asked the Secretary of State for Air what proposals he has for increasing the Royal Air Force primary schools in Aden.

We shall provide 360 additional primary places early next year by converting existing buildings, and a similar number in new permanent accommodation by August, 1964.

I am sure that the House will be very grateful to know of that proposed increase, but can my right hon. Friend tell us what teacher-pupil ratio that will give us?

I will write to my hon. Friend on that point, but I think that at the moment it is quite satisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many free passages on Royal Air Force aircraft have been provided for the Voluntary Service Overseas organisation in the last 12 months.

In the year ending October, 1962, 18 members of this organisation were carried in spare seats in Royal Air Force aircraft. Small charges were made for food and accommodation provided en route.

I am sure that we are very grateful for what the Royal Air Force is doing for this splendid organisation, but would my right hon. Friend urge his colleagues in the Government to do as good a job as the Royal Air Force is doing and transport these people overseas wherever they can?

I am very flattered by what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Air in what subjects appointments to the Specialist Teacher Scheme in the education branch of the Royal Air Force are now being made; and whether he will consider extending the scheme to include arts graduates.

The current subjects are mathematics, physics, aerodynamics, thermodynamics, electronics, and electrical, mechanical and control engineering. The possibility of extending the scheme to arts subjects is being considered.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he can indicate when he is likely to be able to announce his plans for the arts graduates?

The next meeting of our advisory council is in January, and the question will be considered by it then.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many test Blue Steel missiles have been introduced into the Royal Air Force; when the completed missile is expected to be ready, and at what estimated cost; and if he will make a statement.

The introduction of operational Blue Steel missiles into the Royal Air Force has begun. It would not be in the public interest to quote numbers or production costs.

May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the perfected missile is now being introduced into the Royal Air Force? Secondly, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some concern about the cost of the project? According to the Auditor-General's report in September, 1960, it had already cost £60 million. As the missile is now going into production and being introduced into the Royal Air Force, would the right hon. Gentleman care to inform the House what the total cost has been—which is probably nearer £100 million?

As I have said, these are operational missiles which are going into the Royal Air Force. As to the cost, I think it is appreciated that in this House we do not reveal production costs—though research and development costs are occasionally revealed—for the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is one of the quickest ways in which to give information to one's military opponents.

Although there may be difficulties about the details of production costs, surely the House will be told at some time what the whole cost of the programme has been?

Over a period of years.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to give the House and the people who have to find this money some approximate idea of the cost? Is there not a possibility that the enemy will know it before the House of Commons does?

No, Sir. I have to look after the interests of both the House and the taxpayers, and I think that it is best done this way.

asked the Secretary of State for Air when he expects delivery of the Skybolt missiles; what is the estimated cost; and if he will make a statement.

We expect the missiles to be delivered in the mid 'sixties. I can assure the House that the introduction of Skybolt will not bring the cost of our whole deterrent above the present approximate 10 per cent. of our defence budget.

Can the right hon. Gentleman be quite categorical about this project going through? In certain quarters in the United States there is opposition to the completion of the Skybolt project. Is he certain that the missiles will be delivered? Can he indicate the cost to date? What commitments have we made as to the cost of development so far?

The cost to date has largely been borne by the United States Government, and I think figures have been published by them. The hon. Gentleman asks for our costs, but to give them would reveal the number of missiles we have on order and I do not, quite rightly, propose to give these figures. Every major development is always the subject of speculation, and I see that there is speculation on Skybolt in today's Press. But Her Majesty's Government are quite resolved that this programme shall go through.

What progress is being made on the development of Skybolt? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that he is making it well known in the United States Departments which matter that we attach the greatest importance to the ultimate receipt of this weapon after it has been developed?

The latest reports on development from the Douglas Aircraft Company are satisfactory. It is well known to the American Administration, as it is to this House, that we attach major importance to the continuation of the programme.

If the right hon. Gentleman says that, as a result of the introduction of Skybolt, the cost of our deterrent will remain at 10 per cent. of our defence budget, does that not mean that the budget is going to rise?

I said that it will remain within the 10 per cent.

The right hon. Gentleman has emphasised that continuation of the so-called independent British nuclear deterrent depends upon Sky-bolt. There is, however, some concern as to whether this project will be completed or not. Is he satisfied that the American Government will go ahead with Skybolt?

I am not responsible for the American Government's policy, but neither Her Majesty's Government nor the American Government have announced a change of policy. It remains our policy to push forward the development of Skybolt.

Does that mean that, subject to Skybolt being effectively developed in the military sense, the political commitment of the American Government is irrevocable and that we will politically be able to get this weapon?

My hon. Friend is going very wide of the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Air when he expects to make a decision on OR 351 for transport aircraft.

I have nothing to add to my statement on 23rd November or to what my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Aviation told the House on the 26th.

It is now about two years since the OR 351 was specified. There is great concern, both in the aircraft industry and outside it, about the delay in providing the Royal Air Force with adequate transport aircraft. Having regard to the enormous time which it takes from the word "go" to the actual delivery of an aircraft into service, has the delay been in the Air Ministry, or the Ministry of Aviation, or the Treasury or where? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he has a clear conscience on this matter?

Yes, Sir. I have a clear conscience on this matter. No one is keener than I to get a decision, but there are various factors which have to be taken into account. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation said the other day, it is hoped to be able to say something in the New Year about this project.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the delay could be reduced and the cost kept to a minimum by ordering a derivative of the Belfast for this purpose?

I realise that that view is strongly held in Northern Ireland.

Is it the case that the specification for this aircraft is so complicated that it may well be many years before the Royal Air Force gets it, if it decides to order it at all? If orders were placed next year, when would deliveries take place?

That is a difficult point. Since I took office I have ensured that the specification has been made as simple as possible, considering the requirements.

asked the Minister of Transport why cattle-crossing signs at Longdon, Staffordshire, have not yet been authorised by his Department, in view of the recommendations made to him by public authorities in the area; whether he is aware of the danger both to drovers and cattle crossing the Lichfield-Rugeley main road; and if he will investigate this delay.

The signs were authorised on 6th November and erected on 9th November.

That is quite creditable, but why was there such a delay after the recommendation of the Staffordshire Constabulary?

It was mainly due to sickness and pressure of more important work in the office of our divisional road engineer.

asked the Minister of Transport what progress he is making with his consultations with the Worcestershire County Council to speed up the settlement of claims by landowners for damage which they claim to have suffered during the construction of M.5.

Assembly of all the material information has been difficult, but over 30 items of claim have been examined. Subject to legal confirmation, I think it probable that my right hon. Friend is liable in respect of seven items, and we hope to write shortly to the claimants about them. Payment of one other claim has been approved. We consider the contractors alone to be liable for about half the items and we are pressing them to settle these. Further information is required, and has been asked for, in 11 cases. The remaining items, which are complex and difficult, are under investigation.

I thank my hon. Friend for that very full reply. Is he aware that there is a great deal of irritation among the people concerned in my constituency? Can he evolve some scheme for the future so that when new motorways are built this sort of irritation does not occur and compensation is paid much more quickly than at present?

Much of the trouble in this case arose over the dilatory way in which the contractor dealt with the claims. To my knowledge, it has not happened before and I hope that it will not happen again.

asked the Minister of Transport when a service area will be provided on the Lydiate Ash-Ross Spur section of the M.5.

A service area is already in operation at Strensham, about half a mile north of the junction of M.5 with the Ross Spur. Filling stations and one transport cafe opened when the motorway opened in July. All facilities have been available since 18th September.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has for easing traffic congestion in East London and for improving the exits by road from London to the east coast.

Our proposals for improving the exits by road from London to the east were described in my letter of 23rd August to my hon. Friend. We have a number of schemes for helping traffic in East London. But because of the amount of detail, I propose to send the particulars to my hon. Friend.

While I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that promise, may I ask him to remember that although many exits from London have been greatly improved in the last few years, including those to Henley, the exit to the east still remains among the worst? May I express the hope that his colleagues will do something to speed this up?

Having regard to my hon. Friend's majority, I think that he is less likely to exit than I am.

In view of the very serious congestion in this part of London, probably the worst in the London area, is the Parliamentary Secretary giving priority to the solution of this problem?

I think that I had better send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the particulars which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Transport what conclusions he has come to as a result of his investigation of the circumstances in which a young boy was killed on the Panda crossing on the A.20 at Swanley on 31st August, 1962; and what action he proposes to take.

I understand that legal proceedings are to be taken against the driver of the vehicle. The matter must therefore be regarded as sub judice and it would be wrong for me to comment at this stage.

I appreciate the Minister's reply, but may I ask him to appreciate also that there is a great deal of local interest in the danger from this crossing? In view of this tragic accident, and in view of the apprehension on the part of pedestrians and some motorists about the danger arising from this type of crossing, will he look again at the question of these crossings throughout the country?

The Panda crossings throughout the country have not been in operation for 12 months yet, and I think that we need to wait a little longer before we can precisely assess the results. The House may like to know that in fact on the Panda crossings in the country at the moment there have been fewer accidents in the first five months of operation than at the same sites in the corresponding period a year ago. So the facts, on the face of it, appear to be against the belief that these are unsafe.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the cost of flyovers in this country is much increased by the high permitted height of road vehicles; and whether, in view of the fact that increasing traffic will make more and more flyovers essential, he will consider reducing the maximum permitted height of vehicles.

No, Sir. Present standard clearances are designed to meet the needs of road transport.

Is not the fact obvious to anyone who goes about the country in a motor car that more and more flyovers are going to be required? Should not everything possible be done to reduce their cost and bring it down to the kind of level we find on the Continent of Europe?

No, Sir. My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. I am told that the aggregate financial saving on a reduction in height of a standard bridge or flyover would be very small indeed, and in some cases there would be no saving at all. I think that perhaps my hon. Friend might study the discussions on this matter that took place m the Select Committee on Estimates during the Session, 1958–59. I will send him copies of the proceedings.

asked the Minister of Transport what percentage of road accidents on trunk roads took place on three-lane highways in the last 12 months.

During the 12 months ending 30th September, 1962, 3 per cent. of the fatal and serious accidents on A class roads were on roads with three-lane markings. I regret that it is not possible to give the figures for trunk roads alone.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, but can he make a further statement about his intentions to reduce accidents on three-lane roads?

Not in answer to this Question. There is a further Question on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver). Perhaps my hon. Friend will pursue the matter when that Question is answered.

Is the Minister aware that there is a growing volume of opinion among transport engineers that three-lane highways are a great danger? Will he institute some investigation to consider whether the present three-lane highways should revert to two-lane highways? It would appear that this would be much safer.

I know that there are many opinions on this matter, but we must work on the facts as established by experiment and experience rather than on opinion. The facts are that the Road Research Laboratory has carried out a number of investigations into accidents on stretches of three-lane highway, and has found that only 2½ per cent. of all the accidents that took place on that type of highway involved overtaking in opposite directions. Moreover, the Laboratory also found that, comparing rural three-lane highways with rural dual carriageways, the same accident rate was observed on both. The facts, as found by research, are at variance with the generally held opinion, which I do not believe to be altogether right.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, having regard to the added danger in the use of three-lane roads, he will ensure that no more of these will be built and that existing ones will be converted into dual highways.

No, Sir. Accident statistics and other available evidence do not support the view that three-lane roads are fundamentally more dangerous than other roads. Within the traffic capacity for which it is designed, that is approximately 7,500 vehicles a day, a three-lane road is a safe and economic form of construction. In practice, however, it is unlikely that many miles of new three-lane trunk road will be built because, with the increase in traffic, most of the roads now being constructed will need to have dual carriageways.

Has the hon. Member seen the statement made in the other place by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who introduced the question of road accidents, that he himself had investigated 104 cases on the Oxford by-pass and had found that 20 per cent. were due to head-on collisions in the middle lane?

I saw the statement that was made and reported in another place. I have already told the House about the results of an investigation by the Road Research Laboratory on this matter —results based on careful research. I can only suggest that there seems to be some divergence of opinion between these two sources.

Despite what my hon. Friends says, does he not think that it is absurd, when his Department is embarking on the building of ambitious new roads, including the Heads of Valley Road, to continue the construction of three-lane roads. Is this really building for the new age of increasing motor traffic, or is it merely playing with the problem?

No, Sir. We are building three-lane roads where the traffic conditions are such that anything more ambitious is not needed. Thereby we save a good deal of money and a good deal of land. However, I must tell my hon. Friend and the House that of 112 schemes in our major trunk road programme for 1962–66, only seven include the construction of three-lane roads, covering about 13½ miles in all. That gives a slightly different picture from the one put forward by my hon. Friend.

Does the hon. Member admit the folly of building a three-lane road by Gatwick Airport—a very heavily trafficked road—when the road was being built over green fields and there would have been no additional expense? Does not he agree that many accidents have occurred on that road? Will he undertake to see that in these conditions no more three-lane roads will be built? Is he aware that there were protests at the time from myself and other people about constructing that type of road partly as a three-lane highway and partly as a dual carriagway?

The right hon. Member knows that that road is being improved. We do not commit ourselves to three-lane roads unless we are satisfied that the traffic volume is unlikely to be such as to need something better. This problem is always under review as traffic volumes change.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken to fence the New Forest roads, in view of the large number of accidents to animals.

A comprehensive scheme has been prepared by the verderers for confining the ponies and cattle to the Forest. As part of this scheme, we hope soon to fence the trunk road A.31 through the forest.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In the meantime, will he use his new powers to impose a speed limit while this work is being carried out on the parts most affected?

I will draw that suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend, and it will be considered.

Is the Minister giving any grant towards this work?

The A.31 is all trunk road, and the expense involved is ours entirely.

asked the Minister of Transport how many fatal and other accidents have occurred on the average each month on A.38 between Gloucester and Bristol; and what further action he will take to reduce this number.

For the first 10 months of this year there were, on average, 38 accidents reported to the police each month; of these 18 involved personal injury, 20 damage only. The personal injury accidents included a total of nine fatal accidents, an average of nearly one every month.

As my right hon. Friend said on 7th November, we intend to complete the improvement of this road to provide three lanes throughout. The evidence from the sections already improved suggests that this will enhance the safety of the road.

Does my hon. Friend know that it will be a great surprise to many people to know that three-lane highways are safer than two-lane highways, in view of the disastrous accident that took place last month on the stretch of road to which I refer? Will he ensure that if these three-lane highways are constructed the fullest use is made of white lines, in an overtaking system such as is used on the Continent?

If my hon. Friend disputes what I have said, he may like to know that in 1960–61 there were 30 per cent. fewer accidents on the three-lame sections than on the two-lane sections. As for white lines, we have to be a little careful because, so often, the placing of white lines depends on the actual alignment of the road. Wherever white-line treatment is appropriate, it is used.

asked the Minister of Transport why he intends to spend £24,000 on the Aston Dawn bypass.

A length of the original Cirencester-Stroud road across Aston Down airfield is now permanently stopped up, and a safer and more convenient substitute is required in place of the existing narrow road, which has two right-angled bends, which traffic has had to use since 1940. The Secretary of State for Air will provide the new road under an Order which my right hon. Friend made on 13th August on the basis of a report from the War Works Commission.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we have got on very well with the old road since 1940 and that this is £24,000 of absolutely unnecessary expenditure?

That is the opinion of my hon. Friend. If he wishes to pursue the matter, he ought to take it up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air. But I should point out to him that the cost of putting the old road into order, were we not to build the new road, would be something between £10,000 and £12,000. That ought to be taken into account when assessing whether we are wasting £24,000.

Is not the old road in perfectly good order as it is?

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he proposes to take to improve the A.19 road between Stockton and Thirsk with a view to reducing the number of traffic accidents and road casualties.

asked the Minister of Transport what action he intends taking about road development on the A.19 road between Sheraton Road End and Cold Hesledon.

We have no plan for large-scale improvement of the section of the A.19 south of Stockton during the next few years, but we are looking into the possibility of undertaking a number of individual schemes to make the road safer. However, the special addition to the road programme which my right hon. Friend announced yesterday for the North-East includes major improvements of the A.19 at Shotton and Sheraton. We hope to start these in 1963–64. A major improvement at Easington village and a number of other smaller improvements of this length of road are also planned.

Is my hon. Friend aware that on this 25-mile stretch of road south of Stockton there were 500 casualties last year? Is he aware that if he goes on with the improvement north of Stockton he will be adding to the dangers on the road south of Stockton by bringing faster traffic on to the road? Will he make this road safer or, alternatively, give road users adequate warning of danger spots where at present there are no double white lines or any warnings of danger?

Our perennial problem is the allocation of the money we have for road improvement to wherever it will do the most good. In this case all we can do is to carry out a number of useful but comparatively small schemes over the next few years. Regarding the warning about danger spots and the use of white lines and so on, my right hon. Friend has written to the Minister recently on this subject and the Minister is writing fully in reply.

Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry is not proposing to proceed with the reconstruction of the road between Sheraton Road End and Cold Hesledon? Is he aware that, apart from the necessity to curb the accident rate on this stretch of road, it is essential to proceed with this development in order to attract industrialists to that part of the country? Is he aware that it is absurd to proceed with the remainder of the road scheme if this bottleneck remains? Surely the Government must do something about it, if only to provide employment?

With respect, I think that the right hon. Gentleman did not see the full details of what my right hon. Friend said yesterday or perhaps he has misunderstood what I have said today. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to study the matter.

asked the Minister of Transport what is his estimate of the date when the M.1 extension to Leeds will be completed.

The scheme for the Sheffield-Leeds Spur was made in August. Further statutory processes have to be gone through and the preparation is likely to be difficult and lengthy. The work will be put in hand as soon as these procedures are complete and funds are available but I cannot yet forecast when this will be.

Is the Minister aware that the construction of this road should now be in progress and that it should be completed in the near future? Does not he regard this project as one of importance and urgency?

Yes, there is no doubt about that. We certainly regard it as one of importance and urgency and should like to do this work as early as we can. The trouble is that we are facing a major rehousing problem at Tinsley where there are 200 houses which have to be demolished. That will take some time. The motorway will run through difficult country. Much of the route affects industrial as well as residential development and there will be a number of major constructions, such as the viaduct over the Don Valley, which will cost a great deal of money. We must be given a little more time to try to solve these very difficult problems in the interests of the constituents of the hon. Gentleman.

In view of the delay which is likely to take place in the building of this spur—for which there is no responsibility attaching to my hon. Friend who is merely carrying out the instructions of this House—may I compliment him on the work done on the A.1? There has been a remarkable transformation during the last few years. May I ask what he is doing about the single blockage left at Newark which is all the more important now because of the delay on the M.1?

Newark is a litle way from the Sheffield-Leeds motorway. I gave my hon. Friend some information on this yesterday and I hope that we can get on with it very soon.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has completed his consideration of the views of local authorities and others on the alternative routes for the M.4 motorway through Berkshire and Wiltshire; and if he is now able to announce definite proposals and the probable timing of the construction of the motorway.

No, Sir. The areas through which this section of the London-South Wales motorway may pass are of unusual interest. We are making a careful study of the views expressed by the local authorities and many others who are concerned. We shall announce our proposals as soon as we possibly can.

Was it not as long ago as July that the Minister asked urgently for the views of local authorities on three alternative routes? As he is not likely to please everyone by choosing one of these routes, would it not be as well to make his choice so that we can have the argument and see whether we can amend the Minister's choice?

That is a rather forbidding prospect. What we are trying to do is to reach the highest degree of general agreement on the line for the road. A number of ideas have been examined and others are still under consideration. I think that we Should be given a little longer to come to a provisional conclusion, which, in any event, would have to be publicised and laid open to the statutory objection procedure which Parliament has imposed.

Is not this another case where delay is being caused because the Ministry has not carried out far-reaching enough and adequate traffic and engineering surveys on alternative routes? If a proper alternative scheme had been put before the local authorities a decision could have been taken long ago.

I think that the hon. Member is quite wrong. The reason for delay is that three of the possible alternative routes would pass through areas of very high natural beauty. Nothing gets people in this country more excited than the possibility of natural countryside being despoiled. That is what has caused the delay.

asked the Minister of Transport what measures Her Majesty's Government intends to take in the interests of British shipping to persuade other maritime nations to give up assistance to their merchant fleets in the form of direct subsidies and the making of regulations applying strict rules of flag discrimination to their import and export trades; and if he will make a statement.

Her Majesty's Government will continue to employ any method likely to be effective of preventing practices by foreign Governments that restrict the ability of British shipping to compete on equal terms. We must not, however, adopt a cure that will be worse than the disease. I cannot usefully make any further statement as my right hon. Friend is awaiting the further views of the General Council of British Shipping, and the deliberations of the Shipping Advisory Panel will also, I hope, contribute to consideration of policy on these matters.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that, as a result of delay and Government inaction in this matter, we have lost over £200 million per annum in invisible export earnings by the Merchant Navy? Is he satisfied that tramp owners are properly represented on the Advisory Committee?

Yes, I am satisfied on that point. I do not, however, accept that the Government are in any way responsible for the very difficult position in this matter not only of our British industry but also of the shipping industries of every other country in the world.

But this problem has been outstanding for a long time and all we have had from the Government are certain assurances. What has the hon. and gallant Gentleman in mind as positive action? Is he in consultation with other Governments? This matter is too serious to be left to an ad hoc committee. Are the Government going to do as other Governments are doing for their shipping? Or do they intend to go on ignoring the situation, hoping that it will come out all right in the end?

We are consulting other Governments, European Governments in particular, in the hope of forming a joint European approach to the problem. It is worth remembering, however, that we have succeeded since the war, under both Governments, in maintaining unity of purpose among the great European maritime Powers.

My hon. and gallant Friend has done a great deal to get a co-ordinated approach by European nations, but is he aware of the speech made by the First Secretary of State at the Chamber of Shipping annual dinner, in which his right hon. Friend said that in certain circumstances and subject to certain safeguards Britain would retaliate against certain foreign malpractices? What are those safeguards and when will they be used?

The statement by my right hon. Friend represents Government policy. No useful purpose, however, would be served now by speculating on the sort of circumstances in which it might be advantageous to retaliate.

Does not the hon. and gallant Member realise that one cause of the great unemployment in British yards is the recent obnoxious practice, introduced by the Government, of giving grants and loans to foreign yards in competition with British yards? Will he consult the Prime Minister or other relevant Ministers with a view to abandoning that obnoxious practice so that prosperity may return to British yards?

This Question is about the shipping industry and not shipbuilding. However, I would take the opportunity of contradicting the hon. and learned Member's assertion that any unemployment has been caused by this practice. So far no orders have been placed through it.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that British owners say that their fleets are going rapidly out of date, and that unless some assistance is given they will not be in a position to compete with foreign shipping when trade revives?

My hon. Friend paints too gloomy a picture of the modernity of our Merchant Navy. I think that our shipbuilding friends wish that it was not so modern. That is one of the difficulties of the shipbuilding industry.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the rapidly deteriorating employment position in British shipyards; and what steps he will take to ensure that United Kingdom shipbuilders do not suffer loss to the extent that, in spite of much recent modernisation, many of them will be forced to close down before the present shipping recession ends, and while at the same time building subsidies are being paid to foreign shipyards.

We are aware of the position. The Government will continue to encourage by all means in their power the efforts of the industry to increase their competitive ability and in particular to obtain foreign orders. The Government will lose no opportunity of bringing pressure to bear on foreign Governments that subsidise their shipbuilding industries.

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his Answer. Is he fully aware of the damaging effect on the rest of the economy, particularly on the North-East Coast, in Scotland and Northern Ireland, of the run-down in shipbuilding? Will he look again at the proposal that the same credit guarantees should be given to British shipowners to order boats in Britain as are given to foreigners ordering boats in British yards?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the serious outlook for the industry at present, but we do not think that better credit terms would have much effect at the moment, because, whatever the position may have been in the past, the reason now for the lack of orders by British shipowners is the world surplus of shipping.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say why his right hon. Friend is not here to reply to this Question? Is he aware that in the shipbuilding industry generally we consider that his right hon. Friend is indifferent to the difficulties of shipbuilding? When will he take steps to protect us against the subsidised unfair competition which British shipbuilding is now facing?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend's absence is not through any lack of concern or interest in shipping and shipbuilding. It is because he is unwell.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend draw the attention of his colleagues in the Admiralty to the very cogent letter in The Times this morning from leading-shipowners, and will he try to place orders to get those yards busy again?

We are, naturally, in constant consultation with my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty on this very subject.

Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the British Transport Commission has recently placed an order for a cross-Channel ferryboat with a Belgian shipbuilding firm?

No, Sir. I cannot say that I am aware of that fact.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about the personnel and work and scope of the Shipping Advisory Panel which he recently set up, indicating in particular the number and nature of the problems it has considered, the advice it gave him and the number of its meetings.

The terms of reference and membership of the Panel are as set out in my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) on 2nd August, 1962. The Panel has got quickly down to a number of important and valuable studies, but its proceedings are private and I have at present no announcement to make about them.

In view of the many problems which confront the shipping industry, does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that the sittings of the Panel should be in public and that it should issue periodic reports? Will he see that it does so for the guidance of the shipping industry?

No, Sir. With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that would be most unsuitable. The object of having the Panel is that matters of great commercial privacy should be discussed so that we can see the best way in which we can give help.

Why should this Panel be different from any other? Why should it do its work in secret? Why should not its recommendations be made public?

I am certain that there are other panels which sit in secret.

asked the Minister of Transport what is now the percentage of British trade being carried in British-owned ships.

It is estimated that in 1961 about 50 per cent. by weight or about 65 per cent. by value of United Kingdom trade was carried in ships registered in the United Kingdom.

Does not my hon. and gallant Friend think that this is a very sorry state of affairs? Does he not further think that it is due to discrimination and restrictive practices on the part of nearly all countries? Will he not now agree that it is time for this country, if our percentage has fallen to 50, to adopt such practices in order to protect our shipping industry?

First, these figures do not indicate the full extent of the performance of British shipping, because British ships are also heavily engaged in the world's cross trades, and that applies particularly to tankers. Secondly, I can only say what has been often said before—that there is no point in retaliating if in the process of retaliating one does oneself more injury than one benefits shipping.

Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that using foreign tonnage when English tonnage is available is a bad practice? If he does, will he look into the matter?

I appreciate the point which the hon. Member makes, but I am sure that he will appreciate that all our policy has always been to try to maintain the international nature of shipping. That being so, it is not open to the Government to launch a great "ship British" policy.

Would my hon. and gallant Friend say to what level the percentage must sink before it becomes relevant for us to change our policies in these matters as a due warning to the rest of the world?

It is usually assumed by most maritime nations that if everybody were to discriminate, which is the point my hon. Friend is making, we should all end up on a 50–50 basis, whereas the present trade which this country carries is well ahead of that.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make representations to those Commonwealth countries with substantial shipyards which are subsidised by them, in view of the effects of their action upon the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry.

I take it my hon. Friend has in mind Australia and Canada.

Both Governments have already been made aware of our concern at the effect of their subsidies on our shipbuilding. We shall continue to discuss this matter with Canada. As regards Australia, as I said to my hon. Friend on 27th June, their subsidies are of long standing and were started primarily for strategic reasons. We are not satisfied that it would be useful to make further representations at present.

In view of the professed love for Commonwealth trade, is not this a respect in which we could make some improvement to help our shipbuilding industry? Will not my hon. and gallant Friend call a conference of Commonwealth countries interested in this matter to try to work out a fair and equitable basis for the shipbuilding industry? Is not this a case of dealing not with foreigners but with our own Commonwealth countries who should be willing to abide by the rules?

We would consider calling a conference if we thought that anything would be gained by it, but the facts of life about this matter are that we cannot prevent another country from subsidising what it regards as an infant industry in order to get it started.

Would not the best contribution to a solution of this problem be an intensive drive to increase Commonwealth trade with the United Kingdom?

That raises rather wider questions.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the Norwegian-American Line tendered for two passenger liners round Europe, and the contract in fact went to the French shipyards because they put a subsidy of 20 per cent. in the price, whereas we did not put in any subsidy? Will my hon. and gallant Friend make representations about this to the French Government, because, after all, they are in the position, vis-à-vis our negotiations with the Six, of being our fiancée?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that his supplementary question arises from the main Question which is essentially concerned with Commonwealth countries. I can, however, confirm what he says. It is a fact that that contract was lost as a result of the subsidy paid by the French Government.

Is the conclusion to be drawn from the Parliamentary Secretary's Answer to this and earlier Questions that there is nothing that the Government intend doing, or which they think they can do, to help the shipping and shipbuilding industries in their present plight?

The right hon. Gentleman would be drawing altogether too sweeping a conclusion if he were to say that, and it would be wrong to imagine that the representations which we make on this subject are entirely ineffective, because they are by no means so. In fact, it is satisfactory to recall that the great majority of the world's shipping is still free.

asked the Minister of Transport what was the total tonnage of new shipbuilding orders placed with British shipyards in the first nine months of 1962; and how this compares with the capacity of the yards.

Three hundred and eighteen thousand gross tons of orders for merchant ships. In 1961 the industry estimated that its potential annual output was some 1,600,000 gross tons apart from naval construction.

Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that there is a tremendous slack in the shipbuilding industry which needs to be taken up at some time, both in terms of employment and the provision of new national wealth? This being so, will my hon. and gallant Friend discuss with the Treasury the possibility of tied aid so that ships can be built and exported to countries presently wanting assistance from this country?

I should like to think a little more about the precise proposition of my hon. Friend, but the short answer is that we are limited by the G.A.T.T. agreement. We are restricted from placing a subsidy solely for export orders. If we placed a subsidy at all it would have to be a general construction subsidy.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when his right hon. Friend last met the shipbuilders, and what was the effect of their discussions?

Speaking from memory, my right hon. Friend last met the shipbuilders about 10 to 14 days ago, and I meet them regularly every month, or sometimes every other month.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the international maritime shipping and shipbuilders' organisations have been meeting recently to consider, not the building of more ships, but an international agreement on laying up tonnage, simply because there is a surplus of tonnage throughout the world? Therefore, it is no use talking about building ships in view of this circumstance. Is not the solution to the problem, and the only possible solution, not subsidies and credit terms and all the rest of it, but an increase in the volume of international trade?

The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct, and it is true that the first meeting of, I hope, a profitable series of meetings took place yesterday of the international tramp shipowners in the hope of coming to some sort of freight stabilisation agreement.

In view of the importance of this subject, I give notice that I wish to raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for providing swift access to airports from central London; and what bearing these plans will have upon the policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning the development of helicopter sites in central London.

Access to Heathrow has been improved by the work already completed on the route from central London. It will be further improved by the completion of the motorway from Chiswick flyover. Work has started on this motorway which will incorporate a spur to the airport.

Access to Gatwick from Central London must continue to be mainly by rail.

The extent to which these factors will influence the development of helicopter sites in central London is a matter primarily for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the last part of his remarks is the whole point? Will he undertake to make representations to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and when applications are made for planning permission will he impress on him that the development of helicopter sites in central London is monstrously uneconomic, and that it would be very much more to the public benefit if surface transport were more adequately developed?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I find the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in this matter a little tenuous. I will study what my hon. Friend has said and see whether there is any way in which we can help him, but we are providing the speediest method of surface transport that we can find to airports, in one case by the motorway, and in the other case by existing rail access.

Is it not a fact that despite the improvements to which the hon. Gentleman has referred in connection with surface transport, the Government have made up their mind to establish a helicopter site at Nine Elms Goods Yard, and that that decision has been taken despite very strong protests from the Lambeth Borough Council, the London County Council, and all other local authorities in central London who will be adversely affected by it?

I can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman pursues this vendetta with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation.

Has my hon. Friend seen the letter in The Times today which referred to the enormous amount of movement from Southend Airport? If so, why has he not given information about swift access to that airport?

My hon. Friend had better await the information that I am going to send him in answer to his previous Question.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make available to those concerned with the planning of a heliport the experience of his Departmental research station on the problems of noise; and if he will refer the problem of helicopter noise to his research workers for special study.

Investigation into noise from motor vehicles has been done by the Motor Industry Research Association in conjunction with my Department and the National Physical Laboratory. Results have been published in the Interim Report of the Committee on the Problem of Noise which was presented to Parliament last July.

Problems arising from helicopter noise are primarily the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation and are, I understand, within the field of inquiry of the Committee to which I have referred.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation is suspected of having set his heart on developing these helicopter sites, come hell or high water, and that it really is important that the effect of noise should be made known to the public? Will my hon. Friend arrange to have the results of research into noise made known to the public so that they will be able to assess what sort of effect it will have on them if these helicopter ports are developed?

I think that that is all out of order. The helicopter noise problem is apparently not for this Minister, nor, as far as I know, is hell or high water.

Can my hon. Friend say what his Department is doing about the Interim Report of the Wilson Committee on Noise from Motor Vehicles, to which he referred in his Answer? Is it just being allowed to lie, or is somebody going to do something about it?

My hon. Friend had better put that question down.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation to ensure that drivers of motor cars and commercial vehicles holding a provisional driving licence have to be accompanied by a person over the age of 21 who has held an annual licence for at least two years.

No, Sir. I do not feel that there would be justification on safety grounds for imposing these further rules.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it cannot be correct for a teen-age provisional licence holder to be accompanied by a teen-age driver with only a few months' experience? Will he refer this matter to one of his advisory committees on road safety?

I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I suggest that the important factor is the length of experience of the accompanying driver, rather than his age. It is possible that a very young driver has had a good deal of experience.

Will my hon. Friend answer the second part of my supplementary question?

Evidently my hon. Friend did not hear what I said. I said that I would consider his suggestion about referring the matter to the Departmental Committee on Road Safety.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will take powers to give help to local authorities in finding suitable sites on which to train young men and women motor cycle and motor scooter riders.

Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, gives local authorities powers to make arrangements for the practical training of motor cycle and scooter riders. I think the authorities themselves are best placed for finding suitable sites.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that land in Birmingham is very scarce and, when it is obtainable, it is very expensive? Is he aware that when those who operate the cycle tracks organise schemes they cannot train the riders they wish to train?

We wish to encourage local authorities to exercise these powers because we recognise the great value of this training. To a large extent local authorities have been successful, sometimes using school playgrounds or private roads; sometimes persuading factories to allow their private roads to be used. Also, when it is appropriate and they approach a Government Department for the use of Government land, sympathetic consideration is always given.

Is the Minister aware of the intolerable nuisance caused on the very well-known existing circuits on which these people are trained, not so much by the testing but by every Sunday being made hideous by competitors practising? This is a persistent and intolerable nuisance. Does not the existing practice of having well-known circuits on which to test reduce the value of the test?

The object of this Section is to train rather than to test. We have to balance the admitted inconvenience of noise with the greater saving of lives.

asked the Minister of Transport, if he has yet reached a decision as to whether he will accept the Royal Automobile Club-Auto-Cycle Union's proficiency test as a certificate of competence to obtain a G. licence.

I have not seen any evidence to suggest that the proficiency tests which form part of the R.A.C./A.C.U. motor cycle training scheme are comparable with the official driving test. But we are well aware of the value of the training scheme and propose to discuss with the organisers other possibilities of linking it more closely with our own test organisation.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that I do not agree with him? Is he aware that the standard of the certificate is extremely high and that the organisers of the scheme are prepared to co-operate by having Ministry of Transport inspectors at their tests in order that the certificate may be a prerequisite of the holding of a licence?

We agree about the high standard of the training given. The only definite evidence we have is that in 1959–60 when about 15 clubs showed a comparison with their test, 31 out of 106 of the results did not correspond with the performance of the same candidates in our own driving test. We hope to discuss the matter further with the authorities, as I said, with a view to trying to bring the two sets of tests into line.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that the police as well as motor cycle clubs are interested in this scheme?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 7 and 8.

Lines 7 and 8 of the Schedule refer to Section 1 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919. I appreciate that the Committee is not concerned this afternoon with the wisdom or humanity of the Home Secretary's exercise of the powers which the House has for many years entrusted to him, but with whether he ought to have those powers and whether the Act of 1919 is such an Act that we ought to continue it even for one more year. This is the sort of debate which we have had year by year aver many years. The major fundamental criticism which we have ail made is that it leaves the Home Secretary with too many arbitrary powers over the liberties and, as we have always realised potentially and as now we know actually, the lives, of human beings.

The right hon. Gentleman is able to decide matters of the utmost importance in the lives of individuals and families without appeal, without reference to any kind of third party judgment and—I confess that this was new to me—without being under any obligation whatever even to listen to the representations from the people whose lives he is, as it were, dominating or controlling. To see whether these powers ought to be continued it is necessary to see what the powers are as recently defined in the Court of Appeal. It is also necessary to see for illaustration purposes how they apply in a particular case.

I therefore propose to illustrate my argument that these powers ought now to come to an end by one single recent and now world-famous, or world-notorious, case. Although I must refer to detail, I am not doing so by way of criticising the Home Secretary. We cannot do that on this occasion. The occasion for critising how he administered any particular case arises at another time, but we cannot illustrate the argument on which my proposition that the powers should come to an end is based unless we are prepared, frankly and without fear and without favour, to see how, in fact, the powers work.

It is not a question whether the result achieved was fair or just or humane; it is a question whether any one man in any country in any Government is fit to exercise powers of this kind. The case I want to refer to is the case of Robert Soblen, deceased. Who was Robert Soblen? I have here a letter from him addressed to me from Brixton Prison on 6th August. He died a few days later.

Has it ever been suggested by anybody that this man was in any way concerned with the security of this country?

Certainly not. I do not know what representations may have been made by the United States Government to the Home Secretary or to the British Government. The reason why I do not know is not that the right hon. Gentleman does not know, but that he will not tell. The knowledge is in his possession. He admits that some representations were made. That has never been denied, but he will not say what the information was. All I am concerned with for the moment is whether he knew this man to be dying when he refused him leave to land, and, subsequently, having refused him leave to land, made a deportation order against a man who, according to his own adjudication, was not here at all.

What did he take into consideration? What was the overwhelming reason why this man should be hunted, hounded and persecuted, and ultimately driven to death because we could not afford him living space in our territory for the one or two months that he still had? What is the law which enables our Home Secretary to do that? I should like to state it very shortly in the words of the Court of Appeal, and I am not going to read any of the judgments. As hon. Members know, there is always a head note before the actual judgments are printed, and the head note gives a short summary of the facts and sets out shortly what the court held to be the law. What did it hold to be the law? It is because they held this to be the law that I say that this Committee ought today to say that after today this ought no longer to be the law of the land.

First—and this I do not deal with, because it is a separate and very technical point, which was advanced on behalf of Dr. Soblen by his legal representative—the Aliens Order of 1953 is invalid, anyhow. I should have thought, reading the arguments, that there was much to be said for that view, but, whether there was or not no longer matters, because the Court of Appeal —and we know that there has been no appeal from it—held that the Order is valid under the Aliens Act, which the Government are proposing to continue for another twelve months this afternoon. What else did it hold? It held that

"The provisions of Article 8 (4) and Article 20 of the Order of 1953 were cumulative and supplementary, not mutually exclusive."

I will not read the rest of it, because hon. Members may wonder what in the world all that means. I propose to tell them.

4.0 p.m.

Article 8 of the Aliens Order, 1953, whose validity depends on the Act which the Government now propose to continue, deals with the Home Secretary's power to remove aliens who have been refused leave to land. Dr. Soblen was an alien who had been refused leave to land. That is the contention of the Home Office. That is what the Home Secretary fought for in the lower court; that is what he fought for in the Court of Appeal, and that is what he satisfied to his own satisfaction. Therefore, we can no longer contend that Article 8 did not apply to him. He was, indeed, an alien who had been refused leave to land.

What can be done to such a man? He can be deported. He can be sent away. Article 8 defines how and when he can be sent away. For one thing, if he is not sent away for two months, he cannot be sent away at all, not under Article 8. For another thing, directions can be given to place him on board the ship or aircraft which brought him here. Or, if that is not possible, directions can be given to the owners or agents—not to anybody else—of the aircraft or ship that brought him here to take him back. In the meantime, things can be done to enable those things to be done. That is all.

It was not possible to do that in Soblen's case, because the airline which brought him here no longer had the aircraft here which brought him and refused the directions to put him on another one. Therefore, the Home Secretary was unable to apply to Dr. Soblen, he being a man who had been refused leave to land, the powers under the Aliens Order which the Home Secretary had to deal with persons refused leave to land.

Does anybody think that the Home Secretary will be defeated by that? This is where Article 20 comes in. The Home Secretary has more powers under Article 20. The Court of Appeal decided—it is not for me to question it, though I confess that I am puzzled by the reasoning which led the court to the conclusion —that the Home Secretary still had powers under Article 20, even though the specific powers which the Order gives him for persons refused leave to land under Article 8 do not apply or cannot be applied.

Article 20 has no time limit. It can be applied at any time. Article 20 does not require that directions shall be given to the company that brought the alien here, because he may have been here many years and nobody may know who brought him here. But for the decision of the Court of Appeal, one might ask: if Article 20 can be applied to aliens refused leave to land, what is Article 8 doing in the Order at all? It is not needed.

I cannot understand what the Court of Appeal meant by saying that the two powers are not mutually exclusive and that one is supplementary to the other. The Court of Appeal did not say which is supplementary to which. Obviously, the one dealing with people refused leave to land cannot be supplementary to the one dealing with those who are normally resident here. There are obvious things in Article 20 which are not fitting to conditions of people who have been refused leave to land.

That is why the two Articles are there. But the Court of Appeal has said that all the protections, such as there are, under Article 8 are of no avail at all if the Home Secretary chooses to apply the other Article. If that really is the law of the land, even on this one comparatively minor point, it is time we did something to change it.

What else did the Court of Appeal decide? The headnote continues:

"(iii) an alien had no right that, before a deportation order was made against him, representations from him should be heard, directed to the requirement under Article 20 (2, b) of the Aliens Order, 1953, that the Secretary of State should deem it conducive to the public good that the order should be made."

Therefore, although Article 20 applies to him when it is a question of using it to send him out, it does not apply to him when it is a question of giving him any safeguards against the deportation order made.

It is a monstrous state of the law, if it is the state of the law, which the Court of Appeal has declared. Why should not he have a right to make representations? Can the Home Secretary tell us whether he defends at this time of day the proposition that a man can be deported in these circumstances—a dying man who has committed no offence against our laws and very likely no offence against anybody's—and handed back to be imprisoned for the rest of his life without having the right to make any representation on his own behalf to the right hon. Gentleman?

Moreover, when the Home Secretary has made the Order, when he decides whether to make the Order or not, without having any duty to hear representations on the man's behalf, there is no appeal of any kind to any third party judgment. How can this be justified at any time, and still more at a time like this when all over the world there are people caught up in the flotsam and jetsam of world conditions for which they are not responsible but of which they are the inevitable victims? There is no representation. There is the absolute power of the Home Secretary.

He need not listen to anybody. He need not tell us what representations he has listened to. He need not give us any reasons. He can apply Article 20, which, on the face of it, has no application.

That is not the end of it. The head-note goes on to say this; this is the last reason:

"on the evidence there was no ground tending to show that the deportation order had not been made in the honest belief that the deportation order would be conducive to the public good …"

I pause there. Surely in any sane, sensible or civilised state of the law the onus ought to be on the Home Secretary, if he asserts that it is conducive to the public good, to say what it is and prove that it is. How can we place on a man here for a few days, with no knowledge of our law, the onus of adducing evidence that the Home Secretary was wrong in holding that it was conducive to the public good? It is an astounding state of the law which no man of integrity, I dare to assert, can possibly defend in this Committee or, for that matter, anywhere else.

I will read the second half of the last reason:

"or that it was a sham or device for bringing about an unlawful extradition."

Soblen had to prove that it was a device for bringing about an unlawful extradition.

There is no doubt that that was the result. An unlawful extradition was, in fact, effected, and when I say an unlawful extradition I mean an extradition that would have been unlawful under the Extradition Act. The whole object of the operation was to place the United States Government in the same position as they would have been if an application for extradition had been made, and had succeeded. That was the object of the operation, and that would have been the operation but for the man's death.

Why unlawful? Unlawful, because everyone knows that extradition proceedings could not have succeeded. It was not an extraditable offence, but what the court has held must now be taken as the law of the land if we continue this Act.

What is the law on this point if we continue this Act? If the Home Secretary desires to get rid of an alien, desires to hand him over for punishment to another country or to carry out punishment in another country that has already been awarded, and if the man is an alien, and if he is not extraditable, the Home Secretary can use his general powers under the Order to produce a result that could not have been produced under the law of the land.

Does the Home Secretary really want this power—does he? Where it is conceded that the offence is not extraditable, does he want to use his general powers on a vague phrase about it being conducive to the public good in order to produce an extradition that he could get in no other way—in the case of a man who had suffered enough, who was dying, who had committed no offence at all against us, and who was a man, be it said, apart from the offence with which he was charged, of the highest possible professional and human repute?

That cannot be right, can it? It cannot be right, according to any conception of the laws of natural justice that I have ever heard of, that the Home Secretary should be bolted and barred at the front door and at every window in the house, but allowed to escape through an unnoticed crevice at the back that no one else had ever heard of, and had never thought was available—and then not to say why.

I know why the Home Secretary thought it conducive to the public good. It was because the United States Government asked him to do it, and because he believes that it is not conducive to the public good for this country ever to refuse any request by the United States Government, no matter how unreasonable, at any time. That is not my view of what is conducive to the public good of the country.

I am not making any narrow technical plea about sovereignty. I know that the Government no longer believe in the independence or sovereignty of this country, but there are people who do not agree with me about that. They think that the Government do so believe. But this is surely a very strange abdication of it, is it not, that, merely because a foreign country asks one to do it, one does an act that is unjust, that is unhumane, and that has no foundation or justification in the laws of one's own country?

I have spoken long enough. There are other hon. Members that want to speak—indeed, there are other things I may like to say. I hope that I have said enough to induce the Committee to believe that it is too late to treat this debate as a sort of annual circus that we can have year after year, to which the Home Secretary listens and, if he makes a conciliatory speech at the end of the debate, we give him the powers, and everyone goes home and forgets about it for another twelve months.

We have reached a pitch—displayed by this disgraceful action in the case of Soblen; an action that brought us into contempt all over the world—enough, surely, to persuade the Committee to take a long and serious look at whether it should continue this Act for another day.

The Committee has just listened to a very moving speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I do not propose to follow him into the details of the Soblen case, but I should like to address the Committee for a few minutes on the issue which that case has raised. It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend has said, that we have an annual debate on the aliens laws, and for year after year my hon. Friends have asked for in inquiry into those laws and their operation. It seems to me that the case that my hon. Friend has so movingly described tremendously strengthens the argument that there should be a full inquiry.

There has been no such inquiry since 1903. In that year, there was a Royal Commission. At that time, there was a good deal of public concern because of the influx of Jewish refugees from Czarist Russia. They were congregating in certain districts of the East End of London, and there was agitation that was extremely similar to the agitation we have had in this country as a result of coloured immigration from the West Indies, India and Pakistan.

The Royal Commission was followed by the Act of 1905, an Act that was passed in spite of the most vigorous protests by the Opposition of that day. They said that it was a new and extremely undesirable departure that we should give to officials the right to bar anyone from coming to this country. None the less, that Act compares extremely favourably with the state of the law that exists under the Order in Council of 1953, with which we are concerned.

There was in that Act, as there is not in the Order of 1953, an express recognition of the right of political or religious asylum. Section 1 (3) lays down the conditions on which an expulsion order may be made against the alien, and there then follow these words:

"… but, in the case of an immigrant who proves that he is seeking admission to this country solely to avoid prosecution or punishment on religious or political grounds or for an offence of a political character, or persecution, involving danger of imprisonment or danger to life or limb, on account of religious belief, leave to land shall not be refused on the ground merely of want of means, or the probability of his becoming a charge on the rates …"

In those days, that is to say, an immigrant who landed here had an opportunity of proving that he was a refugee from political or religious persecution.

Secondly, and this is more significant still, although the Home Secretary was given, for the first time in our legislation, the right to make an expulsion order—which we now call a deportation order—he could, under that Act, make it only on the recommendation of the court. The position is quite different today. The Home Secretary can deport any alien if, in the words of the order, he deems it to be

"conducive to the public good"

to make the order.

Apart from the Extradition Acts there is no recognition in the law governing aliens of the right of political asylum. There is, of course, an administrative procedure which was set up by the Government in 1956 as a result of the European Convention on Establishment. It is perfectly true that in certain cases the alien against whom a deportation order is sought to be made has the opportunity of a hearing before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or one of the magistrate's colleagues. But that is a strictly limited right. It does not apply to cases where a deportation order has been made on ground of public security, or on the ground of the alien landing in the United Kingdom without permission, or on the ground that during his stay in the United Kingdom he has within two years failed to observe the conditions attaching to his stay.

In all these cases—and we are particularly concerned here with the second, the alien landing without permission—the alien gets no hearing at all. In these matters we are a long way behind some other countries, and it might be worth while for the Committee to consider the position in the United States and indeed in some parts of the British Commonwealth.

In the United States there is a particular provision which is made under their Act of 1952 with reference to aliens who arrive on their shores. The alien may be kept out on a variety of grounds, but before he can be sent back he is entitled to a hearing by someone who is designated for that purpose and whose title is special inquiry officer. Although it is not a court of law, nevertheless it is quite clearly intended to be a judicial proceeding in all essentials, because it is provided that the special inquiry officer shall not himself take any part in the investigation of this man's case and he shall not in any sense be a prosecutor. He has to sit there and hear what the alien has to say. Then there is this provision:

"The determination of such special inquiry officer shall he based only on the evidence produced at the inquiry."

That means, of course, that there has to be evidence, and if it is adverse the alien himself has an opportunity of meeting it. He has We right to be represented, and if the special inquiry officer decides against him there is specific provision for an appeal to the Attorney-General of the United States.

The position is very much the same in Canada, where there is a board of inquiry. It is to consider whether the alien may be allowed to remain or whether he must leave Canada. There again, it is specifically provided that the immigrant may be represented by counsel before the, board—of three in this case—which is empowered to receive evidence, and there is an appeal from the board to the Minister concerned.

In Australia, there is a board of three members. An alien who is ordered to be deported on a particular ground, that is to say, on the ground that he advocates the overthrow by force or violence of the established Government of the Commonwealth, may be ordered to appear before the board and show cause why he should not be deported. There again, he has the opportunity of a hearing. I do not know what the position is at the moment, but even in South Africa, when she was a member of the Commonwealth, the law, by an Act of 1933. provided for the, setting up of a board to which the excluded alien could appeal.

I have taken these few examples, and I think that it would not be difficult to find others, to show how far in this matter we are lagging behind other countries. In all these countries the alien ordered to be deported has the right to be heard. He has the right to present his case or to have it presented for him. All we are asking is that we should try to observe in this country a very elementary principle of justice, Audi alterem partem—"Hear the other party" We are asking that there should be no such case as that of Dr. Soblen in this country again and that every alien against whom a deportation order is sought to be made should have the right to be heard. This is not an unreasonable request, but it can only be met by a change of the law. I hope, therefore, that we shall have from the Minister a much more sympathetic answer than we have had in recent years.

I rise to speak in the debate because the case which I wish to put is one where, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) so movingly said, the stain is not indelible. In this case, there is hope. The individuals concerned are alive, some in this country and some behind the Iron Curtain.

The case is one which the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks. (Mr. Kitson) and myself have been pressing with the Home Office. We make no complaint whatsoever about the humanity or the efficiency of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in dealing with it. Indeed, our impression has been that he has been extremely restive under the administrative framework within which he has had to operate. This is the case of a young man. He comes from a country behind the Iron Curtain and he was able to visit this country as a tourist earlier this year. His two elder brothers live in this country, having served with the allied forces during the war.

The young man himself and many members of his family have served for various periods in Siberia. The aged mother, behind the Iron Curtain, is fatally ill and she may by now be dead. The whole family agreed that every effort should be made to reunite the brothers on this side of the Iron Curtain—in this country. The brothers are married to English girls. They have families. They are well paid and there is no question of the young man himself, a productive and efficient worker, being a charge on the rates. Yet we were told by the Joint Under-Secretary that the rules were perfectly clear and that this man could not be allowed to stay in this country. We were further told that by comparison with other cases which had been rejected the case was not a bad one.

This raises the question of what these rules are. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) what his knowledge of the rules was from his period of office. He told me that there were no such rules, but only general understandings or general practices. Are there rules or are there not? If there are, why cannot we know them and at least know the framework within which these decisions are taken?

4.30 p.m.

We are fortunate in this country in that we have not suffered the breaking up of most families in the way in which they have been broken up in such countries as the one from which this young man comes. We have a great reputation for making it possible for many of these flotsam and jetsam, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne has said, to find peace and a creative life within our society. Why can we not make it possible for these families to come together over here? There is no question of a tremendous flood of people coming in. If we set up rules which can be generally approved, there is surely no question that the numbers coming in would add appreciably to those who are already here; and if that is the case, why can we not be told how many have sought to come or how many have been refused?

The powers of the Home Secretary in this matter are absolute and unquestionable. No one can call him to account. He has other grievous personal responsibilities in deciding the personal fate of many human beings. In the case, for example, of the death penalty there have at least been judicial proceedings in which the case has been discussed with proper pleading and proper legal representation in the courts. There is none of this in the case of aliens seeking permission to remain.

We are told that there is a security risk attached, but is there really any question of aliens coming to this country, getting jobs in which security would be an important consideration? What about the abuses which arise from allegations which are made without proper foundation, in which the person against whom they are made is never even told, let alone given a chance to reply to them? There will undoubtedly be an increasing volume of such cases in the future, especially if the plans of the Government to join the European Economic Community bear fruit.

Surely at this time, considering the immense changes which the Government are contemplating in the movement of aliens in and out of the country, there is an excellent case for reviewing the machinery. I therefore ask specifically: why cannot the rules under which the Home Secretary operates be published? Why cannot there be a tribunal to which individuals can put their case? I accept that secrecy may be necessary in such cases as the one that I have described, but at least it should be possible both for the rules under which such a tribunal works to he known and for any person appearing before such a tribunal to be properly represented.

As I say, there is still hope in the case I have put to the House. The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks. and I advised this young man to return to his country in the hope that a change would be possible this year, and this man, who is now engaged to an English girl, hopes to return. There may be others like him. Can the Home Secretary not hold out some hope not only for these families, but for the great reputation which this country has had in the past and which, we trust, will grow in the future?

I think that it might be convenient if I intervene at this stage, because I want to deal principally with the Soblen case. I understand that the Home Secretary is anxious to reply to that matter personally, although that, of course, will not conclude the debate on this part of the Bill. Other hon. Members concerned with the administration of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act would be enabled to make their contributions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman) has done a service, on this occasion in our annual review of the administration of the Aliens Order, by concentrating the attention of the Committee on what happened in the case of Dr. Soblen. As he said, or, at any rate, implied, this is a laboratory test of how the Aliens Order works, what are the powers of the Home Secretary, how they are exercised and how they ought to be exercised, and it is particularly by analysing what happened in this case that we can best see what is wrong with the present state of the law. I agree entirely with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) has said, that the time has arrived when, as the Guardian said this morning, a review of the whole administration of the powers of the Government over the lives of aliens is long overdue. It is overdue for revision and reform.

There is only one observation which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne made with which I disagree, and that was in his opening statement, when he rather suggested that this was not the occasion to criticise the Home Secretary for his actions in this case. In my opinion, this is not only the occasion to criticise the Home Secretary for his conduct, but it is inevitable in discussing the case of Dr. Soblen that we should do so; and I think that we on these benches should be failing in our duty if we did not do so, and that for a variety of reasons.

There is no doubt that the whole of the tragic circumstances surrounding the case of Dr. Soblen have caused throughout the length and breadth of the country not only very great concern but a very deep sense of humiliation and shame at what has occurred. Therefore, I make no apology for supplementing in some degree what my hon. Friend has said. I want, in particular, to deal with the extent to which the Home Secretary was motivated by pressure from the United States of America. After the decision had been taken, The Times, in a leading article on 1st September, said—and I agree with this:

"… the decisions taken by Mr. Brooke have been very strongly guided by international considerations. Nobody wanted Dr. Soblen except the Americans. The question is, has the British Government in any way yielded to external pressure to the extent of bending the law? The answer as given by the High Court yesterday is no. But that is not the end of the business. The Government must, sooner or later"—

and I think that today is the occasion—

"clear the air by explaining, from beginning to end, to Parliament and to the public, what exactly did happen."

If further confirmation of the necessity of that were required, I could read from a large volume of letters which I have received on this subject, but I will pick out only one, and I will not disclose the name of my correspondent except to say that he is a reader in divinity at one of our leading universities. He writes:

"I write, with some competence as a moral theologian, to express a conviction of shame and alarm at this instance of thoroughly bad government which to my mind has left this nation polluted with guilt equivalent to that which attaches to politico-judicial murder. The fabric of law and justice notoriously suffers more damage from the exploitation of justice for inhuman ends than from gross violations of justice or law. A nation whose Home Secretary cannot, or dare not, act with some regard for grace, is on the way to being a pretty foul community in which to live."

One thing I find obvious from reading the law report is this. It seems clear from the judgment of Mr. Justice Stephenson, whose judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal, that Dr. Soblen would probably have succeeded in his application for a writ of habeas corpus if the Home Secretary had produced the correspondence which had passed between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government. In The Times of 8th August there apeared this paragraph:

"An official of the American Embassy in London said last night that the political counsellor at the Embassy had made representations to the British Government about Dr. Robert Soblen, the convicted spy. The official said it had been represented 'that the United States would very much like to have Dr. Soblen returned to the United States'. The British Government had been requested to do everything possible to facilitate his speedy return."

The report concluded with these words:

"In Washington, the State Department said it had emphatically reiterated to both Britain and Israel that the United States wanted Dr. Soblen returned to America."

The significance of that is that, if Dr. Soblen could have proved those facts, or even given prima facie proof of them, there might well have been a different outcome in the courts. It looks as though, if those facts had been before the court, Dr. Soblen would have succeeded in his contention that the deportation order was a sham, not bona fide, and that it was unlawful. For this reason, Dr. Soblen's advisers asked, first, the Treasury Solicitor to produce the correspondence. They then attempted to serve a subpoena on the Home Secretary to produce any correspondence he had had with the United States Government. The Crown, as it was, as a matter of strict law, perfectly entitled to do, claimed privilege.

I want the Home Secretary today to justify, if he can, that claim of privilege against the production of those documents. It seems quite evident from all one knows from both American sources and British sources that there was pressure by the United States Government on the Home Secretary to return Dr. Soblen to the United States. In fact, the American Press at the time was full of comments in that sense.

I interrupt my hon. Friend only to say that, whatever the reasons, good or bad, for claiming privilege before the Court of Appeal, the question remains: is there any reason why the Home Secretary should claim privilege for that correspondence before this Committee?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

What has happened in the courts of law is one thing. The courts were concerned with a pure matter of law but, as the Press and public opinion know, that is not the end of the matter. We have a duty to ventilate the question here and find out the full facts. There can be no justification for the Home Secretary refusing to tell us what representations were made to him. He may, of course, go on to say that any representations from the United States did not inflừence his mind and that his only reason for sending Dr. Soblen back was that he thought that it was essential for the health or security of this country. If he wants to do so, he may say that, and the House can make up its mind whether to believe him or not. But at this stage, we must, surely, know what representations were made by the United States.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Justice Stephenson said in his judgment:

"What I should find if the veil imposed by the claim for Crown privilege were removed. I know not".

The whole basis of the decision both in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal was based upon the absence before the court of certain relevant facts, and that absence was due to the wilful refusal of the Crown to produce the documents.

Since then, of course, Dr. Soblen has died. Nobody now can say that there is any danger in this matter. Unfortunately, whatever was in the Home Secretary's mind at the time has become academic. We are now having an inquest not into the death of Dr. Soblen, but into the conduct of the Home Secretary. In his own interests, in justice to himself and the Government, the right hon. Gentleman should give us the full facts and tell us what pressure was exercised by the United States.

Only a few days ago, the Foreign Secretary protested in the strongest possible terms both to the Hungarian and the Russian Government that a British subject had been sent by Hungary to Russia. Hungary may well be a satellite of the Soviet Union. Are we to be told by the Home Secretary that this country has now sunk into such shame and humiliation that we have become a satellite of the United States, as Hungary is a satellite of the Soviet Union, that we have to submit to the dictates of the United States in matters involving human freedom and liberty and some of the most cherished traditions of our country? If there were no representations from the United States Government, or if they were innocuous, let us be told. Let us hear what was said and how cogent it was.

It may or may not be right, if there were representations, to take some notice of them. I contend that it would not be. I assert that in these matters, involving human liberty, it is far more important to be scrupulously fair to the individual than to placate, or to appear to placate, an ally, however powerful that ally might be. In matters of international law of this kind we should apply the same rules about asylum and about the strict observance of what is and what is not an extraditable offence to all persons regardless of their nationality.

The point can be tested in this way. Is it conceivable that, if an American spy had been convicted in Russia, had escaped and had landed in this country, we should have sent him back to Russia? Is it even conceivable that, if Dr. Soblen had been a Cuban, he would have been sent back to Havana? There must be absolute impartiality of treatment in these matters.

There is something else which worries me. Even though the Home Secretary may have thought—I cannot conceive how he could—that the security of this country or order and good government in this country were in some way jeopardised by the continued presence of Dr. Soblen here, why was it necessary to send him to the United States? The Czechoslovak Government had promised him a visa.

With my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) I had been to see the Home Secretary. We urged the Home Secretary, on grounds of common decency and humanity, to come to the conclusion that, if he must ultimately deport Dr. Soblen, instead of sending him back to the United States where he would have been pilloried, imprisoned—nobody knows what might have happened to him—the proper course consistent with all our obligations of national security, and certainly consistent with humanity, would be to send him to Czechoslovakia, which was willing to receive him. But that advice was ignored. I am very doubtful whether, as a matter of law, the right to deport under Article 20 carries with it the right to deport to a particular place.

It is for these reasons that so many of us on this side feel that the Home Secretary's conduct in this case cannot pass without the deepest possible censure. I do not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne and say that the state of the law, unfortunate though it has been proved to be, is such that we ought at this stage, to withhold the renewal of this Act for a further period, because that would produce a situation in which there were no aliens regulations at all.

In my opinion, the Home Secretary's conduct has given rise to a deep sense of shame and humiliation throughout the country. There has been widespread protest, regardless of party. I think that the right hon. Gentleman stands convicted before the tribunal of humanity for unnecessary, unjust, callous and inhuman 'administration of the aliens legislation which he is asking us to renew. It may be necessary that the House should renew the Act. I only regret that we cannot have a more sensitive and more humane Home Secretary to administer it.

Anyone concerned with the administration of the law and anyone who cares for civil liberties in this country must be profoundly disturbed by the state of our aliens legislation. That disturbance has been increased recently by the facts of the Soblen case, which have been so movingly and eloquently stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). The crux of that case, as disclosed by the Court of Appeal, was that Soblen was unable to adduce any evidence—it is difficult to see how he could have done—to rebut the evidence, contained in the Home Secretary's affidavit, that when he made his decision to deport he did so in the bona fide belief that it was conducive to the public good.

We live in an age when, I suppose, more inhumanity has been done by man to man in the exercise of arbitrary power in the bona fide belief that it was conducive to the public good than at any other time in human history. I do not suggest that those who administer our laws here do so with the inhumanity displayed in our lifetime in other countries. What I do say is that, if we care about our civil liberties, we should so frame our laws that every possible safeguard is made available in order to ensure that those powers are not wrongly administered. In a case like the Soblen case, to put the onus on one man, on a Minister to make a decision without there being any right of appeal or any procedure for formal representations by the person concerned cannot be considered to be a procedure which has adequate safeguards.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) drew attention to provisions in the laws of other countries in operation today. I merely wish to call attention to a provision in another branch of our law in similar circumstances. In addition to the power of deportation, the Home Secretary has power to cancel the certificate of naturalisation of a person naturalised as a British subject. I do not know whether the present Home Secretary has ever had to exercise or consider that power. I imagine that he has not. But he can refer the question whether he should exercise that power to a tribunal presided over by a person holding, or having held, high judicial office—in practice, a judge of the High Court.

What is more important is the fact that in every such case the person concerned has the right to demand that the Home Secretary shall refer the matter for inquiry to such a tribunal. After the war, I was concerned in one of the rare cases referred to this tribunal. This procedure has great advantages. In these cases, as in the cases we are considering now, one of the main reasons which may lead the Home Secretary to wish to cancel the certificate is security. This is not a matter which can be easily litigated, as it were, in open court.

This tribunal sits in camera. The Crown is able to present, and does present, within the privacy of that tribunal the evidence and state the reasons why it considers that the person concerned is no longer fit to be a British subject and should once again become an alien. That person knows the case which he has to meet and is able to call evidence before the tribunal in order to rebut the Crown's evidence if he can. The tribunal itself has all the powers of the High Court to compel the attendance of witnesses, subpoena documents, and so forth.

It seems to me that a tribunal such as this would be eminently suitable in assisting a Home Secretary to make a decision in a case of this kind and in ensuring that the person concerned had all the rights and powers which he should have of being able to represent his case and to bring forward all the evidence which might assist his case.

Once again, we are being asked to extend the powers under our aliens legislation for another year. I suppose that it is inevitable that the Home Secretary will again get those powers. But, in view of the great increase in public concern on this subject as it has developed this year, I hope that we shall at last have an undertaking from the Home Secretary that if the powers are extended he will agree to a comprehensive review of our aliens laws.