Sitting of 11 March 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TEESSIDE CORPORATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
GREATER LONDON LOCAL RADIO AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  WALSALL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

    WELLAND AND NENE (EMPINGHAM RESERVOIR) AND MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL (By Order)
    WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
    WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

    Ancient Monument Laboratory
    Mr. Peter M. Jacksonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he proposes to take to improve the facilities available at his Ancient Monument Laboratory; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Robert Mellish): In view of the amount of work which has to be done within the Laboratory the complement has been increased from 11 to 17. Action is being taken to bring together the various parts of the Laboratory into a single unit.
    Mr. Jackson: Whilst I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply and his decision to set up an O and M inquiry into the conduct of this department, may I nevertheless ask him whether he agrees that there has been a very considerable backlog of work? I am told that objects have waited 10 years before examination. There is thus an estimated 30 man-years' backlog of work with the Laboratory's previous complement of staff. May I take it that that backlog will be worked through? Can the House be given an assurance that staff will be appointed to keep up with the increasing volume of work which will come the way of the Laboratory?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should put his questions briefly.
    Mr. Mellish: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Michael Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that, thanks in some measure to the efforts of his Department, Stonehenge is the most visited ancient monument in Britain today? Will he make every endeavour to ensure that the efforts of his officers are not set at nought by those who wish to place a high voltage overhead line in the vicinity of the monument?
    Mr. Mellish: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says, and give an assurance that when the matter reaches me, as I expect it will very shortly, I shall take account of the fact that Stonehenge is one of our greatest monuments.

    Levens Park, Westmorland (Scheduled Sites)
    Mr. Peter M. Jacksonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will schedule the earthworks reputed to be the lost monastery of Hefresham situated in Levens Park, Westmorland.
    Mr. Mellish: About 12 sites in Levens Park have already been scheduled. The Department has sponsored an excavation of some of these: but this has revealed no evidence to identify or connect them with the lost monastery of Hefresham. If further significant sites are discovered, I will consider scheduling them.
    Mr. Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can he give the

    1141
    House an asurance that should the motorway go through, and should the monastery be discovered, he will undertake a crash excavation programme before the remains are destroyed by the motorway?
    Mr. Mellish: Should any important site be discovered which had implications for the road scheme I would certainly undertake to discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and should bring home to him very forcibly the importance of such finds—if we find them.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that the threat to these earthworks has caused great dismay both at home and abroad? Will he follow the excellent example of the Minister of Transport, who visited the site a week ago?
    Mr. Mellish: I do not mind visiting the site, but this is all about a lost monastery that has not yet been found.

    Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act (Government Premises)
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if, in view of the need to improve health and safety at work generally, he will enforce without delay the standards of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act in all Government premises.
    Mr. Mellish: This is my policy in conjunction with the Factory Inspectorate of the Department of Employment and Productivity.
    Mr. Watkins: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind how important it is that the Government, as an employer, should clearly be seen to be setting an example to industry on the importance of health and safety at work?
    Mr. Mellish: I take the point, and must concede at once that the conditions under which some of our civil servants work are an absolute disgrace. It is about time we improved some of them.
    Mr. John Hall: Does the Minister agree that the conditions under which staff work in the Palace of Westminster are deplorably below the standards laid down by the Act? Will he take steps to make this place an example to other employers?
    Mr. Mellish: I would hope that staff in this House, like staff elsewhere, will join their appropriate trade union and make their representations in a proper way.

    Mann Committee (Reports)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on his consultations with the building trade unions about the Mann Reports.
    Mr. Kirkasked the Minister of Public Building and Works upon what criteria he based his decision not to publish the second and third Reports of the Mann Committee; and whether he will now reconsider that decision.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the inquiry into work at the Bournemouth depot of his Department, undertaken in the light of the Mann Committee Reports.
    Mr. Joplingasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the second and third Reports of the Mann Committee.
    Mr. Mellish: I am having discussions with the trade unions, both centrally and in the regions, and I am meeting them again next Thursday. As soon as these consultations are completed and I have decided on my future policy, I will make a statement. I am not publishing the second and third Reports of the Mann Committee because supplementary inquiries have since been conducted not only in the Bournemouth area but over the country generally. All this material will be considered as a whole before policy decisions are taken, and announced.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Do not the Mann Reports bring out the unsatisfactory productivity in the right hon. Gentleman's direct labour force? Have the unions discussed with him in his consultations the problem of the lower pay which direct labour tends to provide as compared with private enterprise?
    Mr. Mellish: The second Report of the Mann Committee has a sample survey

    1143
    of a number of my depôts. To find out whether the conclusions reached were correct, I have undertaken a national survey and have carried the trade unions with me, and we have almost completed it. In the light of those conclusions I shall have to take certain decisions and then perhaps report to the House. Until then, I am not prepared to say anything more on this.
    Mr. Kirk: Was the Bournemouth survey typical of the rest of the country? If so, why were further surveys necessary?
    Mr. Mellish: That is not so. The depôts in my regions throughout Britain are quite different from each other in their types of work. In some of the services direct labour is very much cheaper than contract labour and vice versa, in other regions. The principle has been accepted and we are applying it across the country.
    Mr. Ridley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the public have an interest in knowing what these Reports said? If he is spending public money wastefully, surely the providers of that money should be told about it. Will he agree to publishing the Reports?
    Mr. Mellish: There have been three Reports. The first was on contractual arrangements, and this we have largely implemented. The second was a comparison between direct and contract labour. The third was in connection with incentive bonus schemes. These were Reports to a Minister about his own Department. They were only sample surveys. I have many people in my Department who have been employed there 30 or 40 years and it would be totally wrong of me to allow a Report of this kind to be published in this form without my having done a detailed survey to find out if it is even accurate.
    Mr. Jopling: But the Report has been leaked to at least three newspapers and now the right hon. Gentleman is conducting negotiations with the trade unions. Surely Parliament has a right to know these things. Will he not tell us what the Report contains?
    Mr. Mellish: I have done no leaking and I am doing what I think is right, as Minister, that I should do. I discussed the sample survey with the trade unions
    1144
    and got their goodwill. On the basis of that, I am conducting a complete national survey. I shall not publish the Report until I believe that it is absolutely right and justified so to do.
    Mr. C. Pannell: As the Minister responsible for the first Mann Report, may I urge my right hon. Friend to stick to his line of policy, on which he has consulted me? Is he aware that, if we were dealing with the professions—medical, teaching, architectural or anything else—we would pay sufficient respect to them to see that they were properly represented? Does not he also agree that here we are dealing with people who have spent a lifetime of service in Government industry?
    Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend is on the point. I am dealing with the livelihood of about 31,000 people, many of whom have been employed by my Department for as long as 30 or 40 years. I am not going to be party to the publication of a Report which could convey the impression that the vast majority of my men are uneconomic, since this is just not true.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: I want to revert to the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). There is some concern in the House, which might be well worth bearing in mind for the future, about the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has kept the House in the dark about this while he has, it seems, opened his mind to the technical Press.
    Mr. Mellish: A lot of what I have read in the Press is not accurate, although it is said that there have been inspired leaks. But I will give the hon. Gentleman an example of my policy. My Department employs 170 people at Londonderry and is going through the same procedure there. Would he like me to publish some report about those men suggesting that they are inefficient? Should I sack the lot without investigating such a report?
    Mr. Marks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that efficient direct works departments are the last thing that hon. Members opposite want to see and that, where such departments are efficient, as in Manchester, they will seek to destroy them

    1145
    in the interests of their own financial backers? Is he further aware that the Conservative Chairman of the Manchester Direct Works Committee has resigned in protest against his own party's decision to reduce the department and sell off its depôt facilities? Will he consider purchasing this depôt and using it in the interests of the public?
    Mr. Mellish: I know the problem being faced in Manchester by the direct labour department and it is a tragedy that this highly efficient labour force has to be dismantled not for economic considerations but purely on political grounds. This is why I, as Minister responsible for over 30,000 men, want to be certain that any statement I make to the House is backed by facts and not by suppositions.

    Building Research Station
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what further consideration he has given to the undertaking by the Building Research Station of scientific experiments which would have commercial possibilities for the construction industry.
    Mr. Mellish: I should expect most research and development with commercial promise to be undertaken by industry itself or by the research associations to which it subscribes. The Building Research Station has done, and will continue to do, some projects of this kind, but B.R.S.'s main function is research that brings benefits to the national economy, to government building programmes, and to building users as a whole.
    Mr. Crouch: I am grateful for that reply. I recognise the splendid work done by the Building Research Station. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it fully aware of the commercial possibilities resulting from such scientific and experimental work?
    Mr. Mellish: Yes, Sir. The Station does work on projects with commercial possibilities—for example, the development of compressed concrete panels, which are now manufactured under licence, and glass fibre reinforced plaster components. Industrial concerns are interested in both of these. Some of the by-products of the research certainly have commercial potential and the Station
    1146
    makes its findings immediately available to those who may be interested.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Out of some 100 projects less than one-fifth seem to show commercial possibilities for the future. Should not the right hon. Gentleman look at this proportion?
    Mr. Mellish: The benefits of the work done at the Station go very much wider than those projects which are able to be exploited commercially. For example, there is the benefit of the improved code of safety for buildings, and their fitness for purpose in their general environment. Industry appreciates this kind of thing as well. I may add that private industry does a great deal of research of its own and it is the function of private industry to look after itself.
    Mr. Heffer: Is it not the case that, on occasion, research projects which would be extremely commercial have not been taken up by commercial firms?
    Mr. Mellish: I am sorry that some of the work going on at the Station is not being more commercially exploited at present.

    Building Maintenance (Committee's Report)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the interim report of the Committee on Building Maintenance; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Cleggasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the report of his Department's maintenance committee.
    Mr. Mellish: This Report was published in January and I am following up all the recommendations which it contained.
    Mr. Crouch: The right hon. Gentleman has not given the answer I thought he was going to make. I hope that he will not consider setting up still further bodies to handle this kind of work when we already have the Building Research Station, for example.
    Mr. Mellish: I take the point. The Report was the first of its kind and it is only an interim one. The Committee is working on studies leading to its final

    1147
    report. Consultants have been retained to examine costs and benefits of maintenance and the rest. We are doing a useful job already on the interim Report.
    Mr. Clegg: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in relation to the urgency of doing something about this, the impact that the Housing Bill will have, with its grants for maintenance, in view of the great benefits which can be derived from this?
    Mr. Mellish: I take the point. There is consultation between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and my Department on the whole question of maintenance.

    Bricks
    Mr. Kitsonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) whether he will make a statement about the current stock of bricks;
    (2) what progress he has made with his consultations with the brickmakers regarding the current stocks of bricks.
    Mr. Mellish: I met representativies of the recently reconstructed Brick Development Association on 6th March, when I had useful discussions on stock levels amongst other matters.
    Mr. Kitson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman going to give the figures?
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman did not ask for them but I will give them. At the end of January, the stocks of bricks totalled 760 million.
    Mr. Kitson: That is in my Question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorkshire (Mr. Kit-son) has asked his supplementary question.
    Sir Frank Pearson: In view of recent publicity, I had better declare a personal interest in this Question. In view of the bad weather during February, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that stocks at the end of February are likely to have been higher than in January? Will he consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether steps can be taken to make mortgages more easily available?
    Mr. Mellish: I met the Brick Development Association and we discussed this matter recently. I reminded it, and I
    1148
    remind the House now, that early last year I gave the predictions for brick demand in 1968 based on the available statistics. The industry did not think that the figures were realistic and over-produced. The figures I gave were correct. The industry must learn the art of controlling its production to meet anticipated demand.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) asked two Questions, which the Minister said he would answer together. He answered only one of them, and my hon. Friend pointed this out. With great respect, he has not asked his supplementary question.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Can you give guidance to the House, Mr. Speaker? My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson), in asking a question, very courteously said that he wished to declare an interest. I recollect that it has not been the custom, at Question Time, for hon. Members to declare an interest—only during speeches. I know that these matters are under consideration, but in view of one or two remarks from the other side of the House, which you probably did not hear, I think that your guidance will be helpful.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear any remarks but it is to be regretted if there were any. I should have thought that it is a good thing for an hon. Member to declare his interest.
    Mr. Kitson: Are not these figures too high, since private housing starts are dropping seriously and are likely to drop even more with an 8 per cent. Bank Rate? When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to see the stocks cleared?
    Mr. Mellish: One of the problems was the appalling weather in January and February. I understand the problems of the brick manufacturers. One thing that could be done is to make earlier housing starts. I am in consultation with the Ministry of Housing about this. It is up to the industry to be clearly aware of the future demand and to produce accordingly.
    Mr. Costain: Would the right hon. Gentleman admit that, before the bad weather of January and February, the stocks at the end of December were 50

    1149
    per cent. more than the previous December? Has not the brick industry some reason for concern?
    Mr. Mellish: That is exactly what I am trying to say—that it was last March when I told the industry of my Department's view about the demand for bricks. It did not believe the figures and over-produced. I cannot say that people have to use bricks. Some people, including some famous firms that I know, use a lot of concrete.
    Mr. Ford: Will my right hon. Friend agree that we would be using up these stocks much more quickly if Conservative-controlled councils would reverse their policies and build houses?

    Construction Sites (Transport Act, 1968)
    Mr. Joplingasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what undertaking he has given to the construction industry regarding the effect on productivity of the proposals for operators' licences in respect of vehicles normally based on construction sites contained in the Transport Act, 1968.
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Minister of Public Building and Works, what undertakings he has given to the construction industry regarding the effect on productivity of the proposals for the reduction of drivers' hours on construction sites contained in the Transport Act, 1968.
    Mr. Mellish: None, Sir.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware of the assurance which the late Mr. Swingler gave the House on 21st October, when he said that discretion should be used on construction sites? Will he say what method he intends to use to make all licensing authorities aware of the assurances given by the late Mr. Swingler? Will he use a circular or some other method?
    Mr. Mellish: During the passage through Committee of this Measure I made facilities available to the industry for expressing its point of view, which was clearly understood by the Minister of Transport, and my friend the late Mr. Swingler. The assurances that he gave then are still there. I do not see that there is any problem over the operators'
    1150
    licence affecting productivity. The same applies with regard to drivers' hours. If there is anything further that the industry wants me to do, it has but to ask.
    Mr. Royle: Will the Minister make special regulations for building sites, as driving conditions are different there from those on the main roads?
    Mr. Mellish: We cannot buy productivity at the expense of safety. Safety is the object of the provisions in the Act. The hon. Gentleman's Question relates to driving hours, and the reduction in these hours will be introduced in stages, subject to progress on negotiations over productivity.

    Public Building Programme (Estimates Committee's Report)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a further statement on recommendation 6 in paragraph 35 of the Fourth Report of the Estimates Committee entitled, "The Public Building Programme in the United Kingdom."
    Mr. Mellish: No, Sir. I have nothing at present to add to the observation on this recommendation published in January in Command Paper 3886.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does the Minister recall that this recommendation about a rolling programme for the public sector was made by Sir Anthony Part as long ago as October, 1967, when the Estimates Committee endorsed it? Why is he being so leisurely, and why is he confining it to Government office building?
    Mr. Mellish: Whatever my faults, I am not the leisurely type. The Estimates Committee reported that long-term programmes raise many difficulties and we cannot expect quick answers. I accept the desirability of a stable programme of work stretching over a period and we are trying to do this in my Department. We have to co-ordinate with other Government Departments and industry.

    Selective Employment Tax
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a further statement on the impact on the construction industry of Selective Employment Tax in 1969.
    Mr. Mellish: No, Sir. I have made no statement on this matter, and it is much too early to do so.
    Mr. Osborn: Bearing in mind that mortgages are getting more elusive, does the Minister appreciate that the tax is putting up the average cost of a house by £100 to £150 and increasing the cost to industry, which needs the work, by £120 million? Will he make representations to the Chancellor about S.E.T.?
    Mr. Mellish: The Chancellor knows the views of the industry about S.E.T., let there be no doubt about that. He is very much aware of them. In spite of S.E.T., and all that flows from it, housing output last year was the highest in the history of Britain.

    Building and Civil Engineering Industries (Council and Committees)
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will seek to arrange a joint meeting of the National Consultative Council for the Building and Civil Engineering Industries and the Economic Development Committees for the Building and Civil Engineering Industries under his chairmanship.
    Mr. Mellish: No, Sir.
    Mr. Fortescue: Would not such a meeting be of a fairly manageable size, since the membership of these three bodies is practically identical?
    Mr. Mellish: I was not expecting that supplementary question—I think the answer is "Yes, it should be."
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will place in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the agenda of the last meeting of the National Consultative Council of the Building and Civil Engineering Industries, indicating which items on the agenda are not within the terms of reference of the Economic Development Committees of the Building and Civil Engineering Industries.
    Mr. Mellish: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Silvester: Will not that agenda show that the terms of reference of these bodies are very close, except in respect of wage negotiations? Is there, therefore,
    1152
    any good reason for continuing both bodies?
    Mr. Mellish: I can talk here for my own National Consultative Council. There is a very good reason for it continuing. I have reorganised it and it is now doing a good job of work, with working parties. The difference between the E.D.C.s and my own N.C.C. is that people who are on my N.C.C. are representing organisations and industry, whereas on the E.D.C.s they represent themselves.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: As there is very little difference between the terms of reference of both bodies, and as eight members sit on both, would it not be a good thing to keep the N.C.C. and consider, with the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends, whether the other should not go the way of all flesh?
    Mr. Mellish: The "Little Neddy" is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, and it is now awaiting the appointment of chairman. If there is the will there is the way, because there are those who are very anxious that "little Neddy" machinery should be used to great advantage.
    Following is the information:—
    MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS NATIONAL CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF THE BUILDING AND CIVIL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES.
    Agenda of Second Meeting held on 18th September, 1968
    *1. Minutes of the First Meeting.
    *2. Matters arising from the Minutes:—

    (a) Representation of the Scottish National Federation of Building Trade Employers on the Council.

    (b) Building Research Station Jubilee.

    3. Report of the Working Group on Metrication.
    *4. Report by the Chairman of the Standing Consultative Committees.
    *5. Report of the Steering Committee on the Registration of Builders.
    6. Report of the Working Group on Exports.
    7. Trends in Construction Activity.
    8. Proposed Appointment of a Working Group on Coding and Data Co-ordination.
    *9. Appointment and tenure of membership of members of N.C.C.
    *10. Any other business.
    * Items outside the terms of reference of the Economic Development Committees for the Building and Civil Engineering Industries in whole or in part.

    Metrication Board
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what evidence his Department has submitted to the Metrication Board; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellish: No evidence has yet been presented formally to the Board by my Department, but a great deal of information is available about metrication in the Government building programme and in the construction industry at large. This will be submitted to the Board very shortly.
    Mr. Fortescue: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is over seven months since the establishment of the Board was announced? As we now have only a chairman and vice-chairman and one full-time member, and as construction contracts are to be designated in metric terms on 1st January, is it not time that the Ministry got a move on?
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman is talking to the wrong Minister. This is a matter for the Minister of Technology. As far as I am concerned, my own Ministry has done, and is doing, a first-class job. We have set up our own metrication committee to investigate the whole problem and my Ministry has gone metric. We are doing a very good job.
    Mr. J. H. Osborn: Can the Minister state whether progress is satisfactory and whether there is adequate co-ordination? Is the industry lacking guidance, and does he not have responsibility here?
    Mr. Mellish: I must admit that I will be very glad when the Board is appointed. I am most anxious to ensure that the construction industry has a first-class representative on the Board. Immediately it has had its first meeting we will be in a position to advise it on all that we have done and are doing in the construction industry—and it is a very good record.

    Building Research Station
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Minister of Public Building and Works by what methods he exercises control over the staffing of the Building Research Station.
    Mr. Mellish: As elsewhere in the Ministry, by annual allocation and staff inspection.
    Mr. Silvester: Without detracting from the work of the B.R.S. at all, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not concerned at the rate of increase in staff? The staff has increased substantially over the last 12 years. Is he satisfied that the increased expenditure has been worthwhile?
    Mr. Mellish: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that there are too many staff? I will give him the figures. In 1966–67 there were 599 non-industrials. The total today is 626. That is not a great increase. Bearing in mind the sort of work which the station is doing, it is carrying out a first-class job.

    Construction Industry (Research and Information)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he proposes to publish a report on the Construction Research Advisory Council and on the Construction Industry Research and Information Association.
    Mr. Mellish: I have accepted a recommendation by the Estimates Committee that in 1970 the Ministry should publish a report to show how far the Construction Research Advisory Council and the Construction Industry Research and Information Association are achieving the purposes for which they were set up.
    Mr. Osborn: Can the Minister give an indication of the progress which has been made so far? Can he confirm that this is a voluntary effort? Will he give a report on the progress of the Underwater Engineering Group, of which this organisation is a member?
    Mr. Mellish: C.I.R.I.A. already publishes material on certain aspects of its work. I hope that before 1970 it will be possible to publish some of the papers presented through C.R.A.C. Both these are voluntary bodies. We must get as much good will as we can from this. I note what the hon. Gentleman said.

    Labour-only Sub-contracting
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will introduce a clause into all future contracts made by his Department with

    1155
    private firms to the effect that there will be no labour-only sub-contracting by them.
    Mr. Mellish: As my hon. Friend will know, I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity are at present having discussions with both sides of the industry on the recommendations of the Phelps Brown Report. Meanwhile, my Department is chairing a thorough interdepartmental review on labour-only sub-contracting with the co-operation of representatives of the unions and employers. I cannot anticipate the results of these negotiations.
    Mr. Judd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would he agree that within the sphere of his own Ministry fairly urgent action is necessary to overcome the problems relating to standard of workmanship and the evasion of tax and Government regulations, which is seriously affecting the morale of his own employees?
    Mr. Mellish: I understand that. My hon. Friend will know that there is what is known as National Working Rule 8 of the National Joint Council of the Building Industry which warns of the dangers of using self-employed labour-only subcontractors. Whether this is being fully observed, I am not sure. But to ensure that Government contractors understand this we are immediately sending out a circular to try to strengthen it. Meanwhile I am having discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity about Phelps Brown generally.
    Mr. Speed: Will the right hon. Gentleman treat this matter with great urgency? He may be aware that recently in Coventry the Department of Employment and Productivity carried out a survey and found that there were many contract fiddles going on all over the city. A great deal of money is being lost to the taxpayer and social security through these abuses.
    Mr. Mellish: I am grateful for the the hon. Gentleman's support. When we introduce legislation, as no doubt we shall apropos Phelps Brown to deal with
    1156
    this menace, I hope we shall have his full co-operation.
    Mr. Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that several local authorities have introduced such a clause into their contracts and that it can be implemented by the clerk of works having authority to investigate the National Insurance cards of sub-contracted employees?
    Mr. Mellish: A lot can be done. What we must do is not to outlaw labour-only sub-contractors but to legalise the matter so that if anybody is employed under such conditions he pays his full tax liability.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Would the Minister take every opportunity to make clear the sharp and necessary distinction between labour-only sub-contractors who observe Working Rule 8 and those irresponsible groups of self-employed people whom neither side of the industry smiles upon?
    Mr. Mellish: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We can use general terms and ignore the fact that some labour-only is quite legitimate and proper. Our problem is how to define the matter and how to make the spivs of the industry pay their debts and dues.

    Dredgers
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will give the number, size and type of dredgers owned by his Department; and where they are operating.
    Mr. Mellish: My Department owns two bucket dredgers and nine grab dredgers of various sizes. Eight of these craft operate in the United Kingdom and three overseas. Full details—which are too lengthy to enumerate—will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate the joy with which his Answer will be received by the House? Does he admit that this is one of the least-known activities of his Ministry? Is his Ministry doing any research on dredging?
    Mr. Mellish: I do not know about that. As far as I know, I have more ships than

    1157
    most admirals. I have eight dredgers stationed in the United Kingdom and three dumb pontoon dredgers stationed

    Length (in ft.)

    Capacity (cubic yards per hour)

    Name or identification

    Type

    Location

    265

    750

    St. Albans

    …

    Self-propelled chain bucket hopper dredger

    United Kingdom

    195

    865

    St. Ives

    …

    Self-propelled chain bucket dredger

    United Kingdom

    175

    400

    St. Giles

    …

    Self-propelled double grab hopper dredger

    United Kingdom

    137

    200

    St. Martin

    …

    Self-propelled single grab hopper dredger

    United Kingdom

    168

    400

    Servitor

    …

    Self-propelled double grab hopper dredge

    United Kidgdom

    70

    200

    W.11

    …

    Dumb Pontoon grab dredger

    Singapore

    70

    200

    W.12

    …

    Dumb Pontoon grab dredger

    Malta

    70

    200

    W.14

    …

    Dumb Pontoon grab dredger

    United Kingdom

    70

    200

    W.15

    …

    Dumb Pontoon grab dredger

    Gibraltar

    70

    200

    W.17

    …

    Dumb Pontoon grab dredger

    United Kingdom

    61

    200

    W.20

    …

    Dumb Pontoon grab dredger

    United Kingdom

    Agrément Board
    Mr. Cleggasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a further statement on the work of the Agrément Board.
    Mr. Mellish: In appraising and certifying new construction methods and materials, the Board is making a valuable contribution to the acceptance of new ideas in the construction industry. The record of certificates issued to date—three in 1967, 21 in 1968, and five so far this year, with a firm prospect of over thirty more at the present moment—is evidence of a growing realisation by the construction industry and its suppliers of the value of the board's services.
    Mr. Clegg: I thank the Minister for that progress report on the Board and the valuable work it is doing. Would he keep an eye on the fees which it is charging to ensure that the public expense involved does not grow too much while fees are kept down?
    Mr. Mellish: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. This is one of the great problems. In the early days costs are that much higher than they are, I hope, later when that much more work is done and costs can come down. We have to give the Board a grant in aid of about £60,000 in the current financial year, but I hope that eventually it will be self-supporting.
    overseas. As far as I know, they are doing a very good job.
    Following is the information:

    Building Labour (Registration)
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement on his proposals for the registration of building labour.
    Mr. Mellish: I have no firm proposals about the registration of building operatives. This is, however, a matter which I hope will be considered by all sides of the industries.
    Mr. Costain: As this matter has only just started to be considered, is it not regrettable that on 25th February there was a Press leak to the effect that the Minister was in favour of registration?
    Mr. Mellish: I had a Press conference in which members of the Press asked me how I saw the future of the industry. Talking ahead and of the Utopia which I will not live to see, I dreamt of the day when building workers and employers were registered and when there were decent conditions, decent hours and decent wages. That is a long way ahead.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while he is at the Ministry we do not take the same dismal view of the future that he seems to take? Would he not agree that we already have in the holiday credit scheme an ample growth point for achieving the registration of building labour which could be developed and used for this purpose quite speedily?
    Mr. Mellish: I am obliged. I am not interested in controls. I should have thought that all progressive employers would welcome a labour force which was registered and a system whereby minimum rates counted as minimum rates and site arguments and problems could be eradicated. If we want to achieve that in an industry of this size we have to have registration. All progressive employers accept that. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman does not.
    Mr. Heffer: Is it not time that the casual nature of the building industry was ended once and for all and there was genuine security for building operatives? Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are problems concerning craftsmen who work in a number of industries? Therefore, when this matter is discussed, would he ensure that this problem is taken into account?
    Mr. Mellish: Yes. But some of the craft differences, too, have to be settled. If we are to continue the old system of yesteryear in which one man is that much better than another, I do not know that I agree with my hon. Friend. A system of registration is well overdue.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: In the right hon. Gentleman's dreams about which he told us just now, did he not leave out one "decent", namely, a decent Government as well?
    Mr. Mellish: I can only say that if we get a Tory Government that will be a dream gone bust.

    Metrication
    Mr. Speedasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he is satisfied with the progress towards metrication in the construction industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellish: Yes, Sir. According to the British Standards Institution's latest report, metrication in the construction industry is proceeding in fair accordance with the agreed programme. A considerable proportion of public sector work entering the design stage this year will be in metric measurement.
    Mr. Speed: I thank the Minister for that reply. Earlier he said that his Department was doing a first-class job
    1160
    in this matter. Does he share my concern that a recent G.L.C. survey showed that 95 per cent. of building material manufacturers were not using metric conversions in their sales literature?
    Mr. Mellish: That is a weakness. This is one of the problems which my own Metrication Committee is looking into—the problems of metrication thrown up by the people at the top. We expect to initiate about 460 metric projects valued at £125 million this year. I can only answer for my Department. We are genuinely doing a good job.

    Building Costs
    Mr. Speedasked the Minister of Public Building and Works how his Department obtains information about increases in building costs; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellish: The Board of Trade collects monthly information from manufacturers on the costs of a wide range of building materials. The Department of Employment and Productivity collects monthly information from contractors on labour earnings. From these figures my Department compiles an index of the current cost of new building which, during 1968, rose by about 4 per cent. The increase would have been greater had the industry not succeeded in absorbing some of its extra costs.
    Mr. Speed: Will the Minister now, with the squeeze and the other measures which have been taken, say by how much he expects costs to rise this year?
    Mr. Mellish: I cannot say that until I am in a position to be reasonably accurate.

    Tate Gallery
    Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he will announce his decision in relation to the Tate Gallery.
    Mr. Mellish: Consultations are continuing with the Board of Trustees and with Ministers of the Departments concerned. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 20th February, it is more important to reach the right answer than an excessively quick one—[Vol. 778, c. 759–62.]
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: I welcome the Minister's reply, but will he say when a decision is likely to be reached?
    Mr. Mellish: No, I cannot. The trustees of the Gallery are in consultation with my right hon. Friends and myself. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall work with all speed to try to get an answer as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Ogden: As a large proportion of the treasures of the Tate languish almost permanently in its cellars, would not it be an inexpensive exercise to get them out of the cellars and into the regions of the country?
    Mr. Mellish: That is a point of view. The trouble with this argument is that there are so many points of view.

    Construction Costs
    Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Minister of Public Buildings and Works what will be the effect on construction of the latest monetary measures; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellish: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the recent rise in Bank Rate. It is too early to say how costs might be affected by this measure.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: May not this have a serious effect on the liquidity of small firms which may, if they are able to borrow at all, have to pay 10 per cent. interest, and will not it affect the private house building programme by making bridging loans even more difficult to get than they are now?
    Mr. Mellish: I have no doubt that it will create problems for many of the smaller builders, and I understand that. I am advised that if the present Bank Rate were to remain unchanged for as long as a year the extra cost for a private house builder, for example, would be just over ½ per cent. I take the implication of the other problems and realise that a high Bank Rate will necessarily hurt many people in a small way of business.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: As the Prime Minister has said that house building should come first, is not there a strong case for transferring private house builders to the priority class for bank loans, and will the Minister make representations along these lines?
    Mr. Mellish: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. He referred to the Prime Minister; he could ask the Prime Minister a further Question.

    Changing of the Guard Ceremony (Coach Park)
    Mr. Michael Heseltineasked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many coach parties of tourists came to see the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace daily, last summer; and what arrangements for parking coaches during the ceremony he is making.
    Mr. Mellish: No record is kept of the number of coaches which enter St. James's and Green Park for the Changing of the Guard. At the request of the traffic authorities, coaches are permitted to park in Constitution Hill for the duration of the ceremony.
    Mr. Heseltine: Is the Minister aware that 75 parking places are provided in Constitution Hill, and that on some days in the summer up to 140 coaches arrive for these places? Is he aware that there is a growing demand for parking places because of increasing tourism—[Interruption.]—and will he conduct a survey to see whether further places can be provided?
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman will understand that in the midst of the birthday greetings to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I am not sure whether I understood his question. Is he asking for more spaces or fewer spaces?
    Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order. Am I permitted to repeat the question in view of the Minister's reply?
    Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman had better do so.
    Mr. Heseltine: As only 75 spaces are provided on Constitution Hill for the 140 coaches that arrive on a high summer day, and as this is a growing tourist market, will the Minister conduct a survey of areas around the Palace to see whether additional parking spaces can be made available?
    Mr. Mellish: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not asking me to sacrifice parkland for this purpose. As long as

    1163
    he clearly understands that, I am quite prepared to have a survey. I regard our parks as absolutely sacrosanct and, if I had my way, I would keep all motorists out of all of them.

    Paving Materials
    Sir R. Russellasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he is aware that some materials used in paving, such as smooth bricks and tiles, are very slippery when wet and dangerous to walkers, especially disabled people who depend on the help of a stick; and if he will take steps to provide that the construction industry, local authorities and property owners should have such surfaces roughened.
    Mr. Mellish: It is useful that the hon. Member should have drawn attention to this matter, and I hope that those concerned will take note of it. I have little direct responsibility in this field but I will ensure that appropriate reference is made in the revised version of the pamphlet on "Access to Public Buildings for the Disabled" which the Department will be producing in consultation with other organisations.

  MEMBERS' REMUNERATION
  Mr. Lubbockasked the Prime Minister if he will enter into discussions with the Opposition parties with a view to revising the method of remuneration of hon. Members, so that within the same total expenditure, payments vary with the productivity of Members, in accordance with Her Majesty's Government's policy for incomes.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have noted the suggestion with interest and shall be glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman about his ideas for measuring the productivity of the sector of the community he has in mind.
  Mr. Lubbock: May I wish the Prime Minister many happy returns of the day?
  Is he aware of any other occupation in which the harder one works the less remuneration one receives? Is not this process the opposite of the rules laid down by the Government in their successive prices and incomes policy White Papers? Will he have discussions through the usual channels with Opposition leaders to set a good example to the
  1164
  community instead of going against the Government's own policy?
  The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the preamble to his question.
  In reply to the rest of the question, the hon. Gentleman will recognise the difficulty of measuring productivity here; whether, for example, it might be by Divisions, in which case are organised abstentions to count; by the number of Questions put on the Order Paper, or respectively the number of those which are actually put in the House; by the attendance on Standing Committees. There are so many ways of doing it that it might be difficult. But if the hon. Gentleman, who has given a lot of thought to this, will let me have a memorandum I shall certainly study it.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Despite the felicitations to the Prime Minister on his birthday, may I ask whether he would agree that this is a singularly inept and silly question at this time, and that, if the small group of hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal benches were to be paid for results over the last 30 years, they would get nothing at all?
  The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I feel in the spirit to reply to that question in the manner in which it is put but, knowing my hon. Friend's record, I would have thought that on any test he would come out very well financially.
  Mr. Peyton: Is the Prime Minister aware that not all the wishes that are extended to him for happy returns cover the tenure of his present office? May I also ask him if he will refrain from applying the principle contained in this Question to Ministers, since one maxim that we have all recently learnt is, the busier the Minister the greater the menace?
  The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and for the spirit in which he put it. The latter part of his question, which must have taken a lot of working out, is one of the oldest jokes in our Parliamentary business. He will have noticed the figures I recently gave to the House about the productivity records for last year in relation to production and in relation to productivity. If he wants that test applied to Ministerial pay, I will be prepared to consider it.
  Mr. Dickens: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, whereas real wages in this country have risen by 10 per cent. since October, 1964, the salary of Members of this House has fallen by £530 in real terms over the same period? Is he further aware that this has caused some hon. Members to look to sources outside Parliament to subsidise their incomes, sometimes in a very dubious way——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. A question must be brief, not a speech.
  The Prime Minister: I cannot connect the second part of my hon. Friend's question with the first part, and I do not think that many hon. Members would wish that he had done so. In reply to the second part of the question, these are matters which have to be considered. In reply to the first part of the question, I have had representations on this point from my hon. Friend and others, none of whom will recognise more than he the difficulties of dealing with the problems which he has outlined.

  INVESTMENT GRANTS (ADMINISTRATION)
  Mr. Lubbockasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to coordinate the work of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Technology in the administration of investment grants with a view to eliminating anomalies in their payment, and to speeding up the application of computers.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends already work closely together on these matters.
  Mr. Lubbock: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Computer Service Bureaux Association has been engaged in correspondence and meetings with the Board of Trade ever since last May, with little result? Will he consider bringing in his right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, since he is more likely to be sympathetic to the real points that it has put forward?
  The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that the British computer industry, which faced annihilation four years ago, is now in a much stronger position. Now that we have granted investment grants in
  1166
  respect of computers for the first time, which I think will be welcomed, inevitably there will be anomalies. It is on the anomalies that the Bureau and the hon. Gentleman are seizing. However, he will recognise the need to draw a line somewhere, and I would have felt that some of his proposals ought to fall outside that line.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Apart from the co-ordination of the industries mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's Question, will my right hon. Friend at least take steps to co-ordinate the investment grants in such a way as to even out trade, industry and commerce in Scotland, which is very unequal at the moment?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would not agree to deal with investment grants in such a way as to even them out. Scotland gets more favourable investment grants than the rest of the country, and I intend it to stay that way.

  NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY
  Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the present position and difficulties of the national daily newspapers.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Board of Trade to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) on 4th March.—[Vol. 779, c. 98.]
  Mr. Winnick: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the situation now facing many national daily newspapers is very serious and that some form of Government statement or inquiry is necessary? Is my right hon. Friend in a position to give any information about the future of the Sun newspaper?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that the future of the Sun newspaper is a matter for Ministerial responsibility. As for the Press generally, there was great anxiety about its future a little over two years ago. At that time, there were many important and authoritiative surveys on Press prospects. We said at

  1167
  that time that if the Press had any suggestions to make to the Government, we would consider them. Quite deliberately, the Press decided to make no proposals. If the situation got worse and the Press made any suggestions, we should consider them.
  Mr. Gresham-Cooke: As there are 10 national daily newspapers and most of us have great difficulty in reading more than five of them, would the Prime Minister do nothing to encourage their proliferation?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that there was any suggestion about encouraging their proliferation. If the hon. Gentleman studies the tragic history of the closure of national newspapers, of Fleet Street, and what it means in personal terms, I am sure that he would think again before putting that supplementary question a second time.
  Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the state of the Press requires neither further diagnosis nor prognosis? What is required is a prescription to avoid disaster. In the light of my right hon. Friend's earlier remarks, will he use his good offices to bring together all sections of the industry so that discussions can be held with a view to saving newspapers and using modern technology to start new papers, especially in the provinces?
  The Prime Minister: Some of the problems of the Press need solving by the Press itself. I am thinking particularly in terms of greater efficiency in printing, the removal of restrictive practices, and so on. These are questions which cannot be solved by Governments or by Parliaments.
  Circulations have fallen after the rise in prices. If there is the anxiety to which my hon. Friend referred, we should be prepared at any time to discuss it with the organisations that represent the Press. One proposal which I cannot think would be helpful to the future of the Press is the entirely mad proposal recently put forward for 100 local broadcasting stations to be set up, which is the suggestion of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and which would attract all the advertising revenue away from the local Press.

  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (20th ANNIVERSARY)
  Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister if he will invite Heads of Government to London at the time of the meeting in May of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe which marks the 20th anniversary of the Council.
  The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Fraser: In that case, can my right hon. Friend say what consultations he will be having with representatives of Council of Europe Governments about the recommendation of the Consultative Assembly that Greece should be suspended from membership? In the course of those consultations, will he confirm that N.A.T.O. defence considerations, which have nothing to do with the Council, will not influence Her Majesty's Government's decision?
  The Prime Minister: There was no final recommendation by the Council of Europe for immediate action by Governments. I think that it would be right to wait for the Human Rights Commission to pronounce on these issues, which it is examining carefully, before taking any view on the matter.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES (SPEECH)
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Social Services at Harrogate on Saturday 15th February, 1969, on the subject of life insurance represents Government policy.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Wyatt: Does not my right hon. Friend remember that he has twice told the electorate that contributions to national superannuation would be invested in equities and not merely in gilt-edged? In view of the fact that the Secretary of State is not proposing to do this, will the Prime Minister use what influence he has to see that Labour Party policy is implemented, otherwise he may be in danger of losing his reputation for good faith with the electorate?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware of my hon. Friend's obsession on this matter of the funding of the Fund and investment in equities. I have had the pleasure of hearing him on the subject putting forward his views most eloquently. He has been replied to equally eloquently that what he is proposing would not be in the best interests of those concerned with superannuation or the management of the national economy.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the inordinately high interest rates today, as a result of the policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would make it dangerous to invest in equities? Would it not be advisable to push the Chancellor along further, thereby getting a decent return for National Insurance investors?
  The Prime Minister: All the arguments raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) and the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) were set out and dealt with fully in the White Paper which was debated and approved by the House. At Question Time, I do not think that I could go more fully into the conflicting points of the hon. Gentleman, particularly since I do not agree with some of the hypotheses on which he bases his Question.

  NIGERIA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
  Mr. Dempseyasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Presbytery of Hamilton regarding the sale of arms by Her Majesty's Government to Nigeria; and what were the terms of his reply.
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend forwarded to me a copy of a petition which is being offered for signature by the Presbytery calling on the Government to stop the supply of arms from this country to Nigeria. I shall be replying to him later today.
  Mr. Dempsey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, no matter how limited our supply is, this body of Christian opinion in Lanarkshire believes that the arms are being used to kill Commonwealth citizens in Biafra? Will he also bear in mind the request for a new initiative to organise an international
  1170
  arms embargo in this theatre of civil war with a view to hastening its end?
  The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the sincerity of the Presbytery referred to in my hon. Friend's Question, and indeed of many other church organisations. What is at issue here is not the sincerity of them or of the Government but the right judgment about these matters. They have been debated in the House on a number of occasions. They will be debated again this week. It is better for the Government to reserve their reply until that time. Certainly I have said, and was reinforced in it by the discussions in the background of the Commonwealth Conference, that if we thought that we could help end this war or shorten it by one day by changing our arms policy, we would not hesitate to consider that. But I was given no evidence at the Commonwealth Conference that this would be the effect. It is an infernally difficult problem which haunts everyone.
  Mr. Grimond: As one of the arguments put forward for supplying arms to Nigeria has been that they influence our influence with the Nigerian Government, what representations has the Prime Minister made to the Nigerian Government about the bombing of civilians, and what influence is he able to exert?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to wait for Thursday's debate. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has had two meetings in the past week with the Nigerian High Commissioner in this country, and the Permanent Under-Secretary of State is in Nigeria at the moment. I think that the right hon. Gentleman had better wait to hear from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the debate on Thursday.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend like to say at this juncture whether there has been any progress made towards a multilateral renunciation of arms sales to either side in Nigeria?
  The Prime Minister: No, for reasons which have been given in the House. While I know the feelings of hon. Members, I should not want to raise hopes in that connection. I think that the real issue would be that, if there were to be an embargo—and it would have to apply to

  1171
  private and black market sales as well as to Governmental sales—[An HON. MEMBER: "And de Gaulle."] It would apply to all sorts of people—unless there was an agreement by the receiving authorities and unless there was really effective machinery to see that such an agreement was enforced, any multilateral agreement on the supply side would, I feel, be rendered singularly and onesidely ineffective in no time at all.
  Mr. Thorpe: Her Majesty's Government have continually said that they would be prepared to stop supplying arms to Nigeria if other countries would follow suit. Can the Prime Minister say what initiatives this Government have taken to try to achieve that objective with other Governments?
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the Answer that I have just given. Nor should I seek to anticipate what will be a whole day's debate which the Government and the House equally feel ought to be held later this week.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1876 (AMENDMENT)
3.31 p.m.
Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876; and for purposes connected therewith.
The purpose of the Bill is to implement those recommendations of the Littlewood Committee which require legislation and which, after due consideration, the House may feel ought to, and properly can, be given statutory force. I have no doubt, and I believe that given the opportunity the House would have no doubt, about giving statutory force to many of these recommendations. I believe, therefore, that most of the Bill will be acceptable to the House. But, in so far as any of the Littlewood recommendations might be considered unnecessary or unsuitable, the introduction of the Bill will at least provide a vehicle for thrashing out every such question.
It will be in the memory of the House that Mr. Henry Brooke, as he then was, as Home Secretary, appointed a Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Sydney Littlewood, in May, 1963. Its terms of reference were:
"To consider the present control over experiments on living animals, and to consider whether, and if so what, changes are desirable in the law or its administration."
The Report of the Committee was presented to Parliament as Cmnd. 2641 in April, 1965. During the four wasted years since then, despite continuous exhortation in and out of this House, the Government have failed to produce a Bill to implement the recommendations in the Report. The latest indications of the view of the Government were given in another place as late as 6th February this year, when the noble Lord the Minister of State, Home Office, actually seemed to be suggesting that the Littlewood Committee had recommended that there was no great urgency about it. Even if that was true in 1965, it will not remain true for ever.
My purpose in asking leave to introduce the Bill is to enable the House emphatically to say to the Government that this continued procrastination will not do and to give an opportunity to the Government to redeem themselves, to buck up and

1173
get a move on, to take over my Bill and give it Parliamentary time, and have it on the Statute Book by August.
Of the 83 recommendations in paragraph 543 of the Littlewood Report, 49 will require legislation. The House would not wish me to summarise them all in a speech under the Ten Minutes' Rule. I will, therefore, single out what seem to me to be the six most important points to be covered in the Bill.
First, the law must be amended to cover all experimental procedure and to take into account not only "pain", but also stress and interference with or departure from an animal's normal condition of wellbeing.
Secondly, the present system of licensing the people who carry out experiments on live animals must be tightened up and there must be closer scrutiny of the purpose and justification of individual experiments.
Thirdly, the Home Secretary must be empowered to make definite regulations governing the transport, care and accommodation of laboratory animals.
Fourthly, experiments on certain species, such as cats and dogs, must be made illegal unless a demonstrably important purpose can be served by experimenting on that species only.
Fifthly, it must be made incumbent upon the Home Secretary officially to publicise full information on the subject of animal experimentation generally.
Sixthly, the supply of animals must be from registered breeding units only and by registered collectors only and must be strictly regulated, controlled and supervised. I am sure that on doctrinal grounds such words can only be sweet music in the ears of the Treasury Bench.
The final point about the supply of animals, is, I am sure, the only way to end the outbreaks from time to time in various districts, such as recently occurred in Ilford, of systematic stealing of much-loved members of many families, which causes such a great deal of genuine sadness and distress to old and young alike.
In conclusion, I should like to put this argument to the House in favour of granting me leave to introduce the Bill.
1174
It is a Bill that could and should be got on to the Statute Book in the way that many other Private Members' Bills have got on to the Statute Book, namely, by being given Parliamentary time by the Government, because it is a Bill which is based on the responsible recommendations of a Committee established by Government and it is universally wanted by the public.
The Government pick and choose among Private Members' Bills and give time to help where they see fit. Kissing goes by favour. Let the Government show favour for once to a Bill which everyone wants. It would be a change. Abortion, abolition of capital punishment, divorce, Sundays—all widely, and many universally unwanted and unpopular Measures have been—[An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] Many universally unwanted and unpopular Measures——
Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Member must speak to the Bill that he is seeking to introduce.
Mr. Iremonger: I am commenting that the Bill will be particularly suitable for being given leave to be introduced, because it is one which should commend itself to the public, as a change, as one suitable for the Government to give time to. I say nothing of the sodomy legislation Bill. It is the standing joke in every saloon bar that it will be made compulsory next.
Mr. Speaker: Order. In introducing a Ten Minutes' Rule Bill the hon. Member is protected. Only one other speech can be made, and that is a speech against his being given leave. If the hon. Member opens the debate wide of his own Bill the Chair would have to allow the House to debate it equally widely.
Mr. Iremonger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will no longer provoke the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.
Whatever may be the merits of the Bills which the Government do see fit to select to give Parliamentary time to, the merits of this Bill are less open to argument than the merits of some of those Bills. I hope, therefore, that this might commend itself to the House as a Bill which would be pre-eminently suitable

1175
for that particular favour by the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Iremonger, Mr. Biggs-Davison, Mr. Body. Mr. Buck, Mr. Burden, Mr. Deedes, Captain W. Elliot, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Miss Quennell, Sir D. Renton, Sir G. Sinclair, and Mr. Weatherill.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1876 (AMENDMENT)
Bill to amend the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 111.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the Amendment in the names of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and his right hon. and hon. Friends. This will not cramp the debate in any way. Any argument for or against the Second Reading of the Bill in addition to those in the Amendment may be advanced in the debate.
  3.40 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a Bill of wide scope, and is concerned with how society treats children who are in trouble. It is long and complex, but the basic principles behind it are simple. Its aim is to prevent the deprived and delinquent children of today from becoming the deprived, inadequate, unstable or criminal citizens of tomorrow.
  How do we propose to try to meet those aims? First, as a matter of social philosophy, as well as a practical matter, to build on the family and on the parents, to try to ensure that they assume the major responsibility for the welfare, control, care, and discipline of their children. The Bill aims to help the parents of deprived or delinquent children to bring those children up so that they become fully developed, mature, and law-abiding citizens.
  Secondly, where the family and the parents cannot succeed without help, to provide effective support for those families through the social and other services which in such cases must supplement the efforts of the parents.
  Thirdly, by these means to keep out of the courts all those children who will benefit as much, or more, from other treatment as they will by going to court, and I believe that there is general agreement about this.
  Fourthly, to ensure as nearly as we can real equality for all children of all classes

  1177
  and backgrounds. When I say "equality" I mean "equality" and not "uniformity." It seems that some opponents of this aspect of the Bill have confused themselves into believing that equality and uniformity are the same thing. They are not.
  These measures will not succeed unless they are effective, and effectiveness is, I hope, the keynote of the Bill. But that depends on understanding what has gone wrong, and then trying to put it right by offering the appropriate treatment, which may take many forms. The Bill is not in any way "soft", or permissive. It is a realistic Bill, because it is endeavouring to get to the root of the troubles with which we are dealing, and not just attempting to handle the symptoms and then forget the cause of the problems.
  The Bill must not only be effective—I say that it is, but I shall welcome improvements in Committee to that end because, despite the Opposition's Amendment, which I regret; I do not regard this as a party issue—but flexible, and one obstacle to the present need for flexibility in the treatment of completely dissimilar children arises from the fact that in some respects the law has not yet caught up with the development of a variety of less formal methods for dealing with child offenders.
  Much of the present law about court proceedings and powers relating to children and young persons is based on the recommendations of a Departmental Committee which reported as long ago as 1927, and the basic concepts have remained unchanged since the Children and Young Persons Act, 1932. There have been no changes in the law to reflect the growth since the war of social services for children, and the now well-established informal methods used by the police when they are dealing with children, such as, for example, cautioning. This method is widely used by the police, and I believe very successfully. There are thousands of children who, in the strict sense of the word, are delinquents, but who do not go near a court today.
  I warn those who want to use the word "equality" in this argument that if they say—as I am sure they do not, because I do not think that the position has been fully thought through—that equality is what I call uniformity, presumably it
  1178
  should follow that all those children should in future go to court. In my view, that would set the clock back to a quite unacceptable degree. If they do not mean that, then, with respect, the Amendment should have been drafted differently.
  I know that parts of the Bill are controversial, and I have just touched on one of them. The Opposition agree with a substantial part of the Bill, and it is not my desire, except in so far as it is necessary for the argument, to labour the differences because I hope in time to remove those differences and to show the Opposition that they should think again about their attitude.
  The opposition is directed at some of the changes in the legal procedures proposed in Part I of the Bill. I should like to come back to those. Naturally, I would have started with them had there not been an Amendment, but as the Opposition acknowledge that there are important proposals in the Bill affecting the treatment of children with which they do not disagree, it would be unfortunate if we were to concentrate on the division and the arguments and gloss over in the tail end of what might be a controversial speech some of the other important matters. I should like, therefore, to take this a little out of order and to talk about the important issues on which there is no real disagreement in principle, but which are an essential part of the Bill.
  I am referring, for example, to such matters as the treatment of children who have been before the courts, the organisation of residential establishments, and the control of private fostering, with which, in general, the Opposition agree, and about which I imagine there is no dissent in the House. I should like to deal with those parts of the Bill, but there is one matter of legal procedure to which I must turn before I do so, otherwise a large part of the Bill cannot be understood.
  Clause 1(3) and Clause 7 give the courts three basic options which are available in all care and criminal proceedings. They apply to all children up to the age of 17. The first option is to bind over the parents. We regard this as appropriate in cases where the court judges that the parents are capable of taking the necessary action themselves, but have grown slack and need pulling up. It is part of the principle and the

  1179
  philosophy that where possible the responsibility should be put on the parents and upon the family. I trust that the courts will use this option wherever they believe it to be the right treatment. Binding over is something like a conditional discharge or a suspended fine, and I regard this as important in terms of the influence of parents.
  The second option is the supervision order, which will take the place of probation orders, and supervision orders under the present law. The third option is the care order, which is very similar to the existing so-called fit person order. This jargon is well known in dealing with children. We tend to get a little inward-looking on some of these things and we must try to be as outward-looking as we can. The supervision order and the care order will fit in with what I am trying to put in the Bill. They will be extremely flexible, and will embrace a wide range of possibilities.
  It will be interesting in our debates to go over some of those possibilities. They rest upon the principle that it is for the court to decide the nature and extent of the compulsory powers to be exercised and that, within well specified limits, the responsibility for decisions on treatment in individual cases should be placed on those who undertake the treatment.
  But in all cases there is the safeguard of appeal to quarter sessions, and throughout the life of a care or a supervision order the Bill provides a right to apply to the juvenile court for a revocation for the variation of the order with, again, appeal to quarter sessions against refusal of an application. The courts will also retain their powers in criminal cases to fine, to order the payment of compensation, to discharge conditionally or absolutely and, in the case of older young persons, to order a disqualification or endorsement in motoring cases. We are, after all, dealing with those up to the age of 17 who may be involved in such cases.
  Clause 13(2) defines the relationship between the functions of the children's service and those of the probation service in this field. It is generally agreed, I think, that the overall responsibility for preventive work is an essential part of the functions of the local authority children's departments. On the other hand, the probation service makes a great contribution to work with children and young persons
  1180
  and it has valuable experience which I would regret losing.
  I have been urged by some that the logic of the situation points towards the children's service assuming all responsibilities in this field, at least to school-leaving age. I have not carried the Bill as far as that. It preserves an overlap at the point where the functions of the two services meet. The children's service will assume general responsibility for supervision under court orders for children under 14 and the courts will have the choice of supervisor for children between 14 and 17.
  I referred to the flexibility in the new forms of treatment for children placed under supervision by the courts. Of course, they might not go to court, since there could be an informal agreement. This is in Clauses 12 and 19, where it is called "intermediate treatment": the House will see why. The object is to give the supervisors access to resources which are denied to many children from poorer backgrounds. providing them with opportunities for new experiences and relationships to help them to mature and to learn to stand on their own feet.
  The function is to bring youngsters in trouble into contact with others taking part in the normal constructive activities of young people of their own age—social, educational, recreational, helping others. These activities may take place in the evenings or at weekend, and the children may go away under supervision, perhaps, for longer periods. They may involve going away, for instance, for adventure training or to a harvest camp. In some cases, a supervision order might involve spending as much as three months away from home. For example, a period might be spent in a community home, which I see that the Opposition welcome, or a term at a boarding school.
  These are the new flexible kinds of supervision which I and my advisers believe can bring a new—I was going to say "excitement"—into the way in which we treat young people to help them grow up into mature citizens. None of this is written into the Bill, and this is deliberate. Clauses 12 and 19 provide only the administrative and legal framework. The actual arrangements will have to be planned and built up locally in each area, with the maximum possible participation of all the statutory and

  1181
  voluntary services, not only the children's service but also the other local authority services—the probation service, magistrates, the police, the churches, voluntary organisations of all kinds. The Home Office will help by mounting development projects with the aim of gaining experience of how local schemes can be worked out and set up to assess the results.
  I regard this part of the Bill as a completely new and challenging departure, with immense possibilities and I think that we should all approach it in the hope that it will work. This part of the Bill looks not merely to the prevention of crime, but to the active promotion of social development. I believe, when we are dealing with the young saplings as distinct from the mature trees, that this is the most helpful and forward-looking of our prospects, where we can hope to influence these young people in the most formative stage of their lives.
  Turning to the question of accommodation, when the Bill is fully in operation, local authorities will eventually have to accommodate those who are now accommodated in the approved schools and remand homes. That does not mean that all the buildings will be torn down and replaced, but probably upwards of another 10,000 children will pass, basically, into the care of the local authorities. Children in care, therefore, will be not only a larger group, but also a much more varied group than at present.
  The facilities now provided will still be needed and the Bill accordingly provides for a system of community homes very much on the lines proposed in the White Paper "Children in Trouble", which, I am glad to say, have been generally accepted by representatives of the local authorities and voluntary organisations. This will aid the objectives which we have in the system of community homes—namely, that they will be flexible, and will be able to cater for a widely differing range of children. There will be integration between children who, perhaps, have different needs, but who can benefit from being brought into contact with each other. There will be variety and, on the administrative side, there will be a partnership between the local authorities and the voluntary organisations.
  1182
  I stress that flexibility is important. It is obvious that a child going for residential treatment should be placed in the most suitable establishment that has a place available, but we are hampered in this at the moment by the division of establishments into various legal categories. For instance, a child who is committed to an approved school by a magistrate must be accommodated in an approved school and nowhere else. The effect of substituting a single legal category of establishment, the "community home", for the present separate categories, will be to remove this impediment and, I believe, represents nothing but gain within my limit of experience of this problem.
  Groups of local authorities will establish regional committees which will plan an integrated system of community homes. It will be the aim to accommodate as many children in local homes as possible and also to provide much the same facilities as a family home and to use the local schools and other services. Most hon. Members know the housing estates and houses where these families live. They are frequently unknown, except to the immediate neighbours, and that is as it should be. The fact that we have been able to use these homes in this way is part of the process of ensuring that the children can develop in a way which will enable them to grow up into the kind of citizens that we hope to see.
  But for some children more specialised homes will be needed. Some such homes will require secure accommodation. They must be provided, and the regional plans will enable authorities to co-operate in making the best use of the available resources to develop the wide range of specialised facilities which will be needed. I need not particularise; hon. Members will know some of my difficulties in trying to place children in suitable homes at present because of the fractionalisation of control. I believe that this will help to remove that.
  The excellent facilities provided in establishments now run by voluntary organisations as approved schools or voluntary homes will, I hope, through partnership with the local authorities, become available to them. Part II of the Bill enables this to be achieved, while preserving for the voluntary organisations a part

  1183
  in the management of these establishments.
  Two new forms of partnership are provided for, "controlled" homes and "assisted" homes. A controlled home will be one for which financial responsibility is assumed by a specified local authority, which will manage the home through a body of managers of whom one-third will represent the voluntary organisation. An assisted home will be financed by the voluntary organisation--which will charge fees to local authorities for accommodating children in its care—and managed by the organisation through a body of managers of whom one-third will be appointed by a specified local authority. [Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) will soon get over his cold.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: I am sorry.
  Mr. Callaghan: It seems that every time I speak in the House the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suffering from a bad cold.
  Last June, I announced my intention of developing jointly with the Secretary of State for Social Services a new range of establishments to cater for the needs of severely disturbed boys and girls. They will combine the training and treatment facilities of a school, a children's home and a hospital. There will be substantial provision for psychiatric observation and treatment and an element of secure accommodation. I hope that the first of these establishments will be in use by the end of this year. It is planned that eventually there will be two more, one in the North and one in the South.
  There will be an important rôle for establishments that we now know as approved schools within the community home system. I wish to emphasise, having seen their work, that a very considerable contribution has been made over the years in a great many approved schools, and that much pioneer work has been done in a very difficult field, although I believe that the system as a whole would agree that the results are uneven; that some are excellent while others are not quite up to that high standard. The new system provides scope for this contribution to be continued
  1184
  and developed, and there is still an important place for the spirit of public service that so many managers of voluntary approved schools have shown over many years.
  I hope to call on the spirit of service that they have shown so far. There is a real job to be done here and the new system will give every opportunity to them and to the staff of former approved schools to fulfil a new rôle, which could be no less rewarding than the one they have played in the past and which, indeed, may broaden their experience in dealing with some children.
  The Bill contains transitional provisions for the protection of the interests of the staff of approved schools, remand homes and of such approved probation homes and hostels as become community homes. There is provision for the payment of compensation where there is loss or diminution of remuneration as a result of any changes that are introduced by the Bill.
  I will comment on the subject of foster children before coming to the more controversial parts of the Bill. I hope that the House will agree that I should go through the non-controversial, or less controversial, parts of the Measure first.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: Referring to what the right hon. Gentleman said about special schools being established for mentally disturbed teenagers, can he say whether they will be restrictive from the age point of view and what assessment has been made of the special psychiatric treatment that will have to be available in them? Is he aware of the great need for this treatment in various parts of the country?
  Mr. Callaghan: I am aware of it, not least through personal experience of having to handle some of these cases. We have had not only to make use of such facilities as exist now, but also to bring in a team of public-spirited people who have been able to make the necessary assessments. I hope that we will be able to strengthen these teams, to some extent on a voluntary basis, and I hope that in these places there will be resident psychiatric experts who are able to make the required assessments. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that this is the sort of matter that we can discuss in detail in Committee. I will not delay

  1185
  the House by going into it deeply at this stage.
  The Bill provides an opportunity to make much needed improvements in the law on private fostering, which is contained in the Children Act, 1958. The present Act is not sufficiently all-inclusive—this point has been brought to my notice by hon. Members on both sides—and the powers of local authorities to protect foster children are in some respects inadequate. The number of privately placed foster children has grown considerably in recent years. There are over 10,500 in England and Wales as a whole, with a heavy concentration in the South-East of England.
  I hope that the House will not mind my making use of the opportunity of the Bill to "tuck in" Clauses 48 to 54 which, perhaps, are not exactly germane to the principle purpose of the Bill. These Clauses help local authorities to concentrate more effort on cases most requiring supervision; by bringing de facto adoptions and similar arrangements within the scope of the law; by closing the gap which now exists between the Children Act, 1958, which only covers arrangements lasting for more than a month, and the Nurseries and Child Minders Regulation Act, 1948, which controls daily minding and only covers arrangements lasting not more than six days—there has been a gap in this respect which we propose to fill—by extending the powers of local authorities to inspect premises and to impose conditions about the keeping of foster children, and in other ways.
  I have an announcement which I am glad to make and which I hope the House will welcome. It concerns an expansion of the training programme for child care officers. In 1968–69 courses leading to the Central Training Council giving what is called a letter of recognition for child care officers, saying that they have successfully and satisfactorily completed their courses, resulted in about 400 qualified students being produced during that year. Next year it is hoped that the number so qualified will increase to 640, and to 715 in 1970–71.
  After discussion with the Central Training Council, I have been able to
  1186
  authorise—naturally, after consultation with the Treasury—a further programme, aiming at an annual output of about 1,100 students every year. With the cooperation of the local authorities in the provision of facilities for the practical part of the course, we hope to achieve this level of output in 1972–73 or 1973–74. This will enable us to implement the Bill, when it becomes an Act, since I have always been conscious of the validity of the criticism that we might be rushing provisions through unless we know that adequate staff will be available. I hope that this stepping up will match the coming into force of the Measure and that the necessary resources will be available to make the Bill work.
  I come to the more controversial parts of the Bill, namely, the changes in legal proceedings. Basically, these are contained in Clauses 1, 4 and 5. It will be agreed at least that these Clauses fit together as part of a single set of changes in legal procedures. Clause 1(2) lays down the basic jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Unlike the White Paper of some years ago, it recognises and preserves the rôle of the juvenile court. It changes it, but it preserves it, because the juvenile court undoubtedly has a very useful part to play in these proceedings, although not an exclusive part. One of the difficulties that has arisen is the fact that the juvenile court has felt that it will be called upon to share some of its responsibilities with others. That is true, but it will still have an important part to play in our procedures.
  The new "care or control" definition is a development of the original proposal in paragraph 14 of last year's White Paper which I published and includes the commission of an offence, which is included only as part of the definition. This is not something which, by itself, necessarily indicates a need for court proceedings and a court order.
  Another new element is truancy, which has hitherto been divided between the Education Act and the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. The new definition operates for all ages up to 17. It removes the need to retain criminal prosecution, as a separate kind of proceedings in a juvenile court, for younger children; and it opens the way to placing limitations on the prosecution of young persons.

  1187
  Eventually, Clause 4 will abolish the prosecution of children up to the age of 14. This will be done by stages and will certainly not be introduced all at once. This does not mean that they cannot appear before the court. Care proceedings will be the only proceedings available for offenders and non-offenders up to that age before a juvenile court. Prosecution for an offence alone will remain possible for those aged 14 and under 17 as an alternative to care proceedings, but Clause 5 places restrictions on the circumstances in which a prosecution may be instituted. Homicide is a special case, and prosecution will remain possible from the age of 10 upwards.
  The main effects of these Clauses will be to make clear that the basic test for taking court proceedings is whether a court order is required to secure that a child receives the care and control he needs, which is the whole underlying basis of the Bill. If there is no evidence to satisfy this test, court proceedings should not be taken. In some cases there is a clear need for action to deal with a situation which has come to light as a result of a child committing an offence or getting into some trouble—for example, not going to school. If, however, there is no dispute over the facts of the situation and no call for compulsion to secure effective action, that action can and will be taken without the need for court proceedings. This is the necessary treatment of the child which is the start of the Bill.
  The transition from the care or control jurisdiction to the liability to appear before the adult courts in ordinary criminal proceedings should be in stages. Between the ages of 14 and 17, both care proceedings and criminal proceedings will be possible, to bridge this gap. Clause 5 requires the consent of a juvenile court magistrate to prosecution, and enables the Home Secretary to prescribe in regulations the circumstances in which consent may be given. These will include cases where the offence is a serious one, or where a simple deterrent such as a fine seems appropriate, or where action without the backing of a court order would probably not succeed, and motoring cases where disqualification or endorsement may be ordered.
  Today, adolescents assume a considerable degree of control over their activities,
  1188
  and it is right that the law should make them to this extent, accountable for their actions. Responsibility in the young is not encouraged by a system which declines to accept that they can be responsible. Nor is it encouraged by imputing full responsibility at too early an age. The new legal procedures in the Bill as a whole provide a properly graduated system which introduces the notion of responsibility for one's actions and their consequences by stages.
  It is quite wrong to think as some have suggested, that these changes will mean doing less about offences by young children. Not at all; they will mean doing more, but doing something different. Under the present system, because an offence in itself may seem trivial, nothing may be done about it although other factors in the child's background may be extremely disturbing. The new system will mean fewer cases where lack of investigation of an apparently minor offence results in a failure to take necessary remedial action while a child can still be handled in that way. It will also mean more cases reported to the police.
  There is a natural dislike of treating young children as criminals, and a good deal of juvenile offending which is detected by people other than the police is not reported to them at present. Experience of the development of juvenile liaison officer schemes, which I dare say a number of hon. Members have seen in action, and of other informal methods by the police, shows that more cases are reported to the police by teachers, shopkeepers and parents. Problems often come to light at a stage before the child has broken the law in the full sense of the word.
  This means that under the new system as I see it the police will be brought in at an earlier stage and in circumstances where they might not have been brought in at all and will be able to use their influence in a way which will be beneficial to the objectives which everyone has in mind. There is one possible point of misunderstanding. We are not doing less, but doing it in a different way. This helps to achieve one of the first aims of preventive work whether it is the prevention of crime or any other kind of trouble, to identify it early and to deal with it before it gets worse.

  1189
  The Opposition has put down an Amendment which broadly accepts the case put forward by the Magistrates Association. At any rate, the terms seem somewhat similar to criticisms I have had from the Magistrates Association. They are none the worse for that. I say the Magistrates Association because not all magistrates or juvenile magistrates support the case put forward, but we have today speaking for the Opposition two distinguished lawyers, one of them practising and the other a former Solicitor-General.
  Mr. Hogg: He is also practising.
  Mr. Callaghan: I should not want to interfere in these internecine quarrels. In other words, it is a conspiracy?
  Mr. Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) does practise his profession and it would be quite damaging if the idea got about that he did not do so.
  Mr. Callaghan: After that natural break, we can resume the programme. I hope that both right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept this in the spirit in which it is said. I think it natural that there is sympathy between such distinguished people and the Magistrates Association's view. There is a natural temptation for these distinguished lawyers, less so perhaps for the right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite than for others, that with their legal minds trained in the majesty of the law, accepting its exactness and integrity, they should believe that the view which is put forward about the law is one which must triumph above other considerations. We are dealing here with growing and developing children, not questioning the supremacy of the law. The point at issue is that a number of informal practices have grown up outside the courts in the treatment of children who commit offences and in their correction.
  I said that by no means every child who commits an offence is taken to court. Last year at least 30,000 offences committed by children where the police were called in resulted in the police administering a caution and the police deciding that the case should not go before the courts. This is a factor which we should recognise in respect of the magistrates'
  1190
  view. I think that to some extent their view is limited by the fact that, naturally, they only see the children who come before them and do not see the thousands who do not come before them but who have committed offences.
  The Bill codifies and lays down, as Parliament should, the circumstances in which children should go before a court and the circumstances in which other methods of treatment and correction are preferable. With respect to the distinguished lawyers who hold a contrary view, we are considering how to codify a system which has already developed and how to reinforce that system. In some cases there are better methods than going to court for ensuring that the child who has committed an offence grows up into a fully developed, healthy, law-abiding citizen. That is what the case is about.
  We want them—I am sure that the whole House wants this—to escape from a system that so often ensures that the delinquent or deprived child grows up into inadequate adult, the kind who is frequently found in prison. Those of us who go in and out of prisons know the type of man, the person who is not there because he is basically criminal but because he is unable to cope with the problems of adult life and, therefore, yields to temptation when he finds that he is incapable of coping.
  We want to get hold of these children at a sufficiently early stage to ensure—through the family, or with the support of the family, or by society, where the family fails to achieve this end, substituting for the parents—that the young sapling is not twisted or bent in ways that make the child grow up stunted.
  In my view, it is not the case that there is at present equality in the treatment of children who commit offences. There is an interesting letter in The Times this morning from the Secretary of the Magistrates Association. Let us reflect on our experience. By and large today, is it not the case that middle-class children are kept away from the courts and it is the working-class children who go the courts? This is surely the experience of most people who examine and know the background.
  Why is this? It is because the family of the middle-class child, his school, his

  1191
  social background, all the factors that surround his whole life, are there to provide facilities to support and correct him where it is necessary. I applaud this. This is what I want to see for every child. This should be our aim. I am not complaining because middle-class children on the whole do not come before the courts. What I am saying is that children, whoever they are, should not be brought before a court unless it is necessary. Part of the purpose of the Bill will be to ensure that children from a different kind of home from the one we have been considering will be given access to similar facilities for correction to those already possessed by the children who never go near a court.
  In other words, they should come before a court only as a last resort. I want to see that the range of facilities which is naturally available to support the middle-class child who goes wrong—what is called in the letter from the Secretary of the Magistrates Association the "good" home as against the "bad" home—should also be available for other children and for all children and should be made increasingly available to them.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: Does not the Secretary of State agree that this is whole of the nub of Clause 1? The trouble with the Bill is that it makes that position worse. It is written into the Bill now that the child from the good home is less likely to go to court, whereas the child from the bad home will. Many of our complaints about the Bill is that it will exaggerate this state of affairs.
  Mr. Callaghan: It is that argument that I am trying to deal with at present. I certainly do not want, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want, to write into the Bill a provision which would make it necessary for more children to go before the courts.
  Mr. Carlisle Mr. Carlisle indicated assent.
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman agrees with me. He does not want the child from the good home to go to court. "Good" and "bad" are the words the hon. Gentleman used. This is not my language. This is the language of the argument which we are considering and which is used in the letter to which I referred.
  1192
  The child from the good home does not go before the courts. The hon. Gentleman does not want him to go before the courts—of course not. What we want is treatment for the child which will ensure the best possible results. I am saying that, rather than take before the court many children from what are called "bad" homes, we should supply the supporting facilities that will make it unnecessary to take them before the courts.
  Mr. Edwin Brooks: This is an extremely important point. My right hon. Friend has said that it is not desirable for the child from the middle-class home to be brought before the courts. Does he not consider that in certain cases it may be very desirable indeed for such a child, who has been somewhat insulated from the wider world, to be given the short, sharp salutary shock which might arise in certain cases from being brought before a court and which will avoid his ever being brought back there again?
  Mr. Callaghan: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has heard the whole of my speech. If he has, he has taken what I said out of context. I was not saying that the middle-class child should not go before the courts. I was saying that what we are trying to ensure, and what basically the middle-class child already has, is a large number of supporting facilities, in his home and elsewhere, which make the necessary correction that everybody wants, as it were, flow naturally from the background of his life. I want to extend those facilities to other children.
  Of course, there will be cases where the child, no matter what his home, will appear before the court. The Bill makes provision for that, certainly after the age of 14, and in one case it makes provision for it before the age of 14. In the case of those children there will be no difficulty, but it will be a matter of judgment—what is the right treatment for this child; should he go before the court, if he is between 14 and 17, for care and control proceedings, perhaps because the middle-class family is quite incapable of controlling him and, therefore, he should be taken out of their care; or should he go before the court for a fine or for other forms of treatment which are laid down in the Bill and which can be applied?
  In other words, my hon. Friend is in some ways making my point. There is

  1193
  a whole range of flexible provisions here. What the Opposition are insisting upon is uniformity of treatment. They think that they are talking about equality, but they are really talking about uniformity. However, we shall hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this point.
  One piece of pure fantasy on the part of the Opposition is the allegation of inadequate preparation and consultation. As this appears in the Amendment, I must deal with it. I do not know who advised the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this. The Bill has been several years in preparation. There has been a plethora of reports, papers and discussions. Two Departmental Committees have reported on the subject—Ingleby in England and Wales in 1960, and Kilbrandon in Scotland in 1964. A Labour Party group under Lord Longford published a pamphlet on crime. Then there was the White Paper in August, 1965 for the purposes of discussion. There was a wide-ranging debate, with a number of criticisms of it.
  Normally, the next step would have been the publication of a Bill, but I came new to the Home Office and wanted my own White Paper and, with the consent of my colleagues in the Cabinet, took into account what had been said and the criticisms, modified the previous White Paper, and then introduced last April a new White Paper, "Children in Trouble". This was followed by a further round of discussions and representations. A series of memoranda were submitted by all sorts of bodies. I counted up 40 this morning when I read the Opposition's Amendment. I knew what nonsense it was to talk about inadequate preparation and failure to consult. Forty bodies made either verbal or written representations. The number of delegations has been numerous.
  Having disposed, I hope, of the allegation about failure to consult, I wish to go on to say that most of those consulted have expressed themselves as very satisfied with the unusually large amount of consultation we have undertaken before at last publishing the Bill. How many more years does the right hon. and learned Gentleman want us to go on before we actually do anything? How many more White Papers does he want me to produce before anybody dares
  1194
  to publish a Bill? I think that the real point is that this is a case where a plea for more consultation, for more time, is the last refuge of those who simply want to block all action and make sure that nothing is done. So I cannot accept that criticism.
  The Amendment also suggests—perhaps I have dealt with this point already—that the work of the police will be interfered with. This is not so, unless by "interference" the Opposition mean that the police will no longer prosecute very young children for minor offences. My own experience is that the police did not welcome these prosecutions of very young children. They did not have a great liking for the task which society imposed upon them. If the Opposition believe that children from 10 upwards ought to be prosecuted and punished whenever they break the law—this is what uniformity would mean—they had better say so plainly, because certainly I, and I hope my hon. Friends and most of the country, would disagree with them.
  The fact is—I emphasise this—that the Bill will greatly increase the scope for informal, preventive work with children by the police, in conjunction with all the other services concerned. I am anxious to see this work develop. I believe that it can bring considerable dividends. It brings problems to light at an earlier stage. It improves relationships between the police and the local communities they serve, in just the same way as some other recent developments in policing do.
  The Opposition are wrong to suggest that the Bill will interfere with the work of the police. It does nothing of the kind. It enlarges their sphere of interest and it has been welcomed, I am glad to say, by the police. Perhaps I should not bring them into this, but they were one of the bodies who were consulted and who made certain representations to me on the subject.
  I am very sorry that the Opposition should have completely failed to understand this aspect of the Bill. Apparently, they wish to perpetuate the idea that the police should be concerned only with detection and prosecution. This promotes the constructive rôle of the police, a rôle that they wish to play.

  1195
  Ideas for change have been under discussion for a number of years and the services concerned with children have been in a state of uncertainty about their future. This is one reason why it is important to bring the Bill forward now and, I hope, with the co-operation of the House, to pass it.
  I shall certainly listen to the arguments which are advanced now and in Committee. I do not take a strictly dogmatic view on this. A number of points have been made of which I have made mental note for the Committee stage and I see no reason why we should not have serious discussions when they are brought up. But in my view, new legislation is essential and I hope that the House will give us the opportunity of carrying the Bill into effect.
  The Bill, for the time being, completes the unfinished job of bringing the law on children and young persons up to date. I believe that it will provide a framework for development certainly for the next two decades; I would not like to look longer ahead. It is a landmark in the treatment of children in trouble who are taken to court, in the way we make available the facilities of the community for the treatment of children in trouble, and in the organisation of residential care for children.
  The first aim of the Bill is to help parents and families to do what most parents and families want to do—to bring up their children well, making use of the services provided by the community and of the help which is available for children falling into trouble; but it provides means to ensure—and this is just as important—that where control of the children is needed, as well as help to the family, that control is available, and that those provisions can be implemented.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.35 p.m.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, whilst agreeing with certain aspects of the Bill, and in general approving the proposals for the provision of community homes and fostering in Part III, nevertheless declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill proposed without adequate preparation or consultation, and open to serious objection on grounds of principle in that
  1196
  it is unjust as between different children in like case, it gives insufficient recognition to the constructive rôle of the juvenile court, and it will interfere with the work of the police in relation to children, especially with regard to more serious offences."
  In rising to move the Amendment standing in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I will not read out its terms, which are long. It must also be very poorly drafted if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has so completely failed to understand what it is about, which I regret. Listening to the strange, genial but rather discursive speech of the right hon. Gentleman in support of this Measure I felt rather like the Duke of Wellington who, when, confronted with his own troops, said, "I do not know what effect they had on the enemy, but by God they frightened me".
  There was an almost total incomprehension about some of what seemed to me to be the bases of the problem he was trying to discuss. There was, of course, the usual tilt at my right hon. and learned Friend and myself because of our profession. I know that we belong to a very disreputable profession to which hon. Members in the last three centuries have also belonged. What he did not mention is that between us we have 11 children—middle-class children—which is perhaps a little more significant than our profession in considering a Bill whose primary purpose is to deal with children.
  Much more serious than the slur he cast upon the name of my hon. and learned Friend and myself is the also almost total incomprehension he showed about how juvenile magistrates are selected. He said—and I am sure that when he reads his words in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will deeply regret both the words he used and the impression he succeeded in conveying to the House—that juvenile magistrates, naturally, only see children who are in trouble, naughty children. But if he really knew how juvenile magistrates are selected, which it is his business to know, he would realise that they are selected because of their knowledge of children and social conditions.
  That is how they are selected from the panel. They are parents, school governors, and members of education committees who know children of all

  1197
  classes and types; and it is a most unjustifiable way of approaching the controversial Clauses of the Bill to pretend they are being criticised by a few pedantic lawyers, in one case non-practising, and by a number of people who only see bad children and do not know what good children are like.
  I want to approach the Bill from a rather different angle from the right hon. Gentleman. It is a very long Bill, of 94 pages, and much of it is unintelligible to those who do not know the strange language in which our legislation is couched. The right hon. Gentleman twitted me with representing magistrates and lawyers, but in point of fact this is largely a civil servants' Measure and we suffer more and more in this House by government of civil servants by civil servants for civil servants. One of the things I do not like about the Bill is the ignorance that it shows of the real grass roots facts of life connected with this problem.
  If I were asked what was wrong with the status quo of dealing with children, whether in relation to Part I or Part II of the Bill, that is to say, either in relation to the juvenile courts or to the children's homes and residential accommodation, the answer, I would say, can be contained in a single sentence: the thing which is wrong with the status quo is the absence of trained personnel available to the juvenile court in the first case, and the absence of bricks and mortar of suitable quantity and quality in the second.
  To quote the London magistrates who put in a separate memorandum which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has seen, what is required is not a sortie into new and untried methods, but an extension of the facilities available to the juvenile court. The Southport magistrates made the same complaint, that juvenile court magistrates have never been equipped with all the facilities that Parliament purported to provide as long ago as 1933.
  The point about the Bill is that, faced with a shortage of personnel and material it proposes 94 pages of administrative structure which will not add a single course of bricks on another and which will not by itself—although I recognise and welcome what the right hon. Gentleman was able to say about training facilities
  1198
  —produce a single additional trained officer to handle it. If I had available to me now all the trained officers which the right hon. Gentleman proposes, outside the scope of the Bill, to produce by 1974, I fancy that I could use the present structure to produce a situation very much better than the Bill will produce.
  I personally would say—and I do not mean this personally about the right hon. Gentleman because, as he knows, I entertain a great personal affection and respect for him and his objectives—that Parliament is being the least bit hypocritical if it passes through 94 pages of legislation which does not really ameliorate the situation when it will not be able to implement those provisions for years to come. If there were the facilities to implement those provisions now, the situation would be radically different and radically better than it is.
  I know very well—this reflects nothing but credit on the right hon. Gentleman, though I am not sure how much I agree with him—how the Home Secretary clings to his responsibility for children. It is very natural. If ever I had his position and had to deal with immigrants drugs, murderers and prisons, I should, I dare say, turn to child care with great affection and relief. All the same, I have my doubts, and I venture to express them before I find myself in the right hon. Gentleman's position—if ever I do—about whether this branch of the public service ought to be with the Home Office at all. This is one of the questions inevitably raised by the Seebohm Report.
  There is a valid criticism of the Government based on the absence of adequate homework, and the Home Secretary does not cure it by totting up all the pieces of literature on the subject and announcing the total as 40. Part of the evidence of inadequate homework of which complaint is made is that the Government ought first to have made up their mind about Seebohm, as their training programme cannot be implemented by these provisions for years to come; and if, as I suspect may turn out to be the case, they came to the conclusion that a unified Ministry ought to deal with a whole variety of different services, including this one, they ought to have legislated at the moment when the new Minister was able to give a new look at the whole problem.

  1199
  The right hon. Gentleman asked how long one must wait before doing something, and how much study had to be done before action was taken. The answer is that we must go on studying until we have the answer at least approximately right. As regards action, because the defect in the present situation is material and personal rather than structural, in my judgment, one would have plenty of time to take action at the proper stage. This is where the right hon. Gentleman has gone basically wrong.
  I come now to the three parts of the Bill. I shall not say anything about Part III, Miscellaneous and General, because it is difficult to deal with miscellaneous provisions in a Second Reading speech. On Part II, which deals with community homes, I have, as the Amendment makes clear, relatively little criticism to offer so long as two basic factors are realised, namely, that it does not alter the situation on the ground because the same buildings manned by the same personnel will continue to deal with the same children whether the Bill is passed or not, although it may make it administratively more convenient for the civil servants, and, second, that apart from the shortages to which I have referred it will not deal with the basic trouble which confronts local authorities. I hope that the House will not think that I am being unctious about this. I do not know what the answer is, and I should say at once if I thought that I did.
  The basic trouble in dealing with local authority problems as distinct from the juvenile courts is that the local authorities have to deal with two quite different types of child. There is the child who is, perhaps, orphaned as a result of accident, who is handicapped or ill, or who, as we like to put it euphemistically, is deprived and who probably wants nothing so much as love and security in the world. There is also the child who has got into trouble, either because it is led astray, or because—God save the mark—it is depraved. I hate to use the word "depraved" about a child, but if one is dealing for instance, with the child which was the subject of, to my mind, a most unfortunate letter published in the Press from the Chancellor of the Duchy recently, it is difficult not to attach that epithet to what it has done.
  1200
  The difficulty for the local authority consists in having to bring these children into association, bringing—as someone rather cruelly put it—the depraved and the deprived under the same roof. The Bill will do nothing to alter that basic dilemma. I make no complaint that it does not. I wish I knew what the answer was. However, it does not improve that situation, and that is really the only comment I have about Part II.
  Now, Part I. My two main criticisms of Part I stem from the two great mistakes made by the Civil Service thinking behind the Bill. The Home Secretary spoke as though the difficulty was that the law had not caught up with modern methods of treatment. That betrays an insufficient study of what actually goes on in the juvenile courts, what they do, and what they can do. The criticism which I make, however, of all the thinking behind the sequence of events to which I shall refer, and which has emerged from the present Government—I suspect, although I must not say so, that it is the administrative substructure rather than the Ministerial superstructure which is to blame—is that it under-estimates the constructive rôle of the juvenile courts at present. It does not get it right. It does not really know what is going on.
  The second mistake in the thinking behind the Bill is that a fundamental truth about children has not been realised. It is my belief that we can talk about a child's welfare with all the sincerity, compassion and love which we know the right hon. Gentleman can summon, but we forget at our peril that the child has a sense of justice, a sense of justice which, though unsophisticated and immature, like all its undeveloped faculties, is none the less as acute and as real as the sense of justice of the Lord Chancellor himself.
  There is one child of which we can each speak with good claim to intimate knowledge. Speaking of myself and looking back on my own childhood, I confess to having been able to put up with all sorts of suffering, ill-health, or even plain unkindness, but the little incidents of injustice, stand out like pebbles in my memory, making a permanent mark on my personality. I speak of the times when I was punished for something I did not do, when I was accused of something of which I was innocent, or was treated, as I thought, as

  1201
  another child more favoured than myself would not have been treated. To my mind, it is the failure of the substructure to realise that fundamental fact about children which has led the Government astray on the Bill.
  First, there was the unfortunate White Paper of 1965, which did not differentiate between the guilty child and the innocent child, suggesting, rather, that a council could decide what was best for little Johnny. But little Johnny is a human being. He minds whether he is being, as he would put it, punished, though not as the civil servants mean to do it. He minds whether he is being treated in a way that he regards as punishment for something he did not do. That is why it would be churlish of me not to say that the White Paper of 1968, for which the right hon. Gentleman legitimately claimed credit, and the Bill which improves on it do represent real advances on the unfortunate White Paper of 1965. They do, and I acknowledge that gladly.
  But there are factors in the child's understanding of justice other than the pure question of innocence or guilt. The first, which I had written in my notes before the right hon. Gentleman used the phrase in another context and with a different meaning, is equality of treatment. Of course, equality of treatment does not mean uniformity of treatment, and the right hon. Gentleman was quite entitled to say that. But let us see where we shall be if the Bill passes into law, which brings me back to the inadequacy of preparation. The Ingleby Committee, which reported as recently as 1960, made a series of recommendations which I vastly prefer to the contents of the Bill. I do not accept them all, but I prefer the Committee's approach, and it is approaches that we are talking about on Second Reading.
  If the Bill passes into law it is not enough, to bring a child before the court, that he has committed an offence. The decisive authority must reach the conclusion that in addition to having committed an offence, if that is the avenue through which the application is to be made, he is in need of one of the orders that the court can make under the Bill—supervision, care, or binding over of
  1202
  the parents, to take the examples given by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Let us see how this will work in practice and how it affects the child's sense of justice. Let us take two joint offenders, who have been pilfering from the supermarket. The one led astray is the child of a deserted wife or widowed mother, who is out of work and unable to effect proper care and control. The boy is fanatically devoted to his mother. The other, whom one may call the ringleader, comes, if you please, from a middle-class home, or shall it be a working-class home? It does not matter. But the situation is such that no one would say either that the parents should be bound over, because the factors which govern that are factors affecting the parent, or that the child should be put under supervision or care.
  Under the Bill, he does not go to court at all. To use the expression which the child would use, and forgetting about phrases like "criminal responsibility" and the rest of the gobbledy-gook we use when we talk about these problems, one is "had up" and the other is not "had up" at all. The child that is had up in those circumstances will say, if the Bill becomes law, that this is not justice, that it is not fair. That is the road along which administrative convenience and good intentions are leading the House and the Government if we pass the Bill into law.
  Mr. Peter Archer: If the two children are brought before the court, is the court to treat them both alike, irrespective of their home circumstances and all the other circumstances, or are we still to have one child saying that the other one has got off?
  Mr. Hogg: The children will not be treated alike, if the meaning of "treatment" is treatment after conviction. I shall come to treatment later, but the point I was making, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's argument that bringing before the court is not treatment in that sense, is that the two cases must be heard together to get justice between them. We shall see in a moment where that will lead us.
  Broadly, the answer to the hon. Gentleman is to be found in another defect of the Bill. It is well to remember

  1203
  that we legislated about this subject as recently as 1963, although the right hon. Gentleman never so much as mentioned the Act of 1963. The present situation is that the parents of a child who does wrong can be made to pay compensation to the victim. This cannot happen under the Bill.
  If I may return to the perfectly legitimate question of the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer), under the law, with an adequate panoply of child care officers and the like provided by the new training system, one can fine the parents of the ringleader or make them pay compensation. Therefore, both the children do not get off. But under the law as proposed, one not only gets off but does not even get "had up". The House would be taking a retrograde step by passing this legislation.
  If a mere lawyer is allowed to speak, I would just say that some of us care more about justice than almost anything else in the world, and in that the history of mankind sides with us on the whole. If we choose to disregard justice in our handling of young people we shall not achieve the objectives which the Home Secretary has in mind.
  My next point can be handled better in relation to the proposals regarding young persons than children, although what I am about to say has some application to children as well. Before reaching it, may I tell the Home Secretary that I do not want every child that commits an offence to go to court. I do not share the view which was, I think incautiously, expressed by the Master of the Rolls in a recent case, when I was very nearly committed for contempt of court. It was suggested that the police should prosecute every offence. After all, until 1903 a person who admitted a Jesuit to vows in this country was liable to the loss of all his worldly goods, under an Act of 1829. I believe that the police should exercise some degree of caution in prosecuting any offences, particularly when it comes to prosecuting children and young persons, but especially children.
  Therefore, it is quite an unfair point to make against us that there are all the liaison schemes and the various devices adopted. I think that they are good, but I share the view of the Ingleby Committee that in principle the commission
  1204
  of what in an adult would be an offence—I do not complain of the raising of what is called the age of criminal responsibility, although it is very largely eyewash—would be in itself in principle an adequate reason in law for bringing the case before the juvenile court, even though that was the only factor, and even though the police were encouraged to use a great deal of discretion before they brought it.
  That brings me to the point I was about to make. If one asked a child what it meant by justice I think that its answer would have the following three factors. The first is guilt or innocence. That was got rid of by the 1965 White Paper, out is now quite properly reintroduced by the right hon. Gentleman into this legislation.
  The second is what I have been trying to describe by "equality", which is an element in all human beings' ideas of justice, social or legal. The third is speed. There must be as short a period as possible between the commission of an offence—especially when dealing with a child or young person—and the way one treats the offender. One must never fail to bear in mind that the child's sense of time moves infinitely more slowly than the adult's. That is to say, three months is an age to a child but when, alas, one reaches the age of 60 it seems only like five minutes of one's childhood existence.
  If we are to introduce all this red tape into the bringing of the offence before the court—as distinct from the apparatus of dealing with it—how long will it take for a young person to be brought to court after the commission of an offence? Anyone's guess is a good one. All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that, when I put that question to one of the associations which addressed our party committee—as, no doubt, it addressed a committee of hon. Members opposite—I was told that it would be three to four months on average. That is simply not good enough.
  It is not only that the juvenile court magistrate wishes to disclaim the rôle of abiter assigned to him by the Bill. It is that the police can be trusted to use the discretion which will have the effect of keeping within our law—because it Is there now—the feature of rapidity which is essential in dealing with young people and children.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does the right hon. and learned Member have any figures about the speed with which prosecutions are now brought to the juvenile courts? In my experience, three or four months was not beyond the normal.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I have no such figures and I would be the first to concede that the tendency is too long as it is. But that is precisely the reason why we should not make it longer still or put artificial barriers to prosecution. I feel that this action is a step in the wrong direction, taken with the best possible motives but in the name of administrative efficiency rather than from real, concrete understanding of cases as they happen.
  One has to recognise that children come before juvenile courts for a great variety of different kinds of misdoing. One can take, as I thought the right hon. Gentleman was taking, altogether too tragic a view of what happens when they get there and the need for bringing them there for a variety of reasons—truancy, for example, or riding a bicycle without a light. If the child goes on doing it, inevitably he will find himself there, but must we go through the rigmarole of pretending that he has to have a supervision order or that his parents must be bound over?
  Then there are various types of malicious damage. Under the present law, the parent can be made to pay and that is an end of it. But one cannot prosecute a boy if he throws a stone through the shopkeeper's window now unless he is in need of care, or, under the Bill, supervision, and even when one does prosecute him the parent cannot be made to pay, so that the shopkeeper will have to pay out of his own pocket.
  I have tried not to be technical. It may be that the impression I have succeeded in creating on the Home Secretary is that of a dry-as-dust lawyer who does not know anything about children and who has taken nothing but legal points with the utmost pedantry. If so, I have failed, but my conviction is that this is a muddle-headed piece of legislation, although I admire his objective. If it were not for the fact that I know he would not, I would appeal to him to
  1206
  take the Bill back and bring us something better.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. Paul B. Rose: I have always admired the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) for his fertility of ideas. I should now congratulate him in respect of his fertility in other respects. I well recall having to defend two youngsters in a juvenile court. They had seen a bus standing on derelict ground. They were naturally attracted, went into the cab and started to play. Somehow, they succeeded in starting the bus, which lurched forward a few yards and then lurched back. They were brought before the juvenile court and, after a long hearing, were found guilty technically of taking and driving away a motor vehicle. They were, of course, discharged.
  It was my submission then, and it is my submission today, that that case should never have come before a court. Of course, a caution in that case would have been adequate, but such procedure varies from place to place and it is one of the merits of the Bill—although there are defects in it—that it standardises the criteria for bringing children before the courts.
  In so far as the Bill seeks to limit the number of cases which come before juvenile courts, with the object of trying to help and treat young people rather than punish them, it should be warmly welcomed. Although revolutionary in its long-term implications, it is almost counter-revolutionary in the context of the original White Paper, "The Child, the Family and the Law". It is essentially a compromise, but not necessarily the worse for that.
  As the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, the original White Paper contained a number of principles which gave rise to very great concern on the part of those concerned seriously about the rule of law. In attempting to do away with the concept of guilt, it risked the opposite effect of tarnishing all those brought before the proposed Family Council with guilt. It implied the fact that, where an accusation might have led the child before the Family Council, any treatment meted out by the council would have been regarded by the child and its family as punishment.

  1207
  Above all, it placed the parent in the rôle not of protector of the child, but, in the child's eyss, perhaps as a conspirator with the authcrities, in the shape of the council, in depriving him of his liberty. There was, in effect, a presumption of guilt without recourse to legal process.
  Under the new procedure, which I welcome in general, only a minority of youngsters will come before the juvenile court, and there must be both offence and the need for care and control—a dual requirement—before an order is made. This largely meets the objection, but there are two very sincere and quite differing schools of thought—one of them put very adequately by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—which inevitably lead to different conclusions.
  I refer to what was said b. Mr. R. F. Sparks, Assistant Director of Research at the Cambridge Institute of Criminology, who criticised the assumption that delinquency is basically a symptom of personal or social maladjustment curable by sympathetic caseworkers and that the prevention of delinquency and the protection of children are really identical objectives. This is a view which the right hon. and learned Gentleman shares. I do not share it in the case of a majority of the cases of delinquency which come before the courts.
  On the other hand, there is a growing awareness, which has been shown in Home Office and Education Department circulars, that
  "… unsatisfactory home conditions are one of the long-term causes of juvenile delinquency."
  The best example of the view opposed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that of Barbara Kahain, who wrote an interesting article in New Society in 1962. She was then, I do not know whether she still is, Children's Officer to the County of Oxford. She said:
  "A child who becomes delinquent is reacting to the same problems which produce maladjusted and deprived children and should be treated in the light of this."
  The figures which she quotes from her Oxford experience lend enormous support to the contention that offenders can satisfactorily be rehabilitated by the same methods as those used for bringing up deprived children, without resorting to approved school training, which incidentally, is usually more expensive.
  1208
  If this is what is behind the idea of the community homes, then I welcome the proposal in the Bill. I have one reservation, and it is that all the reforming zeal of my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will founder if it is not matched by the same generosity of financial treatment from the Treasury in respect of the new institutions, the numbers of personnel that will be needed to deal with these changes and with what is the growing problem of children in trouble.
  I want to return to the central debate, which was very important. The Magistrates Association and my own juvenile panel in Manchester have made representations which follow what is basically the Sparks view, or the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. They say:
  "These provisions, which give local authorities wide powers, are acceptable only when they are used to give relief to deprived children (e.g., orphans and deserted children) but are unacceptable when applied to juveniles who are offenders or beyond control."
  This is far too sweeping a statement, and it is a distinction which is not valid over a broad section of the cases which come before the courts.
  It certainly runs counter to the experience at Oxford, quoted in New Society, where 90 per cent. of those children who were treated in the same way as the non-delinquents benefited from such treatment. This compares very well with the 50 per cent. who appeared to benefit—in the sense that they did not appear before the courts again—from approved school.
  It may be, and I have no figures to challenge this one way or the other, that these were the less serious cases. Many hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite have far more experience than I on this, but in my experience defending people on criminal charges, whether young children, adolescents or adults, I am completely convinced that in every case I have looked at there has been something unusual about the whole background of the delinquent. I am convinced that basically a happy home, where there is love and affection, where the family works together as a unit, does not, or very rarely, produce a delinquent child.
  In spite of this, I have great sympathy for the magistrates and for one of two of the points put forward by the right

  1209
  hon. and learned Gentleman, because there is a third possibility, and it is that the child who is not a delinquent in the true sense of the word may be going through a phase. He may only be showing off to his friends at school, and may perhaps pilfer from a local store or a market. This was not unknown, even in the direct grant school which I attended. Such a child does not need to be sent away and he may not be in need of care and protection, but a jolly good jolt would be useful.
  There needs to be some kind of contact with some sort of authority to put him right, and this probably applies to a third of the offenders who appear before juvenile courts. In these cases the right to fine and order compensation, or to discharge a person might be useful. The panel at Manchester which put forward the need for these measures misses the fact that under the new rules most of these cases will not come before the court, and that such powers will only be of value, and I agree that they would be of value, if the requirement as to the need for care and protection did not apply. It is no use having those powers when this dual requirement exists. There may be a few cases which will filter through, where this sort of treatment will be useful. Nevertheless, there is a point. These are experienced humane people, conscious of their responsibilities. They voluntarily give their time in this service and have a great deal of experience.
  I wonder how many of them have seen the scene outside their court. I wonder whether they have seen the spectacle of an overcrowded ill-lit room, in which juvenile offenders, traffic and other offenders, police officers, court ushers, probation officers, children's officers, solicitors, counsel—all sorts of people—mill about, apparently aimlessly, very often aimlessly, while the children wait; while their nervous and uncomprehending parents have time to develop the neuroses which probably originally brought the children to court.
  Mr. Harry Howarth: Does my hon. Friend really think that the Bill will obviate that sort of situation? It will merely reduce it.
  Mr. Rose: Perhaps my hon. Friend will hear with me.
  1210
  This is a closely argued point and it comes to conclusions which are not perhaps on the same line of my right hon. Friend or the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is an observation on the facts of life in some of the juvenile courts. If the Bill succeeds in reducing the number of cases brought before the courts, it will have done a service. If the provisions of the Bill enable children to forgo that experience it will be a good thing. Like the Association of Children's Officers, I would welcome it on that ground alone.
  Prevention is better than cure. Reference has already been made to the Ingleby Committee. That Committee stressed that the great majority of offenders could be helped and diverted from their anti-social behaviour by means designed to build up their confidence and a sense of their own worth, to give them opportunities for developing their personality and capabilities. I agree with those sentiments. I have to concede that with all the good will in the world, and supporting this the Bill as I do, we have not yet disposed of the objections of the Magistrates Association, or the forceful criticism that the new procedure may lead to one law for the rich and another for the poor, particularly where there are co-defendants. It is true that defendants, once found guilty, are often dealt with differently, but it is also true that today middle-class children very rarely come before the courts.
  My right hon. Friend has to accept that it will be very hard for parents to accept the difference in practice, not in the way in which the child is dealt after the hearing, but over the decision as to whether he should be brought before the court initially. It almost prejudges the capability of the parents. All this stems from the difficult compromise which we are seeking to achieve between, on the one side the concept of guilt, which is more favoured by the Opposition and the need for care, favoured on this side of the House.
  Somehow, I believe that this is a genuine dilemma which has to be resolved. The anomalies arising from this compromise might have been avoided by a procedure put forward by the probation officers. This was the idea of a social worker trained in the law, who would decide initially whether a case should

  1211
  go before a court. He would filter the case in the first case. This would give a great degree of flexibility and would cover precisely the kind of case to which I have referred, when a certain jolt may be needed, but where there is no need for care and protection.
  It would bring the child and parents into contact with a trained person, someone in authority who would be able, by the act of dealing with the matter, to show them the seriousness of the position. It would at the same time fit in with the main object of the Bill in preventing many young children from coming before the court who should not do so. The police caution may have the same effect. It is not standard throughout the country and it is not entirely satisfactory. It precludes the possibility of the flexible approach which the suggestion of the probation officers and myself would give.
  In this context, I refer to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about the police juvenile liaison scheme. I welcome its extension. It might be said, perhaps jocularly, that it does the police a great deal of good and there is no reason to suppose that it harms the children. But that would be very unfair. I must congratulate the police on their approach. The Police Federation have said that it does not like children who need socialising being branded as criminals. It is refreshing to hear of the cooperation and concern of the police in this matter. It is a recognition of the basic principle which makes this aspect of the Bill a welcome innovation, despite the problems to which I have referred.
  I ask my right hon. Friend—he has given every indication that this will be so—to ensure that the Committee stage is treated as a forum for constructive debate to work out the answer rather than, as sometimes happens with Committee stages, an unfortunate necessity which the Government must go through to get a Bill on the Statute Book.
  There should be flexibility in the use of the probation service and children's officers. There should not be a rigid distinction according to age. The probation service has a great deal to offer. It has much valuable experience of children in trouble. I see no reason why we should not draw on the different types of experience of the probation officers
  1212
  and of child welfare officers. I see no reason to oppose the suggestion of the panel of Manchester magistrates that they should be entitled to have investigations made by the probation service if they so desire, at least in the initial stage, when we are still trying to train a large number of children's officers, some of whom inevitably will lack experience when they come straight from training.
  The children's officers point out, quite rightly, that they know
  "by experience that the difference between the young offender and the other is related more to the existence of administrative circumstances than to anything else".
  If that is so—and I believe that it is in large measure—then by the same token there can be no objection to the extensive use of probation officers to deal with cases of that sort. If it works one way, it must work the other.
  Mrs. Lena Jeger: Would my hon. Friend agree that it would be especially unfortunate if, in the same family, one child over the age of 14 was being helped by the probation service and a younger child was being helped by the child welfare officer.
  Mr. Rose: That is an additional point which I accept.
  Mr. Callaghan: One officer would look after the family.
  Mr. Rose: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
  This is a field which should attract a great many young people who are genuinely concerned about social problems and who perhaps give vent to their concern in ways which are not always regarded as desirable by authority. Their genuine concern could well be channelled into this work.
  I welcome Clause 5 of the Bill. It is not dissimilar from my proposal for social workers, except that a magistrate, presumably one who is particularly experienced in these matters, will decide whether to prosecute. I still think that the idea of a trained social worker who also has had legal training would fill the bill as a sort of committal court before the case is heard. It would not be desirable that a magistrate who has already heard the case should again hear it when it comes before the juvenile court.

  1213
  It is a pity that controversy over these questions diverts attention from the comprehensive range of residential facilities for young people needing care which are to be provided for under the Bill. I hope that this means a lot more than mere changes in names. I am particularly delighted that no offender under the age of 17 will be sent to a detention centre or borstal when the alternative facilities are made available. This is no criticism of those who run detention centres, but I have felt for a long time that frequently they fall between two stools. What is needed for some offenders is a very short, sharp shock and not three months detention. What others need is a much longer period of positive training.
  I hope that financial stringency will not delay the progressive measures in the Bill. I am glad that the new forms of constructive treatment are welcomed by the Magistrates Association. My own magistrates feel that the Bill does not go far enough in this respect. They have fears about the priority in national and local authority finance which will be given to these projects. The great emphasis on controlling foster homes is another positive aspect of the Bill. In particular, I refer to Clause 49.
  But lack of staff to deal with this matter could detract from the effectiveness of the Bill. If 1,500 local authority staff will be needed and about £2½ million required to pay for them, the problem of training will be crucial to carrying out the Bill's intentions. Good legislation needs to be matched by generosity in finance. This legislation is vital to the future of hundreds of thousands of young people and children yet unborn. Many sincere people have contributed to its discussion. It is very unfair to say that no time has been given for discussion. It has gone on for a long time, and it is to the Government's credit that they have listened to many of the representations made on the White Paper and have come up with a Bill which, with modifications in Committee, should be acceptable to all concerned.
  The Bill is essentially a compromise between one type of valuable experience and tradition typified by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone in a very attractive and sincere speech, and another type of experience which is
  1214
  becoming increasingly important as typified by the children's officers. Compromises inevitably produce anomalies, and there are some in the Bill. I hope that thought will be given to their elimination in Committee. But I believe that the House should welcome the Bill generally.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: I will deal later with the largely constructive and very thoughtful remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose).
  The Home Secretary adopted a robust, common-sense attitude to our opposition to parts of the Bill, for which I am grateful. He said that he does not want to have a dogfight about the Bill. That certainly goes for me. He was indulgent enough to overlook what I had perceived to be a slip in our Amendment, to which I will call attention before somebody else does. We refer in the Amendment to "Part III". I think that we mean Part II. Perhaps I might add my weight to the Amendment by saying that the top three signatories of it have 16 children between them.
  Like the Home Secretary, I am not deeply troubled by the differences between the two sides of the House over the Bill, but I am disturbed by one consequence, not only of the Bill, but of the White Paper which preceded it, and that is the polarisation—I think that that is the right word—of some of the principal bodies working in this field.
  On the one hand, the children's officers and the child care officers, whose empire—perhaps that is an unfair word—whose responsibilities will be inevitably increased by the Bill, tend strongly to support it, with very few reservations. On the other hand, the juvenile court magistrates, who have come in for some discussion, whose judicial realm they feel will be diminished, have expressed reservations, some to the point of opposition. I accept what the Home Secretary says, that there are some who support the Bill, but I think that the majority have reservations.
  The Home Secretary left us in no doubt where he stood. It would be a pity if bodies which are united in putting first their care and consideration for these children should become divided by the Bill, or by anything that we may

  1215
  observe among ourselves in the course of the debate, and I bear that in mind. These bodies share a common concern for children and young people in trouble and in most cases, although I have little experience of their work, they work together, and I hope that this will continue to be so. It is inherently probable that the case put by each side has some truth in it, and I find it difficult to reject one case and accept all the others. Broadly, they find common ground on Part II, as we do. There are differences in detail, but not in principle. They take a certain amount for granted, which I hope we shall not do.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has hinted, the principal failure of the present system has not been so much the behaviour of the courts, but our inability to provide the range of facilities envisaged under the Acts that we have passed since the war for the benefit of the courts and to which they might resort. It is surely common ground that there has not been provided the diversity of facilities which first the 1948 Act and then subsequent Acts, notably the 1963 Act, all envisaged, and that has been a major failure.
  I see no reason to think that these proposals will of themselves remedy those defects. Indeed, it is accepted that some time will be taken in finding personnel and bricks and mortar although it is less bricks and mortar than personnel. I do not want to develop that argument except to ask one question. Will the Under-Secretary, in winding up the debate, tell us what effect the Bill will have on the Government's thinking about Seebohm? The implementation of the Seebohm Report is given a degree of greater relevance by the provisions of the Bill, and a great many people are anxious about the future of the Report.
  It is on Part I of the Bill that the major differences occur, and I think rightly. The Manchester Juvenile Court Panel—and I am speaking as one who is neither a magistrate nor a lawyer—put its finger on the point at issue very fairly in referring to its fundamental objection to State intervention in a juvenile's life through an executive rather than a judicial body. This has been the central issue since the first White Paper of 1965, "The Child, the Family and the Young
  1216
  Offender", and it remains a critically important one.
  Where I believe that the thinking behind this plan is wrong and leads to a major defect in the Bill is the basic assumption that all children who commit offences can be subject to the same proceedings or, perhaps I should say more accurately, to the same lack of criminal proceedings. I am prepared to accept that there are children whose family background and home circumstances may be such as to mitigate almost any offence, and that in such instances the case for executive rather than judicial action is overwhelming.
  I am even prepared to accept that there are children whose single offence may be an incident which should not occasion a court appearance and which would now, but not in future, probably lead to a police caution. The argument that this principle should be applied to all young offenders, for example, to all the 20,000 under the age of 14 found guilty of indictable offences in the last accountable year, is an argument which it is impossible to sustain, and that is my root objection to Part I.
  Certainly, there are children, perhaps the very great majority, whose pressing need is for help and not for punishment, but there remains a minority, which may be small, whose family backgrounds are not unsatisfactory and whose offences cannot be shrugged off as part of childhood's experience, and a fair number of these are under 14. Experts will assure us that there are a certain number under the age of 10, although I am not for the moment arguing the age of criminal responsibility. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, disagreeable as it is to say so, there are depraved as well as deprived and, if we ignore that, we ignore reality, though it is unpleasant reality, and if we ignore reality as we proceed with the Bill we shall make a blunder.
  Behind these proposals there lies a wholly well-intentioned but potentially dangerous notion that our primary role with the young delinquent is not to treat or punish offences but to prevent them Carried to its logical conclusion, that may lead to executive action on behalf of children who would not now appear in court. The Home Secretary lent some countenance to this reflection. He spoke

  1217
  of preventive work and of trivial offences which would now not be caught up but which, under the provisions of the Bill, may be dealt with. That intervention in a juvenile's life, perhaps with the full consent of feckless parents, without any judicial authority carries certain dangers. The judicial process may seem harsh, but it also carries great safeguards.
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: Is not that the whole basis of the present relationship between juveniles and the police? The police do not take the child to court, but intervene before the case occurs. Similarly, in thousands of cases the children's officers see trouble before is occurs and prevent it happening.
  Mr. Deedes: The hon. Gentleman mistakes my point. The point is that there will now be fresh causes for the executive as opposed to the courts to investigate the circumstances and actions of children, and this without the safeguard of judicial proceedings or supervision. I am entering a reservation about that.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): Will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind to the fact that Section 1 of the Act of 1963 already enjoins child care officers to give advice, guidance and assistance to young persons so that they will not appear before the court? What he is talking about is exactly the same as that.
  Mr. Deedes: I am careful not to suggest that we are incorporating a fresh principle; we are extending conditions which already exist. It is in this extension that I see certain dangers.
  Open court proceedings, which we loudly extol in other circumstances, have virtues which, in the course of our consideration of the Bill, I hope we shall not overlook. On the face of it, justice administered by the Welfare State seems to be more just than justice administered by the criminal court, but the Welfare State is no more infallible than the courts, as we know from some instances arising out of the Welfare State which are brought to our notice, and it may well be less adequately staffed.
  Part of this same thinking also dwells on the stigma of criminality involved in
  1218
  court appearances. This stigma would be associated with appearance before any tribunal, be it a family court or a welfare council, call it what you will, and this argument can be overdone. It is not the court from which the thinking behind these proposals shies, but the establishment of guilt or otherwise. That is the crux of it, and that is where I part company with this part of the Bill.
  I go all the way with those who declare that seven out of 10 or nine out of 10 offending children require help and not punishment. I refuse to move with those who seek to conceal from the child whether it has offended or not, and that is what I fear that the consequences of this part of the Bill may be. That is not even a principle which is accepted in the English home, and it ought not to be introduced into our courts.
  I can think of no move more calculated to confuse the young mind and create the sense of injustice to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred than this endeavour, however well intentioned, to blur a very important line. There is only one proper place to determine guilt or innocence in many circumstances where home surroundings are not a predominant factor, and that, in the interests of the child and the family, is the court. That function fulfilled, I see no reason why the bulk of the Bill's excellent intentions should not be fulfilled.
  It seems to me that we have gone a long way to achieve what could be a good and much simpler process. Incidentally, I am sure that the Home Secretary, in preparing the Bill, has borne in mind how difficult it will be for children and their families to understand what it is that we intend. The Bill is extremely complicated. We are accustomed to deciphering 94 pages of a Bill like this, but will it be understood by the young and their families who may be involved in the hundreds of thousands of cases to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? I fear not. However, I put that in only in parentheses.
  I hope that the courts will recommend as many as possible to social and welfare services. I do not take exception to that at all. They will wish as much as any to promote the welfare of the young. However, it is not necessary to require the Lord Chancellor in future to select

  1219
  juvenile magistrates of suitable outlook for this work. I question whether that is a wise move. Let the decision be taken in open court. Let it be arrived at openly. Let there be no suggestion of decisions affecting the future of the young reached behind executive doors, no matter how good the intentions may be.
  There is another notion behind these proposals that too many appear in court unnecessarily. The hon. Member for Blackley made reference to that in his speech. I would like to see evidence of that. Certainly, it was not part of the Ingleby Committee's findings. It did not recommend any restrictions on bringing juvenile offenders to court. In any case, I would have thought that the police liaison schemes could be left to look after that.
  From these excellently intentioned proposals, I see two dangers arising, both of them contrary to the cause of justice. The first is interference by the Executive, out of sight, so to speak, and outside the judicial framework. That sometimes can lead to the nastiest scandals caused by the nicest people. That is the tragedy of this. The second is this matter of delay, which is applicable particularly to the proposals for those between 14 and 17.
  I have always ruled out any possibility of going back to the birch for young people, because the strongest argument against the birch, in the Departmental Committee's paper on the subject, was the intolerable delay between the sentence and the infliction of the birch. It is therefore consistent, it seems to me, to be highly critical of what I suspect will be protracted inquiries in respect of those between 14 and 17, lasting far longer than they should or than they do now. Weeks, even months, will be spent as the files circulate and a somewhat overburdened service, to say nothing of the police, pursue their inquiries. I fear that, in the last place where we desire it to happen, the Bill may have, in the literal sense of the word, a demoralising effect. I say that as one who generally tries to support all constructive measures of penal reform.
  Those responsible for drafting the Bill are suffering from a fundamental and infectious confusion. I fear that they may inflict part of their confusion on the minds of a generation which needs and deserves something better.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. James Tinn: I hope that the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks, in the light of my own argument, though I found a good deal of force in much of what he said. Nevertheless, my own consideration has led me to give a warmer welcome to the Bill than he finds himself inclined to do.
  I welcome especially the readiness of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consult with bodies, and I share his astonishment at that part of the Opposition Amendment which criticises the failure to do so. Even the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) acknowledges the very great difference between this Bill, based on the most recent White Paper, and the earlier White Paper. This is a measure of the consultation, and the much greater degree of welcome for the Bill; and the second White Paper is an indication that the consultation has borne fruit. It has been a genuine process of consultation in which people's views have been taken into account.
  Based as it is on the family, the basic principles underlying the Bill is sound, but I share with the right hon. Gentleman and others the view that it is essential to take account of the offender's viewpoint. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is right in arguing that one essential element in this is simplicity. It is important that the procedure to be followed should be simple and capable of being easily understood, not just by a layman but by people who very often are of limited intelligence. It is important, too, that proceedings should be obviously fair. It is not sufficient simply that they should be fair. They must be obviously and apparently fair. These requirements must be borne in mind.
  In passing, I feel that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was very unfair in suggesting that administrative convenience for and by civil servants underlay very much of the Bill. Certainly, that is not my impression. I think that he lacked his usual charity and sense of fairness in making that suggestion.
  I turn now to what has been described as the nub of the criticism of the Bill. It is suggested that it discriminates between offenders. As I understand, the arguments against that arise first from the

  1221
  suggestion that there may be a kind of social discrimination favouring the middle-class as against the working-class child and, in any case, involving great difficulty in defining what is a poor or unsatisfactory home. It is certainly my view that a middle-class home can be much more unsatisfactory in some ways than a working class home. It depends on the circumstances. But how do we arrive at an objective appraisal of those circumstances or define the criteria?
  The point has been made that the involvement of the parents through the requirement about showing lack of care and need might seriously damage the relationship of the child with his parents. He might feel that they have let him down if he is sent to court whereas another child is not. He may feel it is through some fault of his parents.
  The question of delay has been fully dealt with. I simply list it as one of the criticisms.
  Some critics have queried whether a child is sufficiently safeguarded under the Bill against what might on occasion be rather narrow and arbitrary decisions by council officials, although perhaps well meaning. It must be borne in mind in this connection that the consent of parents cannot always be assumed, as perhaps would be required for this part of the Bill to work successfully.
  Having said that and having fully recognised the force of the arguments which I have simply summarised, I feel that there are counter arguments to be made.
  First, court action may well mean that the necessity of proving an offence may prevent early remedial-preventive action to deter a child from an apparently chosen path in time. It may inhibit early action if court action is required.
  While I appreciate the contribution made by the juvenile courts, their sincerity, qualifications and merits, I am not sure that they are best able to be judge in their own case on this matter. After all, they lack one essential element in objective assessment of their own contribution to the process—an adequate amount of feedback of the consequences of their proposed treatment in their sentences. They have the history of a child before he comes to court and from that
  1222
  they award a certain course of treatment. If the child does not appear before that bench again it has no way of checking the effectiveness of its decisions.
  Mr. Charles Mapp: I should point out to my hon. Friend that those who sit on juvenile court benches regularly dealing with all sorts of offences, great and minor, have machinery available to enable them to follow up these cases by means of probation case committees and visits to places. They are generally alive and alert to the responsibilities attaching to a juvenile court. If the juvenile court magistrates seriously want to follow up cases every opportunity is given for them to do so.
  Mr. Thin: I welcome my hon. Friend giving me this information. But I cannot help wondering whether all juvenile court benches are able to find the time to use the facilities that are open to them. However, I accept my hon. Friend's correction.
  When I first considered the Clause and this criticism, the example of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone seemed obvious and I found it difficult to answer. The question was: how do we treat two offenders charged with or guilty of the same offence but from different backgrounds? I recognise that this is a powerful argument which cannot be disregarded. The sense of unfairness that one or other of the boys can feel if there is a difference in treatment has to be measured or assessed. But we have to be careful that we do not sacrifice, on the ground of that very important consideration, the equally or more important consideration that the treatment should be suited to the offender rather than to the offence. Is it really suggested that because one boy comes from a less satisfactory home the needs of the second boy should in some way be subordinate to those of the first and that he should be penalised by not being given the treatment most appropriate to him? The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that treatment after the court stage is different. Considering that there is no essential difference in principle or in effect of handling the two cases rather differently in the initial stage as in the secondary, one boy going to court and the

  1223
  other not, on balance I tend to come down on the side of the Bill.
  I should like to raise one point of detail. Clause 5(2), I understand, requires that criminal proceedings can be taken only with the consent of a justice of the peace qualified to sit in a juvenile court. I cannot help wondering whether this is wise and necessary. I think that, in tenor with the general theme of the Bill, it would be better for that kind of decision to be taken by the social workers and others concerned at an earlier stage.
  I now turn to the question of prevention. I hope that in the machinery to be set up we shall see much closer liaison with the schools. The classroom register is often the first indication about the tendency of a child towards delinquency. There may be recurrent truancy. It may not be enough to constitute an offence, but it may occur in a regular pattern on particular days. It might turn out to be market day. That might suggest to an alert teacher that perhaps a bit of petty thieving is going on. At that stage, without the necessity of proving that it is happening, it would be an admirable consequence of the Bill if it was possible to call in some kind of expert assistance.
  I should like to see some provision inserted into the Bill concerning compensation to victims, From the point of view of the offender, natural justice, and public acceptability of the Bill as a whole, I think this is necessary.
  I should like to raise one or two detailed points on the children's regional planning committees. I welcome the Home Secretary's search for flexibility. This is essential. But I should like to draw attention to Schedule I, paragraph 1(2). On my reading, the Schedule seems to disqualify full-time practitioners from membership of the planning committees. This seems undesirable since presumably the people concerned with the treatment of children would have good experience from which to make a valuable contribution.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will give us some information about the criteria to be used in determining the size of the planning areas. Clearly, these must not be too large, so that we can avoid remoteness from home except in the inevitable special cases, and, on the other hand, they must not be too small so that they are not
  1224
  able to carry a wide range of community homes.
  Bearing in mind the time scale and the necessity to go ahead in stages, I wonder whether the Bill can be implemented on a regional basis? If the provisions of the Bill were introduced in their entirety in a selected region, it would obviate the disadvantage of a lack of resources and the necesssity of having to wait to introduce the Bill on a countrywide basis, and doing that would enable us to compare the results achieved there by the new measures with the results in regions where they have not been implemented.
  I urge my right hon. Friend to allow plenty of scope for experiment in the development of the necessary facilities. The Bill provides some scope for experiment, and I welcome this. I hope that there will be scope for individuality on the part of those in charge of the various establishments, and that they will not be required to conform to any particular pattern of thinking that might be current at any time. Will these establishments provide for the denominational element in existing approved schools to be maintained?
  The quality of the staff is crucial, and is much more important than any structure or methods. I am unhappy about the suggestion that there will not be a need for an increase in staff. I am concerned about the suggestion that, apart from what would normally be required, there will be no need for an increase in capital expenditure. I think that if the Bill is to work there will be a need for an increase in both staff and capital expenditure if we are not to be driven to a policy of make-do which might compromise the objectives of the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend made it clear that the Bill contains procedures for dealing with staff who are displaced, but I think that he is receiving representations on behalf of teachers in approved schools. These teachers should receive treatment at least comparable to that of teachers employed in the education service.
  In her report to the Teesside Children's Committee, Miss Forster, the Children's Officer, recommended the establishment of adventure training schools on our excellent North Yorkshire moors. I think that she envisaged youngsters staying there for perhaps a month at a time, and

  1225
  operating on Outward Bound lines, which many of us know were very effective in dealing with young people. In my constituency there is ample scope for providing such facilities.
  Having put those detailed questions, and having expressed one or two doubts, I conclude by warmly welcoming the Bill, which I believe will make a real contribution to solving an astonishingly difficult and complex problem.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: I hope to deal with some of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn), but I should like to start by referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). The hon. Gentleman and I are in the same profession; indeed, we practise in the same town.
  I very much agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman said, and no more so than when he talked about the standard of the juvenile courts in parts of the North-West of England. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I say that the arguments and the concern expressed by the Manchester City Juvenile Court on both the last White Paper and this one are of a far higher standard than the premises in which they have to sit.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I, too, wish that we could see a tremendous improvement in the standard of these courts. I think that they confirm what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said, that it is not so much the provisions of the Bill as the money, bricks and mortar that are required to put right that which is wrong in our approach to juveniles.
  I turn, now, to the theme of the Home Secretary's speech, and indeed the theme of the White Paper and the Bill. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman's two underlying arguments are, first, his desire to ensure that fewer children and young persons appear before the courts, and, secondly,——
  Mr. Callaghan: There is an important qualification here. I want to ensure that fewer children appear before the courts if other methods of treatment will be as, or more, effective.
  Mr. Carlisle: I could not agree more about that. I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that he would like to see fewer children appearing before the courts, and instead being dealt with in other ways. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that there is a need for more flexible means of treatment, particularly of offenders of this age.
  What concerns me about the Bill is that this seems to be the wrong way of going about achieving those aims. I believe that to a large extent we are debating change for change's sake, without the change leading to anything better than the present system. I believe that the provisions about the courts will lead, not only to injustice between children, but, worse still, to substantial delay, and when one is dealing with children delay in meting out justice to a large extent becomes itself injustice.
  I criticise the Bill because I believe that it takes powers from the courts and gives them too widely to local authorities. Above all, my objection is that in practice the Bill will to a large extent be unworkable, because I do not believe that the present child care authorities will be able to cope with the pressures which will result from the Bill becoming law. Having read Clause 31, I suspect that the Home Secretary feels the same way, because it seems that under this Clause the right hon. Gentleman can bring in part of the Bill at any time, in any year, for many years hence. One cannot help feeling that perhaps we are debating in a vacuum in that we are discussing provisions which, in effect, will not be brought in for a substantial number of years, because there will not be the men on the ground or the buildings to enable this to be done.
  I want to concentrate on Part I and the Clauses dealing with the present juvenile courts. I was slightly surprised—perhaps it was my fault for not noticing it—that the Home Secretary paid no tribute to the work of magistrates in juvenile courts——
  Mr. Callaghan: I did.
  Mr. Carlisle: I thought that it was noticeable by its absence rather than its presence. If the praise was there, it was faint. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that they do a

  1227
  great deal of very hard work, which takes up a lot of their time, and that they show a good deal of concern about the cases before them.
  For the children between 10 and 14, these proposals will not improve the situation. Someone mentioned the age of criminal responsibility, but the Bill does not raise that age to 14, since it specifically talks about children being "guilty" of offences. All that it does is say that a child can still be guilty of a criminal offence and can be brought before a court not for that offence but only as being in need of care and protection. I will not repeat the arguments against the principle of distinguishing between children from the homes with good control and those from homes with bad control.
  But the Home Secretary ignored this problem, that, surely, the objection to the Bill—he talked about middle class and working class homes and said that it was wrong that one child would appear before the court while the other would not—is that it exaggerates that difference by specifically providing that in future, although committing the same sort of offences, the child from the middle class home—to use his own phrase—cannot be brought before the court but the child from the working class home is extremely likely to be brought before the court. It is because I fear that it exaggerates this distinction, which—the right hon. Gentleman is probably in right—already exists, that I object to that provision. But others speakers have already given various examples of this.
  What worries me is that, under the Bill, before a child can be brought before the court, if he is to be, the local authority in conjunction with the police, must decide that he is, prima facie, in need of care and protection. Thus, all the detailed arrangements which today are done before the case is heard will have to be done even before a decision to prosecute is taken. Therefore, inevitably, the length of time which it takes to bring a child before the court is likely to be doubled. That delay in itself is a bad principle.
  When one considers that there were, on the figures which the Under-Secretary of State gave me in answer to some Questions, 31,263 cases in 1967 of children under 14 before the courts, one sees the tremendous amount of additional work
  1228
  which will be placed on the children's department.
  What happens when the child is brought to court? First of all, the offence must be proved. I appreciate that this may be a Committee point, but it must be proved by the criminal burden or proof. When it has been proved, the court will turn itself into a civil court and decide whether or not the child is in need of care and protection. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that this raises certain problems in the granting of legal aid to children in criminal courts, because these will be civil proceedings and the court will not be able to grant legal aid as it can at the moment. Whatever the outcome of our discussions, if the proposal is adhered to I hope that this will be considered and arrangements made.
  After a child has been found guilty of a criminal offence, the court will then say, "Now we must decide whether or not the parents are capable or incapable of giving the necessary care and control without the court's guidance". If the court decides that they are, the child cannot be touched and he gets the impression that he has got away with it. If, on the other hand, it decides that the parents are not capable of giving that care and control, by using this procedure we shall be taking a sledge hammer to crack what might be a nut. In fact, we are desperately limiting the powers of punishment and treatment which will then be available to the court by limiting it to a supervision order, a "bind over" order or a care order.
  For example, it seems wrong that the courts will no longer be able to order the parents to pay compensation. What will happen over the 27 per cent. of children whose parents are fined at the moment because of their offences? What will happen to the 27 per cent. who are given conditional discharges? More and more children will, of necessity, because no other means of treating them will be open to the courts, be put into the care of the local authority or under its supervision. This is a further burden on the child care officers which I do not believe they are capable of coping with.
  As the Home Secretary knows, and as another Answer to a Question of mine shows, there are just over 3,000 child care officers at the moment, which is less than the intended number to carry out

  1229
  the existing provisions of the 1963 Act, yet we are now bringing forward a great deal of additional work for them. I accept that the child care officers are excellent people, but it is a pity that the advice and assistance of the probation officers, who at the moment have in their care about 15,000 boys under the age of 14, is apparently to be removed. That is regrettable. Child care officers will have masses of other work to do in after-care, pre-release and parole board work, but the fact that about another 15,000 children are likely to come under their care strengthens my argument that the local authorities at the moment could not work the Bill.
  I now turn to the proposals for those aged between 14 and 17. My general criticism is that this intermediate stage of the examining magistrate—if that is the right word—is utterly unnecessary. It will not do any harm, other than cause delay, but it is unnecessary. The local authorities and the police already operate through the juvenile liaison schemes. I was fortunate enough to see them at work in the early days in 1964 in Lancashire, and was very impressed. No harm is caused by the fact that this is not written into the Statute. Probably part of the success of the scheme is due to the fact that they can use their own discretion and are not limited by rigid rules.
  But surely they can be left to use their discretion about whether or not to bring these people to court. In 1967, 88,000 young people between 14 and 17 appeared before the courts. In every case, apparently, the police will now have to notify the child care department of the local authority. They will then have to decide whether to apply to a magistrate for the grant of a warrant or summons; and, if necessary, the magistrate will have to adjudicate. In many cases this will be a formality, but in others it will not and additional work will be placed on the already undermanned child care officer staff. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, this will lead to further substantial delays in bringing people before the court.
  Consider the case of a child aged 15 or 16 who commits an offence of breaking and entering.
  Mr. Mapp: Before considering that type of case, would the hon. Gentleman
  1230
  apply his mind to the case of some young rogues who cause trouble at or after a football match? At present they can be brought before the court and be given sharp deterrent sentences. What will be the process under the Bill?
  Mr. Carlisle: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, and, considering his long experience as a magistrate in juvenile courts, I look forward to his contribution to the debate. He has made a valid point.
  Under the regulations which the Home Secretary may make a boy who is a perfect vandal and has caused trouble at a football ground—it may be at Oldham Athletic or Manchester United; if it occurred at Oldham Athletic there might be some justification for his behaviour [Laughter]—and has perhaps created damage might not be brought before the court. At present he can be dealt with quickly. He can be sent to a detention centre, and that at least prevents him from behaving as a vandal at Manchester United's ground or elsewhere for some time.
  Under the Bill, however, his home circumstances must be considered and then a decision whether or not a summons should be taken out must be made. That will require the fixing of an appointment with a magistrate, the hearing of the matter and, perhaps, the granting of a summons, There will, therefore, be three causes of delay; the original inquiry, the application for a summons and the taking out of the summons, with, of course, the 14 days or so that it takes to bring the boy to court. Under this Measure days will become weeks and weeks will become months.
  My criticism of the treatment side of the Bill is that the Home Secretary while he talks about flexibility, is limiting rather than expanding the power of punishment open to the courts. I welcome his references to intermediate forms of sentence. The courts at present need flexibility of this kind. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he now has an advisory committee looking at the whole question of non-custodial and semi-custodial means of punishment. I hope that eventually a system of periodic detention centres, such as they have in New Zealand, will exist here.

  1231
  The courts must be given alternative means of punishment or treatment. They must have the flexibility they require. What I do not like about the Bill is that it seems to take any such powers that exist away from the courts. The courts will place youngsters under the care or supervision of local authorities and it will then be those authorities which will decide whether or not they should go to any of these centres. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, if justice is to be seen to be done on behalf of the child, it is important that decisions of this kind are taken in open court rather than at an executive meeting of a local authority, which I fear is what will happen in practice.
  I also fear the results of the removal of the right to send youngsters to borstal. After all, 500 children a year aged 15 and 16 are now sent to borstal. I welcome the idea of community homes, but as arranged, will not they lead to an even greater mixture of the depraved and the deprived under one roof than regrettably happens now?
  I have been extremely critical of the Bill throughout my remarks. I still do not resile from the view of wholly accepting the two underlying principles of flexibility of punishment and trying to keep children away from the courts. It is because the Bill goes the wrong way to achieve those ends that I am glad that the Opposition Amendment has been tabled. I trust that the Home Secretary has taken note of the points made by hon. Members on both sides and that the Bill will be changed substantially to eradicate many of the faults to which I have referred.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) is obviously genuine and sincere in his desire to see fewer children brought unnecessarily before magistrates' courts. In view of his experience, I accept what he says, but I cannot accept the thesis underlying the Opposition Amendment.
  This is an excellent Bill, and I say that unreservedly. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on introducing it because it affects deprived children, children with no parents, children whose parents are sick, and children who are in homes or staying with foster parents
  1232
  —we should pay tribute to the staff of these homes and to foster parents because they provide not only care and attention but also love to the children in their charge—and it deals with children who are in trouble. It is the latter aspect which is the contentious part of the Bill.
  I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite have tabled the Amendment. After all, all of them, including the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), believe in the principle that children should not be brought unnecessarily before the courts. The crucial question is whether we believe that or whether we are merely paying lip service to it. If we believe it, what alternative suggestions have been made?
  The Bill has a worthy object. The Amendment, on the other hand, contains the words:
  "… without adequate preparation or consultation".
  I will try to look inside the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite to see what they mean by those words. The Curtis Committee discussed this matter a quarter of a century ago. Hon. Gentlemen Opposite set up the Ingleby Committee in 1956 and that reported in 1960. When we came to power an excellent White Paper was produced by the then new Labour Government as a basis for discussion. It was not a White Paper designed to set before the nation a statement of definite policy that would be followed come hell or high water. It invited public debate, and we got it. My right hon. Friend listened to it and, as a result, last year he published "Children in Trouble", and even that was not the end of the story, because the Bill modifies the proposals set out in that document.
  How much consultation and preparation can one have? Must another quarter of a century pass before we have legislation on this subject? Do we want the children about whom we are speaking to grow up and have children before we act? Are hon. Gentlemen opposite happy with so many children being brought before the juvenile courts? I suspect that this argument about inadequate preparation is an argument for doing nothing at all.
  The White Paper has produced varied reactions. We had the Association of Children's Officers unequivocally in

  1233
  favour of the White Paper "Children in Trouble". The probation officers were also in favour of it. The Magistrates Association itself was against it on a majority vote. I stress that it was the Magistrates Association and not the juvenile panel of the Magistrates Association. This was the association as a whole.
  Mr. Harry Howarth: As my hon. Friend makes the point that a majority decision is not necessarily a deciding factor, would he say that the other organisations were 100 per cent. in favour, or were there any minority votes in that case?
  Mr. Oakes: I do not know so I cannot say, but I know that the votes in the Magistrates Association were 48 to 33. The people who took that decision were not necessarily juvenile magistrates. Some were and some were not.
  Mr. Carlisle: Would the hon. Member agree that the Magistrates Association set up a specific sub-committee—under, I believe, Lady James—for the purpose of considering this White Paper, and that that sub-committee was critical of this Bill?
  Mr. Oakes: It was critical of some of the provisions of the Bill, but I am speaking of the memorandum of the Magistrates Association, which was referred to earlier by my right hon. Friend and, I think, by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone. That memorandum was prepared by the council of the association, and its members were not necessarily juvenile magistrates. I do not know the exact number who were and who were not.
  I contrast that with the opinion of the Association of Children's Officers. I would prefer to listen to the advice of those professionally trained to deal with children—those who spend their whole professional lives at it, and in the case of children's officers not only their working lives but a great deal of spare time as well—rather than to a body of magistrates who, however they are concerned with juvenile courts, cannot have the wealth of experience that the Association of Children's Officers can have.
  The other criticism in the reasoned Amendment is that the Bill
  1234
  "gives insufficient recognition to the constructive rôle of the juvenile court".
  Listening to hon. Members opposite, I think that is the root of their criticism. They feel that we have slighted magistrates and magistrates' courts. I am a little worried about some of the views of the Magistrates Association and of its secrecy expressed in a letter to The Times today. In the memorandum and in the letter to The Times it is said that there is a danger that offending children might get off scot-free. What do the Magistrates Association and its secretary mean by the term "scot-free"? Are they asking that all offending children must be hauled before a magistrate's court as otherwise they get off scot-free?
  If an offending child is disciplined by its parents, does that not count for something? If an offending child is disciplined by his teacher at school, does that not count for something? If a probation officer spends hours with that child, is that to be dismissed because no court has been involved? If the police rely on advice and caution as they often do—that is the potential success of the scheme—is that to be set aside because there have been no court proceedings? I cannot accept that if an offending child does not appear before the court he gets off scot-free.
  Mr. Peter Mahon: I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend, and to some extent I share his misgivings. Nevertheless, I think magistrates would not be anxious to do any child an injustice and their forebodings are merely that some children whose parents have not a great interest in them and who should receive corporal punishment and are admonished by their parents would perhaps be let off scot-free apart from that punishment.
  Mr. Oakes: I am certain that the Magistrates Association and individual magistrates do not want to do any child injustice. I want to analyse the term "scot-free". I do not accept that a child who has committed an offence gets off scot-free just because he does not appear in a court.
  Before we discuss the majesty of the law or imagine that magistrates' courts have the clinical conditions of a psychiatrist's consulting room, we should

  1235
  look at the buildings and the type of thing that goes on in juvenile courts today. The room is invariably an ordinary court room used when the ordinary court is not sitting with the furniture tarted about and benches moved around, which makes the place look a complete chaos and shambles. That room is inside a police station or next to a police station. In very many courts the magistrates still sit in lofty isolation on their bench far removed from the children they are considering. The children stand bemused, often amused, in the well of the court. The parents stand behind them disconsolately or angrily, knowing little of the proceedings going on.
  How often are the parents in the magistrates' court consulted? They are brought to the court and may resent it, but they listen to the police giving evidence and see the probation officer hand a typewritten sheet to the bench, where it is read silently. They may be given a copy. It is their children who are being considered, but they feel they are very little part of the proceedings. If they summon up courage to intervene and say something, they are usually wrong because they intervene at the wrong time. I find that clerks to magistrates' courts are particularly kind and lenient with parents. Nevertheless, the parents feel that they are out of the picture when in the magistrate's court.
  What about the child's point of view? If the child is frightened in the magistrate's court—sometimes children are—at the very time when that child most needs its parents and their protection and love, his parents are standing impotently behind him. If the child resents his parents, what better way could be found for him to give vent to resentment than to be dragged before the magistrates' court? If a child need not be taken to the magistrates' court he should not be taken there.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) referred to the "snakepit" which exists outside a magistrates' court not in a waiting room but often in the corridors of the court. Children are there for all sorts of offences. Hon. Members should not think that children before a magistrates' court are either all little angels or all black sheep. They are a mixed bag. Coming before the juvenile court there is the
  1236
  child who has ridden his bicycle over the pavement. Should he be there? There is the child with a pathological aversion to school, who is a regular truant. Should he be there? There is the girl exposed to moral danger who is often of weak mentality. Should she be there? Should they be all mixed together waiting for hours, sometimes for a whole day, before appearing before the court?
  These are the things which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and I see because of our attendance at and practice in juvenile courts. I dislike attending and practising in juvenile courts, as no doubt my hon. Friend does, because—I say this unreservedly—unless it is a very unusual and complicated case I do not think the juvenile court is any place for lawyers. I think we should not be there. Children's officers know how to deal with the situation in juvenile courts far better than lawyers do. However, that is the picture of juvenile courts today. Let us dispel any idea of the majesty of the law.
  Nearly half the children who appear before magistrates' courts are fined or given a conditional discharge or an absolute discharge. Should those children be brought before a magistrates' court at all, if clearly the magistrates decide that no supervision, either at home or in residential accommodation is necessary, a typical example being the boy who rides his bicycle over a pavement?
  Mention has been made of that part of the Amendment which argues that the Bill is
  "unjust as between different children in like case".
  What is "like case"? Equality of treatment is manifestly unfair unless all the circumstances of the offender are alike. Those who advocate that all should be treated alike, however unfair this may be, are saying that they do not trust anybody except a court to deal with an offender, however young and whatever the circumstances. This is an unwarranted slur on the police and on the children's service. If it were followed to its logical conclusion it would result in a far greater number of children being taken to court; tens of thousands of children who are now only cautioned would have to be prosecuted. That, as I am sure hon. Members will agree,

  1237
  would be a dangerous and wasteful course which no one in his senses would contemplate.
  I come, lastly, to the point which has been raised about inequality and the use of the phrases "good parents" and "bad parents". Those phrases do not appear in the Bill. I accept that they appeared in paragraph 4 of the White Paper, but they have been rightly excluded from the Bill. Hon. Members opposite proceed as though they were in the Bill. I do not wish to quote what hon. Members on either side have said about whether these words carry any meaning or whether the Bill carries the meaning that the Amendment says it does. I quote from the Justice of the Peace and Local Government Review of 22nd February this year. I do so because this journal combines the views of local government and of the bench. It says, dealing with this question of good homes and bad homes:
  "This, it was alleged, would create an undesirable double standard among child offenders—one for those from good and another for those from bad homes. In the event, this objection has been taken to heart and overcome in the Bill."
  It is no good hon. Members opposite reiterating their criticism of the White Paper in the belief that if something is said long enough and loud enough it will be believed.
  I warmly welcome the Bill. It will have untold advantages for countless generations of children to come, who will have cause to be grateful, and society will have cause to be grateful, to my right hon. Friend and to the House if it gives a clear and decisive Second Reading to the Bill.
  6.44 p.m.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: It is essential that any legislation inflicting changes of magnitude on social patterns should have the full and wholehearted backing of those who will be called upon to implement it. Nobody would pretend after what we have heard this afternoon that the Bill has such backing. The Association of Children's Officers—the local authority side—backs it; and I believe that the Association of Approved School Headmasters and Headmistresses does, also.
  However, those two bodies are not the only two which are implicated, nor the only two qualified to state an opinion.
  1238
  Perhaps it would be better to say that they are not necessarily the two best qualified to state an opinion. I would hate the debate to degenerate into a dogfight as to who is best qualified to speak up for the child in trouble. I remind the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), who put the case so strongly for the biggest ear to be lent to what the children's officers said, that, although I yield to none in my admiration of children's officers, only about 30 per cent. of them are trained. I would greatly like to know what the police think about the Bill, because they will be deeply involved.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: They have given it consideration and warmly welcome it.
  Mrs. Knight: I am delighted to have that assurance. I hope that we shall hear more evidence of this later, because it is an opinion held in some places that there is a considerable degree of concern within the police force about this.
  The magistrates have made their opposition to the important parts of the Bill very clear indeed. The Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Bolton, West rightly said that not all magistrates concur with this view. Similarly, not all child care officers go along with it. When presenting opinions of this sort we get ourselves into great difficulty if we seek to argue, "This opinion is not valid, because not sufficient of these people agree" when, after all, we have the Association's weighed opinion before us as the opinion of the Association. This is what we should take note of.
  The National Association of Probation Homes and Hostels says this. Although it says it about the White Paper, it reiterates it very much in its view of the Bill:
  "The White Paper indicates that the recommendations made in the first document 'The Child, the Family and the Young Offender' were widely welcomed, whereas they were accepted only by the various local authority organisations and their employees and this assumption, which is unverified, undermines our confidence in the proposals"—
  that is, not only the White Paper that preceded the Bill, but the Bill itself. All in all, there is ample evidence that the wisdom of the Bill is questioned in quite important areas.
  I want briefly to raise the points on which I have reservations, and I hope that

  1239
  consideration will be given to the concern which has been expressed by various bodies on these points. First, the unfairness. The Home Secretary made great play with the question whether we are talking about equality or uniformity. Although I do not recall the name of the book, I recall a story in which some schoolboys were talking about a headmaster who was a particularly beastly example of his species.
  The schoolboys were not particularly concerned about his beastliness. One of them remarked, in a quite famous comment, "He is a beast, but he is a just beast". [An HON. MEMBER: "Stalky & Co."] I hear mutterings from various parts of the House advising me of different names of books in which this gentleman appears. Above all, the schoolboy recognises and accepts justice. Beastliness is one thing. The schoolboy will take that if he has to, but justice he needs and justice he must have, and justice the Bill really will not give them.
  Clause 1 provides that a young person may be brought before the courts only if he is in need of care or control which he is unlikely to get without a court order. My right hon. and learned Friend for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) instanced clearly the case of the two boys from different homes out on a shop-lifting spree. This brought home to the House how unfairly the Bill could work. It is not a bit of use hon. Members saying, "When these two boys are before the court one may be given different treatment from another". Certainly, that would be acceptable.
  I believe that it was the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) who said sometimes one culprit deserves and needs a short, sharp rebuke whereas another needs rather longer treatment. As long as they both go before a court and are given the type of treatment which will best suit them, that is far fairer than one going before a court and the other not. It really is quite extraordinary for the Home Secretary to imagine that the principle of equality before the law is not of immense importance.
  The second point about which I am very worried is age. I cannot for the life of me see why we in this House should go racing off on one track with the Representation of the People Bill
  1240
  and the Family Law Reform Bill, saying that young people today are more mature and more capable of exercising adult and sensible judgment, so we will reduce the age of majority from 21 to 18, and then dart off on a completely different tack, but this Bill, which seems to suggest that no one under the age of 17 ought to be too answerable for his actions. That is extraordinary. We ought to make up our mind which we believe.
  If the first two Bills are right, then this one must be wrong. We cannot have it all ways. The Magistrates Association specifically recommended to the Home Secretary that the age at which children should become subject to criminal law should remain as it was and that no changes were needed in the treatment of the 10 to 17 age group. This was a considered opinion of the magistrates. Age, therefore, is another point about the Bill which worries me.
  My third point is the question of the protection of the rights of the individual. It seems to me that under the Bill, if it goes through unamended, there will be too much power in the hands of the local authority, because there is no appeals machinery at all. I know that the National Association of Probation Homes and Hostels also takes this view. The question of the severity of punishment is no longer to be a judicial decision; and by and large it is perfectly true to say that judicial decisions are universally understood and accepted. The idea of a fair trial, even in juvenile courts, has always been accepted and that is a very good thing. Why should it go? Why should it be superseded by a decision of the local authority?
  To make a single magistrate the arbiter between the police and social workers is really asking the impossible. If a child is to be charged with an offence that offence must either be proven or the charge dropped. In fairness to the child, once he has been charged, he must either be seen to be innocent or the charge must be proven.
  Mr. Archer: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I wish to ask, on this part of her argument, whether there is any instance in the Bill of a local authority having power to inflict a punishment without the intervention of a

  1241
  court when the child does not commit the offence?
  Mrs. Knight: The point about which we are arguing is not the right punishment, but the right treatment. It is not a question of inflicting punishment, but of justice not only being done but being seen to be done. If a child has been charged with an offence, or there is any suggestion that it should be charged, surely it is only fair to him that the matter should either be gone into or that it be said that he did not commit the offence at all. That seems fair and clear.
  Fourthly, I am concerned with the question of deterrence. If any of the repercussions of wrongdoing are masked there will be no deterrence at all in any dealings with the young miscreants. We have heard from the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) about football vandals and how much they need to be deterred from what they are doing. I absolutely agreed with him in that cogent intervention. It seems to me that sometimes we are quite mistaken in our desire to blacken the name of discipline. Discipline is not a harsh evil. Discipline is often the fence round the cliff or the fastened seat-belt If there is discipline and a deterrent that often stops young people from offending, that is to their advantage.
  It is extraordinary that in the Bill the House is asked to accept that there is not much wrongdoing before the age of 17. I am told that the peak age for crime in males it 14. A memorandum which was sent to me by the National Association of Probation Homes and Hostels says:
  "It has not been appreciated that the peak age for crime for males is 14 and that these children can cause tremendous difficulties at that age and subsequently."
  On compensation, various forms of treatment will be entered upon following the arrangements initiated by the Bill, but there is to be no punishment such as a fine. I consider that a fine is a good form of punishment and believe strongly that the court should retain power to order payment by a child or young person, or of course, his parents, of reasonable reparation for damage or loss. Take the case of young Johnny, who may be 13 years old, riding a bicycle with no lights. He goes racing off down the road on his bicycle and knocks down
  1242
  an old lady who ends up in hospital with a broken leg.
  At present, Johnny would be fined, but not under the Bill; and if Johnny comes from a good home the situation is different—and I deplore the fact that earlier in the debate it was said that good homes are middle-class homes and bad homes are working-class homes. This is not true at all. Good homes have nothing to do with class from that point of view. Good homes are homes where there is love, care and concern for the children.
  Mr. Mapp: Does the hon. Lady know that in my experience all the documents received by a juvenile court dealing with the background of an alleged offender speak of good homes and bad homes? I quite agree that it is very unreliable to bring in the other context. Magistrates should be purely concerned only with studying the social aspect.
  Mrs. Knight: I am most grateful for that intervention and entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member.
  To follow up on little Johnny, if he comes from a good home—and I would see nothing wrong if the words "good" or "bad" in relation to homes were in the Bill—he is not even taken to court for knocking down the old lady. There is no visible punishment, or anything of the kind. What the views of the old lady on this might be I cannot think, but they could be very sharp. If, on the other hand, Johnny comes from a bad home, he can go to court and there, perhaps, have one or other of various forms of treatment ordered, not all of which, I add in parenthesis, may be regarded by everyone as thoroughly appropriate. If fines are to go, there is all the more need to retain some provision for reparation or compensation. I imagine that the old lady might well feel that way, too.
  Finally, there is the question of the Bill's complications. It has been said that the law must be clear and simple if it is to be respected. This is of particular relevance in the context of laws governing children, since children in trouble, and their parents, are sometimes of limited ability. Anyone who has had anything to do with children in court or in care knows how true that is.

  1243
  One is dealing very often with people without much ability to understand. They would find it impossible to understand a law which provides that children should be brought before the court, under the care, protection and control procedure, if they have committed an offence and they are not receiving such care, protection and guidance as a good parent might reasonably be expected to give or they are beyond the control of their parents. That sounds gibberish even, perhaps, to those of advanced mental ability. I cannot imagine what it will seem like to the parents of some of these children.
  My last word is about foster children. A great opportunity has been lost. For the happiness of foster children, the first need to look to is not necessarily the place where they are or the regularity of inspections of foster homes by the local authority. The most important factor for a foster child is that he should be safe and secure in his foster home. Frequently, children are left in their foster homes for many years, their real parents paying no attention to them and not even bothering to go to see them or to write. If only an attempt had been made in the Bill to meet the needs of foster children from that point of view, making it illegal for them to be removed from their foster homes in the way they so lamentably are sometimes by parents who have never shown an interest in their existence until they are coming near wage-earning age, a great advance would have been made. As it is, an opportunity has been lost, and I am very sad about it.
  I agree with parts of the Bill, but I have not touched on those because I did not wish to take too long. The aims underlying the Bill are good. No one questions the Home Secretary's sincerity when he speaks, as he did today, of his desire, which we all share, to give the best possible service for these young people. But, regretfully, I am of opinion that the Bill does not provide that assurance.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Mapp: I have heard most of the debate so far. In my view, the speeches from both Front Benches were commendable for their broad approach and sympathetic to the main fabric of the Bill—though, perhaps, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) will find
  1244
  comfort in a moment or two in some of the criticisms which I shall raise against it. In general, the Bill is excellent if we are thinking of deprived children or children in trouble. For them it is a good piece of machinery, and I am sure that every magistrate recognises that. However, the Bill deals also with, but makes no real distinction for, the depraved child and the offender.
  I shall speak purely for myself here, as one who has sat as chairman of a juvenile court and had many years of experience of these matters before I came to the House. Most of what I say will be a reflection of that experience. As a preamble to my comments, perhaps I may say that, according to my experience, the first fact which a magistrate wishes to ascertain when a case comes before him is whether the offence was one of those lapses which can happen to all God's children. If it is, the treatment is simple and easy. On the other hand, the offender may be the one in 10 who is likely to offend again and later cause difficulties in society. It is at that point that the juvenile court magistrate is greatly concerned, and it is at that point that the Bill falls down.
  I have no wish to be unkind, but, after the several contributions which we have had from members of the legal profession, I feel that I must say, without malice, that my experience has been that, when we have legal people appearing in the juvenile courts, they make decisions more difficult for the bench and they sometimes make treatment, too, rather more limited to the bench. However, having said that, I return now to the main burden of my speech.
  Since 1963 we have had experience of lifting the age of criminal responsibility from 8 to 10, but, so far as I know, there is no knowledge or evidence of what the effect has been, and no evidence has been presented to us. Such evidence has been markedly absent from our debate today. I have tried to fill the vacuum. I am informed by police authorities that the extent of would-be crime in the 8 to 10 age range is largely as it was before 1963. Let us consider what happens. The police have to prosecute their inquiries. Then, having established that they are unable to take a case to court, the normal thing to do, I understand, is to

  1245
  advise the children's department, which then says that the matter is in hand or it will be in hand. I gather that it can happen on two or three occasions, and the children's department says much the same each time.
  The plain fact which emerges, I understand, is that 25 per cent. of children under the age of 10, free from criminal responsibility thus far, come back later to police notice. Let us consider that significant fact in the light of what I regard as the main principle in the Bill. We are to raise the age to include the age of 13. The hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has already asked the question: can our experience of lifting the age to 10 justify our lifting it to 14? There must be reservations in many minds. I speak not only as a father but as a grandfather, and as someone with a little knowledge of what happens in some of our big cities and towns.
  It is often noted now that the age of being grown up, as it were, comes a little earlier than it did. I put my view in this way. In the main, a child aged up to about 12 has an idea from his parents of what is right and what is wrong, though generally he will not have much conception of what is legally right and legally wrong. Doubtless, that was the reason why we raised the age of responsibility to 10. But at about the age of 12 and onwards, children become aware of what is legally right and legally wrong.
  In the light of what has been done already in raising the age of criminal responsibility, in the light of the biological factors and the fact that at about the age of 12 children know the difference between what is legally right and legally wrong, ought we to raise the age to 13 as proposed? In my view, we should not at this stage bless the principle of including all ages up to and covering 13, but we should pause to cover, perhaps, the age of 12, putting a permissive provision into the Bill so that the Home Secretary may later on, with the concurrence of the House, raise it further by Order. We have no adequate evidence within a matter of six years which would justify our raising the age of responsibility to 14. I should prefer that we might have five years with the limit at 12, and then, as society moves, we could lift it further.
  1246
  Television and other means of communication are having their impact on our younger boys and girls. It is very often undesirable, and I deplore it. Those of us who are older know what to think and do about these things, but children of 12, 13 and 14 are receptive to good or bad, and the only thing that fights the bad influence on their young minds, is the parental and school influence. That is what we want to succeed, but there are many attractions in society that tend to weaken the character we have tried to put into boys and girls. There is a case for writing into the Bill a limit of up to and including 12, with, perhaps, permissive power to raise it later.
  Nearly every hon. Member who has spoken has mentioned Clause 1. Paragraphs (a) (b) and (d) of subsection (2) all refer to faults of the parents and not the child, but sub-paragraphs (c) and (e) deal with substantial contributing factors by the child. If we do not take them into account our treatment will be wrong. But the subsection continues
  "and also that he is in need of care or control",
  which brings the subsection into complete contradiction. It cannot be sustained by normal logical reasoning, nor can it be understood by the ordinary parent who wants to do the right thing, who wants to be law-abiding and wants to see law-abiding citizens in his or her area. The House cannot say that it is sensible.
  The example has already been given of two joint offenders, one from a good home and the other from a home lacking all sorts of things, including parental leadership, and the big difference of treatment that will result. I am not at all concerned with the argument of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in this case. One must look at it in the light of the children and parents concerned. If they go to court they want to feel that justice is seen to be done. If this is to be the law I doubt whether any magistrate will be happy about the matter in those circumstances if he pursues the law. I beg my right hon. Friend to have second thoughts about this in Committee. If he does not, I shall feel at liberty to press the other point of view. I hope that he will be flexible. I am not trying to argue the case for the magistrates but

  1247
  am merely drawing on my experience to say what I believe is required by the ordinary mother and father who may be in those unfortunate circumstances.
  I now turn to what I regard as a serious omission in this and preceding legislation. In paragraph 6 of the White Paper we find 250 words of verbiage by psychiatrists and others trying to define what juvenile delinquency is. The word "family" occurs three times. "Parent" does not occur at all. I ask hon. Members on both sides to draw on their experience and recall that in about seven out of 10 cases the fault is with the parents. The Bill and earlier legislation have no deterrent effect as regards parents' neglect of their duty. I must state my argument strongly here. The parent practically has sovereignty in his rights with regard to his natural children, and I do not disagree about that. It is fair and proper, but there is another side to the coin. If the House rightly confers that near-sovereignty on parents, the parents have responsibilities as well.
  My right hon. Friend said that the Bill provides that if an examining magistrate has agreed that a case should go for trial the court could bind parents over. May I ask the legal hon. Members what binding parents over means. Think of the unfortunate child who has been neglected, whose parents have not given him his elementary rights to enjoy his place in society. What does binding over mean to such parents? What deterrent is there if they break the conditions? There is none. Is not it a sham to talk of binding them over? The courts only put people on probation, bind them over or defer a sentence if they have reason to believe that there are hopes of recovery, that by education the person concerned can be got back on to the rails.
  Therefore, I am not reassured that binding over parents who neglect their duty will have the effect I should like. Have not we reached the stage where we can begin to write legislation giving the courts and social workers a deterrent for defaulting parents? I have "read the Riot Act "to parents through the child before me, and others have probably done so, or would like to have done it. But, having "read the Riot Act", we can get no further. I cannot at this stage
  1248
  say what the deterrent should be, but I should like my right hon. Friend to consider this. Perhaps in Committee we could at least write the nucleus of legislation dealing with the defaulting parent, where the default is obvious.
  I regard Clause 8 concerning fingerprinting and photographing as a considerable improvement. I am very glad that it will be only on a magistrate's order, and only on the application of a police officer not below the rank of inspector, and only for a serious offence, that finger-printing and photographing will take place. We all know that there are many thousands of cases of a lapse in boyhood or girlhood; that is liable to happen to all and any of us. Even when those involved become grown up they feel that somewhere in the book of history there is still a black mark against them, that there is still a set of finger-prints.
  I beg the Home Secretary to relieve the minds of thousands of people whose careers after an unfortunate lapse are perfectly honourable—as honourable as those of anyone in the House. When the Bill becomes an Act, I should like my right hon. Friend to be able by administrative action to obliterate once and for all photographs and finger-prints in respect of minor offences, such as small larceny cases, which hitherto the police have almost automatically taken on a finding of guilt.
  I turn now to the question of the examining magistrate. I believe that the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) is right in saying that this is an unnecessary provision. There will be considerable difficulties if the Home Secretary proceeds with it. Clearly, the police would utilise as examining magistrate the one most available, often the one most knowledgeable. This would rob the subsequent juvenile court proceedings of an experienced magistrate while presenting to the child's parents the feeling, "This is the same court as we appeared in a fortnight ago. What else could it be? It is the same band of people." There is a great difference between the kind of examination proposed and that which takes place in a local court prior to a case going to quarter sessions. The magistrate should be taken out of this as an examiner but preferably the provision should go altogether.

  1249
  I may perhaps be somewhat controversial and in a minority in my views about community homes. All the Clauses relating to them are a facade because the existing arrangement of relying on local authorities for the provision of approved schools and centres has been tumbling down for years. I remember the case of a little girl who had to be taken from Oldham to Winchester. This involved an air flight in two directions and the loss of a police officer for three days. That is a regular result for journeys up to 100 miles. To Carlisle, two officers have to be employed for two days for this kind of thing.
  It is no good erecting the machinery of planning boards. They can plan as much as they like but they will be no more successful in finding the necessary schools than those before them, and we shall still be left with the magistrate's clerk telephoning seven or eight places to find out where there is accommodation for a boy or girl.
  I have long taken the view that the local authority or voluntary establishment should go. I believe that we shall get the required accommodation and the best standards of supervision only if the Home Office takes over the job. I am, no doubt, out on a limb in saying so, but that is the logic of the thing. I hope that in due course my right hon. Friend will give thought to this.
  I want to see the Bill sharply differentiating between what I call the child in trouble through no fault of its own—the cause lying elsewhere, in the parents—and the other kind of child offender. We should not allow provision for children in trouble to get mixed up with the machinery for dealing with the other kind of boy or girl before the courts. If we do, we shall be at cross purposes and the Bill will fail.
  Through my experience, and with some reservations, I have considerable admiration for the general work of the police. I believe that that uniform counts with a boy or girl. I believe that the teacher counts. In this context, I believe that the court counts. If we are not careful the Bill will see the police, the teacher and the court taking a smaller place in the work of correcting children. I should be sorry to see that come about because
  1250
  I cannot see the social agencies, well-intentioned as they are, ever reaching the decisive point about discipline. I think that the hon. Lady was trying to say this. Education and persuasion are what matter in 19 cases out of 20, but there is a point in some where discipline must be reached and decided upon. The social agencies are not geared to reaching decisions covering discipline.
  I hope, too, that the Bill can be amended to make it simpler and more capable of understanding. There has already been complaint that it is complicated even for magistrates and lawyers. If that is so, what will happen to the parent caught up in trouble when he tries to understand the Bill's ramifications?
  The Bill should be flexible and meet changing trends. I have mentioned the football match thugs. In five years' time the problem may well be something else. But, however it breaks out, can we allow this sort of thing, under the Bill, to go nearly two months before any short sharp sentence is inflicted?
  I want the Bill to be firm and to carry certain basic principles. It should be speedy in administration. It must be administered so that children in trouble will be relieved and helped by it. I want the real young offender to realise that correction and reform must be society's answer and that, in any case, crime under any guise, never pays. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be flexible in his approach. Many parts of the Bill will involve, I hope, a non-political approach, and I am certain that the Bill can be improved.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I am sure that we appreciate the contribution of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), based on his experience as chairman for many years of a juvenile court, but there is an air of unreality about the debate. We are trying to build castles in the air. If the Government are intent on trying to prevent juvenile delinquency, or arrest the increase, there is a simple remedy. They could provide the money to double the size of the probation service; they could provide specialised agencies to serve the juvenile courts; they could provide the money to build residential homes indistinguishable from other homes which are

  1251
  so helpful in many cases. All these things need to be done. We are really, in this debate, very much concerned with things which lie far in the future.
  The Bill is of great potential importance to the well-being of the country, but it is still only potential. It is widely recognised, as has been reflected in the debate, that a child's upbringing, environment and emotional experiences in its early -years play a large part in determining how he is likely to behave as an adult.
  There is a much more humane and sympathetic outlook towards juvenile delinquency. We have moved a long way from the attitude which dominated at the turn of the last century. I remember vividly my feeling of horror, as a young law student, when I was studying the technical meaning of "entering", in the term "breaking and entering". I read of a little boy of eight who was convicted, on the most technical grounds, of entering. To my horror I read that he was subsequently hanged for the offence. It took place at Eastbourne, 165 years ago.
  On the other hand, while we have this more humane trend, which we all welcome, I find great anxiety among people concerned with children's welfare, and who are liberally minded on the subject of penal reform, as to whether we are not now moving too far in the opposite direction. We have to face the fact that we live in an era which has seen a vast increase in crime generally, and in serious and highly organised crime in particular. This has coincided with a time when there is a general feeling that many schools are ill-disciplined, when there has been a general challenge to the accepted concept of family and parental discipline. We have, in this House, passed Bills which clearly recognise 18 as the age of full adult responsibility. Yet at the same time, in this Bill, we are suggesting that there should be no responsibility whatever until the age of 14, and very dubious responsibility between the ages of 14 and 17.
  We are bound to ask: is this right? This is one of the many anxieties which people are sure to have about the Bill. Are we really moving in the right direction? If so, are we, in parts of the Bill, moving too far and without a full appreciation
  1252
  of exactly what we are doing? My view is that in some spheres we have already moved into the realm of licence, as opposed to the realm of liberty. I fear that in parts of the Bill we are adding impetus to this process. I take the view that up to the age of 14 the prime responsibility for the behaviour of children should rest with the parents bringing them up. Anything which undermines the responsibility of the parents or enables the parents to avoid that responsibility is a bad thing and I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, East about the need to look at this aspect of the Bill again.
  The second responsibility, which should reinforce the first, is the discipline of the schools. In many areas we have, as a House and as a country, greatly undermined the authority and responsibility of head teachers and teachers generally. I have been greatly disturbed by hearing from responsible teachers, particularly from some in our larger cities, descriptions of chaotic conditions in some classrooms. It is far better for the child to be disciplined in the home and the school than to be brought before the juvenile court. Yet the whole tendency of the last few decades has resulted in many more juvenile offences being dealt with by the juvenile courts rather than in the school or the home. It is not a kindness to young people that this process is taking place. It has been the inevitable result of the tendencies of our day.
  It is against this background that I find the Bill to be rather like the parson's egg—good in parts and bad in parts. Naturally, I would hope to be able to separate the bad from the good. [HON. MEMBERS: "The curate's egg."] I would wish, whether it was a curate's egg or a parson's egg, to change the bad by amendment. I am bound to say that the Bill is drafted in such a manner that amendment will be very difficult. The form of drafting seems to be more akin to that adopted in hire-purchase legislation, which is intended to be read only by the lawyers. It is not a suitable form of drafting for a social Bill of this kind, which should be self-explanatory, and easily read by the vast number of lay people who should be interested in it.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: Including the children.
  Mr. Hooson: Perhaps that is going a little too far.
  I and my colleagues believe that this is an important piece of legislation, concerning a vital social sphere, and that we should support it on Second Reading. But, unless it is possible to make far-reaching Amendments during its intermediate stages, we may well oppose it on Third Reading. The good in the Bill, and there is good in it, is seriously marred by vital blemishes. It will take a great deal of effort to put them right and to put the Bill into acceptable form.
  The blemishes I have in mind concern vital matters of principle dealing with children and young persons. Many of the points I would wish to make are inevitably really Committee points, because this is particularly the kind of Bill which should be dealt with in Committee. It appears that certain fundamental principles need to be stated before I could finally support the Bill. First, it seems that a clear distinction should be drawn between a child who, through no fault of his own, is found to be in need of care, and a child who has committed an offence. There is a difference.
  The Home Secretary used the term "a child who is a delinquent and deprived". He linked the two, but there is a difference between a delinquent child and a deprived child. A deprived child may well prove to be a delinquent child, but a delinquent child is not necessarily a deprived child, as anyone who has had any practise in the law will know. It is a vitally important distinction between two types of children. Clause 1 simply lumps them together. It is not good enough merely to ask magistrates to sort this one out. A clear distinction should be drawn in the Bill.
  Secondly, it should be made abundantly clear that the new community homes which are to replace, apparently, approved schools, and borstal institutions for those under 17 eventually, should be in separate places for those in care for offences and those who are in care through misfortune. It is a great mistake to put them together. The House should not be persuaded that a boy from a good home who has committed a serious offence, and is found to be in need of care, should be treated the same as a child who has lived impeccably, but has been so neglected by his parents and is
  1254
  so much the victim of circumstances that he is held to be in need of care.
  Thirdly, the age of criminal responsibility should be kept to 10. The Bill virtually proposes that it should be raised to 14. The age of majority is now to become 18. The age of puberty is much earlier and it seems to be very odd to raise the age under which a child has no responsibility in law for wrongdoing to 14 in this setting. This is not to say that children between the ages of 10 and 14 who commit offences ought not to be very differently dealt with from those who are older. But in view of the slackening of discipline in schools, and in the community generally, the House should think very carefully before it encourages children to believe that they are not to be answerable at all for their actions, or to pay any penalty for wrongdoing up to the age of 14, unless they are also found to be in need of care. It is a fundamental error in the Bill. People are naïve indeed if they do not appreciate that by the age of 12 or 13 most children have very well-formed personalities and characters, and if they believe that some of them are not capable at that age of committing the most serious offences.
  The fourth principle, which is important, is that it should be provided that children who commit offences can be made to pay compensation or a fine. It is a great mistake to lead children with a propensity to committing damage to think that they cannot be made to pay for it. There is an unhappy but inevitable impression given by some provisions of the Bill that it is weighted against one class of children. It is a vitally important psychological factor that children should think and know that they are equal before the law and not that one child is likely to get away with an offence when another child is not simply because the former child comes from what is called a good home.
  The Bill puts a good deal of power into the hands of children's officers and the like. I fully appreciate the work that they carry out as probation officers do, but I always remember once defending a young man for the most serious offence with which anyone can be charged. When I got into conversation with him I found that he had a deep sense of resentment that at the age of 12 he had been sent to an institution virtually because of his poor home. He

  1255
  had a burning resentment against his parents and against society. Just imagine the situation that could arise with a well-meaning children's officer who has a poor view of a delinquent's home. The delinquent has committed a minor offence, but the officer thinks that this is a good opportunity to remove him from his own home and get him into an institution.
  The officer may think that this is a good thing to do from the child's point of view. The child knows that his child neighbour, possibly much more affluent, has committed a more serious offence and got away with it. That child can bear resentment for the rest of his life because he has been differently treated. I am convinced that children have a deep sense of justice. It may be an unformed sense, but it is a very deep sense. We want to be very careful about what we are doing in this context.
  Fifthly, we should remove from the Bill those provisions which enable major decisions—for example, on the age of responsibility and the age at which treatment can take place—to be decided by Statutory Instrument by the Government. In Clause 31 the widest possible power is given to the Secretary of State in this respect. I do not think that he should have such power. Questions of age and different treatment should be decided by the House and by nobody else.
  Sixthly, I share the misgivings which have been expressed about whether we are giving far too much power to the local authorities and taking too much power from the courts. Who exercises power in the local authority? The children's department will have a tremendous influence. Children's officers, like other people, vary greatly in quality. Only 30 per cent. of them at present are trained. Do we think that we are doing right by giving so much power to local authorities with no right of appeal?
  There are many defects in our present system, and we are very much aware of them. We can regret very much the wide variations in attitude and in sentences. We know that juvenile courts are over-burdened, but I do not believe that the average delay between the commission of an offence and the case coming before the juvenile court is anything
  1256
  like the three or four months which was suggested by an hon. Member opposite. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State would deal with that point.
  The justice of our courts is open to all. The public have access to it and it is always open to question. Now it is proposed that the local authority is to have more power over what is to happen to children. It is vitally important that there should be the right of appeal, and there does not seem to be provision for it in the Bill.
  I have been deliberately critical, because this is potentially a vitally important Bill. I hope that the Home Secretary will be true to the tone of his speech and will keep a very open mind about the Bill in Committee. If I had to vote finally for it now, I would vote against it rather than for it—if I thought that it would become law tomorrow. But it contains so many good things that I hope that it will be possible virtually to restructure it in Committee. If that proves to be impossible, on Third Reading, for the reasons which I have given, I would vote against it, although I am very much in favour of giving it a Second Reading and allowing it to be discussed at length in Committee.
  We must take the greatest care. We have already made fundamental mistakes—for example, in our gaming laws—which no one foresaw. We are moving far too quickly with some of our legislation. Before we have even had time to enlarge the probation service and to enable the juvenile courts to function properly, we are rushing headlong into something new. We are not properly digesting some of the social research which has been done. We are often changing for change's sake. We must take great care that we do not move too fast and put too much control and power over some children outside justice.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Howarth: I find myself in a quandary similar to that in which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) found himself. The good parts of the Bill are spoiled by parts which those of us who have criticisms to make find unacceptable. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), who told

  1257
  us of his experiences as a magistrate and, in particular, as a juvenile court magistrate, I sit each week in an adult court and as deputy chairman of a juvenile court. Although I cannot claim to have the experience of the Bar of the hon. and learned Members who have spoken, the magistrate has a view on these matters, and I was sorry that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) criticised, rather unfairly, the attitude of the Magistrates Association to the Bill.
  I have an interest to declare in that I am a member of the Magistrates Association. For a year I was a member of its General Council. But that was not a financial interest in any shape or form. I do not accept that a majority vote on whether the Bill was good or bad necessarily condemns the whole of the Magistrates Association in the eyes of my right hon. and hon. Friends. This is a matter which concerns magistrates just as much as probation officers, child care officers or anyone else. Magistrates have more than a passing interest in the Bill. They are appointed to administer justice in the juvenile courts. I was surprised that neither my right hon. Friend nor the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) referred to the changed position of magistrates under the Bill. No one has referred to the method by which magistrates are to be appointed.
  We have heard many criticisms of what takes place in the juvenile courts. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West were here, I would criticise his remarks about certain juvenile courts. It may well be that difficulties arise in some of them because of the inadequate or old premises, but that is not general. Magistrates courts and, in particular, juvenile courts are conducted in the best possible manner with the equipment and facilities available. Therefore, I do not accept his criticism of the Magistrates Association and the way in which justice is administered in the juvenile courts.
  Under the Bill the juvenile court panels will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Under the present system, they are appointed by their colleagues on the bench. It is suggested that invidious choices may result from the present
  1258
  system because members of the bench may not be closely acquainted with many of their colleagues. It seems strange that those who are in regular contact with the other members of the bench are not is as close contact as the Lord Chancellor or the Advisory Committee when it comes to making appointments of this kind.
  Under the Bill, will juvenile court magistrates be appointed without having served on the adult bench? I hope not. It is most important that people dealing with juvenile problems should have had experience of the adult bench. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will clear up this point.
  I welcome the fact that the juvenile court is to be retained even though there may be variations in its function. This is less of a problem than the problem we faced in the 1965 White Paper, which would have abolished juvenile courts as we know them. But I agree that it is essential to retain the atmosphere of the courts, even when juveniles appear for the first and, one hopes, the last time. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that it is unfortunate that changes are to be made in the present system regarding children under the age of 14. I accept that cases may be brought to court which could have been satisfactorily disposed of in other ways, but many children under 14 years of age are brought to court for quite serious offences. I know that some actions can still be brought, but the more cumbersome procedure which is being laid down leaves much to be desired.
  My right hon. Friend will already have heard of the cases where two or more juveniles are involved in an offence. Even at this age they sometimes work in gangs, as anyone with experience of juvenile courts will know. It is nothing to have four, six or even more juveniles charged with the same offence. I regret as much as anyone that we are talking about good homes and bad homes, but it has now become the pattern for the debate that we must have regard to the circumstances of the home before arriving at a decision. It is extremely unfair to a boy from a "bad" home to be brought before the court for an offence which he has committed, whereas his friend from a so-called "good" home will go off scot-free because it will be considered that he is

  1259
  not in need of care and control. This is a ridiculous situation which does not reflect the realities.
  Not many months ago there was a case in my court which concerned two such boys. One came from a "good" home and the other from a "bad" home; one went to the grammar school and was extremely intelligent, and the other went to a secondary modern school and was not quite so intelligent. They were friends outside school and they lived fairly close to each other. During the holidays they went on an expedition, not pilfering from the supermarket, but arranging for flowers and wreaths to be delivered to and for undertakers to call at the home of someone they did not like. They even rang up the Hilton Hotel and fixed a banquet in the name of these people. I was surprised that the Hilton management accepted confirmation on a dirty piece of paper which no one here would even recognise. Who is to say that these boys are in need of care and control? It is necessary to take drastic quick action to bring them to their senses. We did what we thought was the best thing possible. They said that it was the school holidays and they were bored, having nothing to do; so we said, "For the next 12 Saturday afternoons we shall find you something to do. We shall send you to the attendance centre for two hours each Saturday afternoon to learn a bit of discipline." This is the sort of action it is necessary to take in such a situation. The cumbersome process laid down in the Bill surely cannot commend itself to hon. Members.
  I should like to refer to the system of cautioning by the police in some areas. My hon. Friend will have seen the system in operation by the Metropolitan Police who recently conducted a pilot scheme in two divisions of their area. What will happen in that cases will be dealt with by summons rather than by the usual method of charge, and the decision whether or not to prosecute will be made not by a magistrate or an examining magistrate, as an hon. Member said, but by officers of senior rank. This will allow for the cautioning procedure to be adopted in suitable cases, particularly for the very young first offender with a stable background. The chief inspector will be in charge of the procedure and all the arrangements. He will have trained officers who will be responsible for getting as
  1260
  much information as is available about the juvenile from the children's department and the probation and education services.
  The chief inspector will then decide whether or not to issue a summons for the offence, but, even if he decides to caution as against issuing a summons, there are three points which will have to be determined. First, the offender must admit the offence; secondly, the parents must agree that the child should be cautioned; and, thirdly, the person aggrieved, or the loser, must be willing to leave the matter to the police. Where it is decided to prosecute, an appointment will be made for the juvenile and his parents to attend the police station, where the summons will be served by the arresting officer.
  The major point about this procedure, and my hon. Friend may well say that this will continue, is that if two or more persons are charged together with the joint commission of an offence all will be dealt with in the same way, either by summons or by caution, irrespective of previous character or background, so that the good home and the bad home do not come into it. This procedure is fairer than the method in the Bill.
  I do not accept that magistrates in general, whatever my right hon. Friend may say, want to see themselves sitting as examining magistrates—in other words, as social welfare workers—deciding whether or not a case should be brought to the court. what we should be deciding here is whether the present system has fallen down. If the number of juveniles repeatedly appearing before the courts had increased, we should say that a complete change was necessary. Happily, it is true to say that many juveniles do not appear in court a second time. The success rate differs in various parts of the country, but in some areas it is as high as 70 per cent. This shows that the present system, in relation to both the age of the juveniles and the procedure, is working reasonably well. Probation officers have rendered excellent service, particularly with juveniles between the age of 10 and 14. Under the Bill they will have a reduced rôle; yet they have been even more successful in these cases than in adult cases.

  1261
  Many of the views which I have put forward are in the minds of magistrates. I do not always agree with the views of the Magistrates Association, and I am not necessarily arguing for all the points that have been made on their behalf, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take note of their observations on some of the issues which have been raised.
  We all want to reduce juvenile delinquencies, whether we are magistrates, probation officers or barristers. We all want to see in operation a system which is fair and reasonable, and from which it can be seen that justice is done. I welcome many of the principles embodied in the Bill, particularly those referring to community homes, but I am sorry that, because of the criticisms which I have expressed, I cannot give my wholehearted support to the Bill.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Silvester: I am not a lawyer, a magistrate or a children's officer, and I therefore feel that I am stepping into the lion's den. One aspect of the debate which has mystified and somewhat saddened me is the partisanship which has been shown by some hon. Members in voicing the views of the magistrates on the one hand and the children's officers on the other. To that extent I agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Harry Howarth). Indeed, I agree with much of what he said.
  I should like to spend a little time on two aspects which are relevant to members of the lay public and to the way in which they will look at the Bill. It is perhaps unfashionable to do so because it is rightly recognised that Parliament has been in advance of public opinion in penal reform. But it will not have escaped the attention of the House that there is considerable public concern about some of the matters which were raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson).
  The first matter which will attract public attention is the decision to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14. The second is the blurring of the distinction between the services of the local authority and those of the law.
  The point has been made, and it is worth emphasising, that Parliament is
  1262
  simultaneously lowering the age at which people attain full citizen responsibilities and raising the age at which they accept responsibility for their criminal actions. In other words, it is concertina-ing the area of transitional development. Listening to the debates both today and on the previous occasion, I find the two very difficult to reconcile, and I think that people outside the House will find similar difficulty. I thought that the Bill recognised the difficulty, and it may do so, but, not being a lawyer, I have not been able to discover where. However, the White Paper says on page 5 that for children under 14
  "Proceedings will remain possible where they are necessary for the protection of society or for the sake of the child."
  That may refer simply to what used to be termed "fit person order" proceedings. If it refers to criminal proceedings, I shall be interested to hear.
  The example has been quoted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) of the two boys who undertake some criminal act together. As I understand Appendix A of the White Paper, though it was not mentioned by the Home Secretary, where an offence is committed in company with another person, the statutory regulations will require both persons to be brought before the court. However, my understanding is that that will not apply to children under 14.
  By raising the age of criminality, we are, it seems, creating a difficulty for ourselves which need not apply. I have given one example of it. Presumably, the reason is that the age at which criminal responsibility begins is, to some extent, artificial, so where it is fixed is a matter of choice. But the Home Secretary is seeking to develop a transition between what is now the age of criminal responsibility and what is the age of full responsibility at, say, 18, and he has done this by a two-tier system. I do not like his system for 14 to 17, but even if he extended that system to those between 10 and 14 he would be satisfied. No prosecutions of people of that age would occur unless the conditions laid down in that procedure were satisfied. It would be very much to the benefit of the public, because it would enable the right hon. Gentleman to solve the problems raised in the debate with regard to such matters as compensation and fines which could also be

  1263
  applied to children of 13 but which it would not to be open to the courts to do under the Bill.
  The second criticism which the lay public will make of the Bill is that it blurs the distinctions between local authority services and the law. I do not underestimate the importance of this. It may be slightly old-fashioned, but there is a mystique about the law which I should not like to see diminished. In itself, it has a value in the enforcement of order in the country. There are some doubts cast upon this mystique. I recognise and applaud the changes which have occurred in the procedure of the police. But let me take two examples which occur to me and which may happen under the new procedure, and ask whether the introduction of the new procedure diminishes the standing of the police in the eyes of the public.
  Take a situation in which the police decide that they wish to prosecute. I do not believe that that will be unknown to the person involved in the offence. However, as I understand it, it will be possible for a dispute to arise between the local authority and the police, and for the juvenile magistrate to adjudicate between them. Should he decide against the police, they will not be able to bring their case. I regard such a situation as being different from one where the police bring a case and it is judged against them. That distinction may not be real to other hon. Members, but to me it is a genuine case.
  I understand from Appendix B that it will be possible for the police to arrest and hold a person for 72 hours while they are considering whether or not they wish to bring a case. In those circumstances, what I was saying just now is reinforced. No person in those circumstances could doubt that the police wished to bring a case if they were given authority to do so.
  There is another distinction between local authority services and the law which I hold to rigidly. It has been said that there is no appeal from a local authority. There is an appeal in the sense that if a care and control order is made it will be possible from time to time to go back to the court and ask for it to be revoked. However, at present, someone brought before a juvenile court will be allotted to one of a number of categories of home
  1264
  or detention centre. The sort of régime applying in those centres is fairly well known. Now that person will be sent to a general community home which may be one of many different kinds. For the sake of flexibility, all existing buildings will be thrown into a pool. The person before the court will be put into that pool and moved round by executive order. There will be no appeal about the type of treatment given under the order of the court. To that extent, for the whole period during which a person is subject to an order, he will be under the control of the local authority against which he will have no appeal. It would be interesting to know the Under-Secretary of State's version of that.
  To summarise, in my mind there is a difference between informal procedures which grow up, which we applaud in this House and which make the working of the law sweeter, and institutionalising those procedures so that a person cannot get out of them if he wants to. The grave danger of this Bill and the procedure involving an examining magistrate is that it is producing a rigid institution where at the moment we have a flexible off-the-cuff arrangement.
  I cannot understand why the Home Secretary has brought forward this part of the Bill. From the point of view of people outside listening to this debate, there will be these two major criticisms, which I share. I consider them to be matters of great weight. The object of the Bill is to provide a situation in which we shall keep the majority of children out of the courts. But we are already applauding the way in which it is done at the moment, to the entent that 30,000 cases were cautioned last year and thus kept out of the courts, and we know that the cautioning procedure is not yet applied all over the country. Is the Bill then, necessary, or are we already moving in the direction in which we want to go?
  The point has been made again and again; if we take the present arrangements and encourage the present trends and add new facilities to them in terms of the buildings and staff required and the new flexibility of sentences proposed in the Bill, should we lose very much by not having this new procedure? Are we not taking a bigger risk by losing a

  1265
  great many of the safeguards to which we have become accustomed for a marginal gain?
  For those reasons, I have no hesitation in supporting the Opposition Amendment. However, the Bill is one of great interest to many people. I hope sincerely that it will be possible in Committee to safeguard against the difficulties which I have outlined so that hon. Members on all sides of the House can be united at a later stage.
  8.10 p.m.
  Miss Joan Lestor: I want to follow one comment made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Sylvester). He said that one of the difficulties about this discussion on the Bill was how it would be interpreted by the general public. In removing from the White Paper the offensive phrase,
  "guidance as a good parent may reasonably be expected to give"
  the Home Secretary was trying to meet a situation which was open to wide interpretation. But what has struck me throughout the debate is that he need not have bothered, because everyone has argued as though it was still in the Bill. This also applies to those who have talked about getting off scot-free. There is no suggestion in the Bill that children not brought before a court are to get off scot-free. From my reading of the Bill it seems that what would happen to them is the treatment that is given now.
  If anyone is to be confused, it will be those who listen to the confusion which has come through the debate and who have read such letters as that in The Times today, which put good and bad in inverted commas as though that is in the Bill, and also went on to say:
  "If this becomes law it is only a matter of time before it is popularly (if inaccurately) believed that the grammar school boy will not be brought to court for the very things for which the secondary modern school boy is brought."
  This seems, whether deliberate or non-deliberate, a misrepresentation of what the Bill is trying to do. We all accept that it is enormously difficult to lay down rules and regulations for young people or adults who break the law or, in the case of children, who get themselves into trouble. There will obviously be difficulties.
  1266
  When we get to the stage of talking about poor compared with good or bad, middle-class or working-class, we need to go back to first principles and decide what we are trying to get at and what is our fundamental aim in trying to meet the needs of children who break the law and get into trouble.
  There are exceptions to any rules we may lay down. But at least the House will agree that a large proportion of children coming before the courts are from unsatisfactory backgrounds. This is well established. Further, we all know that the child from an inadequate home, the child from an emotionally deprived home, the child with ineffective or inadequate parents, stands a better chance today of getting into trouble than the child from a more fortunate background. I do not define it in terms of class or good or bad.
  This is not the fault of the people administering the law. It is as society exists. I wish that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) were here, because it emphasises something that he missed. He was trying to argue, in a sense very fairly, that the law must be seen to be fair and just. But the difficulty is that although we are all equal at birth, the moment we come into the world we begin to be unequal, and inequalities manifest themselves. It demonstrates to me that some children from the moment of birth are at greater risk than others. We have all recognised this, particularly the Government recently, in picking on certain areas of social deprivation and trying to give extra help there because we know that there have been certain difficulties among people brought up in unsatisfactory and inadequate environments. We try to compensate them for some of those difficulties.
  If the basic intention of the Bill is to keep young children out of court, or as many as we can, we must try to work, as it were, from the first principle, which is how this can best be achieved. If it is true that inadequate backgrounds produce inadequate children and inadequate parents, obviously we must work with the parents and with the backgrounds to try to change the environment. In courts in present circumstances much of the emphasis on the treatment and guidance of the child, and the parent is

  1267
  in that direction. We try to grapple with and change the environment from which the child has come.
  We do not have to go to court now to recognise this. It has been recognised over a long period of time. Where a child comes from a home situation which is socially responsible, it seems more likely that one can avoid going to court simply because there is a greater chance of co-operation. If this chance of cooperation is extended, in the first place, to those homes which appear to be inadequate, it seems we are on the right road to dealing with the root cause of the difficulty. We do not need courts to tell us about that.
  I think that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone over-stated the case of fairness, of which we must be conscious, because in the eyes of the public and in the eyes of children fairness is important. But looking at the differences in background, anyone who argues that it is fair to treat all young offenders the same, in view of what we know about environmental influences on young children, is being completely unfair. They have been treated unfairly and differently from the moment of birth. There are those who have made the point that there is a difference between a temporary lapse by somebody from a particular home and a child from a totally inadequate home and undesirable environment, who, therefore, needs to be removed from it. I think these are two different standards and sets of circumstances.
  I return to the point about fairness. Some of the people who argue for the retention of things as they are, or very much as they are, see the standard of fairness as appearing before a court. They believe that that is the place where fairness is measured for children who have got into trouble. Everyone recognises that there are many reasons why children get into trouble, many of which—indeed most—are not the fault of the children. But the measure apparently is that they must all be seen to go to court, as if there is something good in a court appearance. I do not believe that this is true. I do not believe that there is any evidence to support the claim that there is something to be admired in having gone to court and that this is a criterion that we must keep.
  1268
  Anybody who has experience of children who have got into trouble and gone through the courts knows that there are differences in treatment before they get to court. Many of them do not even get to court. There are also differences in what happens to them when they have been to court. Probation officers and others will tell of the difficulties that they have in trying to explain to one child why another child was let off or sent to an approved school. These complications and differences already exist in the system.
  I know that hon. Members may say that this is no reason, therefore, to increase them. But the difficulty is that in dealing with different children in different situations we must have different standards of treatment. It seems that what we are arguing about so much today is what part a court appearance plays. Everybody accepts that there are differences and that we must try to compensate for inadequacies in background. Also, there are degrees of social responsibility. Often children who get themselves into trouble and appear to be anti-social for a variety of reasons never get to court at all. This is not only because they are not found out, but because arrangements are made for help and guidance to be given and going to court is thereby avoided. We all know this. Although I accept fully that in the eyes of many people it will be seen to be unfair, we must not lose the benefit of trying to avoid court appearances and concentrating on improving backgrounds and social environments. Otherwise, it may be felt that there is more discrimination. It is a pity that it exists, but society is discriminatory.
  I should like to raise two other points on this matter. We cannot stress too much the enormous service that is done by those connected with child care—child care officers and everybody else. I was delighted to hear the Home Secretary say that training and so forth is to be increased. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) say that so many child care officers were not trained. This is true, but magistrates are not trained either. It does not seem a very strong point to bring out. Obviously child care officers should be trained. People dealing with young children in trouble ought to be trained. We need far more training.

  1269
  However, this cannot be used as an argument against what we are trying to do.
  I have been interested, too, in the recent situation with regard to child guidance clinics, because these have had an increasing rôle to play, and I think that they will continue to have a rôle to play in dealing with children who show early signs of mental disturbance. One of the difficulties is the unevenness in the distribution of many of our child guidance clinics. Another difficulty is the lack of facilities, psychiatric help, and so on, in various parts of the country. But more important than anything else is the time lag between a child being referred to a child guidance clinic and its being given treatment. I think that this situation will have to be looked at, and that something will have to be done about it, because this aspect will become more and more part and parcel of the child care services. I believe this to be a valuable aspect of the services, and I think that the attention of the Home Office will have to be directed to it if the Bill is to succeed in its aims.
  Often when looking at the records of children in school I have been struck by reports of signs of mental disturbance at the age of 5 or 6. This fact is recorded, but very little is done about it or can be done about it until some offence is committed and the child finds himself in court. If it is known that a child is suffering from this kind of disturbance, why cannot it be made compulsory to send that child to a child guidance clinic, in the same way as it is compulsory to send a child to school? If this is to be an important part of treatment, parental responsibility must be increased, and we must try to ensure that people take advantage of the treatment and the services that are offered.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston raised a matter which is not in the Bill, and I think I can see why it is not. My right hon. Friend has made some worth-while propositions relating to the whole question of fostering, and I think that everybody welcomes these long-overdue proposals, but nothing appears to have been done about what is becoming known as the tug-of-war child. I think that the reason why this issue is not dealt with in the Bill is that it is almost impossible to legislate for such a situation, but it seems to many of us
  1270
  that although we cannot lay down a law which states that after a certain period of time a foster child, and often a privately fostered child, cannot be returned to his natural parent, much more attention needs to be paid to whether the parent has functioned as a parent during the fostering period. This should be among the prime considerations, because this is one of the tragedies that one often meets in cases of this kind.
  In most circumstances the child ought to be with his natural mother, but part of the job of a parent is to function as a parent. If that is not happening, if the child is likely to be put at risk by being returned to his natural parent, if the child has no wish to return to his parents, and if he is in a good home local authorities and the courts should be directed to pay more attention to those factors so that some of our children, a minority, but nevertheless an important minority, do not find themselves in tragic circumstances which produce all sorts of repercussions in later life.
  Mr. Callaghan: This matter is not dealt with in the Bill, so perhaps I could say a few words about it. As my hon. Friend knows, I am conscious of this difficult problem. I hope to get advice from a number of quarters, and perhaps the people concerned could reach an agreed conclusion because this is essentially an issue on which we ought not to have a division of opinion if that is possible. I hope to carry this problem a stage further quite shortly.
  Miss Lestor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, as I am sure all those who are concerned with this problem are, too. We know that my right hon. Friend has co-operated with us in our discussions on this difficulty.
  I welcome the Bill, but not because it is a perfect Bill. When dealing with imperfect human beings, and imperfect circumstances, I do not think we can have perfect Bills. Nevertheless, I welcome it because, more than anything else, it has accepted the philosophy which has been growing in the past few years in relation to child care. It is a philosophy which has been working for some time, and the Bill is now trying to make it legal.
  I think that the Bill diminishes, even if it does not abolish, and perhaps it cannot, the artificial damaging distinction

  1271
  between deprived children and delinquent children. In most cases the circumstances are very much the same, and I think that when we look at the Bill from the point of view of deprivation, social need, and the effort that is being made to help the environment from which children come, we realise that we are moving away from regarding children as depraved or delinquent, and looking at most of those who get into trouble as being in need of help.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. David Waddington: I listened with great interest to the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), and hope to pick up some of her arguments in my brief contribution to the debate.
  I think that it was the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) who said that the Bill was a compromise. I do not think that a compromise between the comparative sense of the present system, and the nonsense of the original White Paper, "The Child, the Family and the Young Offender" is necessarily worthy of commendation, and I rather suspect that the hon. Lady would have been even happier had the Government brought forward a Bill to embody the proposals in the ill-fated White Paper which was so widely deplored.
  I respect the Government's sincerity and that of the Home Secretary. I respect the motives of the Government and those who have been responsible for the preparation of the Bill. It is well-intentioned, but, having heard the debate, and thought a great deal about the problems raised in the Bill, I am far from convinced that its implementation will be in the long-term interests of the children it is supposed to help.
  First, there has been no real answer from the benches opposite to the point which has been made more than once about the child from a good home and the child from a bad one. It is true, as the hon. Lady said, that there is nothing in the Bill about the good home and the bad home. But when we say that only the child in need of care and protection should be brought before the court, we are saying that the child who offends after having had all the advantages of a good home will not have to face the court of law, whereas the child
  1272
  with none of the advantages, who comes from a bad home, and has offended in precisely the same way, will have to face it. I agree entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) that children are very astute to recognise justice and injustice. It is important to see that a Measure like this does not offend the sense of justice of the children whom it is trying to help.
  Another unfortunate consequence of these proposals is that the use of the care and control procedure for children under 14 means that we cannot hit the pocket of the child. Plenty of young children under 14 have substantial pocket money and I would have thought that there has been abundant evidence, recognised in other Bills in the last few years, that a fine can be a potent weapon in the enforcement and observance of the law. We are taking from the juvenile courts one of their best weapons. It follows that, if a child is brought before the court only if he is in need of care and protection, as he cannot be convicted of an offence, he cannot be fined. Even within this framework, we could give the courts power to order a young person to pay compensation, but there is no provision for that, either by the child or by his parents. That, also, is quite wrong.
  I have practised in the courts and have the highest regard for juvenile court magistrates. I cannot see why they have to be appointed in future by the Lord Chancellor instead of by their fellows. It would be a thoroughly retrograde step to appoint them on a recommendation of a body sitting in secret rather than by the votes of their colleagus, who must know, better than anyone else, whether they are qualified to do the job properly. We all know the great care which is already taken to make juvenile courts different in character and atmosphere from ordinary courts of the land and I question whether much will be gained by keeping children who go wrong out of what are, after all, the very tender clutches of the existing juvenile courts.
  Not prosecuting these children may give them the impression that they have got away with it. It is vitally important, at this time of all times, to keep clear in the minds of our young people the difference between right and wrong, between

  1273
  guilt and innocence. I know that hon. Members opposite are well-intentioned, but we are running into the danger of blurring in their minds the difference between right and wrong, guilt and innocence, social and anti-social behaviour. In the end, I would stick to the humane system, ameliorated by the highly successful system—the Home Secretary conceded its success—of juvenile liaison officers.
  On treatment, I do not like the wording of the Amendment of my own Front Bench. I am not prepared to say that I am entirely happy about the new system of community homes which the Bill proposes. If it is implemented in toto, approved schools will go and all these institutions will come under one umbrella and all be community homes. The local authorities will be responsible for placing the children in them. At present, in some of these institutions, bad lads are mixed with the merely deprived children, but, if the Bill became law as it is, there would be even less separation, and that would be a preposterous situation.
  It is absurd that only a week after discussing implementing the proposals of the Latey Committee, which give young people at the age of 18 all the rights of full citizenship, we should be arguing in favour of the proposition that up to 17 a boy or girl should not be held fully responsible for his or her criminal acts. It is the sort of thing one would expect from a madhouse rather than the House of Commons. There does not seem to be a logical theme running through the many Measures which the Government have introduced in recent months with such speed.
  The Bill includes a welcome amendment of the Children Act, 1958, by providing that a child whose care and maintenance are undertaken by a person other than a relative or guardian shall be treated as a foster child, even though no question of reward may arise. A recent case in my constituency, however, tends to show that the law is still not strong enough to ensure the welfare of foster children.
  The case I have in mind—the details of which I have furnished to the Home Secretary—involve the illegitimate child
  1274
  of an 18-year-old mother. When the child was only 16 days old the mother handed the baby girl to an elderly widow who lived nearby, and then the mother disappeared. The matter came to the knowledge of the local authority because a welfare officer happened to call at the old lady's home. If that had not happened, some time might have elapsed before the authority would have had any knowledge of the disappearance of the mother and the placement of the child.
  Unfortunately, the story had a sad end because the elderly widow became ill, could not look after the child and called in the local welfare officer to sort out the problem. The child was taken into care. Some time later, when the widow became fit again, she wanted the child back. But the local authority decided—I do not criticise it for taking this line—that she might become ill again and that it would not be in the interest of the child to return her to the elderly widow.
  Before any child is placed in the foster home of a local authority extensive inquiries are made. Officers of the authority examine the prospective home and make sure that the child will be placed in surroundings as nearly ideal as possible. However, the case I quoted highlights the fact that under the present law—and this will be the position even when this Measure is enacted—an individual can foster out a child privately without any inquiries being made.
  Under the Bill the law will be complied with if the would-be foster parents notify the local authority two weeks before receiving the child, or, in the case of an emergency—one does not know how an emergency will be defined—two days afterwards. This must be wrong. The time has come when the mother should have the responsibility of notifying the local authority before the child is placed. The Minister should reexamine this part of the Bill to see if, by amendment, it can be altered to cover the sort of case I have quoted and so place an obligation on somebody other than the receiving foster parents to report to the local authority his or her intentions.

  1275
  I appreciate full well that no legislation can altogether prevent parents acting irresponsibly, but not long ago Mr. Brown, Secretary of the Association of Children's Officers, was reported in the Press as saying:
  "Even now there is nothing to prevent a woman in a fish queue from saying, 'Here's my baby. Look after her'."
  That seems odd indeed.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Archer: I think that the House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) for at least one observation which he made in the debate. From time to time there have been references to the effect of the Bill upon the freedom of the individual and about some sinister powers which are being acquired by the local authorities which they ought not to have. I had been wondering just what those powers were. The hon. Member has now explained with his usual clarity that the powers in question are powers which will follow the making of a care order.
  To some extent I appreciate his argument, although I should have thought this was a necessary concomitant of introducing flexibility in dealing with a child once a care order has been made. But from a number of contributions to the debate I had the impression that these sinister powers of local authorities were associated with the provision to avoid bringing certain children before the courts, as though being brought before a court were some safeguard for individual freedom. Let us at least eliminate this confusion. The proposal to avoid bringing certain children before a juvenile court is to offer the child and its parents an alternative method of dealing with the situation if they want to avail themselves of it. If they insist on going to the court, all they have to do is to refuse to co-operate in any other way of dealing with the situation.
  I hoped that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne would set my mind at rest on another matter. It would not be the first time that he has brought to my mind clarity where formerly there was obscurity, but this was an omission from his speech. I have listened to a number of speeches about the very real fact that many juvenile courts are struggling on
  1276
  deprived of accommodation and the wherewithal to perform their functions as many of us would hope they could do. But I have not been able to understand why this was an argument against the proposal by my right hon. Friend to relieve them of some of their burdens.
  I should have thought that the fact, on which no doubt all would agree, that over a long period, services dealing with children have been starved of resources to do their work would give support to the proposal of my right hon. Friend to make greater use of voluntary organisations, youth clubs and voluntary workers, many of whom are already doing a magnificent job.
  I support the Bill because I take the view, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) did, that it is a step in a long process. That is a process not only concerning the way in which we deal with our children, but relating to our whole penal system, a process towards a more rational and compassionate way of dealing with these problems. In the beginning, when society was in its infancy, it reacted to abnormal behaviour as any infant does when it is hurt—it hit out. It hit out instinctively, whether anyone was to blame, whether the whole situation was an accident, whether even it was hitting out at an inanimate body. Whether it could do so effectively, and whether any purpose was to be served—it hit out.
  Occasionally even now, for all of us, this kind of instinct is very near the surface. We get it in public outcries when there has been a particularly atrocious crime. Occasionally, I suspect a faint echo of it in the expression which has been repeated from time to time about getting off scot-free.
  From that stage it was not long before it received a more formal and more respectable kind of mythology. It was declared that something metaphysical and impersonal called "The Law" insisted that in the natural order of things certain conduct should be visited with certain consequences; and the law was majestic in its impartiality. It distinguished only between conduct, not between persons or circumstances or reasons.
  I suspect that that still survives. I do not condemn it. That, too, is probably very close to the surface in many of us.

  1277
  I thought that it survived in the letter to The Times from the secretary to the Magistrates Association which has been referred to in the debate, because in a very fair and moderately stated argument about the psychological consequences of a certain provision, the whole thing suddenly became erected into a grandiloquent juristic concept about equality before the law. It was no such thing. Equality before the law does not mean that the law treats everyone alike. As my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, it does not mean uniformity. Equality before the law means that the law makes only distinctions which are relevant to fairness and common sense.
  Incidentally, although I saw the force of the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) when he spoke of the very real sense of fairness in children, I wonder whether he did not under-rate the equally real sense of what is going on, the very aliveness and intelligence that many children display, too. If two children, in the kind of circumstances which the right hon. and learned Gentleman described, appreciated that each of them had had the whole situation investigated, had been brought before a magistrate or a children's officer or before the kind of juvenile bureau described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Harry Howarth), I should have thought that it would not have been beyond the wit of the officials dealing with the matter to explain to the children just what in fact was happening and what decision was being made.
  I believe that one of the matters which they would have very much in mind is the effect of a distinction of this kind. This might be one of the reasons why they decided to bring both children, or neither, before the court. If it was decided to bring one and not the other, I suspect that the reason might well be—I think that the child might appreciate this—the reaction of the children, the likelihood of this kind of offence being repeated, whether the seriousness of what had happened had really been brought home to the children.
  From that stage, the next stage in the process was what many writers on the subject have called "social defence". It
  1278
  goes past the instinctive reaction of society to hurt somebody, past the law's demand for a sacrifice, and becomes an inquiry into what will produce the best results for the community and the individual. It is what my right hon. Friend called "the appropriate treatment." It does not entail sentimentality or universal leniency. There are some kinds of conduct which must be discouraged by an appropriate deterrent. There are some occasions when the community can be protected only if the individual is physically restrained. I noticed that the Court of Appeal reminded my right hon. Friend yesterday that in the rehabilitation of offenders he owes a duty under the common law to others who might be affected by his decisions.
  But usually the community is most likely to benefit if the individual is reformed and rehabilitated and equipped to make a positive contribution. Particularly at the outset of a potential criminal career, the community benefits best if the individual is induced to adopt a different course. That is where this process has been leading; and that is what Part I of the Bill is about.
  I appreciate something that has been said about two dangers which could be involved in this process if they are not carefully watched. The first is the danger of eliminating from our language the terminology of morals, what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne called the difference between right and wrong. The concepts of goodness and wickedness still have a part to play, and particularly the concept of deserving, if only because, whatever other considerations might apply, it is important that an individual is not treated more harshly than he deserves.
  There is sometimes a danger that the concept of right and wrong may disappear from our vocabulary. Certainly, if the Magistrates Association is implying that it ought to be someone's job, even in the course of a caution, to bring home to an offender that he has committed an offence, then to that extent I agree with the Magistrates Association. Incidentally, I hope Clause 4 will not be interpreted as meaning that anyone who commits an offence when under the age of 14 is not responsible for his or her actions. Originally, the rule which applied to a child up to the age of 8 was based on the

  1279
  presumption of common law judges that a child under that age was incapable of forming the intention to commit an offence. They must have been a little remote from reality. Any parent who believes a child is incapable of forming the intention to misbehave must have very docile children.
  As I understand, the purpose behind Clause 4 is very different. Its purpose, surely, is to ensure that before a potential professional criminal becomes a real professional criminal and has to be dealt with as such, every consideration should be given to preventing that life of crime. I thought that the Association of Children's Officers from time to time rather obscured the distinction between a child with a problem and a child who has quite deliberately committed an offence, particularly when they noted the statement in paragraph 10 of the Ingleby Report:
  "It is the situation and relationships within the family which seem to be responsible for many children being in trouble, whether the trouble is called delinquency or anything else."
  It is rather dangerous to suggest that every child who commits an offence must have this offence laid at the door of its parents. Children, like the rest of us, are notoriously unpredictable and many of us, with the best intentions, can take a wrong course in dealing with them. But many parents who have tried hard have found that in the end their children have committed an offence; and it would be very unfair to suggest to them that it must necessarily be the fault of the parents. We are not, any of us, wholly a product of our environment.
  We all have a great deal of original sin within us. And I would certainly agree with the suggestion that has been made from time to time that it would help to bring home to an offender what has happened, and its effect on the victim, if the provision for making compensation were retained within the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) mentioned this—and I would certainly support him in Committee if he moved to include such a provision—that the idea of beginning again with a fresh start has much to recommend it in rehabilitating someone who appreciates that he has committed an offence.
  1280
  The other danger I foresee, if it is not guarded against, is that having quite properly dispensed with the law as a majestic and impersonal avenger, we may also dispense with it as a quite proper protector of individuals. I hope juvenile magistrates will not be so intent on helping children that they will overlook the requirements of the Clause. It is still a very real stigma to be found to have committed an offence, and certainly I hope that, in practice, they will not attempt to consider together whether a child has committed an offence and whether it is in need of care; because it would be difficult, having discovered perhaps that a child comes from a bad home background and that the father has just served a long term of imprisonment for assault and battery, then to go on to consider fairly whether the child has committed the particular offence of which he is accused. An innocent child has a right not to be helped.
  If time had permitted, and if this were not a Second Reading speech, I should have added a little to what my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough said about the rigid distinction between adoption and fostering, and I warmly welcome the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on that matter. I appreciate that one cannot eliminate the distinction; adoption is a more permanent relationship, it requires more careful consideration, and there is a difference between the foster parent who is not responsible for maintenance of the child and the adoptive parent who is. However, we all know of the heartbreak which occurs from time to time, and someone ought to have at least a discretion to prevent it.
  The proposal which I offer for my right hon. Friend's consideration is that Section 2 of the Children Act, 1948, might be amended so that, in certain circumstances, the local authority had at least a discretion to assume parental rights. I put it no higher than that. It would not follow as night follows day that the parent would lose any rights, but it would mean that someone was at least entitled to look at the whole matter again.
  I welcome the Bill, though recognising its shortcomings, shortcoming which, if

  1281
  given the opportunity, I shall try to repair in Committee. It is a serious attempt, after careful thought, to bring together two concepts which, in the last resort, are indivisible—the well being of the community as a whole and the well being of the individuals who make it up.
  8.56 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I welcome and support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) about foster children. Why has the Home Secretary dealt with foster children in the Bill at all? A far more appropriate place would be the Family Law Reform Bill, in which the problems of illegitimate children and not delinquent children and children in need of care for other reasons are dealt with. Perhaps the Home Secretary will consider that point.
  Without taking sides in any way, I commend the excellent work, noted by the Seebohm Committee, which is done by children and child care officers. The recent Home Office report shows that nearly 250,000 of these young people were helped in 1967, and guidance was given to over 133,000 children, a total greater by 26,000 than the number of young children found guilty of indictable or non-indictable offences. Plainly, the Act brought in by Mr. Henry Brooke, now Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has begun to work, and I hope that more progress will follow.
  I come now to one or two aspects of the Bill which worry me, and I take, first, the question of community homes. It seems to me that there should be some protection to ensure that cases are reviewed from time to time. Otherwise, as I understand, a child could remain in a residential home for as long as six years. If a child is removed from its home, with the consent of the parents, that situation should not be allowed to continue for more than six months without reference to a committee, perhaps the local authority committee.
  I am concerned also about Clause l (2)(e) as it stands, because the words "guilty of an offence". It could be any offence, however trivial, whereas previously the offences were restricted to
  1282
  those which, if committed by an adult, would be punishable by imprisonment. If the Clause passes unamended, a child could be taken away from its parents for a quite minor offence, and I should prefer to go back to the limitation in the previous Act.
  Next, as I understand, magistrates will no longer have power to commit a child to the care of another person; in other words, they could commit a child not to a grandparent or an aunt but only to the local authority. If I understand aright, I regard that restriction as objectionable. It could well be in the interests of the child to go to a relation, and I hope that the restriction will be removed.
  The provisions concerning the control and supervision of children in moral danger are excessive in relation to children in their 16th year. They can get married if they have their parents' consent, and they should take on the adult responsibilties and rights at that age.
  Clause 5(1) deals with the laying of information in writing, and Clause 8(1) deals with finger-printing. If the young person is found innocent, where does the Bill provide for destroying the written evidence or the finger-prints which might be very dangerous to him or her in later life?
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: That is covered by the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I am glad that it is covered.
  Probably because I am not a lawyer, I should like an explanation of the following words in Clause 5(8):
  "If at the time when justices begin to inquire into an offence either as examining justices or on the trial of an information, they have reason to believe that the alleged offender is a young person and that consent under this section has not been obtained for the proceedings, it shall be their duty to quash the information, without prejudice to the laying of a further information in respect of the offence; but a failure to obtain consent tinder this section shall not invalidate proceedings in respect of the offence …"
  To my non-legal mind it seems rather unfortunate that this should be in the Bill.
  Clause 21 provides that a court may order that a care order shall continue in force until a person attains the age of 19. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston that that provision will prove very difficult if the age of majority

  1283
  is to be 18, and I hope that this may be changed in Committee.
  9.2 p.m.
  Sir Peter Rawlinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) for cutting short her remarks. She always contributes much to our debates on these subjects, of which she knows a great deal, and in her short speech she has given the Under-Secretary of State many questions to answer.
  If one comes into the Chamber at about this hour and hears an hon. Member saying from the Front Bench that we have had a very interesting debate, it usually means that the House has had an inordinately dull afternoon and evening. I shall not say that about this debate, because the subject matter could never be dull, and the manner of the debate has not been dull either. It began with a lucid and careful explanation of the Bill by the Home Secretary, for which we are very grateful. He revealed his patent sincerity about wanting to do something in this matter. It was followed by the most stimulating and exciting speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). As he announced that we have 11 children between us, I should like to say that I am in the majority by one. Though the Home Secretary seemed to forecast that the argument would be arid, we can at least say that the attitude of this team is not one of sterile lawyers.
  As the Amendment obviously foreshadowed, a real and sincere conflict of opinion exists over Part I. I pay my tribute to the impeccable intentions of the promoters of the Bill, all of whom have the worthiest objects. They want to ensure that children do not, as some unfortunately do, turn along paths which end with their being recidivists. One has often been struck in one's professional life with how many major criminals have had a history of crime early in their youth. Anything that can be done, and sensibly and rightly done, in that respect is something that we should all welcome.
  The Home Secretary is here again, so I want to repeat my tribute to his sincerity. But I had to object to his lack of accuracy when he cast me as a retired silk. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone
  1284
  was here to interject on my behalf. In the proceedings to which my right hon. and learned Friend has referred, when he wrote a robust and sensible article in Punch and was had up for contempt, I was his counsel. I also had the experience of cross-examining not long ago the former Foreign Secretary. Both my right hon. and learned Friend and I are practising lawyers, and make no apology for approaching the changes which the Bill makes in the law from the point of view of whether the objective of the promoters will be carried out or whether, as I fear, the new system will be at the expense of a very important principle—fairness.
  I think that the Home Secretary now sees in clearer perspective the reasons for our Amendment and that our objections to Part I are on principle. I am sure that he realises the sincerity of our views just as his sincerity is clear to us. We fear that this Bill contains a wrong approach which could be harmful.
  It is right to look at the problem in the context of the present situation. I am informed that in 1967, some 30,000 under 14's were convicted and some 17,000 under 14's were cautioned in the courts. Of this total, 26 per cent. were fined and 27 per cent. received conditional discharge. I must repeat the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) posed. What will happen to these cases under the Bill? It was thought by sensible men and women, trained and experienced magistrates, that this was the appropriate thing to do with these children, and there is no reason to doubt that they were right.
  Then again, in the case of children between the ages of 14 and 17, some 13,000 were cautioned and 83,000 convicted. Of these, about 60 per cent. were fined and 12 per cent. conditionally discharged. This makes in all about 150,000 children and young persons who got into trouble in 1967, and if we take account of their parents we bring the figure up to about 400,000 individuals concerned.
  Figures have been supplied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in an article in the Daily Telegraph. In the Metropolitan area, the arrests for burglary reveal that, out of every 100 cases, 13 concern

  1285
  children between the ages of 10 and 13 and 29 in the age group 14 to 16. Again, 33 out of every 100 cases of shopbreaking involve persons under the age of 16.
  We have to face the fact that there is a serious situation which must not be underestimated, whatever our motives or ideas of how the situation can best be resolved. There is a high level of juvenile crime, and it has to be dealt with. This is no time for softness, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman accepts, and he made it clear that there is no intention of going soft. It is firmness which is needed to deal with the investigation of crimes and in dealing with them thereafter. Our common aim is surely to keep children out of the courts, and we have to find the best way of preventing them from committing crimes. We keep the children out of court best if they do not commit the crime.
  Secondly, there is the system of cautioning about which we have heard from people who know far more about it than I do. It seems to be a system which is reasonable, rational and fair. None the less we have to face the problem that some children have to be faced with the serious consequences of their serious behaviour, and this is something from which we must not flinch.
  I want now to say something about the form of the Bill. This is a song that I have sung often from this Box. If there has been so much time to work out this Bill, as we understand has been the case, with all these consultations, and if it has been in the minds of so many people for so long, are these 94 pages the best that could be produced? I know that we are in a great straitjacket over drafting and that it is sometimes unfair to turn against the Parliamentary Counsel. But is it not time that we got out of this manner of making our laws? Let me quote from Clause 3(3), which says:
  "If in any care proceedings the relevant infant is alleged to have committed an offence in consequence of which the offence condition is satisfied with respect to him, the court shall not find the offence condition satisfied in consequence of the offence unless, disregarding section 4 of this Act, it would have found him guilty of the offence if the proceedings had been in pursuance of an information duly charging him with the offence and the court had had jurisdiction to try the information;".
  I know that one can be unfair by reading it too fast, but the point I want to
  1286
  make is that the only part of this Bill which is a first-class piece of drafting is in the interpretation Clause. I see in Clause 66 the following:
  "'police officer 'means a member of a police force".
  That seems to be the most sensible and clear piece of drafting in the Bill. I know that it is a difficult problem, but it is something which faces all of us in the machinery of government. If something is too complicated the public will not respect what they cannot understand. Somehow, we must escape from this straitjacket.
  I turn now to the matter of the Bill. I share the suspicions of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone. I feel that this Bill, not only the form of it but the matter in it, bears the stamp of the Department. I get the impression that, for all the Home Secretary's desire to carry out sincere and useful alterations in the law regarding children, the Home Office has imposed its attitude to the administration of justice upon it. This may be a different attitude from that of the Lord Chancellor's Department. We have this ridiculous dichotomy whereby the Lord Chancellor's Department deals with civil law and the Home Office with criminal law.
  We have a trichotomy, because the Board of Trade comes in with its own law-making activities. There will come a time when the power to initiate law in civil and criminal proceedings will come under one department, and I would personally recommend that it was the Department which knows most about the law.
  The public confidence element, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) referred, is a very important one. The public confidence element is that the public believe that there should be a prosecuting authority, impartially putting the facts where an offence has been suspected, before an appropriately constituted court, and that court should then judge the guilt of the accused person. Thereafter it should apply the appropriate treatment. The constitution of the court can and should be special, as it is in the juvenile court.
  There the magistrates have special experience. But they should first of all—this is where there should be the

  1287
  equality we are all demanding—be exercising ordinary judicial powers to determine guilt. When they have done that they have to impose the appropriate treatment. Then everything is different, because people and their circumstances are different. They have to impose the appropriate treatment with the appropriate resources given by Parliament.
  We must hesitate before differing from the magistrates. We have had the advanage of hearing the hon. Members for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) and Welling-borough (Mr. Harry Howarth), who told us of their own personal experience. One of the strengths of the House of Commons is that people can speak from personal experience. Juvenile court magistrates are selected from all age groups and from people of all attitudes. They are chosen for their knowledge, and they observe the conduct and behaviour of accused juveniles. They can follow up that conduct after the juveniles have been sentenced. It is, therefore, right that we should pay great attention to the attitude of the magistrates. There has been reference to Mr. Brayshaw's letter in The Times today favouring the Ingleby Committee's recommendation that the offence should be sufficient ground for bringing a child before the court. I think that is right.
  My criticism of Part I of the Bill is that it is unfair because there is a distinction between the background of one offender and another. Advantage is given to the offender whose circumstances are comfortable. That is unfair, and it is wrong for Parliament to perpetrate such an unfairness. When examined, it will be found to be wholly repugnant. I think that the public will reject it. When one child who comes from a comfortable home gets off scot-free and another, who comes from another sort of home does not get off scot-free but is taken to court, there will be trouble.
  I can see the aim, idea and purpose, but this is an artificial and theoretical solution which will not work. It breaches one of the basic principles of the administration of justice. We cannot exclude children and young persons from their right to justice. I do not see why we in the House of Commons should. If we think that this is a right system, test it by reference to the age of 18. Would we apply that principle to people of the age
  1288
  of 18? People of 18 are only a few years older than the people to whom this principle will be applied. This is a major change for the worse in trial procedure which will be found to be wholly unacceptable.
  Then there is the matter of delay. First, there will be an inquiry into and assessment of the home. Evidence will have to be given. Objection may be taken by a parent. Somebody may have to investigate that before it is decided whether to prosecute the child. Secondly, with a young person, there will be the preliminary investigation by an examining magistrate. That could easily take weeks, perhaps months. What does "satisfied" in Clause 5(4) mean? If a magistrate or court is to be "satisfied", somebody will have to prove the case. Will it be proved beyond reasonable doubt? All this procedure must be gone through before the young person comes before the court. A young person is as much entitled to his rights as anyone else. What parent in the House, if his child said that he had been accused of something and he did not do it, would not ensure that that child had every possible advantage and a fair chance before a court?
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). I have always been an opponent of corporal punishment as a judicial punishment. I have always rejected it because of the delay between the offence and the sentence and appeal. Delay is an important matter which should not be overlooked.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) referred to the rule of law, and my third objection is that this is a distortion of the rule of law. Justice demands the conviction of the guilty just as much as the acquittal of the innocent. The interests of the State demand that an offence shall, generally, be prosecuted, irrespective of the circumstances of the accused. It is an odd principle for this House of Commons to accept that a person should not be prosecuted because of his circumstances. We are making a very big departure.
  What if a child is attacked and injured by another, and the parents of the injured child find that there has been no prosecution, though it may have been a particularly brutal attack; or suppose one

  1289
  attacker is prosecuted and not the other? Suppose there is no prosecution where a shopkeeper has had a brick through the window and his goods have been taken? What will be the public's reaction to this artificial and theoretical proposal?
  Justice must be administered formally. It is the voice and act of the State, of the people, of the Crown; it is society saying the offender must come before them and answer the charge. So, the basic distortion is the unfairness, and the Under-Secretary must explain how this form of injustice can be justified. One has only to pose the issue to reject it.
  If the Home Secretary can squeeze from the Treasury the money to do all the things it is suggested in the Bill should be done, why should not he develop and extend the present system, and give to the courts all those facilities which they have been denied since the last war? We have always tried to get our justice and our penal policy on the cheap. This has been a great mistake; it has meant a waste of materials and of human beings. This Cinderella of the social services should have greater priority. It is easy to say that when there are no Treasury Ministers lurking on the Benches before us, but it is essential for the proper organisation of our society that priority should be given to it.
  I turn to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) and Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington). Does it not strike everybody, as it did them, that it is ironic that a week or so ago, and a few months before that, we were paying our middle-aged tribute to youth in legislating about the age of 18. We were saying that people should be mature enough at 18 to vote, and to be able to judge whether X or Y should sit on these green benches and contribute to our debates. Only a few weeks ago we were saying that a lad of 18 should be able to assume all the responsibilities of entering into contracts and should not need to shelter, as he has done in the past, behind his parent. We said that he should have all this open to him because nowadays people are more mature physically and intellectually. Now the House of Commons is saying that up to 16 years
  1290
  11 months, only 13 months off that age, such a lad is not able to face up to whether or not he has been guilty of an offence such as where, for instance, he has gone on to the platform after a football match with a juvenile gang, as sometimes happens, and has beaten up somebody. If these young people are to be given the rights, they should be able to take upon themselves the responsibilities.
  In many respects, the Bill has much to commend it when one thinks of community homes and the fostering of children, which was commended in the attractive speech of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), who knows a great deal about these matters. Much of what she said appeals to me, but the fact remains that there are considerable objections to Part I.
  A number of questions have been put to the Under-Secretary of State, and I would ask him specifically to take up the two which practically every hon. Member has posed. Why is the child against whom there is evidence that he has committed a crime not to be prosecuted before an appropriate juvenile court unless he comes from a bad family? Secondly, why should a young person of 16¾ against whom there may be evidence that he has knocked down and kicked another person not be prosecuted without the rigmarole of appearing before an examining magistrate? So far, we have had no convincing answers, and the Government have not explained the necessity for the Bill. If the resources are available, they could be used to do what many experienced child care officers and magistrates would like to see in terms of the provision of attendance centres, with the necessary facilities and proper staff.
  The Bill offends against the major principle of fairness, it introduces unnecessary delays and cumbersome procedures, and is the fruit of a philisophy of penology which is unacceptable to the public. For that reason, I commend our reasoned Amendment to my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  9.27 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): We have had a spirited and edifying debate. There have been

  1291
  clashes of opinion, as one would expect, because there are divers views deeply held by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) has allowed me a substantial period of time in which to reply to the debate. Even so, I regret that there will not be sufficient time to take up in detail all the points which have been raised. Many of them are Committee points, and I have no doubt that they will be raked over and dealt with with great thoroughness and considerable rhetoric in Committee.
  The fundamental idea underlying the Bill is that the time has come for Parliament to lay down a new legal framework for the way in which society deals with children in trouble so as to reflect developments in the organisation of the services concerned and the current practices, and also to provide the necessary room for further development in the future. The Bill also reflects the growth of our understanding of the development of children and the ways in which behaviour and attitudes are moulded.
  Increasingly, we realise how personal and environmental factors during childhood and adolescence may influence the whole of an individual's later life. The injury and damage caused by juvenile delinquency are a proper cause for concern. But, in dealing with each child, we must never allow any immediate punitive reaction, however natural it may be, to divert our attention from the need to base the action which we take on long-term considerations, for it may affect the whole of his future as a useful member of society.
  We should not forget the deprived backgrounds from which many delinquents come—the inadequate or broken homes and the squalid neighbourhoods which are so often associated with juvenile misbehaviour. Nor, indeed, should we forget that the modification of behaviour—the whole process of growing up into a mature personality—depends upon the child's personal relationships, above all, with his own family. These are the reasons why the Bill seeks to create a system which is flexible, so that there are no longer legal barriers which prevent the most appropriate action being taken in each case, and which makes maximum use of all the resources—
  1292
  especially the human resources—available in the community for dealing with the problems of children in trouble.
  Nothing in the Bill has been spawned by sentimental notions of curing all problems by kindness alone. The compelling motive, as my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, is not softness or permissiveness, but rather a realistic appreciation of the range and the variety of assets which modern society has available and which can be further developed to deal more effectively with the problem of juvenile delinquency.
  The Bill seeks to strike a balance between the need to control unacceptable behaviour, on the one hand, and the duty, on the other, to offer help to those who need it, while, at the same time, preserving judicial safeguards which are necessary for the freedom of the individual.
  It seems to me that the unhappiness of many right hon. and hon. Members concerning Clause 1, particularly subsection (2), stems from not paying due regard to the fact that this provision is nothing more than the progression of a system that is already in existence.
  The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), in his excellent speech, which we all admired, said that he cared more about justice than probably anything else in life. That is an ideal that all of us will salute. He went on to say, "Just look where we will be getting to with the Bill". I put it to right hon. and learned Gentlemen and to the House that we should consider the position that we are in already before contemplating any changes which might be brought about by the Bill.
  Let us look at the position which now obtains in the treatment of juvenile offenders, particularly in relation to cautions. These are the round figures for the year 1967. In the age group of those from 10 to 14 the total number of offences was 47,000, out of which came 17,000 cautions. In the range of 14 to 17, there was a total of 73,000 offences, 13,000 of which resulted in cautions. Therefore, taking the total ages from 10 to 17, we have 120,000 offences, in respect of which 30,000 persons were cautioned. Thus, broadly speaking, of the juvenile offenders within the range 10 to 14, a third were cautioned, whilst of those

  1293
  over 14 and under 17, between a fifth and a sixth were dealt with by way of caution.
  Taking the two age groups together, we have an average as near as anything of one-quarter with respect to both indictable and non-indictable offences. This is a phenomenon which has developed over the decades, and it is one which I submit must weigh very heavily with regard to any decisions that we arrive at on this issue. It is strange that in the ample memorandum which the Magistrates Association has distributed it has not seen fit to make one reference to this most material and relevant point.
  But even more important than the fact that only three-quarters of persons under 17 are actually prosecuted for offences which they are known, or at any rate believed, to have committed is the pattern of application of this system from one area to another. I was staggered to find how enormous are the differences. The highest percentage of cautions for any police area is well over 65 per cent. The lowest—and the House will find this difficult to believe—is under 5 per cent. It is, therefore, on the reality of this situation that we must build our plans and frame our policies.
  I put it to the House that the questions we must face are these. Accepting that very few people would advocate, and no one in this debate has suggested, that all children over 10 should automatically be prosecuted in respect of each and every offence they commit, on what basis should it be decided which children should be prosecuted and which should not? Should it be left to a system——
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Before my hon. Friend deals with which should, and which should not, is not one bound to ask why there should be a prosecution in any case under a certain age group, say 16, as was recommended by the Seebohm Report? Why should not we go from the notion of criminality to the full acceptance of not bringing any child under a certain age before the courts?
  Mr. Morgan: I do not disagree with the general principle behind my hon. Friend's remarks, but it nevertheless comes to this, that generally we accept the fact of a discriminatory system, and it is, therefore, implicit in that system,
  1294
  if we leave it as it is, that the decisions upon which that system rests must inevitably have the appearance of being capricious and arbitrary.
  We have been talking, with absolute sincerity, about equality. We should ask ourselves whether this system should be shared with the agencies which have responsibility for children. Should the chances of a young offender being prosecuted be left to the mere accident of geography, whether he lives in a police area where perhaps 60 per cent. of the cases are dealt with by way of caution, or whether he lives in a police area where under 5 per cent. are dealt with in that way? I believe that in asking such questions we place Clauses 1 and 5 in their proper perspective.
  Broadly speaking, we have three courses from which we can choose. First, we can allow the position to remain as it is, that is with all its inevitable and obvious inconsistencies. Flexibility is one thing, but to have an area in which the percentage of cautions is more than 13 times that in another area is stretching flexibility a little too far, and must of necessity undermine the validity of any system.
  Secondly, we could legislate to provide that prosecutions should automatically follow the commission of an offence in every case. I put it to the House that this would elevate the punitive aspect of criminal law in this field to the status of a narrow and sterile theology. Few right hon. or hon. Members, if any, would subscribe to that idea.
  The third possibility is to lay down guide lines in the law itself as to how the diversities with regard to prosecution should be applied. Whether the criteria in Clauses 1 and 5 will apply in exactly the way that they are set out in the Bill is not a matter for a Second Reading debate, but must be treated and further pursued in Committee. The issue at the moment is whether there should be guidance or a perpetuation of all the immense variations of practice in different areas.
  If there is to be guidance, should that guidance come from Parliament? I put it to the House that to suggest that it should come from some other source would amount to an abrogation of our responsibility in an important area, perhaps the most important area, of the

  1295
  administration of our Jaw. The provisions of Clauses 1 and 5 are substantially what we have lived with for decades. No hon. Member has suggested that we should change this basic system.
  I could put it as bluntly as this. Is it not time that we regularised the position and made an honest woman of this informal situation? The proposals in the Bill are largely the fruits of over 30 years of experience. They constitute a simple clear and eminently fair solution of this problem. They will give the present system a greater consistency and it is entirely misconceived to suggest that they would prevent court proceedings in cases where they were required. The only court proceedings which they would restrict are those where there was no evidence that they were necessary.
  Several hon. Members have asked how Clauses 1 and 5 will work in the case where two or more persons are jointly concerned in the commission of the same offence. The short answer is that they will permit the joint offenders all to be taken to court or all to be dealt with out of court where that seemed the right course and would also permit some but not all to be taken to court where that seemed right.
  It was clearly stated in Appendix A to the White Paper that being concerned in an offence with another person who was to be prosecuted would be prescribed as a ground on which the single magistrate could consent to a prosecution under Clause 5 and that remains the intention. Equally, Clause 1 does not prevent joint offenders from being taken to court in care proceedings, but we need to be very careful about suggestions that this should always happen. There are many situations in which it would be grossly unfair to make any such absolute rule. There is no present rule of law or of practice which results in joint offenders necessarily being treated alike and there are situations in which the police, perfectly properly, distinguish between members of a gang whose circumstances are fundamentally different.
  We have heard a great deal about equality. As my right hon. Friend said, a clear distinction must be drawn between equality and uniformity. One must beware at all times of elevating a false notion of uniformity of treatment into
  1296
  a principle of paramount importance because we would, in the process, lose sight of our first aim, which is to ensure that each child receives the care or control which, as an individual, he needs. We would also distort the genuine concept of equality, which is that the same treatment should be given only in the same circumstances. The fact that the circumstances of young offenders are rarely precisely the same means that to act as if they were would not only be ineffectual in terms of results, but also unjust. It is necessary, therefore, to leave an element of discretion in the law.
  The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone and many other hon. Members suggested that we were devaluing the status of the juvenile court because we had failed to understand the constructive rôle which magistrates had to play. This is turning the whole argument on its head. We are seeking to emphasise the constructive rôle which other bodies and agencies can play. I am sure that magistrates do not say that they have the sole monopoly in this connection.
  We also had from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the bricks and mortar argument, if I may call it that, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). We were told that the Bill by itself did not give any new assets; that it did not provide any fresh resources.
  It is true that there is no new channel of additional resources here, but the Bill, by obliterating distinctions which now exist, will make available all the resources of which we are possessed. For example, on 31st January of this year there were in approved schools available places totalling 9,100, of which only 6,800 had been taken up. When, under this Measure, we have a fully integrated system, it will be possible for those remaining 2,300 places to be taken up, but not before then. It is not that we are providing fresh bricks and mortar, but that we are fully utilising the bricks and mortar we have.
  Mr. Hogg: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that that is exactly what some of us are afraid of; that the Government will, for administrative purposes, take the vacant places in approved schools.

  1297
  which are basically for those who, rightly or wrongly, have been described as depraved, and fill them up with people who, rightly or wrongly, have been described as deprived?
  Mr. Morgan: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not even convinced himself of that point.
  Mr. Hogg: Oh, dear!
  Mr. Morgan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has only to remind himself that that is the exact situation at present. It is possible for children who have committed offences to live side by side—indeed, they are doing this in their hundreds, if not in their thousands—with children who are there solely under care and control proceedings.
  Mr. Tinn: Is my hon. Friend saying that because we have so many places in approved schools we can take over the same buildings in entirely the same circumstances and call them community homes'? If he is saying that, his interpretation of what is meant by community homes is very different from mine.
  Mr. Morgan: No, but by obliterating the present distinctions it would be possible to use those buildings. No doubt there would be a great deal of flexibility within the system, but there would not be the wastage we have at present on account of the 2,300 places which are not taken up.
  Mention of the Seebohm Committee has been made by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and other hon. Members. I remind the House that the Committee informed my right hon. Friend that nothing in the White Paper cuts across its proposals. The short answer, therefore, is that there is nothing in this development which could restrict the Seebohm proposals in any way. My right hon. Friend wishes to see the most effective and efficient service for children themselves. He is in consultation with other Departments.
  I refer the House to the reply given a few days ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Paneras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger), which said that the Government will seek to make an interim
  1298
  statement about the Seebohm Report after the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. That is the Redcliffe-Maud Commission.
  It has been put to us that this system would break down because of the protracted inquiries that would have to take place in tens of thousands of cases. This point was made by Front Bench spokesmen opposite and by the right hon. Member for Ashford. The studies made by the Home Office in this connection show that the pattern at the moment with regard to inquiries in many thousands of cases is a very varied one. In London, for example, these inquiries may take no more than a week, but in a rural area they would perhaps take as much as three or four weeks. It is certain that the assessment of three or four months quoted by certain hon. Members is completely unrealistic. We do not see why the time expended should mean a delay very much more substantial than the time lag which occurs at present.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom, in winding up the debate for the Opposition, went through all the preliminary arguments. He said that there had not been proper consultation. There has been more consultation in regard to this Bill than on hardly any other comparable legislation introduced by this or any other Government. He went on to say that the Bill was tainted with the hand of bureaucracy. It was perfectly obvious that the one central and deeply sincere idea he held about this Bill was that it could not work because he subscribed to the ritualistic theory that it is necessary for children to appear before the courts as defendants and that any change in that situation would be a change for the worse.
  The right hon. and learned Member said that children were prosecuted because of their circumstances. They are not prosecuted because of their circumstances; they are dealt with in different ways on account of their different needs. Unless this problem is approached from the standpoint of need, it will be an entirely unrealistic assessment of the whole situation.
  The Amendment makes a point about consultation which has already been corrected by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, ably supported, in his

  1299
  excellent speech, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes). I would like to summarise the result of our consultations on the White Paper. These included all the associations primarily concerned with child work. They all agreed, even those which disliked some of our specific proposals, that these proposals were a definite improvement on previous ones. The majority of the bodies consulted, which cover between them a vast area of experience of dealing with children in all kinds of trouble, including some of the most difficult of delinquent children, welcomed our proposals as a whole, with no reservations of principle.
  Some bodies took a view similar to that of the Opposition and expressed dislike of the proposals which appear in Part I of the Bill. These were bodies primarily concerned with the operation of the present juvenile court system. This is a system they have grown up with and one to which they will cling tenaciously and will be most reluctant to give up. There were several bodies which took up positions in between. There were also those which were disappointed—it is right that we should remind ourselves of this—that our revised proposals were not very much more far-reaching.
  When a Government undertake wide-ranging consultations of this nature and discover, as in this case, that there are substantial differences of view on some fundamental points, it is obvious that the eventual decisions will not satisfy everyone. It would be intolerable if, as the Opposition seem to be suggesting, this situation was taken as an absolute barrier for any action whatsoever. The Government cannot accept such a view. Our proposals stand firmly on middle ground, between the views of those who would prefer no action or more modest changes and the views of those who would wish to go much further.
  The Government could not accept the proposition that some of the bodies concerned, which happened to be those
  whose inclinations are towards doing nothing whatsoever, should be regarded as having a greater right to be heard than other bodies. We have listened to the views of all with care and courtesy, and we have examined the views of all. The proposals in the Bill are relatively modest by comparison with some of the things we have been urged to do, such as raising the age of criminal responsibility to 16, or even 17. They are, however, based firmly on principle and, at the same time, are practical. They recognise the impossibility of simply letting the law remain as it is.
  It should be the aim of every enlightened society to make laws which are a modest distance ahead of public opinion. It is the closing of that distance and the subsequent movement to fresh legislation which represents the restless dynamic which constitutes progressive social development. The law which Part I seeks to supplant has served us for 37 years. It is, however, already a day's march behind current practice. The Bill will not only make up that lag, but also, I trust, inspire society to realise how much it has to contribute in care for those whose problems are so varied and whose needs are so immense.
  Sir John Rodgers: The Bill provides that all approved schools and similar institutions—children's homes—will be known as community homes. It is important for headmasters and school teachers that the word "school" be retained. Will the Under-Secretary give a definite assurance that it will be retained?
  Mr. Charles Grey (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)Mr. Charles Grey (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 200.

  Division No. 115.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Astor, John

  Black, Sir Cyril

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

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

  Blaker, Peter

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Body, Richard

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Balniel, Lord

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Bell, Ronald

  Brewis, John

  Clark, Henry

  Clegg, Walter

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cooke, Robert

  Jopling, Michael

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Costain, A. P.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kirk, Peter

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Dance, James

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dean, Paul

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Royle, Anthony

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

  Lane, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Eden, Sir John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Emery, Peter

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Foster, Sir John

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

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

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Silveter, Frederick

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maginnis, John E.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

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

  Speed, Keith

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stainton, Keith

  Coodhew, Victor

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Gower, Raymond

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Grant, Anthony

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Grieve, Percy

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

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

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Temple, John M.

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Murton, Oscar

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Neave, Airey

  Waddington, David

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Walters, Dennis

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hay, John

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Heseltine, Michael

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Percival, Ian

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pounder, Rafton

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Powell, Rt. Hn. Enoch

  Worsley, Marcus

  Holland, Philip

  Pym, Francis

  Wylie, N. R.

  Hunt, John

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  TFXLERS FOR THF. AYES:

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Mr. Reginald Eyre.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Archer, Peter

  Dickens, James

  Horner, John

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Doig, Peter

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Barnett, Joel

  Eadie, Alex

  Hoy, James

  Baxter, William

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Bence, Cyril

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hunter, Adam

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Ellis, John

  Hynd, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  English, Michael

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Binns, John

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

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

  Bishop, E. S.

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

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Blackburn, F.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Finch, Harold

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

  Booth, Albert

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Boyden, James

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

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

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

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

  Ford, Ben

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Buchan, Norman

  Forrester, John

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Fowler, Gerry

  Judd, Frank

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Freeson, Reginald

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

  Chapman, Donald

  Galpern, Sir Myer

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

  Coleman, Donald

  Gardner, Tony

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Ginsburg, David

  Lawson, George

  Cronin, John

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Gregory, Arnold

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Loughlin, Charles

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Luard, Evan

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Lubbock, Eric

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hazell, Bert

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford. E.)

  Dampsey, James

  Hooley, Frank

  McCann, John

  1302

  1303

  Macdonald, A. H.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Small, William

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Orbaoh, Maurice

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Mackenzie Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

  Orme, Stanley

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Thornton, Ernest

  Mackie, John

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Tinn, James

  Maclennan, Robert

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Tomney, Frank

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Tuck, Raphael

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, 8.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Varley, Eric G.

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

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Manuel, Archie

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mapp, Charles

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Pentland, Norman

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Weitzman, David

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Millan, Bruce

  Probert, Arthur

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Rankin, John

  Whitaker, Ben

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Rose, Paul

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Morris, Charles, R. (Openshaw)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Winnick, David

  Moyle, Roland

  Rowlands, E.

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Ryan, John

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Newens, Stan

  Sheldon, Robert

  Woof, Robert

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

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Silverman, Jullus

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Oakes, Gordon

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Mr. Charles Grey and

  Ogden, Eric

  Slater, Joseph

  Mr. Neil McBride.

  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on second or third reading) and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Grey.]

  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to children and young persons, it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—

  (a) in providing, equipping and maintaining homes;

  1304

  (b) in making grants to voluntary organisations towards expenditure incurred by them in connection with the establishment, maintenance or improvement of homes (including the expenses of borrowing money to defray such expenditure) and towards expenditure which, for the purposes of such grants, is deemed by that Act to be so incurred;

  (c) in discharging, or making grants in respect of, a liability incurred by any person in connection with an institution which by virtue of that Act ceases to be an approved school, remand home, approved probation hostel or approved probation home, and in paying compensation in respect of any loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments suffered by any person in connection with such a cesser;

  (d) in making payments increasing any pension payable in respect of employment at such an institution;

  (e) in paying expenses reasonably incurred by a local authority in complying with the Secretary of State's directions with respect to the detention of a young offender in a home provided or controlled by the authority;

  (f) by way of administrative expenses;

  (2) the payment out of moneys so provided of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums falling to be defrayed out of such moneys under any other enactment;
  (3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums falling to be so paid by virtue of that Act.—[Mr. Grey.]

  MINES AND QUARRIES (TIPS) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Clause 4

    NOTIFICATION OF BEGINNING AND ENDING OF TIPPING OPERATIONS
    Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 4, line 20, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
    "(1) If at any time tipping operations from a mine or quarry of a prescribed class or description—

    (a) are to be begun on premises which at that time are not the site of a tip to which this Part of this Act applies, or

    (b) are to be resumed at a tip which at that time is a closed tip,

    the owner of the mine or quarry shall give notice to the inspector for the district of the intention to begin or resume the tipping operations not less than thirty days, or such shorter period as the inspector may permit, before the beginning or resumption of the operations."
    10.12 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move, That this House doth agree—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We want to hear which Amendment we are agreeing with.
    Mr. Freeson: I am moving, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we discuss with it Lords Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 32, leave out subsection (3).
    Mr. Freeson: When the Bill was reported to the House on 21st January, my right hon. Friend moved a new Clause dealing with the notification of the beginning and ending of tipping operations. This was agreed to and it became Clause 4 of the Bill as it left this House. It gave discretion to the inspector for the district to permit the resumption of tipping on a closed tip from a mine or quarry of a prescribed class or description within a shorter period than the specified 30 days. It did not—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult to conduct the business of the House against a background of noise.
    Mr. Freeson: Thank you. Mr. Speaker.
    It did not, however, give this discretion in the case of tipping on a new site where tipping could not begin until the full 30 days' notice had expired.
    My right hon. Friend explained that, before tipping could begin on such a site, planning permission had to be obtained and any site investigations required by regulations which he would make under Clause 1(2) carried out. These processes would take time. My right hon. Friend went on to say:
    "Prudent mine and quarry owners will, therefore, plan in advance and have tipping sites in reserve. There will be nothing to stop owners giving notice to the inspector for the district of their intention to use the sites for tipping well before they are expected to be needed. There is thus no need for inspectors to have power to allow tipping to begin on a new site within 30 days, nor would it be desirable for them to have such a power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January 1969; vol. 776, c. 390.]
    As a result of representations made in another place, we considered this matter and came to the conclusion that, on balance, there would be some advantage in extending inspectors' discretion to cover tipping on new sites. There may well be circumstances in which the inspector can satisfy himself that tipping could safely begin on a new site within the 30 days required by the Clause and where there might be something to be gained thereby. This provides extra flexibility and I commend the Amendment to the House.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. David Gibson-Watt: This Amendment, which was moved by Lord Aberdare in another place, and sensibly accepted by the Government, marks another stage in the improvement of the Bill. As originally produced by the Government this Clause was inadequate. The Government accepted our Amendment which gives 30 days as the period of notice to be given to the inspectorate under Clause 4(1) for the starting of tipping on premises which before the operations began were not the site of a tip under Part I and under Clause 4(3) for closed tips.
    This was an improvement, but the present Amendment amalgamates the two and stipulates that 30 days' notice must be given to the inspectorate, or such

    1307
    shorter period as the inspector may permit, for starting or resuming tipping in a bare area or a closed tip under Part I. It strengthens the hand of the inspectorate, and, therefore, the Bill. We on this side of the House are greatly in favour of doing that. Obviously, the art of précis has been well mastered in another place, and it makes the Bill considerably shorter. We are happy to agree that the Bill has been further improved and, on this side of the House, we agree with the Lords.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 14

    NOTICE REQUIRING OWNER OF DISUSED TIP TO CARRY OUT REMEDIAL OPERATIONS
    Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 12, line 30, at end insert:
    "() Where a local authority serves a notice under this section on the owner of a disused tip, then, within the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day on which the notice was served, the owner may serve a counter-notice under this subsection in the prescribed form requiring the local authority to exercise its powers under section 17; and where such a counter-notice is served—

    (a) the local authority shall serve a copy of the counter-notice on every person on whom, under subsection (4), it served a copy of the notice under this section;

    (b) the notice under this section and any copy thereof served under subsection (4) shall be deemed for the purposes of the following provisions of this Part of this Act never to have been served; and

    (c) the local authority shall, as soon as reasonably practicable, exercise its powers under section 17 in relation to the disused tip in question."

    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I beg to move. That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is an Amendment to add words at the end of line 30 on page 12. Very briefly, the point is that the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and other hon. Members moved in Committee that in circumstances where the owner of the tip is required to do the work, it ought to be possible for Government grants to be
    1308
    paid direct to the owner. This argument was resisted in Committee on the well-founded history of these matters, in which local authorities are geared, normally speaking, to paying grants and have methods of financial control, checks and so forth. It is a way in which not only the local authority but the central Government maintains control over finance, which is very important. The local authorities understand the conditions, and consequently we resisted making what was a breach in the arrangements.
    Nevertheless, we were impressed by the case made, namely that if we did not make an Amendment it would mean that the owner would be required to do the work and the local authority would then have to collect the grant from the Government. The Government would have to transmit the grant to the local authority, which would go to the owner. The result would be that the owner, apart from having to carry out a good deal of bureaucratic work, might be waiting rather a long time before he was remunerated.
    Therefore, although this is perhaps a dangerous precedent, I am sure that hon. Members will not mind our being dangerous on this occasion in financial matters. We think that cases could arise under Clause 17 in which owners who should do the work because they are best placed to do it—and I do not think there is any question about that—might be seriously financially inconvenienced for a long time. We trust that the good sense of all concerned will enable this provision to operate satisfactorily. It is very much in the interests of owners.
    Mr. Peter Emery: This is an example of the use of the Upper House in allowing the Government to have further time to consider arguments advanced in Committee which at first sight might be considered to be a breach in the present organisation of the Bill but which make some sense. It is sensible that the period allowed for the counter notice is 21 days. That is the same period as in the case of appeal. It is right and proper that an owner who might be financially embarrassed to the extent of losing his entire belongings should be in a position to obtain grant. I am sure that it is not the wish of the Government to embarrass any owner.

    1309
    I hope that a counter notice will never need to be served. I hope that cooperation and normal representations as between the local authority and the owner will have established the situation beforehand so that the local authority will not serve the notice and then have to serve a counter notice. I hope that this can be arranged in the normal way of business operation so that the local authority will follow the procedures of Clause 17 rather than have to act under Clause 14.
    As a result of the Amendment, there will be a better chance of ensuring the sort of co-operation which I know most hon. Members wish to exist. I ask my hon. Friends to accept the Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.

  NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 A (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make in the Nuclear Installations Act, 1965 certain amendments necessary to bring that Act into conformity with international agreements, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to any provisions of that Act of the present Session in the sums so payable under the said Act of 1965.—[Mr. Grey.]

  UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD (STATUTE)
  10.25 p.m.
  Sir Dingle Foot: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she may be graciously pleased to withhold her consent to the Statute, made by the University of Oxford on 17th July 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th February.
  This is the first time that a Motion has come before the House under the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act, 1923. The procedure is that any Statute made by either university must be approved by Her Majesty in Council. If it is petitioned against, it must be considered by the Privy Council, and if the petition is rejected then it is submitted to Her Majesty in Council for approval, unless within one month either House of Parliament prays against it.
  In this case a petition was presented. It is regrettable that there was no oral hearing. The result might have been different had there been, but there was none, for reasons into which I do not now propose to go. This Statute was laid before the House on 11th February; it is now 11th March; so this is the last day. If justice is to be done, and if wise counsels are to prevail then it must all be accomplished tonight.
  For the benefit of any Cambridge men, or others, who may be present, I will explain briefly how the University of Oxford is governed. There is the Hebdomadal Council which is in a sense the cabinet of the university. There is Congregation, consisting of about 1,600 dons. They are all members of the teaching staff of the university or the colleges——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Might I remind the hon. Gentleman of the Instrument which he is debating, which affects Convocation only, not all these other bodies.
  Sir Dingle Foot: Yes. Mr. Speaker, but I have to distinguish between the bodies. It is a strange state of affairs from our point of view at Westminster. It is as if nearly all the functions of this House were being discharged by the other place.
  Finally, there is Convocation, which comprises all of the graduates of the university who hold Masters' degrees. For
  1312
  many centuries Convocation played a leading part in the government of the university. Indeed, to this day, it is described in both the Longer and Shorter Oxford Dictionaries as the great legislative assembly of the university. But during the last 100 years or so its powers have been gradually eroded. Now there are not many left. It can elect the Chancellor of the university and make such other elections as may be assigned to it by Statute, including, of course, the election of the Professor of Poetry.
  It can elect persons for presentation to benefices in the gift of the university. It can confer degrees by diploma and honorary degrees. It can approve letters from the university to the Sovereign and to other universities and learned bodies, and such other letters as may be submitted to it by the Hebdomadal Council. Perhaps the most important remaining power is that it can accept or reject such statutes or decrees as may be submitted under the laws of the university.
  It is proposed by the Statute which we are considering tonight that even these modest powers are to be taken away. Under this Statute all that is proposed to be left to Convocation is to elect a chancellor, and
  "to perform such other duties as are or shall be assigned to it by the statutes or by decrees."
  That means such functions, and only such functions, as Congregation, the body of dons, may be graciously pleased to confer upon Convocation.
  I submit that this is a most retrograde step. It deprives the great body of graduates of any effective voice in the government of the university. At a time when other universities—I am thinking particularly of the University of London—are strengthening their Convocations, or whatever the corresponding bodies may be called, and are even thinking about student participation, the University of Oxford proposes to do precisely the opposite.
  At present Convocation, in effect, has a suspensory veto over statutes and some decrees passed by Congregation. I know that it is said that this power is rarely exercised. That is no doubt true. It is true because the majority of members, under the present system, are not notified either of the meetings or of the

  1313
  business to be discussed. That is something which ought to be considered. We ought to be moving in the other direction, as the University of London and other universities have done. But at present the only way in which the business and, indeed, the meetings are notified is by an announcement in the University Gazette, which has a very modest circulation.
  I know that we may be told that this change was recommended by the Franks Commission. That is perfectly true, but the Franks Commission gave no reasons for its recommendation. After all, the Franks Commission is not the only Commission which has considered university affairs. There was the Commission presided over by Mr. Asquith, as he then was, which reported in 1923. Brought up as I was, I still prefer the authority of Mr. Asquith. He dealt with this issue in his report. That Commission was dealing with both Oxford and Cambridge, and in Cambridge the corresponding body is the Senate.
  Mr. Asquith dealt with the proposal for abolishing Convocation and the Senate altogether by saying:
  "This solution would be simple and much could be urged in its favour. On the whole, however, we are of opinion that it would involve an unnecessary breach with old historic associations, that circumstances might arise of an exceptional character in which the intervention of the general body of graduates would serve a useful purpose and that the right to some voice in university matters would strengthen the bond which we all must wish to see maintained between non-resident graduates and the university to which they belong."
  As I have said, I rather prefer the views of Mr. Asquith and his Commission. It would be very strange if the body of graduates—and about 35,000 hold Masters' degrees—could make no useful contribution to the government of the university.
  I should like to quote one passage from the petition which was presented to the Privy Council which admirably sums up the matter:
  "The functions and powers of Convocations vary greatly from university to university but the petitioners believe that the common factor in all cases is the right to discuss any matter relating to the university concerned and to make representations regarding it. It has been objected that university affairs are complicated and laymen cannot understand them but, while the petitioners would eschew intervention in day-to-day administration, they cannot accept
  1314
  that a body, whose members have all spent several years at the university and who cover almost the entire spectrum of national life, are unable to contribute any relevant views on major matters of university policy."
  We can see the force of that if we merely look around this House. Take, for example, the Government Front Bench. There is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity—[An HON. MEMBER: "Where are they?"] I have no doubt that they will be along a little later.
  If we cross the Floor of the House we see—or no doubt we shall see—the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition. No doubt one reason which led the party opposite to choose the right hon. Gentleman as its leader was that he was educated at Oxford's most distinguished college. And then there is the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party. Will it really be argued that they could make no useful contribution to the government of the university of which they are all graduates?
  We have received on this occasion, not a Whip—that would have been inappropriate in this debate—but a letter from the Vice-Chancellor of the university. I say with great respect that I am not wholly impressed by the arguments it contains. For example, he says at one point:
  "The suspensory veto of Convocation applies only to statutes and to certain decrees passed by Congregation by a majority of less than two-thirds. This power has been brought into operation on four occasions only in the last twenty years. On each occasion Convocation has confirmed the earlier vote of Congregation. Moreover, if Convocation rejected a statute or decree, it could under the present statutes be brought before Congregation again three terms later and on this occasion a simple majority in Congregation is sufficient to carry it. There is in consequence no question of the University seeking to remove a valuable democratic safeguard."
  We are in this House devoting our best endeavours to a consideration of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. One of the matters which we are considering is the suspensory veto of the other place. There are very different views in different parts of the House, but nobody would suggest that that suspensory veto is of no importance, that is to say nobody would apply

  1315
  to that Bill the argument used by the Vice-Chancellor.
  I have nothing against Congregation as such. I have nothing against dons. Whenever I think of the dons of my day I recall the lines of Hilaire Belloc:

  "Those regal Dons !

  With hearts of gold and lungs of bronze,

  Who shout and bang and roar and bawl

  The Absolute across the Hall,

  Or sail in amply billowing gown,

  Enormous through the Sacred Town."

  I think that that would be echoed by all who have the good fortune to be graduates of the University of Oxford. But although I have the greatest admiration for the dons, and for Congregation, I do not want them to have things all their own way. I think that we ought to preserve this democratic element in the university.
  10.39 p.m.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) is to be congratulated on his vigilance in picking out this Statute from the list of Statutory Instruments which is laid before us, because the object of laying this Statute is to give this House, if it so desires, the opportunity of reviewing what is for this purpose a piece of subordinate legislation.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a point of some importance to the University of Oxford which matters a great deal to many of us in the House and is of some general importance to the country. It is a move quite contrary to the general tendency of thinking about university government in this day and age. The tendency at the moment is, rightly—some of us would think belatedly—towards student participation. This is a move in a diametrically opposite direction—to exclude even masters of arts from the small share which they have previously had in the government of their university, with the one exception of the election of the Chancellor.
  Therefore, the onus of proof is on those who support the Statute rather on those of us who support the Prayer. This is a move contrary, certainly, to the normally accepted doctrine in these matters
  1316
  and it is up to those who would take this step to justify it and to satisfy the House that it is right.
  If I had had any doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right to put down the Prayer, it was completely cleared from my mind by the Vice-Chancellor's letter to which he referred. It seems to make an even stronger case for the Prayer. May I take one or two extracts from it in support of that proposition? In paragraph 1 there is the curious statement:
  "The policy of vesting the effective control of the University in Congregation instead in Convocation has thus been that of Parliament over the last hundred years. The present statute seeks to recognise the present de facto position."
  If that is so, why is it necessary to have a Statute to recognise this? Seeing the Solicitor-General here recalls the Attorney-General's argument on the Preamble to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill about giving "statutory recognition" to some concept.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with the second paragraph. The third demonstrates an approach by the proponents of this Statute which should give rise to some vigilance in the House:
  "We believe that the responsibility of governing the University should rest with those who have to live with the results of the decisions taken. We do not think it would be right that any part of this responsibility should be vested in persons who have no continuing direct concern with the University and who are in no way accountable for what is done."
  With due respect to the Vice-Chancellor, it is in a measure slightly offensive to many of us who continue to have a deep concern and interest in our university to be told that we should be excluded from any say in its affairs because we have no continuing concern with it.
  The following paragraph is in many respects plain misleading:
  "Much of the administration of the University is governed by rules laid down by the University Grants Committee and the University is accountable to the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons."
  It is true that the Government, in their wisdom, accepted a recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee a little time ago that the accounts of all universities should be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General and thus by the Committee and so brought

  1317
  within the scope of the Public Accounts Committee.
  But this is a strictly financial supervision. It has nothing to do with the general management of the university. With respect, the Public Accounts Committee is neither equipped nor desirous of exercising such a power; and to call this in aid as an argument in favour of this proposal, coming, as it does, from a man with the highest academic qualifications, indicates an absence of argument which is disturbing.
  There is, then, the remarkable sentence at the end of paragraph 4:
  "There is thus no question of Congregation being able to go its own way regardless of the public interest."
  Neither the Public Accounts Committee nor the University Grants Committee can possibly be a safeguard in this respect, other than in strictly financial matters. It is, therefore, odd that they should have been brought into the matter in this context.
  Paragraph 5 states:
  "The University accepts the need to seek outside opinion and advice on many occasions, but it considers that such advice should come from representative bodies rather than from such individuals as are qualified, and choose, to vote in Convocation."
  The tone of that is not altogether helpful.
  Paragraph 6 says:
  "The University has been criticised, e.g. by the Robbins Committee, for delay in reaching decisions. These criticisms have by no means always been justified, but there can be no doubt that any extension of the powers of Convocation would make for serious delay …"
  There is no question of any extension of these powers. What is at issue is a diminution of them; indeed, their virtual extinction. Thus, to drag in the wholly misleading concept of extending the powers and to refer to
  "… any extension of the powers of Convocation "—
  making
  "for serious delay…"
  is misleading, since this is not at issue. If the House accepted the Prayer the status quo would remain.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: Read the rest of paragraph 6.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Certainly. Paragraph 6 concludes:
  1318
  "… would make for serious delay; a body of 35,000 spread all over the world cannot be consulted in a hurry. Indeed, we believe that such a body cannot be consulted effectively in any way."
  Mr. Lubbock: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Despite that support from the hon. Member for Orpington, if one reads paragraph 2 of the Vice-Chancellor's letter one sees that consultation is not only possible but that it has occurred. Paragraph 2 states:
  "This power has been brought into operation on four occasions only in the last twenty years."
  So the suspensory veto of Convocation has been used on those occasions. If the Vice-Chancellor really believes that Convocation could not operate effectively, there is no reason for him to worry about it retaining this power. We read:
  "The suspensory veto of Convocation applies only to statutes and to certain decrees passed by Congregation by a majority of less than two-thirds."
  In other words, it arises only when an issue of some controversy arises and when there is a substantial minority, of at least one-third, in the academic body which is objecting.
  Is not this a clearly limited power which it is reasonable to retain? There is no suggestion of it having been abused. It has been exercised, on average, once every five years for the last 20 years, and subsequently, after further consideration, it has apparently been overridden. Nobody can therefore pretend that this is a very considerable power. Indeed, it may be subject to the criticism that it is inadequate as a safeguard; but that is not at issue. At issue is whether this small safeguard, operating only on matters of controversy, should exist, and whether where there is a substantial minority there should or should not exist a provision for small measure of delay so that matters may have further consideration. It seems that the onus of proof is on those who would abolish it.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. Evan Luard: I suppose the object of those who moved this Prayer could be summed up, in the popular slogan of today, "participatory democracy". As a fervent believer in participatory democracy, for a time I too was very tempted to support the Prayer, but on reflection I decided that to do

  1319
  so would be in no way to do a service to democracy in Oxford. I therefore think it would be a great mistake for this House to support this Prayer.
  In considering the whole concept of participatory democracy, it is crucial to analyse very carefully to whom it is considered right to give an opportunity to participate in what decisions. I suppose that most of us thinking of this concept believe primarily that those most closely concerned in particular decisions should have the right to participate. There are two particular criteria we are inclined to use in this respect. First, we feel those most directly affected by decisions should have the right to participate in them. Secondly, that those with the most first-hand knowledge should equally enjoy the right to participate in those decisions.
  I wish to apply those criteria to the matter we are considering tonight. In connection with the University of Oxford, who are those who can truly be said to be most directly affected by decisions taken? First, they are the senior members of the university, the teaching members. They are obviously closely affected because this affects the whole conditions of their working lives. It affects them, not for a comparatively short period, but for the whole length of time they are working in that university.
  Secondly, it affects the students directly, although they are concerned with only one aspect of university life, and they are affected for only a brief period of three or four years. The third group who can be said to be directly affected by decisions taken by the University of Oxford is the population of the country as a whole, both as taxpayers providing a considerable proportion of the funds to support the university, and as citizens who have some right to a, perhaps indirect, say in the way the university is run in the same way as they have, and exercise, a right of some control over the educational system of the country as a whole.
  Now each of these three bodies already have certain powers of participating in essential decisions. The senior members of the university have this power through Congregation, the prime decision-making body of the university. The students also have a considerable amount of participation
  1320
  —by present-day standards—in the decision-making process, first through the establishment of the students' council a few years ago, and secondly through the agreement reached between the vice chancellors and the National Union of Students last summer; both these powers would be strengthened as a result of the recommendations of the Hart Committee which is now considering the question. Thus the three bodies which can most legitimately be regarded as having an essential right to participate in this respect, already enjoy that right.
  What about the graduates of the university as a whole, those with whom we are concerned in assessing the question of Convocation? In what way can they be said to be directly concerned by all the decisions, detailed as well as major decisions, reached within the university? The answer is not at all. Not a single, solitary scrap. These are of no great or immediate concern to those who have passed through a university and left it. [Interruption.] I am talking about direct concern in their normal life. To those who are now engaged in leading their highly useful lives in Walsall West, or Aberdeen, or Timbuctoo, or Calcutta, as many of them may be, it is not of particular or acute concern. They do not lose a great deal of sleep about the decisions reached concerning whether the University should establish a new chair in microbiology, what regulations should be made concerning the wearing of academical dress, or whether to create a new sub-faculty of history. These are the types of decision we are concerned with now. It cannot be said that these ex-members of the University have a direct interest in those decisions.
  Sir John Rodgers: Will the hon. Gentleman explain by what extraordinary logic he thinks it is right for students who are up as undergraduates for three or four years to have a student council to express their views on university government, whereas those who have spent three or four years there and shown a continued interest in the university should be considered unfitted to exercise some voice and influence in the university's affairs?
  Mr. Luard: Precisely on the ground I have been describing. These people are directly affected by the decisions which

  1321
  are reached, whereas ex-members of the university are not. [Interruption.] They are not directly affected themselves. I ask hon. Members to consider for a few moments where they would be led if they were to accept as a general principle that all ex-members of an institution should have a continuing right to a veto over decisions which are reached within that institution. Would hon. Members seriously suggest that all those who at one moment during their distinguished lives had to spend a year or two in the Army should continue for the rest of their lives to exercise a power of veto over all the decisions reached concerning the organisation of the Army? Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider that all those who had been members of a Government should continue throughout the rest of their lives to exercise veto powers? [Laughter.] It may well be that my right hon. and learned Friend would appreciate some such power, but I do not think that even he would suggest that this would make for particularly efficient decision-making by Governments.
  Finally, if this principle were to be extended even nearer home to the House of Commons, would it be seriously suggested that all those who had at one time been Members of the House of Commons were to continue to exercise the right to vote in the House, despite the fact that they were not here, that they were not particularly interested in the subject under discussion, that they had no great or detailed knowledge of the subject under discussion, and, above all, that they had not even heard the debate on the subject?
  Sir George Sinclair: I have never heard such a travesty of the rights and privileges of members of the university, which masters continue to be. Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that there is a continuing concern among such members for the governance and the development of the university, shown through, not only the Oxford Society, but the many appeals that go out to the very sort of people he describes—the chap in an outpost in Calcutta seeking the support of his firm in establishing a chair of microbiology or whatever it was the hon. Gentleman was suggesting? This travesty——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Those intervening must not make speeches.
  Mr. Luard: There is continuing concern among many people about decisions that are reached in institutions they have left. This does not normally give them the right to continue to have a veto power over decisions reached within those institutions. The petitioners mentioned the particular interest that schoolmasters who have been members of the university-have had in the arrangements made within the university. It goes without saying that this is a concern shared by every schoolmaster by reason of his function as a schoolmaster, and there is no reason whatever why it should be confined to schoolmasters who at one time studied at Oxford University.
  Coming to the second criterion by which it might be claimed that certain people had a right to participate in the decision-making processes within an institution, namely specialist first-hand knowledge of the matters under discussion, again one could claim that senior members of a university perhaps had this detailed first-hand knowledge of arrangements decided within a university. One could add that students have some knowledge of this kind by having studied within the university and having been closely involved in the matters under discussion and by having discussed them among themselves. Finally, the same could be said of some people in the Department of Education and Science and the University Grants Committee. But it could not reasonably be said of all ex-graduates of a university who do not have the facilities to remain in touch with the major decisions to be reached. They have neither the knowledge nor the interest. They are far too busy leading their useful lives in Timbuctoo and Calcutta and trying to find a way to earn their livings than following the details of arrangements made within the Hebdomadal Council for the government of the university.
  On neither of these criteria, therefore, namely grounds of close involvement or being closely affected, or on grounds of having first-hand knowledge, can the graduates of a university be said to have an automatic right to participate in decision-making. The fact that, on the whole, Convocation has not shown itself qualified in this way has been confirmed by

  1323
  experience in the last 20 years or so. I am not referring only to the fact that this power has been used on only four occasions. More important is the fact that only a small number have used their votes. Even in the case of the election of a Chancellor, the number was only 3,000. A few months ago, in the election of a Professor of Poetry, the number voting was about 1,000, rather less than Congregation, and of those voting the vast majority were members of Congregation. Thus it cannot be said that members of Convocation have shown any great enthusiasm for making use of the powers in the past.
  There are other and far more important considerations. This is not only an unrepresentative minority, but a highly conservative minority. Let us consider who are those who in practice cast their votes on these occasions. There are the senior members of the university who already have a vote in Congregation. There are the country parsons and a few others who live in the countryside immediately around Oxford who can easily get there to cast a vote. And there are the wealthy plutocrats who can afford to take a day off from work in London to cast a vote in Oxford. What more conservative body could there be therefore than these dons, parsons and plutocrats? But it is precisely these whom my right hon. Friend is trying to retain in decision-making at Oxford. It is true that this might be alleviated to some extent—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We heard one side of the case in silence. Perhaps we can now hear the other side.
  Mr. Luard: The unrepresentative and conservative nature of this electorate might be overcome if the university were to institute something like a postal vote. The university claims that this is impossible. I cannot assess whether it is practicable or otherwise. I should have thought it was practicable. Even if the authorities did not have the addresses of the persons qualified, at least they could allow them to write in and then check them against the lists of graduates. But that is not the point that we are discussing. We are discussing whether Convocation should continue with its present powers.
  The fact that it is such a conservative body might not have mattered in years
  1324
  gone by when Oxford was so supremely conservative that it made little difference whether one gave another conservative body the power of veto on decisions to do nothing much. But the situation is changing. Oxford has decided, reluctantly and hesitantly, to reform itself. Nothing could do more to retard the process than if one gave the right of veto over the decisions reached to the troglodytes of the class of 1913 or 1920 suddenly emerging from their caves to clobber on the head any tentative move towards reform that the university, somewhat hesitantly, has felt able to make.
  Both right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have made the point that they are not demanding the right to intervene in detailed questions of administration of the university. But they totally ignored the fact that there is no distinction of this kind implied in the present arrangement of the university. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) read out the present arrangement, which is that questions go to Convocation if they have not received a two-thirds' majority in Congregation. This does not imply that these are particularly important questions. If the right hon. Gentleman will inquire into recent history he will find that the matters that have raised most controversy in Oxford are such as what would be the future of the Indian Institute and what arrangements should be made for parking for senior members. I submit that these are not questions on which the vast body of M.A.s scattered about the country are particularly well qualified to vote.
  Another point ignored by the two previous speakers is that the university has gone out of its way over the past few years to try to make further arrangements for consultation in general with M.A.s of the university, and M.A.s in a much more representative sense than they are ever represented in the votes of Convocation. This is done partly through the Oxford Society. One particular proposal made that I should like to see carried further is that Convocation or something like it should be re-established without the right of veto but with the right perhaps to pass resolutions, which would then have to be at least considered by Congregation. This would be one means by which ex-members of the university could exercise what I

  1325
  accept is a legitimate right, at least to cast opinions upon the decisions reached within the university about the general arrangements of the university. This is different from a right to cast a veto on decisions already reached.
  The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames mentioned that on four occasions this right had been exercised and suggested that a veto had been cast on these occasions. That is false. On each occasion Convocation accepted the decision of Congregation. It may be said that this means that it does not matter. But what matters is that there is considerable delay involved in this consultation, and that delay would be more serious if Convocation exercised its right of veto and there was a year's delay before new institutions could be introduced.
  I will not speak any longer, but I want to stress one point that needs emphasising. I hope I have said enough to show that this is not a question, as both previous speakers suggested, of democracy, of representation, and, above all, not a question of progress and advance in the arrangements of the university. It is very much the reverse.
  I think that I can say, without fear of being thought partial, that Oxford and Cambridge Universities are the two most democratically run universities in the world. I know of no other university in the world in which the original decisions are made by a body which itself is democratically elected by every senior member of the university and in which every one of those decisions subsequently comes up for confirmation or rejection by a body consisting of 1,500 people comprising every senior member of the university. And I have already referred to the other measures for consultation with students and other bodies.
  I hope, therefore, that the House will not be misled into thinking that by passing the Prayer it would strike a great blow for democracy. Far from it. It might, indeed, continue into the future a piece of antediluvian mediaeval flummery which would be much better abolished at once. For those reasons, I ask the House to reject the Prayer.
  11.11 p.m.
  Sir John Foster: I suppose that I ought to declare an interest. I am a Fellow of an Oxford college and, I believe, technically a resident.
  The Prayer has been put forward as a great blow for democracy. It is important to notice the rather curious way in which the issue will be decided by the House. No evidence will be taken. Many of the Members who vote will have been to neither Oxford nor Cambridge. They will have heard some argument on each side, but they probably will not know that there was a petition against this Statute, and that petition was heard by the Universities Committee of the Privy Council. Evidence was taken, and, having taken that evidence, the Universities Committee of the Privy Council rejected the petition against the Statute. In other words, another body has heard——
  Sir Dingle Foot: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that there was no oral hearing, though it was requested, and no reasons were given for the Privy Council's decision.
  Sir J. Foster: There is no contradiction in what I said. I said that evidence was heard——
  Sir Dingle Foot: Not heard.
  Sir J. Foster: It was read, and it was considered by the Universities Committee of the Privy Council. As a result of that evidence, the petition, which was the equivalent of this Prayer, was rejected.
  It should be noted also that this is the end of a long line of reform. In 1854, the government of the university was by the whole body of M.A.s. This was found to be an abuse, and gradually over the 19th century the powers of Convocation, the powers of the M.A.s, were curtailed, until now they are, in effect, only three. Two of them are of little practical importance. The three powers are the election of the chancellor, the election of the professor of poetry, and the right, where a Statute has failed to obtain a two-thirds majority in Congregation, to refuse to pass it in Convocation, which will hold up the legislation for three years.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot)

  1327
  mentioned the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. What he is dealing with here is an assembly of about 35,000 backwoodsmen entitled to appear in Convocation. It is not a question of allowing Convocation to have a say in the government of the university, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. That does not arise here. The only question that arises is whether its power to limit the passing of a Statute which has not obtained a two-thirds majority should continue. This is the end of what the Royal Commission recommended in 1854 and what the 1923 statute carried much further. The Franks Committee recommended that Convocation should be shorn of this power because it thought that it was of no practical use.
  Hon. Members talk as though all those 35,000 M.A.s were longing to rush down to Oxford to appear in Convocation. They are not. When Convocation is called a handful turn up, and the other 35,000-odd remain oblivious to whether a Statute which deals with the position of the Indian Institute should or should not be passed. I agree with the hon. Member who said it was an important question, but my argument is that even though it is important that 35,000 do not bother to turn up in their thousands in Oxford to discuss——
  Mr. Peter Kirk: Will my hon. and learned Friend allow me?
  Sir J. Foster: Not for long.
  Mr. Kirk: As most of the 35,000, including me, were totally unaware that Convocation had been called together, how were we supposed to get to Oxford?
  Sir J. Foster: That is my point; they do not get to Oxford.
  Mr. Kirk: We were not told.
  Sir J. Foster: Maybe they have a grievance about not being told, but that is not the point of the Prayer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thatnes (Mr. Boyd Carpenter) took it amiss when it was stated by the Vice-Chancellor that this was legalising a de facto position. I do not know what his grievance was. The de facto position is that Convocation does not bother to deal with these things, because it does not turn up.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. and learned Friend is grumbling that Convocation does not bother to turn up. If he looks at the Vice-Chancellor's letter he will see that the Vice-Chancellor, on the contrary, is grumbling because it did so on four occasions in the past 20 years.
  Sir J. Foster: That is a way of looking at it with which I cannot agree. I am not grumbling that it does not turn up but just stating the de facto position. My right hon. Friend is astonished that the statute should legalise the de facto position. Well, it does; that is it. The Vice-Chancellor is not grumbling that on four occasions Convocation dealt with a Statute which had not got a two-thirds majority, but only stating as a fact that on four occasions in the past 20 years a Statute which did not have the two-thirds majority was considered and passed. Therefore, Convocation has not, as far as one can see. exercised its suspensory veto.
  What is the House about to do? Hon. Members who have not heard the arguments will come in to vote. People who are not members of either university will perhaps decide which way to vote on a whim, according to whether they prefer the opponent or proponent of the Prayer. They will know the difference between Oxford and non-Oxford, but they will not know the arguments for keeping Convocation's two powers out of three or three powers out of three. They remind me of the girl who says, "Of course, I know the difference between right and wrong, but I can never remember which is which". The long line of reform from 1854 has just one notch more.
  The Vice-Chancellor has assured members who opposed the Statute before the Privy Council that they will keep their power of electing the Professor of Poetry. That seems a very good exercise for the amusement of the populace. One can put up anyone, whether he is a poet or not, as Professor of Poetry. The M.A.s can be useful in electing the Professor of Poetry. But I agree that the 35,000 will not be useful in the administration of Oxford.
  It was for this reason that the government of Oxford, which was in the hands of all the M.A.s before 1854, was split off so that Congregation, which consists of about 1,600 resident dons, should be

  1329
  the governing body. There is no sovereignty in the democratic sense in the existence of 35,000 backwoodsmen. The university is governed, in effect, by the 1,600 resident dons eligible for Congregation. It is not governed and there is no participation by the M.A.s, who are scattered all over the world.
  Why, it has been asked, when students are being allowed to participate, should the M.A.s be excluded? The first comment on that is that the M.A.s are not at present taking part in the government of the university anyway; the second is that there is a distinction between the students and the M.A.s in that the students are at Oxford. They are there.
  I agree that a larger measure of student participation should take place, and machinery is being created for it. Surely those spending their studentship there should be able to participate and make their views known. The M.A.s who have left Oxford and, ex hypotheri, are not there and are scattered all over the world, cannot be compared with the aspirations and activities of the students. The students are part of the life of the university which is taking place. The M.A.s, however much they may take an interest in the university, are not in a position to take part in its life. If they were, they would be members of Congregation.
  To satisfy the concern and interest in Oxford, the Oxford Society was founded by Lord Grey of Falloden. It is through consultation with the Society that important questions put forward in the university for debate are sent out. The Oxford Society has many sub-societies all over the world. It is through this machinery that the Vice-Chancellor and the Hebdomadal Council get to know the views of M.A.s. It is not through any announcement in the Oxford Gazette that Convocation will be held three weeks next Saturday, for hardly any nonresident M.A.s turn up, that these great questions will be properly debated. Often, questions cannot be debated because Congregation has usually passed the statute by a two-thirds majority. It is only an occasional question which does not get such a majority and which then goes for discussion in Convocation. Only about four Statutes in the last 100 years have been dealt with like that.
  1330
  I hope these arguments appeal to the House. We are not whipped; this is not a question of Right against Left, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to make it so. In so far as it is left in the hands of the university, we are carrying out the reforms of the last 100 years. It is not a question of age against youth, nor of Front Bench against Back Bench. The House has listened with attention to the views put forward in a serious debate. It has to take into account the fact that the Universities Committee of the Privy Council considered and rejected the thesis of those who are putting forward this Prayer. The House has not heard the evidence here, but it is sufficient to say that the Franks Committee, which had great authority, and worked for years writing a report on the government of universities, also came to the conclusion that Convocation should have this third power, the suspensory veto, eliminated, leaving the other two main powers with it.
  It would be frivolous of this House, in the light of 100 years to reform, the considered views of the Universities Committee of the Privy Council, and the decision by the Franks Committee, to come along and say, "We have heard the arguments on both sides, we have not had any evidence, but it seems to us that the arguments put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, that this is contrary to student participation should obtain, and that the Prayer should get the majority vote." I urge the House to consider this very soberly, and come to the conclusion that the university, the Privy Council, the Franks Committee and 100 years of Parliamentary reform were right.
  11.27 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: There has been some talk about people declaring their interest. I would say at the start that I am not a Master of Arts at the University of Oxford, I am not even a Bachelor of Arts. I discovered when I was leaving the place that I could recover, if that is the word, my stake money by not taking either of these. I decided to take my £30 back. In that sense I have no interest in the matter. I have merely come along here this evening, in words that are familiar to Labour Party members at any rate, to convey my fraternal greetings.

  1331
  It might be thought, as a good case for taking away from Convocation the rights it already has, that it has misused its powers in the past, but no evidence of that kind has been adduced. Convocation has exercised its powers very well, notably in the election of the latest Professor of Poetry, which was a great achievement. No one can say on that basis that Convocation is a reactionary body. It greatly sustained the reputation of literature by the election of Mr. Roy Fuller.
  I see the force of the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), but I do not think this can be best dealt with in that way. I can put the matter best by referring to a resolution moved at the Oxford Union on one occasion when someone proposed the restoration of the Bourbon Monarchy. Others defended the Republic and some attempted to move a Bonapartist amendment. What I wish to do is to move a student power amendment. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to pretend that he is defending the cause of democracy. If we had to choose between his democracy and that
  of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), we should have a very difficult discrimination to exercise.
  It so happens that if we were to carry this Prayer it would jolt the University of Oxford and make it realise that it is not satisfactory merely to proceed by taking away powers from Masters of Arts, but that it must consider much more fully than it has hitherto the demands of students in the universities for much greater powers. I hope that all who support student power at Oxford will also vote in favour of the Prayer, and that we can have a student power vote which will make those who are seeking to enlarge their authority in Oxford realise that the House of Commons is keeping a very close eye on what they are up to——
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments &c. (Procedure)).
  The House divided: Ayes, 46, Noes, 88.

  Division No. 116.]

  AYES

  [11.30 p.m.

  Archer, Peter

  Cower, Raymond

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Bell, Ronald

  Hay, John

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Speed, Keith

  Booth, Albert

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Stainton, Keith

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Tapsell, Peter

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

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

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

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

  Clark, Henry

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

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Clegg, Walter

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Cooke, Robert

  Kitson, Timothy

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Crowder, F. P.

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

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Dickens, James

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

  Wylie, N. R.

  English, Michael

  Orme, Stanley

  Eyre, Reginald

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Fletcher Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Mr. Peter Kirk and

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Sir Dingle Foot.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  NOES

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Ford, Ben

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

  Brown, Hugh 0. (G'gow, Provan)

  Forrester, John

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Buchan, Norman

  Foster, Sir John

  Judd, Frank

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fowler, Gerry

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Concannon, J. D.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Cooke, Robert

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Lubbock, Erie

  Davies, G. Elted (Rhondda, E.)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  McBride, Neil

  Dempsey, James

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McCann, John

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Harper, Joseph

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

  Doig, Peter

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  Hill, J. E. B.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Ellis, John

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Manuel, Archie

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

  Hoy, James

  Marks, Kenneth

  Faulds, Andrew

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Finch, Harold

  Hynd, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Rose, Paul

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Morris, Chants R. (Openshaw)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Newans, Stan

  Sheldon, Robert

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Ogden, Eric

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Tinn, James

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Urwin, T. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Palmer, Arthur

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mr. Evan Luard and

  Pentland, Norman

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Mr. Edward Lyons.

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  HOSPITALS, GLOUCESTERSHIRE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Miller.]
  11.39 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to have been able to catch your eye on this occasion so that I may raise one or two points about the hospital position in my constituency and in the area nearby. I have given the Minister notice of most of the points that I wish to raise to make it easier for him to reply, because I do not consider this a matter on which the House should take sides, and I do not wish to lambaste the hon. Gentleman in any way.
  The first item that I wish to raise is that of the Gloucester Royal Hospital, and I am indebted to Mrs. Sally Oppen-heim for providing me with many of the facts that I have. The hospital is in ancient buildings more than 200 years old. The buildings are obviously not wholly suitable for their purposes today, and it would be found difficult to make them so. We also know that a new hospital is to be built. When is that likely to be started, and when is it likely to be completed or to come partially or wholly into operation? No doubt when it comes it will be a complete and perfect hospital, but in the meantime no one denies that the shortcomings of the Gloucester Royal Hospital are considerable.
  In particular, I wish to refer to the difficulties in the operating theatre. The layout is such that the theatre does not provide the usual rooms which are considered necessary in modern medical techniques for those who are to work in the theatre to dress themselves under proper conditions. The nurses, and indeed the surgeons, can be seen garbing up for work in the theatre in a sort of cupboard under the stairs just outside.
  1334
  There are no lavatory or washing facilities available in the immediate neighbourhood for the nurses.
  The dressings are packed in an open lobby, and then stored on shelves hanging behind a curtain in the passage. The sterile and unsterile trolleys from the theatre pass each other in the same rather narrow confines of the small ante-room. If an emergency patient arrives, a patient who may have had pre-operational therapy has to be sent home. I have been told that when a heart crisis arose in the theatre the necessary machine to revive the patient was obstructed in its passage along the corridor by the food trolleys of the hospital.
  It is a great credit to the staff and to all who work in the Infirmary that they have been able to combat these difficult conditions and to instil confidence in the public—which I do not wish by my words to undermine in any way—that the medical facilities are as good as they should be. There is no doubt, however, that they have been operating under great difficulties.
  I understand that in order partially to cure that situation the Minister proposes to instal an Octatent which is presently at Plymouth. There is no doubt that in doing that he will be able to improve the theatre itself, but the approaches to the theatre are bad—and the construction cannot easily be altered—and they will become even more difficult when the second theatre in this Octatent is installed, and the congestion from all the non-sterile conditions will in no way be altered by the installation of this Octatent.
  I suggest that the Minister should instal something admittedly at more expense, namely, a prefabricated theatre for which there is just sufficient space in the hospital precincts. It will, of course, be more expensive than the Octatent, but all that expense will not be lost, because when the new hospital comes into operation either this prefabricated theatre will

  1335
  be able to be transferred to the new hospital, or, I dare say more likely, it will be available to be erected in another place. I therefore believe that it would be not so expensive as at first sight appears if it were found possible for this prefabricated theatre to be installed.
  Another question might be raised. If a charitable organisation or the exertions of individuals raised this extra money would the hon. Gentleman be willing to accept that donation to pay for this obviously better facility? An answer to that might vitally affect meetings which are due to take place in the near future. I am sure that he is not against prefabricated buildings in principle. The prefabricated buildings in which the administration of the regional hospital board and others is housed in Porton Road would willingly be exchanged by many of the patients for the ancient premises in which they still are.
  The hon. Gentleman may ask why this should be raised now, after all these years, and what is so burning about it which was not the case before. My answer is, enough is enough. This has gone on a long time and the opportunity has come to make changes. Now that the Minister has proposed a certain change, I suggest that a different change would be better. At all events, I know that the hon. Gentleman will not use the words which an official of the Board unfortunately used the other day, when he was reported in the Press as having said, "It is, after all, no worse than it was 20 years ago."
  I wish next to refer to Standish Hospital.
  It is proposed that Standish Hospital, near Stonehouse, should be brought under the Gloucester, Stroud and Forest Management Committee. This is a large hospital, with 269 beds—the largest in the area except for the mental hospitals, and well known for the excellence of its treatment and buildings. What is the reason for this proposal? No economic, medical or organisational argument has been given. Some may exist, but it has not been put forward. The only possible exception is that it was alleged that the laundry might be cheaper, but even that is not strongly pressed.
  1336
  All the local authorities in the area oppose this change, as does everyone who has been consulted, so far as I know. I cannot escape the conclusion that this change is a kind of empire building by the regional hospital board which I would have thought had enough to occupy it elsewhere, particularly in Gloucester, instead of this extra responsibility and the extra staff which will be necessary.
  I turn now to the Berkeley Hospital which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) but which largely serves the people living in my constituency. The Board proposes that the 15 maternity beds there shall be reduced to four emergency beds. The hospital serves a population of about 25,000 and the proposal is universally condemned. Every local authority in the area, every trade union with large representation there, every voluntary organisation has condemned it. The local doctors working in Dursley have said that it will be impossible for them to deal with their patients if they have to go further away than Berkeley Hospital. Therefore, the control of patients by the doctors, which is so important, especially in maternity cases, will be fractured. To that extent the medical practitioners will lose in medical experience and the patients will not be pleased to be transferred at the last moment to doctors not of their choice.
  The regional hospital board has said that this decision is in part due to the danger of fire at the hospital concerned. Admittedly, the building is old and the electric wiring is not up to standard. However, when the board promised to consult the county council—the only body it has promised to consult—it did not point out that the friends of the hospital had offered to restore the wiring to any degree necessary or demanded at their own expense. That the Board did not mention this offer to the county council must be a reflection on the good faith of the board in this matter.
  The percentage occupancy of this hospital is extremely high, and certainly much higher than that at Thornbury, which it is proposed should be used. I admit that the beds at Thornbury are not used, but that is because the board

  1337
  over-provided and now wishes to correct its mistake at the expense of my constituents. In time Thornbury will expand, and then the hospital will be fully used. What, at that stage, will happen to my constituents and where will they go?
  Nobody in the county believes that the board is correct in this matter. I therefore ask the Minister to examine this decision carefully before passing it. Perhaps a decision in this matter is not strictly for the Minister in that it is not proposed to close the hospital. But as it is proposed to reduce it to four beds, that is virtually the same as closing it.
  As for the hospital at Stroud, about two years ago there seemed a danger of it being closed or having its activities curtailed. At one point the staff was reduced. That danger now seems to have passed and the hospital is fully used. Its activities are increasing and it is providing valuable hospital accommodation for the district. Will the Minister reassure us that he has no intention of changing the status of the Stroud Hospital? If he would, his words would be music in the ears of my constituents.
  The proposals for Berkeley, Standish and Stroud hospitals have been resolutely opposed by every authority, voluntary and otherwise, in the area. However, so far the board has shown no signs of changing its mind. About 30 of us, representing all shades of opinion, formed a delegation to complain about the Berkeley proposal, but apparently our pleadings fell on deaf ears.
  These boards are subject to no electoral discipline in that their members are not elected in the normal way. Talking to them is like talking to a brick wall. One might as well talk to oneself.
  It is the unanimous wish of those with the slightest influence in the matter in the county that the local board should change its mind. The trouble is that it is difficult to understand how these boards, as at present constituted, can react flexibly to popular opinion. The area of the Regional Hospital Board stretches from Gloucestershire to the far west, to Cornwall. What should a representative appointed because he lives in Gloucester say if it is proposed to close a hospital in Cornwall? How would he know anything
  1338
  about it? He would keep absolutely silent, and it would be the same with someone appointed from Cornwall considering a proposal affecting Gloucester. The chap who actually runs the "joint" is the secretary of the regional hospital board. That is bureaucracy and is undemocratic.
  In future these boards should be brought under the local authorities. That may be part of the reorganisation we shall see in the next year or so. Unless it is possible for local people to feel that they have some voice affecting these decisions which affect them so vitally, they will feel out of sympathy with the way the hospital service is run. In the meantime the Minister is responsible. I ask him to stand up for what local people want in my part of the world.
  11.56 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): I have listened to what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has said about various matters regarding hospital provision in the city and county of Gloucester. I am grateful to him for sending me notice of some of the points he wished to raise. I am also glad to see present my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), who is involved and interested in the hospital in his constituency, giving me support, although, of course, he cannot take part in this debate.
  I should like to set the record straight. Let me first deal with the Berkeley Hospital maternity beds. It could be claimed that the Regional Hospital Board has it in mind to close down a service highly respected locally; that it is trying to do this in a "hole and corner" fashion. What are the facts? The maternity unit consists of 15 beds on the first floor. Last summer the fire prevention officer made clear that it was an unacceptable fire risk. This called for action by the board.
  It immediately put in hand a thorough review of the maternity service not only at Berkeley, but for the whole area. This is at a preliminary stage, but it would be useful, I think, to explain that the Department approved the opening of local consultations—but no further steps—on the following lines: the potentially unsafe first floor at Berkeley should cease

  1339
  to be used for maternity; that four maternity beds should be put on the ground floor at Berkeley; that while this is being done, maternity cases from Berkeley should go to Thornbury hospital and finally that on completion of the Berkeley adaptations, any cases which could not be taken there should go to Thorn-bury. The local consultations have not yet been completed, and consequently the regional hospital board has yet to reach firm conclusions.
  Should it decide to proceed as outlined it will require the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. This is because any decision to withdraw hospital services can only be made by a Minister. But as my right hon. Friend has not received any firm proposal, I cannot do other than say he will give all due weight to local feeling if and when the matter comes before him.
  I now turn to the regional hospital board's handling of this matter so far. Before approaching the Department in August, 1968, the regional hospital board had already received a local deputation the previous month. This included the hon. Member, and the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield). The deputation, I understand, also included representatives from the county council, parish and rural committees, trade unions, voluntary workers and doctors. The Chairman of the Board assured the deputation that fullest consultation would take place before any firm plans were made. And I have complete confidence this assurance will be fulfilled.
  The hon. Member has raised the question of the operating facilities at the Gloucester Royal Hospital. I am informed that the Chairman of the Regional Hospital Board has recently announced that a solution had been found and will be carried out.
  No one denies that the present operating facilities are not up to the desired standards and are under pressure. The complete solution is the redevelopment of the whole hospital. This is proceeding in accordance with the plans for the area, which are on public record. "A Hospital Plan for England and Wales" (Command 1604, 1962) stated that Phases III and IV of the development of the Gloucester Royal Hospital would start
  1340
  in the period after 1970–71. The Hospital Plan revision of 1966 (Cmnd. 3000) again made plain that the Gloucester Royal Hospital would be reconstructed with Phase III of the scheme starting in the period 1969–70. The latest information is that the work should start this year and be completed by 1973.
  The third phase of development will include a suite of seven operating theatres at a cost of £270,000 and a central sterile supply department costing £60,000. The whole phase will cost £3½ million, which suggests the scale of the planning effort.
  That the Gloucester Royal Hospital has been accorded a fairly high priority is evidenced by the fact that the first two phases are already complete and the third phase about to begin.
  The longer-term solution is, therefore, being pursued. The question then is: what is being done to remedy the situation in the interim?
  If it could be shown that those responsible had been forced to act only on account of adverse publicity, there would indeed be grounds for criticism. But this is not in accord with the facts. The first interest by the publicity media was shown on 28th January, 1969, when a B.B.C. representative interviewed members of the staff. Various newspapers carried articles in the weeks that followed. All this took place after action had got under way. The shortcomings of the present operating theatre were being examined by the Regional Hospital Board and the Hospital Management Committee in November, 1968. By 18th December, 1968, a Working Party had gone over all the possibilities and had recommended an answer. This was to evacuate one of the existing wards and provide inside it an Octatent as a second theatre at a cost of £10,000–£20,000. I am informed that the Octatent will be in Ward 3 which is being evacuated and, therefore, will not share the approach to the present theatre, a question on which the hon. Gentleman expressed concern. Implementation of this solution involved tackling problems arising from the evacuation of a ward without loss of its services. The medical and nursing staff were consulted and they agreed to the plan to re-organise services elsewhere in the hospital not only to maintain the services displaced by the Octatent but, in fact, improved them.

  1341
  In case there is any doubt in this, I shall explain what the Octatent is. It is a portable operating theatre of 320 square feet, with its own mechanical ventilating plant supplying filtered air under pressure. Surgeons who have used it have expressed complete satisfaction. Once obtained, the theatre itself can be quickly and easily installed, but engineering works must be carried out as a prerequisite to installing necessary supporting services, including the autoclave. The Octatent is a highly specialised product with limited availability and fairly lengthy delivery time. Nevertheless it is intended to install it in about three months from now. I should like here to express appreciation and gratitude to the members of the medical and nursing staff, who have applied themselves to this problem and solved it, for it is certainly upon their shoulders that the burden of making it work will fall. I should like to do more. Underlying the publicity is an unstated implication that the medical and nursing staff were failing their patients by accepting intolerable conditions. I do not suggest the hon. Member was party to this, but I think it is right to bring it out into the open and scotch it once and for all. The Consultant medical staff, through their chairman, have stated emphatically that they have been fully aware of the situation and would not have allowed it to continue if there were any possible danger to the patients.
  The hon. Gentleman has referred to a prefabricated building as a suggested alternative. Such a suggestion might be feasible but because of the engineering and other services it would inevitably take longer to provide and would cost between £50,000 and £100,000. Expenditure
  1342
  of this magnitude on a building which would be abandoned on completion of the main hospital redevelopment would be hard to justify when the Octatent can be used at a far lower cost.
  A solution like this was in fact considered and rejected in December. It would be interesting to know on what grounds it is now being pressed, since the medical and nursing staff have supported the Octatent solution.
  I have complete confidence in the hospital authorities, who lost no time, when the urgency of this situation became known, in devising a workable solution and pursuing it with vigour.
  Let me now turn to the possible integration of the Standish Hospital with the Gloucester, Stroud and Forest Group. The facts are that the Regional Hospital Board wished to consider this actively and the Department approved local consultations as a first step. This is the normal procedure. Any possible amalgamations must be canvassed locally to establish local views as information in advance of any decision. Should there be a dispute, and this is the case here, then my right hon. Friend reserves the decision to himself. I had better explain that he will carefully consider all relevant factors, including local feeling, how staff will be placed, and efficiency. But since matters have not yet reached this stage, the hon. Member will I am sure understand when I go no further here, than to say that the points he has made will be borne in mind by my right hon. Friend.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Terendak Camp, Malaysia
  Terendak Camp, Malaysia
  Building and Civil Engineering Industries (Meeting)
  Building and Civil Engineering Industries (Meeting)
  Hyde Park (Tea Pavilion)
  Hyde Park (Tea Pavilion)
  Prince of Wales Investiture (Medals)
  Prince of Wales Investiture (Medals)
  Public Works (Employment)
  Public Works (Employment)
  Public Contracts (Use of Steel)
  Public Contracts (Use of Steel)
  Tate Gallery (Alternative Sites)
  Tate Gallery (Alternative Sites)
  Commissioners of Works Act, 1852 (Amendment)
  Commissioners of Works Act, 1852 (Amendment)
COAL
  Scottish Coalfields (Minister's Visit)
  Scottish Coalfields (Minister's Visit)
  Stocks
  Stocks
  Wombwell Main Colliery (Closure)
  Wombwell Main Colliery (Closure)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Fuel Policy
  Fuel Policy
  Energy Advisory Council
  Energy Advisory Council
  Steel Industry (Product Divisions)
  Steel Industry (Product Divisions)
  Iron-ore Terminal (Clyde Area)
  Iron-ore Terminal (Clyde Area)
  Electricity Boards (Transistor Radio Sales)
  Electricity Boards (Transistor Radio Sales)
  Gaz de France (Agreement)
  Gaz de France (Agreement)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Steel Prices)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Steel Prices)
  North Sea Oil Rigs (Safety)
  North Sea Oil Rigs (Safety)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Tate Gallery
  Tate Gallery
  Public Participation in Planning (Report)
  Public Participation in Planning (Report)
  Planning Applications (Luton)
  Planning Applications (Luton)
  Metrication
  Metrication
  Chelmsley Wood Development
  Chelmsley Wood Development
  Smoke Control Measures
  Smoke Control Measures
HOUSING
  Fair Rent Applications (Hartlepool)
  Fair Rent Applications (Hartlepool)
  Overcrowding Standards
  Overcrowding Standards
  Harassment and Illegal Evictions
  Harassment and Illegal Evictions
  Private Dwellings (Flooding)
  Private Dwellings (Flooding)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Company Dividends
  Company Dividends
  Credit (Exporting Companies)
  Credit (Exporting Companies)
  National Debt (Interest Cost)
  National Debt (Interest Cost)
  Departments (Publications)
  Departments (Publications)
  Royal Mint (Programme)
  Royal Mint (Programme)
  Departmental Advertising (Expenditure)
  Departmental Advertising (Expenditure)
TRANSPORT
  Thames Tunnel (Thamesmead)
  Thames Tunnel (Thamesmead)
  Floods, Thames Conservancy Area
  Floods, Thames Conservancy Area
ROADS
  Speed Limits, Metric Conversion (Cost)
  Speed Limits, Metric Conversion (Cost)
  Lorry Drivers' Hours, Records and Loads (Offences)
  Lorry Drivers' Hours, Records and Loads (Offences)
  Heavy Goods Vehicle Licences
  Heavy Goods Vehicle Licences
  Goods Vehicles (Tachographs)
  Goods Vehicles (Tachographs)
  National Freight Corporation
  National Freight Corporation
  Off-Street Parking Facilities (Meter Revenue)
  Off-Street Parking Facilities (Meter Revenue)
  Controlled Parking Zones, London (Income and Expenditure)
  Controlled Parking Zones, London (Income and Expenditure)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Army General Reserve
  Army General Reserve
  Nuclear Submarines (Contracts)
  Nuclear Submarines (Contracts)
  Nuclear Submarine Construction Facilities (Cammell Laird)
  Nuclear Submarine Construction Facilities (Cammell Laird)
SCOTLAND
  Mental Institutions (Appeals Against Detention)
  Mental Institutions (Appeals Against Detention)
  Health and Welfare Services (Circular)
  Health and Welfare Services (Circular)
  Sewerage (Scotland) Act, 1968
  Sewerage (Scotland) Act, 1968
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  New Housing
  New Housing
  Regional Hospital Board Minutes (Public Inspection)
  Regional Hospital Board Minutes (Public Inspection)
  Teachers (Special Recruitment Scheme)
  Teachers (Special Recruitment Scheme)
  Teaching Posts (Local Authority Schools)
  Teaching Posts (Local Authority Schools)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Uncertificated Teachers (Local Authority Schools)
  Uncertificated Teachers (Local Authority Schools)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Electrical Domestic Appliances (Flex Colour Code)
  Electrical Domestic Appliances (Flex Colour Code)
  Amusement Permits (Prizes)
  Amusement Permits (Prizes)
  Amusement Arcades
  Amusement Arcades
  Non-Payment of Debt (Imprisonment)
  Non-Payment of Debt (Imprisonment)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Peers (Reimbursement of Expenses)
  Peers (Reimbursement of Expenses)
  Scientists and Engineers
  Scientists and Engineers
  Scientific and Research Services (Amalgamation)
  Scientific and Research Services (Amalgamation)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Merseyside Development Area
  Merseyside Development Area
  Industrial Development (Dearne Valley)
  Industrial Development (Dearne Valley)
  IMMIGRANTS
  IMMIGRANTS
  SOUTH-EAST ASIA (WAR-DAMAGED AREAS)
  SOUTH-EAST ASIA (WAR-DAMAGED AREAS)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER (LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPLAINTS)
  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER (LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPLAINTS)
  HEADS OF GOVERNMENT (MEETING)
  HEADS OF GOVERNMENT (MEETING)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (SPEECH)
  DR. HEINEMANN (MEETING)
  DR. HEINEMANN (MEETING)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Call-boxes, Worthing (Decimal Coinage Conversion)
  Call-boxes, Worthing (Decimal Coinage Conversion)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Lorry Drivers Knowles Transport (Pay Settlement)
  Lorry Drivers Knowles Transport (Pay Settlement)
  Construction Industries Training Board, Bircham Newton
  Construction Industries Training Board, Bircham Newton
TECHNOLOGY
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fertiliser
  Fertiliser
  Fish Farming (Power Stations)
  Fish Farming (Power Stations)
  Floods, Thames Conservancy Area
  Floods, Thames Conservancy Area
HOSPITALS
  Broadmoor Special Hospital
  Broadmoor Special Hospital
SOCIAL SERVICE
  Obesity
  Obesity
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Telephone Calls
  Telephone Calls
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Machinery Educational Establishments (Safety)
  Machinery Educational Establishments (Safety)
  Hostel, London (Postgraduate Students)
  Hostel, London (Postgraduate Students)

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

SCHOOLCHILDREN AND MALNUTRITION DANGERS
LORD ABERDARE: 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 have read the article by Dr. G. W. Lynch in the Medical Officer of Friday, January 24, 1969, on "Food Intake and the Education of Children", and whether they will initiate a full-scale research project on the problem of malnutrition among schoolchildren.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, I have now seen the article by Dr. Lynch, but it is not considered that any change is required in the Government's current programme of research and investigation, which has been recommended by the Chief Medical Officer's Expert Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. This programme includes a study of the nutrition of some 1,500 schoolchildren in Kent which began in May, 1968. A record of a week's diet will be analysed for nutrient content, and each child will be medically examined, if parental consent is given. It is hoped that a second study will commence in October of this year in another area in England yet to be determined. The Kent Study should be completed by September, 1970.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that encouraging Answer. May I ask whether she agrees that this is a serious problem; that the research done by Dr. Lynch shows that a large number of young children, in the London area at
322
any rate, are going to school without breakfast, having had a quite insignificant meal the night before? Further, does not the noble Baroness think, quite apart from the investigations being made, that the Government might push ahead with this matter and ask local education authorities to explore the situation further?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, the Government, indeed successive Governments for the past sixty years, have been concerned about the relationship between poor nutrition and the education and learning ability of children. We are, however, of the view that the interpretation that Dr. Lynch has placed on the figures is not the correct one and we are in touch with him about it. It may interest your Lordships to know that in the Kent study it was found that, out of rather more than 100 children, 19 girls and 9 boys did not take breakfast. The boys were found to be slightly thinner than a comparable sample who took breakfast; the girls were, if anything, fatter than a comparable sample. There is no evidence here to suggest that the boys were less well grown or less well muscled.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, does not the Minister think that one might call in the good offices of the Central Council for Health and Education to publish propaganda in order to teach parents that they should try to give their children a breakfast before leaving for school?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I will certainly take note of the noble Lord's suggestion.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that the Health Group of another place met last week when they considered Dr. Lynch's Paper, and that they took such a serious view of it that they have asked the Government seriously to reconsider their policy on this subject? They have asked whether it is not a quite short-sighted economy to cut down on the milk and the food of these children.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I was not aware of the meeting to which the noble Baroness has referred. I have noted her point. It is somewhat outside the scope of this particular Question, but I will look into it.

I.M.F. SPECIAL DRAWING RIGHTS
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: 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 it is the case that in their conversations with President Nixon during his visit, the President agreed that he would endeavour to hasten the implementation of the I.M.F. Special Drawing Rights scheme by its signatories; and whether any further measures to facilitate international borrowing were discussed.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl will have seen the Prime Minister's Statement on this matter in another place on February 27. I can confirm that the Governments both of the United States and of the United Kingdom are agreed on the desirability of early ratification of the Special Drawing Rights scheme.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, and I know how difficult it is to answer supplementary questions concisely on a subject of this kind. But as the noble Lord was kind enough to tell your Lordships the other day that these Special Drawing Rights should amount to an increase of 3 per cent. in the total volume of international liquidity each year, could I ask him whether the Treasury or our monetary advisers have compared this figure with the volume of international trade, and whether they have advised Her Majesty's Government that a 3 per cent. increase is anything like adequate?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have armed myself with the figures, and it is true that the ratio of world reserves to world exports has decreased since 1948. I will not weary the House with all the figures, but world exports have gone up since 1948 to 1967 from 53·3 billion dollars to 190·5 billion dollars, and world reserves from 48 billion dollars to 73·5 billion dollars. There is scope for greater liquidity, but probably the noble Earl will bear in mind that international cooperation is now much better than it was in 1948 and, as with national currency, I think it is possibly time to say that
324
velocity of circulation is also important, as well as volume.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Would he bear in mind that the reserves in 1948 were hopelessly inadequate—indeed far worse than they are now?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in answer partly to the noble Earl's original Question, I go so far as to say that whereas I have given him the figure of one to two billion dollars a year over the next five years as being the sort of figure which was originally thought of in the Special Drawing Rights Scheme, if we could get it above that figure Her Majesty's Government would be most pleased.

NIGERIA: BOMBING OF BIAFRAN CIVILIAN TARGETS
2.36 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations have been made to the Federal Government of Nigeria regarding the bombing of market places and hospitals in Biafra and the repudiations of periods of truce officially declared by General Gowon.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, has seen the Nigerian High Commissioner, and the British High Commissioner in Lagos has seen General Gowon. They have expressed our deep concern over reports of bombing by the Nigerian Air Force of civilian targets.
We are satisfied that the instructions to the Nigerian Air Force pilots are clear and precise, to the effect that they must not bomb any non-military targets and that any gathering of the civilian population must be avoided. We have accepted assurances that the reports of alleged infringements will be investigated as a matter of urgency.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while acknowledging that reply may I ask my noble friend this question? Is

325
he not aware of the wide and deep impatience, and indeed anger, among our own population that this bombing of market places, hospitals and refugee camps should be proceeding? While one accepts (and I had personal experience) what General Gowon has said about this, is it not now clear that his own commanders are defying the instructions about the bombing of civilians and the breaking of the truces which he has declared? Is it not time that Her Majesty's Government did something more than make representations, and stopped the supply of arms to one side in this deplorable conflict?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I share with the noble Lord, as I am sure do all Members of the House who themselves have experienced the savagery of war, the view that this war should be brought to an end and, consequently, with it the bombing of civilians. Our prime purpose is, as it has always been, to help to end the war and not to prolong it. It is against the overriding need for the end of the fighting that the Government must judge whether or not to adopt a particular policy, or a variation of their policy, such as to suspend the supply of arms from this country. As the Prime Minister said in another place during the informal discussions on Nigeria at the time of the Commonwealth Conference:
"No arguments were put forward that if our arms policy was different there would be likelihood of shortening the fighting by a single day."
My Lords, I share that view.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would not Her Majesty's Government urge upon the Federal Government of Nigeria that any foreign pilot found guilty of bombing civilian targets in Biafra ought to be dismissed? Would not this go a long way towards restoring confidence in the attitude of General Gowon and his colleagues in Lagos?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, pilots, whether they be Nigerian or expatriate, come, I understand, under the military laws of the Federal Government, and clearly if they break the orders of their superior officers they stand in fear, I suppose, of court-martial and other trial.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, will Sir Denis Greenhill be able to interrogate the Government of Nigeria on these matters?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that the visit of the Permanent Under-Secretary must be treated as confidential, and I certainly would not have thought that the word "interrogate", in the sense it is usually understood, is perhaps the right word to use in connection with a visit of a high official to a friendly country.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied, while accepting the Federal Government's assurance, that local commanders do in fact permit deliberate bombing of civilian targets?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in war sometimes local commanders break their instructions; but I cannot help recalling, in view of the pressures that are now on, the allegations of genocide and of atrocities committed by soldiers on Biafran people, all of which were rejected by the international observers. I think I can only judge from my own personal experience, and I saw what was being done by local commanders to help refugees in their areas with food and medicine: they treated the refugees with great humanity. I find it inconceivable that these same military commanders would order deliberate attacks on civilian people in the area.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the excuse that is being given, that if we stop giving arms to Nigeria some other Government will do so, is the excuse for any immoral action whatsoever?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I cannot accept that. I have explained the reasons for Her Majesty's Government's policy of support to the Federal Government in Nigeria, and I do not see anything at this stage—because we are still awaiting reports—from which one can really judge whether these attacks are deliberate or otherwise, although I have expressed a personal view to the contrary.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, following the noble Lord's reply to the noble

327
Baroness's last supplementary, could he tell us why the international observers, the summary of whose report we read in today's papers, did not visit Biafra?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl will be aware that the international observers are in the Federal area because they were invited to go there by the Federal Government in view of the allegations of atrocities that had been made by the Biafran authorities. To the best of my knowledge they have never been invited, as such, to visit Biafra. If such an approach were made, I personally would welcome it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that I saw the international observers in Lagos, and that last October I drew his attention to the fact that the international observers had been invited to Biafra? Is he further aware that the international observers, when I saw them in Lagos, said they would need a change in the terms of reference from their Governments if they were to visit Biafra? May they be allowed to go to Biafra and see at the receiving end—as I have seen it—the bombing of market places, hospitals and feeding centres? Will they be allowed to see that at the receiving end, instead of just going to the despatching end, where they will be unable to observe what is being done at all?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I know that my noble friend keeps himself well acquainted with what offers have been made by Colonel Ojukwu. All I can say is that the international observers are in Nigeria; they were invited there by the Nigerian Government; they are there as a body. But I understand that Colonel Ojukwu is seeking to be selective as to which of the international observers should go, and this clearly would be quite contrary to the idea of an international corps.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether or not it is true, as it appears from the Press, that the bombing is being done by Russian planes flown by Egyptians, and that stopping the supply of the type of arms we
328
supply to Nigeria would not stop the bombing?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think the point that my noble friend has made shows the weakness of the argument that if we ceased to supply small arms it would stop the bombing or bring the war to an end. In my view, it would be a direct encouragement to the Biafran authorities to fight on, and we all know what would be the consequences of that.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, in view of the comments of Mr. Churchill in The Times of February 21, and the leading article on the 28th, are the Government satisfied that they are being kept sufficiently well informed?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have information available provided by the High Commissioner—and here I would pay high tribute to Sir David Hunt and all his staff for their services during these long and difficult months. We also get information from other bodies such as the international observers, relief workers, missionaries, Members of Parliament, journalists, and many others. With all the propaganda and selective reporting—much of it accepted or presented as fact—it takes time to assess each and every report. In his article in The Times on February 21, Mr. Churchill said that a report of a Federal attack on a Biafran village on February 6 had been dismissed by the British High Commission in Lagos as Biafran propaganda. This charge was repeated in a leading article in The Times of February 28. Mr. Churchill has misrepresented what he was told by the High Commission. Neither the High Commissioner nor any member of his staff has said that this report of the bombing on civilians was simply Biafran propaganda. I understand that Mr. Churchill left Lagos on the morning of the day, that is to say, the 6th, the day on which this raid is said to have taken place, so it is difficult to see how he could have discussed it with the High Commission, or even knew about it, since the first report was on Radio Biafra on the 7th.

DUMPING OF LITTER AND RUBBISH
2.42 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to deal with the ever-increasing volume of litter of all sorts deposited not only near beauty spots in the countryside but along road sides and railway lines and in and around urban areas in all parts of the country.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the Civic Amenities Act 1967 requires local authorities to provide places where residents may deposit refuse free of charge, lays down severe penalties for unauthorised dumping, and gives authorities wide powers to remove abandoned rubbish. These provisions are aimed primarily at the deliberate dumping of large items of rubbish including old motor vehicles. Against the casual dropper of litter the Litter Act 1958 also provides penal sanctions. Within this legislative framework measures to deal with litter must be primarily for local action. The Government keep in close touch with the Keep Britain Tidy Group, who are concerned with educating and influencing the public and with assisting local authorities in this field, and makes an annual grant to them.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he thinks that, apart from having these powers, local authorities have both the resources and also the will in fact to implement them? Because all of us know that the amount of filth and rubbish of all kinds lying around in this country is increasing, in spite of this legislation.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I have no reason to assume a lack of willingness on the part of the local authorities to implement the powers. If the noble Lord has, perhaps he will let me know of it. As to finance, it is a fact that at the moment the Government have invited
330
local authorities to cut back on the rate of increase in their spending, and it may be that when we are out of the present period of financial stringency the local authorities will be able to do more.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, so that the noble Lord can see that I am not exaggerating, may I ask him to call for a report from his Department of what can be seen from the main railway line between Preston and Crewe? It will astonish him.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if the House will bear with us, may I ask the noble Lord to let me have a report direct?
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, in view of the fact that the convictions under the Litter Act average approximately 2,700 per year, do the Government intend to introduce or to strengthen other positive schemes to reduce the indiscriminate dumping of refuse?
LORD KENNET: Not at the moment, my Lords, because the 1967 Act is still so new that we are not yet satisfied that we know enough about how it will work. For the moment the figure of 3,000 prosecutions and the relevant number of convictions seem to the Government to be quite a lot, and perhaps it is not appropriate to have more.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, do the Government regard this Act as being adequate or effective, and cannot some other positive schemes be considered for reducing the indiscriminate dumping of litter?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, of course such schemes can be considered, and if the right reverend Prelate has any up his sleeve I should be grateful if he would send them to me. We must wait and see how the 1967 Act affects the situation.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government would considered increasing education on this matter in the schools and also other propaganda—for instance, by television and radio?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government make some effort to arrange the sharing of the financial burden between the urban authorities, whose inhabitants leave most of the litter,

331
and the country authorities who have the unenviable and expensive task of clearing it up?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I will put to my right honourable friend the suggestion of the right reverend Prelate about education. It is a financial question and these are difficult days. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, made a most interesting suggestion about sharing the burden. I should hate to be responsible for working out the details of the allocation as between urban and rustic authorities. I will consider the matter further and will put it to my right honourable friend.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that one of the problems in this matter is that many members of the general public are unaware of the location of the litter disposal centres which, under the Civic Amenities Act, the local authorities are now under compulsion to provide? Would he consider drawing the attention of local authorities to the need for publicising the location of the centres, which was a point suggested, and sympathetically received by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, quite recently on a short debate on this matter on an Unstarred Question in this House?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, their attention has been drawn to it. My right honourable friend has emphasised to the authorities that adequate and continued publicity as to their arrangements in this matter is essential.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, if the noble Lord's arithmetic is not equal to making the arrangements for sharing this burden, some of us on this side of the House would be only too willing to volunteer.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to ask two questions about indiscriminate dumping of litter in our towns and cities. In view of the increasing powers being given to traffic wardens under the recent Transport Act, and in view of their increasing numbers, would the noble Lord consider empowering them to make on-the-spot penalties? Would the noble Lord cast his mind back to December 14, 1966, when he said that this form of penalty had been considered for some time, and could he
332
say whether Her Majesty's Government have reached any conclusion in regard to on-the-spot penalties to deal with the problem?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord aright, he is envisaging that traffic wardens should take the opportunity of enforcing the Litter Act. That is an interesting suggestion, which I will bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport.

DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 2ª, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL
Read 2ª, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
CHELSEA COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SAINT MILDRED, BREAD STREET BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

NATIONAL THEATRE BILL
2.55 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The National Theatre Act of 1949 limited to £1 million the Government contribution towards the cost of building the National Theatre. The purpose of the present Bill is to increase the limit on the Government's contribution from £1 million to £3,750,000. This measure is of great significance in the history of the arts in Great Britain and marks a final stage in the realisation of a dream first voiced as long ago as 1848 by a London publisher named Effingham Wilson.
I was very touched when the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, mentioned in

333
our recent debate on the Arts that he had first written about this subject when he was still at Eton in reply to a letter from his mother. He had asked her at the time how the project was getting on. I think he mentioned that it was just after the Crimean War! It seems appropriate, therefore, to spend a few minutes in sketching the history of the project up to the present time.
Plans for a National Theatre were first formulated in a book written by Harley Granville Barker and William Archer in 1903, and it is interesting to recall that in 1906 Winston Churchill made the following comment:
"Think with what excitement and interest this people witnesses the construction or launching of a Dreadnought! What a pity it is that some measure of that interest cannot be turned in the direction of the launching say, of a National Theatre!"
The Dreadnoughts continued to be constructed and launched. To-day we are present at the final launching of the National Theatre and now look forward to its construction. In 1908 the Shakespeare Memorial Committee, which had been set up a few years earlier to plan a memorial in time for the Shakespeare Tercentenary in 1916, combined with another Committee concerned with the Granville Barker-William Archer scheme for a National Theatre
"to be transferred to national ownership and placed by some form of endowment above the necessity of constant and immediate profit making".
This new body became known as the Shakespeare Memorial National Theatre Committee.
In May, 1909, Sir Carl Meyer made a gift of £70,000 to the movement for the general purposes of the scheme and Lord Avebury and the right honourable Alfred Lyttleton, P.C. (father of the present Lord Chandos), were appointed trustees of this sum and of the sums of the movement generally. In 1914 a site was purchased in Gower Street, Bloomsbury, for the sum of £60,000. This purchase used up most of the available funds and before there had been any opportunity of collecting further money the war intervened. In 1922 the Gower Street site was sold for £52,000 because, owing to the effects of the 1914 war, the scheme had become impracticable. Up to 1925 some assistance was given to what is now the Royal Shakespeare Company,
334
but on being registered as a charity the Shakespeare Memorial National Theatre Trust was prevented from applying any part of its proceeds other than to objects which would lead directly to the achievement of the main objective, namely, the building of a National Theatre.
In 1937, further money having been collected, the Shakespeare Memorial Trust acquired for about £81,000 freehold some land on the South side of Cromwell Gardens, South Kensington, opposite the Victoria and Albert Museum, as a site for the National Theatre and plans were commissioned from Sir Edwin Lutyens. On Aptil 22, 1938, there was a ceremony, which I am sure your Lordships will recall, at which Lord Broughshane asked Sir Robert Vansittart to hand over to George Bernard Shaw, a Trustee of the National Theatre Executive Committee, the deeds of that site, together with turf and twigs as traditional symbols of the possession of land. As I pass the site each day, I wonder what has happened to the turf and twigs.
Any further work was halted by the 1939–45 war, but in 1946 an agreement was reached between the Shakespeare Memorial Trust and the London County Council, under which the Council agreed to grant a long lease of just under 1¼ acres of land on the South Bank, between the Festival Hall and Waterloo Bridge, in exchange for the South Kensington site. At the time when the exchange was agreed, the Joint Council representing the Old Vic and the Shakespeare Memorial National Theatre was formed.
In 1949 the National Theatre Act was passed, under which the Government were empowered to contribute up to £1 million towards the building and equipment of the theatre, but the date of implementation was left to the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Plans for a building had been commissioned by the Joint Council from an architect named Brian O'Rourke, and in 1949 it was expected that a building based on those plans could have been erected for £l million. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the National Theatre Act of 1949 was Sir Stafford Cripps.
In 1951 a foundation stone was laid by Her Majesty the Queen (now Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen

335
Mother) on the site adjacent to the Festival Hall. In 1952 it was agreed with the London County Council that the National Theatre should occupy a better site adjoining County Hall. The next step was taken in 1960, when the Royal Shakespeare Company was invited to join the Joint Council of the National Theatre and a proposal was made for the virtual amalgamation of the Old Vic and the Royal Shakespeare Company into a National Theatre, consisting of an amphitheatre and proscenium theatre under one roof on the South Bank and the Royal Shakespeare Theatre at Stratford. This proposal was not accepted. The Royal Shakespeare Theatre withdrew from the National Theatre project, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, said that he was ready to consider a scheme which would include the rehousing of Sadler's Wells in an Opera House under the same roof as the National Theatre, and in the autumn of 1961 Sadler's Wells joined the Joint Council.
In 1962 the National Theatre Board was appointed by the Chancellor and an agreement was reached with the Governors of the Old Vic, whereby the Old Vic Theatre became the temporary home of the National Theatre Company. In August, 1962, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Reginald Maudling, reached agreement with Sir Isaac Hayward, the Leader of the London County Council, on the formation of the South Bank Theatre and Opera House Board to plan and build the National Theatre and the new Opera House on two adjoining South Bank sites. From the terms of reference it will be seen that the capital sums available to the Board were not to exceed £2·3 million in all, made up of £1 million to be contributed by the Government under the terms of the 1949 Act, and up to £1·3 million from the London County Council who were also contributing the site under the arrangement made in 1946. The Board appointed, in November, 1963, Mr. Denys Lasdun as architect for both the Opera House and the National Theatre. A building committee was set up by the National Theatre Board and accepted by the South Bank Board as its theatre panel to advise on the draft specifications.
336
In 1965 sketch plans were produced for an Opera House and a National Theatre at an estimated total cost of £16 million. In July, 1965, the Board and the Greater London Council were told that in view of the great increase in cost, the Government would not be prepared to contribute towards the cost of the Opera House, but would be prepared, subject to the approval of Parliament, to share the cost of the National Theatre with the Greater London Council up to a maximum contribution of £3,750,000. The Greater London Council decided in 1966 that they would not be prepared to undertake at their expense the building of the Opera House which was therefore abandoned, but agreed to provide a sum of £3,750,000 to match the contribution of the Government.
Work has since proceeded on the preparation of detailed plans for the Theatre, and the South Bank Theatre Board (the name was changed after the abandonment of the Opera House) hope to invite tenders in the spring of 1969 with a view to work starting as soon as possible. Until tenders are received and a contract is awarded, it is difficult to make a precise estimate of the date of completion but the hope is that the work will be complete by the end of 1973. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe—to whom I am sure your Lordships would like to pay great tribute for his work—the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and Sir Laurence Olivier continue to be members, and the Arts Council were formally associated with the Board through the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and Sir Joseph Lockwood.
The overriding difference between 1949 and to-day is that we now have a National Theatre Company. Parliament was asked in 1949 to vote money for a building although no National Theatre Company was in existence: the Old Vic Company to whom all honour is due, had continued to work through the war and returned in 1950 to the renovated Old Vic Theatre. To-day we are asking Parliament to vote money for a building to house a company which, under the inspiring leadership of Sir Laurence Olivier, has in the five years of its existence built up a truly international reputation. Although the drama critics were not united in their assessment of the company's achievements at the end of its first five years, the quality of acting

337
and production was not generally in question. Some criticisms have been made about the choice of plays. In fact, the National Theatre's aim has been to cover world drama by presenting plays equally in six categories—Shakespeare, English classics, foreign classics, contemporary English plays, contemporary foreign plays and recent plays of merit that deserve revival. One-sixth of their productions have been Shakespeare, but they have fallen short in the number of new works presented, both English and foreign, the reason being lack of suitable plays of quality.
This reputation has been achieved in such a short period, despite the very real difficulties under which the company have had to work in the existing Old Vic Theatre. This theatre was not designed for the presentation of full scale repertory at the high standard expected of a National Theatre Company. It is lacking in the necessary technical amenities. There is an inadequate lighting system and switchboard, insufficient wing space on stage, insufficient rehearsal rooms and storage space for only two or three productions. Dressing-room conditions are primitive and inadequate for the number of the company required to play in London, in the regions and abroad. From a number of the seats in the theatre, it is impossible to see the stage properly. The public cloakrooms, bars and foyer spaces are both cramped and uncomfortable. Finally, the number of seats, even allowing for those where the vision is inadequate, is not much more than 800. This low capacity, coupled with the high drawing power of the National Theatre Company, has led to many complaints on the part of the public that they are unable to obtain seats. Some of your Lordships mentioned this during the recent debate.
The new National Theatre building will have two auditoria, one of the proscenium type seating 900 people and one of the open stage type, seating 1,165 people. The total seating capacity of the theatre will therefore be over 2,000. The two auditoria are considered necessary by the National Theatre Company, in order to present plays of a wide variety which a National Theatre must include within its repertoire, within the type of auditorium most suited to those plays. In general terms, it can be said that the more intimate type of production will be
338
staged in the proscenium auditorium and the more spectacular production within the open stage type auditorium. But the important point is that the existence of the two will give producers scope for producing plays in different ways.
The National Theatre is a joint project with the Greater London Council, The brief history that I have sketched of the National Theatre project indicates that the London County Council were involved from an early stage. They and their successor, the Greater London Council, have contributed £271,400 to the National Theatre Company since it was established in 1963. In the same period, Arts Council grants to the National Theatre Company have totalled £1,094,000, which includes the sum of £160,000 towards the reduction of accumulated deficits.
The Greater London Council will be contributing to the cost of the National Theatre exactly the same sum as the Government. They will also be providing free of charge the valuable site next to Waterloo Bridge. The South Bank Theatre Board will thus have available the total sum of £7½ million, together with the monies, amounting to £100,000, remaining from the Shakespeare Memorial Trust, of which they are now the sole Trustees. My Lords, I should like to pay a warm tribute to the Greater London Council, which under its present title, and prior to that as the London County Council, has been an enlightened and generous patron of the Arts. Special mention should be made of Sir Isaac Hayward, who perhaps more than anyone else has been responsible for the far-sighted concept of turning the South Bank into a glittering centre of the Arts. The noble Lord, Lord Fiske, throughout his period of office as leader of the majority Party on the Greater London Council, gave this project his full backing, and his successor, Mr. Desmond Plummer, has been equally wholehearted in his determination to see the National Theatre become a reality.
The Bill I commend to your Lordships is essentially a non-Party measure. This was so in 1949, when one of the speakers in the debate in another place was Lord Chandos, then a Member of that House and now a very distinguished Member of this House, whose family has been associated with the project for over

339
half a century and who is, I am glad to say, still at the centre as Chairman of the National Theatre Board and as a member of the South Bank Theatre Board. This is equally true of the Greater London Council, which is represented on the South Bank Theatre Board not only by Mr. Plummer and Mr. Freeman, the Chairman of the General Purposes Committee, but also by the Labour leader, Sir Reginald Goodwin.
My Lords, the plans are nearing completion, and new hope has been given to the National Theatre Company, which has worked under such very difficult conditions. And perhaps I may again quote the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, who said previously in this House:
"It will be a great day for those who have worked for a National Theatre when the thunder of the bulldozers is heard on the site for the first time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26/2/69, col. 1118.]
I hope, my Lords, that we are to-day moving a stage nearer to this, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Baroness Phillips.)
3.13 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for giving us such an interesting speech describing the history and all the details of this great project of the National Theatre? This was a far fuller history than I had ever heard before, and I must say that for myself I found it fascinating; I am sure your Lordships did as well. As the noble Baroness has told us, this Bill provides half the capital and the G.L.C. provide the other half, and I should like to offer my congratulations both to the Government and to the G.L.C. As the noble Baroness has said, this is a non-Party event. It is a national project which is going to be for the good of all. For my noble friend Lord Chandos it is, I feel, an occasion of great personal triumph which can be exceeded only when the building is completed and opens for its first show, I hope in 1973, as the noble Baroness has told us.
As my noble friend explained to your Lordships in the Arts debate a fortnight ago, he has been working for this end, man and boy, all his life; and I most
340
warmly congratulate him on his inspiration and tenacity. I am bound to say that, like the noble Baroness, I was surprised at my noble friend's revelation about the connection with the Crimean War, and I am looking forward to having some further light thrown on this by Lord Raglan later on, as to "the reason why". When succeeding generations in later centuries ask the question, "What sort of people were they in the second half of the 20th century?", they will undoubtedly observe the London scene and record as a credit to this era that the National Theatre was built then; and my noble friend is indeed leaving his worthy mark on posterity.
London already has the finest range of theatres in the world, and I am certain that the establishment of a National Theatre here will install the central jewel in our theatrical diadem. I believe that this large expenditure of public funds is justified, both for the value of its enrichment of our national life and for the added attraction which it will make to foreign visitors to London. When the Theatre is opened I believe that the leadership of my noble friend Lord Chandos and the direction of Sir Laurence Olivier will ensure that the standard of performance comes up to our highest expectations. As the noble Baroness has told us, the finances of the Theatre are underpinned by substantial grants from the Arts Council—£340,000 this year—and, to a lesser extent, by the G.L.C. I understand that at present the subsidy runs at the rate of approximately £1 for £1 on the box office takings, and obviously top priority will be given in the future to providing the National Theatre with the grants it needs to keep going at the standard we should expect.
I would make just this point. Welcome as the National Theatre will be in its new home, the provision of this large sum of public money for its building cannot be considered without raising the question of its impact on the commercial theatre of London, which is also our concern. With 100 per cent. of the capital cost and 50 per cent. of the running costs found from public funds, we are bound to ask: is the National Theatre going to put on a programme which will undercut the commercial theatre and weaken its viability? I am sure that both the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Chandos would

341
regret that as much as I should. Indeed, it would be defeating the broad aim of the whole policy of the Arts Council to strengthen the theatre in our national life.
I understand that the view is held in the National Theatre that, by adding to the range of theatrical attraction in London, the new National Theatre will strengthen the position of the commercial theatre rather than weaken it; and I recognise that the National Theatre's role will be to put on a repertoire of plays—indeed, the noble Baroness told us so—which would not necessarily, and could not necessarily, be put on by a commercial theatre. I hope that the National Theatre is right and that its establishment will strengthen the commercial theatre, but at this stage I think it would be fair to say that nobody can be sure, and it would certainly be fair to observe that the building of the National Theatre raises an anxiety in this field, if for no other reason than that it can sell its tickets at half the price of cost, whereas the commercial theatre must not only recover cost but must also pay taxes and earn something for its promoters as well.
On this matter I have a point to raise with the noble Baroness of which I have given her notice. Your Lordships may remember that in the Arts debate I inquired how the committee of inquiry on this particular topic of the commercial theatre in London and the Provinces was going, and it was not then possible for the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to give me an answer. In those circumstances, I was surprised to read in this month's Socialist Commentary, published a few days after our debate, an article by Sir William Emrys Williams, the Chairman of the Arts Council committee of inquiry on the theatre, giving his solution of the financial difficulties of the commercial theatre in London and the Provinces. I may say, in passing, that I thought it was an interesting article and that its solution seemed to be both imaginative and practical. It also seemed not dissimilar to the scheme which I outlined to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in the Arts debate. I mention it now, first, to ask whether this article is an outline of what the Arts Council are going to propose for the commercial theatre; and, secondly, if that is so, to suggest that it would have been
342
better to make its publication through the official channels of the Arts Council so that it could have been available to your Lordships for the debate that we had on the Report of the Arts Council. I mention this point merely in passing. I do not wish to make too much of it.
My Lords, this is an occasion for celebration and congratulation. I conclude by congratulating the Government on bringing this Bill before Parliament and by offering my noble friend Lord Chandos and his board my warmest good wishes for every good fortune, both in the building of the National Theatre and in its future operation.
3.22 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, your Lordships are to hear from the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos and the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, who have been closely connected with this venture for many years; so I do not wish to say anything very much, except to welcome this Bill, which is non-controversial, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches. I think that in this matter the Government deserve a great deal of credit, both for what was done in 1949 (although £1 million did not turn out to be quite enough) and for what is being done now. I do not think that any other Government has done quite so much in this respect as the Government of 1949 and of to-day. I should also like to add my congratulations to all the people who have been congratulated and also to mention two who have not been mentioned so far. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and to the right honourable Miss Jennie Lee, both of whom have soldiered valiantly in this connection.
It has been suggested that there is an analogy with the National Gallery: that if you want a National Gallery (and who in these days would not want to have one?) you must want a National Theatre, too; that if we do not go on and bring this scheme to fruition now we shall become a laughing stock. Indeed, I am not sure that to some extent we have not already become a laughing stock. Your Lordships have already heard the long, sad story of how the idea was first put forward more than a hundred years ago, and of how for the last seventy years we have been talking about this and never getting anything done. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, thought the

343
account that the noble Baroness gave was a fascinating one. It was indeed a fascinating one; but it was also a very sad and unfortunate one. I think it points to one of the sicknesses of our society that we can thoughtlessly and recklessly put money forward for the most expensive projects, costing thousands of millions of pounds, which then have to be abandoned—projects which I think a little more imagination would have made it apparent from the beginning would have to be abandoned. Yet we are congratulating ourselves on at last being able to find £3¾ million from the Exchequer towards a National Theatre. And that sum is to be spread over the next four years, so that it is a tiny amount compared with what we are prepared to put forward for projects like the Concorde.
My Lords, I think that I have seen certainly 75 per cent., and probably rather more, of all the productions that have been presented at the Old Vic in the last five years. How splendid it is that we have this basis now to build on! In 1949, when the Government first put forward the £1 million contribution, there was not even that basis to the degree that we have it now. Nevertheless, I think it is right that the money should be spent on the building itself. The noble Baroness has told us how inadequate is the present building of the Old Vic, with its 875 seats—I think that is the number. The new building will have two auditorias and will hold 2,000 people: it will be able to form a national school, and a national "everything else". The company will also be able to embark on touring to a much greater extent than before. However, this Bill is not about touring, which is a different subject altogether. If we are able to tour, we must think of other means of finding the money for the theatres that the National Theatre Company is going to tour to. But this is another problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, asked what sort of impact this is going to have on the commercial theatre. He said that the information available to him from his friends in the theatre was that it would have nothing but a beneficial effect. I concur. This is the impression I get. Nevertheless, I think that the future of the theatre is in the hands of national and civic authorities and that
344
the provincial private enterprise theatres are in many cases dead or dying. The City of London have made a handsome contribution towards the new Barbican Theatre. It is now up to the Government, the Exchequer and the Greater London Council to see that they do not fall down here and that we shall not be saying five years hence that we still have not got a National Theatre and that we need to double the amount of money required to build one. I congratulate the Government on what they have done and I hope that all goes through successfully.
3.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT CHANDOS: My Lords, I threw all the confetti that I had in my bag during the debate on the Arts Council grant, but I should like to take the opportunity of throwing a little more confetti in thanking the noble Baroness for her charming speech and for unfolding this extraordinary piece of history to your Lordships. I only hope that the impression will not be got abroad that it takes 45 years to get a new idea into the heads of the British people, as it has taken on this occasion. I have only two things to say. First, the only alteration I make in the speech of the noble Baroness or in that of my noble friend is to alter the word "non-Party" to "all-Party"; because I think particularly of Sir Isaac Hayward—and it really has been Mr. Glenville Hall, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd and Sir Isaac Hayward; it really has been an all-Party job. I hope it will come out well.
There is one thing about the question of the impact on the commercial theatre which is worth saying, and I hope it is correct. I think it would be impossible for a playwright intending to make his living by writing plays to have a cast with more than one set and more than two stars. This is an outrage on all the artistic stands. It is like going to Rembrandt, asking him to paint a portrait of your wife and adding, "You must not use cobalt blue at all because it is too expensive ". The reason for the decline in the commercial theatre is that to put on a play like Julius Caesar, for instance, would be beyond the capacity of any private impressario unless he had his eye on immediate bankruptcy and an eventual knighthood. That is the only way to do it. We have to fill this

345
gap if the great classical dramas are to be allowed to continue. I will not detain your Lordships. You have heard me too much on this subject. I conclude by once again congratulating the Government and expressing my gratitude to them.
3.29 p.m.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, this Bill, which we have to thank Miss Jennie Lee for introducing into another place and Lady Phillips for introducing so fully and clearly into your Lordships' House, is certainly an all-Party measure, and I hope and believe that it is entirely a non-controversial one. But perhaps I may be allowed, as the Chairman of the Board that has to build the theatre and to spend the money which this Bill enables the Government to provide towards its cost, to welcome it most warmly and gratefully. Perhaps also I may give your Lordships a little of the more recent background to it, although I cannot claim that my own concern with the National Theatre goes back like that of my noble friend, Lord Chandos, for forty years.
Despite all the talk, for over a century or more, about the National Theatre, it was not until 1962, as the noble Baroness has told us, that the Government of the day decided finally to take the plunge. In that year they set up two Boards; the National Theatre Board, with the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos as Chairman, for the purpose of forming and managing a National Theatre Company, and the South Bank Theatre and Opera House Board, to design and build a National Theatre and a new Opera House for Sadler's Wells—a Board of which I was appointed Chairman. Let me say at once that those two Boards have worked throughout in the closest cooperation and harmony. I need not enlarge to your Lordships on the superb success of the National Theatre Company, under the brilliant direction of that great actor, and I think even greater man, Sir Laurence Olivier. Lord Chandos and his Board have created a company which is certainly unsurpassed and which I believe to be unrivalled anywhere in the world; an organisation of which, as a nation, we may be immensely proud.
But this splendid company has to do its work in the Old Vic, a theatre with a great history; a theatre for which most of us have a very real affection but, as the
346
noble Baroness has said, one that is entirely inadequate for the productions and purposes of the National Theatre Company. The task of the South Bank Theatre Board is to provide that company with a setting that will match its fine qualities.
The establishment of the South Bank Theatre Board (we may leave out the opera house which, alas! fell by the wayside) was typically English. In no other country in the world would a Board be set up by the Government to design and build a National Theatre with no funds at its disposal—not a penny; with a Board dependent on two paymasters, the Government and the London County Council, each of which required to approve everything at every stage. No wonder it has taken a little time to bring the designs to the point of going to tender! The miracle is that they have reached that point at all.
My Lords, the first thing the Board had to do was to choose an architect and to provide him with his brief. We were very fortunate in being able to persuade Sir Robert Matthew, at that time President of the R.I.B.A. and formerly Architect to the London County Council at the time when they built the Royal Festival Hall, a man familiar with all the problems of the South Bank Development, to act as chairman of a small selection committee. The members of the committee included the noble Lord, Lord Holford; Mr. Norman Marshall, a distinguished producer; Mr. John Piper, an artist who has done a great deal of work for the theatre, and Mr. Bennet, the Architect to the L.C.C. These five gentlemen, to whom the public owe a debt of gratitude for their very considerable labours, reduced a list of 120 mines of architects and architectural firms to a short list of 20. Those 20 were interviewed for three solid days by the selection committee, reinforced by theatrical experts, on the one hand, and by operatic experts, on the other—a party numbering altogether about 15.
It was an experience that was exhilarating, even if it was a little exhausting. We had before us all the best architectural talent in this country. We had the German solution to the problem of theatre design expounded to us by a distinguished German architect. We listened to an eminent American architect who had flown the Atlantic to spend half an

347
hour with us. At the end of three days it transpired that this posse of 15 architectural and theatrical experts—none of whom, it is almost true to say, thought the same about anything under the sun—had all independently, without discussion and without exception, come to the same conclusion. They all agreed that Mr. Denys Lasdun was the best architect to choose for this assignment. About any second choice there would have been the most bitter dissension, but about this name there was complete and spontaneous unanimity, which was a miracle. I can explain it only by saying that it was a direct intervention of Providence.
The architect then had to hammer out a brief for the theatre itself with a large and heterogeneous committee of actors, producers and designers under the joint chairmanship of Sir Laurence Olivier and Mr. Norman Marshall. It was a time when ideas about auditoriums were in a state of flux—arenas, open stages, theatres in the round, and all the rest of it. Few of the experts really knew what sort of a theatre they wanted; and again it would be almost true to say that no two of them wanted the same thing. But the architect worked with this committee for some months, exploring their ideas and explaining to them the possibilities and the limitations. Then there occurred a second miracle. He produced a design for an auditorium which had not only the approval, but the unanimous approval, of Sir Laurence and his committee.
I think, my Lords, that it is the recollection of those two interventions of Providence that has sustained and fortified the South Bank Theatre Board in the belief that the National Theatre is destined to be built. It sustained them, and their architect, too, through all the maddening frustrations and delays that they have had to face. There was the refusal of the Government, for reasons very easily understood, to go forward with the first grand design for the theatre and opera house of which Mr. Lasdun's beautiful model was on view in this building three years ago. This design would have produced an architectural group in London second only to the glorious group at Greenwich. There was the change of site to the Princes Meadow opposite Somerset House, a change that, although it was a source of some delay, had the
348
very substantial compensating advantage of providing a better and a rather easier site on which to place a free-standing single building. There was the frustration of the cheeseparing change made by our paymasters at a late stage, from a cost limit of £7½ million at tender stage to a cost limit of £7½ million at completion, which is a very different thing; a change that necessitated abandoning the important small experimental theatre that should be an intrinsic part of the scheme and the scaling down of the whole building.
However, notwithstanding these vexatious frustrations and delays, and others too, here we are at last with the design for an altogether worthy setting for the National Theatre Company to work in; a design incorporating, as the noble Baroness has said, an arena type theatre seating about 1,165, with an open stage, and a conventional type theatre to seat 900 with a proscenium arch. These two theatres will be housed in a splendid architectural concept on a superb riverside site and there is the expectation of going to tender next month. To finance this great work we have an undertaking from the G.L.C. to find up to a half of £7½ million and now, at long last, if this Bill has the approval of your Lordships, as I am perfectly certain it will the Government empowered to find the other half. It has been a long struggle and a hard one, and it is not yet over, because we have to see what the tenders look like, but we may hope to see bulldozers at work on the site opposite Somerset House this summer and the National Theatre Company playing in its new home at the beginning of 1973.
3.42 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank your Lordships for the warm and generous welcome which has been given to this Bill. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, included in his speech congratulations to my right honourable friend Miss Jennie Lee and to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, for his most interesting account, bringing the history of the National Theatre up to date. I liked his description of experts as a "posse"—I have always wondered how one could adequately describe them. I am happy that he feels that the Almighty is on his

349
side. It certainly seems that at last we are moving forward.
I read the article to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, referred and I take his point. I gather that the question being considered is one of the type of commercial theatre and that already some of the ideas put forward have been the subjects of interim reports to the Arts Council. But I am bound to say that I feel with him that there might have been a more tactful way for us to learn first of this. Nevertheless, the Committee of Inquiry is still looking into the matter.
With all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the last two, who have contributed their work and their thought to the National Theatre, I feel that this is an occasion of happy celebration. Dare I suggest that the opening of the theatre may perhaps be at an earlier date than forecast? Perhaps the Almighty will even assist the workers to move forward a little faster. I commend the Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.

FOREIGN COMPENSATION BILL
3.44 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report he now received—(Lord Chalfont.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it almost a month since we had the Committee stage of this Bill. I suspect that most of your Lordships have forgotten a great deal about it and if I may I should like to remind the House a little of the background to this measure. When the Baltic States—Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia—were deprived of their independence as the result of Soviet action, an Order was made freezing the property in this country of nationals of those territories, under the Defence (Finance) Regulations of that time. Then, when
350
those territories were overrun by the Germans, those nationals became technically enemies of this country by virtue of the definitions in the Trading with the Enemy Act 1939, but it was not until 1951 that an Order was made under that Act vesting the Baltic gold in the Custodian of Enemy Property.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us this on February 13. He explained that as these assets were frozen under Defence Regulations, there was no need to make a vesting Order, vesting them in the Custodian of Enemy Property, until those Regulations were about to be revoked, and that was in 1951. The noble and learned Lord spoke only about the vesting of the Baltic gold, but I assume that the other assets which the Custodian now holds were vested in him at the same time. If they were not so, of course, I will give way and hope to be corrected. On Second Reading and in Committee, I asked whether the effect of that vesting order was to deprive the owners of their rights to this property or merely to suspend those rights. That question has not as yet been answered and I think that I should press for an answer. I think that before this Bill is passed, we should be told to what extent it is confiscatory. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, told your Lordships on February 13 that the points of law I had mentioned—this was one of them—would be dealt with by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. When he same to speak the noble and learned Lord did not deal with that point, and I hope that he will do so to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, also told us on February 13 that if the owners of the property now vested in the Custodian came forward to make a proper authenticated claim, they would get the property standing in their name in full, not a dividend. Those were his words and he pointed out that provision was made for this by Clause 1(3)(b) of the Bill. So far as that goes, I think that is satisfactory. But there is a curious differentiation between Clause 1(3)(a) and (b). Paragraph (a) makes provision for payment of money to the Foreign Compensation Board, together with income arising there from. There is no provision in paragraph (b) for a payment to a claimant—a person who claims that the money belongs

351
to him—of any income that has arisen from his money. I hope that the noble Lord will look into this and say what the position is in relation to it.
Where the claim by a person is that he was the owner or successor entitled to the former owner's property, I gather that that will be dealt with under Clause 1(3)(c). I am afraid that this is going a little away from this Amendment, but it it part of the background, which I think it is important to remember, because as I understand it the main purpose of the Bill is to make provision for distributing among what I would call the creditors these assets now in the hands of the Custodian. But the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has made it quite clear that if any persons come forward and say to the Custodian or to the Treasury that this money or this property is theirs and they prove their title to it, they will get it back, whether it be money or property.
How that fits in with subsection (5) is another matter, because that subsection deals with a specific subject, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, agrees with me so far. If that is the main purpose of the Bill, surely it would be very odd indeed if at this stage, in 1969, the Government took power to get hold of other property not already vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property, to get it away from wherever it is now and put it into the hands of the Custodian, to let him distribute that also with these assets. I think that that is an entirely different subject, which requires the closest consideration. And it was because Clause 1(2) appeared to me to give the Board of Trade power now, so many years after the war, to make a further vesting order vesting other property in the Custodian, property which he has not now got, that I tabled an Amendment similar to that which I am now moving, to leave out that particular subsection.
The nationals of Baltic territories were only technically enemies during the German occupation. That has long since passed. But on its face, subsection (2) of Clause 1 appears to give the Board of Trade power now to treat the property of those nationals as if it were still enemy property and a state of war existed. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke on the first Amendment that I moved, which was to
352
leave out words in subsection (1) of this clause (and, as I said then, it was a probing Amendment), he made a long statement about the legal position, in the course of which he said in relation to Clause 1(2):
"… the main object of Clause 1(2) is to perfect the title in the Custodian of Enemy Property so that there can be no question of his power to deal with this matter."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13/2/69; col. 608.]
Again, in column 609 he said:
"The object of Clause 1(2) … is to make quite sure of the Custodian's position."
He had indicated in his speech that there might be doubts as to the validity or legality of some of the Custodian's acts, and he made it clear that the object of this particular provision was not to enable more property to be vested in the Custodian, but just to validate the Custodian's position. That is what was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor before I had moved any Amendment in relation to subsection (2).
When I moved that Amendment (if I may quote my own words) I said:
"As I see it, under this subsection as it stands, it would give power to the Board of Trade to make a new order vesting in the Custodian property of someone who was formerly within the definition of an enemy, but who, of course, has ceased to be so as we are no longer in a state of war; to bring in, as one might say, fresh property into the hands of the Custodian." (col. 611.)
And I asked for an assurance that there was no intention of using this subsection for that purpose. That assurance was given to me by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the clearest terms, in these words:
"As I understand it, vesting orders may be made, but they will relate only to what the Custodian has physical possession of." col. 612.)
Those were the Lord Chancellor's words and they satisfied me, and consequently I asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Seven days later, the noble and learned Lord wrote to me this letter—and I do not think he will have any objection to my informing your Lordships of its contents. It is headed, "Foreign Compensation Bill", and says:
"During the Committee stage of this Bill on 13th February I informed you that, as I understood it, vesting orders made under the power in Clause 1(2) of the Bill would relate only to what the Custodian of Enemy

353
Property already had in his physical possession. The relevant passage is at Column 612 of Hansard. It has since been brought to my notice that, whilst by far the greater part of the assets in question are now in the physical possession of the Custodian, there exist some other assets, estimated to be worth about £30,000 to £40,000, which have been reported to the Custodian as enemy property subject to control under Article 4 of the Trading with the Enemy (Custodian) Order 1939, but which have not yet been the subject of a vesting order and so remain in the physical possession of various banks, et cetera, in this country. It is proposed in due course to vest these other assets. Clause 1(3)(b) and (c) can, of course, be used to release money or property in particular cases where appropriate. I will explain this point to the House during a later stage of this Bill."
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for correcting this matter. I am sure that the assurance he gave in those clear terms was given in the utmost good faith. I do not wish to suggest that there was the slightest desire on his part to mislead the House; I would never suggest it. I am sure the noble and learned Lord would not have given such an assurance unless he had had information before him at the time which led him to suppose that it was entirely correct. But it was not. It was because of that assurance that I withdrew my Amendment.
My Lords, it is not, of course, the Lord Chancellor's Bill, but it seems to me that we are back at the position that we were in on the Committee stage, as to the extent of the power which the Board of Trade now wish to have under this Bill, or which the Government wish to give them. It is clear now, as it was not then, that, quite apart from the main object of this Bill, which is the distribution of assets already in the Custodian's possession, this power is sought to enable the Custodian to get his hands on other assets belonging to people who are not our enemies, who have ceased to be our enemies and who never were anything but our technical enemies, by notionally treating them as enemies at the present time and by notionally treating this country as still being in a state of war.
I must say that this seems to me to be going much too far. I assume that what happened was that the people who held in their possession the property of those who were technical enemies reported it, and that was the first step that was taken before a vesting order
354
was made. I should like to know—and I hope we shall be told—when these assets worth between £30,000 and £40,000 were reported. Was it before the order was made in 1951? Presumably these assets were also frozen by the Defence (Finance) Regulations. If those assets were reported before that vesting order was made in 1951, why was it that the vesting order was not applied to them at that time? If they had been reported they must have been known about. I cannot believe that they were left out of that vesting order at that time per incuriam. I feel that there must have been a good reason for it then. If that be so, we really ought to be told why there is a change of view with regard to these particular assets. This seems to me to raise a pretty important question. But, however it may be as to when these assets were reported, I must say that I am by no means convinced that it would be right for Parliament now to say that the Board of Trade can take away from the banks at which they are deposited these assets, which are not enemy property and cannot be treated as such if this subsection is not passed.
What is the position at this moment? As I understand it, it is that the owners of these assets, or their heirs or successors in title, can claim the return of the assets from the banks at which they are now deposited; and if the banks refuse to hand them over then these claimants can have recourse to courts of law, where they may be able to establish their claims—one does not know. But if a vesting order is made they will as I understand it be deprived of all recourse to courts of law. They will get their property back only if the Treasury, in the exercise of its discretion, thinks (to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont) that they have a properly authenticated claim. That will be at the discretion of the Treasury without any right of appeal to any independent body from the Treasury's decision.
Later this afternoon we shall be considering an Amendment, which I am very glad to see on the Order Paper, in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, giving a right of appeal in certain circumstances from a decision of the Foreign Compensation Commission, who will be charged with the responsibility of dealing with the claims by

355
creditors on these assets, but will not be dealing with claims by people who say, "These assets belong to me." But there is no appeal from the Treasury's direction to the Custodian refusing to allow him to pay out to a claimant, who is told: "You cannot have back this property which is now under a vesting order but which was in the bank up until 1969." That seems to me entirely wrong.
One has here to bear in mind that the rights of individuals which existed heretofore under (I think it was) the Enemy Property Act 1953 are being cut down. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dealt with that point last time in Committee. But I think it is now clear that, whereas before someone could come along and say, "This property which is in the hands of the Custodian never really was enemy property," and trace it right through into the hands of whoever held it, at the present time that power is being restricted to individuals. A company, a partnership, apparently, will not be able to avail themselves of that. That is of a very limited field, however, because that is only when, as I understand it, some property has been wrongly labelled as enemy property. But here the issue is quite different. Here is a question where someone says, "This is mine", or "It was my father's, and I deposited it in the bank". Why now, in 1969, should we give the Government power to vest that person's property in the Custodian of Enemy Property?
I do not think I need say more in moving this Amendment, but I should like to conclude by repeating the question which I have asked so often and which is really relevant to this Amendment, and it is this. Is the effect of a vesting order such as to deprive the owner of a property of his rights of ownership, or does it merely operate to suspend those rights? Whatever the answer to that question may be, I must say that at the present time it seems to me quite wrong that this Bill, whose main purpose is something quite different, should include this specific power to enable the Custodian to obtain possession of assets that are not as yet in his possession. My Lords, I beg to move.
4.4 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment so ably moved by my noble and learned friend, Lord Dilhorne. This Foreign Compensation Bill is fraught with legal technicalities. Indeed, we have heard to-day that even the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack was in error on one question; and naturally he remedied this as soon as he could. This gives one an idea of the complexity of this Bill. I am afraid that possibly we may become lost in legal technicalities and forget some of the things which I, for one, and I know my noble and learned friend, Lord Dilhorne, and my noble friend Lord St. Oswald, find so particularly objectionable about this Bill.
My noble and learned friend, Lord Dilhorne, reminded us a little of the background of the whole of this matter, because it is some time since we discussed it all. At the risk of boring your Lordships, I am afraid that I also must run over some of the ground. The noble and learned Viscount, in his strong speech on the Second Reading, referred twice to the assets which we had under discussion as not being assets which belonged to this country. This has been my view all along, and still is. Unfortunately the Bill we are discussing to-day is one that is consequential on what I consider to have been a shameful Agreement made by Her Majesty's Government with the Government of the Soviet Union. This Agreement, as your Lordships will remember, became effective immediately upon signature. Parliament did not have the opportunity of giving its approval. On Second Reading the view was expressed that, had Parliament had an opportunity of being consulted and asked to give its approval, the Agreement would have run into very strong opposition indeed. Of this I am convinced. Unfortunately, the Agreement must stand. All that Parliament now has the chance of doing is to remove from the consequential Bill some of the particularly, as I think, mean and distasteful elements.
What we are being asked to do is to approve of the disposal of other people's property for the settlement of a claim against a third party. I do not think there can be any argument about this.

357
My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has explained to us how all this happened. The Baltic States, as your Lordships will remember, were first of all coerced by the Soviets and then overrun by the Nazis, in 1941. I think it would be true to say that until June 13, 1940, the Governments of these three Baltic States were masters in their own house, but thereafter they were no longer masters. The interesting thing about the assets we are discussing to-day is that all of them were deposited in British banks before June 13, 1940. Therefore, by no possible stretch of the imagination could one say that any of these assets in British banks here were the assets of enemies.
The three Baltic States, let me remind your Lordships, all declared their neutrality; they were neutral States. They arranged to send certain of their assets to British banks for safe keeping. They even discussed (the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will remember that I referred to this point on the last occasion I spoke on this matter) whether it might have been advisable to send their money to another country—America, for instance—and they were assured by the authorities at the Bank of England that their money was perfectly safe here. So they did nothing about it. But I happen to know that some of the Baltic assets were sent to other countries: some were sent to America and some were sent to Switzerland. I believe—although I am perfectly prepared to accept it if anybody can give information to the contrary—that these assets are perfectly safe in the United States and are perfectly safe in Switzerland. There is no question of the Government of the United States making use of these assets to meet claims against third parties. Yet this is what Her Majesty's Government are proposing to do. This is what Her Majesty's Government have done. All I say is that somehow or other we should try to mitigate what I believe to be an absolute outrage; somehow or other we must show that we disapprove of this action. Surely there is still time, and surely there are still the means of doing so.
As I have said, the legal complexities of this Bill are terrible. I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, has spent hours working on it, and I, as a layman, obviously had to spend even longer because it is terribly difficult to
358
understand. But what we have to consider this afternoon is that we are confronted with a Bill which will enable the Government to confiscate. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne was more cautious than I am because he asked whether this subsection is in fact confiscatory. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Viscount and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I do not see that it can be anything else. These monies do not belong to us. They would not be in the control of the Custodian of Enemy Property if these countries had not become technical enemies. We all know perfectly well that they are no more enemies than Denmark, France or Belgium, so how can we possibly justify this extraordinary behaviour?
Perhaps I may explain to your Lordships a little about the process of how money becomes controlled and comes under the Custodian of Enemy Property. There are three phases. The first phase is simply control. Suppose you leave some money in a British bank and you are technically an enemy. As my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne said, that money will be reported and will be automatically put under control. It is blocked; it is not necessarily vested. If it is vested then the Custodian has additional rights; he has the right to sell. That is why all these other sums that we have just managed to unearth the £30,000 to £40,000—have to be vested so that Her Majesty's Government can sell them and have the cash. I think that is the answer, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will tell me if I am wrong.
It seems to me that we are being asked to underwrite a piece of theft. The theft has already, alas!, been committed and the only thing left to us is to arrange for the rightful claimants to have the possibility of getting back their property. I include not only individuals but also institutions. I know that the question of institutions is far more difficult, but it seems to me that the money deposited by the Baltic banks is just as little our property as the money deposited by Baltic individuals.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to some information which I received from a source which I am afraid I cannot disclose, but which I think is reliable, about some of the

359
assets that have been held by the Custodian and which have in fact been released. The letter which I have received says:
"It would seem that concessions for the release of such assets have on occasion been afforded on an ex gratia basis to United Kingdom personal representatives of deceased residents of the Baltic States or to persons having left these territories to reside elsewhere."
My correspondent goes on to say:
"After the signature of the recent Anglo-Soviet Financial Agreement such concessionary arrangements do not seem to be any more available."
It is not difficult to understand why. I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, if my information is correct and certain sums have in fact been released, how can it be that we are prepared to use the balance to meet claims of third parties. It does not seem to me to add up. I was not able to give the noble Lord notice of this question because this information came into my possession only this morning. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could look into this matter.
Perhaps it might be worth while for a moment to consider other Estonian assets—and this time it is only Estonian. Some of your Lordships may remember that there were Estonian shipping companies with ships plying all over the world. When Estonia was overrun it was somehow possible to get word to the masters of these ships to sail to British ports. This they did, and something like 20 Estonian cargo ships reached British ports. They did not go back to Estonia; they became part of the British Fleet.
Naturally claims were made and claims were met, both by institutions—the shipping lines—and by individual shareholders in those shipping lines. If I may refresh the noble Lord's memory, the principal among these was the Tallinn shipping company, and I think the principal case was the "Vapper" case. That was the name of one of the ships and I think it means "Courageous". Here, a perfectly equitable settlement was made of Estonian property which was in British hands and properly treated and respected, but in the case of the assets that came under the control of the Custodian of Enemy Property apparently
360
we think it perfectly right and proper to confiscate these assets and then to "shell them out" to meet the claims of third parties.
It is apparent that even the greatest experts in the law do not find this Bill easy, but whether or not we are experts in the law it is not difficult to form an opinion where we are being asked to endorse behaviour which falls well below the high standard of British fair dealing. That is what I believe we are being asked to do, and for that reason I support the Amendment put forward in the names of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, myself, and my noble friend Lord St. Oswald. I believe that unless this subsection is removed we shall be underwriting a piece of shameful confiscation.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am no lawyer and I find difficulty in trying to understand the proposals in this Bill. Therefore, I have tried to reduce the proposals, as I understand them, to one lay sentence and perhaps in his reply the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will say whether my interpretation is correct. It is this: in support of an Agreement which I personally consider reprehensible, the Government are proposing to expropriate free property held here by individuals, by resuscitating war-time powers used in a war 23 years past. Is that or is that not so?
4.19 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, in speaking to this Amendment, moved with such force and lucidity by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, I would first of all make clear my view, as did my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, that it does no more than reduce, in one particular, the manifest injustice of a Bill which should never trespass on the British Statute Book.
There is another factor which affects my own approach to this Amendment. I have to appreciate from the experience of the Committee stage on Thursday, February 13, that in discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, across the Floor of the House, a certain delicacy, not to say daintiness, in debate is required. I hope he will not mind my saying that I have never before known a Minister who considered that quoting directly from his own speech of the previous week constituted a reflection on his personal

361
character. At a time when a senior Cabinet Minister is slinging about in public such salubrious terms as "shifty and spineless" and subsequently "weasel" when referring to the Leader of the Opposition, Ministers of all ranks I should have thought might feel themselves a little vulnerable when they complain of what are the far kindlier references made in this House. I do not think my own language on that occasion was any stronger than that of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, for instance; and certainly it was far more restrained than that employed at all stages of this Bill in another place. However, there is no practical point in getting under a Minister's epidermis if it is possible, instead, to apply massage to his better nature, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, possesses.
All the same, it would ill befit me to disguise my opinion to the point of misleading either the noble Lord or the House. I will avoid this by putting a request to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and his colleagues. I would ask them not to suppose that there is anything artificial or exaggerated in the way I express my indignation over the purpose of this Bill as a whole, and especially the iniquitous purpose of this particular subsection, as described by my noble and learned friend. This is an anger shared by certainly almost all of those taking part on this side of the House; it is not peculiar to me. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne on Second Reading said very plainly that the banks of the three Baltic countries who were "the customers of the Bank of England concerned" have had their gold stolen from the Bank of England, the theft having been perpetrated by Her Majesty's Government, and he repeated the same reflection to-day. Since that is how I see it also, it gives cause for the most genuine and unavoidable wrath.
Another noble Lord on the Government Benches said during the Committee stage that he found it difficult to understand how we on this side could lash ourselves, in his words, into a state of white-hot indignation. To speak for myself, I require no lashing apart from a reading of the facts. I should feel myself less than a man, less than an Englishman, if I did not react with a cold anger to what I see as theft from innocent and defenceless people by the Government
362
of my country. This seems to me an unjust and injurious Bill, and the present subsection (2) perhaps the meanest part of it. I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne at an earlier stage, "What price now the old adage, 'As safe as the Bank of England'?" With him, I believe we cannot—and more's the pity!—defeat this Bill, prevent it from reaching the Statute Book
My Lords, what we are debating now may seem a small point or a large point, according to how one looks at it. I think it is a large point, involving both principle and individual rights. I shall argue it, not at great length but with deliberation, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me, in attempting to prevent an extra injustice. I do so now in the hope that it will not be necessary to intervene on Third Reading.
The assets, which have never morally belonged to any British Government, have been expropriated, and the "swag", unlike most "swag" admittedly, is to be distributed mainly to deserving people, to some who have suffered in other ways, in less extreme degrees than the nationals of the Baltic States themselves. I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, thinks of himself as some kind of modern Robin Hood: he rather took that attitude on the last occasion. But Robin Hood chose his victims a little more fastidiously, and he never proposed to give a luscious "sweetener" to the Sheriff of Nottingham. Having seized these assets in a manner which seems to many of us dishonourable, the Bill now seeks, as we have heard, through this subsection to fleece those who otherwise escape the main depredation.
There seems to me, as there seems to the Government, to be some doubt as to who these owners may be or whether they are still alive. It is a very different thing to say that because we cannot identify them to-day they are therefore extinct and have no possible successors. It is clear that the Government see these rightful owners in a rather different light from some of us. It was explained by implication at earlier stages of the Bill why the Government consider them beyond the normal laws of human behaviour. It was explained, faultlessly, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that:
"In the summer of 1940 the Baltic States came under considerable Soviet pressure and

363
to a large extent ceased to be free agents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4/2/69, col. 11.]
Three ultimatums were followed by massive invasion of the three countries. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, did not mention to what even small extent after that they remained free agents. But he rightly pointed out that territories over-run by the enemy (in the case involved in the Bill the German enemy) are necessarily regarded as enemy territory so far as trading with the enemy provisions are concerned. And this entitled Her Majesty's Government to place the Baltic assets in the hands of the Custodian of Enemy Property. He later said, and here is another direct quote of impeccable accuracy:
"…the effect of vesting is to make the Custodian the legal owner of the property. Once the gold had been vested in the Custodian, he was legally entitled to sell it and realise the asset under exactly the same powers." (col. 66).
My Lords, all that was exquisitely and undoubtedly factual. I hope the noble Lord will not interpret it as an attempt at character assassination if I point out that it was only a tiny corner of the whole picture.
It is a matter of history that very nearly the whole of the mainland of Europe was overrun by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy during the war. As a consequence, as this House was told by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, on February 13, £34 million from belligerent countries was vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property. The whole of this, understandably, was confiscated in one form or another, mainly for reparations. We were told at the same time by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, in answer to a Question of mine, that the total amount taken over from the "technical" as distinct from the "belligerent enemies was not known or could not then he given. It seemed likely that the figure must be astronomic, including, as we were told, the assets from France among other countries.
Since then, through the kindness of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, my noble friend Lord Lansdowne and I have been given figures which, without being claimed as absolutely precise, are extremely revealing and extremely telling. The total taken under control by the
364
Custodian from "technical" enemies was £380 million. Of this vast sum, only £8·4 million remains in the Custodian's hands or under his control; of which £8·4 million, nearly £7 million is from the Baltic countries. So that already, even without this subsection, these unhappy countries have been treated differently from all others. They are being discriminated against, coldly and inhumanly, simply because they are helpless. There is an ironic note in the fact that Italy, which, after all, fought against us actively during the greater part of the war, has had £9,975,000 returned—infinitely more favourable and more civilised treatment than that which is being given now to the entirely innocent Baltic peoples.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said repeatedly the other day that the onus is on the former owners to present and prove their claim now, if not earlier. But these people are not living in Bognor or Bishop's Stortford; they are behind the Soviet frontier. What he demands, in effect, is that they should risk their lives to escape, with little or no possibility to obtain or take out with them the necessary documents. So they are by circumstance, and by the provisions of this Bill, in a cruelly under-privileged category.
I would ask one final direct question of the Minister. Am I right in thinking that the statutory duty of the Custodian of Enemy Property is to preserve the assets taken under control, to preserve and eventually to return them to the original owners? He needs no further Parliamentary approval or consent for either of these two duties. I should like either the confirmation or the contradiction of this statement from the noble Lord. If I am right, it follows that a Bill through Parliament is necessary in effect to order the Custodian to do what is otherwise a breach of his statutory duty. If that is so, this is plainly a confiscatory Bill, and this subsection adds to the discriminatory act thought up between Mr. Harold Wilson and Mr. Alexei Kosygin a little over two years ago. This is a measure which makes the friends of Britain ashamed, as I think it should all of us. The Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend would relieve a little of that shame and reduce by a little the total injustice.
4.30 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, let me first express my gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, for the lucid and reasonable way in which he introduced this Amendment and for taking us through a little of the history of this Bill, which relieves me of some of the duty of doing so. I must confess that, as always, I am somewhat less grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, who then proceeded, in his impeccable and predictable way, to confuse the whole matter irretrievably. I do not propose to follow him through the labyrinthine ways of his own mind—indeed I do not think it would be possible to do so. But since his literary allusion to me as a kind of failed Robin Hood seemed to give him a great deal of pleasure, perhaps I might delve into my own literary storehouse and say that I saw him as a kind of Anglo-Saxon d'Artagnan, with the unfortunate difference that he so frequently gets his sword in between his legs and falls flat on his face that really in the end one is left with a sort of slapstick version of what this extremely serious business is all about.
LORD ST. OSWALD.: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to give one example of that in the speech that I have just delivered?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, in the course of my speech I shall hope to point out, if only by implication, that there were numerous occasions on which the noble Lord was well wide of the point. I think perhaps the most obvious illustration (this is not one that is the monopoly of the noble Lord) is in what I believe to be the constantly theatrical expressions of outrage about the Agreement between this country and the Soviet Union and the Bill that follows it. The noble Lord said there was nothing theatrical or exaggerated about this outrage. If there is not, then I can only suggest that it is hopelessly misplaced.
I do not think there is any point in wearying your Lordships or in wasting your time with arguments about whether or not the Agreement with the Soviet Union was a shameful one. I do not
366
believe it was. I believe that it was an honourable and a practical one. There is no profit, however, in arguing about that. The Agreement exists, and the Bill flows from it; and I suggest that we limit our attention to the Bill and, if the noble Lord will allow, to the Amendment that is at present before your Lordships' House.
The concern of the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, and indeed to some extent of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, was to show a sense of outrage against this Agreement and against the Bill that springs from it. My concern, on the other hand, is to settle the claims of a great number of people who have now been waiting 30 years for the money which we believe is owing to them and which we intend to give to them.
There has been a great deal of play with the idea of this Bill as a confiscatory Bill. Most of the property in this case has been vested in the Custodian; and although vesting orders are said to have the same effect as an order of the High Court under the Trustee Act 1925 this does not mean that the Custodian holds property in trust. All the reference to that Act does is to do away with any need for a conveyance or a share transfer. The property to be taken is that which was the subject of a Soviet claim, a claim which the Soviet Government, in the Agreement made between our two Governments, have now undertaken not to pursue and which, at the end of the process of managing the Compensation Fund, has not been claimed by anybody.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I am trying to follow what he is saying. I thought that the property vested in the Custodian was property vested under the Trading with the Enemy Act 1939. That was done in 1951, long before the Agreement made with the Soviet Union.
LORD CHALFONT: Yes. I hope that as I go on this will become clear to the noble and learned Viscount, if it is not now at this moment. As he rightly says the gold was vested in the Custodian in 1951. The great majority of the other assets of course, the subject of this Bill, were vested (and I think he asked me this question) before the date of the vesting of the gold; that is to

367
say, before 1951. I entirely agree with him about this.
Before I deal with the specific questions put to me by the noble and learned Viscount, about income, and by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, about the releases of property (I should like, if I may, to deal with these later) it may be as well at this stage to look at the various kinds of property with which we are dealing. I think there has been some misunderstanding and confusion about this. As I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has said, the effect of the subsection with which we are now dealing, subsection (2) of Clause 1, is to enable orders to be made vesting in the Custodian the property with which the Bill is concerned. It will ensure that the Custodian has a good title to the property; and therefore it follows, of course, that he is able to give a good title to any transferee.
At the Committee stage, and I think he implied it again this afternoon, the noble and learned Viscount said he had no objection to the power given by this subsection in so far as its purpose was to perfect the title of the Custodian to property already vested in him. He did, however, express anxiety lest the power should be used to make a new order to bring into the hands of the Custodian property which he had not already got, and the noble Viscount asked for an assurance that there was no intention of using subsection (2) for that purpose.
The noble and learned Viscount has said that in Committee my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that, as he understood it, the subsection would relate only to what the Custodian already had in his physical possession. As we have heard from the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor was then unaware—through, as the noble and learned Viscount has been good enough to say, no fault of his own—that there existed unvested assets of between £30,000 and £40,000, and there has been correspondence between the two noble Lords to which the noble and learned Viscount referred this afternoon. I will come to this question of unvested assets in a moment, and I hope that when the noble and learned Viscount has heard what I have to say about them,
368
and what I have to say about the assurance which he sought, he will feel able once more to withdraw his Amendment.
But before I do so I should like to deal in turn, as I say, with the different categories of assets, starting with the category of vested assets. The overwhelming majority of the assets with which this Bill is concerned have already been made (and I think this will clear up the point which the noble and learned Viscount put a moment ago) the subject of orders vesting them in the Custodian of Enemy Property. The effect of a valid vesting order is, as I have said, to transfer the legal title to the property concerned to the Custodian.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, when the noble Lord says that, does he mean that the rights of the former owners to that property are extinguished?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I shall come to that point in a moment, if the noble and learned Viscount will have patience with me. When I say that the effect of a valid vesting order is to transfer the legal title, that is of course true; but there is in some cases doubt whether or not the vesting orders were valid. However, for simplicity I shall refer to them as vested assets. As I have said, the main object of subsection (2) is to enable orders to be made which would perfect the Custodian's title to these vested assets. It is no part of the object of this Bill or of this subsection to bring in asset; which are outside the scope of the trading with the enemy legislation. The estimated value of these vested assets is around £6½ million—and I have said this before—though the exact figure can appear only when all the assets, not all of which are in the form of money, have been realised. These assets formerly belonged to persons—and in this term I include corporate persons, as well as individuals—resident or carrying on business in the various territories now forming part of the Soviet Union with which this Bill is concerned.
By far the greatest part of these assets belonged to companies which have been nationalised. Some of the assets were, however, the property of individuals nearly all of whom of course now live, if they are still alive, within the Soviet Union. In so far as the property of former companies is concerned, our

369
understanding and belief is that those companies have gone out of existence. The Soviet Government have undertaken, by the Agreement of January 5, 1968—whatever certain noble Lords may think of that Agreement—not to pursue further their claims to such assets.
When this Bill has become law, it is our intention that the Custodian should realise those company assets which have not already been realised, and should pay the available proceeds over to the Foreign Compensation Commission for distribution. We shall do the same with the vested assets which formerly belonged to individuals who are nationals of the Soviet Union, in so far as the Soviet Government have undertaken not to pursue their claims. They made that undertaking under Article 2 of the Anglo-Soviet Agreement.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I ask for a little clarification? Does the noble Lord suggest that the ownership of these assets—and by "ownership" I mean ownership in its legal sense—is vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, in the case of vested assets, as I understand it, the legal title has passed to the Custodian where there is a valid vesting order.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, would the noble Lord mind answering my question? I want to know who owns these assets. Is it the Custodian of Enemy Property?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think I should be treading on dangerous ground if I started to make some kind of legal distinction between a title and what the noble Lord calls "ownership". I can only repeat my answer to his question. If he is not satisfied with that, then I shall have to seek advice from those who are more expert than I am. All I know, and all I can say, is that the effect of a valid vesting order is to transfer the legal title to the property to the Custodian. Whether that involves, in the legal sense—
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord. I think I am right in saying that the Custodian of Enemy Property cannot release property unless there is a cessa-
370
tion order or a treaty of peace. We quite understand why there was no treaty of peace or cessation order in respect of these particular assets, but what I want to know—and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would look into this point—is whether or not the Custodian of Enemy Property cart be considered as the owner of that property. I will quite understand if the noble Lord cannot answer that question now, but I should be grateful if he would find the answer for me.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, if there is a point here that has escaped me, l will look into it and I will let the noble Lord have the answer.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I raised this question on Second Reading; I raised it again on Committee and I raised it to-day, and it really does not suffice for the noble Lord to say that the Custodian has the legal title. The Custodian's powers are purely statutory: he is a statutory creature. What I want to know is whether—as would follow if the Custodian has become the owner of the assets—the former owners have had all their property rights extinguished. It really does not satisfy me, if I may say so, for the noble Lord to say that if he has not dealt with my noble friend's question he will look into it, because this point has been raised again and again since the commencement of our discussions on this Bill, and the noble Lord or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor ought to give this House clear advice on the matter.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am clearly not in a position to give the House legal advice on this or any other matter. In my view, and according to my advice, I realise—
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is here perhaps he would be good enough to enlighten us.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I say first that if I could at least finish a sentence we might get a little nearer the end of these long and complicated proceedings. If the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack cares to intervene I am sure he will do so. In my view, and according to my advice, title and ownership mean the same thing. If the vesting

371
order is valid, then the ownership of this property is passed to the Custodian. I am afraid that I can give the House no other advice than that.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should like to remind the noble Lord what he has said: that the ownership of this property has passed to the Custodian. In other words, the noble Lord is telling me that the Custodian of Enemy Property is the owner. Well, I beg to differ.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, if the noble Lord begs to differ—
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Lord has answered my question.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I have answered the question by saying that my advice is that ownership and title are the same thing, and that in the case of a valid vesting order the legal title has passed to the Custodian. That is what I have said.
I wonder whether at this stage I could pass on to the question of the unclaimed vested assets. I must explain here that there are some vested assets formerly belonging to individuals which were not covered by the Anglo-Soviet Agreement. If the original owners of these assets or their legal heirs, whether they are now inside or outside the borders of the Soviet Union, come forward to claim these assets and can prove their title, they are of course, as I said at an earlier stage of the Bill, entitled to have them back. It was for this purpose that paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (3) of this clause, and the saving for property belonging to an individual in subsection (5), were inserted in the Bill. They would ensure that any individual still in a position to put forward a valid claim could, and would, get back the property or its proceeds.
It seems to me that there have been fears about this of a very real kind. Some noble Lords have gone so far as to suggest that it is the business of Her Majesty's Government to go chasing around trying to find these people. I certainly could not accept that. I do, however, accept, as the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, said in rather colourful terms this afternoon, that it may be difficult for some people to put forward these claims.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I was very factual.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord wants me to give way.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My words were not colourful; they were extremely factual.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, there are such things as colourful facts, and the noble Lord is an expert at them. I hope that I can set some fears about this at rest if I give an assurance about this particular category of asset. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount. Lord Dilhorne, that the purpose of these provisions to which I have referred would be frustrated if the assets, or the proceeds of the vested assets which formerly belonged to these individuals, were immediately to be transferred to the Foreign Compensation Commission. Of course that is so. If we handed these assets over to the Foreign Compensation Commission for distribution straight away then the purposes of those saving clauses would be defeated.
In order to give any such persons a reasonable chance to come forward and claim their property—and noble Lords opposite, I think, can hardly argue that this matter has not now been given a great deal of publicity—I can, if the House wishes, give an assurance that nothing will be done under Clause 1, subsections (1), (2) or (3)(a), for a period of two years after the passage of this Bill in respect of the assets of individuals not covered by the Anglo-Soviet Agreement. It is only after this time, two years from the passage of the Bill, that any of these assets which still remain unclaimed will be transferred to the Foreign Compensation Commission for distribution.
No doubt, bearing in mind the history of the areas, there are cases in which the former owners of these properties have died without heirs, in which case no one will come forward. This arrangement would give a period of time within which a property owner who established a claim could get his property back. I am not suggesting that this is an original idea by Her Majesty's Government; that was an idea put forward in Committee by the

373
noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and the suggestion has commended itself to the Government. I can go further and say that if even after that two-year period has passed such a person should come forward and prove his case, his property or the proceeds of his property will be returned to him under the provisions of this Bill, or, if that is no longer possible, then compensation will in a proper case be paid to him from public funds. I hope that noble Lords opposite who have been worried about the possibility of people coming forward and claiming unclaimed assets will agree that there are the most ample safeguards for the individuals concerned in this particular category.
There is one further category of assets, and it is this category which has been exercising noble Lords opposite, and certainly has been exercising the powerful mind of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. It is the category of unvested assets—the £30,000 or £40,000 which remain unvested. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, asked what were the reasons that these assets had not been vested. There were variou3 reasons. It was not the practice of the Board of Trade to make vesting orders unless the necessity arose for the Custodian to have powers to deal with the property for the purpose of its preservation. For various reasons these assets of £30,000 to £40,000—of which £20,000 is held in foreign currency, mainly in dollars, and the remainder is in the form of securities, gold bars and coins—are in the unique status of being under the control of the Board of Trade.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, when were these assets reported to the Board of Trade?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I cannot give the noble and learned Viscount an answer immediately. I hope that by the end of the discussion I shall be able to do so.
The noble and learned Viscount seemed to draw some kind of distinction between these assets and other assets which have been vested, but my understanding is that the origin of this property is precisely the same as that of the property which has been vested. It is largely a matter of accident that it has not been vested like all the rest. The
374
companies and individuals to whom the property belonged are, so far as I know, similar in all ways to the former owners of the vested assets. For that reason we propose to treat this property in broadly the same way as the vested property. Owners will be given an ample period in which to come forward and establish their claims.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I take it that the offer which the Minister is making refers only to assets of individuals. Does it include the assets of institutions?
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords; the assurance which I have just offered to the House deals with the property of individuals.
Before I ask the noble and learned Viscount, in the light of these assurances, to withdraw his Amendment, I should like to answer two specific questions which were put to me. The first question was about the income on certain property. I think that the answer is that Clause 1(3)(b) refers to money which is the
"former property of a Baltic State or ceded territory …"
By virtue of the definition of "former property" which occurs in Clause 3(1) of the Bill, this includes "any income arising from…such property". The same goes for Clause 1(3)(a) and (c). There is a reference in Clause 1(3)(a) to a different sort of income, namely, the income arising from the investment in Treasury Bills of the proceeds of the sale of assets. This sort of investment income does not arise where there has been no sale and no investment, as is the case with regard to subsection (3)(b) and 3(c). In regard to the question by the noble and learned Viscount as to when the property under control was reported, I understand that most of this was reported when these territories became enemy territories—that is to say, in 1941 or thereabouts.
The facts are that in this Bill we are trying to follow up the Agreement made with the Soviet Union, an Agreement which I believe to be practical, honourable, and humane, and one that will now allow us to meet the claims of people whose property has been expropriated and whose claims have been outstanding

375
for many years. It is easy to become incensed with an Agreement, especially as it was an Agreement which, for what we think were good reasons, was not subject to the ratification of Parliament. Nevertheless, the Agreement was made, and we believe that it should have been made.
What we should like to do now, if we can fight our way through the thicket of legal technicalities (I do not diminish the importance of the legal arguments which are involved; they are extremely important, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has advanced them lucidly, reasonably and cogently), is to arrive at a Bill which is sensible and humane. And in this case I have offered to give an assurance. It is that in the case of the unclaimed assets we will give a period of grace of two years after the passage of the Bill, which will enable anybody to come forward and claim his property. If such a claimant can establish any claim, he will get his property back, or the proceeds from it, in full. If, even after two years, people still come forward and can establish a good claim, even if all the property has been distributed, this will be a case to be considered for compensation out of public funds. I do not believe that we can go much further than that, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will withdraw the Amendment.
4.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest care to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I am afraid that I interrupted him a good deal, but it was in order to get clear what he was saying. Discussion on this Amendment has covered a wide field and I do not think the House regrets it. It has led to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, making a very important statement about matters which are not the subject matter of this Amendment, although I referred to them in passing in moving the Amendment. It concerned the position with regard to claims against this property by former owners, or the heirs of former owners. The noble Lord said that these individual properties were not covered by the Agreement. I do not see anything in the Agreement which draws a distinction between the property of individuals and the property of other juridical persons. But the noble Lord said—I took down
376
his words—that nothing would be done for two years in relation to assets not covered by the Agreement. That is a fairly indefinite phrase.
I should like to ask whether it means this—I think from what he said later it does, but he rather changed his language. Does it mean that there will be a two-year period in which anyone can come forward and claim to be entitled (I leave out the word "owner" for the moment) to property in the hands of the Custodian, and that he will get it back? I am dealing first of all with the Custodian. Does it mean that within the next two years any individual who can show that he is entitled to property in the hands of the Custodian will get it back? The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, nods his head. So much for that one. Then one comes to the question of the claims against the property which is not vested as yet—what the noble Lord called the unvested assets. That presupposes that they are to be vested. If they are vested in the Custodian, then I for one welcome that assurance.
Let me now pass from that, because that is not really the subject matter of this Amendment. The noble Lord then went on—and, I thought, was quickly looking for a few lifebelts—to deal with the question of legal title. I endeavoured to draw the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this earlier. I think anyone who expressed a firm opinion as to the precise operation of the statutory powers of the Custodian in relation to ownership of the property would be hazarding quite a little. So I am not disappointed at not getting a very positive reply upon that point. But the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, went so far as to say that when the legal title went to the Custodian—that is to say, after a vesting order—the Custodian became the owner. That may be the view of the Government now, but it is quite inconsistent with the Explanatory Memorandum which was published on the Bill when it first appeared in this House, because that said:
"This Bill makes provision for the disposal of property"—
I leave out the irrelevant words—
"of persons formerly resident or carrying on business in one of the Baltic States".
If the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is right, then that Explanatory Memorandum is

377
quite wrong. It should have made provision for the disposal of what was formerly property of those persons and is now the property of the Custodian, but it very carefully did not do so. I leave that on one side. I hope that at some stage we shall have the benefit of the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor upon that matter. I now come back to the—
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, is not the noble and learned Viscount making a mistake against which we always warn our first-year students? I refer to the difference between physical objects—what is described as "property"—and the ownership of those objects? The introductory phrase to which he has just referred is obviously referring to the assets, and not to the ownership of them. I should have thought that was as plain as a pikestaff.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I do not think I have made a mistake. I recognise that if I had been one of the noble Lord's pupils the chances would be much greater of my having done so. But I will leave that. May I come back to the point of the £30,000 and £40,000 which is the subject matter of this Amendment? We were told that assets of that value were reported to the proper authorities as long ago as 1941. No vesting order was made at that time under the Trading with the Enemy Act. We have that from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. Those assets were then frozen under a Defence Regulation, and that Defence Regulation was revoked in 1951.
The point with which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has not dealt is that powers to freeze those assets disappeared completely in 1951 because the Defence Regulation went and no action had been taken tinder the Trading with the Enemy Act. What is now proposed is that the Trading with the Enemy Act should be brought into operation as if these people were now technically enemies and there were now a state of war, for the purpose of enabling the Board of Trade to do in 1969 what they could have done in 1951, what they did not do in 1951 when they made the vesting order in relation to the other assets. But we are given no explanation of the omission except that there were various reasons for it which
378
were incidental, accidental or something of that sort. That does not satisfy me.
We were also told that these assets are now under the control of the Board of Trade. I wonder how they come to be under the control of the Board of Trade. That has not been explained to us. The fact remains, as I see it from what the noble Lord has said in dealing with the £30,000 to £40,000 worth of assets, that they are assets which, unless we give this power in subsection (2) of Clause 1, cannot be vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property. So far as I can see, they are assets which should not now be vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property, and it is no justification for the noble Lord to say, "Oh!, we are going to vest, because they are covered by the agreement made with the Soviet Union." What fears does that arouse? If the Foreign Office had made an agreement with the Soviet Union that they would deal with property of other individuals in this country, I suppose that the justification for taking power to dispossess the owners of that property would be, "Oh!, we have made an agreement with the Soviet Union to do that." I cannot regard that as right. I cannot regard it as right to take this extra power. Therefore, if my noble friends agree I shall seek to divide the House.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount sits down, may I say this? If he still insists that it would be wrong ever to vest this property which is at present unvested—or at any rate so much of it as formerly belonged to individuals and was not claimed by the Russians—I see no insuperable objection to assuring the House that the £30,000 to £40,000 will remain outside the purview of this Bill. But all this means is that it will probably remain for ever in some hank vaults.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken again and, with the leave of the House, I should like to reply. If these assets remain in the banks, people who claim ownership of them can establish their title in the courts. But if they are vested in the Custodian it is all at the discretion of the Treasury. I cannot see any justification now for taking them away from the banks where the owners had them and putting them in the hands of the

379
Custodian. We cannot really carry on this discussion any further under the rules of a Report stage, but if the noble Lord has now said that he will be content to take this £30,000 to £40,000 out of the Bill and not let it come within its scope, the best and most effective way of doing that is by carrying this Amendment. But I should not object to a provision being inserted in the Bill—and, fortunately, there is time to do it—dealing with the Custodian's title to the assets now in his possession, which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said was the
main object of this provision. I am sure that that could be so worded. Cutting out this subsection does not stop that. I have spoken again with the leave of the House, and I have listened with the greatest care to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, but I feel that I must ask the House to support me in excising these words.
5.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fortescue, E.

Poltimore, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Goschen, V.[Teller.]

Polwarth, L.

Airedale, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Atholl, D.

Grenfell, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gridley, L.

Rea, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Redesdale, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hampden, V.

Rennell, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hawke, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Carrington, L.

Howe, E.

St. Helens, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

St.Oswald, L.

Conesford, L.

Ilford, L.

Sandford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Inglewood, L,

Sandys, L,

Craigavon, V.

Jessel, L.

Somers, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lambert, V.

Stonehaven, V.

Cromartie, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Strang, L.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Derwent, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Merrivale, L.

Swinton, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Teynham, L.

Dudley, L.

Meston, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Dundonald, E.

Molson, L.

Vivian, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wade, L.

Essex, E.

Moyne, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Falmouth, V.

Newton, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Ferrier, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Morrison, L.

Archibald, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Moyle, L.

Arwyn, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Balogh, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Beswick, L.

Hall,V.

Pargiter, L.

Blyton, L.

Helsby, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Bowles, L.

Heycock, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller,]

Raglan, L.

Burden, L.

Hughes, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Jacques, L.

St. Davids, V.

Carron, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Serota, Bs.

Chalfont, L.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L.

Chorley, L.

Lindgren, L.

Silkin, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Sorensen, L.

Crook, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Denning, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Stonham, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Mais, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Francis-Williams, L.

Mitchison, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Williamson, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Walston, L.

Willis, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 41, leave out from first ("property") to end of line 44.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I can move this Amendment quite shortly. It is to leave out all the words after the word "property" where it first appears in line 41 on page 2 to the end of the subsection. This particular clause of the Bill, if I understand it correctly, purports to make amendments to the Enemy Property Act 1953, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in Committee that one of the reasons for the restriction of the scope of this particular section of the Act was to ensure that there would be no claims by corporations to be owners of any of the assets involved. That is why, while the right to claim by corporations was extinguished, the right of individuals to claim under the Enemy Property Act that their property really was not enemy property at all and ought to be returned to them was preserved. On that, there was a question about partnerships which was not answered last time, and perhaps in the course of dealing with this Amendment the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, if it is he who is going to deal with it, will say something about the position of partnerships and which side of the line they come, because the word "individual" will cover individuals, and "individuals", I should have thought, would have covered a partnership.
My Lords, this Amendment is to leave out the words:
"and any such property or proceeds (except as aforesaid) recovered by virtue of those subsections between that date and the passing of this Act shall be re-transferred or repaid, as the case may require".
That date was January 5, and, so far as I can see and understand, those last words of the subsection enact, or will enact if included in the Bill, that any property which has been recovered by someone on the ground that it was not enemy property, if it was recovered between January 5, 1968, and the date of
382
the passing of this Act, has then to be re-transferred or repaid, as the case may require, back to the Custodian.
That struck me, when I read it, as extremely odd. In column 617 on the Committee stage on February 13 I asked a number of questions about it; and it was again referred to in column 639. I referred to these words and I read them out. After I had read them out, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, in column 639:
"At the moment there is not any",
meaning, as I understand it, that at the moment, February 13, 1969, there had been no claims made in respect of these assets under the Enemy Property Act 1953 which had resulted in the recovery by the owners of their property; and therefore, there not having been any such claims, there would be no question of repayment under the concluding words of this subsection.
If that be so, what is the case for these words at all? I do not understand why they are wanted. It seems to me impossible, there having been no such claims under the Enemy Property Act 1953, that there will be such a claim established before this Bill is enacted as to make it necessary to insert in the Bill a provision that the proceeds of a successful claim before this Bill is enacted shall be retransferred. I cannot think it is necessary; and even if it were, I should be inclined to think that it was wrong; because under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act 1953 a successful claim under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of that Act will be on the basis that the property ought never to have been dealt with as enemy property at all. And if the person concerned can establish that, it does not seem to me that there can be much ground for providing in this Bill that after it is enacted, notwithstanding the fact that he has established that it ought not to have been treated as enemy property at all,, he has to repay it or hand it back to the Custodian. It seems very odd; and if the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that he wanted to look at it again I would not press this Amendment. At the moment I see no useful purpose

383
served by these words and I hope that he will agree that it will improve the Bill to leave them out—bearing in mind, as the noble and learned Lord said, that there is no recovery of property under the Enemy Property Act 1953. I beg to move.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I add my plea that the noble Lord in replying will deal with the question whether the words "on behalf of an individual" cover partnerships, because I think I am right in saying that under the Interpretation Act "individual", singular, covers the plural. I cannot quite see why the words "on behalf of individuals" which is what they mean when you consider the Interpretation Act do not include partnerships. I understand from something that was said in an earlier debate that the Government were under the impression that they did not.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, before replying directly to the noble and learned Viscount and his strictures on the necessity or otherwise of these words in the Bill, perhaps I could deal now with the question which has been asked before during the passage and process of this Bill and twice to-day: that is, the question whether partnerships are individuals for the purpose of this Bill. Here again I am giving hostages to fortune by trespassing on what is clearly legal ground; but as I understand it the position is this. The majority of businesses claimed by the Soviet Union were companies but there were others which were more in the nature of what we would call partnerships. In the course of the negotiations that led to the Anglo-Soviet Agreement, the Soviet delegation told us across the table that as they understood it the local law on partnership in each of the regions concerned had the effect of making a partnership a juridical person. So, my Lords, the reply to both noble Lords, as I understand it, is therefore that in most cases it would appear that the partnership property was not the property of the individual partners. But if it was the property of the individual partners, the provisions of Clause 1(5) would not apply by reasons of the saving, of the exception, contained in that subsection.
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble and learned Viscount
384
that the words which are the subject of this Amendment are unnecessary in the Bill. There has not been very much discussion of these words in either House until now; and I think I ought to make it clear that the purpose of these words is to ensure that no part of the assets which we think ought properly to go into the Compensation Fund for distribution to claimants on our side is lost as a result of applications for the recovery of property before the Bill passes into law. I think that so far we are on common ground. It remains the case, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, that between January 5, 1968, and the present time—which now becomes to-day instead of the date which the noble and learned Viscount quoted—no property or proceeds of property have been recovered by virtue of Section 3(4) of the Enemy Property Act 1953 or, so far as we are aware, under subsection (5). Of course, an application could still be made to the Custodian; and it may be, as I have already explained to the House on an earlier Amendment, that in some cases the title of the Custodian to particular assets may not in some cases be perfect or may be defeasible by reason of the provisions of the 1953 Act to which I have referred. So, if an application were to be made in such a case between now and the passage of the Bill into law the Custodian would be placed in a very difficult position. He has to apply the law as it stands now—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. Would the noble Lord confirm—and this is very relevant to the argument—that subsections (3), (4) and (5) will provide only for the recovery of property which has wrongfully been treated as enemy property? That has a great deal of bearing on the issue here.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the real point at issue here, if I may suggest it to the noble and learned Viscount, is this. If any claim of any kind is made between now and the passage of the Bill—and no claim has been made up till now—it is possible, as I have said, that the title of the Custodian may prove to be imperfect; the title may be defeasible. Therefore, whatever the reason for the claim, he might find himself in a very difficult position. What we are here concerned to do is, I think, in effect, to exclude the possibility of a Soviet State

385
trading enterprise, or some other Soviet interest, as well as a creditor of the dissolved Baltic company for example, recovering any part of the assets.
So far as the Soviet interests are concerned, the justification for this, as I have suggested before, lies in Articles 2 and 3 of the Agreement of January 5, 1968. That is why that date is contained in Clause 1 (5). By Article 2 of the Agreement the Soviet Government undertook, on its own behalf and on behalf of Soviet persons, physical and juridical, not to pursue further claims which it had advanced during the negotiations. Article 3 recognises the right of the Soviet Government to dispose of former British assets in the Baltic States, and of course in the ceded territories, in order to settle the claims of Soviet nationals which it had put forward. Clearly, then, the Agreement justifies, in our view, our excluding claims from Soviet interests. This seems to me entirely logical and defensible. As regards creditors of dissolved Baltic companies, British creditors of those companies will, of course, be entitled to claim in the distribution to be made by the Foreign Compensation Commission.
If we were to accept this Amendment and leave these words out of the Bill—I ask the noble and learned Viscount to accept this—there would be a risk that assets might be lost to the compensation fund which in the light of the Soviet Agreement, whatever noble Lords opposite may think about it, should be included for the benefit of claimants on our side. The fact that no applications for the recovery of property have been made to the Custodian since January 5, 1968, does not necessarily mean (I know that the noble and learned Viscount will appreciate this, especially in the light of the publicity that it is still, and increasingly, getting) that applications will not be made in the remaining weeks before, as I hope, the Bill becomes law. We think that this possibility, however remote, is one that it is prudent to guard against. My advice to the House, therefore, is that the risk will certainly be increased if the words which are the subject of the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment are deleted from the Bill. I hope, for these reasons, that the noble and learned Viscount will not press the Amendment.
5.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord has been fully briefed on this, but of course he was briefed before he had heard the argument advanced for the deletion of these words, and the brief which he has does not answer the point I sought to make. If I may—I do not want to prolong this discussion—I should like to deal quite shortly with what the noble Lord said. First of all, when you are construing an English Act of Parliament and the meaning to be attached to the word "individual" in Clause 1(5), you cannot do that according to the meaning given in Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia to the word "partnership". Therefore, while I am not seeking to quarrel with what the noble Lord is intending to achieve, I say to him that if he wants to make sure that partnerships are excluded, that ought to be clearly provided for in the Bill. It should not be left in doubt and to possible litigation. I seek to impress that on the noble Lord, because it does not suffice to say that the Russians—or whoever it may be—have said that a partnership in Lithuania has a corporate identity of its own.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I say that the explanation I gave was simply by way of background, and was not intended in any way to be any kind of explanation for this interpretation. Of course, in the light of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, we will have another look.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. There is no need for there to be controversy about that: we simply want to get it clear.
With regard to the other point, what I think is essential (and if my memory serves me correctly it is the case) is that one must bear in mind that the Enemy Property Act 1953 validated, or purported to validate, all kinds of transactions of the Custodian between certain dates about the legality of which there was doubt. But Section 3(4) and (5) having validated the Custodian's actions, a right was given to the owner of property dealt with by the Custodian to recover it. My recollection is that that right was limited to the recovery of property held by the Custodian which never ought to have been regarded as enemy property

387
at all, and that the right did beyond that.
Now, my Lords, if that is so, it goes to the root of the argument in relation to this particular subsection of the Bill, because here is excluded from the operation of the Enemy Property Act Section 3(4) and (5) claims by corporations and corporate bodies. They can no longer say to the Custodian, "You have got my property. You must give it back because it never was enemy property". It will no longer be possible for them to say that if this subsection is carried into effect. But an individual will be able to say, "Yes, you have got my property. It was not enemy property at all and you must give it back". That I quite see is the effect of the first part of this subsection. Then we come to the extraordinary words, bearing in mind the position. It is not the case that any claim made to the Custodian before the passing of this Bill will operate. The words which my Amendment seeks to leave out are words which provide for the repayment, or re-transfer, of anything handed out by the Custodian to some claimant, on the basis that it was not ex hypothesi enemy property at all. And power is taken, to get that property, which was not enemy property at all, back into the hands of the Custodian.
What is the justification for that? The noble Lord says, "Oh, it is property which was within the scope of the Agreement with the Soviet Union". But, my Lords, surely that property was property which could properly be described technically, at one time at any rate, as enemy property. So it really will not do to try to relate this particular subsection to the terms of this Agreement with the Soviet Union. And the matter gets even more curious because it is not a question of barring all claims: this is providing for the recovery or repayment of that which has been paid out by the Custodian; and he has paid out nothing.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble and learned Viscount has possibly overlooked one fact in his argument which I think may be crucial? It is that Section 3 of the Enemy Property Act applies not only where property was not enemy property, but also where, for any other reason, a
388
vesting order was not valid. What I am saying is that there may be other reasons I why a title is not valid, and it is not only for reasons to do with whether or not property was enemy property that Section 3 of the Enemy Property Act applies. If the noble and learned Viscount agrees with that, I think it is relevant to this case and explains the need for those words in the Bill.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, regarding the first part, I have not a copy of the Act with me as I had last time, and now I am speaking from recollection. I will certainly look at that Act. No doubt the noble Lord has been reading the Act, or has advice as to the terms of its provisions. But it does not seem to me, even if that is so, that it justifies the last words, the subject of this Amendment, because it is not the case that you have to bother just about claims made against the Custodian—there have not been any.
Let us see what is going to happen. Let us assume that we take these words out of the Bill and that there is going to be a claim. There has not only got to be a claim, there has to be a payment by the Custodian, or the transfer of some property; and the Custodian has to do that before this Bill reaches the Statute Book. I do not think that the noble Lord is telling me that the Custodian would act with such speed that there is no need for this provision. I am sure that the Custodian does not act as quickly as that, but I think this is going far too far. This does not seem to have much practical content. We know that there are no claims and we know that no claims are likely to come and, if they did, that quite a long time would be taken to investigate them. I would be content if the noble Lord said that he would look at this again and I would not press this Amendment now. I would be quite willing to talk to him about it. But I think that these words are unnecessary and otiose, even in the light of the arguments he has advanced. If he is prepared to say that he will consider this Amendment again, I will ask leave to withdraw it, but if he is not prepared to do so I feel that I should have to press it, because at the moment I am not satisfied with the case he has put forward.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for that suggestion. Of course, I am always prepared to reconsider things so long as the Bill is in your Lordships' House. I cannot hold out very much hope to the noble and learned Viscount that we shall change our view about this. I have said that there have not been any claims but I believe, and I must advise your Lordships, that there is a risk that there might be and that as a result of these claims the Custodian, because a certain vesting order was not valid, might have to pay out some money. We think that that money should not be removed from the assets for distribution by the Compensation Commission. It is all very well for the noble and learned Viscount to say that the Custodian could impose an administrative delay until the Bill was enacted, but surely this is not what these words are about; they are designed to eliminate that risk. I do not believe that it would be right and proper to seek to eliminate that risk by the imposition of administrative delays by the Custodian. But in the circumstances, since the noble and learned Viscount has offered to discuss this matter, although I do not hold out much hope that we will change our view on it, I will undertake to look
at it again and to discuss it with him before the next stage of the Bill.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I have now been handed a copy of the Enemy Property Act. Subsection (4) begins,
"If at the time of the dealing the property was not enemy property …"
I do not see anything in subsection (5) of the Act which goes beyond that. I made that offer, but I am not entirely happy about what the noble Lord has said. He is willing to consider anything and everything—he has been very nice about that—but he is not holding out the slightest hope. In the circumstances, I think it would be better to take these words out and then the noble Lord can consider again whether some alternative form would not be more appropriate than a form which gives power to re-transfer or repay money to which someone might establish a title but to which no one has done so at the present moment. I think that the best thing to do is to take these words out.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Falmouth, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Ferrier, L.

Poltimore, L.

Atholl, D.

Fortescue, E.

Polwarth, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gowrie, E.

Rathcavan, L.

Bessborough, E.

Grenfell, L.

Rennell, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gridley, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Helens, L.

Clwyd, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

St. Oswald, L.

Conesford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sandys, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ilford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Inglewood, L.

Somers, L.

Cromartie, E.

Jessel, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Daventry, V.

Lambert, V.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lansdowne, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Derwent, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinton, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Molson, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Moyne, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Essex, E.

Newton, L.

Wedgwood, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Brockway, L.

Collison, L.

Archibald, L.

Burden, L.

Crook, L.

Arwyn, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Denning, L.

Balogh, L.

Carron, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Beswick, L.

Chalfont, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Bowles, L.

Champion, L.

Francis-Williams, L.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Chorley, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Scrota, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L.

McLeavy, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Gifford, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Maelor, L.

Sorensen, L.

Hall, V.

Mais, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Heycock, L.

Mitchison, L.

Stonham, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Morrison, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Moyle, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Hughes, L.

Norwich, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hunt, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Walston, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Peddie, L.

Williamson, L.

Jacques, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Willis, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Winterbottom, L.

Latham, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wise, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Lindgren, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 2 [Amendments of Foreign Compensation Act 1950]:
5.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 3A:
Page 3, line 24, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3A, and in doing so must necessarily invite your Lordships to consider Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, the other Amendments standing in my name. The first Amendment, No. 3A, proposes to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 2 which was put in on Committee stage at the instance of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and which gives a right of appeal by way of case stated to the Court of Appeal on any question of law relating to the jurisdiction of the Commission. This provision will be replaced by subsection (2) of the new clause. The second Amendment is consequential and is no more than drafting.
As to Amendment No. 6, subsection (1) of the new clause replaces subsection (4) of Clause 2 of the Bill as brought from the House of Commons, which would have enabled an Order in Council to confer power on the Commission to determine any question as to the construction or interpretation of any provision with respect to claims falling to be determined by the Commission included in any order made under Section 3 of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 after the passing of the Bill. Subsection (1) differs from the former subsection (4) only in itself conferring power on the Commission to determine any such question of construction or interpretation instead of
392
leaving the power to be conferred by Order in Council. In the light of the new right of appeal conferred by the new clause there appears to be no useful purpose in leaving the new powers to be conferred on the Commission to be dependent on the making of an Order in Council.
Subsection (2) enables any person aggrieved (within the meaning of subsection (6)) by any determination of the Commission on a question of law relating to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or on any question as to the construction or interpretation of an Order in Council, to require the Commission to state a case for the decision of the Court of Appeal. Unlike the subsection which was added in Committee, the right of appeal conferred by subsection (2) covers not only questions relating to the jurisdiction of the Commission but also those relating to the construction or interpretation of an Order in Council following on the power conferred by subsection (1). This is necessary because the Commission may be concerned not only with questions of jurisdiction properly so called but also with questions of construction of the Orders in Council under which the Commission operate. The two categories will be mutually exclusive, in the sense that if the Commission have no power to decide a question of construction, the question will then be one of their jurisdiction—as, for example, whether the Commission had power to determine a claim which is alleged to have been made out of time.
Subsection (3) defines "determination" so as to include provisional determinations and anything purporting to be a determination. There is no reference in the Act of 1950 or the present Bill to a provisional determination,

393
but Rule 38 of the Foreign Compensation Commission Rules 1956 (as amended in 1964) provides that all determinations of the Commission are to be provisional and subject to review, although there may not be more than one review of any determination. It is necessary to include in the definition of "determination" anything purporting to be a determination in order to avoid the possibility of any appeal to the courts in future (apart from the new right of appeal conferred by the clause itself) on the ground which succeeded in the Anisminic case; that is to say, that the Commission's decision was in no sense a determination, but, being made wholly without jurisdiction, was a nullity. It is not, however, intended to interfere with the power—which was recognised as existing before the decision in the Anisminic case—to impeach a decision of the Commission on the ground that it was given in breach of the rules of natural justice; and this position is preserved by subsection (10).
It will be open to a person aggrieved to require the Commission to state a case either on a provisional determination or on a final determination, but if he appeals against the decision on the provisional determination it ought not to be open to him to appeal again on the final determination of the same matter. This is dealt with by subsection (4) the effect of which is that where the Court of Appeal has decided a question on a provisional determination the Commission cannot be required to state a case on a final determination of the same question.
Subsection (5) enables a person aggrieved to ask the Commission for a written statement of the reasons for their determination, but the Commission are not obliged to state reasons except in a case in which the question at issue is one of jurisdiction or of the construction or interpretation of an Order in Council. Subsection (6) defines the persons who may request the Commission to give their reasons or to state a case for the Court of Appeal as being the claimant and any person appointed by the Commission to represent the interests of any fund out of which the claim would be met; that is to say, the Commission's legal officer appointed for that purpose. Although it
394
is no doubt unlikely that the legal officer would ever wish to appeal against a determination of the Commission, it seems difficult, if a right of appeal is to be conferred at all, to deny it to the person appointed to represent the interests of other claimants besides the one who may fall to be benefited by a decision of the Commission allowing his claim.
Subsection (7) prescribes the time limits within which a request to furnish reasons and a requirement to state a case must be made. The Commission will have power to disregard a request for reasons unless it is received within four weeks from the date on which the Commission send notice of the determination, or such other time as may be provided by the Commission's rules. A requirement to state a case may be disregarded unless received within eight weeks from the date on which the Commission give notice of their determination or within four weeks from the date on which the Commission state their reasons (if reasons are asked for), whichever expires last, or within such other period as may be provided by Rules of Court. Although the Commission will have power to entertain a request or requirement which is not made within the time specified, the intention is that the time limits should be strictly adhered to in order to avoid undesirable delays. Subsection (7) deals with the same matters as those to which Lord Dilhorne's Amendment to page 3, line 28, is directed.
Subsection (8) provides that no appeal to the House of Lords will lie from a decision of the Court of Appeal on a case stated. Subsection (9) makes it cleat that, apart from the right of appeal conferred by the new clause and from the right to take proceedings in respect of any breach of natural justice, no determination of the Commission is to be called in question in any court of law. This subsection corresponds with Section 4(4) of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950. The effect of subsections (11) and (12) is to confine the new right of appeal to determinations of which notice is given after the Bill comes into force, leaving other determinations to be dealt with by the law as it stands at present. I felt bound to address your Lordships on those three Amendments together because, as your Lordships will understand, they all hang together. My Lords, I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his clear exposition of the effect of this new clause, which contains no fewer than twelve subsections. I am not only grateful to him for that, but very grateful indeed to him for tabling this Amendment at all. I am sure it makes a great improvement to the Bill. In passing, may I say that the length of this new clause indicates what I feared was correct: that the Amendment drafted by me and my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, which is now embodied in subsection (4) in a matter of three or four lines, would not satisfy Parliamentary Counsel at all. It has now grown to twelve subsections and the effect is, so far as I can see, to carry out what we hoped would be done and to make that effectual and work all right. I am glad that it has been possible for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to reach this conclusion. I think it will be a considerable improve-to the Bill.
I hope the noble and learned Lord will not mind my saying that I am glad we managed to defeat the Government in Committee and to carry the Amendment which is now in subsection (4), for if we had not done that perhaps we should not have seen this Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I think that that is a useful function of this House, a proper function of this unreformed House, a function which may not be so easy to discharge in a reformed House. Here it is a question, not of getting into conflict with another place, but of giving the Government another opportunity of thinking the matter over, and on this occasion of thinking it over and reaching a conclusion which I am sure will meet with acclaim from all sides of the House. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I should like to say just one world of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor because this Amendment shows that the Tribunal will not be a judge in its own cause. The case is to be stated on a point of law, but only to the Court of Appeal and no further. This
396
is a most useful precedent, not only for this Foreign Compensation Bill but I hope in other spheres of the law, too. It is a precedent which might well be followed elsewhere. I would make only one further small point. The Tribunal need not give its reasons in all cases, but only in a limited class. It rather reminds me of the case when Lord Mansfield gave some advice to a new Judge. He said, "Give your decision but never give your reasons, for your decision may well be right but your reasons are almost certain to be wrong". I wish the Tribunal was compelled to give its reasons in all cases, as is generally done under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958. But that is only a comparatively minor matter. I must say, on behalf, I think, of all the profession, how grateful we are that this Amendment has been put down by the Lord Chancellor.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may have leave to speak again, the noble and learned Lord has stimulated me to say that this is a point on which some lawyers feel strongly. As I have explained throughout, it does not matter in the slightest to the Government which way the matter is decided. They do not stand to lose anything; they do not stand to gain anything. If anybody has lost it will be the claimants, who will have lost by the extent in time it will take to distribute the money among them if there are appeals. If anyone has lost financially it will be the claimants, because the Fund will be diminished by the amount of the costs to which the Commission themselves may be put. But, as I have said, this is a point on which there are different views and on which the Government have pointed out throughout that the outcome does not matter in the slightest to them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have already addressed your Lordships on Amendment No. 5, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("said Act of") and insert ("Foreign Compensation Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have also addressed your Lordships on Amendment No. 6, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2 insert the following new clause:
Determinations of the Foreign Compensation Commission and appeals against such determinations
".—(1) The Foreign Compensation Commission shall have power to determine any question as to the construction or interpretation of any provision of an Order in Council under section 3 of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 with respect to claims falling to be determined by them.
(2) Subject to subsection (4) below, the Commission shall, if so required by a person mentioned in subsection (6) below who is aggrieved by any determination of the Commission on any question of law relating to the jurisdiction of the Commission or on any question mentioned in subsection (1) above, state and sign a case for the decision of the Court of Appeal.
(3) In this section "determination" includes a determination which under rules under section 4(2) of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 (rules of procedure) is a provisional determination, and anything which purports to be a determination.
(4) Where the Court of Appeal decide a question on a case stated and signed by the Commission on a provisional determination in any proceedings, subsection (2) above shall not require the Commission to state and sign a case on a final determination by them of that question in those proceedings.
(5) Any person mentioned in subsection (6) below may, with a view to requiring the Commission to state and sign a case under this section, request the Commission to furnish a written statement of the reasons for any determination of theirs, but the Commission shall not be obliged to state the reasons for any determination unless it is given on a claim in which a question mentioned in subsection (2) above arises.
(6) The persons who may make a request under subsection (5) above or a requirement under subsection (2) above in relation to any claim are the claimant and any person appointed by the Commission to represent the interest of any fund out of which the claim would, if allowed, be met.
(7) Any such request or requirement must be in writing, and—

(a) any such request may be disregarded unless it is received by the Commission within the period of four weeks beginning with the date on which the Commission send notice of the determination in question or such other period as may be provided for by or under rules under section 4(2) of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950; and

398

(b) any such requirement may be disregarded unless it is received by the Commission within the period of eight weeks beginning with that date or the period of four weeks beginning with the date on which the Commission send a statement of reasons for the determination in question, whichever expires last, or within such other period as may be provided for by or under rules of court.

(8) Notwithstanding anything in section 3 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 (right of appeal to the House of Lords from decisions of the Court of Appeal), no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal on an appeal under this section.
(9) Except as provided by subsection (2) above and subsection (10) below, no determination by the Commission on any claim made to them under the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 shall be called in question in any court of law.
(10) Subsection (9) above shall not affect any right of any person to bring proceedings questioning any determination of the Commission on the ground that it is contrary to natural justice.
(11) Subsections (2) to (10) above shall not apply to a determination of the Commission of which notice was sent by them before the passing of this Act.
(12) Section 4(4) of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 (which makes provision corresponding to subsection (9) above) shall not apply to a determination of the Commission of which notice is sent by them after the passing of this Act."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
6.8 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a simple amending Bill which amends two points of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. These amendments are set out in the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill. As noble Lords who have studied the Bill will have seen, it amends paragraph 14 of Schedule 3 to the Act, which provides that a licensing authority must fix the same betting days for the whole of its area. The Bill provides that a licensing authority shall fix betting days for each licensed track within its area, instead of for all the tracks in the area. The second point is that paragraph 3(a) of Schedule 5 to the Act fixes the amount which the

399
operator may deduct from the amount staked on the totalisator at not more than 6 per cent. The Bill confers power on the Secretary of State to alter this percentage.
To take the points in that order, the 1963 Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act consolidated the 1934 Act. It was the 1934 Act which determined that all the greyhound tracks in the same licensing area should race on the same days. The licensing area is a county council area or a county borough council area. The 1934 and the 1963 Acts provide for a maximum of 104 racing days in a licensing year and the licensing year runs from July 1 to June 30. The amendment proposed by this Bill would not change the 104 days but would enable the racecourse to choose its own days, subject of course to the present requirements that racing may not take place on Sundays, Good Friday or Christmas Day. This arrangement would ease the burden of direct competition of the racecourses against each other, particularly in the large county boroughs, such as Manchester, Birmingham, the conurbations of Liverpool, the West Riding of Yorkshire and the Greater London Area. Since Parliament, in its wisdom, has made provision for betting offices to be open on every day of the week except Sundays and for bingo and gaming to take place with very little restriction as to the days on which they operate, I submit that it is fair that greyhound racing should have some slight easement of the existing control.
Perhaps I may now turn to the second point. In 1934 Parliament was anxious to control the amount of profit that might be made from betting in any medium, and imposed a limit of 6 per cent. as the maximum which could be deducted from the turnover on the totalisator for operating expenses. Taking into account all the arguments that were advanced in 1934 for fixing the figure at 6 per cent., it must be realised that there has been a fall in the value of money since that time—and if that is an understatement, it is the understatement of the year. There is no provision in the 1963 Act (which of course consolidated the 1934 Act) whereby the figure of 6 per cent. can be altered, save only by another Act of Parliament. It is proposed that the 6 per cent. , should
400
be retained, but this Bill gives the Home Secretary power to alter this figure by statutory regulation from time to time if he is satisfied that such an alteration is justified.
At this late hour I do not wish to detain the House by giving too many details or a great number of figures. It will be sufficient to say that this is an enabling amendment, subject to the Home Secretary's being satisfied—and I wish to stress this—that such an alteration is justified. It may be that the amendment as worded is not completely to the satisfaction of the Parliamentary draftsmen. It is always difficult for anybody outside that very restricted field to put an amendment into language which satisfies any Parliamentary draftsman, and if that be so in this case I shall be only too happy to consider any other wording, or even to promote Amendments, when we come to the Committee stage. I ask that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, subject of course to your Lordships having the opportunity, when it conies to Committee stage, to consider any Amendments which it may then be thought necessary to put forward. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Lindgren.)
6.13 p.m.
THE MINISTER or STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I hope that it will be helpful if I intervene at this early stage to indicate the attitude of the Government to this Bill. But first I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Lindgren for the clear and persuasive way in which he has introduced a subject which may be unfamiliar to some Members of your Lordships' House and, indeed, is of some complexity. What we are discussing this evening are two aspects of the control of greyhound racing which were first imposed by the Betting and Lotteries Act 1934, and the effect of these on the current financial affairs of the greyhound industry.
If my memory serves me aright, greyhound racing, in the form we know it to-day, first came to this country over forty years ago and in its early days it was, I believe, the runner-up to horse-racing. More recently it has become the poor relation. In 1948 total attendances were 25 million a year, and totalisator

401
receipts were over £94 million, but by 1967 they had dropped to under 10 million attendances and a turnover of £70 million. In real terms, this drop is of course much more than £25 million, because, as my noble friend Lord Lindgren said, of the decline in money values and the fact that in the same period expenses have greatly increased.
As my noble friend Lord Lindgren has indicated, the scope of this Bill has been limited, on the advice of his advisers, to just two proposals. The first is to ease restrictions on the freedom of tracks to choose days when betting shall take place, and the other is to allow the permitted deduction from the totalisator—which is now, and always has been, 6 per cent.—to be made variable by regulation. Both these matters are still governed by legislation passed over thirty years ago which, in turn, was based on the recommendations of a Royal Commission of 1933. I think your Lordships will agree that the legislation passed then related to different circumstances from those prevailing today. Much has changed since then, especially (and some of us regret this) the social attitudes to betting and in the open betting which the law now countenances. For instance, there are 15,730 betting shops. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that in the 1930s, when different conditions prevailed, a comparatively repressive view was taken of betting.
It is well known to your Lordships that I am not, and it is safe to say that I never shall be, a supporter of betting, but I hope that I shall always be an opponent of injustice. It is for this reason that I readily concede to-day that the two restrictions dealt with in this Bill are ripe for removal. Not only is the greyhound racing industry to-day the poor relation of horseracing but it is also struggling in competition with other forms of betting and gaming which are not hampered by similar restrictions or the same expenses. In saying this I have not forgotten what I said less than two weeks ago in this House about the effect of the extension of facilities for lotteries. But I venture to suggest that the present proposals, relating to a form of sport long recognised, which involves the breeding, training and racing of magnificent thoroughbred animals and which involves no small exercise of skill in selecting the winners, is readily distin-
402
guishable from a lottery which depends on no more than a chance dip in a hat.
Thus far, I hope that I have shown that the Government's attitude to this Bill is benevolent. But I am afraid that I must now sound a note of warning. The effect of relaxing the two restrictions as proposed in the Bill differs in each case. As my noble friend Lord Lindgren has already explained, the first would mean that the days when racing took place would be determined by reference to individual tracks, and not to all those in one local authority area. Although overall the number of meetings will not be increased, it will mean more days racing, on different tracks, in one area. I want to make it quite clear that I do not think in equity there anything that can be said against my noble friend's proposal to grant greater freedom in this respect to the greyhound tracks, but I must ask whether his proposal is the right way to remove this restriction.
I say nothing about the proposal to take power to vary the statutory limit of 6 per cent. by regulation, but in judging the effect of my noble friend's other proposal we are bound to stop and consider the possible consequences for those living in the vicinity of several tracks, and it is the case that there are local authorities with more than one track in their area. Are there any objections which might arise on the ground of general neighbourhood amenities? I think your Lordships will agree with m e that no matter how well conducted these tracks are—and tracks under the aegis of the Greyhound Racing Association are well conducted—meetings cannot pass unnoticed by people in the neighbourhood.
While, therefore, I have sympathy with the objects of the Bill, I should be less than candid if I did not warn your Lordships that the Bill does not adequately deal with all the necessary consequential amendments which must be made if we agree to remove the requirement that all tracks in an area must race on the same day. These may be said to be mainly practical difficulties, but in considering how to right them it will be necessary for the Government to look at wider policy issues as well. If these restrictions are to be removed, therefore, we need to look closely into how the proposed amendments will work in practice.

403
With the present pressure on Parliamentary business I cannot, I am afraid, hold out any hope that the services of Parliamentary draftsmen could be made available to look at what has to be done, or that time could be made available by the Government in another place. I am not saying to my noble friend that his Bill as drafted is not viable. What I am saying is that in order to satisfy what I I think are legitimate and proper concerns some amendment would be necessary, and I cannot offer the services of Parliamentary draftsmen, or indeed offer that Government time could be made available in another place, So, to sum up, I must advise the House that while the Government are in general favourably disposed towards the principles of my noble friend's Bill, we do not regard it as satisfactory in its present form.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the 6 per cent. deduction on dog race tracks is the same deduction as for horse racecourses?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the deduction on the Tote for horse racing is higher.
6.23 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, from this side of the House we should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, for his exposition of the purpose of the Bill, welcome Her Majesty's Government's benevolent attitude towards it and hasten to add our support. It is some thirty years, back in the 'thirties, when I last had any personal experience of greyhound racing. It was the Slough track which I was interested in, as I was at the time spending a little time at an educational establishment not far away. But I do not think it requires any experience of this sport to be convinced by the noble Lord's arguments that the two amendments proposed are basically sound. It is surely reasonable to allow this measure of flexibility for the local authority, the licensing authority, to choose on which day of the 104 days on which there can be racing, racing will in fact take place on each of the racecourses for which they are responsible. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, carried me with him when he pointed out that there are people living in the
404
vicinity of two greyhound racing tracks. I should like to know where there are two tracks close enough for racing on each of them to have an effect on the amenities.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I deal with that question now? There is, for example, the Greater London Council, and the Inner London Council, too.
LORD SANDFORD: I will not pursue this matter further at the moment, because it is really a case which has to be presented by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, but I suspect he will be able to count on my support on this point. Furthermore, is it not true that although this flexibility has been introduced under the Bill, it will be up to the local authority to control the different days on which racing takes place, and the kind of amenities which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is anxious about fall within their purview. So much for that point, With regard to the second point, about the increase of the percentage, I think both noble Lords have fully made the case that an increase is now justified, and it is my own personal feeling, which I think will be shared by other noble Lords throughout the House, that Parliament can now safely leave to the Home Secretary the adjustment of this percentage whenever it is necessary.
6.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT WARD OF WITLEY: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment. I must declare my interest in that I am the President of the Greyhound Racing Society. I did not mean to intervene because I felt that I was too close to the business. I do so now only to express to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, the hope that he will not allow the point he made about amenities to interfere too much with his blessing for the Bill. I am advised that the only tracks which are likely to be near enough to each other to give rise to the objection which he has mentioned are Clapton and Harringay. I think those are the only two. There is no other in the country which fits the bill of the objection which he has raised. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, for his presentation of the Bill. It is quite a simple measure, but it will, I feel, go a long way to help an industry which is going through a very difficult time and is likely to face even greater

405
difficulties in the future unless something is done to help it.
6.29 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, If I may have permission to speak again, I count myself as extremely fortunate in presenting this Bill, because I think there can be few occasions on which a Minister who says he knows nothing about it is prepared to support it, and when it is supported from the other side by a minister of the Church of England who admits at least that in the distant past he had some connection with a track in the Slough area.
Because of the late hour I did not expand what I would have said. Of course these tracks are lungs in an area, and most of them are, I agree, in densely populated areas. But because of the cost of running a track, and because there is so much profit to be made from property development, many of the tracks up and down the country (I think there have been about 30 or 40 in the last few years) have simply gone out of existence. These tracks are not only lungs in thickly populated areas but are in fact sporting arenas used for other sports. If I may take just two cases, one is the White City and all that arises in the White City. I am not going to be too dogmatic about it, but I read in the Press a little while ago that the White City was being sold for property development. Then there is that great sporting stadium at Wembley. Wembley could not exist on the basis of seven, eight or ten international football matches in a year. The revenue arising from such events could not by itself carry the costs, the rates and all the rest of the expense arising in the Wembley Stadium. That stadium is really carried by the dog race track.
I agree that if there is an area in which two tracks are close together some nuisance may arise, and Parliament has every right to protect the ordinary citizen who is not of the sporting type against interference with the amenities of the area in which he resides. The noble Viscount, Lord Ward of Witley, referred to two tracks which he considered were close together, Clapton and Harringay.
VISCOUNT WARD OF WITLEY: My Lords, I am sorry: I did say "Harringay" but I meant Hackney.
LORD LINDGREN: Clapton and Harringay would be a little closer together. But what I was going to say is that the average fellow who lives near Harringay Stadium would rarely get over to Clapton, or even to Hackney. I repeat what I said in my first speech, that I am quite prepared to consider Amendments to the Bill, and if it is possible to obtain some expert assistance of people to prepare the Amendments, then I will do it. I ask that your Lordships be good enough to give this Bill a Second Reading this evening in order that we may go forward to the Committee stage, to see what can then be done.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EGGS (PROTECTION OF GUARANTEES) ORDER 1969
6.33 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on February 20, 1969 be approved. The reason for making the 1969 Order is a technical matter: it is to clarify the provisions of Article 7 of the 1968 Order, and the new Order makes no other changes in the provisions of the 1968 Order except for small drafting amendments in Articles 4 and 5.
Article 7 of the 1968 Order enabled an authorised officer to require any person engaged in certain types of egg business to produce on demand books, accounts and records relating to the purchase and sale of eggs. It was pointed out by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments of another place that Article 7 of the 1968 Order as drafted did not say explicitly that the books, accounts and records to be produced should be those which were in a person's possession and control. I am told that, in practice, the only records which authorised officers would ask for are those in the possession or control of the person to whom the demand was addressed. Nevertheless, it was felt that possible doubt should be removed. This Order does just that.
Articles 4 and 5 of the 1969 Order also show small drafting amendments. In Article 4 the opportunity has been taken to put in slightly more elegant words to

407
meet a point made by, I understand, a Member of this House when the 1968 Order was before the Special Orders Committee. My Lords, I hope you will agree that we need not discuss the other provisions of the 1969 Order, since they are the same as those in the 1968 Order which we debated very recently in this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1969 laid before the House on February 20 last be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)

THE CASE OF P.C. LUCKHURST
6.35 p.m.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now reconsider their decision not to appoint an Independent Committee of Inquiry into the case of ex-P.C. Frederick Luckhurst. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. I should like briefly to remind your Lordships of the background of this rather disturbing and worrying case. I ask your Lordships to cast your minds back to May 7, 1966, when it was reported to Iver police station that a bank overnight bag containing £139 had been lost. The following day, between 9.30 a.m. and 10.30 a.m., a Colonel Matters of Langley, in Buckinghamshire, found a night safe bag containing a sum of money. He promptly reported the matter by telephone to a local police station. A policeman then called at the house, it is said, collected the bag and returned the following evening in plain clothes (that is to say, with a sports jacket over his uniform trousers) to tell the Colonel that the wallet had been handed in and that it contained a sum of £40. We are discussing in this case a bag which was alleged to have been lost—it has never been proved—a bag that was found and was alleged to have contained £40, but was never produced at any moment at all in evidence.
Seven weeks later, Colonel Matters made inquiries about this money and the bag and learned that no bag had been handed in at any station. As a result of his complaint an official investigation was started. P.C. Luckhurst was
408
one of the police officers who was questioned about the incident. He had been on duty at the time. But he denied all knowledge of the matter, and gave a detailed account of his movements. The next thing that happened was that he was required to take part with nine other local officers, all of whom were in uniform, and one of whom was a sergeant wearing stripes, in an identification parade.
Colonel Matters and his wife were asked to attend the parade, to see if they could identify the police officer who was supposed to have called at their house on two occasions, once to collect the wallet, and later to inform them that it had been handed in and that it contained £40. Colonel Matters walked down the line, said he was not sure, and then asked for the caps to be removed. He walked along the line a second time, and still was not sure. A third time, and still he was not certain. Then he stood back and pointed to P.C. Luckhurst. Mrs. Matters, who had the same opportunities of meeting the policemen as her husband, did not identify Luckhurst at the parade. It was only later, in the magistrates' court, that she did so. For that is the next scene in this story.
Immediately after the identification parade, within a few moments, P.C. Luckhurst was taken into the charge room and charged, solely on the basis of this identification, and sent for trial. On September 29, 1966, he was sentenced to prison for this offence. He was 38 years old at the time, with a wife and three children, and he had been a policeman for 10 years. Prior to this he had been a soldier in the Hussars for seven years. Neither as a soldier nor as a policeman had there been any stain whatsoever on his character. Luckhurst was advised that there was no ground for an appeal against conviction. Nevertheless, he filed an appeal and his brother and other relatives and friends provided limited funds. The appeal was rejected, although the Lord Chief Justice in his judgment referred to the "considerable difficulties or improbabilities" that arose in the prosecution's story.
My Lords, that is the background of this case. Simple it seems, perhaps, and straightforward. I do not think so, otherwise I should not be speaking on this matter now. In my view, in the view of

409
the Police Federation, in the view of independent assessors and investigators there were many alarming and serious irregularities during the investigation of this case, and in its presentation at the trial, which seriously prejudiced the position of Luckhurst. Dr. Ronald Sampson, in a lucid summing up of the case, put the matter as follows:
"It is not necessary in English law for the accused to prove the certainty of his innocence. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove its case beyond ali reasonable doubt. In this case, the accused was denied the benefit of the doubt in instance after instance. In this case, the prosecution was given the benefit of the doubt in instance after instance."
My Lords, let me outline a few relevant facts, all of which were established at one time or another. The crucial features which supply evidence of guilt are as follows: first, that the accused should have access to knowledge which would enable him to commit the crime; secondly, that he should have the opportunity to commit the crime; thirdly, that he should have an adequate motive. Let us take the first point, access to knowledge which would enable the accused to commit the crime. Colonel Matters said he rang Langley police station to report his finding of the wallet. But as a matter of fact, right up until the trial Colonel Matters was quite uncertain as to which police station he had rung, because there were four police stations locally, each one of which he could have telephoned, and he decided that it must have been Langley only just prior to the trial. If he did ring Langley police station at the time he said he did, Luckhurst could not have taken the call reporting that the wallet had been found because he was at home taking his midmorning break. The man on duty who took the call, if such a call was made, was a P.C. Smith. But P.C. Smith has always denied taking such a call, and there is no official record of it at Langley police station.
However, the simple fact that Luckhurst was not there to take the telephone call, if it was made to Langley station, did not deter the prosecution at all. They came up with an explanation—and obviously it could be the only one possible—that P.C. Smith was somehow involved in this case. In fact, at the appeal hearing the Lord Chief Justice said:
It was always the prosecution's case that Smith was in it …"
410
from the beginning. Yet, my Lords, Smith was never charged. He is still a serving police officer. He was the chief defence witness, who stuck stoutly to his colleague, yet his evidence was attacked by the prosecution, who plainly suggested that he was in collaboration with Luckhurst in this crime. He has, in effect, been accused but never charged, and has never been given an opportunity to clear his name. Why did the prosecution suggest that Smith was involved? Quite simply, the implication was that when Luckhurst returned to the station after his mid-morning break, Smith told him of the telephone call from the Colonel, and the two men then conspired together to steal the wallet.
The next question is this. Given that Luckhurst was told about the wallet by Smith, did he then have the opportunity to call on the Colonel and collect it and steal it? Not according to the investigation that was conducted later by a solicitor for Luckhurst in company with several police officers. The fact is that on that particular morning, when the information was laid by the Colonel that he had found the bag, when Luckhurst returned after his mid-morning break lie was immediately ordered by the sergeant on duty to take a Commer van—one of those large ones with a flashing light on top—and, with P.C. Smith, to drive to a local quarry and dispose of two unclaimed scooters. That conjures up all kinds of visions, which I will not go into at this stage.
However, they did this. The records, the route, everything, was checked by a solicitor with the aid of the police stop-watched and checked by an inspector of police. Those tests showed that the journey took 90 minutes and, therefore, that Luckhurst and Smith could not have deviated from their route, and could not have called on the Colonel and collected this wallet. These tests proved beyond doubt that the times and mileages as entered were correct, and certainly it is quite clear that it would have been impossible to forge the entries over those mileage meters, and so on. One would have thought that the police themselves in an inquiry of this nature would have taken the very simple step of making this test themselves with the Commer van to see whether Luckhurst's story held water, but they did not. It was only later

411
that Luckhurst's solicitor got the collaboration of the police in carrying out these tests prior to the appeal, and that evidence was never allowed to be given at the hearing of the appeal.
My Lords, you might think, on the basis of all this alone, first that Luckhurst had no knowledge of the telephone call unless Smith told him; and, second, that if he did have knowledge in some way he certainly did not have the opportunity to steal the wallet. You might think that the prosecution case had about as much weight as a stick of candyfloss, and about as much significance. But there are many more disturbing facts on which I should like to touch briefly.
First, Colonel Matters was quite firm about the fact that the policeman who called upon him to collect the hag arrived in a car. But it was proved at the time, as I have indicated, that Luckhurst had access only to a Commer van, a large and conspicuous vehicle with a flashing light. Mrs. Matters, the Colonel's wife, in evidence at the trial referred specifically to Luckhurst's hair style. She said she had been almost sure about Luckhurst during the identification parade because he had a receding hair style which she remembered vividly. She was quite firm about this, and she said that Luckhurst was the only officer on the parade who had receding hair. Yet when Chief Inspector Hall, who was in charge of the identification parade, was questioned by the Deputy Chairman at the trial, he stated quite firmly and clearly that while Mrs. Matters was present at the parade the officers were wearing their headgear and did not uncover their heads while she was there. How could she tell that he had a receding hair style? Mr. Luckhurst is in the gallery to-day, and if any of your Lordships have an opportunity to see him you will be quite clear on one point: that if he was wearing a police hat or helmet at the time, as Chief Inspector Hall swore on oath, then Mrs. Matters must have possessed X-ray vision to see that he had receding hair.
Was Luckhurst given the benefit of this very substantial doubt about the accuracy of Mrs. Matters' testimony?—and here you have a clear-cut conflict between the Colonel's wife, on the one hand, and Chief Inspector Hall on the other. Oh no; not at all.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think my noble friend said earlier—and I believe correctly—that Mrs. Matters did not identify Mr. Luckhurst at the identification parade. She did not identify him. What he has said since then would appear to conflict with that, as if she had attempted to identify him.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I think my noble friend has missed the point. She failed to identify him at the identification parade; then she said in the magistrates' court that she nearly identified him because of his receding hair style, but was not sure. I think that if my noble friend looks it up he will find that is the fact of the case; and it was the receding hair style by which she said she nearly recognised him, plus his high colour, at the identification parade. But they were wearing caps at the identification parade.
Was Luckhurst given the benefit of this very substantial conflict between Chief Inspector Hall and Mrs. Matters on this very important subject? Oh, no. The Deputy Chairman told the jury, when he summed up:
"You may think the Chief Inspector was faulty in his recollection when he said that she"—
that was Mrs. Matters,—
"only saw a parade …"
on which the men had their heads covered. In other words, he did not say "The weight of the evidence is equal on both sides, and you must give Luckhurst, the accused, the benefit of the doubt", as is the basic principle. On the contrary, he came down heavily for a point of view expressed by Mrs. Matters, and virtually dismissed Chief Inspector Hall's testimony. He gave the whole weight to Mrs. Matters; he gave the prosecution, and not the accused, the benefit of the doubt.
My Lords, I turn to two other very serious aspects of the case, both of which prejudiced or hurt Luckhurst. Both deal with the handling of the investigation by senior officers of police. It is specifically laid down in the Police Act of 1964 that if a complaint is made against the police which might disclose a possible criminal offence—and they are the important words—the matter must be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. A Chief Officer is bound, unless

413
he is satisfied that no criminal offence has been committed, to send a report of the investigation to the Director. It is for the Director, and not for the Chief Constable, to decide whether criminal proceedings shall be brought. This clearly defined procedure was ignored by the Chief Officer—at that moment the acting Chief Constable of the Buckinghamshire police. Luckhurst was arrested and charged without any reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I find this extraordinary. The Home Office has drawn the attention of Chief Constables throughout the country to this important part of the Police Act. But it has not done Luckhurst very much good. He was denied the safeguard provided by an Act of Parliament, and now we are rather locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. The Chief Officers of the Buckinghamshire Police were clearly wrong in this matter, for whatever reason, and yet Luckhurst, who was the one to suffer because his superiors neglected to carry out their duty, is denied any redress.
The second aspect, which also concerns police procedure, arises out of the identity parade which was held. An identification parade is never really a successful way of establishing positive evidence at the best of times—it is often just perhaps the clincher. But this particular parade was conducted with such irregularity that it amounted to a travesty of justice. Specific rules are laid down for the guidance of the police, and they have recently been reinforced by a new instruction from the Home Office. One rule is that where there are two suspects there should either be two separate identity parades, or one identity parade consisting of twelve people at least, if not fourteen, and that they should be roughly of similar appearance, age and height in the parade. Since all the men who were involved in this particular parade were local section men, all of whom might have been under suspicion at some time or another and to some extent or another, it is clearly rather ridiculous to confront a colonel, who must have seen all these officers around at one point or another, with a parade of his local section men. But in the Luckhurst case the line-up consisted of nine men only, one of whom was a sergeant wearing stripes, which effectively eliminates him and reduces
414
the number to eight. Two men were direct suspects, Luckhurst and Smith, so that reduces the effective number in the line-up to six—half of the requirement.
Even with this handful, Colonel Matters found it difficult to make a positive identification. What is even more disturbing is that Chief Superintendent Strong of the Buckinghamshire police made a statement to the effect that he paraded the men solely to establish whether or not a member of that section was involved. In other words, this was a clear admission that this was not a formal identification parade at all in the legal sense. And no amount of argument can change that, because that is what he did. Afterwards it became a formal and official identification parade. A parade may not be held in order to establish one thing and then be altered round to meet the convenience of the investigating officers when it suits them. Yet it was this tragi-comedy of an identification parade which was the main reason for the arrest and trial of Luckhurst. I think there is sufficient there to indicate that I was right when I said at the beginning that this is a strange and disturbing case.
May I briefly emphasise the major points once more. First, Luckhurst was denied the protection afforded by the Police Act of 1964 when his superiors failed in their clear duty to report their investigation to the Director of Public Prosecutions and await his instructions. The Director might have decided that there was a case for trial, but it is my view—and it is the view of many eminent people who have studied the case—that on the evidence available it is obvious that he might equally have decided that Luckhurst had no case to answer. Secondly, there was the irregular and almost non-existent identification parade which again prejudiced Luckhurst. Thirdly, there were the contradictions in the evidence against him, particularly in relationship to the Colonel's statement that the police officer who called on him came by car, whereas Luckhurst only had a big Commer van. Finally, there is the mysterious question of Mrs. Matter's evidence about recognising Luckhurst by his receding hairline at the parade, when there is equally strong, if not stronger, testimony that she could not possibly have seen Luckhurst's hair during the

415
parade, and did not in fact pick him out at the time.
There was then the clear and, so far as I can see, undisputed evidence that Luckhurst was not on duty at the time the Colonel telephoned and consequently, if he did steal this bag, it must have been in collusion with somebody else and that other person has never been charged and brought to trial. At the time he was supposed to have called on the Colonel to steal the wallet, he was miles away on other police duty, as has been sworn in an affidavit. Finally, there is the amazing situation with regard to P.C. Smith. On three or four occasions the prosecution alleged or implied that he was involved in the crime with Luckhurst—yet he has never been charged and has never been given an opportunity to clear his name of these damaging allegations.
Your Lordships may well be thinking: if Luckhurst did not commit this crime, who did? The answer to that I do not know, and it is no part of my purpose here to-day to indulge in guesswork. But unseemly and panic haste to accuse someone, and to accuse Luckhurst in particular, seems to have been the answer of the police to this question. What I am concerned with to-day is that a man was arrested, charged and imprisoned, his career ruined, on the basis of evidence which is flimsy, circumstantial, contradictory, biased, and often downright false. I am concerned that a British citizen has been denied that full measure of justice which is his by law and right.
The Home Office have said that they cannot re-open the case because there is no new evidence to support such action. Who needs fresh evidence when the old evidence in favour of Luckhurst is so strong, and when the old evidence against him is so full of holes? This trial is over two years old now; it is cold, and it is impossible to get anything new. I take my stand on this question on the old evidence. In any case, one cannot be altogether sure that new evidence would bring about a change in attitude. We had only last week the example of the man who had been wrongly committed to Rampton Mental Hospital nearly four years ago. Last June the Home Office were given some vital new evidence in this case, and dismissed it. It was only
416
after a further inquiry, which was largely engineered by the Member of Parliament who had fought the case, that the Home Office were forced to admit that the man was innocent. I mention this not to kick the Home Office, but merely to indicate that they are not infallible, that they can make mistakes, that it does not behove them to adopt an attitude of rigidity towards these questions of justice and liberty, and that in matters where the guilt or innocence of a human being is at stake nobody, least of all a Government Department, can afford to adopt an inflexible attitude.
What have the Home Office got to lose by an independent inquiry? If it confirms the findings of the court, then they are vindicated. If it does not and Luckhurst is found to be innocent, then they have served the cause of justice and earned all our thanks. There was an official police inquiry, the report of which has never been published. Luckhurst has never seen it; his counsel has never seen it, and we do not know what is in it; and we shall not be allowed to know, for these reports are private and privileged. Therefore, I want to see an open, independent inquiry, made up of people who have no connection with the police and who can assess the evidence objectively. Without it the doubt must linger on—and not only a doubt, a suspicion also, a suspicion which may or may not be well-founded, but which I have often heard expressed in relation to this case.
It is the inevitable suspicion that there is more behind this case than meets the eye; that Luckhurst has been made the scapegoat for other people's incompetence, or worse; that to reopen the matter might cause acute embarrassment to some people; that there is some sort of cover-up going on; that the crust of the Establishment has closed over this case and hardened like concrete. It may be shocking to hold or to voice such a suspicion, but we all know that this sort of thing has happened before and will probably happen again, human nature being what it is. Human beings can do strange things when they are forced into a corner. The Home Office can clear away any such thoughts, doubts or suspicions by agreeing to the appointment of an independent inquiry.
I have not touched on the question of motive and, in conclusion, I should like

417
to do so briefly now. No motive was ever established against Luckhurst. He was not in any debt, his character and integrity was unquestioned, and he liked his job. There was absolutely no reason why he should jeopardise all this by stealing the wallet. There was no evidence that he had been spending extra money and none of the money was found on him or in his house—according to the evidence I have studied—while no trace of the bag was ever found. Moreover, he is not a stupid man. If he was the officer who called on Colonel Matters and collected the wallet and if he did decide to steal it, why on earth should he call back the following evening and give the Colonel one more look at him? He must have known that Colonel Matters would follow the matter up later. Why, therefore, would he expose himself to identification in this way? Why commit larceny so clumsily?
It would be easy, perhaps, for Mr. Luckhurst to try to put all this behind him, to move from the area, to make a new life, forgetting the past and its injustices. But he has not taken the easy way, because he is one of those strange, curious and stubborn men who sometimes spring up in this country, who happens to think that his good name and his reputation are important. From the first moment he was accused until the present day he has not ceased to proclaim his innocence. He has had the backing of all kinds of organisations, including 11 police constables in Slough who signed a statement professing his innocence, which was never admitted in court: an independent investigator, Chief Superintendent Brennan, has sifted through the evidence and come up with largely the same points as I have indicated to-day; and eminent lawyers have expressed their concern about the case.
Luckhurst has put himself into debt, pawned his future prospects, in order to fight his case and to establish his innocence. Guilty men do not do that; they take their punishment and creep away, secretly accepting the verdict of society. He has refused to take the easy way. He maintains, with extraordinary optimism, in view of his circumstances, an abiding faith in British justice, and is convinced that even if it takes twenty years it will eventually clear his name.
418
Shakespeare, as always, had the words for it, words for this sort of situation, when he said:
"Who steals my purse, steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed."
This may appear to be a very small issue in comparison with great world issues like Vietnam, Nigeria and the balance of payments. But it is not. It is something that strikes at the roots of the British tradition of law and justice. I beg the Home Office, I beg the Government, to end this attitude of inflexibility, to give this man at least the chance of clearing his name before an independent commission of inquiry.
7.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, we have good reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for putting down this Question, for by doing so he performs a public service. I say that because this case is concerned not solely with the fate of one man but with the administration of justice which, to be justice of truth, must be seen to be such. This case is so full of doubts that I think it is impossible for any impartial observer to be convinced that justice was done, and I say that without taking any stand on any belief in the guilt or otherwise of the man concerned. This is simply a question of how the matter was handled. The noble Lord confined his speech almost entirely to facts. All I can do, without being a nuisance to your Lordships, is to underline a few of the facts, and perhaps elaborate them slightly.
At the Court of Appeal, the Lord Chief Justice said that there were,
"considerable improbabilities in regard to this case if it were to be established that Mr. Luckhurst was guilty of the offence charged."
But having said that, he then said (I am quoting from the New Law Journal of February 22, 1968) that the converse view, that Mr. Luckhurst was innocent led to equal if not greater improbabilities.
"In effect, therefore, Mr. Luckhurst's conviction appears to have been upheld or a balance of improbabilities, and the balancing factor was undoubtedly the incompatibility of his innocence and his identification by Colonel Matters at the Langley police station parade."
What in fact was the evidence which convicted Mr. Luckhurst? It was the

419
identification at that parade. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, has drawn attention to numerous irregularities in the way in which that parade was carried out. Those are technical matters with which I shall not concern myself. But I invite your Lordships' attention to the rest of Colonel Matters's evidence which brought Mr. Luckhurst to the point of trial. Colonel Matters was the man who found the bag. A bag had been lost, and we know that because somebody—an unidentified person—reported it as having been lost. It has never been seen and, so far as I know—although I may be wrong—the evidence that it was lost has not been corroborated.
I think it was the next day that Colonel Matters reported to a police station that he had found it, though I do not know that his finding it was ever corroborated either. He then handed it over in the evening of the same day to a policeman. The fact that he handed it over has been corroborated by nobody, certainly not by the police. The bag was never received at any police station. Colonel Matters said that he telephoned the police station in the morning between 10.15 and 10.45. But in the words of the Deputy Chairman of Quarter Sessions what he actually said was that he thought it was between 10.15 and 10.45. He was not certain. Later in the day he said that Police Constable Luckhurst came to his house in a car—
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, he did not say that it was Police Constable Luckhurst who came. He said that a police constable came.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I accept the correction of the noble Lord: it was only later that Police Constable Luckhurst was identified. A policeman came to his house in a car. But it was established that when Police Constable Luckhurst became involved he was driving a large Commer van, with a blue light on top. As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has pointed out, Colonel Matters was uncertain which police station he had rung up. He was not uncertain only when first asked: he was uncertain throughout the committal proceedings in the magistrates' court. It was only between that appearance and the trial itself at Quarter Sessions, that he became convinced that the police station concerned had been Langley.
420
That sums up the evidence on which Luckhurst was brought to trial, and I think I am not stretching the matter too far when I say that I have seldom met a collection of evidence more widely open to doubt. There is not one single item that is corroborated, and there is much in it of which Colonel Matters himself was unsure. Yet on the strength of that evidence Police Constable Luckhurst was brought into an identification parade, and was picked out only with the greatest difficulty by Colonel Matters. On the strength of that identification, he was convicted. There may have been some slight corroboration (I will come to that in a moment), but basically that is all that convicted him—that identification, carried out with great difficulty and uncertainty, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, three months (I think the noble Lord said seven weeks, but I believe that in fact it was as much as twelve weeks) after he had seen a policeman, once in the morning and once in the evening—and, incidentally, once in plain clothes. Three months later he was able to go to an identity parade and pick out a man in uniform and say, "That was the man". My Lords, is it possible to do that? Would any of your Lordships undertake to say, "That was the man"? I know very well that I would not.
On the question of whether there was any corroboration, we come to the question of Mrs. Matters and this highly doubtful matter of Luckhurst's receding hair style, as she described it. That has been disposed of by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and it was disposed of by the Court of Appeal, where the Lord Chief Justice said that Mrs. Matters's evidence was to be ignored—and surely very properly. That is all very well; but was it ignored at the trial? This was part of the evidence on which Luckhurst was convicted; and, as the noble Lord has pointed out, the Deputy Chairman in charge of the trial was at no pains to make a balance in favour of the chief inspector, who said that Luckhurst had had his cap on, and against Mrs. Matters's evidence. So I think it is fairly certain that Mrs. Matters's evidence told against Luckhurst.
Now we come to the position of Police Constable Owen Smith, who, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is still a serving policeman. As has been made

421
perfectly clear by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, this was the officer who was concerned with Luckhurst throughout the material time on the day concerned. His was the evidence that supported Luckhurst. It was absolutely cast-iron evidence and it was accepted as such by the Deputy Chairman at the Quarter Sessions, who said it was perfectly clear beyond doubt that Smith had been with Luckhurst throughout the material time. Was Luckhurst guilty, or was he not guilty? If he was guilty, then surely so was Smith. But Smith has never been brought to trial, so presumably Smith is not guilty. Then why was Luckhurst convicted? My Lords, you cannot have it both ways: you cannot convict Luckhurst and allow his "accomplice" (I use this word in inverted commas) to go free and to continue in service—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Earl at this point. I hope we shall not start talking about accomplices. We are privileged here, my Lords, and, whatever the facts of this case, we should not use our position to cast aspersions on other people who cannot possibly defend themselves here.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has done me an injustice. I made a point of saying that I put that word in inverted commas. Perhaps I may have the noble Lord's ear. I said on purpose, having used that word, that I put it in inverted commas. I did not mean the word to be used in its ordinarily accepted sense, and that is what I intended by that. I shall explain why I did it in a moment. The last thing I wish to do is anything which would justify the very proper strictures which the noble Lord has aimed at me—and I hope he will accept that from me.
Police Constable Smith was with Police Constable Luckhurst. He was alleged, therefore—I must be very careful; he was suspected, according to the prosecution, of having had some hand in this crime. The prosecution always took the view that you could not rule Smith out of it and this view of theirs was repeated. They were stated to have held this view by the Court of Appeal. Very well; but these two men have been separated, and I think this fact alone is enough to establish the fact that there
422
must have been a miscarriage of justice. It may have been a miscarriage of justice against Luckhurst. It may, and I think it a [most certainly was, a miscarriage of justice against Smith, because Smith most certainly has been accused, by implication, if no more, of being involved in a crime, and has never been given the chance to defend himself in open court. That, surely, of itself is grounds for an inquiry into the whole case.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, asks: If Luckhurst did not commit the crime, who did? The noble Lord does not answer that question. Who can answer it? Who wishes to answer it? I certainly do not. But, my Lords, what was the crime? What evidence has been produced that there ever was a crime in the first place? I began by running over, I hope reasonably accurately, the evidence which was produced, showing that a bag had been lost, that a bag had been found and that a bag had been handed to a policeman. But where was this bag? We do not know. There are all sorts of possibilities, none of which I propose to adumbrate in any way at all. I have nothing to add but to say that I have come to the same conclusion as that which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, came to and which is represented by his Question. That is, that there is so much doubt, so much uncertainty and, I believe, my Lords, so much unease in the public mind that I think a public inquiry should be held.
7.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, there are nine speakers on this Unstarred Question, and I therefore propose to confine my remarks to one or two aspects only. I am quite confident that all relevant aspects will be fully touched upon by the time we have reached the end of the list of speakers. When this matter went to the Court of Appeal, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, the Lord Chief Justice made reference to "considerable difficulties and improbabilities". My Lords, there is nothing to find fault with in those comments when you have read some of the details of this astonishing case. I repeat what the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, said, that we are all most grateful to my noble friend Lord Willis, because

423
without his Unstarred Question the case might just have gone by the board and might perhaps have been forgotten as a small matter to be shrugged off. Speaking for myself, I must admit that but for this Question I would never have known anything about it, and I imagine that a good many of your Lordships are in the same position.
My Lords, this bag was a night safe bag. It would have been locked when found by Colonel Matters. It was alleged to have contained £139. Colonel Matters, of course, would not know this, because he did not have the key, and could not have looked inside. We have Colonel Matters's word for it (and there is no reason to doubt his word) that he reported the find by telephone to the police—that is, a bag with unspecified contents. Yet there is no record of any such telephone call being received at any of the police stations in the vicinity. However, Colonel Matters again says that the bag was collected the same day by a policeman in a car, and that the next day the policeman came back again to tell Colonel Matters that there was £40 in the bag.
My Lords, it seems to me that there are two points here. First of all, why did the policeman not sign for the bag when he collected it from Colonel Matters in the first place? Secondly, if he did not offer to sign for it, why did not Colonel Matters, who, as an experienced soldier, would know perfectly well that you never hand over anything without getting a proper discharge for it, ask for a signature, from which the policeman would have been identified? P.C. Luckhurst did not go out in the car that day. He was out in a large van accompanied by another officer, P.C. Smith; but the record of the journey and the speedometer reading of this van, which performed the duty for which it was ordered out, indicated that it could not have gone near Colonel Matters's house. Why, I wonder, was it necessary for the policeman, if he were guilty—and I think this point was made by the noble Lord opposite—to make a second call on the next day to tell Colonel Matters the contents of the bag? Why could he not have made a telephone call, which is cheaper, quicker and more appropriate? And, of course, if the receipt had been obtained in the first place even that
424
would have been obviated. The upshot of all these points is that P.C. Luckhurst was put in the position of performing the impossible task of proving himself innocent—which is contrary to the established principles of British justice.
My Lords, I hope and trust that my noble friend Lord Stonham—and he is my noble friend; I have every confidence in his sympathy and kindness and toleration and he knows that I have such confidence—will give the answers to a few more questions when he comes to reply. First, why was not the case referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions before P.C. Luckhurst was charged; and what action has been taken in respect of the individual who failed in his duty so to refer the case? Second, was the case of P.C. Smith ever referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if so, with what result? My Lords, I ask my noble friend these two questions specifically and I expect to receive an answer to both.
I do not propose to refer to the identification parade which has been already adequately dealt with except to say that it seems to have been carried on in an exceedingly unprofessional way, to say the least of it. The accused was identified by one of two people who had an equal chance to know what he looked like—and then only at the third or fourth attempt. I am not sure whether it was at the third or at the fourth attempt. One can assess that as a 50 per cent. success if one Is generous; and that, I think, is the most generous estimate. It simply cannot, in fairness, be free from at least sonic degree of doubt.
My Lords, there is one other question that I should like to put to the noble Lord who will be replying on behalf of the Government. Who advised P.C. Luckhurst that he had no grounds for an appeal, when the whole evidence seems to bristle with doubts, the benefit of which would have been given to him? Did not the Lord Chief Justice in the Court of Appeal expressly refer to "considerable difficulties and improbabilities"? My Lords, improbabilities, yes. It seems to me, judging from what I have read of this case, that it is improbable that P.C. Luckhurst was guilty and it seems certain to me that he was not proved guilty.
7.25 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I have been trying to foresee what sort of reply we are going to get from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, at the end of this short debate. If he is going to refuse to agree to this proposed independent inquiry I imagine that he will rest his case in this way: he will say that where there is a case of a man having been tried according to the ordinary process of law, having been convicted by a jury, appealing against that conviction and having his appeal dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, it is not the business of the Executive to constitute itself as a sort of super Court of Appeal and to interfere with the decision of the Courts. At any rate, that is the general rule and, if I may say so, I accept that entirely as the general rule. Indeed, we should be embarking on a perilous course if we were ever not to accept that that is the general rule and that it is not the business of the Executive, in the ordinary way and in the absence of exceptional circumstances, to interfere in the decisions of the Courts—and especially where the decision of the court has been confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
But, my Lords, I ask myself this question. Are there cases, exceptional cases, where it would be permissible and proper, and, indeed, imperative, that the Executive should look at a case and should, where they are satisfied, interfere with the decision of the Courts? Clearly, there are exceptions. One of them is where new evidence comes to light after the matter has been dealt with in the court of first instance and in the Court of Appeal. That we all know. And if new evidence comes to light which seems to demonstrate that the individual was wrongly convicted, then there are various courses open to the Home Office. One of them is to send back the case to the Court of Appeal and invite them, in the light of the new evidence, to look again. Another course, if they are satisfied that the man was wrongfully convicted, is to grant him the rather anomalous remedy of the free pardon. There are various ways in which the matter can be dealt with. I ask myself this question and I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, this question: are there other circumstances in which the Executive might be entitled to interfere with the decision of the Court, to this extent:
426
that it should set up an independent inquiry to try to find out the real facts of the case?
Although I listened with every attention to all the criticisms that have been made, and very rightly made, of the way in which the identification parade was held on this occasion, I do not myself think, whatever impropriety occurred, that that, by itself, would be a justification for setting up an independent inquiry. There are two features of this case to which I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and which, I suggest, are so exceptional as to justify interference by the Executive by way of an inquiry. The first is the failure to comply with the requirements of the Police Act 1964. May I remind your Lordships that the Police Act, Section 49, says:
"Where the chief officer of police … receives a complaint from a member of the public against a member of the police force for that area he shall"—
I am leaving out the unimportant words—
"… record the complaint and cause it to be investigated …"
It then goes on to describe the way in which he shall arrange for the investigation to take place. Then subsection (3) says:
"On receiving the report of an investigation under this section the chief officer of police, unless satisfied from the report the no criminal offence has been committed, shall send the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions."
Rather curiously, it stops there and does not go on to say, as some Statutes do, that no prosecution shall be instituted without the authority of the Director. That that was the purpose of this section is put beyond any sort of doubt because this matter is dealt with, and the purpose and the meaning of the section is dealt with, in the Home Office Circular No. 21 of 1967 in which it says that where a case arises under Section 49 it is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine whether or not criminal proceedings shall be taken.
My Lords, I do not think it is disputed that in this case no such report was sent to the Director. He never had the opportunity of considering the papers. What is the object of requiring the report to be sent to the Director? It can have no other object, I suggest, than to ensure that before any proceedings

427
are instituted against a policeman the matter shall be considered by a wholly independent authority. That can be the only purpose of the section; and it is that defence and protection which was struck out of the hands of Mr. Luckhurst by the failure of the police authority to send the report to the Director. It might well have been that the Director would have decided, looking at the papers and the report, that it would be quite wrong to put a man at risk of prosecution and conviction upon evidence so tenuous and so slender as in this case.
The other feature of this case which I suggest justifies an inquiry is the curious situation of Police Constable Smith. Nothing that I say here is intended to constitute any reflection upon him. Indeed, if one takes the view as I do, and as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, does, that Mr. Luckhurst was wrongly convicted, clearly we share the view that Constable Smith was in no way implicated in this business at all. But it seems to me (I am not going to review the facts of the matter again) to follow quite incontrovertibly that if the verdict of the jury was right and Mr. Luckhurst was guilty of this offence, clearly Constable Smith connived at the offence and was himself guilty of the same criminal offence of converting this bag and this money to his use, either as a principal or as an accessory. I am afraid that that follows most certainly. Anybody who has read the papers must agree that that is the case.
If that is so, and if it follows from the verdict of the jury, if the jury's verdict was right, that Constable Smith has committed a criminal offence, why are no proceedings brought against him? I suggest—I think it is a reasonable assumption—that the reason why no proceedings are brought against him is that if proceedings were brought they would fail, and we should then have the absurd and anomalous situation that two juries had disagreed and come to contrary conclusions on the same evidence: one jury concluding that Mr. Luckhurst was guilty and the other jury concluding that Constable Smith is innocent; coming to opposite conclusions upon the basis of exactly the same evidence.
My Lords, is that what the Home Office is worried about: that they might find
428
that if proceedings were brought here, the proceedings against Smith would almost certainly fail and we should find ourselves in that almost intolerable situation? I can see the difficulty. We should all be in a hopeless position if that should result. Is that not a good argument for trying to resolve this matter by way of an independent investigation? If we are in danger of running into this trouble of having two verdicts which contradict each other, one man having gone to prison—for 12 months, was it not?—and another man acquitted and maintaining his position in society and in the police force; if we are frightened of having that anomalous result, is it not fair and reasonable, and would it not get the Home Office out of a hole, to agree to an independent inquiry and an independent investigation?
If, at the end of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, gives us a negative answer, that will not allay all these doubts. It will not be the end of this matter; all this uncertainty will continue. There have, of course, been cases before where the Home Office has turned down an application for an inquiry. We had the dreadful experience of the Evans case. Are we going to make that mistake again? It is not to be believed that if we are turned down to-night it is the end of the matter; that Mr. Luckhurst will go home and we shall hear no more about it. We are going to hear about this until the matter has been cleared up.
7.36 p.m.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, I have no desire at this stage to go in detail through all the matters which have arisen in this case and which have been so excellently and clearly stated by my noble friend and by other speakers. I simply want to confine myself to making an appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham (for whom everybody in this House has the very highest respect, knowing his long experience and his deep-seated tradition of justice and kindliness) not to answer in the negative. As has been said, my Lords, a negative answer to-night is not going to end this affair. It is one of those cases—and there are many in the history of this country—which will go on and on because public opinion knows in its heart that there is something wrong; because the evidence it is asked to accept simply does not add

429
up; because this charge was based on such a mass of inconsistencies that it just is not viable to ordinary common sense.
My Lords, it is a case which bristles with so many difficulties that one could go on and on reiterating them, and they have been pointed out again and again by every speaker in this debate. Inconsistencies in evidence; the startling fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said, that if there had been a case brought against both the police constables you would have been faced with two different verdicts. In fact, my Lords, that is what you are faced with now, because in one instance it was decided to bring a case against Luckhurst; in the other instance, although the evidence involving the other police constable was almost identical, no case was brought. You have two verdicts: one verdict that a man's career shall be ended and, but for his own courage and pertinacity, his life ruined; and another that a man's career in the police shall go on under a suspicion but unaffected. And this inconsistency, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and as I am sure that he would agree, is something that British public opinion will find it impossible to swallow. This case will go on as a festering sore unless it is settled, in the only way it can be settled, by an impartial, independent inquiry.
It is particularly essential that where the police are concerned justice shall be done and shall be seen to be done. It is particularly essential that the public shall feel that, if a member of the police force is guilty of a crime, his uniform shall not be allowed to cover up that crime and that he shall be brought to justice. But it is absolutely vital to public confidence that the public shall also be aware that justice is done to the police force itself, and that when a member of that force is suspected of a crime every precaution is taken to ensure that he gets true and proper consideration and adequate justice. Manifestly, there was a failure all along the line in this case.
One other thing is important—enormously important—to the proper conduct of justice and police administration in this country; that is, that members of the police force shall themselves feel that if they fall under the shadow of suspicion they will receive fair treatment and a fair
430
examination of their case. There surely can be nothing more damaging to police morale, which it is so important to sustain, than for the message to go out that a police constable of fine record and of known good character can appear to be "railroaded", as in this case, on the flimsiest and most contrary of evidence. So I appeal to my noble friend to wave away all the temptations of bureaucracy which I have no doubt are assailing him, and have assailed him ever since this case came up, and to stand in your Lordships' House and, with that honesty for which we all honour him, agree that the case for an independent investigation has been made out.
7.44 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, like the other speakers I want to thank my noble friend Lord Willis for raising this matter tonight. In one sense I am sorry that there have been any other speakers than my noble friend himself, as it seemed to me that he made such a strong case that what he said should be much more in the mind of my noble friend the Minister when Ire comes to reply than any of the remarks which other speakers may have made.
I am concerned in this case because Frederick Luckhurst was a police constable at Langley, which was in my constituency. He lived just outside my constituency at Iver, and because I did not want to trespass on the political territory of another Member of another place I did not take up his case publicly. But I did take it up privately, and for this reason. Among the ordinary men and women who live in Langley, among those who come to my political surgery on a Saturday and among the members of the police force in Slough itself, I found an absolute conviction after the sentence was passed that ex-P.C. Luckhurst was not guilty. I think it quite extraordinary, in view of the fact that the Buckinghamshire Police should have brought this prosecution, that eleven colleagues of ex-P.C. Luckhurst in the Slough Police Force should have signed a document stating that in their view he was innocent of the charge which was brought against him.
Because I want to take my own advice and not divide too much what my noble friend Lord Willis said at the beginning from the reply which the Minister will

431
make, I will only say that when I was led to consider this matter, as a result of the extraordinary public feeling in Langley and Slough, there were two questions which were most prominent in my mind and I hope that when he comes to reply the Minister will be able to make a statement on them. I was first influenced by the fact that the Buckinghamshire Police did not refer this complaint to the Director of Public Prosecutions, as required by Section 49(3) of the Police Act 1964, and because they did not do that, ex-P.C. Luckhurst was denied the opportunity of having his case considered by an independent authority before it was brought to court.
The second consideration which was in my mind, and which has been referred to by other speakers, was the unsatisfactory composition of the identification parade. I think it is always doubtful whether evidence by identification parade should be taken as so absolute as it is, and if one looks at the composition of this particular parade, one honestly could not have a feeling that it was any guarantee of the truth of the charge. And if one reads the transcript of the proceedings, one finds that almost the entire case for finding ex-P.C. Luckhurst guilty was identification at this parade.
I want to say just two more things. First—and I do not think that anyone has yet said this—I find it extraordinary that the Police Federation should have asked for a judicial inquiry. It is almost unprecedented on the part of the Police Federation to declare an opinion upon such a matter, because the charge against ex-P.C. Luckhurst was brought by the Buckinghamshire Police. That the Police Federation were so convinced of the justice of having some reconsideration of this case and should have declared themselves in this way, though members of the police force were concerned on both sides, seems to me good evidence of the strength of the case which noble Lords who have spoken tonight have tried to set out.
The last thing I want to say is this. I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider our request for an inquiry, not only for the sake of ex-Police Constable Luckhurst but for the sake of Police Constable Owen Smith. He complained that some-
432
one was doing an injustice. I put it to the Minister that unless there is an inquiry it is the Home Office which will be doing Police Constable Owen Smith an injustice, and for this reason: that Police Constable Owen Smith in the court gave evidence which corroborated in every detail the defence of ex-Police Constable Luckhurst. I do not want to make a charge, because I think ex-Police Constable Luckhurst was innocent. I therefore think that no charge can be made against Police Constable Owen Smith. But I am saying that if ex-Police Constable Luckhurst was guilty, then a very serious charge in the matter of the procedure of evidence in court could be brought against Police Constable Owen Smith.
As I say, it is not only for the sake of ex-Police Constable Luckhurst that I am pleading. Police Constable Owen Smith is under a cloud. He remains in the police force, and has been removed from one division to another. That suspicion must rest on him, and it is for the Home Office, not only for the sake of ex-Police Constable Luckhurst but for the sake also of Police Constable Owen Smith, to ensure that there should at least be the opportunity for both of their names to be vindicated by the kind of inquiry for which we are asking. I join with others in making that appeal to the Minister. Indeed, I would make an appeal even above him to our Home Secretary, who has shown that he has the readiness to look at issues of this kind again and not to be bound by the kind of red-tape procedure which there has often been at the Home Office. I make my appeal both to the heart of the one and to the brain of the other, or the brain of the first and the heart of the other combined, and ask the Minister at least not to close the door this evening but to say that, having heard all that has been said in this House, he will refer it to the Home Secretary and put to him the very strong case which my noble friend Lord Willis made and which has been supported by all the speakers from all sides of the House.
7.53 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, when I observed that I was to be the last speaker on the list before the Minister came to reply, and when I saw that the six speakers who preceded me were all

433
such eloquent and eminent noble Lords (in particular, I would mention my noble friend Lord Willis, to whom we are grateful for putting down this Question to-day), I felt rather afraid that by the time it was my turn to stand up I should have had to cross out just about everything that I had intended to say. But having listened with the greatest attention to all the speeches that have been made, I think I still have a number of important and relevant facts to draw to the attention of your Lordships which have not so far been raised.
We have heard a great deal about this highly controversial identification parade that was held at Slough. But one thing which has not been brought out is that this identification parade was regarded in an extremely different way by the police who were conducting it, and by Colonel Matters who was going to try to identify the culprit. So far as Colonel Matters is concerned, it is possible to quote from his cross-examination by defence counsel at quarter sessions. Mr. Laughland said to Colonel Matters:
"You knew when you went into the identification parade that the parade would contain a man or men who might be thought to have been on duty at Langley police station on the 8th May?"
Colonel Matters replied:
"Yes, I suppose so."
He was then asked:
"In other words, you thought it likely that the suspected culprit would be there on parade?"
And Colonel Matters replied:
"Yes."
The police themselves, however, were regarding it in an extremely and significantly different way, because I have here a report made by Chief Superintendent Strong in a letter to the Police Federation News Letter; and he was the senior officer at Slough Police Station on the day that the parade took place. He was replying to the charge that because there had been two suspects present at that parade there should have been two separate parades. He replied in the following terms:
"I understand from the Press that a question has been raised in the News Letter that at the time the identification parade was held there were two suspects. At that time there were none within this category."
By that he must have meant: "At that time we had no suspects." I repeat:
434
"At that time there were none within this category. The officer who conducted the identification parade was in no way connected with the investigation. The precise function was solely that of establishing whether or riot a member of this police force, that is, the Buckinghamshire Police Force, was involved. For this purpose he paraded all the members of the force"—
as I shall show in a moment—
"who had been on duty at Langley and at Iver on the morning of the 8th May, 1966."
So far as the police position is concerned, on that day they were not saying, "We think we have got the man who did it here." They were merely parading all those police officers who had been on duty at Langley and at Iver that morning. And, to be quite precise, the identification parade consisted of four police officers from Langley and two from Iver who had been on dory on the morning of May 8; three police officers from Langley and Iver who had not been on duty that day; and one man from Slough making up the number. So that one can come to only one of two conclusions. On the one hand, as was said in this News Letter, there were no suspects present in this parade, in which case one has to ask: what was the point of holding a parade if the person who was supposed to have done it was not necessarily there? But if, on the other hand, anyone who was present at Langley or at Iver Police stations on that particular morning was considered a suspect, then there were six suspects out of ten people present. And whoever Colonel Matters chose, the odds were six to four on, I think, that he would choose someone who could be considered to have taken part in this crime, and then he would have been in exactly the same position as Luckhurst is in to-day, of having been identified by a responsible and respected officer and having to prove that he was not there and to prove an alibi.
The next point to consider is that Colonel Matters, believing that the culprit was definitely there, that the police had decided who they thought had done it and that he simply had to pick him out, proceeded, as he said in cross-examination, by a process of elimination. He did not try to find out, to decide, which man was Luckhurst, but decided to eliminate those who he was sure were not Luckhurst. Then he was again questioned by counsel for the defence

435
and asked about his certainty as to which this man was. He replied:
"There is always room for doubt in these matters. I wanted to eliminate people who were obviously"—
and then he corrected himself—
"who I had obviously never seen before, and I eventually came down to the one person who I was absolutely certain was the man who visited my house".
Defence counsel said:
"So the process which you adopted was really, to use your own words, a process of elimination".
The reply was:
"To start with, certainly".
Then counsel asked:
"That was the process which you adopted at any rate throughout your three traverses of the line of men, was it not?"
The reply was:
"Yes".
He was then asked:
"Putting on one side this one you felt sure you had not seen before".
The reply was:
"Yes".
He was then asked:
"And then finally, at the end, having followed through that process, one was left with the accused; that is right, is it not?"
The reply was:
"Yes".
When we take into account the way in which the people, the police officers, were chosen who were taking part in this parade, which I have already adumbrated, it seems to me beyond belief that the evidence of Colonel Matters, on which the entire prosecution case virtually depended, should be considered of anything like enough value to justify conviction.
My Lords, I want to consider for a moment the evidence that was given by Colonel Matters. I do not want to cast any aspersions on that gallant officer, a retired officer of the Royal Marines. But there are some very extraordinary inconsistencies in the evidence that he gave at different times. What is noticeable about the differences is that he became progressively more definite about things that helped the prosecution, and he became progressively less definite about things that helped the defence. There are three examples. At committal the gallant Colonel was extremely doubtful whether he had 'phoned Langley.
436
He knew it had been a police station with a Slough telephone number, but there were four police stations with a Slough telephone number, including Slough and Langley. But as the weeks and months went by he somehow or other became progressively more certain that it had been Langley that he had telephoned, and he said that one of the main reasons for deciding that was that it was the nearest police station to him. And it was not the nearest police station to him. The nearest police station to him was at Iver.
Then in a statement which Colonel Matters made to the police in July he definitely informed them that the officer who came in plain clothes to his house on May 9 was wearing a light coloured sports coat. But when he appeared at quarter sessions he had become extremely vague about this sports coat. He was asked:
"Can you give any description at all of the sports jacket which he was then wearing?"
Answer:
"No."
Then,
"Not even whether it was light or dark?"
Answer:
"No."
He was then asked:
"Did you at any stage give a description of the jacket to the police when they came?"
Answer:
"No."
Then,
"You did not do so?"
Answer:
"No. I said a sports jacket; I could not remember the colour or anything about it."
And yet senior police officers had taken down his statement and had testified that at the time the statement was made he informed them that this officer came in a light coloured sports coat.
Finally, there is the question of the vehicle, or vehicles, used in the two visits to Colonel Matters on May 8 and May 9. In his original statement to the police he said that the first visit was made in a police car, and the second visit in a dark coloured car. When he appeared at quarter sessions he gave extremely contradictory evidence. First of all in cross-examination he was asked, speaking about the visit on May 8:
"Do you know whether he came in a vehicle, or on foot?"

437
He replied:
"I am sure he came in a vehicle."
He was asked:
"What makes you sure?"
He replied:
"I was conscious of the fact he did come in a vehicle although I never saw that vehicle."
Yet when he was being re-examined by his own counsel a few minutes later he said that he was certain it was a car on this occasion. He was asked:
"How are you certain of that?"
He replied:
"Well, through the hedge in front of my house I could see a car which had not been there before. It was there when he came to the front door."
On May 9, having said previously that a dark coloured car had brought the police constable to his front door, he was asked:
"Do you know whether he came in a vehicle on that occasion or not?"
He replied:
"I did not see the vehicle but I believe he did; I imagine he did."
I do not know what your Lordships will conclude about the imagination of Colonel Matters. Each of these three points is of particular significance because, first, of course if he did not 'phone Langley, if he 'phoned Slough or Iver or the other station or stations which have Slough telephone numbers, then no investigations were made, so far as anyone is aware, of the movements of anyone who might have taken this telephone call, or of colleagues who might have gone and picked up the bag and perhaps made away with it. No inquiries were made there at all. And so far as the sports jacket is concerned, which is a vital piece of evidence, he had first of all been quite certain that a light coloured sports jacket was being worn; and it has been proved on oath that Luckhurst did not possess a light coloured sports jacket.
Similarly, in the matter about the vehicle that was used, if the visit was, as Colonel Matters originally said, in a police car it could not have been Luckhurst, who had access that day to a Mini-van in which they drove to Slough, and then a Commer van in which they went from Slough to dispose of their scooters and a Mini-van that took them back to Langley. As to the dark coloured car, at that time he possessed a car but it happened to be coloured light blue.
438
We have heard again quite a lot about Mr. Smith, and I was most interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said upon that matter. The point is not that if Luckhurst was guilty of larceny Smith must also have been guilty of larceny; it is a much simpler matter than that. It is a question of perjury, because we have Smith saying on oath in quarter sessions, categorically and without any doubt, that if the telephone at Langley police station had rung between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m. on that day, May 8, it must have been he who would have answered it. Yet we have it completely accepted by the court that it was by a telephone message to Langley police station by Colonel Matters that the matter came to the attention of the police in Langley. This is absolutely undisputed, for the only way in which Luckhurst could have been involved was if a telephone call had been made to Langley; and Smith states that it must have been he who would have taken it, and he did not take any such call. If he had, he would have recorded it, and he did not record it. Therefore if Luckhurst is guilty there can surely he no doubt that even if Smith was not guilty of larceny he must be guilty of perjury and an action should be brought against him.
Similarly, Smith has said on oath in court that throughout the period from 11 o'clock to 12.45 p.m., when they got back to Langley, he was with—in the company of—Luckhurst. He has said this absolutely, beyond any doubt: "He was by my side the whole time". Perhaps it cannot be proved that he was guilty of larceny because of course he could not be identified. He did not go up to the Colonel's house (if he was there, which I do not believe he was). But if it is accepted that Luckhurst is guilty then Smith cannot have been with him all the time, and it must surely follow that Smith was guilty of perjury.
Two noble Lords have posed the question: if Luckhurst did not do it, who did? Both noble Lords declined to speculate in any way. I should like to go a little further and to say, first, that of course it could have been any off-duty policeman at any of these stations who got to know, somehow or other, that a wallet had been handed in, whether they were notified by someone at Langley or whether Colonel Matters made a mistake

439
and notified somebody else. Or it could have been any officer who was on duty that morning at any police station other than Langley or Iver. However, I feel I must also say this, and I must be careful not to identify anybody. There is a police constable who was an extremely close friend of, I will say, one of the protagonists in this case, and these two had been associated in at least one extremely nefarious practice.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think he is going rather far in raising this particular matter. I think the case can stand where it is at the moment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, I absolutely accept what the noble Lord has said. Indeed, I was in some doubt whether I should be in order in raising the matter. It is something which has appeared in the local Press and therefore is public knowledge; but if it is the feeling of the House that I should not raise it I simply will say nothing about it at all.
I have two small points to make in conclusion, and I apologise for keeping your Lordships so long. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, in particular, raised the question of why the D.P.P. was not informed when a complaint was made by a member of the public. It occurred to me that my noble friend Lord Stonham might reply by saying that no complaint was made. Therefore I should like to read out the question that was put to Detective Chief Inspector Henry Keenan in quarter sessions, when he was asked by counsel for the prosecution
"Did you say to him"—
that is, to Luckhurst—
"'A complaint has been made by a Mr. Matters …'"
and so on. Therefore, when Luckhurst was first questioned the Detective Chief Inspector made a point of saying that the action was as a result of a complaint from a member of the public.
Finally, my Lords, I want to say just this: as so many other noble Lords have said, I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Stonham will find that compassion in his heart that we all know is there and will agree to my noble friend's request. But if, by any chance, he does not do so, let Luckhurst never forget that
440
tonight, in your Lordships' House, seven noble Lords stood up one after the other, and each without exception were for him and believed that a grave injustice had been done, and were prepared to stand up and say so.
8.17 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two. I do not envy the noble Lord the task of having to reply to this debate. There are many difficulties in it, but it has shown the great concern that noble Lords feel about this particular case. It is a case which is obviously a peculiar one: it has its irregularities, and there were oddities in it. But there is also the more general concern about identification which is raised—and indeed fomented—by this case. Moreover, the Police Federation has taken it up, and this is something that does not often happen.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will feel grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for having raised this matter, and I am grateful to him for having sent me the papers. I apologise to him for having missed the beginning of his speech. Obviously—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will say this—we are not here to try the case all over again to-night, but he will have been impressed by the great amount of care that noble Lords have taken to collect the evidence and to bring it forward to-night. The difficulty in a case like this is that, in a way, the least said, the soonest mended. As one noble Lord has said, it would have been much easier if only one speech had been made. But then the Government could have said, "There is no real interest in this matter or pressure behind it; it is only one person batting on his own."
Here we are faced with a man of excellent character, not only in the police force but also in a famous regiment, and who is doing his best not to be robbed of that excellent character. The case has already been brought forward by seven noble Lords, only one of whom is a lawyer, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, drew attention to the fact that in the normal way the Executive will re-open a case of this character only if fresh evidence is provided. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will confirm that. If there is

441
one thing that is quite clear in the House I think it is the feeling that there is some evidence missing in this case, and that is why an inquiry is needed. The whole thing does not hang together at all as it stands. There is also the fact that the prosecution was brought without reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and this is a matter, on which, as an immigrant from a country where all prosecutions are brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions, or at any rate by the Procurator-Fiscal in Scotland, one feels very strongly. And this is exactly why Section 49(3) is in the Police Act: to bring the situation so far as the police are concerned into line with what is required in a matter of this kind. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to say something about that.
Then there is this question of the general concern about identification. There is no doubt that there has been a great deal of discussion in the Press about this aspect, and I would ask the noble Lord whether the way in which the Deputy Chairman of Quarter Sessions stated the law is correct. He is said to have said:
"The evidence"—
that is the evidence of identification—
"…is not evidence which has to be corroborated at all. If you accept that evidence of identification, that is evidence sufficient to support the case for the prosecution."
I should like to ask the noble Lord—and this is an important point: was there any corroborative evidence? This is important in the light of the general feeling of disquiet and concern in the country about identifications. And if there was corroborative evidence, what was it?
Because of this general feeling of concern I feel, and I would join with other noble Lords who have spoken tonight in their plea, that there is need for further inquiry, though I fully understand the great difficulty in saying what that further inquiry should be. This is one of the reasons why I hope that even if the noble Lord has been instructed to take a negative attitude on this to-night he will at least leave the matter open so that there will be an effort to see what kind of appropriate inquiry could be made into this case, to winkle out the missing pieces of this story—because there are missing pieces. If this is not done, there will be continuing investiga-
442
tions of a private character. Perhaps we shall have an inquiry on T.V., as has happened on other occasions; and this would be very undesirable. It is unusual for Parliament to ask a Minister to look into a case that has been decided in the courts and has gone to appeal, but I hope that the noble Lord will feel that this is a special case and that he will be able to take special measures to deal with it.
8.25 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am fully in agreement with the noble Lord. Lord Drumalbyn, that I have a difficult task. I am in agreement with him, too, that it is an extremely difficult and very distressing case. And I agree with him in thanking my noble friend Lord Willis for bringing it to our notice again and for his speech, the sincerity and passion of it. I am sure that he will not mind if, later, I am a little critical of some of the things he said. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken but I must say at once that this debate has been unusual, in my experience unique, in that we have had a retrial. This is something in which I shall not participate. I am not here to say whether Mr. Luckhurst was guilty or not guilty; I am not trying him and I would not presume to do so. But we have had a trial with eight defending counsel, no evidence, no cross-examination, and of course the inevitable verdict. I shall deliver no verdict.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think that is fair to any of those who have spoken. So far as I am concerned, I was very careful indeed not to express any opinion whatever.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: So was I.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have listened to every single word of the debate, and virtually every speech was a rehearsal of the evidence. This is impossible to deny.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? How is it possible for anybody to get up in your Lordships' House and make a case for an independent commission of inquiry into this case without drawing attention to what we consider to be defects in the

443
evidence and therefore quoting that evidence? The noble Lord must not ask me to do the impossible.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have uttered, I think, three sentences and have had two interruptions. I listened to my noble friend for half an hour or 35 minutes, and I think that it might he even for the benefit of Mr. Luckhurst if I were to be allowed to get on with what I have to say and with my view of the case.
I repeat, again, that I am not in the slightest degree trying or retrying this man, but it is my duty to state the Home Secretary's decision very clearly. And this prompts me at once, despite what my noble friend believes, to say that a great deal of what has been said to-night is irrelevant, for the reason that it was all, or virtually all, considered by the judge and jury, or by the Court of Appeal. My noble friend Lord Francis-Williams said that this man had been "railroaded". I cannot accept that a man who has been tried before a court of law and a jury, and has then gone before the Court of Appeal, which included the Lord Chief Justice, has been "railroaded". The use of such words does not, I think, help.
I know that my noble friend Lord Willis has long felt concern about this case, and I am equally aware that, apart from those noble Lords who have spoken to-night, my noble friend is not alone in feeling concern about it. This is not the first time I have seen these papers and considered them. Indeed, any disputed question which touches a man's honour and affects his whole future demands the deepest and most careful consideration, and especially in a case of a man with such a record in the service as Mr. Luckhurst. I assure my noble friend that I do not think this is a small case and I do not think it is unimportant—by no means. And it has been most carefully and closely considered—as indeed it should have been—by two Home Secretaries: Mr. Roy Jenkins and my right honourable friend the present Home Secretary, who has considered it again in the past few days. I can assure my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams that I am not in this accepting bureaucratic decisions, as he termed them. It was considered again in the light of my noble friend's Question.
444
I am afraid that I must tell your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary does not, on the information so far before him—that is, prior to this debate—consider that any further inquiry would be justified. But my noble friend and all your Lordships will. I hope, accept that this is not a conclusion which the Home Secretary reached lightly or without the fullest consideration. I would also add that this case has never been as fully debated before as it has been tonight. This case, the case for an independent inquiry, has not previously been put before us in the way that it has been put to-night; and the alleged relationship between Mr. Luckhurst and Police Constable Smith has not been put as it has to-night, except in correspondence. These are important matters which I shall most certainly bring to the attention of the Home Secretary.
I will deal first with one point, while I have it in mind, to get it out of the way. It is a point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. He referred to the statement by the Deputy Chairman: that in English law no corroboration is required to support evidence of identification by a single witness. The Criminal Law Revision Committee are at the moment considering the law of evidence, and of course may be expected to express views on this point when they come to report. But, meanwhile, that is the law. Before I explain the reasons for my right honourable friend's conclusion I would, at the risk of some repetition of what has been said, in some cases several times, outline briefly the main facts of the case and the results of the investigation which was made into it. I must also, again at the risk of saying some things with which your Lordships are already familiar, make clear the constitutional position of the Home Secretary—indeed, of any Home Secretary in cases of this kind. I must indicate the framework within which my right honourable friend must work, what he can do and what he cannot do.
First, as to the facts, Mr. Frederick Charles Luckhurst, then a serving member of the Buckinghamshire Constabulary, was at Buckinghamshire Quarter Sessions on September 29, 1966, convicted of stealing a bank wallet and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. The bank wallet was lost on the morning of May 6, 1966, at Iver. It was found the

445
same morning by a Lieutenant Colonel Matters, who took it home and telephoned the police. Shortly afterwards, a uniformed police constable called on Colonel Matters and collected the wallet from him. The following day the same police constable called and informed the colonel that the wallet had been returned to the bank. Subsequent inquiries showed that the wallet had not in fact been returned but had been stolen.
At an identification parade comprising police officers at Langley police station Colonel Matters identified Police Constable Luckhurst as the officer who called upon him and took charge of the wallet. Mrs. Matters, who was also present at the parade, did not identify Mr. Luckhurst. That is why I interrupted my noble friend in the course of his speech, because at the committal proceedings Mrs. Matters did identify Mr. Luckhurst in the dock, for what that was worth; and in cross-examination she said:
"I failed to identify the man on parade because the man who came to our house had a much higher colour, and the man on parade was paler."
In cross-examination subsequently at the trial she said that she picked out Mr. Luckhurst because of his hair style, because when she saw the officers she saw them with their caps off. This, as my noble friend Lord Willis, said, is contrary to the Chief Inspector's evidence that the officers did not remove their hats.
I have quoted that only as an example, for the purpose of saying that this and virtually everything else that was said, was before the jury. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, was good enough to say, as I should have expected, that the one thing we, the Executive, cannot do is to interfere with the verdict of a court. There was evidence given that upon the morning in question Mr. Luckhurst was in the Langley-Slough area, having been sent out in a police vehicle with another officer to dispose of some motor scooters. In the view of my Department the essential issue before the jury was whether, during this journey, Mr. Luckhurst could have visited Colonel Matters and collected the wallet. I am not going to comment on that, because every word, every jot and tittle of that evidence, was before the jury or the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal against conviction, but on March
446
14, 1967, they dismissed the appeal. The Court refused leave to call further evidence, apparently because they were not satisfied that there was a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence at the trial. In giving judgment, the Lord Chief Justice commented, as my noble friend has said, that considerable difficulties or improbabilities arose on the prosecution story. But the Lord Chief Justice also said, as I do not recall my noble friend saying, that the converse produced equal if not greater, improbabilities, and he concluded that there was no ground whatever for interfering with the verdict.
Whatever one's impression of the evidence, this is a British court of law and a British appeal court. Like all noble Lords, I have often thought of a case that the evidence was thin, or possibly even, if I had had the misfortune to be on the jury, that a particular man would not have been convicted. I know that this experience comes to all of us. But what the Home Secretary has to do is to accept these matters as decided by the court, and as decided by the Court of Appeal. It was for the Court of Appeal to decide whether to hear fresh evidence on the appeal, and it is not for me to comment on their refusal to admit further evidence or on their decision to dismiss the appeal. The evidence that the Court of Appeal did not consider was among the matters subsequently investigated by Detective Chief Superintendent Brennan at the request of the Home Secretary.
My noble friend Lord Addison asked me two questions which at this stage I think I can deal with. He asked me whether Police Constable Smith's position was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and, if so, with what result. It was not so referred; but it was referred to the county prosecuting solicitor. My noble friend asked who told Mr. Luckhurst that he had no grounds for appeal. I do not know; he was not told by us. Then he asked, possibly by implication: was any action taken with regard to the Acting Chief Constable? Detective Chief Superintendent Brennan thought that the Acting Chief Constable was under no obligation to treat the case as a complaint under Section 49 of the Police Act, and that while it might have been advisable to seek the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions there

447
were no grounds for suggesting that the prosecution was not properly initiated. This was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, put to me, and perhaps I might add here that these points were considered at the time by the Secretary of State. But he agreed with these conclusions, and on that basis there was no occasion for action against the Acting Chief Constable.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that there was no duty upon the authorities to refer the case of Luckhurst to the Director of Public Prosecutions?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is what I am saying. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, read out Section 49 of the Act, and if you read the words between the commas in that section you will note that if the chief officer was satisfied about this, and that the prosecution should be instituted, he was perfectly within his powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, asked me whether Section 49 was complied with, and said that this of course was a question of evidence. The prosecuting solicitor advised that there was sufficient evidence to justify proceedings against Mr. Luckhurst but not against Mr. Smith, and that was the reason for the difference.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord in order to ask this question? Is the noble Lord saying that the complaint that was made by Colonel Matters to the police was not a complaint made by a member of the public? Because those are the words used in the Police Act. If it was a complaint made by a member of the public, does not the case then fall exactly within the provisions of Section 49? If it does, then what does the noble Lord say about the circular which I quoted from the Home Office, which says that where a case arises under Section 49 it is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine whether or not criminal proceedings should be taken?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the point at issue here, and the question put to me and which I have answered, is whether there was an obligation in respect of this case, at that time, on the acting Chief Constable to refer the case to
448
the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I am saying that there was not. The noble Lord has said that this was a complaint by a member of the public as if it was a complaint about the conduct of a police officer. But in fact the complaint was the report of a theft, and the report of a theft in which it was possible that a police officer might be concerned. That was the reason for the identification parade. I agree that it would have been better—certainly in the light of our present knowledge—if the officer taking the decision had in fact referred the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and obtained his advice as to whether or not a prosecution should be instituted. I of course cannot comment on what that advice might have been, but I simply say that it would have been better if that had been done.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is this a matter of preference, may I ask the noble Lord? At the point when it was thought that the police officer was involved, was there not then an obligation to comply with the Act?
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords; not in relation to this case. This was not just a case of, as it were, a complaint about police conduct; it was a case of an actual theft. It did not alter the fact that if it appeared—and the legal advice was given by the prosecuting solicitor—that the evidence against one individual was sufficient to justify a prosecution, the acting Chief Constable was not obliged to refer that case to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Noble Lords can dissent and shake their heads; I am telling them what I am advised, and this is what actually happened.
I wanted to go on to talk about the constitutional position of the Home Secretary, what he can and what he cannot do in a case of this kind where he receives representations on behalf of a convicted person alleging that he was wrongfully convicted. My Lords, I say that it is for the fury to decide, in accordance with the evidence before them, whether or not a charge is proved. They did so decide that it was proved, and we cannot do anything about that however much we might feel that the evidence was flimsy. Noble Lords have asked me all sorts of questions during this debate. Why did

449
not the jury do this? Is it not astonishing they did not do that? But this is not a matter for me, and it is not a matter for the Home Secretary.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am very reluctant indeed to interrupt, but is it not the case that a Home Secretary can look at a problem, and if he comes to the view that a wrong decision has been reached on matters which have been brought to his attention, he can refer the case to the judge of the court and get the view of that judge as to whether the matter should be reopened? I can assure my noble friend that I have taken up cases that have been dealt with in that way by the Home Secretary.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I really am astonished to hear my noble friend say this. I cannot accept it, and if he is not aware of the Home Secretary's constitutional position in this, what his powers are and what they are not, then perhaps he will listen while I tell the House.
The first thing is that if a case is sub judice there is no question of any kind of interference at all, by word or in any other way, until the case is tried and decided. If it goes to appeal, equally no word can be said. A Home Secretary can only take action after the appeal if there is fresh evidence, new evidence. I have not heard what I regard as a shred of new evidence in this debate to-night; nothing that was not available to the first court or to the Court of Appeal. So on those grounds the Home Secretary has no power to move. Of course, if some new evidence came up that was so strong, so convincing that there had been a mistake, that an innocent person had been convicted, the Home Secretary, without bothering about a trial, could ask Her Majesty for a pardon, as the noble Lord said. If the evidence was strong, but not convincing, he could refer it to the Court of Criminal Appeal. That power used to be under Section 19, but under the 1968 Act it is under Section 17. The Home Secretary has no power to order a retrial. He has power under the same Section 17 to refer a case to the Court of Appeal, or back to the Court of Appeal, for determination as if it were an appeal by a convicted person. If, on a reference of that kind, the court found reason to quash the conviction on grounds of fresh
450
evidence, it would have power under Section 7 of the same Act to order a retrial.
These are the facts, and these are the limits of the Home Secretary's powers. Time and time again—not only since I was a Minister but many times before I was a Minister—I used to refer new evidence in cases, or what I thought was new evidence in cases, to the Home Secretary of the day for possible action tinder Section 19, and sometimes it was successful and the cases were so referred. But you trust start with something new. The Home Secretary is not a further Court of Appeal, and it is not for him to re-try a case and to consider whether, had he been the jury or had he been the Court of Appeal, he might have come to a different: decision. My Lords, this must be accepted. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Foot, at least will agree with me that this is a statement of the Home Secretary's position. I am glad to see that he nods his head.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord again'? I entirely accept what he has said, except in one particular. Is he saying that there is only one circumstance in which the Home Secretary can intervene in the decision of the courts, and that is where there is new evidence? Is he saying that that is the only circumstance in which the Home Secretary can intervene? If that is the case, upon what does he base that statement? Supposing there has been, as in this case, a departure from the proper procedure of referring the matter to the D.P.P., would that not be a ground on which the Home Secretary might be entitled to intervene?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in this case this matter has already been considered by the Home Secretary. It is not regarded as a point which would justify the intervention of the Home Secretary in that way. Of course this is one of the points which have been considered. If fresh evidence is brought to his notice which was not before the court of trial or the Court of Appeal then he considers whether it throws such new light on the case as would justify some special action on his part, and I have given your Lordships what that special action could be.

451
My noble friend Lord Willis himself asked the question, "What new evidence? Who wants new evidence?" And I have unfortunately to reply to him: the Courts. If we are going to activate these processes, that is the answer. It is not the Home Secretary; it is not myself. It is something new that was not before the courts earlier—and could not have been available at the trial—which can be considered of sufficient importance that it might influence the Court of Appeal to take the actions open to them.
Having regard to the anxiety that has been expressed about this case the Home Secretary thought it right that there should be a full investigation, and at his request the acting Chief Constable of Buckinghamshire arranged for an inquiry to be undertaken by a senior officer from another force. This was a very senior officer, Detective Chief Superintendent Brennan, of the Birmingham City Police. This inquiry was a re-investigation of all the facts of the case and of all the points made by and on behalf of Mr. Luckhurst subsequent to his conviction. All the original witnesses were seen again and all other persons who it appeared might possibly assist with information were also interviewed. Detective Chief Superintendent Brennan furnished a detailed and comprehensive report to which were appended statements by all those whom he had interviewed. After most careful study of these documents my right honourable friend felt that he must conclude that there were no grounds on which he would be justified in recommending any interference with the verdict of the jury. He announced the decision in February of last year in another place.
I discussed this matter with my right honourable friend last week-end and he still felt that he could find no grounds for any different conclusion or for ordering any inquiry in addition to the very full investigation which has already been undertaken. In reaching this conclusion the Home Secretary has taken full account of the point put forward by my noble friend Lord Willis, that Detective Chief Superintendent Brennan's report drew attention to a number of procedural details in regard to the conduct of the identification parade attended by Mr. Luckhurst which could have been dealt with better: and, as my noble friend has also pointed out, the Home Secretary
452
has now issued new advice on the procedure for dealing with identification parades, including specific advice about parades where police officers themselves are involved.
Detective Chief Superintendent Brennan's inquiry was very thorough. It is quite unfair to suggest, as indeed was attributed to my noble friend Lord Brockway in an article in the Guardian, that his inquiry was less than adequate. He had the assistance of a superintendent and of a detective inspector who were specially assigned to assist in the inquiry. Their investigation occupied five weeks, and Chief Superintendent Brennan's report included copies of all the statements, covering some 327 pages. He reinvestigated all the facts of the theft and made full inquiries into all the points raised by or on behalf of Mr. Luckhurst. These included the further evidence which the Court of Appeal declined to admit at the hearing of the appeal, the possibility of the offence having been committed by some other police officer, and the points of police procedure raised by the Police Federation.
In the course of the inquiry Chief Superintendent Brennan saw all the original witnesses, all the officers from all watches on the Langley Sub-Division, all officers on duty in the Slough Division who would have had occasion to use motor vehicles at the relevant time, as well as some other officers from different parts of the county. He also interviewed all persons who it was thought might be able to assist in any way, including Mrs. Luckhurst and the wives of other police officers and representatives of the prosecuting solicitors, the Police Federation Joint Central Committee, and the Buckinghamshire Constabulary Joint Branch Board of the Police Federation. Despite these comprehensive inquiries no significant new evidence was brought to light, and the known facts remain materially the same as they were at the time of the trial.
It is true that Detective Chief Superintendent Brennan criticised some of the procedural details in connection with the parade, but he also concluded that none of these had affected the fairness of the parade. The Home Secretary accepted that conclusion. In my right honourable friend's view it is in no way vitiated by the fact that new advice on identification parade procedure has now been issued. It

453
is one thing to say that something could have been done better; it is another to say that it went so badly as to cause injustice. This, as I say, was not the conclusion reached in the case of Mr. Luckhurst. The jury were aware that Mrs. Matters did not identify him, and they must have weighed this strong point in his favour before reaching their verdict.
Another point which was put forward by my noble friend—and it was also put forward by the Joint Central Committee of the Police Federation—was that when it first came to notice that the wallet which Colonel Matters found had not been returned to the bank the Acting Chief Constable should have treated the matter as a complaint against the police. As I have said, it is true that with the knowledge of all the facts that became available as a result of Detective Chief Superintendent Brennan's investigation it would have been better had the advice of the Director been sought. But this does not mean that the prosecution against Mr. Luckhurst was not properly initiated or that he was not properly convicted. The question of his guilt or innocence was for the jury to decide. Consideration is being given, in the light of discussions which have taken place with the Director of Public Prosecutions, to the general question whether further guidance should be given to chief officers of police on the circumstances in which they should consult the Director in cases where commission of offences by police officers is alleged.
My Lords, if one takes the case from beginning to end, as my noble friend Lord Willis did, and adds up each step and each point which might have been done better and might have had an effect, the inescapable conclusion to which we have come is that, in the circumstances of the case, and failing the production of fresh evidence which was not and could not have been available at the time of the trial, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary cannot move outside the constitutional framework which must guide his actions and cannot therefore prompt action in the courts which might possibly have the effect which the noble Lord desires.
So we come back to the one point which was insistently made and which
454
was in fact the burden of my noble friend's Question: that there should be an independent inquiry. I am bound to say that if there were such an inquiry it could only express an opinion, though I agree that such an opinion might be of very great value. But we are very impressed by the fact that Chief Superintendent Brennan's inquiry was very thorough, and I find it not merely difficult but quite impossible to believe that senior police officers making an inquiry as thoroughly as they did go out other than with the hope, at least, that they can honestly vindicate one of their number through their inquiries. This is the natural thing that one would expect. They certainly do not go out with the idea, as was suggested during the debate, of covering up something. Moreover, the fact that this report was not published is of no significance at all, since these reports are always confidential and are never published. They have to remain confidential.
Although it is difficult to believe that much more can be learned about this case, and although the holding of an independent inquiry is very exceptional, I appreciate the strong views of noble Lords in all parts of the House that this is a very exceptional case. I will certainly bring to the notice of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary the views that have been expressed in this debate, and leave him again to consider the position.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask whether he is aware how grateful I am for that last ray of hope that he has thrown out; and how grateful I am to my noble friends on both sides who have supported me on this important issue?

SALISBURY RAILWAY AND MARKET HOUSE BILL [H.L.]
Examiner's Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with: Ordered to lie on the Table, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES' BOOK DISTRIBUTIONS
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES' BOOK DISTRIBUTIONS
  DETENTION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS IN CHINA
  DETENTION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS IN CHINA