its flexibility, mobility and facility of communication makes it an effective formation for dealing with police problems in contemporary circumstances. When the manpower situation permits I would propose to extend the scheme considerably."
There we have an initiative which is undoubtedly proving successful, but the Commissioner is not able to exploit its full possibilities because he simply cannot afford to detach sufficient men from the main body of his Force. His Force—the Metropolitan Police—at the end of last year, as the noble Lord, Lord Rowley,

111
said, was over 6,000 short of establishment. The provincial forces throughout England and Wales were 12,000 short of establishment. That is a 25 per cent. shortage in the Metropolitan Police and a 16 per cent. shortage elsewhere in England and Wales, but that 16 per cent. is an average, concealing county areas which are up to establishment and big cities where the position is as grave as it is in London.
Generally, the shortage is not due to lack of recruits for the police; it is due to wastage of trained men. I hope that the Government will be able to tell us to-day how much result is being achieved from the inquiry by the Working Party which the Home Secretary set up on police manpower. One fully recognises the temptations on men in their twenties and thirties to leave the police. In the big cities where the police are scarcest there are also the largest number of competing vacancies waiting for them, where they can get as good pay, maybe better, and, what may count much more than that, more regular hours and no week-end work. Police hours will always be more irregular than office hours. As against that, police work is less monotonous and more exciting than most work in offices, and there are plenty of people who would prefer to have the excitement rather than the monotony.
I fear that a good deal of the wastage is contributed to by understandable friction over little things: having to work in out-of-date police stations; canteen arrangements which fall short of what a good employer would provide for his staff; regulations that may be out of date in the modern world, and so forth. I am not criticising anybody in saying this. I carried the responsibility and felt the handicap imposed by old buildings, but we must be vigorous to get these handicaps removed. Whenever, as Home Secretary, I opened a new police headquarters anywhere in the Provinces, I could see that the amenities provided there for the ordinary policeman would be the envy of almost every man in the Metropolitan Police. That is no criticism whatever of the Commissioner or of those who are responsible for running the Metropolitan Police. The trouble is the old buildings.
112
A count not many years ago showed that out of 176 police stations in the Metropolitan Police District, which is broadly Greater London, only 39 had been built since 1910. One knows that in the old days the police had to work in all sorts of quarters. When a police force was first established in Great Yarmouth in 1836, the authorities decided that it should be housed in the local gaol. Of course, that may have given them opportunities of getting to know their customers, but it was hardly an ideal environment for the police service. There is nothing like that nowadays. Yet there are many police stations up and down the country, particularly, I would say, in the great cities, which are much too prison-like and too little modernised to encourage able and ambitious men to look forward to working there all their days. As Home Secretary, I managed to get much more money for prison buildings out of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I never got enough. I am convinced that modernisation and better amenities in police buildings are an absolute necessity if wastage in police numbers is to be reduced.
The loss of trained policemen is a loss of value to the State too, both by the money spent on their training and then wasted, and by the loss of efficiency of the Force through loss of numbers. It is of course the standard of efficiency with which we are concerned all the time in this debate, because only a highly efficient and well-manned police force can be successful in combating crime at its present level.
We must also have a sufficiency of high intelligence in the Police Service. It is called on to do the work of the nation without getting its due share of the nation's brains. I would pay the highest possible tribute to the Police College at Bramshill and the work it does. After careful inquiry over a period, a new plan of courses at the Police College was just starting when I became Home Secretary, including the special course for selected constables. I believe that this new pattern of courses there is right, but it has not succeeded, as I believe its authors hoped it would, in attracting into the police anything like a sufficiency of sixth-formers, let alone a sufficiency of graduates.

113
In 1964 we arranged a private weekend conference at the Police College, inviting headmasters, headmistresses, careers masters, secretaries of university appointments boards and others to meet a number of senior police officers and representatives of the Home Office. That conference ended with unanimous agreement among all the educationalists present that there were numbers of boys and girls in the sixth forms of schools who would be admirably suited to a career in the police and would enjoy it, but the idea had not yet come to their knowledge or caught their imagination. I know how much has been done in subsequent years arising out of that conference, including the appointment by the police of schools liaison officers to assist recruiting. But the fact remains that out of 5,000 young men who started their training as police recruits in provincial police forces in 1966, only 110 had two "A"-level passes. That was an improvement on the year before, but of course it was still far too low. Out of 660 women recruits, only eight had two "A"levels—the same number as the year before.
I believe that this is the very heart of the battle against planned crime. We all are endowed with different qualities, and if a man has brains it does not prove that he necessarily has the courage that a policeman needs. Nor do I believe—and in this I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Rowley—that the criminal world is as full of master-minds as those who write about it sometimes suggest to us. But if we are effectively to counter planned, highly organised crime we must make sure that the Police Service of the future has a decisive predominance over the criminal world in high intelligence. I welcome the fact that 16 graduates entered provincial police forces last year. I welcome the development, which started in my time, enabling men who do well in the special courses at Bramshill to have an increasing chance of getting to a university.
But what I ask your Lordships to accept—what I ask the Government to accept—is that we cannot provide art effective Police Service in the future, fit to counter more and more sophisticated crime, unless we recruit to it far more than the present handful of men and women who have carried their education up to "A"-level standard or beyond. If the present methods of recruitment are
114
not attracting them, we must break the bonds of our thinking. We must not be tied down by the past; we must try much more daring methods, for until the Police Service attracts a higher proportion of the young brains of the country, it cannot equal the task that lies ahead of it.
A small boy was once asked to write down what were the requirements of a lifeboatman and he wrote: "A lifeboat-man requires three things: great courage, a spirit of self-sacrifice and a mackintosh. "It was very apt that he remembered material equipment as well as the things of the heart. This is important in the Police Service, too. Do not let us forget the policeman's equipment. The strongest weapon against crime, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, will agree, is a well-manned, well-equipped, resourceful and courageous police force. New equipment, the application of new scientific methods, and new tactics in policing are all of great importance. But in the last resort they are less important than the numbers and quality of the men and women in the Service—though, of course, I grant that we shall be more likely to get and keep men and women of high quality if we give them the modern equipment that they need and deserve.
It is easier to afford and deploy crime-fighting equipment efficiently in a large police force than in a small one. Though do not always see eye to eye with the present Home Secretary, I pay tribute to his brave decision to amalgamate the 120-odd separate police forces in England and Wales into something under 50 larger forces. I think this decision was right, and I think his timing was right, as soon as it became clear that local government reorganisation was to be put off for some years awaiting the Report of the Royal Commission. I hope that he, for his part, feels grateful to me for the provisions that I introduced in the Police Act 1964, because if I had not amended the law relating to amalgamations he could not have got his present amalgamation policy through.
My very last decision as Home Secretary was to establish the regional crime squads, and in so doing I had to allay a certain amount of local authority suspicion and resistance. My own belief is that, at any rate in our present circumstances, the combination of enlarged police forces, an efficient inspectorate,

115
regional crime squads covering a number of police areas, and central services provided at the Home Office, such as the Police Research and Planning Branch, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, referred, meets our needs better than a single national police force with central control could do. I will not argue that point now, except to say that I attach extreme importance to the freedom of individual chief constables to initiate experiments in policing. I am not sure that we should get as much of that if we had a single national police force under central control. Now, if a local experiment is successful, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary can carry the successful idea across to other forces, just like bees fertilising flowers—and I trust that my friends in the Inspectorate will forgive me for that comparison.
I hope that the Research and Planning Branch which I initiated is doing well. When I read of all the responsibilities it has taken on, I cannot help thinking that it must be understaffed and under strain. But that only illustrates again the general strain on police manpower, which is admitted to be, in total numbers, inadequate. Of course, alongside the work of that branch we must press ahead in parallel with criminological research, both in the Home Office and at the universities. Every Home Secretary is probably impatient—I certainly was—at having to wait for the results of research which one wished could have been started earlier. In my time, the bottleneck, so far as criminological research was concerned, was not lack of money: it was, rather, shortage of people at universities and elsewhere ready to take up work in criminology. Considering how much research work is done through universities into subjects that often seem rather useless, it used to irk me that the development of criminological research was held up by lack of people sufficiently interested in the subject. Maybe the Government can tell us that the situation is better now.
In a limited time—and there are many speakers to follow me—no one can do more than speak of limited aspects of this grave subject, the war against crime. I have resisted the temptation to-day to express views about new and experimental methods of policing, new scientific equipment, and so forth, because I
116
thought it right at the beginning of the debate to concentrate on the strength of the police in quantity and quality, which I believe is at the heart of it all. The growth of serious crime in the past twenty years is something of which our country must be ashamed. We are not unique; it is paralleled in most of the industrialised countries of the world. But do not let us excuse our shortcomings by pointing out that they are shared by other people.
Crime is primarily a problem of the young. I am not seeking by that to say that there are no "old lags"—of course there are. But it is a fact that few people take to systematic crime in their grown-up years who have never been in trouble with the courts when they were young. There is something seriously wrong with our mental and social environment, or with our upbringing of the young, or both, in that 50 per cent. of indictable crime is committed by those under 21, and 27 per cent. of it by those under 17. In breaking away from the excessive strictness of Victorian society, as we were right to do, we must avoid and resist being led as a nation into a so-called progressive outlook that almost excuses crime. It needed the terrible murder of three policemen near Shepherd's Bush last year to jolt the British public into remembering that the police were their protectors and not their oppressors. One of the most significant passages in these police reports is. I think, the paragraph in the Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for 1966 which says:
"It was observed that for a number of weeks following the shooting of the three officers at Shepherd's Bush in August there was a distinct drop in the number of complaints made against the police."
The police are our protectors, not our oppressors, and they deserve much greater assistance, and much greater confidence, than many members of the public are just now prepared to grant them. However we strengthen our police forces, however we re-equip them, however we modernise police tactics, the police will remain gravely hampered if they do not receive full co-operation from the public.
Sir Ranulph Bacon's famous exhortation to the public to "have a go" has had its effect. Some members of the public have perhaps taken it too literally and been too brave, and have suffered

117
injury, or even death; but I think it should be widely known, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, that compensation for criminal injuries is now available. I know that much that I did as Home Secretary was criticised; but I do not believe anybody has ever criticised me for initiating that scheme, by which members of the public who suffer criminal injuries can obtain compensation.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I lust add to what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, rightly said, that the payments made by the Compensation Board are not confined to compensation for injuries received in the course of assisting, the police? With regard to the motor car question, local police authorities can, and do, make payments in respect of such losses.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Yes; I am very glad the noble Lord has filled out the picture in this way.
My Lords, I must draw to an end. I would add only this. We want not only to be sure that we can arrest and convict those who have committed crime we want to re-create a more law-abiding society. The only sound and reliable basis for a law-abiding community is the maintenance of moral standards, and we must never allow a permissive attitude to morality to undermine that.

SOUTH ARABIA
3.53 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement about South Arabia which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is making in another place. I now quote the Foreign Secretary:
"I informed the House on the 14th November that Her Majesty's Government had decided that South Arabia should become independent and that the withdrawal of our forces should be completed by the 30th November. I am now glad to say that the withdrawal of British forces was successfully completed at noon to-day and that South Arabia will become independent at midnight local time—that is, 9 p.m. our time—tonight. An Order in Council providing for the
118
relinquishment of Her Majesty's sovereignty in South Arabia was made yesterday.
"As the House will be aware, negotiations began in Geneva on the 21st November between a British delegation led by my right honourable and noble friend Lord Shackleton and a delegation from the National Liberation Front led by Mr. Qahtan al Shaabi. I am glad to say that agreement on many of the points which have been discussed was reached this morning. A joint communiqué has been issued and I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library. The talks were adjourned to allow the National Liberation Front delegates to return to Aden for Independence Day and will be resumed shortly.
"As the communiqué indicates, the discussions in Geneva have covered a wide range of subjects including the transfer of power and questions of civil and military aid. On the latter point, as the communiqué says, we have agreed to continue aid at the existing levels over the next six months while negotiations continue. As regards the islands, the wishes of the inhabitants have been ascertained and decisions as to their future have been taken by us. These decisions entail further discussion with the South Arabian authorities, and in that situation I hope the House will agree that the best course would be to defer an announcement on this subject for a few days.
"The representatives of the National Liberation Front naturally regard the formation of a Government as one of the first tasks to be undertaken on their return to Aden. I am not, however, at this stage, in a position to give the House any indication of the form these representatives think the new Government will take.
"I am sure that the House will join me; on the eve of the new State's independence, in wishing it every success; and will be glad to note that it has been agreed to establish diplomatic relations and exchange Ambassadors. The talks in Geneva have been conducted in a good atmosphere and I have every hope that we will have the best possible relationship with the independent State, which is to take the

119
name of the People's Republic of Southern Yemen.
"I am sure that the House will wish to pay tribute to the devotion and courage of all those officials and civilians who over many years and in the face of increasing difficulties have sought to prepare South Arabia for independence. The armed forces, under the distinguished leadership of Sir Michael Le Fanu, deserve special recognition for the skill and forbearance with which they have carried out their exceedingly difficult task.
"Finally, I am sure the House will acknowledge the special contribution of Sir Humphrey Trevelyan, who is returning to London this afternoon on relinquishing his post as High Commissioner. He willingly put his experience and special skills at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government at a critical time in the Middle East generally and South Arabia in particular. The safe and peaceful withdrawal of the last of our forces in recent weeks is due in large part to the confidence between Briton and Arab which has been built up so patiently out of suspicion and strife."
My Lords, that concludes the Foreign Secretary's Statement, but I feel sure that this House will wish me to add, on behalf of all of us, a strong tribute to an illustrious Member of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who has played such a notable part in this settlement.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think we should be grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for repeating that Statement. All of us, wherever we sit, would echo the tributes which he has paid to civilians and Servicemen for the work they have done in South Arabia, and to Sir Humphrey Trevelyan, who I think took on a really dreadful and almost impossible task and discharged it in the way one would expect of so distinguished a public servant. I think, too, that we shall all agree that we are very relieved that the last British troops have been evacuated from Aden without any casualties; evacuated from a situation in which they were no longer performing any useful task.
I think, however, that there will be many of your Lordships who will be,
120
even at this stage, a little surprised that although the Statement records that
"the National Liberation Front … regard the formation of a Government as one of the first tasks",
the noble Earl is not in a position to give any indication of what form the representatives think that that new Government will take. I must say that I think it is a sad commentary that we are reduced—whether it was inevitable or not, I am not arguing now—to this sort of situation, when we have taken a pride over these past years in handing over our Colonies with law and order and a proper Constitution.
The noble Earl has told us that some things have been agreed and some things have not been agreed. He has told us, I think, that the question of finance has not been agreed and that temporarily, for the next six months, the existing arrangements will go on. I wonder whether the noble Earl could give us any indication of when we shall have more news of that, because a good many noble Lords on this side view some of the reports that have been made with a good deal of apprehension. I wonder, too, whether the noble Earl could give us any indication about what has been agreed, as opposed to what has not been agreed; because I think your Lordships would be interested to know how far agreement has been reached with the National Liberation Front.
4 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in the expression of gratitude to all those—Sir Humphrey Trevelyan and all the other British people in Aden—who have carried out their duties so devotedly in a most difficult time. In particular, I should like to send the gratitude of those on the Liberal Benches to the Armed Forces, and especially to the Army and the Royal Marines. I would ask the House to reflect for a moment on how foolish is the decision of the present Government to cut down these splendid infantry regiments when we can see from recent events in Aden how important they are. I should like once more to express more than just my regret, my profound regret, that my own regiment, the Welch Regiment, which is at the present

121
moment engaged in very difficult conditions in Hong Kong, will soon be destroyed if the Government have their wicked way.
I wish the Republic of Southern Yemen every success, and I hope that there will be between us and them a happier relationship in the future than there has been in the past. I should like to ask two questions. First, what is the position of the British civilians in Aden? I understand that some hundreds of them have been left with very little protection at all. What is their position, and to whom do they turn in case of need? Secondly, can the noble Earl give us any information on whether President Nasser is going to continue to stir up the same sort of trouble in the future as he has in the past, and whether there is the likelihood of any peace in Southern Arabia if he carries on in the way he has been behaving in recent years?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I know that all those who have served this country so valiantly abroad in these difficult circumstances will much appreciate the handsome words that have fallen from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. The latter seemed to want me to go a little wide in answer to some of his questions, and I will not follow him into the future of the Welch Regiment, or one or two other matters he raised. He asked about the British nationals remaining in Aden, and I am informed that it looks as though about 250 British citizens will stay in Aden after Independence, and that there will also be a number of citizens of the United States of America and of various West European countries. They will be in close touch with the Embassy and all possible advice will be offered to them, but of course the decision whether to stay or to leave is for them to take. There has been. I understand, a marked improvement in the atmosphere in Aden and the expatriate community is in good heart, so I hope I can reassure the noble Lord on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked me what had been agreed, and I suppose he has not had the advantage (indeed, I imagine no one has had the advantage) of seeing the communiqué which is being placed in the Library.
122
He will see from that communiqué, for example, that the two delegations discussed the transfer of sovereignty and the termination of the Queen's protection, which will be incorporated in the People's Republic of Southern Yemen, and agreed that all powers and rights vested in the Crown immediately before Independence will vest in the new Sovereign State accordingly from November 30, 1967, the date of Independence. The two delegations also agreed that their two countries will establish diplomatic relations and will exchange Ambassadors. I have no doubt that I could give the noble Lord further information, but this will answer some part of his question.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, in view of the suggestion made by the leader of the N.L.F. that Arabs living in Arab territory find themselves in complete sympathy with the Arab cause, will it be borne in mind in settling the future of islands like Perim that it will not help peace in that part of the world if any al tempt is made to add another stranglehold over the ships of the Republic of Israel?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, anything that is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, with his great experience of this part of the world, will of course be considered, but on the subject of the islands I think I had better not say anything this afternoon.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl one question. I understood him to say that, irrespective of the final financial arrangements, we had agreed that civil and military aid should continue for six months, which means that British taxpayers' money will continue to be paid to Aden. Is the noble Earl aware that if the taxpayers' money is paid out for six months, or for a longer period, there will be wide feelings of resentment in this country unless at the same time provision is made for compensation to be paid to civilians for the loss and damage that they have sustained?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I will make sure that this point is studied. The aid will be continued at the existing level for six months and all these matters can be considered during negotiations, but I should say that it

123
is aid to South Arabia and not to Aden only.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I was referring to aid to South Arabia.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Earl has indicated that he does not wish to be drawn into answering questions regarding the islands, but I should like to put to him a number of questions regarding the present position of the islands as opposed to future policy regarding them. I think it was said in the Statement that the wishes of the inhabitants of the islands had been ascertained. How were those wishes ascertained, and what were the results of those consultations? Also, with reference to the present position in the islands, am I right in thinking that we have not yet relinquished sovereignty over the three territories concerned; and can the noble Earl tell us whether any British troops are remaining on any of these island territories at the present time?
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us what is the actual figure of aid which will be paid out during the next six months? Secondly, what is happening to all the installations, upon which a great deal of taxpayers' money has been spent over these last few years? Have those installations been abandoned, are they being handed over, or is any charge being made for them?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, if the N.L.F. do not form a Government to whom will the aid be paid?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, there are one or two points which I can answer, and one or two which I cannot. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will not press me very much about the islands, but perhaps I can answer one question he raised and say that there will be no British forces remaining on the islands. I was also asked how much this aid amounted to. It is £12 million over six months, but given like that the figure is slightly misleading because £3 million is the residue of an earlier settlement. So it is really £9 million over six months, which is what was being paid before. It is being paid at the existing rate. With regard to the
124
installations, as is well known, they are being handed over.
As to the payment of the money, we naturally assume that these gentlemen are capable of forming a Government. If we did not make that assumption, then clearly we should not enter into an agreement with them. If the noble Viscount thinks that is amusing, I hope he will realise that not only politicians but many other people who are respected very highly clearly have sufficient confidence to believe that is the right answer.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is the enormous amount of British capital sunk in the oil refinery, the airfield establishment, the vast new Army camps and the port installations now to be written off as a dead loss?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I believe that is the position.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I feel that I must ask the noble Earl one further question.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Earl, I am afraid I have just given the noble Lord, Lord Segal, a false answer. I was referring to the military installations, not to the oil installations.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I was asking about the port installations and the refinery, also.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sure the refinery would not be written off.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I was not suggesting that the noble Earl had given me a false answer. I was merely rising to say that he had hardly given me an answer at all. In fact, he dealt with just one of my four questions. I feel that I must press him on one further point, because we are told in the announcement we have heard that decisions regarding the islands have been taken by Her Majesty's Government. May I ask the noble Earl whether or not we have relinquished sovereignty over them? This is surely a question which deserves an answer.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I understand that they have been ceded, but the final arrangement has not been made as to to whom they are ceded.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, that is one of the most astonishing statements I have ever heard in your Lordships' House.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government ascertained whether the recognition that they are giving to this new Power in Southern Yemen will also be given by all other Powers?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, of course we cannot be sure of that, but if they wish to become a member of the United Nations we shall certainly join in sponsoring them.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Earl rebuked my noble friend behind for asking what he said was a frivolous question. But what did the noble Earl's answer mean? Could he explain what it meant?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, an act of cession has been prepared, but a Government has to come into existence before it can become fully operative.
LORD CARRINGTON: Then the islands have not been ceded.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, arrangements have been made to cede them. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to press this past a certain point. He will realise that information has only just come in. He knows that I have not full information as to all the details, but I should have thought I had told the House enough to satisfy it.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Earl has not told us enough to satisfy me. There are three groups of islands. There is Kamaran, in the Red Sea; there is Perim, opposite Aden, and there are the Kuria Muria islands, 300 miles up the coast off Muscat. Am I right in assuming that the intention is to cede the Kuria Muria islands to South Arabia?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I cannot make any such statement. I should rather have thought that what I said earlier would have restrained the noble Earl from putting these questions. It is a highly delicate matter. There are some highly delicate discussions going on and, while the House is entitled to ask questions at any time, it is doubtful whether pressing some of these points is
126
going to help. If the noble Earl wants a technical answer, the sovereignty over Perim was relinquished by Order in Council made yesterday, under the 1967 Act, and the Order does not need to specify to which country the islands go. Since the noble Earl is anxious for any information that is in my power to give him, I may say that I understand that a representative of the High Commissioner did visit the islands and make the inquiries. The noble Earl asked a question as to how the opinion of the population was elicited—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not wish to pursue the matter with the noble Earl, but my question was addressed not to Perim but to the Kuria Muria islands. But in view of what he has said, I feel are quite incapable of extracting further information at this stage, and therefore I will not pursue the matter.

CRIME AND THE COMMUNITY
4.15 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD REAY: My Lords, of the different ways in which this subject of crime and its various problems can be approached, from the point of view of penal measures, court procedure, even the moral texture of contemporary life, I propose to deal only with the question of the detection of crime and the apprehension of the criminal. For, of all the factors, the deterring factors, in crime, the certainty of detection seems the strongest. There are, alas! no figures for the number of crimes actually committed. The best statistics that we have are probably those for indictable offences known to the police, and I think it is those that the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, although he did not specifically say so, must have been quoting in his speech. There is a certain weakness in those figures in that the number of crimes they describe is probably only a fairly small percentage of those actually committed.
The last time we debated this subject in this House the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, was quoted as having himself, on an earlier occasion, endorsed a professional estimate that only some 15 per cent. of crime committed was actually known to the police.

127
But if one ignores this factor and various other implications of it, and if one assumes that the statistics of crime known to the police do, more or less, reflect the number of crimes committed, then one finds that there has been a steep and consistent annual increase in crime since 1955—and I should prefer to take this date rather than the date the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, took of 1937. In each of the four years previous to 1955 there was an actual decline in the number of crimes committed, but since 1955 the picture has been very much the same.
For the last two years—that is to say, the two years since we last debated this subject—there has been a slight reduction in the rate of increase of crimes known to the police, but the significance of this is, I think, difficult to estimate, since the decrease is actually smaller than the decrease in 1959, which was a very short-lived one and did not go beyond the end of that year. Of the indictable offences known to the police in 1965, a smaller percentage was cleared up by the police than in 1964. In 1966 a very slightly larger percentage, 0·6 per cent. larger, was cleared up than in 1964, but this was still a 6 per cent. smaller percentage than that cleared up in 1950. So at around something like 40 per cent, for all indictable offences the detection rate is still depressingly low and showing little or no improvement. I will come in a moment to the question of regional variations.
The necessary preconditions for improvement have, for a long time, been discussed here and elsewhere—higher recruitment, civilian substitution in clerical work, in garage work and in traffic work, better use of technology, better inter-regional co-ordination, even rather despairing general appeals to the trusting British public to be rather less trusting. I suspect that even if these are successful, they are likely to be successful only on a short-lived basis. The crime rate is very high and annually rising, and the public does not seem to take the notice some people expect of it in terms of self-protection. It has not done so already, and it is unlikely to do so. I wonder whether there is room for some sort of local advisory service to be offered by the police to the public, to encourage people to go to the police station and declare what their worries are
128
and to be told what they should be doing for the protection of their own property. This might be a good idea; I do not know. In any case, on the whole picture we shall certainly be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has to say.
Two years ago the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, spoke rather enthusiastically about the measures then being taken. He was able to report in July, 1965, in this House that the 1964 Police Act was just implemented and that there was a new, co-ordinated set of regulations for the police; and since then we have had amalgamations selected for the further efficiency they are likely to bring about. The noble Lord said on that occasion:
"Vigorous measures are being taken … to improve efficiency, particularly in the field of crime detection."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/7/65, col. 171.]
He was also able to report (a fact that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, referred to) the formation of regional crime squads, and he then referred to what he described as the impressive record they were already chalking up. He referred to the introduction of traffic wardens, the number of which had been doubled within the last two years. He referred also to how the Police Research and Planning Branch were urgently considering, in his words, the use of computers, and how also, out of an impatience that was too great to wait for the development of a pocket-sized radio, 1,000 standard radios had been ordered. The speech of the noble Lord was therefore not a depressing one at all. It reflected an energetic and promising picture of police activity in the field of crime detection. But that was two years ago. Since then we have had two of the best years of the decade in police recruitment, although in this context I should like to ask the noble Lord what, in his view, is responsible for the signally large number of resignations from the police force last year, 1966. This was some 30 per cent. more than the figure in 1964, which was also a bad year.
But overall what can we expect? Can we, on the one hand, expect a consistent rate of increase in crimes committed, with improvements in police metnods being sufficient to prevent this rate from rising? This is what the figures for the last 11 years would tend to suggest. Or

129
is there some good reason for expecting a delay between the introduction of new methods and their effect on the detection figures? Or is it the case that perhaps the improvement measures have not largely been introduced as yet? Or, again, perhaps they have in some areas been introduced but are not sufficiently widely spread. Or is it that possibly the right methods have not even yet been found? On all these points we shall, I think, look forward to hearing something from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham.
Certainly there are wide local variations in the success of the police in detecting crime. Few comparative figures, in percentage terms, seem to be available—at any rate, they are difficult to get hold of. Again, perhaps we could hear some from the noble Lord. But what one would like to know is where there have been regional improvements on the national average rate, and, where there have been such better rates, what the Government think has been responsible in the cases where it has been recorded. Does it tend to be, as one might assume from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, the effect of a smaller deficiency in the forces in those regions? Or is it the better use of the manpower they have available? Or is it better use of technologies? Whatever it may be, if indeed they have succeeded in isolating them what are the factors which seem to produce a better detection rate?
In this context I should like to refer to the highly impressive experience of the Lancashire Constabulary with regard to two new schemes that they have introduced. The first is a mobile policing scheme, and the other is what is called unit-beat policing; that is to say, a system, principally, where one constable lives on a beat for which he is responsible for 24 hours of the day. In the case of unit-beat policing the decrease in crimes of breaking, according to the 1966 Report of the Chief Constable of Lancashire, has been as high as 32 per cent., and at the same time the detection rate has risen by as much as 23 per cent. These are remarkable figures. I understand that the Home Office have recommended that this system should be introduced as widely as possible throughout the country, but that it requires cars and radios in
130
numbers that are possibly not in the possession of local forces. I shall be interested to hear what progress there has been in introducing this scheme and what stands in the way of extending it.
I do not mean generally to be pessimistic, or to suggest that one should be, in the face of the general figures available. I simply do not know what to expect in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, may have convincing grounds for being more optimistic than this with regard to the future. He may be able to throw some light on the figures for 1967 which he may have in his hand. He may well be able to explain the slow effect of improvements on the actual figures. I should be most interested to hear how the Government have proceeded with the introduction of the improvements that he mentioned last time. Certainly we do not expect promises or predictions from the noble Lord, but the present position. I think, gives cause for considerable concern, and a great deal of attention must clearly he paid to it in general debate.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to organised crime. As experienced in the United Sates of America, organised crime does TEA seem to exist here. There you have enormous criminal cartels which have assets at their disposal equivalent in sum to those of the largest business corporations. Originally they derived those assets, and largely they still do, from untaxed profits on illegal activities namely, on gambling, on "loan sharking" (which is lending money at illegal rates of interest) and on narcotics—on those three above all. Once acquired, those assets are used to infiltrate and control ordinary business, to infiltrate and control labour unions, to intimidate witnesses, and so on, and also to corrupt innumerable local government officials.
The Report of the President's Commission, which is a most impressive document and to which the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, referred, says that all available data indicate that organised crime flourishes only where it has corrupted local officials. In England this tradition has never been established. In the United States, organised crime is not simply a big city problem. The Commission estimated that 50 per cent. of the total number of cities with a population of between 100,000 and 250,000 had organised criminal groups within them. All this I think differs considerably from the descriptions

131
given of the activities of planned crime in this country. Here, organised crimes seem to be more detectable, if not by their nature unconcealed, such as bank robberies, et cetera. The networks from which the criminals operate seem less complex, less diffuse and possibly less permanent. However, one would like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, something about this, and in particular whether he feels that there are at the moment in prison a number of the important organisers of past crimes in this country, or whether the number in prison are an insignificant number of those who have planned, and do plan, large crimes in this country.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that this country does not have crime on the same scale as organised crime in the United States, even in this House we occasionally have alarming descriptions—for ex-example, Lord Willis's description, on the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill, when he described the role of the "fixer", who, he said, was a chap who lent money for criminal activities on a sort of profit-sharing basis. This is quite an alarming picture. I do not know whether the Government have a view of the extent of this. I should also like to ask the Government about the protection racket. Do protection rackets still operate widely in this country; or is this not known?
There is one general point worth making. Organised crime seems to depend for its success on the illegality of a commodity which is still nevertheless in substantial demand by the publc—bootlegging where alcohol is illegal; gambling where gambling is illegal, and traffic in narcotics where narcotics are illegal. I do not think we are so stupid or so puritanical at present as to be in danger of bringing prohibition into this country. But so far as gambling and narcotics are concerned, I think we need to be careful. So far, the market price of hard drugs in this country has never risen high enough to attract the large international distributors—with their dangerous entourages, methods and consequences. But some people were worried that one consequence of the Dangerous Drugs Act might be that because supplies were denied to some addicts, who would be prepared to pay high illegal prices, the mar-
132
ket price might rise. If this happens, and organised importers and distributors of narcotics appear here, I hope we shall hear about it in good time to do something about it.
In regard to gambling, we hear periodically of foreigners, generally from the United States of America, often Italian Americans, who are expelled from this country or refused entry here, because of their gambling associations, or their apparent intentions. I must say that I am a little confused about the connection between gambling and criminals. I certainly take it for granted that criminals feel at home in a gambling atmosphere, but I assume that there is something more commercial in it than that. Is it the case that at present profits in the operation of casinos are so high that the criminals are attracted into this country from overseas? If that is the case, are these legal profits, or is the Betting and Gaming Act 1964 being contravened or evaded?
I should welcome some illumination from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on this twilight subject of the connections between gambling and organised or unorganised international crime. Certainly, the Government, in the legislation which is promised us, will have a difficult time, and their particularly difficult task will be on the one hand so to limit profits as not to attract criminals from abroad, and on the other hand not so to restrict them as to encourage casinos to be established underground where criminals would be a necessity. I think that there is a serious possibility of that, and I very much hope it will not happen.
That is all I wanted to say. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, for enabling us to debate this subject after quite a long period of time. I look forward to hearing the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and that of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, on this rather disturbing problem of the annually increasing number of unsolved crimes.
4.32 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Rowley for providing this opportunity to debate one of the most serious issues affecting us as a civilised community. His questions and constructive suggestions are based obviously upon a detailed and

133
thoughtful analysis of the problem and have been very helpful to all of us. I do not want to pursue my noble friend in the social implications of these problems. I have often reflected how extraordinary it is that in the 1930s, when there was great poverty and nearly 3 million unemployed, we had only 11,000 people in Her Majesty's prisons. To-day, when we have something approaching a Welfare State, we have some 35,000 in prison. I can only conclude that there was a different morality in the 1930s, and that people then would sooner starve than steal. It is not my purpose to-day to consider that question. I always feel that we in the Home Office are at the receiving end of the mistakes of society, in our prisons and in the problems besetting the police forces.
My noble friend Lord Rowley quoted accurately a large number of figures. I do not propose to follow him in that, except to mention one figure where he was very substantially inaccurate. He mentioned that he thought the total of our police forces in post in England, Wales and Scotland, was some 70,000. The actual figure in England and Wales alone—the Home Office are not responsible in this respect for Scotland—at the beginning of this year was 85,589. I am not arguing that we have enough, but I take the earliest opportunity to put that mistake right.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, my noble friend will realise that I was quoting the figure in comparison with the 140,000 in France.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, when my noble friend looks at what he said in Hansard, he will find that he said 130,000 in France. They are going up, and we are going down. But whatever the numbers of police in England and Wales, and the numbers in France, the police force here is every bit as good as any force in the world.
My noble friend quite rightly drew attention to the remarkable increase in indictable crimes between 1937 and 1966. He gave the figures, again quite correctly, of 266,000 in 1937, and almost 1,200,000 in 1966. A similar increase took place within those figures for the figures of robbery and assault, and violence with intent to rob. I want to use those figures to illustrate that these
134
crimes of gross violence—the kind to which he referred and which shocked the whole community—are only one in every 250 of the total number of indictable crimes. They are very serious, but that is the proportion.
Before leaving the figures, I wish to refer to something which was said by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, about detection rates. The use of percentages is one of the politicians' arts, and they are so often used to conceal rather than to reveal the truth. I shall use the figures actually quoted by my noble friend. In 1937, out of the 209 crimes of violence, 105 were detected and solved by the police—that was 50·2 per cent. In 1966, out of the 4,000-odd crimes, some 1,600-odd were solved by the police. That was only 37 per cent., but it was a figure of 1,600 compared to 100, sixteen times as much successful work by the police. Indeed, this is a measure of the great increase in the work of the police and in their problems.
My noble friend has taken as his theme "organised crime", and not crime in general. I know that he will agree with me that this very much narrows the field, because by far the largest volume of crime in this country is simple larceny carried out by opportunist individuals—petty thieves who not only are not organised but are not even organised in their method of operation. In fact, of all indictable offences known to the police over 75 per cent. are offences against property involving less than £100, property which might not be stolen if the owners took even reasonable care to look after it.
Fortunately, we are basically a law-a biding people; and we have a dedicated Police Service. These two assets prevent the creation of a climate in which organised crime of the gangster variety can flourish, in defiance and in contempt of the police. I have heard talk of the Mafia infiltrating here. This is complete nonsense. In my view, there never was, and with our police forces there never will be, any serious threat of this kind in this country.
There are of course some organised gangs, to which the noble Lord, Lord Reay, referred. Your Lordships will not have forgotten the recent trial, which the Press described as the "Torture Trial".

135
This brought to light the magnificent work of the police in exposing, and bringing to justice, criminals who thought that they could run a brutal and menacing "protection" organisation in defiance of the law. But despite the ramifications of this gang, the threats of violence if they informed on one another, despite the bribery, the allegations against the police, and the attempts to intimidate jurors, that gang was finally brought to account, and the ringleaders punished in a way that I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Reay, has given other aspiring thugs the strongest reasons for mending their ways. This case provided an admirable example of police dedication, since success depended upon information gained from petty criminals. It involved months of hard work, long hours and meticulous attention to detail—in fact determination. And it succeeded.
There is no question that a determined body of policemen is the most important single factor in dealing with organised crime, and the certainty of detection the most effective deterrent to criminals. But policemen need the right facilities, the right organisation, the right equipment, and indeed the right backing from both the Government and the public, if they are to carry out their job as efficiently as they must. And I am privileged to claim that in the past three years or so the police service in this country has undergone a revolution. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, initiated this revolution by introducing the Police Act 1964. That was the start and I know that he will agree with me that tremendous strides have been made since then, though, frankly, I am surprised that the strides which have been made do not yet appear to be sufficiently realised.
I want to deal with the points which have relevance to the questions asked by the three noble Lords who have spoken so far. First, there are the measures taken to improve the organisation of the Police Service itself to increase operational efficiency, both within the traditional local force framework and as an integrated body. To achieve both these objects is not easy, and for this very reason the Home Office Police Research and Planning Branch, which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, initiated,
136
recommended that regional crime squads should be set up to provide teams of experienced detectives whose activities, like those of the criminals they were pursuing, would not be confined to the boundaries of local police forces.
Eight teams were set up in 1965 to cover the whole of England and Wales, with a ninth team for the Metropolitan area. That is a total of some 600 detectives in all. Their job—and this is the direct answer to my noble friend—was to concentrate on the more important criminals committing the type of organised crime to which my noble friend has referred. I would emphasise that they concentrate on criminals—important criminals—rather than crimes. Detectives have always realised the value of this approach, but this was the first time that co-ordinated teams of police were specifically seconded and instructed to operate in this way.
I think the public has become familiar with the crime squad methods through the medium of the successful T.V. series "Softly, Softly". But in order not to mislead your Lordships, I have to record that, whereas the T.V. detectives never fail, there are occasions when the real ones do not succeed. But when he set up the regional crime squads, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that they would be experimental in the first instance and would be reviewed after they had been in operation for two years. That review is now being carried out by the Research and Planning Branch, and I should not in any way wish to anticipate the result to-day. But there is no doubt that, with the co-operation of chief constables, these regional crime squads have achieved much success and valuable lessons have been learnt.
The second major point in connection with the reorganisation of the police is amalgamations. I do not want to dilate on this subject, because the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, covered it in his speech, but we are now over halfway through a programme of amalgamations which amounts to the biggest reorganisation of the Police Service for over a hundred years. Eighteen of the 32 schemes in the programme have been made, and 16 of the new forces are actually in operation. Five schemes are being made as compulsory amalgamations, and most of the remainder are nearly

137
ready by voluntary agreement. When the programme is completed—and it will be completed soon after next April—there will be (the noble Lord was not quite right in his figures) only 41 different police forces, instead of 117 as there were last year.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I think I said "under 50". I knew that it was somewhere between 40 and 50.
LORD STONHAM: Of course, my Lords, 41 is well under 50, as I should realise if I were 41. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the fact that in this very sensitive field so much has been done so quickly and effectively is a tribute alike to the inspiration, the drive and the persuasive powers of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and to the public spirit and co-operation of senior police officers and police authorities in the areas concerned.
We have made it abundantly clear that in carrying out these mergers we are not in any way questioning the efficiency of the smaller forces within the limitations imposed by their size and boundaries. Many of them, of course, have been examples in one way or another to the rest of the Service. But, as my noble friend said, in this day of highly mobile and organised criminals those who fight them must not be restricted by out-of-date boundaries and insufficient reserves and resources.
The commander of a large force is in a position to assess the general situation throughout his area, and to deploy his manpower and equipment to the best advantage for the whole area. He can employ whole-time specialists over a wide range. He can have detectives concentrating on certain types of offences, such as drug-trafficking, gaming and the like, and a bigger force also provides better training opportunities and a better careers structure. I have no doubt that, just as the trend in post-war industry has been for increased effectiveness by regrouping into larger units, so society will benefit from what we have been doing in the police force. Certainly, the 16 new combined forces set up this year have already begun to make their impact.
The third major aspect of reorganisation is unit beat policing. Much of the equipment newly installed and coming
138
along, about which I shall say a word in a moment, is very costly. It can be justified only if it is used scientifically and if its full potential is exploited by modern operational methods. This is particularly important at a time when our manpower resources are so stretched. We started to study this method some years ago—and not only in Lancashire—experimenting with more flexible systems than the old foot patrolling. As a result of our operational research, we have developed the system of beat patrolling known as unit beat policing. This is specifically designed to exploit the full potential of rapid mobility and immediate radio communications, so as to give a much more effective service to the public, while at the same time—and this is very important—maintaining and in many cases restoring the close link with the public which has always been the most valuable feature of policing in this country.
A constable has his area. He is linked by radio with a small car in the charge of another officer, so that there is constant communication. Experience has already shown how advantageous this system is. It provides better service and a better, swifter flow of information about criminals which is being systematically collated. It has been received with great enthusiasm by the public and the police wherever it has been tried, and it has been a great boost to police morale. In effect, with the unit system we are combining all the advantages possessed by that paternal and majestic figure of fifty years ago—the village constable—with the modern scientific advantages of mobility, communications and organisation.
To ensure the rapid development of these new/old methods of policing, the Home Secretary has authorised the expenditure of about £2 million on additional small cars alone during this present year, and these are being matched by a supply of personal radios. As a result, about two-thirds of the entire population of this country will be served by unit beat policing methods early next year, and by the end of next year the figure will have risen to 80 per cent. The greater part of the entire country will be covered by this method, and the Commissioner tells me that by the end of next year he plans to introduce these new methods into nearly 90 per cent. of the area of the Metropolitan Police District.

139
It is very quick, and a very rapid and beneficial revolution.
Before leaving the question of the reorganisation of the Police Service, I want to deal with my noble friend's question on the fundamental matter of manpower. It is true that during the five years from 1962, recruitment has risen from a level of 6,000 a year to 8,500 a year, which is an increase of over 40 per cent. But the wastage, particularly through premature retirement, is considerable. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, asked about last year when there was the exceptional figure of 36 per cent. I am glad to say that it has fallen this year, but the figure for premature wastage is still 30 per cent. The recruiting position is encouraging, but acceptance standards appear to be uneven and the percentage of people accepted varies greatly between force and force. We are looking into the reasons for this, to see whether we can have standardised entrance tests which can then be adopted by all forces throughout the country. But premature retirement remains our chief staffing problem, not the rate of recruitment; and whilst it is probably true to say that premature retirement, expressed as a percentage, is no higher in the police force than it is in other comparable walks of life, the high quality demanded of entrants and the elaborate and expensive training which a police officer receives makes it imperative that we reduce this wastage. We are at present conducting, through the Research and Planning Branch, an investigation in depth into the causes of this problem, and we hope that when the results of this study are ready early next year we shall then be able to take steps to restore the situation.
My Lords, I mentioned civilian aides. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Reay, quote what I said in 1965 about the vigorous methods we were then starting, and I hope the report I am now going to give him will show that they have been successful. Traffic wardens, for example, were only 456 in number in October, 1962. They were 3,834 at the end of September this year. The number of other civilians performing administrative duties comparable to those formerly carried out by the police has increased from 9,707 in 1962 to 15,890 in September of this year, and it is safe
140
to say that, if they were not in post, a substantial part of the work that they do would have to be done by police officers, to the detriment of their operational task. So, in effect, this represents an increase in the operational strength of the police.
I have outlined the revolution taking place in the organisation of the police. A similar revolution is taking place in equipment. In 1959 we spent only £3 million on equipment and vehicles together. This year it is a threefold increase—nearly £10 million. In 1959, again, we spent only £1 million on new vehicles. This year it is quadrupled at £4 million. But the increase in modern radio equipment for the police is even more striking. These small personal pocket radios are of great advantage in keeping a police officer in constant touch. On January 1 last year the police of England and Wales had fewer than 600 of these sets. At the end of this year they will have nearly 10,000—that is within two years—and by the end of next year there will be between 16,000 and 20,000 sets in operation, which will mean that virtually every officer actually on duty will then be equipped with one of these sets.
We are also making intensive studies of a very wide range of other sophisticated equipment for police purposes. For six months, during the summer, our Research and Planning Branch, in cooperation with the Ministry of Defence and a number of police forces in the South of England, conducted a full-scale experiment with helicopters. This is continuing for a further six months under varied conditions, including adverse weather conditions, and as part of the experiment three Army helicopters are at present being used to support the Metropolitan Police. All these developments are being closely watched, as are many others, including work on crime intelligence; regional crime squads, as I have said; the deployment of policemen in traffic patrolling; the most economic utilisation of manpower, and a wide range of research into new items of equipment including the use of closed-circuit television for police purposes. Contacts with industry and the universities have been strengthened through the Home Office Scientific Advisory Council, whose members are distinguished scientists drawn from many fields We now have

141
an Advisory Committee on Communications, which my right honourable friend appointed about a year ago.
One category of equipment which I think was referred to by either the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, or the noble Lord, Lord Reay, was computers, which are now very much to the fore in our planning. A large number of forces are using local authority computers for payroll and other administrative work, and for statistics, and in some cases they are processing statistics for the operational deployment of manpower. The Home Office and the Metropolitan Police already own two computers, and a third is on order to deal particularly with "traffic tickets". But, my Lords, the really exciting project that we are planning is a national computer to process operational police records for the whole country, so that every force, and divisions within the forces, will have direct and immediate access to the information stored. This will make it possible for an ordinary constable who stops, say, a car with two suspects in it to use his personal radio to the information room, and a private teleprinter network from there to the computer, to find out within about 60 seconds whether the car is stolen, whether the occupants are wanted by the police, whether they have been disqualified from driving or whether any distinctive property in the car has been notified as stolen. We have talked about breathalysers, my Lords: it will take anybody's breath away if they are as swift as that!
I need hardly point out to your Lordships how valuable a successful project of this kind will be in combating crime. This computer, which will be nationally available, will also store information about the "m.o."—the modes operandi—of criminals, the names and previous convictions of criminals and the main fingerprint collection. It is an immense concept, and will entail storing far more information than any other comparable project in the world. Although planning has reached an advanced stage it is still too soon for a final decision to be made, but if all goes as well as we hope these plans will become a reality within the next year or so.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the House will be very grateful indeed to the noble Lord for this information. Can he tell us whether it has yet
142
been found possible to store fingerprints successfully on a computer? I know we were struggling with that problem when I was at the Home Office.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord is thinking of a single print. We have made progress with that one. I think it will be incorporated in the project that I am now mentioning.
I do not want to keep your Lordships too long, but there are a few more things I should like to say, particularly in answer to questions. First of all, there is the problem of drugs. This, again, is a great source of crime, and your Lordships will be aware that it contributes increasingly to organised crime. As the noble Lord, Lord Reay, put it, crime feeds on illegality. This is one of the areas of illegality on which crime feeds. Your Lordships are aware of the Dangerous Drugs Act which passed through this House just before the Recess, in which we increased to a maximum of ten years' imprisonment the penalties for drug smuggling and greatly strengthened the powers of the police to search, enabling them to pick up the pedlars and the "pushers" the more easily; and soon we shall have notification by a central authority of any person whom a general practitioner considers or suspects to be addicted. These changes, when they become fully operative, will, we believe, give the police a great deal more help in catching criminals and, indeed, in dealing with the serious crime about which we are mainly concerned.
Another field of serious crime is the gaming field, which the noble Lord, Lord Reay, mentioned. Indeed, the unforeseen growth in commercial gaming since the passage of the Betting and Gaming Act 1960—unforeseen, I think, by anybody certainly unforeseen by those who approved the Bill at the time—has increased the percentage of crime in the larger cities, both because gaming by its nature tends to attract criminal elements and because the very unexpected nature of the development means that insufficient safeguards were put in the Bill against the cruder forms of exploitation.
The great attraction for crooks is getting money without working. What more attractive way can they have than filching a living somehow out of gaming—even if only living on the backs of honest gamblers? That is the attraction. Then, of

143
course, gambling debts have at times been recovered by dubious methods. A great many of the clubs are perfectly honestly conducted and with perfectly respectable people in them—but some are not. Gaming sometimes provides another means of changing dubious money; and this is extremely attractive to the crooks. Therefore we shall be introducing a gaming, Bill this Session to control the situation—not by putting a stop to commercial gaming altogether, for that is quite impracticable, but by making the conduct of these places the subject of close oversight and regular safeguard. A noble Lord asked, "What about the foreigners?" The police are aware of the foreigners who are connected with gaming and who have criminal records or associations; and in recent months my right honourable friend has refused entry to some 21 of these people. We shall help to "keep the party clean" in that way.
We are discussing organised crime; but organised crime can best be countered by an organised community. The police are not engaged in an isolated fight against the criminal. They are a part of the community and they rely, and are entitled to rely, on the rest of the community to assist them. I am grateful to my noble friend for what he had to say in that respect. A policeman is a member of the community who holds the ancient and honourable office of constable. He is ready on the instant to stake his life for the protection of the community, and I have been disturbed that there have been cases where the police have received less than the degree of support and approval they are entitled to expect from the public when they discharge their often difficult tasks of maintaining law and order.
Even if we have not been present, we have seen on television the police being attacked by people who, whilst properly insisting on their right of peaceful assembly in the name of liberty, freedom and democracy, have no scruples at "swinging a haymaker" at a police officer who is striving under orders to preserve that same freedom and democracy for the community at large. We all recall recent incidents: shots at the American Embassy; a peaceful procession in Grosvenor Square which developed into a savage riot; disturbances
144
outside the Chinese Embassy; organised militancy at the Barbican and at other sites; the incidents at Cambridge during the recent visit by the Prime Minister. All these, to say nothing of what has happened at football grounds, involve large numbers, perhaps thousands, of policemen in necessary but wasteful and unpleasant work and not infrequently, after being subjected to physical attack, the police get, not support, but allegations of police brutality.
What is indisputable, however, is that it is a prime duty of any police force to ensure the preservation of law and order; to act at all times without fear or favour—certainly without favour—to prevent breaches of the peace. And experience shows that in many of these public demonstrations, passions and tempers tend at times to run high, so creating for the police a distinctly unwelcome and difficult situation. In their role of keeping the peace the police are not fulfilling a personal or narrowly official duty, but a responsibility on behalf of the community as a whole; equally, every member of the community has the duty to support the police in this task in the interests of the community at large. The police act in the interests of ensuring the freedom of individuals, singly or in groups, lawfully to express a point of view in which they sincerely and honestly believe. But equally, it is abundantly clear and desirable that this very freedom itself must always depend on its being exercised in conditions of law and order. Those wishing to give vent to their views by way of processions or demonstrations must accept that freedom to do so entails certain obligations, including the obligation to respect the law and the freedom and rights of other people.
My noble friend spoke about "having a go". I do not want to follow him in that. I tried, by intervention, to answer his questions, but I think that what most of us neglect to do sufficiently—apart from "having a go", in which there are certain difficulties—is to give public moral support to the police on all occasions in the performance of their duties. At least we could by our opinions—even if we do not back those opinions by the use of our fists—support what is being done in the name of freedom, liberty and democracy for the whole of our people.

145
We also have an obligation to assist the police in taking the appropriate steps to deal with ordinary crime. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, asked me what was happening about the courses he started at Stafford. The Crime Prevention courses there are continuing. They are a success—so much so that they have permeated all the police forces and all police forces send officers to Stafford to be trained. No force is without such officers now. I have just been handed an answer to the question posed about finger prints. I understand that we have reached the point where, by feeding into the computer a certain code we can select the nearest sets or ten prints to the one required: so that we are getting there.
My Lords, during the last two years the Home Secretary has arranged national crime prevention campaigns to bring home to the public the need to take adequate precautions to prevent crime or, at least, to make the task of the criminal considerably more difficult. To prevent crime in this way is manifestly in our own interests. A good deal of crime could be avoided if the persons concerned would take preventive action. When we do not take preventive action, we are encouraging, if not creating, criminals; we are undermining the type of society which the police, with our assistance and on our behalf, are protecting. What can be done is illustrated by the experience of Sheffield where there has been a 17 per cent. drop in indictable crimes. The effects may wear off, but it is supremely important for the public as a whole not only to co-operate but to accept police advice in protecting their own property, whether it be houses or motor cars, and by taking sensible precautions.
Indeed, this applies to industry as well. The Home Secretary has in the last year set up machinery through which representatives of industry can come together to discuss crime prevention. The Home Office Standing Committee on Crime Prevention at which these talks take place is, I think, a great success and it is, among other things, giving urgent consideration to the problem of bringing home to the top level of management the urgent necessity for crime prevention. It is necessary that industry accepts its responsibility not to encourage crime. If
146
goods are displayed in such a way that they seduce or encourage the shoplifter, or if industrial materials are not properly protected, the concern involved is guilty of encouraging crime. Each loss in itself may be small; but the ease with which the theft takes place means that more losses will occur.
My Lords, I have to-day attempted to describe to you some, but by no means all, of the measures that have been taken by the Government, with the assistance and the co-operation of police authorities, to enable the police to deal more effectively with the high rate of crime which faces us to-day and to which my noble friend has drawn attention. I have little doubt, and I hope I have convinced your Lordships, that the work which has already been done in equipping the police to meet the challenge of crime, combined with the intensive research which is still proceeding, is providing this country with a force equipped to a standard which it would be difficult to match anywhere else in the world. We are not alone in facing an unprecedented increase in crime, and the steps we have taken show that we are prepared to match the sophisticated criminal. We shall meet organised crime with an even better organised police force. The problem is enormous, but the police, or rather society as a whole, has met with some success. The recent figures for crime in the Metropolis show a 4 per cent. drop, and throughout the country the increase has levelled off to 1½ per cent. There has also been a small but welcome increase in the detection rate and, my Lords (I hope that the noble Lord will quote me in two years' time), this detection rate improvement will increase.
Most welcome of all to me is that the morale of the police is high, higher, in my view, than it has been for a long time. None of us know what the future will bring, but there will be no lack of determination by the police to deal with crime, organised or casual. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is firmly determined to provide them with all the tools and all the organisation they require for success in their supremely important job.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, finishes his speech, may I say that I entirely agree with him about the

147
police, and I am entirely in their favour. But we must support the police. Does not the noble Lord think, now that the present Home Secretary has gone to another sphere—where I hope he will be more successful than he was in the Home Office—that a reasonable degree of flogging, followed, where police murder shooting takes place, by a little capital punishment, would be an admirable deterrent?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, justice to the police is very much up to date, but on this subject the noble Viscount is very much out of date; and the opinions he expresses are quite unlikely to be shared by anyone who has studied the subject.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I had the Scottish Office to deal with, and a certain number of people in my time had to suffer capital punishment; and I still maintain the view that it is a deterrent in cases of deliberate murder.
5.12 p.m.
LORD HAYTER: My Lords, the only confidence with which I approach my maiden speech is the knowledge of your Lordships' generosity in these circumstances. Then I must be frank in declaring my interest, in both senses of the word, in the subject under discussion to-day. This can best be expressed by saying that as the fifth generation of a company which has been making locks and safes for 149 years, I have to admit that if there had not been a little increase in crime since the early 19th century, my firm would not be quite the size that it is to-day. But it is of the security industry as a whole that I want to speak, partly because it is sometimes misunderstood and partly because, properly orientated, it has such a useful part to play in combating crime.
My Lords, the security industry can be divided into two main sections, physical security, by which I mean locks, safes and strongrooms, and the security services provided by burglar alarms, cash-carrying and guards. The combined turnover of this industry in this country is about £40 million, and without wishing to bore your Lordships with detailed statistics I have satisfied myself
148
that that is, roughly speaking, the same figure that remains to the criminals, after recoveries by police from them. That is what we should call, in business, "available for distribution and ploughing back into their own affairs".
Turning then to the physical security, locks vary from the shilling padlock to the time lock which can be fitted on the postmaster's safe, to prevent anybody opening it, and which would cost some £120. I know of one firm which makes 15 million locks a year. The vast majority of these go into households and into cars; and, emphasising the point which has already been made to your Lordships to-day, if we could look after these minor matters of security, the police would be better able to look after the major items.
There are a multitude of special locks for hotels, asylums, museums and prisons—for in our industry we make locks to keep people out and we also make locks to keep people in; and those at the top of the security field are the high-security locks which guard Government secrets, not only in this country but also in several other countries. On the safe side, you "pay your money and take your choice". My own definition of a safe is that it is a receptacle so constructed that, while protecting its contents against fire, it prevents access by force—assuming certain, known methods of attack and the time required for them to be employed. It follows therefore, that the honest safe manufacturer—of which there are several in this country—sells time. It also follows that the real value of a safe is known only on the last day of its use.
I would refer to the Press reports in connection with our industry because (I suppose it is natural) it is always the failures that get reported and not the successes. Even when reporting the failures they do not get their facts right. The "two-foot door" which was talked about the other day was three-and-a-half inches thick. Then, as has been said before, on television the police always get their man, but generally speaking, so far as the safe manufacturer is concerned, his safe always gets cracked. I would just give your Lordships one rough statistic: that of all the serious attacks on branch banks in this country since 1957, three-quarters of those attacks

149
were unsuccessful. That is, I think, a tribute to the manufacturers concerned.
May I make one point about standards? Anybody can advocate standards for a variety of industries, with great effect and with great common sense. But when one is dealing with a subject like this, if your Lordships accept my definition of a safe, I think you may think that I am right in maintaining that you cannot simulate these attacks; you do not know what methods are going to be used, and you do not know for how long. But even supposing I were presumptuous enough to think that I could simulate those attacks, how wrong I should be five or ten years later! The enemy of our industry is a moving target, and we have to keep up research with the times to see that our standards are constantly improving.
On the security services side, the part of the burglar alarm is rather like that of the minefields around a fortress. There has to be a fortress and the time element is enhanced by the "minefield" provided by the burglar alarm around the safe or strong room. Nothing is more easy to invent than a burglar alarm, and nothing is more difficult to perfect. There is a very high incidence of false alarms on the burglar alarm systems going to the police of this country, and the police have been, and are, very patient about them. These false alarms are due to a variety of causes, not least of which is customer indiscipline. Probably in this country, as in the United States of America, the future lies in central call stations. But there is one type of alarm which I think that the police would be unwilling to drop and that is where secret signals are sent back to the police station if a house is broken into, or a safe is attacked. I can give your Lordships the most cheerful statistic that you have had to-day: the number of arrests last year of people caught red-handed by this means was 1,926.
Regarding the cash-carrying side, mention has been made already in the debate of this point. I would make the obvious one that anyone who sends amateurs to collect cash, using the same routine and the same route, really accepts criminal responsibility. These are the basic elements of the security industry, and I would relate them briefly to three sections of the community. So far as the police
150
are concerned, we have had the happiest of relationships. About the crime prevention efforts of the police I can truthfully say that I do not know of them being matched anywhere in the world. There is this emphasis on simple precautions and allowing them to tackle the major crimes.
So far as insurance is concerned, the insurance companies have vast experience but great difficulties, partly because of competition. The premiums they allow on their comprehensive policies are very low and leave no margin for discounts if protection is put in by a householder. I give one simple suggestion on this problem: that the insured should have to accept 10 per cent. of the claims they make. That might have quite an effect on the efforts they make to secure their own property.
Lastly, with regard to the Government, 11 have been told that I must not be controversial, and I shall not be—indeed, there is no need for me to be so. Things have happened just recently. One is that the industry, which was itself thinking of forming an association, was encouraged by the Home Office, so that we have now a British Security Industry Association, knitting together these elements about which I have been telling your Lordships. The great object is to defeat crime and to maintain high standards of workmanship and service. But, more important than that, we are represented on the Home Office Standing Committee on Crime Prevention. Our representation is rather small—one out of eighteen—and perhaps I could press the Government to make a bit more use of our expertise—I was going to use the word "technology", but that is a word more happily used in another place. In making our contribution to the problem as it is seen by the Home Office Standing Committee there will be a lot of talk, but out of talk comes action.
My Lords, I feel some difficulty in knowing how to sum up. The problem of crime is so vast, and its manifestations so many, that it was difficult to forecast how your Lordships' debate would turn out, but I would hazard a guess—indeed, the certainty—that the security industry is going to be involved. It was for that reason that I thought it might be helpful to your Lordships if I gave a brief outline and explanation of its relationship with

151
the various sections of the community. For if we are going to find or to found a comprehensive social defence policy, surely that security industry has a major part to play.
5.23 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, it is my happy and easy task to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, upon his maiden speech. Your Lordships have been charmed not only by the expertise which he has placed at your disposal but by the light and whimsical way in which he made the speech so easy to listen to. It is often said about your Lordships' House that upon almost every subject which is debated some unexpected expert will be able to offer his guidance and help, and we have certainly enjoyed that in the case of the maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. There is a further ground for what might turn out to be congratulation. I understand that the noble Lord's father, when he died, was the oldest living Peer. I have even been told that his grandfather, when he died, was the oldest living Peer. I very much hope that the noble Lord will emulate his predecessors and that we shall have the pleasure of listening to speeches such as we have heard this afternoon for an indefinite time to come.
We have had a most interesting debate dealing with the police force. I think that it is accepted (it certainly was by Mr. Roy Jenkins) that in combating organised crime the development, strengthening and improvement of the police force is the first priority. On that I am sure we are all agreed. But there are other things that have to be taken into account. It has been emphasised that the police suffer from a great sense of frustration when, as often happens, they know who a criminal is but are unable to launch a successful prosecution because of the rules of evidence.
Two years ago, I think it was, the noble and learned Lord who is now the Lord Chancellor inaugurated a debate in this House on penal reform. Much about the same time, he either contributed an article or gave an interview to the Sunday Times in which he drew attention with the utmost clarity to what was then the rapidly deteriorating position with regard to crime. He said, for
152
example, that before the war more than 50 per cent. of the known indictable offences resulted in a successful prosecution. In London in the year before he spoke, the number of robberies in which there had been a successful prosecution had fallen to 23 per cent. The noble and learned Lord indicated a number of steps that he thought should be taken for dealing with this problem. I should like to ask the Government how far they think they have gone so far.
Last summer, there was a series of remarkable discussions on television about various aspects of the wave of crime. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, found themselves in most remarkable agreement about certain changes which they thought ought to be made in what is admissible as evidence in criminal cases. I am going to put to your Lordships four points upon which they were in agreement; and where they were not in complete agreement what I am asking for is the lowest common denominator. The first is this. As the law is at present, if an accused person does not go into the witness box neither the judge nor the prosecuting counsel is allowed to comment upon the fact that he has chosen not to do so. Both noble and learned Lords considered that it should be proper for them to comment.
Secondly, they suggested that we should go back to the old Common Law rule that a voluntary statement made by an accused person should be admissible in evidence. Thirdly, at the present time the defence of an alibi can be concealed to the last moment and then suddenly sprung upon the court. The noble and learned Lords proposed that any accused person who chose to plead an alibi should be required to give previous notice that he was going to do so. Fourthly, they asked that when a man is charged with a crime, recent convictions for similar crimes should be admissible in evidence.
Many of these points have been supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin. I should like to quote quite briefly some of the things that were said. Mr. Robin Day asked:
"Is it the case that we fall over backwards to protect the guilty?"
Lord Shawcross replied:
"Yes; I think there is no doubt about that."

153
What is perhaps even more important is the expression of opinion by the former Home Secretary, Mr. Jenkins. Robin Day quoted from something he had said, which was, apparently:
"We ought not to defeat ourselves by archaic, elaborate, highly formalised rules which may give an undue advantage to the enemy. For it is enemies we are fighting."
Mr. Robin Day asked:
"Is that the spirit of your approach?",
to which the former Home Secretary replied:
"Very much so."
I think that by now the Government might have invited one of the several Committees and Commissions which are considering every aspect of law reform to go into these matters. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, speaking some time ago in your Lordships' House, said that there was no doubt that the law was in danger of bringing itself into discredit because so many people realise that persons who were obviously guilty were in fact able to obtain acquittals owing to these technical rules of evidence.
I pass to the next point. I do not think at the present time that the sentences are long enough and severe enough in many cases for dealing with what I call incorrigible rogues. I am not discussing the case of somebody who has been tempted and fallen; I am not discussing the case of those people who are guilty of first offences—although it does not in the least follow that because it is a first offence there is any reason why they should not be severely punished. I am talking of these incorrigible rogues, members of organised gangs, who even discuss the felonious little projects which they intend to indulge in when they come out of gaol while they are still in gaol.
Any of your Lordships who are not aware of the careful organisation of some of these gangs might do well to read The Robbers' Tale, which gives an extraordinary account of the way in which the great train robbery was organised, by men who made crime their regular way of life and went from one crime to another. The gang which carried out that robbery even indented on another gang for a person with the necessary expertise which they lacked: he was seconded from one unit of the criminal world to another.
154
The abolition of the death penalty presents us with an unsolved problem of the length of sentences. There is, in the first place, a need to protect society against criminals like the train robbers; and protection involves keeping them in prison until they are not likely to resume their normal activities. Secondly, there is the importance of ensuring that the robber does not enjoy his booty. In the case of a robbery of that kind, involving more than £2 million, if after some 10 or 15 years these relatively young men are able to come out and live a life of ease, pleasure and comfort for the rest of their lives, then the crime will appear to them to have been worth while.
Here I should like to say, with all respect, that I hope there will be a departure from what has been described as a principle by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in the case of Regina v. Kroger, Kroger, Houghton. Gee and Lonsdale, that gang of skilful spies who did so much harm to the security of this country. In giving a shorter period of imprisonment to an older man, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said:
"It is against all our principles that a sentence should be given which might involve your dying in prison."
In the case of these enemies of society, as the former Home Secretary described them, it is, I should have thought, extremely desirable that they should die in prison before they emerge and resume their dangerous, harmful and often brutal activities.
In the third place, there is need for long sentences to break up organised gangs. The Minister of State for the Home Office referred to the torture conspiracy, and rightly paid tribute to the skill and patience with which the police uncovered that conspiracy. But society requires some assurance that no sentiment will result in those persons being released after 10 years if there is any chance that they will resume carrying on the organised conspiracy of torture and exploitation.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, would my noble friend forgive me, just to say this. While I agree with him about severe sentences, it always seems to me to be rather unkind to give a sentence to ensure that a prisoner dies in gaol. Is it not really, in a sense, almost more humane to put him out of his

155
agony, instead of sending him to gaol, by a little degree of capital punishment.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, my noble friend is returning to the argument that he put forward, that he would prefer capital punishment. I not only spoke, but voted on every occasion in your Lordships' House against the abolition of capital punishment, and I am inclined to think that it would perhaps be kinder for there to be capital punishment rather than confinement of that kind. But I have to recognise that there is no great likelihood of a return to capital punishment in this country, and what I am trying to put to your Lordships, and to the Government, is this really unsolved problem: that when murder is punished only by life sentence, which in practice is only about 14 years, it creates an anomaly, because there is need of sentences for the protection of the public which may be a good deal longer than 14 years in the case of these conspirators.
My Lords, I referred to 10 years because the view, I know, is taken (I believe it is taken by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill) that after 10 years a man's personality in gaol deteriorates. But I would say that the first consideration must surely be the protection of the community; and protection against rackets and conspirators, and those who set out to intimidate jurors, may very well involve a longer period of imprisonment than 10 years. I am alarmed at the kind of leniency which is now shown in some courts.
If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment, I should just like to read this extract from a newspaper cutting:
"William Featherstone, 55, who is due to be released from a sentence of 14 years' preventive detention on May 30, was placed on probation for two years when he appeared for sentence at Inner London Sessions yesterday. He had admitted stealing jewellery worth £1,136… The theft occurred while Featherstone was at liberty from Stafford Prison under the hostel scheme. A probation officer said that Featherstone has spent most of his life in prison."
Now here is a man who has spent most of his life in prison, has not yet completed a period of 14 years' preventive detention, and, while he is out on what I suppose in future will be called something analogous to "parole", he carries out another theft and the court only put him on probation for another two years.
156
Far more reasonable, far more acceptable, to me is the warning that was given last month by Mr. Justice Lawton, who presided at the "torture" trial at the Central Criminal Court. At Exeter he gave warning in the case of two young men, aged 19, who had both pleaded guilty to robbery with violence, that he had every intention of giving sentences which would act as a deterrent. He said that, encouraged by Parliament, Judges had tended to be lenient with youths, but this had not improved behaviour. There was more evidence now than ten years ago, and he wondered whether the lenience extended in recent years was not perhaps a contributory cause.
Finally, I would say that we have gone to the point where life in prison is far too agreeable. Again I am not talking about young people guilty of a first offence where there is some real hope of reform. But I beg the Government to realise, I beg the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal, whose kind and humanitarian outlook on these things is well known to your Lordships, to realise, that there are people who have really no intention of being reformed. It has been said that punishment consists in being deprived of liberty in gaol and that it is wrong that prison should be so unpleasant as to constitute a punishment in addition. I do not know whether that is the noble Earl's view; perhaps we shall hear when he comes to wind up.
We are discussing this afternoon planned crime, the people who make this their way of life, who devote their lives to it and have chosen to make their living by crime. To them, my Lords, prison is an occupational hazard, one to which they are accustomed and one they are perfectly willing to put up with. One finds they are neither ashamed of being sent to prison; nor do they suffer when they go there.
I thought that one of the wisest acts of the late Home Secretary was to allow the train robbers in Durham Gaol to be interviewed by the Press and to say what their grievances were. It may have had an unforeseen effect, or perhaps the Home Secretary foresaw what the effect would be. I know that a large part of public opinion was shocked to find that men of this kind, in a high security gaol, who were known to be conspiring, if they could, to escape, as two of their colleagues

157
had already successfully done, could even ask for the kind of pleasures and entertainments the lack of which seemed to them to be an intolerable hardship. I quote from The Times of February 1:
"They objected to being accompanied by a prison officer even if they had to walk only a few feet."
Well, in view of the escapes that had been made, that does not seem unreasonable.
"They objected to the lack of entertainment. They spoke of the absence of radios, film shows and concerts. With regard to visiting facilities, they considered that Durham was too far to travel for visiting, especially by the relatives of prisoners whose homes were in the South."
And, although they had a yard in which they could take exercise, they did not think it was large enough and therefore they refused to take any exercise at all. My Lords, really I do not see how, when almost all forms of penal punishment in gaol have been abolished, it is possible to regard imprisonment as being an adequate punishment for these enemies of society when they can expect to be granted amenities of this kind.
To conclude, I would say that, in dealing with the wave of crime which is now putting fear into the hearts of so many people in all parts of the country, and perhaps most of all here in London, there are four steps to be taken. The first is what has so far been discussed: to strengthen and to help the police in their skilled and courageous war against what Mr. Roy Jenkins calls these "enemies of society". The second is to amend the law of evidence in order that we no longer lean over backwards in order to enable the guilty to obtain acquittal. Thirdly, sentences should be longer, not in any spirit of vengeance, but in order to secure adequate protection of society from its enemies. Fourthly, imprisonment for those who belong to the class of hardened professional criminals should be very much less pleasant than it is at the present time.
5.49 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I most respectfully ask for the indulgence of the House which I know is always accorded to a maiden speaker. And may I, as one "maiden" to another, offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. Although he seemed more of an iron maiden, he was extremely articu-
158
late and, I thought, very charming in his speech.
Planned or organised crime, which we are debating to-day, cannot be kept in a separate compartment from other crime, because there are junctures where it interlocks with free-lance criminality and one of these junctures is in the line of recruitment. I feel here that one of the most vulnerable groups are young people between, probably, 17 and 21, who are very much at risk. I should like to restrict myself this afternoon to the young offender. I think we must get this in perspective, since it often appears As though millions of them are in trouble, or about to get into trouble, and as has been mentioned this afternoon, a great deal of publicity is sometimes given to a small number of exploits. In 1966, out of just over 3,036,000 young people aged between 17 and 21, 50,014 were found guilty of indictable offences; and this is a percentage of 3 per cent.
There are elements in society on which organised crime lives, and mention has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord Reay, about the relationship between the illegality of the activity and the growth of organised crime. One of these elements in our society at the present time is the alienation of youth. Because of this a demand is created, for instance, for drugs (which have also been mentioned), and that enables the petty professionals and organised criminals to supply the drugs. This cold war between young and old is disturbing, and I understand that in this context to-day over 35 is considered to be "old". This is a very debilitating and depressing thought. The alienation of young people, the feeling of "separateness" that so many of them have, is expressed through frustration and loneliness: it is not only old people who are lonely. Non-communication, anti-social behaviour and delinquency are very closely connected (there is often only a hair's breadth between them) and many of the young people retreat into drug-taking.
Nowadays, this is not a question of education, income or class. It cuts straight across the structure of our society, but I feel that some of the young people who leave school at 15 and who have fallen through the parental, educational and social nets which should have supported them are extremely vulnerable. In

159
the court where I sit as a magistrate we often have youngsters appearing before us who have had as many jobs as the number of their years of age. They are aimless, bored and they get their "kicks" from drugs, hooliganism and violence—a completely aimless violence which has no end product in finance or any economic sense of gain.
Part of this hooliganism may be due to the fear of many of them that they will not be able to "keep up with the young Joneses" sexually in our more permissive society. Very often their earnings are good, but many live in a social and personal vacuum. And it is these who are potential candidates for the professional criminals, both small and large, who pick them up in local cafés and bars, and give them the feeling, as has already been mentioned, that they are going to get something for nothing—something easy, without working and without discipline.
One of the factors of drug-taking which is alarming is that it brings young people into other criminal activities if they mix with criminals when they get involved in the world of drug-taking. I think we are still looking at this problem of drugs with a certain amount of hysteria, combined with insufficient knowledge of its social and psychological causes. If drugs are to be prevented from turning into big business, as in America, action must be taken quickly. I am worried about the drug centres which are being set up, because unless they can get adequate staff and facilities, which seems difficult in the short run, they will merely be "handing-out bureaux"—taken over from the doctors—and unless the centres are readily accessible we shall develop a bigger black market in drugs than we have now.
So far as treatment is concerned, the Ministry Circular dated November 15 talked of treatment consisting of establishing a relationship with a view to persuading the addict to accept withdrawal treatment, and it then goes on to refer to the social aspects. This is very good, but the trouble is that it refers only to heroin and even then I doubt whether they will be able to draw in all the heroin addicts. It does not refer to pep pills, which form part of the major drug-taking of young people, the psychedelic drugs (LSD) and also the escalation from cannabis to hard drugs. One of the by-products of the drug
160
trouble, and the onus put on the police to search young people, is that it increases hostility to the police because many youngsters who do not happen to be drug-takers and who are searched feel that it is just an excuse, as they say, "for the coppers to do us over".
I do not think we can find any blanket cause for delinquency. The White Paper on The Child, the Family and the Young Offender, published in 1965 overstressed breakdown in the family. This is often the cause, but it is by no means the sole cause. There are other factors—social, environmental, personal and even biological, but it is impossible to delay your Lordships in order to deal with these. When dealing with existing young delinquents, sitting on the Bench I often feel a tremendous sense of frustration and anger because of the lack of range of alternatives. I notice that the Home Secretary has set up a Committee to look into the question of detention centres. I hope that Committee will recommend their abolition. From the last figures available, in 1962, in the three years at risk, 43·9 per cent. of first offenders discharged from senior detention centres were reconvicted and 57·8 per cent. of second or more offenders. This is hardly a success story, and I think it proves that equality of treatment is not the answer to our problems.
What I should like to see, and I know a great many other people agree with this, are more probation hostels structured for the needs of different types of people, both young and also older, and where psychiatric care is available. I should also like to see a bigger probation service better paid, because the probation officer is sometimes the only person with whom the young person can create a stable relationship, which is absolutely essential. But how can they do their job when two of the probation officers attached to my court have caseloads of 70? When people sneer at the idea of putting people on probation, or say that probation has failed, it is often because it has not been given the chance to work. I doubt whether the Government will achieve the target of 3,500 by 1970, because at the moment the yearly targets are not being met, and this does not take account of the high wastage by dropout, which I think is due not only to the maximum salary scale, which is extremely low, even in this era of wage restraint,

161
but also to the impotence that many of them feel because they cannot do their job properly.
Although I understand that it is the policy of the country to keep young people under 21 out of prison, the fact is that in 1966, out of 45,243 males between the ages of 17 and 21 convicted of indictable offences, 2,062 were sent to prison. That is a figure of 4½ per cent., and I feel it is too high. If we had more hostels and more facilities for probation many of these youngsters would not have gone to prison, and many need not even have gone to borstal. What we need to do is to concentrate on research, including spotting potential delinquents at the earliest possible age rather than just drawing inferences from statistics. I wonder whether anyone has done any deep research into the origins of the recruitment of major criminals, not to reform them but to prevent others from following their example? In the preventive field I should like to see a comprehensive family service but not family councils allied with family courts. However, I will not take up time by discussing these now.
I hope that the recommendations of the Latey Committee on the age of majority are implemented, not just because of the majority of responsible young people, but because I believe that by expecting responsibility from people, even some of the so-called irresponsible minority might feel that their acceptance into the adult world gives them more courage and security, and more status. But also I should like to see it because I think that by bringing down the age we shall shock society's conscience so that it will get an imaginative move on to help young people to achieve maturity.
I know that there are many rival financial claims on our economy, and that at this moment we are cutting down expenditure rather than increasing it; but it seems to me that to spend £15 a week on keeping somebody in prison—and I am sure (though I have not got the exact figure) that it costs a lot more in borstal—is extremely uneconomic. With a decrease in youthful delinquency, police would be released from hooligan and drug-tracking down activities, which mean that the time they spend on Saturday afternoons they have to take off during
162
the week when they could be involved in bringing down the crime rate we want to combat. I think youngsters would be healthier socially and happier personally if we could follow out some of these reforms. Some are under way, some are in cold storage, and some are hopeful intentions. If youngsters are healthier socially and happier personally, that surely is worth aiming for in itself. I apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time and if I have gone beyond the customary limit for a maiden speech. But this is a subject in which I am passionately interested, and I am a woman of many words.
6.2 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, I think I am a very lucky woman in being allowed and in having the privilege of thanking such a maiden speaker, not because it sounded like a maiden speech but because it sounded so perfectly understandable to everybody concerned that I would not just say we look forward to hearing her again; I would say something which for me means very much more: I look forward to working with her. In what she has said and the way in which she has said it she has convinced us of her deep belief in a subject which to all of us is of paramount importance.
And as a Cross-Bencher, I should like to say I am delighted in the delicacy of the "touch of the Chubb". A Chubb by any other name is just as sound, and I look forward to seeing whether I can "crack" it some day, but I fear my touch is not delicate enough. But I am doubly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, because he has given me an entry card into what I want to speak about. He has talked about keeping people in, and I should like to talk about keeping people out. I would go back to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and say how much I agree with her that we have to recreate the law-abiding society that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, mentioned, in the way of trying to exclude from prison those people who are not dangerous criminals, instead of cluttering up the prisons with too many people.
The ineffectiveness of sending a certain type of offender to prison is well established, and the courts are increasingly aware of the importance of what the

163
noble Baroness has just said: the need for suitable places to send people to who come before the magistrates, instead of sending them to prison. This is something which is an accepted fact, and this is the type of help that should be available to all magistrates, and especially to probation officers. The variety of persons with varying troubles or difficulties demands a suitable variety of hostels; and these must be of a kind which will treat offenders and stop the recurrence of their crimes. I think the recommendations that have been made over a series of years have begun to come into effect; and the need for hostels to be in the right place is accepted.
The Home Office has, through its various committees and through NACRO, established the fact that the regional siting of hostels is of paramount importance. I hope that in future, in the registration of a hostel, before it can claim allowances from the Home Office this siting will not only be insisted upon but will be watched very carefully indeed. If the hostels are properly located, properly controlled and properly run, they will help combat recidivism. This is my excuse for rising to address your Lordships to-day. Recidivism is just as much trouble from the prison point of view as any other form of crime. If we can prevent a man from going back again and again to prison it will help very considerably. If we could have hostels available, so that men and women could be sent to them, it would prevent the stigma of conviction and stop people having to go to prison. I had a man came to see me who told me that he had been inside 19 times and had decided that there was no future in it, so he thought he would reform and not go back again. He stayed out three years—which I think was quite good. Recidivism needs a great deal of help.
I should declare an interest in that I have been working for two years in a Working Party set up by the Home Office in connection with the after-care of the ex-offender. There are a great many things I should like to ask the Government either to tell us or to look into. One of these is that to meet the demand of siting at regional level, and to meet the request the noble Baroness has just made, it is necessary that rapid strides
164
should be taken, instead of a slow forward movement; because, as this is a question of human beings, I think slow procedures should be outruled. At present we are told that there are regions, but localities do not even know in which region they are sited; they do not know which county, which county borough, belongs where. So far as I can discover, none of the new regions is coterminous with any other region already in existence. This could easily confuse local thinking and local outlook. The first urgent need I would press on the Government is the one which the Working Party has put forward very strongly, and that is that the public must be informed; it must have a great deal of information through all the media that exist—and I would hope especially that it would not be only the usual media that are employed. I feel very strongly that the churches could do much in making their parishioners understand the need for work within their own areas.
Too many people seem to think that anything in the nature of a hostel in their locality would be excellent anywhere else. During the last two years I have met so much opposition from respectable citizens, from magistrates even, and from church people that I hope that, if the Home Secretary does institute the form of information we hope for the public, he will get everyone concerned to work hard, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, suggested, have a continuous campaign. During the years we have been trying to get specimen hostels set up we have found over and over again that as soon as one goes to the local authority for planning permission there is immediately a "not here" attitude taken by local residents. If the hostel is to apply for a grant to the Government, which means either £2 a head a week or £2 a place a week for an ordinary hostel, which must obviously abide by standards, and be right from the regional siting angle, if planning permission is withheld, life is impossible, because one has to start all over again.
So I would ask that propaganda of every sort and kind be the first thing. But alongside that I would beg that levels of maintenance grant towards running expenses be agreed. These have been discussed for some time, and those of us—and there are a great number—who are trying to set up hostels want to know what

165
the grants will be, whether per capita or per place, whether varying with the various groups that are doing the work, and how much the grant is likely to be where high therapeutic costs are involved, as against where it is merely a question of caring for somebody who needs a home. An early pronouncement on this will help take up the slack that has already been mentioned by several people. Whether it is the old man who puts a brick through a window, or whether it is a young person who need never get a conviction because he is sent to a hostel instead of going to prison, the formidable background of finance and housing have, in the first provision, to be available.
There are other things to be asked for with great emphasis, the first being advice in regard to the training of staff, and also some sort of assistance towards the simplest system of record keeping for research purposes, which will obviously be needed if the Government are going financially to back the undertakings that are under consideration. A great deal of trouble and thought must obviously be spent on the integration of voluntary work into statutory aid.
But that is not something that I want to put before your Lordships this afternoon. The point I want to put before your Lordships is that since we first started debating these subjects all aftercare has come within the field of the probation officer. The Probation and Aftercare Service, as it is to-day, is carrying the whole statutory responsibility. I am no orator and I am a poor debater; but I am a worker, and I have learned a great many things on the ground in connection with this whole problem of the alternative to prison; and what I have learned may, I think, be of use to those who are doing the work alongside me. The first lesson is that basic support must always be available for those hostels which are set up.
I was associated with a group which with the generous aid of the Carnegie Trust set up an alcoholic unit. This provided so many problems in its setting up, in regard to its shape, whether it should be registered as a charity or as a company, whether it should be run one way or the other, how to get its "background" funds, and whether in fact it should treat this type of drunkard or that type of alcoholic, that if there
166
had not been a great deal of determination among the people backing the venture the whole thing would have fallen down. Eventually, because of the excellent people who were working it, men and women who have a dedication far beyond anything one could expect, "skid-row" alcoholics who had not worked for six years have been working continuously for 26 weeks. I will not say that they did not have a bit of a "binge" then, but they came back to work, and are continuing to work on the same basis for 26 weeks before they take a week-end off. I think this is the beginning of something. Undoubtedly, it means that those who are working in hostels must have sufficient latitude to experiment. Had it not been for the generosity of the Carnegie Trustees this undertaking could never have been handled, and it is through this original experiment that others are now being undertaken.
The running of a multi-purpose hostel, again with the backing of the Carnegie Trustees, has taught that what the principal probation officers asked for in the way of a long-term clearing house is of infinite value. We have learned from it that the residents need to be siphoned off to a variety of different hostels. So this again comes round to the fact that hostels must be linked together within the make-up of the region, so that persons need not go to the wrong place with the wrong association, boys with older people, and men, when they are only rather weak characters, with hardened criminals. Equally, we have learned—I am ashamed to say that I had never realised it before—that it is just as important to learn what is not possible and to register a failure as it is to register a success.
Some of us are thrilled to think that we may have begun to find the secret of keeping aged recidivists in a comfortable enough home for them not to wish to return to the comfort, or at any rate the known background, of prison. But what is of great importance to anybody doing this work is that one discovers the tremendous amount of support required by any undertaking which is just beginning. In this regard all of us who have been working for a long time in the field ore extremely delighted to see that the

167
Home Office have registered, or have caused to be registered, a housing association which will be able to provide the background services of houses in which people can work in this way without having to raise the money for the purchase of a house or such alterations as are necessary. To my mind, this is the epitome of to-day as against yesterday. Today, whether they be voluntary workers or established bodies, or whatever they may be, people are working instead of just collecting money to pay somebody else to work. To my mind, this is the beginning of the involvement of the community, and what must be the community's responsibility to rehabilitate its own citizens.
In order to expedite work, to clear channels and to move forward, the Working Party that I am quoting have recommended a "pentad". The idea was that five really interested and serious-minded people with a zest could support and help and back those people who were undertaking schemes at every level all over the country. By carrying out the functions that we suggest in our Report, they could save several years of waiting; they would save much frustration for many workers, and they could help the statutory bodies to integrate with voluntary effort. Above all, they could advance measures that many of us believe to be essential for the good of the country itself. This "pentad" that we recommend, and which has not as yet been accepted, would be not for a long term but for an interim of three years, until the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders could assume the role of backing, supporting and helping. In this interim of three years a great area of country could be covered with a string of hostels. Much has been said in this House so often and in so many speeches. As one reads through the speeches made on this particular subject since 1961, one can see a slow, slow progress forward. But I have a deep belief that if in fact we are dealing with human beings we have no right to take a lengthy time to do a job which should be expedited. I would beg for the informing of the public, the decision of the level of maintenance and the setting up of a specific body that will expedite the work centrally until such
168
time as it no longer is needed, in order that the community may begin to realise that it must welcome back into its own area the people who belong to it.
6.19 p.m.
LORD MAIS: My Lords, I would crave your Lordships' indulgence on this, the first occasion that I rise to address your Lordships' House. I appreciate that in return I am expected to be non-controversial. This is quite foreign to my nature, but I will endeavour not to offend against tradition. May I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on their maiden speeches. I hope that I shall do half as well. I doubt whether I shall.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowley, and a number of other noble Lords have spoken most eloquently on the problems created by crime. Before I proceed further, I will make my own position clear. I am not one who believes that those who offend against the laws should be pampered or excused in any way at all. There are, in fact, many crimes which I feel are sometimes quite inadequately punished, in particular those involving violence and those involving the distribution of drugs. For those committed for such offences, I do not feel that any punishment could be too severe. But can crime, punishment and prison conditions be treated in isolation? I believe they cannot.
What is the effect on the potential thief of the chance of detection? Does it deter or merely encourage cunning? The spur of the moment villain gives little or no thought to it. The practised thief out for rich rewards regards the risk, whatever it is, as well worth while, and judging by the figure of 1½ million we have had given us to-day I should think that this is perfectly true. But the chance of detection undoubtedly deters the petty thief and the borderline case. It is almost certainly more economic to stop a man committing an offence than it is to gaol him after he has done it. Therefore, if we cannot recruit an adequate police force under the present terms and conditions then those conditions should be improved so that we can.
It is regrettable but perhaps fortunate that we do not catch all those who commit an offence, for that would put too

169
great a strain upon the prisons and upon all the other institutions and services.
Things are bad enough as they are. The prisons are, in many cases, overcrowded, and they are degrading both mentally and physically to those who are incarcerated in them. These conditions can in no way be blamed on the governors and the prison staff who serve therein. But let us think for a moment of the criminal once he has been caught and convicted. What are you going to do with him, and why? The aim is always thought to be so to treat him as, firstly, to deter others from following his example; secondly, to deter him from repetition; thirdly, to restore him to a sense of communal sanity; fourthly, to soothe the sense of public outrage; and, fifthly, to safeguard the public if only for a time. Capital punishment may soothe the sense of public outrage and may deter others from following the same path, but it most certainly does not restore the criminal to a sense of communal sanity.
What alternatives are there? This is a matter which perhaps every criminologist and sociologist should be considering at this moment as a matter of urgency, because a prison sentence would not appear to stop an offender from offending again. The percentage of men who are reconvicted within two or three years of release from prison is very high indeed. The records of convicted men at the Old Bailey prove this conclusively. The public must be safeguarded from certain types of men and their actions, but there must be some other way than prison in its present form for the first offender or his equivalent convicted of a minor offence which does not degrade him or worsen him, and which gives him a chance to regain his self-respect. It is this category of offender with whom I am mainly concerned this evening.
I am afraid that with deep regret I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for I am a believer in detention centres. At present these detention centres are in two classes, junior and senior offenders, up to a maximum age of 20, for sentences of not less than three months nor longer than nine months, and certainly those which I have inspected are good places and are well run. There are no such things as cells; there are dormitory blocks, plenty of good physical
170
exercise and interesting work. The young offender is put through a training course which leads at the end of a three-months period to his being given some authority. But let us be under no illusion: the discipline in those detention centres is tough, as it should be. The conditions under which the offenders are confined are no worse, and perhaps better, than any recruit experiences when he enters the Services during the first two or three months. It does no one any harm, and certainly not the young offender. There is only one slight difference, which is that leave passes are not issued.
May we now consider an offender who is 21, or over 20, and has been convicted and sent to prison for the first time for a period of six months or less? He does not go to a detention centre; he is over age. I do not know what happens in other parts of the country, but I know what happens to him in London. He goes to Brixton. Every effort will be made to segregate him from the hardened criminal, but the fact remains that this prison, and many like it, are obsolescent. It is, above all, a holding prison for the more serious offenders, where they are remanded in custody awaiting trial, or while they are on trial. Within those prison walls are some of the very worst type of criminal. Into this atmosphere goes the first offender.
What do they do with him? They do the best they can. What does he do for work? He sews mailbags—work which could be done at a tenth of the cost, and ten times as quickly, by a machine. It is the most soul-destroying job one could be employed upon. What does he do for exercise? He goes twice a day round the exercise yard for half an hour. He has plenty of time to think, plenty of time to talk and, I regret to say, plenty of time to plan, sometimes under expert instruction, on how not to get caught and how to do it better next time. My Lords, these conditions are comparable with putting a sheep, maybe a black sheep, though I prefer to say a grey one, into a pen with wolves. If this is done, the sheep will not emerge unscathed.
Therefore, my Lords, let me make a plea, first, for more detention centres for the existing age groups. At present it is frequently very difficult to find a vacancy in a centre. Secondly, may I plead for

171
an extension of the existing detention system to cover higher age groups in which first or similar offenders, committed for the less serious offences, can serve out their sentences in reasonable conditions and not in association with hardened criminals. For it is among the first offenders that we have the best chance of rehabilitation and may avoid the risk of their reappearing, year after year, before one court or another until finally they spend two-thirds of their lives in Her Majesty's prisons. If this can be achieved even to a small extent then we shall reduce petty crime and release our police for more important work.
Lastly, my Lords, I should like to refer to the Probation Service, since none of these measures will be of any use unless that Service is expanded. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, reported to this House a week or two ago that the recruitment into this Service was satisfactory. I was delighted to learn this, but I was very surprised because I find it difficult to understand why anybody enters the Service. The hours of work and the rates of pay are such that, if one takes the salary and divides it by the hours worked, it must be one of the most lowly-paid professions in this country. The reason why we maintain recruitment at a reasonable level, in my opinion, is only because there are still dedicated men and women in this country prepared to undertake this very arduous task. If we are to provide an adequate probationary service to the courts—and I, for one, as a magistrate would not wish to continue to serve without the advice I receive from the probation officers—then we must see that these magnificent men and women who are in this Service are suitably rewarded. Your Lordships have been over-patient with me, and I also believe that I have nearly overrun the allotted span of time. I thank you for the tolerance which you have shown me.
6.31 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, it falls to me—quite inadequately, as I feel—to congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat down, on a most interesting and able speech on the problems of crime in the community and what to do with the criminal in this day and age. While on the subject of maiden speeches, I should
172
also like to say how much pleasure we had in hearing the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. The only thing I regret to-night is that there have been no maiden speeches from this side of the House, and that they have all come from the opposite side. I hope to see that position rectified.
In the last two or three speeches tonight, there has been greater emphasis on the social side of preventing crime to-day, and what I want to do now is to get back to the criminal situation in 1967, as I see it, where we are dealing with a criminal who is more intelligent, better organised than he has ever been, and where offences with serious consequences to the State or person are often directed by a first-class organisation.
Last week-end, when I knew that this debate was going to take place, I went down to see the police force—the Somerset County Constabulary—in the area in which I live. I wanted to carry out my own investigations into the situation which I felt was prevalent to-day, and to form my own conclusions. It was reassuring to find in Somerset that many of the problems mentioned in Cmnd. 2296, which was laid before Parliament in April, 1964—I think by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor—are now to a great extent being mastered.
I was most interested to see that the recommendations which my noble friend then made have been put into effect. In particular, I found from the police officers with whom I had conversation last week-end that the morale of the force was especially high. They were particularly pleased with the new vehicles for police duties which were recently received, and with the new system of wireless communication allowing quick contact with all members of the force, which was mentioned in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Recruitment down there was satisfactory, and it was reported that a good relationship existed between the police and the public.
Let us, therefore, give credit where credit is due, particularly at a time when there is so much adverse criticism of those in authority. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who was then Home Secretary, saw the problems which were affecting the police in 1964 and gave effect to the right policies which were initiated to surmount them. The present

173
Home Secretary carried out those policies, probably with additional orders which he saw fit to enforce; and also, somewhere down the line, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, came into it. So if I now make some criticism I have no desire to be other than constructive.
I was a little disappointed at one part of the speech of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. He saw the solution to our present high crime rate in better recruitment at a higher intelligence level. But with the high crime rate facing us to-day, is it possible to wait for the problem to be surmounted by better recruitment of higher intelligence? This is a situation which we should endeavour to surmount now.
I want particularly to refer to the drug problem in this country and to call on my previous experience. At one time I was actively connected with the Preventive Service of the Customs and Excise in Malaya, and one of our duties was to prevent the smuggling of drugs into that country. Some of the situations which faced us there must obviously apply in regard to drugs in this country. We received information from all sources at various times. I shall not weary your Lordships with all the details, but quite often we received information from other countries, internationally. For example, the Indian Customs would inform us in a matter of hours that a certain ship had left port with suspected contraband for the ports where we lived, and quite often they mentioned that there were suspected persons on board. That enabled us to meet the ships at sea and to send search parties on board, so that we were often able to seize a very large quantity of contraband. It was not uncommon in certain circumstances for a consignment to be thrown overboard and to float under the surface of the sea marked by a small buoy. The smugglers' contacts ashore would then come out and take their illegal gains back to the land. Various methods were then used to escape detection.
I want to draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that the smuggling of drugs can be, and is, a highly profitable business, and I am deeply concerned to-day, as are many of your Lordships, about the prevalence of drug addiction in this country. It is significant that drugs come from the Near East and the
174
Far East, and that drug addiction has been prevalent at a time when many coloured immigrants have been coming to Britain, some of them from the areas which I have just mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was good enough yesterday, during the discussion on a Question which I raised in your Lordships' House, to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the nationality of those convicted for the illegal importation of drugs would now be recorded for future reference. I hope most sincerely that this will now be done, because it will be of the utmost importance if further serious action is contemplated against those persons who break the law in future.
My Lords, we have another problem, too. In the summer certain immigrants were caught landing illegally along our coasts. Are we organised to deal with this situation? Now that our influence is less, in the sense that countries we formerly administered are on their own, do we in this country still get information similar to that which I have already told your Lordships we used to receive when I was in Customs and Excise in Malaya? Do we get that information now? Have we a preventive fleet meeting ships at sea to stop drug smuggling and to stop illegal immigrants landing on the vast coastline which we have around our shores? And do the public know anything about this? Nobody knows anything at all.
May I respectfully ask the noble Earl who is to reply to this debate to let me know what we are doing to combat this situation? It has always been a shock to me to know of the vast amount of money which people make by smuggling. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, when he spoke, seemed to think that this did not amount to a very great deal at the present time, but my experience is that these people do not enter into this kind of activity for nothing—and the more it goes on the more the price goes up.
My Lords, these people are making their money at the expense of the sufferings of our people, and when we secure convictions we should deport such people in addition to the punishment they suffer by conviction. This means that we must keep records of convicted people and of the countries of their birth. Are

175
we really on top of the situation in the general sense? I do not know, and neither do the public, as I have said. I think that, through Parliament, the public are entitled to know what is going on; but at the present time there is a great deal of silence about the situation.
When, for the purposes of this debate, I searched to find out how many offences had been detected under the Customs and Excise Act 1952, Section 304, which deals with the fraudulent evasion of duty, I found that in the year 1966, for the whole of England and Wales, only 23 offences had been detected. I am quite astonished, if I am correct. I hope I am wrong. I refer to Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1966, Appendix IV, item 99, page lix. Perhaps the noble Earl who is to reply in due course will correct me if I am wrong. If, however, I am right, this situation is surely a serious matter, and brings into question whether we are really tackling the problems that face us. It is equally serious that 28 persons were convicted in 1966 for the illegal importation of cannabis. We do not seem to know a great deal about this situation.
Finally, may I make one suggestion which breaks away from our old ideas about these matters? I should like to see the Home Secretary of the day, whoever he is, give a far-reaching statement to Parliament of the situation regarding crime generally. This should be an annual affair, and it should contain a statement of the activities of the police and of the Customs and Excise. I believe that this could be done without disclosing too much information. It would enable the situation to be debated in both Houses of Parliament; but what I think would be even more valuable is the publicity that would be obtained by such a procedure. We could get the public interested in what was going on throughout the country; and if the public became interested in the police and its problems, and if the situation were explained to everybody by the Minister or member of the Government responsible for these affairs, I am quite sure that this would result in greater information being received. My Lords, I have nothing more to add, and time is getting late. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, for initiating this debate, which
176
I think has been of great use to your Lordships.
6.45 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Rowley for initiating this debate, and it gives me the greater pleasure as I happen to know that this was no academic exercise on his part. He and I are associates in some measures which we believe can be effective in making a difference to a situation that we deplore; and it may be of some interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, that in this organisation of which we are both members we have already acquired, with the help of the housing association, two large sets of premises and are already embarking upon second-stage alcoholic redevelopment.
I say this because, with some diffidence, I intend to take up your Lordships' time for a little while in talking about the religious aspect of this matter. I noticed that earlier in the debate, when reference was made by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal to what he described (I thought a little inaccurately) as the breakdown of religious truth—I think he must have meant "faith"—there were certain murmurs of dissent, as if this was an irrelevancy. I find myself in complete contradistinction to any such heresy. I do not believe it is a matter of irrelevancy at all to examine the aperçut that the Christian faith can bring to bear upon the subject; and if, indeed, the Motion is:
"To call attention to the problems created by crime, and particularly planned crime",
and, as we say, "to move for Papers", then surely one of the requisite Papers, if we are to arrive at a correct decision about this matter, must be one based upon the religious attitude to this particular problem.
I am a little surprised that no other members of my—or, rather, not of "my", but of the Prelatorial Bench, are here. But were they here I am sure they might well with me agree that though we may not be experts on some of the matters that are raised from time to time, such as the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, and we may not be experts about devaluation, my word! when it comes to sin, that is "up our street". It is in that field that we are

177
experts. Therefore, if it can be shown that the problem with which we are engaged to-day is a problem that has a relationship to sin, then what I have to say is completely relevant. Let me try to establish that point straight away.
I would regard crime as that sin which has acquired such social content as to make it of public importance. If you like, a sinner becomes a criminal when there are more than 80 milligrams of social content in the 100 millilitres of his delinquency. A man is a sinner—that is one of the established facts—and crime is one extension of this problem, which is essentially a moral problem; and therefore to talk about it merely in terms of social, psychological or economic importance is to me to leave out that which is of prime significance: that it is a matter of moral judgment; that it involves blame; that it involves rehabilitation; that it involves penitence; that it involves a great many of those attitudes of mind and heart to which very scant reference has been made to-day.
Your Lordships will not accuse me, I hope, of any evangelical fervour at this moment, but I should be quite untrue to the cloth I wear if I did not make my witness to the fact that we are discussing what is essentially a moral problem, and the Christian attitude to it brings light to what is otherwise a very gloomy and perhaps an impenetrable problem. I regard sin as about the second strongest thing in the universe. It does not surprise me. I am rather sardonically amused at the way in which it is the secularists whose mouths are agape when they come across sin, as if they cannot understand it. My comfort and assurance is that I find so much goodness about. Therefore, when I think of the increase of crime, if it is an increase (and I shall come to that in a moment), what first I must accept is that—and, as Rabelais said, the only problem with him was that he was not afraid of anything except danger—this world has nothing to be afraid of except sin. If we could get rid of that, whatever the conditions and the circumstances that prevailed, we should be on the high road to a much more delectable existence.
What has clearly been marked in this debate, I think, is that to a Christian conscience there are two types of sin, two types of crime. One is the hot-
178
blooded crime, the crime which is committed under the influence of alcohol or almost irresistible sexual impulse; that crime which is committed post-experience, the consequence of remorse—however little that remorse develops into penitence. There is another kind of crime, that to which this particular debate is dedicated, and that is the planned crime; and it seems to me that the planned crime falls into a different category. It is not done in the hot blood of a particular temptation; it is done in cold calculation—which is amoral rather than immoral—and totally rejects those principles of morality which still are residual in the minds and hearts of those people who commit the hot-blooded crimes.
One of the most disturbing factors about the present situation is what is, theologically, the sin against the Holy Ghost: the taking of an entirely amoral attitude to the world, in which to cosh the man who interferes with your predatory habits is a perfectly legitimate affair (if you get away with it) and the accumulation of vast sums of money (if you can get at them) is perfectly intelligible and the right way to go about it—if, indeed, the word "right" has any place in this particular category, which I think it does not. To distinguish between these two sorts of crimes is, I think, a very necessary part of an intelligent debate, and I am very glad that it is found in the actual terms of this Motion.
Then again, my Lords, it would surely be a matter of Christian theology that sinfulness—that is, the disposition to crime—remains fairly constant; it remains about as constant as human nature. The wages of sin have not varied very much over the ages. Although there are temporary, and perhaps perceptible, improvements from time to time, I think it would be a very rash calculation that the world was inevitably getting better. The difference is not so much in the total, in any given generation, of what is called original sin. The difference comes about in the circumstances which promote or retard the exercise of that basic sinfulness and make it either more dangerous or less dangerous.
If it be argued that there is much more violent crime, it may well be that innate criminality has not vastly increased but

179
that the opportunity of exercising it—and, particularly, exercising it in a much more dangerous fashion—has alarmingly increased. Once upon a time a man with a knuckle-duster could do damage at arm's length; then he could do damage at pistol range. Now he can do damage very much more widely. Therefore, it would be a little careless, I think, to assume that what we are dealing with is an essential increase in the wickedness or criminality of the human race. I think we are very probably dealing with manifestations of wickedness and criminality which are peculiar to the present situation.
Although it may not appear to be particularly orthodox, the first thing I would venture to say is that to me the essence of the Christian evaluation is that, normally speaking, people will respond to their environment, be it either good or bad. This is not to give too many hostages to the Marxist argument; but it is generally true that in a congenial environment people are likely to be congenial; people in a favourable environment are likely to be good, or more good, or less bad; and in a bad environment they are equally likely to respond badly to that environment. Therefore, if there is any constructive kind of contribution that can be made to this debate from the Christian angle, let me very briefly try to say what it is. First of all, it should not alarm us, although it should disturb us, that we are confronted with these manifestations of what appear to be an increase in crime; for that increase in crime may not necessarily be a basic increase in the moral squalor of people who live to-day. In fact, when I think of OXFAM and of "Shelter", and when I think of many of the constructive and philanthropic efforts that are now being made by young people, I am immensely encouraged. In the second place, I am sure that we have to make this distinction between the calculated crime of those who have lost a moral dimension and the criminality of those who have given way to temptation. And I think the kind of retribution in both cases must be very clearly distinguished.
But most of all, my Lords, what we are confronted by, surely, is an opportunity in this debate to distinguish some of the characteristics of the present
180
situation which tend to provoke the criminality from which we suffer. For only by careful understanding of what they are shall we be in a position to make the correct reactions to them. I want, therefore, to say a word first of all about gambling. Only a few hours ago I had the very sad and devastating experience of talking to a young man who is on the edge of what appears to him to be total disaster. The story is a very familiar one; it is the story of a young man who begins by gambling and ends by thieving, and now will go to prison. I feel pretty bad about this, because I think that gambling is a national curse. I think it is entirely unjustifiable—and to hell with it! To hell with it! because it is one of the predisposing characteristics of this particular environment in which we live and on which I think, as certain other noble Lords have already said to-day, it has a marked influence.
The facts about this influence are unaccessible and there are no statistics to prove it, but I have a strong inward conviction—and I am pretty sure, if I may say so without arrogance, that I am right—that the acquisition of readily-available funds for gambling is a predisposition to all kinds of criminality; that the whole attitude to gambling, which is the utter reverse of any responsibility that one feels to the society in which one lives, is a mark of the increasing criminality, the amoral criminality, of the second class of criminal, the one who acts as if moral law does not exist. And when I read of vast projected extensions of the opportunities of gambling in Central London, I am frankly horrified. I do not speak now from a narrow puritanical view. At long last, in my own lifetime, I have come to think that gambling is a far greater curse even than alcohol—and I am responsible for running an alcoholics' hostel; and therefore know a bit about that.
The second, and perhaps the more general fact, is that the secularisation of the society in which we live is one in which it needs to be constantly remembered that we are now face to face with the first age which has no recollections, nostalgias, memories and associations of Christianity. It seems to me that if this particular dimension is lost what is going to be lost with it—and has been lost with it—is the very thing which would

181
retard or restrain many of our youngsters from embarking on a programme of violence and of predatory habits which they accept, in a violent and secular society, as natural, for which they seem to have no remorse, and for which they seem to have no revulsion.
It would I think be inept, and an intrusion in this debate, to go too deeply into the characteristics of the kind of system under which we live. But the secular system is atomic in the sense that it is divisive and individualistic. The affluence of the society tends more and more to eliminate the sense of social responsibility; and if I may return in this last point to a both particular and general matter—which I think may, if your Lordships please, give substance to this general statement—I believe most heartily in the general programme of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the custodial treatment of offenders. I admire it, look forward to it, and I have some very small part in its progress.
I believe in the marriage of voluntary effort to Government responsibility. I believe there is a wide and increasing place—as the noble Lady so eloquently put it—for the combination of the vocational with the administrative; those who, from a Christian or Church standpoint, or from some voluntary and vocational standpoint believe that they have a responsibility to the community which they can discharge in this way by offering, as we offer in the mission for which I work, such custodial treatment as falls short of prison and all its fallacies and idiocies and gives people, young and old, a reasonable chance of rehabilitation. Perhaps for many of these youngsters and older people as well, "rehabilitation" is not the right word. After all, the prodigal, when he came back from the far country, had a house to go back to. It is more or less true that he had a father to welcome him. It was not such a welcome from the elder brother or the fatted calf, but the father welcomed him. For many of the delinquents of to-day there is no house to which they can go back, and therefore one has to be created for them; or the conditions of that house or home have to be created for them.
This is where (as I am sure the noble Baroness will agree) the Church has such a unique opportunity to bring to bear upon this insurgent problem of how to
182
recapture in these young people—and in older people, for that matter—the sense of moral responsibility. The way to make them integrated, to bring them back into the community, is to show them people who are in the community, and to set them within the framework of a new relationship. So I end, my Lords, where I began. I am sure that this is fundamentally a moral problem. We are not good enough to become the society which we dream about and earnestly hope for. We are not good enough because, as yet, we have not created a correct environment so that
"wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein."
I do not expect that we shall have a perfect system, but the better we make the system, the more charitable and the more loving and the more responsive we make it, the better—with the other and various suggestions which have been made so eloquently to-day—shall we face the future with hope and confidence.
7.1 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I would start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, for bringing this subject forward again. It seems a long time since we discussed it. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, for his maiden speech and to welcome another noble Lord from a security company to join the four who are already here. I hope that from his interesting and amusing speech lots of big and little Chubbs may be called into the world which will last as long as my noble friend Lord Molson prophesied for the noble Lord. I regret that I did not hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mais, on his maiden speech, which I very much enjoyed.
My Lords, as I am following the noble Lord, Lord Soper, I hope that he will not think my speech very unspiritual if I do not refer to the religious side. I hope he will not think that I do not give complete regard to the importance of spiritual matters. I should not like my confessor to be my police constable at the same time, and I am directing my remarks purely to the temporal side, assuming that the Bishops and the clergy are doing all they can, as the noble Lord himself does so nobly.

183
I should like to go back to 1751 when Henry Fielding was a magistrate at Bow Street. He wrote a Treatise called An Inquiry into the Cause of the Late Increase in Robbers, in which he concluded that the growth of crime was a by-product of growing public wealth. In his experience, he said, "most thieves stole luxuries rather than necessities"; and how right he was! To-day, when few people in Britain are in real necessity, which is a thing for which we are all very thankful, it is a frightening fact that still there is so much crime committed with such success.
In 1966 alone, if I may mention a couple of boring statistics, some 55,000 people were found guilty of offences against property with violence. What terrifies me about this figure is that of these 55,000, some 32,000 were under 21 years of age. Of crimes against property without violence some 154,000 people were found guilty, of whom some 68,000 were under 21. Again, of the 200,000-odd indictable offences of which people were found guilty we find that some 45,000 of the offenders were in the 17 to 20 age group. That is very nearly 3 in every 100. When one considers that Dr. Leonard Radzinowicz, the Professor of Criminology at Cambridge, seriously thinks that the crimes which are known about and get published are only some 15 per cent. of all those which are actually committed, these figures become even more frightening, because at that rate we should have to consider that nearly 18 per cent. of this age group of 17 to 20 are involved in crime. So, my Lords, we are forced back again to the eternal question, "Why do they do it?"
Yesterday the Daily Mail published an opinion poll which was part of their inquiry into teenage activities, a questionnaire which was put to the 15 to 20 age group. They were asked why they thought that teenagers committed crimes. Sixty per cent. of those teenagers gave the Daily Mail the answer that it was because of boredom. I remember two-and-a-quarter years ago when speaking in a debate similar to this I said that the lack of respect of youth for authority was a constant danger to our society. I remember that the noble Earl
184
the Leader of the House said at the end of the debate that he regarded it as important at this time to combine our new-found liberties, which we all applaud as a sign of progress, with the maintenance of other adequate respect for authority which has always proved throughout the centuries to be essential to good society—a sentiment with which we all heartily concur.
But, my Lords, where is that respect for authority to-day? In the Observer last Sunday there was a little column which no doubt many of your Lordships read. It stated:
"… about sixty youths marched along shouting, screaming and chanting. They ignored policemen who were standing by and then started window-smashing. A paint tin went through the window of a crowded cafe. Seconds later, a brick smashed into a hairdresser's salon only yards away. Further down the road, a dozen youths charged into a sweet shop which was only sixty yards from High-bury Vale police station. This gang swept goods from the counter on to the floor and poured bottles of lemonade into an ice-cream fridge."
After all this, only one youth was arrested—just one person.
On the same day we read about football fans causing damage on a train bringing 300 Manchester United supporters to London for the Chelsea match. The toll of the damage done when the train reached Euston was terrifying. Three lavatory pans, one lavatory door, one outside door, four fire extinguishers and one wash basin were all torn out and thrown from the train. Three coathooks, eight windows, 73 light shades and 80 light bulbs were all smashed. The train, which was on a scheduled service, was boarded by the police at Stoke-on-Trent where there was a 40-minute delay. And again the police came on the train at Euston.
What was the end product of all this? No arrests were made. My Lords, it is incidents such as these which, when they are allowed to go unchecked, excite the young hooligans and give them a taste for further blood. Boredom was their trouble. They had excitement. The police were there and watching and going on the train, but they did not do anything. These hooligans had a taste for blood and so said, "Let's go". It is obviously therefore important that the railways and other authorities should either use their own police or ask for the loan of police from

185
other forces to guard against such well-known occurrences which always seem to happen on these days of great excitement at the great football matches.
My Lords, this brings us to the crux of the matter, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has said: the shortage of police. As has been said, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary has said that although we have a police force nearly up to strength we are still somewhere between 15,000 and 18,000 police short, as between the estimated needs and the actual police strength. In these circumstances we want to be certain that all is being done to recruit more men of the right type to the police force and that, having got them there, we keep them there happy, so that they will remain for as long as possible.
We all know that the Home Office has been doing everything possible to encourage a better type of recruit to the police force, and the police are to give further education. In the debate in July, 1965, I mentioned that of the then strength of 78,000 police, only 28 had attended university, and not all those were graduates. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could tell us when he winds up the debate what the position is today with regard to people from universities in the police force. I was very glad to see that this summer at University College, London, a sergeant who had been granted three years' leave on full pay and allowances got a very distinguished first-class honours degree in law, and that two other policemen on the same course got two very good second-class honours degrees. This is a very happy state of affairs, and we are all pleased to see this happen. Against this, I was unhappy to read earlier this week that a constable in Oxford, a graduate from a university, had asked to resign because he felt that he was doing too much feet-bashing on his beat. That is not to say that I do not appreciate that everyone has to learn how to patrol a beat, because without knowing how that is done no policeman, however clever and brilliant, will be able to command effectively.
I was going to draw your Lordships' attention to the Lancashire Chief Constable's report on his new beat system, but the noble Lord, Lord Reay, has "wiped my eye" with that one. I was
186
happy to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said about the extension of this system—that nearly two-thirds of our forces would have this scheme in action by the end of this year. But to rub this point home I would mention the experience of the Kent County Police, who had been having great trouble because of the increase in population, the increase in crime and the increase in the number of motor vehicles, with the resulting traffic congestion, et cetera. They put the beat scheme into action early in August this year at Folkestone and Gravesend, after various other experiments at other places. The result was, in their own words. "outstanding in its success".
This system has been adopted by the Birmingham police, and the deputy chief constable has been quoted as saying publicly that the morale of the force has never been higher. The men, he says, have a new interest and faith in themselves. Your Lordships may like to know that Mr. Whitrod, Commissioner of the Australian Commonwealth Police Force, mentioned in an essay which he published last year that the Metropolitan police tried out an experiment by bringing one of their twenty divisions up to full strength by borrowing 100 men from other forces. During the experimental period indictable offences fell and breaking-in offences fell by 32 per cent., when the other 19 divisions showed an average increase of 9 per cent. I think that these figures speak for themselves.
Although that success must be very gratifying to all concerned, the experiment shows that we must get more police. That leads me to the question: are we recruiting and treating the C.I.D. forces correctly? Is it necessary for the C.I.D. to conform to the national height rule of the police? Why should a man who is not 5 ft. 8 in. not make a first-class detective? I think that this must mean that many otherwise suitable people are excluded from giving useful service in this branch of the police. Would it not be possible for a separate C.I.D. force to be recruited? Is there any reason why this should not be done, provided that uniformed constables and N.C.O.s who show aptitude could still be transferred to that branch, so that it would not be a closed service?
I should like to mention what criminals may be getting away with. From

187
all the offences reported, it has been estimated that during 1966 very nearly £47 million was stolen in the United Kingdom. This is an increase of just over £4 million or 10 per cent. on the estimated figure of 1965. Of this £47 million only £91 million was recovered. This means that the receivers have ended up with a very nice haul of some £37,250,000 net, free of all taxes.
It might be interesting to compare our figures with those of the United States. Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, who is the director of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, reckons that they had some £428 million stolen. That is in the pre-devaluation value of the pound, and of course he gave the figure as 1·2 billion dollars. I have not done the arithmetic, but I take it from the report which I read. This £428 million represents just over nine times the amount stolen in the United Kingdom, but of course the United States has four times as many people to do and suffer the stealing and has about eight times our wealth. Mr. Hoover reported that some 55 per cent. of the loot was recovered, as compared with the recovery of only 20 per cent. in Britain.
This brings me to something about which I feel fairly strongly. I do not think that the insurance companies give enough reward to people who take proper precautions. This has already been mentioned in to-day's debate. Professor Radzinowicz has written that criminologists are not able, and never will be able, to solve the problem of crime—that sounds a bit trite but I think it should be stated—and he thinks it should be accepted that crime, to a large extent, is inevitable, being an integral part of society. That seems fairly obvious. It is also patently obvious that the greatest deterrent in all these matters is detection. Many noble Lords are experts in what happens to people who are found guilty and imprisoned, and I must leave the after cure to those who know more about it, like the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Mais. But, on this matter of detection, which we know is the prime deterrent, there is no question that our police forces have to get more support from the public as well as from the Home Office. We have to get back to the happy days gone by when the policeman was regarded
188
as a friend of all, and not, as now, as some bogeyman.
I have read that in the first month or so when the breathalyser tests were allowed by law, one in every seven persons who were stopped and asked to take the test proved positive. What I should like to know, though I realise that it is something which we probably never shall know, is what percentage of those other six were involved in real traffic offences and what was the other proportion who were just stopped casually or at random. If this sort of element were to creep in, I cannot emphasise strongly enough that such practices would sour the good relations of the police with the public to a pitch that would be fatal to any chance of getting the crime rate down, which is the earnest wish of all of us in this House.
7.19 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the "hat trick" of maidens we have had to-day, and also to my noble friend Lord Rowley for introducing this debate. Over this week-end, in preparing for to-day's debate, I spent some time in looking up and studying what various experts had to say about the cause of crime. I cannot pretend that I am very much wiser, and after listening to most of the debate this afternoon I still cannot pretend that I am much wiser. But, as the last speaker said, we are probably up against a problem that is going to be with us for a very long time. There seem to be as many theories about the causes of crime as there are skins on an onion, and I must say that the more I read them, the more my eyes watered.
I found a certain amusement in the views of some of the psychiatrists quoted in a book, The Roots of Evil, which I can recommend to your Lordships. One qualified psychiatrist raised the question of why a prostitute should steal money from her client. The answer from this qualified psychiatrist was as follows:
"A prostitute steals money from her client in addition to the fee she is paid because a prostitute is by the nature of her occupation a robber of men's strength. She steals their virility. Unconsciously, therefore, she seeks continuously to carry out this robbery of men in another form."
And he gave this startlingly new discovery the imposing name of a "castration complex". Sir Leo Page, who quotes this

189
in the book that I have mentioned—and he is a magistrate and barrister of great experience—said:
"If the problem baffles the doctor, it does not baffle me. In my view, she steals money from her client for one simple reason: she likes money."
Another example quoted in the same passage was of a young man who pleaded guilty to a charge of indecent assault on a young woman. The psychiatrist called for the defence said that the cause of the trouble was that the prisoner suffered from defective eyesight: this was the cause of the emotional disturbance which led to the crime. What the young man needed, said the psychiatrist, was not punishment, but a new pair of spectacles.
I quote these examples, not to pour scorn on psychiatric medicine and treatment (I have a high respect for people in this field, particularly men like William Sargent, who I think are doing great work) but simply to show that a great deal of rubbish can be talked, even by experts, in this field, and this helps neither the criminal nor the cause of penal reform.
There is, of course, no one cause of crime: this is a many-headed monster. But I have found a certain degree of unanimity on one aspect, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, in his remarks. If I can sum it up in a few words, I would put it like this. The attitude of mind of the criminal, "I see; I want; I take," is simply an extreme extension of a general attitude of mind which permeates the whole of society. I believe there is a great deal in this. You have only to look around to see that what we have built to-day, to a large extent, is not a compassionate society but an avid society, a greedy society, a grasping society, a success-ridden society. Individual success, measured in terms of material possessions and money, is the supreme achievement that you can get to-day. And "There's the rub".
In a country in which the basic philosophy is that a man must not only keep up with the Joneses, but emulate them, how does the man feel who has been left behind? What about the man who cannot be successful? Mr. Roy Jenkins (I was going to say "the Home Secretary") said in relation to this problem:
190
"Clearly the straightforward belief that crime was a function of poverty no longer holds good. The greater our affluence, the greater the volume of crime… To see affluence and opportunity around one and yet to be shut out from it may be a most potent cause of crime."
This was the theme of a Conservative Party pamphlet on crime, which said:
"The price of living in a society which emphasises achievement is widespread disappointment at the experience of relative failure… It appears that this general situation and the response to it are part of the explanation of the increased rate of crime."
I am bound to say that I think there is a great deal to be said for this view. If you add to that feeling of failure the natural aggressiveness and rebelliousness of young people, you have a truly deadly combination.
I have drawn attention in previous debates to the plight of the young people who are early school-leavers, the underprivileged majority: and this was touched on in her maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. If a young man is lucky enough and has the brains to stay at school until he is 18, or to be one of the few who have the privilege of going up to university, he is given all the privileges that go with it: tremendous facilities, not only for education but for sport and leisure activities, with fine meeting halls, fine sports grounds, coaches, training and everything he needs in a tremendous range of sport. But what happens to the boy who leaves school at the age of 16? We slam the door in his face. From that moment onwards society seems to say to him: "Our responsibilities are ended."
This is not the time or the place to develop this line of argument, but I am convinced that it is this neglect in this area which opens the door to vandalism, loutish behaviour and crime. The youth clubs do what they can to help this underprivileged majority, but they cannot do enough. It is like trying to clean up a flood with a mop. We make some pale imitation token gesture with what we call the Youth Service, which is manned by devoted and overworked people who have to cope with inadequate facilities and not enough money. There is this great underprivileged majority on the streets, bored—and we have heard this afternoon what that boredom can lead to.

191
If we are really thinking about crime prevention and trying to get to the roots of crime, let us for heaven's sake! stop talking about this problem, as we have done for years, and do something about the early school-leavers—do something about sports grounds, facilities, trainers, and so on. Let us get the adults recruited to help them in a great voluntary campaign. This, and this alone, in my view, will help to wipe out some of the vandalism and growing violence among the young people that we see to-day. We cannot, on the one hand, condemn vandalism and violence, and, on the other, do nothing so far as our responsibilities for these young people are concerned. Before we rush in too fast, and before we get too "pie" about this, ought we not to take a look at the example of honesty, clean living and respect for others which we show to our young people? Let me give your Lordships a few facts that I have dug up.
The manageress of a seaside hotel catering for upper middle-class people said that she had lost over 10,000 coat-hangers in fifteen years. A lavatory attendant in a men's cloakroom in a very "swishy" West End restaurant catering entirely for middle and upper class people said: "The soap, the nail brushes and the hand towels here are all mine. I have to buy them myself and keep an eye on them. If I did not the whole lot would go." The warden of a college offering advanced courses in further education said that there was a steady rate of loss of toilet rolls from lavatories. We all know that British Railways lose thousands of pounds annually through theft: they lose thousands of mirrors, ashtrays, window-blinds, cups, spoons and almost anything portable. In one women's dress shop in the West End over 5,000 garments are stolen each year—16 a day for every day the shop is open.
Mr. Charles Clore, when giving evidence to the Jenkins Committee on Company Law, was asked about "insider trading". I am not an expert on this sort of thing, but I understand that this is the practice of using information received in confidence as a director to make yourself or your friends a profit on the side—like using inside knowledge of a possible takeover bid to buy or sell shares
192
in the companies concerned and make yourself a killing. When asked if such purchases of shares went on, Mr. Clore said: "They often do. That is my experience." And in the last few frenzied weeks we have all had the doubtful pleasure of watching the financial speculators at work, indulging in that peculiar form of financial pornography known as profit-taking.
My Lords, I could go on, but I have said enough to show that the philosophy of "I see; I want; I take" is not confined to the young generation. We ought sometimes to look at the beam in our eye as well as that mote in our brother's. I would not want your Lordships to think that in all this I am excusing the criminal, because I am not. I simply feel that we might take an occasional closer look at our own health and our own values. If we did this, if we asked ourselves why crime is flourishing in Britain to-day, we might not be quite so comfortable and quite so self-righteous.
Certainly crime is flourishing, as we have heard. There is no problem of growth or productivity here. The point of real concern, as we have heard several times to-day, is the sharp increase in violence. The criminal is growing more efficient, ruthless and ambitious. He is adapting himself to modern conditions and uses the most up-to-date machines. I am not going into figures, because they have been quoted often enough this afternoon. But the frightening figures of the increase tend on the surface to support those who call for stiffer punishment of criminals and say that we are getting soft. My Lords, I do not hold this view. There is a tremendous danger of too much emotion entering into this subject; of motives of revenge on the part of society.
The fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever based on experience to indicate that stiffer punishments act as a deterrent—no evidence whatsoever. On the other hand, I am not sure that the evidence has been established the other way. What I am saying is that we ought to look at this matter coolly and in a calm way, and make a decision on the basis of the facts and what is best for us, and not on the basis of some tremendous outcry of emotion, because a man has committed a vile crime and the immediate

193
human instinct is for revenge. I take the view in this of the former Home Secretary. I want to emphasise what has already been said in the debate: that the best deterrent is the certainty of arrest and conviction.
It is here that I want to say a few words about that body of men on whom we depend, often called "the thin blue line". I welcome the steps mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, which we all know have been taken in the past two years to modernise and re-equip the police, many of which were started by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and particularly, as he mentioned in his speech, the creation of regional crime squads, which are having a spectacular success in tackling crime. I think we ought from this House, since we are talking about planned crime, to congratulate the police force on their magnificent success in breaking the notorious Richardson gang. This was one of the worst gangs of thugs and rats ever to infest London, and it took courage and patience and months of work to break it down. I am told by an informant, who at least ought to know, that the conviction of the Richardson gang had the effect of breaking up one other notorious gang, because they got the wind up, and it had a salutary effect on other members of the underworld and put a temporary check on their activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in his speech, took a side-swipe at writers—in the nicest way, I hasten to add—when he spoke about writers dreaming up organised crime and organised gangs. Well, I do not know whether my information comes from a different source from his, but an informant (the same informant), who ought to know, tells me that there are five major gangs still operating in the Greater London area. Membership is not a fixed entity, as in the old American "movies". Experts and specialists in certain aspects of crime move freely from group to group and are recruited when the need arises. But they are organised gangs, and plan jobs for months ahead: and because the stakes are so high they are prepared to go to the utmost lengths of violence.
What has arisen, inevitably, since crime is now such big business, is the agent, the entrepreneur, the middleman, the
194
"fixer". He operates behind a respectable front. He puts up the money, often supplies the information, brings the various specialists and experts together, and takes a "cut". He has his strong-arm men ready to use violence on a large scale to protect his interests if he does not get his "cut". That is going on. The police are aware of it. The police have the utmost difficulty in getting at these people because they operate, many of them, under a respectable front—in certain circumstances Richardson himself did. Nevertheless, we should not "kid" ourselves that everything in the garden is lovely, and that in fact there are no more gangs left.
The irony of the situation, in my view, is that to a certain extent we have played into the hands of these hoodlums. I believe there is a direct relationship between the increase in violent crime and, a; the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said, the introduction of the Betting and Gaming Act 1963, which Parliament introduced with the best of intentions. It has in fact become the "gangsters' charter". Anyone who has been to any one of London's casinos will be hard put to it to square what he sees there with the notion that Britain is a hard-up nation, or even with the notion that our hgher executives need more financial incentives. Thousands of pounds change hands every night. As a result, the protection racket is one of the fastest growing industries in Britain. It is from the casinos—not all, but some—that the fresh impetus to violence and gang warfare has come. And remember, my Lords, the casinos, with this tremendous exchange of money, provide a wonderful opportunity for the criminal to get rid of his "hot" money; or they provide him with an alibi for keeping it. I am glad that the Home Office is to take action in this Session of Parliament to curb these excesses. This is the sort of problem with which our police are faced, if we are talking about planned crime.
In the course of fighting this problem the police, as we know, take grave risks. We know it. We get up in Parliament and say sweet things about them; we applaud their courage and their devotion. But do we really understand and appreciate what policemen do for us? Let me give your Lordships one example. On February 11, 1965, two policemen, George

195
Russell and Alex Archibald, of the Cumbria Constabulary, tackled an armed gunman. Constable George Russell was shot dead. Constable Alex Archibald was severely wounded. For his part in this incident Archibald was awarded the British Empire Medal—and "fired" from the police force.
My Lords, this is what happened. Archibald was in hospital for eight months, and he has been back since for further operations. He was told by a police surgeon that he would never recover sufficiently to be able to perform full active police duties. For a while he was given light duties in various departments, with which he grew increasingly fed up, and then he was finally sent for and "sacked". The chairman of the police authority, when questioned by the Press, said:
"The time comes when we cannot carry some people on the books."
My Lords, I think that is about the most cynical phrase that I have heard. This was not "some people"; this was a constable who had tackled this gunman and risked his life. Yet he is described as "some people". and he is thrown off. It is not even as if he is a helpless cripple. He can walk, though he has constant pain in his right foot, and he can drive. It is hard for me to believe that there is not some reasonable job in a large police force on which he could be used.
The comment of the Police Federation Newsletter was this:
"Rightly or wrongly, this case has given the impression that the police will cast out their injured and their wounded."
I agree with this comment. I think the treatment of Archibald has been shortsighted and shabby. This young man, with a wife and two small children, went into a railway waiting room to tackle a gunman who had just shot down two of his colleagues, and he was armed only with a truncheon. He did this to protect us; and we repay him by throwing him out of the Police Service, and paying him the magnificent pension of £149 7s. a year. What sort of encouragement is this to give the police? Could you blame a young officer with children if, after this, he had second thoughts about tackling an armed gunman? I do not say that this procedure would operate in the police forces all over the
196
country, but I think that this is a pretty scandalous example and something in the way of an inquiry into it ought to be made.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has just said I should like to point out that we are more civilised in Wales, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, might endorse. We had a policeman there who was blinded. We collected thousands of pounds for him, provided him with a guide dog and guaranteed that for the rest of his life he should have a job that he could undertake, although he is blind. He is now in the police headquarters in North Wales, and all this was as a result of action taken by Colonel Jones-Williams.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sure the House was pleased to hear the intervention of the noble Lord but I ought to point out that he was doing one of the few things that are out of Order in this House; namely, speaking from the Bishops' Benches.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Willis, whether this case was not put up through the official channels and an inquiry made into it?
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I believe that the Police Federation are taking the matter up now. But the fact that it could have occurred at all is wrong, and I think, too (although I appreciate what the noble—and reverend—Lord, Lord Maelor, has said about collections), it is wrong that we should depend on public collections in this way. I am all for public funds to help policemen who are injured in the course of their duty—indeed, I am connected with a new one that is being launched by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. But for a man who has made such a sacrifice in the course of his service, and who can drive and walk, it is a great shame that he should be pushed out in this way.
There is another way in which we handicap the police and make their job more difficult, and that is in the conduct of criminal trials, which too often are weighted almost wholly in favour of the accused. I know that the police feel strongly about this matter. One of the

197
big problems is that the prisoner has the right to remain silent while his counsel is free to attack the police and the other prosecution evidence. Many police feel—and I agree with them—that there should be a stage in a criminal trial where the accused has pleaded not guilty when the judge should be able to decide whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case, and if he so decides he should be able to order the accused to make his explanation to the jury. A similar system works well on the Continent. It is time we got away from the idea that a trial is a sporting event, where rival counsel indulge in a jolly battle of wits. No one wants justice to be loaded against the accused man. But it is equally wrong that justice should be loaded against society and that a patently guilty man should be able to get away, after months of police work, by wriggling through the cracks in the law.
There is another side of organised crime in which we might give more assistance to the police. I refer to large-scale fraud, which seems to be on the increase. Often, as we all know, hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions, are involved. In these cases months of police work is involved, if not years, and there are mountains of documents to be checked. In one case that is still pending after three years, the police are wading through 14 tons of records. I believe that the Home Secretary should give special consideration to this growing problem to see what additional assistance can be given to the fraud squad.
Finally, my Lords, there is one other aspect which is important. If our police are to have the time to fight large-scale crime we must avoid loading them with trivial and often unnecessary duties. For example, in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which I believe is now in another place there is a clause which would require the police to inspect every smallholding in the country where extensive breeding processes are employed. If this clause goes through it will add an immense burden to some police forces, and it will make the police a sort of shuttlecock between animal lovers, on the one hand, and farmers, on the other. And this comes at a time when the whole trend in the police is to get rid of extraneous duties.
198
I believe that Parliament ought to give much more consideration to this aspect in any legislation. No businessman would think of launching a new product unless he was certain that his sales force and distributors could cope with it. We ought not to pass new legislation affecting police without consulting them, and without making sure that the demands we are making of them are not unreasonable. And I should like to see flat consultation extended beyond the chief constables and Commissioners, and to have some means of regular consultation with the Police Federation who, after all, represent 90,000 policemen, of all ranks, and have a great mass of experience at their fingertips.
I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to these points because, as some of your Lordships have said, this is a war which is being waged between professionals on both sides, and we have a clear duty to see that the police have something more than our sympathy, and something more than a handout when they are injured or killed. They are the only people who can break the crime wave, and the only way they can do it is with our support—and that means tangible support, and not just words of sympathy.
7.46 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the maiden speakers, who have made some enchanting speeches. I was very much impressed with the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, because when very intelligent people talk to me as a rule they do so as though they were trying to make it very simple so that I would understand. But she—a very intelligent woman—talked to me, and others, as though we were equals in intelligence, which I take as a great compliment.
When the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was speaking he took me back to my childhood, to the days of rags and tatters and barefoot children and starvation, and to the terrible conditions and dirt of those days which was largely hidden just under the surface. I was thinking about the complacency then of the established middle class, and I remember part of a poem which was a miller's advice to his scn. I rather like it because it is typical

199
of the rich local miller. I will tell your Lordships what I can remember of it:
"It isn't the rich what 'as money what breaks into 'ouses and steals,
Its the poor what 'asn't got a coat to their backs
And don't knows where to look for their meals,
You take my word for it, sonny,
The poor, as a lump, is bad."
I think that peculiar outlook was quite general. They thought—and we all thought—that the wretched people had to steal because they had no food.
The Welfare State has struggled, and the pioneers have struggled and they have brought us to the stage where I think everybody in this country (except the old-age pensioners, who seem to be left out, but in any case they do not steal, they are far too nice and respectable) can really get fat. Starvation point is over, yet crime has reached the top record that we have ever had in this country. It makes one think. It made me think for a moment that the Welfare State and all the struggles to get a better country had failed. I think what I am going to say will surprise your Lordships. However, I shall say it, because I believe it to be true. I believe that the capital gains of this welfare system are represented by the people of this country and particularly the young people—the people your Lordships have all been talking about, have said how dreadful they are, and how they take trains to bits very much like the Etonians after the Eton-Harrow match when I was a boy. I have met many of these young people and have talked to them. And when I spoke about their pop music I met a lot more—too many, perhaps! They can be divided roughly into two types. The first type represents the capital gains of this welfare system. They are splendid, they are well-educated, they are fit, strong, and full of ideas. The second type, on the other hand, are not half so good. They are the ones who have not made the grade—the ones we hear more about.
It is difficult to understand these people, the teenagers, because one gets these reflexes. I was brought up in some sort of code of behaviour, and they behave quite differently from the way I behave. One must not be shocked or surprised. It is very foolish to be, because I do not
200
even know whether my code is right; I was only told that it was.
The other day I saw the results of a Gallup Poll. In my youth if a person wrote a story he wanted to sell, he wrote a story about boy meets girl. After a few adventures they would get married, and perhaps he had kissed her on the cheek before they were married. The girl referred to in the Poll was asked about sex, and she said, "Well, it is something to do when you go out; you don't have to talk". That is a very different attitude, and it is very difficult for my generation, my romantic generation, to understand.
When you have divided these people into two classes, the first, the go ahead, the intelligent, the capital gains of the welfare system, all want to clear out. They are fed up with this country, they think it is no good, it is rotten, they will never get anywhere, and they want to go to Australia or somewhere else. Being the best young people we have ever had in this country, the most intelligent and the biggest number we have ever had, they will go. They will leave us with the second type of young people, the people who are just born to become professional criminals. Therefore, when these other people have gone we shall be left with a criminal class, to use a Manx expression, "The like of which never came upon us". And the solution is what? The boys and girls of the generation before this had National Service, and they have said the solution to it all is to introduce National Service in some other form. I will not go into what other form it should be, because it is late and I have talked enough, and I have said what I wanted to say; that is, that the problem of the future is the teenagers, the no good teenagers who are left behind.
7.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate the three maiden speakers and thank them for excellent speeches. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, for introducing this Motion. The noble Lord pointed out the very great increase in crime since before the war, and also during the last few years. He quoted the figures of indictable offences for 1966 as 1,199,807. The type of crime in which I am chiefly interested, as I have actually suffered

201
from it quite considerably, as have a great number of my friends, is larceny and burglary, and breaking and entering. If we break down these figures we find that for 1966 there were 1,050,000 offences of larceny, burglary, breaking and entering, and for burglary and breaking and entering the figure was 254,000.
We have had a very long debate, and of course a great number of things I was going to say have already been said. We have to combat crime. It can be tackled only in two ways: you have to eradicate the causes—but you cannot eradicate all the causes—and you have to ensure that crime does not pay. I was rather shocked to read that the Provost of King's, Cambridge, Dr. Leach, I think it is, was giving a Reith lecture the other day and he said crime had not increased at all: it was only the extra efficiency of the police in detecting crime. I quite agree that the police are extremely efficient, but the police certainly do not agree that crime has not increased. I can only presume that the Provost of King's has not been doing his homework. He said quite a few things that shocked me: for instance, that the break up of family life was of no concern, no consequence, and probably all right. I will not go on. Talking of young people, if they hear the Provost of King's talking like that you cannot very well blame the teenagers for some of their behaviour. It is a very bad example to them.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strange. He said that when he was a boy—of course, I am not quite as old as he is, so I cannot remember when he was a boy—people thought it was only the poor people who stole. Honestly, that is complete nonsense. I quite agree that the eighteenth century philosophers, Voltaire, Rousseau, and people like that, used to say that poverty was the cause of crime, but it has certainly been proved by events in the twentieth century that it has really no bearing on crime at all. As a boy I knew hundreds of extremely poor and humble people and they would starve rather than do anything dishonest. I really think the noble Lord is off the rails there.
We have heard a great deal to-day about the affluent society, and it may be that the increase in crime can be attributed to easy money. Quite a lot of people do get easy money from the State, and that may make them
202
lose their true sense of values. With the State providing so much free, perhaps it encourages some people to think that they should get a lot more free, and that may turn them to crime.
I was interested in what the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Soper, said. I think he was on the right tack regarding religion. I am not a great churchgoer myself, but I am quite sure that lack of Christianity is a cause of crime. If you take certain countries where the Church is very strong, Italy, Spain, the South of Ireland, you find very little crime there. I have been on an Irish racecourse, and two or three times I have heard over the loudspeaker, "Has anyone lost £5, or £1?" You would never hear that on an English racecourse. Why is that?
People say that perhaps the increase in crime is because of the crime portrayed on television, the very sensational programmes that we have, and also this tremendous flood of pornographic literature, some of it very sadistic. It has been said, and it still is said, that probably illiteracy has an indirect connection with crime, but I think in our modern society the reverse is the case. I think that when people of immature intellect who can read, read all this filth, it may put ideas into their heads to commit crime.
I breed a lot of animals and I know something about biology, albeit in an amateur sense. The first thing that we learn about animals is that if we overcrowd them they develop all sorts of unpleasant vices. That applies to animals or birds. I am quite sure that one of the basic causes of crime in this great industrial country is the vast conurbations that we have, sprawling across the countryside, which are a completely unnatural form of life for human beings. I am sure that that is one of the great causes of crime. This applies to other industrial nations too, but to a certain extent I think it applies more lo us. I will not go into that now.
I should like to see far more research into the causes of crime. I agree that we have the Institute of Criminology in Cambridge, but I should like to see far more research into the origins of crime, especially from the biological angle. We have learned quite a lot about environment. We are told that broken and unhappy homes are a fertile seedbed for crime. But I should like to find out

203
and know more about what part heredity plays in crime. I am quite sure it plays a part in crime, but it appears to be something that has been completely overlooked. I agree that it does not fall in with Fabian theory; but I know, from breeding animals, particularly horses that you can have certain lines which are rogue lines and you breed that strain out. I agree that it is not quite so easy with human beings. If it could be found out whether heredity has any bearing on crime, taking the instance of a particular person in a particular environment having an hereditary inclination to crime, I am sure it would be quite a break-through. Presumably, if one had a persistent criminal who was thought to be influenced by hereditary inclinations, one could do something about it biologically.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that there is no evidence whatsoever in this respect with regard to heredity? It may well be that someone whose father is a criminal may be brought up in a poor environment and have no chance in life. If the noble Viscount would reflect with regard to heredity, there are many distinguished Members of your Lordships' House whose ancestors committed quite serious crimes in the past; so, obviously, heredity does not count in that respect.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, when you breed animals you can choose from what you breed. I quite agree that with human beings breeding is not controlled. I agree that it is a difficult matter.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, is the noble Viscount suggesting that animals commit crimes?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: No. I was suggesting that some animals can have extremely had streaks ill them. They can have roguish streaks in them, and they can be extremely dangerous. But we can breed that out.
Perhaps I might turn to prevention for a moment. Of course, prevention is far easier than delving into the causes and trying to eradicate the causes of crime, because you cannot ever eradicate all the causes of crime. But surely prevention is only a question of how earnest the Government are in preventing crime,
204
or how efficient a police force they have, and how much money they are prepared to spend on that police force.
I was most cheered to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, tell us all about the great improvement in the police force from the point of view of computers, pocket radio sets, and extra cars and scientific equipment. But I should like to try to raise the status of the police force. I should like to have the force looked up to as a really élite force. I quite agree with several noble Lords who have said that many more graduates from the universities ought to be attracted into the police force. I hope that that will come about, because in regard to crime it is, after all, just as honourable to fight one's enemies in one's own land as to fight them outside one's own land. I have never really understood why, socially, an officer in the Armed Forces—I was one myself; I suppose we all were—is always looked upon as of far higher social standing than an inspector or somebody high up in the police force. We ought to get away from that, and I hope we shall.
I shall not be much longer, but I should like to bring out one other point which I think was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. It concerns helping the police to prevent larceny by locking up one's car, and that sort of thing. There is one point about this. If houses, especially those in isolated areas, could be made burglar proof, it would be of great help to the police. This is a quite expensive operation. It is perhaps not so expensive in a small house as in a large one. But I was wondering whether public funds, either from the rates or from some Government fund, could be made available to help householders to pay part of the expense of making their houses burglarproof. One would probably not have to give the same help to industrial premises because industry could probably afford to do this themselves, but I am sure that it would be a great help to householders.
The other point I would mention is the way in which wages are now paid. This point may have been already touched upon in the debate, but I feel that there ought to be a great drive to have wages paid by cheque. A long time ago I was stationed in Maryhill Barracks in the Gorbals area of Glasgow. If one was

205
duty officer, one had the unenviable job of going along the streets, accompanied by an escort to collect the battalion's wages in cash. It was very unpleasant, because you were in the midst of people who knew that you were carrying probably a couple of thousand pounds in cash, and there could have been a nasty incident. Surely some scheme could be arranged for employers to pay their wages by cheque. No doubt there would have to be some arrangements with the banks, though I should have thought that the average factory worker and wage-earner could get his wage cheque cashed at the grocer's or with a publican. I feel that if this practice were followed it would prevent many of the wage snatches which now take place.
That is all I want to say, since many of the things I was going to mention have already been said. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, and I think also the noble Lord, Lord Willis, brought up the question of amending the law on evidence in the courts. I know that some of the police feel that the dice are so loaded against them that, although they may get a person into court, if they have not actually seen him take the goods in question and do not find them on him, they can hardly ever get a conviction. This is most disheartening for the police, and I hope that something will be done by way of legislation to remedy the situation.
I conclude by saying that when one is dealing with hardened criminals one needs a stiff deterrent. I agree that one has to be very careful and understanding when dealing with young people and first offenders, but if hardened criminals do not receive a stiff sentence, and if you are too kind to them, they take it as weakness and laugh at you, and they will commit the offence again. I am sure that any Government of this country, of whatever complexion, which set out to tackle the increase in crime and to protect the general public from its consequences would win many votes.
8.15 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, it is late, and I will try to confine my remarks to as brief a compass as possible. It is now almost a truism that the best antidote to organised crime is certainty of detection. The difficulty is how to achieve that certainty. The noble Lord, Lord Rowley, in his admirable opening
206
speech went over, as also did the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, the various steps which had been taken in recent years to put the police in a better position to combat crime. They explored the subject so thoroughly that I should be taking up your Lordships' time unnecessarily if I went beyond saying that I agree entirely with what both noble Lords said. I should like to add, particularly in addressing the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that I thought he showed the greatest prescience in advising his colleagues at the time the Police Act 1964 was being framed, because by that Act he took from Parliament powers which made possible many reforms which have been subsequently carried out in the organisation of the police.
Amalgamation, better equipment, a higher status and encouragement towards a higher morale—all these things are essential. But I sometimes think that perhaps the public might do a little more in their attitude to the police in making it apparent to the police that they are indeed deeply grateful to every police officer for carrying out, on behalf of his fellow citizens, the difficult, very often dangerous and sometimes wholly unrewarding work which he has to do, day in, day out. In this country we are not perhaps very good at, or accustomed to, paying fulsome compliments. In some countries when they use the word "Non" they make you feel they are paying you a compliment. It is only when you read the language the next morning that you find it is somewhat disagreeable in tone. But I hope that in this country we might think it advantageous now and again to say a kind word which will make it apparent that our fellow citizens and each of us feel that the police are admirable in the service which they undertake on behalf of the community. It would encourage them; it would make them feel that they are doing work which has in it a noble quality. I am sure that this would put them in a better position to fight organised crime to-day.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Rowley and Lord Brooke of Cumnor, when they say that they feel the tendency to magnify the numbers of commanding intellects at the head of organised crime is somewhat overdone. I have never thought that it requires the genius of an Einstein to bang an elderly lady on the

207
back of her head with a piece of iron—and that is what a lot of organised crime consists of at this time. Therefore I content myself with saying that I think the most immediately relevant topic in this debate is what has already been said about improving the position of the police in combating crime.
I want to confine my remarks to one small point and that is work in prisons. I feel very strongly about the subject of work in prisons, because I think that it will diminish the pool of persons from whom those who subsequently engage in large-scale organised crime can be recruited. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham also feels strongly on this. Unfortunately as I had a semi-public duty to discharge elsewhere I missed his speech. However, having been privileged for some time to share with him responsibility in these matters, and having had the great benefit of his guidance and extreme wisdom, I know that had I been here I should have agreed with every word he said. On the subject of work in prison I know that he has always felt particularly keen. I feel that it is a topic specially relevant to this debate, for the following reason.
Every Minister of the Home Office, I know, goes to prisons and spends hours in them, trying to find out what exactly these people with whom one has to deal, and who disturb their fellow-citizens by constantly inflicting a harm upon them, are like. I think that probably those who have done this, and also those noble Lords who have not had responsibility but have interested themselves in the inside of prisons, may have gained somewhat similar impressions. Mine, at any rate, and I know those of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, are these. These people are the irreconcilables. There are those criminals who have some twist of character, perhaps originally their fault, perhaps contributed to by circumstance, which makes it almost impossible to bring them back within the pale of society. They are what I would describe as the irreconcilables. I put them apart. I leave them out of account for the purpose of the observations that I want to make. Apart from that, I have always found in my contacts with prisoners, which are very, very many, in prison (I have seen them in the courts,
208
but you do not get to know them in the courts; you get to know them when you talk to them in prison and try to discover why they have embarked upon a course of conduct which has set them at odds with their fellow-citizens) that there are so many who are broadly described as of inadequate personality. If by that expression is meant of abnormally low intelligence, then I think it is not an apt expression.
They are inadequate sometimes, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, because of the circumstances in which they lived in earlier life; sometimes—very often, in my experience—because they came from disorganised homes. Very often, for no ascertainable reason, they have fallen into an evil course of life. They have lost control of themselves; they have had evil companions; they have become utterly disorganised. They have done things for which they know their fellow citizens will not forgive them, and they find it very difficult to get a grip on themselves. To talk to them is often a revelation.
I always remember talking to one who was a burglar. I asked him. "Why did you burgle?" and he said, "Because the neighbours were saying very nasty, unkind things about me." So I said, "You mean that you burgled the neighbour's house in order to avenge yourself?" But the answer was, "Oh no! I didn't burgle the neighbour's house. I burgled somebody else's house." With that I gave up. It is a logic which I found was too abstruse for my very limited understanding. It indicated a mental muddle in that man's mind. Therefore I think it is of the utmost importance, if one is really trying to tackle this problem of combating crime, to do something to enable these people once again to get a grip on themselves. And I believe that one of the most effective things is proper work in prisons.
If they simply stay in prison without being fully occupied, then as each week goes by and as each month goes by, and they become more and more accustomed to never having to exercise their will power or to take a decision on their own, since they are told everything they must do, I believe that it becomes more and more difficult to bring them back within the pale of society. If they are set to

209
work, and if they are paid wages equivalent to the wages they would earn if they were working outside in factories, that is a stimulus and an incentive to build themselves up again, and to make themselves what I would call sensible, cooperating citizens.
The difficulty about this, as I learned—and I know the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, would agree—is that it would cost a great deal to pay them the same sort of wages in prison as they would earn outside prison, because the work done by prisoners in a prison workshop is, of necessity, of very much less value to the community than the same work done outside in a properly organised factory, where there is an efficient system and all the appropriate equipment. Therefore, if one wanted to pay them the same wage, it would mean—so I was advised when I was at the Home Office—an annual payment of several million pounds.
Ministers sit around the Cabinet table and they put forward unanswerable cases for higher appropriations to their own Departments. They look appealingly and hopingly at the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he looks ruefully and reproachfully back at them, and has, over and over again, against his will, to give them a Molotov-like, "No!". Perhaps that is more the case at the moment than at some other period of our history. But I hope that this state of affairs will pass and that it will be possible to expend more on the rehabilitation of prisoners and on lessening the recruiting pool for the more dangerous prisoner of later on. At the moment it is not possible, but I know that the Home Office and the Prison Department are doing their level best to raise the standard of work and to approximate conditions more to the sort of conditions that I have been trying to describe.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, with whom I spoke earlier, has authorised me to say that, to his knowledge, in the last three years the value of prison work has increased from £3½ million to £5½ million, and that within the last 12 months in very many prison workshops the output has increased by 25 per cent. That is all to the good. If and when it becomes possible, and to the extent that it becomes possible, to pay prisoners the same payment that they would get outside, I
210
should like to see their will and self-respect, so far as it is possible to restore self-respect within the prison precinct, restored by some arrangement of the sort I shall now describe. They should out of their wage first contribute to the cost of their own keep in prison, then to the cost of the keep of their families outside prison, at present provided from public funds. They should have a small amount of pocket money, and something should be put by for them when they come out of prison, so that they could come out of prison not penniless. I believe they should make a payment—not a large payment—to a general compensation fund which would be available, together with the other funds now dispensed, for the purpose of compensating persons who are the victims of injury in consequence of the commission of crime.
To be realistic, of course, the payments would probably have to be somewhat compressed, but I believe that if a prisoner worked day in and day out, knowing that his work was remunerated on the same sort of basis as it would be outside; that it was valued accordingly upon the same footing; that he was contributing to the keep of his family and himself; that he was not, as it were, sponging in prison, and outside prison through his family, on his fellow-citizens: and that he was making some payment to make good the damage—I do not say necessarily to the full extent of 100 per cent.—that he has done to some innocent, harmless person by his wrongdoing, then I think it would go a long way to setting the foundation for the building up again of his will—his will to row with society, instead of rowing against society. It would also begin to teach him that life can be far pleasanter, far more satisfying, far richer, if he bends his effort to help and serve his fellow-citizens, than if, in order to gratify his own selfish desires, he inflicts harm upon persons who have never done him any wrong.
Those are the observations that I should like to make. I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will agree with what I have said, and I am glad to see him nodding his head. We have had very many fruitful conversations in the past when we worked together, and I always look back on it with pleasure and feel grateful to him for the very great help he always gave me.
8.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, who possessed every quality of a great Home Secretary, except any instinct for self-advertisement and of all the qualities which make a great Home Secretary, perhaps that is the least desirable. But he left a great record there, as we all know, and thanks to him and to the Lord Chancellor, more than to any other two men, capital punishment was abolished. The whole of our penal reform is likely to flow from the two famous White Papers that were issued during his time.
I come back, if I may, to one of his main themes. But first I should like to congratulate, as we have all been trying to do, the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, upon his extremely vigorous and constructive introduction of this subject. Some years ago there was a group of us in this House who became known as "the Crime Club". We got used to making the same speeches; we knew each others speeches fairly well; and the thing had become rather a closed circle; but it is delightful to see somebody coming from the field of world politics, such as my noble friend, Lord Rowley, and breaking into all this and widening our ideas. I extend, if I may say so without patronage, the same kind of welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who has not figured in so many of these discussions in the past. He comes before us, perhaps, as the devil's advocate: at any rate, as the exponent of an older point of view. If he will allow me just one comment, which I am sure he will not take amiss, we know he has an absolutely first-class mind, but when an absolutely first-class mind gets into a rut it is much harder to shift than a second-class mind, and I think we are going to have a lot of trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, before we are finished. But I shall also come back to some of his arguments a little later.
My Lords, it has been a notable day for the Home Office. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary have changed places. They are both men of outstanding ability, and, above all, men blessed with the power of decision. I do not think anybody could deny that that particular quality, which is not very common in top politicians or in any other
212
walk of life, is one with which Mr. Callaghan and Mr. Jenkins are both richly endowed. We speed Mr. Jenkins on his way and we are grateful for what he has done, but we welcome Mr. Callaghan to the circle, so well aware that he has taken an enormous interest in the problems of the police and has helped the police a lot; and as perhaps the outstanding topic in this debate has been our desire to show our gratitude to the police and to encourage the police, his appearance on the scene is particularly appropriate just now. I would only add, in all seriousness, that if I had had my choice as to a Home Secretary I should not have had to look very far from my noble friend Lord Stonham beside me; but we realise that in these days a Peer cannot be Home Secretary, and in those circumstances I am sure Mr. Callaghan was much the best choice available.
My Lords, we have listened to three outstanding maiden speeches. Baroness Birk has been compelled to leave. I persuaded her to speak, although she warned me that she would have to go, and she makes many apologies. But we have listened to three maiden speeches. I cannot remember when we have heard three maiden speeches on one day in this House before, but I am sure that we have never at any time in our long history listened to three such good maiden speeches on the same day. I feel that, between them, they could really make a complete team of penal reformers and crime preventers. There was the ardent, burning spirit of Baroness Birk, with which she gripped the House; the delightful inside knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter; and then Lord Mais, with his hard, masculine common sense. All three were listened to with the greatest possible interest.
We have also listened to two former Home Secretaries, both very distinguished; and although the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, like the noble Lord, Lord Reay, has been answered very fully by my noble friend Lord Stonham, I want to say just a word about the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, at the end. But may I now deal, not at any length, not in any adequate fashion, but quite concretely, with one side of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill? He gave figures, which I need not repeat, of the

213
great increase in production in prisons, and he asked about prisoners' earnings. He set out—and nobody knows it better, although my noble friend Lord Stonham knows it just as well—the difficulty of this problem of increasing prisoners' earnings. I will give him just one or two facts. At one prison, Kirkham, practically all the prisoners engaged in manufacturing industry, about 200 men, have been placed on incentive schemes, which enable them to earn up to £1 a week instead of the previous maximum of 11s. The sum of £1 a week is not very high, but it is not quite so ludicrous as the figure they used to receive, and it is nearly twice what they were receiving, so I think the efforts that he, my noble friend Lord Stonham and Mr. Jenkins have been making have borne fruit. Productivity at Kirkham has gone up by around 26 per cent. in less than a year, and the saving to the Exchequer is of the order of £14,000 in a full year at that prison alone. Similar schemes are being introduced progressively in other prisons; so we are making some progress, although I am sure we should all like to get on very much quicker.
I will not detain the House with very many statistics about crime, but I think that perhaps I should give one or two. We can, at any rate, draw a little comfort from the fact that the increase in crime has slowed down; an optimist might even begin to think that it is about to drop. From 1946 to 1955 the amount of recorded crime fluctuated, with movements both up and down. As to the position from 1956, curiously enough we began to debate crime and prisons in this House about 1956—actually in 1955—but I am afraid that from that moment onwards there was an increase in crime every year. I do not think there was any connection, but there was an increase for about ten years. Now, at last, this increase is very much less. The latest figure for the number of indictable offences known to the police shows an increase of less than 2 per cent. over the corresponding period of 1966. It is less than 2 per cent. up; while in the years since 1956 the annual increase has been between 6 per cent. and 14 per cent. So at last we see a few glimpses of light.
It is in fact difficult, as Home Office Ministers are aware, to single out the category of organised or planned crime.
214
It is not a category exactly known to the criminal statistics. But it is true that if you took crimes involving large sums of money and crimes of breaking and entering which involved large sums of money, the increase in those crimes has been faster than the increase generally; end robbery has gone up faster than other crimes. On the whole we can, as I say, draw some encouragement from these recent trends. I do not know how optimistic we ought to be. Nor do I now whether most of the House are aware that the birth-rate began to move upwards, quite unexpectedly, at just about the same time as the crime-rate began to move upwards—that is, about 1956–57. Rather more than a year ago the birthrate began dropping. The crime-rate is steadying; and, to be optimistic, we think that is beginning to drop, too. I leave it to noble Lords who are statistically minded to say whether this is a pure coincidence or whether they can detect the beginnings of a correlation. But it is a curious fact, all the more curious because in neither case was this increase foreseen and in neither case were the beginnings of a drop foreseen. However, I leave that for the House to brood on.
A number of speakers dealt with the police from certain points of view, and, of course, from this Bench my noble friend Lord Stonham has said all the most important things on that subject already. I am reluctant to do this, but I feel I must say a word in reply to my noble friend Lord Willis about Police Constable Archibald, the police constable who was injured in this heroic exploit. I feel I must say this because I imagine that the noble Lord's remarks will be widely publicised, and it would be wrong for a Minister to let that go without making any comment. I gather it was discussed fully during an Adjournment debate in the other place last week. So these facts, or most of them, may already be on record. But I must tell the House what the facts are.
Police Constable Archibald will in fact receive a pension of about £3 a week based on a scale determined by a medical assessment. If he does not take another job he will be eligible for additional social security benefits amounting to about £12 a week. He has already received more than £2,000 from the

215
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and other funds. The police authority are prepared to give him a desk job; but he says he is a man of action and that a desk job would not interest him. He wished to set himself up in the licensing trade. I do not want to belittle in any way this man's heroic conduct or to play down the sympathy that we must all feel for him; but those are facts which must be stated from this Box in view of what my noble friend has said.
LORD WILLIS: I thank my noble friend for saying that. Surely, in a case of this description, here is a challenge to any police force, and particularly any personnel or welfare officer. My noble friend has just said that he is a man of action. I should have thought that any reasonable police force would have been able to find ways and means of using in some way this man who, as I said, can walk and drive and is mentally alert. I notice that my noble friend made no reference to the phrase, the unfortunate phrase, used by the Chief Constable when he said, "There comes a time when you cannot carry some people". I think that was a pretty poor reward for what Police Constable Archibald did.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am not going to pursue this matter further. The noble Lord is on record in two interventions on this subject, and I have stated the position of the Government. There was one remark of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, with which I agreed wholeheartedly. In some ways it was, to me at least, the most important remark made during the day. He said that we slammed the door in the face of the underprivileged majority of our young people. I think that is the key to many other things discussed to-day. He knows very well my interest (which I share with so many here) in youth and of the various studies that I might be or am now conducting. I am sure that this will be a headline in my mind for many a day.
The noble Lord, Lord Strange, felt that we were not neglecting the majority so much as the minority. But he agreed in a sense with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, about the failure of the community to do anything like what we ought to do for the younger people in
216
need of help, and he placed his own emphasis on that as lying at the root of crime. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Willis, was not unduly discouraged by his reading in the course of the weekend. It is now over twelve years since I wrote a book on the causes of crime. I must not say I am rather gratified—I do not know whether I ought to be disappointed—to know that not a lot of progress has been made in this matter in the meanwhile. I have kept an eye on the subject for a good many years. It is difficult to arrive at generalised conclusions but I would say I do not think these studies are wasted. I believe that if one has a general background of the kind of factors which produce a criminal then, when you have a particular criminal in front of you, young or old, you will be more likely to be able to help him than just to rely on some hunch or the traditional wisdoms. I hope neither of us has been wasting our studies.
My Lords, I come now to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton. I see he has been promoted since he made his speech; or, at any rate, he has returned to the Front Bench. I know he was a Front Bench man before, but his position has been confirmed since he made that speech. He raised one point in particular; it was about the number of graduates recruited into the police service. There are various figures which I could give him in correspondence, but I think perhaps the most interesting thing for the House generally is to know of the existence of the Working Party under Mr. Taverne, an Under-Secretary of the Home Office, which was set up earlier this year to consider the recruitment of people with higher educational qualifications into the police service. It recommended a special scheme for attracting up to twenty specially selected graduates a year. Advertisements produced over 400 inquiries, and over 80 graduates have so far applied to join under this scheme. I do not know how many will be selected. At any rate, the Home Office and the noble Lord are thinking in this matter along the same lines.
The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, to whom I must apologise for having missed his speech, dealt among other things with drug-smuggling. As he is aware, all police forces have now one specific officer for dealing with problems relating

217
to drugs. The larger forces have drug squads, and in places where drug smuggling might occur close liaison has been established with interested bodies such as Customs and Excise, the Coastguard Service and similar connected bodies. Again, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that the Home Office is thinking in the same way.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, made various interesting points, but he made one rather novel suggestion—new, at least, to me. It would be rather hard to give effect to; but it was eminently wise. He asked why it was that police officers are regarded as socially inferior. I am not quite sure who decides or assesses these matters, but I think most of us will understand what he meant when he said that when one talks about "an officer and a gentleman" one does not mean a police officer but an Army officer. It is something which has to be eradicated. I do not know whether he can have any influence in these matters at some future date if his Government come into power. He may think I should do something about it, but I must say it had not occurred to me before. I do not think that any police officer of distinction has ever been ennobled. That is a very strange thing.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: There was Lord Trenchard.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Yes, I agree; but I do not think Lord Trenchard was ennobled for service to the police. After all, he was the greatest airman of his generation—some people would say of all time. I think he might have been ennobled for that. However, I think there is a great deal in what the noble Viscount has said, and we ought to see whether something could not be done about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, dealt in such expert fashion and humorously, too, with the whole subject of security, that nothing I could add would be of value. He wanted to be sure that the Home Secretary will give due weight to the views of expert bodies such as the British Security Industry Association who have contributed so much towards crime prevention. I came down here on behalf of the recent Home Secretary to give him that assurance. I assume that I can give it still on behalf of the new one.
218
I think he can take it that this assurance can be given. In fact, after the speech of the noble Lord—and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, confirms this—he can be certain that the right kind of priority will be given.
Then there were the very wide-ranging subjects opened up by the noble Marchioness, Lady Reading. I will not try to comment. I am not in a position to comment fully or, indeed, at all adequately, on her recent Report. We discussed the earlier Report in an important debate at the beginning of the year, and her recent Report is being actively studied. I do not think she will expect anything; she knows the ways of Government Departments. She rightly insists that we should all move a great deal faster than we incline to in the official world, but I do not think she would expect a Government pronouncement on the second Report this evening. It came out only two months ago. Naturally we are most grateful to the noble Marchioness for her prodigious labours, and we certainly accept the full importance of voluntary work. I hope I have not got to say that again. She knows that at any rate I and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, are particularly interested in voluntary work in this field. I can assure her that the Government as a whole will reaffirm and reaffirm again their view of the immense significance of the contribution that voluntary effort can make. We are all very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, back. He is here at ten minutes to nine; but had he been here at ten minutes to three, I would have avoided a very awkward quarter of an hour.
As I was saying of the noble Marchioness, Lady Reading, she sees this subject in the biggest way. She sees hostels in particular (though there are other forms of voluntary action) as an alternative, a leading alternative to prison. I hope, if I may say so respectfully to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that he will ask himself anew whether perhaps there is something in this other alternative. He comes at it rather from the angle of saying that the prison system does not work now. Here is an alternative which could be very much more productive if properly used—much more fruitful than any form of incarceration. I will not say what we have said here so often in the

219
past, but we are all well aware that prison is a wrong solution. If you wanted to cure somebody's character you would not lock him up in prison with a lot of other men with characters as depraved as his own. That is not at all the way in which you would dream of curing someone in whose welfare you were interested. It is therefore adopted, as we all know, only because people have not been able to think of anything else; that is the historic truth of it. In the absence of execution, which was recommended by the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, at any rate in extreme cases; in the absence of mutilation, transportation, the stocks and one or two other things, prison is what we have settled for. But it is a very bad way out, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has told us before now. So I hope that all who are disturbed by our prison system will give very great attention to the alternative suggested by the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Mais, raised points which really need fuller treatment than I can give them now. He wonders whether use could be made of the detention centres for first offenders over 21. It is not for me to say that there is nothing in such an idea. If the noble Lord, Lord Mais, thinks that that should be pressed, we must give the Home Office a chance to have a very good look at it but I am afraid that the first reactions are unfavourable. But that is often the way in Government Departments—the first reactions are unfavourable. It is felt that the suspended sentence provisions of the 1967 Criminal Justice Act are supposed to keep people out of detention, and therefore it is not suggested, at least not at the moment, that there is any great inclination to push them into some detention, even if it is a slightly more attractive form of life than incarceration in prison. I can assure the noble Lord that I am not trying to kill off a suggestion of that sort with a few rather hasty words. The noble Lord lays great stress on the Probation Service, and this, I know, is common to the whole House, and certainly to the noble Marchioness.
I was looking at some words used by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, during the Third Reading of the Criminal
220
Justice Bill, and almost the last point which he drove home when that Bill was going through your Lordships' House was the fact that whether it did much good or came to anything in the future depended to a large extent on whether we got the probation officers to operate it. That has been the emphasis in my own mind for many years. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, gave figures recently on this matter and I will not go into them tonight and repeat them again, or develop them, unless anybody asks me to do so. I have a lot of figures about the development of the Probation Service now, but I am certainly one of those who are not satisfied (and that is true of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham) at the speed at which we are developing the Probation Service. If anybody says we are not developing it fast enough, well, agreed; we are not. I can only say that it has been an encouraging year on the whole, and although we do not expect now to hit the target of 3,500 by 1970, we hope to hit it in 1971. However, let us all agree with the noble Marchioness that we ought to go faster and faster still.
That brings me towards my conclusion, although it will take me a few minutes to leave the Box altogether. The question has often been raised in this House of whether our national attitude to crime in the community is worthy of a Christian country; and when I talk here of Christianity I am thinking of a Christian ethic which I hope (and I am sure it would be) is subscribed to by leading Humanists. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, raised our minds to those heights to-day, and again and again we come back to this question. I feel myself—and this again is a point which came out in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor—that here the quantitative problem cannot be divorced from the qualitative.
With crime increasing so rapidly in these last ten years—at any rate until just recently—with so many of our prisons stuffed to overflowing and with the whole body of our social workers strained to breaking point, there has been a grave danger that the new enlightenment would not get a chance, and, indeed, that it might be written off as a failure before it had had an opportunity of proving itself. It has been equally clear that the resources required for a successful policy

221
will never be forthcoming, from this nation or, for that matter, from any other nation, until an approach on the intellectual and moral side has been worked out that will really satisfy the nation. So intellectual and moral progress must go forward together with material progress, or neither will take place at all.
I would claim that this is at last beginning to happen. The material side is improving, and our thoughts and understanding are growing steadily more civilised. But we are faced with someone who comes to us, like the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and begs leave to doubt the whole approach. Well, my Lords, it is a free country, and we have not reached the point where I have, or anybody else has, any right to demand acquiescence from a noble Lord who differs. But may I put this to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and to anyone who says that people should spend more years than ten in prison? I wonder whether the noble Lord knows any prisoners who have spent more than ten years in prison. I happen to, and there are others present who happen to. Does the noble Lord realise that that is destroying a man so that you get to a point where the noble Viscount beside him, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, says that it is better to close a man down, to liquidate him, because it is such an inhuman existence? I would never agree with that. I think that whatever penalties you inflict upon a man, you have no right to take away his life in cold blood. But I do agree with the argument that you are steadily degrading a man.
The noble Lord must agree that if he had a friend who was put in prison for ten years he would expect that friend to be a much worse man at the end of that period than when he went into prison. He might, by the grace of God and with exceptional good fortune, emerge unscathed. But prison, in the long run, is a force which is going to cause human deterioration. Without going too deeply into the theory of punishment—though on that subject as well I have written a small book—I would venture to submit to the House that, whatever one's theory of punishment, any punishment, if it is to be a just punishment, must include some effort to reform. I quite realise that we have to pay very great attention
222
to deterrence but there must be some effort made to reform; and if you keep a man in prison past a certain point, and it you stiffen the conditions as the noble Lord would have us do, I am afraid you are moving in the opposite direction.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I particularly addressed my argument to the need for protecting society against incorrigible rogues who have spent the whole of their lives in organised crime and have deliberately taken to it. I hope that I shall have an answer as to whether or not the Lord Privy Seal agrees that where there is some dangerous criminal who is still young enough to resume his life of crime, he will be kept in prison beyond ten years, even if it does result in some deterioration in his own nature.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am not going to give the noble Lord any such assurance. I know one gentleman who would probably qualify under the noble Lord's heading and who has been working outside prison for quite a long time. If the noble Lord is serious about this—and I know him to be a serious man—I should like him to meet this chap, and then give me his opinion afterwards.
My Lords, I should like to say one word to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, on the subject of a permissive society. Here, I need hardly say, my thoughts are my own, and I have no reason to think that they come into conflict with those of any of my colleagues. But when we talk about a permissive society, we mean one of three things, although we cannot always separate them. We may mean a society that distinguishes more sharply than before between crime and sin, that still condemns certain offences though, for some reason, they are no longer regarded as criminal—in other words, a society which approved the Wolfenden Report. That is one form of permissive society with which I go along, certainly in some cases, though not in all.
Secondly, we may mean (and this is how I think the noble Lord understood it) a society which actually restricts the area of sin: for instance, a society in which pre-marital fornication is no longer regarded as a sin and no longer to be condemned; a society which loosens or

223
relaxes the moral law. If the noble Lord is condemning that kind of society, I join with him in that condemnation.
But in the case we are considering here surely we are becoming a more permissive society, in the sense of a more compassionate society. That surely is something we must be proud of. To-day we are prepared to be more compassionate than ever before. But certainly blind compassion is not enough. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that there must be as much compassion for the victim or potential victim as for the delinquent. I will not describe in this House my activities on behalf of the victims, but I took an initiative in this matter not so many years ago. Again, when we are talking about the delinquent himself, blind compassion is not enough. To talk of the contrast between the soft and the severe régimes is to put it much too crudely.
Although our ideas improve, we must not think of giving a man an easier time in prison, though the relics of past brutality must be eliminated, or think of giving him a quick exit without much regard to the total effect on his character and on what happens to him after that. I would say that the only unforgivable sin is to forget the criminal; to try to banish him from our minds and concern; to forget him while his life is going wrong, before he takes to crime; to forget him while he is tucked away in prison, and to forget him when he comes out, until he commits another offence.
After this debate, the thought that more than any other remains in my mind is that our attitude is the opposite of that, and that there is a tremendous concern in this House—which on this occasion, at least (though I would not say it is always true), is, I believe, representative of the nation—for the delinquent and the citizen who may be his victim. I am sure that none of us is proud enough to claim to have the right answers, but I believe that we are moving towards them and that we shall all be most grateful to my noble friend Lord Rowley for starting this notable debate.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, am I to have no answer to the four questions I put?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am afraid that the answers,
224
while precise, will not carry the noble Lord very much further forward this evening, though they will not necessarily disappoint him. One of the matters of which the noble Lord gave notice—namely, the advance disclosure of alibi defences—has already been attended to, but all the other points on criminal evidence are included in the Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee review; namely, the admissibility of evidence of convictions, of previous misconduct, and the extent to which the accused should be required to give evidence and expose himself to cross-examination and the extent to which the judge or the prosecution should be entitled to comment if the accused does not give evidence. The Committee are not expected to report for some little time, and the Government must await their advice before deciding what further changes are needed in this important and difficult area of the law. I apologise to the noble Lord for keeping him waiting for that reply.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that the number of noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and the high quality of the speeches have made the debate well worth while. I hope that this view will be shared by my noble friend Lord Stonham, who is doing such conspicuous work as Minister of State for the Home Office. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

CAPITAL ALLOWANCES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at seven minutes past nine o'clock.